Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-cphqk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-11T10:01:30.122Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Misdiagnosing the problem of why behavioural change interventions fail

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 August 2023

Magda Osman Open the ORCID record for Magda Osman [Opens in a new window]
Magda Osman*
Affiliation:
Centre for Science and Policy, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, Cambridgeshire, UK [email protected]; https://magdaosman.com
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Routes to achieving any sort of meaningful success in the enterprise of behavioural change requires an understanding of the rate of failure, and why failures occur. This commentary shows that there is more to diagnosis of failures than fixating on micro- rather than the macro-level behaviours.

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 46 , 2023 , e172
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2023. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Bryan, C. J., Tipton, E., & Yeager, D. S. (2021). Behavioural science is unlikely to change the world without a heterogeneity revolution. Nature Human Behaviour, 5(8), 980–989.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cairney, P. (2020). Understanding public policy (2nd ed.). Red Globe.Google Scholar
Cartwright, N., & Hardie, J. (2012). Evidence-based policy: A practical guide to doing it better. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hummel, D., & Maedche, A. (2019). How effective is nudging? A quantitative review on the effect sizes and limits of empirical nudging studies. Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics, 80, 47–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lasswell, H. D. (1956). The decision process: Seven categories of functional analysis. College of Business and Public Administration, University of Maryland.Google Scholar
Meder, B., Fleischhut, N., & Osman, M. (2018). Beyond the confines of choice architecture: A critical analysis. Journal of Economic Psychology, 68, 36–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Osman, M., McLachlan, S., Fenton, N., Neil, M., Löfstedt, R., & Meder, B. (2020). Learning from behavioural changes that fail. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 24(12), 969–980.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Reichmann, S., & Wieser, B. (2022). Open science at the science–policy interface: Bringing in the evidence?. www.osf.ioCrossRefGoogle Scholar