Could this guide us towards a structured approach for assessing the level of community involvement in SBC programmes? At the highest level, “Citizen Control“, communities independently lead programmes with full decision-making authority. “Delegated Power“ and “Partnership“ designate significant community influence on programme decisions, either through majority control or collaborative governance. In contrast, “Placation“, “Consultation“, and “Informing“ indicate lower degrees of participation, where community input may be sought but is not necessarily instrumental in shaping outcomes.

Ogilvy UK head of strategy, advertising, Matt Waksman, illustrates and interprets the role of the strategist within advertising and wider society

“We tested the effectiveness of different messages aimed at addressing climate change and created a tool that can be deployed by both lawmakers and practitioners to generate support for climate policy or to encourage action,” says Madalina Vlasceanu, an assistant professor in New York University’s Department of Psychology and the paper’s lead author. The tool, which the researchers describe as a “Climate Intervention Webapp,” takes into account an array of targeted audiences in the studied countries, ranging from nationality and political ideology to age, gender, education, and income level. “To maximize their impact, policymakers and advocates can assess which messaging is most promising for their publics,” adds paper author Kimberly Doell, a senior scientist at the University of Vienna who led the project with Vlasceanu. Article: https://osf.io/preprints/psyarxiv/cr5at Tool: https://climate-interventions.shinyapps.io/climate-interventions/

But she did explain how researching and designing for the majority or “average user” actually end up ignoring, othering, and harming the people our designs are meant to serve. Indi shared how she finds patterns in people’s behaviors, thoughts, and needs—and how she uses that data to create thinking styles that inform more inclusive design decisions. Indi talked about… Why researchers should look for patterns, not anecdotes, to understand real user needs. What are thinking styles and how to uncover and use them. Why your “average” user often doesn’t exist in the real world, and how we can do better.

This article reviews 10 techniques used to identify opinion leaders to promote behavior change. Opinion leaders can act as gatekeepers for interventions, help change social norms, and accelerate behavior change. Few studies document the manner in which opinion leaders are identified, recruited, and trained to promote health. The authors categorize close to 200 studies that have studied or used opinion leaders to promote behavior change into 10 different methods. They present the advantages and disadvantages of the 10 opinion leader identification methods and provide sample instruments for each. Factors that might influence programs to select one or another method are then discussed, and the article closes with a discussion of combining and comparing methods.

Stakeholder analysis identifies those who have influence in a system. It provides a framework to help understand the needs that they have and how to respond to those needs. Trust and Agreement Stakeholder analysis categorises people according to the amount of agreement they have for change and the amount of trust they have in the organisation to make it happen.

Usually, creating an antipersona makes sense if your product or service: deals with sensitive information that, if inadvertently exposed, can threaten the users’ or organization wellbeing (e.g., fraud, identity theft, harassment, disinformation, illegal content) poses potential physical or emotional threats to people (e.g., injury, or death as the direct result of misusing the product). If there is an opportunity for these harms to occur as the direct result of anyone using the product, there should be one or more antipersonas to represent the risk. Always balance the chance of such a misuse with its consequences in order to determine if an antipersona is worth creating. Even a misuse that is very unlikely to happen might be worth of an antipersona if its consequences are extreme.

In 2010, Colombia's defense minister contacted an ad agency to create an idea to demobilize FARC members, the oldest guerrilla army in Latin America. The agency, after spending over a year talking to nearly 100 of its members, learned two main things (1). -First, guerrilla members are ordinary men and women and not only guerrillas, a fact which is often forgotten after 60 years at war. -Secondly, they are more likely to demobilize during Christmas as it is a sensitive and emotional period. Based on these insights, they had a clever idea to put a Christmas tree in strategic walking paths in the middle of the jungle that would light up when someone passed by with a message promoting demobilization. The results? Three hundred thirty-one people who demobilized named this idea as one of the reasons to do so. Over the years, several campaigns from the same agency were quite successful, and overall, they were named in over 800 demobilizations. Causality, of course, cannot be established. Nevertheless, any measurable, non-violent efforts like this one are praised. Next time you think you have a difficult-to-reach customer, maybe think again!

The five psychobehavioral segments of Americans Surgo identified from its survey are: 1. The “Enthusiasts” (40% of the U.S. population). Every person in this group said they would get the vaccine as soon as it is made available to them. There are no barriers to vaccination 1 for people in this group—in fact, the key challenge will be ensuring vaccine supply meets their demand before they lose enthusiasm, as we’re seeing now as people struggle to sign up. 2. The “Watchful” (20% of the U.S. population). For this segment, social norms are important: Before they get the shot themselves, people in this segment first need to see that others in their peer group or community are getting vaccinated and having safe, positive experiences. 3. The “Cost-Anxious” (14% of the U.S. population). For this segment, time and costs are the primary barriers to getting the vaccine. Every member of this group reports having delayed seeking care for their health in the past due to the expense. The irony: Only 28% of people in this group lack health insurance, indicating that their concerns about costs override having insurance to cover them. 4. The “System Distrusters” (9% of the U.S. population). This group primarily believes that people of their own race are not treated fairly by the health system. Members of this group are likely to belong to, but are not exclusively, communities of color. There are multiple, complicated barriers for this segment, but most of them are related to trust in and access to a health system that has an inequitable history. 5. The “Conspiracy Believers” (17% of the population). This segment has perceived barriers around COVID-19 vaccination that Surgo believes are simply too hard to shift in the short term. It includes people who don't believe in vaccines in general, but the primary barrier for people in this group is their very specific and deeply-held beliefs around COVID-19. Every person in this group believes in at least one conspiracy theory: ○ 84% believe that COVID-19 is exploited by government to control people ○ 65% believe COVID-19 was caused by a ring of people who secretly manipulate world events ○ 36% believe microchips are implanted with the COVID-19 vaccine The three most persuadable psychobehavioral segments Surgo recommends prioritizing are the “Watchful”, “Cost-Anxious” and “System Distrusters” for maximum benefit. Each segment has specific barriers to overcome:...

At BehaviourWorks, we often prioritise behaviours using the Impact-Likelihood Matrix (figure below). In this approach, behaviours are prioritised by mapping them based on: The impact they have on the problem they are intended to address. The likelihood of the target audience adopting the behaviour.

While co-design with users has evolved as a promising approach to service innovation, it remains unclear how it can be used in public service contexts. This article addresses this knowledge gap by applying a co-design framework during the ideation stage of six public service design projects. The findings provide insights into (a) recruiting and sensitizing suitable service users, (b) conditions enabling users to co-design ideas, and (c) requirements for implementation of user-driven ideas. The article contributes an approach that shifts public service design away from an expert-driven process towards enabling users as active and equal idea contributors.

The 2019 Edelman Trust Barometer reveals that trust has changed profoundly in the past year—people have shifted their trust to the relationships within their control, most notably their employers. Globally, 75 percent of people trust “my employer” to do what is right, significantly more than NGOs (57 percent), business (56 percent) and media (47 percent).

New link: http://www.fenton.com/health-who-decides-2/

SRI offers an interesting model for segmenting your audience based on their attitudes and values.