We find that, acrossdomains, interventions designed to change individual determinantscan be ordered by increasing impact as those targeting knowledge,general skills, general attitudes, beliefs, emotions, behavioural skills,behavioural attitudes and habits. Interventions designed to changesocial-structural determinants can be ordered by increasing impactas legal and administrative sanctions; programmes that increaseinstitutional trustworthiness; interventions to change injunctivenorms; monitors and reminders; descriptive norm interventions;material incentives; social support provision; and policies that increaseaccess to a particular behaviour. We find similar patterns for health andenvironmental behavioural change specifically. Thus, policymakersshould focus on interventions that enable individuals to circumventobstacles to enacting desirable behaviours rather than targeting salientbut ineffective determinants of behaviour such as knowledge andbeliefs. (PDF) Determinants of behaviour and their efficacy as targets of behavioural change interventions. Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/380329032_Determinants_of_behaviour_and_their_efficacy_as_targets_of_behavioural_change_interventions [accessed Jan 23 2025].

While failure in social marketing practice represents an emerging research agenda, the discipline has not yet considered this concept systematically or cohesively. This lack of a clear conceptualization of failure in social marketing to aid practice thus presents a significant research gap.

Achieving sustained behavior change takes a long time. I mean, hell, we’re still running ads about buckling seat-belts and most states made it a law 35 years ago! Beyond achieving behavior change, seeing the positive impact of said change on species, habitats and ecosystems can take even longer. So how can we balance these longer term goals with the need to show more immediate outcomes?

***Psychology offers three general propositions for understanding and intervening to increase uptake where vaccines are available and affordable. The first proposition is that thoughts and feelings can motivate getting vaccinated. Hundreds of studies have shown that risk beliefs and anticipated regret about infectious disease correlate reliably with getting vaccinated; low confidence in vaccine effectiveness and concern about safety correlate reliably with not getting vaccinated. We were surprised to find that few randomized trials have successfully changed what people think and feel about vaccines, and those few that succeeded were minimally effective in increasing uptake. The second proposition is that social processes can motivate getting vaccinated. Substantial research has shown that social norms are associated with vaccination, but few interventions examined whether normative messages increase vaccination uptake. Many experimental studies have relied on hypothetical scenarios to demonstrate that altruism and free riding (i.e., taking advantage of the protection provided by others) can affect intended behavior, but few randomized trials have tested strategies to change social processes to increase vaccination uptake. The third proposition is that interventions can facilitate vaccination directly by leveraging, but not trying to change, what people think and feel. These interventions are by far the most plentiful and effective in the literature. To increase vaccine uptake, these interventions build on existing favorable intentions by facilitating action (through reminders, prompts, and primes) and reducing barriers (through logistics and healthy defaults); these interventions also shape behavior (through incentives, sanctions, and requirements). Although identification of principles for changing thoughts and feelings to motivate vaccination is a work in progress, psychological principles can now inform the design of systems and policies to directly facilitate action.