In particular, a focus on habits is useful when: The most effective approaches depend more on patiently persisting over long periods of time, rather than overcoming brief, but intense, obstacles. The behavior you want can eventually run in the background of your life, not requiring lots of deliberate thinking and effort. You’re looking to make long-term changes to your routine or lifestyle, rather than a temporary shift for particular circumstances. Understanding the limitations of habits is part of what makes them powerful. If you go in with the right expectations, you’ll be far more likely to make them stick.

Distilling your message into a single sentence will make your writing flow better, and make your key points easier to arrange. Think of the single sentence as a lighthouse guiding you through fog. If you become overwhelmed with an abundance of data or competing themes, the single sentence will help you stay on track.

When people see food that is symmetrical, they tend to believe it is more natural – and when they think a food is more natural, they perceive it to be healthier.

Looking at hundreds of campaigns over the last century, Chenoweth found that nonviolent campaigns are twice as likely to achieve their goals as violent campaigns. And although the exact dynamics will depend on many factors, she has shown it takes around 3.5% of the population actively participating in the protests to ensure serious political change. Overall, nonviolent campaigns were twice as likely to succeed as violent campaigns: they led to political change 53% of the time compared to 26% for the violent protests.

Why is it important to make sure that emerging media and communications technologies are created by people from a wide variety of backgrounds and identities? The media we consume has an enormous impact on our perception of reality. With this toolkit, we are trying to achieve something that humans have not yet achieved in the history of mass media — fair and equitable representation of the world’s stories and images.

The evidence shows that this kind of behaviour change needs to happen collectively, not just individually. So we need joined-up governance at local, national and international levels. Food systems also contribute significantly to greenhouse gas emissions. This can be addressed by reducing waste or directing it back into the supply chain. A mix of different measures will be most effective. The evidence shows that taxation is one of the most effective ways to modify behaviour. Accreditation and labelling schemes can also have an impact.

alternatives to the standard “closed ending“

Ugh Fields' are a really useful concept. The existing write-up isn't targeted at ordinary readers so I'll have a go: Have you ever had an overdue task, a task which isn't so bad in itself, but which you can't bring yourself to think about without feeling awful?

To become a better catalyst for change, Berger suggests to: Find the gaps. Rather than push or persuade someone, highlight a gap between their attitudes and their actions, and then get them to persuade themselves. For example: If someone is reluctant to wear a mask at work, ask them if they would wear one if their child or elderly parent were in the office. Ask why that same care or concern isn't present with their colleagues? Provide a “menu” of choices. Rather than unilaterally force a single solution on others, give people the freedom and autonomy to choose from a few options. This is one way to reduce people’s gut resistance, and again, help them persuade themselves. Cut through perceived risks. If people feel like a new idea is controversial or risky, explain your personal experience as to why you think it is more relatable and less extreme than they think.

“I tried to find the right framework with which to make this big decision... what made this decision really easy was a regret minimization framework... I knew when I was 80, I wasn't going to regret trying this. If I failed, I wouldn't regret that. But I knew the one thing I might regret is not ever having tried.“

Accurate classification of smoking status has long been regarded as an essential prerequisite for advancing tobacco-related epidemiologic, treatment, and policy research. However, the descriptors we commonly use to classify people who smoke may inadvertently perpetuate harmful, stigmatizing beliefs and negative stereotypes. In recognizing the power of words to either perpetuate or reduce stigma, Dr. Nora Volkow—Director of the National Institute on Drug Abuse—recently highlighted the role of stigma in addiction,1 and the movement encouraging the use of person-first language and eliminating the use of slang and idioms when describing addiction and the people whom it affects.2,3 In this commentary, we make an appeal for researchers and clinicians to use personfirst language (e.g., “people who smoke”) rather than commonly used labels (e.g., “smokers”) in written (e.g., in scholarly reports) and verbal communication (e.g., clinical case presentations ) to promote greater respect and convey dignity for people who smoke. We assert that the use of precise and bias-free language to describe people who smoke has the potential to reduce smoking-related stigma and may enhance the precision of scientific communication.

Language data There is little information available on the languages crisis-affected people speak and understand. Humanitarians often develop communication strategies without reliable data on literacy, languages spoken, or preferred means of communication. The result too often is that crisis-affected people struggle to communicate with humanitarian organizations in a language they understand. Women, children, older people, and people with disabilities are often at the greatest disadvantage because they are less likely to understand international languages and lingua francas. TWB’s Language Data Initiative addresses those issues and provides important resources for humanitarians. It supports humanitarian organizations to develop language-informed programs and communication strategies. Click on a country on the map below to see language data, resources, and maps that we have available for that country. This map will update as new data is published in the future.

case study of anti-smoking program for kids that backfired

Forward-thinking public health professionals are reaching across sectors to build healthier communities. Recognizing that effective collaboration advances everyone’s mission, Public Health Reaching Across Sectors (PHRASES) supports an “all-hands-on-deck” approach with tools to build communication skills and strategies designed for success.

not really a lit review, but covers key behavior change concepts and how they can be applied to covid

In our work at BehaviourWorks Australia (BWA) we are frequently asked ‘What does the research say about getting audience Y to do behaviour X?’. When our partners need an urgent answer we often provide it using a Rapid Review. In this article I explain Rapid Reviews, why you should do them, and a process that you can follow to conduct one. What is a Rapid Review? Rapid Reviews are “a form of knowledge synthesis in which components of the systematic review process are simplified or omitted to produce information in a timely manner” [1]. Indeed, with sufficient resources (e.g., multiple staff working simultaneously) you can do a Rapid Review in less than a day. The outputs of these reviews are, of course, brief and descriptive, but they can be very useful where rapid evidence is needed, for example, in addressing COVID-19. Rapid Reviews can therefore provide detailed research within reduced timeframes and also meet most academic requirements by being standardised and reproducible. They are often, but not always, publishable in peer-reviewed academic journals.

How to craft the perfect cold email; The power of tiny gains