Table of Contents
Week 1 ..................................................................................................................................................... 2
Michie, S., van Stralen, M.M., & West, R. (2011). The behavior change wheel: A new method for
characterizing and designing behavior change interventions. ............................................................ 2
Week 2 ..................................................................................................................................................... 4
Sunstein, C. R., (2014). Nudging: A very short guide. .......................................................................... 4
Barton, A., & Grüne-Yanoff, T., (2015). From libertarian paternalism to nudging-and beyond........... 5
Benartzi, S., Beshears, J., Milkman, K. L., Sunstein, C. R., Thaler, R. H., Shankar, M., Tucker-Ray, W.,
Congdon, W. J., & Galing, S. (2017). Should governments invest more in nudging?. ......................... 8
Hummel, D. & Maedche, A., (2019). How effective is nudging? A quantitative review on the effect
sizes of empirical nudging studies. ...................................................................................................... 9
Milkman, K.L., Gromet, D., Ho, H. et al. (2021). Megastudies improve the impact of applied
behavioural science. .......................................................................................................................... 10
Nielsen, K. S., Cologna, V., Lange, F., Brick, C., & Stern, P. C. (2021). The case for impact-oriented
environmental psychology. ................................................................................................................ 11
Week 3 ................................................................................................................................................... 12
Kopetz, C. E., Kruglanski, A. W., Arens, Z. G., Etkin, J., & Johnson, H. M. (2012). The dynamics of
consumer behavior: A goal systemic perspective.. ........................................................................... 12
Schumpe, B. M., Bélanger, J. J., & Nisa, C. F. (2020). The reactance decoy effect: How including an
appeal before a target message increases persuasion. ..................................................................... 16
Schumpe, M. B. (in press). A Goal-Systematic Approach to Persuasion: Influencing Attitudes and
Behavior. In: A. W. Kruglanski, A. Fishbach, & C. Kopetz (Eds). Explorations in Goal Systems Theory:
Psychological Processes and Applications.. ....................................................................................... 18
Week 4 ................................................................................................................................................... 21
Ariely, D., & Berns, G. S. (2010). Neuromarketing: the hope and hype of neuroimaging in business.
........................................................................................................................................................... 21
Dobber, T., Metoui, N., Trilling, D., Helberger, N., & de Vreese, C. (2021). Do (Microtargeted)
deepfakes have real effects on political attitudes? .......................................................................... 21
Roozenbeek, J, Van der Linden, S. (2019). Fake news game confers psychological resistance against
online misinformation. ...................................................................................................................... 22
Matz, S. C., Kosinski, M., Nave, G., & Stillwell, D. J. (2017). Psychological targeting as an effective
approach to digital mass persuasion. ................................................................................................ 24
Week 5 ................................................................................................................................................... 25
Chater, N., & Loewenstein, G. (2022). The i-frame and the s-frame: how focusing on individual-level
solutions has led behavioral public policy astray............................................................................... 25
Tidwell, M. (2007). Voluntary actions didn’t get us civil rights, and they won’t fix the climate.. ..... 28
1
,Week 1
Michie, S., van Stralen, M.M., & West, R. (2011). The behavior change wheel: A new
method for characterizing and designing behavior change interventions.
Implementation Science, 6:42. doi:10.1186/1748-5908-6-42.
‘Behaviour change interventions’ can be defined as coordinated sets of activities designed to change
specified behaviour patterns. → measured in terms of prevalence / incidence.
Previous frameworks were insufficient to classify behavior → Exception = Intervention Mapping. To
achieve its goal, a framework for characterising interventions should be comprehensive: it should
apply to every intervention that has been or could be developed.
- Capability is defined as the individual’s
psychological and physical capacity to engage in
the activity concerned. It includes having the
necessary knowledge and skills.
- Motivation is defined as all those brain processes
that energize and direct behaviour, not just goals
and conscious decision-making. It includes
habitual processes, emotional responding, as well
as analytical decision-making.
- Opportunity is defined as all the factors that lie
outside the individual that make the behaviour
possible or prompt it.
The BCW (theory- and evidence-based tool) forms the basis for a systematic analysis of how to make
the selection of interventions and policies. → strength of this framework is that it incorporates
context very naturally → context is key to the effective design and implementation of interventions,
but it remains under-theorised and under-investigated. → opportunity component = context
A key difference between IM and the BCW approach is
that intervention mapping aims to map behaviour on
to its ‘theoretical determinants’ in order to identify
potential levers for change, whereas the BCW
approach recognises that the target behaviour can in
principle arise from combinations of any of the
components of the behaviour system.
BCW vs. IM
The BCW approach is based on a comprehensive
causal analysis of behaviour and starts with the
question: ‘What conditions internal to individuals and
in their social and physical environment need to be in
place for a specified behavioural target to be
achieved?’
The ‘intervention mapping’ approach is based on an epidemiological analysis of co-variation within
the behavioural domain and starts with the question: ‘What factors in the present population at the
present time underlie variation in the behavioural parameter?’
2
, When it comes to theoretical underpinnings, the BCW approach draws from a single unifying theory
of motivation in context that predicts what aspects of the motivational system will need to be
influenced in what ways to achieve a behavioural target,
whereas the ‘intervention mapping’ approach draws on a range of theoretical approaches each of
which independently addresses different aspects of the behaviour in question.
3
Week 1 ..................................................................................................................................................... 2
Michie, S., van Stralen, M.M., & West, R. (2011). The behavior change wheel: A new method for
characterizing and designing behavior change interventions. ............................................................ 2
Week 2 ..................................................................................................................................................... 4
Sunstein, C. R., (2014). Nudging: A very short guide. .......................................................................... 4
Barton, A., & Grüne-Yanoff, T., (2015). From libertarian paternalism to nudging-and beyond........... 5
Benartzi, S., Beshears, J., Milkman, K. L., Sunstein, C. R., Thaler, R. H., Shankar, M., Tucker-Ray, W.,
Congdon, W. J., & Galing, S. (2017). Should governments invest more in nudging?. ......................... 8
Hummel, D. & Maedche, A., (2019). How effective is nudging? A quantitative review on the effect
sizes of empirical nudging studies. ...................................................................................................... 9
Milkman, K.L., Gromet, D., Ho, H. et al. (2021). Megastudies improve the impact of applied
behavioural science. .......................................................................................................................... 10
Nielsen, K. S., Cologna, V., Lange, F., Brick, C., & Stern, P. C. (2021). The case for impact-oriented
environmental psychology. ................................................................................................................ 11
Week 3 ................................................................................................................................................... 12
Kopetz, C. E., Kruglanski, A. W., Arens, Z. G., Etkin, J., & Johnson, H. M. (2012). The dynamics of
consumer behavior: A goal systemic perspective.. ........................................................................... 12
Schumpe, B. M., Bélanger, J. J., & Nisa, C. F. (2020). The reactance decoy effect: How including an
appeal before a target message increases persuasion. ..................................................................... 16
Schumpe, M. B. (in press). A Goal-Systematic Approach to Persuasion: Influencing Attitudes and
Behavior. In: A. W. Kruglanski, A. Fishbach, & C. Kopetz (Eds). Explorations in Goal Systems Theory:
Psychological Processes and Applications.. ....................................................................................... 18
Week 4 ................................................................................................................................................... 21
Ariely, D., & Berns, G. S. (2010). Neuromarketing: the hope and hype of neuroimaging in business.
........................................................................................................................................................... 21
Dobber, T., Metoui, N., Trilling, D., Helberger, N., & de Vreese, C. (2021). Do (Microtargeted)
deepfakes have real effects on political attitudes? .......................................................................... 21
Roozenbeek, J, Van der Linden, S. (2019). Fake news game confers psychological resistance against
online misinformation. ...................................................................................................................... 22
Matz, S. C., Kosinski, M., Nave, G., & Stillwell, D. J. (2017). Psychological targeting as an effective
approach to digital mass persuasion. ................................................................................................ 24
Week 5 ................................................................................................................................................... 25
Chater, N., & Loewenstein, G. (2022). The i-frame and the s-frame: how focusing on individual-level
solutions has led behavioral public policy astray............................................................................... 25
Tidwell, M. (2007). Voluntary actions didn’t get us civil rights, and they won’t fix the climate.. ..... 28
1
,Week 1
Michie, S., van Stralen, M.M., & West, R. (2011). The behavior change wheel: A new
method for characterizing and designing behavior change interventions.
Implementation Science, 6:42. doi:10.1186/1748-5908-6-42.
‘Behaviour change interventions’ can be defined as coordinated sets of activities designed to change
specified behaviour patterns. → measured in terms of prevalence / incidence.
Previous frameworks were insufficient to classify behavior → Exception = Intervention Mapping. To
achieve its goal, a framework for characterising interventions should be comprehensive: it should
apply to every intervention that has been or could be developed.
- Capability is defined as the individual’s
psychological and physical capacity to engage in
the activity concerned. It includes having the
necessary knowledge and skills.
- Motivation is defined as all those brain processes
that energize and direct behaviour, not just goals
and conscious decision-making. It includes
habitual processes, emotional responding, as well
as analytical decision-making.
- Opportunity is defined as all the factors that lie
outside the individual that make the behaviour
possible or prompt it.
The BCW (theory- and evidence-based tool) forms the basis for a systematic analysis of how to make
the selection of interventions and policies. → strength of this framework is that it incorporates
context very naturally → context is key to the effective design and implementation of interventions,
but it remains under-theorised and under-investigated. → opportunity component = context
A key difference between IM and the BCW approach is
that intervention mapping aims to map behaviour on
to its ‘theoretical determinants’ in order to identify
potential levers for change, whereas the BCW
approach recognises that the target behaviour can in
principle arise from combinations of any of the
components of the behaviour system.
BCW vs. IM
The BCW approach is based on a comprehensive
causal analysis of behaviour and starts with the
question: ‘What conditions internal to individuals and
in their social and physical environment need to be in
place for a specified behavioural target to be
achieved?’
The ‘intervention mapping’ approach is based on an epidemiological analysis of co-variation within
the behavioural domain and starts with the question: ‘What factors in the present population at the
present time underlie variation in the behavioural parameter?’
2
, When it comes to theoretical underpinnings, the BCW approach draws from a single unifying theory
of motivation in context that predicts what aspects of the motivational system will need to be
influenced in what ways to achieve a behavioural target,
whereas the ‘intervention mapping’ approach draws on a range of theoretical approaches each of
which independently addresses different aspects of the behaviour in question.
3
