The Nudge Factor – BMS Notes

The theory of planned behaviour, sometimes known as TPB, is a psychological theory that establishes a connection between behaviour and ideas.

According to the idea, a person’s behavioural intents and behaviours are shaped by their intention toward attitude, topic norms, and perceived behavioural control.

Icek Ajzen introduced the idea of incorporating perceived behavioural control into the theory of reasoned action to increase its predictive capacity. In a variety of industries, including public relations, advertising, healthcare, sport management, and sustainability, it has been used to investigate the relationships between beliefs, attitudes, behavioural intentions, and behaviours.

Principles of important variables

• Beliefs normative and subjective standards
• A person’s view of societal normative pressures or of other people’s opinions on whether or not to engage in a certain behaviour is known as a normative belief.
• Subjective norm: a person’s opinion on a certain behaviour that is impacted by important individuals’ opinions (e.g., parents, spouse, friends, teachers).
• Perceived behavioural control and control beliefs

Control beliefs refer to an individual’s perceptions of the existence of elements that might either help or impede the accomplishment of a behaviour. Self-efficacy is fundamentally connected to the idea of perceived behavioural control.

A person’s perception of how easy or difficult it is to carry out a certain behaviour is known as perceived behavioural control. The whole collection of attainable control beliefs is thought to be the determinant of perceived behavioural control.

Intention and behaviour in behaviour

A person’s preparedness to carry out a certain behaviour is indicated by their behavioural intention. It is thought that behaviour has it as an immediate antecedent. Each predictor is weighted according to its significance in connection to the behaviour and population of interest. It is based on three factors: attitude toward the behaviour, subjective norm, and perceived behavioural control.

A person’s visible reaction to a target in a particular setting is known as their behaviour. Perceived behavioural control is expected to moderate the effect of intention on behaviour, meaning that a favourable intention produces the behaviour only when perceived behavioural control is strong, according to Ajzen. This means that behaviour is a function of compatible intentions and perceptions of behavioural control.

Conceptual and practical comparison

Self-efficacy vs perceived behavioural control

According to Ajzen (1991), Bandura’s idea of self-efficacy provided insight into the function of perceived behavioural control in planned behaviour theory. In their integrative model, which is also assessed by self-efficacy questions in a prior research, Fishbein and Cappella have more recently stated[16] that self-efficacy is equivalent to perceived behavioural control.

Perceived behavioural control inventory items and their formulation varied according to the specific health issue in earlier research. Items like “I don’t believe I am addicted since I can truly simply not smoke and not yearn for it” and “It would be incredibly simple for me to stop” are typical measures for smoking-related subjects.

Bandura’s social cognitive theory is the foundation of the idea of self-efficacy. It alludes to the belief that one can carry out the necessary behaviour and achieve the intended result. Perceived behavioural control, or the judgement of how easy or difficult a certain behaviour is, is what is meant to be understood by the idea of self-efficacy. It is associated with control beliefs, or the conviction that certain elements exist that might either help or hinder the accomplishment of an action.

Typically, self-report instruments in surveys are used to assess it using questions that start with the stem “I am confident I can… (e.g., exercise, stop smoking, etc.)”. It aims to quantify the degree of confidence in the possibility, practicability, or likelihood of carrying out a certain behaviour.

Behavior attitude against expectation of result

The links between beliefs and attitudes are described in detail by the theory of planned behaviour. In line with these theories, people’s accessible beliefs about a behavior—defined as the subjective likelihood that a behaviour will result in a certain outcome—determine how they evaluate or feel about that behaviour. In particular, the attitude is directly influenced by how each outcome is evaluated and how likely it is, in the individual’s subjective opinion, that the behaviour will result in the desired consequence.

The expectancy-value model is where outcome expectancy started. This variable connects anticipation, belief, attitude, and opinion. The positive assessment of one’s own performance of a specific behaviour in the theory of planned behaviour is comparable to the idea of perceived benefits, which refers to views about how well the suggested preventive behaviour reduces vulnerability to negative outcomes. On the other hand, their negative assessment of one’s own performance is comparable to perceived barriers, which refers to assessments of potential drawbacks that could arise from implementing the advocated health behaviour.

social impact

In both the theory of reasoned action and the theory of planned behaviour, the idea of social impact has been evaluated by means of social norm and normative belief. Subjective norms are people’s elaborate ideas about whether or not they believe that friends, family, and society expect them to behave in a certain way. The assessment of diverse social groupings is used to gauge social impact. For instance, in the instance of smoking:

• Peer group subjective norms include beliefs like “Most of my friends smoke” or “I feel embarrassed of smoking in front of a group of friends who don’t smoke”;
• Subjective family norms include beliefs like “My parents were extremely upset with me when I began smoking,” or “All of my family smokes, therefore it seems normal to start smoking.”
• Beliefs like “Everyone is against smoking” and “We simply assume everyone is a nonsmoker” are examples of subjective standards from society or culture.

The theory of planned behaviour, which is based on collectivistic culture-related factors, takes into account social impact, such as social norm and normative belief, whereas the majority of models are conceived inside individual cognitive space. Social influence has been a welcome addition, since an individual’s behaviour (e.g., health-related decision-making such as diet, condom use, quitting smoking and drinking, etc.) may very well be located in and dependent on the social networks and organisations (e.g., peer group, family, school and workplace).

Theory of Social Cognitive Learning.

Albert Bandura developed the Social Learning Theory (SLT) in the 1960s, which later became the Social Cognitive Theory (SCT). The theory, which became the SCT in 1986, holds that behaviour, environment, and person all interact dynamically and reciprocally in a social setting when learning takes place. SCT stands out for its focus on social impact and on both internal and exterior social reinforcement. In addition to taking into account the social context in which people carry out their behaviour, SCT takes into account the distinctive ways in which people learn and retain certain behaviours. According to the notion, an individual’s prior experiences influence whether they will behave in a certain way. These prior experiences impact reinforcing, expectancies, and expectancies, which in turn impact a person’s likelihood of engaging in a certain activity as well as the motivations behind it.

Many behaviour theories used to health promotion concentrate on habit initiation rather than behaviour maintenance. Unfortunately, the real aim of public health is habit maintenance, not merely behaviour commencement. Explaining how humans produce goal-directed behaviour that can be sustained over time by using control and reinforcement is the aim of social cognitive theory (SCT). When the theory progressed into SCT, the construct of self-efficacy was introduced. The first five components were created as part of the SLT.

Equitable Determinism

This is the core idea of SCT. This describes how behaviour, environment, and person—a person with a collection of learning experiences—interact in a dynamic and reciprocal way (responses to stimuli to achieve goals).

Ability to behave

This speaks to a person’s real capacity to carry out an action using necessary information and abilities. A person has to know what to do and how to accomplish it in order to carry out a behaviour effectively. Human activity has repercussions that influence their surroundings and teach them lessons.

By Observation

According to this, humans are able to see and copy the activities of others after seeing them. A common way to do this is to “model” certain behaviours. People may do an action successfully if they see another person completing it effectively.

Reinforcements

This speaks to the reactions, either internal or external, that a person receives from their actions and how likely they are to continue or stop. Positive or negative reinforcements may be self-initiated or found in the surroundings. The reciprocal interaction between behaviour and environment is most strongly associated with this SCT component.

Expectations

This is a reference to the expected outcomes of an individual’s actions. Expectations of outcomes may or may not be connected to health. Before participating in an activity, people consider the repercussions of their choices, and these expectations may have an impact on whether the behaviour is carried out successfully. Expectations are mostly based on past performance. Expectations are based on past experiences as well, but they are individualised and emphasise the importance that is put on the result.

Self-efficacy

This speaks to the degree to which an individual feels confident in their capacity to carry out an action effectively. Self-efficacy is exclusive to SCT, however it has since been introduced to other theories (e.g., the Theory of Planned Behavior). Self-efficacy is impacted by a person’s unique qualities, other personal characteristics, and contextual variables (barriers and facilitators).

Social Cognitive Theory’s Limitations

While applying SCT in public health, it is important to take into account a number of its limitations. Among the model’s limitations are the following:

The hypothesis makes the assumption that changes in one’s surroundings will always result in alterations in oneself, even if this may not always be the case.

The dynamic interaction of the individual, behaviour, and environment is the only foundation for the theory’s flexible organisation. The degree to which each of these influences real conduct is unknown, as is whether one has a greater influence than the others.

• The idea places a lot of emphasis on learning processes, ignoring biological and hormonal predispositions that might affect behaviour independent of expectations and prior experiences.
• Apart from making reference to prior experiences, the theory does not concentrate on emotion or motive. These aspects are not given much consideration.
• Since the theory might have a wide application, it may be challenging to operationalize it completely.

The Social Cognitive Theory addresses individual behaviour change by taking into account many layers of the Social Ecological Model. The emphasis on the person and the environment, which has emerged as a key area of interest for health promotion initiatives in recent years, has led to the widespread use of SCT in this field. Similar to other theories, it could be challenging to apply all of SCT’s structures to a single public health issue, particularly when creating targeted public health initiatives.

The Framework for Behavioral Economics

Behavioral economics investigates how choices made by people and organisations differ from those suggested by traditional economic theory by examining the impact of psychological, cognitive, emotional, cultural, and social aspects.

The main focus of behavioural economics is on the limits of economic actors’ rationality. Microeconomic theory, psychology, and neuroscience are often integrated into behavioural models. The processes that influence public choice and how market choices are formed are both studied in behavioural economics. In behavioural economics, the following three themes are common:

• Humans rely on heuristics, or mental shortcuts or rules of thumb, for 95% of the judgments they make.
• Frame: The set of preconceptions and anecdotes that people use as mental filters to interpret and react to the world around them.

Mispricing and irrational decision-making are two examples of market inefficiencies.

The economist Robert J. Shiller won the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences in 2013 “for his empirical analysis of asset prices,” while psychologist Daniel Kahneman won the prize in 2002 “for having integrated insights from psychological research into economic science, especially concerning human judgement and decision-making under uncertainty” (within the field of behavioural finance). The Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences was given to economist Richard Thaler in 2017 in recognition of “his contributions to behavioural economics and his pioneering work in proving that humans are predictably irrational in ways that defy economic theory.”

Combining concepts from economics and psychology, the study of behavioural economics may provide light on why people don’t always act in their own best interests.

A framework for comprehending human mistake and its causes is offered by behavioural economics. Predictably, systematic mistakes or biases repeat under certain conditions. Environments that encourage individuals to make better choices and lead healthier lives may be created by using behavioural economics’ lessons.

Against the background of the conventional economic theory known as the rational choice model, behavioural economics developed. It is presumed that a reasonable individual would accurately balance costs and benefits and choose what is best for him. A sensible individual should be aware of his preferences, both past and present, and should never err on the side of one’s own inclinations. His ability to suppress urges that may hinder him from reaching his long-term objectives is flawless.

Conventional economics forecasts actual human behaviour using these presumptions. Giving people as many options as possible and letting them choose the one they like most is the conventional policy advice that results from this method of thinking (with minimum government intervention). as individuals are more familiar with their preferences than government representatives. People are better suited to choose what is best for them.

But behavioural economics demonstrates that this is not how real people behave. Individuals struggle greatly to exercise self-control and have poor cognitive ability. Decisions people make often have a conflicting connection with their own preferences (happiness). When given a choice, they often pick for the most immediately appealing option—such as abusing drugs or overindulging in food—at the expense of their long-term satisfaction.

Because of how much context affects them, kids often don’t know what they’ll like tomorrow or even next year. The latter indicates that humans are very inconsistent and imperfect human beings, as Daniel Kahneman (2011, p. 5) put it, “It appears that classical economics and behavioural economics are describing two distinct species.” Because self-control keeps us from acting on our objectives, we often select one and then act against it.

Behavioral economics links the human mind’s design to these decision-making mistakes. According to neuroscientists, there are several distinct mental processes that make up the mind, and each one follows its own logic (Kurzban, 2011). The architecture of interdependent systems is the ideal way to describe the brain, according to Brocas and Carrillo (2013). That the brain functions as a democracy is a fundamental realisation (Tononi, 2012). In other words, there’s no central decision-maker. While enhancing pleasure may be considered the behavioural objective of a person, achieving that goal involves contributions from several brain areas.

The goal of behavioural economics is to incorporate economic analysis with psychologists’ knowledge of human behaviour. This is where behavioural economics and cognitive psychology overlap. Cognitive psychology aims to help people adopt healthier habits by removing emotional and mental obstacles to pursuing true self-interest (Lowenstein, and Haisley, 2008).

Behavioral economics also offers politicians suggestions for reorganising surroundings to encourage improved decision-making (Sunstein, 2014). The emphasis on mistakes points to potential environmental changes that politicians may adopt to encourage improved decision-making. For instance, even rearrangement of the present school supplies encourages kids to purchase more nutrient-dense products (e.g., placing the fruit at eye level, making choices less convenient by moving soda machines into distant areas, or requiring students to pay cash for desserts and soft drinks).

Behavioral economics’ main takeaway is that people are inherently flawed decision-makers who need encouragement to act in their own best interests. Recognizing the areas in which individuals fail may aid in improving performance. The rational choice paradigm is enhanced and complemented by this method.