Behavior by design

“…what looks like a simple need to overcome irrational decision-making is actually grounded in deeply rooted, systemic realities of class and identity.”

Featured in the 2021 State of the Field report, edited by Samuel Salzer and Silja Voolma

2020 brought with it a newfound appreciation for the complexity of human behavior and the importance of context in understanding and predicting our patterns. As a professional community, behavioral science and design enjoyed an unprecedented spotlight from the government, research, and private sectors alike. Still, we were also faced with stark truths about the limits of our current approaches when put to the test at mass societal levels of change.

This report features behavioral design insights from various experts in the field, helping us understand what happened in the past year and where the field is headed. The current year of 2021 brings further uncertainty, but this collection of insights aims to shed light on how we can change behavior and design for a better world.

“Behavioral design solutions have historically succeeded at the individual unit level, with precise “best fit” approaches to behavioral change, but the field sometimes still struggles to translate or scale successful efforts into other contexts. Focusing on the individual unit can also yield solutions that are effective in isolation, but don’t sufficiently question whether the system in which they play is itself equitable.”

In Jan 2020, Samuel Salzer and Silja Voolma compiled and synthesized a broad set of perspectives on what the future of Behavioral Design might bring. A brief quote from my contribution is above; the full piece is available here.

The Behavioral Scientist solicited perspectives just before the new decade in 2020, asking the question: what will the next decade of behavioral design look like? I had the following to say:

The field of behavioral design currently resides in the hands of experts steeped in empirical behavioral studies and RCT analysis, but in the next decade it is likely to become increasingly commoditized. Much like “design thinking” is now ubiquitous, practitioners with more enthusiasm than formal training will increasingly start to practice behavioral design. This is not necessarily bad. Democratization promises to embed behavioral perspectives more broadly and organically into how we envision and develop offerings, organizations, and policy. More accessible entry paths to expertise may also reduce the perception of academic exclusivity or that a Ph.D. is a requirement for practice. But this also means a shift in who owns the definition of what “good” looks like, and just as with design thinking, we’ll likely see a new proliferation of get-smart-quick programs that reduce nuance and precision to more formulaic processes and the promise of instant expertise. Defining standards, like LEED certification for architecture, and codifying methods may be one way to maintain a level of consistency and quality. But when everyone’s a “behavioral thinker,” there’s a high chance it will become increasingly necessary—and important—to communicate the value of true proficiency.

See all the responses here.

Twenty questions about design behavior for sustainability
How behavioral scientists, engineers, and architects can work together to advance how we all understand and practice design, in order to enhance sustainability in the built environment, and beyond.

In January 2019, an international expert panel composed of engineers, designers and architects, and behavioral scientists convened to share perspectives and generate a research approach to encourage activity at the intersection of these disciplines. This led not only to the identification of relevant end-use or user behaviors that designers might want to consider, but also the need to address designer behaviors. In other words, how might we encourage designers to overcome conditions in their work and thought processes that may get in the way of more sustainable design of the built environment? The resulting comment and report suggest questions and directions to tackle this challenge.

Access the comment.

Access the full report.

From Rotman Magazine’s Spring 2019 issue: The Art of Change

Behavioral science can, and should, continue to make important contributions through nudges and its other proven methods, but it can contribute at an even greater scale by turning outwards to partner with other disciplines—in particular, with the field of design.

This integrative model, which hinges on the notions of “where to play” and “how to win,” points a way forward: by partnering with design and framing behavioral science as a speculative tool in addition to an evidence-based one, we can collectively better envision the new in addition to testing the known.

Reprinted from behavioralscientist.org