Currently viewing the tag: "Behavior change"

Patience, skills and social networks

Will social networks provide a channel of influence that can lead to behavior change?

Could it be that there are some reasons for delivering the behavior change?

Often because a behavior is inappropriate for the environment where we are inserted and it becomes necessary to facilitate the integration of some individuals in the middle. Other times, we hope that new behaviors are acquired by a large fringe of a population, but with a defined objective.

Through social networks we can try to estimate the needs of people or their consumption habits and from there we may try to have an attitude of satisfaction of needs or try to create new needs.

At these times we can think that the behaviors can be changed, not immediately, but in a long-term. For example, a proactive attitude in the generation of ideas makes us look for something that goes beyond the immediate needs of today, but what if we want to exist in the future.

Create the need for “good habits” seems to me to be a possible path that benefits the sustainability and well-being.

In companies can be a direction in the management of organizational change that can be enabled by changing buying behavior, or through social initiatives pursued by companies for the common good.

Interactions via networks could cause these changes; however this effect only will be felt if the users of social networks build trust, not in terms of a title or brand, but through the kind of relations established.

Those seeking change behaviors must begin by changing theirs, i.e. undoing barriers and distance, built with traditional ways of knowing and their transfer. We must be known to them in an open environment that put all contact points in collaboration. After all we assume that the purpose of change is a common benefit.

“While Facebook, LinkedIn, Twitter, and other online networking sites can become time drains, online networking is useful for strengthening connections. By posting Facebook or Twitter links to relevant articles, you can provide value to your virtual friends and show your engagement with pertinent business issues. Writing original articles or posting commentary keeps you on other people’s minds and enables them to see how involved you are in your industry.”– Ariana Green

This active participation in networks causes the trus placed in us to expand, creating credibility and therefore the acceptance of our message.

After the building of that trust, we can leave for the changing behavior that we consider desirable and which is normally subject to two conditions, i.e. accepted because I benefit or accepted because so am not penalized.

To facilitate these changes of behavior it is important that we create simple tools (digital) which provide a good feedback.

Smart phones and Web-based software are cheap to create and implement our strategy, but we must be aware that such instruments are only as good as the information they channel.

Beyond simple tools is essential to create, not for the today’s customer but for the future consumer. This can be difficult to accomplish because consumer research tends to focus on the buying habits today. To make it easier (to build the future) it is important that creators fuel their imagination and not piecemeal by traditional evolution forecasts or trends. Instead of thinking, “what customers want in ten years?” we must think of what “customers can’t imagine wanting in ten years?”

We know that the behavior of mass doesn’t change overnight and by knowing this, when we monitor the success of our initiative we shouldn’t stay by sales metrics.

With a respected activity in communication networks and with an appropriate design to the future real needs behavioral change can be operated with success.

Making healthy changes can take time, but any effort you make in the right direction is worthwhile, even if you find setbacks or find decline over time.

Do you want to comment?

 

Tagged with:
 

Motivation, capacity and trigger

The persuasion, not coercive, it may be a good way to solve problems or can be a bad way to create them!

This is fundamentally a question of ethics and all because there are needs that we need to meet and there are other needs that others require that we meet!

Our needs are more easily suitable models such as Maslow, or Daniel Pink (see Drive) which considers that in the society in which we live today, lower levels of Maslow’s hierarchy are more or less satisfied and thus people become more motivated by other intrinsic motivations, i.e. the level of self-realization (Maslow), specifically the level of autonomy, mastery and purpose.

The needs of others, often looking for an interaction that leads us to use or consume a particular service or product and not being truly need our ends up being perceived as such.

No! I am not saying that is bad, because often it comes to facilitate the acquisition or articulate a need not expressed properly. But it can be bad! 

According to Elisa del Galdo, “Persuasive design applies psychological principles of influence, decision-making in a consumer context, engagement strategy, and social psychology to every stage of the design process, and it identifies potential barriers and emotional triggers to elicit the desired actions.”

From our experience we find that a decision is both an act with the influence of emotion as of the rational. The desirable situation is always the balance and yet, because the time and context are important the trigger can be pressed inadvertently.

Rationality requires justification to give effect to a decision, but a decision is always taken with emotion.

The balance is not always considered desirable and everywhere we find situations “pulls and pushes”, such as with credit cards, where on the one hand there is a facilitator for the consumption and on the other hand an alert service to reduce this consumption (see ReadyForZero).

Emotions are both preventive and reactive and to support a desired behavior they can help us to  achieve it effectively.

BJ Fogg on his Behavior Model refers that human behavior is the result of precise temporal convergence of three factors:

-Motivation: the person who wants desperately to execute the behavior (i.e. is highly motivated)

-Capacity: the person can easily perform the behavior (i.e., considers the behavior very simple)

-Trigger: the person is driven to make the behavior (i.e., he is called to action, etc.)

To achieve good results in this convergence the first thing to do is to select an appropriate target behavior.

Having defined the target behavior design teams begin survey to identify what stops people from performing this action and which can be lack of motivation, an inability or a lack of a click at the right time.

We find the solution by the synchronized conjugation of these three elements.

The common mistake, according Fogg, is the concentration solely on motivation.

Reprising the role of ethics, should indeed be noted that these approaches to change behaviors in people, can be seen as a learning environment for improvement of quality of life or as a form of agile and surreptitious seep into products and services without considering the meaning of actions.

The landscape for persuasion has changed not just because technology has advanced. We have a new horizon ahead because the real differentiators – thinking clearly and iterating quickly – are weaknesses in big organizations. And they’ve been slow to see the shift. But now, as organizations fail to understand social media, they are slowly seeing how their old methods for designing interventions and reaching consumers are breaking.

For most of our lives, persuading people through technology channels like radio and TV belonged to the rich and powerful. That’s changing quickly. Today, the potential to persuade is in the hands of millions. With these tools in hand, ordinary people sitting in dorm rooms and garages can compete against the biggest brands and the richest companies. The prize will go to those who can think clearly about behavior change and iterate the fastest.”

The intention to implement a behavior is a result of an individual attitude and a set of subjective norms targeted for this behavior and perceived control over this behavior.

However when this intention is to make people feel responsible for his success and happiness but causing people to do something that they obviously do not want, it is manipulation.

And because today is the future, apply properly the principles of psychology to improve the quality of life of people is a more sustainable way than copy them and apply them without context, as many companies are using with games.

 

Do you want to comment?