The Behavioural Drivers Model

Model Basics

The Behavioural Drivers Model (BDM) is a broad framework to inform social and behaviour change initiatives. The framework summarises evidence from existing theories to diagnose and analyse what drives people’s behaviour. It proposes 3 main components under which drivers of behaviour can be categorised: psychology, sociology, and the environment. Under each of these components, the behavioural drivers are organised in 2 levels of granularity: factors and dimensions. Factors are general areas of influence on behaviour, whereas dimensions are specific subcomponents within these general areas [13]. 

In this model, psychology (in green) refers to a person’s cognitive and emotional drivers. Specifically, it considers that the main psychological factors driving someone’s behaviour are cognitive biases, interests, attitudes, self-efficacy, intent and limited rationality. These factors are influenced by a person’s personal characteristics. Sociology (in red) refers to how our relationships with significant others and with the broader society drive our behaviour. Social influence, community dynamics, and meta-norms are the main factors driving behaviour within sociology. The Environment (in blue) involves structural elements, such as institutions, policies, system and the broader infrastructure. Factors from psychology, sociology and the environment are also influenced by the context where the behaviour takes place.

Although the model focuses on individual behaviour, it explicitly acknowledges the essential role of social and structural factors in enabling or constraining people’s behaviour. In doing so, it aims to avoid over-focusing on one driver of behaviour (e.g. emotional drivers) whilst ignoring other drivers that might be equally important (e.g. institutional barriers).

To add an extra level of detail, each of the factors within the BDM can be further unpacked into more detailed dimensions. For example, the BDM suggests that the main dimensions underlying cognitive biases, one of the factors that drives behaviour within psychology, are information avoidance, availability heuristics, anchoring, messenger effects, confirmation & belief bias, simplicity biases, recency bias, optimism bias, the representativeness heuristic, cognitive dissonance and memory biases. In total, once all the dimensions within each of the factors are unpacked, the model synthesises over 130 evidence-based drivers of behaviour. 

The BDM also offers a guide to intervention mapping, where each behavioural factor is systematically linked to several possible approaches to change it. 

Model Strengths

✅ BDM recognises that behaviour is influenced by individual but also broader structural factors, which allows for a comprehensive approach to behaviour change. 

✅ BDM is rigorous and evidence-based.

✅ By mapping readily usable interventions to each factor, BDM is a very actionable tool for practitioners. 

Model Weaknesses

⛔️ BDM doesn’t contain specific guidelines or prompts to help the user identify where a barrier falls within the different factors and dimensions of the model. 

⛔️ BDM assumes that all behavioural drivers have the same empirical weigh, research would still be needed to determine the relevance of the different factors and dimensions on an individual-case basis

⛔️ Although BDM was not created with a specific area in mind, it is oriented towards NGO-related work.

Model Snapshot

Key takeaway

Psychology, sociology and the environment are the main drivers of behaviour. Drivers of behaviour can be diagnosed and analysed at a more general (factors) or granular level (dimensions).   

When to use this model

When you need to diagnose barriers and map them to potential behaviour change interventions. 

What you get from this model

A diagnostic tool to identify the main drives and barriers to behaviour and map them to potential interventions

What you don’t get from this model

The BDM is a useful tool to ensure that all drivers to behaviour are considered when designing an intervention, but it still needs to be combined with knowledge and insights.

References

1. Michie S, Van Stralen MM, West R. The behaviour change wheel: a new method for characterising and designing behaviour change interventions. Implement Sci. 2011;6(1):1–12.

2. Cane, J., O’Connor, D., & Michie, S. (2012). Validation of the theoretical domains            framework for use in behaviour change and implementation research. Implementation Science, 7(1), 1–17.

3. Michie S, Atkins L, West R. The behaviour change wheel: a guide to designing interventions. 2014;

4. Ogden J. Celebrating variability and a call to limit systematisation: the example of the Behaviour Change Technique Taxonomy and the Behaviour Change Wheel. Health Psychol Rev. 2016;10(3):245–50

5. Abraham C. Charting variability to ensure conceptual and design precision: A comment on Ogden (2016). Health Psychol Rev. 2016;10(3):260–4.

6. Fogg BJ. A behavior model for persuasive design. In: Proceedings of the 4th international Conference on Persuasive Technology. 2009. p. 1–7.

7. Perugini M. An alternative view of pre-volitional processes in decision making: Conceptual issues and empirical evidence. In: Contemporary perspectives on the psychology of attitudes. Psychology Press; 2004. p. 187–220.

8. Ajzen I. Attitudes, Personality and Behavior Second. Engl Open Univ Press Educ. 2005;

9. Staats H. Understanding proenvironmental attitudes and behavior: An analysis and review of research based on the theory of planned behavior. na; 2003.

10. Ryan RM, Deci EL. Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. Am Psychol. 2000;55(1):68.

11. Deci EL, Ryan RM. The" what" and" why" of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychol Inq. 2000;11(4):227–68.

12. Church, A. T., Katigbak, M. S., Locke, K. D., Zhang, H., Shen, J., de Jesús Vargas-Flores, J., Ibáñez-Reyes, J., Tanaka-Matsumi, J., Curtis, G. J., & Cabrera, H. F. (2013). Need satisfaction and well-being: Testing self-determination theory in eight cultures. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 44(4), 507–534.

13. UNICEF, & University of Pennsylvania Social Norms Group. (2019). The Behavioural Drivers Model. 92.'

14. BIT-Publication-EAST_FA_WEB.pdf

15. Report

16. Hagger, M. S., & Chatzisarantis, N. L. (2014). An integrated behavior change model for physical activity. Exercise and sport sciences reviews, 42(2), 62-69.

17. Caudwell, K. M., Keech, J. J., Hamilton, K., Mullan, B. A., & Hagger, M. S. (2019). Reducing alcohol consumption during pre-drinking sessions: Testing an integrated behaviour-change model. Psychology & Health, 34(1), 106-127.

18. Prochaska, J. O., & DiClemente, C. C. (2005). The transtheoretical approach. Handbook of psychotherapy integration, 2, 147-171.

19. West, R. (2005). Time for a change: putting the Transtheoretical (Stages of Change) Model to rest.

20. Bridle, C., Riemsma, R. P., Pattenden, J., Sowden, A. J., Mather, L., Watt, I. S., & Walker, A. (2005). Systematic review of the effectiveness of health behavior interventions based on the transtheoretical model. Psychology & Health, 20(3), 283-301.

21. Whitelaw, S., Baldwin, S., Bunton, R., & Flynn, D. (2000). The status of evidence and outcomes in Stages of Change research. Health Education Research, 15(6), 707-718.

22. Romain, A. J., Bortolon, C., Gourlan, M., Carayol, M., Decker, E., Lareyre, O., ... & Bernard, P. (2018). Matched or nonmatched interventions based on the transtheoretical model to promote physical activity. A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Journal of Sport and Health Science, 7(1), 50-57.

23. Haynes, S. N., & O'Brien, W. H. (2000). Principles and practice of behavioral assessment. Springer Science & Business Media.

24. Heyes, C. (2012). Simple minds: a qualified defence of associative learning. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 367(1603), 2695-2703. 

25. Zhang, L., Lu, X., Bi, Y., & Hu, L. (2019). Pavlov’s pain: the effect of classical   conditioning on pain perception and its clinical implications. Current pain and  headache reports, 23(3), 1-12.

26. Dickinson, A., & Mackintosh, N. J. (1978). Classical conditioning in animals. Annual review of psychology, 29(1), 587-612.