3. People and behaviour

Explain a behaviour before trying to change it

An audience label is not a behaviour. 'Local residents' identifies a broad group; 'eligible enquirers choose and confirm an appointment they can attend' identifies an action. Specify who acts, what they do, in which context and at what point in the journey. This prevents a campaign from treating awareness, intention and action as interchangeable.

A journey is a sequence of encounters from recognising a need through discovery, evaluation, contact, use and what follows. People can skip stages, return to earlier ones or rely on another person. A linear diagram is a tool for asking questions, not a claim that every person behaves identically. Include offline routes and the point at which someone can decide the offer is not right for them.

Use COM-B as a diagnostic aid

COM-B asks whether a behaviour is supported by capability, opportunity and motivation. Capability concerns what a person can understand or do. Opportunity concerns the physical and social circumstances that make action possible. Motivation concerns processes that direct action, including deliberate priorities and more automatic responses. These categories help organise questions; they are not measurements of this audience until you gather relevant evidence.

For an appointment, knowing what documents are needed may involve psychological capability. A time that conflicts with paid work concerns physical opportunity. Fear of judgement may affect motivation, but it could also reflect the organisation's actual behaviour and social context. Do not force a barrier into a single box if doing so hides its cause. State the overlap and ask what intervention would follow from each interpretation.

The linked behaviour-change-wheel paper provides a framework-development argument. Read its method and purpose before borrowing the categories. A framework can offer useful coverage while leaving questions about measurement, causal importance and transfer unanswered. Applying familiar labels is not the same as establishing which barrier matters here.

Compare a framework with a journey

A journey locates where a difficulty appears; COM-B suggests types of conditions that may explain action. Used together, they can be more informative than either alone. At the booking stage, an unexplained eligibility rule may prevent understanding. At attendance, a shift pattern may prevent participation even when the person is willing and well informed. Posting clearer facts might address the first difficulty and do little for the second.

The two tools can also create false confidence. A detailed journey drawn entirely by staff may miss users' actual routes. A complete COM-B table may be filled with guesses. Mark every entry as an observation, an inference or an unanswered question. Leave an empty cell when you lack evidence. Completeness of layout must not masquerade as completeness of knowledge.

Consider an alternative explanation that does not start with individual behaviour. An organisation may have designed an unsuitable service, created a burdensome eligibility rule or offered too little capacity at usable times. Calling the resulting problem 'low motivation' places responsibility on the person who encounters it. Always ask whether changing the service is more appropriate than persuading someone to cope with it.

From diagnosis to an intervention hypothesis

A useful intervention hypothesis links a specific change to a proposed mechanism and an observable result. 'Explain eligibility in plain language so suitable enquirers can judge fit before booking' is testable. 'Build community engagement' is too broad to reveal whether the mechanism worked. Name the conditions under which the change would fail: the wording could improve understanding while available appointments remain unsuitable.

Do not choose the intervention solely because it is easy to communicate. A reminder may help someone who forgot but not someone who cannot travel. More persuasive language could increase bookings while worsening non-attendance if the practical barrier remains. Match the proposed change to the diagnosed condition, then include a balancing measure for harm or displaced work.

A behaviour goal should allow a legitimate refusal. Some people will make an informed decision not to use the service. Treating every non-conversion as failure encourages pressure and hides whether the offer fits. For a mission-led organisation, successful marketing may include helping someone find a more suitable alternative. Your measures should distinguish avoidable exclusion from an informed choice not to proceed.

Extend the reasoning beyond advice appointments

Consider the fictional volunteer case in the resource. Twelve people attend an induction, eight take a first shift and five remain active after eight weeks. Those numbers describe stages, not motives. Travel, shift predictability, role expectations, supervision and changed circumstances could all matter. An inspirational recruitment campaign does not automatically repair an unreliable rota.

Compare an individual-focused hypothesis with an organisational one. 'Volunteers lack commitment' predicts that stronger motivational messaging will help. 'The role is hard to combine with existing commitments' predicts that predictable shifts or clearer boundaries may help. The second is not automatically correct, but it directs attention to a different actor and makes a different test possible. Ask what evidence could distinguish them.

The fictional public-behaviour case concerns a community group encouraging repair rather than disposal. People may value repair but lack a nearby option, time, confidence or information about cost. A social norm message could be irrelevant if no repair appointment is available. Before writing a slogan, describe the smallest supported behaviour and ensure the opportunity exists.

Keep representation honest

Personas can organise hypotheses about needs and situations, but they should not invent a community voice. A generated interview is not a participant account. If you use an authored scenario to explore a possible barrier, label it fictional every time it appears as evidence. Do not quote it in a public proposal as something residents said.

When evidence is incomplete, present a provisional diagnosis with a short research agenda. Prioritise questions by decision consequence: what could cause the organisation to choose a different intervention, stop a harmful one or change the audience definition? A good behaviour analysis does not claim to explain the whole person. It identifies a practical condition, an alternative explanation and an ethical way to learn which action fits.

Examine a causal chain rather than a label

Take the fictional volunteer's unpredictable rota. One chain might be: shifts are announced late; the person cannot coordinate other commitments; they miss a first shift; they stop responding. Another might be: the role differs from expectations; the person no longer wants it; rota timing becomes a secondary inconvenience. Both can fit the small set of notes, but they imply different changes. Earlier scheduling addresses the first chain more directly; clearer role description addresses the second.

For each chain, identify the link with the least support. Then write a question or observation that would distinguish it from the rival chain. You might inspect when schedules were issued or compare the induction description with the actual role. Those are proposed enquiries, not completed findings. Avoid asking a generated persona to settle the uncertainty: it will only extend the assumptions you supplied.

Apply the same discipline to the repair case. A message about repair skills assumes that insufficient confidence prevents action. If the only available consultation is during working hours, practical opportunity may dominate. If a person chooses replacement because repair costs more than they can manage, a moral appeal may add pressure without changing feasibility. Your recommendation should identify who must change: the participant, the organisation, a partner or a wider system. A framework that always produces advice for individuals is missing important possibilities. A useful diagnosis permits the conclusion that the organisation should alter its offer before asking anyone to change behaviour.

Study allocation and completion

Allocate 1.5 hours to this lesson and worked example, 1.5 to critical reading, 2 to the lab, 3 to the assignment, 1 to critique and 1 to reflection and revision: 10 hours in total. These are planning allocations, not measured duration or a timed assessment. Read in short sessions if helpful. All resources are plain text; a notebook, calculator or optional free spreadsheet is sufficient. No video, AI account or paid service is needed.

For critical reading, use the linked selection if accessible and the internal reading comparison. Record its question, argument, evidence type, assumptions and one reason it might not transfer to your organisation. A missing external reading does not prevent completion: compare the two original internal positions and state that you have not appraised the external source. Keep a source log with title, URL, access date if accessed, claim supported and limitation. Links are references, not permission to copy or upload readings to AI.

Complete the lab manually first. The supplied simulated AI output is authored teaching material, not a transcript, real research or verified model performance. Mark each claim supported, unsupported or contradicted. Optional live AI may generate alternatives from these fictional inputs only; record tool, date, instructions, checks and revisions. Never supply personal, confidential or unauthorised material. If not using AI, compare the supplied output against your manual work and label that route accurately.

For critique, use the rubric and annotated example, alone or with a consenting peer; no peer is required. For reflection, revise one consequential decision and record the old choice, new choice, evidence and unresolved uncertainty. Keep work locally. Self-completion records learning activity, not professional competence or an independently assessed award. Version: 1 November 2026; report suspected errors through the course host's available contact route, or retain a correction note if no route exists.

Practical lab — 2 hours

Choose the advice, volunteer or repair case. Map six journey stages in plain text. For each supplied observation, propose a COM-B interpretation and a rival explanation. Leave unknowns visible. Compare a communications intervention with a change to service conditions. Use the simulated AI output to identify where a persona is mistaken for evidence.

Portfolio assignment — 3 hours

Produce a behaviour diagnosis of approximately 800 words, a journey map and five discriminating research questions for one priority audience. Specify a target action, three intervention hypotheses, risks of pressure or exclusion and the conditions that would reverse your recommendation. Retain the framework critique for the later 1,500-word critical comparison.

Critique — 1 hour

Apply the rubric to your work and the annotated example. Identify the strongest contrary explanation, one unsupported claim and one feasibility problem. If studying alone, write the objections before consulting the example.

Reflection and revision — 1 hour

Revise the weakest consequential decision. Keep both versions and a change note. State what further evidence would change your position; do not invent it.

Use these self-review weights: evidence and source appraisal 25%; critical reasoning 25%; contextual fit 20%; feasibility and evaluation 20%; clarity and reflective judgement 10%. Score each criterion from 0 to 4 and calculate sum(weight × score / 4), out of 100. These are illustrative learning criteria, not validated academic grades.

Evidence: distinguish authored case facts from inferred barriers. Reasoning: critique COM-B as well as applying it. Context: consider service design and legitimate refusal. Feasibility: choose interventions the organisation could deliver. Reflection: explain why an alternative would outperform your choice under different conditions.

Across criteria: 0 means missing or misleading; 1 asserts a choice without support; 2 offers relevant but incomplete support; 3 connects evidence, alternatives and a feasible action; 4 tests a strong contrary account, quantifies limits where possible and specifies evidence that would reverse the choice. Do not reward length, fluent AI prose or an expensive tactic. A privacy breach, invented evidence or an unsupported public promise must be corrected before self-completion, regardless of the arithmetic.

Weak: 'Non-attenders lack motivation; send more inspiring messages.' No evidence identifies motivation. Competent: 'The shift conflict in N4 indicates an opportunity barrier in that fictional account.' Strong: 'N4 makes timing a plausible barrier for one case, not the whole cohort. Compare clearer information with a usable appointment time; if informed enquirers still cannot attend, communication alone is insufficient. Test understanding and practical availability separately.' The strong answer does not claim COM-B has measured a causal effect. For volunteers, a strong parallel answer would examine rota predictability before interpreting attrition as weak commitment.