What are Behaviour Change Techniques?
Behaviour Change Techniques (BCTs) are strategies used in the field of psychology that help an individual change their behaviour; in this case to promote sustainable grocery shopping. An example of a Behaviour Change Technique is: a pop-up window with motivational messages at the beginning of each shop.
Theoretical Development using the Behaviour Change Wheel
This section explains in detail how Envirofy was developed using both behaviour change theory (Behaviour Change Wheel, BCW) [1] and multidisciplinary evidence to support consumers in shopping sustainably.
Steps 1-3. Defining, Selecting, and Specifying the Problem Behaviour
The first steps of the BCW focus on understanding the problem; in this case environmentally damaging food consumption. Stating the problem in behavioural terms helps to define the target of the intervention [1]. This involves considering first all relevant behaviours by relevant groups (step 1); selecting from these to identify a single target behaviour (step 2); and specifying that behaviour as thoroughly and precisely as possible, using pre-specified prompts provided by the BCW (step 3). The final behaviour is specified in Table 1.
| BCW Question | Specification |
|---|---|
| Who needs to perform the behaviour? | Individuals who purchase food from supermarkets online. |
| What do they need to do differently? | Select and purchase the most sustainable option from a range of available food products. |
| When do they need to do it? | When they are choosing food items, at the point-of-purchase. |
| Where do they need to do it? | On supermarket websites, using their device, in locations with internet access. |
| How often do they need to do it? | Every time they visit the online supermarket website. |
| With whom do they need to do it? | Alone or with members of the same household. |
Step 4. What Needs to Change: Why are People Not Making Environmentally Friendly Food Choices?
A core step of the BCW is to identify barriers that are currently stopping individuals from doing the specified behaviour. This helps to understand what problems the intervention should solve and how it should work. A narrative literature review was conducted to identify various barriers to purchasing environmentally friendly foods. APEASE criteria [1] were then systematically applied to each barrier to judge whether it was likely to be Affordable; Practical; Effective/cost-effective; Acceptable to users; and Equitable, to target within an online shopping environment. The resulting barriers targeted by Envirofy are reported in Table 2, column 1. The BCW provides multiple theoretical tools to interpret and synthesise barriers: (i) COM-B was used to first understand whether, broadly, barriers related to individuals’ “Capability”, “Opportunity”, and/or “Motivation” to engage in a Behaviour (eco-friendly food shopping) (Table 2, column 2) (ii) The Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF) [2] was then used to describe these barriers in more theoretical detail (Table 2, column 3). In summary, Envirofy targets barriers relating to individual shoppers': knowledge and skills in choosing environmentally friendly foods (i.e. psychological capability); exposure to environmentally friendly foods and opportunity to access these (i.e. physical opportunity); and beliefs relating to "perceived consumer effectiveness" i.e. whether their choices will make an environmental impact (i.e. "reflective motivation").
| Barriers identified in literature | Broad COM-B category | Detailed theoretical description (TDF) |
|---|---|---|
| Limited awareness of the association between food choices and environment [3]. Limited factual knowledge about impact of specific food types [4]. Limited skills and understanding of eco labels [5,6]. | Capability (psychological) | Behavioural regulation (i.e. monitoring food choices in relation to their environmental impact)\newline Knowledge (i.e. of the environmental impact of food groups and individual products)\newline Cognitive and interpersonal skills (I.e. in understanding and using environmental information) |
| Perceived lack of time [7, 8, 9, 10, 11] to use environmental information and limited availability of eco-friendly foods [12, 13, 14]. | Opportunity (physical) | Environmental Context and Resources |
| Belief that actions will not have an impact (Perceived Consumer Effectiveness, PCE) [4, 7, 15]. | Motivation (reflective) | Beliefs about consequences; Beliefs about capabilities |
Steps 5-8. What Kind of Intervention?: Intervention Functions, Policy Categories, BCTs and Delivery Modes
The BCW provides theoretical links between the barriers identified, and the kinds of interventions that are likely to be effective in addressing them. Following this process, Envirofy was designed to target the barriers identified (see step 4) through Education (to improve knowledge on the environmental impact of food choices), Training (to improve skills in selecting products according to environmental labels), Environmental Re-structuring (to improve exposure to and accessibility of environmentally friendly products), and Persuasion (to target beliefs on perceived consumer effectiveness). The delivery mode (i.e. "digital") and policy ("service provision") were decided in advance. To decide which specific behaviour change techniques (``BCTs'') to embed in this digital tool we again applied APEASE criteria and consulted the multidisciplinary evidence base, including HCI literature, on ways these had been operationalised. The final BCTs and related evidence are reported for each component in Envirofy your Shop: Development of a Real-time Tool to Support Eco-friendly Food Purchases Online
References
[1] Susan Michie, Maartje M Van Stralen, and Robert West. 2011. The behaviour change wheel: a new method for characterising and designing behaviour change interventions. Implementation science 6, 1 (2011), 42. [2] S Michie, M Johnston, C Abraham, R Lawton, D Parker, and A Walker. 2005. Making psychological theory useful for implementing evidence based practice: a consensus approach. BMJ Quality & Safety 14, 1 (2005), 26–33. https://doi.org/10.1136/qshc.2004.011155 [3] Garrett Lentz, Sean Connelly, Miranda Mirosa, and Tim Jowett. 2018. Gauging attitudes and behaviours: Meat consumption and potential reduction. Appetite 127 (2018), 230 – 241. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2018.04.015 [4] Jennie I. Macdiarmid, Flora Douglas, and Jonina Campbell. 2016. Eating like there’s no tomorrow: Public awareness of the environmental impact of food and reluctance to eat less meat as part of a sustainable diet. Appetite 96 (2016), 487 – 493. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2015.10.011 [5] Joël Thibert and Madhav G. Badami. 2011. Estimating and communicating food system impacts: A case study in Montreal, Quebec. Ecological Economics 70,10 (2011), 1814 – 1821. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2011.05.008 [6] Christina Tobler, Vivianne H.M. Visschers, and Michael Siegrist. 2011. Eating green. Consumers’ willingness to adopt ecological food consumption behaviors. Appetite 57, 3 (2011), 674 – 682. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2011.08.010 Feeding infants and young children: guidelines, research and practice. [7] Á Ní Choisdealbha and Peter D Lunn. 2020. Green and Simple: Disclosures on Eco-labels Interact with Situational Constraints in Consumer Choice. Journal of Consumer Policy 43, 4 (2020), 699–722. [8] Elisa De Marchi, Vincenzina Caputo, Rodolfo M. Nayga, and Alessandro Banterle. 2016. Time preferences and food choices: Evidence from a choice experiment. Food Policy 62 (2016), 99 – 109. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2016.05.004 [9] Angela Peters-Texeira and Neela Badrie. 2005. Consumers’ perception of food packaging in Trinidad, West Indies and its related impact on food choices. International Journal of Consumer Studies 29, 6 (2005), 508–514. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1470-6431.2005.00419.x arXiv:https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/j.1470-6431.2005.00419.x [10] Elena Claire Ricci, Alessandro Banterle, and Stefanella Stranieri. 2018. Trust to Go Green: An Exploration of Consumer Intentions for Eco-friendly Convenience Food. Ecological Economics 148 (2018), 54 – 65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2018.02.010 [11] Michael Schulte-Mecklenbeck, Matthias Sohn, Emanuel de Bellis, Nathalie Martin, and Ralph Hertwig. 2013. A lack of appetite for information and computation. Simple heuristics in food choice. Appetite 71 (2013), 242 – 251. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2013.08.008 [12] Anders Biel and Ulf Dahlstrand. 2005. Values and habits: a dual-process model. Environment, information and consumer behaviour 33 (2005). [13] Jaana-Piia Mäkiniemi and Annukka Vainio. 2014. Barriers to climate-friendly food choices among young adults in Finland. Appetite 74 (2014), 12 – 19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2013.11.016 [14] William Young, Kumju Hwang, Seonaidh McDonald, and Caroline J. Oates. 2010. Sustainable consumption: green consumer behaviour when purchasing products. Sustainable Development 18, 1 (2010), 20–31. https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.394 arXiv:https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/sd.394 [15] Daniel Hanss and Rouven Doran. 2020. Perceived consumer effectiveness. Responsible Consumption and Production (2020), 535–544.