OVERVIEW
Behavioural change is one of the ‘holy grails’ for any marketer. Effective strategies for getting consumers to start, stop or change a behaviour are much sought after, and success can be elusive. As behavioural science has evolved, experts have developed robust frameworks and models to help apply behavioural science in a rigorous, systematic way, thereby effecting behavioural change.
In this best practice paper, we explore the B=MAT (now known as the B=MAP) model developed by Stanford Professor and behavioural psychologist BJ Fogg. The B=MAT model is used by practitioners to firstly analyse and then ultimately tackle behaviour change challenges. By understanding why or how behaviour can occur, practitioners can begin to understand existing behaviour and also what they need to change to build a new behaviour.
ESSENTIALS
The B=MAT model provides a structured framework and a common reference point for any behaviour change team to think about the behaviour they want change. It allows the practitioner to both understand what people are currently doing and looks at how it might move people towards a new behaviour. For example, whether people can be encouraged to better manage money and repay debt, or how they can be encouraged to commute by bike, bus or train rather than the car.
The B=MAT model (Behaviour = Motivation + Ability + Trigger)
The premise of the B=MAT model is that behaviour change is the result of three specific elements coming together in the same moment: motivation (M), ability (A) & an effective trigger (T).
The model implies that motivation and ability are trade-offs of a kind. If motivation is high enough, people will overcome barriers and deficits in their ability. If ability is high enough or the target behaviour is simple enough to do, people may overcome low motivation. The model name was changed in 2018 to B=MAP where P stands from ‘Prompts’ rather than T for ‘Triggers’.
This was to provide increased clarity around the model components, but Triggers and Prompts are, for all intents and purposes, the same. It was developed in 2007 by BJ Fogg, Professor of Behavioural Science and Director of the Stanford Behaviour Design Lab at Stanford University.
Specifically:
- In-context executional ideas, in the form of triggers, to steer people to adopt a target behaviour or stop an undesired behaviour.
- Problems or gaps in persuasion and influence to achieve a target behaviour or stop an undesired behaviour.
Strengths of the B=MAT model: Good for...
- Identifying how to trigger behaviour change
- Generating executional ideas to address behaviour change challenges
- In-context persuasion - the ‘last mile’
Component parts of the model: motivation, ability and triggers
1. MOTIVATIONWhat might motivate us to carry out a behaviour? Fogg outlines three broad areas of motivation, broken down further into subtypes:
- Sensation – this is a very primitive, automatic type of motivation, with little thinking or reflection involved. Examples are hunger, thirst, sex, pain and other visceral responses.
- Anticipation – specifically, this might involve feelings of either fear or hope. Fear is related to loss such as the loss of health or looks or having to pay a penalty or fine; hope is a positive feeling related to the possibility of something good happening such as finding a partner on a dating website or saving money.
- Belonging – we may be motivated to gain acceptance by our peers and avoid rejection, particularly teenagers and young adults for whom peer approval is often a significant driver of behaviour.
2. ABILITY
Whilst we might have oodles of motivation, we still need to be capable of doing the new behaviour at a specific point in time or place. In this model, ability is less about skills and more about in-the-moment capacity to carry out the behaviour. Fogg believes that enabling a behaviour in the moment is not necessarily about teaching people to do new things or training them to improve. Instead, it’s more about making the behaviour easier to do and enlarging that in-the-moment capacity.
Richard Thaler, co-author of the bestselling book ‘Nudge’ often reminds us that if you want someone to do something, we need to ‘make it easy’ or simple to do. A classic example is 1-click purchasing - it’s easy to find on the webpage and no effort to do. In this case, ability is high.
Fogg outlines six different factors of ability, many of which relate to whether we have different types of resources available to us. The model acknowledges that different people will have different abilities: some will have time or mental bandwidth in abundance, others money or physical effort. Here are the six areas:
- Time: If our time is scarce – if we’re in a rush or busy with something else - we’re less likely to engage in the target behaviour.
- Money: Likewise, if money is scarce and we need it for other essential items, we’re unlikely to buy something.
- Physical effort or physical capability: if a behaviour takes a lot of physical energy, for example, walking several miles to buy a product, or is difficult physically, it’s unlikely we’ll do it.
- Mental bandwidth: Fogg calls this ‘brain cycles’ but at The Behavioural Architects we tend to prefer the term ‘mental bandwidth’ or psychological capability. How hard do we need to think about doing something? Do we believe we can do it? Do we have the mental bandwidth to engage with it at this moment in time or are we overloaded with other demands?
- Social opportunity or social deviance: Is the target behaviour approved of in society? Is it also already being done by others (that we know)?
- Habit/routine: Is the behaviour part of our existing routine or habits or could it be easily added to our routine? If it’s a new behaviour or a one-off behaviour, such as switching bank accounts or getting a flu jab, it’s less likely we’ll do it and we’re likely to just stick to our existing routine.
3. TRIGGERS
The final area looks at what might trigger someone to do the behaviour, particularly if they have almost enough motivation and/or ability and just need a final nudge. Fogg highlights the importance of timing for this component, pointing out that the ancient Greeks even had a name for it: ‘Kairos’ - the opportune moment to persuade. He outlines three types of triggers or in-context cues which ultimately nudge someone to carry out the target behaviour in the moment. Providing the right kind of trigger can help get someone over the behavioural ‘threshold’ to achieve the target behaviour.
- Spark – a ‘spark’ raises motivation if someone doesn’t quite have enough motivation to do a target behaviour. What are the benefits of doing the behaviour? Can it bring them peer approval or pleasure? For example, highlighting the benefits of getting a flu vaccination by drawing on the emotions of fear could be enough to convince someone to make an appointment.
- Facilitator – a ‘facilitator’ raises someone’s ability, effectively giving them ‘a leg up’ to enable them to do the target behaviour. Making something cognitively easy to do is one example, making it free to do is another. Amazon’s infamous ‘one click’ purchasing is a typical example. Another might be to facilitate customer use of self-scan facilities in stores to avoid the checkout queue.
- Signal – a ‘signal’ or in-context cue works best when someone already has enough motivation or ability to do the target behaviour, but they just need a reminder in the moment. A simple example is a traffic light going green. Another is a study which reminded people to use a free coffee coupon by placing a toy alien on the counter where they paid for their coffee. The sight of the unusual toy reminded them that they’d been given the free coupon. A current example comes from social media; ‘micro-nudges’, as they are called, are salient, small animations on a social media feed designed to catch the eye of the user and encourage them to engage further.
For instance Instagram use micro-nudges to encourage users to add a comment or to tap on an image to view the tags, for example to see what brands of clothing a model is wearing.
To sum up, a behaviour change team can use the B=MAT model to find out what might be missing and preventing a target behaviour from happening, or conversely, what might be triggering an undesired behaviour such as smoking. Sometimes intuition or existing knowledge will be able to identify what’s missing. At other times in-depth research into the behaviour using the model may be required to unlock new insight in a structured way.
Aims and scope of the B=MAT model
- B=MAT is suited to identifying in-context, instant solutions for persuasion using in the moment triggers. For example, B=MAT might be used to improve an existing app or develop simple prompts or facilitators to remind doctors to use and apply existing knowledge, approaches or treatment.
- In the B=MAT model, motivation and ability are a trade-off and to some extent, a substitute for one another meaning that if someone has enough motivation and drive to do something, it might be enough to overcome any deficits in their ability and vice versa. For example, someone might be sufficiently highly motivated to eat a healthy, more varied diet, but lack cooking skills and experience triggering them to subscribe to a meal kit service making it much easier for them to make themselves healthy meals. This is a different relationship to motivation and capability to the alternative COM-B model. The COM-B model assumes that motivation and ability (capability) are equally necessary and can also feed into each other.
- In the B=MAT model triggers are seen as the ‘last mile’, the final element that might tip someone over the threshold to carrying out a behaviour and might involve only a small effort or in-context tweak to change. For example, take the issue of encouraging people to drive in a more fuel-efficient way. Using the B=MAT model, a simple and successful trigger has been to change the dashboard design in cars so that miles per gallon information is displayed by default. This is in contrast to the broader COM-B model, which might also consider this approach, but it might also consider broader strategic approaches such as encouraging people to replace their existing car with a more fuel-efficient car or develop a campaign to show how driving in a fuel-efficient way is socially desired.
- The B=MAT model defines types of motivation quite narrowly. It only really involves emotional types of motivation and does not consider reflective types of motivation. In B=MAT, automatic habits are classed as a type of ability that can help facilitate a behaviour rather than an automatic type of motivation.
- B=MAT specifically incorporates the idea of scarce resources, such as money, time and mental bandwidth within the concept of ability. All three of these factors could likely be significant enough barriers to doing a desired behaviour.
The COM-B model comprises of three components – capability (ability), opportunity and motivation. It is similar to B=MAT, but has notable differences, discussed in this second paper.
Behaviour = Capability + Opportunity + Motivation.
CHECKLIST
What type of behavioural change problem are you tackling? If you're looking for in-context, executional solutions then use the B=MAT model. If you need to develop a behaviour change strategy focused on filling in crucial gaps in people’s capability, opportunity and motivation, use the COM-B model.
Consider the following areas when applying the B=MAT model to your behavioural challenge:
- Motivation
- Sensation: Is a visceral, automatic response e.g. desire, pain, hunger, thirst motivating them to do the desired behaviour?
- Anticipation: Does fear or hope drive them to do the behaviour?
- Belonging: Are they driven by a desire to be accepted or to avoid rejection by peers or society?
- Ability
- Time: Do they have time or feel they have time to do the desired behaviour? What other demands are there on their time?
- Money: Does it cost someone to do the behaviour? Do they have enough money to be able to afford the desired behaviour? Do they feel it’s affordable or worth spending money on?
- Physical effort and physical capability: How physically easy is it to do the desired behaviour?
- Mental bandwidth: How hard do they need to think about doing the desired behaviour? Do they have the mental capacity to engage with it at this moment or are they overloaded with competing demands or stressors?
- Social opportunity: Is the desired behaviour being done by others? Is it approved of by society?
- Habit/routine: Are existing habits and routines blocking the desired behaviour? Is the desired behaviour part of someone’s existing routine? Is it new behaviour or a one-off behaviour, making it harder to do?
- Triggers
- Spark - Are there any salient benefits or motivating factors driving people to do the behaviour?
- Facilitator - Is there anything that makes it easier - or at least feel easier - for the person to do the desired behaviour?
- Signal - What in-context cues are there to remind them to do the desired behaviour?
SUMMARY
Enabling and effecting sustained behavioural change is not always easy. Fortunately, as applied behavioural science has evolved over the past decade, experts have developed robust, easy-to-use models to help apply behavioural science in a rigorous, systematic way and effect behavioural change.
In this best practice paper, we’ve brought one of the best behavioural change models - the B=MAT model - to practitioners’ attention, helping to make it accessible and provide guidelines for when to use this model. Our simultaneously published paper covers similar guidelines for the COM-B model. Applying these models will undoubtedly ensure strong and sound application of behavioural science.
CASE STUDIES
Below, we outline two case studies drawn from The Behavioural Architects’ work to illustrate how the B=MAT model can be applied.
1. Driving adoption and engagement of new in-home technology
Behavioural challenge: The Behavioural Architects worked with a utilities provider to better understand how they might encourage households to install and engage with new, in-home technology designed to track household behaviours and help people reduce wastage and save money.
Applying the B-MAT model: The B=MAT model offered a simple framework to help our client understand the critical components of this challenge. And, with its focus on how to identify and build the necessary triggers to enable a desired behaviour it provided us with a structure to pin actionable solutions against, helping us work out how to steer customer behaviour using the tool most easily available to the client - their customer communications.
First, we conducted research with the client’s customers via a 10-day online research platform followed by in-depth interviews with them. We engaged with a variety of households, from those with the technology already installed, to those considering it and those less convinced.
We then analysed our findings using the B=MAT model, identifying what might be driving or hindering motivation to install and use the technology, what might influence a household’s immediate ability to install and what the triggers might be to both install and ensure households are engaging with the technology and making the most of it.
- Motivation: Here we found that although the benefits of the technology are well known, they aren’t always enough to prompt adoption. The gains were apparent to households but not enough of a draw for many.
- Ability: Within this component, time and physical and mental effort as well as potential disruption to existing routines to get the technology installed, were typically significant factors for customers. For many there was just too much friction - needing to stay at home for half a day to let in the installation engineer or too complex and confusing a booking process. In addition, customers often lacked the ability and know-how to use the technology once it had been installed.
- Triggers: There were few ‘signals’ or in-context cues to remind customers to get the technology installed. In the home, reminders are usually out of sight, bills come only periodically, and renewal is only an annual event. Second, trigger types in the form of ‘sparks’ were also lacking - customers could see no immediate or attractive benefit to motivate them to arrange an installation and were more likely to put it off to a later date.
With this analysis and understanding in hand, we worked with the client to identify how to break down some of these barriers, more clearly highlight the benefits of the technology, facilitate installation so it was easier and less confusing, but also ensure they were reminded about the technology at more opportune times when the benefits and advantages of it were more salient.
We helped them craft these comms, to be timely, appeal to people's motivations and build ability by making it feel easier to get the technology installed. We also helped the client build more general understanding for how to apply the B=MAT model so that they could use it for other business challenges.
At its heart B=MAT helped the client re-think how they could tackle and solve this type of behavioural challenge by structuring communication strategies against the model.
Impact: Our B=MAT inspired recommendations have shaped the client’s communications strategy including leveraging key triggers across the customer lifecycle, testing different behavioural science inspired messaging strategies to drive up motivation and eliminating key friction points within the customer booking journey.
2. Encouraging customers to increase their digital engagement with a financial services provider
Behavioural challenge: Our client, a global financial services provider, had identified a large number of customers who were disengaged with their digital services e.g. had never enrolled or were no longer engaged. Our client wanted more customers to engage with their digital services to drive down calls to call centres.
Our challenge was to understand why these customers were not engaging with the digital services offered by our client i.e. the triggers, barriers and mindsets behind this behaviour to unlock ways to drive digital enrolment and engagement.
Applying the B=MAT model: After delving into our client’s existing data and insights, we developed a set of working behavioural hypotheses informed by the B=MAT model, focusing on specific motivations, abilities and triggers (or lack of them) behind non-digital behaviours.
For example, the client suspected that customer concern over the security of their personal information stored on the app may be a barrier to digital engagement. Within the model, this would be classified as a motivational barrier driven by fear. People may also perceive that it’s faster and easier to call to solve their problem, meaning that they have reduced mental bandwidth to explore other solutions - a factor limiting their ability. Customers may also have an existing habit or routine to engage with the client using means other than a digital channel, again limiting their ability to engage.
Next, we tested these hypotheses via research with non-digital customers (who have never enrolled or are no longer active) involving online self-ethnography over 10 days to explore behaviours and mindsets in depth and face-to-face immersions with selected customers to deepen understanding and bring to life their mindsets.
We discovered that, contrary to our client’s expectations, ability was not the key barrier to engagement for the majority of customers. Instead, customers are generally pretty tech savvy, actively engaged digitally, with many online routines and habits and did see the benefits of using technology to manage their daily lives.
What was significant was people’s lack of motivation to engage. Many non-digital customers felt that the client’s existing digital services were rooted purely in simple transactional tasks, which hindered any deeper engagement, for example, in solving problems. Instead, customers often reverted to using the client’s call centre. Others had established non-digital routines to engage with the client’s services, so saw no need to digitally engage any further or needed additional services so rarely that they forgot they were there or did not see the benefit in enrolling for something they used so rarely.
Ability was a factor for one subset of customers. We discovered that less tech proficient customers can often fall at the first hurdle and give up after experiencing problems during the enrolment process. For some, security fears were a motivational barrier too, preventing greater engagement with digital services.
To drive digital adoption and engagement, we made eight different recommendations based on developing potential new triggers, including:
- Developing ‘spark’-type triggers to build motivation: We suggested evolving the user experience beyond simple tasks, identifying critical opportunities to communicate with the customer to build motivation and help customers realise the benefits of engaging digitally.
- Developing ‘facilitator’-type triggers to make enrolment easier: We also suggested streamlining and simplify the enrolment process to reduce dropouts by those who are less confident or accustomed to using digital services.
Impact: The client has used the insights and recommendations to develop a new data mining and communications strategy to better identify and segment targets for digital adoption. In addition, they shared the findings from the study with teams working on other digital initiatives (enrolment, paperless, online banking, marketing, and more). Among other things, the study provided these teams with a strong foundational base of knowledge that is helping to inform the work they do.
Further Reading
Fogg, B.J. ‘A Behaviour Model for Persuasive Design’, Stanford Behaviour Design Lab, Stanford University, www.bjfogg.com
