physical activity and healthy eating (Michie et al., 2011) and general technique lists
(Michie et al., 2014).
Kok et al.(2015) present a taxonomy of change techniques linked to the inter -
vention mapping approach used to structure this chapter. This taxonomy helpfully
groups techniques (called ‘methods’ in this chapter) according to the change objectives,
such as increasing knowledge, changing determinants of motivation (such as attitudinal
and normative beliefs), enhancing self-efficacy and skills and changing impulsive
regulatory processes (e.g. to break and make habits). The authors also include
techniques operating at higher-order levels such as those that may be used to change
organizations, communities and policy (see Figure 9.2). This taxonomy defines
technique categories and helpfully specifies the conditions under which each technique
is likely to be most effective.
Kok et al.(2015) noted that an effective technique must be able to change a specified
regulatory process that shapes behaviour and must also be embodied in a delivery
method that both preserves the technique and is acceptable and engaging for the target
audience. As we have seen, Focus 9.3 includes only one of five techniques that have
been tested as ways to induce cognitive dissonance (Freijy and Kothe, 2013). In this
case different techniques have been used to target the same change process,
hypothesized to change attitudes. We have seen too that if-then plans can be employed
to prompt specific action planning or to rehearse focused cognitive distraction from
potentially anxiety-provoking thoughts (Sheeran et al., 1999; Sheeran et al., 2007). In
this case the same form of change technique is used to target distinct change processes
and, consequently, delivered in different ways. In some cases the hypothesized change
processes have implications for the delivery method. For example, we discussed
framing effects in Chapter 8. In this case the delivery form of a message (e.g. an
emphasis on gains versus losses) is determined by the theorized change process. It is
important, therefore, not to mistakenly count distinct techniques as being the same
when categorizing intervention content using taxonomies of change techniques.
Embodiment of a change technique in a delivery method may change its effect -
iveness. Consider, for example, making recipients aware of cues that may prompt
impulsively regulated behavioural responses (as in habit reversal therapy and food
rehabilitation). This could be done by inviting recipients to list relevant cues on a piece
of paper or, in an application with children, recipients might be encouraged to make
temptation T-shirts with pictures of snacks they want to reduce. In each case the
technique targets cue awareness but the distinct methods of delivery are likely to affect
technique effectiveness. Similarly, as we have noted, there are many forms of persuasive
communication that may increase motivation or prompt action planning. For all of
these techniques, the recipients’ perceptions of the source of the communication (as
sharing social identity, being expert or being trustworthy) is likely to influence
effectiveness. Thus technique effectiveness depends on the particular delivery mode,
including, in many cases, the source of communication. Schulz et al.(2010) highlight
how interventions may differ according to method of delivery (e.g. face-to-face versus
provision of written materials), type of materials (e.g. written versus video), location
delivery (e.g. home versus school) and schedule of delivery (e.g. number and duration
of exposures). Considering only interventions delivered in group settings, Borek et al.
(2015) list 26 intervention characteristics that should be considered by designers and
reported to enable replication with fidelity. Only one of these refers to the specific
220 MOTIVATION AND BEHAVIOUR