Did you watch the Super Bowl Sunday night? I personally care about the commercials almost as much as the game itself. Advertising companies do a lot of research into trying to understand what people deeply need and care about. They also know a lot about what consumers fear or dislike. I find the Super Bowl to be a great opportunity to see what others think about society and what they expect consumers to react to. I’m not about to try to review all of the ads last night. If you want to read an expert opinion, you can check out AdAge’s Bob Garfield or the “average consumer panel” at USA Today . It’s interesting to note the differences of opinion.

The ad that I was most impacted by and can’t stop thinking about was the Audi "Green Police" advertisement. I guess it worked and I was certainly drawn in by it, but a number of things stuck with me:

-Why did it seem that the citizens were unaware of the rules they were breaking?
-Were the police really subject to the higher ‘green police’ authority?
-Should I be laughing at this Orwellian view of future society to sell cars?
-Why were people still able to purchase all of the offending products?
-Why is there such a disconnect between the citizens and the authorities?

Lots of people will likely discuss this ad and its message, but what struck me most was the scenario of how a seemingly positive idea (environmental awareness) was not able to change people’s behavior. I recognize that this was just a comedic view of the future and how there was this “stay out of trouble option” available, but it got me thinking about the topic of behavior change and how design research could/should impact it.

We’ve worked on a number of projects lately where understanding the beliefs of a consumer population have been extremely important because it is what they base their choices and decisions on. Within medical products, the core beliefs both by patient and clinician heavily impact their compliance with use and treatment plans. In the education environment, student beliefs impact how accepting they are of attempts to change their involvement in the learning process.

The problem is that too many designers try to fight against the beliefs that people hold as the only way to impact behavior (use, purchasing, or otherwise). Once you understood the range of beliefs, you don’t have to necessarily change or fight against these beliefs, but you can use other beliefs or values to your advantage to influence behavior. For example, many people believe that once they feel better, they can stop taking their prescription. They are dismissing the advice of their physician, pharmacist, or the instructions sent with the medicine. It’s unlikely that you’re going to be able to change their belief that when they feel well, they don’t need the medication anymore, but what other beliefs do they have that can be tapped into? There are certain beliefs that could be tapped into for changing behavior. What if you could make a clear tie between finishing your prescription and getting your money’s worth? What if you could make the tie that while the user might not need to finish it, if they do, they are making it less likely that those around them will get sick? Both of these ideas tie into other beliefs (value for money, being a good family provider) that may be stronger than the belief that once they are healthy they do not have to take the medicine anymore.

This is just one example. It obviously could be applied to environmental factors as well. Tying the reduction of consumers’ energy bills to ‘living green’ likely has more impact on changing people’s behavior than talking about “mother earth and the need to be good stewards of the resources we have.”
Just as advertisers learn about and try to leverage people’s beliefs, desires, and fears (for their own uses), it’s vital that product designers consider the range of beliefs. It’s often not the best thing to do to fight against beliefs but use other beliefs to help with behavior change.