The 7 Doors model for designing & evaluating behaviour change programs

Social Change Media consultant Les Robinson explains the 7 Doors Model he developed for designing and evaluating behaviour change programs.

The 7 Doors is a model of personal voluntary change that's useful as a checklist for program design and evaluation. It began with a thought experiment I carried out in 1998. I asked, 'What it would take to get me to change my own behaviour?'

The model has been refined from responses in training workshops, consideration of cognitive theories of change; and the results of some formal empirical research that I conducted.

Here below is the latest version of this model.

1. Role models and visions

In this model people tend to adopt voluntary changes because they are unhappy, frustrated or dissatisfied with their lives or businesses. This dissatisfaction provides the energy and motivation for change.

Dissatisfaction happens when the reality of life contradicts people's hopes, dreams and sense of identity. It's not about rational calculation. It's about the role of the imagination: the ever shifting dream world that swirls around our identity (our hopeful self).

There are many elements on our 'hopeful self', including values (things we value); perceived social norms (what we think our peers value); and hopes (our vision for our lives). But life isn't a dream, it's full of indignities and frustrations. The bigger the dissonance between dreams and reality, the more unattainable our dreams seem, then the greater the motivation for change. Dissonance alone does not make change however. It actually blocks change unless there are feasible pathways for change and social 'invitations' to entice/kick us out of out comfy zones - that's where the other elements of the model come in.

Implications for program designers

A change program should therefore be a credible answer to the actual frustrations being experienced by the people we want to become actors.

The basic research question, addressed to the potential actors, is therefore: "Thinking about your life/business/farm, what are the things you are unhappy about and would like to change?" This provides an agenda of frustrations we may be able to position our program as an answer to.

Importantly, we may have to reengineer our program before it can be of service to our actors' dreams. In the case of a quit smoking program, for instance, we may need to alter the program from getting smokers to quit, to enabling non-smokers to negotiate more effectively with smokers to help them quit. In other words, retargeting our program to where there is a frustration we can reasonably address.

Because desire works at the level of the imagination we need to use desirable visions and role models to demonstrate how our product/action would fit into people's visions of what a good life/farm/business could look like. You could call this 'crystallising a vision'. For instance we might use a successful, respected grazier to demonstrate how, say, sustainable grazing practices are a normal part of a high-status farm business in a particular district.

Transforming a program into something that solves the dissatisfactions of the potential actors, as well as meeting the agency's goals, is what I call 'establishing common purpose'. It is one of the most important steps in program design.

Why 'bad news' and negative images should be avoided

A different way to work with predispositions is often suggested. That is to use negative information or images to increase the amount of dissatisfaction in people's lives. For instance, by showing images of looming climate change disaster, or the damage to lungs from smoking.

There are four objections to using negative information or images to increase people's dissatisfactions.

First, they run hard up against the human capacity for denial, which is practically infinite. When we attack people's comfort zones, the natural response is to say either 'it won't happen to me' or 'it's not my fault'. The only exception to this is personal 'forensic' information which people can't deny, such as CAT scans of their own lungs.

Secondly, they do nothing to equip people with the skills and capacities (self-efficacy) they need to make change happen in their lives.

Thirdly, it's emotionally disempowering. People need optimism to implement voluntary changes, and being depressed about the world destroys motivation.

Fourthly, it's cruel. Most people's lives are packed full of dissatisfactions and frustrations as it is. There is plenty of material to work with. Why create more?

Enabling factors are things that assist change to occur. They don't make change happen, but change is unlikely to be sustained in their absence.

In the 7 Doors model there are three kinds of enabling factors.

• Rationalisations
• Confidence
• Convenience

2. Rational knowledge

People need a grab-bag of beliefs and arguments they can use to justify the change to themselves and others.

Humans are story-telling creatures. At any moment we are capable of generating stories to justify whatever we are doing or thinking about. Our experience tells us that these stories can sometimes be rather thin (we've all met people, who, for instance, when all else fails, said 'I did it because I wanted to').

Implications for program designers

Providing people with a ready supply of 'correct' rationalisations may not make it any easier for them to justify a change (people are already good at that), but when they do change and start crowing about it to others it's more likely they'll be spreading 'correct' justifications.

Three beliefs will usually be important:

1. the problem affects me;
2. I'm causing it and;
3. I can make a difference.

People are quite good at creating these beliefs for themselves, especially since the 'facts' behind our programs have usually been in the public domain for years and may be quite well known.

One reason to communicate rationalisations is if you discover that your actors are in the thrall of strong arguments to the contrary. You may then have a case for communicating arguments to attack those of your opponents. When you do this, remember that the credibility of the speaker is everything when it comes to communicating beliefs. So select your 'voice' carefully.

3. Confidence

Implications for program designers

Fortunately, at any given time, most people are capable of far more than they admit to themselves. Overcoming this self-doubt can simply be a matter of creating safe opportunities for people to trial the action and by experiencing success increase their confidence in their abilities.

Adult educators have always emphasised the power of experiential learning. If confidence is an issue for your actors (and it usually is) you may want to set up opportunities for people to learn by doing e.g. a demonstration or field day. Don't imagine that simply showing someone how to do something is enough: confidence is all about doing it for oneself.

4. Convenience

It's a basic principle that new actions should be easy to do, simple to understand, accessible and the right price. The overall 'cost' of acting, in time, effort, brain power and money, should be as small as possible. Actions that actually save time and effort are highly likely to be adopted. Those that increase the actors' costs may prove difficult to sustain.

Implications for program designers

There is no point in asking people to catch a bus if it is expensive, uncomfortable, irregular and inaccessible. So, if that's your purpose, you have to start by modifying the bus service.

Consider very carefully what you are asking people to do, and the support they may need to do it. If you can, test the action and watch how people do it. Listen to the conversations they have. Try it yourself. If it's complicated simplify it or provide an advisory service, free on-site training, or hire someone to install it.

The classic case here is rainwater tanks. Sydney Water promoted a rebate for household rainwater tanks, but the take-up rate was unexpectedly low. When Newcastle City Council analysed the practicalities of installing and running a rainwater tank they found the entire technology was mired in difficulties. For instance, plumbers had no idea how to install rainwater tanks, health regulations made them illegal to use for drinking water, and people lacked strategies for how and when to use rainwater.

So, before you start, don't take the 'adoptability' of your action as given. Try it out for yourself, and if it's anything other than simple, easy and idiot-proof, consider going back to the drawing board.

5. Social influencers & 6. Change spaces

In the 7 Doors model, change is a social phenomenon. Virtually no one adopts a new change in a private bubble. Family, friends and workmates are intimately involved as triggers of change. Significant words are spoken. The actors are dragged or prodded or enticed out of their comfort zones by people they know they will have to go on living with.

Implications for program designers

Voluntary change depends on bringing people together. The program designer needs to be a facilitator or choreographer of events where people are introduced, discuss problems together, question, share stories, lessons and successes. These events should be thoughtfully constructed as 'change spaces' where all the elements discussed here come together. Note that the emphasis is not on experts interacting with actors. It's all about actors interacting with each other.

7. Satisfaction

And lastly, the change must work. It has to be satisfying in terms that matter to the actors. It must deliver ease, cost savings, status or prestige. It must actually reduce the dissatisfactions that led to the initial involvement of the actors in your program. It may also deliver unexpected satisfactions, just as going to the gym may unexpectedly improve one's social life.

Implications for program designers

Observe your early adopters carefully. What benefits did the action provide for them? How could the perceived benefits be increased? What was unsatisfying? Why? How could the program be refined to deliver a more satisfying personal outcome - even easier, even cheaper, even better, even more fashionable or prestigious? Never take your product as given. Your early adopters are the test beds that show you how to reengineer your product and your program to make it 'fit' for majority audiences.

Final note

Lastly, it needs to be emphasised that your program would usually not be expected to deliver all 7 'doors'.

Usually some of the factors will already present in people's lives. They may be being delivered by other initiatives, or they may simply not be an obstacle for your actors. Rather, use the model as a checklist to spot likely gaps in the 'change logic' so you know where to focus your efforts.

Oh yes, and remember it's only a model. Someone once said: 'all models are wrong but some are useful'. Keep that in mind too.

Applications

Here are some examples of how the model has been applied in practice.

As a generic evaluation framework

Here is a generic evaluation framework based on 7 questions.

As a framework for evaluating a change program

I used 7 Doors as the basis of an evaluation methodology for the Monaro Grasslands Program of the Southern Rivers Catchment Management Authority (see p4 of the PDF).

As a framework for program design

The Corangamite Catchment Management Authority used 7 Doors as an organising framework for its Landcare Support Strategy 2004-2009.

© 2004 Social Change Media ACN 104 663 498
Last Modified: Friday, 13-Jul-2007 12:51:29 EST