A lot of “Health 2.0” tools seek to help people change their behaviors to lead more healthy, productive lives. This is an admirable goal, and one I wholeheartedly endorse. Some of the tools are really “gee-whiz” neat!
However, many people involved with building Health 2.0 tools have little or no formal background in human behavior. How do you expect to build tools that seek to change human behavior, with no human behavior experts — you know, psychologists — consulting with you or on your staff?
That’s like trying to write a piece of software without a programmer.
In reply to a query on this topic, and how people change their behavior, I wrote the following over at the Society for Participatory Medicine’s e-patients.net blog. I think it encapsulates my experience with understanding human behavior (as a supposed expert in human behavior)…
Here are some of my simplistic beliefs about behavioral change:
- Humans are complex.
- Change is difficult, even under ideal circumstances.
- No one model is going to work for everyone.
- Methods should adapt to meet the individual and personalized needs of the person.
Something to keep in mind — if behavioral change were easy, 400,000 psychotherapists in the U.S. would be out of business tomorrow. Changing behavior — even when it’s life threatening, such as smoking — is extremely difficult. There are a set of complex interactions at work that differ from person to person.
Psychologists have been studying human behavior for over 120 years. It’s not like we just stumbled upon this subject. There are literally thousands of research studies and papers and hundreds of books on this topic. There are dozens of different models that attempt to explain human behavioral change.
So with all due respect to the many people who think that since they majored in psychology in college, they’re somehow qualified as a human behavior expert, I think if you’re going to get serious about this topic, you need to hire a few experts. If you’re spending money to build a software tool, you should be spending money to understand how people really will likely interact with your assumptions about that tool as well.
Changing ourselves, changing our behavior — this is hard stuff. If it were easy, we’d all go out and become our perfect selves by just gaining insight, and be done with it. It’s not a matter of just having the right incentives in place, or making it easy as pie. It’s not a matter of just being given the data on a health dashboard, or mobile app, so we can track our data until our heart’s content.
So here’s the message to all of you Health 2.0 startups — get some behavioral experts — psychologists — on staff if you want to really understand people (not “users”). This isn’t about “user experience,” this is deeper. This is about understanding what will motivate people to stick with your tool after a day or a week of using it. This is about really getting an individual to change — even ingrained, difficult behaviors.
Change is hard. But it’s not impossible. With the right tools, the right motivation, and often with someone helping you out directly, one-on-one, you can change something you want to change. It just takes patience, time, and a lot of effort on your part.
Read the full blog entry: What’s the point of Health 2.0? (Some answers this time)
6 comments
That is most absolutely true John. People just thought that because it’s hard, it’s impossible.
I’ve been a hypnotherapist for a couple of years now, and that’s one thing I’ve noticed with most of my clients.
You have posted the most detailed description here, and I thank you for posting this article.
You have a wonderful blog, it’s my first visit here. Gonna read more of your posts.
Cheers,
Nate
Doc John,
As a teacher, who is experiencing the travesty of No Child Left Behind, and it’s outcome under the new administration, Race To The Top, I can completely understand where you are coming from in this article!
Just because someone takes a psych course, does not give them the expertise to know how human behavior changes.
And just because someone went to school, (often 20-40 years earlier), does not give them the expertise to know how learning occurs.
The Obama administration has a sociologist for the head of the Federal Department of Education. Yea, they play basketball together, so, that makes Arne Duncan “qualified” to lead the education of this country’s children. :>))
And that, all of a sudden, allows people with FIVE WEEKS training to take the places of Highly Qualified Teachers, (in accordance with Federal Policy.)Heck, they don’t even have a teaching degree, but, they *know* more than teachers with 20+ years experience — and they steal their jobs!
ALL of this takes place with the blessings of the school administrations, (who don’t have to pay them top salary, pensions, and extended sick pay for elderly teachers who get sick), and the Federal Department of Education, (who get to pay off others for their contributions to the election. See how Bill Gates et al have become “experts” all of a sudden on education!)
And in return, these Teach For America psudo-teachers get their ENTIRE EDUCATION PAID FOR — just for doing two years in a public school. Yup — we get to pay for their college bills and their INEXPERIENCE! Even as they push out teachers who are Highly Qualified and have years of experience!
But, hey, they went to school. So, they know *how to teach,* right?
NOT!
Wake up America! You are throwing away your children’s education with this SCAM!
Like you said, John….just because someone takes a psych course, doesn’t make them an expert in human behavior.
And just because someone went to school, doesn’t make them an expert on how to teach.
This is a reality test….
Peace!
Comments are closed.