This article has been featured on APFIND – An account planning news democracy inspired by Digg™ – Find and vote on the latest news and ideas in marketing and beyond!…

Couple of questions:

1. How does this mesh with the widely observed finding that most behaviour is not planned in any way, that thinking plays at best a small role in shaping behaviour and choices?

2. It’s noteworthy that the theory clings to the idea of individual agents as the right level of granulation to understand human behaviour and the mechanisms shaping it. What if you were to reframe it assuming that agency is distributed? That behaviour is a social rather than individual phenomenon? How would that change or challenge the thinking?

I thought this was a great post. In fact it came at a very synergistic time when myself and others were trying to come up with a good strategic framework for a new business pitch that had a lot to do with changing consumer behavior as it relates to spending habits.

I liked the theory you chose to focus on because of its simplicity. No it doesn’t take everything into account, but what does, right?

On another note, I’m just about to finish up “Switch” by the Heath brothers. It’s much less theoretical, but is definitely worth a read as it discusses change on the individual, organizational and societal levels. If you’ve read it, I’d love to know what you think.

Thanks.

To Matt,

You’re right that I’ve been a bit of a reductionist here using only TPB – I’ve reviewed only a dozen or so models and chosen this one solely because it was immediately applicable during projects in the last few months. It has worked – in the sense that it worked well to offer a platform for further strategic thinking that was anchored in measurable and reasoned ways.

Having said that, I’m eager to explore other models if you’ve got them and want to chat. (and anyone else, too!)

At the end of the day, I hope I’ve helped arm people to take some action rather than simply talk about behavior.