Changing behaviour through communication

Informing is not the same as influencing. Many communication professionals discover that their messages are read, understood, and even agreed with, yet do not lead to different behaviour. The campaign launches, the intranet page goes live, the newsletter is sent, and nothing changes. Not because the communication was poor. But because communication alone was never going to be enough.

This article explains why, and what you can do about it. Drawing on behavioural science, we explore the gap between knowing and doing, the forces that actually determine behaviour, and how communication professionals can design messages that move people to action.

The information illusion

The idea that providing people with the right information will lead to the right behaviour is deeply intuitive. It is also consistently wrong. In behavioural science, this assumption is known as the information deficit model: the belief that undesirable behaviour stems from a lack of knowledge, and that filling that knowledge gap will automatically change behaviour.[1]

The evidence against this model is overwhelming. 97% of smokers know that smoking is harmful, yet a significant proportion continues. Employees know they should complete their timesheets on time, yet compliance hovers around 60%. Citizens know they should sort their waste, yet contamination rates in recycling bins remain stubbornly high.

The pattern is universal: knowing is not doing. And yet the default response to any behavioural challenge continues to be: we need to inform people better. More campaigns, more folders, more explanations. It is the communication equivalent of speaking louder when someone does not understand a foreign language.

Informing is the communication equivalent of speaking louder when someone does not understand a foreign language. The problem is not volume. The problem is the medium.

Why information fails: the behavioural explanation

From the perspective of behavioural science, there are three fundamental reasons why information alone does not change behaviour.

1. The brain runs on autopilot

Most behaviour is driven by what psychologist Daniel Kahneman calls System 1: the fast, automatic, and unconscious thinking system. Information targets System 2: the slow, conscious, and analytical system. But System 2 is lazy. It is only activated when strictly necessary, and switches off again as quickly as possible.

When you give someone a brochure about healthy eating, you are speaking to System 2. But when that same person comes home tired in the evening and passes the chip shop, System 1 takes over. And System 1 chooses convenience, not information.

2. The intention-action gap

Even when information does lead to an intention to act differently, there is still an enormous gap between intention and action. Researchers call this the intention-action gap. Meta-analyses show that only 47% of intentions are actually converted into behaviour.[2]

In other words: even in the best-case scenario, where your information convinces someone of a new intention, the probability that it actually leads to different behaviour is less than a coin toss.

3. Context beats intention

Behaviour is determined far more by the environment than by individual knowledge or beliefs. The default option on a form, the layout of a canteen, the social norm in a team: these contextual factors often determine behaviour more than all information combined.

A famous example: when organ donation in some countries was changed from opt-in to opt-out (the default), the percentage of donors rose from approximately 15% to more than 90%. Nobody received more information. The context changed.

The four forces behind every behaviour

The SUE Influence Framework© provides the diagnostic structure that traditional communication planning is missing. It maps four forces that determine whether someone changes their behaviour:

• Pains: The problems with the current situation that push people towards change. These are the driving forces that most communication campaigns already address: "the current system is too slow", "we are losing market share", "your health is at risk".
• Gains: The benefits of the new behaviour. Also widely used in communication: "the new system will save you 30 minutes", "you will be healthier", "your team will collaborate better".
• Comforts: The attractive aspects of the current behaviour that keep people where they are. This is where most communication fails. The current system may be slow, but it is familiar. The current diet may be unhealthy, but it is effortless. The comfort of the status quo is one of the most powerful behavioural forces there is.
• Anxieties: The fears and uncertainties associated with the new behaviour. "Will I be able to use the new system?", "What if the new approach does not work?", "Will I look incompetent during the transition?" These anxieties are rarely said aloud but always present.

The key insight for communication professionals: most campaigns only address Pains and Gains, the driving forces. They explain why change is necessary and what the benefits will be. But behaviour is determined by the balance between all four forces. And the blocking forces, Comforts and Anxieties, are almost always stronger than the driving forces, because they operate in System 1.

What does work: four principles for behavioural communication

If information is not the answer, what is? Behavioural science points to four principles that consistently change behaviour through communication, not by changing what people think, but by changing how they act.

1. Change the default, not the opinion

The most powerful behavioural intervention is often the simplest: change the default option. People overwhelmingly choose the default, regardless of their knowledge or beliefs. Want more employees to participate in a pension scheme? Make participation the default. Want more people to opt for green energy? Make green the default.

This works because it works with the status quo bias, our tendency to maintain the existing situation, which is far more powerful than trying to rationally convince someone.

2. Remove friction

Every obstacle between intention and action, an extra click, a complicated form, an unclear next step, dramatically reduces the likelihood of the desired behaviour. Instead of persuading people that they should do something, make it easier to do it.

Amazon understood this better than anyone with their 1-click ordering. No extra information, no persuasion, just less friction.

3. Show what others are doing

People are social beings. We look at what others do, particularly when we are uncertain about the right course of action. Social proof is one of the strongest behavioural mechanisms we know.

Instead of communicating why something is important, communicate how many people are already doing it. "80% of your colleagues complete the form within a week" is more effective than an explanation of why the form matters.

4. Choose the right moment

Behaviour is most susceptible to influence at moments of transition: a new job, a move, the start of a new year. At these fresh start moments, System 2 is briefly activated and people are more receptive to change.

Communication professionals who time their message to these transition moments achieve more than those who continuously repeat the same message.

The new role of the communication professional

This does not mean that communication is useless. It means that the role of communication shifts. From informing to facilitating. From broadcasting to designing.

The communication professional who understands behavioural science asks different questions:

• Not: "How do we explain it better?" but: "Which barriers can we remove?"
• Not: "How do we convince them?" but: "What is the default and can we change it?"
• Not: "How do we reach more people?" but: "At which moment do we reach them?"
• Not: "What do they need to know?" but: "What do they need to do, and how do we make that easy?"

This is the essence of Behavioural Design for communication professionals: shift your focus from the message to the choice environment. It is not what you say that determines behaviour, but how you design the context in which people make decisions.

In practice: a government communication campaign

A Dutch municipality wanted citizens to separate their waste more effectively. The standard approach: an information campaign explaining what goes where, with leaflets, a website, and social media posts. After six months, the contamination rate in recycling bins had barely changed.

The behavioural approach: instead of more information, they redesigned the environment. They placed colour-coded stickers directly on the bins at the point of decision, removing the need to remember. They made the opening of the general waste bin smaller, adding friction to the undesired behaviour. And they displayed neighbourhood-level recycling rates on signs near the bins, social proof. Within three months, contamination dropped by 34%. No campaign. No leaflet. Just smarter design at the moment of behaviour.

Where to start tomorrow

Take the communication challenge you are currently working on. Instead of asking "What do people need to know?", ask:

1. What is the specific behaviour I want to see? Not awareness, not understanding, but a concrete, observable action.
2. What are the blocking forces? What Comforts keep people in their current behaviour? What Anxieties make the new behaviour feel threatening?
3. Where is the friction? What stands between the person and the desired action? Can you remove a step? Can you change the default?
4. What social proof can I activate? Who is already showing the desired behaviour? How can I make that visible?
5. When is the best moment? Is there a transition point, a deadline, or a routine I can attach my message to?

The shift from informing to designing is not a rejection of communication. It is an evolution. And it is the difference between communication that is read and communication that changes behaviour.

Frequently asked questions

PS

At SUE, we work with communication teams across sectors, from government to financial services to healthcare. The discovery is always the same: the moment you stop treating communication as an information channel and start treating it as a design tool for behaviour, everything changes. Not because you communicate better. But because you start designing the moments where behaviour actually happens. And that is precisely what information alone can never do. Information changes knowledge. Design changes behaviour.