Introduction to the 7 Doors model

Version 2.1 Nov 2007

Current formulation
Research paper on voluntary change
Applications

7 Doors is a model for designing voluntary change projects. It's useful as a checklist in the design stage and as a framework for 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?'

Here's the first formulation.

Early

Three things happened afterwards: the model was extensively worked-over in training workshops, I learnt a lot about the psychology of change, and I did a lot more thinking. Finally I carried out some formal empirical research that helped sculpt the current formulation.

The current formulation

In short, the 7 Doors model asks you to consider 7 things when you design or evaluate a behaviour change program:

Does your program deliver:

1) A compelling vision or role model
2) A believable case

3) Confidence

4) Convenience

5) Invitations

6) Change spaces

7) Satisfactions

Here is a diagram that sets out elements of the model.


Pic


Here's a discussion about how it works (with definitions in grey boxes).

1) Visions or role models

People tend to adopt voluntary changes because they are unhappy, frustrated or dissatisfied with their lives, farms, businesses or neighbourhoods. This dissatisfaction provides the inner 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 components to this '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. But dissonance alone does not make change. 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.

It's important to realise that, having found the motivating dissatisfactions in people's lives does not mean we should advertise them. That will achieve precisely the wrong effect, destroying people's energy and optimism. Instead we should aim to spark hope by presenting the FLIP SIDE of frustration: a hopeful future people can really see themselves living in. Role models are probably the most powerful way to do this (see 'Invitations' below for the ideal qualities of a role model).

Visions and role models

These provide a believable 'future' for living, or running a farm, a business or a household that the actors can credibly see themselves living. Role models are more powerful than mere 'visions' because of the extra credibility of seeing a similar, real person who is 'living the dream'. The vision or role model should:

  • address the real dissatisfactions of the people you want to act;
  • crystallise a hopeful future;
  • accord with their hopes and dreams;
  • believably demonstrate the role of the particular action or product in achieving those hopes and dreams.

Implications for program designers

A change program must be a credible answer to the real, heart-felt frustrations of 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.

Often 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 probably the single most important step in program design.

See note on the use of 'bad news'

Enabling factors

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.

2) A believable case

People need a grab-bag of beliefs and arguments they can use to rationalise 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'), but if people are going to be telling stories about themselves, they might as well be telling stories that spread positive, well-founded messages to other people. It's our job to make those stories available, especially if there are widely held myths, doubts or fears which may be stymying action.

The key quality to aim for is 'believability'. Keep in mind that this has more to do with the credibility of the SOURCE than the inherent logic of the message: so make sure you mobilise VOICES who are likely to be believed by your audience.

Oh yes, and because we want to influence people's stories, it's best to use stories as the content of our communications - stories beat 'messages' and facts any day.

Rationalisations:Arbitrary beliefs that help a person justify their action or inaction to themselves and others.

Typical rationalisations for inaction: it's too hard, it's too expensive, I've got no time, it won't make a difference anyway.

Typical rationalisations for action: it really works, it's easy to do, it'll save money.

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 rationalisations will usually be important: the problem affects me; I'm causing it; and 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.

A reason to communicate rationalisations is if you discover that your actors are in the thrall of strong myths or 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

Confidence or 'self-efficacy' is essential. People need to believe they are capable of initiating a change and having the skills to follow through to completion. Personal change can be tremendously intimidating. Even simple changes like going on a diet or going to a gym can be put off for years because people fear embarrassment or doubt they have the will-power to follow through.
Confidence:The belief that one has the skills, perseverence and support to successfully adopt and maintain the change, and get the results 'as advertised'.

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 letting people observe similar 'models' doing the action and experiencing success (this is called 'modelling').

An even better method is experiential learning - something that adult educators have alw§ays understood. If confidence is a big issue for your actors (and it often 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 telling someone how to do something is enough: confidence is all about seeing similar people do it or 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 very likely to be adopted. Those that increase those costs may prove difficult to sustain.
Convenience:Whatever lowers the cost of acting, including price and payback period, access, simplicity of understanding, ease of doing, and availability of support services.

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 may 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. Better still, 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) Invitations from peers

In the 7 Doors model, change is a social phenomenon. Virtually no one adopts a new behaviour 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.
Invitation:A conversation or interaction between the actor and another person (the inviter) that has the effect of a request. The inviter should be:
  • 'living the dream';
  • respected by the actor;
  • similar to the actor;
  • connected to the actor (ie. part of the actor's circle).
The inviter may, of course, be the 'role model' listed in point (1).

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.

6) Change spaces

Where it all comes together. Times and places where potential actors can focus their attentions on the inviters/role models, on hopeful future and on the steps needed to achieve it. Examples include: facilitated workshops, field days, hands-on demonstration events.

Ideally, a change space has peer-to-peer interactions at it's centre. The function of print materials, displays etc should be simply to assist peer-to-peer interactions. Meanwhile media coverage is used to promote the event and increase its credibility.

7) Satisfaction

And lastly, the new behaviour must deliver satisfaction to the actors - in their own terms, whether it be ease, cost savings, social status, peace of mind or better relationships. 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.
Satisfactions:Pleasing feelings generated when a person perceives progress towards their hopes and dreams. Another word for this is 'Dignity'.

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' to deliver on the needs of majority audiences.

Final note

Lastly, it needs to be emphasised that your program need not deliver all 7 'doors' through its own efforts.

Usually some of the 'door's will already be open. They may already be present in people's lives, or are being delivered by other initiatives.

Rather, use the model as a checklist to spot likely gaps in your '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

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

Thirdly, bad news is emotionally disempowering. People tend to need great stores of optimism to implement voluntary changes, and being depressed about the world simply 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?

This article is subject to copyright. © 2007 Les Robinson

Back to top.

Back to home.