代写PSYC0002 Behaviour Change: An Interdisciplinary Approach代做回归

PSYC0002 Behaviour Change: An Interdisciplinary Approach

Overview

Submission Deadline: 26^th January 2026, 1pm

Word Count: 2000 words (plus or minus 10%), including words in tables, in-text citations, and footnotes, but excluding words in reference list, cover page, diagrams, or figures

Task: Design a behaviour change intervention to reduce the UK’s greenhouse gas emissions from transport

· Your task is to prepare a report (2000 words) using the Behaviour Change Wheel framework (BCW, Michie, Atkins, & West, 2014) to design a behaviour change intervention to reduce the UK’s greenhouse gas emissions from transport.

· You will need to (i) select a specific outcome to focus on from the broader topic area of the UK’s transport emissions, (ii) identify and specify a target behaviour that will help to achieve that outcome, (iii) conduct a COM-B diagnosis of your chosen behaviour, (iv) use the BCW ]intervention functions to develop 2-3 intervention ideas for achieving the desired behaviour change, (v) select between these interventions using the APEASE criteria, and (vi) briefly propose an evaluation plan for your intervention.

· This document contains some background information about the topic, as well as detailed guidance on what to include in each section of your report (see below).

· While the references cited in this document (and some of those included in the module reading lists) may provide you with a starting point for your report, you will need to consult additional literature to inform. and back-up your decisions throughout the report (e.g., when identifying and choosing an outcome, when identifying and choosing a target behaviour, when conducting your COM-B diagnosis, when proposing intervention ideas, when considering the APEASE criteria).

· This assessment is designed to allow you to develop practical skills using the Behaviour Change Wheel, and closely mimics the kind of task you might be asked to complete in a professional behavioural science role. As such, I would like you to imagine that you have been asked to write this report “in the real world” – you need to convince key decision-makers to implement your intervention. This means that you need to make sure that the decisions you make at each step of your report are based on evidence and/or theory.

Assessment Brief

The term “greenhouse gases” (GHGs) refers to a range of atmospheric gases that trap heat in the earth’s atmosphere and contribute to climate change (Lacis, Hansen, Russell & Jonas, 2013). These include carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, ozone and even water vapour. While methane and nitrous oxide are among the most potent GHGs, carbon dioxide is particularly problematic due to it being released in much larger volumes and due to it having a much longer atmospheric lifetime (Lacis et al., 2013¹; Solomon et al., 2010). The latest GHG emission figures from the Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs (2025) show that carbon dioxide made up 97% of the GHG emissions generated by UK households, 77% of the GHG emissions generated from UK-produced goods and services, and 68% of the GHG emissions generated from imported goods and services.

In the UK, transport has consistently been identified as one of the key contributors to GHG emissions overall and to carbon dioxide emissions specifically - in 2024, domestic transport was found to be responsible for 30% of UK GHG emissions, higher than industry (13%), agriculture (12%) and electricity supply (10%; Department for Energy, Security & Net Zero, 2025). These figures only accounted for transport within the UK’s borders (e.g., road vehicles, domestic aviation, domestic shipping, fishing vessels and railways) and did not account for international aviation and shipping, suggesting that the true footprint of the UK’s transport activities is much higher.

Reducing GHGs from UK transport activity is a complex, multi-faceted problem. It involves examining the emissions that come from the transport activities of UK households, as well as the emissions that come from transporting goods produced within the UK and those that have been imported. For example, one might choose to examine the daily travel activities of the public (e.g., travelling for commuting, business, daily errand and leisure purposes), as well as looking at how people travel for holidays/vacations. Alternatively, one might choose to focus on the products that people buy and retailers sell (i.e., by considering the concept of “food miles”). These are just a few examples that you may wish to pursue.

It is clear that this broad challenge will require a range of important outcomes to be addressed. In turn, each of those outcomes will likely be impacted by a range of possible target behaviours, undertaken by a range of different actors and stakeholder groups. In turn, each target behaviour will come with its own unique set of barriers and enablers, with their own implications for intervention.

This task has been set to be deliberately broad, as we would like to encourage you to select an area of focus that you think could bring about the most meaningful change (see Lecture 2 for more information on how to make these decisions about specific outcomes and target behaviours). We would also like to give you the space to be creative with this task.

While this issue clearly requires a systems approach, your task is to use evidence and theory to select one specific outcome, translate this into one target behaviour that you will conduct a tailored COM-B diagnosis of, and ultimately propose one intervention (out of an initial proposed shortlist of 2-3 interventions).

While we understand that this issue will require a range of interventions across the system, you will need to consult a range of sources as you follow the steps of the Behaviour Change Wheel to help you decide where our attention should be focused most urgently. This will involve using evidence and theory to: select a specific outcome to focus on; select and specify a target behaviour; conduct a COM-B diagnosis of that behaviour; generate 2-3 intervention ideas; use the APEASE criteria to guide your selection of a final, proposed intervention.

Guidance on Completing Your Report

When preparing your report, please ensure that you address the following issues:

· The specific outcome that your proposed behaviour change intervention aims to address, and your rationale for choosing this outcome (“reducing the UK’s greenhouse gas emissions from transport” is very broad, and there are a number of more specific angles that you could approach this problem from)

· The specific target behaviour that your intervention aims to change and your rationale for choosing this behaviour (the specific outcome you choose will likely be influenced by a number of different behaviours; make sure you justify why you have chosen this behaviour)

· The COM-B analysis of the barriers/enablers that impact whether and how your chosen target behaviour occurs

· The potential intervention(s) that might be applied to change the behaviour, including a rationale for why they have been chosen and how they might work (please note: we recommend discussing between two and three potential interventions)

· The application of the APEASE criteria to select one intervention from the 2-3 options, and describe why you would pick this intervention over the other options

· A brief outline of how the final intervention you have selected could be evaluated

As with all academic pieces of work, reports with a very clear and coherent structure are more likely to receive higher marks than those that are structured less clearly. A suggested structure is provided below, along with suggestions for the length of each section and the marking criteria that your work will be assessed against.

Regardless of whether you follow the suggested word lengths per section below, it is important that you stick to the overall word limit, as reports over 2000 words by more than 10% will have to receive a penalty in line with UCL policy.

Table 1.

Report Section	Suggested length of section	Marking Criteria
1. Definition of the problem and outline of the desired outcome of the behaviour change intervention, i.e. what it is meant to achieve 2. Selecting target behaviour(s) related to the outcome	Approx. 400 words	S1.1 Outcome: The chosen outcome is defined and linked to the wider problem/topic area (set in the question). S1.2 Target Behaviour Clarity and Specificity: The target behaviour for the intervention (e.g. who, what, where, when) is specified. S1.3 Link between Target Behaviour and Outcome: A justification as to how the proposed behaviour change will lead to the desired outcome is provided. S1.4 Selection Process: A rationale (based on evidence, theory, or pragmatic considerations) for the selection of the target behaviour is presented. S1.5 Overall structure is logical and easy to follow
3. COM-B analysis of the target behaviour	Approx. 700 words	S2.1 Link to Behavioural Target: Evidence of how each element of the COM-B system influences the target behaviour and/or a rationale as to why some of the domains have been emphasised in the analysis is provided. S2.2 Integrating Sources: Integration of a number of sources when constructing the COM-B analysis of the target behaviour (e.g., consulting a variety of academic studies on barriers/enablers, non-academic research reports, theoretical papers etc.). S2.3 Interactions between COM-B Elements: Evidence of understanding how different elements of the COM-B system interact to facilitate or prevent enactment of the behaviour. S2.4 Additional Insights: Evidence of additional and/or original insight that goes beyond existing COM-B analyses of the target behaviour. S2.5 Overall structure is logical and easy to follow
4. Potential intervention(s) that might be applied to change the behaviour, including a rationale for why they have been chosen and how they might work 5. Application of the APEASE criteria to evaluate your choice of intervention	Approx. 700 words	S3.1 Link to BCW Tools: The links between COM-B components and intervention strategies in the BCW are explicit. S3.2 Link to Behavioural Target: A description of potential interventions that are likely to effect change in the behavioural target is presented. S3.3 Evidence: Justifications for the suggested interventions are drawn from evidence and theory where possible. S3.4 APEASE Criteria: Evidence of a systematic application of the APEASE criteria. S3.5 Overall structure is logical and easy to follow
6. Brief outline of how the intervention could be evaluated	Approx. 200 words	S4.1 Evaluation: Articulation of an idea how the intervention could be evaluated. S4.2 Overall structure is logical and easy to follow
Total length of report	2000 words

Please find some further section by section guidance at the bottom of this document, which further illustrates what markers are looking for when marking each section of the report.

Word Length Policy

Each assessment has a specified word limit (e.g. 2000 words). Students should aim to write to this length, and questions will have been written with this in mind. There is a 10% tolerance on word limits before penalties will be applied. In other words, submissions that exceed the word limit by 10% or less (e.g. 2001-2200 words) will not be penalised. Those that exceed the limit by more than 10% (e.g., 2201 words and above) will be penalised by 10 points (e.g. a mark of 71 would become 61), though any penalty will not take the student’s mark below a pass mark of 40. There are no automatic penalties for being below the word limit, though the reduction in content may of course lead to a lower mark by failing to sufficiently address the question. It is certainly fine for submissions to be under the word limit by a small amount (e.g. by 10% or less, or around 1800 words for a 2000-word limit).

The final word count does not include additional components like the essay title, abstract (where required), the final reference list, or labels for tables/diagrams. The word count does include in-text citations (e.g. Smith, 1999), footnotes, tables, and quotes from other sources. Students should indicate the word count on the title page of their submission.

Please note that for any coursework that is submitted over-length and also late, the greater of any penalties will apply.

Assessment Support

Please refer to the material that has been uploaded to Moodle as a first port of call. If you still have a question after reviewing this document and the examples that have been posted, please post your question on Moodle by using the Assessment Q&A forum in the Assessment section. Where appropriate, coursework queries sent directly to course staff by email will be posted anonymously on Moodle with the answer, so that we do not give an advantage to individual students.

Visual aids. Please note that there is no requirement for you to use tables, diagrams, or figures in your report. Some students find it useful to visualise their thinking and some of the example assessments that have been posted on Moodle include visual aids, but this is not a requirement for receiving a high mark for your report.

Further Information: Section-by-section guidance

Section 1A - Definition of the problem and outline of the desired outcome of the behaviour change intervention

Introduce the broad issue you are aiming to tackle (i.e., the UK’s greenhouse gas emissions from transport). This should be a brief and high-level problem statement, which succinctly describes the issue. This may include a description of who is impacted by the problem.

Next, narrow the focus to a specific outcome that will help to address the broad issue described above. For your assignment, you will have to clearly specify which outcome you want to target to ensure that you can successfully apply a behaviour change perspective. See Lecture 2 for more information on principles for choosing an outcome.

Behaviour change interventions that have clear outcomes are more likely to be successful than those based on vague targets. For example, a broad topic area of ‘tackling child obesity’ could be further operationalised to ‘reduce levels of child obesity in children attending a dieticians’ clinic’. For this assessment, you may wish to select a specific outcome related to the public’s use of a particular mode of transport. Alternatively, you may choose to focus on an outcome that could reduce transport emissions in other ways, such as focusing on purchases of local versus imported goods. Further to this, you may also choose to take a general population approach, or you may choose to focus on a specific group in society (e.g., perhaps focusing on those who are contributing the most to GHG emissions, or those who are traditionally underserved and left out of interventions seeking to address sustainability goals).

Higher scoring reports (Upper second and above) will:

· Show evidence of a clearly defined problem statement and the selection of a desired outcome that demonstrates a narrowing of focus from the original broad problem (reducing the UK’s GHG emissions from transport)

Lower scoring reports (Lower second and below) will:

· Show evidence of a problem and outcome that are unclear and vaguely specified, and/or an outcome that does not show any further narrowing of focus from the original broad problem area

Section 1B - Selecting target behaviour(s) related to the outcome

There may be multiple target behaviours that can be influenced to achieve the specific outcome you select. You need to select one target behaviour to address from among the range of possible target behaviours you identify, and specify it clearly using the AACTT criteria.

For example, in relation to child obesity there are several behaviours that have a potential influence on a child’s weight status, such as sedentary behaviour associated with screen time, different types of physical activity, the amount of foods that are eaten that are high in fat and/or sugar, or restrictive food parenting practices. If the chosen outcome relates to the number of petrol vehicles driven in an urban area, there are a range of behaviours that could be addressed such as workers driving to commute, parents/caregivers driving for the school drop-off, consumers ordering goods that require delivery etc.

When selecting between potential target behaviours, we learned about the criteria of “impact”, “likelihood” and “spillover” in Lecture 2. Using the obesity example, we might choose to address parents’ implementation of restrictions on their children’s screen time, as systematic reviews suggest this is an important (high impact) and modifiable (high likelihood) determinant of energy balance.

Higher scoring reports (Upper second and above) will:

· Provide a clear description of the target behaviour for the intervention (e.g., either using the AACTT framework or describing the behaviour in terms of who, what, where, when, with/for whom)

· Provide a convincing justification as to how the proposed behaviour change will lead to the desired outcome described in the previous step

· Demonstrate how the target behaviour has been selected from the range of possible options, with a clear and defensible rationale (based on evidence, theory, or pragmatic considerations – e.g., likelihood, impact, spillover) for the selection

Lower scoring reports (Lower second and below) will:

· Describe a target behaviour for the intervention that is not clearly defined

· Provide a partial and/or unconvincing justification as to how the proposed behaviour change will lead to the desired outcome

· Fail to describe a convincing rationale for selecting one potential target behaviour over another

Section 2 - COM-B analysis of the target behaviour

The COM-B analysis should be for the specific target behaviour that you have chosen in the previous step. Even if there is an existing COM-B analysis for the behaviour that you want to change, you will be expected to look towards a number of sources to guide your COM-B analysis. These can include:

· Existing literature on the specific behaviour you have chosen to influence. For example, if you were designing a behaviour change intervention for which the target behaviour is “parents/caregivers implement restrictions on their children’s screen time”, then it will be helpful to look at the literature on the determinants of screen time to create your COM-B analysis. Qualitative and quantitative research from different disciplines (e.g., psychology, neuroscience, sociology etc.) can generate insights. Can you synthesise existing literature into the COM-B model?

· Existing literature on similar behaviours. Can you extrapolate from literature on other behaviours or related issues? For example, if there is not a literature on limiting screen time specifically, then it may be helpful to look at the literature on supporting parents to make other changes to their children’s behaviour to generate ideas on what the issues might be.

· Insights from theory. Theories from a variety of disciplines can help you to generate insights for your COM-B analysis. For example, if it is known that self-efficacy is an important construct across a number of areas of behaviour change then a reasonable hypothesis might be that this could also influence the degree to which parents feel able to use strategies to limit the screen time of their children.

Remember that the COM-B model encourages us to consider a behaviour holistically, and so all components of the COM-B model should be included in your report. If one part of the model is not associated with any barriers/enablers for your chosen target behaviour, you will need to explicitly state this.

Higher scoring reports (Upper second and above) will:

· Clearly articulate how each element of the COM-B system influences the target behaviour and/or provide a convincing rationale as to why some of the domains have been emphasised more than others in the analysis

· Show evidence of integrating a number of sources of information when constructing their COM-B analysis of the target behaviour

· Show evidence of understanding how different elements of the COM-B system interact to facilitate or prevent enactment of the behaviour

· Draw from existing COM-B analyses of the target behaviour without solely relying on these, and will show evidence of additional and/or original insight

Lower scoring reports (Lower second and below) will:

· Show evidence of prioritising one or two of the COM-B domains rather than all three domains without providing a clear rationale

· Rely heavily on one source of information in the COM-B analysis of the target behaviour

· Draw heavily from existing COM-B analyses of the target behaviour with little evidence of original thought or insight

Section 3A - Potential intervention(s) that might be applied to change the behaviour, including a rationale for why they have been chosen and how they might work

The intervention(s) that you identify should be based on the outcomes of the COM-B analysis in the previous step. For example, if a COM-B analysis revealed that parents give in to their children’s requests for screen time because of a belief that ‘good parents should not say no to their children’ (reflective motivation) then the potential BCW intervention functions that could be applied here include Education and Persuasion. An intervention based on ‘Education’ might be to teach parents about the importance and benefits of parental boundary setting for children’s health and wellbeing, whilst an intervention based on ‘Persuasion’ might be to encourage parents to reflect on the positive feelings that arise from acting to support their children’s health by appropriately asserting boundaries. Evidence that these strategies might work can be derived from studies of the impact of positive parenting interventions on children’s health and wellbeing outcomes.

It is likely that you will generate many more potential interventions than you can report on in the space allowed for the report. It will be better to choose a smaller number of potential interventions (we recommend 2-3 interventions) and spend more time explaining why you think they will effect change in the target behaviour. See Lecture 3 for guidance on prioritising which COM-B components to address when choosing your initial intervention functions.

Higher scoring reports (Upper second and above) will:

· Demonstrate how ideas for interventions have been derived using the established links between the COM-B domains and the BCW intervention functions

· Provide clear descriptions of potential interventions that are likely to effect change in the target behaviour

· Provide convincing justifications for the suggested interventions drawing from evidence and theory when possible

Lower scoring reports (Lower second and below) will:

· Describe interventions with little or no evidence of using the tools of the BCW to derive them

· Describe interventions which, even if well described, are unlikely to result in the desired behaviour change

· Provide justifications for interventions that are based primarily on opinion

Section 3B - Application of APEASE criteria to evaluate your choice of intervention

You do not have to present every APEASE criterion for each of the possible interventions you have outlined in the previous step, however the report should demonstrate how each of the APEASE criteria relate to the final intervention you have chosen.

Higher scoring reports (Upper second and above) will:

· Show evidence of systematically applying the APEASE criteria

· Draw on empirical evidence (if it exists) when applying the APEASE criteria

· Draw on insights from theory when applying the APEASE criteria

Lower scoring reports (Lower second and below) will:

· Show evidence of partial application of the APEASE criteria or misunderstanding of different components of the criteria

· Rely more heavily on personal opinion rather than evidence or theory in the application of the APEASE criteria

Section 4: Outline of how the intervention could be evaluated

Conclude your report by summarising how the intervention you have designed will address the problem you have outlined and how you might want to evaluate its effectiveness. This does not have to be exhaustive. A simple description of the constructs you may want to measure to determine if your intervention was successful (e.g. how you would measure the outcome, the target behaviour, any changes to barriers/enablers) and a brief description of the methodology you plan to use (e.g. the type of data collection instrument(s), the study design, and timing of any repeated measures) will suffice.

Higher scoring reports (Upper second and above) will:

· Show evidence of a clearly articulated idea how the degree to which the intervention successfully changed behaviour could be evaluated

Lower scoring reports (Lower second and below) will:

· Show evidence of ideas that are unclear or are unlikely to lead to an understanding of whether the intervention was successful in changing behaviour