Behavior change frameworks are the bedrock of applied behavioral science. Designed by behavioral scientists for policymakers and industry leaders, these summaries of cutting-edge decision-making insights are essential for applying research in the public and private spheres. Frameworks distill strategies for influencing human decisions into simple, portable mnemonic devices or acronyms. This makes it possible for complex, theoretical insights about how people think and act to make their way into the practices of organizations across every industry and environment. To understand more about how these frameworks work in practice, check out our case studies.

MINDSPACE is a behavior change framework that focuses on nine forces that drive behavior across a variety of contexts.¹ MINDSPACE is not an alternative to current policy-making methods; rather, it complements other strategies to integrate behavioral science into the policy development process. It’s based on the idea that understanding why we act the way we do is key to successfully implementing policies aimed at large-scale behavior change. The creators of the framework also recognize that the public shapes the usage of behavioral change tools and, therefore, should be involved in the implementation of these strategies. 

MINDSPACE has been supported by both field and laboratory research from behavioral economics and psychology. It is often applied to policy making, marketing, organizational change, and personal development to address behavior change challenges with research-based interventions.

The nine elements of the MINDSPACE framework are thought to have the most robust significance on our automatic processes of judgment and decision-making. These effects and their behavioral influences are outlined below:

Behavioral Science: A multidisciplinary field that studies the various cognitive and social factors influencing human decision-making and behavior.

Behavioral Economics: The study of how people make economically motivated decisions, focusing on the psychological factors that underscore irrational decision-making. Behavioral economics differs from traditional economics, which assumes that individuals always act rationally and make perfectly logical decisions to maximize their outcomes.

Behavioral Government: Refers to governments that draw on behavioral economics to adopt a realistic view of human behavior. It is believed that stronger policy can be developed by understanding how biases and heuristics influence people’s decisions.

MINDSPACE: A mnemonic for the nine effects on human behavior, used to explain and intervene in a variety of subject areas. These nine effects are messenger, incentives, norms, defaults, salience, priming, affect, commitments, and ego.

Behavior Change Interventions: Interventions intended to modify a specific behavior, either in an individual or a group. These interventions could include anything from education and training to the applied use of behavioral science principles like priming and nudging.

Nudges: Subtle behavior change strategies designed to alter people’s behavior predictably without restricting their freedom of choice. Nudges might involve putting healthy food options at eye level to encourage healthy eating or automatically enrolling people in a retirement savings plan, requiring them to opt-out instead of in.

MINDSPACE was one of the first behavioral frameworks to be applied in a policy-making context, laying the groundwork for what has since become a major trend in countries around the world. The development of this framework started with an initiative by members of the UK Cabinet Office to study the implications of behavioral theory for policymaking.¹ The Institute for Government, a UK think tank, was commissioned to create a report on the subject, alongside academics from the London School of Economics and Imperial College.

The report aimed to explore the application of behavioral theory to public policy, for use by senior public sector leaders and policymakers. The report was intended to play a key role in a program designed to build the capacity for behavioral economics across the UK Civil Service. They grounded their work in interviews with academics, behavior change experts, and senior civil servants to tie expertise to the applied context of policy-making.

The creators of the report recognized that most traditional public policy interventions assumed that people would analyze all information they receive and act in ways that reflect their best interests, therefore operating under the “reflective mind.” However, the creators were more interested in shifting the focus away from concrete facts and information, and towards altering the social context in which people act, where they are influenced by their “automatic mind.” Importantly, the creators acknowledged that people sometimes make irrational choices and wanted to assess the factors that influenced them. This endeavor set the stage for studying and exploring the nine factors (MINDSPACE) that influence behavior.

The researchers believed that policymakers could better target their interventions if they were aware of and accounted for such biases and heuristics. The MINDSPACE report was published on March 2, 2010, by the Institute for Government and the Cabinet Office. Publication of the comprehensive report resulted in creating the Behavioural Insights Team and popularized the framework of nine robust, non-coercive influences on behavior.

The Institute for Government

The leading UK think tank, The Institute for Government offers a space to help civil servants and senior politicians bring about change.³ It provides research and analysis, topical commentary, and public events to explore the key challenges facing government. Members of the Institute for Government pioneered the MINDSPACE report.

The Behavioural Insights Team (BIT)

Also known as The Nudge Unit, BIT is a UK-based group that aims to improve lives and communities through applied behavioral science.⁴ BIT works with governments, businesses, and charities to tackle major policy problems. The team was formally established in the same year as the publication of the MINDSPACE report in 2010, which highlighted the need for an official government team dedicated to applying behavioral science principles to practical policy-making. Originating as a seven-person team, BIT was the world’s first government institution dedicated to applying behavioral sciences to policy. BIT continues to use the MINDSPACE report as a framework to improve policies and public services to this day.

What is the difference between MINDSPACE and EAST?

The UK's Behavioral Insights Team developed the EAST framework in 2012 as a simplified version of the MINDSPACE framework. Both frameworks are used to understand and influence behavior, but they differ in terms of intended use and application. EAST distills behavioral insights into simple, easy-to-remember principles, focusing on four features of a target intervention that make it more likely to be effective. According to EAST, the best interventions are: easy (E), attractive (A), social (S), and timely (T). 

MINDSPACE makes more generalizations about human behavior, providing a more complex and detailed analysis of the factors that influence decision-making.¹⁰ The development of EAST was intended to provide a more straightforward, practical approach to policy-making, while MINDSPACE remains a comprehensive framework for examining a broader range of human behavioral influences. Both frameworks are used for different situations, frequently in combination with other frameworks such as the COM-B model and the Behavior Change Wheel (BCW).

What is the MINDSPACE expanded framework?

The MINDSPACE expanded framework (MINDSPACE X) is an extended version of the original MINDSPACE framework with more detailed behavioral science insights and applications, presented by researchers Nathan Hodson, Georgi Kirilov, and Ivo Vlaev in 2025.¹¹ The expanded framework maintains the same nine core behavioral influences, but elaborates on the behavioral effects tied to each one. For example, MINDSPACE X expands the messenger principle (we are influenced by who is delivering information) with three features: 

1. We are more likely to act on information from people with authority and expertise.
2. We are more likely to act on information delivered by people similar to us.
3. How we feel about the messenger influences how we behave.

You can see how the expanded framework offers deeper insight into human behavior, allowing policymakers to come up with more targeted interventions. This additional information is also useful for policymakers who might not know what to do with the simpler explanations in the original MINDSPACE framework. Consider the priming component (subconscious cues often influence our actions). How might a policymaker use this information? MINDSPACE X provides more detailed features of priming that can offer more direction. For example, it describes how we tend to rely heavily on the first piece of information we receive—a bias called the anchoring effect—rather than just stating that subconscious cues influence our behavior.

The MINDSPACE framework has built the capability for behavioral theory to be used effectively in government.¹ As a result of this framework and others like it, governments around the world increasingly use behavioral insights to design and enhance their policies and services.

Improved Government Decision-Making 

In 2018, the BIT published a report entitled “Behavioural Government: Using behavioural science to improve how governments make decisions.”³ This report builds on the MINDSPACE report by acknowledging that the same heuristics influences government officials and ministers and biases their work aims to address. The report explores how this happens and how such biases can be mitigated by focusing on three core areas of policymaking:

1. Noticing refers to how information and ideas enter policymaker agendas, through framing effects (how an issue is presented) and confirmation bias (the tendency to seek out evidence that supports one’s views).³
2. Deliberating refers to how policy ideas are developed. While group discussions are central to policy making, the illusion of similarity convinces us that others share our beliefs, making policymakers overestimate how much people will understand or accept a policy. Further, inter-group opposition can result in rejecting sound arguments on the basis that they come from other groups, and group reinforcement can result in self-censoring or conformity.
3. Finally, executing refers to how policy intentions are translated into action. Optimism bias can cause policymakers to overestimate their abilities, while the illusion of control can cause policymakers to overestimate how much control they have over certain events.

Acknowledging the biases associated with noticing, deliberating, and executing during the process of policymaking, the “Behavioural Government” report provides targeted suggestions to combat each issue.3 The report does a deep dive into each of the biases and strategies for improvement and highlights why all parties should care about a behavioral government. MINDSPACE was one of the first attempts to fuse behavioral science and public policy. It has fueled the impressive work done by the BIT since its inception, which has touched clients in the UK and around the world.

Applications for Health Promotion

MINDSPACE has been used as an effective behavior change technique in several health promotion applications, from discouraging the consumption of unhealthy food to reducing unnecessary prescribing of antibiotics among doctors. For example, one study found that social norm feedback provided by a high-profile messenger could substantially reduce antibiotic prescribing.¹² 

The framework has also been applied to study HIV prevention and management interventions. In a large review, researchers found several examples of MINDSPACE being applied, with incentives, messenger effects, and norms commonly used to promote HIV testing or medication adherence.¹³ The researchers concluded that MINDSPACE is a useful tool for helping people prevent and manage HIV. 

In the same way, MINDSPACE could be used to design nudges for various health promotion efforts. These strategies were particularly useful during the COVID-19 pandemic when rapid behavior change was necessary to control the spread of the virus. Nudging strategies based on MINDSPACE were invaluable for promoting handwashing, social distancing, and self-isolation.¹⁴ That said, some critics have raised concerns about the ethics of using fear-based nudges during the pandemic, which may have contributed to people’s psychological distress.¹⁵ We’ll discuss ethical issues like this in more detail below.

Frameworks such as MINDSPACE, which “nudge” people in specific directions, have attracted the attention of academics and policymakers.² But like all behavior change frameworks, MINDSPACE is not without controversy. Critics have spoken about the durability of certain interventions and argued that the governments involved in implementing the framework are themselves susceptible to bias. The framework has also faced scrutiny for its potential to overstep, infringing on people’s autonomy and influencing their thoughts, emotions, and behavior outside of their awareness.

Uncertainty of Long-Term Effects

One common concern about MINDSPACE-based policy changes is the question of how long the effects of certain behavioral interventions will last. Some effects appear to be fleeting, such as those of priming, since they may only last for a short while after exposure to the prime. This presents uncertainty since the effect of priming may be fleeting, but its impact can be significant. Although the effects of priming may only be activated briefly, they can effectively change a behavior or decision in a way that creates far-reaching consequences. If priming can influence someone to commit to sustained change, then priming can be thought of as a “trigger” for longer-term effects. On the other hand, some effects may be more self-sustaining: defaults, for example, are based on the “status quo”, which is likely to encourage stability over time. To this end, there has been concern over the lack of practical evidence regarding how the MINDSPACE effects may develop over time and to what extent they influence change.

Bias in Government

One objective of the MINDSPACE report was to help the UK government become a behavioral government.¹ However, as mentioned, the idea of a behavioral government has been criticized because government officials are subject to such biased influences they aim to address.⁵ This idea was acknowledged by the BIT and resulted in the “Behavioural Government” report mentioned above, which outlines several strategies governments can use to minimize the impact of biases when implementing policies.

Ethical Concerns and Questions of Individual Autonomy

Further related to the idea of a behavioral government are critiques of libertarian paternalism. Essentially, libertarian paternalism refers to the idea that it is possible for institutions such as governments to influence behavior for the better while also respecting freedom of choice.⁶ Examples of criticisms regarding libertarian paternalism surround the configuration of new kinds of state and citizen identities: specifically, certain kinds of policies promoted by such governments infantilize citizens.⁷ Rather than promoting the well-being of citizens, some critics believe freedom is actually robbed as institutions impose their own values and agendas onto the public.^8,9

This all raises concerns about people’s right to individual autonomy. The creators of the MINDSPACE framework advocated for public involvement in policy-making, explaining that behavioral intervention strategies should be disclosed to the public and that consent should be obtained before interventions are implemented.¹ Even if interventions are designed to be beneficial to the individual, manipulating people to make choices they may not have made on their own undermines their freedom to fulfill their own preferences or needs. Full transparency is essential for respecting people’s right to make independent decisions while implementing MINDSPACE-based interventions.

Safety: Reducing Gang Violence

A series of initiatives against gang violence have resulted from public fear of increasing crime rates associated with gangs.¹ Further concern has extended to the prevalence of gang membership among people aged 10 to 19 years. In the case of gang violence, the two MINDSPACE factors of messengers and norms can be used to change behavior. Specifically for messengers, people are strongly influenced by the behavior of those they perceive to be similar to them. Applied to the topic of gangs, if behavior is widely practiced by peers and therefore becomes a norm, others will hope to be affiliated with gangs to conform.

An American approach called the Cincinnati Initiative to Reduce Violence (CIRV) depends on making one gang member’s actions affect all other members.¹ If a member commits a crime, the whole group bears the consequences. CIRV also involves gang members in face-to-face forums that draw on wider social norms, by having victims’ relatives, ex-offenders, and members of the local community speak on the impacts of gang violence. Related to the messenger effect, such messages are most effective when relayed by figures the gang members respect.

Ceasefire, a program first launched in Boston in 1996, was based on the CIRV model.¹ At its onset, the US National Institute of Justice found that the intervention reduced the average number of monthly youth homicides by 63%. Another evaluation of a similar program found that shootings and killings dropped by 41% and 73% in Chicago and Baltimore respectively, and that declines between 17% to 35% were attributable to Ceasefire alone. In Cincinnati, gang-related homicides fell by 50% in the first nine months of program implementation. Thus, the improvements in gang affiliation and behavior seem to endure across time, such that once the social norm is embedded - with the help of an influential messenger - it becomes self-sustaining.

Sustainability: Increasing Recycling

Recycling rates have been found to be markedly lower in the UK compared to other countries in Western Europe, so the UK government felt the need, in 2007, to improve recycling policies and habits.¹ For this particular intervention, the two MINDSPACE factors of incentives and loss aversion have been used. 

Deposit schemes have been used in many countries to encourage people to return empty packages and have been linked to reductions in littering. The basic principle is for customers to pay an additional fee when purchasing bottles or associated packaging, which acts as a deposit that is returned when the empty packaging is brought back. To this end, deposit schemes are an example of loss aversion as the desire to ‘not lose’ the extra fee incentivizes people to return their packaging. In a 2010 survey, 82% of UK residents said that they would support a deposit scheme of five pence per drink container.

As for incentive schemes, there have been examples in the UK that have improved recycling rates.¹ IrnBru, a carbonated soft drink, has been made available in refundable glass bottles. Consumers can return empty bottles to the retailer in exchange for either cash refunds or a credit voucher. In 2010, the deposit value was 30 pence, and an impressive 70% of bottles were returned, cleaned, and reused. In 2008, Environment Resources Management Limited found that deposit schemes increased return rates in the countries that used them, often to rates past 85%, and that they could also contribute to reductions in littering. Thus, designing a policy around incentives and loss aversion has received support from the public and has effectively increased recycling.

Why We Need More Than Just a Nudge

Nudging, the practice of influencing behavior to provoke a desired outcome, has been closely associated with the MINDSPACE framework. Take a look at this perspective article by Andrew Lewis on why nudging may not always be appropriate or sufficient, supported by COVID-19 examples.

Public Policy Without Behavioral Science is Dangerous 

This article explores the unintended (and potentially dangerous) consequences of making public policy changes without consulting behavioral science principles. Give it a read to learn how a road safety campaign resulted in more crashes and how anti-drug messaging led to an increase in cannabis use among youth.

1. Dolan, P., Hallsworth, M., Halpern, D., King, D., Vlaev, I. (2010). MINDSPACE: Influencing behaviour through public policy. Institute for Government. https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/sites/default/files/publications/MINDSPACE.pdf
2. Dolan, P., Hallsworth, M., Halpern, D., King, D., Metcalfe, R., & Vlaev, I. (2011). Influencing behaviour: The mindspace way. Journal of Economic Psychology, 33(1), 264-277.
3. Hallsworth, M., Egan, M., Rutter, J., & McCrae, J. (2018). Behavioural Government: Using behavioural science to improve how governments make decisions. The Behavioural Insights Team. https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/sites/default/files/publications/BIT%20Behavioural%20Government%20Report.pdf
4. The Behavioural Insights Team. (n.d.). About us. The Behavioural Insights Team. https://www.bi.team/about-us/
5. Mols, F., Haslam, S. A., Jetten, J., & Staffens, N. K. (2015). Why a nudge is not enough: A social identity critique of governance by stealth. European Journal of Political Research, 54(1), 81-98.
6. Sunstein, C. & Thaler, R. (2003). Libertarian paternalism is not an oxymoron. University of Chicago Law Review, 70(4), 1159-1202.
7. Jones, R., Pykett, J., & Whitehead, M. (2010). Governing temptation: Changing behaviour in an age of libertarian paternalism. Progress in Human Geography, 35(4), 483-501.
8. Rebonato, R. (2012). Taking liberties: A critical examination of libertarian paternalism. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
9. White, M. (2013). The manipulation of choice: Ethics and libertarian paternalism. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.
10. West, R., & Michie, S. (2019, January). UBC Briefing 5: How do MINDSPACE and EAST map onto COM-B and the Behaviour Change Wheel? Unlocking Behaviour Change. https://www.unlockingbehaviourchange.com/pdfs/5c766b7c7d375211106477.pdf 
11. Hodson, N., Kirilov, G., & Vlaev, I. (2025). The MINDSPACE Expanded Framework (MINDSPACE X): Behavioral insights to improve adherence to psychiatric medications. Current Opinion in Psychology, 62, 101973. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2024.101973
12. Hallsworth, M., Chadborn, T., Sallis, A., Sanders, M., Berry, D., Greaves, F., Clements, L., & Davies, S. C. (2016). Provision of social norm feedback to high prescribers of antibiotics in general practice: a pragmatic national randomised controlled trial. Lancet (London, England), 387(10029), 1743–1752. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(16)00215-4
13. Andrawis, A., Tapa, J., Vlaev, I., Read, D., Schmidtke, K. A., Chow, E. P. F., Lee, D., Fairley, C. K., & Ong, J. J. (2022). Applying Behavioural Insights to HIV Prevention and Management: a Scoping Review. Current HIV/AIDS reports, 19(5), 358–374. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11904-022-00615-z 
14. Smith, H. S., Blumenthal-Barby, J. S., Chatterjee, R., Hindera, O., Huang, A., Kothari, R., & Vlaev, I. (2022). A Review of the MINDSPACE Framework for Nudging Health Promotion During Early Stages of the COVID-19 Pandemic. Population health management, 25(4), 487–500. https://doi.org/10.1089/pop.2021.0269 
15. Junger, N., & Hirsch, O. (2024). Ethics of Nudging in the COVID-19 Crisis and the Necessary Return to the Principles of Shared Decision Making: A Critical Review. Cureus, 16(4), e57960. https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.57960