The COM-B Model: Capability, Opportunity, and Motivation
Author: Ukrainian Psychological Hub · Published: October 10, 2026 · Editorial Policy
The COM-B model explains behavior through the interaction of capability, opportunity, and motivation. Developed by Susan Michie, Maartje van Stralen, and Robert West, it provides a structured way to ask why a specific action occurs, why it fails to occur, and which influences may need to change. The final B stands for behavior: the action being explained or targeted.
The model is especially useful when an intention exists but follow-through is inconsistent. Someone may want to walk after work yet lack a safe route, a workable schedule, the stamina to begin, or a reliable cue. COM-B organizes these possibilities before anyone decides whether reminders, training, social support, environmental changes, or another intervention is appropriate. Its scientific foundation is the original Behaviour Change Wheel paper, which synthesized 19 intervention frameworks.
What Is the COM-B Model?
COM-B is a general framework for understanding and changing particular behaviors. It proposes that behavior arises within an interacting system of three conditions: capability (C), opportunity (O), and motivation (M). Capability concerns whether a person can perform an action; opportunity concerns whether their physical and social surroundings allow or facilitate it; and motivation concerns processes that energize and direct action, including deliberate evaluation and less deliberate impulses or habits. Behavior itself can subsequently change these conditions. This formulation appears in Michie and colleagues' 2011 original account.
The acronym is commonly expanded as Capability, Opportunity, Motivation–Behavior. It is usually written COM-B, with the hyphen preserving behavior as the outcome in the model. The three letters are categories for analysis, not a mathematical prediction in which scores are simply added. Their importance depends on the action, person, setting, competing demands, and time.
COM-B has been used in public health, clinical implementation, organizational practice, physical activity, food-related behavior, and other settings. The same broad categories can help an individual plan a change or help researchers design and evaluate an intervention. Each application, however, still requires evidence about the particular behavior and population. A practical framework for organizing questions should not be mistaken for proof that any resulting intervention will work.
Where COM-B Came From and Why It Matters
In 2011, Michie, van Stralen, and West assessed existing behavior-change intervention frameworks against criteria of comprehensiveness, coherence, and explicit connection to a theory of behavior. They identified 19 frameworks and proposed the Behaviour Change Wheel, placing COM-B at its center. Nine general intervention functions form the surrounding layer, and seven policy categories form the outer layer. Their initial work included tests of how reliably existing interventions could be classified; the authors also called for further research into whether the approach improves the design and effectiveness of interventions. Original research: Implementation Science.
This historical detail establishes the model's role. COM-B was developed to support behavioral diagnosis and intervention design: researchers identify which sources of behavior matter and then select plausible intervention functions. It did not arise as a universal personality test, a clinical diagnostic instrument, or a claim that every influence on action is reducible to exactly three independently measurable causes.
The Six Components of COM-B
For practical analysis, the three COM-B headings are divided into six components: physical capability, psychological capability, physical opportunity, social opportunity, reflective motivation, and automatic motivation. These six categories help distinguish different explanations that can otherwise appear identical in everyday conversation. The distinctions follow the model's published framework and subsequent applied research, including an empirical examination across eating and physical activity.
Physical Capability: Can the Person Physically Do It?
Physical capability includes relevant bodily skills and physical functioning. For riding a bicycle, it may include balance and coordination. For a physically demanding work task, it may involve required strength, mobility, or endurance. A person might value the activity and have access to equipment yet still require instruction, rehabilitation, accommodations, or a modified task before performing it safely.
Physical capability is behavior-specific. Being physically capable of one activity does not establish capability for another, and capability can change through learning, injury, fatigue, illness, or recovery. Assessing it requires attention to the demands of the target behavior and, when relevant, competent clinical or occupational evaluation.
Psychological Capability: Does the Person Have the Knowledge and Mental Skills?
Psychological capability includes understanding, memory, attention, relevant cognitive skills, and the ability to regulate or organize behavior. Someone may intend to use a secure account setting but not know the sequence of steps. Another person may know exactly what to do yet have difficulty holding the steps in working memory when interrupted. The interventions suggested by these cases differ: clear instructions or skill practice for one, accessible prompts or redesigned workflows for another.
Knowledge alone is not equivalent to psychological capability in every situation. A person can correctly explain a procedure while finding its real-world execution difficult under time pressure or competing demands. Behavioral analysis should ask whether the task is understood, practiced, accessible, and manageable in its actual setting.
Physical Opportunity: Does the Environment Make the Behavior Feasible?
Physical opportunity refers to time, money, transportation, equipment, spatial design, access, and other features of the material environment that make action possible or invite it. A workplace can encourage hand hygiene by providing accessible sinks and supplies; it can impede the same behavior if supplies are absent or staff are given insufficient time between tasks. An exercise plan may be unrealistic when a person's shift schedule and travel options make attendance impossible.
Environmental changes can also alter effort and cues. Moving a frequently used item into view may increase the likelihood of an associated action, while changing the order of steps in a digital interface may reduce friction. These ideas concern specific causal hypotheses that should be tested rather than universal rules that every reduction in friction produces a beneficial outcome.
Social Opportunity: What Do Other People and Institutions Permit or Encourage?
Social opportunity involves relationships, group practices, professional expectations, cultural norms, social support, and institutional arrangements. For example, a student may have both the skill and desire to ask for help but work in a classroom where questions are routinely mocked. A clinician may understand evidence-based practice but face team norms that discourage it. These cases implicate interactions and organizational conditions, not simply individual commitment.
Social opportunity can provide resources, modeling, permission, accountability, or obstacles. It can also be unequal across settings and populations. The practical question is whose actions, rules, and expectations affect the target behavior, and whether these conditions can be changed ethically and sustainably.
Reflective Motivation: Goals, Beliefs, Evaluation, and Planning
Reflective motivation refers to more deliberative processes, including intentions, conscious goals, beliefs about consequences, identity, and evaluations of whether an action is worth pursuing. A person may decide that studying regularly serves a valued goal or may believe an exercise routine will produce little benefit. A new plan can become more plausible when consequences and feasibility are understood accurately.
Reflective motivation extends beyond liking an activity. People can pursue actions they do not especially enjoy because they judge the longer-term outcome important. Likewise, a strong intention can coexist with limited opportunity or with automatic responses that pull behavior in another direction. The separate article on the intention–behavior gap examines that broader problem in depth.
Automatic Motivation: Habits, Emotion, Impulses, and Learned Associations
Automatic motivation includes emotional responses, impulses, learned cue associations, and habitual processes that can initiate or direct action with limited explicit deliberation at the moment. Reaching for a phone after hearing a notification, feeling an immediate urge to avoid an uncomfortable task, or starting a familiar routine after a consistent cue can involve automatic motivational processes.
Automatic motivation does not mean a behavior is literally unconscious in every instance, nor does it make the behavior fixed. Habit strength, emotional meaning, competing rewards, and context can change over time. A person may sincerely endorse one course of action while context-triggered routines favor another. Separating reflective from automatic motivation avoids treating a new statement of intention as sufficient evidence that learned behavioral patterns have changed.
How Capability, Opportunity, and Motivation Interact
The original COM-B model describes reciprocal relationships. Greater capability may increase confidence and motivation; a supportive environment may make an action more attractive or easier; performing the action can build skills, create new opportunities, and reinforce future motivation. Feedback can also run in the opposite direction. A discouraging experience may reduce future willingness, while repeated barriers may prevent practice that would have strengthened capability. These interactions appear in the original system description.
Consider a person trying to cook at home more often. Learning three basic recipes changes psychological capability. Access to ingredients, an available kitchen, and a manageable schedule change physical opportunity. Encouragement from household members affects social opportunity. Believing that cooking is useful can contribute to reflective motivation, while familiarity and enjoyment may support automatic motivation. Successful meals can improve skill and motivation, but repeated scheduling conflicts may interrupt the process.
Because the model is interactive, COM-B should be understood as a structured hypothesis about influences on a behavior, not as an equation such as C + O + M = B. No fixed percentage weight can be assigned to its three categories without a particular study, operational definitions, and appropriate data.
How to Apply the COM-B Model Step by Step
1. Specify the Actual Behavior
Begin with an observable action rather than a vague goal or personality judgment. 'Become disciplined' is too broad to analyze precisely; 'open the assigned reading and work on it for fifteen minutes after arriving home on weekdays' identifies what someone would do, when, and in which setting. Detailed behavioral specification also helps decide whether intervention success has occurred. In implementation science, Presseau and colleagues' AACTT framework organizes the action, actor, context, target, and time for this reason.
Also ask whether the target behavior is chosen by the person or imposed by someone else, what outcome matters, and what costs or unintended consequences could follow. A behavior that is feasible but inconsistent with someone's informed preferences may call for a change in the proposed goal, not stronger persuasion.
2. Investigate Each COM-B Component
Examine physical and psychological capability; physical and social opportunity; and reflective and automatic motivation. Interviews, observation, contextual inquiry, administrative data, validated measures, or brief self-records may help, depending on the project. Useful questions include: What knowledge or skills are needed? What resources, time, or access are available? Which norms or other people's decisions matter? What does the person expect or value? What emotional reactions, impulses, or repeated cues accompany the action?
The goal is to collect information that distinguishes plausible barriers and enablers. A single self-report question such as 'How motivated are you?' rarely establishes why the action did or did not occur. People may misremember the sequence, misunderstand the cause, or report an intention that changed after the event. Behavioral observations and multiple perspectives can strengthen the assessment.
3. Identify the Most Relevant Barriers and Enablers
A useful analysis prioritizes barriers by their likely impact, whether they can change, their ethical significance, and the evidence available. If employees already know how to use an emergency procedure but cannot access the needed equipment, another information session would be a weak response. If the equipment is available but the procedure is unfamiliar, supported practice may be more relevant. Several components may matter simultaneously.
Avoid assigning every difficulty to a presumed lack of motivation. A high-pressure or inequitable setting can make an apparently simple behavior much harder. Researchers should examine the institutional context and, where feasible, include the people affected in interpreting the findings.
4. Match the Analysis to Intervention Functions
The broader Behaviour Change Wheel identifies nine potential functions: education, persuasion, incentivization, coercion, training, restriction, environmental restructuring, modeling, and enablement. These describe purposes of interventions, not guaranteed solutions. The wheel then identifies policy categories through which some functions might be supported. Its structure is described in the original paper and the authors' accompanying guide.
A skill deficit might suggest training; missing access may suggest environmental restructuring or enablement; misleading expectations may justify accurate education; a social norm might invite organizational leadership and modeling. An intervention can address several functions at once. Coercion and restriction also raise special questions about autonomy, proportionality, and equity, so their appearance in a formal taxonomy does not establish their ethical suitability.
5. Choose Specific Techniques and Evaluate Them
Intervention functions are broad categories. A behavior change technique is a more specific, identifiable component such as goal setting, feedback, prompts or cues, demonstrations, or action planning. Michie and colleagues developed a 93-technique taxonomy to improve consistency in describing what interventions actually contain. The appropriate technique depends on the diagnosed barrier, research evidence, feasibility, and the population.
Choose a measurable outcome and a suitable evaluation design before declaring success. Track whether the target action changes, the duration of change, unintended effects, engagement, cost, and equity. A rise in knowledge or positive attitudes may be useful but cannot by itself demonstrate a sustained change in behavior. Whenever possible, compare observed results with a credible alternative explanation and attend to attrition and measurement bias.
A Worked Example: Building a Consistent Walking Routine
Imagine an office worker who wants to walk for twenty minutes after lunch on three weekdays. The person understands the potential benefits and has made several plans, yet the walks rarely happen. Instead of telling them to become more motivated, COM-B identifies possible mechanisms in the actual lunch period.
Physical capability: the person can walk comfortably, or may need an adapted distance or pace. Psychological capability: the person knows an accessible route, can estimate the time required, and remembers the plan. Physical opportunity: breaks are long enough, weather contingencies are available, and the building has a practical exit and safe walking area. Social opportunity: colleagues and managers do not penalize taking the allocated break, and a walking partner might be available. Reflective motivation: the person values the walk and regards it as worth the trade-offs. Automatic motivation: the lunch transition provides a cue, and prior experiences may be pleasant or aversive.
Suppose observation shows the main barrier is a recurring meeting that runs into lunch, combined with uncertainty about an indoor alternative. Better scheduling and a prepared indoor route target opportunity more directly than another inspirational message. If the main barrier instead is discomfort or low physical capability, the plan should adapt to medical and functional needs. If the person walks on some days and forgets on others, a cue or plan may be worth testing. The illustration is a logic-of-intervention example, not evidence that one tactic always works.
COM-B in Health Care, Organizations, and Digital Environments
Health Behaviors and Clinical Implementation
COM-B is frequently used to investigate barriers to medication routines, screening attendance, dietary practices, physical activity, and clinician uptake of recommended procedures. In a survey of young adults' eating and physical activity behaviors, Willmott, Pang, and Rundle-Thiele (2021) empirically examined whether indicators associated with COM-B components behaved consistently across two contexts. The study illustrates both the framework's practical reach and the fact that model indicators can vary by behavior.
In health care, decisions about treatment or medication require clinical evidence and individualized professional advice. A behavioral framework can help identify access or follow-through barriers; it cannot determine whether a prescription is appropriate or whether a patient ought to comply with a particular plan regardless of side effects, affordability, or preference. Health behavior intervention outcomes belong to their own clinical and public-health evidence base.
Workplace Practices and Institutional Change
Organizations can use COM-B to examine training gaps, missing resources, workflow design, social norms, and beliefs about the value of a required practice. A hand-hygiene initiative, for instance, may need more than informational posters if supply chains or staffing patterns make the target behavior difficult. The AACTT specification paper also shows why identifying the responsible actor matters: staff, supervisors, facilities teams, and policy makers may each need to perform different actions.
An organizational COM-B analysis is strongest when it includes conditions beyond employees' personal attitudes. Safety, scheduling, workload, accessibility, and managerial authority affect the available choices. Measuring adoption and sustained practice is more informative than concluding that a program succeeded because participants said it was engaging.
Digital Products, Reminders, and Human–AI Interaction
A digital tool can influence capability through accessible instructions, opportunity through interface design or timely access, and motivation through feedback, personalization, or prompts. An AI assistant might help someone clarify the steps in a task, but an interface feature can also create friction, dependency, distraction, or pressure. Whether such tools improve outcomes requires direct testing with relevant users, settings, measures, and follow-up.
The COM-B categories can help designers analyze a specific human behavior in a digital environment. They do not establish that engagement, clicks, or screen time are inherently beneficial outcomes, and they do not determine the psychological status or internal experience of an AI system. Ethical assessment should attend to informed consent, user control, privacy, accessibility, and potential unequal effects.
What Does the Research Show About COM-B?
Evidence for the Framework as an Organizing Model
The foundational 2011 paper documented a systematic development process and demonstrated reliable classification of interventions in selected domains. This supports the framework's conceptual and descriptive utility. Its authors explicitly identified the need to test how far the model improves the efficiency or effectiveness of intervention design, a separate empirical question.
The broader Theoretical Domains Framework, which can be mapped to COM-B, has undergone construct-validation work. In Cane, O'Connor, and Michie (2012), behavioral experts sorted theoretical constructs and the authors assessed domain structure and replication. This contributes evidence concerning the classification of psychological determinants; it is not a clinical validation of a standalone COM-B score or proof that applying the framework causes better behavior outcomes.
Empirical Tests of Relationships Between the Components
In an empirical cross-sectional study published in BMC Public Health, Willmott and colleagues investigated the model for healthy eating and physical activity in young adults. Results varied across the two behavioral contexts and indicators. Because measurements were collected cross-sectionally, associations should not be treated as evidence that changing one COM-B component will necessarily cause the desired future behavior.
The model's flexibility is a strength for categorization but complicates testing. Studies often operationalize its categories using different items, populations, and targets. A broad model can encompass many relevant influences, while particular measures may fail to capture important aspects of an action. Consequently, it is important to report which constructs were measured, how, and whether the inferred causal pathway was actually tested.
Systematic Review Findings on Intervention Development
A 2021 systematic review by Dyson and Cowdell examined 60 papers using the Theoretical Domains Framework or related approaches, including COM-B and the Behaviour Change Wheel, to develop or test implementation interventions. Thirty-two described design alone, while 28 described both design and testing. The reviewers reported that identifying barriers and enablers was more consistently described than the subsequent selection of techniques and the design of interventions; applications were concentrated in particular settings and regions.
This review is important because it separates framework use from intervention effectiveness. A project can classify barriers intelligently yet still select ineffective techniques, implement them poorly, or measure the wrong outcomes. A causal claim that COM-B-based programs outperform alternatives requires comparative outcome studies designed for that question, not merely a count of papers mentioning the model.
Recent Criticism of Complex Social and Structural Problems
Research published in 2025 examined the challenges of using COM-B for complex socio-ecological problems, where political, economic, institutional, and environmental structures influence what people can do. The authors argued that broad 'opportunity' categories may conceal multilevel relationships and uncertainty that need more detailed investigation. Their analysis, illustrated through case material, is a conceptual and applied critique, rather than proof that COM-B is invalid for ordinary behavior analysis.
The resulting conclusion is appropriately bounded: COM-B is a useful entry point for identifying sources of behavior, while explaining highly complex systems often requires supplementary context, disciplinary evidence, stakeholder participation, and direct evaluation. Naming a structural barrier does not itself supply the authority or resources to remove it.
How COM-B Differs From Related Psychological Models
COM-B and the Behaviour Change Wheel
COM-B is the core behavioral system inside the broader Behaviour Change Wheel. COM-B asks which types of influences matter for a defined behavior. The wheel connects those influences with potential functions of interventions and policy categories. Referring to COM-B and the wheel interchangeably can obscure the difference between analyzing behavior and choosing a delivery strategy.
COM-B and the Theoretical Domains Framework
The Theoretical Domains Framework provides a more detailed set of theoretical domains that can help specify barriers within the broad COM-B categories. It can be useful when 'psychological capability' or 'reflective motivation' is too coarse to guide research questions. Its relationship to COM-B supports richer diagnosis, though validation of TDF domains and successful implementation of TDF-informed programs remain different standards of evidence.
COM-B, Intention–Behavior Models, and Habit Research
Models centered on attitudes and intentions help explain why people decide that an action matters. COM-B also includes external opportunity and automatic motivational processes. Habit research addresses how repetition and stable cues can produce behavioral automaticity, while the COM-B category of automatic motivation groups habit with other learned responses and impulses. These perspectives can inform one another without being treated as identical constructs. The English Hub's intention–behavior gap article and general motivation and habits overview provide the related conceptual background.
COM-B and Behavior Change Techniques
The 93-item Behavior Change Technique Taxonomy classifies components that can be delivered within an intervention. COM-B identifies candidate sources of a target behavior. Neither taxonomy alone yields an empirically established one-to-one prescription from each barrier to an effective technique. The English Hub's review of behavior change techniques addresses the separate question of what individual techniques research supports.
Common Misunderstandings and Limits
Does COM-B Mean Motivation Is All That Matters?
No. In the model, opportunity and capability have explicit places alongside motivation. An inaccessible environment can prevent a desired action despite strong intentions. A person may also perform behavior automatically without formulating a conscious goal on each occasion. The framework is designed to expose such differences, reducing premature reliance on exhortation or blame.
Is COM-B a Proven Formula That Predicts Individual Behavior?
No universal predictive formula or threshold follows from the acronym. COM-B is a broad behavioral system; its variables need behavior-specific operationalization and validation before quantitative prediction. Cross-sectional relationships do not prove the direction of causation, and reliable classification of barriers does not guarantee intervention success. Those distinctions follow from the foundational model and subsequent empirical examination.
Can Every Barrier Be Solved by Changing a Person's Attitude?
No. Some barriers require institutional action, financial resources, environmental redesign, policy reform, accommodations, or changes in how responsibilities are distributed. In population-level problems, the opportunity category should prompt scrutiny of social structures rather than the assumption that the burden of change belongs to the individual.
Can a COM-B Checklist Diagnose ADHD, Depression, or Another Condition?
COM-B is not a clinical diagnostic system and its categories do not diagnose ADHD, depression, anxiety disorders, or any other mental disorder. Changes in energy, initiation, planning, concentration, or habitual action can have many explanations, including sleep, stress, medical issues, disability-related barriers, and ordinary variation. When difficulties are persistent, significant, or distressing, appropriate assessment belongs with qualified health professionals and condition-specific clinical standards.
Does a COM-B Assessment Guarantee an Effective Intervention?
The framework improves the organization of hypotheses and candidate actions, but an intervention still depends on truthful diagnosis of the barrier, implementation quality, cultural fit, ethics, and evaluation. A 2021 systematic review documented incomplete reporting of the transition from identifying determinants to selecting intervention content. Claims of guaranteed behavior change would exceed the evidence.
A Practical COM-B Worksheet
For a manageable behavior, write a one-sentence description of the observable action, person, context, and timing. Record a short observation period that represents the actual situation, including whether the behavior occurred. Then consider six questions: (1) Is the physical action feasible? (2) Does the person have the knowledge, memory supports, and practical skills? (3) Are time, space, equipment, and access available? (4) Do social and institutional circumstances support it? (5) Do the person's goals and expectations favor the action? (6) What learned cues, emotions, or impulses influence it?
Next, mark which answers are supported by direct observation, which reflect the person's report, and which remain hypotheses. Identify the most plausible changeable barrier. Select one or more feasible responses that genuinely target it, then agree on a measurable behavioral outcome and review what happens. In a service or workplace, involve affected people in choosing and assessing changes. When privacy, health, disability, or coercion concerns are present, expert review and safeguards are appropriate.
A worksheet helps organize thought; it is not a validated diagnostic scale or a substitute for an intervention study. A result that appears favorable today should be rechecked under changing schedules, resources, social expectations, and longer-term conditions.
Frequently Asked Questions
What does COM-B stand for in psychology?
COM-B stands for Capability, Opportunity, Motivation–Behavior. The model describes behavior through the interaction of what a person can do, the physical and social conditions that make it feasible, and processes that energize or direct action.
Who developed the COM-B model and when?
Susan Michie, Maartje M. van Stralen, and Robert West introduced COM-B in their 2011 Behaviour Change Wheel article, published in Implementation Science.
What are the six COM-B components?
Physical capability, psychological capability, physical opportunity, social opportunity, reflective motivation, and automatic motivation. They are subdivisions of three overarching categories rather than six independent clinical scores.
How is COM-B used in behavior change?
Researchers and practitioners specify a behavior, examine its barriers and enablers, consider which capability, opportunity, or motivational processes are relevant, and select and evaluate interventions that address those factors. The method guides inquiry and design; effectiveness must be demonstrated separately.
What is the difference between reflective and automatic motivation?
Reflective motivation covers deliberate goals, evaluations, and planning. Automatic motivation covers habitual tendencies, emotional reactions, and impulses that can influence behavior with relatively little in-the-moment deliberation. Both can operate together.
Is the COM-B model evidence based?
COM-B has a documented theoretical-development process, research applying it across domains, and empirical examinations of its constructs. Evidence for its usefulness in structuring analyses differs from evidence that using it necessarily creates more effective interventions. Original development, empirical testing, and systematic review evidence clarify these levels.
What is an example of a COM-B intervention?
If someone wants to walk regularly but has no safe, accessible route during their break, changing access or scheduling addresses physical opportunity. If the same person has a route but lacks information on using it, guidance can address psychological capability. If familiar cues and competing routines matter, prompts or context changes may be worth testing. The intervention follows the diagnosed influence.
Is COM-B the same as the Stages of Change model?
No. COM-B categorizes influences on a specific behavior through capability, opportunity, and motivation. The Stages of Change model organizes aspects of readiness and change over time. Each framework makes different assumptions and raises different questions; neither replaces direct evidence of behavioral outcomes.
Can I use COM-B for my own habits or work routines?
Yes, as a structured way to explore why a specific behavior is easier or harder under real conditions. Everyday use can identify plausible barriers, but a self-completed checklist should remain a planning aid rather than a clinical assessment or guarantee.
Related Articles
Motivation, Habits, and Self-Control: Psychology of Behavior Change — the central English Hub guide to the broader psychology of sustained action.
The Intention-Behavior Gap: Why Good Intentions Do Not Always Lead to Action — why a stated intention can coexist with inconsistent follow-through.
Behavior Change Techniques: What Research Supports — how specific intervention components are classified and evaluated.
References
Cane, J., O'Connor, D., & Michie, S. (2012). Validation of the theoretical domains framework for use in behaviour change and implementation research. Implementation Science, 7, 37. https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-7-37
Dyson, J., & Cowdell, F. (2021). How is the Theoretical Domains Framework applied in designing interventions to support healthcare practitioner behaviour change? A systematic review. International Journal for Quality in Health Care, 33(3), mzab106. https://doi.org/10.1093/intqhc/mzab106
Michie, S., Richardson, M., Johnston, M., Abraham, C., Francis, J., Hardeman, W., Eccles, M. P., Cane, J., & Wood, C. E. (2013). The behavior change technique taxonomy (v1) of 93 hierarchically clustered techniques: Building an international consensus for the reporting of behavior change interventions. Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 46(1), 81–95. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12160-013-9486-6
Michie, S., van Stralen, M. M., & West, R. (2011). The behaviour change wheel: A new method for characterising and designing behaviour change interventions. Implementation Science, 6, 42. https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-6-42
Nguyen-Trung, K., Saeri, A. K., Zhao, K., Boulet, M., & Kaufman, S. (2025). SeCOM-B: An integrated model for understanding human behaviour change in wicked socio-ecological problems. Socio-Ecological Practice Research, 7, 367–386. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42532-025-00227-y
Presseau, J., McCleary, N., Lorencatto, F., Patey, A. M., Grimshaw, J. M., & Francis, J. J. (2019). Action, actor, context, target, time (AACTT): A framework for specifying behaviour. Implementation Science, 14, 102. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-019-0951-x
Willmott, T. J., Pang, B., & Rundle-Thiele, S. (2021). Capability, opportunity, and motivation: An across contexts empirical examination of the COM-B model. BMC Public Health, 21, 1014. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-021-11019-w