Build Information Resilience: The Science of Persuasion with Shayoni Lynn

Aspire to Inspire Podcast · 2025-11-13 · 43 min

0:00--:--

Key moments - from our scoring

Substance score

62 / 100

Five dimensions, 20 points each

Insight Density13 / 20

Originality11 / 20

Guest Caliber14 / 20

Specificity & Evidence14 / 20

Conversational Craft10 / 20

Misinformation now ranks as the World Economic Forum's top global risk, making it a critical business and organizational challenge rather than merely a communications hygiene issue. Shayoni Lynn, an applied behavioral scientist and founder of Lynn Group, argues that communicators must move beyond intuition-based approaches to evidence-led strategies grounded in behavioral science. She emphasizes the importance of diagnostic frameworks like COM-B (developed by Susan Michie and Robert West) to understand audience barriers - whether informational, structural, cognitive, or social - before designing interventions. Lynn's methodology prioritizes audience-first thinking, rigorous testing before campaign activation, and measuring impact through clear attribution to communications interventions. She demonstrates this through examples like the "Don't Miss Your Vaccine" campaign during the UK pandemic response, where rapid insight synthesis and audience segmentation (18-29 year-olds in southeast London) drove vaccine uptake. For B2B leaders and communicators, this represents a shift from awareness-raising to measurable behavior change, with frameworks and testing methodologies that protect campaigns from misinformation weaponization while improving ROI.

Key takeaways

Behavioral science frameworks like COM-B enable leaders to diagnose audience barriers (capability, opportunity, motivation) before prescribing solutions, replacing intuition-first approaches with evidence-led strategy.
Testing and experimental validation at scale before campaign activation protects media budgets from failure and prevents interventions from being weaponized by influence campaigns or backfiring.
Building audience resilience proactively against misinformation requires understanding how people perceive messages through their cognitive, social, and structural contexts, not just broadcasting information.
Communicators must move beyond vague goals (awareness, engagement) to specify concrete behaviors they want to create, change, or stop, then measure actual behavior change rather than just outputs.
The diagnostic phase often reveals that communication alone won't solve the problem - sometimes policy, structural, or systemic issues must be addressed first for communications to be effective.

Guests

Shayoni Lynn

Topics in this episode

behavioral science Nudge theory Misinformation COM-B framework Lynn Group Information resilience Choice architecture Susan Michie Robert West Vaccine uptake campaigns

Questions this episode answers

What is the COM-B framework and how does it help leaders diagnose communication problems?

COM-B, developed by Susan Michie and Robert West, is a diagnostic framework that helps leaders identify barriers across three dimensions: Capability (knowledge/skills), Opportunity (structural/social factors), and Motivation (psychological drivers). Before creating solutions, leaders use this framework to understand why audiences aren't responding to current communications, revealing whether the issue is informational, systemic, cognitive, or social.

How can organizations test communications campaigns before full-scale activation?

Shayoni recommends mixed-method, experimental testing at representative scale before spending large media budgets. While focus groups provide initial intelligence, they're biased and non-replicable; rigorous experimental approaches that are replicable and representative protect campaigns from backfiring, being weaponized by influence campaigns, and wasting resources.

Why is audience segmentation important in building resilience against misinformation?

Humans are contextual beings - what works for one audience in one location or time won't necessarily work for another. Real-time insights must be captured to understand how specific audience segments think, feel, and behave, allowing organizations to tailor messaging and build targeted resilience against misinformation within those groups.

What's the difference between nudge theory and behavioral science?

Nudge theory is a subset of behavioral science that specifically focuses on choice architecture - designing environments to help people make better decisions faster. Behavioral science is broader and encompasses multiple intervention types; sometimes the right solution isn't a nudge but something deeper, like reframing, policy change, or structural intervention.

How do you measure the ROI of communication interventions in behavior change campaigns?

Leaders must map inputs (communications spend/activities) to outcomes and attempt to attribute organizational results back to communications interventions. This requires clarity on the specific behavior being targeted, pre/post measurement, and connecting the change process to business outcomes rather than just measuring awareness or engagement metrics.

What our scoring noted

Our reviewer’s read on each dimension, with quotes from the episode.

Insight Density

13 / 20

The episode contains genuine behavioral science frameworks (COM-B, inoculation theory, choice architecture) and concrete methodology for communications work. However, much of the content is explanatory rather than novel - Shayoni repeats core concepts multiple times, and the frameworks discussed are already established in the field. The vaccine campaign example provides solid specificity, but overall the density of new, non-obvious insights per minute is moderate, with significant throat-clearing and reiteration of the same ideas.

behavioral science helps us understand how people perceive the world around them, how they make decisions, and how they influence others around them

once we've specified that behavior, we then need to identify our audience. Again, audience segmentation is very important. And then we need to diagnose those barriers.

Originality

11 / 20

Shayoni presents established behavioral science concepts (nudge theory, confirmation bias, COM-B framework) in a communications context, but the core thinking is not contrarian or first-principles. The idea that messaging should match audience beliefs rather than just broadcast facts is sensible but not novel. The vaccine case study shows application skill but not conceptual innovation. The framing of misinformation as a systemic business risk is relevant but not groundbreaking in 2024.

better framing, not better facts. How do we frame our messages through a lens that's more intuitive and connects with the audience's belief system?

Nudge theory is a subset of behavioral science

Guest Caliber

14 / 20

Shayoni Lynn is a qualified practitioner with demonstrated execution: she founded and runs a behavioral science consultancy, worked on the UK vaccine campaign, and won industry awards (PRovoke Media recognition). She has real client work and measurable outcomes. However, she is not a household-name operator at Fortune 500 scale, and the episode positions her primarily as a thought-leader/consultant rather than as a founder/CEO discussing her own business challenges. Her credentials are solid but somewhat specialized to communications/behavioral science rather than broader B2B operations.

Shayoni Lynn is the CEO and founder of Lynn Group, a multi-award winning behavioral science communications consultancy

we managed to secure 77.8% improvement in vaccine take-up in four weeks

Specificity & Evidence

14 / 20

The episode includes concrete examples: the vaccine campaign with specific metrics (77.8% improvement in 4 weeks), named frameworks (COM-B, Behavior Change Wheel), referenced reports (WEF Global Risk, UN Report ranking misinformation #1), and book recommendations with authors. However, most other claims lack specifics - discussion of 'dozens of campaigns' or 'health sector clients' is vague, and much advice is methodological rather than evidenced with numbers. The diagnostic methodology is explained but not validated with multiple case studies.

we managed to secure 77.8% improvement in vaccine take-up in four weeks alone

misinformation is now ranked the number one global risk over a two-year horizon by the World Economic Forum. That's above state conflict, cyber warfare, and extreme weather

Conversational Craft

10 / 20

Brian asks reasonable setup questions ('What problem do you see behavioral science solving?' 'How can a leader adopt this?'), but rarely pushes back or challenges. When Shayoni gives lengthy, tangential answers (e.g., her rapid-fire responses that aren't rapid), Brian doesn't redirect sharply. The host asks some follow-ups but mostly allows the guest to set the agenda and length of responses. There's no productive disagreement, no 'but doesn't X contradict Y?', and no pressure on vague claims. The interview reads as a friendly PR conversation rather than rigorous interrogation.

That's definitely something that, especially nowadays as the economy changes, people are looking for impact

I think that's great advice

Conversation analysis

Computed from the transcript - who did the talking, and the words that came up most.

Most-used words

misinformation35behavioral30science30communications20impact19audiences17risk16change16approach16important16audience16behavior15information14lynn14campaign14understand13

Episode notes

Join Brian Tomlinson as he sits down with the CEO and Founder of Lynn Group, Shayoni Lynn, a global leader in behavioral science communications. In this impactful episode, Shayoni unpacks the psychology behind misinformation and the rising challenges communicators face in the digital age. From understanding how cognitive biases fuel fake news to building proactive strategies that preserve trust and audience agency, this conversation is a must-listen for anyone navigating truth in an era of uncertainty. From a rapid vaccine uptake campaign that reframed messaging to personal benefit (driving a 77.8% lift) to building information resilience against misinformation, Shayoni offers a practical playbook leaders can use today. You’ll learn how to frame for identity, set baselines from the start, and prove attribution without sacrificing creativity. If you’re ready to replace intuition with evidence and build durable trust, this conversation delivers. ========= Selected People, Places & Things Mentioned: Shayoni Lynn on LinkedIn and Bluesky (shayonislynn@bksy.social ;

Full transcript

43 min

Transcribed and scored by The B2B Podcast Index.

For the second year running, misinformation is now ranked the number one global risk over a two-year horizon by the World Economic Forum. That's above state conflict, cyber warfare, and extreme weather. And over the next 10 years, misinformation remains a top risk. The United Nations Global Risk Report, identifies information warfare as a global vulnerability.

This is no longer a communications hygiene issue. It is a significant business risk. It's an organizational risk. Misinformation accelerates mistrust.

And right now in the world that we live in, which is fragmented, increasing levels of distrust, polarized communities, manufactured outrage, communicating in this environment can feel overwhelming. It can feel paralyzing. Hi, and welcome to a brand new episode of Aspire to Inspire. My name is Brian Tomlinson, and I'm the Head of Content here at Staffbase.

Today's guest is an applied behavioral scientist and industry expert in data-driven comms who is tackling some of the biggest challenges facing communicators today. Shayoni Lynn is the CEO and founder of Lynn Group, a multi-award winning behavioral science communications consultancy recognized for creating positive behavior change at scale and protecting programs, reputations, and audiences from misinformation.

Shayoni specializes in combining behavioral science, data analytics, and communication strategy to help leaders and organizations cut through falsehoods, build trust, and engage audiences with impact. So, in this episode, we're going to explore how communicators can identify and respond to misinformation, empower their audiences while respecting their agency, and build resilience in an age of uncertainty.

Shayoni, welcome to the show. Thank you, Brian. Thank you for having me, and thanks to Staffbase for inviting me to be on the show. Absolutely.

As we were talking before, I'm ready to jump in. I think we have so much interesting stuff to get into. Just to get started, maybe give us a little bit of a short origin story. What problem in communications do you see behavioral science solving for you?

And when did you know that, "Hey, I just need to build Lynn?" Great question. It's one that I'm asked often. So, prior to Lynn, my background was public sector communications.

I was Head of Communications at Cardiff University for their alumni relations fundraising and strategic partnerships programs. And whilst I was there, I created a very data-driven program which was delivering high-impact, high-value. And I suppose the national extension of that journey was behavioral science. And I'm often asked, when was that time that you found yourself really interested in this particular discipline?

And I can't quite recall that exact moment. But what I do know, and Brian, you'll know this from the conversation we've just had about languages, is that I can be quite obsessive if I find interest in something. And behavioral science was very much that type of interest for me. I was able to very rapidly see the impact of using behavioral science interventions to my program.

Albeit back in that day, it was quite introductory, it was quite rudimentary in how I was applying it. Yet, I could still see the impact of that approach. So I dove in to better understand the discipline. Like many other applied practitioners, I'm self-taught.

I do keep up with my CBD. I am connected with the research community. And research is certainly something we also specialize in at Lynn. So, from Cardiff University, I was then, at that time, pre-pandemic, looking for my next role, knowing that I didn't want to stay on within higher education with a keen interest for government communications, actually.

And at that time, a lot of the key roles were in London. So, speaking to my then boss, we agreed that I would start some consultancy on the side and see how that went, whilst balancing my full-time job. And we did that. I think it was June or July 2019.

And very rapidly, I had a growing list of clients. All from the health sector, actually, which was really interesting for someone who'd spent eight years in higher education. And within a few months, I had to make a decision about whether to continue in that format. Balancing two jobs, which wasn't possible, or whether I kind of, you know, you only live once, all of that, and try something new.

And I knew there was a gap in the market. I knew that evidence-driven behavioral science communications wasn't widely available. I'd seen that being in-house, being client-side. I knew that a lot of the "offers" of behavioral science were quite introductory and didn't really have the depth that I was seeking.

So, that is why I created the proposition of Lynn, which is powered by behavioral science. Fundamentally, front and center sits behavioral science and academics and researchers, and applied practitioners like me connect that insight back into creative communications to drive meaningful change. So, I think if I kind of wrap that up, I think for me, Lynn bridges the gap between insight and impact.

And we help organizations think more preemptively. And it's about understanding how can we . . Using behavioral science in the proposition at Lynn, we believe our mission is to improve and save lives.

So, how can we use science to help our audiences make better decisions? And how can we use science to create better programs that are more effective for businesses? So, shifting away from an intuition-first approach, which is often where communicators find themselves, to an evidence-led one. Yeah, I think that's definitely something that, especially nowadays as the economy changes, people are looking for impact.

They're looking for ways to prove that the work that they do matters. And we see that a lot across communications, HR, leadership development, because a lot of these areas tend to be the ones that aren't able to directly measure. Like: "Okay, this is what we do." And they're so important to any organization, right?

But let's touch on, because you mentioned preemptive. I know I've read that you're driven by betterness and preemptive solutions. How does that philosophy challenge the status quo in leadership and in communications right now? Yeah, I think for me, betterness means moving away, or rather beyond simply awareness-raising to actual behavior change.

So, it's about measurable progress, what change for whom and why, and how can we attribute it, or at least parts of it, back to communications interventions. And I think, when we talk about this real desire, and I think this desire has been there for a very long time within our practice. I don't think that communicators aren't interested in demonstrating their value. I believe they aren't investing, for whatever reason, they are not investing in themselves to better improve their capability.

To understanding data, to interpreting and analyzing data, and being able to connect the dots between what do we do, what was the impact, and how can we attribute our work within that change process. And I think what we've done successfully at Lynn is demonstrate that a rigorous science-based approach to communications is both effective and profitable, and it does not compromise on creativity. So, for example, we've run some of the UK's most successful campaigns last year, PRovoke Media recognized Lynn as pound for pound the most creative agency in the world.

So, for me, being preemptive is using the insights that methodology like behavioral science offer to create more resilient programs, and programs which better connect with audiences on more intuitive levels, and which then lead to smarter, more impact. Okay, yeah, I think that makes a ton of sense. It's something that we all need, and really positioning it right like that is really crucial.

How do you think someone, an individual, so if it's a leader, whether that be a CEO or even a middle manager, how do you think they could buy into that philosophy, themselves? Because I know a lot of times we're talking about organizations, but how can a leader themselves start to think differently about how they can make impact within their area or for their company? Yeah, I think behavioral science is a methodology, and it's category-agnostic.

It doesn't depend on specific categories. It can be applied across all categories and all audiences because fundamentally, behavioral science helps us understand how people perceive the world around them, how they make decisions, and how they influence others around them. And therefore, it helps us create more persuasive, more resilient, more intuitive, and impactful programs. And I think a scientific approach offers humility because it gives you a test, learn, and adapt mindset.

And what that does, it detaches you from that personal connection we often have as communicators or leaders to outputs that we create or oversee, right? So, if you take an iterative mindset to development, you should be open to being wrong. And having that mindset means you see your programs and your outputs in a different light. and it's a very audience-first approach as opposed to a leader, organization, team-first approach.

So you're really being led by what your audience wants to hear, see, feel, think, believe. And there are frameworks, there are multiple frameworks. One of the most common ones in the UK is called COM-B by Susan Michie and Robert West. And those types of behavioral or rather diagnostic frameworks help leaders diagnose the situation before prescribing, I suppose, before creating a solution.

I think we are very good because we are creative, we're hardworking individuals in practice. We're very good at coming up with really pretty creative ideas, but we don't spend enough time in understanding whether the idea will actually connect with an audience. Because in 9 out of 10 cases, we are not the audience. We are speaking to completely different types of individuals, communities, and we need to understand how those communities perceive how we see the world.

Because ultimately, we need to share our communication solutions through that particular lens. It doesn't really matter whether I think something's pretty or impactful. If my audience don't, then it's kind of meaningless because the program or communications campaign will not have the impact. because the program or communications campaign will not have the impact.

So, understanding the barriers of capability, opportunity, or motivation, why aren't people doing the things we want them to do, kind of shifts the focus more specifically onto people. So, communications is a relationships business, and I think we should have a human focus, a human-centered approach, and that's what behavioral science gives us. It helps us see our audience through a much more human lens.

And a diagnostic approach for leaders will not only help give them clarity on what is the problem that they're trying to solve. It will then give them more ammunition to design the right interventions to solve it. It's not time wasted. It's efficient.

It's increasing efficiency, increasing productivity, increasing utilization. So, it's a road-tested, more effective approach that provides better ROI for not just communications teams and leaders, but also businesses. Awesome. Actually, the category that came to my mind as you were speaking a little while ago is actually politics.

And I think there's probably 10 seconds there of what you said, every politician should listen to, is just simply understanding the people in your community, right? And do you see that play out over and over? It's quite simply the fact that your communication doesn't hit your audience. It's not what they care about.

Exactly. I know you may have touched on that a little bit already, but leaders tend to say also like, "Hey, we communicated XYZ already." But then the employees will say, "Hey, well, we didn't understand that." And I get a feeling that there's a gap then.

There's some sort of behavioral science gap. And how can a leader close that gap then if that communication and understanding is just not coming together? Yes. I think, again, it goes back to how can we create .

. how can we share from being a broadcast program to one that is inclusive, that includes dialogue with the right people at the right time with the right message, right? And so, behavioral science gives you that robust methodology. It's not off the shelf because you've got to customize it with that insight all the time, but the framework in itself is really comprehensive and it's replicable.

So, you start with specifying the behavior. We often . . I say that fully aware that we struggle as an industry to even categorize our objectives with clarity.

So, we always have visions and aims and goals, but what is the behavior that we are trying to create, right? Create, change, stop, whatever. So, once we've specified that behavior, we then need to identify our audience. Again, audience segmentation is very important.

And then we need to diagnose those barriers. And when I say diagnosis, I don't just mean informational. I'm also talking about what are the structural barriers. What are the problems within or the issues within the system that is stopping or enabling people from doing something or the other?

What are the cognitive barriers? How do we think, or rather, let me rephrase that, how we think, how does that inform or influence how our audiences perceive our messages and then do they act on it? So, that's the cognitive side. And then thinking about social, right?

How do our audiences reference networks? Okay, so their friends, their families, their peers, people they trust, their in-group sources. How do they influence our audience? So, diagnosing those barriers is fundamental to understanding why groups or individuals might behave in certain ways towards your communication strategy.

And only once we've completed the diagnostic phase, do we then move on to designing interventions. Solutions. And communications is one intervention solution. And sometimes we've run diagnostics and we've gone, "Actually, this isn't a comms problem.

This is a policy issue. You've got to fix the policy before we fix the comms side of things." So, that diagnostic gives clarity about which part within that journey for the audience do we need to resolve before we can start engaging them in the ways that we want to. And then also, I think it's really important to embed testing.

I think often when people think about a scientific approach within our industry, they often miss out testing. And if testing is there, it's usually quite small-scale, so focus groups, which come with their own challenges because they're usually not representative, they're usually not replicable, they usually suffer from a lot of bias, but they do give you really good intelligence. So, testing where possible, mixed methods, ideally experimental, things that can work at scale.

Things that can be replicable and representative really protects that media budget on activation. So, if you're going to spend a million pounds on a campaign, but you haven't got those experimental insights from a large-scale population, there's a huge chance that your interventions might not work. They might backfire, they might be weaponized by influence campaigns, a whole bunch of things.

So, pulling in that testing before we activate really protects campaigns and program delivery. And then, again, once we activate, another thing And then, again, once we activate, another thing for leaders to think about is it's one thing to create a behavior, but in today's polluted information environment, how do we protect those behaviors? How do we build resilience within our audiences proactively to ensure that that policy, that program, that particular campaign is protected from external factors which, as we know, are increasing every day?

And I know we'll talk about misinformation later. And then, I think, the final piece of the puzzle really is the "so what." What was the impact of that intervention? And I think it's really important as leaders to map your inputs to outcomes and try and demonstrate how communications or any other interventions you led attributed to that organizational outcome, right?

Really be able to articulate that change process because that's how we develop value as practitioners. Cool I mean, to bring all that together in the end, maybe in 60 seconds or so, maybe you could tell us a story where a tiny behavioral tweak or a nudge which will come to change outcomes at scale. Maybe what bias did you target? What metric moved?

I'm sure you have tons that you could pull from. I could. And I think one thing before I do that is to clear up something around nudges. I think there's this conception within our industry largely that nudge theory is behavioral science, and it's not.

Nudge theory is a subset of behavioral science. Nudge theory specifically looks at choice architecture. So, how do we design environments where individuals can make the best decisions for them in a way that intuitively speaks to them? And how can we help them get to choices faster?

So, fundamentally, nudge may not be the right intervention in certain circumstances. It may not be a design choice. It may not be a reframing. It could be something deeper.

But to give you an example, I think one of the best examples that speak to a diagnostic behavioral approach is when we did a ton of work during the pandemic for increasing vaccine take-up in the UK. And we were working across both Wales and England. And human beings are contextual beings, right? So, what works for me in Cardiff would not work for someone in London.

What works for me even today in Cardiff may not work for me tomorrow in Cardiff. So, contextual beings, we need to capture real-time insights to understand how humans think, feel, and behave. We were doing a lot of work across both nations. And we were brought in in London for one of our clients that we did quite a lot of work in their patch in southeast London to try and increase vaccine take-up, especially within young audiences, so 18 to 29.

Because, certainly in the UK, there was a belief that once the vaccination program moved from priority to mass, especially when it started going towards the younger audiences, that there would be high levels of take-up. Actually, we saw quite the opposite, where there was a lot of hesitancy and inertia and young people weren't getting the vaccine as much as possible. So we were brought in and we had a deadline because the then Prime Minister, Boris Johnson, was going to relax COVID restrictions in England whilst infections still remained high.

So, our job was to try and get as many young people to take the jab, right? And we didn't have time to do primary research on this particular topic because it was so rapid, but because we'd been operating in this environment and we'd been doing research across those two nations, we had a bank of primary insights which we were able to adapt. And because we'd worked on that patch, we also knew the audience from other campaigns.

So, we kind of blended those two pieces of insight and we rapidly turned this campaign called Don't Miss Your Vaccine in one week, which I would not recommend anyone do. And it was an integrated campaign. We chucked everything at it. But the fundamental insight that came out from our diagnostic was this massive frustration with the existing messaging.

Across the UK, the behavioral frame that was being used was protecting yourself and your community, but that just wasn't landing with our audience. So, instead, using our insights, we shifted the narrative to personal benefit, so we said, "Do it for yourself, do it for your selfish reasons, do it for going to the pub, do it for going on a date, do it for going back on holiday, do it for yourself, forget your community, just do it for yourself."

And that particular personal benefit frame, which kind of leveraged freedom, was so, so impactful that we managed to secure 77.8% improvement in vaccine take-up in four weeks alone with that particular cohort. And it went on to become an umbrella campaign. We had about 10 iterations.

NHS England licensed some of our assets to take them England-wide, and it's won pretty much every award that was to win. But the real impact of that approach was the lives that we saved with that messaging and the lives that we improved with that messaging. So, again, the reason I talk about this particular case study is to show that a behavioral science approach is not one that takes months and months and months.

It can be a very rapid process. And if you look at the campaign, it's a very creative campaign. We won creative awards for it. We beat some major networks to win some of these best campaign in the UK awards.

So, it shows that you can blend academic rigor with creativity and have impact, if you have the methodology which behavioral science provides. Oh, that's a great story. As a marketer, you're like, "Oh, this is amazing," right? It's so, not funny, but so fascinating, actually, how you can just tweak that human nature to some extent.

Yeah, it's just understanding that human nature in a bit more detail and then creating something that speaks to that insight. How could a CEO maybe use a tactic like that for, let's say, they have thousands of non-desk workers. So, people who are not necessarily in the main communication flow. So, people are working all over the place.

Maybe they're in a factory and they're just not always getting this communication that the normal desk workers do. What could be an evidence-backed way for a company to be able to persuade workers to take action, to be bought into the vision? Is there any field-tested example that we could use? The answer is no, because human beings are not the same.

We're not homogenous. So what works in one context has no guarantee of working. And it's not an off-the-shelf solution, but there is a methodology that that CEO leader can adopt, which is understanding all types of workers. So that is where that primary research is really important.

Being very clear about the behavior they want to achieve, identifying the groups of people they want to speak to or need to speak to, and then working through with primary insight. And I mean, usually mixed methods. So usually, I mean, quantitative first is okay, because you secure more honest feedback when it's quantitative, because it can be anonymized. It can be a scale, so you have more replicable insights.

So, a survey instrument that collects that insight, ideally based on a behavioral framework like COM-B. So it's not just asking for stated intent, like, "Do you like working at your desk?" It's not going to give you intelligence that's useful. It's trying to understand what stops you from accessing X at your desk, who speaks to you when you're .

. So those are the kinds of questions to understand those barriers and enablers. So, that primary research, that investment in primary research is so crucial to having interventions that work. And I think we're so caught up in our industry in being at that side, at the fun side of the game, which is the creative and the activation and the, you know, all of that stuff.

We just don't give weightage to the bit that actually does work. And that, if we rejig our budgets to give that piece as much as it deserves, our outcomes are going to be so much stronger. And we'll be able to secure more money for our programs because they are going to speak to C-suite, because they will demonstrate the impact that adds to the organization. Yes, so do more work at the front end, basically.

Right. Very important. But what about, how does that affect the end then? So, are there any outcome metrics that someone in comms or HR should be tracking to prove behavior change?

Not just opens clicks. What's the simplest way that they could start? 100%. The simplest way is to go to AMEC or government communication service and look at all the resources they have available.

But fundamentally, in a nutshell, we always think about inputs. We always think about the things that we do, which is great. I've written a press release. I've done X, Y, and Z.

I've created some content. Those are our inputs. And then we also talk about outputs, the stuff we've put out. We put some social stuff out.

We put a video out. That's our outputs. Outtakes, how do people react to what we put out? Did that increase engagement?

Did that increase shareability? And that, again, you know, when you start looking at how evaluation is carried out in practice, that's pretty much where good evaluation stops. But even if people engage with a piece of content, does that change their behavior? We don't know until we track that.

So we can't stop at outtakes. We must move to outcomes. So, if we wanted to do something, did it result in the behavior? And that's about setting up your program and your campaign at the very start to capture that data.

Setting the right baselines, identifying your right metrics. Having your conversations with your data teams to ensure you can capture that data and report back on it. Having tracking embedded, so you can start seeing the attribution journey and start saying, "Okay, I did this, which led to this, which then led to this, and here's the impact." And of course, communications can't 100% own that impact.

I get that. And like you can't say because of my campaign, it resulted in X. Sometimes you can, but rarely can you do that. But you can certainly demonstrate that journey and say, "My solution was part of that decision-making process that led to this impact.

And I can articulate that with data." So, I think it's about looking at the right frameworks. AMEC has plenty of resources on their website. There's plug and play dashboards that people can go and start experimenting with and start playing with.

If you want some more depth, looking at government communication service in the UK, great resources. Their current framework is called the evaluation cycle, which has come from Evaluation 2.0, which was the previous framework. And that actually includes behavior change campaign.

So, it will tell you, if you want a behavior change campaign, these are the metrics that you need to be looking at. So, I think there's some good resources there. Cool, amazing. Everything about that even shouts to just like, really do your work at the beginning.

Figure out what that outcome is, what that behavior change that you're really going for is. Exactly. And a lot of things will fall into place. Maybe let's just shift a little bit into misinformation and disinformation.

Maybe to start, how do you define both of those? Because I think sometimes that meaning isn't really the same for everyone. So maybe that would be good if we first define what those are. Since they are used interchangeably and how do you define them and why do they matter?

Yeah, so, disinformation is the proliferation of false information with intent. Misinformation is the proliferation of false information without intent. So, in other words, all disinformation is misinformation, but not all misinformation is disinformation. And when we think about misinformation, of course, we must think about intent, but we also must think about motivation, right?

So, what is the motivation behind spreading intentional lies or misleading information. And so, that's very interconnected. The intent and motivation are extremely interconnected. So, to give you an example, some sort of bot on maybe X spreading health misinformation or health disinformation is intentional, right?

Because it wants people to stop undertaking behaviors that protect them and their health. It's intentional and it's malicious. But if you think about maybe satire, I know our world is such that satire and fact have now kind of blended. So, it's very hard to define what is satire anymore.

But if you think back to the world that we had before 2016, when we did have satire, there was an article in The Onion which basically said that Kim Jong Un has been voted the sexiest man alive in 2012. So that is satire and it's benign. So there's a difference in both the intent and motivation. I think it's really important to consider those in context.

And in terms of why is it important? Well, look, for the second year running, misinformation is now ranked the number one global risk over a two-year horizon by the World Economic Forum. That's above state conflict, cyber warfare, and extreme weather. And over the next 10 years, misinformation remains a top risk.

So, another really important report, the United Nations Global Risk Report, identifies information warfare as a global vulnerability. So, this is no longer a communications hygiene issue. It is a significant business risk. It's an organizational risk.

So, why does it matter? Of course, it matters because misinformation accelerates mistrust. And right now in the world that we live in, which is fragmented, increasing levels of distrust, polarized communities, manufactured outrage, communicating in this environment can feel overwhelming. It can feel paralyzing.

And unless we understand how misinformation contributes to this, which is a systemic risk, because misinformation doesn't just distort facts, it undermines our ability to respond to every other risk. So, it's a compound threat. Unless we understand misinformation through that particular lens and how it's destabilizing us from responding to all other risks, we will never be able to create programs that connect with our audiences and be trusted in this particular polluted information environment.

Wow, yeah. I think that you ended on the right word there, which is trust. Trust is very fragile nowadays, I think. So, how can a leader, if they can do one thing, every day to strengthen trust, what would that be?

Yes. I mean trust is rare currency. And I was saying this earlier, I think it was last week, I was like, in today's world where truth is what you believe, which is motivated reasoning, which is another model of misinformation and disbelief. So, if the truth is what you believe, how do you protect the truth?

And what does that mean for our practice? If trust is negotiable, if fact is negotiable, where does that leave us as communicators and marketers? And I think what we need to think about, or leaders can think about, is shift their mindset from a misinformation is a reactive risk, so we will respond to misinformation if it hits our doorstep and becomes a crisis, and shifting that to a proactive mindset.

So, how can we use the science that is available to us to create resilience within our program? At Lynn, we call that the information resilience mindset. How can we proactively approach trust? How can we proactively approach protecting brand equity and reputation in a way that uses the best of science, but also gives us a predictive model, and a model that is not just solely tech-based, by the way.

This is not a SaaS platform that I'm advocating for. A model that includes the science and the human intelligence to create proactive strategies that can help insulate both our audiences and our programs from disinformation, false narratives, influence campaigns, all of these things that can destabilize good work that we do. So, I think it's shifting that mindset. You know, honestly, when we think about misinformation, and there's so much interest in misinformation, in 2021, Lynn set up the Misinformation Cell, which was one of the first commercial offerings within the space for PR and Comms.

And so I've been talking about this for coming up to five years now. The interest has only grown. So, this year, 90% of my speaking is on misinformation. But if I ask all sorts of people, how many of you have misinformation on your risk register, very few hands go up.

So, I think, whilst there's high interest, we need to balance that out with an understanding of the systemic nature of the risk, so we can invest properly into protecting and insulating organizations. We wouldn't sit on our hands and not have plans in place for cyber warfare. Then why are we doing the same with misinformation? What's one do and one don't that Comms, our HR team, who's confronted with misinformation inside the organization, what's one do, one don't that they should do based on that?

Inside the organization, as in to employees or to . . Yeah, to employees. If employees are being affected by misinformation, and that is, I think, a very big issue that people don't often talk about.

Certainly, I think the focus often is too heavily weighted on external audiences and not internal audiences, and the information environment that we are consuming is not categorized as such. So our internal audiences have as much risk to being exposed and being, I'm not going to use the word radicalization, which sounds a lot more extreme, but influenced rather by bad actors and false narratives, it's very possible that is happening and will happen in the future.

So, if you face that, I think the key thing is to understand why people are susceptible to misinformation. And I'm not going to get into it because it's quite lengthy and we're going into belief systems, but I think it's fundamental to understand that anyone is susceptible to misinformation. And the strategies that are being deployed by actors who are incentivized to gain from misinformation are fully aware of behavioral science, and they're using it to create content that is persuasive, that speaks to people's identities, that have effective storytelling.

And that is what is capturing hearts and minds of people because guess what? We are human beings. We suffer from a bunch of biases, which is part of being human, and one of them is confirmation bias. So if I want to believe what I believe is true, because accepting information that contradicts our belief systems and our identities is psychologically painful, it's so much easier to just reject it.

And that's where reactive strategies like fact-checking and debunking fail. Because if someone's belief systems are being targeted by false information, no amount of fact is going to change that. So, the question becomes, as I often say, better framing, not better facts. How do we frame our messages through a lens that's more intuitive and connects with the audience's belief system?

So, do try and understand why people are believing misinformation, why people are being susceptible to misinformation. Don't tell them facts and figures, and don't use institutional language. It's just not going to work. I think that's great advice.

So, as we come towards the end, maybe let's jump in. I have some rapid-fire questions for you to end up. So, they're not hard, I promise. They're super easy for you, I'm sure.

Okay, so let's go. The first one. What's one behavioral science term every comms or leader should know? Confirmation bias.

And we suffer from it as much as our audience does. Yes, this is true, without a doubt. What's your go-to source for trustworthy news? I focus on having a diverse media diet.

I think it's really important that we think about our media diets as communicators. And whilst it's very easy for us to absorb the information that aligns and conforms to our belief systems and our identities, it's important also to read about with full knowledge that you are reading about things that might contradict your belief systems or you might be ambivalent to. I try and include as much diversity in my media diet.

I'm fully aware of my own biases. I'm fully aware that I tend to agree with content that aligns or genders that align with my political leanings. I try and make a point to read the other side of the view. And also, I think it's important to think about, because there's this huge attest .

. so this is rapid fire. Again, this is why I'm really bad at rapid fire. I think it's really important.

There's this agenda against experts. So, when it comes to actors who do peddle false information, one of the tactics is to cast doubt. And casting doubt on experts is a very common tactic used by such actors. But I think when people say, "Have you heard so-and-so?"

which is a way of getting you to conform with their own identities, I think it's really important that we make our views up based on consensus views and not individual views. So, it's really, especially when it comes to topics like health and climate, it's very important that we look at what the consensus is telling us versus what individual experts are telling us. Oh, okay. Amazing answer.

I think that's very important and something for everyone to learn. Because I think that's what you mentioned earlier. It's hard to go and look at something that doesn't fit to your belief system. Two quick ones.

Your top three book recommendations for any leader who wants to get obsessive with behavioral science. Top three. Obviously, I'm going to talk about Nudge, but the final edition. Actually, read both.

Read the former edition. Read the final edition. They're both very good. I think if you're looking at misinformation, Foolproof by Sander van der Linden.

It's seminal work. And it talks about inoculation theory and pre-bunking and how you can start building resilience within your audiences. I would recommend The Behavior Change Wheel by Susan Michie, Robert West, et al., which talks about COM-B as a diagnostic framework and The Behavior Change Wheel and how you use different types of interventions to create impact.

Amazing. Okay. The very last one. I promise this one is easy.

What's the best piece of advice you've ever received and still follow? Oh, my God. This is how biases affect my clearly having zero availability bias when it comes to that. I think the best piece of advice is to stay curious.

And I try and embrace that. Specifically in working in the sciences, scientific approach means the research is constantly changing. And when you plug that against the landscape that we're operating, which is rapid technological advancement, geopolitical tension, that means our context is continually changing. Our operating environment is continually changing.

So I think having that curiosity to ensure you're constantly consuming new information, certainly from academia, to understand how you interpret and apply that back into practice has been useful. And I try and read as much scientific literature as I can. And I constantly think about how would this work, if I were to apply it back in practice and using that sort of thinking to build rigor within your program.

Amazing. All right. Well, thank you so much, Shayoni. I think that was amazing today.

Thank you so much for sharing just your experience. I think it was really valuable. And to the audience, thank you so much for joining us today. Shayoni, tell everyone where they can find you on the net.

Yes. Well, our website is lynn.global. That's L-Y-N-N dot global.

I'm on LinkedIn, and you can find me under Shayoni Lynn, and you'll find me on LinkedIn. Please connect with me on LinkedIn. And on Bluesky, I am shayonislynn at bsky.social.

I use Bluesky as my repository for resources. So, if you're looking for more things to read, that's where I put stuff up that interests me. Amazing. Thank you so much.

Well, everyone, thank you for joining us this week on the Aspire to Inspire Podcast. We will see you next time. Thanks for tuning in. Thanks for joining.

Hey, if you're getting value from today's conversation, make sure you subscribe right now so you don't miss any future episodes of the Aspire to Inspire Podcast.

Related episodes across the Index

Other episodes covering the same guests and topics, from across The B2B Podcast Index.

More from Aspire to Inspire Podcast

All episodes →

Explore the best B2B Leadership podcasts →

All Aspire to Inspire Podcast episodes →

Key takeaways

Behavioral science frameworks like COM-B enable leaders to diagnose audience barriers (capability, opportunity, motivation) before prescribing solutions, replacing intuition-first approaches with evidence-led strategy.

Testing and experimental validation at scale before campaign activation protects media budgets from failure and prevents interventions from being weaponized by influence campaigns or backfiring.

Building audience resilience proactively against misinformation requires understanding how people perceive messages through their cognitive, social, and structural contexts, not just broadcasting information.

Communicators must move beyond vague goals (awareness, engagement) to specify concrete behaviors they want to create, change, or stop, then measure actual behavior change rather than just outputs.

The diagnostic phase often reveals that communication alone won't solve the problem - sometimes policy, structural, or systemic issues must be addressed first for communications to be effective.

Questions this episode answers

What is the COM-B framework and how does it help leaders diagnose communication problems?

How can organizations test communications campaigns before full-scale activation?

Why is audience segmentation important in building resilience against misinformation?

What's the difference between nudge theory and behavioral science?

How do you measure the ROI of communication interventions in behavior change campaigns?

What our scoring noted

Our reviewer’s read on each dimension, with quotes from the episode.

Insight Density

13 / 20

behavioral science helps us understand how people perceive the world around them, how they make decisions, and how they influence others around them

once we've specified that behavior, we then need to identify our audience. Again, audience segmentation is very important. And then we need to diagnose those barriers.

Originality

11 / 20

better framing, not better facts. How do we frame our messages through a lens that's more intuitive and connects with the audience's belief system?

Nudge theory is a subset of behavioral science

Guest Caliber

14 / 20

Shayoni Lynn is the CEO and founder of Lynn Group, a multi-award winning behavioral science communications consultancy

we managed to secure 77.8% improvement in vaccine take-up in four weeks

Specificity & Evidence

14 / 20

we managed to secure 77.8% improvement in vaccine take-up in four weeks alone

misinformation is now ranked the number one global risk over a two-year horizon by the World Economic Forum. That's above state conflict, cyber warfare, and extreme weather

Conversational Craft

10 / 20

That's definitely something that, especially nowadays as the economy changes, people are looking for impact

I think that's great advice

Episode notes