Embedding Behavior Change in Embedding Behavior Change in its Social & Physical Contextits Social & Physical Context

Carol M. WernerCarol M. Werner

University of Utah USAUniversity of Utah USA

Paper presented at NAHMMA, 2005, Tacoma WAPaper presented at NAHMMA, 2005, Tacoma WA

Environmental Behavior Environmental Behavior ChangeChange

No Silver BulletNo Silver Bullet Holistic approachHolistic approach

individual & supportive contextindividual & supportive context

social milieu (friends, society)social milieu (friends, society)

political/economic system political/economic system

physical environment physical environment

Social MilieuSocial Milieu PerceivedPerceived opinions of: opinions of:

Immediate Friends/FamilyImmediate Friends/Family

Larger Social milieu Larger Social milieu TV, radio, print: TV, radio, print:

advertising, commentary advertising, commentary Social Pressures:Social Pressures:““Pluralistic ignorance” (disagree, but fear rejection)Pluralistic ignorance” (disagree, but fear rejection)

Hearing others endorse new behavior gives the Hearing others endorse new behavior gives the individual “permission” to change.individual “permission” to change.

Creating positive social milieu: Creating positive social milieu: A route to individual attitude A route to individual attitude

changechange Guided group discussions (Lewin)Guided group discussions (Lewin) Not a lecture:Not a lecture:

Group members endorse new ideaGroup members endorse new idea Group members discuss problems and Group members discuss problems and

solutionssolutions Leader guides discussion in support of Leader guides discussion in support of

nontoxicsnontoxics

Results: Community Groups:Results: Community Groups:Own OpinionsOwn Opinions

Table 1. Attitudes and Behaviors Since the MeetingTable 1. Attitudes and Behaviors Since the Meeting

ALL ORGANIZERSALL ORGANIZERS MATCHED SAMPLE MATCHED SAMPLE ((nn = 46) = 46)

PERSONAL ATTITUDES AND BEHAVIORSPERSONAL ATTITUDES AND BEHAVIORSaa

OrganizerOrganizer Control Control n n Took things to HHW facility? Took things to HHW facility? 33%33%35% 10%*35% 10%* 2020 Shared leftovers? Shared leftovers? 36%36% 35% 12%*35% 12%* 1717 Begin/continue sharing? Begin/continue sharing? 6.66.6 5.3 3.6*5.3 3.6* 1818 Important to reduce use Important to reduce use 9.79.7 9.79.7 9.0* 9.0* 2323 Plan to use nontoxicsPlan to use nontoxicsbb 8.48.4 8.7 7.2*8.7 7.2* 2323

11-points scales, 6=middle point11-points scales, 6=middle point Matched sample did not hear information. This difference shows Matched sample did not hear information. This difference shows

people learned something at the meeting.people learned something at the meeting.

* matched groups differ at * matched groups differ at pp < .05, 1-tailed dependent < .05, 1-tailed dependent tt-tests-tests Column one shows responses of all 46 organizers (for comparison to the reduced sample). Columns two and three show the subgroup of organizers Column one shows responses of all 46 organizers (for comparison to the reduced sample). Columns two and three show the subgroup of organizers

with their matched controls; with their matched controls; nn’s for the subgroups are in parentheses; statistical tests compare the subgroup of 23 organizers with their matched ’s for the subgroups are in parentheses; statistical tests compare the subgroup of 23 organizers with their matched controls.controls.

a a Percentages indicate percent of respondents saying “yes” to that item. Other items were rated on 1-11 scales, with ends labeled “Extremely Percentages indicate percent of respondents saying “yes” to that item. Other items were rated on 1-11 scales, with ends labeled “Extremely Unlikely/Extremely Likely,” “Extremely Unimportant/Extremely Important,” or “Extremely Unsatisfied/Extremely Satisfied.” Unlikely/Extremely Likely,” “Extremely Unimportant/Extremely Important,” or “Extremely Unsatisfied/Extremely Satisfied.”

bb Mean of three items: 1) likely to use more nontoxics around the home; 2) likely to use nontoxics to care for landscaping; and 3) satisfaction with Mean of three items: 1) likely to use more nontoxics around the home; 2) likely to use nontoxics to care for landscaping; and 3) satisfaction with nontoxic alternatives.nontoxic alternatives.

Results: Community Groups:Results: Community Groups:Predicting Friends’ OpinionsPredicting Friends’ Opinions

Table 1. Attitudes and Behaviors Since the MeetingTable 1. Attitudes and Behaviors Since the Meeting

ALL ORGANIZERSALL ORGANIZERS MATCHED SAMPLE MATCHED SAMPLE ((nn = 46) = 46)

ESTIMATES OF GROUP’S ESTIMATES OF GROUP’S ATTITUDES AND BEHAVIOR Organizers Control ATTITUDES AND BEHAVIOR Organizers Control n n Group valued meetingGroup valued meeting 9.4 9.4 9.2 9.2 Not asked Not asked 2323

Group shared leftovers 24%Group shared leftovers 24% 27% “Don’t Know” 27% “Don’t Know” 2222

Group begin/continue sharing? 5.7Group begin/continue sharing? 5.7 6.0 6.0 4.2* 4.2* 1212

IMPORTANCE OF “BEING AT MEETING”IMPORTANCE OF “BEING AT MEETING” Matched sample could not predict friends’ opinionsMatched sample could not predict friends’ opinions

* matched groups differ at * matched groups differ at pp < .05, 1-tailed dependent < .05, 1-tailed dependent tt-tests-tests Column one shows responses of all 46 organizers (for comparison to the reduced sample). Columns two and three show the subgroup of organizers with their matched controls; Column one shows responses of all 46 organizers (for comparison to the reduced sample). Columns two and three show the subgroup of organizers with their matched controls; nn’s for the subgroups are in parentheses; statistical tests ’s for the subgroups are in parentheses; statistical tests

compare the subgroup of 23 organizers with their matched controls.compare the subgroup of 23 organizers with their matched controls. a a Percentages indicate percent of respondents saying “yes” to that item. Other items were rated on 1-11 scales, with ends labeled “Extremely Unlikely/Extremely Likely,” “Extremely Unimportant/Extremely Important,” or “Extremely Percentages indicate percent of respondents saying “yes” to that item. Other items were rated on 1-11 scales, with ends labeled “Extremely Unlikely/Extremely Likely,” “Extremely Unimportant/Extremely Important,” or “Extremely

Unsatisfied/Extremely Satisfied.” Unsatisfied/Extremely Satisfied.” bb Mean of three items: 1) likely to use more nontoxics around the home; 2) likely to use nontoxics to care for landscaping; and 3) satisfaction with nontoxic alternatives. Mean of three items: 1) likely to use more nontoxics around the home; 2) likely to use nontoxics to care for landscaping; and 3) satisfaction with nontoxic alternatives.

RelevantRelevant AttitudeAttitude

DiscussionDiscussion changechange

WHY?WHY?MORE PERSUASION?MORE PERSUASION?

MORE LEARNING? ACTIVE LEARNING?MORE LEARNING? ACTIVE LEARNING?

PERCEIVED GROUP ENDORSEMENT?PERCEIVED GROUP ENDORSEMENT?

?

Replication: High School ClassesReplication: High School Classes

True experiment (“causality”):True experiment (“causality”):Lecture vs. Guided DiscussionLecture vs. Guided Discussion

Random assignment to treatmentRandom assignment to treatment

Is guided group discussion more Is guided group discussion more effective than “current practice” effective than “current practice” (lecture)?(lecture)?

Initial attitude

Discussion vs. lecture

Attitude towards nontoxics.13*

.29*

Discussion vs. LectureDiscussion increased attitude change, when topic relevant

Relevance & format

.11*

Lecture INeffective when relevantDiscussion Very effective when relevant

Initial attitude

Discussion vs. lecture

Attitude towards nontoxics

Perceived groupendorsement

.08

.23*

33*

Discussion of relevant information leads to attitude changebecause students believe others endorse new information

Relevance& format

.06

DiscussionDiscussion Attitude Change Attitude Change

PEOPLE BEGIN TO FAVOR NONTOXICS PEOPLE BEGIN TO FAVOR NONTOXICS BECAUSE THEY PERCEIVE OTHERS BECAUSE THEY PERCEIVE OTHERS

FAVOR NONTOXICS.FAVOR NONTOXICS.

?

Why?Why?

Did lectures and discussion differ in Did lectures and discussion differ in content?content? Number of topics covered?Number of topics covered? Persuasiveness of coverage?Persuasiveness of coverage?

Behaviors during meetingBehaviors during meeting(from audiotapes)(from audiotapes)

What did students do that gave What did students do that gave others the impression they agreed others the impression they agreed with the speaker?with the speaker? Positive participation (enthusiasm, Positive participation (enthusiasm,

endorsements, questions)endorsements, questions) Negative participation (challenges, off-Negative participation (challenges, off-

topic remarks)topic remarks)

Private thoughtsPrivate thoughts

Predicted attitude changePredicted attitude change not influenced by meetingsnot influenced by meetings Saying vs. thinkingSaying vs. thinking

Implications/ProblemsImplications/Problems

Environmental behaviors are social Environmental behaviors are social behaviors.behaviors.

Attitude and behavior change require Attitude and behavior change require social support.social support.

Small study; need videotapesSmall study; need videotapes

ReferencesReferences Gillilan, S., Werner, C. M., Olson, L., & Adams, D. (1996). Teaching the concept of Gillilan, S., Werner, C. M., Olson, L., & Adams, D. (1996). Teaching the concept of PREcycling: A campaign and evaluation. PREcycling: A campaign and evaluation. Journal of Environmental Education, 28Journal of Environmental Education, 28, 11-18., 11-18.

Werner, C. M. (2003). Changing homeowners’ use of toxic household products: A transactional Werner, C. M. (2003). Changing homeowners’ use of toxic household products: A transactional approach. approach. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 23Journal of Environmental Psychology, 23, 33-45., 33-45.

Werner & Adams (2001). Changing homeowners’ behaviors involving toxic household chemicals: A Werner & Adams (2001). Changing homeowners’ behaviors involving toxic household chemicals: A psychological, multilevel approach. psychological, multilevel approach. Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy, 1Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy, 1, 1-31. [Also , 1-31. [Also available at “www.spssi.org”].available at “www.spssi.org”].

Werner, C. M., Byerly, S., Sansone, C. (in press). Reducing intentions to use toxic household Werner, C. M., Byerly, S., Sansone, C. (in press). Reducing intentions to use toxic household products throughproducts through

guided group discussion. In B. Martin & A. Keul (Eds.), guided group discussion. In B. Martin & A. Keul (Eds.), Proceedings of IAPS 18Proceedings of IAPS 18, Vienna (July, 2004): , Vienna (July, 2004): IAPS (request from the author carol.werner@psych.utah.edu).IAPS (request from the author carol.werner@psych.utah.edu).