Summative Evaluation of Communication
description
Transcript of Summative Evaluation of Communication
![Page 1: Summative Evaluation of Communication](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062410/56816427550346895dd5e532/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
Summative Evaluation of Communication
• CSS 387• May 3, 2012
![Page 2: Summative Evaluation of Communication](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062410/56816427550346895dd5e532/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
• Three treatments– Awareness of consequences– AC + “heritage guardian”– AC + HG + incentive
• Control• Monitored w/camera
– kids had badges
1: Shiloh Military Park
Vander Stoep, G. & Gramann, J. 1987. The effect of verbal appeals and incentives on depreciative behavior among youthful park visitors. Journal of Leisure Research, 19, 69-83
![Page 3: Summative Evaluation of Communication](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062410/56816427550346895dd5e532/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
Effects of Messages on Depreciative Behaviors at Shiloh Military Park
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
All behavior types
Mea
n nu
mbe
r of a
cts/
grou
p
No message AC message AC +HG AC + HG + Inc
![Page 4: Summative Evaluation of Communication](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062410/56816427550346895dd5e532/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
Lessons?• Messages were effective
• “Theory” based messages did not function better than awareness messages
• Social influences might have been pronounced
• Credible source
![Page 5: Summative Evaluation of Communication](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062410/56816427550346895dd5e532/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
2: polystyrene recycling• Old signs
– Small, placed on recycling bin (not trash)– “choose to recycle”
Werner, C. M., Rhodes, M. U., & Partain, K. K. (1998). Designing effective instructional signs with schema theory: Case studies of polystyrene recycling. Environment and Behavior, 30(5), 709-735.
• New signs–Large, brief text–3 concepts: recycle, polystyrene, only–Glued objects to sign–Trash bin: “STOP – do not contaminate!”
![Page 6: Summative Evaluation of Communication](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062410/56816427550346895dd5e532/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
2: polystyrene recycling
• Test:– Pre-test (1 week)– New signs (3 weeks)– Post-test (1 week)– Collected items in bins– Administered survey (knowledge, attitudes)
![Page 7: Summative Evaluation of Communication](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062410/56816427550346895dd5e532/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
Knowledge and attitudes about styrofoam recycling
0 20 40 60 80 100
Should U recycle polystyrene?
Know what polystyrene is?
Don't know what food serviceitems are polystyrene
Know polystyrene must bescraped
Know U recycles polystyrene
Percent
Old SignsNew Signs 1 full bin/day
3.5 full bins/day
Large effect on specific knowledge & behavior
![Page 8: Summative Evaluation of Communication](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062410/56816427550346895dd5e532/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
Lessons?
• Identify the right issue
• Need to interrupt mindless behavior
• Design features matter
![Page 9: Summative Evaluation of Communication](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062410/56816427550346895dd5e532/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
3: damage to coral reefs
• Approach – verbal education • Methods
– Observed divers for 8 weeks – recorded number of contacts with coral (divers did 10 dives)• During 5 weeks, gave briefing at end of dive #3
(experimental group)• During 3 weeks, no briefings (control)
Medio, D., Ormond, R. F. G., & Pearson, M. (1996). Effect of briefings on rates of damage to corals by scuba divers. Biological Conservation, 79, 91-95.
![Page 10: Summative Evaluation of Communication](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062410/56816427550346895dd5e532/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
Mean number of contacts per diver per 7 minutes
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
5
Ctrl-1 Ctrl-2 Ctrl-3 Expt-1 Expt-2 Expt-3 Expt-4 Expt-5
Dark bars = dives 1-3
Light bars = dives 4-10 (post briefing for experimental groups)
500 incidents per day at a typical dive site
![Page 11: Summative Evaluation of Communication](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062410/56816427550346895dd5e532/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
Lessons?
• Divers were highly motivated
• Lack of knowledge and skill was overcome
• Used credible, authoritative source
• Importance of social influence
![Page 12: Summative Evaluation of Communication](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062410/56816427550346895dd5e532/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
4: Littering at campsites• Approach
– Developed messages based on behavioral beliefs (wildlife) and normative beliefs (other visitors)
Starkey, P. (2009). Effect of persuasive messages on campers’ littering behavior in Wenatchee National Forest, Washington. MS Thesis, University of Idaho.
![Page 13: Summative Evaluation of Communication](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062410/56816427550346895dd5e532/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
4: Littering at campsites
• Approach– Installed at 35 campsites– Monitored arrival/departure– Collected trash for 12 days with each sign,
and 12 control days– Counted and weighed trash
![Page 14: Summative Evaluation of Communication](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062410/56816427550346895dd5e532/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
% of camps with litter
![Page 15: Summative Evaluation of Communication](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062410/56816427550346895dd5e532/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
Median weight of litter per camp
00.020.040.060.080.10.120.140.160.18
Behavioral Normative Control
Kilogram
s
Collected 337 lbs of trash over 36 days
![Page 16: Summative Evaluation of Communication](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062410/56816427550346895dd5e532/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
Median # pcs litter/camp
![Page 17: Summative Evaluation of Communication](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062410/56816427550346895dd5e532/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
Lessons?
• Signs reduced littering
• Even with appeals, there is a major littering problem
• Findings were complex & contrary to expectations
![Page 18: Summative Evaluation of Communication](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062410/56816427550346895dd5e532/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
5: energy conservation @ military bases
• Approach– Theory-based
• Knowledge• social comparison• values
– Focus groups and interviews– Multi-part campaign (chain of command; fairs;
newsletters; video; kids’ games; ‘competition’)
McMakin, A. H., Malone, E. L., & Lundgren, R. E. (2002). Motivating residents to conserve energy without financial incentives. Environment & Behavior, 34(6), 848-863.
![Page 19: Summative Evaluation of Communication](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062410/56816427550346895dd5e532/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
5: energy conservation
• Assessment– Energy use vs. prior year (controlled for
weather differences)– Survey (awareness; self-reported behaviors;
explanations)
![Page 20: Summative Evaluation of Communication](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062410/56816427550346895dd5e532/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
5: energy conservation• Effectiveness?
– Fort Lewis • 40% were aware of campaign• 10% savings ($130,387)
– Yuma • 66% were aware of campaign• Mixed result: Months 1-3, no change in energy use; in 4th
month, energy use declined 13%• Estimated $50K savings
• Motivators:– Pride– Awareness
![Page 21: Summative Evaluation of Communication](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062410/56816427550346895dd5e532/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
Lessons• Modest effects can be achieved even without
monetary incentives– But participation was still low
• People have complex motivations; appeal to values
• Use a multi-pronged approach
• Structural barriers are significant
![Page 22: Summative Evaluation of Communication](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062410/56816427550346895dd5e532/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
6: day users @ Australian parks
• Approach– Elicitation interviews – compliers & non-
compliers– Identified salient beliefs– Developed normative and behavioral
messages– Used observation (behavior) and survey
(attitudes)
Hughes, M., Brown, T. J., & Ham, S. (2009). Influencing park visitor behavior: A belief based approach. Journal of Park and Recreation Administration, 27(4), 38-53.
![Page 23: Summative Evaluation of Communication](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062410/56816427550346895dd5e532/html5/thumbnails/23.jpg)
![Page 24: Summative Evaluation of Communication](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062410/56816427550346895dd5e532/html5/thumbnails/24.jpg)
![Page 25: Summative Evaluation of Communication](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062410/56816427550346895dd5e532/html5/thumbnails/25.jpg)
Effect on behavior
Badger Weir Picnickers
0102030405060708090
100
Control Sign 1 Sign 2
Perc
ent C
ompl
ianc
e
Yellagonga Dog Walkers
0102030405060708090
100
Control Sign
Boomerang?
![Page 26: Summative Evaluation of Communication](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062410/56816427550346895dd5e532/html5/thumbnails/26.jpg)
Effect on attitudes• No effect overall at either site
• However, 1st time visitors at Badger Weir were affected by sign 2 (though not sign 1)
• 1st timers were less likely to feed birds (71% vs. 94%)
• Non-compliant dog walkers had firm intentions not to leash dogs
![Page 27: Summative Evaluation of Communication](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062410/56816427550346895dd5e532/html5/thumbnails/27.jpg)
Lessons
• Signs had only modest effects (one had no effect), despite front-end assessments
• Change may occur without attitude or knowledge change
• For some behaviors, communication may not be the answer
• Different audience segments may be influenced differently
![Page 28: Summative Evaluation of Communication](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062410/56816427550346895dd5e532/html5/thumbnails/28.jpg)
Examples illustrate points from semester
• Need to consider attention, memory, & information processing
• Importance of knowing one’s audiences• Role of social norms in behavior change• Value of personal & non-personal
communication• Importance of artistic and conceptual
design• Value of evaluation