A Resolution to Change.....with Others

 

It's hard to do things alone. It's hard to reach up high and keep from falling if no one is supporting you. It's hard to make a change if you feel like you're the only one doing it.

People make goals all the time but it's hard to make them stick. New Year's resolutions are a classic example of a time when lots of people want to change their own behavior, and even express great commitment to making it happen. However, these resolutions are notoriously difficult to keep. Using our evaluation metrics, they might be speedy changes, but they are more likely to be particularistic and less likely to be reliable, generalizable, and durable. I know every year I tell myself I'm going to eat more vegetables and floss daily, but while I do it for about a week (speed of change) it has never been durable. Furthermore, any intervention for achieving these goals would not work for everyone (particularistic) and would not help people other than me accomplish the behavior (reliable and generalizable).

New Year's is interesting because it is one of the only occasions when setting a goal for individual behavior change is a cultural tradition that is widespread across society. But this widespread goal-setting phenomenon, while well-meaning, is often ineffective because everyone is pursuing their own separate goal independently. Even the social norm of New Year's resolutions often does not actually help individuals adhere to their plans unless the plans themselves include other people. If people don't have the discipline by themselves, they likely will not maintain their shiny new behavior even if they know how good it is for them.

So, at the start of the new year, gyms start all kinds of work-out classes and deals, people join Weight Watchers, join book clubs, etc. These kinds of clubs and groups help to reinforce individual intentions and translate them into goals with the help of added knowledge, motivation, and support. 

Other powerful examples include support groups and breaking from addictions with groups such as AA. People band together to share each other's needs and reinforce each other's progress. The bottom line is that to get through something difficult, in this case any durable behavior change, people need or would at least benefit from support. In the case of urgent emergencies or critical situations, such as a medical condition or natural disaster, it seems that people more inherently understand the need for a support system. However, the energy and water conservation eco-team articles we read for class and examples like exercise groups prove that even less urgent-seeming behaviors and a desire for long term change can benefit greatly from a team-based approach. The phrase "it takes a village" might really be true in order to get lots of people to change lots of behaviors into an energy descent future.

Processing Politics

In preparation for another US Presidential election, the political sphere has ramped up and is just about in full swing. Candidates are running from one debate to the next while cramming local rallies in between, media sources are looking for every dramatic snippet, angle, and piece of trash talk they can publicize, and citizens are figuring out where to draw their lines in the sand. Speaking from my own personal experience, the number of years you have been voting affords you little to no advantage of expertise in this realm and each new election cycle brings with it a fresh controversy to keep up with.

Hillary Clinton wants us all to trust that she's got it under control and I am fairly certain that Donald Trump wants to kick everyone except rich, white men out of the country and turn the empty space into golf courses or something. There are other men vying for a spot who appear to spend their days calling each other names and denying that climate change is real but because of channel capacity limitations I'm not even certain who they are or how many are left. However, I am going to focus on my personal favorite of the Presidential candidates, Bernie Sanders.

Bernie is recruiting people for a revolution and proposing big change but people in the US are not really accustomed to major change in the political system. Asking people to commit time, energy, and attention towards working together to demand an upheaval is not a small request. Some knowledge and clarity about what the change is for and what is at stake is desired by most before they will jump on board and showing a willingness to take action. If you were lucky enough to attend Bernie's rally at EMU Monday, you likely received some amazing feedback for your participation in the form of positive energy and an amazing sense of camaraderie; however, people are still very unclear as to how advantageous their support will be in the long run so, whether Sander's can effectively lead durable behavior change and retain all of these votes in the end remains to be seen. 

The locus of control of the American people, in regard to having a say in the workings of the political system, is extremely low. There seems to be a very defeatist attitude about the role of money and corporations in American politics but at the same time, a fair amount of hesitation about taking a chance on Bernie's ability to follow through with his plans to change that. Bernie's message might inspire large groups of people but is it enough to overcome the belief that citizens are not powerful enough to have a say? Can his leadership and determination lead to meaningful action on the part of the American people? What could he possibly do better to get those planning to vote for another candidate to change their mind and vote for him instead?

Eat More Organ Meat

  

During World War II, Americans at home were given directives to adopt new behaviors for the sake of the war effort: plant victory gardens, purchase war bonds, send women to work, etc. Amidst these various opportunities to support the troops, preparing organ meat for supper appeared to rank low on the list of new behaviors to adopt. Families might enjoy canning their own produce, but grilled beef heart was another thing. American families did not seem eager to eat animal organs for the war effort.

To address this issue, some of the brightest minds in academia (including Kurt Lewin, creator of the team-based intervention approach) were recruited to convince Americans to eat more undesirable meat. Under the team-based intervention framework; a group of housewives, chefs, and other food aficionados were recruited to develop an effective strategy to encourage their neighbors to eat undesirable meat. The group produced positive results, and the new campaign strategy they developed was a success. Livers, hearts, and glands were spiced and diced at home and in restaurants in  order to ration the best cuts for loved ones fighting overseas.

Team-based intervention approaches work because they allow citizens to problem solve in a socially supportive context. Citizens are asked to reflect on their successes and failures, and through this process take ownership of the intervention strategy. But in order for team-based intervention to work, a dedicated team must be identified to commit time and effort to developing the behavior change strategy. Finding this team may be more difficult than it sounds.

In the United States during WWII, citizens had many internal and external incentives to promote the behavior change: a desire to support loved ones overseas, fearing a world in which the allied powers lost the war, a government mandated ration system, cultural values that lauded frugality (built through experiences of war and the Great Depression). If a team developed a program to encourage Americans to eat more organ meat today , how might the internal and external incentives used change? How do the contextual factors/setting differ between the United States in World War II and today? How might you convince communities to participate in a team-based intervention approach to this behavior change today?

Let's talk about Super Bowl commercials! It's a bit hard not to when the big game was just yesterday. The Heinz commercial above was one of my favorites and at this point you can bet that I've watched it at least 10 times. Spoiler alert! It includes adorable dogs, a cute child, and a whole lot of humor. 

In less than a minute allotted to Super Bowl commercials the advertising companies hit us hard with all sorts of tactics to associate positive feelings with the product or make the product more memorable so that the next time you're standing in the grocery store aisle and wondering which ketchup is best, you reach for the Heinz. Pretty incredible what they can do; these advertising companies have put us on the peripheral route of the Elaboration Likelihood Model. 

By plying us with tiny dogs with floppy ears we begin to associate the positive feelings the dogs create with the Heinz ketchup company. Not only that, the people in this ad are attractive even when they're dressed as ketchup bottles. Finally, there are 7 types of ketchup represented here fitting nicely within the 5 plus or minus 2 channel capacity rule and making it a really great number of ketchup types to present (at first I thought that those might be all the ketchup types they make, but their website sells quite a few more). As far as I know there are not a whole lot of strong arguments for one ketchup over the other, so the central route processing wasn't really an option, but I think they did a great job using the peripheral route. To be honest, it worked on me. 

Models for Behavior Change?

The issue of changing human behavior is a complicated one. From when we were young, we have been affected by a variety of societal influences, from social groups to education to religion. We develop attitudes and beliefs about the world. Over time, our beliefs and behaviors become more and more ingrained, and they are often difficult to change as we grow older. However, change may soon be a necessity. Environmental issues such as climate change, pollution, and deforestation have rapidly worsened, and it is critical that we change our attitudes and behavior to help prevent further environmental decline.  

How can we accomplish the monumental task of changing society’s attitudes, beliefs and behaviors regarding the environment? One idea is to approach the problem through models, such as Rational Actor Models, that trace the origins of behaviors to help us understand what influences them. The Theory of Planned Behavior is a way to visualize how attitudes about behavior, subjective norms, and perceived behavioral control contribute to volitional behavior (Ajzen 1985, 1991). For instance, a potential application of this model is changing habitual car use. Donald, et al. (2014) has suggested that interruptions in car use, such as residential relocation, increases the likelihood of reducing habitual car use and commuters becoming more aware of the environmental benefits of public modes of transportation.

Can such models be effective in the long run? It will likely depend on how predictable behavior really is, as well as how additional variables impact behavior. Additional factors such as morality and environmental concern could also play a role in changing attitudes and behavior for a more sustainable future.   

To Nudge or Not to Nudge?

Building off of Cassidy’s post and our class discussion on the ethical implications of behavior change interventions, I wanted to bring up the concept of “nudging,” which I’m guessing we will discuss at some point during this course. I recently began reading the book “Nudge: Improving Decisions about Health, Wealth, and Happiness” by Richard Thaler and Cass Sunstein.

I’ve only just started reading the book, but essentially, the authors defend “libertarian paternalism” (a.k.a “nudging”) as an acceptable and ethical form of behavior intervention. They argue that, in general, “people should be free to do what they like and to opt out of undesirable arrangements if they want to do so” (libertarianism), but that it is legitimate to try to influence people’s behavior in order to make their lives “longer, healthier, and better” (paternalism).

A “nudge,” as they define it, is any “choice architecture” (the way information is presented) that “alters people’s behavior in a predictable way without forbidding any options or significantly changing their economic incentives.” For example, putting the fruit before the dessert options in a cafeteria line is a “nudge” toward healthier eating habits, while outright banning dessert from the cafeteria is not.

In line with our discussion of the weaknesses of Rational Actor models, Thaler and Sunstein agree that humans do not operate with “complete information, unlimited cognitive abilities, and complete self-control.” This can result in humans making pretty bad decisions. Certainly, we are capable of making great decisions – but this is usually when we have “experience, good information, and prompt feedback.” On the other hand, in situations in which we are “inexperienced, poorly informed, and in which feedback is slow and infrequent” (in choosing investment options, or one-time medical procedures, for example), we often make poor decisions.

The authors also believe that there is no such thing as “neutral” design, and that many of us are choice architects, whether we realize it or not. Small choices in design or ordering of options can have major impacts on people’s behavior. For example, if you design the form or choose the default option for enrollment in the company health care plan, you are a choice architect. No matter what choice architecture you actively choose (or don’t choose), you are influencing behavior. Thus, the authors argue that it is perfectly acceptable for institutions – both public and private – to steer people’s choices in directions that will “improve their lives.”

Some questions to consider: What does “better” mean, and who gets to decide? What if someone prefers to live a shorter and less objectively healthy life if it means they can eat fast food every day? What if, in their opinion, eating fast food makes their life “better”? Does your answer change if someone’s behavior impacts (mostly) just themselves (such as eating fast food) vs. impacting society as a whole (driving a fuel-guzzling vehicle)? Is nudging more or less ethical than “doing nothing”? Than more paternalistic policies like high taxes or bans on certain behaviors? Does it depend on the behavior? The setting (school, vs. work, etc.)? The age group (children vs. adults)? Whether the “nudger” is a private or government entity? How might your opinion of nudging change if the intended behavior is something you don’t agree with?

Where do you think the concept of nudging fits into our discussion of various behavior change models? Would you consider it a “situational factor” (as described in the Model of Responsible Environmental Behavior)? Do you think Thaler and Sunstein place too much importance on this one variable, or do you think it is essential to consider and is lacking in other models?

Citations: 
1) De Young, Raymond. “Education-Based Models.” Lecture. January 13, 2016.
2) De Young, Raymond. “Rational Actor Models.” Lecture. January 25, 2016.
3) Hines, J.M., H.R. Hungerford & A.N. Tomera (1987). “Analysis and synthesis of research on responsible behavior: A meta-analysis.” Journal of Environmental Education. 18(2): 1-8.
4) Thaler, R. H., & Sunstein, C. R. (2009). Nudge: Improving decisions about health, wealth, and happiness. New York: Penguin Books.