Given my background as an Economics major in undergrad and
working in Economic consulting prior to coming to Michigan, my intuition was
that feedback would be one of the best ways to change behaviors. That is,
people strive to make rational and optimal decisions, but lack the information
or processing capabilities to do so (and feedback can fill that void). On the
other hand, from prior exposure so Prospect Theory, I saw framing as a very
powerful tool (though potentially immoral, to elicit emotional and not logical reactions
to shift behavior).
However, after reading about framing and feedback, I found
myself very surprised by the complexity and challenges inherent in effectively
using these tools. Regarding framing, Pelletier & Sharp (2008) discuss the importance
of difference frames in each of three decision-making phases (detection phase,
decision phase, and implementation phase). In addition, to focusing messages
differently for each phase, differences in individual motives and beliefs (e.g.
altruistic vs. egoistic) will lead to different responses to different frames.
Perhaps it should be unsurprising that people vary significantly and their responses
to messaging vary significantly. Still, this creates a challenge when
delivering messaging and information to increase pro-environmental behavior –
if everyone will perceive the same message differently, how can we effectively
and efficiently foster change?
In a similar vein, I was surprised to read of potential
issues that feedback faces. Among other issues, Buchanan et al (2015) identified
inability to reach disinterested customers, limited durability, boomerang
effects, and that motives in their study appeared to be primarily financial. With
all these issues, feedback certainly is less effective than I expected and far from
a catch all solution to environmental issues. (As a side note, feedback will
likely be most effective when targeted as individuals that are in Pelletier
& Sharp’s “implementation phase.”)
Still, reading about framing and feedback and the way frames
and feedback has such varied effects on different individuals implores tailored
frames specific to the individual. This brings up the idea of micro-targeting,
something that has become a controversial topic following the US election.
Stories have surfaced of how Cambridge Analytica used Facebook and other data
to divide the US into 32 personality types and provide Trump canvassers with “political
views and personality types of the inhabitants of a house” and “guidelines for
conversations tailored to the personality type.” (Grassegger & Krogerus)
The data available on everyone through social media is vast and can create a surprisingly
vivid and accurate picture of all of us.
It seems to me that this sort of micro-targeting and utilization
of big-data so that each frame is tailored and feedback is focused on those
that will be most receptive could be incredibly successful at promoting
pro-environmental behavior. But, is this method invasive? Is it manipulative?
Is it moral? Can the benefits of promoting pro-environmental behavior justify
this? What do you think?
- Noah Feingold
References:
Buchanan,
K., R. Russo & B. Anderson (2015). The question of energy reduction: The
problem(s) with feedback. Energy Policy,
77: 89–96.
Pelletier,
L. G. & E. Sharp (2008). Persuasive communication and proenvironmental
behaviours: How message tailoring and message framing can improve the
integration of behaviours through self-determined motivation. Canadian Psychology, 49(3): 210–217.
No comments:
Post a Comment