Short-term Commitment, Lasting Impact

In Katzev’s work on commitment theory (1986, 1987-1988 with Pardini), two conclusions intrigued me: commitment leads to behavior adoption that lasts much longer than the actual commitment time frame, and commitment can act as a catalyst to start non-target but related behaviors, i.e. spillover. While we've talked about them before, the possibility of a behavior change intervention being powerful enough to change countless other behaviors brings a chain reaction of collapsing dominos to mind. Who isn't excited by that?

https://i.ytimg.com/vi/5Ap5j5dlr7o/maxresdefault.jpg

These two tendencies match with intervention evaluation metrics durability and generalizability, respectively, which are rarely present in interventions. This intervention sounds ideal, but the path to get from a simple commitment to extensive behavior change is poorly explained.

In class, Professor De Young suggested that these two strengths of commitment interventions are connected to internal motivation, which is generally more durable, more reliable, and more generalizable. Lanzini & Thøgersen (2014) and Dolan (2015) are in line with this idea. They describe spillover behavior as linked to target behavior by underlying motivation, goals, and self-identity that have an impact longer than monetary incentives.

How, exactly, does a time-limited commitment turn into an internal motivation that supports goals, shapes self-image, and promotes consistency? Does the internalization process described in Self-Determination Theory (Sheldon, 2016) accurately describe the conversion from an externally suggested goal to an autonomous identity? If so, how do we promote this process?

https://s3.amazonaws.com/lowres.cartoonstock.com/dating-commitment_phobia-commitment-commitment_issue-pencil-pen-dcrn1521_low.jpg

Research on behavioral spillover is clearly evolving. Two papers (Lanzini & Thøgersen, 2014; Dolan et al., 2015) disagree on whether a high-cost or low-cost initial behavior is best – while spillover may only occur for easy-to-perform behaviors (implying that interventions should start with a relatively hard behavior), it may also be true that hard-to-perform initial behaviors cause rebounding while easy initial commitments build to more challenging behavior (i.e. “foot in the door”). While Dolan recommends keeping initial target behavior visualizations conceptual (rather than concrete) to allow self-identity considerations to come into play, Professor De Young recommended making interventions for specific behaviors. How can these competing interests be satisfied?

My current suggestion is for the intervener to suggest a type of behavior change (i.e. move to a more eco-friendly commute method), describe the underlying goal of the change (i.e. reduce carbon emissions), and guide the participant decide in details of the commitment (i.e. the participant decides to commit to taking the bus three times a week for the next month). Hopefully, this will allow people to consider self-identity while making sure they have a concrete goal. Signing an eco-friendly petition could serve as an initial foot-in-the-door, while a challenging commitment could keep individuals engaged and allow for a range of "easier" spillover behavior. Goal-internalization can further be aided by having participants give a reason or a value for why they are signing the commitment.

What do you think? Could this work? What would you tweak?

References

• Dolan, Paul and Galizzi, Matteo M. (2015) Like ripples on a pond: behavioral spillovers and their implications for research and policy. Journal of Economic Psychology, 47. pp. 1-16. ISSN 0167- 4870
• Katzev, R. D. (1986). The impact of commitment in promoting consumer energy conservation. (Chapter 21, Pp. 280-294). In E. Monnier, G. Gaskell, P. Ester, B. Joerges, B. Lapillonne, C. Midden and L. Puiseux (Eds.). Consumer Behavior and Energy Policy: An International Perspective. NY: Praeger.

• Katzev, R.D. & A. U. Pardini (1987-1988). The comparative effectiveness of reward and commitment approaches in motivating community recycling. Journal of Environmental Systems, 17: 93-133.
• Lanzini, P. & J. Thøgersen (2014). Behavioural spillover in the environmental domain: An intervention study. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 40: 381-390.
• Sheldon, K. M., Wineland, A., Venhoeven, L., & Osin, E. (2016). Understanding the Motivation of Environmental Activists: A Comparison of Self-Determination Theory and Functional Motives Theory. Ecopsychology, (December), 228–238.