Prospecting the Disappearance of “Forced Extrinsic Motivators”

Have “forced extrinsic motivators” led to corporations developing a sense of intrinsic motivation and commitment to pro-environmental behavior? I ask this question as we face a new era driven by the pursuit of economic advancement at any and all cost to the environment.  This juxtaposes a recent history of an economy based on promoting and encouraging pro-environmental behaviors for a sustainable, environmentally responsible economic future for the U.S. 

Since 1970, the EPA has regulated corporations and has set industry standards in order to protect the environment.  These regulations, in essence, are extrinsic motivations.  Not rewards, but consequences.  If a corporation or industry fails to comply, they are “punished” through fines.  For example, coal mining waste regulations or the Clean Water Act.

It seems as though these regulatory extrinsic motivations have developed a sense of corporate intrinsic motivation and commitment to environmentally responsible behavior.  For example, over a thousand corporations have independently signed a commitment to align with the Paris Agreement to “combat climate change”.  I’m not entirely sure what actions companies like Apple, Kellogg, Levi Strauss, and many others will engage in to fulfill this commitment but at least there’s public accountability (low-carbonusa.com).  

I find it interesting over a thousand companies signed a declaration, since November 2016, for a low-carbon future: 

"We want the US economy to be energy efficient and powered by low-carbon energy...Failure to build a low-carbon economy puts American prosperity at risk. But the right action now will create jobs and boost US competitiveness.  We pledge to do our part, in our own operations and beyond, to realize the Paris Agreement's commitment of a global economy that limits global temperature rise to well below 2 degrees Celsius."

Not only does this exemplify the power of pledging and commitment, it is a great example of re-framing objectives and tailoring the message for its intended target audience.   The target audience:  “President Trump, Members of the US Congress, and Global Leaders” (low-carbonusa.com).   Re-framing the message from an environmental to an economic angle is language the current economically-obsessed administration can relate to. 

The decades since the inception of the EPA fostered a time for research to be conducted and evidence compiled about anthropogenic effects on the environment and public health.  This declarative knowledge paved the way for a deeper understanding of procedural knowledge for corporations to make a choice about engaging in pro-environmental behaviors or not. 

As regulations face extirpation, the durability of corporate commitment will certainly be tested. If a company has a true intrinsic motivation to be environmentally proactive, it will continue to engage in pro-environmental behavior.  At the same time, consumers (like us in SNRE) can continue the influence of extrinsic motivators (consequences) on companies and industries choosing otherwise.  As the current administration deregulates environmental policies, we may not have an agency like the EPA to report “illegal environmental activities”.

But we, the consumer, can “hit them in the pocket” by not supporting (purchasing from) companies engaging in environmentally irresponsible behaviors.  Commitment to the environment develops new social norms when we begin to embrace only those intrinsically motivated, environmentally responsible companies. 

“The only real, practical, hope-giving way to remedy the fragmentation that is the disease of the modern spirit is a small and humble way -- a way that a government or agency or organization or institution will never think of, though a person may think of it: one must begin in one's own life the private solutions that can only in turn become public solutions.” 

~Wendell Berry~

Berry, Wendell. 1977. "The Unsettling of America: Culture & Agriculture." San Francisco: Sierra       Club.

Gross, Daniel.  03 March 2017.  "A Cruel False Promise On Coal".  Slate Magazine.  Retrieved       from http://www.slate.com/articles/business/the_juice/2017/03/trump_s_executive_order_won_t_bring_back_coal_jobs_regulations_aren_t_what.html 

lowcarbonusa.org. 2017.  "Business Backs Low-Carbon USA."  Retrieved from     http://lowcarbonusa.org. 

Psychological Interventions in New Exercise Franchises

Over the past year, I have become obsessed with Orange Theory, a new exercise franchise focused on high intensity interval training. And, interestingly enough Orange Theory uses various concepts that we have discussed in this class to engage clients, create results and encourage commitment to the routine.

The routine is focused around a class, which participants sign up for in advance via a smartphone application. Once signed up, a participant must cancel over 24 hours in advance, otherwise they are charged a cancelation fee of $20, not an insignificant amount for a grad student

During the class, participants wear heart rate monitors. The goal of the class is to achieve various heart rate targets, indicated as “zones.” There are four heart rate zones, demonstrating the intensity of the workout. For example, a resting heart rate would be in the blue zone, while a hard run (approximately 90% of an individual’s maximum heart rate) would be in the red zone. An individual’s performance is then displayed on large TV. Each participant has a small box on the TV that shows their heart rate and changes colors to show which zone the person is in at any given time. Throughout the class, the instructor will provide direction on how intense the workout should be, along with the target zone for that portion of the class. Participants also earn “points” throughout the class for each minute that they spend in the orange or red zone. Last, at the end of the class, participants get an email that summarizes their performance (see example below).

The studio also does a great job of building community. People want to come to the class, and they are proud to be a member. They wear it like badge of honor. They even once did a marketing campaign where people reflected on why they workout. The theme was, “I burn for _____.” For example: “I burn for my kids” or “I burn for my husband.”

They also have periodic competitions where individuals can set goals (e.g. loose 5 lbs in one month), and they hold participants accountable for those goals.

I believe this is a great demonstration of the following class concepts:

·       Commitment is gained through the signup and the cancellation fee.

·       Feedback is provided through the TV screens in an easy to understand way using the heart rate zones. Summary emails also show progress over time.

·       Intrinsic Motivation is encouraged through the community and the pride that members show in coming to the studio. People think “I’m the kind of person who goes to Orange Theory,” and this motivation is only encouraged by the feedback discussed above. Extrinsic motivation may also be seen through the mild sense of competition that comes as people try to maximize their points and burn the most calories in the class.

·       Goal Setting is facilitated through the periodic competition and through the regular feedback provided.

All in all, I think this is an excellent example of how some of the theories we discussed can be applied to encourage positive health behavior. Can you think of others?

Framing the Story

John Stuart Mill, an English philosopher, said “Every great movement must experience three stages: ridicule, discussion and adoption”.  Pelletier and Sharp propose successful behavior change begins with tailoring messages targeting three behavior change stages: detection, decision and implementation (Pelletier and Sharp, 2008). In either case, the message is comparable, but the words used in framing the concepts imply different intentions and outcomes.  I find myself reflecting on the crucial framing of words to provide information during the environmental education programs I facilitate. 

Two concepts “struck me” from lectures and readings:  how we, as environmental educators, frame our messages and how we tell the story.

During a recent public education program which focused on “Backyard Sugaring”, I was explaining to a group of children about why it’s “kinda cool” to test the sugar content in a bucket of sap drawn from a Maple tree.  The children quickly became engrossed in watching a hydrometer bob up and down in the sap.  They eagerly determined the sap contained 2% sugar because that’s where the hydrometer line hit the top of the sap. 

I took the “experiment” one step further and asked “Now, how many gallons of sap are needed to make one gallon of syrup?”  Everyone looked at each other as if that person had been given the magical formula. 

I explained “We use the rule of 86…if we had 86 gallons of sap with a 2% sugar content, we divide 86 by 2 and what do we get?”  The children were silent as they calculated the answer in their heads.

“43!” the children eagerly exclaimed in unison. 

I asked, “What would happen if we double the sugar content?”  This appeared to present some confusion. 

I re-framed the question, “How many gallons of sap would we need to make one gallon of syrup if we had 4% sugar in the sap?”  Eventually, everyone came to consensus on 21.5 gallons.   

“Ohmygosh,” exclaimed one of the girls. “I didn’t know there was so much math involved-I’d never be able to make syrup!”  

This critical juncture provided me invaluable insight on how to understand my audience and the importance of recognizing different learning styles.  I needed to quickly find a way to minimize the negative, “too confusing/too overwhelming” emotion becoming associated with the process. 

Again, I tailored my reply, “Math isn’t necessarily the focus of making maple syrup.  The math might be important to commercial maple syrup producers but what’s really important today is to understand the general process of making syrup.  But, syrup is more than just a topping on pancakes.” 

I told her stories of all the “cool things” experienced during the sugaring process.  Using imagery of seeing raccoons emerge from their winter hide-away and spring flowers “wake up from their winter nap” was fundamental in shaping the mystery and “interestingness” of Nature.  We continued to talk about what it means to care for the Sugarbush so the trees (and environment) stay healthy and we can continue to work with them for many years to come.  Conceptually, I tailored the true message about the benefits of being in Nature; shifting her focus from the scary math she was connecting to the environmental subject in a similar way suggested by Pelletier and Sharp (Pelletier and Sharp, 2008).

I would posit cultivating pro-environmental behaviors at the developmental life phase of an individual. Starting at this point might prevent the need for some of the adult behavior change models and interventions we’ve studied.  Dr. DeYoung mentioned children’s innate curiosity.  Childhood is akin to detection; children are always exploring the environment around them.  This would be the most opportune time to develop pro-environmental behaviors; while children are creating cognitive maps. None of the variant categories introduced in lecture included children.  Why?  Perhaps because there’s no behavior to change….this is the population whose behaviors are being developed and shaped.

However, understanding life stages, realizing your audience may be comprised of assorted stages, and adapting how messages are delivered (framed) are vital to the success of environmental educational process.  Understandably, categorizing variant populations (post-childhood) in order to relate to them for behavior change is important.  Respectfully, I feel the fundamental way in which we, as “experts”, frame our assessment of the population (the assorted variants), may need to be re-evaluated and re-framed.  In class we discussed how environmental experts have fallen short of relating to people because of an over scholarly or academic approach.  I concur it’s important to know your audience, but I ask, would you be motivated to change your behavior if you knew you were judged and labeled as a laggard?

De Young, R. & M. C. Monroe. 1996. Some fundamentals of engaging stories. Environmental Education Research, 2: 171-187.

Herremans, I. M., Herschovis, M.S. & Bertels.  2009.  Leaders and Laggards: The Influence of Competing Logics on Corporate Environmental Action.  S. J Bus Ethics. ppg. 89-449. doi: 10.1007/s10551-008-0010-z

Pelletier, L. G. & E. Sharp. 2008.  Persuasive communication and proenvironmental behaviours: How message tailoring and message framing can improve the integration of  self-determined motivation. Canadian Psychology. ppg. 49(2): 210-217.    

Targeting norm messaging based on aspirational groups

The main take away that I had from this past week’s readings (particularly Schultz et al, 2007 and Cialdini 2003) is what a challenge and pain it is to effectively utilize normative messages when trying to change behavior. There are two main problem points that captured my attention.

First, as Cialdini (2003) discusses, providing the message “many people are doing this undesirable thing” has the underlying and very powerful message of “many people are doing this.” This can cause people to justify doing the “undesirable thing” or potentially engage in more of the behavior after seeing it as more socially acceptable and prevalent. In almost every area of behavior we discuss in this class, it seems that it wouldn’t be “hard” for people to behave in a more environmentally friendly way (e.g., carpool, take buses, bike, eat less meat, recycle, turn off lights, compost), but it is absolutely the norm to behave in “undesirable ways” from the perspective of the environment.

Second, the experiment from Schultz et al (2007) showed how providing normative information on the average energy use of houses led households with higher than average energy use to reduce their use and lower than average energy use to increase their energy use (both groups moved towards the average, or norm). The study also found that adding injunctive messages stopped the backslide for the low energy users, but still, this intervention did not lead the low energy users to improve at all.

This ineffectiveness of normative messaging is a huge problem when trying to change behavior on a large scale. One idea that I had is the possibility to provide more targeted normative messaging (similar to the idea I had for micro-targeting messaging in last week’s blog). For example, in Schultz’s experiment, what if instead of considering all households as one group and providing information that would unavoidably lead half of the households to realize they are using less energy than average, and face a potential boomerang effect, the households were split into more groups. Then, any household, outside of the absolute best, could be given information where they perform worse than that groups average. For example, a household that uses less energy than average, but still uses more than “high performing households” can be provided information that they use x% more energy than their high performing neighbors. This could help achieve a wider behavioral than using the average of the entire group.

I think this sort of flexible reference point/norm is something that some athletes do very well (always pushing the group they associate with and that they are trying to surpass). For example, Isaiah Thomas (a player for the Celtics who was the last pick of the NBA draft in 2011 and is only 5’9” tall), for his entire career has played with am ever-changing chip on his shoulder. At first the chip was that he was better than players drafted ahead of him and he belonged in the NBA. Then as he succeeded, the chip became that he should be a starter. After he became a starter, the chip shifted again that he should be an all-star. This season, Isaiah Thomas has the second highest scoring average of any NBA player (and yes, I am a Celtics fan and looking forward to NBA playoffs if you couldn’t tell). Isaiah Thomas, like many professional and amateur athletes, is always placing himself among a group that he isn’t yet a part of and needs to improve to become a part of. Can this same tactic be effective through normative messaging to try to promote and increase environmental behaviors? Will individuals become resentful if they are continuously told they are below average as they improve? Maybe there is some happy medium – what do you think?

- Noah Feingold

References:

Cialdini, R. (2003). Crafting normative messages to protect the environment. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 12: 105-109.

Schultz, P. W., J. M. Nolan, R. B. Cialdini, N. J. Goldstein & V. Griskevicius (2007). The constructive, destructive, and reconstructive power of social norms. Psychological Science, 18: 429-434.