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.
The use of normative message to impact behavior around energy and water use are fascinating. Whole companies have been designed around this concept (like Opower or WaterSmart), and they are becoming mainstream. The fact that Oracle (a large corporate technology solution provider) recently bought Opower hints that this kind of solution is going to be on almost every water and energy bill throughout the country, if not the world in a very short amount of time.
ReplyDeleteHowever, I'm even more interested to see what will happen when these same psychological principles are tied to energy management applications and the smart home. Right now, individuals only see reports month or perhaps weekly if they sign up for emails from their utility. But, as energy management platforms and smart home technology begin to takeover the home, even more specific information is going to be made available to software developers. This technology will enable remote control of a number of devices, and normative messaging can then be incorporated to retroactively or proactively make decisions. For instance, you could get recurring messages telling you how you are tracking to last month's bill or to your most efficient neighbor ("John Smith's house is currently winning in the energy savings rankings for the month! Would you like to adjust your air conditioning settings to try to take the lead?!").
This kind of technology also paves the way for the implementation of a variety of other interventions. For instance, you could invoke intrinsic motivation like, "You seem like a person who cares about the environment. Would you like to turn off your air conditioner today?" The opportunities are limitless.
Great post, Noah! I think you pose an interesting question about people becoming resentful if they are always told they are below average. In your example with Isaiah Thomas, he is rewarded every time he is able to overcome the average or get to a better place-whether that be with team membership or a starting position. When thinking about energy use, I think some sort of reward system would maybe need to be in place when users move to a lower group (such as lower rate or credits).
ReplyDeleteI think that sort of system, paired with interventions along the lines that Nick brings up, could be a very good way to move forward (a "happy medium"). With more consistent feedback along with some rewards, the durability of such interventions would likely be improved. I do worry some that people may see such messaging from their utilities as invasive or overreaching, but I think as technology and such messaging becomes more prevalent in other platforms (and on social media especially) it will probably seem less so.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteHi all - thanks for these interesting prompts and discussion. While I agree that reference group feedback can be motivating, I think my main worry is its potential to create adversarial and competitive relationships between neighbors, teammates, or communities. Do we want to create a culture where people are continuously rewarded for being better than others? In the Isaiah Thomas example, it sounds like the success he experienced could be rather toxic example of extrinsic vs. intrinsic motivation. I'll admit I don't know what kind of teammate he is on and off the court, but I feel celebrities often fall victim to the need to achieve something greater that is valued by others, rather than themselves. Surely it is possible that he had personal goals to be an all-star, but his pattern of always striving for more makes me wonder if he will ever be satisfied and instead lacks a deeper meaning and purpose in his life. More generally, it seems like feedback needs to avoid offending people for their below average behavior but also encourage them to adopt behaviors that align with their reference group and their own values. Perhaps that second aspect of values is even more important, as it will provide the durability for the behavior even when the reference group or feedback is absent. While humans are continually processing feedback from their environment and other people, I think the most powerful feedback is the self-recognition that change is needed due to personal well-being, goals, and values. That is not to discount the importance of feeling a part of a community or adhering to social norms as contributors to well-being, but I think we shouldn't lose sight of how motivating certain behaviors in certain ways has implications for broader community standards and the ability for individual growth.
ReplyDeleteKatie, I certainly share your overall concern about “rewarding people because they are ‘better’ than others”. I grew up in a household which encouraged and supported intrinsic motivation and satisfaction while dispelling the notion “that you had to conform to society norms and social acceptance”. “Follow your heart” or “Trust your intuition” were common phrases to guide my brother and me in decision making. I engaged in many competitive activities which rewarded “the best” with beautiful ribbons, huge trophies, money, social acceptance and “status” among those particular communities. When I originally participated in these groups, I believed my motivations to be purely intrinsic…challenging myself to be my best. And, by default, I was extrinsically rewarded. It wasn’t until I surpassed my own goals and entered the “maintenance phase” of achieving the top level did I realize intrinsic motivation had subtly converted to extrinsic motivation. I had conformed to the expectation of the community to “stay at the top of the game”. As I look back, I see I came to a point in my life where I said “No” to that level of competition realizing I had lost my self-identity. I had conformed to social norms that were not my own-I was no longer autonomous (Self-Determination Theory). It seems there needs to be a shift from our current societal norm of encouraging “bigger and better” outcomes to support intrinsic motivation based on eudaimonic and personal growth. I believe this develops individuals who have meaningful, stable perspectives from which to encourage pro-environmental behaviors and behavior changes. I find it interesting to consider spirituality as an intrinsically motivating factor for a person’s decision making and goal setting; a factor which we haven’t really discussed in class. Religion and spirituality seem to be strongly accepted social norms…I have often wondered about the influence of a person’s spirituality on intrinsic motivation and satisfaction relative to pro-environmental behaviors. In theory, I would think when a person connects spirituality and religion with Nature and the Environment, there is a higher probability that person will engage in pro-environmental behaviors. I found an article which aligned very much with what I was thinking: “Belief in Oneness is Equated with Pro-environmental Behavior” at https://psmag.com/a-belief-in-oneness-is-equated-with-pro-environment-behavior-4024bb38615b. It’d be great to see more research in this area!
DeleteGreat thought-provoking blog! I, too, found the Cialdini articles interesting and share many of the same thoughts expressed in the responses to Noah’s original blog. Julia posed the question about environmental justice during our “application day” which led me to think about energy use and behavior change in socio-economically challenged areas. I wonder if a point of intervention could be within third party organizations which financially assist residents who are facing utility shut-off for nonpayment. For example, the Salvation Army has a program which pays a person’s total past due amount if the person demonstrates financial hardship and pays a “token” portion towards the bill. The whole focus of the program is to pay the company-in this case, Consumers Energy. Consumers Energy provides a plethora of declarative and procedural information on ways conserve energy and, subsequently, save money on energy bills. But I'm not sure if the third party (at the point of their financial intervention) educates about energy conservation and how it is both frugal and environmentally responsible. I think it might be interesting if the third party assistance programs provided stipulations on receiving financial assistance. For example, in order for a person to receive assistance, the person must complete an hour long course on reducing their energy consumption and commit to reducing their consumption by "x" amount. The third party would only provide assistance if they comply with the program. And, in cases of non-compliance, the third party would only pay a percentage of the bill. Obviously, there are many reasons people may find themselves in a position where they can’t pay their energy bill and there would be exceptions. The issue is to focus on environmental education and those individuals who rack up a high energy bill from overconsumption (yet have an inability to pay that bill). I think it’s important to shift the normal procedure from “paying the bill off” to more durable, pro-environmental behavior programs. Constructing programs to reduce energy consumption will decrease an energy bill which, in turn, may decrease the need for future financial assistance.
ReplyDelete