Social Marketing:A Toolkit for Environmental Professionals

Wesley Schultz, Ph.D.California State University

Action Research, Inc.

Session presented at the 2008 Resource Conservation Challenge (RCC) Workshop, Arlington, Virginia. Material extracted from 2-day training session administered through Action Research, Inc. Address correspondences to: Wesley Schultz, Department of Psychology, California State University, San Marcos, CA, 92078. Wschultz@csusm.edu. (760) 750-8045.

March 5, 2008

About the PresenterPh.D. in applied social psychologyAcademic position (professor)Consulting and training through Action Research, Inc.Numerous consulting, training, and marketing projects

Private: Southern California Edison (energy), Hewlett Foundation, SD Water Authority, Brookfield Zoo, EDCO Waste Management, KABState: California Integrated Waste Management Board (used oil recycling, waste tires), TN, FL, TXLocal and County: Napa, Madera, Los Angeles, San Diego

Cities of Vista, San Marcos, Escondido, CasperFederal: National Academy of Sciences, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Department of Justice, U.S. Air ForceInternational: United Nations, London Zoological Society, WWF

Conservation Means BehaviorRecyclingReduce toxicsReduce consumption(energy and materials)

A Little PsychologyScientific study of behaviorPeople act for reasonsSuccessful behavior change strategies require an understanding of the individual and situational factors that motivate and/or constrain behaviorMany examples of failed (or not tested) and even boomerang effects

So You Want to Change Behavior?

Information campaigns (education campaigns)

Media messages intended to inform people about a behavior, program, or problem.

Awareness campaignsMedia messages intended to convey to people the severity of a specific problem or issue.

The Information CampaignPeople don’t act because they don’t know

Ubiquitous model used to change many behaviors:recycling, solid waste, smoking, seat-belt use, health behaviors, energy conservation, HHW, public transportation, ………..

1. Knowledge will correlate with behavior.2. Educational efforts will lead to an increase in

knowledge.3. Increasing knowledge will cause a change in

behavior.

www.bottlesandcans.com

www.bottlesandcans.com

WHY

www.bottlesandcans.com

WHAT

www.bottlesandcans.com

WHERE

The Information Campaign

InformationCampaign Knowledge Behavior

The Information Campaign1. Knowledge will correlate with behavior.

+ TRUE2. Educational efforts will cause an increase

in knowledge.+ TRUE

3. Increasing knowledge will cause a change in behavior.+ FALSE

Knowledge-Deficit Model

Knowledge-deficit model ignores the motives for behavior.People engage in behaviors for reasons, and knowing more is not a reason for action. (Oskamp et al., 1998; Vining & Ebreo, 1990; Werner & Makela, 1999)

Perceived benefits (positive)Personal inconvenience (negative)External pressure (positive)Financial motives (positive)

Knowledge-Deficit Model (caveat)

Knowledge is not a motive for behavior.Lack of knowledge can be a barrier.Educational interventions can be effective in three situations:1. A substantial change has been made to an existing

program.2. A program is being introduced for the first time to a

target population3. No marketing materials have been provided in a long

time, and there is evidence that people don’t know what to do.

Knowledge-Deficit Model

Why is it so widely used?1. No data is collected to evaluate the

intervention, so agencies don’t realize that it doesn’t work

2. Public image-- “we’re doing something”3. It’s relatively inexpensive and can be done by

staff (or cheaply by a marketing firm)4. It would work for us (because we already

care)

Awareness CampaignsHighlight the seriousness of the problem by giving incidence rates“Look at this big problem”Based on medical and health researchPublic policy

Traffic, crime, hazardous waste, littering, steroid useamong adolescents, eating disorders, tax evasion, mass transit, and many others

Seen as a key ingredient to gaining funding for programs

Required by many grant applications, politicians, and funders

The Awareness Campaign

SeverityStatistics Concern Behavior

“Only 50% of the paper from my office is recycled”

“Recycling is a problem.I really should be doing more.”

“Where’s that recyclingbin?”

Awareness CampaignsCan produce a boomerang effect for individual behavior

1. Normative beliefs are correlated with behavior (r=.44)

2. Normative beliefs can be changed by providing information (printed media, television, radio, in-person)

3. Changing normative beliefs causes a change in behavior

Normative Social InfluenceSocial norms--an individual’s beliefs

about the common and accepted behavior in a specific situation.

1. Formed through social interaction2. Powerful influence on behavior3. Most powerful in novel situations4. Types of norms (injunctive and descriptive)

Social ValidationGawking (Milgram, Bickman, & Berkowitz, 1969)

N=1 (4%)N=5 (18%)N=15 (40%)--stopping traffic!

Seeing others not act (Latane & Darley, 1968)Smoke study

Tip jars empty versus full

Social Psychology

Social Psychology

Social ValidationWhich one attracts more tips?

So you want to change behavior?Evaluation research consistently shows that information campaigns are generally ineffective at changing behavior:

RecyclingMass transit useSmoking prevention in adolescentsHazardous waste disposalCollecting used e-waste (or u-waste)

Failure results (in part) from inability of messages to reach the target audience.

Behavior Change AlternativesMarket segmentationTools of persuasionCommunity Based Social Marketing framework (barriers and benefits)Focus on specific actionsLet data drive the program

Community-Based Social Marketing

1. Identify barriers and benefits to a specific behavior

2. Design intervention to address barriers

3. Pilot test the intervention

4. Evaluate your program

BEHAVIOR TO TARGET

So You Want to Change Behavior?

Two Routes to Persuasion

Central route to persuasionanalytic, high effort, cogent argumentsCan produce durable, long-term changes in behavior and agreement

Peripheral route to persuasionintuitive, low effort, use heuristicsCan produce bigger changes in behavior, but not agreement

Two Routes to Persuasion

PersuasiveAppeal

CentralRoute

PeripheralRoute

Audience Processing Persuasion

BehaviorChange

Two Routes to Persuasion

PersuasiveAppeal

CentralRoute

PeripheralRoute

AudienceAnalytical

andmotivated

Not analytical or

involved

Processing Persuasion

BehaviorChange

Two Routes to Persuasion

PersuasiveAppeal

CentralRoute

PeripheralRoute

AudienceAnalytical

andmotivated

Not analytical or

involved

ProcessingHigh effort,elaborate,counterargue

Persuasion

BehaviorChange

Low effort,use peripheralcues

Two Routes to Persuasion

PersuasiveAppeal

CentralRoute

PeripheralRoute

AudienceAnalytical

andmotivated

Not analytical or

involved

ProcessingHigh effort,elaborate,counterargue

Persuasion

BehaviorChange

Cogent argumentsinvoke enduringagreement

Cues triggerliking andacceptance(temporary

Low effort,use peripheralcues

EPA Bumper Sticker

References

Ennett, S., Tobler, N., Ringwalt, C., & Flewelling, R. (1994). How effective is Drug Abuse Resistance Education? A meta-analysis of project DARE outcomes evaluations. American Journal of Public Health, 84, 1394-1401.

Farquhar, J. W., Williams, P. T., Maccoby, N., & Wood, P. D. (1990). Effects of communitywide education on cardiovascular disease risk factors. Journal of the American Medical Association, 264, 359-365.

Fortmann, S. P., Winkleby, M. A., Flora, J. A., Haskell, W. L., & Taylor, C. B. (1990). Effects of long-term community health education on blood pressure and hypertension control. American Journal of Epidemiology, 132, 629-646.

Harmon, M. A. (1993). Reducing the risk of drug involvement among early adolescents: An evaluation of Drug Abuse Resistance Education. Evaluation Review, 17, 221-239.

Hornik, J., Cherian, J., Madansky, M., & Narayana, C. (1995). Determinants of recycling behavior: A synthesis of research results. Journal of Socio-Economics, 24, 105-127.

Nolan, J., Schultz, P. W., Cialdini, R. B., Griskevicius, V., & Goldstein, N. (in press). Normative social influence is underdetected. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin.

Oskamp, S., Burkhardt, R., Schultz, P., Hurin, S., & Zelezny, L. (1998). Predicting three dimensions of residential curbside recycling: An observational study. Journal of Environmental Education, 29, 37-42.

Petty, R. E., & Wegener, D. T. (1998). Attitude change: Multiple roles for persuasion variables. In D. T. Gilbert, S. T. Fiske, & G. Lindzey(Eds.), The handbook of social psychology (4th ed., Vol. 1, pp. 323-390). Boston: McGraw-Hill.

Schultz, P. W. (1995). Who recycles and when? A review of personal and situational factors. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 15, 105-121.

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

Schultz, P. W., & Tabanico, J. (2008). If you build it, will they come? Designing outreach programs that change behavior. In A. Cabaniss(Ed.), Handbook on household hazardous waste. Lanham, MD: Government Institutes Press.

Vining, J., & Ebreo, A. (1990). What makes a recycler? A comparison of recyclers and nonrecyclers. Environment and Behavior, 22, 55-73.

Wolitski, R. J., and the CDC AIDS Community Demonstration Project Research Group. (1999). Community-level HIV intervention in five cities: Final outcome data from the CDC AIDS Community Demonstration Projects. American Journal of Public Health.

Werner, C., & Makela, E. (1999). Motivations and behaviors that support recycling. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 18, 373-386.