Easy Does It: Structural and Motivational Approaches to Changing Behavior

Wesley SchultzCalifornia State University

Presentation delivered at the 26th International Congress of Applied Psychology, Athens, Greece. Address correspondences to: Wesley Schultz, Department of Psychology, California State University, San Marcos, CA, 92078. USA. Wschultz@csusm.edu. (760) 750-8045.

July 18, 2006

Jennifer TabanicoCalifornia State University

Environmental Behavior Individuals often choose to act in ways that are

intended to benefit nature. Waste, transit, energy, water, purchasing, etc.

90% of Americans reported engaging in simple household environmental behaviors (Dunlap, 2000)

40% have donated money to environmental organizations (Gallup, 2000)

98% report doing things in their homes to conserve energy (Schultz, 2006)

See also Kaiser & Biel (2000)

Predictors of behavior Individual predictors (motivation)

Demographics (age, gender, education) Culture Attitudes Values

Structural predictors Difficulty of the behavior Financial incentives / disincentives Program structure

Environmental Decisions (theory)

Attitudes -- planned behavior Altruism and norm activation Environmental identity Social norms Rational Choice

Not widely utilized in psychological studies

Environmental Decisions (interventions)

Interventions to change behavior typically fall into one of three categories:1. Educate people about what to do2. Motivate people to act by targeting a psychological

construct (e.g., attitudes, norms, commitment)

3. Program changes to “make it easy.” But how do we know which type of intervention to

use? Theory…….

Rational Choice

Environmental behaviors are decisions. Decisions are based on a psychological evaluation

of the costs and benefits of a behavior. Behaviors that maximize benefits, and minimize

costs are preferred.

Rational Choice (interventions)

If we can identify the salient costs and benefits associated with a behavior, we should be able to predict when an individual will act.

Useful for guiding intervention Costs are primarily structural Benefits are primary motivational

Rational Choice

Motivation

Barriers > Motivation = no action

Structural

Barriers

Rational Choice

Structural

Barriers

Motivation

Barriers < Motivation = ACTION

Structural

Barriers

Rational Choice

If applicable, could guide intervention Target motivation? (psychological) Target barriers? (structural) Survey to test the applicability of the theory Motor oil disposal in California

Target population: Latino immigrants State-funded project

Motor Oil Disposal Used oil is classified as “Hazardous Waste” in

California 160 million gallons sold per year in CA

Only 83 million collected Improper disposal is a serious environmental problem

Contaminates ground water Leading contaminate of waterways (harbors, lakes) Lead, chromium, arsenic

Data drawn from a larger project to promote proper disposal among Do-It-Yourself (DIY) oil changers

Survey

Intercept interviews with 334 DIYers at local autoparts stores

Oversampled immigrant Latinos English and Spanish Proper disposal (past year)

Returned to collection facility Improper disposal (past year)

Poured on ground, thrown in trash, poured down storm drain

Survey

Barriers (N=7) Identified through separate focus groups

Not knowing where to take it Extra effort required Lack of proper storage container Inconvenience Being turned away from collection facility Lack of information in Spanish Having too much oil

Survey

Motivations (N=7) Financial incentive Keep community clean Improper disposal is illegal Environmental problems Conserving natural resources Social responsibility (do the right thing) Friends/family think I should

Sample

N=334 total. Focus here on 167 Spanish-speakers 99% male 100% Latino Changed oil 4.62 times in past year (SD=7.07) Education: 9.31 years “formal schooling” (low) Age: 32 (SD=9.50) 100% of surveys conducted in Spanish

Reported behavior (intent)

“The next time you change the oil on your car, how likely is it that you will take the used oil to an oil collection center?”

how likely is it that you will take the used oil to an oil collection ce

10.08.06.04.02.00.0

140

120

100

80

60

40

20

0

Std. Dev = 2.22 Mean = 8.9N = 167.00

0 “definitely won’t” to 10

“definitely will” M=8.91; SD=2.22 69% = 10

Rational Choice Barriers

M=2.06 (SD=2.13) out of 10 Motivation

M=7.49 (SD=1.70) out of 10 Motivation - Barriers

M=5.43 (SD=2.74) Only 6 participants had negative scores (more barriers than motivation). 13 participants were < 1.0. Of the 13 lowest difference scores (less than 1.0)

46% were improper disposers in the past (compared to 8% for the remaining sample)

Rational Choice

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

Strong FutureIntentions

Weak FutureIntention

MotivationBarriers

Rational Choice

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

Strong FutureIntentions

Weak FutureIntention

MotivationBarriers

6.173.79

Rational Choice Correlations:

Future intentions to take oil to collection center r=.25** (motivation) r=-.42** (barriers) r=.48** difference

Barriers Lack of information in Spanish (M=3.41) Likelihood that center won’t take it (M=2.29) Not knowing where to take it (M=2.23) Not having proper storage container (M=1.72) Inconvenience of taking it to a center (M=1.55) Having too much oil (M=1.77) Extra effort required (M=1.48)

Rational Choice

Motivation

STRONG FUTURE INTENTIONS

7.72

1.54Structural

Barriers

Rational Choice

Structural

Barriers

Motivation

WEAK FUTURE INTENTIONS

7.00

3.21

Discussion Rational choice can be a useful framework Identifies specific individuals who are likely to act (or

not act) Can guide interventions

Motivational interventions versus structural interventions Can be useful for identifying barriers to the behavior Limitations

Are people “rational”? Do people know why they do what they do? Difficult to identify the domain of relevant barriers and

motivations Other psychological models might lead to other predictions

Planned Behavior (other theory)

Attitude (important/unimportant) M=9.59 (SD=1.21) Beta=.15*

Subjective norms (common/uncommon) M=7.98 (SD=3.03) Beta=.35**

Perceived behavior control (convenient/inconvenient) M=9.10 (SD=2.09) Beta=.20*

R=.52, F(3,163)=20.01***

Planned Behavior

Attitude

Norms

BehavioralControl

Intention Behavior

.15*

.35**

.20*

.50**