Date: 2024-12-21 Page is: DBtxt003.php txt00007696
BEHAVIOUR
INDIVIDUAL BEHAVIOUR
Common mistakes in behaviour change - and how to avoid them (part 2)
Written by Tim Cotter
INDIVIDUAL BEHAVIOUR
Common mistakes in behaviour change - and how to avoid them (part 2)
Written by Tim Cotter
Original article: https://www.2degreesnetwork.com/groups/2degrees-community/resources/common-mistakes-behaviour-change-and-how-avoid-them-part-2/
Peter Burgess COMMENTARY
Peter Burgess
Written by Tim Cotter | Awake | Blog Post
In my last post, I discussed several common assumptions and mistakes which can undermine efforts to engage people in sustainability. Here are some more...
RELYING ON THE SPILLOVER EFFECT
Some tactics for changing behaviour rely on the idea that once people adopt one type of environmentally-friendly behaviour, they will adopt other similar behaviours. For instance, if we can get them to turn the tap off when they brush their teeth, they will take shorter showers. This concept, referred to as “spillover”, is based on the premise of cognitive consistency - whereby once we adopt a certain mindset or identity, such as water conservationist, we will be motivated to take further actions which are consistent with that mindset. This makes sense, and has certainly been supported by some research. However, there are things which can get in the way of spillover working smoothly.
For starters, the reason we adopted the initial behaviour can make a difference. If we did it because we genuinely believe in the principle (e.g. of water conservation), then spillover is more likely to occur than if we did it for other reasons, such as financial incentive or legal compliance.
Furthermore, if people feel that the initial behaviour is “doing their bit”, then they may be even less likely to adopt related behaviours. A recent study showed that people who made a token gesture for a good cause were less likely to take on later more meaningful tasks than those who had not made the initial gesture.
NOT PROVIDING A REALISTIC SOLUTION
It’s all very well to shame or scare people into believing that we must do something about the impending environmental crises bearing down on us. But we must also give them an avenue to do something about it.
Two of the most common methods for getting peoples attention are fear and guilt. A 2009 exploration into the effect of fear on climate change action found that inducing fear may be counter-productive for a range of reasons, including increasing denial, desensitisation, and a decrease in trust in the source of the communication. Another review of the research stated that “fear appeals need to be combined with high-efficacy messages (useful information about how to avoid the threat) in order not to trigger maladaptive defensive responses.”
Guilt can work by drawing people’s attention to a gap between their values or beliefs, and their actions. (see this clip from The Checkout for a good laugh). This generates a sense of cognitive dissonance, which we can either ignore, rationalise, or do something about. The latter option is our preferred one, if we are to adopt this as a behaviour change tactic. However, it relies on providing a solution which is compelling enough for us to consider changing. If we can, for instance, choose a more eco-friendly product on the same shelf for just a few cents more, we’re more likely to make the change. If we perceive a major cost or inconvenience to choose an option which is more aligned to our beliefs, the chances of uptake are reduced. So the successful use of this tactic relies on ensuring people have a clear option to do something about it.
Quite apart from the practical and tactical wisdom of providing a realistic solution to people’s fears or guilt, it is also a more ethical approach. What is the benefit of having more scared and guilty people walking around?
RELYING ON SIGNS AND INFORMATION
The classic approach to engaging people in the behaviour we would like them to adopt is to provide a service and ask them politely to do it. The problem is, the evidence continues to mount that this approach does not work as well as many other approaches.
Consider this 2011 example from a food court. The aim was to encourage people to put their food scraps into a compost bin. When signs were placed on table encouraging people to use the compost bins provided, uptake was minimal. However, when actors were introduced to role model the behaviour, there was a major increase in people composting.
Furthermore, an evaluation of a major Dutch mass media campaign to raise awareness of climate change found that knowledge and problem awareness were not related to self-reported pro-environmental behaviours, and “may be less instrumental in promoting behavioural change than was assumed before the campaign”.
The bottom line is, when people are not acting in the way we would like them to, it is seldom to do with having too little information. While education is important, time and again we see that there are many more psychological and practical determinants of engagement in sustainable behaviour, which we need to incorporate into our efforts to influence people if we are to be successful.
Awake provides psychology-based tools and services which support organisations and communities to develop a culture of sustainability. Visit www.awake.com.au for more info
This article originally appeared in Wake-Up Call.