Embedding Behavior Change in its Social & Physical Context

1. Embedding Behavior Change in its Social & Physical Context Carol M. Werner University of Utah USA Paper presented at NAHMMA, 2005, Tacoma WA

2. Environmental Behavior Change • No Silver Bullet • Holistic approach individual & supportive context social milieu (friends, society) political/economic system physical environment

3. Social Milieu • Perceived opinions of: Immediate Friends/Family Larger Social milieu TV, radio, print: advertising, commentary • Social Pressures: “Pluralistic ignorance” (disagree, but fear rejection) Hearing others endorse new behavior gives the individual “permission” to change.

4. Creating positive social milieu: A route to individual attitude change • Guided group discussions (Lewin) • Not a lecture: • Group members endorse new idea • Group members discuss problems and solutions • Leader guides discussion in support of nontoxics

5. Results: Community Groups:Own Opinions • Table 1. Attitudes and Behaviors Since the Meeting • ALL ORGANIZERS MATCHED SAMPLE (n = 46) • PERSONAL ATTITUDES AND BEHAVIORSa Organizer Control n • Took things to HHW facility? 33% 35% 10%*20 • Shared leftovers? 36% 35% 12%*17 • Begin/continue sharing? 6.6 5.3 3.6*18 • Important to reduce use 9.7 9.7 9.0*23 • Plan to use nontoxicsb8.4 8.7 7.2*23 • 11-points scales, 6=middle point • Matched sample did not hear information. This difference shows people learned something at the meeting. • * matched groups differ at p < .05, 1-tailed dependent t-tests • Column one shows responses of all 46 organizers (for comparison to the reduced sample). Columns two and three show the subgroup of organizers with their matched controls; n’s for the subgroups are in parentheses; statistical tests compare the subgroup of 23 organizers with their matched controls. • a Percentages indicate percent of respondents saying “yes” to that item. Other items were rated on 1-11 scales, with ends labeled “Extremely Unlikely/Extremely Likely,” “Extremely Unimportant/Extremely Important,” or “Extremely Unsatisfied/Extremely Satisfied.” • b Mean of three items: 1) likely to use more nontoxics around the home; 2) likely to use nontoxics to care for landscaping; and 3) satisfaction with nontoxic alternatives.

6. Results: Community Groups:Predicting Friends’ Opinions • Table 1. Attitudes and Behaviors Since the Meeting • ALL ORGANIZERS MATCHED SAMPLE (n = 46) • ESTIMATES OF GROUP’S • ATTITUDES AND BEHAVIOR Organizers Control n • Group valued meeting 9.4 9.2 Not asked 23 • Group shared leftovers 24% 27% “Don’t Know” 22 • Group begin/continue sharing? 5.7 6.0 4.2* 12 • IMPORTANCE OF “BEING AT MEETING” • Matched sample could not predict friends’ opinions • * matched groups differ at p < .05, 1-tailed dependent t-tests • Column one shows responses of all 46 organizers (for comparison to the reduced sample). Columns two and three show the subgroup of organizers with their matched controls; n’s for the subgroups are in parentheses; statistical tests compare the subgroup of 23 organizers with their matched controls. • a Percentages indicate percent of respondents saying “yes” to that item. Other items were rated on 1-11 scales, with ends labeled “Extremely Unlikely/Extremely Likely,” “Extremely Unimportant/Extremely Important,” or “Extremely Unsatisfied/Extremely Satisfied.” • b Mean of three items: 1) likely to use more nontoxics around the home; 2) likely to use nontoxics to care for landscaping; and 3) satisfaction with nontoxic alternatives.

7. ? RelevantAttitude Discussionchange WHY? MORE PERSUASION? MORE LEARNING? ACTIVE LEARNING? PERCEIVED GROUP ENDORSEMENT?

8. Replication: High School Classes • True experiment (“causality”): Lecture vs. Guided Discussion Random assignment to treatment • Is guided group discussion more effective than “current practice” (lecture)?

9. Discussion vs. Lecture Discussion increased attitude change, when topic relevant Initial attitude .29* Attitude towards nontoxics Discussion vs. lecture .13* .11* Relevance & format Lecture INeffective when relevant Discussion Very effective when relevant

10. Discussion of relevant information leads to attitude change because students believe others endorse new information .23* Initial attitude .08 Discussion vs. lecture Attitude towards nontoxics .06 33* Relevance & format Perceived group endorsement

11. ? Discussion Attitude Change PEOPLE BEGIN TO FAVOR NONTOXICS BECAUSE THEY PERCEIVE OTHERS FAVOR NONTOXICS.

12. Why? • Did lectures and discussion differ in content? • Number of topics covered? • Persuasiveness of coverage?

13. Behaviors during meeting(from audiotapes) • What did students do that gave others the impression they agreed with the speaker? • Positive participation (enthusiasm, endorsements, questions) • Negative participation (challenges, off-topic remarks)

14. Private thoughts • Predicted attitude change • not influenced by meetings • Saying vs. thinking

15. Implications/Problems • Environmental behaviors are social behaviors. • Attitude and behavior change require social support. • Small study; need videotapes

16. References • Gillilan, S., Werner, C. M., Olson, L., & Adams, D. (1996). Teaching the concept of • PREcycling: A campaign and evaluation. Journal of Environmental Education, 28, 11-18. • Werner, C. M. (2003). Changing homeowners’ use of toxic household products: A transactional approach. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 23, 33-45. • Werner & Adams (2001). Changing homeowners’ behaviors involving toxic household chemicals: A psychological, multilevel approach. Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy, 1, 1-31. [Also available at “www.spssi.org”]. • Werner, C. M., Byerly, S., Sansone, C. (in press). Reducing intentions to use toxic household products through • guided group discussion. In B. Martin & A. Keul (Eds.), Proceedings of IAPS 18, Vienna (July, 2004): IAPS (request from the author carol.werner@psych.utah.edu).