The design and evaluation of a theory-based intervention study Michael Carreno (Edinburgh Napier University), Sonja Haustein & Janina Welsch (ILS), Stefanie Baasch (University of Magdeburg) & Sebastian Bamberg (University of Applied Sciences Bielefeld) ECOMM, San Sebastian, May, 2009

Acknowledgements The work presented is part of the EU FP6-funded project MAX: Successful Travel Awareness Campaigns and Mobility Management Strategies ( )- The authors would like to thank all other partners who have contributed to this part of the Work Package B (WPB) work; including Trivector (SE) & CRNS (FR) ECOMM, San Sebastian, May, 2009

Overview Behavioural change – A few theoretical questions – And answers (theoretically) MaxSEM Munich study Interim conclusions – Implications for MM interventions – Implications for MM evaluations ECOMM, San Sebastian, May, 2009

Changing behaviour: How? Need to understand behavioural change process Apply this knowledge to strategies to behaviour change interventions – i.e. Enhance the application of MM measures WPB of MAX aimed to; – Develop (and validate) a new model on individual modal choice decisions – Apply its theoretical assumptions to real life intervention studies ECOMM, San Sebastian, May, 2009

What do we already know (and still need to know) ? In any given population, some people are more susceptible to change, than others Behavioural change not a 1-step process Thus – Any MM intervention is likely to affect people in different ways – Based on their susceptibility to change/position within change process – i.e. Attitudes and perceptions towards behavioural change – Ideally select the most appropriate MM measure for that population But how? ECOMM, San Sebastain, May, 2009

Evaluation issues ? In order to measure the effects of MM interventions you need robust methods – Weak evaluations may distort effects found – i.e. Cause and effect So how do we overcome this potential problem? – Taking into account theoretical questions earlier – Some MM interventions may result in more subtle changes in attitudes and perceptions rather than behavioural change per se ECOMM, San Sebastain, May, 2009

Developing a new model Many models available ! – TPB, NAM, Transtheoretical, TAPESTRY (to name a few) – But often limited evidence (validation) ! – See SoA review- success.eu/downloads/MAX_SoA_AnnexB1_1.pdfhttp:// success.eu/downloads/MAX_SoA_AnnexB1_1.pdf 1 st step- Review of available models and evidence – Many similarities (constructs and assumptions) – Main difference (static vs. dynamic) ECOMM, San Sebastian, May, 2009

Main assumptions Voluntary behavioural change can be conceptualised as a series of sequential stages – 4 key stages Central motivational force is to act in a pro- environmental way (reduce car use) – Set a goal to achieve this For people to progress through stages-must satisfy key threshold criteria Interventions (e.g. MM) can be designed to target key constructs and facilitate behavioural change But target specific constructs appropriate to that population ECOMM, San Sebastian, May, 2009

MaxSEM ECOMM, San Sebastain, May, 2009

Putting theory into practice (In Munich) General aim – Test the ability of a theory-based phone marketing campaign to promote voluntary car use reduction for daily trips in Munich. – Compared to non-theoretical intervention Methodology Randomised Control Design (overcome evaluation issues) – Recruitment – Stage diagnosis – Random assignment (by stage) into – EG1: Theoretical based; EG2: Standard (non-theory); or CG: No intervention ECOMM, San Sebastian, May, 2009

Munich study overview Experimental Group 1 – Personal phone contact to motivate them to reduce some/all car trips – Tailored to person’s current behavioural change stage (i.e. stage specific dialogue). – Personal contact combined with supporting print materials – A second (follow-up) intervention – Final measurement (behavioural change and stage progression) ECOMM, San Sebastain, May, 2009

Stage specific dialogue (and supporting materials) Pre-contemplative Dialogue to “Correct misperceptions of goal feasibility” “Instilling social norms” e.g. Information link between transport and environmental damage ECOMM, San Sebastain, May, 2009

And for contemplators Dialogue to “Instil behavioural control” “Positive attitudes towards alternative modes” e.g. Information on local trams ECOMM, San Sebastain, May, 2009

Sample Stage positionCGEG1 (theory) EG2 (non- theory) Total Pre- contemplation RA ContemplationRA Preparation/ Action RA MaintenanceRA Total ,269 RA = random assignment into CG, EG1 or EG2 ECOMM, San Sebastian, May, 2009

Study overview ECOMM, San Sebastian, May, 2009

Conclusions (at this stage) Are theoretical-based interventions more effective (and cost efficient) than non- theoretical? We are not sure (but will be soon) Implications for future MM campaigns – Currently looking at other MM measures – And how they can be enhanced (with theory) – e.g. TA - a pilot study in Hammersmith UK ECOMM, San Sebastian, May, 2009

Conclusions: 2 Implications for the evaluation of MM campaigns MAXSUMO: includes stage diagnosis questions to measure more subtle changes (than overt behavioural change) Further details of MaxSEM (and other Max outputs) on MAX website- Or will be soon ! ECOMM, San Sebastian, May, 2009

Many thanks for listening ECOMM, San Sebastian, May, 2009