Easy Does It: Structural and Motivational Approaches to Changing Behavior Wesley Schultz California 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, USA. (760) July 18, 2006 Jennifer Tabanico California 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 do 2. 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?” 0 “definitely won’t” to 10 “definitely will” M=8.91; SD= % = 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

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 Structural Barriers

Rational Choice Structural Barriers Motivation WEAK FUTURE INTENTIONS

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 Behavioral Control IntentionBehavior.15*.35**.20*.50**