Summative Evaluation of Communication

• CSS 387• May 3, 2012

• Three treatments– Awareness of consequences– AC + “heritage guardian”– AC + HG + incentive

• Control• Monitored w/camera

– kids had badges

1: Shiloh Military Park

Vander Stoep, G. & Gramann, J. 1987. The effect of verbal appeals and incentives on depreciative behavior among youthful park visitors. Journal of Leisure Research, 19, 69-83

Effects of Messages on Depreciative Behaviors at Shiloh Military Park

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

All behavior types

Mea

n nu

mbe

r of a

cts/

grou

p

No message AC message AC +HG AC + HG + Inc

Lessons?• Messages were effective

• “Theory” based messages did not function better than awareness messages

• Social influences might have been pronounced

• Credible source

2: polystyrene recycling• Old signs

– Small, placed on recycling bin (not trash)– “choose to recycle”

Werner, C. M., Rhodes, M. U., & Partain, K. K. (1998). Designing effective instructional signs with schema theory: Case studies of polystyrene recycling. Environment and Behavior, 30(5), 709-735.

• New signs–Large, brief text–3 concepts: recycle, polystyrene, only–Glued objects to sign–Trash bin: “STOP – do not contaminate!”

2: polystyrene recycling

• Test:– Pre-test (1 week)– New signs (3 weeks)– Post-test (1 week)– Collected items in bins– Administered survey (knowledge, attitudes)

Knowledge and attitudes about styrofoam recycling

0 20 40 60 80 100

Should U recycle polystyrene?

Know what polystyrene is?

Don't know what food serviceitems are polystyrene

Know polystyrene must bescraped

Know U recycles polystyrene

Percent

Old SignsNew Signs 1 full bin/day

3.5 full bins/day

Large effect on specific knowledge & behavior

Lessons?

• Identify the right issue

• Need to interrupt mindless behavior

• Design features matter

3: damage to coral reefs

• Approach – verbal education • Methods

– Observed divers for 8 weeks – recorded number of contacts with coral (divers did 10 dives)• During 5 weeks, gave briefing at end of dive #3

(experimental group)• During 3 weeks, no briefings (control)

Medio, D., Ormond, R. F. G., & Pearson, M. (1996). Effect of briefings on rates of damage to corals by scuba divers. Biological Conservation, 79, 91-95.

Mean number of contacts per diver per 7 minutes

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

5

Ctrl-1 Ctrl-2 Ctrl-3 Expt-1 Expt-2 Expt-3 Expt-4 Expt-5

Dark bars = dives 1-3

Light bars = dives 4-10 (post briefing for experimental groups)

500 incidents per day at a typical dive site

Lessons?

• Divers were highly motivated

• Lack of knowledge and skill was overcome

• Used credible, authoritative source

• Importance of social influence

4: Littering at campsites• Approach

– Developed messages based on behavioral beliefs (wildlife) and normative beliefs (other visitors)

Starkey, P. (2009). Effect of persuasive messages on campers’ littering behavior in Wenatchee National Forest, Washington. MS Thesis, University of Idaho.

4: Littering at campsites

• Approach– Installed at 35 campsites– Monitored arrival/departure– Collected trash for 12 days with each sign,

and 12 control days– Counted and weighed trash

% of camps with litter

Median weight of litter per camp

00.020.040.060.080.10.120.140.160.18

Behavioral Normative Control

Kilogram

s

Collected 337 lbs of trash over 36 days

Median # pcs litter/camp

Lessons?

• Signs reduced littering

• Even with appeals, there is a major littering problem

• Findings were complex & contrary to expectations

5: energy conservation @ military bases

• Approach– Theory-based

• Knowledge• social comparison• values

– Focus groups and interviews– Multi-part campaign (chain of command; fairs;

newsletters; video; kids’ games; ‘competition’)

McMakin, A. H., Malone, E. L., & Lundgren, R. E. (2002). Motivating residents to conserve energy without financial incentives. Environment & Behavior, 34(6), 848-863.

5: energy conservation

• Assessment– Energy use vs. prior year (controlled for

weather differences)– Survey (awareness; self-reported behaviors;

explanations)

5: energy conservation• Effectiveness?

– Fort Lewis • 40% were aware of campaign• 10% savings ($130,387)

– Yuma • 66% were aware of campaign• Mixed result: Months 1-3, no change in energy use; in 4th

month, energy use declined 13%• Estimated $50K savings

• Motivators:– Pride– Awareness

Lessons• Modest effects can be achieved even without

monetary incentives– But participation was still low

• People have complex motivations; appeal to values

• Use a multi-pronged approach

• Structural barriers are significant

6: day users @ Australian parks

• Approach– Elicitation interviews – compliers & non-

compliers– Identified salient beliefs– Developed normative and behavioral

messages– Used observation (behavior) and survey

(attitudes)

Hughes, M., Brown, T. J., & Ham, S. (2009). Influencing park visitor behavior: A belief based approach. Journal of Park and Recreation Administration, 27(4), 38-53.

Effect on behavior

Badger Weir Picnickers

0102030405060708090

100

Control Sign 1 Sign 2

Perc

ent C

ompl

ianc

e

Yellagonga Dog Walkers

0102030405060708090

100

Control Sign

Boomerang?

Effect on attitudes• No effect overall at either site

• However, 1st time visitors at Badger Weir were affected by sign 2 (though not sign 1)

• 1st timers were less likely to feed birds (71% vs. 94%)

• Non-compliant dog walkers had firm intentions not to leash dogs

Lessons

• Signs had only modest effects (one had no effect), despite front-end assessments

• Change may occur without attitude or knowledge change

• For some behaviors, communication may not be the answer

• Different audience segments may be influenced differently

Examples illustrate points from semester

• Need to consider attention, memory, & information processing

• Importance of knowing one’s audiences• Role of social norms in behavior change• Value of personal & non-personal

communication• Importance of artistic and conceptual

design• Value of evaluation