Mixed Messages

A group of volunteers, including myself, has just completed a Behavior Change seminar facilitated by Bonnie Kittle in Thiès.

Peace Corps volunteers work to promote certain behaviors among their host country nationals. A health volunteer wants mothers with children under the age of 5 to wash their hands with soap and running water at the 5 critical moments every day. An agg volunteer wants rice cultivators to weed their fields a certain number of times per month. A CED volunteer wants entrepreneurs to reinvest a certain percentage of their monthly profits back into their business. We want them to preform behaviors--hand washing, for example--that are scientifically proven to reduce a specific problem, such as high child mortality.

The current Peace Corps approach to promoting various behaviors is flawed. It recognizes that some people aren't doing the beneficial behaviors, but assumes that lack of knowledge is the biggest barrier to behavior change. As a result, Peace Corps promotes activities primarily designed to increase knowledge. For example, health volunteers are encouraged to hold mosquito net care and repair demonstrations. The problem is, there are many other different barriers to behavior change that aren't taken into consideration.

The Designing for Behavior Change framework helps us answer the question why: why are some people preforming the behavior, while others are not? Thanks to the Barrier Analysis, we can accurately determine which barriers are most significant by interviewing members of our priority group. We can then implement activities designed to directly address those barriers. The DBC framework proves that there's no need to guess or assume anything. Activities shouldn't be generic and universally applicable. They must be tailored to the specific target group, their environment, their culture...

The activities we partake in and the messages we promote are only the tip of the iceberg. A successful outcome is contingent on what's under the surface. 

I thought it might be fun to take a look at some ads and public health messages. To keep it interesting, I've selected two conflicting messages. What are some of the determinants and bridges at play? 

Getting young people to stop smoking

Positive consequences: increase the perception that doing the behavior will result in positive things
Action efficacy: increasing the perception that the action effectively deals with the problem (high mortality rates correlated with smoking)  

Culture: decrease the perception that smoking is associated with young culture 

Getting young people to smoke
Social norms: increase the perception that the influencing group approves of the behavior
Perceived positive consequences: increase the perception that smoking makes you attractive and intrinsically yourself

 Make sure that young people never start smoking
Social norms: increase the perception that the influencing group disapproves of the behavior
Perceived negative consequences: increase the perception that smoking gives you bad breath
Perceived positive consequences: decrease the perception that smoking makes you attractive

Getting young people to stop smoking
Perceived Severity: increase the perception that smoking kills
Perceived susceptibility: increase the perception that young people are susceptible

Getting smokers to continue smoking
Social norms: increase the perception that the influential group approves of the behavior
Perceived negative consequences: reduce the perception that smoking is bad for your teeth
Perceived severity: decrease the perception that smoking is detrimental to your health 

These advertisements and public health messages are all effective in their own ways. Their creators know their target audience well. All its concerns are minimized in the cigarette ads, or maximized in the public health messages. Each plays on different universal motivators to its advantage: attractiveness, health, long life, success. It's interesting to see that two conflicting behaviors can be promoted with such different motivations. This information is powerful, and isn't always used in a beneficial way.