Fritz Bachen – The Consumer Psychologist

Tag Archive: Behaviour change

1. Switzer on The Advertising Effect: How to change behaviour’

   June 1, 2014 9:54 am Leave a Comment

   My interview with Peter Switzer.
   

2. An Interview with FXGuide

   September 23, 2012 12:54 am Leave a Comment

   Here’s an interview with FXGuide on how we change behaviour at Naked Communications.  Its a video about 24 minutes long.

3. Behavior Change: Why Action Advertising Works Harder Than Passive Advertising

   April 22, 2012 1:05 am 2 Comments

   Billions of dollars are spent each year by marketers in efforts to change consumer behavior. These are often direct and overt, such as persuading consumers to consume a product over that of a competitor. Even indirect attempts, such as campaigns aimed at creating brand image and raising awareness, ultimately have the end goal of changing consumer behavior.

   In the marketing and advertising industry it is usually assumed that communicating a message to a consumer in a one-way direction is all that is required to change behavior. This is despite the proliferation of both academic and commercial research into consumer motivations (e.g., Bargh, 2002; Jacoby, 1976; Tybout & Artz, 1994). Though much effort is invested into the message itself, the direction of communication is rarely questioned.

   The prevalence of this approach is interesting, since alternative methods of communication to change behavior have long been developed in other industries, such as education. Two-way communication (e.g., student involvement in lectures) has long been recognised for its contribution to learning and behavior change (Gosen & Washbush, 2004). For example, a study found that children who had participated in gardening as well as receiving nutrition education had significantly higher vegetable consumption levels, in comparison with children who received nutrition education only (Parmer at al., 2009).

   Problematically for marketers, the most successful ingredients of an advertising campaign are often difficult to pinpoint. However, in recent times, aided in part by an increased industry focus on digital technologies and social media platforms, ‘action’-based campaigns have demonstrated encouraging results. Campaigns such as Burger King’s Subservient Chicken, McDonald’s Name It Burger, and the Tate Modern’s Warholiser all required some form of consumer interaction, whether this was by playing a game, naming a product or transforming a photo of themselves.

   Viewed through a psychological lens, these campaigns reflect various forms of experiential learning. Based on the theories of Dewey (1938) and Lewin (1947), experiential learning is defined as “the process whereby knowledge is created through the transformation of experience” (Kolb, 1984). Thus, consumers who have the opportunity to interact with, or experience, rather than passively receive a message, should be more likely to create personalized meanings and associations from this information, and then change their behavior accordingly.

   There appear to be at least three significant reasons that experiential learning is effective: autonomy, discovery and personal relevance (Smith, 1980). Autonomy may circumnavigate resistance to a message, facilitate discovery, and enhance motivation. For example, in a study that measured different parenting styles of parents of 180 elementary school children, Grolnick and Ryan (1989) found that children of participative parents (e.g. where children were involved in decision making and problem solving) were more internally motivated and successful at school.

   The experience of coming to a realisation oneself appears to be essential for processing and retention of information. Also, when one is personally involved in action learning, information feels more relevant and therefore, more interesting, with greater perceived consequences for oneself (Smith, 1980). Another potentially explanatory theory is that of cognitive dissonance (Festinger, 1957). Consumers may be more open to a brand once they have begun the interaction process, due to the need to maintain consistency between thoughts and behavior.

   Thus far, this subject has received little empirical attention in an applied sense. Therefore, our research aims to investigate the effectiveness of action-based communication versus traditional, passive forms of communication, with effectiveness defined as a measurable change in consumer behavior. We propose that:

   H1. Participants in Condition 3 will donate a higher mean amount per person to charity than Conditions 1, 2 or 4.
   Methodology

   Participants
   A convenience sample of 181 delegates at an Australian media and marketing conference was used (Condition 1 = 94, Condition 2= 27, Condition 3= 42, Condition 4 = 18). The age range was approximately 20-65.

   Materials
   For each group, a video was created comprising an introduction and the experimental manipulation, led by a charity representative. Behavior change was operationalized as monetary donations to charity tins.
   Condition 1 (passive/rational) viewed a verbal presentation of key factual information about the charity.
   Condition 2 (passive/emotional) viewed a video montage of the charity’s activities and positive effects, accompanied by an upbeat song.
   For Condition 3 (active/high personal involvement/neutral), participants were asked to create an advertising idea for the charity, by drawing an image, some words and an encapsulating ‘tagline’ on paper. The task was deliberately unguided so as to facilitate autonomy.
   For Condition 4 (active/low personal involvement/neutral), participants were asked to complete some unrelated word puzzles.
   All groups were supplied with a written overview of the charity’s core functions, to ensure a baseline level of understanding.

   Procedure
   Consent was obtained prior to conference attendance.
   No random allocation was possible, since participants were required to self-allocate to one of four rooms for the following conference presentation. Participants were blind to experimental conditions (ostensibly sponsorship messages, so as to prevent demand effects). Assistants collected donations immediately after the manipulation.
   Participants were debriefed the following day.

    

   Major Findings

   Results suggested that those participants in the active learning condition were likely to donate more. Condition 3 received the highest donations per person ($3.84). Following this was Condition 2 with $3.69, Condition 4 with $2.58 and Condition 1 with $2.39. A lack of data points at the individual level precluded examination of statistical significance.

   Some additional participants entered the room in Condition 3 after the manipulation had begun. Attempts were made to exclude these from the dataset. We cannot rule out, however, the possibility that additional donations may have slightly inflated the mean donation per person.

   Overall, the present research has yielded encouraging support for the effectiveness of action-centred communications, although logistical limitations limited the reliability of the data collected. However, given the pattern of results obtained, and robust theoretical underpinnings of our central hypothesis, we feel that this is a very strong direction for further research.
   Future research is planned to replicate these findings in a more controlled environment, across a range of product categories, and across a range of types of ‘action’, and with representative populations.

    

   In Press

   Bachen, A., Ward, B., & Palermo, J. (2012). Behavior Change: Why Action Advertising Works Harder Than Passive Advertising. Working paper presented at Society for Consumer Psychology: Proceedings of the 2012 Annual Conference, Las Vegas, Nevada, February 16 – 18, Society of Consumer Psychology, USA.

    

   References

   Bargh, J.A. (2002). Losing consciousness: Automatic influences on consumer judgment, behavior, and motivation. Journal of Consumer Research, 29(2), 280-285.

   Dewey, J. (1938). Logic: The Theory of Inquiry. New York: Henry Holt & Co.

   Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

   Gosen, J., & Washbush, J. (2004). A review of scholarship on assessing experiential learning effectiveness. Simulation & Gaming, 35(2), 270-293.

   Grolnick, W. S., & Ryan, R. M. (1989). Parent styles associated with children’s self-regulation and competence in school. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81, 143-154.

   Jacoby, J. (1976). Consumer psychology: An octennium. Annual Review of Psychology, 27, 331-358.

   Kolb, D.A. (1984). Experiential learning: experience as the source of learning and development. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.

   Lewin, K. (1947). Frontiers in group dynamics: Channels of group life; social planning and action research. Human Relations, 1(2), 143-153.

   Parmer, S.M., Salisbury-Glennon, J., Shannon, D., Struempler, B. (2009). School gardens: an experiential learning approach for a nutrition education program to increase fruit and vegetable knowledge, preference and consumption among second-grade students. Journal of Nutrition Education and Behavior, 41(3), 212-217.

   Smith, M. (1980). Creators not consumers: rediscovering social education. Leicester: National Association of Youth Clubs.

   Tybout, A.M., & Artz, N. (1994). Consumer psychology. Annual Review of Psychology, 45, 131-169.

   Authors: Fritz Bachen, Brook Ward, Naked Communications, & Josephine Palermo, Deakin University

4. WorkSafe: Don’t ask people to do Dangerous things, as they’ll probably do it.

   April 18, 2012 3:15 am 1 Comment

   If you studied undergraduate psychology you would have been lucky enough to witness the great social psychology experiments of the 1960′s. These experiments were conducted long before ethic committees were set up and pushed the boundaries of insights into human behaviour.

   One such series of experiments was conducted by Stanley Milgram, he was interested in understanding why normal people do horrible things, just because they are told to.  That is, he wanted to understand how obedient people were, and why they obeyed others in authority, even to the point where their behaviours were harmful (look no further than the atrocities committed in Germany during World War II).

   His experiments demonstrated that most people (around60 to 70%) were prepared to follow orders that involved harming others (viaelectrocution in this instance) if told to do so by an authority figure. Watch the video for more.

   In 2012, we worked with WorkSafe Victoria to help the public understand that obedience still exists in the workplace. People still ask others do do dangerous things, and people still do the dangerous things asked of them.  We adapted the Milgramexperiments and put them into a simulated workplace setting to see if peopleare still willing to obey requests, even if it means others may be harmed.  See the video below – 90% (63 of 70) of people we asked to pass a dangerous live wire unprotected from one person to the next did so – and many did so repeatedly.  

    

   This experiment was supplemented byquantitative research (conducted by Galaxy Research) that showed thewillingness of supervisors to ask employees to do risky or dangerous acts incertain circumstances. The research found:

   • One in five supervisors admitted they would ask their employees to bypass safety to complete a task quickly.
   • One in four supervisors would bypass safety if a $1,000 performance bonus was at stake.
   • Supervisors rate keeping up with productivity and meeting client deadlines as their most important priority ahead of safety

   We’ve had some strong reactions to this ‘street experiment’. The Age wrote about it here

   The Herald Sun here, and The Project (it’s about two minutes in) here. Plus a load of other comments online. All of this PR activity is helping reinforce the message that we should not be asking people to do dangerous things in the workforce as there is a good chance they’ll do it!

   All of this activity can be viewed at Facebook.com/Worksafevictoria

   This is one of the fantastic ads that inspired the experiment, along with Milgram’s original experiments of course.

   Finally go to the Facebook page and measure your own level of obedience you might be in for a bit of a shock! (sorry about that).

5. Books on Behaviour Change and other Psychological Inspiration

   February 24, 2012 4:45 am 2 Comments

   I often get asked which psychology books are the best to read. I was also asked last year by the International Journal of Advertising to participate in their ex libris, and comment on the books that have had an influence on me.  I’ve taken the liberty of photo-copying what they printed.  If you’re ever looking for some good psychology books, books in general, or books on behaviour change in particular then this is as good as place as any to start.

   

   

   

6. Great Marketing Communications Involves Getting The Uninterested to Participate With Your Brand

   February 19, 2012 10:33 am 8 Comments

   

   
   

   
   We wrote a paper recently, Behaviour Change: Why Action Advertising Works Harder Than Passive Advertising’.  It’s been presented in Las Vegas this weekend at the Society of Consumer Pschology Annual Conference. It was jointly authored by Brook Ward, Deakin University academic Josephine Palermo, and myself. It’s a discussion paper to promote the effectiveness of participatory messages in advertising. In short it puts forwards evidence that getting people to participate in communications is more effective than just passively receiving a message.
   
   
   I’ve now come across this brilliant blog Behaviour Change and Technology there is one particular meta-study they site by Webb, Joseph, Yardley & Michie (2010).  It has looked at a number of behaviour change programs that harness interactive technology (internet, smart phones etc) to establish their effectiveness in behaviour change.  In short its effective, but the effectiveness obviously varies widely.  
   
   
   Link this with another interesting blog that was posted on Mumbrella by Simon Lawson, called Canalside View  this blog has an article on it looking at ‘The Participation paradox and how it relates to advertising.  In short – it says the following (and if I have got this wrong please let me know):
   

   1. We should focus on getting those people who don’t buy our brands very often to purchase more, rather the getting the ‘loyal’ to purchase more (this is pretty well established for several categories (especially impulse categories))
   2. To get these people to purchase ‘awareness’ isn’t enough, we need to get them interested in our brands 
   3. A great way to get people interested in a brand is to get them to participate. 
   4. However, only those who are already interested in the brand are likely to participate.

   So if you go with both of these interesting points of view then the biggest marketing challenge facing marketers is how to get people currently uninterested (or even unaware) of your brand to start to participate with your brand.   The ideas that create participation for a brand, but are so big that they draw others into the brand for the first time are the types of ideas that are likely to change brand fortunes.  There are a few examples of such ideas dotted around this blog, but for some others on a global scale think Chalkbot and The Man your man could smell like.

7. Selling The Carbon Tax and the Role of Celebrity

   May 30, 2011 7:49 am 4 Comments

   I ADORE Cate Blanchett. Who wouldn’t?

   She’s stunningly beautiful, seems like a lovely person, promotes the arts (including Australian theatre), has had an amazing international career as an actor, all while raising a family.

   Unfortunately, for all of these reasons she is completely the wrong person to be fronting a campaign to garner support for the carbon tax.

   To the typical Australian, the carbon tax debate has at its heart a big question – will a carbon tax compromise my way of life? Will I have to make compromises to my already difficult lifestyle to have a greener future?

   People are not yet willing to believe (and nor do we know) if we can have our cake and eat it too. Unfortunately, high profile actors such as Blanchett and Michael Caton don’t have the credibility to tell people their lives won’t be compromised. Continue to read here

   This article originally appeared in The Australian on 30.05.2011.

8. Behaviour Change and Advertising

   October 9, 2010 4:52 am 8 Comments

   

   
   

   I am speaking at a conference on Behaviour Change, and I’ve been asked to speak as a representative from the advertising industry. There is a perception out there that advertisers know how to change peoples behaviour. From what I’ve seen this assumption needs challenging. Let me explain….

   
   

   There are some very clear models developed by psychologists on how to change behaviour, and the stages of change in behaviour. However, I’ve never seen anything equivalent developed within the advertising world. Further, I’ve never met anyone in advertising who has a robust opinion on how to change behaviour. Normally they’ll start talking in very vague terms about ‘emotional engagement’ and other such rubbish such as love.

   
   

   At Naked Communications, over the last year or so we’ve taken the concept of how to change behaviour seriously, and it’s changing the way we do things. We have begun to develop some strong models and processes that we think, when applied correctly, will be much more effective in changing behaviour. Why the obsession with behaviour change? Well it’s at the core of marketing – any and every project undertaken will have, as an end game, the desire to change behaviour.

   
   

   Behaviour change is an endlessly complex area of study. Anyone who says ‘we have the answer’ must be looked upon with suspicion. However, so too must anyone who works in advertising who hasn’t a clue on the subject.