Most of the research I’ve written about on my blog comes out of labs at (US) universities. But psychologists and economists increasingly appreciate the value of conducting research in the real world. This often means that experiments have to be moved out of the lab and into the field, as well as involving people that are more representative of the actual population—outside of the traditional student participant pool. For applied research, greater reliance on data from the field appears inevitable. A recent investigation on the correlation between lab and field results in psychological studies, for example, indicates a relatively low lab-field convergence for research in social and consumer psychology. Elsewhere, science writers at The Economist have been reporting on a “new fashion” in psychology, evident in academics’ use of Amazon’s Mechanical Turk, which draws on a larger population of internet users as research participants (see The roar of the crowd and ‘Snot fair!).
The study of pro-environmental behavior is an important area in which real-world research settings have been used extensively.
One example is behavior change among hotel guests. While many hotels now bring down electricity use by means of a key card system that detects when a guest room is unoccupied, the reduction of energy and water consumption associated with towel (and linen) use often requires the cooperation of hotel guests. However, an in-room sign or message asking guests to reuse towels may not lead to sufficient levels of behavior change.
Frequently mentioned behavior change research in social psychology (see Goldstein et al., 2007) has found that towel reuse can be increased significantly by harnessing the power of reciprocity (e.g., telling guests that the hotel made a charitable donation on their behalf, in return for expected towel reuse) or providing guests with "social proof" or social norms (e.g., a message stating that most hotel guests already engage in the behavior). The latter is problematic because it relies on deception: most guests do not in fact reuse their towels.
A brand new study by Katie Baca-Motes and colleagues, about to be published in the Journal of Consumer Research, investigated towel reuse among thousands of hotel guests by testing theories on commitment, consistency and self-signaling. In a nutshell, the idea is that commitment fosters actions in line with that initial commitment, because humans don’t like the tensions created by inconsistencies in their thoughts (attitudes and beliefs) and behaviors. Signaling a commitment to others makes a pledge even more active and public, which should increase its effectiveness further.
The researchers randomly assigned hotel guests to a number of different experimental conditions as they checked into the hotel. Some people were asked to indicate their general commitment (to be environmentally friendly during their stay), others to indicate their more specific commitment (to reuse towels during their stay), by checking "yes" or "no" on a form. Some of these guests were also given a "Friend of the Earth" pin to wear. The authors of the study note that branded pins were already commonly worn among guests of this hotel, so wearing them did not represent unusual behavior. In a number of control conditions, guests were given a pin only, a message only or no manipulation at all. Researchers then measured towel reuse, as indicated when guests hang a towel to be used again, and created different metrics, including towel hanging likelihood, as well as the number and percentage of towels hung.
As expected, results across these metrics showed a significant increase in towel reuse as a result of the manipulations, particularly in the condition combining pins with specific commitment. 73% of these guests hung any towel for reuse, in contrast to only 57% of guests who weren’t subject to a behavior change intervention. According to the authors, findings are evidence of the effectiveness of specific and action oriented commitment.
The researchers also found a spillover effect to other energy conservation behaviors: Guests in either the specific commitment or pin conditions were less likely to leave their room lights on than those receiving only a pin or no manipulation at all.
Perhaps not surprisingly, there was no spillover effect for guest satisfaction, as they were neither significantly more nor less happy as a result of the behavioral interventions. I do wonder, however, whether there might be conditions under which hotel guests would become more satisfied with their stay as a result of their pro-environmental commitment. Research in psychology and marketing has shown that co-production (Ikea self-assembly furniture, for example) can increase consumers’ valuation of products, while the active involvement of customers more generally (e.g., in co-creating services) can lead to greater satisfaction. Clearly, having guests launder their own towels is out of the question, but there may be other forms of active engagement that could add to the satisfaction of doing something that’s already a win-win situation for hotels and their customers (and most importantly the environment).
In any event, the study by Baca-Motes and colleagues is another good example of a field experiment on behavior change, jointly produced by researchers from academia and the “real” world. Social scientists sometimes consider scientific findings produced in the lab versus field as part of a trade-off. While the strength of laboratory experiments is that of so-called internal validity (being able to establish cause and effect under controlled conditions), field experiments have the advantage of greater external and ecological validity (being able to generalize relationships and apply findings to real-life contexts). Carefully designed field research has the potential to combine the best of both worlds.
To get a rough idea about the growth of field research/experiments in psychology, I recently had a look at published abstracts in the academic database PsycINFO, comparing the years 2007-2011 to 2002-2006. My search indicated an 84% increase of published papers (“field research” or “field experiment” in the abstract) against a 65% baseline growth (“research” or “experiment” in the abstract) in the database. This trend will undoubtedly continue.
Baca-Motes, K., Brown, A., Gneezy, A., Keenan, E. A., & Nelson, L. D. (In press), Commitment and behavior change: Evidence from the field. Journal of Consumer Research. doi: http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/667226
Goldstein, N. J., Griskevicius, V., & Cialdini, R. B. (2007). Invoking social norms: A social psychology perspective on improving hotels’ linen-reuse programs. Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 48(2), 145-50.
Most of the research I’ve written about on my blog comes out of labs at (US) universities. But psychologists and economists increasingly appreciate the value of conducting research in the real world. This often means that experiments have to be moved out of the lab and into the field, as well as involving people that are more representative of the actual population—outside of the traditional student participant pool. For applied research, greater reliance on data from the field appears inevitable. A recent investigation on the correlation between lab and field results in psychological studies, for example, indicates a relatively low lab-field convergence for research in social and consumer psychology. Elsewhere, science writers at The Economist have been reporting on a “new fashion” in psychology, evident in academics’ use of Amazon’s Mechanical Turk, which draws on a larger population of internet users as research participants (see The roar of the crowd and ‘Snot fair!).
The study of pro-environmental behavior is an important area in which real-world research settings have been used extensively.
One example is behavior change among hotel guests. While many hotels now bring down electricity use by means of a key card system that detects when a guest room is unoccupied, the reduction of energy and water consumption associated with towel (and linen) use often requires the cooperation of hotel guests. However, an in-room sign or message asking guests to reuse towels may not lead to sufficient levels of behavior change.
Frequently mentioned behavior change research in social psychology (see Goldstein et al., 2007) has found that towel reuse can be increased significantly by harnessing the power of reciprocity (e.g., telling guests that the hotel made a charitable donation on their behalf, in return for expected towel reuse) or providing guests with "social proof" or social norms (e.g., a message stating that most hotel guests already engage in the behavior). The latter is problematic because it relies on deception: most guests do not in fact reuse their towels.
A brand new study by Katie Baca-Motes and colleagues, about to be published in the Journal of Consumer Research, investigated towel reuse among thousands of hotel guests by testing theories on commitment, consistency and self-signaling. In a nutshell, the idea is that commitment fosters actions in line with that initial commitment, because humans don’t like the tensions created by inconsistencies in their thoughts (attitudes and beliefs) and behaviors. Signaling a commitment to others makes a pledge even more active and public, which should increase its effectiveness further.
The researchers randomly assigned hotel guests to a number of different experimental conditions as they checked into the hotel. Some people were asked to indicate their general commitment (to be environmentally friendly during their stay), others to indicate their more specific commitment (to reuse towels during their stay), by checking "yes" or "no" on a form. Some of these guests were also given a "Friend of the Earth" pin to wear. The authors of the study note that branded pins were already commonly worn among guests of this hotel, so wearing them did not represent unusual behavior. In a number of control conditions, guests were given a pin only, a message only or no manipulation at all. Researchers then measured towel reuse, as indicated when guests hang a towel to be used again, and created different metrics, including towel hanging likelihood, as well as the number and percentage of towels hung.
As expected, results across these metrics showed a significant increase in towel reuse as a result of the manipulations, particularly in the condition combining pins with specific commitment. 73% of these guests hung any towel for reuse, in contrast to only 57% of guests who weren’t subject to a behavior change intervention. According to the authors, findings are evidence of the effectiveness of specific and action oriented commitment.
The researchers also found a spillover effect to other energy conservation behaviors: Guests in either the specific commitment or pin conditions were less likely to leave their room lights on than those receiving only a pin or no manipulation at all.
Perhaps not surprisingly, there was no spillover effect for guest satisfaction, as they were neither significantly more nor less happy as a result of the behavioral interventions. I do wonder, however, whether there might be conditions under which hotel guests would become more satisfied with their stay as a result of their pro-environmental commitment. Research in psychology and marketing has shown that co-production (Ikea self-assembly furniture, for example) can increase consumers’ valuation of products, while the active involvement of customers more generally (e.g., in co-creating services) can lead to greater satisfaction. Clearly, having guests launder their own towels is out of the question, but there may be other forms of active engagement that could add to the satisfaction of doing something that’s already a win-win situation for hotels and their customers (and most importantly the environment).
In any event, the study by Baca-Motes and colleagues is another good example of a field experiment on behavior change, jointly produced by researchers from academia and the “real” world. Social scientists sometimes consider scientific findings produced in the lab versus field as part of a trade-off. While the strength of laboratory experiments is that of so-called internal validity (being able to establish cause and effect under controlled conditions), field experiments have the advantage of greater external and ecological validity (being able to generalize relationships and apply findings to real-life contexts). Carefully designed field research has the potential to combine the best of both worlds.
To get a rough idea about the growth of field research/experiments in psychology, I recently had a look at published abstracts in the academic database PsycINFO, comparing the years 2007-2011 to 2002-2006. My search indicated an 84% increase of published papers (“field research” or “field experiment” in the abstract) against a 65% baseline growth (“research” or “experiment” in the abstract) in the database. This trend will undoubtedly continue.
Available from July 2014: The Behavioral Economics Guide 2014 on BehavioralEconomics.com (free download)
References
Baca-Motes, K., Brown, A., Gneezy, A., Keenan, E. A., & Nelson, L. D. (In press), Commitment and behavior change: Evidence from the field. Journal of Consumer Research. doi: http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/667226
Goldstein, N. J., Griskevicius, V., & Cialdini, R. B. (2007). Invoking social norms: A social psychology perspective on improving hotels’ linen-reuse programs. Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 48(2), 145-50.