Attitude Change Programs – 'Food Dudes to the Rescue!'

Attitudes help humans choose how they will behave, determining choices, likes, dislikes and ideas about the world (Baumeister & Bushman, 2008). However, humans may hold attitudes that are maladaptive to their well-being or environment (Baumeister & Bushman). Attitude change programs attempt to actively manipulate socio-psychological variables to create long lasting attitude change. The variables involved include; operant conditioning, peer modeling, cognitive dissonance and mere exposure effect. It thus becomes clear, that behaviour change is first required for attitude change to occur.

By creating behaviour change, individuals' attitudes are changed to align with such behaviour. The Food Dudes Program, developed by researchers at the University of Wales in the Bangor Food and Activity Research Unit, employs socio- psychological variables in order to change British children's behaviours and attitudes towards fruit and vegetable (F&V) consumption. F&V consumption is linked to proper human growth and development, and has been linked to a reduction in preventable diseases such as cardiovascular disease and diabetes (Britain's greatest killers) (Tapper, Horne, Fergus, and Lowe, 2003). A program's success is related to the capacity for results to be generalized, maintenance of the gains achieved, and the developmental stage at which the program is introduced. Below is an examination of the socio-psychological variables involved in attitude change, and examples of how these have been implemented in the Food Dudes program, along with what makes attitude change programs successful.

Theoretical Bases

Operant Conditioning and Rewards

In operant conditioning, the Law of Effect (1911) describes 'behaviour as (sic) a function of its consequences' (Chance (a), 2003, p.137). Reinforcement is the central tool in operant conditioning, and has three defining characteristics; 1. Behaviour must have a consequence, 2. The behaviour must increase in strength, and 3. The increase in strength must be a result of the consequence (Catania, 1998, as cited in Chance (a)). For operant conditioning to be successful, the reinforcement received must be contingent on the performance of the desired target behaviour (Cameron, Banko, & Pierce, 2001).

In order for the subject to continue the reinforced behaviour (without further reinforcement), intrinsic motivation is important in making it resistant to extinction (Chance (a), 2003). There is debate whether a subject's intrinsic motivation is undermined by tangible rewards (for reviews and competing views see Deci, Koestner, & Ryan, 1999; Cameron et al., 2001). Presently, it appears that when used correctly, rewards are an important tool in changing behaviour. More specifically, on low initial interest tasks, tangible rewards increase intrinsic motivation, and on high initial interest tasks, verbal rewards increase both intrinsic motivation and task interest (Cameron et al).

Cognitive Dissonance

Performance of the target behaviour (due to reinforcement) when the subject holds contrary attitudes, produces inconsistency between the subject's behaviour and attitudes. According to cognitive dissonance theory, when minor rewards are offered and the subject chooses to perform the behaviour, it is easier for them to change their attitudes rather than their behaviour (Baumeister & Bushman, 2008). The drive for self-presentation consistency within the social world is an underlying factor; people and society expect others to be consistent with their attitudes and behaviour (Baumeister & Bushman).

In the Food Dudes program, operant conditioning was used to establish the performance of the target behaviour . Rewards offered were clearly contingent on the type of F&V behaviour, including frequency and quantity of the behaviour (Tapper et al., 2003). Rewards in the form of small prizes were paired with verbal teacher rewards, including peer acknowledgment and approval (Horne, Lowe, Bowdery, and Egerton, 1998). Through the program, children performing the F&V behaviour would realize the inconsistency between their attitudes and behaviour, experiencing some level of cognitive dissonance. Wanting to appear 'consistent', faced with their peers and self-presentation concerns, children may change their attitudes to match their behaviour.

Social Learning and Peer Modeling

Social learning, or peer modeling, is a concept of learning from humans around us, and is an important cultural process (Baumeister & Bushman, 2008). The two main theories behind social learning are social cognitive theory of Albert Bandura, and reinforcement theory of Neal Miller and John Dollard (Chance(b), 2003). Social cognitive theory focuses on vicarious learning through internal cognitive processes which the observer goes through to successfully reproduce a target behaviour (Chance (b)). Reinforcement theory explains learning solely as a 'variant of operant conditioning' (Chance (b), p.289). This theory relies on generalised imitation, where behaviour of successful models is imitated and not that of unsuccessful models (depending upon reinforcement). The difference between these theories is Bandura focuses on an individual's internal cognitive processes, whilst Miller and Dollard focus on external situational processes. Both theories agree however, that modeling and reinforcement interact to reproduce behaviour seen in the model, by the observer (Chance (b)).

Social learning's three levels progress from imitation to identification. Imitative learning (also thought to be the child's early learning mechanism) is where a model's responses to a situation are copied when reinforced (Brody & Stoneman, 1981). Then, further progressing into introjection, abstract psychological processes (eg. attitudes) of the model, in relation to the behaviour, are internalized by the observer (Gewirtz & Stingle, 1968). Finally, identification, when the observer incorporates these attitudes into their self-concept. Thus, the observer reproduces the target behaviour across contexts, decided by their new attitudes (Gewirtz & Stingle).

The age of a model also seems to be important for the social learning process. In situations where younger, same age or older models are available, children and young adults show selective imitation of same age or older models (Brody & Stoneman, 1981). Brody and Stoneman also found this imitation preference is present when there are single or multiple models available, even though acquisition of information displayed by younger models was nearly perfectly retained.

The Food Dudes program uses videos which feature slightly older peers than the children in the target audience (known as 'Food Dudes') and who eat F&V (Horne et al., 1998). The video and program encourages imitation of the models' F&V behaviours, and eventually leads the observers to identification with models' attitudes towards healthy foods. To achieve this, children are rewarded for reproducing the models' behaviours (by eating the targeted foods) with items like stickers, caps, etc. At the same time, their classmates are rewarded for performing the same F&V behaviours, thus they begin to use their peers as models. As a result, a 'culture' that holds F&V eating as favourable and high status behaviour emerges (Tapper et al., 2003). Children begin to identify with the attitudes of the Food Dudes, allowing their new attitudes towards F&Vs to guide their future behaviour.

Mere Exposure Effect and Familiarity

The Mere Exposure Effect (MEE) concept contends that 'familiarity breeds liking' (Bornstein, 1989). When people are repeatedly exposed to new or novel stimuli, they tend to regard it positively (Baumeister & Bushman, 2008). The target behaviour exposing the individual to new stimuli is reproduced through operant conditioning and peer modeling. This repeated exposure to the new behaviour leads to the MEE, with the individual viewing the behaviour more positively. Subsequently, attitudes change in favour of the target behaviour. In the Food Dudes program, they found a large amount of research supporting the MEE in relation to food tastings, where 'repeated tastings of a food enhances preference for that food' (Horne et al., 1998). In light of these findings, the program developers set out to utilise socio-psychological variables to change attitudes by changing behaviour (Horne et al).

Success of Programs

There is an important distinction between programs and education campaigns when assessing success. Traditionally, education campaigns have aimed to enlighten people on what is healthy or harmful behaviour. They educate in the 'hope they (people) will alter their habits accordingly' (Tapper et al., 2003, p.18). Tapper et al. point out that research has found this approach to have 'limited success . . .Unfortunately, 'knowing' does not always mean 'doing''(p.18). Programs acting on the individual and environment are not passive interactions like education campaigns (Tapper et al). To this end, socio-psychological variables are utilized within a program framework and timeline, to achieve concrete behaviour change and subsequently attitude change.

The authors of the Food Dudes program believe there are three main contributors to an attitude change program (Tapper et al., 2003). Firstly, the capacity for generalized results across environmental contexts. Such programs seem to reproduce target behaviour and attitude changes not only at school, but also in the home environment (Horne et al., 1998). Secondly, maintenance of program gains is due to the fundamental shift in attitudes achieved, promoting continued behaviour change (Horne et al). Thirdly, the developmental stage at which the program is implemented is important. Attitudes are formed in childhood (Gewirtz & Stingle, 1968), and there is a point in development which sees the 'convergence' of operant conditioning and language acquisition, marking an important moment in attitude formation (Horne et al). Thus, any attitude change program should certainly take into consideration these three factors before considering any broader aims.

The theoretical bases for attitude change programs (such as Food Dudes), mentioned above are fundamental to successfully changing attitudes through behaviour alteration. The success of such programs is directly related to the generalization of program results across environments, maintenance of gains made in the program, and the developmental stage at which such a program is implemented. Attitude change programs (in contrast to education campaigns) involve active processes within defined frameworks and timelines, utilizing socio-psychological processes, creating long lasting behaviour and attitude change.

REFERENCES

Baumeister, R.F. & Bushman, B.J. (2008). Attitudes, beliefs and consistency. In Social psychology and human nature (pp223-287). Belmont: Thomson Wadsworth.

Bornstein, R.F. (1989). Exposure and affect: overview and meta-analysis of research, 1968-1987. Psychological Bulletin, 106, 265-289.

Brody, G.H. & Stoneman, Z. (1981). Selective imitation of same-age, older, and younger peer models. Child Development, 52, 717-720.

Cameron, J., Banko, K.M. & Pierce, W.D. (2001). Pervasive negative effects of rewards on intrinsic motivation: The myth continues. The Behaviour Analyst, 24, 1-44.

Catania, A.C. (1998). Learning (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, cited in; Chance, P. (2003). Operant reinforcement. In Learning and behaviour (5th ed.)(pp133-186). Belmont: Thomson Wadsworth.

(a)Chance, P. (2003). Operant reinforcement. In Learning and behaviour (5th ed.) (pp133-186). Belmont: Thomson Wadsworth.

(b)Chance, P. (2003). Vicarious learning. In Learning and behaviour (5th ed.) (pp264-300). Belmont: Thomson Wadsworth.

Deci, E.L., Koestner, R. & Ryan, R.M. (1999). A meta-analytic review of experiments examining the effects of extrinsic rewards on intrinsic motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 125, 627-668.

Gewirtz, J.L. & Stingle, K.G. (1968). Learning of generalised imitation as the basis for identification. Psychological Review, 75, 374-397.

Horne, P.J., Lowe, C.F., Bowdery, M. & Egerton, C. (1998). The way to healthy eating for children. British Food Journal, 100, 133-140.

Tapper, K., Horne, P.J. & Lowe, C.F. (2003). The food dudes to the rescue!. The Psychologist, 16, 18-21.

APPENDICES

Useful Websites

The Food Dudes site: www.fooddudes.co.uk

University of Wales Bangor (School of Psychology),
Bangor Food and Activity Research Unit (BFARU):
www.psychology.bangor.ac.uk/research/su/food_research