Psychologists have begun to uncover how people
are best motivated to reach a goal. This research was a major
contributor in the creation of Stikky books.
When people buy a book on how to fix a car, lose weight or learn
how to play the stock market, the writers can perhaps assume that
the reader is motivated to put into practice what they learn. This
motivation will carry the reader through the first hour or so of
reading the book, though it may not stretch much further. (Our
research found that people said they read, on average, just under
half the last "How To" book they bought for themselves.
This is one reason that Stikky books are readable in around one
hour).
A bigger challenge to reader motivation comes after reading the
book: putting what they learned into practice, particularly for
'self-improvement' topics such as losing weight.
The authors faced a particular problem with Stikky Weight
Management since they wanted to avoid the idea of a temporary diet
in favor of permanent changes to eating habits. From a motivational
point-of-view, a time-limited diet may seem more attractive than a
lifetime of eating less, even if the reader agrees that temporary
changes typically deliver only temporary results.
So a significant part of research for the book was into
motivational methods. The psychology literature (including the
pop-psychology, self-help literature) identify three methods:
- Focus on the outcome
- Focus on the process of reaching the outcome
- Focus on outcome and process together.
For example, a student preparing for an exam could spend a few
minutes each day visualizing themselves going to get their result
after the exam and getting an A (outcome). Alternatively, they could
visualize themselves turning on their desk light, getting out a book
to study, and sitting down to concentrate on it (process). Or they
could visualize both in turn. Which approach, if any, is most likely
to improve their performance?
A recent study set out to uncover the answer but, before we reveal
it, you might like to consider for yourself which approach was best,
second best, and third best.
A team at UCLA divided students into groups one week before a
mid-term exam, one group taking the outcome approach, another the
process approach, a third group process-and-outcome, and a fourth
group as control (Taylor and Pham, 1996).
They found that the process-and-outcome group did best, a net gain
of 10 points, followed by the process group with a net gain of 8
points. The outcome-focussed group scored a net gain of 2
points--not statistically significant. Interestingly, the
process-and-outcome group said they would be unlikely to use the
method again (perhaps because it took too long) whereas the process
group said they would be highly likely to.
That outcome-focus didn't work is particularly surprising given the
almost exclusive use of this approach in popular self-help
literature. But the UCLA findings confirm those of an earlier study
(Gollwitzer et al, 1990) which found that people who form definite
implementation plans ("these are the five steps I am going to
take") are significantly more likely to follow through than
those who don't. Whether they imagined the positive consequences of
achieving the outcome or not made no difference.
What did this tell us about motivating readers of Stikky Weight
Management? It told us to have readers focus on the process of
making the changes they choose to make. Since Stikky books are in
three parts and readers are asked to leave one week gaps between
them, we effectively had two opportunities to ask the reader to make
changes and then have them evaluate themselves a week later.
Process aspects we used were:
- Substituting one food for another
- Comparing Nutrition Fact labels in a store
- Choosing from a restaurant menu
- 'Tactics' such as stop eating when you're full
- And taking light exercise when the opportunity arises (eg,
park at the far end of the car park and walk).
We also included some outcome-based arguments, primarily
because they are so compelling that it would have been bizarre to
leave them out. But they are not tested or re-enforced later in the
book whereas all the process items above are.
We chose not to ask readers to imagine themselves as thin and we
chose not to make a diet sound like a one-off project with a single
outcome. Unlike most diet books we also chose not to include recipes
(which made sense in the 1960s when most meals were cooked at home);
and not to talk in detail about human biology.
References
P M Gollwitzer, H Heckhausen, and H Ratajczak (1990), 'From
weighing to willing: Approaching a change decision through pre- or
postdecisional mentation', Organizational Behavior and Human
Decision Processes, 45, 41-65
S E Taylor and L B Pham, 'Mental Stimulation, Motivation, and
Action' in Peter M Gollwitzer and John A Bargh, The Psychology of
Action, The Guilford Press.
|