To view the photo-rich magazine version, click here.

Originally appears in the Spring 2020 issue.

By Brian William Ogle

As I was driving home one afternoon, an interview on NPR got me really thinking. This interview was with a psychologist, B.G. Fogg (author of Tiny Habits), who was discussing human behavior and why it is so difficult for humans to alter behaviors or habits. She went into the basic theory of dopamine release, which serves as a short-term reward mechanism. Much of what she was discussing was nothing I had not already learned in my educational psychology courses. However, what really caught my attention was the concept of friction.
From my reading on the subject, I cannot accurately define this concept as there are so many different definitions that have been presented. What these articles share in common is a notion that a change in mental state prevents an action from being continued. This could be distractibility, environment, etc. Yet, what all of the readings, and this NPR interview, had in common was the application: it disrupts the reward cycle in behavior change, thus eliminating the new behavior.
My mind instantly shifted to the application as an educator and my attempts to increase sustainable, or green, behaviors in my learners. I have heard similar frustrations from my colleagues about the inability to create sustained change in learners as it relates to adopting green behaviors. My hypothesis is that friction is at play here.

Changing behaviors
When we examine the actions we are asking of our learners, it is not hard to see that many of these actions all share one common trait: the lack of a short-term reward. Without this reward in place, the likelihood to continue a behavior diminishes over time. If we want to change behavior or replace existing behaviors with a new one, the short-term reward is a crucial element in this cycle. For any behavior to be sustained, varied reinforcement needs to occur at all stages of the behavior cycle.
This presents a particular problem for green behaviors. Many of these behaviors do not demonstrate an immediate result. As such, they are not as reinforcing as the old habit or routine. It requires cognitive thought and practice to fully integrate these behaviors in our daily lives.
If this is the case, is it realistic for us as educators to even approach behavior change? Does our informal programming also meet the requirements to begin the concept of behavior change? The answer is ‘not currently.’ Part of this is due to the current approach we take as educators.1 A fair number of us still hold on to the old model of “get them to care and they learn, which leads to them doing.” If we examine the psychology behind behavior change, we can already see holes in this model as it does not align with current behavior change theory.
As a community, we have struggled to move beyond the idea that increasing knowledge of an individual will cause them to care or act. Research over the past decade has demonstrated that we need to adopt a different approach to increasing behavior change in our learners.2 So, what model should we be using?
Based on the review of the literature related to behavior change and education, I propose this new model: action first, knowledge last. If our goal is to increase the likelihood that someone will engage in green behaviors, we need to work with a short-term reward cycle to establish the behavior.
If our programs were to lead off with learners engaging in the desired behavior first, we could reward the individual and provide immediate feedback. This action would prime the reward cycle, causing our participants to release dopamine, a required element of the reward cycle. Once they start feeling good about the action, we may increase the likelihood of their repeating the behavior. Frequent feedback on the behavior is critical for the reward cycle. The more repetitions an individual completes, the more likely the information is retained in long-term memory rather than the working memory. Merely learning about the behavior is not enough. A person needs to actually complete the behavior on their own. We also need to recognize that the behavior would need to be taught and may not be innate to most individuals. Using the “I do, we do, you do” approach would not only increase the repetition of the behavior, but would also serve as a way to start the short-term reward cycle.
If we could get the participant completing an action, it is believed that curiosity about the action would be ignited. Why are they completing the action? What is the benefit in doing this action? This is where we deliver our educational messaging. Using the findings from our behavior change and instruction design colleagues, we can see a clear need to target our messaging. The content should be presented such that the action and information would be explicitly linked. If there is not a direct correlation between the action and the information provided, the information would compete for space in the working memory. As a result, neither would be successfully stored in long-term memory.
Creating an emotional reaction would also aid in the reward cycle. Arcury & Christianson believe the most important thing we can do as environmental / conservation educators is to create an emotional reaction. This would sustain the behavior and establish the needed motivation to support the adoption of new behavior.3 While emotion is important to create a change in behavior and retain new knowledge, engagement during the exposure to the emotion leads to far greater and lasting knowledge gains. It also suggests that engagement is more likely to help sustain the behavior after the emotional experience has occurred.4

Long-term success guaranteed?
Alright, so we have created the now-perfect program geared towards creating behavior change in our learners. It is action-oriented with the action occurring at the start of the program. All of our participants have completed the action multiple times and have received feedback on their progress. We have created an emotional response in the learners as they are completing the action, which has primed them to retain the information that we will provide. Our information has been presented using active learning strategies and is developmentally appropriate information, which has been designed with brain-based learning in mind.
Now, what happens? Our learners will leave the time with us and implement the behavior for a couple of weeks. Will this behavior continue or be sustained? No. We have yet to eliminate the friction. Think back to the number of resolutions you have made to change a habit of yours. How successful were you at changing the behavior?
Without addressing the friction of adopting the new replacement behavior, old behaviors will return quickly. As educators, we have introduced friction unintentionally through our approach. We have created a short-term reward system, but we have not added a long-term reward. The cycle will ultimately terminate without continually reinforcing rewards. The act of doing the behavior alone is not reinforcing. Noticeable results or changes are reinforcing, but these are not always apparent or immediate with the behaviors we are trying to instill.
This means we need to find creative ways to remain in contact with our participants to reinforce their new behaviors. We need to find ways to break the cycle of friction in their environment. Unfortunately, I do not have an answer for this. I am struggling to find the solution to this problem myself and with my learners. However, I do have a few ideas.
We can connect with our learners virtually through multiple platforms. It is possible to remain in contact with a collective group of individuals without interacting with them in-person. We can create custom emails with specialized content and videos to reinforce the behaviors from their time with us. Social media has the potential to create a community of individuals who assist in reinforcing the behavior collectively. Ultimately, we should realize that we will face a different form of friction in this electronic world: guaranteeing the individual will engage with the material.
The power of resources and training our learners on where to find reinforcing content is paramount. Simple handouts designed to promote and sustain the behavior should be provided during the session. Part of our instruction should include how to engage with this easy-to-use material, which has been designed to address common breakdowns in adopting the behavior.

Can it all be put into practice?
A great example of this technique can be found in Orange County, Florida, where waste management services have been working to educate the local community on proper recycling. Educational workshops in the city have emphasized learning through action. The individuals who are charged with collecting the recyclables at the curbside are equipped with specific tags that they can place on receptacles. These tags are designed to provide reinforcement through positive messages and offering of feedback on people’s recycling progress. These tags also allow collectors to state why they may not be able to include a particular container in the collection process and that the homeowner is allowed to try again. If they succeed in correcting the recycling mistake, they are provided a new tag on the container praising them for fixing the issue. The tags also communicate the contributions they are making to the local community by recycling.
A more complex example can be found in the pilot program Sharing Space: Living with Coyote. This program was designed to place the participant in the middle of the experience. It used behavior change theory to change the perception of co-existing with Coyotes. One year after the program, results showed that the participants not only maintained more positive attitudes of the animals, but these participants were practicing the proper skills to decrease conflict with Coyotes.5
Our challenge as a collective community of educators is to find ways to sustain behavior. Applying the principles of behavior change is our best bet to ensure that we are creating a community that is actively engaged in sustainable actions. We need to give our learners the benefit of the doubt. They want to do better. Everyone wants to feel like they are making a difference in the world. Our goal is to find ways to encourage and teach them how — not just in a brief interaction, but long-term.

Brian W. Ogle is an assistant professor of anthrozoology and the department chair of humanities and general education at Beacon College in Leesburg, Florida. In his research he examines instructional issues related to science teaching, trends in environmental education, and various topics related to zoo visitor studies, including guest education.

Endnotes:
Clayton, S., & Brook, A. (2005). Can psychology help save the world? A model for conservation psychology. Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy, 5(1), 87-102.
Schultz, P. W. (2011). Conservation means behavior. Conservation Biology, 25(6), 1080-1083.
Pooley, J. A., & O’Connor, M. (2000). Environmental education and attitudes: Emotions and beliefs are what is needed. Environment and Behavior, 32(5), 711-723.
Chittaro, L., & Buttussi, F. (2015). Assessing knowledge retention of an immersive serious game vs. a traditional education method in aviation safety. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 21(4), 529-538.
Sponarski, C. C., Vaske, J. J., Bath, A. J., & Loeffler, T. A. (2019). Retaining change in attitudes and emotions toward coyotes using experiential education. Wildlife Research, 46(2), 97-103.