Summary of Applying Social Psychology: From Problems to Solutions by Buunk a.o. - 3rd edition

Social psychology is the scientific study of processes in social relationships, and how people’s thoughts, feelings and behaviours are influenced by other people, more specifically by the actual, imagined, or implied presence of others. It is a basic science which tries to build knowledge primarily through experiments and survey. In addition to helping understand how people function in their everyday social life and why people do what they do, insights from social psychology can help solve problems that are related to how people behave towards others and with respect to many social issues. Based on a social problem, the upcoming chapter shows how a theoretical model is developed on which an intervention is based. This will be done using the PATHS (Problem, Analysis, Test, Help, Success) method.

What steps are in the PATHS method?

Step 1 – Problem: formulating a problem definition

It has become apparent that in recent years, fewer people are donating to reduce HIV/AIDS in high-risk areas such as Africa. A group of volunteers would like to start a campaign that will make people donate more money. They are struggling to determine how this campaign should look. They have, therefore, consulted a social psychologist to gain insight into what would prompt people to donate more money.

The psychologist starts with the first step of the PATHS method: formulating a problem definition. The problem is defined as follows: many people in Africa suffer from HIV / AIDS and there is not enough funding to provide them with adequate forms of medical or psychological assistance. What factors determine the willingness of potential donors to donate for this issue? How can we set up a fundraising campaign to help people living with HIV / AIDS?

Step 2 – Analysis: Finding an explanation for the problem

To identify what factors affect people’s willingness to donate money, the psychologist asks many questions that can be answered based on literature on social psychology. He looks at literature on altruism, pro-social behaviour, and social influence, which can show what motivates people to help others and give money to a good cause.

The psychologists looks at the literature on pro-social behaviour and formulates the first problem in terms of two general questions:

• When are people most likely to help others?
• What attributes of victims provoke help responses?

After researching literature that can answer these questions, the psychologist concludes that there are three kinds of help:

1. Emergency intervention: for example, helping someone who is the victim of a robbery or accident.
2. Organizational helping: for example, volunteering to take on an administrative job at the request of a manager.
3. Sharing and donating resources: for example, donating money to a charity.

The present problem, raising money for people with HIV / AIDS concerns the third type of prosocial behaviour. But, after reading the relevant literature, the practitioner concludes that most of the prosocial literature deals with emergency helping and organizational helping. Much less is known about raising money for good causes. Eventually, she finds publications on the ‘norm activation model’ (NAM), a theoretical model developed by the Israeli social psychologist Shalom Schwartz. This theoretical model is applicable to all forms of helping. In the model there are several steps that influence people’s pro-social behaviour. These are the most important steps:

1. Awareness of need: there must be a realization that others need help. The perceived need must be prominent, clear, and serious.
2. Opportunities to help: people should be aware that there are opportunities to help people with HIV / AIDS.
3. Ability to help: people must recognize their own ability to help. For example, it should be emphasized that even small donations are highly appreciated.
4. Personal norms: these are feelings of moral obligations that cause people to help others.
5. Ascription of responsibility: people need to have some sense of responsibility for the problem to be involved in providing help.

Melvin Lerner (1980, 2000) theorizes about “belief in a just world” He argues that people have a natural tendency to believe that they live in a fair world where everyone gets what they deserve. People therefore are especially upset by the unexplained suffering of others.

It can be found in literature that people with a disease arouse more sympathy when they aren’t considered responsible for their fate. Based on this, the psychologist concludes that one of the main goals of the campaign should be to suppress the idea that people in Africa with HIV / AIDS are responsible for their own illness. A sense of empathy must also be evoked in potential donors. This happens when people can identify with the victims. For example, because they are the same age, or hold the same position/values.

Similarity leads to empathy – seeing oneself in someone else’s place – which in turn leads to helping behaviour. However, potential financial donors and the victims of HIV / AIDS in sub-Saharan Africa seem to live in totally different words, making it hard for potential donators to identify themselves with the victims, even if the victims are of the same age or gender. She comes across literature that shows that people are more likely to help people in need that they perceive to be members of the same group (in-group) rather than of a very different group. However, this tendency can be counteracted by recategorization, by stimulating people to mentally embrace members of the out-group as members of their own group. Recategorization can be achieved by stressing the similarities between potential donators and the victims in sub-Saharan Africa (e.g. we are all humans and members of the planet’s population).

Step 3 – Test: Developing and testing the process model

The key outcome in the model is the willingness to donate money to help people with HIV / AIDS in sub-Saharan Africa. There are a number of processes that influence this willingness according to the model.

1. The degree to which people think victims are to be blamed for their infection. As people attribute more blame to the victims they will hold more negative attitudes towards these victims, and identify with them less, consequently being less likely to donate money to the cause. Based on the just world theory, the relationship between perceived blame and negative attitude will be stronger the more people believe in a just world.
   • Potential problem for the campaign is that some people will feel that the victims could have done something to prevent the infection and somehow brought it upon themselves.
2. The second process concerns the degree of identification with victims. As people are less able to identify with the victim, they will experience less empathy for the victim and hold more negative attitudes towards them. This will make them less willing to donate money. This lack of identification is fed by the perception that the victims belong to another group, a lack of personalized information on the victims and the belief that they themselves or their beloved ones are not very likely to be infected.
   • Potential problem for the campaign is that people will not be able to identify themselves with the victims simply because they lack information, because of the automatic tendency to see victims as members of the out-group and because one sees HIV infection as a not very likely possibility for oneself and loved ones.

These processes mutually influence each other. As people attribute more blame to the victim, they will be less likely to identify with the victim and feel less empathy.

Step 4 – Help: intervention programme

The team of volunteers now has several factors than can increase help behaviour. The campaign will look like this:

1. A victim is selected who will become the face of the campaign. Personalized information about this victim will be presented to increase identification. The description of the victim is not only an ‘identified victim’ but also blameless for the infection. Other information is given about the living conditions of this young woman that may strengthen the belief that victims in this region are not necessarily to blame for getting infected. Emphasize that due to limited information, poverty, and lack of contraceptives, people with HIV / AIDS are unaware of the risks of unsafe sexual contact and ways to prevent infection. As a result, they can’t be held personally responsible for contracting the disease.
2. To enhance identification with victims, the campaign wills tress the similarities between the identified victim and potential financial donors, by priming people to view victims as co-members of humanity and inhabitants of the same planet who through no fault of their own are suffering greatly, rather than as members of the out-group.
3. Personal norms of helping will be activated by showing that people with HIV / AIDS in sub-Saharan Africa are in desperate need of help (condition: awareness of need), by showing how one can donate money and that even small donations matter (opportunity to help). To lower the threshold to donate money, people can also donate through the internet (ability to help).

Step 5 – Success: evaluating the intervention

Following the intervention, the practitioner conducts a thorough evaluation of the intervention.

• Did the intervention persuade people to donate?
• How much money was donated?

Additionally, to evaluating the effect of the campaign in terms of money, the evaluation also examines related variables like how many people donated money. The S stage of the PATHS model is important to justify the campaign and its implementation towards all those involved, including financial donators and other sponsors.

Are there other relevant decisions?

Though the general approach of the campaign has been formulated by the team, many decisions still need to be made.

1. First a decision must be made regarding the communication channel. Do they run a media campaign, a door-to-door campaign, or a combination of both?
2. Another issue is whether donors receive something in exchange for their gift, for example a CD by African artists for every donation over 50 euros.
   • The norm of reciprocity states that individuals feel best when they receive something in return for what they give. It is a powerful mechanism that has evolved to facilitate social exchange, and when this norm is being violated, for instance when someone doesn’t return a favour, people get angry and upset.
3. For many of the additional questions that need to be answered, there is relevant social psychological literature that can be consulted, for example, on persuasion, communication, and social influence.

What is the PATHS road from problem to intervention to success?

We believe that the PATHS method helps practitioners to develop a theoretically based intervention programme relatively quickly and smoothly. The PATHS method offers a simple, systematic, step-by-step, easy-to-use methodology for applying social psychological theories to tackle a diversity of social issues. In sum, we can identify five essential steps in this methodology:

1. Problem – from a problem to a problem definition. Identifying and defining the problem.
2. Analysis – from a problem definition to analysis and explanation. Formulating appropriate concepts and developing theory-based explanations.
3. Test – from explanations to a process model: developing and testing an explanatory process model.
4. Help – from a process model to interventions: developing and implementing a programme of interventions.
5. Success – from implementing the intervention to evaluating its success.

Step 1 – Problem: How do we get from the problem to a problem definition?

Usually, the problem definition is more extensive than the one we formulated earlier in this chapter, where the team already knew that they wanted to set up a fundraising campaign to help people with HIV / AIDS in sub-Saharan Africa. Often there is just a general feeling within a team, community, or organization that there is a problem, and something must be done without much further thought being involved. Usually, a psychologist starts more at the root of a problem when the definition needs to be formed. Therefore, it is very important to describe precisely what the problem is. But even when the problem is clearly presented, other questions need to be asked:

• Assess whether the problem is sufficiently concrete rather than it being a general scientific question.
• Why is it a problem at all?
• For whom is it a problem?
• What are the main causes of the problem?
• What population do we aim to target with our intervention?
• Who do we need to convince this problem has to be solved?
• Who must help us solve this problem?

Finally, the “key aspects” of the problem must be considered. That is, a good problem definition makes clear that the problem has an applied rather than a basic nature and is formulate din concrete terms. It is also important that the problem has social psychological aspects and that the problem is solvable. If a problem can’t be defined by a few terms, it probably isn’t suitable for a PATHS analysis.

Step 2 – Analysis: how do we go from a problem definition to analysis and explanation?

when the problem is defined in terms of one or more social psychological constructs, the second step is to come up with social psychological explanations for the problem but first one must decide what the outcome variable is – which variable eventually needs changing.

Sometimes it isn’t so obvious what to look for in the literature. Even when this is clear, there can be many different theories. For example, there are “social exchange” and “reciprocity” theories. These theories emphasize the role of selfishness in helping. In this way, people feel good when they have done something for someone else. Additionally, there are empathy-altruism theories. The basic idea of this theory is that empathy motivates altruistic behaviours aimed at alleviating the suffering of a victim.

To determine the validity of social psychological theories, it’s important to determine to what extent the experiments used for the theory are applicable to the real world. This refers to the external validity of an experiment. It is possible that the findings of a study, due to the specific research question or limitations in the samples, are applicable to a limited number of real-life situations.

Step 3 – Test: how do we go from explanations to process model?

The process model has an outcome variable that is affected. The model must mainly contain variables that can be influenced and must describe the relationship between the variables in the form of a process model. This process model is the core of the PATHS method. Generally, the model only specifies a few possible relationships between the variables. This forces researchers to be selective, so that not everything is explained by everything. Sometimes it’s hard to find in the literature how certain variables influence each other. If nothing can be found about a specific variable, it is good to look at the more general form of the variable concerned.

Step 4 – Help: how do we go from a process model to intervention?

Often, the hardest step is to move form the process model to an intervention programme. To develop an intervention programme, it’s important that the model contains primarily variables that can be influenced through intervention. Most social psychological variables, like attitudes and social norms, can be targeted by interventions. But variables like gender, personality or other deeply rooted traits and values cannot (at least not by a practitioner focusing on social psychological processes).

The step from the test to the help phase is huge. The practitioner must devise as many interventions as possible, aimed at the most promising and important causal variables in the model. Especially the shaping of details takes a lot of work.

Step 5 – Success: how do we go from implementation to evaluation?

It is of vital importance to evaluate the intervention in terms of effects and process. Evaluating the intervention isn’t merely an activity that starts after the intervention has been implemented. Parts of the evaluation must take place before and/or during the implementation of the intervention. How to evaluate an intervention and what choices toned to be made in the context of this evaluation will be described in chapter 6.

What are problems with applying theories?

It’s hard to apply social psychological theories to social problems because many theories have been developed through laboratory experiments. There are three very important limitations of research in social psychology:

• Oversimplification: the situation that is investigated through experiments is a reduction and simplification of reality. A laboratory experiment can never encompass the complexity of variables that influence human behaviour. In such experiments, often only one of the many variables are investigated.
• External validity: another limitation is that in real life all factors can cover the impact of the variables that are very clearly manipulated in an experiment. This makes it difficult to apply the findings of certain studies to real-life situations.
• Contradictory evidence: another limitation is that studies often produce contradictory/conflicting findings. For example, an effect can be found in one study, which is not found when the study is carried out by someone else at a different time. This is often due to the fact that studies differ slightly in terms of their methodology. So, this shows that when the circumstances are not the same, people can quickly react differently to a similar situation.

What can we conclude?

This book introduces the PATHS model, a step-by-step approach for addressing and resolving societal problems through the application of social psychological theory and knowledge, from the formulation of the problem to the shaping of interventions.

The PATHS method shouldn’t be used rigidly. Going from a problem to intervention is usually an iterative process, and one frequently moves back and forth between the different steps in the model. What is important is to develop a clear problem definition, a process model that fits the empirical findings as closely as possible, and an effective intervention.

In this phase, the outcome variable must first be defined, this is the variable that we want to change. After that, as many explanations as possible are found in the divergent phase. These explanations are linked to relevant social psychological theories. Finally, in the convergent phase, the statements are evaluated for their relevance, validity, and probability of the problem.  

How do you specify the outcome variable?

The first goal in the analysis phase is specifying the outcome variable to clarify the target behaviour for intervention. Ideally, the outcome variable is formulated in terms of the desired state. The literature distinguishes three different psychological variables:

1. Behaviours and behavioural intentions
2. Attitudes and cognitions
3. Emotions or affect

It is preferable to focus on a single outcome variable at first rather than a set of variables. This is because variables can be strongly related to each other, so a change in one variable causes a change in the others. When variables aren’t related, it’s because they have a different ontogenetic history. For this they need various explanations and interventions.

What are requirements for the outcome variable?

The behaviour, attitude, or affect that is the outcome variable, should, to be a useful target of influence, also meet the following three criteria:

• Relevance: it must be relevant to the problem. The outcome variable should logically arise from the problem definition. In an ideal scenario, it should reflect the desired state.
• Specificity: it must be described in specific and concrete terms. In the PATH model, the outcome variable must be described as concretely as possible. This is important because too general an outcome variable makes it difficult to develop an effective intervention program. You then run the risk of influencing aspects of the variable that are not problematic.
• Continuity: it must be described in continuous terms. The variable must be continuous so that it can be described in quantitative terms (more or less than…). Firstly, it makes it easier to generate explanations for the problem and to describe the causal model. Secondly, a quantitative variable also makes it easier to evaluate an intervention program. The state before and the state after the intervention are easy to compare.

How do you generate explanations in the divergent phase?

After specifying the outcome variable, the second task in the analysis phase is to generate as many explanations as possible and identify the relevant causes of the problem. This is the divergent phase. There are a few things to consider in this phase. First, the validity of the statements matters less at this stage. It is more important to ensure that all aspects of the problem are explained. Secondly, the social psychologist should focus on explanations for possible differences in the outcome variable.

There are several methods available to help practitioners generate a list of explanations:

• Free association can be used to look at the problem, creatively examining it from many different angles. Here it is important that as many explanations as possible are initially thought up. Subsequently, the validity is examined, and the most favourable explanations are chosen. Furthermore, finding an explanation in free association can lead to finding another explanation that logically follows from the first. Different types of associations are distinguished:
  • Problem association: simplest form. The psychologist makes as many explanations for the problem as possible by asking himself “why is it a problem”. This focuses solely on the problem.
  • Concept association: looking beyond the problem to come up phenomena that are conceptually like the problem. By using concepts, the psychologist can translate the problem into a more abstract and scientific problem.
  • Taking perspective: taking a perspective sees the problem through the eyes of the people involved in the problem. First, the individuals involved must be identified and then the psychologist must put themselves into the individual’s shoes.
• Explanations can also be derived from empirical techniques such as surveys, interviews, or observations. They are more specific in this phase because they arise from the chosen outcome variable(s). a specific interview method is the “why interview”, which is more detailed than interviews discussed in the problem phase. in the analysis phase, a more systematic observation is sued than in the problem phase. A distinction can be made between observation of others and self-observation (introspection).
  • Observation: SYMLOG can be used as an observational tool to give graphical representation to a group.
  • Introspection: group members may be asked to judge themselves and how they respond to others.
• One could examine the social psychological literature to find explanations. Social psychological theories, usually based on many studies, specify the possible causes of behaviour, such as aggression, altruism, leadership, status, conformity, and prejudice. The two methods of explanation generation, taking association and perspective, often give an idea of which theories are relevant and which are not. Remember, in the analysis phase, these theories are mainly used as a heuristic to make a causal explanatory model. In the test phase, the theories are examined more thoroughly. There are three strategies for finding explanations from social psychological literature:
  •  The thematic (topical) strategy: this approach finds what has been written in the literature on a particular topic. In many cases, there are studies within the psychological literature that are directly related to the problem.
  • Conceptual strategy: this approach reformulates the problem on a more conceptual level to find links with relevant social psychological phenomena and theories.
  • General theory strategy: the thematic and conceptual strategies can be characterized as inductive in that one moves ‘bottom-up’, from problem to explanation. The general theory strategy is deductive, it moves ‘top-down’ from a general theory that at first glance doesn’t seem very relevant to the problem. However, they have a wide range of implications across a range of problems. For example, it’s good to use this strategy for a relatively new problem.

How do you reduce the number of explanations in the convergent phase?

The aim of the divergent phase is producing as may explanations as possible. Conversely, in the convergent phase, the number of explanations is drastically reduced so that only the most plausible explanations remain. There are three steps during this phase:

1. First, reduce the number of explanations/statements by getting rid of irrelevant and redundant explanations.
2. During the second step, the theoretical validity of each statement is checked.
3. Lastly, the remaining explanations are checked to see if they are responsible for the problem.

Once the variables causing the outcome variable have been identified and mapped in the process model, the intervention can be developed. An intervention is a means to change the causal variables and thus the outcome variables in the desired direction. An adequate intervention targets one or more causal variables in the process model. However, sometimes it’s not feasible or even necessary to target all variables in the model. So the first step in the help stage is to determine which causal variables will be targeted in the intervention. The estimated modifiability of the causal variables and the expected effects of interventions will direct this choice. Once these variables have been identified, an intervention that targets these variables can be developed. Then decisions must be made about how the target group will be reached and what the content of the intervention will be. The content largely depends on empirical evidence. The last step in this phase concerns the implementation process.

How do you prepare an intervention development?

The essence of the help phase is that interventions must focus on changing causal variables in the explanatory model. It is not always necessary, appropriate, or possible to target all the causal variables in the explanatory model. Therefore, the practitioner chooses the variables that are modifiable and have the greatest effect on the outcome variable. To do so, it’s convenient to put all the causal variables from the process model into a balance table.

Modifiability

Six questions can help exclude causal variables that are difficult to change:

1. Does the variable concern a stable personality trait?
2. Is the variable related to deeply held political or religious values?
3. Is the variable related to stable environmental conditions?
4. Is the variable related to some chronic medical or psychiatric condition?
5. Is the variable related to a lack of intelligence or literacy?
6. Does the variable have strong biological basis?

Effects

Not all variables in the process model have an equally strong impact on the outcome variable, practitioners should focus on the ones that have the strongest effect. Socio-psychological literature should be consulted to determine this. If no information is available in the literature, there are other ways to estimate effect size. These include looking at past experiences with similar situations and other empirical evidence.

The balance sheet

A balance sheet helps in making the decision on which variables will be targeted in the intervention. A psychologist will evaluate all variables form the process model for their adaptability and effect size. It looks like this:

Variables from the process model modifiability effect size

1. Perceived negative outcomes of child being overweight +++
2. Knowledge on weight reducing parental behaviours +++
3. Perceived positive outcomes of weight reducing parental behaviours +++
4. Perceived control over child’s behaviour +++
5. Experience with structured parenting 0 +

Note:

• Regarding modifiability: ++ = high modifiability; + = medium modifiability; 0 = low modifiability; - = not modifiable; +/0 = depends on another variable.
• Regarding the effect size: ++ = large effect; + = moderate effect; 0 = small effect; - = no effect; +/0 = depends on another variable.

Using this table, the psychologist can determine which factors need to be changed to change the outcome variable.

How do you develop the intervention?

Once the practitioner has decided which variables to target, the intervention can be developed. Two tasks can be distinguished in the development of an intervention:

1. Choosing the right channel: the way in which the target group is reached.
2. Selecting the appropriate method: the way in which the changes will be brought about.

The channel and method must consider the target group for intervention. It is important to note that the development of an intervention is usually a dynamic process: choices for the channel and method are made in combination.

The channel

The channel is the means through which people are reached and the intended changes will only take place if people are exposed to the channel. In the table below is an overview of various channels and their characteristics.

Channels have several features, and may vary from simple (for example, sticker or label) to complex (for example, community intervention), each communicating a distinct type of information (e.g., text, picture, video) and a different volume of information (e.g., one simple message vs. a complex set of arguments). Some channels communicate with high intensity (e.g., group therapy) and others with low intensity (e.g., information signs).

Channels also differ in potential reach of the target group and some channels will only have small effects on the individual level (a sticker), while others have large effects (the example of group therapy). Channels will also bring about different types of effects. Say, a label is appropriate to increase people’s knowledge while counselling is more appropriate to change complex and deeply rooted behaviours. The channel is chosen based on information about the target group and the relevant variables, methods, and strategies. The following should be considered when choosing the channel:

• Is the channel an effective way to reach the target group?
• Is exposure through this channel intensive enough to change the variable?
• Is the channel appropriate for the method and strategy?
• What is the impact on the population level of an intervention using this channel?

The method

Intervention methods also require consideration. Methods are often derived from theoretical frameworks. Selection of a method depends, first, on consideration of the balance table. For each variable, an intervention method must be chosen. Additionally, selection of a method depends on the extent to which the method ‘fits’ the variable one aims to change. Whereas some channels can motivate people to show the desired behaviour, they cannot teach them how to change it. In recent decades many methods for psychological interventions have been developed and tested. These are often called ‘behavioural change techniques’ (BCTs).

The following methods (or BCTs) are often used in psychological interventions:

• Providing arguments: arguments can persuade people to change their attitude towards a particular topic. This type of persuasion can use both rational and emotional arguments. Rational arguments may cause people to cognitively re-evaluate their position on a particular topic. Emotional arguments can persuade people by appealing to their emotions.
• Goal setting: setting concrete and specific goals is important. Goals direct people’s attention and effort, provide them with expectations, and give the opportunity for feedback on goal accomplishment, thereby regulating motivation. Goal setting changes behaviour by defining goals that people must reach in a given period of time. Sub-goals can help people work on small but important steps in reaching the superordinate goal.
• Fear communication: can be effective to motivate certain behaviours by showing the adverse consequences of the behaviour that aren’t desired. Fear communication is only effective (and ethically justified) when it is accompanied by explicit guidelines on how to avert the health threat.
• Modelling: refers to learning through the observation of others. Watching others behave and showing the consequences can teach people to people to perform a new behaviour.
• Enactive learning: the most effective way of learning a skill is to try to accomplish it yourself. This is called enactive learning. In interventions, people can be stimulated to practice a certain skill and evaluate it.
• Social comparison: information on how others are doing may affect one’s mood and well-being.
• Implementation intentions: these are intentions to perform a particular action in a specified situation. People are sometimes asked to formulate their implementation intentions which may increase the occurrence of desirable behaviours.
• Reward and punishment: generally, people repeat behaviours that are followed by a positive experience (reward), while avoiding a negative experience (punishment). Punishment for undesirable behaviours work best when accompanied by rewards for desired behaviours.
• Feedback: feedback on accomplishments is essential in behavioural change. people want to know how far they are in achieving their goal to stay motivated.

How do you translate channels and methods in practical applications?

The channels and methods described above are general. To effectively influence a specific target’s group attitude, emotion, or behaviour they must be translated into practical applications that fit with the target group and its characteristics, context, and culture. A practitioner often has many options and decisions to make when translating channels and methods into specific applications. In this context it may be helpful to summarize what the intervention should be about, by shortly describing the methods, channels, target groups, and variables to be changed, as identified based on the balance table.

Based on these global intervention descriptions, the practitioner can think of different applications that may be used to make up the intervention for this specific target group. This usually happens in two phases, a divergent and a convergent phase. In the divergent phase, the practitioner lists as many applications as possible. In the convergent phase, he or she critically evaluates these applications.

The divergent phase: generating applications

There are many ways to generate applications for interventions:

• Direct intervention association: ideas for strategies can be based on all kinds of sources, like what you see on the internet, what makes intuitive sense, what proves to be effective in the literature, or what people have experienced themselves.
• Direct method approach: this approach consists of looking at applications that have been used in similar situations.
• Debilitating strategies: this approach is to come up with applications that have undesired effects on the problem.  By generating ideas of what would probably have no effect or reverse effects, we can learn about what would have an effect, about the relevant dimensions of an effective intervention, and about ways to specify the channel and method.
• Interviews: interviewing people from the target group could generate additional ideas for practical applications.
• Insights from theory: this approach consists of looking at relevant social psychological theories.
• Insights from research: this approach consists of looking at relevant social psychological literature.

The convergent phase: choosing applications

The divergent phase often results in a laundry list of possible applications. Therefore, a limited number of applications need to be selected that, together, form the intervention. The choice for a particular application or combination of applications must have both a theoretical and empirical basis. First, the application should consider the conditions underling the theory. Second, it is preferable that the application is based on empirical evidence from either laboratory experiments or field studies. Ideally, evidence ought to be available for the combination of the channel and the method, the variable to be changed, and the target group. Sometimes, evidence for the effectiveness of a certain application isn’t there. In that case, especially when the costs of an intervention programme are high, we recommend that the effectiveness of an application or intervention (combination of applications) should first be tested through research.

How do you develop and pre-test the intervention?

Once applications have been selected, the intervention can be shaped. If applications concern visual or video materials, this will often be done in collaboration with a professional graphic designer or editor who is acquainted with the technological possibilities. Here are some rules of thumb for designing and shaping applications and the materials needed for these applications:

1. Be as specific as possible in the provision of information.
2. When an intervention has several channels and applications or sequential elements, all parts must be fine-tuned, and a protocol must be written.
3. If other professionals are involved, it should be clear how much influence they can have over the end-product.

Each planned application or intervention or part thereof must be pre-tested. The primary function of a pre-test is to improve the intervention and to avoid major flaws in the design. A pre-test may but doesn’t necessarily include a measure of the outcome variable. It primarily ensures that the target group will attend to the message as well as understand the message. The format of a pre-test usually includes exposing a few target group members to the preliminary intervention and assessing their reactions. This assessment can be done in different ways:

1. Interview: free way of asking questions of the target audience.
2. Quantitative assessment: people of the target group answer closed questions about the intervention in a questionnaire.
3. Recall: recall tasks assess which aspects of the intervention people from the target group remember after having been exposed to the intervention.
4. Observation people from the target group may be observed when they are exposed to the intervention.
5. Expert opinions: one may also ask the experts involved in bringing about the effects of the intervention.

Generally, participants seldom agree completely about an intervention in a pre-test. So the practitioner must not only look at pre-test data, but also consider theoretical aspects as well as empirical evidence that may be relevant. After revisions have been made, the improved intervention can be pre-tested again. The final version of the intervention can now be. Developed and distributed.

How do you pilot the intervention?

In the case of a large-scale, expensive intervention or an intervention that makes use of a strategy for which little research evidence has been found yet, the pre-test may be followed up by a pilot stud. Whereas a pre-test merely aims to ensure that the target group attends to and understands the intervention, a pilot study aims to assess the intervention’s effect on the outcome variable and the causal variables from the process model that are the focus of the intervention. Making sure the intervention works reduces the chance of enrolling an expensive large-scale intervention that later shows disappointing outcomes, and in doing so may prevent a waste of time and money.

Ideally, the practitioner finds that both the outcome variable and the causal variables from the process model that the intervention focuses on are changed in the desired direction.

How do you implement the intervention?

The implementation process has one major goal: to ascertain that the intervention is sued as intended. Implementation is not about the effects of the intervention but about positioning the intervention in such a way that it can have its effects. The core challenge of the implementation phase is that the extent to which the target group is exposed to the intervention depends on the people and organizations that are involved in the distribution of the intervention. So, while psychologists can create a perfect intervention program, it is highly dependent on the people who need to expose the interventions to the target audience. If this is not or hardly ever done, the effects will be very small or even non-existent.

The implementation process

The implementation process can be time consuming as communication and information exchange can take a long time. Roger’s (2010) model of diffusion describes how the implementation of new, large-scale interventions takes place in time. This process is referred to as the diffusion process. This model also helps decide when and what the practitioner can do to stimulate the process of diffusion. Rogers distinguishes four phases which will be illustrated here with an example of a mobile app for battered women to get professional help.

• Dissemination phase: the general practitioner (GP) becomes aware of the existence of the app and leaflet on domestic violence and discusses it with colleagues.
• Adoption phase: GPs become motivated to use the innovation and hand out the leaflet to patients who are suspected of being victims of domestic violence.
• Implementation phase: the doctor engages in the behaviour that will expose the target group to the intervention: he/she hands out the flyer to the right patients.
• Continuation phase: handing out the leaflet becomes normal practice.

After studying the previous chapters, reading the suggested literature, and completing the various exercises, the basic skills for addressing practical problems through applying social psychological theories will have been trained and developed. Nevertheless, it takes quite some time, effort, and experience before the PATHS model can be used in an optimal way.

It’s important to be somewhat flexible in applying the various procedures outlined in this book. The more experience you get, the more likely it is that you can swich between the various steps in the model, and will go back and forth between, for instance, developing a problem definition and coming up with explanations, or between developing a process model and proposing an intervention. Gradually, you’ll become more and more able to ‘play’ with the procedures, you will know when and how to switch between stages, and you will develop a sense for when and how to skip a stage. Some practitioners eventually develop their own approach that deviates from the PATHS model, but that has proven its value in practice. This model has as its main goal allowing practitioners to develop their own effective approach, informed by knowledge from social psychology.

Generally, when presenting the results of one’s analyses to a client, a practitioner should try to avoid presenting clients with the outcomes of various exercises and the procedures as they are presented in this book. These exercises and procedures are just tools in the toolbox of the practitioner. Usually, the practitioner would present an analysis of the problem, the major causes that can be addressed in an intervention, and the nature of the intervention. Such a presentation needs to be given in clear and crisp language, without too many scientific terms and without any jargon, social psychological concepts may be introduced, as far as they clarify the analysis of the problem. The central goal should be to make clear what you are proposing and to convince a client that this is a well-developed and effective approach.

To conclude, this book presents an elaborate procedure for developing theory-based interventions, the PATHS methodology, based on current social psychological science and theory. PATHS is a tool rather than a ritual that one should go through at all costs. The goal of this book is to facilitate the idea that social psychological concepts, theories, and methods may help understand and coping better with pressing issues that societies are facing. It also aims to provide practitioners and policy makers with the knowledge, skills, and tools to help them accomplish the important task of making this world a better place for everyone. By offering the tools to study the deeper and more proximate causes of various problematic practices and behaviours, the hope is that practitioners can come up with the right interventions to change them.