Motivating Clients To Change: The Bottom Line

As educators, we need to understand what motivates people to change. We must then build our educational programs on those understandings. My research indicates that clients are most highly motivated by bottom-line, economic considerations - how a proposed change will affect the purse or wallet. This finding has critical implications for how we develop and deliver Extension programs, especially issues-based programming.

During the energy crisis we learned a lot about client motivation and competing priorities. In 1982, the University of Rhode Island Cooperative Extension and the Rhode Island Governor's Energy Offices cooperated to present 12 workshops on solar energy topics. During the energy crisis, it wasn't uncommon for solar enthusiasts to justify the costs of new technologies based on environmental and patriotic rationales. So, I wanted to know if members of that audience would make changes or take action for noneconomic reasons.

The total audience for all programs was 404 adults, 74 (18%) of whom responded to a survey at the end of the workshops. Participants were asked to respond to each of the following possible reasons for investing in solar energy:

1. To improve the quality of the environment.
2. To reduce fuel costs above and beyond the cost of the investment.
3. To reduce U.S. dependency on foreign oil.

Eighty-two percent of the respondents indicated they expected to reduce fuel costs, 72% wanted to improve the environment, while 64% were motivated by the foreign oil issue (Table 1). But, when asked to rank the statements according to personal priorities, economy proved to be the most important factor. Fifty-seven percent of the respondents rated fuel-cost reduction as their number one reason for investing in solar energy; environmental concerns and the foreign oil issue were ranked first by only 18% and 13% of the respondents, respectively. So, although this group was aware of and concerned about public issues, personal economy was clearly its first priority.

Economy was also the top priority for prospective homeowners at University of Rhode Island Extension programs for home buyers in 1986 and 1987. Participants at each of seven workshops were asked to list, in order of importance to them, six factors that would guide their selection of a new home. Program content focused on affordability (income, credit and debt, components of cost, and financing). A 30-minute segment was presented on environmental considerations (air and water quality, soils, and drainage conditions). Other topics included property inspections, the roles of brokers, lenders and other housing professionals, contracts, consumer rights, and family priorities.

The participants' lists of selection factors were collected at the end of the workshop. In all, 60 responses listing 318 selection factors were received from a possible 239 participants (25% response). Factors relating to cost and affordability were named most frequently (93 times) and were ranked as the number one priority by almost half (47%) of the respondents. By contrast, environmental factors (clean water, no hazardous wastes) were listed only 13 times and were rated as the top priority by just two participants (Table 2).

The responses to these surveys confirm that people are most likely to change if a change benefits them economically. These findings indicate that Extension needs to develop learning objectives based on cost and value factors. For example, what affect does a contaminated water supply have on a home or farm's resale value and how might this influence a buyer's spending decisions in regard to property location, inspections, or special-purpose water tests? How might property value factors linked to environmental quality affect an owner's willingness to follow recommended waste disposal practices, to pay assessments for public services, to support legislation or bond issue referenda?

These findings on client motivation also suggest how we can keep issues programming from becoming only crisis programming. Too often, a crisis is the catalyst for Extension education. A community crisis calls for a public forum with speakers, specialists, and affected community members who seek answers and demand change. Personal crises result in urgent requests for help from individuals and families. But, client needs are better served by educational strategies that prevent a crisis situation in advance. This means motivating clients in advance of the crisis.

Trouble-shooting is an accepted practice for Extension educators. Program content is often based on hardships experienced elsewhere or on predictions for potential crises. For example, even though water quality isn't within the scope of the home economics area of expertise, it's an issue we need to include in our program planning. Home economists now address the environmental and health concerns about household waste disposal, building materials and practices, and water supplies. And, agricultural agents and specialists have restructured many recommendations about how chemicals are purchased, used, stored, and disposed of in farm operations.

But, will "preventative education" be enough to modify client behavior before a social or environmental threat becomes a reality? Concern for public issues may not translate to action unless that action meets more immediate human needs and interests. As educators, we need to understand that economic considerations are most likely to motivate people to change. Issues programming should, therefore, be conceptualized and marketed in ways that directly address personal monetary incentives and economic interests.

Whenever people use Extension information to make decisions, there are economic considerations. Census figures show that 41% of Americans' net worth is in home equity and 60% of American families would have no net worth except for their homes.1 The value of farmland and buildings in the United States exceeds $550 billion.2 By using an economic rationale to motivate clients to action, Extension should be able to have an impact and make a difference in people's lives. That's the bottom line!

1. Susan M. Quiring, Package Your Home to Sell (College Station: Texas Agricultural Extension Service, 1987).

2. U.S., Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Resources: Agricultural Land Values and Markets: Situation and Outlook Report (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1988).