Engagement parentingsct munno

Community Engagement and Authentic Modeling: A Social Cognitive Theory of Change 1

Community Engagement and Authentic Modeling: A Social Cognitive Theory of Change

By Greg Munno / [email protected]

For Professor Makana Chock

S.I. Newhouse School of Public Communication, Syracuse University

December 15, 2011


Abstract

Early childhood experiences effect people their whole lives. Exposure to substance

abusers, malnutrition, stress, and other negative experiences early in life have been shown to

have a lasting impact, leading to lower levels of educational attainment, higher rates of

incarceration, and elevated risk of chronic disease.

Meanwhile, evidence shows that intervention programs that target parents of young

children have been effective in avoiding some detrimental outcomes. It has also been shown

that theory-based interventions, particularly those that utilize social cognitive theory, have had

a greater impact than interventions that lack a theoretical framework.

This paper reviews the literature on social cognitive theory, with a focus on its potential

application to early childhood education and development programs.

The review leads to hypotheses that predict social cognitive approaches can be

enhanced when executed within a community engagement framework.

By involving the community in message creation, I predict that a program can increase

attention to its messages, increase identification with its messages, and, ultimately, can have a

greater effect on parental self-efficacy.


Community Engagement and Authentic Modeling: A Social Cognitive Theory of Change

For Albert Bandura, the human ability to learn is both the cause, and potential cure, of

our individual and collective shortcomings. “Infants,” Bandura writes, “exhibit sensitivity to

causal relations between environmental events even in the first months of life” (2006, p. 169).

In other words, our environment starts to shape us immediately.

Yet humans also shape their environment and each other. We are capable of learning

far more than we experience directly. We can deduce from one experience what similar action

in a different context might bear. We can learn from watching other people, the process of

social learning. For Bandura, both deduction and social learning are made possible by the

uniquely human trait of symbolic modeling. “It is with symbols that people process and

transform transient experiences into cognitive models that serve as guides for judgment and

action,” he writes (2001, p. 267).

People, then, are “self-organizing, proactive, self-reflecting, and self-regulating,” but are

nonetheless subject to both biological and social-structural forces (Bandura, 2001, p. 266). We

are both products and producers of our physical and social realities.

Parents and community provide the raw materials young humans use to create the

symbolic models on which they base their beliefs and future actions. For this reason, applying

social cognitive theory to issues of early childhood development is particularly intriguing. Social

cognitive theory-based approaches may provide the basis for a “two-for-one” intervention,

increasing the efficacy of two generations at once. If an intervention that models better

parenting leads to better parenting, then the power of the model is exponentially increased.

This paper, then, seeks to:


1. Further examine social cognitive theory for the purposes of understanding how it

might apply to efforts to improve parenting and childhood development;

2. Review relevant studies that test programs based on social cognitive theory;

3. Link social cognitive theory to the literature on community engagement, and to

argue that such engagements could potential lead to more effective SCT-based

interventions;

4. Build hypotheses,

5. Discuss a project the author is involved in that might provide the basis for testing

those hypotheses.

A Case for Action

Early Childhood Development

Bandura’s notion of human agency provides for the possibility that people can

overcome difficult upbringings. People, he writes, “intentionally influence (their) functioning

and life circumstances” (Bandura, 2006, p. 164). However, that doesn’t mean that experiences

can’t irreparably harm us, or that early experiences do not impact our abilities to act effectively

later in life.

Stress, poor nutrition, and neglect can have a lasting impact (Grason, et al, 2004, p. 3;

Middlebrooks & Audage, 2008, p. 8). Middlebrooks and Audage, writing for the Centers for

Disease Control, found that abused children grow up to experience higher instances of teen

pregnancy, more involvement with domestic violence, and higher suicide rates (p. 8). Grason

and her colleagues at Johns Hopkins found that children who start school behind their cohort

rarely catch up. And yet, they also concluded that interventions promoting positive behavior


avoided more costly interventions later (p. 3). The value of such efforts, they added, has been

recognized, as evidenced by several large initiatives underway, including the federal Healthy

Steps granting program (Grason, et al, p. 4; http://www.healthysteps.org/).

Effect of Theory-based Intervention

Public health programs are not created equal. Glanz and Bishop (2010) explicitly

compared the effectiveness of programs that were based on theory and those that were not.

They found that “public health and health-promotion interventions that are based on social and

behavioral science theories are more effective than those lacking a theoretical base” (Glanz &

Bishop, 2010, p. 399). The mechanism by which theory can aid the development and

implementation of a public health program is not well understood (p. 404). But Glanz and

Bishop speculate that the application of theory can help suggest innovative interventions.

Another possibility is that theory-based strategies signal the presence of the rigor required for

the effective planning, implementation, and measurement of effective public health programs

(p. 404).

The authors identified four theories that have been used most often and most

effectively in developing public health programs (Glanz & Bishop, 2010, pp. 402-404):

1. The Health Belief Model, which postulates that people’s perceptions of the risk

and rewards of action influence whether they actually act;

2. The Trans-theoretical and Stages of Change models, which provide a heuristic

for moving people through the various stages that lead to real change;

3. Social Cognitive Theory itself; and,

4. The Social Ecological Model, which the authors see as consistent with Social

http://www.healthysteps.org/


Cognitive Theory, but with an application focused on system-level factors that

affect behaviors within a population as opposed to individuals.

From Message to Adjustment

Glanz and Bishop identify several components of Social Cognitive Theory as key to public

health interventions, including observational learning, reinforcement, and self-efficacy.

Attention, Identification & Reinforcement

In a public health campaign, the delivery mechanism for modeled behavior is often a

media message. For it to have any impact, the audience must first pay some attention to it

(Pajares, Prestin, Chen & Nabi, 2009, p. 287). The first part of the attention equation is simply

one of availability. We might ask: Are the message and its target audience located in the same

place within space and time, thus giving the audience an opportunity to see it? Did the target

audience actually see it? Did the audience have the ability to make any sense of the message,

or was it, perhaps, in a language they don’t even understand?

The next salient quality of attention is identification. As Pajares and his colleagues write:

“For mediated content to positively affect audience members’ behaviors, audience members

must pay attention to attractive or similar models realistically performing relevant behaviors”

(p. 287). Such positive modeling by a model the receiver can identify with is the basis for

observational learning.

Brown and Basil’s 1995 study of Ervin “Magic” Johnson’s announcement that he was HIV

positive offers a great example. Immediately after Johnson’s announcement, calls to the

National AIDS Hotline jumped by a factor of 10 to more than 40,000 in just one day (Brown &

Basil, p. 346). Testing sights were similarly overrun.


But the effect of the announcement, along with Johnson’s message that, (1) anyone can

get AIDS and (2) everyone should get tested, was not universal. Rather, those who had some

knowledge of Magic Johnson were more likely to seek testing after the announcement than

those who did not know of the celebrity sports figure (Brown & Basil, p. 361). This increase,

however, was small. More significantly, those who felt “involved” with Johnson -- people who

felt an emotional, parasocial attachment to him -- were far more likely to take his message to

heart (p. 364). They identified with Johnson.

Since many people had an attachment to Johnson -- and, crucially, since that attachment

was positive -- it had a large effect (Brown & Basil, p. 360-361). It was positively reinforced. If

Johnson was despised, people would have dismissed his revelation that heterosexual men were

at risk of contracting HIV. Likewise, if Johnson had been harshly reprimanded for his revelation

-- let’s imagine that other NBA stars ostracized him -- then his announcement may have had the

opposite effect, discouraging people from getting tested.

So Johnson had all the attributes of a successful positive social model. He was well

known, closely followed, and had the power to grab headlines (attention). By being forthright

and urging testing, he was modeling socially beneficial behavior. Since he was well liked, well

spoken, and open, people identified with him, giving that message salience. The media, his

teammates, and others then praised him for his candor and his actions, positively reinforcing

the behavior.

Self-Efficacy

For Bandura and other social cognitive theorists, belief precedes actions. “Unless people

believe that they can produce a desired effect and forestall undesired ones by their actions,


they have little incentive to act,” Bandura writes (2001, p. 270). Efficacy beliefs, then, are beliefs

that cause people to think optimistically or pessimistically that a change in behavior will

increase their well-being. Pajares and his colleagues go further, saying “self-efficacy beliefs are

better predictors of people’s accomplishments than their previous accomplishments,

knowledge, or skills” (p. 286).

Have never used an iPhone before but believe you will master the technology easily? By

this theory, you have a good chance of success. This is not, however, some sort of magic -- will

it and it will be!

Rather, through your efficacy, you have set a goal and believe you can reach it. That

bodes well for persisting when you encounter obstacles, which is also known as resiliency

(Pajares, Prestin, Chen & Nabi, 2009, p. 286). Meanwhile, high self-efficacy “will not influence

behavior when people lack the resources to undertake an activity … or do not value the

expected outcome” (Pajares, Prestin, Chen & Nabi, 2009, p. 286). Again, it’s not magic.

But if you can show people that certain actions will have a positive effect, and that they

do, in fact, have the resources needed to take those actions, you have a chance at increasing

their self-efficacy and generating the desired behavior.

Evidence of an Effect

Parenting Self-Efficacy

A team of scholars from Arizona State University designed an ambitious study to test

social cognitive theory among Mexican American families living in the Southwest (Dumka,

Gonzales, Wheeler & Millsap, 2010, p. 522). Using a longitudinal design, they looked at:

1. Whether the parents of teens thought they were good parents who exerted “positive


control” over their children. This was measured using items from the Multicultural

Inventory of Parenting Self-Efficacy, which the Arizona State team had developed in

2002. It asks questions such as “How good are you at praising (your child) and giving

him/her encouragement? … How good are you at teaching (your child)? … How good are

you at keeping control over (your child)?” (p. 527).

2. Actual parenting behavior, which was measured with questions of whether the mother

had clearly communicated punishments to the child and followed through on them and

whether the mother knew of the child’s whereabouts (p. 527).

3. Actual adolescent outcomes, a measure composed of reports from the mother, the teen

him or herself, and two teachers (p. 527-528).

The team concluded that the study demonstrated the generalizability of Bandura’s theories

in a cross-cultural setting (Dumka, Gonzales, Wheeler & Millsap, 2010, p. 531). A belief that

mothers could positively control their children led to more control, which led to fewer

problems among the children of high self-efficacy mothers.

Our results … showed that Mexican American mothers’ PSE (parental self-efficacy) had direct causal links with adolescents’ levels of conduct problems. … Adolescents’ self-efficacy may develop in response to observing their parents. Mexican American adolescents with parents who express high self-efficacy may develop confidence in their own abilities, which in turn, may lead to better outcomes including decreased conduct problems (p. 531).

A study by Spoth, Redmond, Haggerty, and Ward, which used a very different design but

asked similar questions, found a similar effect (1995, p. 449-464). Essentially, using a complex

regression model, they showed that interventions aimed at increasing parents’ self-efficacy (1)

did increase efficacy and (2) led to fewer problems among the adolescent children of those

parents (p. 460). In additional to differences in scope and design, the Spoth, et al, study also


looked at the effect on fathers in addition to mothers. The effect held true, but fathers had

smaller increases in efficacy as a result of exposure to the messaging (p. 460).

Adolescent Eating Behaviors

In a more modest but nonetheless relevant study, scholars looked to see how social-

cognitive factors such as self-efficacy influenced adolescent eating behavior (Ball, et al, 2009).

They start with the knowledge that socioeconomic status is a strong predictor of diet, with

higher SES teens eating healthier foods (p. 496).

They found that a significant mediating factor to SES on diet was self-efficacy,

specifically (1) knowledge about a healthy diet, (2) a belief that the teen was capable of

obtaining, preparing, and enjoying healthy food, and (3) a conviction that a healthy diet could

make a positive contribution to their well-being (p. 502). As a result, they call for “health

promotion efforts (that) focus on cognitive factors such as self-efficacy and the value attached

to health-promoting behaviors” (Ball, et al, 2009, p. 502).

Message Enrichment via Engagement

Leung (2009) defines psychological empowerment essentially as the process of gaining

self-efficacy, along with successful action based on that efficacy (p. 1330). “Empowerment,” he

writes, “is a process through which people gain mastery over their lives, improve strengths and

competencies and develop proactive behaviors to manage their social affairs” (p. 1330).

He then defines civic engagement as involvement in the decisions that affect us, and

says there is “strong theoretical and empirical support for the idea that psychological

empowerment and civic participation are linked” (p. 1330). Meanwhile, self-efficacy itself

provides the mechanism through which people can effectively engage civically, as it reflects on


individual’s perceptions that they have the social and political skills necessary to participate,

including knowledge about how to obtain the resources needed to act (Leung, 2009, p. 1330).

He specifically looked at (1) whether people who generate content online had higher

self-efficacy than those that do not, and (2) whether the creating of content developed

psychological empowerment that manifested itself in civic engagement (p. 1327). There were

several limitations to his study and his findings were mixed (pp. 1341-1345). Nonetheless,

Leung’s research suggests a promising avenue to investigate while building an intervention

program based on social cognitive theory.

Seeing is Believing. Doing is Knowing.

Directly engaging target audiences in the development of a public health messaging

campaign has the potential to increase the effects of social cognitive approaches. Various forms

of outreach -- focus groups, surveys, social media, community forums, etc. -- can allow for the

collection valuable information that can (1) provide opportunities for baseline data collection,

(2) lead to a better understanding of the gaps in knowledge about available local resources, and

(3) utilize this data much like a strategic planner to tailor a campaign for maximum effect. As

Glanz and Bishop note:

The most successful public health programs and initiatives are based on an understanding of health behaviors and the context in which they occur. Strategic planning models provide a structured framework for developing and managing public health interventions and improving them through evaluation (2010, p. 400)

But in addition to serving this planning and evaluation purpose, I believe engagement

can also increase efficacy in and of itself. People who voluntarily attend community functions

are likely to have greater self-efficacy than those who do not before they even walk in the door.

But there are other ways of recruiting subjects with lower self-efficacy, such as direct


intervention in schools (if the target audience is teen mothers, for instance), and focus groups

that offer incentives for participation. By partaking in these experiences, recruited participants

will see that they do, in fact, have the skills needed to participate in a conversation about

parenting. It will also expose them to other parenting models and opportunities for positive

reinforcement.

The community can also be the source of images, slogans, and ideas for a campaign. For

those who are directly involved, interest and attention are likely to be very high. For the others,

they’ll see members of their own community modeling appropriate parental behavior. This will

make the message more authentic, and therefore believable. It should also increase attention -

hey, that’s my neighbor! - as well as identification. If the mom I pass in Wegmans each week

can calm her child using a timeout strategy, perhaps I can too.

Leveraging Individual & Community

Drawing on the social ecological model, community engagement may also help create

the climate for better parenting throughout a community, leading to population-level effects.

As a team from the University of Exeter writes,

The social environment comprising communities, families, neighborhoods, work teams, and various other forms of social group is not simply an external feature of the world that provides context for individual behavior. Instead these groups impact on the psychology of individuals through their capacity to be internalized as part of a person’s identity. If groups provide individuals with a sense of meaning, purpose, and belonging, (i.e. a positive sense of social identity) they tend to have positive psychological consequences (Haslman, Jetten, Postmes & Haslam, 2009, p. 1).

Waters, Cross, and Runions (2009) found some evidence of this effect. Their study

concluded that an adolescent’s feelings of “connectedness” to her or her school was positively

correlated with the teen’s health and well-being (p. 516). Further, the study team found a


strong correlation between the structural characteristics of a school and the connectedness

effect. Positive structural factors included small school size, levels of teacher collegiality, clear

and fair expectations for discipline, student involvement in decision making, and high

expectations (p. 520). In other words, their approach holds the possibility that school-level

adjustments may do more to change individual-level behavior than individual-level

interventions.

Hypotheses

Given this state of affairs, I propose that:

H1: Media campaigns that incorporate authentic content generated from a specific

community via public outreach will increase attention to the media messages within that

community.

H2: Media campaigns that incorporate authentic content generated from a specific

community via public outreach will increase identification with the messages within that

community.

H3: There is an interaction between engagement and self-efficacy such that:

1. Those that voluntarily attend engagement events such as a community forum

will begin the process with higher self-efficacy than harder-to-reach individuals.

2. Self-efficacy will increase for individuals directly engaged by the engagement

effort, whether they are engaged voluntarily or more deliberately recruited and

enticed to participate.

3. Those who directly participate in the creation of the messaging by supplying

ideas, photos, votes, Facebook “likes,” etc., will experience a greater increase in


self-efficacy than the target community members who do not actively

participate.

Born Learning Cayuga: A Social Cognitive Laboratory

Fortunately, an opportunity to test these hypotheses has emerged. A coalition of

foundations, nonprofits, and community groups has come together to launch a public health

campaign built off of a community engagement model around the issue of early childhood

development and parenting. Moreover, they’ve approached both the author and his mentor,

Syracuse University Professor Makana Chock, to help with the effort.

This coalition has requested surveys, focus groups, a series of op-ed pieces, a website, a

logo contest, and other tools all with the purpose of:

1. Increasing awareness of the importance of early childhood development;

2. Promoting the positive aspects of investing in early childhood development;

3. Spreading knowledge about best practices and available community resources;

4. Creating buzz and excitement within the community around the prospect of increasing

individual and community well-being by propagating positive and successful child-

rearing models.

Interestingly, they have not uttered the phrases “social cognitive theory” or “self-efficacy,”

but clearly the members of this coalition have an innate sense of the power of Bandura’s

insights. There’s a good chance that we’ll be able to work evaluative instruments into the effort

to help guide it, and to test the above hypotheses. I am particularly keen to involve the

community directly in content creation, and to measure the effect on self-efficacy of such an

approach.


References

Ball, K., MacFarlane, A., Crawford, D., Savige, G., Andrianopoulos, N., & Worsley, A. (2009). Can

social cognitive theory constructs explain socio-economic variations in adolescent eating

behaviors? A mediation analysis. Health Education Research. 24(3), 496-506.

Bandura, A. (2001). Social cognitive theory of mass communication. Media Psychology, 3 (3),

pp. 265-299.

Bandura, A. (2006). Toward a Psychology of human agency. Perspectives on Psychological

Science. 1(2), pp. 164-180.

Brown, W., Basil, M. (1995). Media celebrities and public health: responses to 'Magic'

Johnson's HIV disclosure and its impact on AIDS risk and high-risk behaviors. Health

Communication, 7(4), 345-366.

Dumka, L., Gonzales, N., Wheeler, L., and Millsap, R. (2010). Parenting self-efficacy and

parenting practices over time in Mexican American Families. Journal of Family

Psychology. 24(5), 522-531, doi: 10.1037/a0020833

Florin, P., and Wandersman, A. (1984). Cognitive social learning and participation in community

development. American Journal of Community Psychology, 12(6), 689-708.

Freedman, D., Bess, K., Tucker, H., Boyd, D., Tuchman, A., and Wallston, K. (2009). Public Health

Literacy Defined. American Journal of Preventative Medicine , 36 (5), 446-451.

Glanz, G., and Bishop, D. (2010). The role of behavioral science theory in development and

implementation of public health interventions. Annual Review of Public Health, 31, 399-

418.

Glasgow, R., and Emmons, K. (2007). How can we increase translation of research into practice?


Types of evidence needed. Annual Review of Public Health, 28, 413-433.

Grason, H., Hess, C., VanLandeghem, K., Silver, G., Brown, B., and Schor, E. (2004). Integrating

Measures of Early Childhood Health and Development into State Title V Maternal and

Child Health Services Block Grant Plans. From the Women’s and Children’s Health Policy

Center, John Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, with support from the

Commonwealth Fund, 1-22.

Haslam, S.A., Jetten, J., Postmes, T., and Halslam, C. (2009). Social identity, health, and well-

being: an emerging agenda for applied psychology. Applied Psychology: An International

Review, 58(1), 1-23, doi: 10.1111/j.1464-0597.2008.00379.x

Kirkham, M., Schinke, S., Schilling II, R, Meltzer, N., and Norelius, K. (1986). Cognitive-behavioral

skills, social supports, and child abuse potential among mothers of handicapped

children. Journal of Family Violence, 1(3), 1986.

Kontos, E., Emmons, K., Puleo, E., Viswanath, K. (2010). Communication inequities and public

health implications of adult social networking site use in the United States. Journal of

Health Communication, 2010, 15(3), 216-235, doi: 10.1080/10810730.2010.522689

Leung, L. (2009). User-generated content on the internet: an examination of gratifications, civic

engagement and psychological empowerment. New Media & Society, 11(8), 1327-1347.

Middlebrooks, J., and Audage, N. (2008). The Effects of Childhood Stress on Health Across the

Lifespan. National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control:

Atlanta, GA, USA. At http://health-equity.pitt.edu/932/1/Childhood_Stress.pdf.

Pajares, F., Prestin, A., Chen, J., and Nabi, R. (2009). Social cognitive theory and media effects. In

The SAGE Handbook of Media Processes and Effects, Nabi and Oliver (Eds.), Sage

http://health-equity.pitt.edu/932/1/Childhood_Stress.pdf


Publications Inc.: Thousand Oaks, CA

Sameroff, A. (2010). A unified theory of development: a dialectic integration of nature and

nature. Child Development, 81(1), 6-22.

Spoth, R., Redmond, C., Haggerty, K., and Ward, T. (1995). A controlled parenting skills outcome

study examining individual differences and attendance effects. Journal of Marriage and

Family, 57(2), 449-464.

Swearer, S., Espelage, D., Vaillancourt, T., and Hymel, S. (2010). What can be done about school

bullying? Linking Research to educational practice. Educational Researcher, 39 (1), 38-

47, doi: 10.3102/0013189x09357622

Waters, S., Cross, D., Runions, K. (2009). Social and ecological structures supporting adolescent

connectedness to school: a theoretical model. Journal of School Health, 79(11), 516-524.

Date post:	28-Nov-2014
Category:	Education
Upload:	greg-munno
View:	487 times
Download:	0 times