You are on page 1of 17

02_MT 3/3 11/26/03 2:33 PM Page 387

Volume 3(3): 387–403


Copyright © 2003 SAGE
www.sagepublications.com

articles

A further development in social marketing


Application of the MOA framework and behavioral
implications

Wayne Binney
Victoria University, Australia

John Hall
Victoria University, Australia

Mike Shaw
Lynx Research Group Pty Ltd., Australia

Abstract. This social marketing study discusses the application of Rothschild’s MOA
framework (Motivation, Opportunity, and Ability) in a land-use management con-
text. The authors hypothesize that landholders with higher levels of MOA are posi-
tively associated with behavior that would result in the effective control of a vertebrate
pest (the European rabbit). A random sample of 566 land managers in southeastern
Australia was obtained. The development of scales associated with this study were the
result of intensive qualitative research, including focus groups, in-depth interviews,
and a thorough review of secondary resources. The scales were developed through a
factor analytic process and were piloted and pre-tested before being used.
From the study it is ascertained that about one-third of land managers fall into the
highest level of effective behavior, and for the remainder, social marketing inter-
ventions, using marketing, education, and the law, could be applied to change
behavior. The study provides evidence that Rothschild’s theoretical MOA framework
can be applied to a social market and thus provides guidance on the types of inter-
ventions that may be effective in altering behavior. The MOA framework also pro-
vides a mechanism for segmentation that can be used to describe various markets and
gives direction to the interventions that may be effective in altering behavior. Key
• • •
Words MOA framework social marketing theory application

1470-5931[200309]3:3;387–403;038361

387
02_MT 3/3 11/26/03 2:33 PM Page 388

marketing theory 3(3)


articles

Introduction

This paper discusses an application of the Motivation, Opportunity, and Ability


(MOA) framework operationalized by Rothschild (1999) to investigate the
behavioral change required by regulatory environmental authorities.
Since the introduction of European rabbits to Australia in the 1860s they have
caused more damage to the environment than any other pest animal (Tehan,
1999). This destruction is currently estimated at $100 million annually in the State
of Victoria alone. Because of the high cost of this ongoing destruction, land man-
agers are compelled by legislation to control (and eradicate) the rabbit popula-
tion. While many land managers have responded positively to the campaigns, the
level of control has been inadequate as many recalcitrant land managers have
not implemented any of the recommended practices and thus the impact of the
legislation has been relatively ineffectual (Harrison, 2000). It is possible for land-
holders to employ many practices to control the pest – some are more effective
than others and it is beyond the scope of this discussion to cover all of the com-
plexities involved (Harrison, 2000). However, effective control would mean an
increase in the use of recommended rabbit control practices, such as warren
ripping, poisoning and harbor removal, and a move away from traditional
methods, such as shooting and spotlighting. Research and empirical evidence has
shown that these traditional methods are less effective (Harrison, 2000).
To improve the adoption rate of effective practices it has been suggested
that social marketing strategies be considered, as it is not only a land manager
problem but has serious ramifications for the wider community.

Aim

The aim of this study is to interpret the relationship between motivation, oppor-
tunity, and ability as defined by Rothschild (1999) in the MOA framework (Figure
1), and behavioral outcomes in this social marketing setting.
Each of the eight cells in Rothschild’s framework present a specific combination
of higher or lower levels of motivation, opportunity, and ability. In order to assess
the effectiveness of the framework, it is proposed to interpret the behavioral out-
comes obtained in each of the eight cells in terms of effective behavior desired
from a social objectives perspective. It would be anticipated that those in cells with
lower motivation, opportunity, and ability would show less of the regulatory
body’s preferred behavior compared to those that had higher levels of motivation,
opportunity, and ability.

388
02_MT 3/3 11/26/03 2:33 PM Page 389

A further development in social marketing


Wayne Binney et al.

Motivation
Yes No
Opportunity Opportunity
Yes No Yes No

Yes Prone to Unable to Resistant Resistant


behave behave to behave to behave
Ability
Unable to Unable to Resistant Resistant
No
behave behave to behave to behave

Figure 1
The MOA framework

Hypotheses

It is hypothesized that:
• The MOA framework can be applied to a social marketing situation.
• Effective behavior is related to a combination of motivation, ability, and oppor-
tunity.
• More desirable behaviors, in this case, more effective vertebrate pest control
activities, will be associated with those land managers who are categorized as
having higher levels on the MOA construct measures.
• The MOA framework provides a mechanism for segmentation that can be used
to describe various markets and provides guidance on the types of intervention
that may be effective in altering behavior.

Social marketing paradigm

The terminology, definition, and practice of social marketing has been evolving
for at least thirty years since the Kotler and Zaltman seminal paper (1971).
Considerable debate about the definition and application has followed in the
social marketing literature (Fox and Kotler, 1980; Kotler, 1979; Rothschild, 1979,
1999). Kotler and Roberto (1989) define social marketing as ‘a program planning
process that promotes the voluntary behavior of target audiences by offering
benefits that they want, reducing barriers they are concerned about, and using
persuasion to motivate their participation in program activity’. Andreasen (1995)
also gives a similar definition, however, he emphasizes the application of ‘com-
mercial marketing technologies’ to ‘influence voluntary behavior of audiences’.
Fox and Kotler (1980) suggest that social marketing has developed from social
advertising, and that the tools, techniques, and theories developed in the private
sector can be valuable in developing a marketing communications campaign in

389
02_MT 3/3 11/26/03 2:33 PM Page 390

marketing theory 3(3)


articles

the public and non-profit sectors. However, more recently, Andreasen (1995)
contests that as much of the practice of social marketing has been based on
limited assumptions, its full potential is still untapped. Andreasen argues that
those who believe social marketing essentially involves educating and persuading
the target audience to adopt desired behavior are not completing the whole of the
social marketer’s task. He suggests that social marketing is much more than this;
ideally, it not only involves a behavioral change in the target group but also
requires that this altered behavior is adopted and the practice is continued.
Bloom and Novelli (1981) noted that the practice of using conventional
marketing techniques for social marketing was causing ‘problems and challenges’
that were not being recognized. One of the issues identified included the ‘evalua-
tion problem’. The authors note that social marketers have difficulty ‘defining
effectiveness measures’ (Bloom and Novelli, 1981) and often find it problematic
to estimate the contribution that their marketing program has made toward the
achievement of difficult to define objectives.
This article addresses this problem by identifying the actual behavior of rural
land managers by recording their activities in controlling vertebrae pests. Effective
control is essential if environmental damage, such as soil erosion and waterway
degradation, is to be reduced. Consequently, regulatory bodies deliberate as to
how they can influence individuals significantly enough to ensure they will adopt
socially desirable practices such as being more environmentally conscious.
Before engaging in a detailed discussion of our conceptual framework, the
MOA framework, it is necessary to define the major components – motivation,
opportunity, and ability as used in this framework.

Motivation
In its general context motivation has been defined as consumers’ desire or readi-
ness to process information about a brand during the reception of advertising
content (MacInnis et al., 1991) or as ‘goal-directed arousal’ (Parks and Mittal,
1985). As goals can emerge from previous goal-seeking behavior, motivation
encompasses both the processes involved in setting goals and a desire to achieve
them (Bagozzi and Dholakia, 1999). More generally, McClelland has defined
motivation as ‘a recurrent concern for a goal state based on a natural incentive
that energizes, orients, and selects behavior’ (McClelland, 1987).
Rothschild (1999) postulates that ‘self-interest’ is a strong component of moti-
vation. Only when individuals are motivated by personal relevance, do they show
evidence of having expended the effort to carefully consider arguments, otherwise,
for example, visual information sources are used (Fazio, 1990).

Opportunity
Opportunity is defined as the extent to which the consumer can process informa-
tion without any environmental restrictions (MacInnis et al., 1991). More
broadly, lack of opportunity is most often observable when consumers want to

390
02_MT 3/3 11/26/03 2:33 PM Page 391

A further development in social marketing


Wayne Binney et al.

act (are motivated) but are unable to do so because there is ‘no environmental
mechanism at hand’ (Rothschild, 1999). In a social marketing context, opportu-
nity occurs when the consumer is not limited in their desire to act by factors in
their external environment such as time, money and outside controls.

Ability
Ability refers to consumers’ skill or proficiency at solving problems or their
knowledge of how to act (Rothschild, 1999). Pieters (1998) defines ability as the
capabilities and resources available to consumers to behave. Consequently, ability
relates to an internal skill set whereas opportunity reflects external environmental
factors.

Social marketing and the MOA framework

Rothschild (1999) has identified that in any social marketing situation a target
may be prone, resistant, or unable to comply with a change agent’s intentions. A
selection of strategies is required to meet this range of possibilities. Rothschild
(1999) has proposed a normative framework setting out a selection of tools that
can be employed to achieve the desired behavior in the target group. It is implicit
in this framework that motivation, opportunity, and ability all influence indi-
viduals to behave. A target will be resistant or unable to accommodate the regula-
tors’ goals if one of the set of MOA factors are not present or present at only a low
level. Rothschild (1999) has proposed that this then provides a basis for segment-
ing and deciding on the appropriate intervention strategy. According to where the
target is placed in the framework, combinations of education, marketing, and the
law are used to obtain the appropriate behavior change in the target.
The following framework (Figure 2) presents the eight cells of Rothschild’s
MOA framework. It highlights the strategies that can be used to modify the
behavior of individuals in each cell.
Rothschild suggests three main classes of social interventions – education,
marketing, and the law. Education refers to efforts that attempt to inform and/or
persuade a target to behave voluntarily but does not, on its own, offer any direct
and/or immediate reward or punishment.
Marketing refers to attempts to influence behavior by offering reinforcing
incentives and/or consequences in an environment that invites a voluntary behav-
ior change. The environment is made favorable for appropriate behavior through
the development of choices with comparative advantage (products and services),
favorable cost-benefit relationships (pricing), and time and place utility enhance-
ment (channels of distribution). Marketing also provides positive reinforcement
through communication and advertising activities.
Law involves the use of coercion to achieve desired behavior in a non-voluntary
manner or may threaten punishment for inappropriate behavior. Law can be used
to facilitate marketing by influencing free market situations.

391
02_MT 3/3 11/26/03 2:33 PM Page 392

marketing theory 3(3)


articles

Figure 2
The MOA framework and social interventions (adapted from Rothschild, 1999)

Motivation
High (Yes) Low (No)

Opportunity Opportunity

High (Yes) Low (No) High (Yes) Low (No)

High (Yes) Prone to Unable to Resistant Resistant


behave behave to behave to behave

Nature of Education Marketing Law Law


intervention Marketing
Ability
Low (No) Unable to Unable to Resistant Resistant
behave behave to behave to behave
Nature of Education Education Education Education
intervention Marketing Marketing Law Law
Marketing Marketing

The following discussion summarizes the strategic options presented by


Rothschild for each of the eight cells in the MOA matrix (see Figure 2).
• Cell 1: The target is totally receptive to the intended goals and therefore prone
to behave appropriately as motivation, opportunity, and ability are all present.
In this case ongoing education will be sufficient to reinforce appropriate
behavior.
• Cell 2: The target has motivation and ability but lacks opportunity. In situations
where opportunity is absent, Rothschild suggests that marketing may be suffi-
cient to achieve appropriate behavior by introducing a product/service into the
environment that enables the target to manifest its motivation and utilize its
ability.
• Cell 3: The target has opportunity and ability but lacks motivation. In this case
when the target has no desire to take on appropriate behavior it may be neces-
sary to resort to the law to achieve compliance.
• Cell 4: The target has ability but lacks motivation and opportunity. In situations
where motivation and opportunity are missing, marketing should be attempted
before the law is used.
• Cell 5: The target has motivation and opportunity but lacks ability. If only abil-
ity is missing, education and/or marketing may be sufficient to teach the target
how to behave and pursue motivation through existing opportunities.
• Cell 6: The target has motivation but lacks opportunity and ability. When moti-
vation exists but cannot be executed, there should be no need for the use of law.

392
02_MT 3/3 11/26/03 2:33 PM Page 393

A further development in social marketing


Wayne Binney et al.

Education and/or marketing may be sufficient to teach the target how to behave
and realize its motivationally derived goals. Self-interest will drive the target
to the proper behavior when the hurdles associated with lack of ability and
opportunity are removed.
• Cell 7: The target has opportunity but lacks motivation and ability. In this case,
education and marketing may be sufficient and should be used before resorting
to the law. When opportunity forms no barrier then developing ability may be
a step in creating a higher level of motivation.
• Cell 8: The target lacks motivation, opportunity, and ability. In situations when
all the MOA factors of opportunity, ability, and motivation are missing, then
education and marketing may be initiated before the use of the law is con-
sidered. Experience suggests that when opportunity and ability problems are
remedied, motivation follows.
Thus, Rothschild (1999) nominates three behavioral intentional states in the
targets: those that are ‘prone to behave’, those that are ‘unable to behave’, and
those that are ‘resistant to behave’, and theorizes that prescribed interventions
(depending on which cell within the framework) will lead to effective behavioral
outcomes. This expectation was tested in a social marketing context to determine
if the behavioral intentional state could be related to actual behaviors.

Research methodology
A random sample of 566 land managers from southeastern Australia was
obtained. Respondents were interviewed by telephone. The development of scales
associated with this study were the result of intensive qualitative research, includ-
ing focus groups, in-depth interviews, and a thorough review of secondary
resources. The scales were piloted and pre-tested before being used. The first stage
in the analysis of the 60-item attitude battery administered to the 566 qualified
respondents was to quantify the constructs in the MOA framework. Initially the
three constructs were scaled from the statement battery using expert judgments.
These judgments were then verified by checking internal correlations with specific
measures collected in the survey and confirmatory factor analysis. The reliability
indices (Cronbach’s α) were calculated and final adjustments made to the content
of the scale items. The resulting scales (Table 1) all had reliability indices (α) of
greater than 0.75. (Examples of scales used are shown in Appendix A.)
For this investigation each factor was measured on a continuous interval scale.
In contrast the applications of the MOA framework suggested by MacInnis et al.
(1991) and utilized by Rothschild (1999) have typically looked at category levels
for each of the constructs, i.e. high (yes) and low (no) levels of motivation, oppor-
tunity, and ability. The bipolar division of the scales into high and low levels was
based on the mean scores for the scale rather than the midpoint of the natural
scale value. This was justified on the basis that the MOA framework is about the
relative rather than absolute comparison of individual scores from respondents; a
procedure similar to the ‘Yes-No’ division employed in Rothschild’s (1999) social

393
02_MT 3/3 11/26/03 2:33 PM Page 394

marketing theory 3(3)


articles

Table 1
MOA constructs and scale reliability scores

Construct Preliminary attribute list Refined attribute list Cronbach α

Motivation 19 statements 17 items 0.797


Opportunity 23 statements 22 items 0.752
Ability 18 statements 13 items 0.766

Table 2
Categories from the effectiveness weighted behavior scale

N Proportion Mean EwtB score Std deviation

No action 72 12.7% .00 .0000


Little effective behavior 112 19.8% 6.27 2.6131
Some effective behavior 162 28.6% 15.67 2.7819
High level of effective behavior 220 38.9% 29.48 7.4001
TOTAL 566 100.0% 17.18 12.0654

communication/marketing matrix. A difference is therefore expected in any


output variable (such as behavior) between those that are, for example, highly
motivated versus those who are not motivated. Of course, the use of categorical
rather than continuous measurement does reduce the sensitivity of the analysis
by removing some variability in the results. However, although weakening the
statistical interpretation it does provide a simplified basis for testing the key
relationships.
The mean scores and the significance level of the t-test on difference between
the two levels of each construct are significantly different.

Effectiveness weighted behavioral scale (EwtB)

The MOA framework suggests that an outcome or result of marketing and


communication activity should be identifiable in all consumer-based marketing
applications. This should include those in a social marketing context in which the
output may be only behavioral change or commitment to specific actions. This
article examines the application of the MOA framework and causal relationship to
behavior.
This was achieved by the construction of a scale that indicated effective versus
ineffective behavioral outcomes. In the context of environmental and land-use
management these outcomes were essentially those behaviors that would result in

394
02_MT 3/3 11/26/03 2:33 PM Page 395

A further development in social marketing


Wayne Binney et al.

the most effective control of vertebrate pests. Land managers’ pest control activi-
ties were scored according to a weighted scale that had been established by a panel
of expert reviewers, whereby, more effective behaviors were given a higher weight-
ing. As previously discussed, land managers attempting to control rabbits using
shooting and spotlighting would have a lower EwtB score, whilst those adopting
practices such as warren ripping, poisoning and harbor removal would have
higher scores. Individual scores were obtained by summing individual responses
to behavioral activities, thus determining an effective weighted behavior (EwtB)
measurement.
The dependent variable was constructed from measures of the specific behav-
iors carried out by the respondents. Outcomes in a social marketing context can
be categorized as effective or ineffective in terms of the achievement of the social
goal. For environmental pest control activities this involved measuring the range
of activities used and then weighting each in terms of efficiency and summing the
result. The distribution of effective and ineffective behavior is shown in Table 2.
The scores for four independent levels of the behavior are significantly different
(p<0.05).
The largest proportion of respondents (38.9%) fall into the high category for
effective behavior; these are the land managers who are doing the best they can in
types and extent of pest control procedures. In contrast there are 12.7% of land
managers who are taking no action at all at the present time. This categorization
of the EwtB scale will be used to compare behavioral outcomes for each of the
MOA segments.

The MOA framework in a social marketing context

The MOA framework as suggested by Rothschild (1999) (see Figure 1) is an


eight-cell combination of the high–low levels of the motivation, opportunity, and
ability constructs.
Table 3 shows the application of this model to pest control behavior. As ex-
pected all three factors are almost equally divided between low and high segments
based, of course, on the procedure used for construction of these factors. More
importantly, the largest segments for the combined factors are the high ability–
high motivation (AH – MH) segment with 38.9% compared to the low ability–low
motivation (AL – ML) segment with 34.3%. Examining the full framework of
all interactions between all constructs shows that the two major segments are
MH OH AH 28.1% and ML OL AL with 26.3%. The remaining segments, although
smaller, still have a meaningful size in terms of implications for choice of social
marketing strategy. For example, MH OL AH is 10.8% and the MH OL AL is 9.4%.
This example can be interpreted in terms of the tactical responses (education,
law, and marketing) linked by Rothschild (1999) to the segments of the MOA
framework. For example, those segments that should respond to a marketing
strategy aggregate to 64.2%, those that should have coercive action (the law)
applied amount to 46.8%, and those that should respond to education is 76.7%

395
02_MT 3/3 11/26/03 2:33 PM Page 396

marketing theory 3(3)


articles

Table 3
Proportions of the respondents in each cell of the MOA framework

Motivation

High Low

Group Group
Opportunity total Opportunity total

High Low High Low

Table % Table % Table % Table % Table % Table %

High 28.1% 10.8% 38.9% 7.7% 4.8% 12.5%


Ability
Low 4.9% 9.4% 14.3% 8.0% 26.3% 34.3%

Group total 33.0% 20.2% 53.2% 15.7% 31.1% 46.8%

(based on information in Figure 2 and Table 4). It should be noted that most cells
in the framework permit the application of more than one strategy comprising a
combination of ‘education’, ‘marketing’, and/or the ‘law’.

Application of MOA to social marketing outcomes

The behavioral scale defined from the effectiveness-weighted behavior (EwtB)


exhibited by the respondents can be used to test the impact of the MOA frame-
work in a social marketing situation. Here it is expected that the more desirable
behaviors, in this case more effective vertebrate pest control activities, will be
carried out by those who are categorized as high on the MOA construct measures.
It has been hypothesized that more appropriate behavior should be associated
with the high levels and less appropriate behaviors by those with lower levels of
the MOA constructs. For example, for those respondents fitting the MH OH AH
segment 60.4% were high on the EwtB scale, whereas for ML OL AL the proportion
is only 18.8% (Table 4). The conclusion from this preliminary analysis is that
there is an association between the behavioral outcome and the impact of the
MOA constructs. (Chi-square = 92.148 df=21 p<0.01).

Relationships within the MOA framework

To further investigate the relationship between MOA constructs and behavioral


outcomes, the scores on the EwtB scale were used as a dependent variable and the
variance attributed to the MOA categories calculated.

396
02_MT 3/3
11/26/03
Table 4

Wayne Binney et al.


A further development in social marketing
Effective behavior by MOA categories

2:33 PM
Motivation

High Low

Opportunity Opportunity

Page 397
High Low High Low

Ability Ability Ability Ability

Table
Behavior categories (detailed) High Low High Low High Low High Low Total

No behavior 3.8% 14.3% 4.9% 15.1% 20.5% 13.3% 18.5% 20.8% 12.7%
Low behavior 14.5% 17.9% 8.2% 15.1% 20.5% 35.6% 18.5% 27.5% 19.8%
Medium 21.4% 25.0% 41.0% 41.5% 18.2% 24.4% 22.2% 32.9% 28.6%
High 60.4% 42.9% 45.9% 28.3% 40.9% 26.7% 40.7% 18.8% 38.9%
Table total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
397
02_MT 3/3 11/26/03 2:33 PM Page 398

marketing theory 3(3)


articles

Table 5
ANOVA including main effects and interactions

Source Sum of Squares df F Sig.

Model 180106.116 8 181.352 .000


Motivation 2148.500 1 17.307 .000
Opportunity 239.254 1 1.927 .166
Ability 2327.806 1 18.751 .000
Opportunity * Ability 155.045 1 1.249 .264
Opportunity * Motivation 9.534 1 .077 .782
Ability * Motivation 489.339 1 3.942 .048
Motivation * Opportunity * Ability 19.504 1 .157 .692
Error 69270.925 558
Total 249377.040 566

Although from a conceptual point of view the simplicity of the categorical


framework relating motivation, opportunity, and ability levels to behavioral out-
comes is appealing, there was evidence of a more complex relationship. The inde-
pendence of the MOA constructs has been debated in the literature (de Heer and
Poiesz, 1998; Poiesz and Robben, 1996; Robben and Poiesz, 1993). However, for
this social marketing situation the inclusion of interaction terms demonstrated
that the main effects framework was unsuitable for use. This has been suggested
by Poiesz and Robben (1996), who noted that in the advertising processing con-
text ‘a perplexing problem is that motivation, ability, and opportunity may all
interact in some situations’. Consequently, there was a strong possibility that the
MOA constructs for land managers’ pest control activities would show some
interaction effects.
For this investigation a full factorial model of the three MOA factors with
behavior scores on EwtB were constructed. The ANOVA results showed some
significant interaction effects. In summary this model explained some 72% of the
variance in the original data but the interaction term Ability*Motivation adds
additional complexity to the application of the MOA framework (Table 5).
The presence of interaction terms essentially means that a model assuming
independence of the variables cannot be used. This provides strong justification
for the use of the Rothschild (1999) framework where all eight categories of the
MOA matrix are included and where all interactions can occur.

Predictive ability: the MOA framework

In a social marketing context comparative analysis of the framework would be


expected to reveal some differences between the cells in terms of actual behavior.
The underlying proposition is that those who are motivated, have the ability, and

398
02_MT 3/3 11/26/03 2:33 PM Page 399

A further development in social marketing


Wayne Binney et al.

Table 6
Mean scores by MOA category

Motivation

High Low

Opportunity Opportunity

High Low High Low

Mean Mean Mean Mean

High 23.17 22.10 15.43 15.89


Ability
Low 16.82 14.11 14.49 11.51

have good opportunity are more likely to carry out the appropriate behavioral
activities and vice versa.
It was found that a relationship between these independent categories and the
direction of a behavioral outcome (EwtB score) does provide some validation of
differences in the social marketing impact on the activities of the respondents (F=
14.934 p<0.01, Table 6).
It can be seen that MH OH AH has the highest EwtB score, i.e. these are the
respondents who are motivated to control pests, do not have any barriers to
behavior, and have the knowledge to carry out the activities. In contrast we find
that the lowest behavior score is shown by those in ML OL AL segment. Their
weighted behavior score is only half the level of the MH OH AH segment.
As suggested by the ANOVA analysis, the results show that not all the MOA
constructs are equally effective at producing the most effective behavioral results.
A broad segmentation suggests that High Motivation (MH) will typically result in
effective behavior when coupled with High Ability (AH). However, if motivation
is lower (ML) then effective behavior tends to drop to a lower level. In contrast, if
opportunity and ability drop to a low level (OL & AL) then effective behavior will
be very low.

Discussion of the results

This analysis of a social marketing context in which desired behavior by the


respondents is encouraged by external administrative action is similar to many
other applications in the health, social behavior, and the political arena.
The proposition that segmentation of a social marketing situation can be
achieved using the MOA framework has been confirmed. This framework does
appear to provide a useful diagnostic tool in understanding the social marketing

399
02_MT 3/3 11/26/03 2:33 PM Page 400

marketing theory 3(3)


articles

context and the application of the marketing tactics implicit in the Rothschild
MOA framework (1999). The results show that only 28.1% fall into the top
segment (MH OH AH in Table 3). It is suggested that little intervention, other than
ongoing education, is needed for this segment. Intervention involving the use of
‘education’, ‘marketing’, and /or the ‘law’ will be useful when applied to the
remaining 71.9% of the cohort.
The investigation of the framework in an applied rather than experimental
situation provides a new approach to illustrate that the antecedents of behavior
are actually associated with behavioral outcomes. The nature of the MOA frame-
work is confirmed as higher scores on motivation and ability do result in more
effective behaviors (i.e. the behaviors desired by the social change agent or regu-
latory body). However, the framework is complicated by the presence of some
interaction between these two variables. This interaction could be conceptualized
in the circumstances when an increase in ability assists the subject to achieve the
objective they desire. Conversely, motivation increases when there is a perception
that they have the ability to achieve their goal. Further research is required to
elaborate on this conjecture.
In the context of environmentally desired behaviors, the analysis highlights that
opportunity, as defined by access to facilities or removal of barriers to behavior,
does not have a strong influence on effective behavior outcomes. The explanation
for this lack of impact could be in the nature of its definition in a social market-
ing context as distinct from a purely advertising antecedent. In the social market-
ing case it can be argued that the strong motivation and high levels of ability could
be useful in overcoming any perceived lack of opportunity. Similarly, when
opportunity levels are high but behavior is strong, it is only an indication that
problems or barriers to performance have been overcome. In this sense we may
conceive of opportunity as operating at a threshold level rather than as a con-
tinuously contributing variable.

Future research

The MOA framework is essentially a dynamic model of potential behavior,


although most practical measurements of its application tend to be static. This
makes it difficult to prove that the social interventions proposed by Rothschild
(1999) actually cause the desired behaviors over a time period. That is, it is not
possible to prove that the application of education, law, or marketing has led
directly to the levels of motivation, opportunity, and ability evident in this study
of environmental pest control. Further research on change in these intervention
levels would be useful in confirming actual sensitivity of MOA factors to new
activities as they are introduced and modified over time.
In addition the theoretical position of coercion and compliance in a broader
social marketing paradigm is one for further debate. Consumer behavior, from its
roots in the marketing concept of Kotler (1997), has focused on the consumer
need for satisfaction and underlying motivational aspects. Its underlying premise

400
02_MT 3/3 11/26/03 2:33 PM Page 401

A further development in social marketing


Wayne Binney et al.

is one of free will to behave as desired, combined with the ethical stance that
marketers will not manipulate or control behavior using coercive powers.
However, in social marketing, the goals may equally be to create motivation – the
carrot – or to induce compliance by introducing ‘external motivation’ – the stick.

Conclusion

This investigation of environmental management and control of vertebrae pests


has provided an opportunity to demonstrate that the MOA framework does apply
to a social marketing situation in which various strategies are used by the regula-
tory bodies to achieve the most effective behavioral outcomes.
In addition, the results add justification to the proposition that more effective
behaviors result in a concentration on motivation and ability elements rather than
opportunity factors. Opportunity, being defined as barriers or lack of resources,
can often be overcome if ability or motivation is high. The MOA framework also
provides a mechanism for segmentation that can be used to describe various
markets and it also provides some guidance on the types of intervention that may
be effective in altering behavior. The segmentation developed in this static situa-
tion would be useful for managers to track over time and to identify the extent of
change in the segment profiles in response to social marketing initiatives.

References
Andreasen, A. (1995) Marketing Social Change. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Bagozzi, R. and Dholakia, U. (1999) ‘Goal setting and goal striving behavior’, Journal of
Marketing 63(4): 19–32.
Bloom, P. and Novelli, W. (1981) ‘Problems and Challenges in Social Marketing’,
Journal of Marketing 45(4): 79–88.
de Heer, J. and Poiesz, T. (1998) ‘Dynamic Characteristics of Motivation, Ability and
Opportunity to Process Commercial Information’, Advances in Consumer Research
25: 532–37.
Fazio, R. (1990) ‘Multiple processes by which attitudes guide behavior: The MODE
model as an integrative framework’, Advances in Experimental Social Psychology 23:
75–109.
Fox, K. and Kotler, P. (1980) ‘The Marketing of Social Causes: The first 10 years’,
Journal of Marketing 44(2): 24–33.
Harrison, B. (2000) Corangamite Rabbit Action Plan. Melbourne, Australia: Department
of Natural Resources and Environment.
Kotler, P. (1979) ‘Strategies for Introducing Marketing into Nonprofit Organisations’,
Journal of Marketing 43(1): 37–45.
Kotler, P. (1997) Marketing Management Analysis, Planning, Implementation and
Control. New York: Prentice Hall.
Kotler, P. and Roberto, E. (1989) Social Marketing Strategies for Changing Public
Behavior. New York: The Free Press.
Kotler, P. and Zaltman, G. (1971) ‘Social Marketing: An approach to Planned Social
Change’, Journal of Marketing 35(7): 3–12.

401
02_MT 3/3 11/26/03 2:33 PM Page 402

marketing theory 3(3)


articles

McClelland, D. (1987) Human Motivation. New York: Cambridge University Press.


MacInnis, D., Moorman, C. and Jaworski, B. (1991) ‘Enhancing and Measuring
Consumers’ Motivation, Opportunity, and Ability to Process Brand Information’,
Journal of Marketing 55(10): 32–53.
Parks, C. and Mittal, B. (1985) ‘A Theory of Involvement in Consumer Behavior: Prob-
lems and Issues’, Research in Consumer Behavior 1: 201–31.
Pieters, R. (1998) ‘Consumer’s Attributions of Proenvironmental Behavior, Motivation,
and Ability to Self and Others’, Journal of Public Policy and Marketing 17(2): 215–25.
Poiesz, T. and Robben, H.S. (1996) ‘Advertising Effects Under Different Combinations
of Motivation, Capacity, and Opportunity to process Information’, Advances in
Consumer Research 23: 231–36.
Robben, H.S. and Poiesz, T. (1993) ‘The operationalization of motivation, capacity, and
opportunity’, European Advances in Consumer Research 1: 160–67.
Rothschild, M. (1979) ‘Marketing Communications in Nonbusiness Situations or Why
it’s So Hard to Sell Brotherhood Like Soap’, Journal of Marketing 43(3): 11–20.
Rothschild, M. (1999) ‘Carrots, Sticks, and Promises: A conceptual framework for the
management of public health and social issues behavior’, Journal of Marketing 63(10):
24–37.
Tehan, M. (1999) Rabbit Buster Achievements. Melbourne, Australia: Department of
Natural Resources and Environment.

Wayne Binney has over 25 years experience in marketing with specific expertise in
services marketing, agribusiness research and the operation of both qualitative and
quantitative techniques. Besides his role as a director of market research company,
Wayne until recently lectured in marketing, marketing research and social research at
The University of Melbourne and currently lectures at Victoria University. He has
authored several agribusiness and marketing publications and addressed national and
international conferences. He has consulted to state and federal governments and
several national and multinational firms and rural organisations.
Address: School of Hospitality, Tourism & Marketing, Victoria University, PO Box
14428 MCMC Victoria 8000 Australia.
[email: Wayne.Binney@vu.edu.au]

John Hall has a keen interest and long experience in consumer behaviour and market
research. John has spoken and published extensively both nationally and internationally
on matters directly related to these concepts. His co-authored text on Applied Market-
ing Research is a best seller in its field in Australia. John is a Senior Lecturer at Victoria
University, Melbourne, a senior member of the marketing discipline and is involved in
teaching marketing research and advanced marketing research to undergraduate and
postgraduate students. John has highly developed skills in both qualitative and quanti-
tative analysis. John has been involved with marketing research for more than 18 years.
He has consulted on projects for federal, state and local governments as well as multi-
national, national and small business.
Address: School of Hospitality, Tourism & Marketing, Victoria University, PO Box
14428 MCMC Victoria 8000 Australia.
[email: John.Hall@vu.edu.au]

402
02_MT 3/3 11/26/03 2:33 PM Page 403

A further development in social marketing


Wayne Binney et al.

Mike Shaw is the principal of Lynx Research Group, an Australian based market
research company. He has worked in marketing and research for over 25 years as well
as teaching as Senior Lecturer in the post-graduate programs at Monash University and
University of Ballarat. His interests include tourism, consumer behaviour and social
marketing in which behaviour change is directed at a range of actions only some of
which relate to purchase and consuming activities.
Address: Lynx Research Group Pty Ltd, PO Box 216, Blackburn, Victoria 3108
Australia.
[email: lynxgroup@compuserve.com]

Appendix A: Examples of scales for MOA

Opportunity scales: (Time and resources)


• Rabbit control is too expensive.
• I just don’t have the time to work on controlling rabbits on my land.
• Controlling rabbits on my property must wait until I have spare time.
• I cannot control rabbits because it is just too labor intensive.
• People who don’t do the right thing with their land should be fined.
• The prime responsibility for rabbit control rests with land managers.

Motivation scales: (Will to achieve)


• If I don’t control rabbits it is likely to ruin my property.
• Controlling rabbits has little effect on the carrying capacity of my land.
• I feel as though I’m letting the community down if I have not controlled my rabbits.
• It would be a great personal achievement to have my rabbits under control.
• A small infestation of rabbits on my property does not overly concern me.

Ability scales: (Knowledge and skills)


• Rabbit control requires attention all year round.
• It is important for my neighbors and other land managers in my local area to have a
coordinated plan to control rabbits.
• I think it is important to rid my property of all rabbit harbors including box thorns,
etc.
• If I see fresh rabbit scratchings, I know I need to increase my efforts in rabbit control.
• If you bait annually there is little need to do anything else.
• I have a good level of knowledge of the various and best techniques to control rabbits
on this land.

403

You might also like