Professional Documents
Culture Documents
articles
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
Introduction
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
Motivation
Yes No
Opportunity Opportunity
Yes No Yes No
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.
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
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
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.
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
Figure 2
The MOA framework and social interventions (adapted from Rothschild, 1999)
Motivation
High (Yes) Low (No)
Opportunity Opportunity
392
02_MT 3/3 11/26/03 2:33 PM Page 393
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
Table 1
MOA constructs and scale reliability scores
Table 2
Categories from the effectiveness weighted behavior scale
394
02_MT 3/3 11/26/03 2:33 PM Page 395
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.
395
02_MT 3/3 11/26/03 2:33 PM Page 396
Table 3
Proportions of the respondents in each cell of the MOA framework
Motivation
High Low
Group Group
Opportunity total Opportunity total
(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’.
396
02_MT 3/3
11/26/03
Table 4
2:33 PM
Motivation
High Low
Opportunity Opportunity
Page 397
High Low High Low
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
Table 5
ANOVA including main effects and interactions
398
02_MT 3/3 11/26/03 2:33 PM Page 399
Table 6
Mean scores by MOA category
Motivation
High Low
Opportunity Opportunity
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.
399
02_MT 3/3 11/26/03 2:33 PM Page 400
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
400
02_MT 3/3 11/26/03 2:33 PM Page 401
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
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
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
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]
403