Table Of Contents

Applying Social Psychology: Buunk Et Al., (2021): Chapter 1: ........................................................................ 2

Applying Social Psychology: Buunk Et Al., (2021): Chapter 2: ........................................................................ 5
Applying Social Psychology: Buunk Et Al., (2021): Chapter 3: ...................................................................... 10
Applying Social Psychology: Buunk Et Al., (2021): Chapter 4: The Test Phase: Developing And Testing The
Process Model: ........................................................................................................................................ 17
Applying Social Psychology: Buunk Et Al., (2021): Chapter 5: The Help Phase: Developing The Intervention . 20
Applying Social Psychology: Buunk Et Al., (2021): Chapter 6: The Success Phase: Evaluating The Intervention:
............................................................................................................................................................... 25

1
 Applying Social Psychology: Buunk et al., (2021): Chapter 1:
Applying Social Psychology:
Social psychology is the scientific study of processes in social relationships, and how people’s
thoughts, feelings and behaviours are influenced by other people, more specifically by the actual,
imagined or implied presence of others.
- Based on the belief that societal problems have social psychological aspects.

Applying Social Psychology: The PATHS from Problem Intervention to Success:

The PATHS method offers a simple, systematic, step-by-step, easy-to-use methodology for applying
social psychology theories to tackle a diversity of social issues.
- It is broken into five essential steps:
1. Problem—from a problem to a problem definition: identifying and
defining the problem;
2. Analysis—from a problem definition to analysis and explanation:
formulating appropriate concepts and developing theory-based
explanations;
3. Test—from explanations to a process model: developing and testing an
explanatory process model;
4. Help—from a process model to interventions: developing and
implementing a programme of interventions;
5. Success—from implementing the intervention to evaluating its success.

Analysis: Test: Help:

Problem: Sucess:
Development of Creating a Developing
Development of Evaluation of
explanations process model interventions
a problem the
for the based on on the basis of
definiton. intervention.
problem. explanations. the model.

The (above) PATHS model is a step-by-step approach for addressing and resolving societal problems
through the application of social psychological theory knowledge, from the formulation of the
problem to the shaping of interventions.
- It is not a rigid model, and one frequently moves back and forth between the different steps.

Step 1—Problem: From a Problem to a Problem Definition:

- Very important to describe precisely what the problem is.
o We must assess whether the problem is sufficiently concrete.
- Also why is it a problem.
- And for whom is it a problem.

2
 - In addition, we must specify the main causes of the problem; and who we aim to target with
our intervention i.e., the target group.
- Key aspects of the problem need to be considered: a good problem definition makes clear
that the problem has an applied rather than a basic nature, and is formulated in concrete
terms.
- There MUST be a feeling that the problem has social psychological aspects and that it is
potentially solvable or relievable.
o NB: If a problem CANNOT be defined along one of the following terms—behaviours,
attitudes, cognitions and affective responses—it is probably NOT suitable for the
PATHS model.

Step 2—Analysis: From a Problem Definition to Analysis and Explanation:

- The second step is to come up with social psychological explanations for the problem.
o BUT before this can be done, you need to first decide what the outcome variable is:
i.e., which variable eventually needs changing.
After defining this variable, in the divergent state one starts looking for
explanations through techniques such as ‘free association’ and through
applying relevant social psychological theories.
• After generating many different explanations, one must reduce the
explanations based on their relevance, validity and plausibility.

Step 3—Test: From Explanations to a Process Model:

- Based on a limited set of variables resulting from step 2, a process model can be formulated
(see page 8 for an example).
- The model contains the outcome variable that must be influenced.
o In addition, the model should primarily contain variables that can be influences and
should describe the relationship between the variables.
o The process model should be limited in the number of variables it includes (about
10), and specify just a few possible relationships between its variables,
Any given variable should not affect more than two or three other variables.
• Moreover, a model is only complete IF there is sufficient evidence
for the relationships between the variables.
o However, often, one can only find empirical evidence that
validates parts of the model and not the model in its
entirety.
Therefore, you may investigate the generic
behaviour if this is the case.

Step 4—Help: From a Process Model to Intervention:

- It is important that the model contains primarily variables that can be influenced through
intervention.
o Most social psychological variables such as: attitudes and social norms, can be
targeted by interventions.
BUT variables such as: gender, personality or other deeply rooted traits and
values cannot. For example, prejudice.
- The practitioner should first come up with as many interventions as possible, which are
aimed at the most promising and important causal variables in the model.
o Once an intervention is designed, it must be pre-tested and, eventually
implemented.
The practitioner also must actively monitor the implementation process and
relieve or solve problems that may appear in this process.

3
Step 5—Success: From Implementation to Evaluation:
- It is of vital importance to evaluate the intervention in terms of effects and process,
- Parts of the evaluation must be executed even before and or during the implementation of
the intervention.
- The process evaluation (intended to evaluate the implementation process) starts as soon as
the implementation of the intervention begins.
o Therefore, the practitioner needs to develop an evaluation plan at the same time as
the intervention plan in the Help phase is developed.

Problems with Applying Theories:

Oversimplification:
o A single laboratory experiment can never examine the complex interplay of variables
that affect human social behaviour in the real world.
At most they can only examine two or three causal variables.
o One way to enable more accurate comparisons between the enormous range of
casual variables that social scientists test in their experiments is to look at effect
sizes.
Effect sizes are statistical measurements of the magnitude of the
relationships between variables that can help researchers to assess the ‘real
world’ significance of laboratory findings.
o Although researchers can include a second, third or even fourth variable in their
experiments, it is impossible to include all potentially relevant variables in a
laboratory experiment.
External Validity:
o All kinds of factors in real life may obscure the impact of the variables that are so
clearly manipulated in experiments.
Contradictory Evidence:
o Studies often produce contradictory findings or null findings as revealed by
replication attempts.
o One should not take the conclusions from experiments as general truths, bust that
one should carefully examine the experimental paradigm on which a particular
finding is based on before applying it to the real world.
Contradictory conclusions support the idea that humans are complex social
beings with many different behavioural tendencies.

4
 Applying Social Psychology: Buunk et al., (2021): Chapter 2:
The Problem Phase: From a Problem to a Problem Definition:
Many social problems do not only have a social psychological component, but also an economic or
political component.

Towards a Problem Definition:

A problem definition is a clear and precise definition of what the problem is, and why and for whom
it is believed to be a problem.
- It should also identify the target group for the intervention in the problem definition.
- Should also give insight into some possible causes and key aspects of the problem:
o Such as whether the problem is solvable or relievable.
Therefore, the problem definition demarcates the problem in terms of
behaviour, emotions or cognitions and defines the target group that should
be the focus of interventions IF it is decided that the problem is
sufficiently applied, concrete, social psychological in nature and solvable or
relievable.
- WITHOUT a solid problem definition, interventions may, unintentionally focus on less
relevant aspects of the problem or target an audience that is too broad.

The Path from a Problem to a Problem Definition:

- NOTE practitioners and researchers have their own hobby horses and will therefore see a
problem in a particular way.
- It is up to the practitioner to make a judgement regarding the validity of the client’s
perspective and the reasons for them defining a problem in a particular way.
There are various reasons why it is important to develop a sound problem definition:
a. It will delineate what needs to be explained and it will offer suggestions
for finding the appropriate literature and other sources of information.
b. It makes it easier to move to the next stage i.e., the development and
test of an explanatory model.
c. Without one, it is virtually impossible to map out a program of
interventions to tackle a problem.
d. If one fails to capture the essence of a problem, chances are that the
proposed intervention program will also fail.
- To develop a good problem definition, it is essential to ask six questions:
1. What is the problem?
• What is the central problem that needs to be understood and
resolved?
o This requires insight into the cause and background of the
problem.
2. Why is it a problem?
• Why is a particular issue perceived as a problem in the first place?
• How does the problem express itself?
• What are the consequences of the problem?
• What makes it problematic?
• When did it first emerge?
o It is important to understand when it became a problem, as
a historical analysis can shed light on the potential causes of
the problem.
 Answering the why question not only helps to specify the problem, but also suggests
directions for the proposed intervention program.
3. For whom is it a problem?

5
 • Does the problem involve just the client or are there other parties
involved?
o Sometimes, involved parties will notice the existence of a
problem but they may not necessarily agree on the kind of
problem they face.
4. What are the possible causes of the problem?
• With question a practitioner can build a picture of the background
to and potential causes of the problem.
• Building a preliminary casual model is facilitated by asking two
interrelated questions:
i. What seems to cause the problem?
ii. How may these causes affect the problem?
• It is important at this stage to distinguish
between immediate causes and more distal
causes.
o Establishing the process of events
reveals several different clues about
the causal model underlying the
problem as well as the proposed
intervention program to tackle it.
o NB: It is good to keep alternative causes in mind when
building an explanatory model.
5. What is the target group?
• Who should be convinced of the problem?
• Whose cooperation is necessary for the problem to be solved?
 Selecting a target group narrows down the broad field of actors that may play a role in
the problem.
o It clarifies the problem and makes it more specific.
o This is essential for gauging the success of a possible
intervention.
o NB: Important to keep alternative target groups in mind
when generating strategies, developing an intervention, and
evaluating the success of an intervention.
6. What are the key aspects of the problem?
To capture the main aspects of a problem, practitioners have to ask to what
extent the problem is:
a) An applied problem?
o Applied research deals with finding solutions for problems and
therefore limits itself to the study of those determinants (that is,
causes or factors that maintain the problem) that are malleable and
may be the target of an intervention.
b) A concrete problem?
o Important aspects of the problem must be operationalised if they
are to be useful.
Once the behaviour is operationalised, it is much
easier to recognise it and measure it.
It is sensible to specify the properties of the
particular sample of people who experience or
cause the problem in as much detail as possible.
• This also makes it easier to find out if an
intervention has been successful or not.

6
  Only by being clear about the set of behaviours is a practitioner able to develop and test
the effectiveness of an intervention program.
c) A social psychological problem?
o Are there any causes other than social psychological causes of the
problem, and if there are, are these perhaps more important than
the social psychological determinants?
What contribution can a social psychological
perspective of the problem make? Especially in
relation to other perspectives such as political,
economic, or engineering perspectives.
d) To what extent the problem can be dealt with?
o Is the problem solvable? or at least substantially relieved.
A careful analysis of the viability of several possible
solutions is important because it could avoid a lot of
frustration on the part of both the client and
practitioner if they find out that the intervention
they have chosen is simply impractical or socially
undesirable.
o NB: you should always leave open the possibility of adjusting the problem definition
once you are underway in building an explanatory model, collecting literature and
conducting research.

Research for a Problem Definition:

Aim of research in this phase is to better understand the problem and its possible causes as well as
to estimate the feasibility of potential interventions.
- BUT this phase may have some constraints:
o Clients may not yet know whether they would want to use the services of the
practitioner.
o The problem or intervention may be confidential, and therefore, too sensitive to
collect data.
HOWEVER, a practitioner should try to conduct a preliminary investigation
into the problem in order to establish a sound problem definition and
ensure that relevant information is not ignored.
Desk research:
o Newspapers, websites or social media.
o The facts and figures surrounding a specific problem may be readily available.
However, when using the internet for information, it is important to be
critical to the quality of the source.
o How to search for information:
Use relevant search words.
Look for information from reliable sources.
Distinguish facts from opinions.
Take into account the recency of the information.
Consult the original source.
Scientific literature:
o It may also be instructive to conduct a brief review of the available scientific
literature at this point.
Although a more systematic literature review will be done at a later stage.
Insights from the literature may be used later in the PATHS model; for
instance, to develop hypotheses about the casual model and, ultimately, to
set up a plan for intervention and test its effectiveness.

7
 • In the problem phase, the main purpose is to generate as many
ideas as possible about the possible antecedents of the problem,
which would facilitate the establishment of a causal model to
develop later on.
o How to efficiently read scientific papers:
Read the abstract.
Scan subheadings.
Look for the research questions.
Check the sampling of participants.
Check the way the outcome variable is operationalised.
Have a good look at tables and figures.
Read the studies limitations.
Interviews:
o These give an intuitive understanding of the problem and show how different
parties experience the problem.
o Interviews should be relatively unstructured and used to investigate whether there
are differences between interested parties and their perspectives on the problem.
Detecting these problems are useful as they provide
insight.
Only through interviews can a problem definition be developed that all
parties recognised and are will to sign up to.
• Therefore, one needs to interview all relevant parties, which are:
i. Who causes the problem?
ii. Who experiences/ is affected by the problem?
iii. Who is responsible for the solution to the
problem?

Observation:
o Interviewees may have such different views on a problem that it will be extremely
difficult to generate a problem definition that is universally agreed upon. Or their
views may be so uniform that it is suspicious.
Therefore, you may want to rely on an indirect method, such as observation,
to gather more reliable data about a specific issue.
• One can rely on a more unstructured observation method where no
formal observation and coding scheme is necessary.
o Sometimes it is better to remain unidentified as a
practitioner.
 The success of the participant observation technique stands or falls with the quality of
the fit between the researcher’s profile and the profile of the sample he or she is
studying.

N.B: Examples of GOOD problem definitions can be found on pages 60 and 61.

Completing the Problem Definition:

A problem definition usually consists of a single paragraph that articulates the key properties of the
problem in a fluent and coherent manner.
- It is not a laundry list of answers to different questions, although initially it is better to
systematically address each question to make sure they have all be discussed.
o Answers of course are not just phrased as simple statements, BUT, also discuss and
explain why.

8
 It should be clear from the final problem definition what the problem is, why it is a
problem, for whom it is a problem, what are the main causes, which is the main target
group and what are the relevant problem aspects.

9
 Applying Social Psychology: Buunk et al., (2021): Chapter 3:
The Analysis Phase: Finding Theory-Based Explanations for Problem:
This phase has three sub-phases as such:

Defining the The Convergent

Outcome variable Stage

The Divergent
Stage

Specifying the Outcome Variable:

- That is the variable we want to change.
- Specifying the outcome variable is done in order to clarify what the target behaviours are for
intervention.
o It is often done in positive terms: i.e., as the desired end situation.
- The literature distinguishes between three different types of social psychological variables:
1. Behaviours and Behavioural Intentions: relates to how we actually
behave or intend to behave.
2. Attitudes and Cognitions: refers to what we think and value.
3. Emotions or Effect: relates to what we feel.
- It is preferable to focus on a single outcome variable rather than a set of variables. This is
due to many reasons:
o Variables may be so closely related that a change in one causal variable will
automatically produce a change in the other.
o When outcome variables are not directly related and therefore, they require
different explanations.
Therefore, it is clear that practitioners must be selective in their decisions on
what to focus on and choose between several outcome variables.

Requirements for the Outcome Variable:

o In order to be a useful target or influence, the outcome variable should meet three
criteria:
1. It must be relevant to the problem (relevance):
• The outcome variable should follow logically from the problem
definition.
• It should ideally reflect the desired end state of the intervention.
2. It must be described in specific and concrete terms (specificity):
• One should target a particular activity.
o E.g., something like household recycling is too broad,
you would need to narrow the focus to recycling cans for
example.
• If the outcome variable is too broad it makes it hard to develop
and intervention program which effectively deals with the
problem.
3. It must be described in continuous terms (continuity):
• The variable must be continuous so that it can be described in
quantitative terms (i.e., ‘less’ or ‘more’).
• There are two reasons why it is important to choose a
continuous outcome variable:

10
 a) It makes it easier to generate explanations for the
problem and describe the causal model.
b) A quantifiable variable helps in evaluating the success of
an intervention.
o BUT it is not always possible to come up with a quantification of the
outcome variable:
E.g., for health professionals, interest may lie in
whether or not teenagers smoke, rather than how
much they smoke Therefore, the outcome
variable is binary.

The Divergent Phase: Generating Explanations:

This is where we try to generate as many explanations as possible and try to link these explanations
to relevant social psychological theories.

There are a number of things to consider in this phase:

1. The scientific validity of explanations matters less at this stage It is more important be
exhaustive.
2. At this stage the practitioner should focus on possible explanations for differences in the
outcome variable.

There are various methods for generating explanations in this stage:

- Free Association Techniques: which can be used to look at the problem by creatively
examining it from different angles.
- Empirical Techniques: such as surveys, interviews or observations.
- Examining the social psychological literature to find explanations.

Free Association:
- We can distinguish between three different association techniques:
1. Problem Association: This is where you start with the problem itself and ask
yourself why the social problem is a problem.
• NB: at this stage it does not matter whether the explanations are
valid or not.
2. Concept Association: This requires moving beyond the problem and looking at
phenomena that might be conceptually similar to the problem under
investigation.
• This helps to translate the problem into a more abstract,
scientific problem, which can facilitate further analysis.
• Related concepts can then be used to formulate a preliminary
explanatory model which can be tested in subsequent research.
3. Perspective Taking: Here one looks at the problem through the ‘eyes’ of
different actors.
• First one needs to define all individuals who are possibly
involved in the problem.
o Then one puts themselves in the shoes of each of these
individuals.
• Various concepts might be invoked through perspective taking
techniques, which can be useful in generating explanations.

11
 Interviews and Observations:
- Interviews:
These will be more specific in this stage, and will mainly focus on the ‘why’ of the problem.
Known as the why interview.
o But it is important to vary the questions Constantly repeating the
‘why’ question might annoy the interviewees.
Why answers can later be illustrated into a process
model (see page 76).
It is important in these interviews to consider which outcome variables must ultimately be
influenced through intervention.
- Observations:
In this phase, observational research is more structured, and practitioners may use standard
observational instruments in order to illuminate the causes and consequences of a particular
social problem.
But it important when using such instruments that you look for information
concerning the reliability and validity of the instrument in question.
o The reliability of an instrument refers to the extent to which scores
obtained with that instrument adequately reflect reality.
o Validity refers to the extent to which an instrument is measuring
what it is supposed to measure (construct validity) or predicting
what it is supposed to predict (criterion or predictive validity).
Here we can also distinguish between the observation of others and self-observation (i.e.,
asking participants to reflect on their own feelings or actions towards the problem).
In the case of introspective methods: people are asked to examine their own
behaviour at specific times within a certain time interval.
Social Psychological Theories and Literature:
o Social psychological theories specify the potential causes underlying social
behaviours.
• However, some of the theories reflect the complex reality of social
behaviour more accurately than others, and in that sense more valid
than others.
o Find theories that are confirmed by at least several studies.
• Keep in mind that theory without much empirical evidence (yet)
simply remains a set of ideas about a specific social phenomenon or
behaviour.
o The value of theories for which (yet) little empirical
evidence has been found depends on when these theories
were developed.
• The two methods for generating explanations—association and
perspective taking—will often give a clue as to what social
psychological theories are relevant to the problem definition of the
practitioner.
Note: that in the Analysis phase, these theories are
still primarily used for heuristic purposes to develop
an explanatory causal model.
o There are three different strategies to use from the social psychological literature
for generating explanations:
1. The Topical Strategy:
o This approach finds out what is written in the literature on this
exact topic the literature will be directly relevant.

12
 o This is an inductive approach: in that one moves ‘bottom-up’, from
problem to explanation.
o It is generally recommended to start with a topical approach first,
because it allows practitioners to use the knowledge of previous
research to distinguish between likely and unlikely explanations for
problems.
Also, by beginning with this, one immediately obtains a
valid insight into a problem.
There will also often by examples of intervention
programmes reported in the literature.
• This enables practitioners to make a
judgement at an early stage about the
usefulness of certain explanations for
developing an intervention.
o BUT there are disadvantages of this approach:
The generalisation of the research may be questionable.
There is a risk of changing the problem into one that is
already in the literature.
• Thus, the practitioner could lose sight of the
specific problem that they were asked to
investigate.
Practitioners could become a bit complacent and not
think actively and creatively about the problem.
• There is a risk of uncritically adopting
programmes that are not properly evaluated,
do not incorporate recent scientific insights,
or are developed for a different target group.
2. Conceptual Strategy:
o This enables practitioners to look for theories that could be fruitfully
applied to the problem.
o This approach reformulates the problem on a conceptually higher
level to find links with relevant social psychological phenomena and
theories.
o This is also an inductive approach.
Through association techniques, the problem is
translated into another set of more abstract and generic
problems which may have been reported in the social
psychological literature.
• Note: the difference between topical and
conceptual strategy is sometimes minor.
o The essence of this approach is to use the problem definition to find
concepts that are related to the problem.
These concepts can then be used to find relevant
theories that make predictions about the social
psychological process underlying a particular problem.
o The main advantage is that it can lead to a rich pattern of
explanations each of which can be elaborated further using
appropriate theories and research.
Moreover, from the relevant theories, it is much easier
to think of a set of interventions to tackle the problem.

13
 o The main disadvantage is that it is easy to get overwhelmed by a
multitude of theories.
3. General Theory Strategy:
o This approach is deductive.
o It moves ‘top-down’, from a genetic theory that at first sight may
not seem directly relevant for the problem to potential
explanations.
It is not always immediately clear what these theories
contribute to understanding the social problem; but they
have a wide range of implications across a broad domain
of problems.
This approach is especially helpful when it is difficult to
use a topical or conceptual strategy because for example
the focal problem is relatively new.
• Thus, a general theory may be very helpful
because they are often easy to find.
o Discusses the theory of planned behaviour:
Focuses on behaviour that is under people’s volitional
control.
Assumes that people’s actions are shaped by their
intentions towards a specific behaviour.
• The intention to behave in a certain way is a
product of people’s attitudes towards that
behaviour, the subjective norms associated
with the behaviour, and the degree of
perceived behavioural control.
• Attitudes reflect individual’s opinions about
the behaviour and are a function of both the
beliefs about the consequences of the action
and also the subjective evaluation of these
consequences.
o Subjective norms refer to the
importance of the social environment
and reflect individuals’ perceptions of
what important others in their
environment think of the behaviour
and how important it is to comply with
what these others think and do.
o Perceived behavioural control reflects
the degree to which people think they
are able to perform the behaviour.

The Convergent Phase: Reducing the Number of Explanations:

In the convergent phase the number of explanation is drastically reduced so that only the most
plausible explanations remain.
- In this phase it is important to make a final choice of the outcome variable, especially as
either formulated negatively (e.g., prejudice against people with an immigrant background)
or positively (e.g., a positive attitude towards people with an immigrant background).
- There are three different stages in the convergent stage:

14
 1. The number of explanations are reduced by getting rid of irrelevant and
redundant explanations.
2. The theoretical validity of each of the remaining explanations is tested.
3. The remaining explanations are checked for their plausibility to account for the
problem.
o These result in a smaller set of explanations that can be used in the
next two steps of the PATHS model.
o NB: it is important to end with a set of explanations that describe
the social psychological processes leading to a problem in sufficient
detail.
One should avoid ending up with a set of ‘dead-end’
explanations: e.g., teenagers who fail to use
contraception are less intelligent.
Getting Rid of Redundant and Irrelevant Explanations:
Redundant explanations.
Irrelevant explanations.
o Although reducing the number of explanations is important, one
needs to be careful not to dismiss explanations that affect the
outcome variable indirectly.
Such explanations may provide important
background information on the causes of the
problem and are important for building a process
model.
Getting Rid of Invalid Explanations:
Theoretical explanations are only usefully applicable to a problem if the theory is
valid under the conditions are the problem.
o It should be kept in mid that many social psychological theories are
described in very generic terms, but really only apply to specific
situations.
A review of the scientific literature tells you under
what conditions the theory has been tested and
proven.
Finding the conditions under which a particular theory is applicable is important as
it helps practitioners decide whether the theory can be fruitfully applied to a
particular problem.
o In general, it is not enough to simply read the theory look at
review papers or meta-analyses.
o One must investigate how the experiments were conducted to find
out the theory’s boundaries.
Applying social psychological theories requires a
basic knowledge about the research literature on a
particular theory.
Getting Rid of Implausible Explanations:
A particular explanation might be adequate in theory, but if it is not likely cause of
the problem, it can be dismissed.
The plausibility of an explanation can be established by carrying out a thought
experiment:
o The aim of this is to imagine what might happen if the particular
condition that might cause the problem is either present or absent
would there be a change in the outcome variable?
However, they do not produce any hard evidence.

15
• Therefore, it is unwise to rely solely upon
them.
• However, thought experiments do make it
easier to select the most relevant causes for
the problem.
o They may also serve as a basis for
conducting further interviews or
observations that reveal the most
likely causes for the problem.

16
 Applying Social Psychology: Buunk et al., (2021): Chapter 4: The Test
Phase: Developing and Testing the Process Model:
Once a set of explanations has been identified and selected by a practitioner, he or she then
develops a process model.
- The process model is a graphical model that shows which variables affect the outcome
variable and how they do so.
It serves as a template for developing interventions.

Formulating a Process Model:

Note: Explanations selected in the analysis phase form the core of the process model.
- A process model is a pictorial representation of the explanatory variables and their
relationships with each other and with the outcome variable.
• Each variable is represented as a box. The boxes (the variables) in the model are
connected via arrows.
o The valence of an arrow indicates whether there is a positive (+) or negative
(-) relationship between two variables.
• Formulating a process model helps practitioners to develop a structured account of
the problem and its underlying causes.
o It should give clues as to where interventions must be targeted in the model.

Developing a Process Model:

 First you need to be clear about the outcome variable.
 Then make sure your variables are described in continuous and quantitative terms.
o To make it continuous in nature you can use “the degree to”.
Variables should also be formulated specifically.
 Third you need to connect your variables using arrows.
o Arrows depict the direction of the relationships, but should also provide the valence
of the relationships in the model.
Positive relationship (+): as one variable increase, the other increases as
well, or, conversely, when one variable decreases, the other variable
decreases as well.
Negative relationship (-): when one variable increases, the other decreases
or the other way round.
• The valence of these relationships can often be estimated through
common sense, but preferable one also consults theory or research
literature.
 Fourth you need to know whether variables have a direct or indirect influence on the
problem.
o Does A cause B directly, or does A influence B via its effect on C?
This may highlight that a variable may be caused by other variables.
• Relations in the process model may reflect the following effects:
o Direct effects: variations in one variable directly affect
variations in another variable.
o Indirect effects: one variable affects another variable via a
third variable. This third variable is also called a ‘mediator’.
o Reinforcing effects: one variable strengthens the impact of
another variable on the behaviour. A variable that
strengthens or weakens the relationship between two other
variables is also called a ‘moderator’.

17
 o Undermining effects: one variable mitigates the relationship
between two other variables.

Heuristics for Developing a Process Model:

There are eleven rules of thumb that may help develop a process model:
1. Make a list of possible explanations and variables involved.
2. Ensure that all these variables are social psychological, specific (rather than general),
concrete (rather than abstract) and continuous rather than binary.
3. Ensure these variables concern primary behaviours, behavioural intentions, attitudes,
cognitions, or emotions and feelings.
4. Draw up the outcome variable on the right-hand side of the process model.
5. Move from the right to the left-hand side of the model by asking yourself which variable
influences the outcome variable.
6. Draw arrows between these variables to depict the direction of the relationship (+ =
positive, - = negative, ? = don’t know yet).
7. Make sure that the relationship between the variables is not too remote. Otherwise
consider putting in a mediating variable.
8. When coming up with new variables think about whether they have direct effects, indirect
effects, reinforcing or undermining effects on the other variables in the model.
9. When there are several variables influencing the outcome variable, work each of them out in
detail and then consider whether they are related to each other. Draw an arrow between
them if you think they are.
10. A process model should contain no more than ten variables.
11. There should not be too many steps between the outcome variable and the most distal
variables. Aim for about four different steps to make it manageable.
Testing the Process Model:
- It is often clear from research what the strength and direction of the relationships are
between the variables in the model.
- Look carefully at every relationship (arrow) in the process model and check whether there is
enough evidence to support it.
Social Psychological Literature: use meta-analytic papers as they summarise the
results of various studies on the topic.
o Look for conclusions that confirm the relationships in the process
model as well as for statistical evidence such as correlations or
effect sizes.
The variables with the strongest effects are the
most useful ones for an intervention.
Why Interviews: insights from these interviews may help support the
relationships in the process model.
o BUT perceptions are nor facts, and usually perceptions of causes are
biased.
Checking the representativeness of different groups involved.
Doing your own research: in conducting research to establish the validity of a
process model, it can be useful to conduct a quick survey:
o Then the researcher can determine the relationship between the
variables.
Note that in the end, one may not find 100% solid evidence for all of the relationships in the
process model.
In that case it suffices if these relationships are supported by multiple sources of
other evidence, such as valid theories, results from cross-sectional research
and/or interviews with stakeholders.

18
There are different ways to find a measure of a specific construct (e.g., work engagement, positive
emotions etc.):
- One may look at research articles on the topic of the construct.
Look into the method section of how the constructs were measured and what the
names of the measures were.
o Then look into these measures.
- There are also databases on measures that have been used.
It is also possible that there are no scales available that directly measure what the
practitioner is interested in.
In this case a practitioner should develop their own scale on the basis of their
problem analysis.

19
 Applying Social Psychology: Buunk et al., (2021): Chapter 5: The Help
Phase: Developing the Intervention
Once the variables causing the outcome variable have been identified and mapped in the process
model, the intervention can be developed.
- An intervention is a means to change the causal variables and thus the outcome variables in
the desired direction.
An adequate intervention targets one or more causal variables: it is not often
feasible or even necessary to target all the variables in the model.
o Thus, the first step is to determine which causal variables will be
targeted in the intervention (the estimated modifiability of the
causal variables and the expected effects of the interventions will
direct this choice).
o Then secondly, decisions must be made about how the target group
will be reached and what the content of the intervention will be
(the content depends largely on empirical evidence).
o The last step concerns the implementation process: here care is
taken that the intervention is used as intended.
Preparing Intervention Development:
The essence of the Help phase is that interventions must focus on changing causal variables in the
explanatory model.
- It is not always necessary, appropriate or possible to target all the causal variables.
Therefore, it’s best to choose the causal variables which are modifiable and that
have the greatest effect on the outcome variable.
Modifiability:
Six questions can help exclude causal variables that are difficult to change:
1. Does the variable concern a stable personality trait?
2. Is the variable related to deeply held political or religious values?
3. Is the variable related to a stable environment conditions?
4. Is the variable related to some chronic medical or psychiatric condition?
5. Is the variable related to a lack of intelligence or literacy?
6. Does the variable have a strong biological basis?

Effects:
- Not all variables in the process model have an equally strong impact on the outcome
variable better to focus on the ones with the strongest effect.
Selection is facilitated if there is empirical evidence.
Can try to estimate the strength of the effect.

The Balance Table:

A balance table helps in making the decision on which variables will be targeted in the intervention.
- The practitioner will evaluate all the variables from the process model with regard to their
modifiability and effects: that is the magnitude of the impact of the change on the outcome
variable.
First evaluate the modifiability: Knowledge can be influenced quite well, but
behavioural patterns, in contrast, are harder to change.
Next evaluate the estimated effects of the causal variables in the process model
how strong in the effect on the outcome variable.
o The best variables are those with the most positive combination of
scores on modifiability and effect.

20
Developing the Intervention:
Once the practitioner has decided which variables to target, the intervention can be developed: Two
tasks can be distinguished in the development of an intervention:
1. Choosing the right channel: the way in which one may reach the target group members,
which may include, for example, a leaflet.
The Channel:
o The means through which people are reached and the intended
changes will only take place if the people are exposed to the
channel.
o They have several features, each communicating a distinct type of
information.
Some channels communicate with high intensity
and others with low intensity.
Channels also differ in potential reach of the target
group.
Some only have small effects on the individual level,
while others bring about large effects.
Channels may also bring about different types of
effects.
o The channel is chosen on the basis of information about the target
group and the relevant variables, methods, and strategies.
o What should be considered before choosing a channel:
Is the channel an effective way to reach the target
group?
Is exposure through the channel intensive enough
to change the variable?
Is the channel appropriate for the method and
strategy?
What is the impact on the population level of an
intervention using this channel?
• The impact of an intervention is determined
by the participation rate (the % of people
who eventually participate in the
intervention), and its effectiveness (the % of
people who change after being targeted).
2. Selecting the appropriate method: the way in which the changes will be brought about, for
example, by providing a role model.
The Method:
o Methods are often derived from theoretical frameworks.
o Selection of method depends first depends on consideration of the
balance table.
For each variable and intervention method must be
chosen.
o Second selection of method depends on the extent to which the
method ‘fits’ the variable one aims to change.
Providing arguments.
Goal setting.
Fear communication.
Modelling.
Enactive Learning.
Social Comparison.

21
 Implementation Intentions.
Reward and Punishment.
Feedback.
NB: the channel and method must consider the target group.

Translating Channel and Method in Practical Applications:

To effectively influence a specific target’s group attitude, emotion or behaviour they have to be
translated into practical applications that fit with the target group and its characteristics, context
and culture.
- A practitioner often has many options and decisions to make when translating channels and
methods into specific applications.
It may be helpful to summarise what the intervention should be about, by
shorting describing the methods, channels, target groups and variables to be
changed, as identified on the basis of the balance table.
Next based on these global intervention descriptions, the practitioner can think of
different applications that may be used to make up the intervention of this
specific target group.
o This usually takes place in two phases:
1. The Divergent Phase: the practitioner lists as many applications as possible.
Various techniques to generate applications for interventions:
• Direct intervention association.
• Direct method approach.
• Interviews.
• Insights from theory.
• Insights from research.
2. The Convergent Phase: the applications are critically evaluated.
• A limited number of applications need to be selected
and combined to form the intervention.
• The choice of a particular application or combination of
applications must have both a theoretical and empirical
basis.
o The application should take into account the
conditions underlying the theory.
o The application should be based on empirical
evidence from either laboratory experiments or
field studies.
The stronger the empirical evidence for
the intervention, the higher the chances
that the application and therefore,
intervention, will indeed be effective.

Developing and Pre-Testing the Intervention:

Once the applications have been selected, the intervention as a whole can be shaped. The rules of
thumb for developing and shaping applications and materials that are needed for these applications
based on the book author’s experience are:
 Be as specific as possible.
 In the case of an intervention with several channels and applications or sequential elements,
all parts must be fine-tuned, and a protocol must be written.
 If other professionals are involved, it should be clear how much influence they can have over
the end product.
Each planned application or intervention or part thereof must be pre-tested.

22
 - The function of a pre-test is to improve the intervention and to avoid major flaws in the
design.
It primarily ensures that the target group will attend to the message as well as
understand the message.
The pre-test assessment can be done in different ways:
a) Interview.
b) Quantitative assessment.
c) Recall.
d) Observation.
e) Expert opinions.
After revisions have been made, the approved intervention can be pre-tested a
second time after which the final version of the intervention can now be
developed and distributed.
o A pre-test can also be followed up by a pilot study.
Whereas a pre-test merely aims to ensure that the
target group attends to and understands the
intervention, a pilot study aims to assess the
intervention’s effect on the outcome variable and
the causal variables from the process model that are
the focus of the intervention.
• Pilot studies reduce the chance of enrolling
an expensive large-scale intervention that
later shows disappointing outcomes.
The ideal situation after the pilot study is that the
practitioner finds that both the outcome variable
and the causal variables from the process model,
that the intervention focuses on, are changed in the
desired direction.
• A successful pilot study, however, is no
guarantee that the intervention will be
successful when implemented in ‘the real
world’ as most pilots are experiments.
In the less-than-ideal situation the pilot study
reveals that the intervention does not affect all of
the variables in the desired way.
• In that case it may be wise to carefully
scrutinise the relations in the process model
concerning this variable or the way the
variable has been translated into a channel,
method and strategy.

Implementation of the Intervention:

When the intervention has been developed and tested the implementation process can start.
The implementation process has one major goal: to ascertain that the intervention is used as
intended.
- When all members are exposed to the intervention the intervention has been
implemented optimally.
Note: the implementation is not about the effects of the intervention, but about positioning
the intervention in such a way that it can have its effects.
There are many problems that may undermine the intervention’s implementation.

23
 - The main challenge of the implementation phase is that the extent to which the target group
is exposed to the intervention depends on the people and organisations that are involved in
the distribution of the intervention.
We cannot expect that all these people are as motivated to have the target group
members exposed to the intervention as the initiators and developers of the
intervention.
o Therefore, the implementation of an intervention involves
motivating and removing any perceived obstacles to allow them to
engage in their specific tasks.
If even a practitioner develops an excellent
intervention program, if only a few people are
actually exposed to the intervention due to
distributors the impact of the intervention on the
problem may be small or non-existent.

The Implementation Process:

Rodgers’ (2010) model of diffusion describes how the implementation of new, large-scale
interventions takes place in time. This process is referred to as the diffusion process and consists of
four phases:

Dissemination Adoption Implementation Continuation

1. Dissemination phase:
• First: identify all potentially relevant distributors of the intervention.
• Second: after having identified the most relevant distributors that practitioner must
map out the communication channels these distributors use to communicate with
each other.
o Mapping out relevant distributors and their communication channels
enables the practitioner to inform and contact relevant distributors as
effectively and efficiently as possible about the intervention and its
implementation.
2. Adoption phase: distributors are motivated to use the innovation.
3. Implementation phase: distributors actually engage in the behaviour that will expose the
target group to the intervention.
• In this phase the practitioner must be aware of the potential problems that
may arise during the implementation phase of the intervention, and handle
those as efficiently as possible else the implementation can quickly
stagnate.
4. Continuation phase: the intervention becomes normal practise.
 In stimulating the diffusion process, all four phases will have to be addressed.
 Note: Additionally, the model helps decide when and what the practitioner can do to
stimulate the process of diffusion.

24
 Applying Social Psychology: Buunk et al., (2021): Chapter 6: The
Success Phase: Evaluating the Intervention:
To assess whether the problem that was targeted indeed changed for the good.
- Most importantly, it has to be examined whether the intervention had to expected effect in
terms of the outcome variable.
Did the intervention indeed contribute to the relief or solution of the problem it
was designed for?
This stage is important because:
If the intervention was successful, the practitioner may in the future, repeat the
intervention if the problem re-occurs.
Showing the intervention is effective holds important implications for the future:
o If the evaluation demonstrates that the intervention is effective at
relieving or solving the problem, this usually helps to persuade
potential investors.
A positive evaluation may strengthen the motivation of distributors and other
parties involved to again support and contribute to the implementation of the
intervention in the future.
The evaluation helps pinpoint what went wrong and what action has to be
undertaken to adjust or improve the intervention and/or distribution.
However even if the intervention has proven it effectiveness it is still advisable to scrutinise
the choices made in the development and implementation of the intervention before
repeating it because:
The context of the problem or target group may have changed.
Evolutions in technological possibilities mean that different channels and
strategies for the distribution of the intervention may be needed to optimally
expose members of the new cohort to the intervention.

Different Types of Evaluation:

1) Effect Evaluation: this assesses the extent to which variables that are directly related to the
problem have changed over time. The effect of the intervention on the specified outcome
variable should be assessed at the minimum. BUT there are more variables that may be
evaluated to determine the effectiveness of the intervention. Therefore in addition to
assessing the outcome variable and the variables related to it, it may also be wise to assess
those variables from the process model that, in the Help phase, were selected as targets for
the intervention.
This helps us better understand the effects of the intervention on the outcome
variable.
There are four different outcomes:
1. The intervention both affects the selected causal variables and the outcome
variables in the desired direction. In this case the change in the outcome
variable can likely be partially attributed to the change in the causal variables.
The practitioner can conclude that the line of reasoning behind the process
model and balance table seems to be correct, and that the intervention was
sufficiently effective.
2. The intervention affects the selected causal variables in the desired direction
but does not influence the outcome variable. This would mean that from the
perspective of the outcome variable, the intervention has failed. BUT the
intervention shows some degree of success: the selected causal variables were
targeted effectively and showed a positive change. These mixed findings
show that some choices were not optimal and that to adjust the future
intervention the choices made should be scrutinised.

25
 3. The intervention affects the outcome variable in the desired direction but has
no impact on the causal variables. From the perspective of the outcome
variable the intervention was a success, BUT the intervention did not work the
way it was intended. This may raise doubts about the process model and
the balance table.
4. The most negative scenario: the intervention does not produce any change in
the desired direction for any of the variables. Many things have gone wrong
the process model and balance table reasoning may have been wrong, or the
intervention may not have been implemented in a way that was sufficient for
any effects to occur.
Evaluating the effect: the evaluation of the effectiveness of an intervention will be
conducted with a study using a carefully controlled research design and
procedure.
2) Process Evaluation: used to monitor and evaluate the implementation of the intervention.
Was the intervention executed as intended.
It is important is understanding why and intervention did or did not work.
It takes place both during and after the implementation of the intervention.
o During the implementation it is important to continually monitor
the process of implementation so that if problems occur, the
practitioner can solve these and, if needed, adjust the
implementation process.
o Following the intervention all information concerning the
implementation process is collected and evaluated in its totality.
In the context of a process evaluation at least six of the following topics should be
assessed or evaluated:
1. Completeness of the implementation: Information on the degree to which all
practical applications of the intervention were implemented as intended.
2. Exposure to the intervention: information on the degree to which members of
the target group actively engage in, interacted with, were receptive to and/or
used materials or recommended resources.
3. Satisfaction with the intervention: degree to which members of the target
group positively evaluated the intervention in terms of, for instance, user
friendliness or attractiveness.
4. Recruitment: information on the procedures that were used to attract
members of the target group to the intervention and get them involved.
5. Context: information on environmental factors that may have influences the
implementation of the intervention or affected the intervention’s outcomes.

Evaluation Plan, Implementation and Report:

What type of evaluation is feasible will depend on resources, such as manpower, time and money.
- It is advisable to thoroughly think through and plan the evaluation before the intervention is
implemented.

26