You Have What It Takes to Get Healthy!
By Douglas Lisle, Ph.D.
An
important factor in determining whether we are successful or not when
undertaking a difficult endeavor is our own confidence that we have what it takes.
Psychologists call this self-efficacy, a term coined by eminent
What
is being suggested here is not some sort of magic. It is not an attempt to sell
you the idea that if you can believe it, you can achieve it. That type of
thinking is obviously incorrect. For example, a schoolboy might truly believe
that he can run a mile in under four minutes, but an unfounded belief cannot
alter true physical limitations. What is being suggested by self-efficacy
theory is that if you really have the innate capability to do something, but
you don’t believe that you can do it, then you may unnecessarily fail!
Math lesson adds up
One
experiment that Bandura and his colleague Dale Schunk conducted helps to demonstrate the importance of
self-confidence. Students who were having difficulty in arithmetic were
selected for special help. These students were each given a self-instruction
booklet, which contained 42 pages of instruction and related exercises.
Students were then randomly assigned to one of two experimental groups. In the
first group, students were told that a reasonable goal was to try to complete
the 42-page booklet by the end of seven study sessions (one study session per
school day). We might describe this first group as being the One Big Goal Group
because they were oriented towards thinking that the goal was to finish the
entire booklet, rather than to work toward smaller subgoals.
In
the second group, students were told that a reasonable goal would be to
complete six pages of the booklet per study session for each of the seven days.
We might describe this group as the “One Step at a Time Group.” Other than
these instructions, there were no differences in help given, answering of
questions, or any other difference in the treatment of the two groups. Because
students were randomly assigned to one of the two groups, there were no initial
differences in overall ability between the two groups.
Bandura and Schunk
suspected that they were helping the students in the “One Step” group by
mentally breaking up the overall goal into smaller goals. They therefore
expected that these students would gain confidence by taking the overall task
just one section at a time. The authors expected that these students would work
harder, persevere more often through difficulties, and ultimately learn and
achieve more than students assigned to the “One Big Goal” group.
One step at a time
The
results were clear—and astounding. On an achievement test used to measure
students’ mastery of the material, those in the “One Step at a Time Group”
substantially outperformed the “One Big Goal Group.” The average student in the
“One Step at a Time” group was able to obtain an 80% score on a mastery test,
whereas the average student in the “One Big Goal” group was only able to answer
40% of the problems correctly. Just as important, students in the “One Step at
a Time” group wound up with much greater ratings of self-confidence, and were
much more likely to persevere when a difficult problem was presented! The
reason for the differences between the two groups was that students in the “One
Step” group were much more likely to methodically work their way through the
instruction booklet, and thus developed greater mastery.
These
results give us clear evidence of an important insight into human motivation.
If a problem seems “too big,” we often won’t stick with it, and lose our
confidence. Alternatively, if we can find creative ways to chop big problems
into a series of smaller ones, our confidence, motivation, and efforts—and thus
our results—can improve dramatically.
Obstacles to healthful living
Living
a healthful lifestyle in the modern environment can present a formidable
challenge. There are several major types of obstacles in our way, each of them
alone being enough to knock us off course. One of the most important of these
types of obstacles is what we refer to collectively as channel factors. These
are factors in our real-life situations that can make it more difficult for us
to actually do the sorts of health-promoting behaviors that we intend to do.
Channel
factors can be surprisingly important in either promoting or derailing
behavioral intentions. For example, when soliciting business by mail, one of
the most important factors is whether the business owner includes a
postage-paid envelope! No matter if what is being sold costs over $100, and the
additional cost of the stamp to the potential customer is negligible, the
would-be customers are much less likely to buy if they have to go to the slight
additional effort of finding a stamp.
With
health behavior, these “channel factors” are almost always in opposition to our
good intentions. The most convenient—and most socially acceptable—foods are
usually the least healthful. Eating wisely usually requires more planning, more
time and energy, and some additional skill development. In addition, because healthful
foods can take longer to prepare, we often face a longer period of time between
the impulse to eat and when we actually start eating.
With
all of these forces pushing against us, it is little wonder that our best
intentions often fall short. The greatest danger, however, lies not in our
short-term failures. The most critical damage that these “Channel factor”
problems can cause is the damage to our self-confidence! When our good
intentions are consistently derailed, we can start to believe that we simply
“don’t have what it takes” to live healthfully. To adopt this belief would be a
serious mistake.
Personality and behavior
One
of the most important discoveries in social science in the past few decades has
been the finding that people believe too strongly that personality differences
are responsible for the behavioral differences they see between individuals.
By contrast, people typically
underestimate the importance of situational forces that give rise to individual
behavior. This can be a dangerous error when it comes to health behavior.
People often think that if they have failed to live healthfully, the reason is
that they lack some essential personality characteristic!
They
may feel they are a “bad” or a “weak” person. They often fail to appreciate
that subtle situational forces have conspired to disrupt their efforts. This
belief—that personality characteristics are the key feature in determining
behavior—can act like an optical illusion. It can cause us to make mistakes
about how reality really works, and lead us to underestimate the importance of
paying attention to situational influences. An example may help to illustrate
this “personality” versus “situation” illusion.
Personality vs. situations
If you were trying to get college students to contribute to a canned food drive, which would be the most important task: finding people with helpful personalities, or creating situational forces that would make contributions more likely? Professor Lee Ross and his colleagues at Stanford attempted to find out, and the results of their investigation are instructive.
Their study was
designed to examine both personality and situational factors in determining
behavior, and also to examine which of these two types of factors is most
important. The researchers divided students into four groups and studied their
responses to a common request—to contribute to a canned food drive.
How the study worked
Students
were asked to nominate their classmates for either one of two groups. One group
was for those considered “most likely” to contribute to a canned food drive.
The other was for those considered “least likely” to contribute. Once the
nominations were completed, the investigators divided each of these groups in
half. One half of the “most likely” students was assigned to an “assisted”
group (group 1), the other half to an “unassisted” group (group 2). The same
procedure was carried out with the “least likely” students (groups 3 and 4). (See Chart 1.)
The students in the
two “assisted” groups were provided with specific situational forces designed
to make it easier for them to contribute. Each student received a letter that
addressed him or her by name; they were given specific instructions as to what
foods were being requested; and they were given the address and a map to where
the contributions could be dropped off. In addition, these students were given
a “reminder” phone call during the week of the event. All of these factors were
designed to facilitate behavior, rather than to impede it.
By
contrast, the students in the two “unassisted” groups were provided with
general information designed to make it slightly more difficult to contribute,
so that the likelihood of contributing would be based primarily on their personalities.
These students also were sent a letter, but this letter was merely addressed to
“Dear Student,” and there were no specific recommendations about which foods to
bring. Likewise, the address to where the contributions could be dropped off
was listed, but no map was provided. Finally, no “reminder” phone call was
placed. These situational factors were designed to subtly impede contributing
behavior.
Student predictions
How
do you think each of the various groups contributed? The results may surprise
you. They certainly surprised students who were asked the same question.
Students—none
of whom were in any of the four groups—were apprised of the study’s design.
Afterwards, they were asked to make their best guess as to what percentage of
subjects in each group would contribute to the food drive. A lot can be learned
from their predictions. (See Chart 2.)
Students
predicted that 82% of the students in the “most likely/assisted” group would
contribute. They predicted that 80% of the students in the “most
likely/unassisted” group would contribute. By contrast, they predicted that
only 17% of the students in the “least likely/assisted” group would contribute,
and that 16% of the “least likely/unassisted” group would contribute.
Clearly,
these predictions indicate that students believed that personality factors, and
not situational “channel” factors, were by far the most important issues in
predicting behavior! The students showed almost no consideration for the
situational forces that might be at play. Instead, they believed that the “most
likely” students could reasonably be expected to contribute, regardless of
situation, about 80% of the time. Likewise, they predicted that the “least
likely” students would contribute about 16-17% of the time, regardless of
situational forces. The students guessed wrong.
Surprising results
The
results were much different than most people would reasonably predict. (See Chart 3.) Students considered “most likely” to help who
were in the “assisted” group contributed only 42% of the time. Furthermore,
students considered “most likely” to help who were in the “unassisted” group
contributed a mere 8% of the time. Just as surprising were the results for
“least likely” students. Those in the “assisted” group contributed a remarkable
25% of the time, while those in the “unassisted” group contributed 0% (that’s
right, zero percent) of the time.
These
results provide a terrific example of not only the importance of situational
forces in behavior, but also serve to highlight our natural tendency to
overestimate personality factors in behavior. Note that the results show that
the so-called “least likely” to help students in the “assisted” group were more
than three times more likely to contribute than the “most likely” to help
students in the “unassisted” group. The message is clear—situational forces are
very powerful, and underestimated, sources of influence in our behavior.
You do have what it takes!
In
my work as the psychologist for the Center for Conservative Therapy, one of my
main tasks is to help patients understand our most fundamental psychological
message—You have what it takes to live healthfully!
Not uncommonly, patients come to the Center after a period of getting off
track, to get a period of rest, healing, and psychological rejuvenation. Often,
when patients are nearing the end of their stay, they become concerned that
they may somehow be missing some special characteristic—some kind of
personality magic—that separates those who seem to keep on track from those who
stumble.
An
important task we have at the Center is to convince each patient that the power
to live healthfully is already in his or her own hands. The “Big Goal” is to
live healthfully—and that may seem overwhelming, and perhaps beyond one’s
capacities. But we take pains to explain and convince our patients that the
“Big Goal” is just a target—and that it is really made up of a series of little
goals. For example, getting used to fixing oatmeal and fruit for breakfast;
planning a weekly menu; preparing a permanent shopping list to help make
shopping and meal planning less mentally taxing; and carrying healthful snacks
in your car so that you have something to help you resist the “pull” of
unhealthful convenience snacks. Likewise, you can plan to do a “big cooking” once
or twice a month, when you make soups and other entrees in bulk, and freeze
some of the extra food for later convenience.
Reason for confidence
If
you have struggled and stumbled from time to time on your way to healthful
living, take heart! There is no “personality part” that you are missing that
you must somehow cultivate. You don’t need a year of group therapy, or some
special psychiatric “self-discipline” pill. You already have what it takes to
make your healthful lifestyle happen.
When
you stumble, pay attention to what small factors conspired to defeat you—and
steel yourself to find a solution. Piece by piece, and battle by battle, you
can put together a winning formula. Don’t think that a bad day or a bad week
means that you don’t have what it takes to succeed.
You
do have what it takes. And you will discover this if you will just have a bit
of patience with yourself, and keep at it—one step at a time.
Douglas Lisle,
Ph.D., is director of clinical research for