What About Change? An Old Theory in a New Light

Economics World, Nov.-Dec. 2017, Vol. 5, No. 6, 566-572 doi: 10.17265/2328-7144/2017.06.008 D DAVID PUBLISHING What About Change? An Old Theory in a New Light Torda Tamás, Tordai Zita University Obuda, Budapest, Hungary Change is a constant part of our life…It is almost a klisé. It is everywhere, and we should know, how it can happen to us, and how to act it. This article is the first part of a year-long study, that aims to find, which factors can be a part of a successful lifestyle change, especially for conscious consumption. We consume ridiculously much, over the level, we need. Half of the world is hungry, and the other half is trying to lose some weight. If we can create a model, like an equation f.e. Double self confidence and one good family background are equal to 10 percent of success lifetime change, which is probable not, but if we can find something like that, it would change the theory of lifestyle changing in modern consumption society. This article shows our lifestyle changing model theory, and a study, which presents, its appearance in practise. Keywords: lifestyle changes, conscious consumption factors, decision making, Prochaska, business changes The Model’s Theory Changing is difficult, because the brain essentially would like to be in the most energy-efficient state. This can be achieved if the brain reduces the number of external and internal factors to the minimum of the state. This also implies that the brain tries to avoid the unnecessary innovations, so stick to the old habits, which means that brain likes to do everything in the same way (Kahneman, 2012). This leads to habits. This is practically equivalent to the comfort zone, which is a physical “space bubble” and if other people are “penetrating” into this, it feels uncomfortable (Pease, 2000). All of this must be added to the discovery of Duhigg (2012), that a habit has its phases. At first, the brain receives a signal then the routine starts which is followed by the reward. After a short time the signal appears again and the usual loop has closed. With enough repetition, these mechanisms become automatic after a while (Duhigg, 2012). If someone wants to change a habit, first he should be aware of it, and control it with his future decisions (Velencei, 2013). First, the difference between data, information, and knowledge is necessary to be separated. The data are detected effects, but they do not include any meaning for us. When the data are interpreted in some aspect, they become information. Knowledge has been confirmed by a true belief, it already has value (Davenport & Prusak, 2001). “Heterogeneous and constantly changing mix of experiences, values, and associated information.” Knowledge is complex, its roots cannot be expressed verbally. The Commissioner’s conviction is usually a mistake, because he/she excludes the unknown we do not know (Szeghegyi, 2011, p. 61). In addition, other Acknowledgement: This article is based on Torda T. (2016). Conscious consumption background factors in the light of lifestyles I. Supported by the ÚNKP-16-2/I. New national excellence program of the Ministry of Human Capacities. Torda Tamás, M.Sc. student, Business Development in the University Obuda, Budapest, Hungary. Tordai Zita, Ph.D., adjunct of Ágoston Trefort Centre for Engineering Education in the University Obuda, Budapest, Hungary. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Tamás Torda, 61 Kossuth street, 1151 Budapest, Hungary. AN OLD THEORY IN A NEW LIGHT 567 factors can distort the perception of reality. These are the filters which are based on our own experiences, which are called selective perception; what is more, the settlement schemes, stereotypes, halo-effect, and the searching of causality can be also an influencing factor. The cognitive dissonance is when an internal event contradicts the intrinsic value of the system, and in this way the contradiction appears (Zoltayné Pepper, 2005). The Combined Changing Model Theory The main component of the authors’ changing model’s research has been recognised in psychology, the trans-theoretical model (Prochaska, Norcross, & DiClemente, 2009). It is important to note that this model is already 30 years old, and although it is constantly being researched, the original scheme is still the most popular one, if not the only changing model that is universally applicable to all kinds of changes. The model has been successfully applied to quitting smoking and other diseases, or in combination with several changes of behavior, coaching and other programs over the decades (Pro-change behavior systems, inc., 2016). The model itself consists of six phases: y Pre-contemplation: The main feature of this section is that we are not aware of the change we need. What we do not see, but the environment has been detected and often will also get to let us know. y Contemplation: At this stage we recognize the problem and it lets us want to change. However, so far we cannot talk about engagement or doable activation. At this stage, we know which way we should go, but we do not know how to start, or just do not know what to do, but we want to do something. y Decision: This is not necessarily a long period but it is important for the floor plan of a house which is to be built. Of course, it is necessarily also decided that we will do well after the preparation. y Active change: This is a stage where changes are developed and made by act. y Maintenance: At this stage, we have achieved successes, and the wanted state is no longer as far away as the early phase of the action. However, there are throw-backs. Most people are rarely able to keep the change for the first time. Therefore, a plan is needed that can be followed. y Relapse: This change is the most coveted stage. When the new habit has been entrenched and the new behavior has been self-sustaining. There is disagreement about the part that it cannot be clearly defined by this point, which would be universally valid for everyone. These are the steps, but not every single one will be reached by the change. There are throw-backs, and each step can be a possible entering or exiting point. These steps are paradigms which mean second order changes and every paradigm contains first-order changes too. It is important to note that this is a spiral phase, so stage one of the road leads to another non-linear, and not necessarily only upward. The other model is based on the group theory, which is a framework that describes the change within the system, while the system itself is unchanged. The theory of logical types provides a framework that is how the relationship between the class and the member of it, and pictures of the transformation when a class enters from one level to another higher logical one. This arises from two types of change. The first order change describes changes in one system while the system is permanent, such as the Matrix. Movie, when the actors do whatever they can, within the matrix, but they are connected to the machine. The second order change is when Neo disconnects from the machine or in this case, takes a different paradigm, and this is dramatical change. Sometimes, this change may seem illogical, because it is there in one moment and the next, there is no. The second order change, is the changing of change (Watzlawick, Weakland, & Fisch, 1990). In Figure 1, three changing models have combined. The Prochaska one’s (2009) and the Watzlawick one’s 568 AN OLD THEORY IN A NEW LIGHT (1990) are used for describing people’s behaviors. The third one is Derek de Solla’s (1979) logistics development theory. The process of change is represented by the blue line. In the graph, it is followed by the convergent oscillation, if throw-backs have not become. Every stage can be possible entering or exiting points. Every new stage, like Contamplation, or Relapse, is paradigm. A paradigm shift has been seen, in allocations indicate, while first order change can be talked about. Minor changes within the logical paradigms are second order changes. (Watzlawick, 1990). What is even more, Kurzweil’s singularity theory (2013) can not be contradicted, it just investigates a much minor scale. Two changing spirals can support or obstruct each other (Pro-change behavior, systems, inc, 2016). Figure 1. Combined theory of change by Prochaska and Watzlawick. In Figure 2, there is relation because of the change in the company life’s process (Szeghegyi, 2011), which consists of two participation waves. A negative one to that is a denial and a positive to that is through raising awareness of the integration culminates. If we compare this with the events described in Prochaska’s (2009) model, during the change, what happens to the individual, the similarities are conspicuous. The denial can be solved with raising awareness of long displayed a willingness to test, and then with self-re-evaluation. Commitments and self-rewards can drive the change to the maintenance by integration. Helper relations, and substitutions, and environment—checking can be very helpful to facilitate the process. Another parallel is that consideration, is a passive state what is well illustrated in the company’s first reaction to change, Paralysis. 569 AN A OLD THE EORY IN A NEW N LIGHT T Figure 2. 2 Company’s bbehavior during g the change feaat the person’s activities durin ng a lifestyle chhange (Prochaskka, 2009; Szzeghegyi, 2011)). Primaary Researcch Duringg the preliminary research on o the subjectt similar surveey was not fo ound. Questionnnaire surveyy forms were researrched. The Huungarian sam mple counts 133. We assum me normal distribution, d because we m measure human attituude (Németh & Simon, 201 11). For the reesearch it is ann important piillar to test thee change moddel. For this we thouught factor annalysis which is the best m method to findd out how resp pondents feel about these cchange stages has been on abbove-mentioneed (pre-conteemplation staage, contemplation stage, etc.). In orrder to investigate this, t a list off 56 statements were creatted, and were evaluated in n a five-scale Likert scale by the subjects, whhere 1 meant “Absolutely not n typical”, aand 5 was “A Absolutely typiical” (Fabian,, 2014; Kehl, 2012). The Kaiser--Meyer-Olkin criterion of KMO K is of veery great rangge, because th he value is aboove 0.8. This means the items off inadequate ffactor (see Taable 1). The B Bartlett test is successful, because b the Siig. is less thann 0.05, that there is a correlation between the initial i claims ((Sajtos & Mittev, 2007). Table 1 ( Resourcces) KMO Test (Own KMO and Baartlett’s test Kaiser-Meyerr-Olkin measuree of sampling ad dequacy Bartlett’s test of sphericity Approx. chi-ssquare df Sig. 0.816 2,141,493 666 0.000 The reeliability test (Cronbach’s alpha) also brought good results (Taable 1) of thhe examined claims consistency of 0.886 (oveer 0.8 is very good), while tthe piece relatted to standarrdized value iss 0.884. In tottal, this 570 AN OLD THEORY IN A NEW LIGHT means that the statements and answers are also suitable for factor analysis. Table 2 shows that the respondents (those who experienced or planned changes in their lives) make the allegations that we have listed their answers into what factors can be grouped. The specific analysis is shown in Table 3. Table 2 Reliability Test (Own Resources) Reliability statistics Cronbach’s alpha 0.886 Cronbach’s alpha based on standardized items 0.884 N of items 36 Table 3 Factor Analysis of Change in Claims (Own Resources) Rotated component Matrixa Component 1 2 3 4 5 (Dec) I have decided, that I will change my lifestyle. 0.812 0.164 0.191 -0.091 -0.053 (Act) It is easy to talk about changing, I make the change. 0.746 -0.179 0.219 -0.056 0.108 (Dec) I want to act, no matter what it takes. 0.712 -0.134 0.055 -0.107 0.151 (Rel) I feel better myself since I have made the change on this habit. 0.702 -0.144 0.341 0.096 0.063 (Dec) I have made a plan for this changing. 0.698 0.048 -0.215 0.027 0.151 (Cont) I have thought that I have to change my life/habits. 0.680 0.239 0.289 -0.057 -0.170 (Maint) I have a plan after I managed to reach the changing. 0.648 -0.302 0.010 -0.018 0.145 (Maint) I have made a change not only on one habit, but my whole life. 0.642 -0.247 0.076 0.066 0.064 (Act) I think about what would be the results of the acts for the changing. 0.621 -0.139 0.183 0.079 0.334 (Rel) I am proud that I have made a change on one of my bad habits. 0.608 -0.014 0.508 0.104 0.036 (Act) In the past few weeks everyday I have been doing something for the changing. 0.605 -0.318 0.121 0.188 -0.005 (Dec) I know exactly how I will be after the changing. 0.583 0.004 -0.051 0.375 0.206 (Dec) I was thinking about what I would like to be and what it needs. 0.580 -0.261 0.230 0.076 -0.008 (Act) Changing can be reached by an immediate action. 0.573 0.129 0.271 -0.047 -0.057 (Dec) I am determined by the changing and nothing can dissuade me. 0.568 -0.453 0.086 0.182 -0.003 (Maint) I try to avoid everything which is connected with my old lifestyle. 0.509 -0.083 -0.030 0.216 0.010 (Pre-cont) Just others can change easily. -0.118 0.707 -0.087 0.202 0.100 (Maint) If I managed to reach the changing, I can lay back down. -0.199 0.640 -0.007 -0.059 0.121 (Bef) I am afraid that I will be again like I was before the hanging, that is why I -0.017 0.609 0.047 0.202 0.010 would like to ask help from others. (Pre-cont) I would like to change something in my life, but my surroundings do not -0.140 0.535 0.284 0.169 0.014 help me. (Cont) As soon as I will be ready, the changing will be available. 0.013 0.058 0.709 0.039 0.184 (Maint) I pay attention to not flipping back to the state before the changing. 0.473 -0.204 0.511 0.220 -0.133 (Act) Changing = I doing something important instead of doing something that I 0.190 -0.079 0.076 0.556 -0.004 would not like to do. (Rel) I thought if I solve a problem, I can get rid of it forever, but sometimes it still 0.144 0.457 0.114 0.506 0.039 attempts me. (Dec) I tell my plans everybody. 0.269 0.419 -0.058 -0.057 0.670 (Dec) I tell my friends what I will do. 0.269 0.043 0.289 -0.021 0.643 (Act) If I am in a hard situation, I ask for help easily. 0.105 -0.250 0.322 0.129 0.561 Notes. Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis; Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization; a. Rotation converged in 13 iterations. (Pre-cont = Pre-contemplation, Cont = Contemplation, Dec = Decision, Act = Active change, Maint = Maintenance, Rel= Relapse ) AN A OLD THE EORY IN A NEW N LIGHT T 571 For thee factor analyysis, Varimax rotation is uused, which iss looking for a very highlyy or non corrrelating variable pairs. This is thee most stable and the best ffactoring sepaaration method, the program m knows. Alsso, it is important too note that beecause of thee sample incluuding 133 peeople, weight factor shouldd be applied, which means that 0.50 0 or less w weight statemeents are not tyypical of the explanations given to factoors such as a clearer interpretatioon, they must bbe removed (Sajtos & Miteev, 2007). In the t analysis, we w found five factors that oorder of magnitude follows f such aas: [1] Acttive change annd activity-based preparingg; [2] Conntemplation; [3] Maaintenance; [4] Acttivity-based m maintenance; [5] Deccision. The sixx-stage modell we set is finally f found in the analyssis, which meeans that in prractice it worrks, the theory. Whaat is interestinng is that even n though the vvarious other allegations were w meant to be for other stages, and yet thee meaning off the respondents also beccame the grouping relevan nt sense. Finnally, the moddel we developed a phase 6, whiich is hidden in i the four phaases 5 and 6 because b they were w supposedd to act based on the preparation (which we called activity based preparring) and the act in maintaaining (we caalled: activityy based maintenancee) a two-sectiion section. Our O hypothesiis is, that the transitions arre not clearlyy separated, bbecause being changged is not easyy. By the tim me the committment has to be b made, and selfre-evaluaation has to bee done. Entering eacch paradigm hhas needed tim me. They cannnot enter from m one phase to o another, theyy needed, som me kind of preparation, which is both times acctivity based. This is illusttrated in Figu ure 3. This facct suggests thhat this model is suiitable for use aand can be ad dapted for furtther research. Figure 3. Changing factors in practise. Souurce: Our elaborration. Coonclusions Howevver consumptiion chioses’ connections c haad not expandded in this artticle, some older research oof ours suggested that t there miight have co onnection, likke in conscioous commun nication (Tordda, 2015) Buut that connection cannot be exxplored withou ut a usable chhange model which workss in practise. The paper seet up a theoretical model m in whiich the pre-co ontemplation, you can reacch the relapsee throw conteemplation, deecision, 572 AN OLD THEORY IN A NEW LIGHT active change and maintenance stages. The purpose of this work was to justify these theoretical stages, which are hard to separate in practice sections, which can be also successfully completed. However, there is difference between theory and practice, that the respondents action-oriented factors have been identified. The contemplation stages, followed by a decision phase, which followed by an activity-based preparing, active change and an activity-based maintenance, which finally ends the maintenance (Figure 3). The comparison shows that the sections can be adapted. However pre-contemplation and relapse, can not be measured directly. It is not surprising, becasue if those, who do not know that, they would need to change, cannot ask them for what they need to change. And the stage for the relapse is not defined in usual for the changes. References Davenport, T. H., & Prusak, I. (2001). Tudásmenedzsment. Budapest: Kossuth. Duhigg, C. (2012). A szokás hatalma. Budapest: Casparus Kiadó Kft. Fábián, G. (2014). Alkalmazott kutatás módszertan. Debrecen: Debreceni Egyetem Egészségügyi Kar. Hong, H., Kubik, J. D., & Stein, J. C. (2004). Social interaction and stock-market participation. Journal of Finance, 59(1), 137-163. Kahneman, D. (2012). Gyors és lassú gondolkodás. Budapest: HVG kiadó. Kehl, D. (2012). Mintaelemszám tervezés Likert-skálás lekérdezések esetén klasszikus és bayesi keretek között. Pécs: Gazdálkodástani Doktori Iskola. Kurzweil, R. (2013). The singularity is near. Budapest: Ad Astra. McConnaughy, E. A., Prochaska, J. O., & Velicer, W. F. (1983). Stages of change in psychotherapy. Psychotherapy: Theory, research and practise, 20(3), 368-375. Németh, R., & Simon, D. (2011). Társadalomstatisztika, TÁMOP 4.2.5 Pályázat könyvei: Digitális Tankönyvtár. Pease, A. (2000). Testbeszéd—Gondolatolvasás gesztusokból (15th ed.). Budapest: Park. Price, & Derek de Solla. (1979). Kis tudomány—Nagy tudomány. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó. Pro-change behavior systems, inc. (2016). The transtheoretical model. Retrieved from http://www.prochange.com/transtheoretical-model-of-behavior-change [Hozzáférés dátuma: 06 11 2016] Prochaska, J. O., Norcross, J. C., & DiClemente, C. C. (2009). Valódi újrakezdés. Budapest: Ursus Libris. Sajtos, L., & Mitev, A. (2007). SPSS kutatási és adatelemzési kézikönyv. Budapest: Alinea. Szeghegyi, Á. (2011). Tudásmenedzsment I (elektronikus jegyzet). Budapest: Óbudai Egyetem. Torda, T. (2015). More conscious communication make you happy? Torda, T. (2016). Conscious consumption background factors in the light of the lifestyle I. Velencei, J. (2013). Üzleti döntések támogatása. Budapest: Óbudai Egyetem. Watzlawick, P., Weakland, J. H., & Fisch, R. (1990). Változás, a problémákkeletkezésének és megoldásának elvei. Budapest: Gondolat. Zoltayné Paprika, Z. (2005). Döntéselmélet. Budapest: Alinea.