There is much about the Common Cause approach which is in agreement with the 'Value Modes' approach advocated by Chris Rose and Pat Dade: both approaches draw from a similar body of empirical work, recognize the tensions that exist in people’s value systems, and acknowledge the need to tailor different communications to different audiences.
But there is a critical difference:
Rose and Dade claim that campaigns and communications which appeal to values of money, image and status are likely to weaken these values. For example, according Rose:
“…once the underlying dominant unmet need is met, a new one takes its place… So, if Prospectors meet that need by getting enough stuff and following sufficient fashion etc, they do not stay Prospectors but develop other needs – i.e., they become Pioneers”
Tim Kasser and I have maintained that the evidence suggests this is not the case. In fact, we argue that such campaigns are likely to reinforce the importance that people give to values of money, image and status.
Rose and Dade have been adamant that they are right - prompting us to want to check our understanding with psychologists who are expert in behaviour, motivation and values.
So we recently conducted a small survey of such psychologists. We presented them with two scenarios, designed to explore the crux of the difference between the Common Cause and Value Modes approaches. All those who responded concurred with our viewpoint. None supported Rose and Dade's perspective.
To read more, download the briefing:
[wpfilebase tag=file id=10]