Designing Integrated Social Marketing Interventions for Digital, Environmental, and Leadership Behaviors: Evidence from a Rural Primary School in Banyuwangi
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.31004/jerkin.v5i1.7671Keywords:
Social Marketing, Behavioral Enactment, Adaptive Facilitation, Audience Heterogeneity, Structural Enactment Properties, School-Based InterventionAbstract
Pemasaran sosial menyediakan prinsip untuk merancang intervensi perilaku, tetapi masih terbatas dalam menjelaskan bagaimana desain bergerak menuju aktualisasi perilaku awal ketika perilaku sasaran berbeda dan audiens bersifat heterogen. Penelitian ini mengkaji tiga intervensi berbasis sekolah di Banyuwangi melalui perspektif pemasaran sosial dengan desain studi kasus kualitatif tunggal tertanam yang disusun secara temporal. Dataset mencakup 49 partisipan—21 siswa, sembilan pelaksana dari universitas, enam guru, satu kepala sekolah, dan 12 orang tua/wali—serta sekitar 52 jam observasi, 20 wawancara individual, enam FGD, dan bukti dokumenter. Analisis menggabungkan pengodean abduktif yang terinspirasi pendekatan Gioia, analisis dalam unit, dan perbandingan lintas unit. Unit digital menunjukkan pembingkaian ulang perilaku dan praktik produktif yang dipandu, tetapi dibatasi kesenjangan kemampuan. Unit lingkungan menunjukkan aktualisasi perilaku yang dapat diamati secara langsung, dengan pemahaman dan daya tahan sebagai kondisi pembatas. Unit kolaboratif menunjukkan koordinasi yang saling bergantung dan pengaruh situasional yang muncul, sementara aktivitas kompetitif memicu penarikan diri pada sebagian peserta. Perbedaan lintas unit ditafsirkan melalui keterlaksanaan tindakan, keterwujudan, keteramatan, ketergantungan sumber daya, saling ketergantungan sosial, dan kecepatan umpan balik. Segmentasi yang direncanakan belum sepenuhnya menangkap heterogenitas peserta, sehingga fasilitasi adaptif lebih dibutuhkan.
Social marketing offers principles for designing behavioral interventions, but less is known about how design moves toward initial enactment when target behaviors differ and audiences are heterogeneous. This study examined three school-based interventions in Banyuwangi through a social marketing-informed lens using a temporally structured single embedded qualitative case study. The dataset comprised 49 participants—21 students, nine university implementers, six teachers, one principal, and 12 parents/guardians—plus approximately 52 hours of observation, 20 individual interviews, six FGDs, and documentary evidence. Analysis combined Gioia-inspired abductive coding, within-unit analysis, and cross-unit comparison. The digital unit showed behavioral reframing and prompted productive practice, constrained by capability gaps. The environmental unit showed directly observable prompted enactment, with comprehension and endurance as boundary conditions. The collaborative unit showed interdependent coordination and emergent situational influence, while competitive activity triggered withdrawal among some participants. Cross-unit variation was interpreted through actionability, tangibility, observability, resource dependence, social interdependence, and immediacy of feedback. Planned segmentation did not fully capture participant heterogeneity, increasing reliance on adaptive facilitation. The findings clarify design-to-enactment and the role of adaptive facilitation.
References
Akbar, M. B., Ndupu, L. B., French, J., & Lawson, A. (2021). Social marketing: Advancing a new planning framework to guide programmes. RAUSP Management Journal, 56(3), 266–281. https://doi.org/10.1108/RAUSP-08-2020-0186
Andreasen, A. R. (2002). Marketing social marketing in the social change marketplace. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 21(1), 3–13. https://doi.org/10.1509/jppm.21.1.3.17602
Arli, D., Ang, T., & Wei, S. (2021). Why are some people not socially distancing during COVID-19? A segmentation study. Journal of Social Marketing, 11(2), 65–81. https://doi.org/10.1108/JSOCM-10-2020-0192
Baptista, N., Alves, H., & Pinho, J. (2021). The case for social support in social marketing. RAUSP Management Journal, 56(3), 295–313. https://doi.org/10.1108/RAUSP-08-2020-0193
Carins, J., Kitunen, A., & Rundle-Thiele, S. (2022). When less is more: A short-form tool to increase segmentation implementation. Social Marketing Quarterly, 28(3), 191–207. https://doi.org/10.1177/15245004221116082
Colquhoun, H., Ellen, M. E., Brehaut, J., Weinreich, N. K., Morvinski, C., Zarshenas, S., Nguyen, T., Presseau, J., McCleary, N., Shepherd, H. A., Dabbagh, A., & Proctor, E. (2025). Applications of social marketing for implementation science: A scoping review. Implementation Science, 20(1), Article 52. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-025-01458-z
Conner, M., & Norman, P. (2022). Understanding the intention-behavior gap: The role of intention strength. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, 923464. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.923464
Dietrich, T., Hurley, E., Carins, J., Kassirer, J., Rundle-Thiele, S., Palmatier, R. W., Merritt, R. K., Weaven, S. K., & Lee, N. (2022). 50 years of social marketing: Seeding solutions for the future. European Journal of Marketing, 56(5), 1434–1463. https://doi.org/10.1108/EJM-06-2021-0447
Duane, S., Domegan, C., & Bunting, B. (2022). Partnering for UN SDG #17: A social marketing partnership model to scale up and accelerate change. Journal of Social Marketing, 12(1), 49–75. https://doi.org/10.1108/JSOCM-10-2020-0200
Dubois, A., & Gadde, L.-E. (2002). Systematic combining: An abductive approach to case research. Journal of Business Research, 55(7), 553–560. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0148-2963(00)00195-8
Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Building theories from case study research. Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 532–550. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMR.1989.4308385
Getachew-Smith, H., King, A. J., Marshall, C., & Scherr, C. L. (2022). Process evaluation in health communication media campaigns: A systematic review. American Journal of Health Promotion, 36(2), 367–378. https://doi.org/10.1177/08901171211052279
Gioia, D. A., Corley, K. G., & Hamilton, A. L. (2013). Seeking qualitative rigor in inductive research: Notes on the Gioia methodology. Organizational Research Methods, 16(1), 15–31. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428112452151
Helferich, M., Thøgersen, J., & Bergquist, M. (2023). Direct and mediated impacts of social norms on pro-environmental behavior. Global Environmental Change, 80, 102680. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2023.102680
Ho, L. C., Bierman, K. L., Jacobson, L. N., Welsh, J. A., Hall, C. M., & Lee, D. L. (2023). Linking intervention experiences to child outcomes in a school-based social skills training program. Psychology in the Schools, 60(6), 1855–1876. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.22840
Holtrop, J. S., Gurfinkel, D., Nederveld, A., Phimphasone-Brady, P., Hosokawa, P., Rubinson, C., Waxmonsky, J. A., & Kwan, B. M. (2022). Methods for capturing and analyzing adaptations: Implications for implementation research. Implementation Science, 17(1), Article 51. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-022-01218-3
Ibrahim, A., Rundle-Thiele, S., Knox, K., & Almestarihi, R. (2022). The relative merit of two segmentation approaches: Executives views and a cost-benefit analysis. Journal of Social Marketing, 12(4), 607–622. https://doi.org/10.1108/JSOCM-01-2022-0026
Langley, A. (1999). Strategies for theorizing from process data. Academy of Management Review, 24(4), 691–710. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMR.1999.2553248
Liang, M., Chen, Q., & Zhou, Y. (2022). The influence of various role models on children’s pro-environmental behaviours. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, 873078. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.873078
Malterud, K., Siersma, V. D., & Guassora, A. D. (2016). Sample size in qualitative interview studies: Guided by information power. Qualitative Health Research, 26(13), 1753–1760. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732315617444
McHugh, P., Domegan, C., & Duane, S. (2018). Protocols for stakeholder participation in social marketing systems. Social Marketing Quarterly, 24(3), 164–193. https://doi.org/10.1177/1524500418761626
Mishna, F., Antle, B. J., & Regehr, C. (2004). Tapping the perspectives of children: Emerging ethical issues in qualitative research. Qualitative Social Work, 3(4), 449–468. https://doi.org/10.1177/1473325004048025
O’Brien, B. C., Harris, I. B., Beckman, T. J., Reed, D. A., & Cook, D. A. (2014). Standards for reporting qualitative research: A synthesis of recommendations. Academic Medicine, 89(9), 1245–1251. https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0000000000000388
Phelan, S. K., & Kinsella, E. A. (2013). Picture this: Safety, dignity, and voice—Ethical research with children. Qualitative Inquiry, 19(2), 81–90. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800412462987
Raciti, M. M. (2021). Can an index approach improve social marketing competitor analysis? Social Marketing Quarterly, 27(3), 213–229. https://doi.org/10.1177/15245004211031872
Rhodes, R. E., Cox, A., & Sayar, R. (2022). What predicts the physical activity intention–behavior gap? A systematic review. Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 56(1), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1093/abm/kaab044
Riedel, A., Mulcahy, R., Beatson, A., & Keating, B. (2022). Young adult drug interventions: A social marketing systematic review and research agenda. Journal of Social Marketing, 12(2), 191–221. https://doi.org/10.1108/JSOCM-08-2021-0188
Roemer, C., Rundle-Thiele, S., & David, P. (2021). Moving theory focus beyond individuals targeted for change: Observing project stakeholder interactions. Journal of Social Marketing, 11(2), 148–166. https://doi.org/10.1108/JSOCM-07-2020-0131
Rundle-Thiele, S., Dietrich, T., & Carins, J. (2021). CBE: A framework to guide the application of marketing to behavior change. Social Marketing Quarterly, 27(3), 175–194. https://doi.org/10.1177/15245004211021643
Ryan, S. B., Kariippanon, K. E., Okely, A. D., Stanley, R. M., Waqa, G., & Randle, M. (2022). Social marketing benchmark criteria use in health behaviour change interventions in Pacific Islands populations: A systematic review. Journal of Social Marketing, 12(2), 124–153. https://doi.org/10.1108/JSOCM-05-2021-0114
Santos, C. P. V. dos, Lopes, E. L., Dias, J. C., de Andrade, A. G. P., Matos, C. A., & Veiga, R. T. (2021). From social marketing and service-dominant logic to engagement in mindfulness practice: A field experiment. RAUSP Management Journal, 56(3), 348–365. https://doi.org/10.1108/RAUSP-10-2020-0247
Schmidtke, D. J., Kubacki, K., & Rundle-Thiele, S. (2021a). A review of social marketing interventions in low- and middle-income countries (2010–2019). Journal of Social Marketing, 11(3), 240–258. https://doi.org/10.1108/JSOCM-10-2020-0210
Schmidtke, D., Rundle-Thiele, S., Kubacki, K., & Burns, G. L. (2021b). Co-designing social marketing programs with “bottom of the pyramid” citizens. International Journal of Market Research, 63(1), 86–105. https://doi.org/10.1177/1470785320968029
Shin, W., & Lwin, M. O. (2022). Parental mediation of children’s digital media use in high digital penetration countries: Perspectives from Singapore and Australia. Asian Journal of Communication, 32(4), 309–326. https://doi.org/10.1080/01292986.2022.2026992
Sieg, A.-K., & Dreesmann, D. (2021). Promoting pro-environmental Behavior in school: Factors leading to eco-friendly student action. Sustainability, 13(12), 6598. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13126598
Sommariva, S., Wimbish, D., Mayes, S., Makris, A., Liddell, V., & Khaliq, M. (2025). Systematic review of social marketing as a behavior change agent in salt reduction. Global Heart, 20(1), Article 100. https://doi.org/10.5334/gh.1478
Spotswood, F., Wiltshire, G., Spear, S., & Makris, A. (2021). Disrupting social marketing through a practice-oriented approach. RAUSP Management Journal, 56(3), 334–347. https://doi.org/10.1108/RAUSP-10-2020-0231
Strehlenert, H., Hedberg Rundgren, E., Sjunnestrand, M., & Hasson, H. (2024). Fidelity to and adaptation of evidence-based interventions in the social work literature: A scoping review. The British Journal of Social Work, 54(3), 1356–1376. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjsw/bcad170
Tong, A., Sainsbury, P., & Craig, J. (2007). Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research: A 32-item checklist for interviews and focus groups. International Journal for Quality in Health Care, 19(6), 349–357. https://doi.org/10.1093/intqhc/mzm042
Tracy, S. J. (2010). Qualitative quality: Eight “big-tent” criteria for excellent qualitative research. Qualitative Inquiry, 16(10), 837–851. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800410383121
UNICEF Indonesia. (2025). Online knowledge and practice of children in Indonesia: A baseline study 2023. https://www.unicef.org/indonesia/child-protection/reports/online-knowledge-and-practice-children-indonesia-baseline-study-2023
van Dalfsen, G., Van Hoecke, J., Westerbeek, H., & De Bosscher, V. (2021). Coaches’ views on how to develop shared leadership. Sport, Business and Management: An International Journal, 11(3), 265–286. https://doi.org/10.1108/SBM-12-2019-0123
van de Wetering, J., Leijten, P., Spitzer, J. E., & Thomaes, S. (2022). Does environmental education benefit environmental outcomes in children and adolescents? A meta-analysis. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 81, 101782. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2022.101782
Welch, C., Piekkari, R., Plakoyiannaki, E., & Paavilainen-Mäntymäki, E. (2011). Theorising from case studies: Towards a pluralist future for international business research. Journal of International Business Studies, 42(5), 740–762. https://doi.org/10.1057/jibs.2010.55
Wettstein, D., & Suggs, L. S. (2016). Is it social marketing? The benchmarks meet the social marketing indicator. Journal of Social Marketing, 6(1), 2–17.
Yakovchenko, V., Rogal, S. S., Goodrich, D. E., Lamorte, C., Neely, B., Merante, M., Gibson, S., Scott, D., McCurdy, H., Nobbe, A., Morgan, T. R., & Chinman, M. J. (2023). Getting to implementation: Adaptation of an implementation playbook. Frontiers in Public Health, 10, Article 980958. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2022.980958
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Nayla Herman Ramadhani, Nabila Putri Grisselda, Najwa Asifa Naumi, Balqis Fajarani, Risca Fitri Ayuni
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
