-
Peer pressure proves potent.
Policy makers and environmentalists aren't the only ones trying to figure out how to coax consumers to shrink their carbon appetites. So too are psychologists.
Last summer the American Psychological Association formed a task force to address the role that psychology can play in helping individuals embrace environmentally sustainable practices and cope with the consequences of climate change.
"There hasn't been as much focus on the psychological impacts [of climate change], and we have reason to believe they'll be very serious," says task force member Susan Clayton, a professor of psychology and chair of environmental studies at the College of Wooster in Ohio.
If people have less access to "green, natural, healthy settings," she says, the result could be increased stress and aggression and diminished social interaction. Climate change also could lead to increased competition for dwindling resources such as food and water, sparking social conflict, she says.
When it comes to influencing individual behavior, Clayton says it is "more effective to change the structure of the situation" than trying to change people's minds through preaching.
That might mean providing recycling bins to households, not simply lecturing them on the merits of recycling. Letting consumers know how many of their neighbors are replacing their lightbulbs with compact fluorescents also can be effective, she says. "Social norms matter a lot. . . . Peer pressure never goes away" as an effective catalyst for influencing behavior, she says.
And, Clayton adds, providing the means for feedback on individual behavior — say, putting separate electric meters in apartment houses so tenants can monitor their individual power usage — can give consumers an incentive to conserve.
"Psychologists are increasingly becoming involved in helping alleviate environmental problems," according to Douglas Vakoch, an associate professor in the department of clinical psychology at the California Institute of Integral Studies in San Francisco.
"Most people recognize [that] we face a severe environmental crisis, but it's hard to deal with that head-on because many people feel helpless to do anything about it. . . . Psychologists are very experienced in dealing with denial and in helping to frame messages in ways that people can hear the bad news without being paralyzed by it."
Vakoch says policy experts and government leaders can learn from the psychology field. "The most important lesson . . . is that there is no 'one size fits all' solution to environmental problems," he says. "To create effective public policies, leaders need to recognize that different people are willing to adopt more environmentally sound behaviors for different reasons. What's compelling for one person will fail for another."
Psychological research has helped shed light on individuals' understanding of environmental issues and their willingness to make changes in their personal consumption habits.
For example, Stanford University psychologist Jon Krosnick found that as people's knowledge about climate change grew, the more concerned about it they became, though political affiliation and trust in science were also important factors.
The link between knowledge about climate change and concern about it "was especially true for respondents who described themselves as Democrats and those who said they trusted scientists," Krosnick told the annual convention of the American Psychological Association in August. "But for Republicans and those who had little trust in scientists, more knowledge did not mean there was more concern."
In another study, Robert B. Cialdini, a professor of psychology and marketing at Arizona State University, found that a small change in message cards asking guests at an upscale Phoenix hotel to reuse their towels had huge potential environmental consequences.
One card exhorted residents to "Help Save the Environment" and was followed by information stressing respect for nature, Cialdini told a House subcommittee last year. Another card stated "Help Save Resources for Future Generations," followed by information stressing the importance of saving energy for the future. A third card asked guests to "Partner With Us to Help Save the Environment," followed by information urging them to cooperate with the hotel in preservation efforts. A fourth card, Cialdini noted, said "Join Your Fellow Citizens in Helping to Save the Environment," followed by information that the majority of hotel guests reuse their towels when asked.
The outcome was striking, he said. Compared with the first three messages, the final one — based on a "social norm," or the perception of what most others were doing — increased the reuse of towels by an average of 34 percent, Cialdini said.
Not everyone in the psychological field agrees that trying to change consumer habits can ever do enough to make a significant difference in nationwide or worldwide carbon emissions or climate change. But many believe the effort is worthwhile.
"There's a huge debate going on among psychologists over whether it's just futile to even bother talking about individual behavior" or whether action by policy makers and corporations is the key to solving the nation's environmental problems, says Elise L. Amel, director of environmental studies and associate professor of industrial and organizational psychology at the University of St. Thomas in Minneapolis.
"I think it's got to be both. This is such a crucial problem coming so quickly that we can't leave any stone unturned."
|
Read the Full Report (Subscription Required)
