The British
Psychological Society
Promoting excellence in psychology
Behaviour Change:
Energy Conservation
Climate change is considered by many to be the major threat the world faces. Most climate
scientists agree that the principal manifestation of climate change is global warming, which
results when the atmosphere traps heat radiating from Earth.1 There is some debate as to
whether this is part of a natural cyclic process, or whether it has been exacerbated since the
industrial revolution and is the result of human action. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change (IPCC), however, is uncompromising: ‘Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and
since the 1950s, many of the observed changes are unprecedented over decades to millennia.’2
As figure 1 shows, in 2011, 57 per cent of the energy consumption in this country was
attributable to the domestic sector, 19 per cent to the service sector and 24 per cent to the
industrial sector.3 Between 1990 and 2011, UK energy consumption fell by 7 per cent overall.4
While this may seem to be testimony to the success of energy conservation policies, it is more a
measure of the decline in industrial energy use over this period: energy consumption in industry
declined by a third compared with only a 5 per cent decline in the domestic sector (service sector
4 per cent decline). In contrast, the transport sector saw an increase of 11 per cent. While the
European Union calls for a New Industrial Revolution,5 this will have considerable impacts on
energy consumption and carbon emissions.
www.bps.org.uk/behaviourchange
Figure 1: Energy consumption by sector, UK (1970 to 2012)4
The Challenge
Everyone in the world will be affected by climate change, directly or indirectly, in respect of their
lives and livelihoods, and environmental destruction. Can there be any greater challenge for
society than to try to reconcile the individual with the global? And yet it is largely to the individual
that government has turned, as policymakers have sought to persuade the public that if enough
individuals take action, global warming can be halted and even reversed. Thus, it is clear that
reducing energy consumption and carbon emissions is a priority, and this provides many
opportunities for psychology to make an impact in respect of changes in behaviours and
practices.
Prepared by Professor David Uzzell on behalf of the Behaviour Change Advisory Group.
2
www.bps.org.uk
The Psychology
Psychologists have been engaged in behaviour change research and interventions for more than
seventy years, working on behalf of governments in times of crisis. For example, Kurt Lewin
played a key role in the United States during the Second World War undertaking research on how
to persuade Americans to change their food buying and eating habits and to incorporate proteinrich but unpopular organ meats into their diet.6 The involvement of psychologists in energy issues
goes back to the 1970s,7 albeit when concerns focussed on security of supply rather than carbon
emissions. It is now appreciated that psychologists can provide insights into how people perceive,
evaluate and respond to greenhouse gas (GHG) emission climate risks, attitudes towards energy
sources, and motivations and barriers to behaviour change in respect of energy conservation
technologies and practices.8
The way we frame problems has a crucial impact on the way we then try to solve them.
Successive governments, as well as civil society, has tended to treat climate change as a problem
caused by individuals – whether through over-consumption, excessive energy use or simply bad
behaviour. Individuals are responsible, but then so are organisations, industry and governments.
By framing the problem of climate change as a problem caused by individuals, one not only
closes down many other options for taking action, but in the case of psychology, it has tended to
lead psychologists to focus on only certain parts of the problem, which has limited the scope to
inform public policy.
The Evidence
Barriers to be overcome
Many behaviour change campaigns are based on the assumption that people make rational
choices based on the weighing up of costs and benefits. In the case of environmental decisionmaking it may not always be immediately apparent to the individual that public interest can also
be self-interest in the longer term; too often, behaviour change campaigns give the impression
that pro-environmental behaviours necessitate sacrifice of an individual’s living standards. We
know that people have a tendency to prefer avoiding losses to acquiring gains9 – loss aversion is
something of the ‘bird in the hand is worth two in the bush’. Thus cheaper energy in the shorter
term is seen as preferable to more secure and less environmentally damaging energy in the
longer term. Moreover, there is also an ‘endowment effect’ by which people place a higher value
on something they own than on a similar good that they do not own;10 thus a private benefit is
valued more than a public benefit. One can see how these processes play out in environmental
decision-making. These are not the only barriers to behaviour change, but it can be appreciated
that behaviour change campaigns assuming and then acting upon an information deficit on the
part of the public are unlikely to be successful, a conclusion borne out in other areas of public
policy (e.g. obesity, exercise). Policy instruments of persuasion, education, and even coercion
through financial incentives, penalties and regulations may be effective, but we can see that even
with smoking bans in buildings and stricter regulations on advertising it is estimated that 207,000
children in the UK start smoking each year.11 Knowledge and positive attitudes may be necessary
www.bps.org.uk
3
but they are not a sufficient condition to encourage behaviour change, even among those who
know what to do and would like to do it. Changing attitudes does not automatically lead to
behaviour change, and where it does it can take time. Often there are multiple constraints on
behaviour change, not just informational and attitudinal ones which might include removing
financial barriers, providing accurate information on environmentally significant as opposed to
convenient actions, improving access to information and expertise.
Decisions and subsequent behaviours are not always the product of a rational, deliberative and
individual evaluation; they are as likely to be based on opportunistic or emotional impulses, habit
and cultural tradition, social norms derived from family, friends, neighbours as well as a host of
other contextual factors, as well as the structural constraints and opportunities which provide the
infrastructure of our lives. Besides, environmentally damaging actions may simply be the
presenting symptom of a far more chronic issue based on lifestyle and everyday taken-for-granted
practices.
Increasing attention is now being given to community-based approaches where the emphasis is
on engaging communities rather than individuals by identifying barriers to a sustainable
behaviour, testing the application of behaviour change tools on a small segment of the community
and then evaluating their effectiveness across the wider community. For example, communitycentred efforts that use informal social networks,12, 13 the encouragement of socially shared norms
and the visible behaviour of ‘adopters’,14 and the display of public commitment15 have shown to
be powerful drivers for change. The latter has often been applied to publicly observable
behaviours such as recycling, but there is evidence of the significant impact of social norms on
energy saving behaviour.16, 17
Positive action
Providing feedback on the consequences (and benefits of action) can be reinforcing because it
should be specific to the individual and should have embedded within it suggestions how to make
further energy savings. However, there is evidence from energy-saving initiatives in offices using
smart meters that the effect of feedback on changing energy behaviour may be limited in time,
i.e. people may change their behaviours for a short period, as long as reinforcement through
feedback is there, but then revert to old habits.18 Also, motivations beyond energy reduction may
need to be harnessed. (For example, broader factors such as social values20,21 or the culture of an
organisation22, 23 can have significant influence,19 while it has also been demonstrated that an
individual’s self interest can impact negatively on pro- environmental intention.24)
Tailoring too is important, whereby different strategies will be required for different groups
depending upon the different barriers they erect.25 Segmenting users into Monitor Enthusiasts
(20 per cent), the Aspiring Energy Savers (60 per cent) and the Energy Non-Engaged (20 per
cent) demonstrated that the factors of importance in energy behaviour differed considerably
between the categories. It is more effective to concentrate on those who want to save energy or
those who would but there are external factors (opportunity, cost) that prevent them, than those
who show unassailable resistance or who cannot really do much more. Different amounts and
kinds of effort are required for improving energy saving of low savers by 10 per cent as the high
savers by 10 per cent.
4
www.bps.org.uk
But changing behaviours is not as simple as throwing a switch so that the individual does
something different. Doing something different may have implications for the individual, not just
material but also psychological, such as threatening their identity. When people’s identities are
threatened they are likely to resist; this could be a significant barrier to change.26 Equally,
encouraging self-identity can have a significant effect on both intentions and behaviour.27
Until recently, the principal strategies for behaviour change that have been the subject of
research by psychologists fall neatly under the heading of ‘carrots, sticks and sermons’. This was
the title of a report for DEFRA on influencing public environmental behaviour28 which examined
the role of incentives, regulations and environmental education and awareness-raising
interventions. We know that regulation and coercion is very effective, and there is much evidence
that such strategies have been successful in driving up, for example, recycling rates. But over the
last two decades choice, not regulation has been the policy priority.
Although much emphasis is placed on choice, in a society such as ours that is complex,
complicated to understand, and difficult to influence choice may not necessarily be selfenhancing and liberating.29 Choice is often designed to confuse rather than enlighten (e.g. one
study found the consumer was confronted with 109 different gas/electricity tariffs that included
75 different standing charges).30 Of course people want to choose, but they want to choose wisely,
to feel that they are making reasonably rational and conscious choices based on criteria which are
salient and important for them, and that they have the relevant evidence and information upon
which to make decisions.
Nudging our way forward
Recently, the government has been much persuaded by an approach that affirms choice, and
goes under the heading of ‘behavioural insights’, or more popularly, ‘Nudge’.31 A recent report,
Mindspace,32 is an acronym for the principles which underlie the approach: Messenger,
Incentives, Norms, Defaults, Salience, Priming, Affect, Commitment and Ego. While the bottle
may be new, the contents are largely vintage psychology. Those familiar with psychology will
immediately recognise that each of these factors has been the subject of extensive psychological
research over the past fifty years or more, and have been shown to be highly important
mechanisms in the persuasion process. When used in combination they offer a more nuanced
approach to behaviour change than the ‘…more traditional government attempts to change
behaviour, which have either used regulatory interventions or relied on overt persuasion’.33 The
rationale behind behavioural insight is that people are more likely to act in a particular way if it
goes with the grain of their everyday behaviours, i.e. fitting new behaviours into existing habits.
Introducing new behaviours at moments of change when adjustment is happening anyway
provides another opportunity.
The Behavioural Insights Team (BIT),34 which emerged from the UK Cabinet Office, have
published a number of reports which describe trials they have been undertaking using
‘behavioural insights’ to improve the effectiveness of actions taken by individuals and public
bodies in respect of organ donating, charitable giving, fraud and health and energy use. In the
report on energy use,35 BIT highlights three examples of how psychology can make a difference to
people’s decisions when it comes to energy saving:
www.bps.org.uk
5
■
overcoming the tendency of people to discount the future, such that they prefer a smaller
reward today than a larger reward in the future, so strategies are being tested which frame
benefits over different time periods and provide people with rewards in the short-term in order
to encourage long-term decision-making;
■
using the power of social norms and rewards as revealed through comparative energy
consumption data to reduce energy use and encourage a wider take-up; and
■
as people tend to accept default options, changing the default as to when heating/cooling
appliances are on, can lead to significant energy reductions. Likewise, making the default that
office lights are off and have to be switched on rather than vice versa. But this assumes that
people are able to have some control over their environment; if the infrastructure does not
permit behaviour change, then behaviours will not change.
Behavioural insights may work best with low resistance and low cost behaviour changes. But as
Stern36 argues we should focus on environmentally significant behaviours and not just
environmentally convenient ones. There is little point investing in programmes that only deliver
small changes if a small additional investment or a different approach would lead to greater
benefits, e.g. focussing on purchasing behaviour rather than use behaviour. Instead of using a
high energy washing machine less frequently (which may be difficult), it would be better to
persuade people to change their choice of household and motor vehicle technologies. Gardner
and Stern37 found that, by making environmentally significant behaviour decisions, people could
reduce energy consumption by almost 30 per cent or 11 per cent of the total US consumption;
this would be without the need for new technologies or making major sacrifices. It is important to
know what the environmental/energy impacts are as a consequence of interventions so that one
can see not only whether behaviour has changed but whether energy consumption and
environmental performance has changed too,38 not least of which because feedback if delivered
appropriately can be a continuing motivator for change.
Focussing on the conditions which encourage behaviours
Sometimes it may be more effective to change behaviours by working not on the behaviours
themselves but the social, economic and environmental conditions that lead to such behaviours
and the societal context in which people live out their everyday lives. These conditions are heavily
implicated in the development of everyday cultures and practices, identities, values, and beliefs
that influence our environmental behaviours. Understanding and influencing the conditions that
drive behaviours and create social practices should be an equal priority for policy makers as
focussing on the behaviours themselves.
For example, the decision to drive a 4x4 vehicle is more often governed by the status, image and
identity that such vehicles supposedly confer upon the driver, as the capability of the vehicle in
meeting their needs. Thus it is probably more important that we understand and address the root
cause of the problem: they could be individual, e.g. feelings of alienation or the lack of secure
social relations that lead people to think that they can be solved through consumption39 or the
societal values that generate such unsustainable desires and practices which place a huge
burden on society, including the rest of the world’s population in the global South who will
experience the some of the most serious effects of climate change.
6
www.bps.org.uk
Whether the problem needs to be addressed at an individual or community level, the psychologist
can contribute to both. While policy-makers may be able to act directly on behaviours, changing
the conditions that drive behaviours may mean that we might be more effective if we act
indirectly. For example, we know that in socially cohesive communities where there is a strong
sense of place identity, and in which residents feel they have a stake in their neighbourhood and
act together, people will be more supportive of environmentally sustainable actions.40 Therefore
the psychologists’ role in informing policy interventions that encourage social cohesion and place
identity will not only lead to environmental and social benefits but will also be more pervasive and
long-lasting than just focussing on changing behaviours. Likewise, we know that reputation can
be a significant driver for the behaviour of organisations, and so actions which target reputational
gains as well as damage (e.g. by means of publicly observable information) may have a significant
impact for energy and emissions reductions.
Conclusions and Recommendations
Clearly, psychology has a great deal to offer government, industry, NGOs and community groups
who are concerned to save energy and reduce carbon emissions. Psychology, of course, is not a
silver bullet. Psychologists are likely to be most effective when working in multidisciplinary teams,
such as with engineers, designers, architects. Stern suggests that the most effective behaviour
change interventions are likely to be those that incorporate financial incentives with non-financial
facets, and psychological and non-psychological measures, such as prioritising high impact
actions (i.e. environmentally significant), sufficient financial incentives, effective marketing,
meaningful information at critical decision-making points, and quality assurance.41
Both central and local government are doing a great deal to change people’s behaviour in the
direction of more sustainable lifestyles, but the challenge is enormous if they are to reduce the
UK’s greenhouse gas emissions by at least 80 per cent by 2050.42 Behaviour change strategies
are more likely to be successful and it will make the tasks and responsibilities confronting
governments easier if, like the assumption of behavioural insights, they go with the grain and
address the conditions that drive people’s behaviour as well as the behaviours themselves.
If behaviours are to change, then the conditions should be created which encourage and enable
people to change. If leaving TVs and computers on stand-by is so damaging, then it has to be
questioned why we have a stand-by facility on electrical goods? Given the widespread
understanding of the serious consequences of energy and carbon emissions why do
manufacturers continue to build it into products? Behaviour change has to be seen as part of a
package of instruments.
Behaviour change is in part about helping people to make better decisions that put ‘ecological
and social functioning at its core’ without it being ‘a paradigm of sacrifice’.43 Psychology is well
placed to demonstrate how behaviour change can contribute to achieving these goals enabling
individuals, communities, and societies not just to endure and survive, but also to flourish.44
www.bps.org.uk
7
In summary, some key recommendations:45,46,47
8
■
Use a variety of different and tailored interventions to meet the needs and interests of
different audiences in different situations and at different points in time.
■
Remember the Effort to Effect ratio. Expend effort on encouraging those who are already
saving energy to save more rather than try to persuade those who already save a great deal
or those who currently do nothing.
■
Some barriers will be easier and quicker to overcome than others (financial versus trust;
technology versus attitudes).
■
Recognise that one barrier may impact on another – positively as well as negatively. Try to
achieve compatibility and synergy.
■
See the situation through the eyes of the particular individuals at whom your programme is
addressed.
■
‘Attract and hold’ the individual’s attention.
■
Employ the ‘power of the person’, e.g. face-to-face communication, commitment, social
norms and comparison.
■
Change the conditions which impact upon the individual to make it easier for them to
change wtheir behaviour.
■
Ensure that behaviour change leads to significant environmental change.
■
Involve people in the programme from the outset – they will then feel part of it and a sense
of ownership, aid the formation of realistic goals, act as ambassadors, acquire a sense of
achievement and self esteem, and develop their competences, skills and personal powers.
www.bps.org.uk
References
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2013). Fifth assessment report. Climate change
2013: The physical science basis. Retrieved from www.climatechange2013.org/images/
uploads/WGIAR5_WGI-12Doc2b_FinalDraft_All.pdf
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2013). Summary for policymakers. In Climate
change 2013: Thephysical science basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth
Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Stocker, T.F., D. Qin,
G.-K. Plattner, M. Tignor, S.K. Allen, J. Boschung, A. Nauels, Y. Xia, V. Bex and P.M. Midgley
(Eds.)]. Cambridge; New York: Cambridge Univ. Press.
Not all greenhouse gases are the consequence of carbon-based energy production and
consumption. For example, methane arises from the decomposition of waste, livestock and
rice cultivation, but reducing energy or using alternatives (e.g. renewable, or low carbon,
energy) is a priority.
Department of Energy and Climate Change (2013). Energy consumption in the UK (2013).
Chapter 1 Overall energy consumption in the UK since 1970 (No. URN: 13D/154). Retrieved
from https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/energy-consumption-in-the-uk
Europa, E.U. (2012). Enterprise and Industry thematic site. Retrieved 28 April 2014 from
http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/initiatives/mission-growth/index_en.htm
Wansink, B. (2002). Changing eating habits on the home front: Lost lessons from World War II
research. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 21(1), 90–99.
Stern, P.C. (1992). What psychology knows about energy conservation. American Psychologist,
47(10), 1224–1232.
Swim, J., Clayton, S., Doherty, T., Gifford, R., Howard, G., Reser, J. & Weber, E. (2009).
Psychology and global climate change: Addressing a multi-faceted phenomenon and set of
challenges. A report by the American Psychological Association’s task force on the interface
between psychology and global climate change (p.108). Washington DC: American
Psychological Association.
Kahneman, D. & Tversky, A. (1984). Choices, values, and frames. American Psychologist,
39(4), 341–350.
Kahneman, D., Knetsch, J. & Thaler, R. (1990). Experimental test of the Endowment Effect
and the Coase Theorem. Journal of Political Economy, 98, 1325–1348.
Hopkinson, N.S., Lester-George, A., Ormiston-Smith, N., Cox, A. & Arnott, D. (2013). Child
uptake of smoking by area across the UK. Thorax 2013. doi:10.1136/thoraxjnl-2013-204379
Gardner, G. & Stern, P. (2002). Environmental problems and human behavior. Boston, MA:
Pearson Custom Publishing.
McKenzie-Mohr, D. (2000). Fostering sustainable behavior through community-based social
marketing. American Psychologist, 55(5), 531.
Nigbur, D., Lyons, E. & Uzzell, D. (2010). Attitudes, norms, identity and environmental
behaviour: Using an expanded theory of planned behaviour to predict participation in a
kerbside recycling programme. British Journal of Social Psychology, 49(2), 259–284.
Katzev, R. & Wang, T. (1994). Can commitment change behavior? A case study of
environmental actions. Journal of Social Behavior & Personality, 9(1), 13–26.
Allcott, H. (2011). Social norms and energy conservation. Journal of Public Economics,
95(9-10), 1082–1095. doi:10.1016/j.jpubeco.2011.03.003
Darley, J.M. & Beniger, J.R. (1981). Diffusion of energy conserving innovations. Journal of
Social Issues, 37(2), 150–171.
www.bps.org.uk
9
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
33
34
10
Murtagh, N., Nati, M., Headley, W.R., Gatersleben, B., Gluhak, A., Imran, M.A. & Uzzell, D.
(2013). Individual energy use and feedback in an office setting: A field trial. Energy Policy, 62,
717–728.
Klöckner, C.A., & Blöbaum, A. (2010). A comprehensive action determination model: Toward a
broader understanding of ecological behaviour using the example of travel mode choice.
Journal of Environmental Psychology, 30(4), 574–586.
Cialdini, R.B. (2003). Crafting normative messages to protect the environment. Current
Directions in Psychological Science, 12(4), 105–109.
Cialdini, R.B., Kallgren, C.A. & Reno, R.R. (1991). A focus theory of normative conduct: A
theoretical refinement and re-evaluation of the role of norms in human behaviour. In M.P.
Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (vol. 24, pp.201–234). London:
Academic Press.
Kramer, M. W. (2010). Organizational socialization: Joining and leaving organizations (Vol. 6).
Oxford: Polity.
Schein, E.H. (1990). Organizational Culture. American Psychologist, 45, 109–119.
De Groot, J.I. & Steg, L. (2008). Value orientations to explain beliefs related to environmental
significant behavior. How to measure egoistic, altruistic, and biospheric value orientations.
Environment and Behavior, 40(3), 330–354.
Abrahamse, W., Steg, L., Vlek, C. & Rothengatter, T. (2007). The effect of tailored information,
goal setting, and tailored feedback on household energy use, energy-related behaviors, and
behavioral antecedents. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 27(4), 265–276.
Murtagh, N., Gatersleben, B. & Uzzell, D. (2014). Identity threat and resistance to change:
evidence and implications from transport-related behavior. In G.M. Breakwell & R. Jaspal
(Eds.), Identity process theory: Identity, social action and social change (pp.335–352).
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Nigbur, D., Lyons, E. & Uzzell, D. (2010). Attitudes, norms, identity and environmental
behaviour: Using an expanded theory of planned behaviour to predict participation in a
kerbside recycling programme. British Journal of Social Psychology, 49(2), 259–284.
Collins, J., Thomas, G., Willis, R. & Wilsdon, J. (2003). Carrots, sticks and sermons:
influencing public behaviour for environmental goals. London: Demos/Green Alliance/Defra.
Retrieved from http://www.demos.co.uk/files/CarrotsSticksSermons.pdf
Schwartz, B. (2005). The paradox of choice: Why less is more. London: Harper Collins.
Which? (2013, July 17). Update: Our latest research reveals the standing charge lottery on
your energy bills. Retrieved 5 April 2014, from www.which.co.uk/campaigns/energyprices/standing-charge-lottery-energy-bills/
Thaler, R.H. & Sunstein, C.R. (2008). Nudge: Improving decisions about health, wealth and
happiness. Yale University Press.
Dolan, P., Hallsworth, M., Halpern, D., King, D. & Vlaev, I. (2010). Mindspace. Cabinet
Office/Institute for Government. Retrieved from www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/
publications/mindspace
Science and Technology Select Committee (2011). Behaviour Change (2nd Report of Session
2010–12, HL149). House of Lords. Retrieved from www.parliament.uk/business/committees/
committees-a-z/lords-select/science-and-technology-committee/inquiries/behaviour/
Behavioural Insights Team (2014). EAST: Four simple ways to apply behavioural insights.
Retrieved 28 April 2014, from www.behaviouralinsights.co.uk/
Behavioural Insights Team (2011). Behaviour change and energy use. Retrieved from
www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/resourcelibrary/behaviour-change-and-energy-useS
www.bps.org.uk
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
Stern, P.C. (2000). Toward a coherent theory of environmentally significant behavior. Journal of
Social Issues, 56(3), 407–424.
Gardner, G.T. & Stern, P.C. (2008). The short list: The most effective actions US households
can take to curb climate change. Environment: Science and Policy for Sustainable
Development, 50(5), 12–25.
Young, W., Davis, M., McNeill, I.M., Malhotra, B., Russell, S., Unsworth, K. & Clegg, C.W.
(2013). Changing behaviour: Successful environmental programmes in the workplace.
Business Strategy and the Environment. doi:10.1002/bse.1836
Soper, K. (2008). Alternative hedonism, cultural theory and the role of aesthetic revisioning.
Cultural Studies, 22(5), 567–587.
Uzzell, D., Pol, E. & Badenas, D. (2002). Place identification, social cohesion, and
environmental sustainability. Environment and Behavior, 34(1), 26–53.
Stern, P.C. (2011). Contributions of psychology to limiting climate change. American
Psychologist, 66(4), 303.
UK Government (2008). Climate Change Act 2008. Stationery Office.
Schor, J. (2010). Plenitude: the new economics of true wealth. New York, NY: Penguin Press.
Seligman, M.E.P. & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2000). Positive psychology: An introduction.
American Psychologist, 55(1), 5–14.
Gardner, G. & Stern, P. (2002). Environmental problems and human behavior. Boston, MA:
Pearson Custom Publishing.
Uzzell, D. (2008). Challenging assumptions in the psychology of climate change. InPsych: The
Bulletin of the Australian Psychological Society, 30(4), 10.
Uzzell, D. (2010). Collective solutions to a global problem. The Psychologist, 23(11), 880–883.
www.bps.org.uk
11