Psychological aspects of behaviour change
and climate change communication
Dr. Dimitrios Xenias and Dr. Lorraine Whitmarsh
School of Psychology
Cardiff University
http://www.understanding-risk.org/
Prof. Nick Pidgeon
Dr. Lorraine Whitmarsh
Dr. Dimitrios Xenias
.
Awareness of Climate Change reached nearly 100% in recent years
(Whitmarsh, 2009)…
.
…but climate change scepticism is also on the rise
This is not due to the UEA 2009 email scandal (about 80% of our participants
were not aware of the scandal; Corner, Whitmarsh & Xenias, 2010)
.
Efficient communication of climate change critical – Key role of the NGOs.
Not an easy task
Climate change (however phrased) is a “psychologically distant” issue
.
Climate change is spatially and temporally remote
very serious
3.00
Q. How serious a threat is climate change to…
2.50
2.00
1.50
1.00
0.50
not serious
0.00
you
O’Neill & Nicholson-Cole, 2009
people in
local
community
people in
UK
people in
other
countries
animals
and plants
in local
area
animals
and plants
in UK
animals
and plants
in other
countries
.
Engagement with climate change may be understood as a person’s
state of connection [to climate change], and comprises different though
interconnected aspects: cognitive, emotional and behavioural (Lorenzoni et
al., 2007).
.
“Know your audience”
Different audiences may be motivated by different
strategies.
NGOs are uniquely placed (compared to centrally organised
campaigns) to “know their audience” and harness the power
of tailored communication.
There is no single “public”
.
Political values influence climate change beliefs
• Republicans are much more sceptical than Democrats
Dunlap & McCright, 2008
.
Political values influence climate change beliefs
• Scepticism is highest amongst Conservative voters, and lowest
amongst Green voters (X2=77.3, p<0.001)
Whitmarsh, 2011
.
Older and less educated men are less engaged with climate change issues
(Futerra, 2005)
Older and less educated men score lower on “ecocentric values” (Dunlap,
Van Liere, Mertig, & Jones, 2000).
.
Fishermen and climate change
Hauliers and climate change
[Cognitive dissonance (Festinger, 1957; Stoll-Kleeman et al, 2001).]
.
Perceptions of risk also vary with some or all of the above factors
(though change is not directly related to the intensity of the perceived risk.)
Source of information
...etc...
There can be no “one size
fits all” approach to
engagement and change.
(Whitmarsh, 2009)
.
Framing of climate change – required behavioural change:
Hitherto approaches have focused on avoiding a bleak future.
May not be factually incorrect, but it is not productive either.
.
Bleak future: Fear and guilt campaigns? Apocalyptic scenarios? Catastrophic
consequences?
Focus on sacrifices, giving up cherished freedoms perceived as a threat
Evoke denial, need for comfort and reassert identity (Terror management
theory: Ernest Becker, 1973; Pyszczynski, Solomon, & Greenberg, 2003).
Lowe et al., (2006) found small, short lived effects of “The Day After
Tomorrow”. Dire messages backfire (O’Neill & Nicholson-Cole, 2009) –
perhaps because they threaten our belief in a just world (Feinberg & Willer,
2010).
Emphasis on the negative is counter productive
Potential for action (
change) increases with the provision of alternatives.
.
Bleak future: Fear and guilt campaigns? Apocalyptic scenarios? Catastrophic
consequences?
“Switch off the lights”
“Drive 5 miles less”
But disproportionate alternatives undermine the climate change message at
a deeper level.
Simplicity of quick and easy solutions imply that the problem is small and
easy to tackle!
Small steps may bring small change, if any at all.
.
“Spillover effect”
Similar behaviours (i.e. belonging in the same categories regarding e.g. the
time and place of the behaviour) correlate higher different behaviours (i.e.
belonging in different categories regarding e.g. the time and place of the
behaviour) (Stern et al., 1999; Thøgersen & Ölander, 2001).
Slow process – esp. between different categories! (Thøgersen & Ölander,
2003).
“The status of the evidence suggests that it is a mistake for
environmental NGOs and governments to campaign for small
changes - and give the impression that small changes will solve the
huge problems that we face” (Thogersen, 2011)
.
Should not “corrode” the message by providing contradictory information:
-“insulate your home and win two cruises to Norway”, Chris Huhne, 2010)
[i.e. Messages: “do take foreign holidays”, “do pump the carbon you saved
via insulating, back into the atmosphere”]
Or
-by following different directions on different levels of abstraction:
e.g. Stern (2006) analysed the economics of climate change, unwittingly
passing the message that climate change is an economic matter, instead of a
moral one (Crompton, 2010)
Or
More contradictory messages from the Government:
-‘Act On CO2’ campaign asks individuals to ‘switch off’, or cycle instead of
driving, whilst the DfT support airport expansion and fund road building at
exponential levels compared to that for cycling facilities (Davidson, 2010)
[message: government tells strongly supports driving and flying instead of
cycling]
messages should be aligned at every level!
.
Some campaigns appear to have missed the point completely
e.g. the banned “no pressure” campaign by 10:10
Message? (unclear)
Audience? (unclear)
.
So the frame within climate change is presented is one important factor
influencing whether people will engage or not.
Different framing for different audiences – important.
.
Other factors…
Education always important
-Provide background information
-Dispel myths
“What do you think is causing the world’s climate to
change?”(%) (Poortinga et al., 2006)
Air pollution
39
Cars / planes / transport
31
Burning fossil fuels, such as coal and oil, from power
stations
29
Industry / factories / emissions from factories
19
Loss of ozone layer
19
.
Education always important…
- Explain the difference between climate and weather…
Armstrong and Miller; Mitchell & Webb did sketches about Climate
Change – not scientific but factually correct.
Education can take many forms!
.
Education always important…
-Address ignorance on basic facts, e.g. Carbon footprint of meat
-Connection with broader issues of sustainable/ethical
consuming, and their non-environmental implications
change social norms (Verplanken & Wood, 2006)
Education campaigns important to connect the issue at hand to broader issues
e.g. Ethical consumption and its implications to farmers or animal wellbeing.
Once these basic issues are embedded in the social discourse, other aspects of
climate change will make sense too. E.g. not necessary to give up meat; can
reduce meat consumption, source it locally, ethically, emphasizing on quality.
BUT: knowledge alone is not enough to instigate change!
.
Other factors…
Peer pressure:
-people preferred “green” products, even of inferior quality, “to be seen” in
public – but not in private (Griskevicius, Tybur, Van den Bergh, 2010)
-people looking into each others’ recycling bins!
.
Other factors…
Social comparison
British participants who
-compared the UK to the USA (a less environmentally friendly group) were
more motivated to act sustainably
than
-British participants who compared the UK with Sweden (a more proenvironmental nation).
“To predict the outcome of social comparison, behaviour change agents need
to take into account relative status of the compared groups” (Rabinovich et
al., 2010). I.e. it is more important/motivating when we compare favourably
to a higher status/power group
.
Other factors…
Emotion
Knowledge alone not enough for action; emotion can overpower
reason (Westen et al., 2007); emotional involvement is essential to
motivate change; however not fear, guilt, shame.
Values
Value: ‘A desirable transsituational goal varying in importance,
which serves as a guiding principle in the life of a person or
social entity.’’ (Schwartz, 1992)
.
Other factors…
Values:
Environmental behaviour
is especially related to
the self-transcendent,
prosocial VS self
enhancement,
proself value dimension
Strengthen self-transcendence
values;
make opposing values
compatible (e.g. satisfy
hedonism by making proenvironmental behaviour
FUN!-as part of broader
interventions)
(Crompton, 2010; adapted from Schwartz, 1992)
.
Ways of making things fun – e.g. to motivate people to take the stairs
VS the escalator at a Stockholm tube station, the steps were turned
into piano keys (see TheFunTheory.com- not scientific, but fun)
.
And generally, perhaps it would be more effective to shift
our focus on the positive / desirable outcome, rather than
how to avoid a looming disaster
(e.g. “Low carbon heaven” – Futerra, “sell the sizzle”, 2010)
What is good about a low carbon future?
.
Point out relevant cumulative advantages of low carbon lifestyles, e.g.
-several epidemiology studies confirm that regular walking significantly
reduces the incidence of diabetes and several illnesses
-regular cycling increases life expectancy (Andersen et al., 2000;
deHartog et al., 2010)
the real risks are minimal and, the research suggests, are outweighed
by the health benefits by a factor of around twenty to one” (Cavill &
Davis, 2007)
”Engage to improve your health” VS engage “to cut CO2 emissions”
.
Point out relevant cumulative advantages of low carbon
lifestyles, e.g.
Change travel patterns:
-less car traffic increases local air quality, noise, accident
level
-Improves community life and interpersonal relationships
“Engage to improve your quality of life” VS “to reduce
your costs (or CO2 emissions)”
.
Point out relevant cumulative advantages of low carbon
lifestyles, e.g.
Work with your neighbors in a community project (e.g.
EcoTeams)
Build your social networks – take collective action in your
community
Social support / social networks positively correlated with
good health and well being
”Engage to meet new people” VS engage “to save “the
climate”
.
Messages / motives:
“Engage to”
-improve your health,
-your life quality,
-your social support networks,
-meet new people and share fun activities
-etc
VS
“to save money”
[Why not improve local environment (air) quality (community
level), increase financial independence (personal level) and
energy security (national level)? – no immediate reference to
climate change]
.
Values:
By reinforcing these reasons
for engaging, we also
strengthen self-transcendence
values. These are accordant
with environmental values.
“The environment” then starts
making more sense all part of
the same value subset.
Evokes positive emotions
Change in
thinking/feeling/behaving.
(Crompton, 2010; adapted from Schwartz, 1992)
.
Other factors:
Habits
Some behaviours are:
Repetitive (Verplanken, 2010)
Automatic (Verplanken & Aarts, 1999)
Context dependent (Wood et al., 2002)
“Where habit is strong, information campaigns tend to fail”
(Verplanken, 2010)
Habit discontinuity hypothesis (e.g. moving home, having a child
etc; Verplanken et al., 2008).
Disruption of habit opportunities for adopting “green”
behaviours
E.g. free bus pass to new residents (Verplanken, 2010),
Personalised travel plans (DfT, 2005)
DfT funded travel plan interventions project evaluation webpage:
http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/sustainable/travelplans/ptp/personalisedtravelplanningev577
4
.
Important: What do you want to achieve?
Is it a specific/target behaviour?
Is it to make people care about the future of the species? (that’s
us!).
“Switch off the lights” vs “caring for nature”
Short term vs long term gains division important
Short may be achieved with superficial change
Deeper changes (e.g. values change) more likely to result in
longer term, more sustainable change.
.
Social marketing:
the design, implementation and control of programs calculated to
influence the acceptability of social ideas’ (Kotler & Zaltman, 1971, p5)
designed (and works!) for: the short term, single/limited targets,
is flexible/adaptable
BUT:
has no theoretical basis (Hastings, 2007; Darnton, 2008), has no long
term effects/vision, may conflict with other long term goals (e.g.
“insulation saves you money” cheap flights save you money)
Environmentally friendly behaviour is a long term goal which requires
change in many domains in order to reduce overall impacts on the
environment – social marketing was not designed for this
.
Little steps and easy solutions targets run out of steam sooner or later. (Not
necessarily bad if your target is a quick reduction or giving up smoking!).
Financial measures don’t work in the long run – people respond to them for
as long as they are in place; and relapse to their ordinary behaviour as long
as the incentives are removed (e.g. Abrahamse, Steg, Vlek, & Rothengatter,
T., 2005)
.
“Power to the people”
Most of current campaigns have focused on the “enlightened
individual/consumer”
But public engagement (esp. socio-political participation) is a multifaceted driver of change. (Hoppner & Whitmarsh, 2010)
“Who is responsible for the implementation of sustainable transport
measures”? People appear to feel more empowered than experts think.
(Xenias & Whitmarsh, 2011)
.
Individuals often feel their efforts are useless unless others participate.
E.g. energy consumption behaviours are based on socially shared
conventions and assumptions about what is normal or acceptable (e.g.
Nye et al, 2009).
It could be argued that the most effective low-carbon community
projects are setting new cultural norms, where communities can face
social dilemmas together, where the helplessness felt by the individual
can be acknowledged, and a solution found in new, shared values and
actions. (Todhunter, 2010)
.
‘What is the real scope for individual and local community
action to contribute to tackling climate change?’ (Defra,
2007, p5)
Grass roots campaigns – practical/flexible
approaches/solutions to everyday problems to targeted
audiences.
“There is a role for communication to facilitate public
acceptance of climate change policies, but also to stimulate
grassroots demand for such policies” (Ockwell et al., 2009)
.
We also need bigger players to get involved (employers, energy companies,
local authorities, media. Apart from their contribution to practicalities, this
reinforces norms)
This can at least in part be asserted by motivating political action.
10:10 campaign attracted 10,000 signatures in 48 hours (Todhunter, 2010); a
strong message; politicians will listen. A deeply democratic process!
EcoTeams’ participants go on to influence what products local stores are
stocking (applying pressure & demanding ethical products), and take action to
improve their neighbourhood (Van den Burg, Mol & Spaargaren, 2003)
Calls to ‘up-stream’ stakeholder engagement in the policy making process
(Rogers-Hayden & Pidgeon, 2007) – i.e., early and meaningful involvement in
defining policy.
Policy makers should involve members of the public early in decision making
(since their views often differ from experts, and effective policies require public
support).
.
Relevant reading:
Government Social Research Unit: An overview of
behaviour change models and their uses
(Government Social Research, 2007) www.gsr.gov.uk
Common cause: the case for working with our
cultural values (Crompton, WWF-UK, 2010) –
www.wwf.org.uk/
.
Relevant reading:
Creating a Climate for Change: Communicating
Climate Change and Facilitating Social Change
(Moser, & Dilling, (eds), Cambridge Univ. Press, 2007)
[-!USA context!-]
http://www.isse.ucar.edu/moser/
Engaging the Public with Climate Change: Behaviour
change and communication
(Whitmarsh, O’Neill & Lorenzoni, Earthscan, 2010)
psych.cf.ac.uk/whitmarsh
.
but read critically - any model is as good as its assumptions!
“one of the potential drawbacks of
any policy model is that it will be used as a
cookbook” (Bartholomew et al., 1998 – Intervention Mapping).
( it is in your long term interest to avoid such mistake )
.
Thank you
Psychological aspects of behaviour change and climate change
communication
xeniasd@cardiff.ac.uk
whitmarshle@cardiff.ac.uk