Transcription
[Music] Now, another approach is to look at barriers to proenvironmental behavior. There are a couple of advantages to this approach. One is that it often explains a gap between environmental concern and environmental pro-environmental behavior. The other thing this does for us is points points us in the direction of how to increase correspondence between pro-environmental attitudes and pro-environmental behaviors--because a lot of times you can remove these barriers and you can add barriers to the depreciative behavior.
Now, as we go on talking about these five different proenvironmental barriers, I'm also going to talk about some solutions--what these barriers tell us about what we can do to promote PEBs. Like I said, the point of identifying barriers to a proenvironmental behavior is that different barriers call for different "treatments," different psychologically based interventions. That's the idea behind the Proenvironmental Behavior Change Model, also known as the PBCM.
The PBCM is intended to help individuals, households, organizations, and managers of shared spaces like parks or campuses, design their own pro-environmental behavior interventions. It's kind of like a step-by-step recipe for figuring out why people aren't performing specific PEBs and how to eliminate or reduce the barriers so that they will.
The first step is to get clear on exactly what you want people to do in the setting and what they're doing instead. So, what is it exactly that you want people to do? And I mean "exactly." What are they doing instead, and where exactly are they doing it? Who is doing it, and what are they about? You want to think about the "who"--in other words, who the users of the setting are, and what they value, and also what is their culture, broadly speaking? In recreational areas like national, regional, or state parks, you want to think too about whether there are specific types of recreationists that engage in the behavior. And this is all important because you need to target and tailor your interventions to the users. The users may affect the wording of environmental communications and also what will actually work to change their behavior.
Step two of the PBCM is about diagnosis. You know how mental health and other health professionals first do evaluations and assessments to diagnose the problem so they know how to treat it? The PBCM is similar. We must first diagnose what's going on so we know how to treat it. In the PBCM, diagnosis is about identifying the barriers to the proenvironmental behavior. In other words, what's stopping people from doing the PEB? In a few minutes, we'll talk in detail about five common PEB barriers that often explain the concern-behavior gap. We'll ask questions like, "Are there social norms supporting the environmentally depreciative act? Are there competing attitudes, values, or motives interfering with the performance of the environmentally responsible behavior? In what ways does the design of the physical environment--the setting--make the performance of the PEB difficult? In what ways does the design of the setting make make performance of the undesirable behavior easier? We'll also ask, "Could the performance of the depreciative behavior be due to a lack of information or ignorance? Do users know that the behavior is damaging to the environment? Do they know how to perform the PEB?" And we also ask, "Can the depreciative behavior be characterized as a bad habit that people just do without thinking?" Getting the answers to these questions often involves naturalistic observation--like observing people in the setting or examining physical traces, and it can also involve surveys or interviews with the users of the setting.
Step three is a design step. This is where you design your interventions or your treatments, if you prefer to call them that, to address the barriers. And remember, your intervention options depend on the types of barriers operating in your setting. And in a few minutes when we go into detail about the PBCM barriers, after each one, we'll also talk about the interventions that help eliminate or reduce them. Keep in mind that you always tailor these interventions to the setting and its users. Both people and physical settings are diverse, and what works in one place with one group of users might not work in another place with a different group of users. After you design your targeted interventions, you create an intervention plan. What needs to be done before the plan can be implemented? So, for each intervention you are considering, you map out a plan of action. You make a chronological, detailed list of what it would take to accomplish it.
Step four is about putting your plan into action, so in other words, implementing your plan. And finally, step five, it's about evaluating the effect effectiveness of your interventions and making changes if needed.
[Music] Let's start off by talking about social norms barriers because whether social norms support proenvironmental behavior is one determinant of whether or not you do them. Research supports the idea that social norms may encourage PEBs or serve as a barrier to them. The question here: "Do your people support PEBs, or are they indifferent or even antagonistic about PEBs?" You may be more or less likely to engage in PEB depending on the level of social approval and your tolerance for social disapproval.
Okay, let's think about this for a minute, about this social norms barrier to proenvironmental behavior and let's talk about this barrier in the context of diet and climate change. First, let me give you a few facts. Food production is responsible for 30% of global greenhouse emissions. Meat and dairy account for close to 15% of global greenhouse emissions. Animal-based foods have a larger carbon footprint than plant-based foods. Now, some of this is because of forest clearing for livestock, but it's also because cows and sheep produce methane, a greenhouse gas, and the production of grass, hay, etc. for them uses a lot of nitrogen fertilizers which have a big carbon footprint.
In 2019, a global team of food and climate scientists came together to form the Eat-Lancet Commission to design a diet to reduce the climate impact of food. They created a diet called the Planetary Health diet. It recommends that half of what you eat is fruit and vegetables, and about 25% of what you eat is whole grains. Whole grains are things like whole wheat, brown rice, oatmeal, popcorn, quinoa, farro, barley, and bulgar. It recommends that you rely mostly on plant-based sources of proteins and that you eat meat one time or less a week or less. Plant-based sources of protein include tofu, lentils, chickpeas, kidney beans, black and pinto beans, nutritional yeast, spelt and teff, hemp seed, green peas, chia and other seeds and nuts, and nut butters.
Now, think about this for a minute. Do you eat a mostly vegan or vegetarian diet, one that resembles what the Eat-Lancet Commission would consider a planetary healthy diet? Many of you probably don't, and part of that is probably social norms. So think think about this. I mean the social acceptance of a vegetarian or vegan diet among your family, your peers, the customary diet of your culture--all of those might affect whether or not you would adopt the vegan or vegetarian diet, the planet friendly diet. If meat is a big part of your group's diet, that might pose a barrier for you. Are they uncomfortable with veganism or vegetarianism, and would that make it harder for you to adopt a largely vegan or vegetarian diet? And for those of you that are vegan or vegetarian, you probably know that social norms make it more difficult.
Another interesting normative issue is whether the setting contains evidence of past depreciative behavior. And if it does, it can communicate to new users that the behavior is normative, that is, depreciative behavior is normative, that it's acceptable and appropriate in that setting. The focus theory of normative conduct is all about this. It specifically addresses the role of norms in pro-environmental behavior and it distinguishes between injunctive norms that tell people what they should do and descriptive norms that indicate what most people actually do. So, for example, we know from field experiments that littering increases in already littered environments because it's like existing litter makes salient a descriptive norm regarding the appropriateness of littering, and that norm overrides the less salient injunctive norm about what people should do. Littering begets more littering, and in general, depreciative behaviors from one or more people beget more depreciative behavior from other people.
[Music] I want to say a little bit about interventions for social norms. And one way that we use social norms information to increase proenvironmental behavior is by providing evidence that other people think it's the right thing to do and that other people are doing it. Sometimes we call this providing people with "social proof." You can do this in a written or a verbal form. For example, you can use survey results as a social proof. You can say things like, "Over 90% of Cal Poly students recycle whenever they can, join them!" So that's social proof--you're saying this is normative --this is an injunctive norm and also it's a descriptive norm. They are doing it!
Norms can also be relayed through observation. Experimental confederates have been used in college dormitory showers to model water conservation, and videotaped modeling has been used to reduce home energy use. Now, spoken messages may also communicate norms, so another strategy is to identify peers that support the proenvironmental behavior and have them serve as spokespeople for PEB adoption. So, for example, two field experiments, one of those conducted by me, increased recycling by recruiting curbside recyclers as block leaders who then talked with their non-recycling neighbors about recycling, and those efforts generally lead to about a 50% increase in recycling, participation in curbside recycling programs.
Finally, the focus theory of normative conduct provides some other strategies, and the biggest one has to do with removing evidence of depreciative behavior as soon as you can after it occurs. So remember, physical evidence of others' depreciative behavior often conveys descriptive norms that override injunctive norms. You know so evidence of people behaving depreciatively often overrides the norms that say what they should do. So again, it's important to remove any evidence of depreciative behaviors right away so that it doesn't become the new social norm. So you know, for example, the defacing of a natural landmark makes it more likely that future visitors will also want to leave their own mark, so it should be removed as quickly as possible. Trails should be rehabilitated. You know when people go off trail and start to develop erosions and new trails that are damaging to the environment? Those need to be rehabilitated as quickly as possible um so that that doesn't become the new norm.
[Music] You can also use what we call "prompts." These are verbal and written messages to remind people of injunctive or descriptive norms. Here in California, you'll see these in hotels, for example, reminding people that not reusing your towel is costly as far as conserving water and reminding people that conserving water and reusing your towels is an injunctive norm. So these prompts, these verbal or written reminders, can help make social norms salient. Yes, you know in a nature preserve you might see a sign that says "Please Stay on Trails, Leave No Trace." In other words, pack out everything that you packed in. We know a little bit from research about what makes prompts more effective. Prompts are most effective when they request a specific behavior and when they include both descriptive and injunctive messaging. In other words, when they suggest that most people do the right thing and also agree that it's the right thing; when they ask for easy to perform behaviors; when they're placed near where the behavior should be performed; and when they're attention-grabbing.
[Music] Competing attitudes are another PEB barrier. I mean, let's face it, proenvironmental attitudes like environmental concern and environmental values aren't the only influences on proenvironmental behavior. In fact, other attitudes can sometimes be more potent and override the influence of environmental concern and environmental values on pro-environmental behavior. One big competing attitude is convenience. Many people have such a pro-convenience attitude that it overrides their proenvironmental behavior. They find that it's too inconvenient to recycle. They say it's too inconvenient to dispose of used batteries properly. Financial considerations also pose a competing attitudes barrier. Some proenvironmental behaviors cost money. It took me decades, you know, to reach a financial place where I could drive a hybrid and have solar panels on my house. So financial considerations, needing to save money, are also an example of a competing attitudes barrier.
[Music] [Music] There are many strategies for addressing competing attitudes barriers, and the first one is to identify the competing attitude and remove or weaken it. So, for example, if convenience is the issue, how can we make the behavior easier and more convenient? In California, people weren't properly disposing of used paint because it required a special trip to the dump and paying a fee. To address this barrier, California legislators passed a law requiring stores that sell paint to accept our "trash paint" for proper disposal. But this can apply to your personal PEB as well. For instance, let's say you never unplug your electronic chargers, etc. because the plug is too hard to reach. You can add a power strip that you put on your desk or the floor that makes it easy. We'll see in a few minutes that this also reduces the setting design barrier in this situation.
PEB also includes political behavior on behalf of environmental sustainability, and part of that is reaching out to politicians and donating to organizations that sue corporations, lobby for green policies, and buy wildlands so that they're not developed. Here's a list of environmental organizations that make this easy to do with a few key strokes. They try to remove the convenience barrier to this type of PEB.
You can also change the equation by increasing the cost of not doing the PEB. For instance, you can make people pay a deposit that they get back when they recycle an item like bottles or tires. You can fine people for improper disposal of electronic and other wastes. You can make people pay for bags when they don't bring their own.
Another approach is to use environmental education to strengthen the proenvironmental attitudes and intentions that are consistent with the PEB. The idea here is to make those attitudes and intentions so strong, so potent, that they override the competing attitudes. I hope that environmental psychology has done that for some of you. We'll talk more about environmental education in a few minutes.
A related approach is to create cognitive dissonance by reminding people of their pro-environmental concern and values. When people are reminded of their environmental concern and values and how their depreciative behaviors inconsistent with those, it can lead to behavior change. In other words, the inconsistency creates internal conflict, and the person is motivated to get rid of that discomfort by bringing their PEB into better alignment with their environmental concern. Similarly, you can use values framing to increase PEB. We've talked about values framing before, and here connecting a PEB to a person's most important values can override the influence of lesser values like convenience. So, for instance, a Christian who wants his church to adopt PEBs can connect proenvironmental behavior to biblical teachings and Christianity.
[Music] Commitment techniques are another strategy for competing attitudes. They increase the potency of proenvironmental attitudes and intentions so that they are the prevailing influence on proenvironmental behavior. These are usually verbal or written pledges that a person supports PEB or that they will do the PEB. Research finds that formal, written pledges and verbal commitments can increase proenvironmental behavior. In one of my studies, you might remember some participants were randomly assigned to a public commitment condition; they signed a 4x6 card that said "I ___, pledge to help win the war on waste. I support Claremont's recycling program." 44% of them started recycling compared to 11% of a control group. Effective commitments are public and effortful and non-coerced. We're more likely to keep a PEB promise if other people know about it, that is, if it's public. Also, if we have to make at least some effort to commit, for example, signing something, we're more likely to act consistently. Non-coerced commitments are also important. If people feel like they're forced into a commitment, they're less likely to act consistently with it later.
[Music] Now, another commitment technique is called the foot-in-the-door approach. You may have heard of this one before if you've taken social psychology. If you can get a person to commit to one very small thing that's related to the PEB, this can form a base for getting larger related PEB commitments later. So, for example, you can get a person to agree that a PEB is a good idea and then a little later ask for a commitment to a low-level version of the PEB and a little later ask for a bigger version of the PEB.
Commitment strategies like this work for several reasons. First is that consistency is socially valued, so we don't want to look like hypocrites when we say one thing and do another, and second, consistency is internally valued. In other words, hypocrisy can create cognitive dissonance, that psychological tension or conflict that arises when we hold contradictory attitudes or when our behavior contradicts our values or self-concept.
A third PEB barrier is the setting design barrier. So the basic issue here is, does the physical setting support the performance of the PEB? Does the setting make it easy and convenient to perform the PEB, or does the setting pose a barrier to performance of the desired behavior and makes it easier to perform the depreciative behavior? The more the setting design supports easy and effortless PEBs, the more likely they become. So setting design barriers are present when the design of the physical environment supports the performance of the depreciative behavior over the pro-environmental behavior. A simple example of a setting barrier is a recreational setting without enough trash cans. People are less likely to litter if the setting supports proper waste disposal; in an office setting, people are more likely to recycle if the setting supports it with convenient recycling receptacles. And if your apartment building doesn't have recycling receptacles, you're less likely to recycle. In fact, even people inclined to behave pro-environmentally may not if a setting doesn't make it easy.
Interventions for setting design barriers involve the design or redesign of environmental settings to promote proenvironmental behavior. So, for example, the availability of trash receptacles reduces litter, so add more. Also effective are setting alterations making the undesired behaviors difficult, such as placing large rocks across campsite entrances so that visitors cannot drive vehicles onto the sites and degrade them. In recent years, I've seen setting design used in natural areas for purposes of ecosystem protection. A longstanding concern of natural resource managers has been how to keep people on trail and out of sensitive ecosystems. A solution: build elevated boardwalks throughout a nature preserve so that people don't trample or erode the environment or go off trail. An added bonus: these boardwalks improve accessibility for those with mobility impairments. You can see some of these boardwalks on the Central Coast, for example, at the Pismo Beach State Park and Morrow Bay State Park.
A fourth barrier is ignorance. You can care about the environment, but you might not know that some of the things that you're doing are harmful to the environment. And, you may not know how to perform desired pro-environmental behaviors. These are the ignorance barriers: sometimes people don't know any better. When people have this ignorance barrier, the easiest way to overcome it is to use environmental education of some sort to educate them about a a PEBs importance and also to inform people how to perform the desired PEB. So, for example, some studies find that in comparison to non-recyclers, recyclers are better informed about how to recycle and they're better informed about the benefits of recycling. Now, Schwarz has this theory called Norm Activation Theory that suggests that people are unmotivated to behave proenvironmentally if they're unaware of the adverse consequences of depreciative behavior and also if they don't feel personally responsible. So there things you can do about that too, right, through education. So providing education is the most obvious way to address these ignorance barriers that can create problems. We can use education and information to create problem awareness and provide practical information about a PEB and how to do it. There's a whole research literature on how to effectively do environmental education. So, for instance, we know that actively involving people, we know that presenting credible information about the problem, and about the effectiveness of the PEB are particularly important.
[Music] Habit is our fifth barrier, and the question here is, "Is the person in the habit of performing the depreciative behavior?" Habits are hard to break. They make our lives easier, they are automatic, and they occur without thinking. And new habits are hard to form. So here the question is, "Can the depreciative behavior be characterized as a bad habit that people are just used to performing which is no longer acceptable because we now know that it's depreciative?" Environmentally depreciative behaviors also can become habits because they have reinforcing consequences like convenience.
Interventions to overcome the habit barriers include using public commitments and using prompts--you know, a lot of times just a prompt to remind someone to do something until it becomes a habit. When I was trying to remember to always take reusable grocery store bags with me, you know, I put a "sticky" on the door on my way our by the door that I left uh the house, so that I would be reminded "Don't forget your bags!" I had a sticky on the dashboard of my car reminding me to take the bags into the store. I mean those prompts eventually became unnecessary, but they helped me develop a new PEB habit.
Positive or negative incentives can also be used to motivate new PEB habits. For example, if you wanted to encourage your household to develop new water conservation habits, you could incentivize the new habit by saying that part of the monetary savings from household water or energy reductions would be used to fund a fun trip for all. Some organizations will offer prizes or awards to units that adopt green behaviors. For example, imagine a residential housing strategy where the dorm floor that recycles the most gets a prize. Governments also try to get people to adopt green habits through rewards and punishments. We've already mentioned how this this is done to address competing attitudes barriers, and at one point in our course we called these "structural solutions." Another example of a structural solution is that of carpool lanes to incentivize the ride sharing habit and fines for depreciative behavior.
I do want to caution you about the use of rewards and punishments to discourage depreciative behavior habits and encourage PEB. And one of the first things I'll mention is that you should avoid elaborate reward systems that require lots of monitoring and lots of work to manage. Another problem is that this strategy is often ineffective because it's unrealistic to monitor behavior so people can be rewarded or punished. People drive in carpool lanes without a passenger. People litter, and corporations violate environmental laws because they know it's unlikely they'll get caught. There's not enough monitoring when they're used. Another problem is that it's challenging to choose motivating and incentives and disincentives. Does that 10-cent bag fee make you more motivated to develop the reusable bag habit? A fine has to be pretty hefty to get a corporation not to pollute when it benefits their bottom line.
These incentive techniques were studied extensively in the 1980s, and one thing researchers discovered was that the PEB may not last once the incentives are withdrawn if there is no intrinsic motivation and other PEB barriers. The behavior extinguishes once the rewards are withdrawn. For example, imagine that recycling does increase because of the dorm competition. Will it continue afterwards? It probably would decline if the competition was the only reason some people did it and if recycling wasn't easy and convenient.
Well, that concludes our lecture on proenvironmental behavior and how to use psychological strategies for increasing it. There's a lot more I could say on the topic, and if you're interested, there is a ton of research and lots of experts out there. Until next time, wishing you a sustainable future where people care about the environment and behave proenvironmentally.