Inspiring Action: The Role of Psychology in Environmental Campaigning and Activism

Introduction

On september 23–24, 2010, nearly two dozen activists and psychologists gathered at the offices of Friends of the Earth (FoE) in Washington, DC, to explore how to productively apply research and insights from psychology in environmental and social campaigns and communications. The goal was to inspire and empower real, systemic change at every level.*

FoE President Erich Pica welcomed participants who represented the environmental and social justice communities, with a reminder of the massive challenges we face. Climate change, he observed, “is perhaps the greatest threat to our planet and civilization.” But efforts to communicate the urgency of the threat—and to promote change of the appropriate magnitude—have fallen short.

The environmental movement, Pica said, often appeals to short-term concerns about economics and security, rather than engaging “hearts and minds” in a morals- and values-based discussion of the sweeping, long-term changes we must make. Moreover, activists tend to talk about issues in isolation, when many of those issues—such as climate change and health care reform—are fundamentally about achieving a just allocation of resources, today and into the future.

Pica cited the decade-long effort that culminated in the 2009 failure to pass meaningful climate legislation. In the wake of that defeat, he said, many environmentalists are beginning to recognize the need for new communications frameworks that can more fully engage the public. This is why FoE partnered with Psychologists for Social Responsibility (PsySR) to host this meeting, which was funded by a generous grant to PsySR from the David and Carol Myers Foundation.

Steven Shapiro, co-coordinator of PsySR's Climate Change, Sustainability, and Psychology Program, expressed his organization's commitment to an ongoing process. “Nothing happens in a 2-day meeting,” he said. Rather, the meeting will hopefully catalyze thinking and partnerships that will continue into the future.

Several general themes emerged: the need to articulate a positive vision for the future, the need to engage individuals' hearts as well as minds, and the need to balance short-term policy objectives with the imperative of significant long-term change.

A Focus on Human Identity

Tim Kasser, professor of psychology at Knox College and co-director of this project for PsySR, shared a PowerPoint presentation that reviewed strategies currently employed by environmental campaigns, and their often unimpressive results. Scientific research, he said, is met by denial and apathy among the general public. Prescriptions for simple behavior changes (“green consumption”) fail to spur larger changes. Policy proposals are scuttled by low public demand and resistance from powerful institutions.

A key to this problem, said Kasser, is human identity: the ideas we have about who we are. If people are exposed to information that does not fit with their preexisting identities and beliefs, it typically “bounces right off.” Human identity, then, is central to whether messages are heard, whether people are willing to change behaviors, and whether they will take political action. Environmentalists should consider human identity when designing campaigns, Kasser said. They might even consider campaigns that help the public tap into the most fundamental and expansive sense of human identity—that of being closely related to, and interdependent on, all forms of life on Earth.

Unfortunately, many people have culturally reinforced identities that are in sharp conflict with protection of the environment. Empirical research points to three identity “types” that are associated with attitudes and behaviors that are damaging to the environment:

These findings have several implications for environmental campaigns. First, campaigns should avoid activating environmentally damaging identities by, for example, eschewing appeals to opportunities to increase profits or status. Campaigns using messages that are likely to evoke fear should offer constructive coping strategies so that they do not instead trigger denial, apathy, projection, and hedonism. Environmentalists might also develop campaigns to eliminate the legitimizing myths behind environmentally damaging identities—for example, the belief that nature is a commodity. A campaign to limit the reach of advertising, which contributes to self-enhancing, materialistic values, could have substantial benefits for the environment, Kasser emphasized.

Finally, environmentalists could identify environmentally beneficial identities and actively promote them. For example, efforts to increase the public's contact with nature can cultivate empathy with other species and defuse the “in-group/out-group” tensions between people and nature.

Kasser summarized the potential benefits of identity-focused environmental campaigning. First, it could help activists communicate more effectively in existing campaigns. Second, it suggests new campaign approaches and, importantly, new coalitions that can be forged. Environmentally beneficial identities, he said, also promote other prosocial behaviors that can enhance human wellbeing. Fostering those identities could thus appeal to a broad coalition of groups working for social justice.

Lessons from the United Kingdom

Collaborations between psychologists and environmental activists are already underway in the United Kingdom, said Tom Crompton, change strategist for WWF-UK, who joined the meeting via Skype. As in the United States, the impetus for collaboration came with mounting frustration over the “glacial pace of change.” Crompton spoke of the frustration he encountered among some in government who recognize the need for more ambitious change but who find that “their hands are tied; there is no political space for the scale of change that is needed.”

This experience led Crompton to ask: how is political space created or shut down? What generates political demand for change? That led, in turn, to Crompton's work with Tim Kasser to explore how human identity and cultural concerns shape demand. The approach does encounter areas of skepticism: some campaigners worry that efforts to foster environmentally friendly identities could be too diffuse and that limited resources are better spent on “upstream” efforts to reach key decision makers. These are legitimate concerns, said Crompton. What comes from this effort must be strategic, addressing the aspects of human identity that are most problematic.

The conversation about these issues in the United Kingdom began with the publication of a report, “Weathercocks and Signposts: The Environmental Movement at a Crossroads,” written by Crompton for WWF-UK in 2008. This report critically reassessed current approaches to motivating environmental behavior change. It also recommended engagement with the values that underlie individual decision making by working to strengthen helpful aspects of identity.

The report led to a series of meetings with other United Kingdom environmental groups, the creation of a working group, and the recent publication of a joint report entitled “Common Cause,” which urges broad coalition building around values and identity. High-level support within the participating NGOs helped advance the agenda, and there has also been government interest in this work.

Crompton sees great potential for coalition building among a wide range of third-sector organizations (including, for example, environmental, human rights, and development groups). He observed that this is not an inherently leftist agenda—conservatives (at least in the United Kingdom) share many of those values which we know to be important in underpinning social and environmental concern.

In the discussion that followed, one participant noted that critiques of the “commodification of life”—a core problem with capitalism—resonate with communities of faith. Yet some environmental campaigns—for example, to create carbon markets or place monetary value on biodiversity—appear to further the process of commodification. Crompton responded by emphasizing the importance of appealing to intrinsic values: compassion, community, and connection to nature.

Materialistic Values and Environmental Challenges

Tim Kasser then drilled down further into the values that shape environmental behavior. He offered examples of materialistic/extrinsic values: a belief that “happiness is for sale,” an emphasis on work oriented to increased consumption, pursuit of profit and growth, measuring one's self-worth in financial terms. Those stand in contrast to intrinsic values of personal growth, affiliation, and community. Most people hold a combination of extrinsic and intrinsic values. But an emphasis on extrinsic values tends to suppress intrinsic ones. For those in whom materialistic/extrinsic values predominate, research by Kasser and others has found less pro-environmental attitudes and behavior.

Higher levels of materialism were associated with lower “biophilia” (love and appreciation for nature); less value placed on environmental protection; and less concern about the impact of environmental damage on nature and human beings, including future generations. Not surprisingly, these attitudes correlate with fewer pro-environmental behaviors (including political behavior) and a bigger environmental footprint. At a national level, countries with higher prevalence of materialistic values had higher CO₂ emissions. In short, said Kasser, “materialistic values are bad for the environment.”

This research has two central implications for environmental campaigns. First, campaigns should take care with mentions of power, status, and financial benefits, because even passing references that seem to endorse those goals can activate materialistic “frames” and discourage pro-environmental behavior. Second, campaigns should seek to eliminate root causes of environmentally damaging values. Social modeling plays a key role in values formation: people are more likely to have materialistic values if their family and friends have those values; if they watch a lot of television; and if they live in a neoliberal, capitalist society. Restrictions on advertising could significantly diminish the power of materialistic social modeling, Kasser said. Environmental and social justice groups could, for example, work to remove ads from public spaces such as schools and parks or to remove tax subsidies for advertising.

More proactively, campaigns can use social modeling to promote intrinsic values, which are associated with more pro-environmental behavior as well as higher levels of personal wellbeing and greater altruism. For example, an effort to promote alternatives to the GNP, such as the “Gross National Happiness” index, would encourage society to measure and appreciate intrinsic values.

In the discussion that followed, several participants questioned whether Kasser's approach would work in a range of settings. One participant, who works in a predominantly low-income community, said he found campaigns that encourage people to save money through weatherization and energy efficiency to be effective. Another doubted that the members of Congress he lobbies would be receptive; the identities of many Republican lawmakers have been shaped by conservative theorists such as Ayn Rand—who elevated self-interest to a social good. A third participant questioned whether there is a “one size fits all” message—perhaps some audiences will resonate to extrinsic values; others will not.

Kasser responded that both extrinsic and intrinsic values are present in everyone: rich and poor, conservative and liberal. Although appeals to extrinsic values may be effective in the short term, the data suggest that they are likely to undermine efforts to build support for substantive change in the long run.

The participants then split into three smaller groups to discuss how these findings might shape their current and future work. Participants noted the following needs:

Interpersonal Channels to Sustainability

In her presentation, Janet Swim, Professor of Psychology at Pennsylvania State University, shifted the focus to interpersonal factors that influence behavior—including environmental behavior. For example, she said, people are more likely to conserve water if their neighbors are doing so. How can social norms be harnessed to promote pro-environmental behavior?

Swim reviewed “Global Warming's Six Americas,” a recent study conducted by the Yale Project on Climate Change and the George Mason University Center for Climate Change Communication.† Its results indicate that 70% of Americans are “alarmed,” “concerned,” or “cautious” about climate change. The other 30% are “disengaged,” “doubtful,” or “dismissive.” Yet despite the fact that a healthy majority perceives that climate change is a threat, most do not take appropriate action. This is evidence of what Swim calls a “belief-behavior discrepancy.” Swim used the analogy of “the rider, the elephant, and the path” to illustrate the challenge.‡ The rider represents forethought, the elephant the emotions. The task is for the rider to clear a path that the elephant will follow.

Swim explored behavior-change models that show how innovations are diffused in society. The “Knowledge, Attitude, Practice” (KAP) model traces acceptance of new innovations.§ Other research, including work cited by Malcolm Gladwell in The Tipping Point, shows how opinion leaders can spur the diffusion of new ideas.

Although most innovation-diffusion research retroactively looks at past trends, Swim's recent work with students at Penn State sought to actively foster the diffusion of pro-environmental behaviors by creating opinion leaders and utilizing networks. First, she used the KAP model to promote knowledge—about the problem of climate change and about the specific behaviors needed to avert it—among student leaders, so that knowledge could then be diffused to other residents.

Second, Swim addressed attitude and motivation. Other research Swim has conducted with students supports findings that self-transcendent, altruistic motives were more likely to spur action than was narrow self-interest. Moreover, concern for the biosphere is a more consistent predictor of willingness to engage in pro-environmental behaviors than is concern about the impact of environmental degradation on human beings. Accordingly, altruism and concern for the biosphere were emphasized among the student leaders.

Next, Swim's student leaders focused on overcoming personal barriers and putting beneficial behaviors into practice. Finally, these student leaders activated their networks and worked to encourage their peers to choose less energy-intensive behaviors. The effort was successful: student leaders met five behavioral change goals during their training; 6 months later, 83% were maintaining three or more goals, 87% were maintaining two or more goals, and 96% were maintaining at least one behavioral change goal. Additionally, student leaders were able to decrease the energy used in campus dormitories by about 4% during an energy competition relative to other campus dormitories.

Swim offered some lessons learned, for example, meet people where they are and build from there; do not suggest that negative behaviors are normative by saying, for example, “no one is recycling”; nurture empathy, not just objective understanding; do not provoke fear and guilt without offering solutions; build community.

This research has implications for broader environmental campaigns, said Swim. It underscores, for example, the following needs:

In the discussion of Swim's presentation, participants debated whether a focus on the nonhuman biosphere is really the best way to motivate pro-environmental behavior. Does self-transcendence mean leaving behind an anthropocentric worldview? The environmental justice (EJ) movement, one participant noted, clearly prioritizes human beings but emphasizes the importance of living in harmony with Mother Earth. Another veteran of the EJ movement called for “erasing the line between social justice and biophilia.” We need to cultivate empathy “not just for animals,” suggested another, “but for the non-self.”

In group discussions, participants raised several points:

The Importance of Being Mindful

Kirk Warren Brown, assistant professor of social psychology and health psychology at Virginia Commonwealth University, presented evidence that mindfulness can help support sustainable consumption. Brown defined mindfulness as sustained, receptive attention to our thoughts, emotions, and behavior—which enables us to perceive what is in the present moment. The opposite of mindfulness is akin to being on “autopilot,” where behavior is driven by unconscious or semiconscious desires and goals. Mindfulness can enable us to act more consciously and reflectively, rather than habitually. As such, it may help spur positive changes in environmental behavior.

The benefits of mindfulness are manifold: research shows that it is associated with better mental and physical health and improved relationships with others. It also has benefits for the larger community, Brown added.

First, mindfulness can promote a sense of sufficiency, a perception that we have “enough.” In a culture that fosters unquenchable desires for wealth and material possessions, there are often wide “aspiration gaps” between what people have and what they want. But research shows that individuals who score higher on measures of mindfulness have smaller aspiration gaps. They also tend to be less materialistic, less driven by consumer-culture pressures, more self-accepting, and more attuned to deeper needs and values. Importantly, these associations hold regardless of the individuals' financial situation.

Second, mindfulness is associated with a smaller ecological “footprint.” Brown described a national study that compared a group of self-described “voluntary simplifiers” with matched controls. Both groups were assessed for mindfulness, values orientation, and environmental behavior. The survey found that greater mindfulness was linked to more intrinsic aspirations and lower environmental impact as measured by choices in transportation, diet, and energy use. Moreover, more mindful individuals were happier than those less mindful.

Mindfulness can be learned: one study trained subjects in techniques to improve mindfulness. As their mindfulness increased, the subjects reported smaller financial aspiration gaps and improved wellbeing. This research suggests two possible interventions, said Brown:

In the ensuing discussion, participants again wrestled with the challenges of incorporating these ideas in a diverse and inequitable society. One participant said it was hard to imagine promoting this idea in marginalized, disenfranchised communities. “Are we saying to the poor, ‘we're going to stay rich, but you stay poor and have little impact on the environment?’” Brown responded that mindfulness is not about directing people to a particular end, such as reduced consumption. Instead, “It's about consciousness-raising. It's about asking ‘Who are you, what are you about, what are the pressures that bear on you, how do you want to live?’” Clarifying the answers to those questions can be empowering, Brown said. He acknowledged that the participants in his samples were “on average, middle class,” but emphasized that mindfulness is about helping people see clearly, not about helping them acquiesce to intolerable conditions. Indeed, becoming more mindful can inspire and energize individuals to pursue more effective personal and community action to improve their situations by, for example, deciding to prioritize spending time and money on education or becoming more socially and politically active on behalf of others in their communities who are also marginalized. Tim Kasser added that insecurity is linked to materialism and that mindfulness can help people feel more personally secure, which may help them focus on intrinsic, rather than extrinsic, values.

In the group discussions that followed, participants made several observations:

Personal Sustainability

In addition to acknowledging the diversity and complexity of individuals' worldviews, psychologist Thomas Joseph Doherty, editor of the journal Ecopsychology, asserted that “Everyone has an environmental identity.” In his presentation, Doherty observed that those identities are shaped by many things, including our experiences of natural settings and of environmental degradation. Doherty revisited the “Global Warming's Six Americas” study, saying that the challenge is to reach people in each of those groups.

Environmental problems such as climate change provoke complex emotional responses, said Doherty. Such problems can trigger psychological defense mechanisms that are mature and adaptive—such as altruism and affiliation—or less so—such as rationalization, apathetic withdrawal, or emotional acting out. Suppression, or the conscious setting aside of distress, can be adaptive if it enables an individual to do productive work, such as intervening in a disaster situation. Polarized, partisan thinking can be a maladaptive response to stress, and it can also prove addictive.

In seeking to change environmental behaviors, said Doherty, it is important to understand the stages of behavior change. Those stages range from disinterest to thinking, planning, and ultimately making the change. We need to “meet people where they're at” and find points of leverage to overcome barriers to change.

Doherty observed that, in the modern world, people have many responsibilities: career, self-improvement, parenting, and relationships. Green living can seem like yet another responsibility for those who already feel overburdened. “Personal sustainability,” in contrast, is a way of cultivating sustainability in all the roles in one's life. Activists, for example, may ask themselves whether they are living and working in a way that can be maintained for the long haul—or if they are headed for burnout.

There are many steps to personal sustainability, said Doherty. The first is to recognize and validate one's emotions. Then, in the spirit of mindfulness, one moves to centering and acceptance. A much-neglected step of the process is nurturing and celebration: it is important to cultivate positive emotions, which widen our focus and fuel creativity, because negative emotions narrow our sense of what's possible. The ultimate goal is “grounded action”—what Doherty calls “self-transcendent acceptance and engagement.”

Finally, Doherty turned his attention to the particular needs of change agents, the heroic folks who are working to protect the environment. As Doherty noted, the final stage of the archetypal hero's journey is to be a “master of two worlds.” In the case of those of us aspiring to be change agents, this entails balancing the idealized “ecotopia” we hope to construct and the real world in which we live. Too much focus on either world can distort an activist's vision and diminish his or her effectiveness. Being a master of two worlds requires the following qualities:

After a self-reflection exercise in which participants considered their progress on each of those fronts, the group broke into small-group discussions. The following issues were raised in those discussions:

Earth Circles

Sarah Conn, an ecopsychologist and co-coordinator of PsySR's Climate Change, Sustainability, and Psychology Program, shared her experiences with Earth Circles, a process designed to help people move from denial and despair to positive action on climate change and other environmental issues. Earth Circles utilize the energy and power gained from connecting to nature, sharing concerns, learning together, and acting in community. Drawing from Buddhism, systems theory, and the work of Joanna Macy, the Earth Circles are “ecopsychology in action,” said Conn.

At the beginning of her talk, Conn asked participants to pause and visualize a part of the Earth that is special to them—a natural place or a particular natural being whose presence nourishes them. A guiding principle of the Earth Circles process is perhaps best expressed by the Alice Walker quote, “Anything you love can be saved.”

Earth Circles initially began with a group of psychologists and activists gathered around Conn's dining-room table. It later evolved into a seven-session program, guided by a free online workbook, which provides an opportunity for small groups to get together and acknowledge their concerns and fears about the environmental, social, economic, and psychological destruction that may lie ahead. In that way, Earth Circles enables participants to access energy that is repressed when feelings are not honored. The goal is to move from despair to action by transforming pain into energy and by building community. Participants start by expressing gratitude and honoring their pain, then “shift toward seeing with new eyes what is sustainable,” said Conn. Next, they focus on community building—learning about what is happening, and what needs to happen, in the communities where they live. Participants then develop action campaigns and explore effective ways to sustain themselves in order to continue as activists.

Conn invited the group to experience the Earth Circles process by taking part in another exercise. Arranged in pairs, each person had time to share his or her response to the following open sentence: “To be alive in this time of global crisis, the feelings/emotions that are hard for me are….” The room was very alive during this process, and participants reported afterward that it was both difficult and moving.

In the discussion that followed, participants asked questions about the mechanics of launching an Earth Circles group. Conn explained that members of the group volunteer to be facilitators and the online curriculum provides instructions for how to run a “self-facilitated” group. Small groups of 6–8 work best, and members are typically recruited through flyers, email, and personal contacts. Questions may be sent to the Earth Circles email on the website (www.earth-circles.org/content/).

In group discussions, several other thoughts were raised:

Psychology and Activism: A Case Study

Steven Shapiro, a counseling psychologist, began his presentation with a story about the intersection of psychology and environmental activism. He told the group about Eddie, a troubled 12-year-old from a blighted section of East Baltimore. Born to a drug-addicted mother, Eddie lived in a vermin-infested house devoid of furniture or central heat, on a mostly abandoned block littered with used syringes and condoms. After Eddie witnessed the grisly murder of his uncle, he went on a destructive rampage, and Shapiro was called in to help.

Shapiro began to spend time with Eddie, taking him canoeing and hiking—new experiences for a child who had never been out of the inner city. A breakthrough came during a canoe trip on a beautiful spring day. For the first time since the murder, Eddie was calm and mindful—“he was a different kid,” said Shapiro. Realizing that Eddie—and others like him—needed a connection to the natural world, Shapiro began looking for organizations in East Baltimore that could help make that happen.

Shapiro and his wife, Cindy Parker, had recently formed the Baltimore chapter of the Chesapeake Climate Action Network (BCCAN). BCCAN members sought out helpful citizens in East Baltimore, which led them to Lucille Gorham, a leading member of the Historic East Baltimore Community Action Coalition (HEBCAC). The resulting partnership between BCCAN and HEBCAC spurred people to mentor Eddie and involve children in efforts to improve the inner-city environment, urban gardening and street-cleaning projects, and successful advocacy for tough climate legislation at the city and state levels. At least in part due to that advocacy, said Shapiro, Maryland has one of the strongest climate bills in the country. “And that's all because of Eddie connecting us with HEBCAC.”

Eddie's behavior improved, but there is a sad epilog to Shapiro's story: the East Baltimore neighborhood where this activism took place has since been cleared of its homes to build a biotechnology park.

Nonetheless, the story offers an example of applied psychology in environmental activism. The model Shapiro used—connecting with people; building relationships between individuals and organizations; and engaging community members in altruistic service to people, nature, and the political process—could easily be replicated elsewhere.

In the group discussions that followed, participants raised several ideas:

Bringing it Home

In the next session, participants brainstormed ideas for bringing insights from the meeting back to their organizations and applying them in their work. Participants were encouraged to give their imagination free rein and to resist thinking of practical barriers. They had the following ideas:

Setting Priorities

Participants then reviewed the list of brainstormed ideas and identified three central themes that tied those ideas together:

Next, participants focused on each of these three themes, discussing concrete ways to translate them into effective campaigns.

In the discussion of community building, participants noted the importance of “taking the pulse” of a community—finding local partners and learning about local needs and concerns. With that understanding, organizations can invest in a community, empower its residents, and represent them in a larger sphere.

Many participants noted the difficulty of building such relationships from a Washington base, especially for single-issue groups that do not have the resources to take on all the issues identified at the community level. One observed that this model is effective for making political changes—such as shutting down nuclear power plants—but less so for long-term behavioral changes that would make those plants unnecessary. It is important to empower grassroots activists to develop a shared vision of an alternative future, said another.

The discussion of creating alternatives to materialism again focused on counteracting the pervasive messages of advertising. How can we help people reflect more about what they need, as opposed to the larger universe of what they want or are told by advertisers that they need? How can we build demand for environmentally beneficial goods, such as organic food and public transportation?

Several strategies were offered: reframing less materialistic choices, such as “vintage” thrift-store clothing; mindfulness as a “power tool” that cuts across conditioned responses and behaviors; a green reality TV show; promoting gratitude as an antidote to materialism.

The discussion of building relationships with the “other” generated strong emotions. Several participants expressed cynicism about the possibility of constructive collaboration with what they see as their opposition—for example, certain Tea Party activists who dismiss climate science or the coal and nuclear industries.

One participant stressed the need to define the purpose of collaboration. For example, FoE has been able to make common cause with conservative and libertarian groups to oppose subsidies to extractive industries. “It's okay as long as we're focused” on common goals, said the FoE staffer. It is possible to build relationships with individuals within institutions, even if those institutions are implacably opposed to our agenda, said another. Industries are made up of people, and often there is some opportunity for dialog—especially with workers, as opposed to owners and managers. Psychological research affirms the value of bringing together opponents to collaborate on tasks and activities related to a shared goal.

Next Steps

In the last session, participants talked about how they will bring insights from the meeting into their work. They had the following specific ideas:

The meeting ended—appropriately enough—with expressions of gratitude to FoE and PsySR for hosting the meeting, to Colleen Cordes and Ben Schreiber for organizing it, to Tim Kasser for facilitating, to the David and Carol Myers Foundation for financial support, and to all the participants for engaging in open dialog.

Addendum

Workshop Participants