Transcript Slide 1

How do we get ‘the public’
to take action on climate
change?
Rachel Howell
Why bother with individuals?
Percentage of UK emissions by source
Other
emissions
15%
Household
indirect
emissions
50%
Household
energy
20%
Domestic and
international
travel
15%
Office of National Statistics, 2004
Information deficit model
Concern ≠ behavioural change
Ipsos MORI 2007
Issues about understanding
Confusion with ‘ozone hole’ problem
 Difficulty understanding time lag –
therefore believe problem can be
solved quickly if necessary
 Not very visible causes, impacts
distant in time and space from those
who cause most emissions
 ‘Climate change’ v ‘global warming’

Understanding: Uncertainty about
the science
Understanding: Making the links

I don’t believe my everyday behaviour and lifestyle
contribute to climate change: (N.B denial?)

I need more information on what I could do to be
more environmentally friendly:
(All numbers are % of respondents)
Psychological/cognitive factors




Values
Habits – we don’t make rational,
conscious choices all the time
Knowledge and learning
Ascription of responsibility
Social context



Social norms
Agency
Choice architecture
‘Knowledge’ and ‘learning’





Knowledge is constructed rather than simply
received
New info is fitted into existing mental models,
therefore people may remember quite
different info from same presentation
Tacit knowledge
Importance of ‘social learning’
ESD: needs to be less prescriptive, more
emphasis on ability to find own solutions?
Ascription of responsibility
Individuals should be expected to do…
50
Percentage who gave these responses
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
recycling & turning
lights off but no more
Ipsos MORI 2008
some bigger actions
make significant &
radical lifestyle changes
Conflicting views?
Ipsos MORI 2008
We like our lifestyles!

Any changes I make to help the environment need to
fit in with my lifestyle:
Social norms
Descriptive norms: what
people observe is ‘normal’ e.g.
through seeing recycling boxes
Injunctive norms: what
people believe others think
they should do
my neighbours will
think I'm lazy if I
don't recycle
Agency: two aspects

“I can do something”
Barriers: cost, opportunities, time etc

“It’s worth me doing something”
It’s not worth me doing things to help the
environment if others don’t do the same:
Agency
Groups can increase agency
Sharing knowledge
 Moral support
 Sense of impact
 Accountability

Choice architecture
The context in which we
make choices:
 Infrastructure
Choice architecture
The context in which we
make choices:
 Infrastructure
 Layout/order
Choice architecture
The context in which we
make choices:
 Infrastructure
 Layout/order
 Defaults
Promoting behaviour change
Messages
 Architecture
 Processes

Communications/messages







Make information locally relevant
Using trusted messengers
Using images, stories, vivid language
Appeal to emotions
Tailored messages
Feedback
Using social norms
Using emotions and stories
2055
Problems with fear appeals


People don’t like feeling helpless
Can trigger denial, apathy, repression, anger,
counter-productive defensive measures
Problems with guilt appeals

People may change their attitudes to match
their actions if the gap between the two is
pointed out
Tailored messages: Defra's
segmentation model
Tailored messages: cultural
theory
Tailored messages: values




For individualists: “You can save money”
For those who like the status-quo
(hierarchists): “Protect our beautiful natural
heritage”
For ‘greens’: “Do your bit for the environment”
This supports current values. Will this lead to
problems in the future when we need people to
make further changes?
Feedback


5-15% reduction in energy
use by giving immediate
feedback to consumers
through a meter/display
monitor (Darby, 2006)
UK Government intends to
bring in smart meters in all
homes
Using social norms



Electricity usage of 287 households in California
measured several times
Half got 'normative' feedback just telling them
whether they were above or below average
Half got 'injunctive' feedback:
Below
average
Above
average
(Combining feedback and tailored messages)
Schultz et al 2007
People care about norms!
Without happy/sad faces:
 Above average users cut
electricity use
 Below average users
increased use!
('boomerang effect')
Mean
Mean
Mean
Mean
Mean
Mean
People care about norms!
Without happy/sad faces:
 Above average users cut
electricity use
 Below average users
increased use!
('boomerang effect')
With happy/sad faces:
 Above average users still
cut usage
 Below average users
kept use low
Ayers et al 2009 found small
Mean
Mean
Mean
Mean
Mean
Mean
Mean
Mean
Mean
Mean
Mean
Mean
even with injunctive feedback
Changing choice architecture
changes choices
Examples:
 Provision of infrastructure
 Economic incentives/disincentives (e.g.
mileage allowance for cycling vs. car travel)
 Choice editing (e.g. light bulbs)
 'Nudges'
Nudges
To count as a
'nudge', the
intervention
must be
optional, and
easy to avoid
Thaler & Sunstein 2009
An example of a nudge
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2lXh2n0aPyw
Possibilities




Location of bus stops and car parking
Default settings for appliances
Ordering of information (high carbon options
last)
…?
But how far will 'nudging' get us?
Process of change:
Foot-in-the-door theory




Small changes lead to bigger ones
People self-identifying “I am someone who
does things to help the environment”
People get used to action; it’s not as difficult
as they thought
Others suggest evidence is small,
undetectable, or even in reverse direction
e.g. people think “I’m already doing my bit by
recycling”
e.g. Thøgersen & Ölander 2003, Crompton 2008
Process of change:
‘Stages of change’ model
Commitments

Public pledges: people are more likely
to do something if they have publicly
agreed to do so

Implementation
intentions:
getting people to
think about how
they will do
something
Gollwitzer & Brandstätter 1997
The question to be considered in evaluating a
particular intervention is 'what works, for
whom, under what circumstances?' rather
than the more common (and simplistic) 'what
works?' (Middlemiss, 2008)
Warning!




Some sociologists (and others) think the
emphasis on individuals is misplaced
Instead we should look at practices (e.g.
showering/bathing)
Practices are made up of 'stuff' (e.g. tin
bath/power shower) + skills (e.g. how to use
bath/shower/soap) + meanings (e.g.
cleanliness/freshness/relaxation)
Interventions should aim to change elements
of practices, not individual behaviour
References







Ayers et al, 2009. Evidence from two large field experiments that
peer comparison feedback can reduce residential energy usage.
Cambridge, MA, National Bureau of Economic Research.
Crompton, 2008. Weathercocks & Signposts: The environmental
movement at a crossroads. WWF.
Darby, 2006. The effectiveness of feedback on energy consumption:
A review for Defra of the literature on metering, billing and direct
displays. London, Defra.
Defra, 2008 A Framework for Pro-environmental Behaviour Change.
Defra, 2009. 2009 Survey of public attitudes and behaviours towards
the environment. (All strips showing % agreement with statements
came from this)
Gollwitzer & Brandstätter, 1997. Implementation Intentions and
Effective Goal Pursuit. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology
73(1): 186-199.
Ipsos MORI, 2007. Tipping Point or Turning Point? Social Marketing
and Climate Change. (Boxed figures with red headings came from
this)
References






Ipsos MORI, 2008. Public attitudes to climate change, 2008:
concerned but still unconvinced. (Boxed figures with blue headings
came from this)
Middlemiss, 2008. Influencing individual sustainability: a review of
the evidence on the role of community-based organisations.
International Journal of Environment and Sustainable Development
7 (1), 78-93.
Office for National Statistics, 2004. The impact of UK households on
the environment.
Schultz et al, 2007. The Constructive, Destructive, and
Reconstructive Power of Social Norms. Psychological Science
18(5): 429-434.
Thaler & Sunstein, 2009. Nudge. Penguin Books
Thøgersen & Ölander, 2003. Spillover of environment-friendly
consumer behaviour. Journal of Environmental Psychology 23(3):
225-236.
You can find the non-journal articles online.
Thank you! Questions?
Rachel Howell
[email protected]
Group tasks




For those who have seen The Age of Stupid:
discuss what you see as the pro and cons of the
film. How did you feel after seeing it? What overall
message did you take away? Did you take any
action as a result? If not, why not?
Sketch out an idea for a poster to encourage
students at Edinburgh Uni to cut their carbon
footprints
Sketch out a plan for a series of events to
encourage students to cut their carbon footprints
Sketch a plan for a stunt to attract attention in Bristo
Square to get students to sign a petition, take info,
and make a pledge