Hi, Erin. Have you seen more detail about the study you describe online? I'd previously seen the USA Today article and I checked out the APA link you sent, but neither gives much detail and I'd like to know more.

Reply

Ok, so I have a couple roommates in college who are very wasteful with resources. One leaves the shower running ten minutes before they get in, another leaves the water running in the sink while they brush their teeth and use the restroom. I was wondering how I could approach them with advice on how to conserve energy and resources without pissing them off, because there have already been attempts to talk to them about it. They say "I've already paid for it so I can use as much as I want" Obviously that isn't the case if they just looked a little deeper into what they are actually paying for. They seem pretty annoyed now whenever there is talk about wasting energy and I feel that if anything, we have made them be even more wasteful to spite us. I know approaching them in a way that isn't accusatory is the best, but I just can't seem to overcome the idea that this should all be common sense to people. I would love to help them because it isn't just for my own satisfaction that they stop being wsateful, it's for their well-being as well.

Reply

I'm curious about the pyschology of this, too. Recently I've been exposed to a lot of people who seem to be very uncomfortable about discussing change or problems, even when the change isn't directed at them. K: I've been thinking about the specifics of a community recycling program. Town Person: Oh ... yeah ... well ... We'll Git Er Done. K: (in her head): no you won't! You'll use that stupid catchphrase to put this up on a high dusty shelf. WHY do people get so anxious by innocuous things like collecting glass bottles???

Reply

Those are called "republicans". :-P

(I'm just playing! Don't flame!)

Reply

I've always suspected that badgering strangers resulted in a "recoil effect," but not being a psychologist, I've never been able to prove it. Long story short, I think the key difference between how the test subjects' reactions is group identification.

If Group Member A tells Group Member B that he's not conforming to the group's standards, Member B will usually take action to correct this, because he probably wants to maintain his relationship with the group.
However, if a Group Member tells a Outsider that he doesn't conform with the group's standards, the Outsider can take action to conform to the standards and join the group, or he can choose not to associate himself with the group. The latter is usually easier, as the Outsider doesn't identify himself with the group yet. The Outsider is less likely to stay with the group if they come across as rude and uneducated*.
The effect on the group is not only the loss of a potential member, but that potential member now thinks negatively of the group, and by association may think negatively of the group's beliefs.

What this means, then, is that clogging the streets with bicycles, throwing fake blood on fur-wearing celebrities, or burning effigies of public figures may do more harm than good, by cementing the public's perception of the group as "extremist wackos." The catch, of course, is that it's usually easier to create a spectacle than it is to lead by example and educate others.

-- A.
* I personally have met many people who know little to nothing about the subject they're protesting; it seems to me like they're only protesting because they've built up an image of themselves as a free spirit?

Reply

Yes indeed! this study confirms what we generally see in the world around us. I'm reminded of the difference between when my doctor tells me to quit smoking because my blood pressure is high versus when a woman I'm dating says she likes kissing me better when I don't smoke. Positivity wins!

This is what attracted me to Carbonally - it' a fun site that issues environmental challenges - and they're all about positivity. they're also trying to extend environmental activism to the mainstream. So it looks the science is backing up their strategy.

Reply

I haven't found the formula. On the one hand I don't think preaching to a nonbeliever converts anyone - or if it does, the person goes along grumbling and in the long run may work to sabotage his own efforts to change (or our efforts to change him). On the other, I've had experiences similar to Rachel's (#2) in which the other person truly believes, "I'm not hurting anybody; mind your own business."

Possibly our own example - riding a bike to work but not making a big show of it, for instance - can get a few people to initiate a conversation about what we're doing. Then the person decides for himself the next step. But that often doesn't work. I never water my lawn, and it's just as green as everyone else's, but my neighbors still water at least 20 hours a week. Personal example only converts a few people. If we're really in a crisis situation our own example isn't enough.

So then you get to orders from on high. A lot of racists didn't want to give equal rights to minorities, but when the law said they had to, they pretty much had to. Car companies fought raised efficiency and pollution standards, but in the end they had to comply.

As long as we live in a market-oriented economy, the market will cause people to buy what they can afford. When gas prices get too high - and not until then - it seems most people don't look for alternatives. Until water is exhorbitantly expensive people will shower 'til the hot water runs out.

All that is a long way of saying I Don't Know.

I've been curious what the folks at Terrapass think about the Pickens Plan. Perhaps you could devote a blog to that.

Reply

They way I see it, we have to act as secret agents of change if we want to get anything done. Behind the scene, we've got to walk to walk, ride the bus/bike, drive less, conserve water, purchase renewable enrgy, offset, etc... These efforts (and they are efforts, it isn't always the easy road) though they sometimes pay financial, if not karmic dividends in our favor, also give us a sense of empowerment to talk to others about changing their own behaviors.
Talking to others, in business, relationships or about changing wasteful habits is all about finding common ground. This is where being the secret agent comes in. While those who know me well enough might jibe with the terms tree hugger and hippy etc... those who don't would be wont to put a label on me, thus allowing entrance to their psyche and social trust.
Some types of people certainly benefit from the positive tip. For instance it would be counterproductive to call my mom and tell her how her laundry detergent is ruining her local watershed, or how her lifestyle contributes to climate change. She (and many others) would react defensively and with the same old arguments about it not really making a difference, the right to do what they want, government intrusiveness etc.... But being a secret agent, I merely straighten my bowtie, throw back my martini, and offer positive encouragement and tips "well, I do this back home, which, I found out not only saves me money, but will really help with this problem.... plus everyone else is doing this too, now you can say you are doing your part."
With those already trying, sometimes pointing out an aspect of sustainability that they may have overlooked helps. WHile slightly more negative, like other comments said, some just react better to this kind of encouragement. It's all about chipping away at the corners until you reach a sustainable core. There will continually be low hanging fruits that we can pick at to help everyone towards a more sustainable existence. And when those have all been picked, get a ladder and keep picking.
I'm out.

Reply

My "grandma" research in writing about green topics to "main stream" (read;Suburban driving, plastic bottle-toting-really-nice people) the factual story just doesn't resonate.

I think it's purely a marketing message issue--if a person hasn't been moved by facts & stats, drowning polar bears, droughts, hurricanes, documentaries and your own experience--it just has to be another message. And, hearing it with force or nastiness behind the message just makes people mad and feel stupid and guilty and they tune out more--I don't like it, but it seems to be true, like this research suggests.

I've found hard core personal savings (you save this much money, or you're wasting this much money), a kid message (your child's health is better...), this is so easy of a change, etc., or even a "did you know" soft message is working, just slower than I want.

And, when the media shows a pro-con green story, it appears 50-50 yes-no to the audience, when really it's a 2,067 to 10 ratio of green scientists to naysayers, that's easy to position better, but they don't.

But, slow and steady, it seems to be easier to be green than say 20 years ago. The facts and stats are more stark, people's lives are much more impacted, more credible personalities are green--people that the mainstream relates to, and it's time to be positive, not nasty. Go Green!

Reply

Hey folks,
I think a lot of the way people react to "green preaching" is a knee-jerk defensive response - they don't want to feel guilty about how they consume...I have learned to say stuff like, "You know, I use to use those type of light bulbs,until I saw how much bicycle pumping it required to keep them running compared to the LED light bulbs"...folks get interested with things like that - it makes them think, rather than fussing.
I am living with a group of young folks who are the least environmentally friendly crew I have ever seen...so I am wading in really slowly. It's dumb to me, that I have to argue with them for a clothes line because one doesn't like the way hung out clothes smell...but that's how it goes...
Blessings and keep on keepin' on!
~j

Reply

by the way.....I have yelled at my community during our weekly drum circle announcement time - we are pagan, and as such taking care of the earth is huge part of our path....after cleaning up trash all around our community home...
Didn't change anything, really...

Reply

Laurel's comment resonates with me. Especially the idea that it's all about the right message. Last night I was talking to my parents about Sarah Palin and women in high office, and sustainability in the U.S.

In both cases change eventually happens when conservatives get on board. And they do eventually get on board. But conservatives don't get on board for the same reasons progressives do:

in the case of clean energy, conservatives got on board because of energy independence and evidence of profitable business models in clean tech, not saving nature.

In the case of a woman VP candidate, conservatives got on board because finally a successful female politician was anti-abortion and pro-creationism in schools.

So if we want to promote environmentalism, maybe the way to do it is to try to understand the motivations of the opposition and try to find reasons to conserve resources that appeal to them

Reply

Some very good thoughts here. I would like to add that I think it is all about relationships. If a complete stranger comes up to me, telling me I'm wrong, or I need to change something, etc., I am much more likely to react negatively than if it were someone I trusted and respected.

@Isaac, I have to respectfully disagree with some of your assessments of conservatives. I am a definite moral and political conservative, yet I truly believe that we must safeguard the planet we've been given, and that women are every bit as capable of leadership as men. In fact, my moral and political conservatism is what reinforces those beliefs.

What you seem to think is conservatism is actually bigotry, greed, laziness, inertia, sexism and racism.

Conservatives are not the "opposition"; the opposition is a system that is built on exploitation of the many by the few (yes, that is probably Marxist). My $.02

Reply

Hi, folks. I think the 1st thing we need to accept is that we, personally, won't be able to reach everyone we try to reach--sometimes we're simply powerless, and we need to accept that when it becomes apparent rather than redoubling our efforts.

Rachel (my favorite name): What did you say when you tried to reach your housemates before?

In my experience, people tend to quickly become defensive if they think they're being criticized for what they're doing, particularly if the criticism is expressed in moral terms, as a matter of "right" and "wrong." The mainstream movement's tack has been to use a social marketing approach, focussing on simple and painless things you can do in hopes people will move on to more difficult and challenging actions in time. Unfortunately, this doesn't seem to have worked well, as described in a recent report from the World Wildlife Fund-UK titled "Weathercocks & Signposts: The environment movement at a crossroads." The report argues that we should refocus on a values-based approach instead, and I tend to agree. Figure out what people value--what matters to them, what they love--and do your best to compassionately and humbly make the connections.

Aaron A.:

I definitely agree with you that mainstream folks recoil from the kinds of in-your-face tactics you describe, which makes them counterproductive. I went on one Critical Mass ride, and that was enough for me.

Ed:

I don't think "orders from on high" work very well, either. That's been the primary strategy used by the mainstream movement--in the form of lobbying for stricter legislation and regulations--for at least 40 years. While it achieved certain landmark victories, including the Clean Air and Water Acts, the National Environmental Policy Act, and the Endangered Species Act, it has fallen far short of meeting the challenges we face. Because little effort was put into influencing the values of the general public, there has been a backlash in response to those early legislative successes: begrudging compliance with the laws when necessary, ducking them when possible; persistent efforts to gut those landmark laws and regulations, which has consumed much of the movement's time in defensive actions; and fierce resistance to new laws and regulations. IMO, while legislation can be helpful in some instances, it's only really effective when a sufficient percentage of the affected population supports the goals of the legislation. As I see it, new laws weren't the primary factor in improved conditions and opportunities for African-Americans, changing attitudes among European-Americans were. The automakers had to accept new laws on fuel economy and emissions because most people wanted more fuel-efficient and less-polluting vehicles at the time those laws were passed.

Reply

You have to also remember that many of these people were weaned on two decades of Rush Limbaugh and other right-wing radio and TV shills who take money from big corporate polluters to pitch an anti-environmental message. (This is part of why these and other corporations pushed for killing the Fairness Doctrine in 1987: It was what stood between them swamping the media with their garbage and smothering any alternate voices.)

Instead of talking up something as "good for the environment", talk it up as "saving you money, especially in the long run". For things like CFL bulbs and cold-water laundering, it's quite literally true.

In addition, if you're dealing with a farmer or a hard-core survivalist, pushing the independence angle works really well: "You can go off the grid if you put up a simple wind turbine! Heck, even a couple of solar panels will allow you to run your electric fence and the lights in your outbuildings, so you don't need to run wiring out to them from your house." (This is why the Amish are heavily into solar and wind power: They don't have to use kerosene any more for their barn and buggy lights. Not only are they eliminating a major fire hazard, they're also cutting out a major expense; a single solar panel, which suffices for supplying most Amish lighting needs, costs about as much as a barrel of kerosene, and typical Amish households go through at least one barrel a year.)

Reply

Hi, Phoenix Woman. With respect, I disagree that we should focus on how much money people will save if they make changes that reduce their destructive ecological impact. Though this may be effective in some cases (such as those you cite), the payback period on many changes is still far too long to win most people over. Moreover, most of what we need to do to meet some of our greatest challenges--challenges like mass extinction, rising concentrations of GHG emissions, and the buildup of persistent organic pollutants in the food web--won't have concrete direct financial benefits for individuals and families that we can credibly promise, and some of what we need to do may well have no financial benefits at all, only financial costs--though there will be more important benefits, IMO.

If we're going to make it here, we need to inspire people to focus on other values they hold dear, I think, not the value of saving money. Once again, I recommend the WWF-UK report I referred to above. Fortunately, people are not the rational actors of economic models so it is worth trying to appeal to those other values.

Reply

Actually, the payback period from not using hot water to wash your clothes is immediate. Likewise, skipping the drying cycle on your dishwasher is another easy thing to do that shows immediate savings. (By the way: Dishwashers are more water-thrifty than washing by hand.) From steps like that, people can progress to solar or even wind power, where applicable -- though with real wages continuing their downward slide, solar panels will have to drop an order of magnitude in price to be truly affordable.

As for the environmental issues you bring up: While what you suggest might work for those who've already got the message, we're also dealing with people who have been brainwashed by decades of AM-radio propagandists funded by Big Oil (not to mention Big Coal) who openly mock anyone who dares suggest making any sort of changes in our lifestyle for green reasons. These people have been trained to believe that the polar icecaps are growing, that the earth is cooling, and that climate change is a myth. They see people like you and me as nasty old gruel-eating hippies intent on forcing everyone to live boring, joyless lives in sackcloth clothing. This is especially true for those of us who fall into the trap of hectoring people: It makes the environmentally-disinclined/ignorant more likely to dig in their heels and become MORE wasteful, as this article notes.

Reply

Hi, Phoenix Woman. I didn't explain myself well enough. There are relatively short payback periods on certain changes we can encourage people to make, such as washing clothes in cold water and replacing incandescent bulbs with compact fluourescents. Unfortunately, the actions with short payback periods are far too few, with benefits too small, to solve the challenges we face, and the solutions to some challenges have no financial payback--or, at least, no financial payback in a timeframe that's going to motivate the average person. I'm convinced we will not get where we need to be by focussing on how much money people can save, and I think the evidence supports this; again, I point to the WWF-UK report titled "Weathercocks & Signposts: The environment movement at a crossroads" linked above. Success in getting people to take the "low-cost, simple and painless" steps does not ensure they'll go on to the expensive, difficult steps that currently require personal and familial sacrifices.

Also, I was not suggesting that we continue to use the tactics (such as ecological/carbon footprint calculators) said to be counterproductive with most folks in the USA Today article cited in the original blogpost. We need to inspire people to focus on values other than saving money, getting rich, and accumulating stuff--values like community, security, responsibility, precaution, compassion, good health and so on. I'm not saying it will be easy to meet our global challenges this way, only that it's the only strategy I can see that has any chance of working. If we wave the world, it won't be because it saves us money but because we're convinced it will make our lives better and healthier and enable us to leave a better world to our children.

Reply

Don't know if anybody's still reading this post, but I came across a Washington Post article that I found interesting.

I think we've all seen, through the power of Internet chain e-mails, that misinformation is both pervasive and convincing. Many of us try to fight back against this misinformation, hoping that well-sourced information will overpower the rumors and fabrications.

According to recent experiments performed on both political lefties and righties, however, this misinformation appears to shape peoples' opinions even after the claim has been refuted. In some cases, refuting the false claim may cause people to mentally block out or arbitrarily invalidate the refutation, thus committing even more strongly to the lie.

-- A.

Reply

Educating kids on the environment is extremely effective. Seriously, I think that's probably the best thing you could possibly do. I was totally brainwashed.

It's not that I didn't at one point start thinking for myself but to get me at least be CONCERNED at such a young age hooked me for life. Not even kidding. Every year in elementary and even into junior high they taught us about what impact our actions have on the environment. At that point in time they could have even been telling us information that was entirely inconclusive about the anthropogenic nature of global warming. But just the fact that THEY were concerned about it, authority figures, showed me as a kid that its something I should think about too.

I now will never live a day of my life where I don't take the environment into consideration.

IT IS THE MOST EFFECTIVE THING YOU CAN DO. PERIOD!

Reply