Psychologists Contributions to the Promotion of Pro-environmental Behavior - Essay Example

Psychologists’ Contributions to the Promotion of Pro-environmental Behavior Environmental behavior generally refers to all activities or actions that could potentially alter the availability of resources or energy from the environment or even result in a change in the organization and dynamics of the natural surroundings. Pro-environmental behavior, on the other hand, can be defined as the range of activities or actions that have the least negative impact on the environment and are more likely to yield environmental benefits instead (Rice, 2006). Given that research from the field of environmental psychology could potentially foster a profound understanding and promotion of pro-environmental behavior, psychological contributions are critical to the global agenda for environmental sustainability. This paper seeks to critically evaluate the role played by psychologists in promoting pro-environmental behavior, thereby reducing the environmental impact of human behavior while promoting environmental sustainability in the process The critical environmental challenges being experienced worldwide, including global warming, urban air, and noise pollution, are a great challenge to the long-term sustainability of the environment (Steg & Vlek, 2009). Evidently, many of the environmental problems have a basis of the behavior of humans (Penn, 2003). For instance, human activities including the use of fossils, deforestation and cattle rearing contribute to the processes that lead to a change in the global climate. Nevertheless, these activities are also in turn influenced by a number of other human activities such as government policies, and economic and technological changes in addition to the rise and movement of populations, among others. Indicatively, human attitudes, susceptibilities, beliefs as well as the socioeconomic structures in the society within which people live are undoubtedly the overriding determinants of human actions and/or activities in all the situations (Nordlund & Garvill, 2002). This has fostered the notion that a relevant shift in human behavior is a prerequisite for ensuring environmental sustainability, particularly because it could potentially minimize the impact of human behavior on the environment (Lehman & Geller, 2004). Over the years, a vast body of psychological research that is dedicated to establishing and testing hypotheses of human actions that have an impact on the environment, or basically environmentally significant behavior, has emerged (Stern, 2000). Psychological factors have a significant influence on the overall energy consumption levels in households; for instance, profound commitments to safeguarding the welfare of the environment can lead some families to live greener lives than others. Psychologists contribute to the reduction of climate change by facilitating an understanding of the specific individual, household and even organizational behaviors that influence climate change. Psychologists do offer a deeper insight into the varied personal, socioeconomic, policy, institutional, and structural factors that in turn influence human behavior. Moreover, psychologists provide a framework through which that knowledge can eventually be turned into effective interventions that are critical to the arduous task of addressing environmental challenges today. Evidently, a vast proportion of psychologists contributions towards the promotion of pro-environment behaviors focus on consumer behaviour, particularly because environmental problems are as a result of human actions and activities. Psychologists explain that a vast range of internal factors such as knowledge, values, feelings and attitudes combine with varied external contingencies such as infrastructure (both physical and technological), sociocultural, and political factors to affect pro-environmental behaviors. With regard to the behavior of a group and an organization, psychologists explain the circumstances in which the group will adopt conventional behaviors and those in which the organization would undertake investments in efficient energy. Generally, psychologists have enhanced standard policy models by demonstrating that the success of policy interventions is largely determined by social influences on behavior, the specific attributes of policies/programs and target actors. Psychologists have contributed to the comprehension of the four critical components of strategies for promoting pro-environmental behavior, including information, identity, institutions and incentives; these four components match with the principal decision-making motives in social quandaries (Van Vugt, 2009). The four motives – understanding, belonginginess, trust, and self-enhancement – are, undoubtedly, the most essential psychological processes that have a direct bearing on the manner in which individuals think, feel, and behave in social interactions. Psychological explanations highlight the fact that individuals often have an innate desire to understand their surroundings, and to foresee what might occur in case of any eventualities. In most cases, environmental psychology explains that it is the uncertainty about the environment that encourages overuse as people’s optimism about the future blinds them to the potential damage they are inflicting on the environment. In that respect, pro-environmental behavior can be promoted through the provision of reliable information concerning the exploitation and availability of critical resources. A typical example to illustrate that is the fact that households are more likely to adopt and intensify efforts to conserve critical resources such as water if they are made to be aware of the projected harshness of an impending water shortage. In terms of identity, psychology explains that human beings generally possess a profound sense of belonging to the group life in society; psychologists have explained that people are more likely to identify with and to establish bonds with other individuals in larger groups. When the individual sense of social identity and belonging is powerful, people will generally be more inclined to help the group or the community to conserve the environment. In such cases, you might even find high-identifying group members willing to make up for the overuse of resources by other people in the group. In that respect, environmental psychology provides alternative models through which individuals’ identity and sense of belonging can be optimized for promotion of pro-environmental behavior. Given that identity and belongingness are felt more strongly in primary centers of socialization such as families and amongst friends, an appeal to the interests of these groups is likely to be more influential in provoking behavior change (Van Vugt, 2009). Evidently, a direct link exists between human health and the environment as has often been emphasized (Nisbet & Gick, 2008). This is seen clearly when people are urged to safeguard their children’s future through environmental conservation. Furthermore, the dense network of relationships in these social groups facilitates information sharing, thereby encouraging pro-environmental behavior. Identification with social groups is more likely to yield a stronger desire within individuals, to protect the group’s reputation, thereby encouraging pro-environmental behavior among the group. In that respect, getting households to make public commitments to reducing energy use, for example, might actually result to low energy use, through what is referred to as dissonance-generated persuasion (Dickerson, Thibodeau, Aronson, & Miller, 1992). In that context, houses become motivated to regulate energy use because they are conscious that it affects their reputation; sticking a smiley face on the domestic energy bill provides a significant normative social response. In some cases, environmental protection pressure groups have successfully managed to cow large polluting corporations into making a commitment to pro-environmental behavior by threatening to name and shame them. Psychologists have also explained that the existence of genuine institutions that control utilization of environmental resources is critical to the optimization of pro-environmental behaviors; authorities often package normative messages in their persuasive appeals to the public (Sparks, Jessop, Chapman, & Holmes, 2010). Nevertheless, psychologists argue that any collective attempt to conserve the natural environment must be accompanied by sufficient trust, the principal motive underlying social relationships. Generally, individuals often expect that the authorities would exercise restraint and can be trusted to look after the universal good of the group; authorities must, therefore, implement fair decision-making processes that inspire trust of the group (Darnton, Elster-Jones, Lukas, & Brooks, 2006). Ordinarily, it has been established that people often want to feel that they have been treated fairly and respectively, even if the outcomes did not favor them; this is what inspires people’s confidence and trust in the existing institutions’ authority to regulate exploitation of environmental resources. The overriding effect is that the level of people’s trust in their social institutions has a significant impact on the success of those institutions in addressing complex environmental challenges through behavior change campaigns. For instance, people will generally be more inclined to heed authorities’ call to adjust their water usage if they trust that the institution is genuinely looking after their best interests rather than when they lack trust in the legitimacy of the institution in question (Cialdini et al., 2006). Psychologists have also contributed to the understanding that many of the activities and actions that make the least impact on the environment and that actually promote the welfare of the environment are primarily inspired by self-serving motivations. In most cases, individuals, groups and/or organizations are more likely to engage in pro-environmental behaviors because of the desire to gain rewards while avoiding negative consequences associated with not doing so (Van Vugt, 2009). Monetary or financial incentives have been found to have a significant impact on both individual and organizational commitment to pro-environmental behaviors such as the adoption of energy-saving devices and appliances in homes and at workplaces. Psychological insights have been critical in explaining why specific incentive schemes are more likely to encourage pro-environmental behavior than others and why others have a less chance of succeeding (Stern, 2011). Precisely, different individuals are motivated differently by different types of incentives. In that respect, not everyone will be equally motivated to adjust their behavior by financial incentives; for instance, individuals with a strong sense of identity and belonging to a community do not need to be motivated by financial incentives to adjust their water or energy usage. Overall, this paper confirms that, indeed, psychologists’ contributions could potentially foster a profound understanding, and promotion of pro-environmental behavior, which is particularly critical to the global agenda for environmental sustainability. Psychological contributions towards the promotion of pro-environment behaviors focus on consumer behaviour, taking cognizance of the fact that many environmental problems have a basis in the behavior of humans. Internal factors such as knowledge, values, feelings and attitudes coupled with external contingencies such as infrastructural, sociocultural, and political factors determine pro-environmental behaviors. Psychologists do offer a profound insight into the various personal, socioeconomic, policy, institutional, and structural factors that in turn influence human behavior. In so doing, psychologists provide a fundamental framework through which that knowledge can eventually be turned into effective interventions that are critical to addressing environmental challenges by fostering pro-environmental behavior. References Cialdini, R. B., Demaine, L. J., Sagarin, B. J., Barrett, D. W., Rhoads, K. & Winter, P. L. (2006). Managing social norms for persuasive impact. Social Influence, 1(1), 3–15. Darnton, A., Elster-Jones, J., Lukas, K., & Brooks, M. (2006). Promoting pro-environmental behaviour: Existing evidence to inform better policy making. University of Westminster: The Centre for Sustainable Development. Dickerson, C., Thibodeau, R., Aronson, E., & Miller, D. (1992). Using cognitive dissonance to encourage water conservation. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 22, 841–854. Lehman, P. K., & Geller, E. S. (2004). Behavior analysis and environmental protection: Accomplishments and potential for more. Behavior and Social Issues, 13(1), 13–32.  Nisbet, E.K.L., & Gick, M.L. (2008). Can health psychology help the planet? Applying theory and models of health behaviour to environmental actions. Canadian Psychology, 49(4), 296–304. Nordlund, A. M., & Garvill, J. (2002). Value structures behind pro-environmental behavior. Environment and Behavior, 34(6), 740–756. Penn, D.J. (2003). The evolutionary roots of our environmental problems: Toward a Darwinian ecology. The Quarterly Review of Biology, 78(3), 275–301. Rice, G. (2006). Pro-environmental behavior in Egypt: Is there a role for islamic environmental ethics? Journal of Business Ethics, 65(4), 373–390.  Sparks, P., Jessop, D.C., Chapman, J., & Holmes, K. (2010). Pro-environmental actions, climate change and defensiveness: Do self-affirmations make a difference to people’s motives and beliefs about making a difference? British Journal of Social Psychology, 49(3), 553–568. Steg, L., & Vlek, C. (2009). Encouraging pro-environmental behaviour: An integrative review and research agenda. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 29(3), 309–317. Stern, P. C. (2000). Toward a coherent theory of environmentally significant behavior. The Journal of Social Issues, 56(3), 407–424. Stern, P.C. (2011). Contributions of psychology to limiting climate change. American Psychologist, 66(4), 303–314. Van Vugt, M. (2009). Averting the tragedy of the commons: Using social psychological science to protect the environment. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 18(3), 169–173. Read More