Human Behavior Effects on the Environment: a Struggle for Positive - Literature review Example

Human Behavior Effects on the Environment: A Struggle for Positive s Since human has firstly found himself among other nature, its behavior’s causing an effect on environment and at the same time, environment demands for a specific behavior feedback. Among first significant examples of this coexistence is either hunting or gathering choice when procuring food, cloth etc. with a view of the environmental conditions (Nettle et al. 2013). With a greater civilization development came a clearer understanding that Earth environment should be sustainable for a comfort living. Conscious environmental concerns emerged. Nowadays, there’s a common agreement among most of the humankind that environmental concerns should be satisfied (Leiserowitz et al. 2005). In psychological terms, current paper explores why a positive effect from human behavior on environment hasn’t yet replaced a negative one. According to Nettle et al. (2013) human behavior towards environment cannot be discussed without concept of human adaptation involved. Whatever the new environmental conditions can emerge, human beings adapt themselves “maximizing their fitness given the ecological conditions that they face” (Nettle et al. 2013). Comparing to other species, human adaptation is a “unique cognitive and behavioral mechanism” that goes much long before any biological changes (DNA etc.), and depends on how humans experience the environment (Nettle et al. 2013). Vision or perception of the world around is important to form environmentally responsible behavior. In other words, humans should think of the environment in a specific way firstly, to demonstrate either negative or positive behavior later. De Yong (2013) says information about the environment is what shapes human’s behavior to no small degree, and resulting is a demand to form “an affirmative response”. In this way, unreasonable (unethical, intolerant etc.) behavior isn’t a “standard operating condition” for humans to overcome, but rather a response on the environment “in which people find themselves” (De Yong, 2013). The most common, for example, is a problem of pollution and connected to this one problem of littering and problem of recycling. There’s a common vision on a problem claiming that humans themselves cause pollution by using a heavy industries, driving automobiles and etc.; themselves cause littering and cooperate on recycling poorly. Meanwhile, it seems for humans, there’s still a possibility to adapt life to those conditions, and despite there’s a social approval on environmentally ethical way of life, there’s also a huge number of produced automobiles (including status cars from advertising), time concerns (modern people living in a fast time mode), neighbors who don’t bicycle and recycle either and etc. In other words, many other factors to resist one’s environmentally ethical intention to become a real action. Leiserowitz et al. (2005) point that changes in behavior are related to changes of values and attitude towards a problem. The statistic says that with a view of information about environment which reasons a vision for different people all over the world, most of humans are concerned with their negative impact on the environment (Leiserowitz et al. 2005). For example, Leiserowitz et al. (2005) report on about 85% of Europeans and North Americans who think people should rather coexist with nature, than master nature according to own needs, and moreover, think that humans have moral duties to care of animals, water, and air etc. “In two recent studies, 52 percent of respondents worldwide agree that protecting the environment should be given priority over economic growth” (Leiserowitz et al. 2005). At the same time, James (2010) brings experimental statistics that among 94% of those who claim individuals shouldn’t litter only 2% has “planted” a litter during experiment. Thus, it seems it’s not the intention, but a relation between intention and action what should be modified. Monroe (2003) admits that motivation to act in environmentally responsible way is different for different people as well as a reward those people expect from their behavior. Scholar also brings the Theory of Planned Behavior to describe how intention becomes action. Among three elements of the scheme first is “the attitude towards behavior” meaning, considering that performed behavior will lead to positive outcomes. Secondly, “the perception of the social pressure” on behavior, meaning society demonstrated that this behavior’s important. Thirdly, “the perception of ability” meaning, one performing a behavior should feel control, ability to make an action (Monroe, 2003). Modification can interfere into these three elements arguing for environmental sustainability. To encourage sustainability, there’re two most common approaches: first one covers any tools used in social marketing while second one generally, refers to cultivating environmental literacy. Monroe (2003) points that social marketing tools have weaknesses because should vary for a different targeted audience. In its turn, cultivating environmental literacy is a complex long term process hard to achieve. Yet when achieved, environmentally responsible behavior can become a social norm and decrease human negative effect on the environment. Beardsley (2013) reports on interesting findings from Kizing et al. studies. Scholars claim that process is vice versa, and that performed behavior defines values and attitudes to no small degree than values and attitudes define a particular behavior. In support of their idea, Kizing et al. point on the same issue James (2010) points on: despite there’s a personal intention, and often, even governmental policies on environmental sustainability, there’s no action, but a barrier to cross between theory and practice. Meanwhile, “Norms of cooperation are typically much stronger than pro-environment norms are”, and in this way, a negative impact can really be decreased (Beardsley, 2013). However, social norms and beliefs accepted among particular group of people can work within the above mentioned schemas. They firstly, can encourage individual intention claiming about social value of environmentally responsible behavior, or embody environmental concerns of a society. Members of that society then, should either obey norms or will be excluded from society. Social norms and beliefs also make the Theory of Planned Behavior work as they encourage attitude towards a particular behavior. Monroe (2003) says attitude is “a product of salient beliefs” and society can form these beliefs. By imposing common attitude upon members, those beliefs and norms fulfill a social pressure element of the schema. Behaving in environmentally unethical way, one will have to face a public discontent. Social norms are known as rules that determine members abilities, thus a control or freedom on behavior exists. Finally, it should be noted that when different social marketing tools as well as cultivation of environmental literacy are applied, social opinions are changed, and thus, new norms and beliefs are inflicted. Leitmotif is the thought that despite environmentally responsible behavior has a great value for a society in general, they are individuals (or groups of individuals) who make a real contribution performing a particular behavior from day to day. Therefore, James (2010) says, one of the successful ways to promote sustainable behavior is to make issue personal, involving feeling of personal experience. For example, a story form can be used. Despite a common visualization, “stories evoke the same modules of our brain which are evoked for real events”, thus audience learns in a way similar to a real life experience (James, 2010). Additionally, stories can picture inspiriting examples (heroes and situations), and therefore teach audience on heroes’ models of behavior (like during social learning). Another methodic is contrary to this one, as James (2010) offers to exercise “the bystander effect”. Scholar admits that this way is a dangerous one, yet most effective too (James, 2010). When it’s proclaimed to a general public that, for example, most of Americans do recycle properly, or that more and more people around the world replace automobiles with bicycles and etc., it encourages audience to act the same way. In this way, a sense of a social pressure would be created making individuals to perform environmentally responsible behavior. It can be concluded that while a positive human effect on the environment is yet to come, a negative impact from human activity is among actual human concerns. Despite there’s no lack of intention to change behavior for the best, there’s a certain barrier needed to be crossed between intention and action. Besides controversial vice versa approach Kizing et al. propose, there’s a more common Theory of Planned Behavior to explore scheme of action, widely used social marketing tools and cultivating environmental literacy approaches employed to resist environmentally unethical behavior. When psychology interferes, it seems important to remember that normally humans behave with accordance to the information about environment, but with a view of their high adaptation abilities too. References Beardsley, Timothy M. (2013, March 13). Editorial: Just Act Normal. BioScience. Retrieved from http://www.aibs.org/bioscience-editorials/editorial_2013_03.html De Young, Raymond. (2013). Environmental psychology overview. In S.R. Klein and A.H. Huffman (Eds.) Green Organization: Driving Change with IO Psychology, pp. 17-33. New York: Routledge. Retrieved from http://www-personal.umich.edu/~rdeyoung/envtpsych.html James, Rachel (2010, August). Promoting Sustainable Behavior: A Guide to the Successful Communication. Berkley Office of Sustainability. Retrieved from http://sustainability.berkeley.edu/sites/default/files/Promoting_Sustain_Behavior_Primer.pdf Leiserowitz et al. (2005, November). Do Global Attitudes and Behaviors Support Sustainable Development? Environment, Vol. 47, No. 9: 22-38. Retrieved from http://environment.yale.edu/climate-communication/files/LeiserowitzVABsEnv.pdf Monroe, Martha C. (2003). Two Avenues for Encouraging Conservation Behaviors. Human Ecology Review, Vol. 10, No. 2: 113-125. Retrieved from http://www.humanecologyreview.org/pastissues/her102/102monroe.pdf Nettle et al. (2013, January 8). Human behavioral ecology: current research and future prospects. Behavioral Ecology. Retrieved from http://beheco.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2013/01/28/beheco.ars222.full.pdf+html Read More