psyc 391 readings 01/14/2014 amazonaws com
psyc 391 readings
01/14/2014
Apocalypse soon? (reading 1) people have a just world belief that their environment is a safe and stable place. global warming issues threaten this belief and people react by employing defensive responses, through dismissal or rationalization of the information. Experiment: hold the level of just world beliefs people have, measured levels of skepticism regarding global warning after being exposed to different types of global warming messages. Study 1 does dire global warming messages actually promote skepticism among individuals with strong just world beliefs? Study 2 dire messages can increase skepticism regarding global warming by contradicting individuals’ underlying just world belief. Results: participants who were primed with just world statements reported high levels of global warming skepticism than those who were primed with unjust world statements. dire messages lead to increased global warming skepticism because they conflict with just world beliefs those primed with just world statements reported less willingness to change their lifestyle to reduce their carbon footprint than did those primed with unjust world statements. the same dire messages should be coupled with a potential solution, the information can be communicated without created a substantial threat. our results complement recent research showing that framing environmentalism as patriotic can successfully increase proenvironmental behavioral intentions in individuals most attached to the status quo. Conclusion: global warming messages should not contradict with individual’s deeply held beliefs.
01/14/2014 Reading 2 ( the emergency of climate change)
01/14/2014 Latane and darley’s (1970) model of helping behavior in an emergency to the issue of climate change. the model provides an integrative framework that highlights the relevance to climate change of disparate research areas.
Latane and darley (1970) proposed that in order for someone to help, five criteria must be met. They also propose an overarching cost/benefit analysis that impacts whether or not a person will engage in helping.
First step: potential helper must notice the event in question. however, many emergencies lack salience in our lives. characteristics of the helper also makes a difference: a potential helper who is in a hurry or is highly self absorbed may not notice the distressed other.
Second step: requires the potential helper to interpret the event as an emergency situation. Emergency events are often ambigious our reliance on others for information and our need for approval can both facilitate and serve as a barrier to helping.
third step: requires individuals to feel a sense of personal responsibility to aid the distressed other. one key determinant of feeling responsible is having a sense of “weness” or connectedness to the victim. > smaller groups, similarity of the person to the distressed other, and taking the victim’s perspective all contribute ot a sense of connection any key determinant of feeling responsible is having no one else to rely on. ( diffusion of responsibility)
01/14/2014 fourth step: knowing what to do
fifth step: actually deciding to act are also required before help will be given in an emergency. people will not help if they feel that their personal resources are insufficient to effectively cope with the emergency. Instead, they are likely to deny personal responsibility. * factors that enhance a person’s sense of empowerment or selfefficacy tends to promotes helping behavior. As well as information that provides people with effective ideas of how to address an emergency situation. Psychological processes of each stage are intertwined and affect each other. Society level structural( policy) changes beget individual level psychological changes. key to successful action is collective action( at both the society and psychological level) stage 1: noticing the event taking steps to psychologically decrease the distance between the potential helper and the emergency may also help people to notice climate change. Step 2 : interpreting the event as an emergency humans are not objective and passive processors of information fears, desires and goals influence strongly how they evaluate and weigh evidence( fiske & taylor, 2007) communication designed to arouse fear often backfire, unless coupled with recommendations. individuals are impacted by the way others react in an emergency situation; they rely on other for information. Seeing others make efforts to reduce their carbon footprint may prove to be effective in helping to establish that the threat of climate change requires immediate action
01/14/2014 cognitive dissonance optimism can also lead people to fail to perceive an event as an emergency. Optimism makes people believe that nothing negative will happen to them
stage 3: feeling personally responsible to act responsibility is subjectively defined all cultures have a responsibility norm: an understanding about who and what we are responsible for cognitive dissonance: individuals are motivated to perceive it is someone else’s job when the magnitude of the emergency is greater than the personal resources available to an individual, the potential helper is likely to engage in defensive attribution and not accept responsibility for the emergency Lazarus and Folkman(1984) there are two coping strategies: problem focused: taking action to confront a threat emotion focused coping : ignoring or denying the threat how do people decide which form to choose? People’s perception of control more perceived control, more likely to choose problem focused coping mckenzie mohr and smith(1999): sense of perceived control is largely impacted by our sense of community acting in concert with others leads people to have greater sense of self efficacy( personal control), thus, less likely to engage in defensive denial of responsibility or emotion focused coping sense of perceived control >increase in selfefficicacy> problem focused coping
01/14/2014 we an also increase feelings of responsibility to U.S citizens sense of connection to nature. > research on prosocial behavior consistently demonstrates that feeling connected to others increases willingness to help. ( either going outside, looking out a window, spending time in greenhouse..) increasing individual’s knowledge about an issue, although intuitively appealing, is not likely to increase a sense of responsibility.
Stage five: implementing the required acts some people may not act simply because it is structurally impossible( they do have access to facilities that will help them) or inconvenient( they will not bike all the way up the mountain). Habit and norms play an important role in allowing people to decide whether to act or not Norms: unspoken guidelines for behavior. The cost/benefits analysis affects stage 2 and 3, and also the later stages of the model( ideasstage 4, action stage 5) because many ideas are associated with having less, which leads to psychological barriers. Solution: increase the cost of our current behavior, in a direct and experiential way. Make costs visible. Ex. Carbon tax highlight the benefits associated with switching from consumerist lifestyle to sustainable lifestyle. ( research shows that money and happiness are unrelated once basic needs are met) send out the message of what really matters is not stuff, but rather the quality of our relationships and having a sense of purpose.
01/14/2014 dragons of inaction environmental actions tends to have three broad phases: ignorance psychological disturbances actions may fade, negligible, or be counterproductive.
The seven dragons of inaction: 1) Limited cognition > the human brain is more developed for reacting to immediate dangers, present time, and exploitable resources. ( ancient brain) > Ignorance: not knowing the problem and not knowing what to do about it. > environmental numbness: we attend to our environment selectively; therefore we do not notice climate change as a problem because it is not within our environment; also, hearing about global warming too often can lead to increase in habituation( reduce in response) > uncertainty: perceived uncertainty reduces the frequency of proenvironmental behavior. Individuals tends to interpret uncertainty as sufficient reason to harvest at a rate that favors selfinterest rather than that of environment. Uncertainty is also justification for inaction. Scientists have to present the likelihood of climate change outcomes honestly without promoting optimism > judgmental discounting: undervaluing of distant or future risks. Research shows that people think other environments have worse conditions than their own. People also tend to discount future environmental risks as less significant. People think elsewhere and later. ( neutralization theory: we discount in order to remove personal responsibility) > optimism bias: > perceived behavioral control and selfefficacy: people don’t think they have behavioral control over the outcome. ( fatalism: the sense that nothing can be done, and only collective human action works> accept that all things are inevitable) 2) Ideologies > worldviews: disbelief in global warming clashes with free enterprise capitalism.
01/14/2014 > suprahuman powers: religious beliefs > technosalvation: technology can save us > system justification: tendency to defend and justify the societal status quo. People don’t’ want to rock the boat if they have a comfortable lifestyle. 3) Comparisons with other people > social comparison: ( theory of planned behavior and value beliefnorm model people plan their course of action based on others) > social norms and networks > perceived inequality: why should I change if they won’t change? 4) sunk costs > financial investments: people want to drive car and not let it go to waste. Engaging in thought manipulation from cognitive dissonance > behavioral momentum: the relationship between how persistent the behavior is and the rate at which this same behavior is reinforced. The greater the behavioral momentum, the harder to change the behavior. > conflicting values, goals and aspirations: our “American dream” values conflicts with our pro environmental values.; many citizens don’t seem to mind addressing the economic cost of climate change as long as it doesn’t come out of their own pockets > place attachment: people are more likely to care for nature if they feel attached to it. Place attachment is sometimes, but not always associated with proenvironmental behavior. 5) Discredence ( when people hold views of others in a negative light, they are unable to take information) > mistrust: > perceived program inadequacy: programs are only mandatory > denial : all factors accumulate to denial. Emotion plays an important role in denial. ( terror management theory: people deny the problem because it’s a reminder of their mortality) > reactance: people react strongly to messages from scientists and government. Research shows that people have strong reaction to things that threaten their freedom.
01/14/2014 6) perceived risk changing behavior potentially holds six kinds of risk > functional risk: environmentally green vehicle may not work right. > physical risk: bicycles are more likely to cause injuries > financial risk: > social risk: people will put you down > psychological risk: lower selfesteem and confidence > temporal risk: the time spent on adopting to the new behavior might fail to produce the desired results 7) Limited behavior > tokenism: people tend to choose easy actions that have no impact on emissions. ( lowcost hypothesis: easy of adoption means that actions tend to be chosen over higher cost but more effective actions) > the rebound effect: after some effort, the gains made are diminished or erased by subsequent actions. ( Jevons paradox: people who buy fuel efficient vehicles may drive farther than they did when they owned less efficient vehicles) ex. Participants who had been warned about the decline of the resource restricted their harvests for a few seasons but then returned to prewarning levels soon after.
Theory of planned behavior: subjective norms and perceived behavioral control. Valuebelief norm: the less selfcentered one is, they should endorse new ecological paradigm( worldview that envisions the planet as a delicate, threatened and interconnected system. Acts that harm the environment have adverse consequences). However, people will still not act green if they don’t believe they can reduce the consequences. DORITE model: focuses on observable behavior and implementing programs Global helplessness model: individuals may believe that they lack effective strategies to solve the problem.
01/14/2014 Emotions are viewed as aspects of barriers, but not a central aspect emotion may be less important for most barriers but important if one’s attitude toward climate change is not strong.
01/14/2014 the m/c is really straightforward. Know a little more than general ideas.
01/14/2014
Apocalypse soon? (reading 1) people have a just world belief that their environment is a safe and stable place. global warming issues threaten this belief and people react by employing defensive responses, through dismissal or rationalization of the information. Experiment: hold the level of just world beliefs people have, measured levels of skepticism regarding global warning after being exposed to different types of global warming messages. Study 1 does dire global warming messages actually promote skepticism among individuals with strong just world beliefs? Study 2 dire messages can increase skepticism regarding global warming by contradicting individuals’ underlying just world belief. Results: participants who were primed with just world statements reported high levels of global warming skepticism than those who were primed with unjust world statements. dire messages lead to increased global warming skepticism because they conflict with just world beliefs those primed with just world statements reported less willingness to change their lifestyle to reduce their carbon footprint than did those primed with unjust world statements. the same dire messages should be coupled with a potential solution, the information can be communicated without created a substantial threat. our results complement recent research showing that framing environmentalism as patriotic can successfully increase proenvironmental behavioral intentions in individuals most attached to the status quo. Conclusion: global warming messages should not contradict with individual’s deeply held beliefs.
01/14/2014 Reading 2 ( the emergency of climate change)
01/14/2014 Latane and darley’s (1970) model of helping behavior in an emergency to the issue of climate change. the model provides an integrative framework that highlights the relevance to climate change of disparate research areas.
Latane and darley (1970) proposed that in order for someone to help, five criteria must be met. They also propose an overarching cost/benefit analysis that impacts whether or not a person will engage in helping.
First step: potential helper must notice the event in question. however, many emergencies lack salience in our lives. characteristics of the helper also makes a difference: a potential helper who is in a hurry or is highly self absorbed may not notice the distressed other.
Second step: requires the potential helper to interpret the event as an emergency situation. Emergency events are often ambigious our reliance on others for information and our need for approval can both facilitate and serve as a barrier to helping.
third step: requires individuals to feel a sense of personal responsibility to aid the distressed other. one key determinant of feeling responsible is having a sense of “weness” or connectedness to the victim. > smaller groups, similarity of the person to the distressed other, and taking the victim’s perspective all contribute ot a sense of connection any key determinant of feeling responsible is having no one else to rely on. ( diffusion of responsibility)
01/14/2014 fourth step: knowing what to do
fifth step: actually deciding to act are also required before help will be given in an emergency. people will not help if they feel that their personal resources are insufficient to effectively cope with the emergency. Instead, they are likely to deny personal responsibility. * factors that enhance a person’s sense of empowerment or selfefficacy tends to promotes helping behavior. As well as information that provides people with effective ideas of how to address an emergency situation. Psychological processes of each stage are intertwined and affect each other. Society level structural( policy) changes beget individual level psychological changes. key to successful action is collective action( at both the society and psychological level) stage 1: noticing the event taking steps to psychologically decrease the distance between the potential helper and the emergency may also help people to notice climate change. Step 2 : interpreting the event as an emergency humans are not objective and passive processors of information fears, desires and goals influence strongly how they evaluate and weigh evidence( fiske & taylor, 2007) communication designed to arouse fear often backfire, unless coupled with recommendations. individuals are impacted by the way others react in an emergency situation; they rely on other for information. Seeing others make efforts to reduce their carbon footprint may prove to be effective in helping to establish that the threat of climate change requires immediate action
01/14/2014 cognitive dissonance optimism can also lead people to fail to perceive an event as an emergency. Optimism makes people believe that nothing negative will happen to them
stage 3: feeling personally responsible to act responsibility is subjectively defined all cultures have a responsibility norm: an understanding about who and what we are responsible for cognitive dissonance: individuals are motivated to perceive it is someone else’s job when the magnitude of the emergency is greater than the personal resources available to an individual, the potential helper is likely to engage in defensive attribution and not accept responsibility for the emergency Lazarus and Folkman(1984) there are two coping strategies: problem focused: taking action to confront a threat emotion focused coping : ignoring or denying the threat how do people decide which form to choose? People’s perception of control more perceived control, more likely to choose problem focused coping mckenzie mohr and smith(1999): sense of perceived control is largely impacted by our sense of community acting in concert with others leads people to have greater sense of self efficacy( personal control), thus, less likely to engage in defensive denial of responsibility or emotion focused coping sense of perceived control >increase in selfefficicacy> problem focused coping
01/14/2014 we an also increase feelings of responsibility to U.S citizens sense of connection to nature. > research on prosocial behavior consistently demonstrates that feeling connected to others increases willingness to help. ( either going outside, looking out a window, spending time in greenhouse..) increasing individual’s knowledge about an issue, although intuitively appealing, is not likely to increase a sense of responsibility.
Stage five: implementing the required acts some people may not act simply because it is structurally impossible( they do have access to facilities that will help them) or inconvenient( they will not bike all the way up the mountain). Habit and norms play an important role in allowing people to decide whether to act or not Norms: unspoken guidelines for behavior. The cost/benefits analysis affects stage 2 and 3, and also the later stages of the model( ideasstage 4, action stage 5) because many ideas are associated with having less, which leads to psychological barriers. Solution: increase the cost of our current behavior, in a direct and experiential way. Make costs visible. Ex. Carbon tax highlight the benefits associated with switching from consumerist lifestyle to sustainable lifestyle. ( research shows that money and happiness are unrelated once basic needs are met) send out the message of what really matters is not stuff, but rather the quality of our relationships and having a sense of purpose.
01/14/2014 dragons of inaction environmental actions tends to have three broad phases: ignorance psychological disturbances actions may fade, negligible, or be counterproductive.
The seven dragons of inaction: 1) Limited cognition > the human brain is more developed for reacting to immediate dangers, present time, and exploitable resources. ( ancient brain) > Ignorance: not knowing the problem and not knowing what to do about it. > environmental numbness: we attend to our environment selectively; therefore we do not notice climate change as a problem because it is not within our environment; also, hearing about global warming too often can lead to increase in habituation( reduce in response) > uncertainty: perceived uncertainty reduces the frequency of proenvironmental behavior. Individuals tends to interpret uncertainty as sufficient reason to harvest at a rate that favors selfinterest rather than that of environment. Uncertainty is also justification for inaction. Scientists have to present the likelihood of climate change outcomes honestly without promoting optimism > judgmental discounting: undervaluing of distant or future risks. Research shows that people think other environments have worse conditions than their own. People also tend to discount future environmental risks as less significant. People think elsewhere and later. ( neutralization theory: we discount in order to remove personal responsibility) > optimism bias: > perceived behavioral control and selfefficacy: people don’t think they have behavioral control over the outcome. ( fatalism: the sense that nothing can be done, and only collective human action works> accept that all things are inevitable) 2) Ideologies > worldviews: disbelief in global warming clashes with free enterprise capitalism.
01/14/2014 > suprahuman powers: religious beliefs > technosalvation: technology can save us > system justification: tendency to defend and justify the societal status quo. People don’t’ want to rock the boat if they have a comfortable lifestyle. 3) Comparisons with other people > social comparison: ( theory of planned behavior and value beliefnorm model people plan their course of action based on others) > social norms and networks > perceived inequality: why should I change if they won’t change? 4) sunk costs > financial investments: people want to drive car and not let it go to waste. Engaging in thought manipulation from cognitive dissonance > behavioral momentum: the relationship between how persistent the behavior is and the rate at which this same behavior is reinforced. The greater the behavioral momentum, the harder to change the behavior. > conflicting values, goals and aspirations: our “American dream” values conflicts with our pro environmental values.; many citizens don’t seem to mind addressing the economic cost of climate change as long as it doesn’t come out of their own pockets > place attachment: people are more likely to care for nature if they feel attached to it. Place attachment is sometimes, but not always associated with proenvironmental behavior. 5) Discredence ( when people hold views of others in a negative light, they are unable to take information) > mistrust: > perceived program inadequacy: programs are only mandatory > denial : all factors accumulate to denial. Emotion plays an important role in denial. ( terror management theory: people deny the problem because it’s a reminder of their mortality) > reactance: people react strongly to messages from scientists and government. Research shows that people have strong reaction to things that threaten their freedom.
01/14/2014 6) perceived risk changing behavior potentially holds six kinds of risk > functional risk: environmentally green vehicle may not work right. > physical risk: bicycles are more likely to cause injuries > financial risk: > social risk: people will put you down > psychological risk: lower selfesteem and confidence > temporal risk: the time spent on adopting to the new behavior might fail to produce the desired results 7) Limited behavior > tokenism: people tend to choose easy actions that have no impact on emissions. ( lowcost hypothesis: easy of adoption means that actions tend to be chosen over higher cost but more effective actions) > the rebound effect: after some effort, the gains made are diminished or erased by subsequent actions. ( Jevons paradox: people who buy fuel efficient vehicles may drive farther than they did when they owned less efficient vehicles) ex. Participants who had been warned about the decline of the resource restricted their harvests for a few seasons but then returned to prewarning levels soon after.
Theory of planned behavior: subjective norms and perceived behavioral control. Valuebelief norm: the less selfcentered one is, they should endorse new ecological paradigm( worldview that envisions the planet as a delicate, threatened and interconnected system. Acts that harm the environment have adverse consequences). However, people will still not act green if they don’t believe they can reduce the consequences. DORITE model: focuses on observable behavior and implementing programs Global helplessness model: individuals may believe that they lack effective strategies to solve the problem.
01/14/2014 Emotions are viewed as aspects of barriers, but not a central aspect emotion may be less important for most barriers but important if one’s attitude toward climate change is not strong.
01/14/2014 the m/c is really straightforward. Know a little more than general ideas.
