It’s a typical day in a typical American home. Dad is taking his standard five minute water-conserving shower; Mom is packing her reusable grocery bags into her Toyota Prius, and their two darling children are sitting at the table, enjoying an organic, locally produced breakfast. Everything is environmentally conscientious, just as it should be. Or at least the members of this family, along with much of the American population, believe. Through no fault of its own, the public is under the misconception that going “green” (e.g. recycling, buying “green” products, owning fuel efficient cars, etc.,) is a sufficient means of combatting climate change. Unfortunately, environmental advocates have failed to educate citizens on the severity of the
…show more content…
After all, how could reusable grocery bags not stop the polar bears from dying? The only remedy for this gross misinformation is for environmental activists to launch a new campaign, one that utilizes the psychological factors in climate change awareness, to persuade people of all walks of life that “going green” is similar to putting a band-aid on a gunshot wound. Furthermore, climate change cannot be fought effectively on an individual level; therefore, environmentalists must inspire the public to unite. By utilizing research regarding system justification theory, moral foundations theory, and framing, environmental advocates can employ psychology to create an environmental campaign that will incite Americans to unanimously demand more aggressive environmental …show more content…
Though reframing strategies have been mentioned in regards to system justification and moral foundations, it is imperative that environmentalists utilize the many other aspects of reframing as well. One reframing technique that should be implemented in environmental campaigns is the avoidance of the concept of loss. According to Idson, Liberman, and Higgins’ research (1999), the “pleasure of a gain is generally greater than the pleasure of a nonloss and the pain of a loss is generally greater than the pain of a nongain,”(252). The conclusion that a nongain is perceived more pleasantly than a loss suggests that, if the cost of climate policy’s expenditure were conveyed as a slightly smaller increase in future income, Americans would be more receptive to policy reform (Stoknes, 2015). Similarly, environmental activists could reframe the sacrifices necessary to environmental action as opportunities to improve the American lifestyle and economic climate. Surely the opportunity to become more fuel efficient, and thereby independent of Middle Eastern nations for oil, is appealing to the majority of the population. Additionally, in How We Can Use Psychology to Help Fight Climate Change, author Per Espen Stoknes (2015) proposes promoting preparedness for
After all, how could reusable grocery bags not stop the polar bears from dying? The only remedy for this gross misinformation is for environmental activists to launch a new campaign, one that utilizes the psychological factors in climate change awareness, to persuade people of all walks of life that “going green” is similar to putting a band-aid on a gunshot wound. Furthermore, climate change cannot be fought effectively on an individual level; therefore, environmentalists must inspire the public to unite. By utilizing research regarding system justification theory, moral foundations theory, and framing, environmental advocates can employ psychology to create an environmental campaign that will incite Americans to unanimously demand more aggressive environmental …show more content…
Though reframing strategies have been mentioned in regards to system justification and moral foundations, it is imperative that environmentalists utilize the many other aspects of reframing as well. One reframing technique that should be implemented in environmental campaigns is the avoidance of the concept of loss. According to Idson, Liberman, and Higgins’ research (1999), the “pleasure of a gain is generally greater than the pleasure of a nonloss and the pain of a loss is generally greater than the pain of a nongain,”(252). The conclusion that a nongain is perceived more pleasantly than a loss suggests that, if the cost of climate policy’s expenditure were conveyed as a slightly smaller increase in future income, Americans would be more receptive to policy reform (Stoknes, 2015). Similarly, environmental activists could reframe the sacrifices necessary to environmental action as opportunities to improve the American lifestyle and economic climate. Surely the opportunity to become more fuel efficient, and thereby independent of Middle Eastern nations for oil, is appealing to the majority of the population. Additionally, in How We Can Use Psychology to Help Fight Climate Change, author Per Espen Stoknes (2015) proposes promoting preparedness for