Scientists who study the natural world can be uncomfortable with human’s basic irrationality. But for psychologists and scientists who study human behavior, it’s a fact of life. Yesterday, the Washington Post ran a story called “Its Natural to Behave Irrationally,” which explores possibilities for communications about global warming that swim with the current of human nature instead of against it.
I note with interest one important word that pops up frequently in the story — behavior. As in the disciplines of “behavioral economics,” and “behavioral psychology.” Implicit to this story is that if you want to change people’s habits in ways that reduce global warming, you will have to define those behaviors and work towards them specifically. None of the experts cited in the article seem to believe that general “awareness” leads to much concrete action.
Farenthold summarizes some of the work this way:
…tap into two powerful human impulses: to be like one’s neighbors and then to beat them at something.
Among the evidence supporting this approach is a 2007 study conducted in San Diego. Researchers hung fliers on doornobs featured four different messages urging energy conservation:
- Conserve energy because it helps the environment
- Conserve energy because it is socially responsible
- COnserve energy because you will save money
- Conserve energy because most of your neighbors are doing their part already
These are all decent enough, but when researchers went around and read the electrical meters of those households, the largest gains were found at homes that had received message #4.
More good examples in the Washington Post about environmental communication and behavior change.
Subscribe via RSS
Fan Our Facebook Page
Connect on LinkedIn
There was another great study done that looked at the most persuasive message for encouraging people in hotel rooms not to have their sheets and towels changed everyday. By far the most effective approach was the message that said something like “most people that stay in this hotel do not have their sheets and towels changed everyday.” The environmental messages about water conservation etc… lagged way behind the “social norm” message.
Look at the fertilizer companies. That’s the approach they use – “make sure you are not the only person on your block with a bad lawn” (ie it must be green and weed free)
At Biodiversity Project we are going to be experimenting with this type of technique with a leaf campaign. We are trying to get people to compost their leaves or just mow them with the grass and leave them on their lawn. Our approach is going to be along the lines of “don’t be the neighbor with all the leaf bags piled up in your from yard.”
We will see how it works, but we are definately using the social norms approach to messaging.
I’ve found it much more persuasive to talk about the postive of a behavior and not the negatives. For example, it is a good thing to conserve water and not it is a bad thing not to. Seems so simple yet I continually see our messages leaning towards the negative and pitting individuals against themselves and others. The US is basically a guilt driven society and not a shame society. I won’t argue whether that is how it should be, but it is the way that it is, for now.
notes am demanding is not on the same form its different