blog
Four Myths of Climate Behaviour
Posted by: Solitaire Townsend
I love new climate campaigns but still cringe to see so many making the same mistakes, over and over and over…I’m afraid the new Jack and Jill campaign from ActonCO2 is a perfect example of this.
So don’t fall into the easy traps of thinking…
1) We can just transfer a ‘seatbelt’ campaign to climate change
Almost every week someone says to me “but can’t we just run a campaign like AIDS/anti-smoking/clunk,click/ 5 a day/don’t drink and drive”. I have to answer “sorry guvnor but this is a cause and effect problem”.
All these social marketing campaigns work with ‘Individual Cause = Individual Effect’ equation. You do something and it affects you. Stop smoking or you’ll die, eat five a day to live long and prosper.
With climate action we don’t have that nice simple personal payback equation. We have ‘Individual Action + Collective Cause = Collective Effect’, or to put more simply “turn your lights off or we’ll lose Tuvalu”. Individual impacts versus collective impacts are completely different behavioral motivators. You can’t ‘clunk click’ the climate.
2) We can change people's values
The notion of changing the audience rather than the message is at the heart of the ‘identity campaigning’ concept led by WWF. Identity campaigning argues that we shouldn’t accept the basic psychology of our audience – but seek to change it.
This means re-programming people’s values away from consumption, status and selfish desires and towards collective awareness and a closer relationship with our place in the natural world. Actually this drives us bonkers, especially because implicit is the message ‘if only everyone else thought and acted like us everything would be okay’.
That makes our skin crawl a bit, and we know the majority public audience hates environmental worthies suggesting there’s not only something wrong with their footprint: there’s something wrong with their personality.
3) Just scare the hell out of people
Yep, climate change is darn scary. But fear campaigning is what has prepared the ground for climate denial. For years the campaigns have screamed out “YOU’RE ALL GOING TO DIE (unless you change your lightbulbs)”.
People are scared of the problem, don’t believe the solutions and so after a while, stop believing the problem. We must stop selling climate hell and substitute a picture of low carbon heaven
4) We can educate our way out of this
This one sounds sensible at first, and governments love it. Perhaps if people just understood climate change, if they just had ‘climate literacy’, then they’d change their behavior?
Two problems with this. Firstly that climate change is bloody complicated to understand, and people have better things to do than to learn about it. In the UK we have some other basic educational issues already, and you can’t expect people to understand climate change if they don’t have basic scientific literacy.
Our second problem is knowing exactly the level of climate education that results in behavior change. What’s the educational tipping point; simple knowing that carbon dioxide is a gas, or grasping the Albedo effect? In this case there is a comparison with other social marketing campaigns. Smokers as a rule are highly informed about their impacts of their behavior; it doesn’t stop them lighting up.
Blow the myths
Instead of all this try a simple tactic. Tell people your vision of the future. Sell the Sizzle.
Comments are closed on this thread.
Archives
- August (8)
- July (20)
- June (20)
- May (19)
- April (35)
- March (35)
- February (27)
- January (36)
- December (23)
- November (16)
- October (9)
Authors
- Ed Gillespie (170)
- Solitaire Townsend (40)
- Henry Hicks (39)
- David Willans (38)
- Doug Stewart (35)
- Laurie Bennett (29)
- Casper ter Kuile (25)
- Harriet Kingaby (20)
- Jeff Melnyk (20)
- Georgina Combes (17)
- Tom Gater (16)
- Alistair Macdonald (14)
- Lucy Warin (14)
Interesting blog, but I think you are mis-representing the aims of 'identity campaigning' in point 2. My understanding is that it isn't trying to be preachy, it's about a long term strategy to shift the public.It's the difference between Clinton's/Blair's and Obama's strategies. Clinton just shifted to the centre with the 3rd way, whilst Obama on the other hand tried change the American people and bring them with him, by not being ashamed of believing left wing things like universal health care or tax or the environment but by reframing them in the right way. He's shifting the American physche, whereas Clinton's changes were superficial and look how easily Bush switched the country back to the right again after the 2000 election.I don't think that 'identity campaigning' is therefore that different to your call to action to show a positive vision. The two approaches can be complementary if done in the right way.We can't (and this isn't directed at Futerra) suggest that we can tackle climate change without looking at consumption, by changing a few lightbulbs etc. It'd be like putting a forest fire out with watering cans. But that analogy contrevenes point 3 I guess...hehe.
Hope you're well Soli. Had a quick flick through and agree with a lot of what you have to say. Not sure about your pitch in this blog though. I tend to think the most unconstructive thing from the 'greenies' is the in-fighting... this not necessarily the most constructive of approaches.
I'm afraid you missed the point about what Identity Campaigning truly is. Tom Crompton and I have been working closely together throughout the last six months to clarify how motivation, behavior, values, and identity all weave together in people so that we can resonate with core identities people already have in order to shift the emphasis of which values dominate in society. This is what every social movement does when it successfully alters the norms of a society. One of the failed strategies inherent in "green marketing" as it has been done so far is that existing social norms are treated as given so the deepest inhibitors of progress - the presumptions about what is good and right in society - are not only unchallenged, but reinforced through shallow messaging efforts.When we talk about identity campaigns, the focus is on authenticity in communications that articulate what our values are and how we see them shaping the future of society. So, for example, we would challenge the notion that everyone is (and should be) out for themselves. This is a norm that emerged through self-interest rationalism and is typically unquestioned and unchallenged in campaign strategies. Yet, a vast body of research in the social sciences shows that norms are malleable and self-reinforcing. If we build institutions that presume the world to be comprised of individuals, we will see the world through this lens and overlook the power of social norms and the way our institutions reinforce them.It is this deeper level of engagement that we seek to address. And, we would argue from the existing research, any advocacy effort that doesn't go to this deeper level will fail to shift society sufficiently and continue to inhibit progress.Sincerely,Joe Brewer Director, Cognitive Policy Works http://www.cognitivepolicyworks.com
Regarding your second point, what makes my skin crawl is the billions of dollars of advertising messages and the thousands of governmental policies that are designed to promote materialistic values. Let's not delude ourselves into thinking that people exist in some societal vacuum that doesn't encourage any type of values at all. People are bombarded daily with thousands of carefully crafted messages that encourage them to consume and to believe that economic growth and financial profit are key priorities. So if what makes your skin crawl is an attempt on the part of certain organizations to manipulate people, please do not forget about the governments and businesses and media companies that every day are attempting to encourage particular values. They just happen to be encouraging the values that research shows are inimical to sustainability.Where does that leave organizations interested in promoting sustainability? We can play along with the dominant values, and we can pretend that our messages don't influence people's values. Or we can try to promote the values that research (and common sense) show are most consistent with sustainability.
I get the 'skin crawl' sensation seeing, for example, an Ad for hair dye in which two children pressurise their father to buy a completely unnecessary product. The problem here is that the message is disguised - the aim is to manipulate the viewer without their consent to the overall objectives.Surely if the aims, objectives and motivation of a campaign are entirely transparent - eg 'to foster a sustainable outlook' - then the 'skin crawl' factor shouldn't come in to play...
Soli. Does the idea of helping to strengthen collective awareness and a closer relationship with our place in the natural world and lessen values of consumption, status and selfish desires really drive you bonkers? If so you are in the wrong business. Please try harder to understand the work WWF, Oxfam and others are doing on this as its probably the most interesting thing going on in the whole sustainability movement. Its recognized as such by many of the leading thinkers and the heads of many NGOs. It is also echoed by the wonderful behaviour change and wellbeing work done by Professor Tim Jackson of the SDC and others. I think its Noam Chomsky who says thats there is the gas chamber attendant and the saint in us all. Its the background noise, values and norms in society that mediates between these two sides of our nature and surely we need to encourage the more communitarian, citizen rather than individualistic consumer side of that? I'd be amazed if you really don't agree with this at least in theory? Is your fear of this approach tactical rather than intellectual? As someone who has worked most of my career close to the heart of the machine which creates that background noise (the corporate communications world) my own experience is that the sustainability movement ought to spend far more time focusing on the issues which WWF and Tom Crompton raise. Your Green-Consumerism approach is a dangerous dead-end. Such an approach also greatly undermines more sophisticated and thoughtful work being done by people like Tom Crompton. We can't do both. Some people like to sit on the fence and say that we need BOTH an Identity Campaigning type approach AND a Green-Consumerism approach. Some like to say 'oh but it is great that people are experimenting with both'. I disagree. The tired and deckchair-rearranging Green Consumerism approach undermines these more innovative approaches. Yes we need positive visions. But these visions need to be about the things which bring true, deep and long lasting flourishing not short-term, Jimmy-Choo-tastic, individualistic consumerist highs.
This is a fantastic set of comments and a debate I happily join! You might want to flick through some other comments on other blogs in this site to read a different type of debate. Enraged people, terrified people and deeply suspicious people who believe that climate change (and by implication environmentalism) is simply an excuse to promote a set of values...Changing behaviors, changing policies, changing macroeconomic systems. Who couldn't support that when you consider what we face with climate change? Changing "which values dominate in society" is different. My problems with it are twofold. The first is practical - how long will it take and how many people do you need to change? A generation perhaps, or longer? And in how many societies? Will shifting the value set of North America and Europe cut it, or also Russia, Brazil, India and China? How comfortable are we with identity campaigning in China considering their history? The scale (geographically and time) needed doesn't match the ticking clock of climate change. The second argument against identity campaigning is more visceral. When I wrote that it 'makes my skin crawl' I wasn't using a rhetorical device. Like many people, to me this approach smacks of evangelical religion. More than smacks of in fact. When I sit in focus groups a familiar refrain dominates "I'm not a treehugger, but..." So many people have to define themselves as NOT being us, before they can express any positive opinion on the environment. For too many people being an environmentalist means being disrespectful to those things other hold dear. You may disagree thoroughly with the values that people hold - but they are theirs. And an attack on the values so often sounds like an attack on the individual. Some have argued this debate is damaging but testing, arguing and experimenting is no bad thing. Remember, we may disagree on tactics, not the ultimate goal.
"Meet people where they are" Is this what we have to do? I hear this a lot. Typically the assumption in this, and critically when it relates to comments here by Soli, is that we are largely selfish individualistic, materially driven etc.As pointed out well in the discussion at www.identitycampaigning.org, of course these are aspects of human nature, all too well elicited on a daily bases in our consumer culture.BUT other deep seated desires to belong to community of which we are a valuable member, be considered a good and trusted person, desire to be close to nature etc. there are so many 'ways to be' with a host of subconscious associations. I am convinced that it is the role of the environmental movement to be eliciting behavioural change through these aspects of nature and avoid as much as possible promoting those aspects of our nature already overplayed by constant barrage of advertising and many political messages too.Positive future visions can be powerful and helpful as part of an engagement. This is unfortunately conflated here with appealing to particular aspects of human nature. Such visioning can be most powerfully used to allow people to get in touch with and express aspects of their nature currently smothered by the anxiety of consumerism.It is not the job of environmentalism to sell slightly greener stuff (although it may help an individual campaign hit certain targets), all those commercial entities will continue to do that in many sophisticated ways. It's our job to give strength and space to other aspects of human nature so we stand a chance of making the changes we need to lessen the destruction of life and other cultures, and hopefully survive.
Soli makes two substantive objections:(1) Shifting values takes too long(2) Identity campaigning entails evangelical environmentalismThe second objection arises from a misconception, which hopefully reading of other responses on this blog will nail. Identity campaigning is an outright rejection of the idea that problems like climate change can be fixed by environmentalists. It calls for far wider cross-sectoral coalitions.The first objection is a real concern, of course. My response is several-fold:(a) How long will a reliance upon appeals for greener forms of consumerism take to reduce material resource demand to a sustainable level? There are compelling arguments of course, that it can't. Ever. But these arguments may be wrong, and a green consumerism approach must bank on the hope that they are. It would be interesting to know the basis of your rejection of those arguments, Soli.(b) Who says dominant societal values can't shift fast? There are lots of cases where they have. Consider, for example, the impact of the introduction of TV on Fijians' idea of beauty (something that's pretty fundamental to our self-identity). In just two or three years the social preference for 'robust' bodies in both men and women was shifted, with associated and widespread outbreaks of eating disorders.(c) Dominant societal values don't shift in a neat incremental way. They can shift very rapidly when the external context changes as it is. The best thing we can do is to help to cut the channels in which public debate will come to flow when change is happening fast, such that debate moves in a helpful direction.(d) We are in for a rocky ride whatever happens. I'd prefer to be going forward while promoting a set of values which offer the best hope of humane and compassionate responses to the challenges we confront.But Soli, I really think you need to confront the fundamental objection we are levelling at the green consumerism approach: that it serves to embed a set of values which are shown, empirically, to be associated with less concern about other people and the environment. Do you disagree with this?
I'd just like to offer a slight variation on the notion that appealing to intrinsic values (away from consumptive) is about changing values (and of course, shifting cultural values takes time, etc). My view (and this is supported by some research I've been conducting) is that such values are already there. It is about inviting and drawing and encouraging them out, and providing adequate structures of action. If we see it this way, it shifts the entire frame from a 'struggle' to working with resources that are already there. It still involves considerable effort and strategy, but it does respect the fact that not everyone is all about buying new things. It is also a fundamentally more honest engagement with the issues. Let's face it, no one wants to face the fact we must curtain and radically shift our consumptive ways of being. The task is not to pretend that is not the case, but rather to appeal to that which is already 'on this side'. This is less of a 'battle' or 'barrier' discourse and more about supporting, encouraging and facilitating.Second, I think it's very honest to acknowledge the place of desire, attraction for goods and services, and the fact that our technological and industrial achievements bring some pride, even with their dire and disastrous consequences. This is not about rationality; it's about the irrational nature of desire and unconscious motivations. We all know this as marketing and communications professionals. So I am in agreement we must be mindful of this, and at the same time be honest about the costs. What this means in practice is not ignoring the fact we do take great pleasure in our cars, machines and so on. And that we also feel horrified, anxious, sad and distressed when learning of their consequences. It's not an either-or it's an and-both, this is how the psyche works. A powerful communications practice takes this on board: all of the points raised by Soli above- that we don't get anywhere by focusing on tiny steps, scaring people OR making environmental action into some regressive throw-back to pre-industrial times. That is a radical misunderstanding of what the work WWF-UK is all about. It's about appealing to our desire for smart, savvy, sexy, pleasurable and exciting solutions. It's also about appealing to people's innate creativity and to stop treating them like sheep. I believe we are all on to this, and frankly, we need each other and to not pick on fellow colleagues in the field. Infighting tends to reflect anxieties, which we are all no doubt feeling at this time.
Thanks to Soli for setting this debate off, and to others for a rich array of comments. I have little to add to what Tom, Ciaran and Jules have said, and Tom's latest post sums my view up. I would just make these quick points. First, the idea of 'selling the sizzle' also must depend on an attempt to alter values and attitudes - otherwise it will be the same sizzle being sold by those locked into unsustainable product and service systems. Second, how much of the resistance to Green messages comes not just from distaste at the messengers' tactics and style but from deep unease at the idea that they may be right, and consequent bad conscience, which it is more comfortable to repress than face up to? More than is often acknowledged, I would argue. 'Greens' need to be far better at bringing all that to the surface in positive ways, and showing routes to better patterns of life. Third, we should recall that the culture of mass consumerism and high affluence is 50-60 years old - two generations, and only one generation that has no memory of scarcity. Scarcities will be back - that much is for sure. And when they start to bite, other values become more salient - for example, religious and spiritual ones, both for good and ill. The mindset to which Soli appeals is a very recent one, and it is hardly likely to be a stable and long-lived one.