mt 2 Flashcards
nov 7 - nov 14
describe Asch’s (1951) line experiment. what kind of influence is happening?
-participant showed a reference line and 3 other lines, asked which matched the ref
-other “participants” would say what was clearly the wrong answer, causing the participant to also say the wrong answer (75% conformed)
-this is both normative and informational: can assume they wanted to fit in, but also that they didn’t trust their eyes/understanding of task
describe the findings of Goldstein’s 2008 experiment, room with a view
-gave one of 2 messages to hotel guests: standard environmental message; one with a descriptive norm (almost 75% of our guests who are asked to participate help by using their towels more than once) which was more effective
compare injunctive and descriptive norms
-injunctive: what we should do (eg we SHOULD protect the environment)
-descriptive: what people actually do (eg we do protect the environment)
describe Schultz’s 2007 study on norms and electricity use
-all households received descriptive norms (average household use in neighborhood) and half received “injunctive norms” (smiley or frowney face)
-those who used more than avg decreased their use, but when a smiley face was added, this decreased even more
-those who were told they used less increased their use, but when adding a frowney face, it increased by only 1%
-people moved toward the norm
what is minority influence (Moscovici 1967)? when is it most effective? what is a study that supports this (Czopp 2013)?
-when the majority conforms to the minority
-effective if seen as consistent + not self interested
-eg: participants who watched a discussion between a pro-environmentalist and someone who described neutrally; at the end the pro-environmentalist either confronted the other about not recycling or didn’t. when there was no confrontation, it reduced participants’ intentions to recycle
what are dynamic norms? describe a study which demonstrates how these might be useful (Sparkman 2017)
-dynamic norms: currently, only a minority engages in a behavior, but there’s reason to believe it’s increasing
-Sparkman: participants waiting to buy lunch, 2 conditions:
-static norm: says 30% of Americans make an effort to reduce meat consumption
-dynamic: says 30% has started to make an effort
-participants much more likely to eat meatless when shown the dynamic norm
briefly describe FIelding and Hornsey’s social identity approach (2016)
-broader theory to self; idea that it’s not just an individual, but also collective (social) identity/(ies), which are often meaningufl
-collective identities are comparative; we understand who we are as a group in comparison to others
what are some critiques of the PBE (psychological barriers explanation)?
-over-psychologizing: it’s all in our heads!
When we use psychology as the main explanation, we draw [ ] away from other factors that are important
-deficit-focused: [ ] on ways human psychology gets in the way of acting, rather than it could contribute
-implication of inevitability (downplays context): if it’s about how our brains work, we’re kind of screwed!
-barriers not exclusively psychological: the ‘dragons’ in Gifford’s paper all have a social aspect to them
-shifts blame (justify status quo?): blames indiv humans instead of holding powerful groups accountable
-barriers could easily be reframed to be positive (eg ignorance blocking action could be reframed as knowledge spurring action)
what are some critiques of Gifford’s “dragons of inaction”?
-“Ancient brain”: we can easily think abt longterm issues + invest a lot of time/energy into these issues
-Ignorance: people who are less aware are less likely to act, but that’s not inherently psychological – can be changed
-Denial + skepticism: have to think abt misinformation campaigns from fossil fuel companies/etc ; again not inherently psychological
-Social norms: can take away from us taking action, but if they go the other way they can motivate us
-Worldviews: some that might get in the way are some that are encouraged by indivs/groups that don’t want change to happen
-all these are psychological phenomena, but also influenced by people in power
what are some reasons ecological economists don’t believe that infinite economic growth is always good? what is some evidence that supports this?
-it’s p much always (if not always) connected to consumption / extraction / use of resources
-correlational evidence of links between economic growth + environmental harm (eg cutting down trees)
what are some issues with the idea of slow growth/degrowth re: the economy?
-can’t change the economy without other social policies which make it work (have to restructure)
-eg when there’s no growth, employers more likely to lay off/hire less
Howell and Howell (2008) found that for the poorest countries, income predicts ___% of happiness. for wealthy countries, it predicts ___ - ___% of happiness. why might this be the case?
-10%
-1 ; 3%
-it might be the difference between having/not having food/shelter/medical care
-when your basic needs are met, $$ is less of apredictor of happiness
what are studies saying about wellbeing across time?
in general, young people are experiencing higher anxiety/neuroticism, depression/anxiety/suicidal thoughts, using more MH services (found in US, CA, Norway)
-in 2018, the combined wealth of the bottom 50% was equivalent to the combined wealth of ____ people
-in 2014, the wealthiest 20% of Cadns had ___% of private wealth in Ca
-26
-67%
explain the “limited cognition” category and list examples of “dragons” under this category
-humans are less rational than once believed
- ancient brain: our brain hasn’t evolved in 1000s of years; prioritizes issues w their immediate band / dangers / exploitable resources / the present
- ignorance: many don’t know the cause/extent of cc + what to do about it
- environmental numbness: climate change is outside of many people’s awareness / too much exposure can lead to habituation (numbness)
- uncertainty: perceived/real uncertainty ↓ the freq of pro-environmental behavior
- judgmental discounting: undervaluing distant/future risks
- optimism bias: people discount personal risks (incl environmental )
- Perceived behavioral ctrl + self-efficacy: many believe they can’t do anything as indivs (collective action problem)
explain the “ideologies” category and list examples of “dragons” under this category
-broad belief systems that infl a person’s life (eg religious, political)
- Worldviews: one significant predictor in disbelief of global warming is belief in free-enterprise capitalism
- Suprahuman powers: some believe a religious deity or Mother Nature will not forsake them / will do what it wishes to
- Technosalvation: people see promise in mechanical innovation / technology + believe it will be able to solve climate change
- System justification: tendency to defend + justify the societal status quo
explain the “comparisons with other people” category and list examples of “dragons” under this category
-humans are social animals; comparing w others is deeply ingrained
- Social comparison: people compare their actions to others’ + derive subjective/descriptive norms from their observations
- Social norms + networks: norms are often a force of progress, but also regress (eg homeowners’ energy reports)
- Perceived inequity: individuals ask why they should contribute to responsible behavior when (they fear) others will not
explain the “sunk costs” category and list examples of “dragons” under this category
-if people changed their behaviors v often, their lives would be more disordered (ie consuming energy, $$, time)
- Financial investments: once one has invested in something, dispensing with it is more difficult than it would’ve been if they hadn’t invested (eg why walk if bought a car)
- Behavioral momentum: Established habits don’t change without a substantial push, priming, attitude change
- Conflicting values, goals, aspirations: everyone has multiple goals/values, and these aren’t all compatible with each other or with climate change
- Lack of place attachment: indivs more likely to care for a place they feel attachment too; weaker attachment could be an obstacle + populs w a history of geographic mobility would be expected to care less for their present environments
explain the “discredence” category and list examples of “dragons” under this category
-when people hold the views of others in a negative light, they’re unlikely to take direction from those people
- Mistrust: trust is often absent between citizens + scientists/govt officials; resistance follows
- Perceived program inadequacy: most climate-related programs are voluntary for indivs; few are mandatory/backed w sanctions for noncompliance – ∴ citizens choose whether or not to do it and if it’s effective
- Denial: uncertainty, mistrust, sunk costs can easily → active denial of the problem
- Reactance: much evidence that people distrust msgs that come from scientists/govt officials
explain the “perceived risk” category and list examples of “dragons” under this category
-changing behavior potentially holds AL 6 kinds of risk:
- Functional risk: will it work? Eg if buying an electric vehicle, it could have battery problems
- Physical risk: some adaptations may have/perceived to have danger assoc w it
- Financial risk: many green solns req capital outlays; how long is the payback?
- Social risk: others notice our choices, which become part of our public face – this could lead to judgment (damage to ego/reputation)
- Psychological risk: ^ if one is criticized for their choices, they risk damage to self-esteem + confidence
- Temporal risk: that time spent planning/adopting new course might fail to produce desired results
explain the “limited behavior” category and list examples of “dragons” under this category
-many people engage in AL minimal action to limit GHGs, but almost everyone agrees they could do more
- Tokenism: people adopt behaviors which are easier but have little/no impact on GHG emissions
- Rebound effect: after some mitigating effort is made, gains are diminished by subsequent actions (eg people who buy fuel-efficient cars may drive further than they would’ve
describe the critical social psychological approach of psychological processes (Schmitt 2020)
-assumes that social reality is the product of narratives pattern human intxns w specific historical / structural / social contexts; thus no psychological process exists exclusively in the mind
compare the critical approach and the PBE re: power, inequality, the social-structural context of inaction
-critical approach: recognizes that elite groups/indivs/institutions have the power to do what serves them
-PBE: tends to obfuscate issues of power, inequality, social structure
-implies that lack of action is due to psychology, w little regard for a person’s power in society
compare the critical approach and PBE re: social change
-critical perspective: addressing cc requires political action which will alter power relations
-PBE: mostly confined to considering the actions of consumers
compare the critical approach and PBE re: accountability
-critical: assumes psychologists must recognize that their science/narratives are part of the co-construction of reality
-PBE: makes the environmental status quo seem like a natural consequence of psycholgoy
why might highly valuing money/material wealth undermine depression and anxiety?
-social relations suffer
-material goals tend to be never-ending
explain how social class is related to “good behavior” and potential reasons for why
-high SES encourages people to:
-be less trusting, generous, helpful, compassionate
-have worse empathic accuracy (infer someone else’s emotions)
-be less collectivistic
-maybe it’s a cultural thing / people who have these traits make more $$
-however evidence shows that having more leads to these traits
Boyce (2008) found that inequality affects the distribution as well as the magnitude of environmental harm. explain what these mean
-distribution: people w money/power can avoid the negatives of environmental harm + reap the benefits
-magnitude: the more inequality there is, the worse we treat the environment
explain the issue of unjust solutions re: climate activism
-in an unjust system, “solutions” to environmental problems can also be unjust
- eg ↑ cost of environmentally harmful products / behaviors – policies to make environmentally-friendly things cheaper
the 10 countries with the most GHG emissions make up ____ of all global emissions
2/3
describe ecofeminism, and give examples of related research
-perspective which links sexism/patriarchy to exploitation of the natural environment
-(ie: women as emotional and nurturing .: closer to nature; men as strong/rational .: domination of nature –> patriarchy = dominant cultural values reflect domination of nature)
-across 91 countries, CO2/capita a fnx of women’s status (ie countries w higher gender inequality had higher emissions)
-in European parliament, women more likely to vote for pro-environmental legislation than men even when controlling for party
explain environmental classism and racism and give examples/explanations
-lower SES + racial ethnic minority groups are closer to toxic waste/pollution
-Ca: Indg peoples/immigrants more likely to live close to toxic waste
-US: minority groups disproportionately live closer to hazardous waste sites
-economic factors: certain industries placed in certain areas bc they know they can get cheap labor
-unequal power to resist: some communities have a harder time resisting
what did Pearson + Schultz find regarding misperceived environmental concern (2018)? what kind of ignorance is this?
-the term “Environmentalist” was more likely to be associated w whites than nonwhites, also w the more educated and wealthy
-this did not match up with these groups’ self reports
-these beliefs appear to be malleable: exposure to either a white/diverse photo of an environmental org decreased the discrepancy
-pluralistic ignorance - believing others predominantly hold a different opinion than your own
