mt 2 Flashcards

nov 7 - nov 14

1
Q

describe Asch’s (1951) line experiment. what kind of influence is happening?

A

-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

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

describe the findings of Goldstein’s 2008 experiment, room with a view

A

-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

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

compare injunctive and descriptive norms

A

-injunctive: what we should do (eg we SHOULD protect the environment)

-descriptive: what people actually do (eg we do protect the environment)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

describe Schultz’s 2007 study on norms and electricity use

A

-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

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

what is minority influence (Moscovici 1967)? when is it most effective? what is a study that supports this (Czopp 2013)?

A

-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

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

what are dynamic norms? describe a study which demonstrates how these might be useful (Sparkman 2017)

A

-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

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

briefly describe FIelding and Hornsey’s social identity approach (2016)

A

-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

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

what are some critiques of the PBE (psychological barriers explanation)?

A

-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)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

what are some critiques of Gifford’s “dragons of inaction”?

A

-“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

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

what are some reasons ecological economists don’t believe that infinite economic growth is always good? what is some evidence that supports this?

A

-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)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

what are some issues with the idea of slow growth/degrowth re: the economy?

A

-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

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

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?

A

-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

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

what are studies saying about wellbeing across time?

A

in general, young people are experiencing higher anxiety/neuroticism, depression/anxiety/suicidal thoughts, using more MH services (found in US, CA, Norway)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

-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

A

-26

-67%

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

explain the “limited cognition” category and list examples of “dragons” under this category

A

-humans are less rational than once believed

  1. ancient brain: our brain hasn’t evolved in 1000s of years; prioritizes issues w their immediate band / dangers / exploitable resources / the present
  2. ignorance: many don’t know the cause/extent of cc + what to do about it
  3. environmental numbness: climate change is outside of many people’s awareness / too much exposure can lead to habituation (numbness)
  4. uncertainty: perceived/real uncertainty ↓ the freq of pro-environmental behavior
  5. judgmental discounting: undervaluing distant/future risks
  6. optimism bias: people discount personal risks (incl environmental )
  7. Perceived behavioral ctrl + self-efficacy: many believe they can’t do anything as indivs (collective action problem)
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

explain the “ideologies” category and list examples of “dragons” under this category

A

-broad belief systems that infl a person’s life (eg religious, political)

  1. Worldviews: one significant predictor in disbelief of global warming is belief in free-enterprise capitalism
  2. Suprahuman powers: some believe a religious deity or Mother Nature will not forsake them / will do what it wishes to
  3. Technosalvation: people see promise in mechanical innovation / technology + believe it will be able to solve climate change
  4. System justification: tendency to defend + justify the societal status quo
17
Q

explain the “comparisons with other people” category and list examples of “dragons” under this category

A

-humans are social animals; comparing w others is deeply ingrained

  1. Social comparison: people compare their actions to others’ + derive subjective/descriptive norms from their observations
  2. Social norms + networks: norms are often a force of progress, but also regress (eg homeowners’ energy reports)
  3. Perceived inequity: individuals ask why they should contribute to responsible behavior when (they fear) others will not
18
Q

explain the “sunk costs” category and list examples of “dragons” under this category

A

-if people changed their behaviors v often, their lives would be more disordered (ie consuming energy, $$, time)

  1. 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)
  2. Behavioral momentum: Established habits don’t change without a substantial push, priming, attitude change
  3. Conflicting values, goals, aspirations: everyone has multiple goals/values, and these aren’t all compatible with each other or with climate change
  4. 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
19
Q

explain the “discredence” category and list examples of “dragons” under this category

A

-when people hold the views of others in a negative light, they’re unlikely to take direction from those people

  1. Mistrust: trust is often absent between citizens + scientists/govt officials; resistance follows
  2. 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
  3. Denial: uncertainty, mistrust, sunk costs can easily → active denial of the problem
  4. Reactance: much evidence that people distrust msgs that come from scientists/govt officials
20
Q

explain the “perceived risk” category and list examples of “dragons” under this category

A

-changing behavior potentially holds AL 6 kinds of risk:

  1. Functional risk: will it work? Eg if buying an electric vehicle, it could have battery problems
  2. Physical risk: some adaptations may have/perceived to have danger assoc w it
  3. Financial risk: many green solns req capital outlays; how long is the payback?
  4. Social risk: others notice our choices, which become part of our public face – this could lead to judgment (damage to ego/reputation)
  5. Psychological risk: ^ if one is criticized for their choices, they risk damage to self-esteem + confidence
  6. Temporal risk: that time spent planning/adopting new course might fail to produce desired results
21
Q

explain the “limited behavior” category and list examples of “dragons” under this category

A

-many people engage in AL minimal action to limit GHGs, but almost everyone agrees they could do more

  1. Tokenism: people adopt behaviors which are easier but have little/no impact on GHG emissions
  2. 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
22
Q

describe the critical social psychological approach of psychological processes (Schmitt 2020)

A

-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

23
Q

compare the critical approach and the PBE re: power, inequality, the social-structural context of inaction

A

-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

24
Q

compare the critical approach and PBE re: social change

A

-critical perspective: addressing cc requires political action which will alter power relations

-PBE: mostly confined to considering the actions of consumers

25
Q

compare the critical approach and PBE re: accountability

A

-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

26
Q

why might highly valuing money/material wealth undermine depression and anxiety?

A

-social relations suffer
-material goals tend to be never-ending

27
Q

explain how social class is related to “good behavior” and potential reasons for why

A

-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

28
Q

Boyce (2008) found that inequality affects the distribution as well as the magnitude of environmental harm. explain what these mean

A

-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

29
Q

explain the issue of unjust solutions re: climate activism

A

-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

30
Q

the 10 countries with the most GHG emissions make up ____ of all global emissions

A

2/3

31
Q

describe ecofeminism, and give examples of related research

A

-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

32
Q

explain environmental classism and racism and give examples/explanations

A

-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

33
Q

what did Pearson + Schultz find regarding misperceived environmental concern (2018)? what kind of ignorance is this?

A

-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