The story in Wednesday's USA Today (which would, I guess, make
it USA Day Before Yesterday) is headlined "Psychologists determine
what it means to think 'green'".
Those who make human behavior their business aim to make living "green"
Uh oh. Those who mind their own business, and think others should do the same,
should read on.
Armed with new research into what makes some people environmentally
conscious and others less so, the 148,000-member American Psychological
Association is stepping up efforts to foster a broader sense of
eco-sensitivity that the group believes will translate into more public
action to protect the planet.
Yes, an organization that bills
as a "scientific and professional organization" is looking to
spur "public action" in an area in which they have no expertise.
In other news, the Association for Computing Machinery
will soon be offering diet tips and movie reviews.
"We know how to change behavior and attitudes. That is what we do," says
Yale University psychologist Alan Kazdin, association president. "We
know what messages will work and what will not."
Ah, Professor Kazdin? Here's what doesn't
work: telling people
you're on a mission to improve the bad behavior and ignorant attitudes
of the masses, to make them more like… well, you.
You gotta keep such arrogant pronouncements sotto voce, lest the rubes
get wind of your scheme.
People have wanted to mold the "behavior and attitudes" of the
years and years now. Does Kazdin really have some new
social-engineering tools he can bring to bear on us? Reading on,
here's some of the "new research" that promises to deliver us into
Walking outside rather than inside — even for just 15 minutes —
makes you feel happier, more energetic and more protective of the
environment, found two studies involving 220 students conducted by
psychologists at Carleton University in Ottawa.
If your local psychologist starts demanding that you walk
outside 15 minutes per day, this is why. It's all part of Professor
Kazdin's plan, and has been proven effective
by studies of 220 Canadian college
Negative feedback can backfire. In two studies, psychologist Amara Brook
of California's Santa Clara University and colleague Jennifer Crocker of
the University of Michigan asked 212 undergraduates about their
ecological footprint. For those not heavily invested in the environment,
negative feedback about their ecological footprint actually undermines
their environmental behavior, they found.
Translation: Nagging people, at least American undergraduates,
about their eco-piggery does not work.
News stories that provided a balanced view of climate change reduced
people's beliefs that humans are at fault and also reduced the number of
people who thought climate change would be bad, according to research by
Stanford social psychologist Jon Krosnick.
Translation: the masses cannot be trusted to hear skepticism. If
Professor Kazdin's plan is to come to fruition, these
voices must be silenced!
Also interviewed for the story was "social psychologist" Jessica Nolan,
who, like the psychologists
above, had a captive research flock of undergraduates.
She looked at "global
warming, recycling and improper disposal of used motor oil":
She found that students are not particularly inclined to disapprove of
the non-sustainable behavior of others.
"People showed strong approval for other students who recycled. You
would hope to see people disapprove of people who don't recycle, but
they didn't disapprove," she says.
But, she says, the response was stronger if the activity was perceived
as more harmful: More students said they would scold someone if they saw
that person improperly disposing of motor oil.
So another part of the strategy is, apparently, to turn Americans into
a bunch of neighbor-eyeballing nags and scolds. Great. But what about
Amara's and Jennifer's research findings on negative feedback?
I know, it's USA Today, and that was fifteen whole paragraphs ago.
To paraphrase Lincoln Steffens: I have seen the future, and it's
tedious, strident, self-contradictory, and stupid.