An official website of the United States government
Abstract As biodiversity loss and climate change accelerate, more people worldwide are engaging in conservation behaviors to “do their part.” Yet, individual behavior change alone is insufficient for the large‐scale, rapid change needed to address these crises. Relational organizing, which involves individuals reaching out to others in their social network, can enhance the speed and scale of conservation behavior change and address the complex, collective action nature of many conservation problems. However, many people practicing conservation behaviors in their own lives do not engage in relational organizing about conservation issues. Here, we suggest this may be the result of specific social‐psychological factors inhibiting people from reaching out to others. We summarize the evidence and offer a research and practice agenda to prioritize (1) understanding the social‐psychological barriers that prevent relational organizing, and (2) addressing these barriers through targeted outreach interventions to help scale and accelerate community action for conservation.
more »
« less
Who will encourage a sustainable diet? Understanding the psychological predictors of relational organizing
Abstract Why do (or do not) people encourage others in their social networks to adopt climate-friendly behaviors? Encouragement like this has been referred to as “relational organizing,” and can help scale up climate action across communities. Since relational organizing is a social behavior, it likely has its own specific barriers and motivations beyond what affects personal climate action. Food is a big part of our day-to-day lives and our relationships with people we care about. It also impacts the climate, ecosystems, animal welfare, and our own health. As such, people’s climate-friendly food choices provide an ideal case study to explore drivers of relational organizing. Using an online survey with two North American samples of motivated audiences (one US-wide animal advocacy community,N = 1166, and one environmentally focused community in Boulder, Colorado,N = 363), we sought to identify and categorize the social–psychological barriers to and drivers of relational organizing for climate-friendly food choices. Using exploratory factor analysis and predictive models, we found that self-efficacy in carrying out the personal behavior, response efficacy beliefs, supportive social norms, and personal aptitude in relational organizing (e.g., personal norms) predicted relational organizing action after the survey. People’s sense of personal obligation to engage in relational organizing (i.e., personal norms), beliefs that would make a difference to important causes (i.e. response efficacy), and social identity beliefs around activism were particularly important. We discuss how these findings can help inform interventions related to climate-friendly diets, and what this means more broadly for how relational organizing can support climate action.
more »
« less
- Award ID(s):
- 2227074
- PAR ID:
- 10438768
- Publisher / Repository:
- Springer Science + Business Media
- Date Published:
- Journal Name:
- Sustainability Science
- Volume:
- 18
- Issue:
- 5
- ISSN:
- 1862-4065
- Page Range / eLocation ID:
- p. 2259-2276
- Format(s):
- Medium: X
- Sponsoring Org:
- National Science Foundation
More Like this
-
-
Abstract Several studies have found that relational climate conversations can be an effective method of increasing conversational participants’ concern about the climate crisis and encouraging them to take collective action. However, little work has yet examined how such conversations are practiced by climate activists, a group with expertise in relational organizing. Drawing on surveys and semi-structured interviews with climate activists across the USA, this analysis finds that activists frequently have climate conversations with friends and family, most of whom are politically progressive and somewhat to very concerned about the climate crisis. These findings might seem to suggest that climate activists only have climate conversations with like-minded others, producing an echo chamber effect that could entrench the political polarization of the issue. However, climate activists report strategic reasons for choosing like-minded audiences, such as personal response efficacy. Additionally, they report that one of their primary conversational goals is to move people who are already concerned about the climate crisis to take collective action in accordance with values of climate justice. The results identify obstacles to collective climate action even among concerned audiences and suggest that relational climate conversations can be useful in overcoming these obstacles. Graphical Abstractmore » « less
-
Abstract Sociopolitical values are an important driver of climate change beliefs, attitudes, and policy preferences. People with “individualist‐hierarchical” values favor individual freedom, competition, and clearly defined social hierarchies, while “communitarian‐egalitarians” value interdependence and equality across gender, age, heritage, and ethnicity. In the US, individualist‐hierarchs generally perceive less risk from climate change and express lower support for actions to mitigate it than communitarian‐egalitarians. Exposure to scientific information does little to change these views. Here, we ask if a widely used experiential simulation,World Climate,can help overcome these barriers.World Climatecombines an engaging role‐play with an interactive computer model of the climate system. We examine pre‐ and post‐World Climatesurvey responses from 2,080 participants in the US and use a general linear mixed model approach to analyze interactions among participants' sociopolitical values and gains in climate change knowledge, affect, and intent to take action. As expected, prior to the simulation, participants holding individualist‐hierarchical values had lower levels of climate change knowledge, felt less urgency, and expressed lower intent to act than those holding communitarian‐egalitarian values. However, individualist‐hierarchs made significantly larger gains across all constructs, particularly urgency, than communitarian‐egalitarians. Participants' sociopolitical values also shifted: those with individualistic‐hierarchical values before the simulation showed a substantial, statistically significant shift toward a communitarian‐egalitarian worldview. Simulation‐based experiences likeWorld Climatemay help reduce polarization and build consensus towards science‐based climate action.more » « less
-
Abstract BackgroundEngineering students encounter high levels of stress, which may negatively impact their mental health. Nevertheless, engineering students who experience mental health distress are less likely than their peers to seek professional help, even when controlling for gender and race/ethnicity. PurposeWe examined beliefs that undergraduate engineering students have about barriers and facilitators to seeking professional help for their mental health. We also sought to identify cultural and systemic factors within and beyond engineering that might affect help‐seeking. Together, these beliefs influence students' sense of personal agency around seeking mental health care. MethodWe implemented a pragmatic qualitative design that incorporated the integrated behavioral model to investigate engineering students' (N = 33) professional mental health help‐seeking beliefs. We used thematic analysis to analyze help‐seeking beliefs and perceived barriers and facilitators that students described during interviews. ResultsWe identified four themes: Navigating the system impacts personal agency; sacrifices associated with help‐seeking act as a barrier; engineering culture acts as a barrier to help‐seeking; and student confidence in help‐seeking varies significantly. These themes portray the effect of perceived barriers and facilitators on students' personal agency for accessing mental health care. Our findings have implications for engineering departments and university counseling centers that want to minimize barriers to help‐seeking. ConclusionsEngineering stakeholders must improve access to professional help for engineering students. Implementing changes to normalize help‐seeking behaviors, enhance personal agency, and facilitate engagement with mental health resources will create better conditions for engineers. Further research is necessary to understand how other beliefs (e.g., attitudes, perceived norms) inform the relationships between student mental health, professional help seeking, and engineering culture.more » « less
-
We present a theory of belief dynamics that explains the interplay between internal beliefs in people’s minds and beliefs of others in their external social environments. The networks of belief theory goes beyond existing theories of belief dynamics in three ways. First, it provides an explicit connection between belief networks in individual minds and belief dynamics on social networks. The connection, absent from most previous theories, is established through people’s social beliefs or perceived beliefs of others. Second, the theory recognizes that the correspondence between social beliefs and others’ actual beliefs can be imperfect, because social beliefs are affected by personal beliefs as well as by the actual beliefs of others. Past theories of belief dynamics on social networks do not distinguish between perceived and actual beliefs of others. Third, the theory explains diverse belief dynamics phenomena parsimoniously through the differences in attention and the resulting felt dissonances in personal, social, and external parts of belief networks. We implement our theoretical assumptions in a computational model within a statistical physics framework and derive model predictions. We find support for our theoretical assumptions and model predictions in two large survey studies (N1 = 973, N2 = 669). We then derive insights about diverse phenomena related to belief dynamics, including group consensus and polarization, group radicalization, minority influence, and different empirically observed belief distributions. We discuss how the theory goes beyond different existing models of belief dynamics and outline promising directions for future research.more » « less
