Search for: All records

Abstract Environmental practitioners often develop communications and behavior change interventions that conceptualize individuals as consumers or as other limited, standalone personae. This view neglects the role of conservation audiences as social beings with complex social relationships and networks, potentially resulting in lost opportunities to increase the effectiveness of conservation interventions. We offer a reframing of individuals as members of social networks who can influence others through their many different societal roles. This framing may help individuals recognize their potential to affect large‐scale societal structures and empower them to contribute to systemic changes. In practice, conservation organizations might increase the impact and reach of their behavioral interventions by targeting social referents (individuals or groups who people reference for accepted and desired behaviors) and leveraging interpersonal relationships. This includes encouraging individuals to make use of their networks to discuss issues such as biodiversity loss with a variety of acquaintances to normalize them as a topic of conversation. We argue that organizations can leverage the power of social networks to amplify change and promote the message that people change the world through their social ties, thereby inspiring audiences to further engage in conservation behaviors. 

Abstract Motivating people to take environmentally friendly action, especially collective actions that promote greater social engagement, is important for addressing environmental issues like biodiversity loss. We conducted an online workshop‐based field experiment to target social‐psychological perceptions to motivate people to plant native plants and encourage others to do the same. To shift these perceptions, we added 13 microinterventions to half the workshops, including normative messaging, public commitment‐making, and providing feedback on the impact of reaching out to others. We used a voucher system to track real‐world behavior by partnering with native plant nurseries. Compared to an information‐only control workshop, our intervention workshops initially increased certain social‐psychological perceptions related to encouraging others to plant native plants. However, they did not change behaviors, or many perceptions, compared to control workshops. Additional exploratory analyses revealed differing patterns of behavioral perceptions 2 months after the workshops. Further research is needed that implements experimental methods and real‐world measures of conservation behavior to evaluate the impacts of theory‐based outreach tactics on collective actions. 

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. 

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. 

Audience segmentation can be used to identify target audiences in environmental public engagement and communication, but few studies have used segmentation to study biodiversity conservation behavior. This study used segmentation to better understand perceptions and behaviors around different types of actions related to native plant gardening. With a United States representative survey (n = 1,200), we measured beliefs and intentions to engage in personal-sphere (i.e., individual), social diffusion (i.e., encouraging others to act), and civic action behavior (e.g., voting). A latent class analysis (LCA) revealed four distinct groups within the population: Disengaged, Potential Adopters, Potential Amplifiers, and Potential Advocates. Each class comprised approximately one-quarter of the United States population. We found that certain groups are more receptive to personal-sphere behavior, while others may be more receptive to social diffusion behavior or civic action behavior. The groups varied by key distinguishing characteristics: perceptions around civic action, previous personal-sphere and social diffusion behavior, and intentions to engage in personal-sphere action. Findings revealed opportunities to create tailored public engagement strategies to engage different groups in urban biodiversity conservation behavior.