chris rose

Here are some more studies showing how values can determine responses to climate change campaigns and ‘behaviour change’ programmes.

The previous blog reported international surveys which found many more people saying they experienced climate change “happening”, than the total who “believed-in” climate change. This result probably arises because in some countries, “environmentalism” and in particular “belief in climate change” has become a test of identity.  Now this identity-effect, which is a values effect, has been demonstrated in a test of the mundane but important question of how to get people to change their light bulbs.  This case also provides clear evidence of how campaigns which push their own values on those who disagree, may entrench opposition to change, rather than to cause it: the footprint of unwise campaigning.

Getting Americans to Change Light bulbs (Or Not)

In April a study by Pennsylvania University  published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences found that some American ‘Conservatives’ were put off from purchasing energy efficient light bulbs, if they were labelled as ‘environmentally friendly’.  National Geographic reported that:

‘210 potential buyers were armed with information on the benefits of compact fluorescent light bulbs (CFL), which last 9,000 hours longer than incandescent bulbs, and cut energy costs by 75 percent. They were asked to choose between lower efficiency and higher efficiency options; efficient bulbs were offered, labelled with a “protect the environment” sticker in some cases, and at other times with a blank sticker.

Political divisions appeared in purchasing choices—but not until price became an issue. When all bulbs were priced the same, every participant save one chose the energy-efficient option regardless of political persuasion’.

One of the researchers commented “Our results demonstrated that a choice that wasn’t ideologically polarizing without a (“protect the environment”) label became polarizing when we included that environmental labelling … We saw a significant drop-off in conservative people choosing to buy a more expensive, energy-efficient option.”

“I think we’ve shown the negative consequences of environmental messaging,” the study lead author told National Geographic. “In particular, you can lose significant portions of people who would otherwise be interested in these products when you use that environmental labelling. So it indicates that different messages can reach different groups.”

Indeed, and this ought not to be news. It obviously means that overt attempts to persuade some people to adopt ‘save-the-planet’ attitudes as a reason to make choices, is a bad idea.

But how do you act on such findings ?   Can ‘Conservative’  be equated with Climate Sceptic ?   Our surveys, which have now covered thousands of people in six countries, show that it is values that are at work, and the values also give you an insight into how to craft and segment ‘messages’, and design campaigns. Evidence also suggests that while many (indeed often the majority) of ‘conservative’ people are not climate sceptics, those who are strongly climate sceptic do tend also to be ‘conservative’ but mainly on an identity-basis (there being more than one ‘form’ of conservatism, and more than one basis to ‘scepticism’)

Values Differences On ‘Strongly’ Agree or Disagree With Climate Change

The values effect and its consequences are clearest if you look at the results from those, when given a 1-5 scale of agree/disagree, choose the ‘strongly’ choices at either end.

The earlier blog reported the responses to the statement “Climate change – I don’t believe in it” in Brazil, Argentina, India, the USA and China.  Despite the big cultural differences between these countries, agreement or disagreement with the statement is consistently values-driven, showing the same pattern of greater ‘belief’ in climate change amongst Pioneers, plus the ‘Now People’ Prospectors (the Prospector Values Mode next to the Pioneer Transcenders), and greater tendency to ‘disbelief’ amongst the Settlers and the ‘Golden Dreamer’ Prospectors, whose values plot adjacent to the Settler ‘Brave New Worlds’.

This values difference lies along the ‘Power versus Universalism’ antagonism which has been discussed at this website before.  In each country, Transcenders over-index on ‘disagreeing’ with the statement – in the US for example, by 45% (an index of 145, meaning a skew of 45% from the national average of 100).  The NP Now People show similar results, in some cases stronger than the Transcenders.

(Red indicates significance at 99%, dark orange at 97.5%, light orange at 95%).

At the opposite end of the polarity, the Values Modes strongly over-indexing on ‘agree’ with the statement, are almost always only the GD Golden Dreamers and the BNW Brave New Worlds. In the US for example, BNWs over-index by a factor of about twice, on ‘strongly agree’ that they disbelieve in climate change.

In all cases, this sets the stage for a values-polarised debate or stand-off.  It only takes some unwise campaigning, or political mischief, to establish it as a hard-to-reverse reality.

Unmet Needs Meet Politics

The Brave New Worlds are driven by an unmet need to assert identity along with attributes like discipline and security.  They have an active aversion to being told what to do by people not-like-them, which is shared by the Golden Dreamers, who in addition are strongly driven by a desire for more material goods, as a way to quickly gain the esteem of others.  As such, any calls from outsiders, especially those advocating the interests of people not-like-them,  to ‘give things up’ or change their aspirations or lifestyles, are likely to be met with rejection, and if pressed, with hostility.

Both GDs and BNWs also have a low sense of self-efficacy: in other words, they feel that on balance the world changes them, rather than them being able to change the world.  Now People (NPs) and especially Transcenders (TXs) on the other hand, have a much lighter attitude to life because they feel confident that they can overcome problems.  This colours their approach to challenges like climate change, making them much less likely to deny it, and much more likely to advocate change, be it personal, social or political.

While these values differences are powerful and consistent across cultures, ‘politics’ is much less transferable, at least in so far as you can understand it with polling questions.  In general Settlers skew to conservatism, because they are change averse, and this was found in both the US and Brazil, where we asked questions about politics.  Very few Brazilians describe themselves as ‘strongly right wing’ (6.4%) but of those, the only over-indexing Values Modes were GDs at 193 and BNWs at 160.  In the US, polling gets entangled in the definitions of the political system but Settlers over-index at 126 on being Republican, while Pioneers under index at 88.  These are skews, not absolutes: it is wrong to think all Pioneers are Democrats and vice versa, or all Republicans are Settlers and vice versa.  Fully 25.6% of Americans however described themselves as ‘Independents’ and 5.4% opted for ‘other’, which could mean a wide range of things and there, Settlers also over-indexed at 141.

It does seem likely though, that the ‘conservative ideology’ index reported in the “light bulb” experiment is picking up the underlying effect of values differences.

The Lock-in Effect of Political Position-Taking

These will matter most where polarisation about the issue has taken place on party political lines, because that means it is institutionalised. In these circumstances politics further exacerbates and entrenches values polarisation.

The underlying values reflexes mean that people likely to make themselves available as spokespersons for disbelieving-in-climate change will be disproportionately drawn from Golden Dreamers and Brave New Worlds.  Even when they are not themselves GDs or BNWs, any politician wishing to “play to the values” of their base, or to use climate change as a “dog whistle” test to create a “wedge issue”, will play on those values: self-interest, short-termism for material gain, rejection of universalism and overtly ‘ethical’ politics, a degree of xenophobia, group-identity, demonization of opponents as ‘other’ (eg in the US, and increasingly in the UK by some right wing politicians ‘environmentalists’).

Some of those ‘other’ or ‘independents’ in the US will have included supporters of the Tea Party.  Although the US Tea Party has now shrunk, in the UK a party with a similar values base is on the rise: UKIP (the UK Independent Party).   Values surveyor Pat Dade at CDSM  has recently plotted the expansion of the UKIP heartland from 2010 – 2012 and discussed the likely additional votes it got at the 2013 local council elections in the UK.  (Based on his detailed knowledge of the values of the UK population, Dade thinks it unlikely that UKIP (a climate denying party) can poll over 20% at a General Election).

The core UKIP vote is Settler, and it poses most threat to the Conservative Party, Britain’s equivalent of the US Republicans.   This is probably one reason why Conservative Party election strategist and Chancellor of the Exchequer, George Osborne, has become increasingly hostile to renewable energy and overtly sceptical about climate change.   He is probably hoping to play to Conservative voters who might vote UKIP at the 2015 General Election, not least by attacking his Liberal Democrat Government Coalition Partners who are firm advocates of action on climate change and whose values base is mainly Pioneer.

When climate change becomes polarised as a political issue, it easily has negative results for those trying to get change.  Political institutionalisation will further entrench differences because of the commitment effect: those politicians who have gone on the record as being “climate disbelievers” will find it very hard to change what they are already doing, simply because they have spoken out.  This is probably one reason why a recent 2013 study by George Mason University in Fairfax, Virginia found the Republican Party is more sceptical about climate change than its voters, who have progressively moved away from ‘disbelief’.  A Yale-George Mason study showed the same thing in 2012.   In the US, there is increasing evidence that shifting public perceptions may leave even some Republicans vulnerable because of their denialist climate change positions.

Don’t You Nudge Me !

Although the light bulb experiment was reported as news, back in 2010 another American study showed much the same thing.  Programmes begun in 2007, utilising the well known heuristics of social proof and commitment had helped cut domestic energy use when people were told they used more energy than their neighbours.

But as New Scientist reported ‘the feedback only seems to work with liberals. Conservatives tend to ignore it. Some even respond by using more energy’.  A University of California survey of over 80,000 households found that the half given energy feedback cut electricity use by around 2 per cent.  However self-identified Republicans cut energy use by 0.4 per cent on average. ‘And those Republicans who showed no practical interest in environmental causes – people who did not donate to environmental groups and did not choose to pay extra for renewable energy – even increased electricity use by 0.75 per cent’.

Wesley Schultz one of the researchers behind the original project told New Scientist ‘some Republicans have a negative view of the environmental movement and so might want to distance themselves from a green-themed campaign. Using more electricity could be an act of defiance, whether conscious or subconscious’.  The feedback needed to be tailored to specific groups. “No one is immune to social pressure,” said Schultz. “Even among those that increased electricity use there is a nudge that would work.”

80,000 is a big study. It shows what happens when you go ‘door to door’ and poke people with a single values-differentiated proposition: you get a values-differentiated result.  Any campaign designer therefore needs to think about how to first research what will work for different values groups, and then either segment the offers and asks by using channels that are known to particularly reach those groups, or, to at least provide three different reasons or options that match the main Maslow values groups of Settlers, Prospectors and Pioneers.

Saving money vs saving the planet

As befits the UK, a much smaller but very detailed household energy saving project is underway funded by the ESRC.  One of the authors, Graham Smith, has been tracking the behaviours and motivations of 180 households subject to a lot of energy-saving advice, and reports that his team have noticed:

“some interesting differences though between at least two different motivations behind these energy-saving practices. For some it is concern about climate change that is key; for others a financial imperative. And ‘saving the planet’ or ‘saving money’ appears to have a differential impact on their wider lifestyles. Those motivated by climate change appear to be willing to make more significant changes in other consumption practices (the food they eat; the way they get around; etc.). Those for whom cost is the main consideration are primarily interested in whether a change saves them money. This appears to chime with work coming out of social psychology that suggests we need to focus on people’s values if we want to see large-scale change in lifestyles.”

These differences are classic descriptions of the difference between Settlers/ Prospectors and Pioneers, or more precisely, between Settlers and Golden Dreamers (the money-savers with little interest in wider lifestyle innovation) and the Now People and Pioneers.  I wrote to Graham suggesting they might also investigate people’s values but he reasonably pointed out that they already ask their householders so many questions, that more might be counter-productive.  Still, it’s an interesting study.

The one thing I might disagree with him about is the possible implication that we need to try and change people’s values.  The lesson of decades of values research is that overt attempts to do so are counter-productive, producing the ‘acts of defiance’ reported in California and the identity rejection caused by the green labelling of the light bulb experiment. Instead Wesley Schultz is right, it may just need a ‘nudge’ but we must start with the behaviours we want to achieve, and work with people’s values to bring those about, not against them.

‘Irrational Treaty Makers’

Finally, it’s not only domestic behaviour change campaigns that merit a psychological makeover.  Joy Hyvarinen of FIELD (Foundation for International Environmental Law and Development) takes the lessons of a study by Professor Jean Galbraith published in the Virginia Journal of International Law, and applies it to the top level of climate change efforts, the IPCC and the UNFCCC.   Consistent with people being more like animals than adding machines, Galbraith finds that what works for individuals also works when individuals make up institutions.  The same heuristics arising from the dominant ‘emotional’, ‘irrational’ unconscious way of making individual decisions identified by Daniel Kahneman, apply to the way governments make decisions in the design and implementation of treaties.

Last year edition 79 of the Campaign Strategy Newsletter called for a ‘psychological makeover’ of climate communications, applying the fruits of Kahneman’s work, values research and more, to change  “the architecture and choreography and the visuals and stories they create …not just the words”.  Now Hyvarinen focuses on the negotiation of the new 2015 climate agreement, noting “ Even taking other possible factors into account the research suggests strongly that the substance of the option matters less than the framing or “packaging”.”

I wrote: ‘Such social communications are of vital public interest and the knowledge that could make them work is out there: it exists. Sadly it is still mostly the opposition who are using it. Maybe understanding how people really think and make decisions should be a test of competence for politicians, public communicators and leaders of NGOs to hold office.’

Hopefully now that so many professors are showing what grubby market researchers have known for years, we may see some change in the way climate communications are done.  The one thing we do not need is an ethical jihad to try and indoctrinate Settlers and Prospectors with the attitudes and beliefs of Pioneers before getting any action.

If you are interested in how unconscious motivations (values) affect the social politics of climate change, behaviour change and development of the ‘climate issue’, you can download  a 23 page report with previously unpublished data that I’ve posted here –  Climate Change Energy and Values

The report draws on surveys completed over the past eighteen months for Greenpeace and conducted with CDSM (Cultural Dynamics www.cultdyn.co.uk), in China, India, the US, Brazil and Argentina, together with new population data from the UK.  Amongst other things it shows that:

• a majority ‘believes in’ climate change in all five countries (China, India, the US, Brazil and Argentina), with strongest ‘belief’ in Argentina, then China, Brazil, US and India.  While there are always enough ‘disbelievers’ to populate a media ‘debate’, the weight of ‘belief’ is more than enough to support political action
• In Argentina and China there are few differences in ‘believing’ in climate change across values groups at a MG level (Maslow Group – Settlers (Security Driven; Prospector, Outer-Directed; Pioneer, Inner Directed) but in Brazil, the US and India, Settlers skew to disbelieve (although not most Settlers) and Pioneers to ‘believe’.  This is consistent with earlier UK results.  The values behind such skews then determine the flavour and terms of climate change disputes, which are polarised in ‘bipolar’ media framing eg “believe or not” but they don’t reflect the national realities – most people, across all values groups, do now ‘believe’ (the media is out of date in this respect).
• The reason for the remaining skews in eg India and the US is probably a legacy of past media and political polarisation, itself encouraged in these countries and eg in the UK by the way that climate change campaigns have been conducted.  This and other factors eg change-aversion in Settlers, are discussed with illustrations.
• The surveys also included questions about whether people had noticed the climate was changing, whether they would like their next car to be an electric one, and others to do with lifestyle, climate and energy.  The ‘I’ve noticed it changing’ question was asked in Brazil and India, showing strong majorities agreeing. Yet these were 20 – 30% higher than those who ‘believed in’ climate change (taking combined answers over 100%).  The most likely explanation for people ‘noticing’ something which they ‘do not believe exists’ is that these two questions are both answered mainly intuitively rather than analytically but in different ways.  In some countries (not China) ‘belief’ has been politicised on an identity basis, whereas ‘the climate changing’ has not been politicised and can be answered from personal experience and the views of friends etc..
• A question about ‘green lifestyles’ being for everyone shows a values skew across countries, consistent with this being a recent development/trend, first espoused by Pioneers, followed by Prospectors, and adopted last by Settlers [the usual dynamic]
• The surveys show that the two VMs (Values Modes) most ready to ‘lead change’ on these issues are the TX Transcender Pioneers and NP Now People Prospectors.  The latter are typically under-represented in campaign NGOs eg threefold and the former, hugely over-represented.  There is a general failure by campaigning NGOs to capitalise on the potential of NPs, who are for example consistently strong advocates of climate action and renewable energies, and consistently the most enthusiastic eg about buying an electric car, across the countries surveyed.  NGOs which criticise NPs (eg for being ‘fun loving and materialistic’) are shooting themselves in the foot.

the report concludes:

“…

once ‘climate response’ is converted from an ‘issue’ into choices and opportunities to get ‘better things’, it can enter the mainstream and escape from the dysfunctional values stand offs that have bedevilled ‘climate action’ in many countries in the past.

This offers politicians an opportunity to fast-track ‘decarbonization’ of their economies and societies, and ‘detoxify’ the ‘climate issue’ in countries like the US where it has long been seen as problematic.  In the UK for example, we have surveyed the staff of Gentoo Group, which is a very green and successful housing company and found it is two thirds Prospector.  Achievement oriented, future-looking, success-seeking, optimistic and target driven, Prospector dominated organisations have long been the motor of vigorous economies: if they are now harnessed to greening economies, change may be extremely rapid.”

I’ve posted a summary of how you can use values based segmentation or “Values Modes” in a pdf which you can find here: Summary of Values Based Segmentation CR CSL March 2013

Here’s a values dilemma.

When  Bond-girl and Pirates of the Caribbean actress Naomie Harris previewed an eco-dress for The Oscars, a slew of mainstream media and blogs like The Daily Mail, OMG Yahoo, and The Sun all ran the story, leading on the risk of ‘the split’ showing her knickers.

Deep in the background, behind the role of designers Michael Badger and Vivienne Westwood, who had created the dress under the wing of ‘Red Carpet Green Dress’ ‘an international dress design contest started by Suzy Amis Cameron, environmental advocate and wife of Director James Cameron’, Greenpeace had a hand in the process through it’s Detox campaign.  It’s own blog by campaigner Valeria Botte Coca announced ‘Bond Girl helps Detox the Oscars’.

When I looked, the Greenpeace post had received two comments, one of which read:  “Hausson says: I’d love to know the Nonylphenolethoxylate content of this dress.  That would really increase your transparency, which at the moment is kind of dubious.”

Well yes and no but thanks Hausson because you’ve crystallised the dilemma which faces campaigners from ethically motivated Pioneer-dominated organisations when they need to influence Prospectors, and you can’t get a lot more Prospector than the fashion industry, celebrity and The Oscars. Namely, can you, should you, get involved in a way that works ?

The Prospectors

Who are Prospectors ?  They are 60 – 75% of the population of China and India, the majority in most emerging economies and the epitomy of the fun-loving success oriented mainstream in any country.   In terms of change, if the Prospectors embrace “sustainability”, it will happen, and can happen fast: if they don’t, it won’t.

Are they interested ? Well yes, multi-country surveys we’ve been running for Greenpeace (no, I didn’t work on the Detox campaign) show again and again that the Prospectors, at least the uber-fashion conscious Now People Prospector Values Mode, are as keen to be ‘green’ as anyone but it has to be in a way that meets their values.

That’s where groups like Red Carpet Green Dress, Global Cool and JoinRed are on the money by starting-from-where-the-audience-is.  Because ‘looking good’ and having a good time is truly important, it means that the biggest risk for Naomie Harris at the Oscars really was the “cringe pants flash” and not actually, the possible presence of Nonylphenolethoxylate.

Disaster Averted

Fortunately in this case, as the celeb media noted, disaster was averted: ‘Bond girl Naomie risks Oscars wardrobe malfunction in golden slit dress’ but Naomie managed to keep her modestly very much covered as she walked the red carpet.

In terms of environmental outcomes, what we’re seeing here is the fruits of a long struggle by campaigners, concerned scientists and other very Pioneer groups to recognize the threats posed by toxic pollution and get substances such as Nonylphenolethoxylate phased out. Plus a realisation that the way to do it isn’t always by simply talking about the need to do it.

The use of non-toxic and organic materials in Naomie’s dress was combined with re-use of materials.  This enabled several media bloggers to focus on the more-interesting-to-us  question of whether she had eaten the chocolates that were once in the candy wrappers used in the golden garment: a good example of ‘being interesting’, not just significant.

The trend for re-use (upcycling, embellishment, swishing etc) of materials in fashion has been discussed at this site previously, as an example of something mainstreaming; spreading from Pioneer to Prospector audiences.  The Now People bible Grazia magazine pointed out that  alongside Naomie, a rival ‘green’ dress appeared at the Oscars, one from Prospector retail brand H & M, worn by Helen Hunt.  Grazia wrote:

“So as well as Stella McCartney visibly leading the way with her sustainable fabrics and (sexy) vegan shoes, Sophia Kokosalaki launched an ethically conscious capsule range on ASOS called Kore and the website’s existing Africa range is top notch trend-ticking stuff.

We’ve noticed a real rise in upcycling (using existing clothing to create new pieces), but it’s high fashion labels like Edun (designed by Bono’s wife Ali Hewson), Suno, Henrietta Ludgate and Ada Zandition that are leading the way. Many more brands such as Tommy Hilfiger and Vivienne Westwood are following suit, and starting to dip into the sustainable sphere with dedicated sub ranges or accessory lines.  Watch this space ladies, sustainable fashion just got serious.” 

Converting ‘an issue’ into a story about real people doesn’t just attract Prospectors. The Daily Mail has a lot of Settler readers, too and older women across the board, as perhaps reflected in its tetchy headline “She’d better be wearing granny pants!” and the Mail managed to convert the green dimension to a grumble: “While it might be revealing, the dress itself is at least good for the environment – it is made from recycled materials”.

Similarly, the Huffington Post, much loved by Pioneer posters, reported prudishly “Naomie Harris’ Oscar Dress Features Way Too Much Leg For Our Comfort”.  For other eco-fashion coverage of that dress, which would be read by younger Pioneers and Prospectors see Ecorazzi and RollingOut.  Meanwhile Michael Badger’s involvement spread the story to ghanaweb.com: Ghanaian designs Naomie Harris’ 2013 Oscar dress.  For a Pioneeresque report on the ‘bigger picture’ see the “back story” in LA Times.

Strategy Questions

Clearly, The Oscars are not an opportunity for an ecotoxicology lecture, and Greenpeace’s GP Detox campaign has been amazingly successful, using a mixture of classic Pioneer protest tactics and Prospector-slanted communications. BrandChannel reported a month or two ago that it rolled over retail giant Zara in just nine days, leaving Benetton, C&A, Calvin Klein, Diesel, Emporio Armani, Esprit, Gap, Levi’s, Mango, Tommy Hilfiger, Victoria’s Secret, and China’s Meters/bonwe apparel brand on the ‘Toxic Threads blacklist’.

So whether its’ about health or human rights or environment, Pioneer type campaign groups can deploy strategy to catalyse and cascade change through other more Prospector messengers, actors and channels which mainstream the change.  So long as they resist the Nonylphenolethoxylate-temptation (N-factor ?), it can work.

Yet there’s a political and social limitation in such strategic stealth. If you want to have political clout, to play an active role in social conversations that reach beyond the “usual suspects”, and to ‘mobilise’ society more widely, you need to develop the capability to talk to Prospectors, Settlers and Pioneers.

Many Pioneers may take the view that it doesn’t matter who gets the credit, so long as you get the result and that is often true but Prospectors in general, do not see it that way, and if you need to enlist them, that’s a problem .  Prospectors err more to the Oscar Wilde view that “there is only one thing in life worse than being talked about, and that is not being talked about”.  So by not publicising its role in achieving success, any organisation robs its followers, especially Prospectors, of the chance to bask in reflected glory, and it denies them the opportunity to pass on the good news.

For all Pioneer-dominated groups seeking change, this is the real dilemma: it is sometimes possible to be simply too serious-minded.

Numerous Campaign Strategy Newsletters have reported on how people’s unconscious motivational values affect development of ‘issues’ and responses to offers and asks, at an individual level.  At a group or national level, the relative proportions of the ‘Maslow Groups’ of Settlers, Prospectors and Pioneers, and within them the twelve distinct Values Modes, affects the ‘tone’ of a society, affects it’s priorities and reflexes, and dynamics such as the acceptance or rejection of change, innovation or upkeep of traditions.

This is explored in the book What Makes People Tick: The Three Hidden Worlds of Settlers, Prospectors and Pioneers, while descriptions of the Values Modes can be downloaded at the homepage of www.campaignstrategy.org and at the CDSM (Cultural Dynamics Strategy and Marketing) website www.cultdyn.co.uk.

This blog shares the results of values surveys run in five countries in 2012.  Each was conducted by asking over 2000 people a set of questions used by CDSM, which can generate the values segmentation.  Apart from the UK, the surveys were all commissioned by Greenpeace.

A future post will relate the values differences to responses to questions relating to climate change but here are some data on the national population differences, with a short commentary.

A general introduction to values can be found in the paper ‘Using Values Modes’ at the homepage of this website and this paper updates some of the examples given there.

Evidence suggests that as Maslow proposed, people start life as Settlers and may, as and if they meet their dominant needs, transition into Prospectors, and then sometimes to become Pioneers (Security Driven > Outer Directed > Inner Directed).  In contrast new behaviours start with the Pioneers, and if they spread, move first to Prospectors and then to Settlers.

The ‘Transition Sequence’ is shown below:

The names given to each Values Mode by CDSM are shown below, together with a schematic version of the ‘Values Map’:

Some of the key orientations are captured in the annotations shown below.  (The ‘inside’ Values Modes are driven by the same general motivational pulls as those lying further to the ‘edge’ – they are in effect like pale reflections of the outside edge Modes).

The table and chart below show the Maslow Group percentages for the National Populations of five countries: Argentina, China, India, the UK and the US.

Note that in the case of India and China these are drawn from a sample of the urban population only (from the larger cities).  This is because standard market research survey systems are not easily available for rural areas in those countries. It might be expected that the rural population would have larger numbers of Settlers. In the case of China there are some indications from other surveys that smaller cities, and rural areas are not very dissimilar to these city populations.  The notion that these are large populations are extremely traditional and Settler-dominated is probably out-dated.

Indeed the UK is shown to have the largest proportion of tradition-minded, socially-conservative Settlers, followed by Argentina.  This may partly reflect the much slower rate of change in the UK and Argentina, and their older age structure.  The vast Prospectors segments in China and India reflect not only the rapid social change in those countries but also the relative youth of the populations.

The fact that over 70% of the Chinese population is Prospector, and almost 70% in India, demonstrates the huge importance in those societies of providing a pathway to individual and family success – whether this takes the form of material success, such as goods and possessions, or other symbols, such as educational qualifications. The implications for campaigners are clear:  to engage wide support in those societies, the default communication needs to be Prospector-friendly, and any social issue which results in a values clash where Prospector aspirations are threatened, is likely to be very problematic.

In marked contrast, the United States, which to many Europeans at least, is still associated with a very Prospector, ‘materialistic’ form of the “American dream”, is found to be by far the most Pioneer dominated society, at 49.9%. The proportion of US Pioneers has grown significantly since a CDSM/Environics survey conducted in 2004, when it was Prospectors who made up 49.4% of the population.

In the short term at least, one consequence of the much increased number of US Pioneers is that default assumptions about how-things-work in America will be found wanting. Institutions often change even more slowly than values, which in themselves usually reflect generational (ie cohort) effects. Both some corporate brands and political institutions may therefore struggle to adapt to changing ‘public values’ in the US.  More broadly, foreign expectations of the US may also be based on out-moded assumptions.

As in any society where this occurs, the small US Settler segment is likely to feel increasingly over-looked and stranded, which may encourage the emergence of tightly organised Settler-dominated minority groups, based around tradition and, most of all, group identity.

Of course, how values differences play out in societies, depends hugely on their different social systems, for example if elites or particular groups hold power and/or if political institutions become polarised along values divisions.

At this gross values level, Argentina looks very similar to many European societies, rather more Prospector than the UK but with Maslow Groups of roughly similar sizes.  In the UK, the gradual decline in the number of Settlers, noted in repeated values surveys by CDSM and its fore-runners in the 1970s – 90s, and reversed slightly in the recession-influenced mid-late 2000s, appears to have stabilised. Prospectors are now the smallest group by a small margin, possibly with implications for political strategies aimed at pleasing these ‘aspirational classes’.

Over time, barring extreme social disruption, one can expect societies such as India and China to become more like Argentina, the UK and eventually, the US, in terms of Maslowian values. This has many implications, for example the transitioning of topics such as care for nature/ the environment or “being green” from ‘alternative’, to fashionable, and then to ‘normal’ and finally, to traditional.  The same could apply to ‘universalist’ causes such as human rights, and the most significant driver, as documented by authors like Rosling and Ingelhart, is socio-economic development, including health and education.

At the more detailed Values Modes level, the data break down like this:

The chart above demonstrates the numerical importance of the Prospector Values Modes ‘GD’ or ‘Golden Dreamer’ and ‘NP’ or ‘Now People’, especially in China and India, but also in the case of NPs, in all the countries.  What this does not show is the dynamic influence between NPs and GDs in terms of change.  The NPs are more confident and experimental, and the GDs and other Prospectors tend to follow them in new behaviours.

It also shows the importance of the ‘terminal’ Values Mode, the Transcenders, who have the most forgiving and holistic attitude of all the Modes, and overall tend to be the most influential in breaking new behaviours because they may be emulated by the NPs more than any of the other Pioneers.  TXs or Transcenders are now the largest single Values Modes in both the US and the UK.  We found from other non values-segmenting questions in the Greenpeace surveys that the TX and the NPs are most frequently the most ‘progressive’ on environmental issues, and in China and India, it is often the NP Prospectors who have the ‘greenest’ opinions (although this does not always mean that views are turned to actions – that depends largely on the values profile of the available offers or asks).

Here are the percentage proportions across Values Modes:

Acknowledgement: many thanks to Greenpeace and to CDSM for permission to publish these data.

It’s sometimes hard to tell, and the nearer you are to the “coalface”, the harder it can be.  Here’s a few pointers (for more see How to Win Campaigns: Communications for Change).

First off, forget the debate.  It only takes two to sustain a debate, which tells you not a lot.  Instead, get some perspective from friends or even critics who are a step or three away but best of all, from insiders, whether directly or indirectly. Next, if you are not being completely ignored, you may be starting to have an effect.  If they sound defensive, if they have lost a supporter or more, or if they are attacking you, then you are making an impact.

Signs that you are really winning begin when they start talking to others, especially those in greater authority (including media and public), and contesting your right to win.  They must be thinking that you might win, to do this.   A period of unexplained silence may indicate a change of mind or regime.  If this is followed by rumours that they are exploring alternatives of some kind, then you are a bit further down the track: it’s the search for an exit strategy.

Finally, a change of language and attempts at positive engagement, and talking down the differences you have with them, indicate an imminent u-turn.  It’s then a calculation as to whether you want to let them work with others on ‘solutions’ or, which is usually the best outcome, to convert them to allies.  Don’t expect however to get your opponent to hoist a white flag – campaigns are wars of persuasion, not of force.  And seeking to humiliate your erstwhile opponent is not a good idea.  You will usually lose friends, allies and influence that way.  How to tell if you are Winning

Did Values Pull Tea Party Apart ?

Back in 2010 Pat Dade at Cultural Dynamics analysed a large US voters survey by MyType which studied the Tea Party.  The MyType report identified two different wings of the Tea Party, which it described as the  Religious Conservative Supporters and Libertarian Supporters.

The MyType survey also included questions used by Schwartz and other researchers and from those, Dade was able to construct a detailed values profile of the two ‘wings’.  In many cases they had opposing or antagonistic values.  He predicted that by 2012 the Tea Party would be in big trouble, and now it’s reported that Tea Party support (likely voters registered as members) has slumped to just 8%, down from 24%.

Here are some extracts from Dade’s article ‘Anyone Fancy a Spot of Tiffin? The inside story of the American Tea Party’.  You can find it, and the link to the MyType report, here.

The … ‘Religious Conservative Supporters and Libertarian Supporters …are largely very different. For organizers and supporters of the movement, this means some real issues in the next couple of years, if they are to leverage the discontent into a political force’.

‘We predict this will occur in Washington very soon and have a real impact on the support for the Tea Party. This is based on the tensions among the voter base that essentially leads to the conclusion that, if one wing wins, the other loses. Given the differing values of the wings, the psychological contract implied in the vote will be seen to be “broken”. Continued support will become very problematic for many’.

… … ‘Whatever happens, it is unlikely that the Tea Party movement will be able to speak with a united voice by 2012.’

Dade showed that the Religious Conservative supporters and the Libertarians have very different values.  They are united on their rejection of fairness and universalism – something that many other Americans score highly on. (Indeed, a recent survey in the US found that the Pioneers, the Maslow Group (MG) scoring highest on Universalism, is now the largest single MG in the US, and the Prospectors now rank second rather than first as they did some years ago, while the Settlers have dwindled to form a smaller group than eg in the UK).

In values terms Dade found that the Tea Party comprised a wing of Prospectors,  ‘angry at the failure of the dream. They thought they would have power over their own lives and the lives of others – instead they see others having the power to control their lives’, and another wing of Settlers, who are scared rather than angry: ‘scared for their future – the future of their country, and their children and grandchildren’, and wanting to blame “others” who are not-like-them.

Both groups included many ‘well educated and well heeled white, mostly former Republican mainstream voters’ but they were divided on values.

The Libertarians (Prospectors) scored highly on power, achievement, pleasure and self-direction, whereas the Religious Conservatives scored highly on benevolence, tradition, propriety and security.  What united them was narrow: a rejection of universalism.

So — did values do for the Tea Party once the prospect of a right wing Presidency evaporated ?  Have a look at the detail in Pat Dade’s article and decide for yourself.

(British readers may note that the differences between core supporters of the UK Coalition Parties the Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives are just as large, although different).

UK renewable energy policy policy has taken an interesting turn which illustrates a point of interest beyond geeky energy matters, because it’s a case where campaigners need to get the “debate” or “issue” re-defined.  Analysis by  of a new UK Government Renewables “Road Map” (ie a general policy direction) by ENDS Report shows that solar power is now forecast to supply 20 gigawatts of solar pv by 2020, not the 2.6GW it said up to 2011. ENDS magazine is most excited that “The new document contains a ten-page chapter on solar, double the length of those dedicated to other renewables, as well as the statement vastly increasing the level of ambition”.  All good but it’s even more important than that.

This switch comes about because the UK Government massively under-estimated the potential to establish a solar pv installation industry, and the appetite of home-owners and others for the technology.  In part this is down to changing costs (panels getting cheaper) but it’s also probably because the UK Government failed to anticipate the multiple psychological effect of signals created by a Feed in Tarriff and the ‘social proof’ effect of a public seeing renewables becoming a reality.  Much the same thing happened with recycling in the UK a few years ago – the appetite to recycle was under-estimated and local and national government mandated far too much incineration to deal with ‘waste’ which people now want to recycle (proven to have a better environmental performance).

Official, even wanton myopia aside, campaign groups need to ignore the renewables industry squabble now developing as rival elements of the industry (wind, wave, solar pv, AD, biomass etc) fight for their share of the “target” and the associated funds and permissions.  The UK Government will be happy to manage such a fight and for the resulting press coverage to bemuse the public, because it does not want to expand renewable energy towards its true potential – yet that is what is required to best combat climate change.  Which is where the campaigns need to position the issue.

ENDS notes that the UK has an EU target to get 15% of its energy from renewables by 2020, and had achieved 3.8% in 2011.  It notes: “If the amount of solar on the system in 2020 is now expected to be up to 20GW rather than 2.6GW, this suggests other renewables need to give way as otherwise far more renewables will be built than needed”.

Which is ‘the point’ – that’s what’s “needed” for the existing target. It’s not what the target should be.

Similar effects are being seen in other countries such as Germany, the US and Australia.  The coal, gas and nuclear industries are desperate to constrain the growth of renewables which are increasingly cheaper, as well as massively more popular with voters.  Left to do their thing, even existing renewables capacity would be displacing more fossil fuels than they do at present: instead, they are sometimes being shut down, as well as being shut out of the future market.

Key to the hopes for expansion of the coal, gas and nuclear lobbies is that the public does not realise what renewables can actually deliver – and government control of energy policy, and investment or lack of it in things like storage and better grids, is the way they hope to keep a lid on renewables (and let the climate go hang).

Climate and energy campaigners need to redraw and to popularise the political debate about energy and climate, beyond meeting targets drawn up when large-scale renewables were a novelty, and instead reframe them as about politicians doing as much as is technically and economically possible to create renewable industry infrastructure.

With climate impacts real and being more and more felt by the public, and the chances to limit disastrous climate damage rapidly slipping away, the stakes could not be higher, nor  the urgency greater.

The need is climate safety, and the potential to deliver that is the potential of renewable energy.  Governments must let the industry off the leash and promote it, not constrain it.

More and more organisations are campaigning, and a growing number of agencies and consultants are commissioned to design and plan campaigns.  As many strategists have pointed out, it’s the ‘starting conditions’ which often determine the fate of a campaign, and perhaps the most fundamental assumptions of all, concern what “campaigning” actually is.

When we plan a campaign,  we’re probably already thinking inside a box which frames ‘campaigning’ itself.  Here are some examples.  Campaigning is … “a war”,
“a conversation with society”, “a selling job”, about “winning the argument” … a question of “generating awareness” …

Which ‘campaigning’ frame we use then dictates many assumptions we make about the ‘right way’ to campaign, what’s in and what’s out, and what needs to be done in order to succeed.

Self-aware campaign groups may tune their assets, resources and tactics to create an organisational strategy which suits a particular approach.  I explore some of these in my book How to Win Campaigns: Communications for Change.

This blog, based on part of a presentation given at the World PR Forum in Melbourne in November 2012, briefly examines how framing at the level of what-a-campaign-is, can affect how campaigns work.

It’s important to remember that all public campaigns which are not pure projections of your views, involve enlisting the time, affiliation or attention of others. They are “follow me” exercises. That’s especially an issue for large organisations.  If you’re big, rich or powerful, why do you need my help ?

follow me

So in general, the rich do not need to campaign.  the powerful

And for any campaign  proposition to be attractive, the objectives, activities and resources need to seem to be in balance, or it will not appear credible.  credibility triangle
If they don’t match, then people draw their own, negative conclusions, although you probably won’t hear back from them as to why they’re not onboard.  credibility problems

An issue for the over-educated is that campaigning cannot be like education – for one thing, there is usually no time or opportunity, and for another, campaigning is about focus of attention to motivate action, whereas education tends to multiply the range of possible actions, resulting in a lack of focus and uncertainty as to what to do.  over educated

Any organisation, particularly those which are not purely campaign groups, tends to import it’s own way of doing business into framing assumptions about how to campaign. Or to glean these from a naieve obeservation of campaigns, for example attributes that are obvious in ‘the media’.  Eg “I see people debating a campaign>  so campaigns work by debate”.   For instance lawyers tend to assume campaigns are essentially a way to win arguments, journalists one of generating awareness, and scientists that it’s a question of explanation of facts (hence the generally catastrophic role of scientists in trying to promote action against climate change).  They then tend to use this both to frame the design of a campaign and to interpret the results of attempts at campaigning.

So for instance, you launch a call to action and it may be accepted or rejected, based on the unconscious process of framing.  We then consciously rationalise the result  framed input 1.

If it has been rejected people may have ignored it, or successfully avoided it, in which we case we see or hear nothing.  If they’ve had to make choices we can see the rejection, and if we’ve been able to dialogue with them they may have challenged our proposition, giving ‘reasons’ (eg “you have your facts wrong”).     framed input rejected

If it’s accepted, then if we also survey their opinion, we can see they ‘agree’.  But that’s not the end of the story. If it’s not just opinion-generation we’re after but action, then they may ‘agree’ but still not take action, if for example they don’t feel the asked-for action applies to them, or not now, or they don’t have the sense that they can do this thing.  framed input accepted

Only if our ask or offer passes all these tests, do we stand a chance of seeing ‘action’.

So what happens, when as is most likely, we don’t see the desired result ?  We tend to rationalise the consequences using our frame of campaigning.  First we may see disagreement or rejection: “hey, these folks are wrong !”.  So we argue with their reasons or choices.  This only tends to reinforce the problem if it’s down to an unconscious mismatch of frames, values or other unconscious processes.

Second, we see they agree with us: “hooray !”  But inexplicably, they haven’t taken action.  Oh dear.

In both cases the natural reflex is to repeat the campaign effort – “one more heave” – but make it bigger and better, add embellishments, or make it more intense.  three client responses 1 and 2

The result is likely to be the same as it was the first time, only perhaps bigger and more definitive.  And because we tend to frame campaigning to match our own way of doing things  three client responses 3 we are likely to go on repeating versions of our overall mistake.

The only answer to this is to campaign differently.  Convincing organisations to do this can be very difficult but one powerful way to do so can be to show them the results of qualitative framing type research – for example the Frameworks Institute food system study discussed in a previous blog (see it here).  Even then, because of their own values they may prefer to conserve their strategy rather than make a change.  It depends how results oriented they are.

The different ways of framing campaigns each have their pro’s and cons: see common campaign metaphors, fighting a war, conversation with society, selling job, winning an argument, generating awareness.    It at least pays to be aware that these effects occur, just as it pays to have a look in the mirror before you set out in the morning, or even better, get someone else to take a look at you.

Although from a military training academy source, this definition of campaigning is largely transferable to most instrumental campaign planning.

‘campaigning is a process of translating strategic goals into tactical missions and tasks … [it] … refers to the practical process of interpreting strategic goals and converting
these goals into tactical missions and tasks and supporting these missions with the
appropriate plans’.

‘The manual Canadian Forces Operations defines operational art as “the skill of translating this strategic direction into operational and tactical action.”’

http://www.cfc.forces.gc.ca/259/260/266/simms.pdf  KEEPING OPERATIONAL ART RELEVANT FOR CANADA: A FUNCTIONAL APPROACH
By /par Lieutenant-Colonel James Simms 15 October 2003