Getting Americans to Change Light bulbs (Or Not) <\/b><\/p>\n
In April a study by Pennsylvania University \u00a0published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences<\/em><\/a> found that some American \u2018Conservatives\u2019 were put off from purchasing energy efficient light bulbs, if they were labelled as \u2018environmentally friendly\u2019.\u00a0 National Geographic reported<\/a> that:<\/p>\n \u2018210 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.<\/em><\/p>\n Political divisions appeared in purchasing choices\u2014but 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\u2019.<\/em><\/p>\n 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 \u2026 We saw a significant drop-off in conservative people choosing to buy a more expensive, energy-efficient option.”<\/p>\n “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.”<\/p>\n Indeed, and this ought not to be news. It obviously means that overt attempts to persuade some people to adopt \u2018save-the-planet\u2019 attitudes as a reason to make choices, is a bad idea.<\/p>\n But how do you act on such findings ?\u00a0\u00a0 Can \u2018Conservative\u2019\u00a0 be equated with Climate Sceptic ?\u00a0 \u00a0Our 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 \u2018messages\u2019, and design campaigns. Evidence also suggests that while many (indeed often the majority) of \u2018conservative\u2019 people are not<\/span> climate sceptics, those who are strongly climate sceptic do tend also to be \u2018conservative\u2019 but mainly on an identity-basis (there being more than one \u2018form\u2019 of conservatism, and more than one basis to ‘scepticism’)<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Values Differences On \u2018Strongly\u2019 Agree or Disagree With Climate Change<\/b><\/p>\n 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 \u2018strongly\u2019 choices at either end.<\/p>\n The earlier blog reported the responses to the statement \u201cClimate change \u2013 I don\u2019t believe in it\u201d in Brazil, Argentina, India, the USA and China.\u00a0 Despite the big cultural differences between these countries, agreement or disagreement with the statement is consistently values-driven, showing the same pattern of greater \u2018belief\u2019 in climate change amongst Pioneers, plus the \u2018Now People\u2019 Prospectors (the Prospector Values Mode next to<\/a> the Pioneer Transcenders), and greater tendency to \u2018disbelief\u2019 amongst the Settlers and the \u2018Golden Dreamer\u2019 Prospectors, whose values plot adjacent to the Settler \u2018Brave New Worlds\u2019.<\/p>\n This values difference lies along the \u2018Power versus Universalism<\/a>\u2019 antagonism which has been discussed at this website before.\u00a0 In each country, Transcenders over-index on \u2018disagreeing\u2019 with the statement \u2013 in the US for example, by 45% (an index of 145, meaning a skew of 45% from the national average of 100).\u00a0 The NP Now People show similar results, in some cases stronger than the Transcenders.<\/p>\n (Red indicates significance at 99%, dark orange at 97.5%, light orange at 95%).<\/p>\n At the opposite end of the polarity, the Values Modes strongly over-indexing on \u2018agree\u2019 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 \u2018strongly agree\u2019 that they disbelieve in climate change.<\/p>\n In all cases, this sets the stage for a values-polarised debate or stand-off.\u00a0 It only takes some unwise campaigning, or political mischief, to establish it as a hard-to-reverse reality.<\/p>\n Unmet Needs Meet Politics<\/b><\/p>\n The Brave New Worlds are driven by an unmet need to assert identity along with attributes like discipline and security.\u00a0 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.\u00a0 As such, any calls from outsiders, especially those advocating the interests of people not-like-them,\u00a0 to \u2018give things up\u2019 or change their aspirations or lifestyles, are likely to be met with rejection, and if pressed, with hostility.<\/p>\n 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.\u00a0 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.\u00a0 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.<\/p>\n While these values differences are powerful and consistent across cultures, \u2018politics\u2019 is much less transferable, at least in so far as you can understand it with polling questions.\u00a0 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.\u00a0 Very few Brazilians describe themselves as \u2018strongly right wing\u2019 (6.4%) but of those, the only over-indexing Values Modes were GDs at 193 and BNWs at 160.\u00a0 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.\u00a0 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.\u00a0 Fully 25.6% of Americans however described themselves as \u2018Independents\u2019 and 5.4% opted for \u2018other\u2019, which could mean a wide range of things and there, Settlers also over-indexed at 141.<\/p>\n It does seem likely though, that the \u2018conservative ideology\u2019 index reported in the \u201clight bulb\u201d experiment is picking up the underlying effect of values differences.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n The Lock-in Effect of Political Position-Taking<\/b><\/p>\n 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.<\/p>\n 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.\u00a0 Even when they are not themselves GDs or BNWs, any politician wishing to \u201cplay to the values\u201d of their base, or to use climate change as a \u201cdog whistle\u201d test to create a \u201cwedge issue\u201d, will play on those values: self-interest, short-termism for material gain, rejection of universalism and overtly \u2018ethical\u2019 politics, a degree of xenophobia, group-identity, demonization of opponents as \u2018other\u2019 (eg in the US, and increasingly in the UK by some right wing politicians \u2018environmentalists\u2019).<\/p>\n Some of those \u2018other\u2019 or \u2018independents\u2019 in the US will have included supporters of the Tea Party.\u00a0 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).\u00a0\u00a0 Values surveyor Pat Dade at CDSM\u00a0 has recently plotted<\/a> the expansion of the UKIP heartland from 2010 \u2013 2012 and discussed the likely additional votes it got at the 2013 local council elections in the UK.\u00a0 (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).<\/p>\n The core UKIP vote is Settler, and it poses most threat to the Conservative Party, Britain\u2019s equivalent of the US Republicans.\u00a0\u00a0 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.\u00a0\u00a0 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<\/a> is mainly Pioneer.<\/p>\n When climate change becomes polarised as a political issue, it easily has negative results for those trying to get change.\u00a0 Political institutionalisation will further entrench differences because of the commitment effect: those politicians who have gone on the record as being \u201cclimate disbelievers\u201d will find it very hard to change what they are already doing, simply because they have spoken out. \u00a0This is probably one reason why a recent 2013 study by George Mason University in Fairfax, Virginia<\/a> found the Republican Party is more sceptical about climate change than its voters, who have progressively moved away from \u2018disbelief\u2019. \u00a0A Yale-George Mason study<\/a> showed the same thing in 2012.\u00a0 \u00a0In the US, there is increasing evidence<\/a> that shifting public perceptions may leave even some Republicans vulnerable because of their denialist climate change positions.<\/p>\n Don\u2019t You Nudge Me !<\/b><\/p>\n Although the light bulb experiment was reported as news, back in 2010 another American study showed much the same thing.\u00a0 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<\/a>.<\/p>\n But as New Scientist<\/i> reported<\/a> \u2018the feedback only seems to work with liberals. Conservatives tend to ignore it. Some even respond by using more energy\u2019.\u00a0 A University of California survey of over 80,000 households found that the half given energy feedback cut electricity use by around 2\u00a0per cent.\u00a0 However self-identified Republicans cut energy use by 0.4\u00a0per cent on average. \u2018And those Republicans who showed no practical interest in environmental causes \u2013 people who did not donate to environmental groups and did not choose to pay extra for renewable energy \u2013 even increased electricity use by 0.75\u00a0per cent\u2019.<\/p>\n Wesley Schultz<\/a> one of the researchers behind the original project told New Scientist<\/i> \u2018some 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\u2019.\u00a0 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.”<\/p>\n 80,000 is a big study. It shows what happens when you go \u2018door to door\u2019 and poke people with a single values-differentiated proposition: you get a values-differentiated result.\u00a0 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.<\/p>\n Saving money vs saving the planet<\/strong><\/p>\n As befits the UK, a much smaller but very detailed household energy saving project<\/a> is underway funded by the ESRC.\u00a0 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<\/a> that his team have noticed:<\/p>\n \u201csome 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 \u2018saving the planet\u2019 or \u2018saving money\u2019 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\u2019s values if we want to see large-scale change in lifestyles.\u201d<\/p>\n 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.\u00a0 I wrote to Graham suggesting they might also investigate people\u2019s values but he reasonably pointed out that they already ask their householders so many questions, that more might be counter-productive.\u00a0 Still, it\u2019s an interesting study.<\/p>\n The one thing I might disagree with him about is the possible implication that we need to try and change<\/span> people\u2019s values.\u00a0 The lesson of decades of values research is that overt attempts to do so are counter-productive, producing the \u2018acts of defiance\u2019 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 \u2018nudge\u2019 but we must start with the behaviours we want to achieve, and work with people\u2019s values to bring those about, not against them.<\/p>\n \u2018Irrational Treaty Makers\u2019<\/b><\/p>\n <\/p>\n Finally, it\u2019s not only domestic behaviour change campaigns that merit a psychological makeover.\u00a0 Joy Hyvarinen of FIELD (Foundation for International Environmental Law and Development) takes the lessons<\/a> of a study<\/a> 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.\u00a0\u00a0 Consistent with people being more like animals than adding machines, Galbraith finds that what works for individuals also works when individuals make up institutions.\u00a0 The same heuristics arising from the dominant \u2018emotional\u2019, \u2018irrational\u2019 unconscious way of making individual decisions identified by Daniel Kahneman, apply to the way governments make decisions in the design and implementation of treaties.<\/p>\n Last year edition 79 of the Campaign Strategy Newsletter<\/a> called for a \u2018psychological makeover\u2019 of climate communications, applying the fruits of Kahneman\u2019s work, values research and more, to change <\/b>\u00a0\u201cthe architecture and choreography and the visuals and stories they create \u2026not just the words\u201d.\u00a0 Now Hyvarinen focuses on the negotiation of the new 2015 climate agreement, noting \u201c Even taking other possible factors into account the research suggests strongly that the substance of the option matters less than the framing or \u201cpackaging\u201d.\u201d<\/p>\n I wrote: \u2018Such 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.\u2019<\/p>\n 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.\u00a0 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.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Here are some more studies showing how values can determine responses to climate change campaigns and \u2018behaviour change\u2019 programmes. The previous blog reported international surveys which found many more people saying they experienced climate change \u201chappening\u201d, than the total who … Continue reading ![\"\"](\"https:\/\/threeworlds.campaignstrategy.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/03\/agree-disagree-with-climate-change-dont-believe-in-it.jpg\")
<\/p>\n