Class Notes (807,463)
Canada (492,648)
Psychology (1,539)
PSYC 391 (84)

PSYC 391: Psychology and Sustainability.pdf

68 Pages
Unlock Document

Simon Fraser University
PSYC 391
Michael Schmitt

1. Commons September-09-13 12:44 PM Accumulation: the Game Show • Cards in the middle double (max 18) at the end of each round • Groups told different things: ○ There's a prize worth $20 ○ If there are no more cards in the middle, the game ends ○ You don't know how many rounds there are ○ You can communicate Accumulation: What happened? • Replicates a common(environmental)limited resource dilemma ○ Where many individuals are sharing one resource, yet trying to get the mostof the resource for themselves • Rate of renewal is the same despite how quickly you grab the cards • Motivationto win: getting most for self → depleting resource • What if people have the same understanding of how to approach the problem? • The group at the end, after watching others play, tried to maximize the renewal -- balancing how much they can take while still allowing the resources to renew most efficiently (max 18, so leave 9 but not 10) • What if 2 people just dropped out to let 1 person win? → more of a group mentality perhaps? A "commons"dilemma • Many individuals share a "commonpool" resource ○ Usually talking about a renewal resource (e.g., how the cards reproduce between rounds) ○ Can also apply to non-renewal resources • If everyonekept consumptionunder a certain level, the resource is sustainable ○ Depends on the level and the people • Taking more than one's share can increase your personal resources ○ If ONE person does this, the resource can probably handle it • But if too many people do this, the resource is depleted • Tension between individual short-term self-interest and long-term collective interest → "a social dilemma" • The best outcomehappens when people cooperate;but people tend to pick a path that benefits themselves ○ People seen as individual actors, lacking communicationwithin the group "Tragedy of the commons" • Garrett Hardin's 1968paper in Science • Assumes rational self-interest → P tries to maximize their own personal outcomes,motivated by their own self-interest ○ That P can't on their own share a commonresource and will inevitably fall victim to their own self interest • Each person sees their individual impact on the commonas trivial ○ A pasture shared by many farmers. The pasture could only support a number of cattle. Each farmer will want to maximize how many they send. Each farmer will not think that the extra cow that they send in will make a big difference. • "If I don't use more of this resource, other people will get to it before I do." → Even if they recognize their impact, they will still be motivatedto use the resource because it'll be exploited by someoneelse if not me • Highly influential • Support from experiential tests following Hardin's assumptions → Encouraged to act individually (maximize your own outcome) individually (maximize your own outcome) • Suggested Solution #1: External coercion (governmentregulation) ○ Limit people's behaviours to ensure sustainability of commons ○ Public ownership → regulates what you can take from it (ex. national parks) ○ Limitation:  Hard to accept others' rules when they may not fully understand the resourceand how people operates around it  You don't bear the costs of your decision (won't be rewarded for innovated ideas)  It's still coercion (people may risk breaking rules, because rules aren't internalized) • Suggested solution #2: Privatization(end commons) ○ Divide up pasture so each farmer has their own, and regulate their own usage effectively ○ Limitation:  Can backfire where resources are depleted  Not clear how to privatized (ex. fishing, atmosphere) • Hardin's main concern was population control → if you have fewer people, then how much each person uses won't have such a dramatic impact on the environment ○ The more people there are, the more needs there are to be met ○ Politicallyproblematic conclusion → had racist & unsympathetic views on immigration and third world countries to maintain a high standard of living in USA (O_____O) • • ○ Incorrect assumption that people want to maximize profit → in the past, it was not a monetaryeconomy,it's about food & survival ○ Incorrect assumption that people don't communicate& that commonsare open to everyone → people are living in a communitywho support each other ○ Elinor Ostrom:Governing the Commons→ bad outcomeis not inevitable  Overgrazing happened to push for privatization Elinor Ostrom • 2009 Nobel prize in economics • Governing the Commons (1990) • Field work in successful and unsuccessful managementof common-poolresources ← studied actual commonsmanagement by the people using the resources ○ ex. rotation of designated fishing spots (so everyonegets a chance at the good spot, but also bad spot) → a form of self monitoring ○ ex. irrigation system (upstream vs. downstream) Some characteristics commonto successful self-governance(Ostrom,1990) • The solutions will be different for each communityand each resource → no one size fits all (must incorporate local knowledge) • Populations have remained stable over time ○ Little dislocation & moving around, know each other (sense of community) ○ Share a past and future ○ Are experts in the local ecology(to maximizehow effectivethey are) • Extensive norms for interdependence → sense of responsibility to other people & expectationsfor others to pull through • Relative equality (resources,power) • Most individuals affected by rues can participate in shaping them → more likely to internalize rules ○ Punishment generally starts off low → won't get exiled because offenders generally feel guilty for betraying the community,but also because the communityis sympatheticfor why you'd be violating the rules ○ Like how your parents get disappointed in you • Not external interference in self-organization Factors affecting cooperation • Increase short-termrewards for socially responsible behaviours and/or punishments for violations violations ○ Behaviours must be monitored ○ Systems for rewards and punishment ○ Works best when decided by within (vs. external) • Efficacy -- individual actions believed to have consequences (to counter diffusion of reasonability) ○ Especially important for a big commonswhere many people are involved • Meta-analysis by Gifford & Hine (1997) 1. Communication(r= 0.54) → morecommunicationmeans more cooperation  Gets a sense of what others want to do, to form an agreement about what to do about the problem 2. Other-oriented/ pro-social values (0.43) → empathetic and looking out for others' interests 3. Group size (-0.31)  [Quality] communicationis more difficult, hard to incorporate voice  More prone to diffusion of responsibility  A greater sense of competitionfor resources (A will exploit it if I don't)  Distances from resources (if I live far from the ocean, I'd like to buy MORE fish while I can)  Less sense of attachment to community 4. Previousdilemma experience (0.30) 5. Collective identity (Kramer & Brewer 84, 86; Brewer & Kramer 86)  Ties in with communication,others oriented, group size  Adhere to shared norms, more trust among group members, engage/expect reciprocity → greater interdependence  → Social Identity & Self-Categorization Theory □ Motivatedto protect collective interests despite personal sacrific 2. Contribution September-11-13 12:31 PM Paper #1 • Instead of printing out a hard copy, you can just pull it up on your computer Communicationand Cooperation • Balliet (2010)meta analysis (r=0.45) that looked at studies that compare Face-to-face discussion (r=0.51)vs. written messages (r=0.22) ○ More than just words (body language, eye contact) → more effective& richer communication ○ Physical presence (vs. knowledge of presence) may lead to greater sense of concern of well-being • Imagining group discussion increases cooperation(Meleady, Hopthrow & Crisp, 2013) ○ Forces P to think about others' perspectives Commonsdilemmasemphasize an important ecologicalprinciple → Earth's resources are finite and limited in their ability to regenerate • Ecological footprint: translate the resources that P uses into land area (which is visibly limited → help P sees limitation) Some ways to define sustainability • THERE ARE TOO MANY PEOPLE • Rate of consumption≤ rate of regeneration • Meeting our needs today in a way that doesn't compromisethe ability of future generations to meet their needs ○ Or the current generations' needs in the future Application of commons knowledge • Ostrom:local/regionalcontrol through democratic,participatory systems ○ Local control by people who live there and rely on the resources BUT many commons resource we're depleting aren't confined to one local area (e.g., ocean, atmosphere (carbon cycle), the entire planet b/c c'mon, everything is connected (THE CIRCLE OF LIFE)) • Global commonsrequires global cooperation ○ Ostrom imagines nested structures: many small group in local areas managing their area, but these small areas are negotiating and working togetherto ensure the commonsis sustainable for everyone → can covera larger area (LIKE THE UN?)  However,power is filtered up (those in the bottom holds power) ○ Sustainable use of local/regionalcommonsresources might have positive effects outside of that geography  Indirectly benefit those not directly in the area  e.g., blocking oil/pipeline developmentin BC b/c of how it'll affect local resources → slows down developmentin tar sands → influences its impact on atmosphere  Especially the case with unconfined resources (atmosphere,ocean) • Users/appropriatorsaren't just individuals, they are corporations ○ Few ties to place: in a boardroom making decisions about a far away place to which they have no actual ties to (won't be as concerned about the place & people there) (not that there aren't any communication,but the quality would differ) ○ Usually large, multi-national with profit motive → maybe less likely to be sustainable when drive by money Check out • South Park: Pee in the Pool We (humans) are depleting the earth's resourcesand systems in a way that is not sustainable and We (humans) are depleting the earth's resourcesand systems in a way that is not sustainable and already causing us problems → What can psychologycontribute? • Behavioural change that promotessustainability (persuasion) → "all your neighbours use 25% less energy their you" (social comparison,sense of being monitored) ○ Though this does involve lying @[email protected] • Explain behaviours that hinder sustainability ○ Learned helplessness seems to be why people aren't doing anything • How else can P's needs to met (well-being) • Effective collective action/communication& group work What are the psychological causes of pro-environmental/ anti-environmentalbehaviour • How can we get people to consumer in a more sustainable way because the behaviours are going to have to change! • Why aren't people changing their anti-environmentalbehaviours? 3. Climate Change and Global Warming September-16-13 1:33 PM Short Paper 2 • A productive way of coping is to engage in behaviours • Ecological footprint (link) • Write about someideas for behaviour change ○ Reduce personal footprint (what most people engage in) ○ Other ways to promotesustainability? (there are other ways. Think broadly!) • Don't need to bring it all in, just the part where you talk about your potential behaviour change • Global temperaturehas been increasing over the last 200 years (temperature,less snowy surfaces, etc.) • Lookedat temperatureover the last 2000years • Since the beginning there's been some general but very slow cooling • In the last hundred years, there's a dramatic upwards slope • Global CO e2issions dramatically increasing • There has not been such a number in the past hundreds of years • Cumulated number (what's in the air, not what's emitted) still increasing • Data suggests that the increase is something that humans are doing (anthropogenic climate change) • Increasing green house gas effect → it's how the atmospheretraps heat to make it habitable, but it's not supposed to get STRONGER • CO i2 the gas in the atmosphereworks as a green house gas • Meta analysis looking at published scientific paper that talked about climate change tend to suggest that it is human activity and not natural variation (98% endorse that it's human caused) Climate Change Likely Effects (drawn from recent reports) • Increase in extremeweather:(weather system will get more active) ○ Heat waves: THESE KILL PEOPLE → more people dying from heat (not even the worst thing that will happen, yo)  Associated with increased aggression, esp. if the heat waves are extremeand unpredictable ○ Storms, droughts, floods, fires  This also includes winter storms (b/c it's the extremes),and hurricanes (look at the ones in the last 2 years)  Droughts: certain areas will become much drier → these places tend to be where we grow foods in → food shortage… □ Dryness can increase risk of fires ○ Rising sea level ← ice & snow will melt  Minor changes can cause devastating effects (costal areas, island countries can submerge completely) ○ Threat to food supply  On the other hand, some places can get more rainfall. However,it's not that easy to just shift things around. ○ Environmentalrefugees: people who have to leave where they lived for a long time because of climate change (mentioned above)  UN predicts that this will becomethe largest number of refugees on the planet ○ Ocean acidification, caused by the carbon in the atmosphere(changes in pH)  Affecting marine life (AND THERE IS SO MUCH LIFE IN THE OCEAN) and ecosystem ○ Species extinction → biodiversity decreasing  Unprecedented in history  Some studies claim that every day, another species goes extinct Moving toward tipping point? ○ Moving toward tipping point?  Tipping point: alter climactic system that completelyputs it out of whack and thus threatening life itself (shifting the homeostasis → spiral out of control)  Feedback loops that cause escalating effect □ Polar ice cap that reflects light because it's white, thus help with stabilizing temperature→ melting of ice caps means less regulation and moreheat □ Dryness increases risk of forest fires → more carbon in atmosphere,less trees to take up carbon  WE DON'T KNOW WHAT THE TIPPING POINT IS… In Class Writing • While learning about environmentalissues, what thoughts and feelings arise for you? ○ Fear of no return, fear of impacting others ○ Responsible & guilt for my actions ○ Concern for future generation ○ What is the governmentdoing?! Our society is so driven by capitalism and focus on economyand money. • It is a dire message but it is based in reality and we need to deal with the fact that it's a threatening reality that can provokevery negative emotions Dire message,by Feinberg & Willer (2011) • Climate change threatens just world beliefs (good things happen to good people, karma, things are predictable) • Study 1: all P read about climate change as caused by human activity • (1) dire message ○ "…all the numbers and computermodels point in the same dire and devastating direction. No one knows for sure how horrible it will get, but we should prepare for world wide chaos and destruction" • (2) positive message ○ "The solution is simple: ingenuity. Human beings can solve most any problem if they put their minds to it. much of the technologywe need already exist. We just have to perfect it and find innovative ways to implement it." • Note: all P read that scientific consensus that global warming is happening and caused by human activity • Measures of climate change skepticism:"how certain are you that global warming is actually occurring?" ○ ○ For those with low just belief, dire message reinforces how they feel already ○ For those with high just belief, dire message threatens their beliefs → more skeptical & engage in denial • For the just world belief, how much of personal responsibility will people feel? If overly optimistic,people may feel they don't need to act to change the situation Feinberg & Willer (2011)Study 2 • Just world "prime": people tend to have high & low just world beliefs at times. This will trigger P's high just world beliefs → activated by unscrambling statementsthat reinforce a just world ("good things happen to good people") • Watched 2 short video predicting dire consequences[esp. for children] → to activate justice b/c it's happening to "innocent" children • When reporting skepticism of global warming, those with just world prime showed greater skepticism & less willing to reduce carbon footprint • Limitation:looking at intentions only and not behaviours • Threat to justice/beliefs → defensiveness,skepticism, unwilling to change 4. Catch Up September-18-13 12:29 PM Short Paper 2 • Ecological footprint • Ideas for behavioural change ○ Reducing personal footprint ○ Other ways to promotesustainability • Marking ○ 2 (A/B) = thoughtful (elaborati, making conneciton, logical, well-written,addresses all questions Greitemeyer(2013): Please tell me it's not true • P's watched videos: ○ (1) Confirming climate change ○ (2) Denying climate change ○ (3) Neutral, unrelated topic • ○ Strongest positive mood in (2) = (3) > (1) ○ Strongest negative moodin (1) Confirming climate change > (2) skeptic > (3) neutral ○ Addititude towards environment(NEP): neutral = confirm > skeptic  Confirming video doesn't make people any more environmentthan neutral video • ○ Worst mood in confirming ○ Consideration for future consequences: "I focus on present, assume future will take care of itself"  Confirm = neutral > skeptic → thinking less about the future consequences Apathy about environment:skeptic think least about the environment;confirm and ○ Apathy about environment:skeptic think least about the environment;confirm and neutral pretty much the same Ferguson & Branscombe (2010): Guilt • P read paragraph on global warming as… ○ (1) Minor or major impacts ○ (2) Human caused or not • Measure for collective guilt ○ For "Americans' production of greenhouse gasses (GHG) (by driving cars, consuming electricity)" ○ Beyond your own control, but still feel a sense of guilt for something that a group you belong to have done (as USA citizen, as human, etc.) Minor effect Major effect Natural caused Lower guilt Greater guilt Human caused Greatest guilt Less or Lowestguilt • • Lowestguilt at human caused & major effect ○ Hard to take personal/collectiveresponsibility when effects are bigger → "the field will turn into a desert. Well that can't be our fault. That' s a big problem" ○ Problem doesn't seem plausible or fixable; may require lots of change and drastic change → denial • Guilt can be used as a motivationto fix what is wronged → this data is pretty bleak… • Similar patterns found for willingness to conserve and support for carbon tax Environmentalthreats are psychologicallythreatening • Fear, anxiety, guilt, sadness • Tends not be about self, but ○ Concern for others (future generals) ○ Concern for other species, ecosystems • Uncertainty and confusion (whether it's happening, what to do about it) • Powerlessness(it's a big issues, and can feel daunting) • Existential crisis (terror management theory, Greenberg, Psyzczynski & Solomon, 1986) ○ Death is a sense of threat, therefore threat to our being threatens our sense of meaning Awareness, Acceptance, Action • Pipher, 2013,the green boat • Coping with the threat by getting involved and helping other people • From awareness to acceptance ○ Getting past denial, minimization,distraction, avoidance  While still being critical of what you're reading…  Disengaging doesn't make the threat go away  Disengaging doesn't make the threat go away ○ Allowing ourselves to feel the pain  Validate the negative feelings b/c they're justified  Our societyis so used to stopping negative feelings and going for instant gratification  You're feeling sad b/c something you value is being threatened • From acceptance to action ○ Best way to cope is to get involved & engaging in some ways with the stressors ○ Even better if done with other people 5. whoa September-23-13 1:10 PM Goal Setting • Not too big or involving too many behaviours ○ Efficacy: maintain efficacy by creating realistic [number of] goals ○ Limits to self-regulation (Baumeister, Bratslavsky,Muraven & Tice, 1998): it's like a muffle, so the more you practice self-regulation, the better you get. However,you can also wear it out by applying it across to many things at a time • Not too small → it won't make any cognitive change in you; or you'll underestimateit as a task therefore failing it • Concrete & specific ○ Standards clearer ○ Greater efficacy → translate into specific behaviours to engage in ○ Less opportunityto rationalize non-compliance Self DeterminationTheory (Ryan & Deci, 2000) ○ Of human motivationand human needs • Focuses more on different kinds of motivation(vs. just looking at intensity) ○ Amotivationresults from not valuing a behaviour, not feeling competent,thinking behaviour won't achieve desired outcome ○ External regulation: there are rewards/punishmentfor certain behaviours ○ Introjected regulation: engaged in behaviour to avoid guilt, anxiety, protect view of self & others' view of you  Koestner,Houlfort, Paquet & Knight (2001) → more likely to rational noncompliance ○ Identified with behaviour: personally valuing behaviour, sees it as worth while ○ Integrated motivation:into your identity ○ Intrinsic: engaged in behaviour b/c it's pleasurable, interesting, satisfying → not external (the consequence of the behaviour that motivatesyou) • Motivationis becomes more"self-determined"as the list descends ○ Osbaldiston & Sheldon (2003) → can push towards more self-determined;P tend to be more happy when it’s more intrinsic • The more self determined the motivationis, the more P will engage in efforts to sustain that goal Self-Monitoring • Self-monitoring on its own affects behaviour (Korotitsch& Nelson-Gray, 1999) ○ You becomemore aware of what you're doing ○ Even without intention/goalof changing behaviour, behaviours start to align with values • Objective Self-Awareness Theory (Duval & Wicklund, 1972; Silvia & Duval, 2001) ○ When OSA, reduce discrepancies between self and self-standards ○ Self-monitoring of behaviour keeps both self and standard in awareness • Self-monitoring allows for adjustments ○ IF CHANGE NOT GOING ACCORDING TO PLAN, REMEDY! ○ Keep the goal salient in your mind, harder to forget. • For paper, might want to start monitoring before start of behavioural change attempt Monitoring more than behaviour • Thoughts and feelings • Might provide insight • Might provide meaning to behaviour • Helpful for paper writing Learning Theory Learning Theory • Rewards and punishments FOR YOURSELF =D ○ Might be great for new behaviours (very external motivationto kick start the behaviour) ○ MAKE A BET WITH SOMEONE $____$ Making a public commitment • Cognitive dissonance theory,self-affirmation theory, self-perception theory • Telling other people makes it more likely you'll follow it through ○ Someoneyou'll see often, someonewho is importantto you, support groups ○ Accountability Social Support • Other people can provide ○ Instrumental support: practical, helps you meet your goal  ex. someonegives you vegetarian recipes ○ Emotionalsupport: for stress, etc. • Other people can make this more fun! Short Paper 2 & 3 September-23-13 12:35 PM Final Paper: Behaviour Change Project& Paper • Behaviour change October 7th - November 3rd • Plan: short paper 3 → due Oct 29th ○ If not completed, final paper will not be accepted ○ Plan requires specific concrete goal  ex. drive less → in what situations are okay to drive? How many km of driving is okay? What is the alternative?  What specific behaviours are you engaging in? ○ Plan for self-monitoringbehaviour  What are all the relevant information to record? How often will you record?  ex. ○ Plan for success (strategies) Ideas • ** Reduce usage of disposable items ○ Food (take out, packed food, reusable mug, utensils) ○ Shopping (plastic bag) • Food ○ Changing diet to vegetarian → food choices ○ No fast food, except for coffee ○ Food packaging (packed lunch, take out) ○ Local food + awareness of where food comesfrom ○ Eat less processed food ○ Buy in bulk (reduce travel, packaging) ○ Strategies: keep a food diary & meal planning • Goods and Services ○ Replace toilet paper • Consider social support • DIY ○ Cleaning products ○ Shampoo & body wash • Blackout hour • Getting a job that values environment • More sustainable food for companionanimals • Connect with nature to help with coping (well being) Not an essay. You can structure it around the 4 questions that you'll need to answer =D 6. Sustainable Happiness September-25-13 12:30 PM How does psychology contribute to sustainability • What are the psychological causes of anti-environmentalbehaviours? ○ More focus on this area ○ What is keeping us from doing more [environmentallyfriendly things]? → the dragons (from the reading) • What are the psychological causes of pro-environmentalbehaviours? ○ To better influence people's attitudes, beliefs, behaviours, shifting them in a more sustainable direction ○ Lots of the research has limitationsto this → we need to recognize these limitations of this approach Pitfalls of this approach • Individual level analysis → Psychologydoes tend to look at the individual level; even social psychology,you're looking at ONE P in a social setting ○ Commonsresearch suggests when people consume as individuals → that's when they're more likely to deplete a resource ○ Structural barriers [whether people engage in such behaviours] → ex. even if you think public transit is a good idea & is motivatedto use it, it's not plausible behaviour if it's not available in your community • Individual consumption pattern → P as consumer (looking at what P spends money on) ○ Neglects production (Uzzell & Rathzel, 2009) → Sites of production account for lots of our collective ecological footprint  Who makes the decision at level of production? → it's usually some person in position of power in a boardroom far away (no/littleconnection to site of production) ○ Story of Stuff & Story of Change ( ○ Tap and trade • Neglects social structure, economics,intergroup relations and social change • Over-psychologizing: It's all in our head ○ e.g., Gifford's ancient brain → evolutionaryexplanation that we respond to threat in immediateenvironmentby fight/flight, but we're not good at responding to long-term threat (hard to get our heads around)  But humans can plan into the future, so if anything, we have the ability to understand complexproblems to develop solutions ○ Implicationof inevitability → does that mean we should wait another thousand year to solve this problem then? ○ Why does human psychologyONLY create barriers? ○ Focus on costs of PEB (pro environmentalbehaviours) (inconvenience,effort, stigma, price), requiring high levels of motivation → Ignores the benefit (other than "protecting the environment") • Who is persuading whom? → studies usually don't specify o___O Some elude to government, climate scientists, etc. • Inequalities in power to influence discourse → what if those who are powerful and control media aren't motivatedin this issue → information will be stifled Beyond Individual PEB • Coping with fear, uncertainty, depression • Adapting to ecologicalthreats tat are happening now or happening soon ○ Environmentalrefugees ○ Extremeweather ○ Heat and aggression → conflict resolution Competitionfor scarce resources ○ Competitionfor scarce resources • What causes people to act collectively for pro-environmentalsocial change? • What social conditions will best promotehuman welfare and sustainability? (O'Brien, 2008) ○ What do humans need for full, meaningful lives? → still taking this into account when striving towards sustainability to ensure a durable long-lasting approach Million tons carbon emission x gross world product (total goods/services,like GDP but globally) • Some growth b/c rich countries getting richer and poor countries getting less poor • Size of economy& cost of environmentare correlated … Canada GDP x GHG • Fairly steep increase in GDP, slight dip in 2008 • Pattern of the two weren't as closely tied → more money without sacrificing GHG GHG intensity • Steady decline of GHG (generating more stuff while releasing less GHG per dollar) → more efficient! • Per captia is kind of flat though (not dropping…) → no change → we're being more efficient but we're also buying more things and using more resources • Rebound Effect → humans becomesmore efficiency but in turn increases consumption, therefore kind of rendering our efforts a little pointless ○ ex. a car that's more fuel efficient may make people moreinclined to drive more Does more money = more happiness? • Diminishing return ○ When you're really poor and may have difficulty meeting basic needs, money will fix your problem thereforeincreasing your happiness ○ After a certain point, it plateaus → Basic needs met but adding on luxury → can only help so much (A SECOND YACHT WON'T MAKE YOU THAT MUCH HAPPIER) • Data between country • Data between country ○ ○ Money and happiness not as closely tied as previously thought → not a straightforward difference • Data within country ○ Feel/experience(blue, positive affect, stress)  There is an increase that plateau around 60-80k ○ Cognitive responses (ladder; how do you think you're doing on a scale of 1-10)  Quite linear increase  People think they're happier • Canada Happiness across time ○ ○ PRETTY FLAT despite increase in GDP per capita (per person) ○ Replicated in US & UK ○ ○ ○ • European countries ecological footprint x life satisfaction ○ ○ LIFE SATISFACTION IS PRETTYMUCH THE SAME ACROSS HOW MUCH PEOPLECONSUME • Wealth distribution • Wealth distribution   families with children in BC 7. Titleless Lecture September-30-13 12:26 PM PrelectureTalk • Midterm:you need to know what are the main points of the papers =) • Videos: points from the videos will be things that are drawn from lectures GHG intensity vs. GHG per capita • • GHG intensity decreasing: greater efficiency • GHG per capita not reducing, even though we're more efficient → we're consuming MORE Jevons' Paradox or the rebound effect (Consumption) • Why do increases in efficiency not translate into decreases in consumption? ○ In society,increasing efficiency is a commonapproach to sustainability living → this is important but we can't just depend on efficiency increase alone. • e.g., Hummer vs. Smart Car: More efficient to get the Smart Car → driving the same amount = less fuel ○ Mentality:driving more is okay b/c it's cheaper than before ○ Driving 6 blocks seemsmore justified with the Smart Car → you might've just walked when you had the Hummer • The money you saved will be spent → more consumption(maybe a trip to LA → SO MUCH FOR REDUCING YOUR ECO. FOOTPRINT) • If Hummers are the only cars available, you won't buy a car; but Smart Cars are efficient, and you'll buy it → your consumption actually goes up when more efficient technology (easier to afford, less ecological footprint than alternative) Jevons' Paradox or the Rebound Effect (Production) • Increases in production efficiency (less cost, less fuel, less labour) ○ + Profit motive & competition (You'll make MORE so you can SELL MORE → business growth) ○ → increase in production (but what if it's more than the demand) ○ → consumption increases  Otherwise:crisis of overproduction(things aren't selling, laying people off)  Lower prices due to increased efficiency (and competition)  Ubiquitous advertising (doesn't seem like advertisement,product placement, etc.) • [clip] Conrad Schmidt ○ ○ Gets people think about their relationship to work Despite advances in technology, people are working longer and harder than before ○ Despite advances in technology, people are working longer and harder than before ○ Media convinces us that we need to consume to be good citizens ○ Adding more efficiency products → we're becoming more efficiently unsustainable (more efficiency growth) → what we need is a reduction, not an increase ○ Increased efficiency → producing more goods with the same amount of labour → increased production → increased consumption  Offset with leisure time instead of producing more goods ○ "take back your time"  European countries are doing this already → putting somegains into paid holidays  France: legal work week 35hrs (32hr, 4 days a week) → everyoneworks less but everyoneworks ○ I WANT TO MOVE TO EUROPE ○ Happiness is not to have more,than to be more. -Yves Gallup Daily: Mood • • High peaks in the happiness bar are the weekend • Dips less obvious for those who "enjoy their jobs" • European experimenting with a shorter work week & work hour Stats Can: Canadians' time at work Stats Can: Canadians' time at work • • We spend a lot more time at work than with family, friends or alone • Increase time at work and alone • Decreasetime spend with family and friends Pattern • • Despite GDP and consumption increase, well-being has been relatively flat • Diminishing returns → money makes more improvementto life satisfactionwhen you're in low SES (vs. high SES) • Work hours increasing → working more can interfere with other goals (quality social relationship) • Inequality also increasing (esp. recently in the last few decades) • Social connection reducing → turning to consumption/materialisminstead? Inequality: CHINA • Different income level vs. consumption (eco impact) • How much GHG created relative to income • Low SES: low efficiency • Increase SES → more efficiently using money in terms of GHG Inequality: EcologicalFootprint per Canadian by earning decile • 10th decile is much more than 9th, but probably not that much happier than the 9th decile • But those at the higher end may be creating jobs and such! Social Class and "Good Behaviour" • High SES people tend to ○ Be less generous, trusting and helpful than low SES people ○ Have worse empathic accuracy ○ Favour personal attributions (you're responsible for what's happening to you) ○ Have weaker sense of egalitarianism and compassion • High SES: Tend to be more individualistic ○ Yet they're the ones with more power to shape & influence society ○ Class segregation doesn't help this (high SES tends to spend more time with others who are high SES) • Effects similar when you manipulate subjective sense of social class (When you engage in social comparison,and putting yourself above others ) High and Social Problemsare Worse in more Unequal Countries • • Fairly strong relationship between social problems and inequality Income inequality vs. environmentalcompliance score • • Also: less recycling in countries with high inequality ○ High Price of Materialism: Materialism • Highly valuing money and material wealth undermines happiness, predicts depression & anxiety (Kasser & Ryan, 1993) • Social relationship suffer (Christopher et al., 2004) • Materialistic goals tend to be never-ending → a sense that always need to have more ○ As extrinsic goals tend to be ○ The happiness doesn't last (temporarygain) → need to keep consuming more Thinking about Money(Vohs et al., 2006) • …undermines social connectedness ○ Increases self sufficiency → less interdependent with others • Less interested in affiliating with others • Less interested in affiliating with others ○ Measured by having P set up 2 chairs while experimentergrabs 'the other person' for the next part • Less willing to help others → b/c expecting others to be self sufficient too ○ P less likely to ask for help too Money and Cooperation • Give P social dilemma (tension between self interest and collective interest) • Liberman, Samuel, & Ross (2004) ○ "Wall Street Game" → 33% of P cooperated ○ vs. "CommunityGame" → 65% of P cooperated • Kay, Wheeler, Bargh, & Ross (2004) ○ P come into room to completesurvey ○ 91% of P in control condition cooperate(lab room, typical experimentsetting) ○ 33% in business condition (board room,briefcase, portfolio,fancy pen) 8. Environmental Inequality October-02-13 12:34 PM Environmentalinequality/injustice • It can take on different kinds or forms but generally, we're talking about… • Unequal exposure to environmentaltoxins and environmentalrisk ○ Toxin: industrial sites, waste sites ○ Risk: flooding by coastal areas ○ Adaptation to climate change as influenced by SES/GDP • Unequal responsibilityto environmentalharm "Levels"of EnvironmentalInequality • Intergeneration inequality ○ Our depletion of earth's resources undermines the quality of life for future generation ○ Or previous generation's depletion ○ Effects of depletion takes time to surface ○ Even though there isn't a lot of data for this, there are evidence of it • International / global inequality • Intra-national inequality ○ Different groups within country → different risks 185 Different Countries & 2010GHG Emissions • • The first bits are practically nonexistent • A few countries (minority)at the end have HUGE emissions total ○ Similar pattern to distribution of wealth • [pie graph] • [pie graph] ○ Top 10 produces ~60% of the GHG emission ○ Alone: USA 15% & China 23% • Zoomedin top 10 ○ CANADA MADE THE TOP 10 ○ Generally, data is derived by looking at the fuel burnt within country → much of China's footprint is for USA consumers → consumptionrate is different & China/USA would be much closer in consumption • Per Capita Emission ○ ○ CANADA LOOKS HORRIBLE NOW Look at India: they're last on this list b/c the population size is much bigger ○ Look at India: they're last on this list b/c the population size is much bigger • 1850-2010CO Em2ssion ○ ○ USA is a big emitter;Canada would have fallen to ~15th position ○ UK would have been on the top 10 list too (UK had a head start on industrial revolution) • "Everybodyhas to start reducing" ○ Doesn't really make sense for countries like India, where there is a big population (relativelylow per capita) • 1850-2010CO Em2ssion per person ○ ○ Canada is rising up there again, where as India & China dropped The Guardian Info-Graphic World Map • Historical extraction • • ○ US & Central Europe is a lot bigger, where as Africa + co shrank • People are risk [graph] from natural disaster & extreme weather → China & Africa ○ Those who haven't been historically responsible for emissions are paying the price EnvironmentalInequality within Countries • Lower SES and racial ethnic minority groups are closer to toxic waste and pollution • Canada ○ Even if Aboriginal reservesare left alone, you're building around it. That makes for a terrible living environment. ○ Indigenous peoples, also recent immigrants (Jafri, 2008) → the kinds of housing & work available to these population • US ○ In 1990,minority groups made up of 25% of the population, but 40% of people within 1 mile of hazardous waste sites (Mohai & Saha, 2007) Possible Explanations (Mohai & Saha, 2006) • Economicfactors ○ Cheap land values & cheap labour around it ○ Less resistant if you're providing jobs → attract companiesto build there • Unequal power to resist ○ Difference in political power, time to resist ○ NIMBYism (not in my backyard) → you still want the factory's output (goods) but you don't want it in your area ○ Maybe we should have the golden rule (do unto other…) • Racism (intentional/unconscious) ○ Mohai & Saha found race matters even controlling for economicfactors • ex. in Canada, Northern Alberta. Fort Che is downstream from the oil sands ○ Watch video 1/ ○ Disruption of the landscape → treaty rights cannot be rightfully exercised ○ Despite protest, "the world needs energy and canada needs the tar sands" ○ Brain tumors,cancer rates are unproportional ○ No one eats fish from the lake anymoreb/c they're all deformed How does that change what we have to do to solve the problem? 9. Gender and Natural Environment October-07-13 12:30 PM Paper 3 & Behavioural Change • If you're making changes, let them know so that it's not like a huge difference from your Paper 3 Discussion: Do men and womendiffer in their environmentalattitudes & behaviours? • Women may be socialized into being more nurturing & caring → may extend to caring about others (ex. environment) ○ More open to communication • Men may be socialized into not caring → not encouraged to get in touch with that as much as with women • Difference in how they express their feelings about the environment → gender differences in what reaction is okay (men socialized to be less sensitiveand stifle their emotions) • Men may be more driven to strive in society → in a capitalistic one, then would adopt free market ideology (which is associated with not caring about environment) ○ More self driven, trying to get to the top • Women tend to consume more(ex. shopping) → conformingmore to the norms ○ Men tend to have higher income(pressure to earn more to demonstratestatus) → more consumption • How else might sustainability and gender be related? ○ Different oppression are related and works in dynamic relationship (race, looks, gender, class, sexual orientation,age, etc.) ○ Remember,there's morevariable between individuals than between genders ○ Need to investigate how we, as human, relate to one another as well  Even if there were biological ones, there are social factors that either enhance or reduce them. It is a much more social concept than biological one… Why Gender Difference? (Stern, Dietz, Kalof (1993)) • Gender (women)related to more political action on behalf of environment& support for gas tax ○ Perceptionof consequence: for self, for others (future generation, other countries), for biosphere (earth, natural system) ○ Women saw that there were more risks in general → higher support Gender Differences & similarity in 4 countries (Eisler, Eisler(2003)) ○ Little difference in Germany ○ In japan & USA, womenare much higher than men ○ Difference between countries are bigger than gender difference within… ○ Clear difference in japan ○ Clear difference in Sweden, but reversed… ○ Men are scoring higher across the board ○ Many social factors discourage women from pursuing sciences in postsecondary → men encouraged to do so → higher knowledge about the issues Gender Difference Across Nations (Hunter, Hatch, Johnson, 2004) • 22 nations (mostlyWestern "developed") • Women higher in private sectors (in 14 of 22 scenarios) ○ ex. sort glass, or plastic, etc. for recycling, cut back on driving for environmentalreasons • No overall difference in public spheres (lower overall) ○ ex. member of environmentalgroup, petition signing, take part in protest/demonstration ○ Perhaps the factors that prevent people to engage in public sphere evens out across genders  People might get mad, socialized to conform, etc. Gender Difference in China (Xiao & Hong, 2010) • Men higher knowledge and awareness (potential harm and consequences) ○ Perhaps there are someeducation differences as well, exacerbated than in the Western countries • Women higher in private sphere PEB ○ Could be due to division of labour in the household • No gender difference in public sphere PEB SFU Data (Daphne Payne's MA) • Study 1: ○ University students ○ Women scoring higher in 1, 2, 3, 5,6 ○ No difference in potential of threat of environmentalcrisis ○ There are some gender differences to be picked up on • Study 2: ○ Trends aren't replicated… still university students… ○ Not significant differences! @[email protected] → the closest one to being significant is perception of threat Summary of gender differences • When differences do emerge among genders, it does point to women being more pro- environment • Difference in socialization of children into gender norms • Limitation:ALL the research mentionedhere only considers "men" and "women",and nothing in between Are environmentalharm and women's status connected? • Ecofeminism:Link between exploitation of the natural environmentaland subordination of women ○ Looking at history and ideology → coming from a shared ethic of domination  "If you have the power to take the resource to enhance your own wellbeing, you should do it" ○ Different streams of this research has different opinions,  Historically, our history of exploitation has reinforced subordination of women  Or subordination of women contributed to exploitationof resources → ex. science: men dominate the field, earth viewed as "she", and taking resources seen as very "rape like"  But both agree the two are related ○ Women's constructed role provides insight into environmentalissues  Many womenreclaiming that role → something that womendo that we all need to do to do • At psychological level, gender attitudes and environmentalattitudes are correlated ○ What about at the social level? Women's status & CO (E2gas & York, 2012) • Across 91 countries: ○ CO2 per capita as a function of women'sstatus (% women in government,years since women allowed to vote) ○ Controlling for GDP, military expenditure (greatly influence eco footprint), etc. • The three are linked when controlling for GDP, affluence, etc. Video: 1993 The Fury of the Sound • Logging in Clayoquot Sound where protesters were arrested • 2/3 of the 856 protesters were women, as are 80% of environmentalactivist worldwide • >50% of Vancouver Island's rainforest have been deforested • Protestorgot 6 months sentence → Sila comparedit to abolishment of slavery • Society is used to seeing youngsters protest and point out the weakness in the system → older women protesting 10. Environmental Activism October-16-13 12:30 PM Pre-LectureTalk: Extra Credit Opportunity • Write 3 multiple choice questions for the next midterm ○ Up to 1% extra credit ○ From lectures and readings ○ Include correctanswer (5 choices ABCDE) • Question needs to be "good" ○ Not too easy, not too hard ○ Answer must be correct ○ Measure something non-trivial • May be posted as practice MC for midterm#2 • DUE Nov 1st Pre-Lecture: Topics to be Determined • Send topics ideas by this Friday on Discussion board or email Michael ([email protected]) What is environmentalactivism • To promotesustainability that goes beyond personal behaviours → to influence others • Wide scope of what is considered activist behaviours ○ Working within existing social system  Electing more environmentalpolitician  Persuade politicians to pass environmentallaws  → Normativeactions ○ Working to fundamentally change the existing social system   That the existing social system is incompatible with becoming sustainable  → Non normativeactions • Life style activism:"Personal is politics" ○ Removeself from existing system that you see as harming the environment ○ Voluntary simplicity → bring your own ecological footprint to as small as you can ○ Influenced by the feminist movement • Education & persuasion ○ For the general public, to encourage behavioural change ○ For people in power (government,CEO, high SES), to change their course • Creating alternative systems ○ ex. worker owned [non-profit] co-ops: delivery service made by bicycle, all the workers own it together and make decisions together ○ Models for others, that there are alternatives • Direct actions: getting in the way of business as usual" ○ ex. blocking the truck's path to building pipelines ○ Stopping it or slowing it down ○ Also brings attention to issues, educates and persuades others Pictures: Pipeline • Parts of it is being built without it being passed entirely • When workers are way from equipment, people lock themselvesto the equipment so they can't use it safely ○ Police comesto take them away, but it gets in the way with work, slowing the work down • Oil extraction in the arctic ○ Green Peace got on the rig of the oiler, and climbed up → Were arrested and charged as terrorist Bidder #70 • Tend to be activist through group membership → less so personal choice than commitmentto collective identity • Tim DeChristopher( • Rights to drill for gas in Utah, raised environmentalconcern • Tim came from an exam, went in as a bidder → starts with driving the prices up (at least it'll cost them more) → started BUYING the rights → wrecked the auction and they had to shut it down • The lands weren't auctioned off in the end Relationship [image] • Everyonetries to influence the general public • Activist also persuades govneremnt& business ○ Always attending to multiple audiences Identity and Activism • Tends to inform people about what norms to engage in, sense of obligation to engage in them, also providing social support • Research tend to look at those in lower position (those who are oppressed) who are trying to change their position → doesn't work quite so well for environment,but it kind of works • Social identity theory(Tajfel & Turner, 1979) ○ Collective identity ○ Sense of self at group level → "I AM an environmentalist" ○ With "environmentalist,""environmentalactivist", a specific organization  Defining oneself as a part of that category, and valuing that category • When highly identified.. ○ Motivatedto protect and promotethe interests, values, and goals of the group → engage in activist behaviours ○ Willing to sacrifice personal interests → instead, focuses on group of the whole  Ex. being a student but sacrificing sleep or time to study to engage in activist behaviours  Ex. going to jail for activist behaviours 11. Rising Tide October-21-13 12:30 PM • Ties in decolonization,resource extraction, etc. • Going beyond just being aware of these information • Started last year, at an indigenous blockage (on route of pipeline) @ the Action Camp ○ Left with understanding that there is a need to do support work but also target actions in Vancouver • Climate justice and environmentaljustice movement • Decolonization:Especially here in BC, where territoriesare unseated (illegally occupied, even under colonial law; no treaty) • Many people are disillusioned from climate negotiation → governments& corporationsaren't the change we need → change in community ○ Ignoring how people in global south are already affected by climate change → urgency not reflected in our actions ○ → address root cause of climate change: economicsystem as a whole → capitalism is found on colonialism • Interested in physically confronting those in power & the operations → Direction action ○ Banner drops, protest, noise demo (loud and confrontational) ○ Need many to engage in to be effective Building a Movementto Stop ExtremeEnergy • Connecting local struggles to regional/global movementsfor environmental/climatejustice ○ Breaking isolation brought on by physical distance • Environmentaljustice means seeing how various systemsof oppression are linked and intersected ○ Patriarchy, migrant justice ○ See how these are interconnected • This movementmust attempt to decolonize the relationship between settler and indigenous people ○ e.g., Enbridge pipeline Pacific Trail Pipeline • Climate change • Paving way for tar sands pipeline ○ If this pipeline is allowed to happe
More Less

Related notes for PSYC 391

Log In


Don't have an account?

Join OneClass

Access over 10 million pages of study
documents for 1.3 million courses.

Sign up

Join to view


By registering, I agree to the Terms and Privacy Policies
Already have an account?
Just a few more details

So we can recommend you notes for your school.

Reset Password

Please enter below the email address you registered with and we will send you a link to reset your password.

Add your courses

Get notes from the top students in your class.