![Some of the contrasting assumptions of modern-industrial and ecologically grounded worldviews depicted in the context of food systems. Similar assumptions underlie transportation, energy generation, water use, and material consumption. [Adapted from (57)]](https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Susan-Koger/publication/316308787/figure/fig2/AS:671979166253064@1537223726663/Some-of-the-contrasting-assumptions-of-modern-industrial-and-ecologically-grounded_Q320.jpg)
Content uploaded by Susan M Koger
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Susan M Koger on Sep 17, 2018
Content may be subject to copyright.
REVIEW
Beyond the roots of human inaction:
Fostering collective effort toward
ecosystem conservation
Elise Amel,
1
*Christie Manning,
2
Britain Scott,
1
Susan Koger
3
The term “environmental problem”exposes a fundamental misconception: Disruptions
of Earth’s ecosystems are at their root a human behavior problem. Psychology is a
potent tool for understanding the external and internal drivers of human behavior that
lead to unsustainable living. Psychologists already contribute to individual-level
behavior-change campaigns in the service of sustainability, but attention is turning toward
understanding and facilitating the role of individuals in collective and collaborative
actions that will modify the environmentally damaging systems in which humans are
embedded. Especially crucial in moving toward long-term human and environmental
well-being are transformational individuals who step outside of the norm, embrace
ecological principles, and inspire collective action. Particularly in developed countries,
fostering legions of sustainability leaders rests upon a fundamental renewal of humans’
connection to the natural world.
The ecological systems upon which humans
rely for life support are in crisis, and human
behavior is the root cause. These problems
are thus not environmental, but rather re-
lated to how humans meet their needs and
wants in ecologically disruptive ways. Manipulat-
ing, exploiting, and destroying nonhuman nature
are not new activities for our species, but today
these occur at an unprecedented scale and escalat-
ing rate.
Asthedecadessincethe1970shaverevealed,
merely educating people about what actions they
can take does not dramatically shift behavior; nor
does inspiring fear or guilt. Despite widespread
awareness and concern, many people continue to
engage in behaviors that further environmental
destruction, both mindlessly and consciously. For
example, nearly half of Americans are “concerned”
or “alarmed”about global warming (1), yet those
who can afford it routinely fly to vacation des-
tinations, drive solo, and keep their homes at a
constant 72°F (22°C). Further, messages about
predicted environmental catastrophes may ac-
tually increase anti-environmental behavior as
individuals attempt to soothe their anxiety through
materialistic pursuits (2). Psychological science
can shed light on many such counterintuitive and
counterproductive responses to our ecological
predicament.
Human behavior is determined by forces both
inside and outside of the individual. Internal fac-
tors such as emotions, beliefs, attitudes, and val-
ues influence behavior to some extent (3–5), but
behavior occurs within a powerful context com-
prising cultural worldviews, social networks, sta-
tus inequalities, policies, scripts, roles, and rules.
Situations are such potent determinants of be-
havior that behavior-change campaigns focused
solely on values, emotions, or knowledge are des-
tined to fail if such change is not facilitated by
an individual’s social milieu as well as the sur-
rounding infrastructure.
Humans are driven by external circumstances,
and yet all individuals have a hand in perpetu-
ating or redirecting situational forces. The cur-
rent ecologically destructive trajectory cannot be
reversed without human action to radically trans-
form the anthropogenic and anthropocentric sys-
tems that encourage, support, and reinforce overly
consumptive, wasteful, and polluting lifestyles,
particularly in the industrialized world. At pres-
ent, these systems make truly sustainable living
unappealing and impractical, if not impossible,
for most individuals living in them. Thus, despite
widespread recognition of the dangerous course
that we are on as a species, humanity has not yet
begun the radical transformations that are clearly
needed.
Change is hard. Human beings are reticent
to change their behavior even under the most
compelling of circumstances, and environmental
dangers do not tend to arouse the kind of urgency
that motivates individuals to act. Mass transfor-
mation of unsustainable systems will be even
more difficult than shifting individual behaviors,
for unlike ants and bees, humans are not well
equipped to coordinate behavior for common
benefit. Armed with psychological self-awareness,
however, people can address barriers to change.
We summarize some of these barriers below,
followed by discussions of the critical need for
collective and organizational action, the role of
individuals in creating large-scale change, and
reconnection with nature as the foundation of
true sustainability.
Why changing individual
behavior is hard
To understand the roots of today’s environmental
crises, one must first look to the evolutionary
origins of human behavior. Urbanization, indus-
trialization, and technological innovation have
transformed the very foundations of human ex-
istence, creating a vastly different landscape and
lifestyle from those in which the human species
evolved, and to which our brains and bodies are
adapted. Some psychologists argue that urban
industrialized living compromises an individual’s
sense of kinship with nonhuman nature (6,7),
thereby opening the door to environmentally de-
structive behavior. Simply put, humans don’tprotect
Amel et al., Science 356,275–279 (2017) 21 April 2017 1of5
1
Department of Psychology, University of St. Thomas, 2115
Summit Avenue, St. Paul, MN 55105, USA.
2
Department of
Environmental Studies, Macalester College, 1600 Grand
Avenue, St. Paul, MN 55105-1899, USA.
3
Department of
Psychology, Willamette University, 900 State Street, Salem,
OR 97301, USA.
*Corresponding author. Email: elamel@stthomas.edu
PHOTO: GETTY IMAGES/ISTOCKPHOTO
on April 21, 2017http://science.sciencemag.org/Downloaded from
what they don’t know and value. Indeed, numer-
ous studies have found a significant positive cor-
relation between feeling connected to nature and
ecologically responsible behavior (4)andbetween
“significant life experiences”in nature during
childhood and later environmental advocacy (8).
Experiencing the self as separate from nature is
the foundation of humanity’s damaged relation-
ship to planetary resources.
The mismatch between humans’ancient ori-
gins and today’s industrialized world leads to an
array of other difficulties in recognizing and re-
sponding to environmentaldegradation.Humans
evolved in a world where dangers were sudden
and obvious, and thus our senses are ill equipped
to detect largely invisible and gradually worsen-
ing ecological problems such as climate change
or species extinction. Without a tangible sensory
signal and attendant emotional jolt, these prob-
lems feel psychologically distant and do little to
move us to action (9).
Also, because systemic problems like these do
not represent an immediate threat to the indi-
vidual, their associated long-term consequences
are less motivating than consequences in the here
and now (10). Many of today’s environmentally
damaging behaviors present just such a contin-
gency trap, where personal benefits (or costs) are
much more compelling than far-off and hard-to-
detect ecological costs (or benefits). The salience
of short-term consequences explains why indi-
viduals are unwilling to surrender the convenience
of a personal car or to spend money on energy
efficiency measures that not only save money in
the long run but also help curb greenhouse gas
emissions.
A similar dilemma arises when individuals are
faced with a contradiction between self-interested
behavior and what is ultimately best for the larger
group (11,12).The features that normally curtail
selfishness and encourage cooperation are effec-
tively missing in large-scale environmental com-
mons dilemmas such as global climate change.
Working together to conserve a common-pool re-
source is difficult in the absence of enforceable
limits on who can access the resource, strong so-
cial connections among community members, and
opportunities for face-to-face communication (13).
Even when individuals are willing to forgo
immediate personal benefits in favor of the long-
term greater good, efforts to change are stymied
if a new behavior threatens psychological needs.
Beyond basic physical requirements, human well-
being depends on feeling competent, socially con-
nected, and free to make choices (14,15). Many
behaviors are motivated by a desire to fulfill these
needs, and humans tend to avoid activities and
situations that compromise them. Adopting sus-
tainable behavior that involves learning new ac-
tions (such as composting or a different method
for commuting) can at first be intimidating, making
individuals feel uncertain, incompetent, or fear-
ful of others’disapproval or rejection.
Humans have a range of other psychological
needs as well, such as a need for safety and se-
curity, and a desire to see the world as a stable
and just place. Dire environmental news creates
a conflict with these deep-seated needs, as it im-
plies that all is not well with the status quo (16)
and, in the extreme case, may prompt unconscious
and deeply uncomfortable fears of death (2). In
response to these existential threats, people may
turn to coping defenses such as denial or distrac-
tion (2), especially if they have little hope that
action will make a difference (17).
The need for social connection is perhaps the
most influential of all, yet individuals greatly un-
derestimate the extent to which their behavior
is subject to social influence (18). Concerns about
social inclusion are undoubtedly rooted in the evo-
lutionary past. For ancestral humans, acceptance
by the group meant access to shared resources
and protection. Modern humans retain a keen
sensitivity to social dynamics; this manifests as
strong emotional reactions to threats of rejection.
Social norms, therefore, constrain human behavior,
as the mere thought of doing something drastically
different from what others are doing (descriptive
norms), or what others appear to approve of (in-
junctive norms), can lead to intense feelings of
discomfort, embarrassment, or shame. For envi-
ronmentally relevant behaviors, these two types
of norms are often at odds: Most people approve
of sustainable behaviors but behave in unsus-
tainable ways. Which norm exerts greater influ-
ence depends on their relative salience in a given
situation (19,20).
Whether particular social norms are relevant
to an individual depends on that person’sgroup
affiliations. Individuals identify with ingroups
based on factors including demographic charac-
teristics (e.g., race, gender); social circumstances
(e.g., economic status, geography); and beliefs or
values (e.g., politics, religion). Humans behave ac-
cording to the norms of their affinity groups so
as to fit in, and also to display this social identity
to the world. Conforming to norms promoting
sustainable behavior may actually feel threatening
to individuals whose identity is perceived to be
at odds with being “green.”
Strong identity affiliations can also erupt into
intergroup conflict, evident in the anger and anti-
pathy between those who embrace the scientific
consensus on climate change and its skeptics (21).
This divide, found in several Western countries,
falls largely along ideological lines, with followers
of conservative parties showing far less concern
for the issue than supporters of liberal parties
(22). Even as climate science data have accumu-
lated and consensus of grave risk has grown in
the scientific community, concern about climate
change has decreased among those with a con-
servative worldview (23).
Thestrikingdifferenceinresponsetoclimate
change stems in part from motivated cognition.
Rather than neutrally receiving information, hu-
man brains privilege that which supports their
preexisting worldview. Given limited mental re-
sources for processing the boundless information
available in the world, evolution favored cognitive
efficiency. New information is processed through
the filters of personal beliefs, first-hand experi-
ences, and social identities. Ideas are dismissed
or assimilated on the basis of a quick but biased
heuristic of whether they line up with what is al-
ready perceived to be true. It is difficult to es-
cape bias, even when exerting conscious mental
effort. Ironically, it appears that those with the
highest science literacy may exhibit more ideology-
based bias than others, because their familiarity
with science makes them better equipped to
find supporting evidence for their preconceived
view (24).
Psychological tools for
individual change
These and other psychological “dragons of in-
action”(25) explain why humans are failing to
take sufficient action to address environmental
degradation. Social scientists are developing
psychologically informed strategies to overcome
barriers and encourage pro-environmental be-
havior (10,26). Specific tools include framing
information about an issue such as climate
change to emphasize current and local impacts
(27), creating incentives that increase the short-
term rewards of a sustainable action (28), and
encouraging social modeling to reset the per-
ceived social norm around a pro-environmental
behavior.
Devising behavior-change interventions is com-
plex and time-consuming because the effective-
ness of a particular tool varies widely depending
on what, and whose, behavior is at stake (29).
Each individual behavior comes with a unique
set of barriers and benefits, and each person ap-
proaches these with varying levels of motivation.
Despite increased attention from behavioral scien-
tists, few resources exist to guide practitioners
about when and how to apply specific psycholog-
ical tools (28,29). One exception is community-
based social marketing (CBSM) (30), a five-step
community-level approach that matches appro-
priate tools of change to the exact barriers, both
physical and psychological, that inhibit a spe-
cific sustainable action (28).
CBSM has been used to address sustainable
behavior in communities around the world and
remains a promising strategy for individual change.
Yet, given the scale and pace of continued envi-
ronmental destruction , psychologists need to
move beyond targeting individuals’private-sphere
choices and focus on how to foster collective ac-
tion (Fig. 1).
Amel et al., Science 356,275–279 (2017) 21 April 2017 2of5
“Psychological research
suggests that humans can
move toward a sustainable
society by creating
conditions that motivate
environmentally responsible
collective action...”
ECOSYSTEM EARTH
on April 21, 2017http://science.sciencemag.org/Downloaded from
Individuals and collective action
Thepoweroftheindividualtomitigateenviron-
mental harm is severely constrained by physical
and social contexts, such as the industrial infra-
structure for growing and transporting food, gen-
erating energy, and producing goods; the urban
structures built for living, working, and playing;
and the rules and policies of the many groups
and organizations to which people belong. Above
and beyond the ecological damage inflicted by
individuals’personal behaviors is the damage
from the inefficient and wasteful industrial sys-
tems and processes through which individuals
meet their daily needs.
For example, one study estimated that just 90
businesses have generated 63% of the cumulative,
global greenhouse gas emissions (31). Even incre-
mental improvements in systemic processes and
infrastructure will have much broader impacts
than will individual efforts (32,33). Thus, it is
critical that efforts to overcome individuals’bar-
riers to change focus not only on motivating them
to behave sustainably in their personal sphere, but
also on inspiring them to participate in collective
efforts to change the larger systems and infra-
structure (34). Recent research in political psy-
chology has begun to provide important insights
for facilitating involvement in such systems-level
change (35).
Unlike changing personal behaviors, transform-
ing systems requires individuals to participate
in public dialogue and activism in both informal
and formal social collectives. If they embrace
change at all, most people gravitate toward pri-
vate, individual behavior and avoid potentially
uncomfortable public advocacy and action (36).
Individual change is already challenging. It takes
even greater courage and perseverance to openly
question the dominant worldview that forms the
bedrock of cultural norms (Fig. 2).
Perceived social risks, such as fear of appear-
ing biased or incompetent, fear of rejection, or
the belief that others disagree about the issue,
inhibit many from speaking out about critical
issues. People tend to underestimate how many
others share their opinion, which hampers willing-
ness to be vocal (37). Emerging evidence sug-
gests, however, that when individuals realize they
are not alone in their beliefs about a contentious
issue, they become willing to speak out. Specifi-
cally, self-censorship about anthropogenic climate
change decreases when people understand just
how many others acknowledge its reality and
are concerned about it (38).
Individual behaviors such as voting, contacting
elected representatives, and supporting issue-focused
organizations are essential to functional democ-
racies. These acts ultimately affect local, national,
and even international policy. Evidence suggests
that political activism about conservation, like
many behaviors, requires the belief that political
action is necessary, influences others, and can
actually change environmental outcomes (36).
Emerging evidence points to several key in-
gredients that must be in place before individuals
enter into more public collective efforts on behalf
of the environment. Alignment with social iden-
tity is critical, and the deeper the identification,
the greater the individual’s commitment to the
success of the group. In addition, people only join
efforts if they believe that their individual contri-
butions can make a difference (39). Similarly,
in the case of climate change activism, individ-
uals need not only a sense of urgency about the
issue,butalsoconfidencethatsolutionsarepos-
sible (36).
In addition to grassroots initiatives, efforts
within preexisting social groups can also drive
change. For example, faith communities, hobby
groups, and neighborhoods bring people together
through shared values, rituals, or connection to
place, and can energize larger-scale conservation
actions through these common connections. Place-
based collectives, such as neighborhood associa-
tions, can shift attention away from ideological
differences to focus on tangible community-level
action, such as creating a shared wind farm (40).
Efforts within faith-based communities likely mo-
tivate through alignment with spiritual values, and
canhavewidereachthroughthelargernetworks
of interfaith organizations.
Although psychological research has examined
what motivates people to volunteer and cooper-
ate for social causes, or mobilize around political
campaigns, the results have yet to be applied to
collective efforts for conservation.
Leveraging formal organizations to
influence individuals
Formal organizations can serve as vehicles to
quickly mobilize collective action toward sus-
tainability. Governmental units, educational in-
stitutions, and businesses large and small are
designed to guide the actions of many toward
a coherent purpose. Organizational culture, by
way of norms, values, policy, and leadership,
powerfully influences individual members (41).
Additionally, organizations determine the “choice
architecture,”or the situational contexts that
guide actions and decisions (33). A “green”orga-
nizational culture effectively relieves individuals
from the effortful thinking required to recog-
nize and respond in sustainable ways. For in-
stance, purchasing policiescanprioritizevendors
that meet sustainability criteria, and technol-
ogy policies can set machine defaults to efficien-
cy modes. Individuals no longer have to have
background knowledge, do research, and eval-
uate myriad choices for every behavior relevant
to sustainability.
Theproblemis,aswithindividuals,thefun-
damental assumptions that drive organizations
reflect the worldview of the broader culture. In
today’s world, businesses tend to assume a growth
economy based on a take-make-waste model, many
religions elevate the value of humans over other
beings, and schools often fail to prepare gradu-
ates to understand ecology. Thus, the goals, opera-
tions, and resulting organizational behavior run
contrary to ecological realities.
Although organizations are currently ma-
jor contributors to worldwide environmental
degradation, they in fact have the capacity to
move in new, ecologicallysound directions. They
can empower their members to innovate, take risks,
and take the long-term view together (42). First,
however, a catalyst must influence organizational
Amel et al., Science 356,275–279 (2017) 21 April 2017 3of5
C
h
a
n
g
e
n
o
r
m
s
•
s
y
s
t
e
m
s
•
s
t
o
r
i
e
s
•
s
y
m
b
o
l
s
R
u
n
f
o
r
p
u
b
l
i
c
o
c
e
•
c
r
e
a
t
e
l
a
w
s
•
o
r
g
a
n
i
z
e
•
v
o
t
e
•
p
r
o
t
e
s
t
S
h
a
r
e
i
d
e
a
s
•
c
h
a
n
g
e
p
r
o
c
e
s
s
e
s
&
p
r
o
c
e
d
u
r
e
s
•
c
r
e
a
t
e
d
u
r
a
b
l
e
p
r
o
d
u
c
t
s
S
h
a
r
e
m
a
t
e
r
i
a
l
g
o
o
d
s
•
t
e
a
c
h
•
p
e
r
s
u
a
d
e
•
s
u
p
p
o
r
t
o
t
h
e
r
s
•
b
e
a
l
e
a
d
e
r
L
e
a
r
n
•
d
o
n
a
t
e
m
o
n
e
y
&
t
i
m
e
•
w
a
l
k
•
r
e
d
u
c
e
•
r
e
u
s
e
Person
Private & personal
Smallest impact
Largest impact
Social network
Organizational
Public
Cultural
Fig. 1. An individual’s spheres of influence. Individual actions have the greatest effect when they
influence broader systems.
GRAPHIC: ADAPTED BY K. SUTLIFF/SCIENCE
on April 21, 2017http://science.sciencemag.org/Downloaded from
direction. In any group or organization, the entity
itself is not the actor. Individuals—informal and
formal leaders, decision-makers, workers, volun-
teers, and members—are the underlying force. So,
the onus is on individuals to initiate and imple-
ment change in these collectives. This is easier
said than done.
Psychologists do not yet know why some are
willing or able to take a bold stand for change in
the same s ituat ion s that drive o the rs to support
the status quo or to simp ly wi th draw ( 43). What
they do know is that resisting the pressure to con-
form,especiallyin thecontext of formal organiza-
tions, requires nothing short of heroic effort (43).
Yet, it is possible to empower ordinary people
to successfully face such challenges. Recogniz-
ing this, a group of influential psychologists
has founded an initiative to educate the public
about negative social influence and provide indi-
viduals with the psyc holog ical t ools t o act w ith
moral courage (44).
Although change can begin anywhere in an
organization, people in leadership roles are ar-
guably best positioned to activate a major shift
toward sustainability (45). Unfortunately, though
well-intentioned, leaders who possess the pre-
vailing modern-industrial worldview may only
make their processes or products “less bad”(46).
To radically change a group’s trajectory, leaders
must think differently; they must internalize an
ecologically grounded worldview and integrate
it into the vision they set for others (47).
Certainly, some leaders have experienced epiph-
anies, recognizing the inconsistency between the
dominant industrial worldview and ecological
systems. The late carpet magnate Ray Anderson
often spoke of the “spear in the heart”moment
when he realized his business was endangering
future generations (48). Humanity cannot, how-
ever, depend on spontaneous individual insight
to propel institutions forward; more methodical
approaches are in order. Through mentorship (49)
and applied, inquiry-based educational programs
(50), youth and adults alike can learn to under-
stand the ecological underpinnings of society.
Science-based programs such as The Natural
Step (51) have been designed to support ecolog-
ically consistent organizational
learning. Additional research is
needed to understand how to en-
hance the pace and depth of world-
view change.
Building ecological
understanding through
connection with nature
Thetenacityofthedominantworld-
view in the developed world belies
a more fundamental problem:
Human beings in industrialized
nations are so disconnected from
the natural systems they depend
on that they do not know what
they do not know.
Human behavior can be respon-
sive to local environmental condi-
tions, as demonstrated by the use
of traditional ecological knowl-
edge (TEK) by indigenous cul-
tures around the world (49). TEK,
however, relies heavily on experien-
tial information (49). This suggests
that developing an ecologically
consistent worldview may benefit
from reconnecting with nature so
that humans actually experience
and develop a dynamic understand-
ing of the world’s systems and human-
environment interdependence.
Although worldwide trends to-
ward accelerating urbanization
have generally meant fewer op-
portunities to encounter and build
a connection to nature, urban dwellers need
access to nature in order to rediscover their inter-
dependence with it and deepen their sense of
place. This, in turn, fosters understanding of the
natural environment (50) and inspires efforts
to protect and preserve landscapes and their in-
habitants (4).
Valuable nature experiences do not require
trips to “wild”nature such as old-growth forests,
but can be found in urban areas as well (52).
Fortunately, new trends in urban design may
help heal the human-nature divide. Recognizing
both conservation and public health benefits,
urban planners and architects are increasingly
incorporating green features such as community
gardens, walking and biking paths, and green
roofs (53) and integrating “biophilic”designs, which
echo natural forms and patterns (i.e., nonhuman
animal and plant), in built environments (54).
Expanded access to urban green space not
only enhances human understanding of natural
systems, it provides critical contact with environ-
ments to which we are best adapted and in which
we can thrive both physically and psychologica lly.
Research affirms that engaging with nature im-
proves both mental and physical well-being (55)
and promotes healthy child development (53,56).
Conclusions
Environmental degradation ultimately stems
from human behavior. Fundamental behavioral
Amel et al., Science 356,275–279 (2017) 21 April 2017 4of5
Ecologically grounded worldview Modern-industrial worldview vs.
Earth has plenty of resources Earth’s regenerative capacity
has limits
A linear “take, make, waste”
economy can continue indenitely
Technology
will x our
problems
Eciency
increases prots
Diversity maintains
system integrity
Even small manipulations
of nature have system-
wide consequences
Our systems must be circular;
“waste equals food”
1
2
3
4
Fig. 2. Some of the contrasting assumptions of modern-industrial and ecologically grounded worldviews
depicted in the context of food systems. Similar assumptions underlie transportation, energy generation, water
use, and material consumption. [Adapted from (57)]
“Individual change is
already challenging. It
takes even greater courage
and perseverance to openly
question the dominant
worldview that forms the
bedrock of cultural norms.”
GRAPHIC: ADAPTED BY K. SUTLIFF/SCIENCE
ECOSYSTEM EARTH
on April 21, 2017http://science.sciencemag.org/Downloaded from
changes are thus needed to stop damaging the
natural world and adapt to a permanently al-
tered environment.
Psychological research suggests that humans
can move toward a sustainable society by creat-
ing conditions that motivate environmentally
responsible collective action—conditions that help
people surmount cognitive limits, create new sit-
uational drivers, foster need fulfillment, and sup-
port communities of social change.
Individuals whose actions are informed by a
deeper understanding of how the planet really
works can galvanize collectives to change the la r-
ger systems that drive so much of humanbehav-
ior. To radically alter the way humans think and
live; educate the next generati on; and design
physical, governmental, and cultural systems,
humans must experience and better under-
stand their profound interdependence with the
planet.
Further psychological research needs to elu-
cidate how to accelerate the adoption of eco-
logically grounded worldviews and how to
activate ecologically compatible engagement,
especially leadership, for the collective work
needed to become more sustainable. The future
of humanity—and indeed, all life on Earth—
depends on it.
REFERENCES
1. C. Roser-Renouf, E. Maibach, A. Leiserowitz, S. Rosenthal,
“Global Warming’s Six Americas and the Election, 2016”
(Yale Program on Climate Change Communication, New Haven,
CT, 2016); http://climatecommunication.yale.edu/
publications/six-americas-2016-election/.
2. J. L. Dickinson, Ecol. Soc. 14,34–50 (2009).
3. S. Bamberg, G. Möser, J. Environ. Psychol. 27,14–25
(2007).
4. R. Gifford, A. Nilsson, Int. J. Psychol. 49,141–157 (2014).
5. L. Steg, J. I. M. De Groot, in The Oxford Handbook of
Environmental and Conservation Psychology, S. D. Clayton,
Ed. (Oxford Univ. Press, 2012), chap. 5, pp. 81–92.
6. P. H. Kahn Jr., P. H. Hasbach, Eds., Ecopsychology: Science,
Totems, and the Technological Species (MIT Press, 2012).
7. P. H. Kahn Jr., P. H. Hasbach, Eds., The Rediscovery of the Wild
(MIT Press, 2013).
8. L. Chawla, V. Derr, in The Oxford Handbook of Environmental
and Conservation Psychology, S. D. Clayton, Ed. (Oxford
Univ. Press, 2012), chap. 28, pp. 527–555.
9. E. U. Weber, Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. Clim. Change 7, 125–134
(2016).
10. M. van Vugt, V. Griskevicius, P. W. Schultz, Soc. Issues Policy
Rev. 8,1–32 (2014).
11. G. Hardin, Science 162, 1243–1248 (1968).
12. R. Osbaldiston, K. M. Sheldon, in Psychology of Sustainable
Development, P. Schmuck, P. W. Schultz, Eds. (Springer,
2002), pp. 37–57.
13. T. Dietz, E. Ostrom, P. C. Stern, Science 302,1907–1912
(2003).
14. L. Tay, E. Diener, J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 101, 354–365
(2011).
15. R. M. Ryan, E. L. Deci, Am. Psychol. 55,68–78 (2000).
16. I. Feygina, J. T. Jost, R. E. Goldsmith, Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull.
36, 326–338 (2010).
17. S. S. Li, J. Environ. Educ. 45, 243–257 (2014).
18. R. B. Cialdini, Psychol. Inq. 16, 158–161 (2005).
19. R. B. Cialdini, Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion (Harper
Business, revised ed., 2006).
20. N. J. Goldstein, R. B. Cialdini, V. Griskevicius, J. Consum. Res.
35, 472–482 (2008).
21. A. M. Bliuc et al., Nat. Clim. Chang. 5, 226–229 (2015).
22. Pew Research Center, “Global concern about climate change,
broad support for limiting emissions”(Pew Research Center,
2015); www.pewglobal.org/files/2015/11/Pew-Research-Center-
Climate-Change-Report-FINAL-November-5-2015.pdf.
23. J. T. Carmichael, R. J. Brulle, J. K. Huxster, Clim. Change 141,
599–612 (2017).
24. D. M. Kahan et al., Nat. Clim. Chang. 2, 732–735
(2012).
25. R. Gifford, Am. Psychol. 66, 290–302 (2011).
26. S. van der Linden, E. Maibach, A. Leiserowitz, Perspect.
Psychol. Sci. 10, 758–763 (2015).
27. Center for Research on Environmental Decisions, The
Psychology of Climate Change Communication: A Guide
for Scientists, Journalists, Educators, Political Aides, and the
Interested Public (Center for Research on Environmental
Decisions, New York, 2009); http://guide.cred.columbia.edu/.
28. R. Osbaldiston, J. P. Schott, Environ. Behav. 44, 257–299
(2012).
29. P. W. Schultz, Eur. Psychol. 19, 107–117 (2014).
30. D. McKenzie-Mohr, N. Lee, P. W. Schultz, P. Kotler, Social
Marketing to Protect the Environment: What Works (Sage,
Thousand Oaks, CA, 2012).
31. R. Heede, Clim. Change 122, 229–241 (2014).
32. M. F. Maniates, Glob. Environ. Polit. 1,31–52 (2001).
33. C. R. Sunstein, L. A. Reisch, HELR Harvard Environ. Law Rev.
38, 127–158 (2013).
34. K. O’Brien, Science 350, 1170–1171 (2015).
35. M. van Zomeren, Polit. Psychol. 37,87–114 (2016).
36. C. Roser-Renouf, E. W. Maibach, A. Leiserowitz, X. Zhao,
Clim. Change 125, 163–178 (2014).
37. C. J. Glynn, M. E. Huge, in The Spiral of Silence:
New Perspectives on Communication and Public Opinion,
W. Donsbach, C. T. Salmon, Y. Tsfati, Eds. (Routledge, 2014),
pp. 65–72.
38. N. Geiger, J. K. Swim, J. Environ. Psychol. 47,79–90
(2016).
39. S. Bamberg, J. Rees, S. Seebauer, J. Environ. Psychol. 43,
155–165 (2015).
40. J. A. Nevin, Behav. Anal. 33, 189–191 (2010).
41. Y. Inoue, P. Alfaro-Barrantes, Bus. Soc. Rev. 120, 137–160
(2015).
42. E. Van Velsor, L. Quinn, in Managing Human Resources for
Environmental Sustainability, S. E. Jackson, D. S. Ones,
S. Dilchert, Eds. (Jossey-Bass, Somerset, NJ, 2012), chap. 10.
43. P. Zimbardo, The Lucifer Effect: Understanding How Good
People Turn Evil (Random House, 2007).
44. Z. Franco, P. Zimbardo, “The banality of heroism”(Greater
Good, University of California, Berkeley, 2006);
http://greatergood.berkeley.edu/article/item/the_banality_of_
heroism/.
45. J. L. Robertson, J. Barling, J. Organ. Behav. 34, 176–194
(2013).
46. M. Braungart, W. McDonough, Cradle to Cradle (Random
House, 2009).
47. S. Schein, A New Psychology for Sustainability Leadership: The
Hidden Power of Ecological Worldviews (Greenleaf, Sheffield,
UK, 2015).
48. R. C. Anderson, R. White, Confessions of a Radical Industrialist:
Profits, People, Purpose–Doing Business by Respecting the
Earth (Macmillan, 2009).
49. J. Mistry, A. Berardi, Science 352, 1274–1275 (2016).
50.M.E.Krasny,C.Lundholm,S.Shava,E.Lee,H.Kobori,in
Urbanization, Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services:
Challenges And Opportunities, T. Elmqvist et al., Eds.
(Springer Netherlands, 2013), pp. 629–664.
51. B. Natrass, M. Altomare, The Natural Step for Business: Wealth,
Ecology, and the Evolutionary Corporation (New Society,
Gabriola Island, BC, Canada, 2013).
52. S. Clayton et al., Conserv. Lett. 10.1111/conl.12337
(2017).
53. T. Hartig, P. H. Kahn Jr., Science 352, 938–940
(2016).
54. S. R. Kellert, J. Heerwagen, M. Mador, Biophilic Design: The
Theory, Science and Practice of Bringing Buildings to Life
(Wiley, 2011).
55. T. Hartig, R. Mitchell, S. de Vries, H. Frumkin, Annu. Rev. Public
Health 35, 207–228 (2014).
56. P. H. Kahn, S. R. Kellert, Eds., Children and Nature:
Psychological, Sociocultural, and Evolutionary Investigations
(MIT Press, 2002).
57. B. A. Scott, E. L. Amel, S. M. Koger, C. M. Manning, Psychology
for Sustainability (Routledge, ed. 4, 2016), chap. 3.
10.1126/science.aal1931
Amel et al., Science 356,275–279 (2017) 21 April 2017 5of5
on April 21, 2017http://science.sciencemag.org/Downloaded from
(6335), 275-279. [doi: 10.1126/science.aal1931]356Science
20, 2017)
Elise Amel, Christie Manning, Britain Scott and Susan Koger (April
toward ecosystem conservation
Beyond the roots of human inaction: Fostering collective effort
Editor's Summary
This copy is for your personal, non-commercial use only.
Article Tools
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/356/6335/275
article tools:
Visit the online version of this article to access the personalization and
Permissions http://www.sciencemag.org/about/permissions.dtl
Obtain information about reproducing this article:
is a registered trademark of AAAS. ScienceAdvancement of Science; all rights reserved. The title
Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20005. Copyright 2016 by the American Association for the
in December, by the American Association for the Advancement of Science, 1200 New York
(print ISSN 0036-8075; online ISSN 1095-9203) is published weekly, except the last weekScience
on April 21, 2017http://science.sciencemag.org/Downloaded from
