Psychology of Sustainability: What do we need to act?

Mondays, 10:15 - 12am, vonRoll B101, KSL, ILIAS

Author

Lilla Gurtner - lilla.gurtner@unibe.ch

Course description

Scientific evidence is conclusive: in order to mitigate climate change, we need to act now, as individuals and as entire societies. Despite ambitious goals, actions to mitigate climate change have not yet yielded the aspired effects. This proseminar is dedicated to understanding the underlying psychological reasons for these shortcomings. We begin at the individual level focusing on cognitive biases, motivated reasoning and systems thinking, but we also discuss consumer decisions, and the role of emotions in climate change. Over the course of the semester, we will also address interactions between individuals (contagious behaviour, imitation and learning from others) and within larger groups, focusing on social cognition and group dynamics to better understand how individuals behave as part of a group.

The key idea is that our brain is a biological, evolved cognitive tool with its particular strengths (empathy, sense of fairness, long-term thinking) and weaknesses (often not rational, challenged by complexity and non-linear relationships). When we understand these strengths and weaknesses better, we are in a better position to engage as many people as possible in the mitigation of climate change. This is particularly important given that the “human factor” is often neglected in climate change mitigation strategies, which can for example lead to resistance in uptake of sustainable habits or policies. Understanding both the capacity and limits of our cognitive and motivational capabilities will put students from all disciplines into a position to tune their discipline-specific contribution to the reality of individuals in a society.

The sessions will be structured as follows: First, we briefly discuss the “basic reading”, which is done by half of the class alternating every week. The part of the class that read the text will explain the most important concepts to the other half of students. The explications will be collected and made available on ILIAS by the students in charge of the session. Next, in the presentation part, the in-charge-students will present and discuss their paper. Finally, in the Activist Part, we will address changes in our own lives, on the individual level and beyond. Active participation in this part is encouraged but not mandatory.
Exceptions from this structure are the first and last session. Here, the basic reading material must be read by all students. In the first session, we will assign the presentation topics to groups, and in the last session we will have a extended discussion of the content of the proseminar.

How to prepare for class

The “basic reading” paper is read by half of the class (Group A and B), alternating every week. If it is your turn, read the “basic reading” and be prepared to explain it’s most important points to others. It is also legitimate to mention, which parts you did not understand.

The presentation groups are in charge of their individual sessions. They have to:

  • Read the “basic reading”

  • Present and discuss the presentation paper(s) (as a group)

  • Visit the “further reading” resources if applicable

  • Take notes in the first part of the session and prepare a summary of the “basic reading” (as a group). This should be uploaded on ILIAS for your fellow students.

  • After you gave your presentation, write a reaction paper (max 1 A4 page) in which you reflect on the paper you presented.

THE REACTION PAPER is at most one A4 page long and typically consists of a first part, in which you briefly(!) summarize the presented paper, and a second part in which you elaborate on your criticisms, applications, connections of the content. But it can also be of other forms, be creative, it will not be graded! I will provide feedback on your writing, so you can make this an opportunity to practice scientific writing. Please see the Scientific Writing section for more information about how to write. Every student writes their own reaction paper, it can be in English or German. It has to be handed in one week after your presentation. If you miss this deadline, you cannot take the exam!

THE PRESENTATION should be only 15, maximally 20 min long. This is not much time and you will not be able to present everything you read. This is sometimes a challenge and is part of your learning process. Stick to the most important points for the scope of the proseminar. In the week before it is due, discuss your presentation briefly with me. You are allowed to use any presentation software you like. Again, this will not be graded, so you can be creative. Please put sources on your slides (for pictures and scientific papers etc) and please spare your audience of death by powerpoint!

Scientific Writing

Scientific writing is a craft and can be learned by doing it. The reaction paper is intended to give you an opportunity to practice this and get feedback without translating to a grade.

There are some common mistakes that you can avoid:

  • Usually, each paragraph of a (scientific) text has a single topic. This topic is introduced with a topical sentence. For Example: “There are two mayor flaws in the approach from…”, “This theory makes an important contribution to understanding of…”, “One approach to apply the concept comes from…”. Topical sentences prepare your readership for the content of the next paragraph and they are important for the macro structure of your text.

  • Language-wise it is important to be concise and concrete. For example, do not only state that something is important, but tell your readers why it is important; do not only say that more research is needed, but explain what exactly should be researched and why the results would be important. Also avoid phrases that weaken your statements, such as “This is a little bit questionable”. Avoid vague terms such as “somehow”, “or so”, “maybe”, “a bit”, if you do not really need them. Think about if you really want to use “can” or “could” rather than “do”, such as in “The effects can imply that…”

  • When you make comparisons, make sure that both things that are compared are mentioned. For Example: “The method of … is better. This method uses…” Here, it is not clear, to what this method is compared.

  • In formal written English, you use “it is” and “do not”, instead of “it’s” and “don’t”

  • The university has a very good writing couneling that is free for all students. Don’t hesitate to make use of it!

  • There are many online resources on scientific writing, for example the webpage of Wendy Laura Belcher has some solid first advice. Also check out this video by Steven Pinker on why so much writing is so bad and how to change that.

Activist Part

In the activist part, we will be addressing changes in our own life. We will begin at the individual level and reflect upon our own consumer behavior. The aim is to identify one or two behavioral changes with the highest impact on the climate and the best long-term probability of maintaining the new behavior. Next, we will move on to more social parts of our lives. Which aspects in the daily lives we share with others can we influence? How can we talk to people about the climate crisis to promote change? In the last third of the semester, we will collectively address one aspect on a more institutional level. In general, active participation is encouraged but not mandatory.

Personal Resources

Climate change can be a personal challenge on many levels. Here you find some resources that might help you.

Learning Goals

You will get a first understanding of the cognitive underpinnings of our reasoning and behavior (both as individuals and as a group), and we will discuss how we can harness these underpinnings to promote change. You will also improve your discursive skills by presenting a scientific paper, practicing challenging conversations in class and remotely, and by (hopefully) having these discussions with real people outside the classroom.

Grading and Exam

There will be an exam with open questions (and probably some multiple choice questions). To be able to take the exam, handing in the reaction paper on time is mandatory. The text and the presentation will not be graded, but I will give feedback on both.

The proseminar is pass-or-fail.

Sessions

1. Organization and Introduction (20.2.2023)

  • The 7 dragons of inaction: Gifford, Lacroix, and Chen (2018) (an answer to these dragons will be presented in the session on motivated reasoning, Atkinson and Jacquet (2021))

2. Cognitive Biases (27.2.2023)

  • Goldstein (2011), Chapter 13, p. 393 - 404,
  • Goldstein (2011), p. 422-424 and Evans and Stanovich (2013)

3. Short- and long-term thinking (6.3.2023)

  • Princen (2009) biological and psychological evidence for long-term thinking

4. Systems Thinking I (13.3.2023)

  • Meadows (2018), Chapter 1: The Basics (p. 11 - 34)
  • Meadows (2018), Chapter 4: Why systems surprise us (p.86 - 110)

5. Systems Thinking II (20.3.2023)

  • Meadows (2018), Chapter 5: System traps and opportunities (p. 111 - 141)
  • Meadows (2018), Chapter 6: Leverage points - Places to intervene in a system (p. 145 - 165)

6. Systems Thinking III (27.3.2023)

  • An intervention based on systems thinking: Petersen et al. (2018)
  • Climate Action Simulation: Rooney-Varga et al. (2020)

7. Emotions and Climate Change (3.4.2023)

  • Chapman, Lickel, and Markowitz (2017): Emotion in climate change communication
  • Hamann, Baumann, and Löschinger (2016a) (German) or Hamann, Baumann, and Löschinger (2016b) (English), Chapter 7, p. 80

Easter Vacation (10.4.2023)

See what citizen action fits you best

If you have time, watch:

Julia Steinberger The importance of activism, 45 min

John Robinson Normalizing Sustainability: beyond behaviour change, 43 min

Kate Raworth: Doughnuts economics (Raworth 2017) applied to the development of cities, 38min

Esther Duflo On government, economics and trust, 82 min

Calling Bullshit - the art of skepticism in a data-driven world: video lectures or as a book

8. Motivated reasoning (17.4.2023)

  • Bayes and Druckman (2021) motivated reasoning and climate change
  • Atkinson and Jacquet (2021): challenging the idea that humans are not designed to solve climate change

  • Kahan et al. (2012): The polarizing impact of science literacy and numeracy on perceived climate change risks

  • Kunda et al. (1990): the case for motivated reasoning

  • Lewandowsky and Oberauer (2016): motivated rejection of science

9. Consumer decisions (24.4.2025)

  • Verplanken and Whitmarsh (2021): Habits and climate change
  • Spangenberg and Lorek (2019): sufficiency and consumer behaviour: from theory to policy

10. Social Learning and Cognition (1.5.2023)

  • Mackay et al. (2021): Social identity approach and climate change
  • Masson and Fritsche (2021): Social identity can motivate climate mitigation behavior
  • Hewstone, Rubin, and Willis (2002): Intergroup bias

11. Fairness (8.5.2023)

  • Jensen, Vaish, and Schmidt (2014): Emergence of social norms
  • Henrich et al. (2006) Costly punishment across human societies
  • Van Lange et al. (2013): The psychology of social dilemmas: a review

12. Social change and minority influence (15.5.2023)

  • Asch (1951) Influence of majorities and minorities
  • Otto et al. (2020): Social tipping dynamics for stabilizing Earth’s climate by 2050

13. Well being and basic human needs (22.5.2023)

  • Raworth (2017) Doughnut economics
  • Millward-Hopkins et al. (2020): A global scenario of well being within limits

14. Discourses of climate delay (29.5.2023)

  • Lamb et al. (2020): Discourses of climate delay
  • Group-discussion about how we can use what we learned in the proseminar to counter some of these discourses

Exam (12.6.2023)

10:15-12am, vonRoll, B101

References

Asch, Solomon E. 1951. Effects of Group Pressure Upon the Modification and Distortion of Judgments.” In Groups, Leadership and Men, edited by Harold Guetzkow, 177–90. Pittsburgh: Carnegie Press. https://doi.org/10.1525/9780520313514-017.
Atkinson, Quentin D., and Jennifer Jacquet. 2021. Challenging the Idea That Humans Are Not Designed to Solve Climate Change.” Perspectives on Psychological Science. https://doi.org/10.1177/17456916211018454.
Bayes, Robin, and James N. Druckman. 2021. Motivated reasoning and climate change.” Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences 42: 27–35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cobeha.2021.02.009.
Byerly, Hilary, Andrew Balmford, Paul J. Ferraro, Courtney Hammond Wagner, Elizabeth Palchak, Stephen Polasky, Taylor H. Ricketts, Aaron J. Schwartz, and Brendan Fisher. 2018. Nudging pro-environmental behavior: evidence and opportunities.” Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 16 (3): 159–68. https://doi.org/10.1002/fee.1777.
Chapman, Daniel A., Brian Lickel, and Ezra M. Markowitz. 2017. Reassessing emotion in climate change communication.” Nature Climate Change 7 (12): 850–52. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-017-0021-9.
Evans, Jonathan St B. T., and Keith E. Stanovich. 2013. Dual-Process Theories of Higher Cognition: Advancing the Debate.” Perspectives on Psychological Science 8 (3): 223–41. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691612460685.
Festinger, Leon, and James M. Carlsmith. 1959. Cognitive consequences of forced compliance.” Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology 58 (2): 203–10. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0041593.
Gifford, Robert, Karine Lacroix, and Angel Chen. 2018. Understanding responses to climate change: Psychological barriers to mitigation and a new theory of behavioral choice.” In Psychology and Climate Change: Human Perceptions, Impacts, and Responses, 161–83. Elsevier Inc. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-813130-5.00006-0.
Goldstein, E. Bruce. 2011. Cognitive psychology. Connecting mind, research, and everyday experience.
Hamann, Karen, Anna Baumann, and Daniel Löschinger. 2016a. Psychologie im Umweltschutz: Handbuch zur Förderung nachhaltigen Handelns. München: oekom Verlag. https://wandel-werk.org/media/pages/materialien/handbuch-psychologie-im-umweltschutz/3938845672-1604866441/20171007-handbuch_deutsch.pdf.
———. 2016b. Psychology of Environmental Protection Handbook for Encouraging Sustainable Actions. München: oekom Verlag. https://wandel-werk.org/media/pages/materialien/handbuch-psychologie-im-umweltschutz/2330638615-1604866441/20171007-handbook_english.pdf.
Henrich, Joseph, Richard McElreath, Abigail Barr, Jean Ensminger, Clark Barrett, Alexander Bolyanatz, Juan Camilo Cardaroas, et al. 2006. Costly punishment across human societies.” Science 312 (5781): 1767–70. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1127333.
Hewstone, Miles, Mark Rubin, and Hazel Willis. 2002. Intergroup Bias.” Annual Review of Psychology 53: 575–604.
Jensen, Keith, Amrisha Vaish, and Marco F. H. Schmidt. 2014. The emergence of human prosociality: aligning with others through feelings, concerns, and norms.” Frontiers in Psychology 5 (July): 1–16. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00822.
Kahan, Dan M., Ellen Peters, Maggie Wittlin, Paul Slovic, Lisa Larrimore Ouellette, Donald Braman, and Gregory Mandel. 2012. The polarizing impact of science literacy and numeracy on perceived climate change risks.” Nature Climate Change 2 (10): 732–35. https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate1547.
Kunda, Ziva, David Dunning, Edward Jones, Lee Jussim, Dale Miller, Richard Nisbett, and Richard Petty. 1990. The case for motivated reasoning 108 (3): 480–98.
Lamb, William F., Giulio Mattioli, Sebastian Levi, J. Timmons Roberts, Stuart Capstick, Felix Creutzig, Jan C. Minx, Finn Müller-Hansen, Trevor Culhane, and Julia K. Steinberger. 2020. Discourses of climate delay.” Global Sustainability 3: 1–5. https://doi.org/10.1017/sus.2020.13.
Lewandowsky, Stephan, and Klaus Oberauer. 2016. Motivated Rejection of Science.” Current Directions in Psychological Science 25 (4): 217–22. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721416654436.
Mackay, Caroline M. L., Michael T. Schmitt, Annika E. Lutz, and Jonathan Mendel. 2021. Recent developments in the social identity approach to the psychology of climate change.” Current Opinion in Psychology 42: 95–101. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2021.04.009.
Masson, Torsten, and Immo Fritsche. 2021. We need climate change mitigation and climate change mitigation needs the ‘We’: a state-of-the-art review of social identity effects motivating climate change action.” Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences 42: 89–96. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cobeha.2021.04.006.
Mattioli, Giulio, Cameron Roberts, Julia K. Steinberger, and Andrew Brown. 2020. The political economy of car dependence: A systems of provision approach.” Energy Research and Social Science 66 (February): 101486. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2020.101486.
Meadows, Donella. 2018. Thinking in Systems. Edited by Wright Diana. London: Chelsa Green Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1515/opag-2018-0002.
Millward-Hopkins, Joel, Julia K. Steinberger, Narasimha D. Rao, and Yannick Oswald. 2020. Providing decent living with minimum energy: A global scenario.” Global Environmental Change 65 (April): 102168. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2020.102168.
Otto, Ilona M., Jonathan F. Donges, Roger Cremades, Avit Bhowmik, Richard J. Hewitt, Wolfgang Lucht, Johan Rockström, et al. 2020. Social tipping dynamics for stabilizing Earth’s climate by 2050.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 117 (5): 2354–65. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1900577117.
Petersen, John E., Cynthia M. Frantz, Evan Tincknell, and Christopher Canning. 2018. An Animated Visual Representation of Real-Time Resource Flows Through a Community Enhances Systems Thinking.” Systems Research and Behavioral Science 35 (6): 718–37. https://doi.org/10.1002/sres.2514.
Princen, Thomas. 2009. Long-term decision-making: Biological and psychological evidence.” Global Environmental Politics 9 (3): 9–19. https://doi.org/10.1162/glep.2009.9.3.9.
Raworth, Kate. 2017. A Doughnut for the Anthropocene: humanity’s compass in the 21st century.” The Lancet Planetary Health 1 (2): e48–49. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2542-5196(17)30028-1.
Rooney-Varga, Juliette N., Florian Kapmeier, John D. Sterman, Andrew P. Jones, Michele Putko, and Kenneth Rath. 2020. The Climate Action Simulation.” Simulation and Gaming 51 (2): 114–40. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046878119890643.
Sapiains, Rodolfo, Robert J. S. Beeton, and Iain A. Walker. 2015. The Dissociative Experience: Mediating the Tension Between People’s Awareness of Environmental Problems and Their Inadequate Behavioral Responses.” Ecopsychology 7 (1): 38–47. https://doi.org/10.1089/eco.2014.0048.
Spangenberg, Joachim H., and Sylvia Lorek. 2019. Sufficiency and consumer behaviour: From theory to policy.” Energy Policy 129 (March 2018): 1070–79. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2019.03.013.
Tversky, Amos, and Daniel Kahneman. 1974. Judgement under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases: Biases in judgements reveal sume heuristics of thinking under uncertainty.” Science 185 (4157): 1124–31. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.185.4157.1124.
Van Lange, Paul A. M., Jeff Joireman, Craig D. Parks, and Eric Van Dijk. 2013. The psychology of social dilemmas: A review.” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 120 (2): 125–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2012.11.003.
Verplanken, Bas, and Lorraine E. Whitmarsh. 2021. Habit and climate change.” Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences 42: 42–46. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cobeha.2021.02.020.
Winkelmann, Ricarda, Jonathan F. Donges, E. Keith Smith, Manjana Milkoreit, Christina Eder, Jobst Heitzig, Alexia Katsanidou, Marc Wiedermann, Nico Wunderling, and Timothy M. Lenton. 2022. Social tipping processes towards climate action: A conceptual framework.” Ecological Economics 192 (October 2021): 107242. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2021.107242.