The keys to the action

It has happened to us all to have the sensation of being powerless or to observe the immobility of those around him without really understand why. Having often been confronted with it in daily life and in my work, I have observed how people react to proposals for change, for exemple. (Relationship to the wild, representation of nature, waste, recycling of materials…) and in the majority of cases the solutions are availbles and known but the blockages are elsewhere. To see more clearly, you need to delve into social psychology: “Show me your garden I will tell you who you are”

Indeed, cognitive brakes make us more attentive to extreme events than to gradual changes. Moreover, the scale of impact and action magnitude is often abstract and incomprehensible for the average person. It must also be said that many people live in precariousness and have little or no room to think so far. Daily life is monopolized by primary needs. Finally, our brain naturally tends to prefer the rewards of an immediate action, rather than a one-way action. As climate changes are part of very long time cycles, we, small humans with less than a century of life expectancy, have a lot of trouble programming actions that will exceed us.

The point here is not to find excuses for those who cannot do or can do nothing, but to understand the mechanisms that allow us to act or block us. How to explain the absence of behavioral changes? Despite the ability of humans to collaborate (like all ecosystems) to solve problems, the cognitive mechanisms that support cooperation have evolved towards individual success and performance.

To go a little further and decipher these behaviors, we must look at evolutionary biology studies that have shown that cooperation can only emerge if it is conditional: one cooperates as long as others do it and vice versa.

With this constraint, we have developed cognitive mechanisms to:

– detect social norms (i.e. whether cooperation is the norm in our environment)

– manage our reputation (estimate the value that an action can generate on our social perception)

– calculate what is fair (assess whether costs and benefits are proportionate)

In response to this, we are driven to prioritize reciprocity, visibility, and equity over efficiency.  

Detect social norms:

To act and participate in a collective effort, individuals need to have the certainty that others will act. We need to see what others are doing to perceive what it is good to do or not. The example of the plane is striking. It is now a given that planes are responsible for some of the direct emissions (2.5% of CO2 and 5.1% of global warming) and yet a large number of our fellow citizens continue to travel without thinking. These behaviors maintain the collective perception that flying is not so dramatic because many people do it. The dog bites its tail and things don’t change.

It is possible to distinguish three types of detection from social norms:

The first is called pluralistic ignorance, which means that we ignore the levels of cooperation around us, which leads us to not cooperate.

The second concerns the credibility of standards, which is governed by effectiveness and trust in the source and consistency of the standard with observed behaviours: “Do as I say, not as I do.”

The third concerns dynamic standards. We are able to perceive the evolution of a norm over time, which influences our willingness to adhere to it.

Pluralistic ignorance, in social psychology, is a process that involves several members of a group who think they have beliefs or perceptions different from the rest of the group. Although they do not approve of the group norm, dissenters behave like the whole group, because they think that the behavior of other members shows that the opinion of the group is unanimous. In other words, since all those who disagree behave and act as if they were, all dissenting members think that the standard is approved by every member of the group except them. This process in turn reinforces the willingness to conform to the group standard, and not express disagreement.

Because of pluralistic ignorance, individuals may conform to the apparent consensual opinion of a group, instead of behaving according to their own perception and thought.

Studies(1)  have shown that in the United States a large number of citizens wrongly believe that a large majority of the population does not care about climate change. This belief could come from the under-representation of ethnic minorities and the poorest populations in government organizations and agencies.

The credibility of standards: for a standard to be accepted, it must be credible in the eyes of individuals. This credibility comes from the source that proposes the standard and, of course, its content. Adherence to this new standard will be much more successful if it is relayed by local leaders who apply these guidelines themselves. Moreover, in communicating about new provisions, the impact will be greater when describing what people are doing rather than saying what people approve. Concretely, it is more effective to relay the action of people who compost and recycle their waste rather than communicate that the majority of individuals approve of recycling.

Dynamic norms. No doubt we would like to live in a permanent mindfulness of the moment. Alas, evolution has endowed us with an awareness and a capacity to project ourselves in time.

Although it may complicate our task in certain situations, this ability can allow us to anticipate new behaviors. It is noted that some people are more willing to adopt a new behavior when they anticipate what will become a new norm rather than a passing trend. It is partly for this reason that communicating about meat consumption and the use of planes for travel does not have much effect, because these behaviors are seen as normal and observed in many people.

Using these effects of dynamic norms can be more effective than insisting on modifying well-established actions.

If we keep the example of flying, informing individuals that more and more people are choosing more local destinations and gentler modes of transport could prove to be more effective than stigmatizing the fact of taking a plane.

Reputation management:

In our modern societies, reputation plays a crucial role. Our desire and the need to exist among our peers lead us to act in different ways. What motivates us to cooperate is firstly because we care about others but also because our actions are observed and evaluated by our peers.

By cooperating, a person can improve their reputation and appear more virtuous. This management of our reputations also falls into three mechanisms:

The visibility of behaviors: in general we are more likely to adopt a pro-environmental behavior when it is visible by others. Our need to exist is all the more satisfied when our actions are visible. Unfortunately, these initiatives are not always oriented towards effective actions. Some actions are clearly visible but have little impact.

For example, buying a reusable bag or an electric car will have immediate social visibility for a low environmental impact. In comparison, reducing one’s meat consumption or the amount of waste will be socially invisible but more effective.

Perceived competence and expertise: the management of our reputations is also based on the skills associated or perceived in these different environmental actions. That is to say, we tend to orient ourselves or engage in actions that will strengthen our image of competence. In comparison, buying a high-tech electric car sends a strong signal of ecological commitment to our economic capacity and skills. On the other hand, the purchase of second-hand equipment or carpooling can be seen as signs of economic weakness.

The demonstration of personal effort or sacrifice: we tend to particularly value actions that reflect a personal effort or sacrifice. Reducing or eliminating one’s meat consumption or enduring discomfort is perceived as being more virtuous than easy behaviors (sorting waste) or economically profitable. Paradoxically, these behaviors can create biases and make us think that an easy action, not requiring much effort, would only have little effectiveness (like carbon offsetting for example).  

Calculate what is right:

To conclude this round of our abilities or inabilities to act and collaborate, there remains the point on the equity of actions.

The calculation of equity: we generally tend to be sensitive to justice, reciprocity and the fair sharing of the costs and benefits of our actions. Although these qualifiers honor us, these behaviors can generate bias and push us to choose actions based on fairness at the expense of real efficiency. This can be observed in the case of climate policies that involve unequal sacrifices between social groups or between nations.

An individual may refuse to change his behaviour, or to pay an additional tax, if he believes that others (individuals, countries, companies…) are not doing their part. In this latter mechanism, three forms can also be distinguished: procedural fairness, distributive fairness, conditional reciprocity

Procedural fairness refers to the perception of justice in decision making. That is to say, we no longer accept a decision or a measure, even costly, when we consider that the adoption process was transparent, inclusive and impartial.

In contrast, decisions handed down by a top management or government hierarchy without consultation are often rejected. The content is not necessarily at issue but it is the perceived lack of legitimacy.

For example, policies related to adaptation to climate change, which are developed with citizens, attract greater interest and support even if they are more restrictive (see article on green streets in Portland).

Distributive equity concerns the perceived distribution of the costs and benefits of a policy or measure. We are very sensitive to proportionality. We find it unfair, for example, that a group or social class bears a disproportionate burden or benefits unduly from collective efforts . Multiple examples illustrate this mechanism in our daily lives. Taxations of the richest to reduce inequalities, reluctance of low-income countries to adopt coercive reduction measures…

This desire for equity is close and related to the last mechanism of conditional reciprocity. We agree to cooperate only if others do the same. We have been observing this collective inertia in terms of climate policy agreement for many years.

  And after having said all that?

After this description, how to activate the levers resulting from the understanding of our cognitive mechanisms?

First of all, the detection of social norms shows that we can adapt our behaviors to what is socially accepted or in the process of becoming. This means that by correcting erroneous perceptions (pluralistic ignorance), by making virtuous behaviors more visible, one can act on collective perceptions.

The management of our reputations is a strong lever because we constantly seek to be perceived positively by our peers. By highlighting the truly effective initiatives associated with sustainable and consistent practices, while sending signals of competence and innovation, one can create cooperative motivation.

Finally, the calculation of equity reminds us that binding policies can only be accepted if they are the result of a transparent process and are supported by a broad cross-section of our societies.

All this is complex and could not be summarized in a few words. This work comes from an article in the journal Nature Climate Change which is called  “Leveraging social cognition to promote effective mitigation of climate change”, by Mélusine Boon-Falleur, Aurore Grandin, Nicolas Baumard and Coralie Chevalier.

I tried to summarize it and I hope I didn’t distort the statements or the results too much. If you wish to read the original of the article, you will find the link to get it at the end of the article (you need a subscription or buy the article).

Leveraging social cognition to promote effective climate change mitigation

You can also listen to the podcast Chaleur humaine where Nabil Wakim (le monde.fr)interviews one of the editors of this article, Mélusine Boon-Falleur: (In french) Why our behavior does not change quickly enough 

One this other episode on how to resist the ambient blues : (In french) How to resist the ambiant blues

(1).Geiger, N., Swim, J. K. & Glenna, L. Spread the green word: a social community perspective into environmentally sustainable behavior. Environ. Behav. 51, 561–589 (2019).