It's gotten me thinking about the confluence between climate science and decision science. Communicating about global warming can not be reduced to a simple up or down vote on the use of doom and gloom, or a tradeoff between bad science and a complete value change. In the end, how, when, and most importantly, why people start to seriously address global warming will be 1/10th about the climate science and 9/10ths about good ol' wacky human decision making.
Global warming is perhaps the ultimate example of what Horst Rittel called a wicked problem. Wicked in this sense does not mean evil; it means complex, tricky to resolve, and resistant to solutions. It is not the problem per se that is wicked, but how we as individuals or a society can or cannot address it. Because of this, tackling wicked problems requires that we stop treating them like more familiar, contained problems and stop focusing solely on the characteristics of the problem and start looking closely at how we as humans handle problems and decision making.
A whole lot of fascinating work has been going on, principally among psychologists, around the weird and wonderful ways our minds work for or against us, depending on the problems we face and the information we have at our disposal.
One of the folks who deals with this, George Lakoff, has gotten the attention of the Democratic party, which is trying to use his work on "framing" to get their party back on track. Who knows if it will work for the Democrats, but I think the strategy of looking for insights in the decision-making research could be beneficial to our collective conversation about global warming.
For what's it's worth, here are a few of my favorite researchers, a hack explanation of their ideas, and some off-the-cuff applications to global warming.
Paul Slovic: affect heuristics
People often use "overall readily available" affective impressions over more rational processes, even in complex and important decision making. Further, people construct their preferences on the fly based on biased weightings of importance they may not be aware of. Global warming is a very complex problem, but how people feel about it (and hence what they do about it) may be predetermined by their affective responses. By the time Al Gore is showing his fourth graph, it may be too late.
Barry Schwartz: the paradox of choice
Despite our cultural (and economic) belief that more choice is always better, in many cases too many choices produce negative outcomes. Because there is so much uncertain about global warming, talking with people about it brings up a dizzying array of choices, many of them quite unpleasant. Maintaining scientific uncertainty is important, but perhaps environmental strategists need to focus on a presenting a coherent, limited agenda of responses for people to consider. It narrows the conversation, but may be more manageable for people.
George Lakoff: cognitive framing
Framing means attending to how your message is structured and how it fits into the larger narratives people already have built up. Although "framing" is tossed about almost as much as "sustainability," there's some really fascinating research on message framing in the media. Examining how global warming is being framed, what it means to individuals, and how that connects to their views of society and self may be important to developing framings that resonate deeply and can advance the dialogue.
Stephen and Rachel Kaplan: Reasonable Person model
"People are more reasonable, cooperative, helpful, and satisfied when the environment supports their basic informational needs." If you want people to understand and engage with global warming, connect the information to what they already know and put it in terms they can use; make sure they can put the information to work in a meaningful way. While some might view programs like Terrapass as a way to buy out of conservation, it may be an important way to feel like you're doing something -- that's no small thing, when we're up against such a big thing.
Gerd Gigarenzer: ecological rationality
Effective decision making is highly dependent on the match between the information people have, the context they are in, and the question they are being asked. Currently, the context in which we evaluate global warming is highly insulated from the problem, so it's no surprise that people are disengaged. This will change as conditions change, but we need to find ways now to align where people are and what the problem is. In some sense, this argues for using Katrina and other visceral images, despite their questionable connection, because they give people the vision of what they are facing. Obviously this needs to be done with caution.
Comments
View as Threaded
Bart Anderson Posted 11:36 am
27 Apr 2006
However, there are limitations to the underlying public relations or propaganda model, in which an elite attempts to change the attitudes and actions of a population.
For one thing, such an effort is not taking place in a vacuum. Any serious attempt to persuade people about climate change will run smack dab into two other PR campaigns.
First, our culture is permeated by an ongoing propaganda campaign pushing consumerism (advertising). This campaign has been going on for decades, and has a wealth of talent and money behind it. Consumerist attitudes are deep and widespread.
Secondly, there is a concerted disinformation campaign by fossil fuel industries and some of the right wing.
How should a climate change campaign deal with these opposing forces? I think that the problem is ultimately political -- not just one of PR techniques.
Another limitation of the PR view is that it assumes society will continue more-or-less as it has been, with a relatively apolitical population which can be manipulated by PR techniques.
If events like Katrina and rising energy prices continue, then economic turmoil will follow. The political landscape may change very quickly, as it did in the 30s and the late 60s.
Permalink
Kif Scheuer Posted 3:45 am
28 Apr 2006
For example the Kaplans' work is very much about participation and collaborative problem solving, and requires moving way beyond simple messaging and information campaigns.
A genuine effort to understand and engage people with global warming requires more effort, involvement and respect than a PR approach is going to generate and does address the political and social dynamics that you are concerned with.
I think we're on the same page here - my premise in this post was to suggest ways to move beyond PR and simple models of information dissemination into the richer territory of human decision making and problem solving. You say the problem is ultimately political. In my mind political problems often come down to decision making problems, and understanding what's underlying decisions people are making can contribute to better political outcomes.
Permalink
Bart Anderson Posted 8:26 am
28 Apr 2006
I'm afraid though, that events are shaping up to be more tumultuous than expected. Just look at the anger in the US over a relatively small increase in gas prices.
Consider what would happen if the US attacks Iran, oil prices go to over $100/barrel, a recession hits, and we have another damaging hurricane season.
Rather than awakening interest in global warming, the challenge may be to channel the anger and frustration that will emerge.
Good PR techniques will be useful tools, but I think they will have to be part of political movements that are stronger and more informed than they are today.
We will need a DEEP understanding of the issues, particularly energy. Right now the political parties and mainstream environmentalists are not there yet.
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 7:12 pm
30 Apr 2006
Propaganda as science. Science as propaganda.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
sunflower Posted 7:03 am
01 May 2006
It is serendipitously wonderful that the least-cost energy is also carbon-free.
The political front lines will promote carpooling and lower maximum speed, plus expand mass transit.
Conservation will reduce natural gas and oil for home heat and hot water so that these fuels can be diverted to transportation and agriculture.
Finally, we will fund research and development of massive renewable energy systems with great diversity, from clothes lines and attached greenhouses to solar district heating and windmills. Then we export this new technology around the world.
My prophecy, if I can be so bold, is that economic hardship and war will distract attention away from the global warming focus. We should prepare, use the hand we are dealt, and play the game of renewable energy self-reliance.
Protect the old and protect the young. Feed the poor. Save money and save the Earth. I agree, framing is very important.
Permalink