WAKE-UP CALL
Welcome to the December 2010 Wake-Up Call, Awake’s monthly
newsletter for research and news about behaviour change for sustainability.
To view this newsletter as a webpage, click here
In this edition of Wake-up Call…
·
Feature Article – Dealing with Denial
·
60 seconds with… Kylie Bollard, Bathurst, Orange,
Dubbo Alliance
·
Interesting article of the
month - Does The Weather Influence
Our Connection to Nature?
·
Exercise of the Month – Reduce Your Festive Footprint
In the vocabulary of environmentalists,
nothing is delivered with more venom than the accusation of “climate change
denier”. This is the term for anyone who refuses to accept the reality of
global warming, and humankind’s part in it.
On the other side
of the fierce debate, those who question climate change science contend that
the label “denier” is too readily applied in order to discredit anyone who has
the gall to approach the issue with an open mind.
One of the issues here seems to be an
argument over the difference between scepticism and denial. A useful discussion of the distinction is
provided by Michael Shermer in New
Scientist. He argues that scepticism is integral to the scientific process,
whereby the investigator must carefully sort through the facts and come to a
conclusion based on the weight of the evidence. Denial, on the other hand, is
driven by an ideology, one in which commitment to a pre-existing belief “takes
precedence over the evidence”. Shermer
goes on to say “one practical way to distinguish between a sceptic and a denier
is the extent to which they are willing to update their positions in response
to new information. Sceptics change their minds. Deniers just keep on denying”.
If we accept that denial is a prevalent
response to climate change, it is worth taking a closer look at how it operates.
Denial is a defence mechanism in which a
person, faced with a painful fact, rejects the reality of that fact. It’s
discovery as a psychological phenomenon is often credited to Sigmund Freud, and
most often talked about in the fields of psychology and pathology. Three main
types of denial are commonly discussed:
·
Simple denial – this is where the person
denies that the problem exists at all
·
Minimisational denial – where the
severity of the problem is downplayed
·
Transference denial – where
responsibility for the problem is placed elsewhere
Each of these forms of denial appear
applicable to the climate change debate. We often hear people argue that “I’ve
seen evidence that the world is actually cooling” (simple denial). Others state
that warming may actually be a blessing, with warmer holidays and better crops
(minimisational denial). And transference denial seems to be present any time
we hear people say “it’s the government’s responsibility”. Indeed, the
steadfast belief that man is not responsible for warming, in spite of
scientific consensus to the contrary, would appear to be a good example of
transference denial.
There are good reasons why we resort to
denial when it comes to climate change. As far as challenging problems go, it’s
a big one.
For a start, we can’t see it (much). This
makes it necessary that we place our faith in scientists to tell us what is
happening, and as a result, we lose a bit of control. People don’t like losing
control, and therefore denial is one reaction to the feeling of helplessness
that ensues.
The overwhelming size of the problem also
lends itself to denial. If what “they” are telling us is correct, we are going
to have to completely reconsider our way of life, the things we value, and the
way in which we shape our identities. Being overwhelmed is fertile ground for
denial.
Another reason why our response to
climate change doe not seem to be in proportion to the dire consequences
predicted is the role of emotion. While the problem is commonly communicated in
the form of facts, figures and statistics, people are primarily driven by
emotions in their decision-making. An article on this subject by Lisa Bennett
discusses this issue, concluding that “most people have to feel a risk before
they do something about it”. Too often, climate change is something that we
know about, but we don’t necessarily feel it. Whereas we do feel things like rising
energy costs, and the convenience of driving to the shops instead of walking.
Many environmental advocates are at their
wits end about how to deal with climate change deniers. Perhaps it would be
useful to look at how the issue is dealt with in clinical settings.
Firstly, a certain amount of denial is
not necessarily seen as a bad thing. It helps defend the individual against
feelings of distress when faced with overwhelming problems. However, at some
point, certain issues need to be faced in order for the individual to make
necessary changes. Climate change is one of those issues where it is generally
accepted that people are going to need to change their behaviour, or at least
support changes at community and government level, in order to ensure a livable
planet in future. So this issue needs to be “treated”.
In the clinical world, there is no universally
accepted approach to dealing with denial. The chosen treatment largely depends
on which school of psychology the practitioner subscribes to. The traditional
approach insists that denial should be confronted head-on, believing that
progress will not be made until the individual admits they are in denial. Other
approaches, such as cognitive behavioural therapy, do not place much emphasis
on denial, instead attempting to understand the worldview of the individual. Motivational
Enhancement Therapy is probably the most empowering approach. Practitioners “believe
that denial should be worked through more subtly, empathically focusing on the
personal reasons surrounding denial and seeking to strengthen the desire to
change” (these various approaches are discussed here).
There is a danger in drawing too many
parallels between denial as part of a clinical disorder, and climate change
denial among the general population. In fact, even in clinical settings,
therapists are warned against overusing the term. In an article entitled “Denial in
Clinical Medicine”, Shelp and Perl warn that “one danger in the loose use
of the term denial is a tendency to disregard or give less attention to the self
determining choices or wishes of a patient. When patients are mis-described as
denying, communication and consultation with the patient tend to decrease,
which may result in the patient's having less effective control over his or her
body and its care.”
Despite this caveat, there are a few tips
we can take from the clinical approach
to denial which may be useful in dealing with those who refuse to acknowledge
the existence of climate change.
·
Recognise the difference between
scepticism and denial. Is this person just eager to clarify the facts, or
refusing to open their mind to the possibility that the science may be valid?
·
Identify which type of denial is being
exhibited. Simple, minimisational, or transference?
·
Acknowledge that denial is a common
defence mechanism, one which is perfectly natural given the enormity of the
climate change issue.
·
Rather than confront the individual by
banging them over the head with more evidence, try to understand their
perspective. What is it that they feel most threatened by? What would it mean
for them if the worst consequences of climate change were to eventuate? What
changes are they willing to make?
Blaming, name-calling and making people wrong
is not progressing the climate change debate sufficiently. An approach which
recognises and acknowledges the human element in peoples reactions to climate
change information holds far more promise if we are to engage everybody in
action.
WANT TO USE THIS
ARTICLE IN YOUR E-ZINE OR WEB SITE?
You can, as long as you include this complete blurb with
it:
Awake provides psychology-based
services to support the development of sustainable behaviour in individuals,
groups and organisations. Visit www.awake.com.au for more info
What first got you focused on
sustainability?
Biodiversity
conservation was my main driver for getting into sustainability, and trying to
get a creative environment that will continue for future generations. I’ve also
always been interested in educating the community.
What is the sustainable choice you have
recently made of which you are most proud?
I recently put
a solar panel on my house, and have a water tank and vege garden.
What is a less sustainable choice that
you are not so proud of?
Forgetting to take green bags to
the supermarket. Wasting too much food, and I don’t compost.
Where?
Forces of Nature
Affect Implicit Connections With Nature
By Sean Duffy and
Michelle Verges
Environment
and Behavior (2010) Vol. 42, pp 723-739
What is it about?
This study set out to find if peoples
connection to nature is affected by the seasons, and also by daily weather
variations.
What did they find?
Results showed that people felt more
connected to nature during the warmer months, and more connected to built
objects and environments during the colder months. A similar pattern was found
for daily variation – connection to nature was higher on fine days conducive to
outdoor activity, as opposed to wet days.
What can we take from this?
Connection to
nature is an important precursor to pro-environment behaviours. While this
study did not show a direct effect of weather variation on behaviour,
understanding how connection to nature operates is important for those trying
to influence environmentally beneficial behaviours. These results suggest there
may be some benefit to planning pro-environment communications for times when
people are most receptive to the message. For example, people who are enjoying
the outdoors in the summer may respond more positively to efforts to promote
preservation of nature than if they were targeted during the winter.
It’s that time of
the year again, where most of us engage in a flurry of buying, giving, eating,
drinking and being merry. What an environmental impact this has! Here are a few things to consider over the
coming days and weeks.
1. Do
I need to buy so much?
2. Could
I source more locally and sustainably produced things?
3. Could
I purchase more services instead of “stuff”?
4. Can
I take the opportunity to nudge the recipient toward greener behaviours through
my choice of gift.
(e.g A stylish re-usable shopping bag or keepcup)
5. How
are gifts to be wrapped? And delivered? Can this be done more sustainably?
6. Could
I make my own cards and wrapping out of recycled materials?
These are just a
few things to consider when it comes to buying gifts this festive season. There
is also plenty of opportunity to consider the environmental impact of holidays,
food choices and waste disposal.
But whatever you
do, please also try to have some FUN, and a safe, happy holiday season!
The exercise of the month provides
a tool to help you get engaged, inspired, aware and in action around
sustainability. Feel free to use it on your own, with a friend, or in
your work. If you do use it with others, please tell them where you got
it!
Awake provides
psychology-based services to support the development of sustainable behaviour
in individuals, groups and organisations. Visit www.awake.com.au for more info
If you know someone who is interested in behaviour change
for sustainability, please forward Wake-Up Call to them so they can subscribe.
To subscribe to Wake-Up call, email subscribe@awake.com.au
If you do not wish to receive this newsletter in
future, please email unsubscribe@awake.com.au
with “unsubscribe” in the subject field.
© Awake 2010