The changing world’s temperature remains attributed to the increasing of greenhouse gases (GHGs) into the atmosphere. In particular, the emission of methane, carbon dioxide (CO2), as well as chlorofluorocarbons plays a central role adversely impacting the ozone layer, which, in turn, leads to the melting of snow, severe storms, extreme heat, and rising sea levels. For instance, a comprehensive study undertaken by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) established that the warmest years occurred since 1998, meaning the Earth’s surface temperatures have undergone unprecedented increase over the last century. According to the United States (U.S.) Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), temperature projections from a broad range of climate change and associated scenarios predict that these temperature will rise significantly in the in the next decade. Available empirical evidence has so far revealed that climate change has far-reaching negative effects on the stability of the present-day and future ecosystems. The Natural Resources Defense council (NRDC) recently reported that the effects of climate comprise undermining access to sustainable food production and quality and enough water, causing human migration, and hindering human health.
In response to the scientific findings, global climate change remains one of the key issues among the general public, as well as other responsible stakeholders, including the policymakers, environmental activists, researchers, businesses, behaviorists, and researchers in different fields. In response, these players have and continue to place great emphasis on identifying and implementing a variety of environmental conservation initiatives with the sole purpose of reducing GHG emissions. Some of the strategies in question comprise recycling, improving energy efficiency, as well as developing alternative energy sources. Additionally the social sciences, including psychology play a fundamental role in providing the much-needed insights into what constitutes climate change, especially adaptation and result-driven mitigation measures (Spence & Pidgeon, 2009). In essence, the field of psychology can be used to understand climate change and how human beings have contributed to the escalation of the problem and develop positive measures to reduce their effect. Understanding behaviorists’ perspective on global warming can assist in the modification of human behaviors that plays a leading role in causing climate change.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Statement of the Problem
Recent research has since established a strong correlation of human activities to the present-day’s climate change scenarios. In other words, researchers argue that climate change and a variety of human activities remain inextricably linked. In particular, the continued use of fossil fuels has been associated with the rapidly rising levels of atmospheric GHGs (Cismaru et al., 2011). Typically, human behavior manifests in the outcome of their actions (Moore, 2013). People act on their intrinsic, as well as extrinsic motivations. By attributing climate change to human action and associated activity, then change-driven and effective solutions to this global environmental problem revolves around identifying the underlying motivations for their actions and changing the very human behaviors.
Behavioral Analysis of Climate Change
Behaviorists identify and analyze social, as well as global problems, including climate change by examining people’s cultural behaviors. According to B.F. Skinner, for instance, the world not only embraced but also proceeded to reward different aspects of industrialization, especially civilization for a variety of decisions that have and continue to cause environmental degradation (Mischel & Shoda, 1995; Graham & Weiner, 2012). In particular, the civilized generation placed much emphasis on burning fossil fuels with the sole purpose of providing gas and energy to homes and personal cars, respectively. As a result, people have since developed a culture of fulfilling their personal desires without considering any negative effect associated with their actions (Niemiec, Ryan, & Deci, 2009). For instance, Americans have a culture of using automobiles for traveling and do not show concern over any the various adverse effects driving vehicles, including CO2 emissions. The behavior of individual Americans to rely on cars at the expense of the environmental sustainability best suits Watson’s claim that the environment in which a person is raised determines how they respond to social and global challenges, such as climate change (Graham & Weiner, 2012). Concisely, behaviorists explain that a lack of concern for the threat presented by global warming results from positive social and environmental rewards.
In addition to the interpretations of Skinner and Watson’s models, motivational theorists, including Deci and Ryan (2008) corroborate that motivations revolving around self-concern, as well as global concern both depend on a person’s perspective on climate change. Another group of motivation theorists, Hines Hungerford, and Tomera, argue that factors that play a central role in determining an individual’s proenvironemental behaviors include knowledge of issues involved, personal responsibility, intent to act, and locus of control (Cismaru et al., 2011). In response, these behaviorists coined the infamous protection motivation theory (PMT), which states that that if a person is presented with both real and clear threats in addition to recommendations that serve as the only way to mitigate the impending threat or danger, then they are more likely to adopt each of the recommended behavior.
Behavioral Solutions to Climate Change
The behaviorists offer a wide range of solutions to climate change, including the use of negative reinforcement and positive rewards and applying self-determination theory (SDT) to environmental education (EE). Concerning positive reinforcement, responsible stakeholders in the prevailing environmental crisis, such as the government and associated agencies should prioritize motivating communities, as well as organizations or companies for the much-needed positive change. At typical case in point would involve rewarding firms that define, develop, and execute organizational strategies that revolve around reducing the company’s environmental footprint. The government can achieve this by listing such organizations as the most sustainable companies, which, in turn, serves as a motivating factor and challenge for the listed and unstainable firms, respectively (Cismaru et al. 2011). Another form of positive reinforcement-based solution to climate change involves the introduction and promotion of friendly measures, including solar panels, biogas, and electric cars. Sensibly speaking, the identified psychological interventions would go a long way in positively changing people’s perception and behaviors when it comes to the use of fossil fuels. Concisely, informing the public of the significant role played by efficient and safe energy sources would lead to behavior change, as they are more likely to identify with sustainable goods, as well alternative energy.
Besides positive rewards, researchers have recommended the use of negative reinforcement in guiding and achieving the desired behavior change. According to Cismaru et al. (2011), protection motivation theory (PMT) has proved effective in a broad range of settings, especially through the application of fear appeals. PMT provides that if a person is presented with both real and clear threats in addition to recommendations that serve as the only way to mitigate the impending threat or danger, then they are more likely to adopt each of the recommended behavior. However, the suggested but a must-follow recommendation should not only remain doable but also easy to follow. In essence, environmentalists should identify and present the public with pocket-friendly solutions, which require limited resources.
Numerous studies have revealed that increasing or magnifying the very level of any given perceived threat and decreasing levels of potential costs tend to increase the likelihood of an individual to adopt and implemented the recommended behavior. In this context, for example, designers of climate change policies should focus on the severity of global warming and its long-term adverse effects on the ecosystem. In this way, people would not only acknowledge but also appreciate how they remain vulnerable to destruction in the near future if they fail to change their behavior and act now (Cismaru et al., 2011). As stated earlier, these persuasive communication strategies should be accompanied with information on decreased levels of possible costs people will incur if they adopt the recommended solution. For instance, companies and their companies should be alerted of the impending disasters, which result from their poor production and waste disposal methods (Spence & Pidgeon, 2009). When presenting this information, they should be shown alternative initiatives that will reduce GHG emissions, including recycling, embracing alternative or renewable energy sources, and creating policies to improve energy efficiency. Accordingly, using negative rewards as an option of addressing climate change requires responsible stakeholders to place much emphasis on increasing perceptions of self- and response –efficacy.
Another behavioral solution to climate change revolves around inculcating proenvironemental behaviors among people from across the globe. Utilizing SDT’s intention to act in EE, environmentalists can persuade individuals to identify, implement, and associate with reasoned and sustainable actions (Darner, 2009). Recent research has established that EE remains one of the most effective tools for promoting an individual’s intention to act and behave in an environmentally friendly manner (Darner, 2009). In particular, SDT-centered EE allows students to remain active participants in the formulation and implementation of sustainable environmental policies. Enhancing the student’s ability to determine their intentions to act presents them with the best possible opportunity to engage in community-wide efforts, including school-wide recycling programs. Concisely, the use of formal, as well as informal EE programs supports an individual’s intention to continue acting proenvironementally with the sole purpose of addressing the problem, climate change.
Limitations of Behavioral Solutions
The relationship between climate change and any given behavior change remains complicated and multifaceted, making the proposed behavioral interpretation of climate change less effective. In their recent study, for instance, Maiback, Roser-Renouf, and Leisrowitz (2009) found that approximately 50 percent of individual Americans remain unconvinced about the existing, as well as potential threats associated with global climate change. Given their passive approach to what constitutes the severity of global warming, this group of the American population have failed to adopt and identify with behaviors that play a fundamental role in mitigating climate change. In essence, behavioral interpretations tend to focus on an individual’s external behaviors without necessarily addressing people’s reluctance to change their environmentally unfriendly lifestyles (Darner, 2009). For this reason, individuals continue to remain skeptic, uncertain, and lack the much-needed knowledge to align their behaviors with positive measures, including electric cars.
Apart from the limitation of behavioral interpretation of global warming, the proposed solutions face variety of barriers, including lack of the support from major stakeholders, the widely held cultural beliefs about climate change, and externalization of blame. In particular, the first barrier to implementing the solutions include a lack of government funding that would allow the use of alternative fuels and energy solutions other than fossil fuels. Societies and communities from across the globe still hold non-progressive beliefs about climate change, with most people convinced that it remains one of the distant threats to human beings (Darner, 2009; Cismaru et al. 2011). Additionally, some communities believe that they are helpless when it comes to containing the rising Earth temperatures. In other words, they externalize responsibility of conserving the environment, claiming it is the function of environmentalists and the government.
Solutions to Limitations . In response to the limitations of behavioral interpretations of climate change, behaviorists should consider developing a comprehensive approach to conceptualizing and discussing every aspect of the rapidly changing Earth temperatures. In essence, the interpretation framework should include and address cultural, emotional, as well as social motivations of individuals. By utilizing cultural differences, for instance, psychologists will be well positioned to cover extrinsic and intrinsic factors and the role of social environment in determining an individual’s anti- and pro-environmental actions.
In addition to the solution to the drawbacks of behavioral interpretations of global warming, the government should assume a leading role in facilitating the various solutions through funding, such as rewarding positive initiatives with the sole purpose of reducing the threat of climate change. Concerning difficulty in changing people’s culture, policymakers should collaborate with other stakeholders in designing appropriate communication method characterized by proving convincing information about the various threats associated with climate change (Cismaru et al., 2011; Darner, 2009). Moreover, the communication strategy should include potential benefits of acting proenvironementally. At the same time, the challenge presented by externalization of both blame and responsibility should be addressed by challenging the public that everyone is in a moment characterized by choice, doing all they can at the individual level to address climate change.
Conclusion
Conclusively, it is evident that behaviorists take culture-driven approach to identifying and interpreting environmental, social, as well as global issues, including climate change. In particular, they focus on cultural behaviors to explain people’s anti- and pro-environmental actions. However, their interpretation is no exception to limitations since it overemphasize external behaviors, overlooking intrinsic and social motivations and associated aspects of behavior. Equally importation, behaviorists present change-driven solutions to climate change, including increasing the very level of any given perceived threat and decreasing levels of potential costs tend to increase the likelihood of an individual to adopt and implemented the recommended behavior and inculcating proenvironemental behaviors among people through SDT-centered EE. Unfortunately, these remedies face a variety of challenges, such as lack of government support, cultural misconceptions about climate change, and externalization of responsibility. In addressing the barriers, responsible stakeholder should develop a comprehensive approach to conceptualizing and discussing every aspect of the rapidly changing Earth temperatures. At the same time, the government should fund proenvironemental programs.
References
Cismaru, M., et al. (2011). “Act on climate change”: An application of protection motivation theory . Social Marketing Quarterly, 17 (3), 62-84.
Darner, R. (2009). Self-Determination Theory as a Guide to Fostering Environmental Motivation. The Journal of Environmental Education, 40 (2), 39-49.
Deci, E., & Ryan, R. (2008). Facilitating optimal motivation and psychological well-being across life's domains. Canadian Psychology, 49 (1), 14-23.
Graham, S., & Weiner, B. (2012). Motivation: Past, present, and future. APA educational psychology handbook, Vol 1: Theories, constructs, and critical issues (pp. 367-397). Washington, DC, US: American Psychological Association.
Maibach, E., Roser-Renouf, C., & Leisrowitz, A. (2009). Global warming’s six Americas 2009: An audience segmentation analysis . Retrieved Mar. 19, 2019 from: http://climatecommunication.yale.edu/publications/global-warmings-six-americas-2009/
Mischel, W., & Shoda, Y. (1995). A cognitive-affective system theory of personality: Reconceptualizing situations, dispositions, dynamics, and invariance in personality structure. Psychological Review, 102 (2), 246-248. Doi: 10.1037/13273-013.
Moore, J. (2013). Tutorial: Cognitive psychology as a radical behaviorist views it. The Psychological Record, 63 (3), 667-680.
Niemiec, C., Ryan, R., & Deci, E. (2009). The path is taken: Consequences of attaining intrinsic and extrinsic aspirations in post-college life. Journal of Research in Personality, 43 (3), 291-306.
Spence, A., Pidgeon, N. (2009). Psychology, climate change & sustainable behavior. Environmental Science and Policy for Sustainable Development, 51 (6).
