|
|
|
Book
Review Review of "Environmental Problems and Human Behavior"
Gerald Gardner and Paul Stern's Environmental Problems and Human Behavior,
2nd Edition (Boston, MA: Pearson
Custom Publishing, 2002) is a potentially valuable but uneven overview of
psychological and other social science literature that makes up "the most
important theoretical and empirical contributions
to the understanding and
solution of environmental problems" (p. 5).
In their introduction (Part I) the authors briefly summarize for readers
three illustrative global risks that have potentially devastating long-run
impact, but are imperceptible to most humans in the short term: global warming,
the depletion of the ozone layer and the destruction of tropical forests.
What, ask the authors, have we learned about human behavior that will help us
slow or even prevent these depredations of our 'global capital'? In Part II, the longest section in the book (155 pages), Gardner and Stern
use Garrett Hardin's 'tragedy of the commons' (Chapter 2) to warn of the
potential for massive environmental damage if humans and their social groupings
maintain current behavioral trajectories.
Hardin argued that as a species we are adapted to act in our own short-term
individual self-interest, therefore without some form of socially imposed
restraint humans will inevitably over-use finite, limited good environmental
resources. This theoretical model is shared by some socio-biologists and
evolutionary psychologists as well as by neo-classical economists using
'rational actor' theory. Gardner and Stern respond that while Hardin's
analysis may apply in certain, even many, situations, it does not apply
inevitably and universally. They give examples of successful community
management of shared resources, and also discuss psychological and social
variables that affect the probability of individuals and groups: a) acting
for the common good even at sacrifice to themselves, i.e., cooperatively and
altruistically; and b) perceiving the long term consequences of their individual
and group actions in addition to the short term consequences. In the next four chapters in Part II, Gardner and Stern review the evidence
concerning four types of behavioral and ideological "solutions" that
are associated (or not) with varying levels of attention to and protection of
the environment: a) ideological,
religious and cultural variations that include greater attention to and concern
for the environment, b) educational programs about environmental risk and
conservation, c) environment friendly incentive structures imposed from the
top-down, and d) "community management of the commons." They conclude
that none of the four solutions are sufficient to bring about significant
environment-preserving change in behavior, but all four forms of intervention,
that is, changing values, changing the information available, changing incentive
structures for individuals and groups (e.g., corporations, municipalities,
etc.), and developing community management programs, are necessary tools if
global environmental challenges are to be met. In the process of describing and evaluating these four solutions the authors
present the findings of a range of social science research from sociology,
political science and anthropology in addition to psychology. Although the
authors are careful to point out the nature of the research surveyed (e.g.,
anecdotal, qualitative, correlational, quasi-experimental or
experimental), and frequently discuss the generalizability of the research, they
do not sufficiently evaluate the
chartering theories and research methodologies. After completing Part II,
the average reader without a background in social science might be able to consume
or even apply the research findings, but would not be equipped to critically
evaluate the research itself; information about the individual studies, their
methodology, and their framing theories is lacking. Yet different methods
can lead to different outcomes. For example, the wording of
questionnaires about environmental concern affects response patterns as
Klineberg, McKeever, and Rothenbach (1998) have shown. In Part III (79 pages), Gardner and Stern focus in greater detail on
psychological theory and research relevant to finding solutions to environmental
problems. While quite readable, I find their treatment sometimes
incomplete and at other times idiosyncratic. They focus on two classes of
theories. The first are those relevant to 'stone age genetic behavioral
predispositions in the space age' (title of chapter 8, p. 175) including the
"biophilia hypothesis" (unproven they conclude), and the argument that
humans have been selected only or primarily for individual short-term
self-interest (complicated and conflicting evidence they believe). The
second class of research concerns human cognitive and emotional reactions to the
environment. The authors discuss some of the literature on performance
'limits' of human perception and cognition that restrict our capacity to
perceive and use all the information potentially available when making
environmental choices. Our
computational resources interact with emotional and motivational tendencies to
minimize or exaggerate risk; our
subsequent environmentally relevant behavior often fails to maximize the
potential for addressing environmental problems and can even accelerate
destructive processes. While the theories and research covered in Part III are interesting and
helpful, they do not meet the goal of describing "the most important
contributions
to
environmental problems." (p. 5). Gardner and
Stern use B.F. Skinner's theory as a core support for the argument that humans
act only for immediate short term rewards. As Professor Lynda LaBounty can
explain better than I, Skinner's theory of human behavior is far more subtle
than they state. A more in-depth treatment of work by contemporary
evolutionary psychologists and/or rational-actor theorists would afford better
exemplars for this position. There is a growing social-psychological
literature, however, that challenges the assumption of the primacy of selfish
behavior which Gardner and Stern do not sufficiently address (c.f., DeWaal,
1996; Van Lange, De Bruin, Otten
& Joireman, 1997; De Young, 2000; Stern, 2000). Gardner and Stern also fail to review the full range of relevant research
about perception of the environment, cognitive biases, and cultural variation in
cognition of and responses to the environment (c.f., Choi,. Nisbett, &
Norenzayan, 1999; Dunlap, Van Liere, Mertig & Jones, 2000; Kahn,
2001; Oskamp, 2000.) In addition,
Gardner and Stern ignore the development of children's understanding of and
concern for the environment (Gottlieb & Bronstein, 1996; Kahn &
Friedman, 1995; Kahn & Kellert, 2002); and their attitudes and reasoning
about violations of pro-environment norms and values (Kahn & Lourenco, 2002;
Schultz, 2000). The final section of Gardner and Stern's book (Part IV), titled 'behavioral
solutions in context: ecological and societal systems', reviews how people
concerned about the environment frequently focus first on what seems to them
intuitively to be most helpful --changing behavior so as to reduce consumption
using existing equipment -- rather than on changes that would result in greater
energy conservation such as increasing the efficiency of existing
machines. In other words, everyday reasoning and emotion often fail to
bring even concerned environmentalists to optimal solutions (Chapter 10).
In the next two chapters the authors expand their analysis to humans in
interaction with complex technological and social systems; in these contexts
also, they argue, humans are prone to error, inefficiency and hence an inability
to make choices that are in their own and the planet's long-term best
interest. They note that using computer modeling to enhance our ability to
understand complex systems may be a helpful tool, cautioning, however, that such
models or virtual realities also can have important limits. Gardner and Stern close with policy recommendations that draw on a framework
suggested by Meadows, Meadows and Randers (1992).
They believe these policies could be effective in averting environmental
disaster because they are consistent with what we know about human psychology. One list of initiatives (Table 12-1, p. 337) identifies a
subset of effective environmental-friendly actions and processes from among
those commonly used. A second list of recommendations (Table 12-2, p.339)
concerns how to minimize the problem of a long delay between human actions and
their environmental consequences, and the problem of potentially irreversible
harm to the environment. A final set of recommendations concerns 'slowing,
controlling, and
stopping growth." To accomplish these latter
would require the use of strategies drawn from all four of the types of
solutions discussed in Part II of the book, because it would require nothing
less than "slow[ing] or stop[ping] exponential human population
growth", "control[ing] and limit[ing] economic and material
growth," and "mak[ing] concomitant changes in core societal beliefs,
morals, and values concerning population growth, material growth, wealth, and
well-being" (p. 341). Roxane Harvey Gudeman
References Choi, Incheol; . Nisbett,
Richard; & Norenzayan, Ara.
1999. Causal attribution across cultures: Variation and universality. Psychological
Bulletin 125 (1), 47-63. DeWaal,
Frans. 1996. Good natured: The origins of right and wrong in humans and other
animals. Cambridge, MA: Harvard. Dunlap,
R., Van Liere, K., Mertig, A., & Jones, R. 2000. Measuring endorsement of
the New Ecological Paradigm: A revised
NEP scale. Journal of Social Issues, 56, #3, 425-442. Gottlieb, D., Bronstein, P.,
1996. Parents' perceptions of children's worries in a changing world. Journal
of Genetic Psychology, 157, (1) 104-118. Kahn, P. 2001. The human
relationship with nature: Development and culture. Cambridge, MA:
MIT Press. Kahn, P. & Friedman, B.,
1995. Environmental views and values of children in an inner city Black
community. Child Development, 66(5) 1403-1417. Kahn, P. & Kellert, S.
(Eds.), 2002. Children and nature: Psychological, sociocultural and
evolutionary investigations. Cambridge, MA:
MIT Press. Kahn, PP., & Lourenco, O.,
2002. Water, air, fire, and earth: A developmental study in Portugal of
environmental moral reasoning. Environment & Behavior, 34(4)
405-430. Klineberg, S., McKeever, M.,
& Rothenbach, B., 1998. Demographic predictors of environmental concern: It
does make a difference how it's measured. Social Science Quarterly,79(4)
734-753. Oskamp,
S., 2000. Psychological contributions to achieving an ecologically sustainable
future for humanity. Journal of Social Issues, 56, #3, 373-390. Schultz,
P., 2000. Empathizing with nature:
The effects of perspective taking on concern for environmental issues. Journal
of Social Issues, 56, #3, 391-406. Stern,
P. 2000. Toward a coherent theory of environmentally significant behavior. Journal
of Social Issues, 56, #3, 407-424. Van Lange, P. &
Visser, K. 1999. Locomotion in social dilemmas: How people adapt to cooperative,
tit-for-tat, and noncooperative partners. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 77, (#4), 762-773. Van Lange, P., De
Bruin, E., Otten, W. & Joireman, J. 1997. Development of prosocial,
individualistic, and competitive orientations: Theory and preliminary evidence. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, (#4), 733-746.
|
|
Home | Articles | Book Reviews | Submit Article | Subscribe |
