Persuasive Messaging for Sustainability

One of the biggest challenges faced by those who care about sustainability is getting others on board. In this episode, Paul helps launch a local initiative to address climate change, powered by cookies and drawing on expert advice from Profs Cindy McPherson-Frantz and Cassandra Troy on how to create persuasive messages.

More info on mindbrainplanet.com

Chapters

• 0:14 Could the psychology used in advertising help us protect the environment?
• 2:03 Meet Sage and Hannah - our local sustainability champions
• 3:21 Prof Cindy McPherson-Frantz explains the Community Voices approach to encouraging environmental behaviour
• 7:13 Cindy discusses what sorts of sustainability messages might help
• 7:53 What happened when Cindy evaluated her approach
• 10:00 How our brain's response to a message depends on the messenger
• 11:21 The team tries to record some "comments for climate" - the power of cookies
• 14:10 Should we use positive or negative messages about the environment?
• 16:24 Prof Cassandra Troy on how positive and negative messaging impact different audiences

Transcript

Persuasive Messaging 

<advert pastiche>

PHJ: Advertising - Everyday, we’re bombarded with messages aimed at persuading us to buy stuff - stuff we’re not sure we want or need, and often, may not even be good for us – let alone good for the planet. The crafting of these messages draws on decades of psychological and now neuroscientific research on consumer decision making. 

But…just imagine, for a moment, a world where all that science wasn’t being used to get us to consume more but to consume less, to do things that were healthy for the planet, and so better, in the longer term, for ourselves and for each other.

In this episode, we’ll be looking at how we might use insights about the mind and brain to create more persuasive messages about sustainability and climate change, and we’ll be talking to two scientists whose research is helping to make that idea a reality. But, to start with, I need to get to the office – because I’ve been given a new role by my boss…. 

<In foyer with b/g noise>

And my new role is Climate Action Group co-ordinator – sounds fancy  – but I’ve basically been told to help make our department more sustainable. Many companies and institutions have people with like mine now - and all of us share – I suspect – a similar challenge – how do you get other people on board? (Because, sure, I can ask people to use the recycling bins - but the bigger stuff – like reducing meat consumption and flying – a lot of folk may not be too keen on those sorts of thing – so how do we get them to want to change? ). I’m meeting today to discuss that issue with two climate-conscious students who have stepped forward to help me – our sustainability champions – Sage and Hannah. 

[PHJ meets Hannah and Sage]       

PHJ: Yeah, we've gotta, we've gotta try to educate at the same time just trying to persuade people to do stuff or because we're trying to persuade people to do stuff.

Sage: I do think that a lot of movements and efforts have to be inherently concerning in order to get people to take action. Mm-Hmm <affirmative>. Because the reality is that change doesn't happen unless there's a problem and there's concern to be had. So I think that, I guess the word I would be looking for in terms of the messages is motivating more so than scary. Yeah. But yeah…

PHJ: I mean we, we are, we are after motivation.

Hannah: I was wondering though, if someone has like a green identity and they're putting like a billboard, are you more likely to listen to them if you are not as in say you're not, you know, so you don't really associate with that identity, do you think, are you more likely to listen to them because, but you don't agree with their values, their politics? I mean you probably look away, wouldn't you? Talking like more generally out in public? I wouldn't,

PHJ: Yeah. I think people like experts, but I think also they just tend to sort of detach from people that they don't think are Yeah. Like them or they don't listen so much. Yeah, exactly. They don't process the message. Mm-Hmm <affirmative>. It's quite tricky. (Fades)

PHJ: It soon became obvious that we had a lot of questions about what sorts of messages be most effective for nudging attitudes and actions – so we went to the research to understand more.  

One study, published only last year, was focused on a “community voices” approach and the results seemed promising so I contacted one the authors of the paper to find out more ….

Cindy : Hey, I am Professor Cindy McPherson-Frantz. I am a social and environmental psychologist. I teach at Oberlin College in Ohio in the United States.

PHJ: Thank you so much for speaking to me, Cindy. Because we are trying to launch our own very small-scale campaign to try to shift attitudes and beliefs within our own department and I'm really fascinated by this idea of community voices. Could you, could you just explain to me what this approach is about?

Cindy: Sure. So really a lot of people care about the environment, are concerned about climate change, do all kinds of things big and small in their everyday life to take care of the environment or to take action. But we don't talk about those things with each other typically. A lot of them are done in the privacy of our own homes, or we have thoughts and feelings that are happening in the privacy of our own minds. And so it can be really easy to feel like you're the only person who is doing anything, or you're the only person who cares. And the idea behind community voices is to identify all of the pro-environmental behaviors and thoughts and feelings and beliefs that are out there already in a community and just make them visible. So we're really trying to give the community members feedback about what other community members are thinking and feeling. This does a couple of really important psychological things. First of all, it helps to diffuse the phenomenon of pluralistic ignorance, which is when we just make all these assumptions about what everybody else is thinking and feeling and we're wrong. And then it also helps to create a visible social norm. Like, you know what, actually lots of people in my community are doing things.

PHJ: So where did you get this idea from in the first place? How did you, how did you come across it?

Cindy: The idea came from my collaborator, John Peterson. So John Peterson is a trained systems ecologist, and he and I have done research together for years, and I have preached the gospel of the power of social norms. And he turns out was actually listening to me all those years. And then he sort of took his systems ecology perspective and thought about the fact that part of the problem is that people don't get feedback about what other people are doing. And so he took this idea of social norms and the idea of feedback in an ecological system and said, okay, we're gonna use technology to give people feedback about other people's behavior to leverage social norms.

PHJ: How is this supposed to work? Is the idea then that you hear other people saying these things and then you feel, well, you know, that's what is being said, and you sort of shift in that direction.

Cindy: It's a couple of different things. So part of it I think, is you see people that you know and you respect and, and you think, oh, the, those are people that are like me and they're doing these things, I can do them too. I think part of it also is you see people who are doing things and you say, oh, I'm doing those things too. But the reason why this matters is people are more likely to engage in behaviors if they think other people like them are already doing those behaviors. So that's the power of social norms. It's very robust phenomenon. So that's, that's part of what is going on here. There's another piece to it though, which is with huge problems like climate change, it's very easy for people to feel like it's hopeless and that nothing they do matters. However, if we are working together as a community and we feel like, oh, lots of people besides me are doing this too, suddenly it feels like it might be worth doing. And so it's not just about shifting social norms, it's also about building a sense of collective efficacy, this idea that we can do it.

PHJ: So it feels almost like you're nudging people towards a sense of critical mass <laugh>.

Cindy: Exactly. That is a great way of saying it. Yeah.

PHJ: Have you any sort of insights you could share about what types of messages are best?

Cindy: There's kind of this instinct, I think, among environmentalists sometimes to want to scream from the mountaintops ”Everything is terrible” to try to motivate people to act. But more times than not, that causes people to shut down and tune out. So we focus on positive messages. We focus on making sure that the, the people delivering those messages represent the full diversity of the community so that everyone in the community sees someone like them.

PHJ: So it sounds like, theoretically, this sounds like a really good road to go down, and you've practically sold it to me now. I think what I’d really want to see though, is some evidence that it, that it works. And I think that you have some of that recently.

Cindy: We do. So we have several different pieces of evidence. We've run several studies now - online studies - where we compare people who have seen this kind of content to people who have not. And we measure a variety of things and very robust effects that show that when people have viewed this kind of content they tend to be more optimistic about solving environmental problems. They tend to have a greater sense of efficacy. They tend to say that they're more willing to take action. And importantly they also believe that that other people care more. The big test though, is does it work in the real world? Because it's one thing to take an online study and be staring at a screen and then answer some questions. So the piece of evidence that I think is, is most compelling. We ran a two year field study. So in our community in Oberlin we knew that we were gonna be putting up digital signs that were gonna share this community voices content in a variety of locations. And before those signs went up, we had our research assistants hang out in those spots and collect surveys from a couple hundred people. And then we let two years go by and then we returned to each of these spots and surveyed people in those locations again. And what we found was that, that even in those messy real world conditions, we saw change over time among, among people who spent time in those locations. And one of the most exciting things was we have a pretty sizable African American community in Oberlin. We were a stop on the Underground railroad. And we made a, a heavy emphasis on making sure that we represented African American voices in our slides and that was the part of our sample that shifted the most. So it, it seemed to actually work.

As Hannah suggested at the beginning of this podcast, it seems possible that how relatable we find the person communicating a message might impact on what we take away from that message. And this idea has now been investigated in neuroscientific research.  Neuroscientists in Australia decided to look at the effect of hearing political messages on some of those posterior regions - towards the rear of our brain - involved with processing meaning. The scientists noticed these regions increased their activity when their participants were listening to inspirational “let’s work together” type messages from leaders they had been told were in the same in-group as them. These inspirational messages are the type thought to win elections. However, these increases in brain activity were not seen when hearing the same messages from leaders their participants had been told were in their out-group. Instead, these brain networks activated when these out-group leaders produced non-inspirational more narcissistic messages – the type that lose elections. In other words, people appeared to be processing those messages that would confirm their existing beliefs about the messenger. How we process a message does seem to depend on who is delivering it and whether we can relate to them. 

So - all we had to do now was find and record some positive community voices – such as  students that other students would hopefully relate to…a plan was forming to lure people entering our building over to a stall as they passed by - and offer them a cookie if they would “comment for climate” – just provide a few words in writing, or even better on video, and we would then promote these voices using posters and film. What could possibly go wrong?

PHJ: Right. So here we are in the foyer of the School of Education and I have Hannah - and Sage is here. So what, what, what are we doing today?

Hannah: We're doing a climate stool to find out more about what people are doing for the climate and why. Yeah,

PHJ: And what we're gonna do with their voices.

Sage: We're going to interview them and we're going to put their comments up on a poster for everyone to see and ask them to write their comments down on a comment for climate sheet to amplify their voices.

PHJ: And how's it going so far?

Hannah: So far people don't wanna talk to us, but hopefully, hopefully as the day goes on, we'll get, we'll get some students that want, you know, more engagement.

Sage: I think they either just don't know enough or they think it doesn't affect them directly in their daily life, so they can't be bothered to comment. Which is surprising when you have free food as an incentive, but they still don't want to comment. 

PHJ: Sir….would you like a free cookie? 

Student: Go on then

PHJ: Go on then …you helop yoursell 

PHJ: So I think what we should do is just offer people a free biscuit anyway. And then once they've started eating the biscuit, there's that sense of obligation they need at least need to hear what we are saying, you know? 

Sage: What about people that are rushing to class and they just need to get there, but they want to take a cookie to class? Like they're just gonna take it and go…

PHJ: But then maybe they'll feel like they need to say something on the way back? Their slight sense of obligation? Maybe?

Sage: Maybe. Maybe.

Hannah: Maybe they’ll just run away with the food. <Laugh>.

PHJ: That is also a possibility. <Laugh>

<Silence>

PHJ: So I think things are going a little bit better now, would you say?

Sage: Yeah, I would. I'd say we're getting a pretty decent amount of feedback. People are actually stopping by and telling us their thoughts and more people are willing to interview than I thought they would. So it's been good.

Hannah: I think students watching other students do it is motivating 'cause it's like, okay, I can do it. It's encouraging watching someone your age doing an interview.

<Pastiche of comments – about why they care>                                 

So we have our voices – now we have to select the messages most likely to bring about a change – should we choose the more positive or more negative ones? You’ll remember Professor Frantz said positive messages were best….so try this:

It’s 2040 and, through courage, hope and imagination, we have a carbon-free society with global emissions declining. Many nations are now practising regenerative farming that is protecting the food supplies, biodiversity and the soil we depend on. Improved surface transport has reduced flying. People are benefitting from more efficient approaches to heating their homes and healthier foods that require less land to produce them. Through sharing ideas and resources to address the environmental crisis, communities and nations have grown closer. Let’s work together to make this future happen….

How do feel – reassured? ….but it sounds like it’s going to happen anyway – so maybe there’ no real need to get involved and do much yourself then? As Sage pointed out, concern is motivating….so should we choose messages that are somewhat darker……….

It’s 2040, large scale floods, droughts, wild fires and heat waves have reduced crop yields. Supplies of water and food in many countries have dwindled to catastrophic levels, 250 million people have lost their homes and waves of desperate refugees are sweeping across the world. Major ice shelves are collapsing as the world shifts irreversibly towards a climate that can no longer sustain the global population – civil unrest and conflict between nations erupt as people rush for what’s left. Let’s work together now – to make sure we never have to face this future….

Feeling motivated? Or do you just want to switch off and find something more cheerful?

I think we need some more advice – so I’m going to contact an expert who’s set up an experiment to try to answer this question directly on whether to go light or dark when it comes to persuasion:    

Cassandra: So, hi, I am Cassandra Troy. I am an assistant professor in the department of Journalism at University of Illinois Aban of Champagne. I and some colleagues from Penn State and Drexel University wanted to conduct a study to understand how people react to depictions of climate futures. So not just what's happening right now, but what could the world look like in the coming decades. And we tested a negative future message. So what happens if we carry on with business as usual, a positive future message? What might the world look like if people take action, if nations work together to take action and implement solutions? And then a combination message. So telling people we could end up on a negative path or a positive path depending on choices that we're making right now. And that information in the messages that people saw was based off a book called The Future Earth by Eric Holthouse.                

After people read these messages, we assessed how they were feeling emotionally in terms of fear and hope. We measured how much they were pushing back on these messages in terms of what we call counter arguing.

PHJ: What were the results?

Cassandra: We did find that that negative future message increased fear. The positive message had the capacity to increase hope, and then the messages with the positive content, so the positive future and that combination condition, they also had some effects on counter arguing. And we think this might be because the idea of a positive future is unrealistic to some people. They might think the timeframe that was mentioned, which was 2040 might be unrealistic or maybe they didn't like the kinds of solutions that we were talking about. 

That combination message with the negative and positive content - people broadly reacted pretty similarly to that as compared with just the negative message. So I think that negative information seemed to be really standing out in people's minds when they read that combination message. And so I think there's still an open question about how much threat information do you want to include in a positive message to ultimately get different outcomes compared to just threat focused messaging?              

What we see here is that whether you primarily focus on negative potential outcomes or positive future outcomes depends on your audience. Because if you already have audiences who know a lot about the issue, who are already fairly engaged in climate related efforts, positive messaging might be more effective. They're already bought into the idea that this is a risk, they might not need additional risk information. But if you have less engaged audiences that are still movable on the topic, you probably still want to have some of that risk or fear evoking information in there.

PHJ: Yeah, I mean this is gonna be tricky in our case, I think because I know that we have, you know, some staff and some students who are very aware. Whereas we have other students who are completely disengaged from this and, and actually not, not very aware, I don't think of of of, of what's happening in terms of the environment, you know, what's causing climate change and, and why we should worry about it. So this is gonna be quite tricky, I think <laugh>. Yeah. Is there a safe, is there a safe zone <laugh>?

Cassandra: Based on this study, <laugh>, I don't know if there's a perfect formula to recommend, but I think that a safe approach is thinking from not just a “one message wide” perspective, but a “messaging campaign wide” perspective. So when you're thinking about what kind of stuff are we gonna put out over the next month or over the course of this semester, then there's opportunities to put in both that negative and positive information that can cater to those different parts of your audience. And ultimately my perspective is that people probably need a diverse media diet the same way that we wouldn't recommend people eat only one food group. I don't think that recommending only one kind of messaging about climate change is effective. I think understandably we want people to have a good grasp of the threat that we're facing and exactly how bad it is. So they need some of that fear or threat focused messaging, but it's not a well-rounded picture of the problem to only focus on the problem because we do have solutions that exist. So I think positive messaging like specific solutions or specific efficacy information or steps that people can take that are actually meaningful, then I think that's more valuable, positive climate communication. 

So we’ve tried to apply all this great advice from our experts – and as well as posters, we’ve produced a film aimed at promoting pro-environmental community voices – and as people here in the foyer glimpse sections of it on their way in and out of the building, I’m hoping it may be helping to shift their attitudes and actions a little more in the direction of sustainability. It will be difficult for me to be absolutely sure that’s happening – this isn’t a controlled experiment like Cindy and Cassandra’s work, but talking to those scientists about their research has convinced me that we should think more about how our minds and brains work before we start trying to communicate about climate change and sustainability – if we want that communication to really make a difference.