Social Psychology & The Green Movement

Photo Source: yushimoto 02

An interesting discussion has begun in environmental groups about adjusting the message and benefits of being green.  The discussion started with a very complicated question:  “If humans, when making a choice, weigh factors like costs and benefits to maximize self-interest, why then are people not taking more advantage of green products and services?”  Quite simply, if x-decision saves you money and is the right thing to do, why aren’t more people doing it?

Dave Roberts of Grist has been doing some excellent reporting on this very subject.  Earlier this year he interviewed Dr. Robert Cialdini, author and until recently the Regents’ Professor of Psychology at Arizona State University.  Dr. Cialdini described six “weapons of influence regarding persuasion”.

• Reciprocity: people will repay favors.
• Commitment and consistency: people will stick to commitments made publicly.
• Social proof: people will do what other people do.
• Authority: people obey authority figures.
• Liking: people are more influenced by those they like.
• Scarcity: people desire what is perceived as scarce.

Through the research done by Dr. Cialdini and others, many greens are arguing that our message should be expanded around the “weapons of influence”.  For example, here is how the message could be changed around a topic as elementary as using plastic bags at a store like Whole Foods.

“Whole Foods believes plastic bags are bad for the earth.” – A message centered on guilt that would relatively have no effect.

“Whole Foods will give you 10 cents every time you use a plastic bag.” A message centered on cost-benefit that would have increased results, but not the effect desired.

“Whole Foods believes in rewarding the millions of American consumers who have moved beyond the plastic bag.” A messaged centered on inclusion “social proof” and reciprocity.  Researchers are now arguing this is the way green choices should be marketed, because messaging focused on human behavior increases results at very minimal costs.

Dave Roberts’ most recent article has an analysis on which states spent their rebate money the fastest for the “Cash for appliances” programs.  This program offered rebates to consumers who bought energy efficient appliances.  Spoiler alert, results were attributed to states that marketed around human psychology.  Check it out, it’s an interesting read.