This article considers fear avoidance, reactance theory, and alienation from nature as reasons why warnings about environmental damage and global warming fail to produce significant changes in individual behaviors. Behavioral decision-making stages identified by L. Pelletier and E. Sharp (2008) are associated with interest in nature, emotional affinity (love) for nature, message design theory, visionary charismatic leadership, and manifestation based on energetic investment as factors that support adoption of proenvironmental attitudes and behaviors. Suggestions are made about what could help inspire proenvironmental behavior.

1. Some Challenges in Motivating Proenvironmental Behaviors
Dawn Drake
10/16/09
Written for Course Studies
Institute of Transpersonal Psychology
© 2009, Dawn Drake

2. 2
Abstract
This article considers fear avoidance, reactance theory, and alienation from
nature as reasons why warnings about environmental damage and global
warming fail to produce significant changes in individual behaviors.
Behavioral decision-making stages identified by L. Pelletier and E. Sharp
(2008) are associated with interest in nature, emotional affinity (love) for
nature, message design theory, visionary charismatic leadership, and
manifestation based on energetic investment as factors that support adoption
of proenvironmental attitudes and behaviors. Suggestions are made about
what could help inspire proenvironmental behavior.
© 2009, Dawn Drake

3. 3
Some Challenges in Motivating Proenvironmental Behaviors
Scientists and environmental activists have been issuing increasingly
urgent warnings over the past several decades, telling us that humans have
been causing sufficient environmental damage to threaten not only the
survival of other species, but our own, as well. Now, they are telling us that
we have already done so much damage that we cannot avoid the
consequences; the best we can hope to do is reduce the impact and distribute
the pain equitably (e.g., see Union of Concerned Scientists, 2009). Only by
acting quickly and decisively can we minimize the projected global
catastrophes including (but not limited to) economic meltdowns, food and
water shortages, heat-related health problems, environmental refugees as
people are driven from their land by rising sea levels, and savagely
destructive storms. They warn that achieving success will require massive
changes in local, national, and global economic priorities and lifestyles. The
image of the future before us is so terrible that it seems any sane individual
would do everything possible to halt his or her actions that contribute to the
problems, and demand that businesses and governments do the same.
Despite the dire warnings and urgent calls for remedial action,
environmental damage and global warming continue to escalate. Instead of
taking action, we argue over whether the problems that threaten the very
survival of the human species—and innocent by-stander species, as well—are
our doing or whether the changes are simply naturally occurring cycles. We
© 2009, Dawn Drake

4. 4
argue over how to distribute the “rights” to continue doing damage so that
everyone can maintain—or in the case of developing countries, achieve—the
acquisitive, materialistic lifestyle that modern Western cultures embrace. We
argue, defend, and delay . . . and the changes we need to make are not made.
Most of us continue our lives as if we don’t hear the warnings. Businesses,
politicians, the media, and sometimes our friends, assure us that technology
will find an answer, so we should support the economy by continuing our
current expansionist, consumption-driven lifestyles and sleep easy at night.
All the while, we see the evidence in the shifting and increasingly severe
weather patterns that presage times to come. Why don’t the messages work?
Why don’t we take greater action as individuals, as a nation, and as a world,
to try to change our apparent destination?
Fear and Reactance
A possible answer is that the fear-based messages that we hear with
increasing frequency and urgency are predictably counterproductive; rather
than inspiring the desired actions, they often thwart motivation to respond to
a threat. Research over the past several decades (Janis, I., and Feshbach, S.,
1953; Pelletier, L., and Sharp, E., 2008; Rogers, 1975; Ruiter, R., Abraham,
C., and Kok, G., 2001; Umeh, K., 2004) has shown that fear-based messages
are often ineffective in producing behavioral change, especially when the
recipient decides the threat is a) not personally relevant, b) unlikely to
happen, or c) unavoidable.
© 2009, Dawn Drake

5. 5
Messages about global warming clearly describe a serious threat that
is personally relevant because it will affect the lives of everyone on the
planet. Given the changing weather patterns and intensifying storms, the
majority of the global population seems to accept that global warming is
already happening and will continue to intensify. These factors seem to favor
the likelihood of behavioral changes. It is the final consideration that may
inhibit action: is the problem unavoidable? By presenting “challenges
perceived to be beyond the reach of the individuals” (Pelletier & Sharp, 2008,
p. 211), the fear-based messages may create a sense of futility for many
people that undermines their motivation to change. Instead, the sense of
futility could produce a fear-avoidance response that results in the individual
ignoring the message, or even denying the reality of global warming.
Another explanation may be found in reactance theory. Researchers Y.
Zhang and R. Buda (1999) explain,
Reactance theory holds that when individuals perceive their freedom to
engage or not engage in some behavior as threatened or eliminated,
they may experience reactance—a state of motivational arousal that
leads them to attempt to restore their threatened or lost freedom. The
assumption is that people want to feel free to adopt particular
positions on issues or not to adopt any position at all. Under some
circumstances, persuasive messages that attempt to influence
recipients to adopt particular positions may threaten their attitudinal
freedom. Hence, when message recipients receive persuasive messages
that are construed as threats to their attitudinal freedom, they will
attempt to reassert their freedom by maintaining their initial opinion,
or, more provocatively, by changing their opinion in a direction
opposite the position advocated by the message. The latter effect is
often labeled 'the boomerang effect.” (p. 12)
© 2009, Dawn Drake

6. 6
So it seems that fear-arousing messages that project a future based on
unmoderated global warming and urge significant changes in lifestyles and
personal values may well be triggering both fear-avoidance denial of the
problem and a boomerang effect resistance to the proposed changes.
How, then, can individuals be effectively moved to take
proenvironmental action in the face of this threat that has already been
communicated, and for many, triggered resistance?
Decision-Making Stages
Luc Pelletier and Elizabeth Sharp (2008) investigated how persuasive
message design can affect proenvironmental behaviors. They found that
behavioral decision-making progresses through three stages: a detection
phase, a decision phase, and an implementation phase, and the kinds of
information and motivation that people respond to change as they move
through the stages.
In the detection phase, messages should draw attention to the specific
problem that is personally relevant. If we do not recognize a problem as
personally relevant, we pay little attention to the message. The most common
strategy for attracting attention is to use a fear-arousing message. As noted
previously, though, a communication that induces too much anxiety or is
perceived as threatening to attitudinal freedom can cause us to reject that
message. It is valuable to note, though, that in early studies of fear-arousing
messages, Janis and Feshbach (1953) found that low-fear arousing messages
© 2009, Dawn Drake

7. 7
generated “more resistance to subsequent counterpropaganda [emphasis
added] and . . . perhaps a greater degree of behavioral conformity to a set of
recommended practices” (p. 87). This is important because individuals who
are progressing through the decision-making stages will certainly encounter
counterpropaganda.
After we acknowledge a specific and personally relevant problem, we
progress to the decision stage. At this point, attention shifts from risk/danger
to finding solutions, which is an outcome/benefit-oriented process (Pelletier &
Sharp, 2008). If we cannot identify a viable solution—as may be the case
when faced with the scope of change needed to respond effectively to global
warming—we may abandon any serious attempt to respond to the challenge
at all. Clearly, at this point the strategy should be to provide a tenable source
of hope: something that encourages belief that our efforts can succeed.
Once we decide to pursue a solution, we are ready to move into the
implementation phase. This is the stage in which we take action. With action
comes experiencing the consequences of that action. If we perceive the
experience as positive, and thus self-reinforcing, there is a good chance that
we will repeat the behavior. If, on the other hand, we perceive the experience
as negative, we are less likely to repeat the behavior unless the motivation to
persist is strong and/or there is support that helps to offset the negative
aspect(s) of the experience. Pelletier & Sharp (2008) note,
Given that successfully initiating a change in behaviour may be
associated with people's confidence in their ability to execute the
© 2009, Dawn Drake

8. 8
behaviour, the primary challenge to continuing these initial efforts is
sustaining the behaviour in the face of people's experiences with the
new behaviour. (p. 213)
Thus, in the implementation phase, we need a clear strategy and well-
defined tactics; furthermore, we need a support system in place to provide
encouragement and assist in adjusting actions as needed.
Applying the Stages
Let’s apply what we know about behavioral decision-making to our
question: How can individuals be effectively moved to take proenvironmental
action in the face of the threat that has already been communicated, and for
many, triggered resistance?
Detection
The keys in the detection phase are identification of a problem and
recognition that it is personally relevant. It seems reasonable to assume that
very few people today are unaware that we are facing serious environmental
problems. Those who drop out in the detection phase either deny the problem,
possibly due to a fear-avoidance response, or do not consider the issue to be
personally relevant. The possibility that anyone would think the
environmental problems and global warming is not personally relevant is
difficult to grasp, unless considered in light of how disconnected from nature
we have become. Many people are so alienated from nature that they either
barely notice it or they actively avoid it. It’s surprising, really. Throughout
the millions of years that humans have lived on earth, our ancestors were
© 2009, Dawn Drake

9. 9
reliant on nature for their daily survival. They respected its power and even
honored it as “mother” (e.g., Mother Earth, Mother Nature). In less than 300
years, though, our lives have changed in dramatic ways that have cost most
of us that relationship and harmony.
The advent of machines in the 1700s sparked the Industrial
Revolution. Society began to shift from away from primarily agriculturally
based communities, in which people had a close relationship to the land, to
being increasingly centered around industry. The emphasis on behaviors and
attitudes that supported survival and gratification shifted from living in
harmony with nature to adjusting to living and working in cities. Citizens of
modern industrial countries typically live in environments, establish
priorities, and participate in activities that alienate them from the natural
world. Our homes, businesses, and the vehicles we travel in keep us dry and
comfortable by walling us off from the outside world and artificially heating
and cooling the air to maintain a stable temperature, dulling our awareness
of seasonal cycles. Shuttered or curtained windows, electric lights, and alarm
clocks allow us to sleep and awaken with no regard for the rising and setting
of the sun. We shop in grocery stores where food reveals little evidence of its
natural source. Our entertainment relies on electronic images and sounds,
delivered through televisions, radios, personal music players, computers,
video game players . . . all of which distract us and drown out the sights and
sounds and feel of nature. It seems only the very young run into the wind,
© 2009, Dawn Drake

10. 10
play in the dirt, and jump in puddles . . . if their parents aren’t too worried
about dirty clothes. Do children even climb trees any more, or roam through
forests and groves? Even campers who want to “get back to nature” often do it
with all of the comforts of home in their air-conditioned, appliance-filled,
plugged-in and tripped-out RVs.
John Mack (Staub and Green, 1992), a professor of psychiatry at
Harvard Medical School, had this to say about the attitude toward the earth
that is now prevalent in industrialized countries:
We regard it as a thing, a big thing, an object to be owned, mined,
fenced, guarded, stripped, built upon, dammed, ploughed, burned,
blasted, bulldozed, and melted to serve the material needs and desires
of the human species at the expense, if necessary, of all other species,
which we feel at liberty to kill, paralyze, or domesticate for our own
use. Among the many forms of egoism that have come to be the focus of
psychodynamically oriented psychologists in an age of self-criticism
about our narcissism, this form of species arrogance has received little
scrutiny. (p. 240)
Mack goes on to quote Vaclav Havel, the first President of the Czech
Republic (and last President of Czechoslovakia), addressing the U.S.
Congress in 1990:
Without a global revolution in the sphere of human consciousness,
nothing will change for the better in the sphere of our being as
humans, and the catastrophe toward which the world is headed—be it
ecological, social, demographic or a general breakdown in civilization—
will be unavoidable. (p. 241)
Can we change human consciousness to restore our connection so that
the environment is once again personally relevant to us?
© 2009, Dawn Drake

11. 11
Researchers Elizabeth Nisbet, John Zelenski, and Steven Murphy
(2009), of Carleton University, developed and tested a Nature Relatedness
Scale to evaluate individuals’ feeling of connection to nature in relation to
their environmental behaviors. Their research indicated that people who
have a strong relationship to nature spend more time outside in natural
environments, are more concerned about the environment, have stronger
opinions about ecological issues, and report more positive environmental
behavior. Nesbit et al. (2009) also noted research demonstrating that a
change in individual perceptions of the nature-human relationship can occur
in response to structured nature experiences such as wilderness trips and
outdoor adventure programs.
In another study, researchers E. Kals, D. Schumacher, and L. Montada
(1999) defined emotional affinity, or love, for nature so that they could
explore how it motivates proenvironmental behavior.
The term love of nature is most often found in and reflects a romantic
attitude that is used in many different contexts, such as poems, songs,
or product advertising. Feeling good, free, safe in nature, and feeling a
oneness with nature are further nuances conceived to be closely related
to love of nature . . . . (p. 182)
Kals et al. (1999) found two responses to nature that combine to
increase the likelihood of proenvironmental behaviors: “Interest [which]
motivates gathering knowledge to explain and understand phenomena,” and
“Emotional affinity [which motivates] contact and sensual experiences” (p.
© 2009, Dawn Drake

12. 12
182). Both interest and emotional affinity were facilitated by spending time
in nature, especially when the experience was shared with significant others.
The communication of feelings and the transference of positive social
emotions to the natural environment both may contribute to the
emergence of an emotional affinity. Security feelings mediated by
significant others may prevent negative associations. Curiosity and
cognitive interest may also be stimulated by the questions, hints, and
information communicated by significant others. (p. 182)
Based on their findings, Kals et al. (1999) recommended fostering
interest in, and emotional affinity for, nature by creating experiences that
stimulate discussions about ecological responsibility and ethics, and also by
promoting direct involvement with nature through activities that engage all
five senses. They emphasized that including significant others in these
pursuits could be expected to enhance the results of such efforts. Children,
especially, benefit from opportunities to bond with nature at an early age. In
Beyond the Pre/Trans Fallacy: The Validity of Pre-Egoic Spiritual
Experience, S. Taylor (2009) notes that young children’s awareness is similar
to indigenous people’s in that both experience the world in a very sensual
way, and while young children’s ego boundaries are still more permeable they
“perceive the world around them as alive [emphasis in original]” (p. 27).
This first step of connecting to nature is crucial. As Mack (Staub &
Green, 2008) says, “Only experiences that profoundly alter our view of nature
and reconnect us with the divinity in ourselves and in the environment can
empower people to commit themselves to the prodigious task before them” (p.
242).
© 2009, Dawn Drake

13. 13
Decision
When a loving relationship with nature develops, we become more
aware of the damage being done, thereby increasing our motivation to protect
it, not only for our own survival but also out of compassion for what we love.
Emerging from the detection phase with a problem that we recognize as
important to us, the next step is to decide whether to take action to respond
to the problem. At this point, consciously or unconsciously, we look at the
goal, assess whether it seems achievable, and evaluate the costs and benefits
of proposed solutions. This can include identifying the actions that will be
needed and considering the rationale to determine whether we believe they
will solve or alleviate the problem (Pelletier & Sharp, 2008).
It is in this stage that heart and mind meet, and resolve can be
strengthened or weakened. Information is obtained and processed during the
decision stage, and now that we are emotionally involved, we think more
deeply about the issues. Interestingly, market researchers Maheswaran and
Meyers-Levy (1990) found that while simpler messages are more persuasive
when framed positively, complex messages may be more persuasive when
framed negatively. Thus, information-rich warnings about global warming
have more influence at this stage, but in being persuaded of the danger, we
might also be more pessimistic and therefore more easily pushed back into a
fear-avoidance response. Our understanding of the problem and negatively-
framed messages that we hear now may confound our desire to help as we
© 2009, Dawn Drake

14. 14
take in the enormity, complexity, and advanced stage of environmental
damage and global warming. Some will turn away, despairing of being able to
achieve the desired change: Perhaps the necessary actions or changes seem
too challenging, require unwanted lifestyle changes, or may have unpleasant
consequences.
A visionary charismatic leader can inspire and “fire up” someone who
has reached the decision stage. A recent multi-cultural study (Hwang, K.,
Khatri, N., and Srinivas, E., 2005) evaluated visionary and charismatic
characteristics in leaders, determining that although the qualities are often
found together in highly effective leaders, they are distinct qualities with
unique characteristics. Their research indicated that effective visionary
leaders provide clarity and direction to their followers using a cognitive
approach that presents the vision with extensive data that is interpreted and
framed in ways that are personally meaningful to their followers.
Charismatic leaders, on the other hand, appeal to the heart. They have
strong social and persuasive skills, and attract a broad demographic
audience. More importantly, they have “deeper internal qualities such as
attentiveness to followers' expressed and implied needs, ability to frame
issues so as to align different needs, and providing [sic] followers with the
desired assurance and security to forge ahead” (p. 962).
Martin Luther King is an obvious example of a leader who was both
visionary and charismatic. He galvanized Americans and sparked social
© 2009, Dawn Drake

15. 15
change in the face of overwhelming resistance: proof of the power and
potential of focused actions fired by passionate commitment to a goal. Sadly,
to date, no leader who is both visionary and charismatic has emerged to bring
focus and passion to solving the environmental crisis. Finding such a leader
will be all the more difficult because this problem must be addressed at a
global level. Could a single individual lead citizens from all countries to
cooperate in restoring balance to our environment, or must several
charismatic visionaries join together to lead the world in a common effort?
Either way, it’s a very tall order.
Implementation
Leaders define the vision that gives direction and motivates, but the
goals for massive social change are achieved through the efforts of committed,
action-oriented followers. The vision must be grounded into a sound strategy
that is implemented with effective action. Plans must be developed,
communicated, and acted upon; workers must be recruited, trained, and
supported; results must be measured, evaluated, and disseminated in an
ongoing cycle of strategizing, planning, and acting.
As the strategists, planners, and people working to carry out the plans
move forward, it is paramount that they continue to focus on fostering
nature-human connections and advancing their vision of the future, not their
fears. Each individual who reaches the implementation phase contributes to
the next round in the cycle that, if successful, could build enough momentum
© 2009, Dawn Drake

16. 16
to save the world. There is a popular metaphysical maxim that states,
“Energy flows where attention goes,” and another that states, “What you
resist persists.” Energies need to stay focused on flowing toward the vision,
not resisting the fear.
Conclusion
We are facing an environmental crisis that threatens—at the very
least—current lifestyles around the globe, and possibly even the survival of
many species on earth, including our own. This is not a prospect for some far-
distant future generation: it is one that we and our children are already
experiencing. Understandably, the harbingers of this change are sending
alarming messages to rouse the world into immediate action to try to stop, or
at least slow and minimize, the damage. However, the current efforts, which
seem to come from a variety of well-intentioned but uncoordinated sources,
have little beneficial impact.
Instead of investing so much energy into spreading a vision of
environmental disaster, we need to direct our energies into manifesting a
new vision of a healthy, balanced environment. We need to get out of the
boxes that we live in and walk outside . . . wherever we are . . . and develop a
relationship that inspires a deep and profound commitment to protecting all
of nature: a loving relationship that will inspire and prod us to make
necessary choices and take necessary actions on a global scale to change our
© 2009, Dawn Drake

17. 17
environmental course. Striving from that place in our hearts, working
together, we could bring a future we love into being.
© 2009, Dawn Drake

18. 18
References
Hwang, A., Khatri, N., & Srinivas, E. (2005). Organizational charisma and
vision across three countries. Management Decision, 43(7/8), 960-974.
doi:10.1108/00251740510609965
Janis, I., & Feshbach, S. (1953). Effects of fear-arousing communications. The
Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 48(1), 78-92.
doi:10.1037/h0060732
Kals, E., Schumacher, D., & Montada, L. (1999). Emotional affinity toward
nature as a motivational basis to protect nature. Environment and
Behavior, 31, 178-202. doi:10.1177/00139169921972056
Mack, J. (1992). Inventing a psychology of our relationship to the earth. In S.
Staub & P. Green (Eds.), Psychology and social responsibility: Facing
global challenges (237-247). New York: New York University Press.
Maheswaran, D., & Meyers-Levy, J. (1990). The influence of message framing
and issue involvement. Journal of Marketing Research, 27, 361-367.
Retrieved from
http://csaweb113v.csa.com.ezproxy.itp.edu:2048/ids70/view_record.php
?id=2&recnum=0&log=from_res&SID=7ho3tspj8a780dl6ffi9bmr557&
mark_id=search%3A2%3A0%2C0%2C1
Nisbet, E., Zelenski, J., & Murphy, S. (2009). The nature relatedness scale:
Linking individuals' connection with nature to environmental concern
and behavior. Environment and Behavior, 41(5), 715-740.
doi:10.1177/0013916508318748
Pelletier, L., & Sharp, E. (2008). Persuasive communication and
proenvironmental behaviours: How message tailoring and message
framing can improve the integration of behaviours through self-
determined motivation. Canadian Psychology, 49(3), 210-217.
doi:10.1037/a0012755
Rogers, R. W. (1975). A protection motivation theory of fear appeals and
attitude change. The Journal of Psychology, 91, 93-114. Retrieved from
http://csaweb113v.csa.com.ezproxy.itp.edu:2048/ids70/view_record.php
?id=4&recnum=0&log=from_res&SID=7ho3tspj8a780dl6ffi9bmr557&
mark_id=search%3A4%3A6%2C0%2C1
© 2009, Dawn Drake

19. 19
Ruiter, R., Abraham, C., & Kok, G. (2001). Scary warnings and rational
precautions: A review of the psychology of fear appeals. Psychology and
Health, 16, 613-630. doi:10.1080/08870440108405863
Taylor, S. (2009). Beyond the pre/trans fallacy: The validity of pre-egoic
spiritual experience. The Journal of Transpersonal Psychology, 41(1),
22-43. Retrieved from
http://www.atpweb.org.ezproxy.itp.edu:2048/jtparchive/momain.asp?ci
d=1781
Umeh, K. (2004). Cognitive appraisals, maladaptive coping, and past
behaviour in protection motivation. Psychology and Health, 19(6), 719-
735. doi:10.1080/0887044042000196692
Union of Concerned Scientists. (2009). Climate change in the United States:
The prohibitive costs of inaction. Retrieved October 12, 2009 from
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/impacts/cl
imate-costs-of-inaction.html
Zhang, Y., & Buda, R. (1999). Moderating effects of need for cognition on
responses to positively versus negatively framed advertising messages.
Journal of Advertising, 28(2), 1-15. Retrieved from
http://proquest.umi.com.ezproxy.itp.edu:2048/pqdweb?did=45065913&s
id=4&Fmt=4&clientId=45836&RQT=309&VName=PQD
© 2009, Dawn Drake