“The world makes much less sense than you think. The coherence comes mostly from the way your mind works.” - Daniel Kahneman, Thinking, Fast and Slow
How we see the world is influenced more by our personal experiences than by objective reality. This means that the way the world looks to me might be completely different than the way it looks to you.
So, how does this apply to behavior change?
Well, understanding the various factors that shift a person’s mind and shape the way the world makes sense in their head is the first step to understanding how to design a solution that actually works.
One of the biggest struggles conservationists face when trying to inspire behavior change is understanding that no one will think the same way you think.
So, let’s look into some of the cognitive factors that affect the way people think and prevent action.
Cognitive Biases
Throughout human history, our brains have been rewired to favor easier, less effortful actions, including how we think and make split-second decisions.
These rapid judgments and mental shortcuts are called heuristics. And while using heuristics can save us tons of time and energy when analyzing things in our everyday lives, they can also lead to inaccurate conclusions.
We call these cognitive biases.
And unfortunately, these biases pose major hurdles to environmental conservation action.
So, let’s explore a few.
Availability Bias
Availability bias occurs when we overestimate the likelihood of events that are easy to recall or come to mind.
For example, there was a recent news report of an open-water swimmer who was attacked by a shark a couple of miles up the coast from where I live.
And while statistically speaking, there are more deaths per year from vending machine accidents than shark attacks, people will still warn me not to swim in the ocean for fear of being eaten.
The conservation challenge that might arise from this particular example is increased resistance toward the protection of sharks despite countless data points that highlight the inaccuracy of the way sharks are thought to behave.
Cognitive Dissonance
Cognitive dissonance results from when we experience discomfort when our actions or beliefs conflict with our values or self-image.
Unfortunately, more often than not, whenever we experience cognitive dissonance, we will respond by mentally justifying our actions rather than changing those actions to align with our initial beliefs.
In the real world, this might look like feeling uncomfortable about using single-use plastics as an advocate for environmental protection but justifying that behavior by saying the plastic was already produced anyway.
As we talked about in the post on the BEHAVIORAL Building Blocks to behavior change, identity can be a powerful driver of change.
However, if we change our beliefs to align with our unproductive actions as in the example above, the ability to use identity as a lever for change begins to weaken.
Confirmation Bias
When we seek out information that confirms our existing beliefs and ignore evidence that contradicts them, we are following the confirmation bias.
This is the whole reason why flat-earthers exist. Instead of trying to find studies and evidence that point to the truth, they only search out information that will align with what they already believe (that the earth is flat), thus confirming their stance as a flat-earther.
These behaviors many times lead to the rapid spread of disinformation which is often a major hurdle conservation campaigns face.
Present Bias
We tend to value immediate rewards over future benefits. This phenomenon, also known as hyperbolic discounting, is one of the major themes throughout the book, Thinking, Fast and Slow, quoted above.
Throughout history, humans have been rewarded for behaving in ways that produce immediate results and benefits.
Kill the lion today, save your family today. Hunt the deer today, and feed your family today.
Finite thinking saved us 2000+ years ago. But in the modern world, that kind of thinking no longer works.
If every fisherman on the planet fished in a way that would benefit them in the short term, there would not be enough fish left for the world in 20-50 years.
Loss Aversion
The loss aversion bias suggests that we are more sensitive to losses than gains.
This has huge implications in the world of conservation.
Every meaningful change requires a trade-off, a sacrifice of something for something else. Theoretically, with environmental conservation, all we have to do is sacrifice some time, money, comfort, and effort for the well-being of the planet for future generations.
But the idea of sacrificing anything is enough of a roadblock to prevent action.
And since most of the results of effective conservation usually aren’t seen for decades, it makes the “losses” all more pronounced and the “gains” even less significant.
Risk Aversion
We prefer certainty over uncertainty and are often willing to accept a smaller reward to avoid a potential loss.
Sounds pretty similar to loss aversion. Do you see a pattern?
Here’s an example: When given a choice, more often than not, people will choose a guaranteed $100 over a 50/50 chance of winning $200 or nothing. The fear of “losing” the $100 (even though you technically can’t lose something you never had) overpowers any desire to make double that.
Humans don’t like losing. Or even the idea of losing.
And this is one of the reasons why understanding the psychology behind the action or inaction that we take is a crucial first step to behavior change.
If we can identify the biggest mental roadblocks people face when making decisions then finding solutions becomes that much easier.
Scarcity Bias
The scarcity bias is the perception of things as more valuable when they are scarce or limited.
An unfortunate example of this bias playing out in the world today is in the Sea of Cortez. The totoaba is an endangered fish native to the Sea of Cortez, Mexico.
Demand for its swim bladder in China has driven a surge in totoaba fishing.
But as the totoaba becomes an overfished species, the diminishing supply increases the demand. And the financial incentives that arise with that increasing demand continue to put more and more pressure on the health of those fish populations.
In other words, the scarcity of the totoaba in the Sea of Cortez creates a sense of urgency and desire among potential buyers, making it even more valuable in the eyes of the consumers, even at the expense of the species’ survival.
Sunk-cost Bias
One of the most dangerous biases out of the list I compiled here today is the sunk-cost bias. This bias happens when we continue to invest in a losing course of action because of past investments.
For example, you may continue to invest time and money in a failing project because you've already invested so much. Or maybe, more relatably, you may stay in an unproductive relationship because you’ve already been dating for 4 or 5 years and it’s too late to break up now.
This reluctance to change because “I’ve been doing [chose your action] for so long” is a dangerous place to be. This kind of thinking allows obviously harmful behaviors to persist until they become so habitual and rooted in a culture that it can be almost impossible to eradicate without uprooting everything.
This is why sunk-cost bias is so challenging.
It takes incredible humility and vulnerability to admit you’ve messed up, and it’s time to make a change. Unfortunately, that kind of humility is hard to come by in our world today.
Shifting Baseline Syndrome
This final bias, probably the most conservation-specific, is the phenomenon where people gradually become accustomed to a degraded environment over time, leading to lowered expectations and reduced awareness of environmental change.
For example, before European colonization, herds of American bison numbered in the millions. Now tourists go to Yellowstone, see a few bison and think that all is well. What they don’t realize is that the current population of wild American bison is only 2 percent of what it used to be.
This mental shift can hinder conservation efforts because people may not recognize the severity of environmental degradation or the need for urgent action.
How the Shifting Baseline Syndrome is Affecting Conservation
Some things in life change so gradually that it is almost impossible to notice and only in hindsight can you see how much it has shifted.
Think about how the sun shifts its position in the sky from summer to winter, and back to summer. From the first day of summer to the 6th day of summer, the sun probably looks the exact same in the sky.
But come winter, the sun is noticeably lower in the sky.
The same is true with how we think about much of nature. When changes to temperature or biodiversity or population size shift imperceptibly year over year, it is hard to notice that any changes are happening at all.
This is why the shifting baseline syndrome is such a powerful syndrome. Until today’s generation, most of the population changes in wildlife species were only noticeable across multiple generations.
Say there were hundreds of sea turtles off the coast of Padre Island when my grandparents were growing up but only 20 or so when I was growing up. Unless I explicitly asked my grandparents about the abundance of sea turtles in their youth, I would have no way of knowing that 20 sea turtles were anything but normal.
Growing up, my father would often say to me “I can’t convince you that you are wrong. Only you can do that.”
And unfortunately, I think that phrase stands true today. The reason why the shifting baseline syndrome is such a roadblock to conservation efforts is that if I believe that 20 sea turtles are a healthy population size, it will be hard to convince me otherwise.
Examples in the real world include:
Salmon in the Pacific Northwest Colombia River.
The number of salmon today is 2x what it was in the 1930s. While this sounds like a success story, the population size in the 1930s was only 10% of what it once was in the 1800s
American bison populations
The American bison population has increased from fewer than 500 to over 15,000 individuals. However, bison populations used to number in the millions.
California kelp beds
While diving in the kelp forests of California is still an incredible experience the loss of biodiversity in that habitat is often overlooked because the kelp beds are still exhilarating to dive in.
It's like watching a slow-motion disaster unfold without noticing the decline.
But this is where communications comes into play.
Taking what we know about the way people think, communications efforts can convey messages that counter the shifting baseline syndrome by overwhelming misconceptions about population sizes, biodiversity loss, and other issues with the truth.
And while education is not a fool-proof method for combating shifting baseline, it is an effective way to help people see how their perception of environmental health is warped.
In Conclusion
Our perceptions are often shaped by cognitive biases, which can hinder our ability to make rational decisions and take effective action.
Understanding these biases is crucial for environmental conservation. By recognizing the limitations of our thinking, we can work to overcome them and make more informed choices.
Check out the Communications Pillar to learn more about how this understanding of the psychology of behavior change can be leveraged to inspire action.
Comments