Recently, I’ve been thinking about the idea of goal setting
and its application towards encouraging more environment-friendly behaviors. When
setting a goal, typically you have a desired outcome in mind (i.e. learning a
new skill, saving money for a vacation, getting in better shape, etc.) and are
in some way “committed” to achieving that goal. However, in between creating that
goal and actually achieving it, there can be significant roadblocks, one of
which is that the goal seems too vague, abstract, and daunting, and you may not
know where to start. Something that usually helps is to create several smaller,
more concrete goals that you can accomplish in the short-term. For instance, if
you have a goal of writing a novel, it may be easier to have smaller goals of
writing a certain number of pages or chapters per week, which is a more specific
and concrete goal that is limited in time. Because the conditions of the
short-term goals are clearer, it is often easier to visualize how you can get
there, and thus, make it more likely you will take the steps needed to reach
the goal.
In a similar manner, having shorter-term goals may help
promote pro-environmental behavior change. Some environmental messages, such as
recycling more, driving less, buying local food, and conserving water may seem vague
and/or too much of a lifestyle change for someone who isn’t already engaged in
those behaviors. Would encouraging more short-term and time-sensitive goals
help in this regard? For example, saying “take the bus or bike to school/work
two times next week” and “use 20% less water by shortening shower time” can
provide someone who is new to these behaviors with a concrete, short-term goal
in a limited time-frame. This can help to lessen the “barrier to entry” effect that
may occur when presented with a longer-term, more abstract behavior goal.
Do you feel we use short-term goal objectives enough when
trying to change environmental behavior? And what are some other ways we can
make larger environmental goals more accessible?
Jerry I think you bring up a really good point. Having short-term goals in my opinion can be very effective. Based upon the commitment lecture and readings, getting someone to make an easy, short-term commitment facilitates creating a long-term, more difficult commitment, using the foot in the door teasing effect. I feel that we do use short-term goals enough when trying to change environmental behavior. When you look at the studies we have read this semester, the majority of the programs were focused of making incremental small changes. The problem with the current method is the framing of the issue around these environmental behaviors. Because the issues that face us, e.g.., climate change, GHG emission, water pollution, are large issue, people may feel that they are not making a substantial impact when only participating in short-term minor goals. This sense of ineffectiveness can deter people from having or committing to short-term goals and thus long-term goals. The issue here, in my opinion, is the framing of the environmental issue. These issues, although large, need to be framed in a way that allows individuals to see how the short-term impacts can aggregately combine to create a substantial impact. Once we reframe these issues, the effectiveness of short-term as well as long-term goals can be improved.
ReplyDeleteGood points, Katelyn. Perhaps what people lack in the situation you're describing is a sort of broad-scale effectiveness knowledge. They may understand how making small changes in behavior results in monthly energy savings, but lack a larger-scale effectiveness knowledge about how these small changes in behavior impact the larger picture of climate change. So maybe the problem isn't entirely with the framing of climate change (although I agree, it's too large of a problem for people to easily grasp). Perhaps another issue we might consider is the relationship between individual behaviors and large scale outcomes. How can we effectively tap into this relationship in order to communicate the global impacts of multiple individual behaviors?
DeleteI do wonder how this compares to what Ray was saying today about how if the behavior is too easy, people won't do it at all, or at least it won't last in the long run. I wonder under which conditions it is better to shoot for bigger, more difficult goals/behavior changes vs. those that are easier? What if it isn't actually better to set all these smaller goals? I wonder if it is also an issue of particularism? Perhaps some people do better with hefty, long-term planning, while that might be anxiety-producing or less effective for other people that like to focus more on the present? I think Katelyn's point about setting smaller goals within the context of a bigger goal helps to get the best of both worlds.
ReplyDelete