Framing the Story

John Stuart Mill, an English philosopher, said “Every great movement must experience three stages: ridicule, discussion and adoption”.  Pelletier and Sharp propose successful behavior change begins with tailoring messages targeting three behavior change stages: detection, decision and implementation (Pelletier and Sharp, 2008). In either case, the message is comparable, but the words used in framing the concepts imply different intentions and outcomes.  I find myself reflecting on the crucial framing of words to provide information during the environmental education programs I facilitate. 

Two concepts “struck me” from lectures and readings:  how we, as environmental educators, frame our messages and how we tell the story.

During a recent public education program which focused on “Backyard Sugaring”, I was explaining to a group of children about why it’s “kinda cool” to test the sugar content in a bucket of sap drawn from a Maple tree.  The children quickly became engrossed in watching a hydrometer bob up and down in the sap.  They eagerly determined the sap contained 2% sugar because that’s where the hydrometer line hit the top of the sap. 

I took the “experiment” one step further and asked “Now, how many gallons of sap are needed to make one gallon of syrup?”  Everyone looked at each other as if that person had been given the magical formula. 

I explained “We use the rule of 86…if we had 86 gallons of sap with a 2% sugar content, we divide 86 by 2 and what do we get?”  The children were silent as they calculated the answer in their heads.

“43!” the children eagerly exclaimed in unison. 

I asked, “What would happen if we double the sugar content?”  This appeared to present some confusion. 

I re-framed the question, “How many gallons of sap would we need to make one gallon of syrup if we had 4% sugar in the sap?”  Eventually, everyone came to consensus on 21.5 gallons.   

“Ohmygosh,” exclaimed one of the girls. “I didn’t know there was so much math involved-I’d never be able to make syrup!”  

This critical juncture provided me invaluable insight on how to understand my audience and the importance of recognizing different learning styles.  I needed to quickly find a way to minimize the negative, “too confusing/too overwhelming” emotion becoming associated with the process. 

Again, I tailored my reply, “Math isn’t necessarily the focus of making maple syrup.  The math might be important to commercial maple syrup producers but what’s really important today is to understand the general process of making syrup.  But, syrup is more than just a topping on pancakes.” 

I told her stories of all the “cool things” experienced during the sugaring process.  Using imagery of seeing raccoons emerge from their winter hide-away and spring flowers “wake up from their winter nap” was fundamental in shaping the mystery and “interestingness” of Nature.  We continued to talk about what it means to care for the Sugarbush so the trees (and environment) stay healthy and we can continue to work with them for many years to come.  Conceptually, I tailored the true message about the benefits of being in Nature; shifting her focus from the scary math she was connecting to the environmental subject in a similar way suggested by Pelletier and Sharp (Pelletier and Sharp, 2008).

I would posit cultivating pro-environmental behaviors at the developmental life phase of an individual. Starting at this point might prevent the need for some of the adult behavior change models and interventions we’ve studied.  Dr. DeYoung mentioned children’s innate curiosity.  Childhood is akin to detection; children are always exploring the environment around them.  This would be the most opportune time to develop pro-environmental behaviors; while children are creating cognitive maps. None of the variant categories introduced in lecture included children.  Why?  Perhaps because there’s no behavior to change….this is the population whose behaviors are being developed and shaped.

However, understanding life stages, realizing your audience may be comprised of assorted stages, and adapting how messages are delivered (framed) are vital to the success of environmental educational process.  Understandably, categorizing variant populations (post-childhood) in order to relate to them for behavior change is important.  Respectfully, I feel the fundamental way in which we, as “experts”, frame our assessment of the population (the assorted variants), may need to be re-evaluated and re-framed.  In class we discussed how environmental experts have fallen short of relating to people because of an over scholarly or academic approach.  I concur it’s important to know your audience, but I ask, would you be motivated to change your behavior if you knew you were judged and labeled as a laggard?

De Young, R. & M. C. Monroe. 1996. Some fundamentals of engaging stories. Environmental Education Research, 2: 171-187.

Herremans, I. M., Herschovis, M.S. & Bertels.  2009.  Leaders and Laggards: The Influence of Competing Logics on Corporate Environmental Action.  S. J Bus Ethics. ppg. 89-449. doi: 10.1007/s10551-008-0010-z

Pelletier, L. G. & E. Sharp. 2008.  Persuasive communication and proenvironmental behaviours: How message tailoring and message framing can improve the integration of  self-determined motivation. Canadian Psychology. ppg. 49(2): 210-217.