Managing Dilemmas: Challenging the Status Quo

1. Managing Dilemmas:Challenging the Status Quo Patricia Hardré H. Michael Crowson Department of Educational Psychology

2. Dilemma for the Semester • In the context of social, economic, educational, public policy what is the role of technology in achieving a sustainable net-zero energy / eco footprint in the built environment?

3. Goals for Today http://www.mankindmedia.com/pages/services/web-programming/ Introduce key ideas & principles from education that inform change & innovation. Introduce frameworks & principles of environmental psychology. Support thinking about how they apply to initiatives like NZEF Equip you to select from and use these ideas Necessarily treat them generally & succinctly Challenge: look beyond surface details & see keys to engage & integrate.

4. Structure and Materials • Structure: • Present Information & Extract Principles • Consider Elements of Dilemmas • Thought Questions—jot responses and save for Discussion (in 2 weeks) • Materials: • You have PowerPoint available (learn.ou site) • After this session, you will have access to two readings. • Read those by Discussion (in 2 weeks)

5. Thought Question Consider a social change effort recently occurred in some culture, US or elsewhere. What change had to occur in each of the following to make it successful?: Knowledge/understanding Feeling/believing Initiating, acting, behaving Write your answer on your own paper/media http://www.leadershipstudy.net/ir-theoretical-model.html

6. Frameworks for Change • What makes us change? (motivation & action) • People, place and environment (psychology of the environment) • How do we achieve & sustain cultural change? (social change & the status quo) • Should we be satisfied with current strategies? • If not, what are better, more global, more systemic, more effective strategies?

7. Psychology of those who interact with, live or work in, built spaces? Beliefs and motives for pro-environmental behavior (what do you do for those who are unmotivated?). Requirements for instructing users on design features? Design environments. Some environments may require greater “user” action than others. Psychology of users impacts balance of technological solutions and user-initiated solutions Environmental knowledge and worldviews. Motivation to design? Perceived value, need importance of designing NZEF spaces? Psychology of users of spaces to inform design during planning. Psychology of designers of built spaces (knowledge, motives, decision-making processes, incentives from planners) Psychology of builders of spaces and willingness to invest in NZEF spaces. (Worldviews, perceptions, motives, incentives)

8. Education of Creators and Users • What educational efforts & changes support creators of NZEF built spaces? • To MAKE them successfully • What educational efforts & changes support users of NZEF built spaces? • To USE them effectively • Either one without the other will not achieve NZEF success

9. Education, Motivation, and Change • What is necessary for education to produce change in: • Individuals & groups • Complex local systems & entrenched perspectives • Status quo—behaviors of a whole society • Requires change in: • Information—what we “know” to be “true” • Perspective & Scope shift—host of complex perceptions • Reasoned action—systemic, across levels of education • Need + Passion/Belief + CreativityInnovation

10. Philosophies & Epistemologies of Education Traditionalist/Behaviorist (old school) Cognitivist/Constructivist (new school) Premise that people are naturally inquisitive, constructive beings who seek productive balance Education should support them—inform, equip, guide, validate, encourage Can produce independence, self-determination, creativity, risk-taking, innovation • Premise that people tend toward laziness inaction, wrong /unacceptable action • Education must push & change them—stimulate, direct, activate, contro., • Can produce uniformity, compliance, replication & stability of current state

11. Innovation Beyond just thinking outside of it, Let’s challenge the “box” itself Image only from: http://2ols.com/item_18837_462730439-13-%C2%AB-Great-Thinker-Sculpture.htm • Innovative thinking: Thinking beyond usual assumptions, considering potentials beyond the “accepted” or “normal” • Innovative production: Creative solution development, generating a completely new approach, never done before • Produces new & different “knowns” • Adopts broad, systemic perspective • Produces capacity for true & lasting change • Initiative like NZEF requires innovation

12. Bloom’s Updated Taxonomy Anderson & Krathwohl et al. (2000) • Innovation NZEF—and Beyond? • Zero consumption or Beyond, to contribution of power? • Reducing Carbon Footprint, or Beyond, to ideas to reduce others’? • Production beyond need—generating profound resources?

13. Information and Illustration • Science & the Nature of “Known” • Even the “scientists” and “experts” disagree (we have all seen those debates) • We want to believe science is made of absolutes & non-negotiables • But even scientific “truth” depends on whose work we read or hear (& believe) • What we “know” and believe is: • Situated in geographic, philosophical & social contexts • Wrapped in layers of philosophy & epistemology • Influenced by authority figures • Wrapped in layers of trust, credibility & endorsement (Bandura, 1997, 2001)

14. Principles • Knowing & Understanding are complex, non-linear, interactive & integrative • “Education” not just cognitive, but social & philosophical influences—sometimes overwhelm reason • Situated in place, group norms, authority & credibility • Perceptions color everything

15. Elements of Dilemmas • Support & Validation is Productive, but which ideas & outcomes to validate? • Training & Control are necessary to prevent chaos, but where is the line--& who decides? • Global/General “Knowns”, Personal/Local “Knowns” • Credibility counts—it can support or cripple

16. Thought Question • At what point in the educational system would an intervention be best implemented?: • Early (K-12) foundational, high potential impact, but delayed effects • Later (post-secondary) less foundational, more need to change, but more proximate change • Still later? (professions) more contextualized, may be supportive or limiting, localized effects rather than global?

17. Motivation and Choice • Beyond “Knowing” & Believing • Motivation explains what we: • ACT on, • WORK for, • INVEST in http://www.images.com/image/43577/man-at-fork-in-the-road/ ?&results_per_page=1&detail=TRUE&page=84

18. Three Key Components • Know (Cognitive): • be aware of issue • know relevant facts • understand impact/issues • Want (Affective/Emotional/Motivational): • Goals • Value • Recognize costs & tradeoffs • Act (Behavioral): • Compelling reasons, Benefits/risks • Affect/emotion, Vestedness • Access • Efficacy & Success Expectations Environmental Awareness http://myawarenessribbon.blogspot.com/2009/02/environmental-awareness-ribbon.html

19. Key Constructs and Concepts • Self-Regulation: self-initiation, self-control, self-monitoring • Valuing & Costs: Personal, Social • Perceptions: Need, Risk, Impact Expectations: Success • Goals: • More of the same or something more? • To get or give? • Conserve or produce? • Achieve or avoid punishment? • Self-determination: competence, autonomy, relatedness • Competence—able to carry out/do • Autonomy—free to choose/act • Relatedness—respected, supported • People with these assets are more likely to innovate & create http://www.etransportal.com/careers.html

20. These fit in multiple theoretical frameworks Self-Determination Theory Theory of Planned Behavior Attitude Toward the Behavior Intention Behavior Subjective Norm Perceived Behavioral Control

21. These fit in multiple theoretical frameworks Personal Determinants • Reciprocal Determinism Situated Cognition Environmental Determinants Behavioral Determinants Social Cognition

22. Autonomy and Control in Action Redding, California Highly controlling policy on recycling & waste collection http://thinkshopblog.files.wordpress.com/2009/08/left-brain-right-brain.jpg http://www.enwis-us.com/files/images/bigstockphoto_Trash_Bins_2874021.jpg

23. Netflix’s Non-Policy Interview with netflix CEO edited from report on CNN.com/videos

24. Autonomy and Control in Action • Epistemic Assumptions/Assertions of Human Action? • They will tend toward bad/wrong/abuse/selfishness/irresponsibility • They will tend toward good/right/generosity/responsibility • Assumptions/Assertions of Characteristics • State vs. Trait • “state” is temporary/short-term, transient • “trait” is permanent/long term, part of identity • Malleable vs. Stable • “malleable” can be changed, invest in changing • “stable” less changeable, less likely to invest in changing • Rules, laws & educational policy driven by such assumptions

25. Value & Cost in Action To Do or Not to Do? Dilemma of Cost Conflicts When acting & not acting carry costs http://www.smashingmagazine.com/2010/02/17/group-interview-advice-for-students-and-new-designers/

26. Recycling – What’s the Cost?

27. Gulf Oil Spill Wait! What did he say? “Every morning over 50 spotter planes and helicopters take off to search for the oil… almost 6,000 vessels…”

28. Value and Costs in Action Eliminate Reduce Cost Bend, Oregon Initiates recycling, but recycling required rinsing out cans, jars, cartons. Value Value Innovation Raise Create

29. Principles & Dilemmas • Giving people autonomy supports creativity, risk-taking & innovation. • Though some will abuse freedom, most studies support the productivity outcome Dilemmas from Motivation & Choice • Autonomy & Control • Value & Conflict in Costs

30. Thought Question • How much should environmental initiatives (such as energy) be socially or governmentally controlled? • More control: gets it done, efficient, but externalized, can produce disgruntled & uncooperative attitudes, resentment, resistance, rebellion • Less control: less efficient, may take longer, but volunteers in autonomous action tend to embrace with enthusiasm, internalize

31. Psychology of the Environment "Let every individual and institution now think and act as a responsible trustee of Earth, seeking choices in ecology, economics and ethics that will provide a sustainable future, eliminate pollution, poverty and violence, awaken the wonder of life and foster peaceful progress in the human adventure." ~ John McConnell, founder of International Earth Day http://giftedperspective.typepad.com/

32. Psychological Antecedents of Pro-environmental Behavior: A Few Examples Psychological factors Behavior

33. Specific Knowledge and Beliefs • Knowledge and beliefs about environment and environmental issues. • Examples of specific types of knowledge that might be implicated in environmental attitudes and behaviors. • Unfortunately, many researchers agree that knowledge does not exert a strong influence on environmental behavior (see Kollmuss & Agyman, 2002). If this is the case, then what other factors are related to environmental behavior????

34. Identity and the environment • Identities are frameworks that help to organize information about a person. This information can be in the form of personal attributes, social roles and relationships, and can place people into social categories (Clayton & Meyer, 2009). • Identities are experienced internally as “self-concept”, which stems from our self-definitions, and externally as we are defined by others (Clayton & Meyer, 2009). • We all have a number of identities that we consult when formulating attitudes and behaviors.

35. Hierarchical Structure Model of Some Identities Identity (“who I am”) Place identities Social identities Personal identity Environmental identity University identity Neighborhood identity City identity Religious identity Political identity Activist identity Identification with nature Home identity Cultural identity Gender identity

36. Types of Identities Personal identity more or less reflects a person’s self-concept in regards to personal or unique characteristics (Twigger-Ross, Bonaiuto, & Breakwell, 2003). Place identity represents the degree to which an individual identifies with, or has connection to, a particular place (see Droseltis & Vignoles, 2010). Environmental identity refers to the “personal relevance of nature” and its implications for the self (Clayton and Meyers, 2009). Social identity represents “the individual’s knowledge that he belongs to certain social groups together with some emotional and value significance to him of this group membership’’ (Tajfel, 1972, p. 292).

37. Personal Values and the Environment • Values: Motivational goals or preferences aimed at particular end states or behaviors. • Vary in importance for individuals • Serve as “guiding principles” for people in their lives. • Organized by priorities (see DeGroot & Steg, 2008).

38. Personal Values and the Environment organiccosts.com • Three general orientations related to environment (DeGroot & Steg, 2008; Stern, 1993): • Egoistic value orientation – Focus on personal costs and benefits; Self-interest. • Social-altruistic value orientation – Focus on perceived costs and benefits to others. Welfare of others. • Biospheric value orientation – Decision to act pro-environmentally based on concerns for the ecosystem or biosphere energystar.gov

39. Resources: Take Back the Tap Drinking Fountain at Bizzell Memorial Library, OU 14,489 Plastic Bottles Eliminated!!!

40. Worldview Beliefs and the Environment • Worldview beliefs: These are more general beliefs that address what is real, knowable, and valuable, as well as what it means to be human. • Environmental worldview – refers to a person’s beliefs about humanity’s relationship with nature (Schultz et al., 2005). • Dunlap and colleagues (e.g., Dunlap & Van Liere, 1978) identified two distinct environmental representing opposing sets of concerns over the environment: • Dominant Social Paradigm (DSP) • New Environmental Paradigm (NEP)

41. Other beliefs related to environmentalism Beliefs about the possible outcomes associated with engaging in particular behaviors. (Outcome Expectancies) Belief that one has personal control over whether or not they engage in specific forms of environmental behaviors. (Perceived Control) Self efficacy, the belief that one is personally capable of carrying out an action (see Axelrod & Lehman, 1993). Belief that others engage in certain behaviors and beliefs that one is expected by others to engage in a particular behavior. (Normative Beliefs) Beliefs about the ease or convenience (or lack thereof) in carrying out pro-environmental behaviors.

42. Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB): Model of Intentional Behavior Attitude toward behavior (+ or -) Subjective norms (“Do others important to you want you to engage in the behavior?”) Intention to perform the behavior Engage in behavior Perceived control (“Do you have control over whether or not you perform the behavior?”

43. Components in model of TPB (see Staats, 2003) http://www.naturelab.co.uk/environmental-policy.html Subjective Norm: The extent to which a person believes that specific people or groups want him/her to engage in the behavior and the extent to which he/she is motivated to comply. Perceived Control: The extent to which a person believes he/she has adequate capabilities or opportunities to perform a behavior. • Attitude toward engaging in a given behavior (viewing the behavior either positively or negatively). • Attitude toward behavior stems from (a) the belief that the outcome of the behavior will yield a given outcome or consequence and (b) an evaluation (either favorable or unfavorable) of that outcome.

44. Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB) applied to curbside recycling in Norman Positive attitude towards recycling Intention to recycle by putting recyclables in container at curbside on trash pickup day Others (e.g., family members) appear to expect me to recycle; neighbors do it Place recyclables at curbside on trash pickup day I have the opportunity to recycle (containers are provided by city; city will pick up)

45. A slightly “speculative account” of how the earlier concepts might fit in with TPB 1. Values 2. Worldview beliefs 3. Personal identity 4. Knowledge 5. Identification with nature 6. Intrinsic motivation Positive attitude towards recycling Intention to recycle by putting recyclables in container at curbside on trash pickup day Others (e.g., family members) appear to expect me to recycle; neighbors do it 1. Identification with reference groups (social identities) 2. Pressure from authorities Place recyclables at curbside on trash pickup day I have the opportunity to recycle (containers are provided by city; city will pick up) 1. Perceived ease of behavior 2. Outcome expectancies 3. Environmental affordances

46. Psychology of those who interact with, live or work in, built spaces? Beliefs and motives for pro-environmental behavior (what do you do for those who are unmotivated?). Requirements for instructing users on design features? Design environments. Some environments may require greater “user” action than others. Psychology of users impacts balance of technological solutions and user-initiated solutions Environmental knowledge and worldviews. Motivation to design? Perceived value, need importance of designing NZEF spaces? Psychology of users of spaces to inform design during planning. Psychology of designers of built spaces (knowledge, motives, decision-making processes, incentives from planners) Psychology of builders of spaces and willingness to invest in NZEF spaces. (Worldviews, perceptions, motives, incentives)

47. Take Home Message • Identities—we all have them • Values & worldviews—inherited or chosen? • Systemic nature of the problem—everything is connected • Perceptions drive actions • Implications for NZEF • Creators • Users • Think into: • Theories, Principles, Dilemmas, Innovative Responses