Framing climate change solutions: get the numbers right Open Access

Effectively addressing climate change requires a drastic reduction in carbon (CO₂) emissions. The necessary emissions reductions are technologically feasible (Pacala and Socolow, 2004) however it will take more than just innovative technology. It will also require dramatic policy changes and significant behavior and lifestyle shifts, particularly for individuals in the industrialized world. Individual lifestyle changes are going to be especially important in the USA for, although China recently surpassed the USA as the world's highest carbon emitter (Vidal and Adam, 2007), Americans still have the largest per capita carbon footprint in the world (Rosenthal, 2008). Motivated by the urgent tone of the 2007 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report (IPCC, 2007), a number of groups have begun campaigns aimed at engaging Americans in the fight against global climate change. Their goal is to inspire individual Americans to both support the policy necessary to sharply reduce carbon emissions and to make lifestyle changes that lower personal carbon emissions. At least, one organization has made an explicit call for the US Congress to “Cut Carbon 80 percent by 2050” (Stepitup, 2007). However, it is unclear whether this message is having the intended effect. Similar to many other messages about global climate change coming from the scientific community, this call to action does not appear to be mobilizing a widespread public response. In fact, there is anecdotal evidence that people have a negative reaction to the message; they are overwhelmed by the enormity of 80 percent rather than inspired to make personal change (for an example discussion, Rynn, 2007).

Research in psychology sheds light on why this may be the case. Using the theoretical basis of goal setting theory (Locke and Latham, 1990, 2002, 2006), this research tested the idea that people do not respond positively to the message “Cut Carbon 80 percent by 2050” because the scale of the goal is too large. Many years of goal setting research establish that people are most motivated by challenging but realistic goals that are stated in concrete, specific terms. It is arguable that “Cut Carbon 80 percent by 2050” is perceived to have none of the characteristics of a motivating goal, but is instead perceived as overwhelming. Fortunately, other organizations have offered an alternative message with a goal similar in scope but with a different frame, namely “Cut Carbon 2 percent per year until the year 2050.” This research hypothesized that the goal “Cut Carbon 2 percent per year until the year 2050” is more acceptable and motivating than “Cut Carbon 80 percent by 2050.” After a brief review of the psychological literature on goal setting theory this paper describes an empirical test of these two similar but alternatively framed calls to action to the American public and American Government to cut carbon emissions.

Psychological research on goal setting, motivation and self‐efficacy offers several clues as to why the 80 percent by 2050 message might be met with ambivalence. In essence, “Cut Carbon 80 percent by 2050” is a goal statement; its purpose is to give Americans something to work towards. It is well established in the psychological literature that goals significantly influence human behavior. Goals can be extremely motivating: they direct attention, help maintain momentum, and guide towards successful strategies (Locke, 2001; Locke and Latham, 1990). However, research also shows that the most motivating goals have certain characteristics: first, they are specific, and second, they are challenging (Mento et al., 1987; Tubbs, 1986; Locke and Latham, 1990, 2002, 2006). Specific goals are those that are stated in concrete terms, for example “improve performance by 20 percent” (Bar‐Eli et al., 1997) or are stated behaviorally, such as “bike 20 miles per day.” These types of goal statements have been found to result in higher achievement than vague goal statements such as “do your best” (Klein et al., 1990; Locke and Latham, 2002). The influence of goal specificity has been shown not only in the classic context of workplace achievement, but also in contexts as diverse as sport (Bar‐Eli et al., 1997), and dieting (Strong and Huon, 1999). To be considered challenging, a goal must be relatively difficult but still realistically attainable. If a goal is too easy, then people are not motivated by it. Similarly, a goal that is clearly unrealistic and overly difficult causes people to give up and not even take the first steps toward achievement (Mento et al., 1987; Tubbs, 1986; Locke and Latham, 1990). Thus, the best goals, those that are specific, challenging, and realistic, result in the highest levels of motivation and achievement.

Is “80 percent by 2050” seen as specific, challenging, and realistically attainable? There are several reasons to argue that it is probably viewed as an impossibly hard goal. First, a key characteristic that makes a specific goal more effective is the ability to break the goal down into smaller, concrete sub‐goals (Lock and Latham, 1990, 2002). The 80 percent reduction by 2050 is not easy to break down into sensible sub‐goals as it has a single end‐point with no guidance or intuitive markers for individual or societal self‐regulation. It is also difficult to translate “80 percent” into concrete behaviors and policy that result in steep carbon reductions.

Second, people perceive enormous barriers to changing their lives to become less reliant on fossil fuels (McKenzie‐Mohr and Smith, 1999). The barriers that people face in reducing their own reliance on fossil fuels, and achieving a commensurate reduction in carbon emissions, probably lead to low self‐efficacy toward these types of changes. Self‐efficacy is the belief that one is able to perform the necessary behaviors to achieve a specific outcome (Bandura, 1997, 2006). According to Bandura, people have to believe they have the necessary knowledge, skills, and abilities to achieve challenging goals in order to put forth effort (Landy and Conte, 2004).

One consequence of presenting unattainable goals is that people tend to not accept the goal (Landy and Conte, 2004); they exert less effort or give up altogether (Locke and Latham, 1990). Thus, if people are unsure of their ability to change their habits and live a less carbon‐intensive lifestyle, an exceedingly challenging goal (cutting carbon emissions 80 percent) will seem overwhelming and is not likely to motivate them to reduce usage.

Finally, the perception that an 80 percent reduction in carbon emissions is impossibly hard may also stem from the fact that such carbon reductions are a society‐wide goal. Effective climate change mitigation will require cooperation at neighborhood, community, city, country, and international levels (Mitchell et al., 2000) and the call for global carbon reductions is a group level goal. Evidence from organizational theory suggests that, when setting a group goal to be carried out by individuals, everyday people are not apt to be able to deal with an extremely challenging goal on their own. Essentially, in order for people to change their individual actions enough to meet a challenging group‐level goal, they need unlimited resources and the freedom to make radical decisions. In other words, they have to have more power, control and resources than is typically allotted to or perceived by an individual (Thompson, 1998).

Scientists too often assume that a simple communication of the seriousness of the science is enough to galvanize people to take action (Nisbet and Mooney, 2007). However, if this were the case, argue Nisbet and Mooney, the increasing certainty and urgency of the global climate change data presented in documents such as the IPCC report (IPCC, 2007) should have resulted in immediate action by individuals worldwide. The 80 percent by 2050 message is clear, scientifically valid and easy to understand, but the public may still respond to it in a way that scientists and global warming activists do not anticipate. The message “Cut Carbon 80 percent by 2050” evokes a goal that people are not likely to endorse because it is difficult to break down into smaller amounts and time‐frames and it creates a sense of low self‐efficacy since there are so many real and perceived barriers to low‐carbon individual and societal lifestyles. Is it possible to reframe the “80 percent by 2050” message to overcome these problems and be more palatable to the American public?

Fairly small wording changes in otherwise equivalent texts can powerfully influence how people interpret and respond to a message. These framing effects occur when “logically equivalent (but not transparently equivalent) statements of a problem lead decision makers to choose different options” (Rabin, 1998; as cited in Druckman, 2001). Issue framing has long played a role in political communication (Gamson, 1992; Nelson et al., 1997). Framing is also a critical feature of environmental communication, in some cases to garner support for, in other cases to drum up opposition against, environmental protection measures. For instance, the Bush Administration's “Clear Skies Initiative,” sounds environmentally friendly and was touted as mandating a 70 percent decrease in air pollution from power plants over 15 years (The White House, 2002) but it was actually a weaker policy than the clean air act that it was meant to replace which had been in place since the Nixon Administration in the 1970s.

Does framing affect how people perceive a stated goal such as “80 percent by 2050?” There has been little research linking framing and goal setting (Lock and Latham, 2006), however, at least one study has demonstrated that the way a goal is framed can influence effort and achievement. The study compared goal attainment when the goal was framed in a way that emphasized the threat of the goal not being met versus when it was framed in a way that emphasized the challenge of meeting the goal (Drach‐Zahavy and Erez, 2002). The researchers determined that a frame that emphasized the challenge led to higher goal attainment than the frame that emphasized the threat of not meeting the goal. Extrapolating from these findings, it seems reasonable that the framing of a carbon reduction goal will also affect people's response to the goal.

As already described, there is, in fact, an alternatively framed message aimed at inspiring people to make personal carbon reductions and take political action to mitigate climate change. Organizers of Focus the Nation (n.d.) and Carl Pope of the Sierra Club (Shapley, 2007) are among the proponents of “The 2 percent Solution:” cutting carbon emissions 2 percent per year for the next 40 years. While this goal amounts to about the same carbon reductions as the 80 percent by 2050, it is framed differently in that the emphasis is on a gradual but immediate process of reduction in emissions rather than on the ultimate, very large, and in the distant future goal. The 2 percent per year solution seems to better follow the general principles of goal setting: clear, challenging but attainable, and broken down into sub‐goals. For this reason, it is expected that people reading about the 2 percent per year solution will be more willing to participate in the necessary actions to combat climate change than those who read about the 80 percent goal.

It is furthermore expected that people who are already committed to environmental efforts will be less influenced by the 2 percent per year and 80 percent frames. This hypothesis is based on previous work about the limitations of framing effects (Slothuus, 2008). In Sothuus' work, highly politically aware individuals were less affected by framing of a political message than were moderately politically aware individuals. In other words, people who are already aware of climate change details and who believe in its importance are also aware that the carbon reductions needed are large but essential and they are likely to engage no matter how the goal is framed.

A total of 166 people responded to questions about their environmentally related opinions. The research was conducted as part of a larger data collection effort during three concurrent, regional events in St Paul, Minnesota: the 2008 Living Green Expo (LGE; n=520), and two street festivals, Cinco de Mayo (CDM) (n=123) and Grand Old Day (GRD) (n=94). The LGE is a two‐day event each spring sponsored by the Minnesota pollution control agency. An estimated 25,000 people attended the Expo in 2008. True to the nature of Expos, the LGE is an opportunity to learn about processes and products from a variety of vendors (for‐profit, non‐profit and governmental bodies). CDM and GRD are two urban events that attract around 100,000 and 250,000 visitors, respectively.

At the LGE (n=208), more women (n=143; 69 percent) than men (n=64; 31 percent) were willing to complete a questionnaire. The age of respondents ranged from 16 to 79 (mode=31; median=42). The majority of respondents were Caucasian (n=169; 82 percent), with 3.4 percent Latino/Hispanic, 2.4 percent African American, 7.3 percent Asian, 1 percent Native American, and 2.9 percent of multi‐racial backgrounds (Table I). A total of 85 percent spoke English as their native language. Most respondents were Christian (50 percent, 31 percent non‐religious, 2.5 percent Jewish, 3.4 percent Buddhist, 1 percent Muslim, 1.5 percent Hindu). Regarding income, 23.5 percent fell between $50,000 and $74,999 per household, which was both median and mode (Table II for the income distribution of all participants). To put income into context, the median income for 2004‐2006 in Minnesota was $57,939 (US Census Bureau, 2006). This group was fairly well educated in that 51 percent had college degrees and an additional 24.5 percent had advanced degrees (Table III for education level for all participants). A total of 52 percent were parents.

Of the 93 people surveyed at the CDM festival, more women (n=56; 60 percent) than men (n=37; 40 percent) were willing to complete a questionnaire. The age of respondents ranged from 12 to 74 (mode=37; median=37). In contrast to LGE, a large percentage (29 percent) of CDM respondents were Latino/Hispanic. Caucasians were the majority (40 percent) with 9 percent African American, 3 percent Asian, 7 percent Native American, and 10 percent of multi‐racial backgrounds (Table I). English was the native language of 70 percent, while Spanish was 17 percent. Most respondents were Christian (70 percent, 15 percent non‐religious, 1 percent Jewish, 1 percent Buddhist, 1 percent Muslim). Regarding income, 49 percent of CDM respondents fell between $30,000 and $74,999 per household (median $30,000‐49,999) (Table II for the income distribution of all participants). A total of 31.5 percent had college degrees and 12.5 percent held advanced degrees (Table III for education level for all participants). A greater percentage of the CDM sample was parents, compared to the other two events, at 65 percent.

Of the 39 people surveyed at the GRD festival, more men (n=51; 55 percent) than women (n=42; 45 percent) were willing to complete a questionnaire. The age of respondents ranged from 14 to 76 (mode=34; median=37). Similar to LGE, the majority of GRD respondents were Caucasian (n=77; 82 percent), 11 percent Asian, 2 percent African American, 1 percent Native American, and 1 percent of multi‐racial backgrounds (Table I). English was the native language of 84 percent (all other languages fell under 2 percent). Many respondents were Christian (52 percent, 29 percent non‐religious, 2 percent Jewish, 2 percent Buddhist, 1 percent Muslim). Regarding income, 26.5 percent of GRD respondents fell between $50,000 and $74,999 per household (median and mode) (Table II for the income distribution of all participants). A total of 47.50 percent had college degrees and 27.5 percent held advanced degrees (Table III for education level for all participants). A total of 47 percent of the GRD respondents were parents.

The study tested participants' willingness “to be part of” two different proposed solutions to help prevent global climate change. The scenario presented in the survey involved a statement about global climate change and the melting ice caps, intensifying storms, and rising sea levels. The researchers varied the proposed solution to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. One solution asked for carbon emissions cuts of 80 percent by the year 2050, while the other solution asked for carbon emissions cuts of 2 percent every year until 2050. After reading either question, participants rated agreement with the statement I feel like I can be a part of the solution on a seven‐point Likert‐type scale ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree.

Multiple variations of the survey were distributed to participants. Only two versions of the survey were used for this study. Individuals were approached and invited to fill out a brief survey. Potential participants were informed that the survey would take approximately ten minutes and would ask them about their attitudes, knowledge and behavior regarding the environment. They were also told they would receive a prize package in exchange for their time. In some cases, potential participants approached researchers to ask what they were doing. After consenting to participate, participants were given a randomly chosen survey on a clipboard. After completing the survey, participants were thanked for their time and given a bag of sustainable goodies (e.g. low‐flow shower and faucet heads, locally made bath products, organic tea and snacks). Many participants thanked researchers for the opportunity to express their views.

No significant main effect of event between CDM and GRD was found, F(1,60)=0.07, p>0.05. Because of this, these two events were combined into one, the Street Fair group, while LGE remained on its own.

Two interesting findings resulted from the study. First, there was a significant main effect for the frame, F(1,162)=3.82, p<0.05. The difference in the perceived acceptability of cutting 80 percent (M=5.66, SD=1.58) versus only 2 percent (M=6.01, SD=1.39) was significant enough to produce more overall agreement in the 2 percent condition.

Second, there was a significant interaction between event and frame type, F(1,162)=4.85, p<0.05 (Figure 1). The Street Fair group who received the 80 percent condition averaged the lowest level of willingness to participate (M=5.13, SD=1.77). In contrast, those of the Street Fair group who received the 2 percent condition had a higher level of willingness on average (M=6.01, SD=1.39), a level of willingness similar to that of all of the LGE respondents, including the 2 percent group (M=5.96, SD=1.44) and the 80 percent group (M=6.02, SD=1.34).

The study results support the hypothesis that the 2 percent per year solution garners higher levels of support than “80 percent by 2050.” The message “cut carbon emissions 2 percent every year until 2050” presents a clear, challenging but attainable goal. It is essentially the same expected outcome as “80 percent by 2050,” but broken down into yearly sub‐goals. Participants in this study expressed significantly more willingness to participate in the necessary actions to combat climate change when presented with the 2 percent per year solution.

This finding demonstrates that utilizing the basic tenets of goal setting is an effective strategy for increasing people's engagement with climate change solutions. A concrete, challenging but attainable goal (2 percent per year) produced more motivation to be a part of the solution than a distant, perceptually more challenging (perhaps impossibly hard) goal (80 percent). This makes sense in light of goal setting and self‐efficacy research showing that people are hesitant to endorse a goal that they do not view as realistic. People perceive many barriers to significantly decreasing their reliance on carbon‐emitting fossil fuels. For example, cutting personal carbon emissions by 80 percent seems impossible for people who rely heavily on their cars because they live far from work in a place with little public transit. Individuals in such a situation feel that they do not have the power to overcome infrastructural barriers that make sustainable, carbon‐light living possible. In the case of the 80 percent goal, average citizens are unlikely to have, or think they have, the resources, energy, and power to achieve it. Under such circumstances, asking for an 80 percent cut in carbon emissions seems like a set‐up for failure. Compared to a 2 percent per year cut, it is difficult to imagine how to achieve an 80 percent cut in emissions through either individual change or policy change, or even how to begin. A 2 percent per year cut, on the other hand, is something that an individual has the power and ability to carry out by making small adjustments in daily routines. A 2 percent per year cut does not rely on unlikely infrastructure improvements or require major life changes (such as changing workplace location or moving to a new neighborhood). In addition, it is easier to imagine (and support) policy changes that could achieve gradual, incremental carbon reductions.

The 2 percent per year scenario may also have had a further motivating effect. Work by other researchers (Heath et al., 1999) found that people are motivated to work harder as they get closer to a challenging goal. Although the current study did not present people with a scenario that presumed any progress had been made towards the goal, it may be that the perceived nearness to the 2 percent per year emissions reduction goal produced a burst of positive feeling that “I can be a part of this!” that was absent in the 80 percent condition.

The current study also confirmed that people who are already committed to environmental efforts are indeed significantly less influenced by the framing manipulation. While framing effects were clear for the street fair participants, attendees at the LGE, an event that by definition attracts people who are interested in and motivated to live a more sustainable life, did not differ in their response to the 80 and 2 percent per year frames: they were enthusiastic about both. In fact, based on the demographic data collected for study participants, the Living Green participant group has many of the characteristics that other researchers have found to be significant predictors of “environmental citizenship” (Barkan, 2004, as defined by Stern et al., 1999). For example, past research (Barkan, 2004) has found that environmental citizenship was higher for women, people living in urban areas, and people with higher levels of education. This group responded positively to the statement “I feel like I can be a part of the solution” regardless of whether the solution involved an 80 percent cut or a 2 percent per year cut. These results are similar to other findings showing that framing effects are different depending on the audience receiving the message (Slothuus, 2008). Slothuus found that highly politically aware participants were much less affected by issue framing than those participants with moderate to weak political awareness. In the current study, the LGE attendees are analogous to Slothuus' highly politically aware group: both are either too knowledgeable about the topic at hand to be influenced by framing, or they have already made up their minds and no information whatsoever will change it. Ideally, it is the former and not the latter that explains these results, however, this is an empirical question that needs further investigation.

The results of this research support the idea that emphasizing “small wins” is a promising strategy for solving seemingly intractable social problems (Weick, 1984; Winter and Koger, 2004). Weick proposes that the overwhelming scale of many social problems raises people's stress arousal to counterproductively high levels. Such high‐arousal discourages appropriate, well‐thought‐out responses. When, however, the large problems are redefined into smaller, more manageable pieces, they are less likely to evoke high arousal and, without high‐stress arousal, people are better able to consider and implement an effective solution (Weick, 1984). Recently, Winter and Koger (2004) have suggested that the strategy of small wins is applicable when dealing with an issue such as climate change, where the overwhelming scale and lack of public response can leave one feeling powerless and discouraged. The results of this research endorse Winter and Koger's suggestion. Reframing the carbon reduction goal from “80 percent” to “2 percent per year” effectively redefines the scale of the problem and creates manageable (“2 percent”) pieces. People find the rescaled goal significantly more motivating.

It is clear from this research that the “2 percent per year” goal is more mobilizing than “80 percent” goal. Even so, it remains a “distal goal” rather than a “proximal goal” (as used by Kanfer, 1990). Proximal goals refer to specific behaviors that allow people to regulate themselves more easily through feedback and self‐reward. For example, a relevant proximal goal in an emissions reduction context would be “I will have one car‐free day a week.” Putting a goal in behavioral terms like this creates a more specific goal as well as one toward which incremental progress can more easily be measured. In addition, the fact that it is still a somewhat distal goal, as opposed to a proximal goal, may hinder the number of strategies that people generate to meet the goal. Other studies have found that more proximal goals result in participants generating a greater number of goal‐attaining strategies (Seijts and Latham, 2001). While the 2 percent solution is more readily translatable into specific, concrete, and measurable behaviors than 80 percent is, 2 percent per year is still less specific than it ideally could be.

Furthermore, there is another important factor that influences people's success in reaching a goal: feedback. Feedback is necessary in order for people to adjust their efforts and correct any errors that are potentially taking them away from their goal. Several studies have demonstrated that the combination of feedback and specific goals result in the highest level of goal achievement (Bandura and Cervone, 1983; Becker, 1978; McCalley and Midden, 2002). A 2 percent per year emissions reduction is still not easy to map onto daily life activities. For example, if a person switches from driving to work alone each day to some combination of biking, carpooling, and using public transportation, in addition to occasionally driving alone, what kind of an emissions reduction does this patchwork of activity result in? Also, problematic is the time course of feedback for the 2 percent per year solution, it is calculated on a yearly basis and is only available after emissions from the past year have been compared to those of the prior year. This reduces the likelihood that people will be able to understand the link between actions and their consequences.

To address these issues, further research could investigate whether people have a stronger preference for the 2 percent per year solution when it is broken down into explicit, measureable, behavioral sub‐goals, for example:

Ultimately, the goal of both messages tested in this research is to encourage people to work towards a solution to global climate change. Clearly it is important to craft the best message possible. However, even if one were to find the perfect goal statement there is no guarantee that it would lead people to successfully cut their carbon emissions. There are far too many other factors influencing behavior.

One important factor is the nature of global climate change as a social dilemma where the personal “costs” of working towards reduced emissions are high (e.g. the inconvenience of driving less, taking the bus, turning the heat/AC down, eating less meat) while the benefits are accrued by all of society and future generations and little noticed by the individual. This sets up a situation where personal goals (e.g. comfort and getting ahead) are incompatible with society‐wide goals (e.g. less driving, less energy used). Seijts and Latham have shown some interesting effects on a group's performance in a social dilemma. In essence, they found that incompatibility between individual and group goals led to less success in working towards or achieving goals (Seijts and Latham, 2000).

Another factor that certainly plays a role in whether a “cut carbon emissions” goal is successful is the probabilistic (and thus uncertain) nature of information about global climate change and its effects. Though there is almost universal scientific consensus that global climate change is a reality, there is much less agreement about what its effects are likely to be and, particularly relevant for this study, what kinds of emissions reductions are needed to keep the conditions on the planet relatively stable. Latham and Pinder speculate in a recent review that successful goal setting will be undermined if the information on which the goals are based is constantly being updated or becomes unavailable. The authors specifically mention ongoing environmental changes as a negative influence on goal setting (Latham and Pinder, 2005).

Yet another factor that influences people's ability to successfully set and carry out a goal to reduce CO₂ emissions is the fact that there are so many infrastructural, social, and psychological barriers and they stand in the way of many CO₂ emissions‐reducing practices. For example, people living in an apartment with no apartment‐level control for heat or AC cannot do much to significantly reduce their temperature‐related, home carbon emissions, as much as they might like to. Similarly, people who live in suburbs, exurbs, or rural areas are less able to have a car free day or use alternative transportation because these services are not available or because they perceive them to be socially unacceptable. A great deal of research documents how barriers prevent the goal and the desire of taking sustainable action (for a discussion, see McKenzie‐Mohr and Smith, 1999).

Despite the limitations of the study as well as the possible real‐world obstacles to effective goal setting in the context of climate change, the results are an intriguing beginning. The fact that participants responded significantly more positively to the 2 percent solution indicates that this type of message, with a clear, specific but not excessively challenging goal, is a better way to talk about climate solutions than what people are accustomed to hearing. Typical climate solutions messages, aside from those examined here, tend to be overly general: “we can solve it!” or “do your part.” The results of this study corroborate previous work about goal‐setting showing that people are motivated more by a specific message than by these general appeals.

The results of this research demonstrate how important it is to carefully frame long‐term goals in order to generate public acceptance of effective climate change solutions. The basic tenets of goal setting theory hold true when it comes to striving towards carbon emissions goals. Concrete, challenging but attainable carbon emissions goals (e.g. 2 percent per year) are more motivating than distant, overly challenging goals (e.g. 80 percent reduction by 2050). For some people, specifically those who are already committed to environmental efforts, the way the goal is framed has little effect on their motivation to be a part of the solution. With this exception, people generally respond better to a goal that can be broken down into attainable sub‐goals, such as a 2 percent emissions cut every year until the year 2050. This is particularly important to keep in mind when communicating with audiences that are not already active in sustainability or climate issues.

Christie M. Manning has a Bachelor's degree in Human Factors Engineering from Tufts University and a PhD in Cognitive and Biological Psychology from the University of Minnesota. She is currently Visiting Assistant Professor of Environmental Studies at Macalester College in St Paul, Minnesota. Her research examines the cognitive and other psychological factors that influence environmentally responsible behavior. She is particularly interested in environmental communication and the role of framing in conveying environmental information. Christie M. Manning is the corresponding author and can be contacted at: cmanning@macalester.edu

Elise L. Amel, has a PhD in Industrial‐Organizational Psychology from Purdue University and is an Associate Professor of Psychology and the Director of Environmental Studies at the University of St Thomas. She teaches general psychology, research methods, and industrial‐organizational psychology. She has consulted for local industry regarding improving job satisfaction, as well as selection, training, and performance appraisal systems. Along with colleagues Christie M. Manning and Britain A. Scott, she has conducted Conservation Psychology research since 2004, culminating in dozens of research papers at national and international conferences. This current research addresses psychological and social variables believed to be related to sustainable behavior. She has worked with government, non‐profits, and businesses and regularly presents the psychology of sustainability throughout the community and in the media.

Britain A. Scott is an Associate Professor of Psychology and the former Director of Environmental Studies at the University of St Thomas where she has taught since 1996. She has a PhD in Social Psychology from the University of Minnesota. She is a strong advocate of curricular integration of psychology and environmental education. Her current scholarly focus is on the ecologically connected self as a potential antidote to the negative consequences of women's bodily objectification in consumer culture.

Jacob Forsman is attending the University of St Thomas as an undergraduate student, majoring in Psychology with an intended minor in Statistics. He is currently working as a Research Assistant for Dr Elise Amel, Dr Christie M. Manning, and Dr Britain A. Scott.