|
|
|
| Untersuchte Arbeit: Seite: 58, Zeilen: 1 ff. (entire page) |
Quelle: Burke 2010 Seite(n): online, Zeilen: 0 |
|---|---|
| [Colleagues who cycle to work and meet] by videoconference, friends who grow their own food and take bike holidays, neighbours who have solar panels or water tanks, family members who purchase ethical investments, children who walk or ride to school, community leaders who use public transport – all encourage us to see pro-environmental behaviour as normal and desirable.
iii. Perceived Risks The third dragon (Gifford, 2011, 199-212) describes is “Perceived Risks”. People are usually risk-averse, and a person may feel threatened by many different types of risks. So for example, if you are considering to purchasing an electric car, you would weigh up financial costs, physical risks (will it be safe?), social costs (what will people think of me?), time (will I be taking a lot longer to get to places?), functional risks (will it fit the whole family as well as our luggage?), and even psychological costs. iv. Sunk Costs The next type of psychological barrier is “Sunk Costs”. These are the prior investments we have made, that we often find difficult to give up. They could be well established habits, like long hot showers, that are hard to forgo. They could be significant financial investments, like a luxury car that’s sitting in the garage and because it’s there it seems a shame not to use it. But perhaps the most compelling sunk cost, and the one that trips us up most, is that of conflicting goals and aspirations – the important things in our life that we’ve invested so much meaning in. v. Ideology Next, Gifford (2011, 199-212) describes barriers to change that arise from having a particular “Ideology” or way of thinking about the world, which can limit our preparedness to adopt pro-environmental behaviours. We may defend our specific worldview or way of living because it’s comfortable and we resist change. Our beliefs in [particular ideologies like ‘techno-salvation’, or supra-human powers like ‘mother nature’ or God, may convince us that we are protected from ultimate climate disaster, thus minimising the need to change our own behaviour.] Gifford, Robert. (2011). “The Dragons Of Inaction: Psychological Barriers That Limit Climate Change Mitigation And Adaptation.” American Psychologist 66(4): Pp.290–302. |
Colleagues who cycle to work and meet by videoconference, friends who grow their own food and take bike holidays, neighbours who have solar panels or water tanks, family members who purchase ethical investments, children who walk or ride to school, community leaders who use public transport – all encourage us to see pro-environmental behaviour as normal and desirable.
Perceived risks The third dragon Robert described in his ICAP presentation was perceived risks. People are usually risk-averse, and a person may feel threatened by many different types of risks. So for example, if you are considering purchasing an electric car, you would weigh up financial costs, physical risks (will it be safe?), social costs (what will people think of me?), time (will I be taking a lot longer to get places?), functional risks (will it fit the whole family as well as our luggage?), and even psychological costs (am I going to feel silly driving it?). [...] Sunk costs The next type of psychological barrier is sunk costs. These are the prior investments we have made, that we often find difficult to give up. They could be well established habits, like long hot showers, that are hard to forgo. They could be significant financial investments, like a luxury car that’s sitting in the garage and because it’s there it seems a shame not to use it. But perhaps the most compelling sunk cost, and the one that trips us up most, is that of conflicting goals and aspirations – the important things in our life that we’ve invested so much meaning in. [...] Next, Bob described barriers to change that arise from having a particular ideology or way of thinking about the world, which can limit our preparedness to adopt pro-environmental behaviours. We may defend our specific worldview or way of living because it’s comfortable and we resist change. Our beliefs in particular ideologies like ‘techno-salvation’, or suprahuman powers like ‘mother nature’ or God, may convince us that we are protected from ultimate climate disaster, thus minimising the need to change our own behaviour. |
The true source is not given. |
|