12/9/13

"Environmental psychologists must make the most beneficial conduct the easiest option"

Robert Gifford ,

Society is still largely unfamiliar with the concept of environmental psychology.
That's right. Although it has been an object of study for 50 years, it is still a small branch of psychology. It doesn't respond to the traditional idea that people have and is depicted in the media of a psychologist being a professional who helps people with psychological problems. Environmental psychology studies everyday life: how we are at work, at home, on the street, etc. For instance, it asks why we're conducting this interview in the cafeteria and how we share spaces at home and at work.

On a broader scale, environmental psychology looks at how we plan our cities and public spaces, and how our decisions affect the environment and climate change. Although we often say, "There is nothing I can do to fight climate change alone," this isn't true. We are faced with choices every day, and over time our decisions will have an impact on climate change.
You have closed the conference with a talk on "hybrid spaces". What are these spaces?
Every space is a combination of different environments. Although we are in a physical environment, we also have a psychological environment. The combination of the two is what we mean by hybrid spaces. For instance, you and I may be having a conversation when someone calls me on my mobile. All of a sudden I go from being in one psychological environment to being in another one. Or say you're playing a video game: you're in your dining room but your mind is in the virtual game. It's a hybrid environment because your body is in one space and your mind is in another.
In a world that is moving so quickly, spaces are also changing very rapidly.
They are changing very rapidly, or slowly, depending on how you look at it. For example, Barcelona underwent a huge change for the 1992 Olympic Games. Climate change is changing the world, but it is doing so slowly. And, for example, if you redecorate your home, it will change very quickly.

"Messages that restrict people's freedom don't work"



One of your lines of research involves the relationship between climate change and human behaviour.
I study "transaction". In other words, climate change affects people but the opposite is also true: people's behaviour affects climate change. My current research focuses on the type of messages governments and the media should transmit to encourage people to be more environmentally responsible. Many messages can be conveyed, but some have no effect whatsoever - and some may even have a negative impact. This is known as "reactance", which for example is when you tell a two-year-old boy not to do something and his response is to do it again.

The same occurs with adults. If the message is, "you can't use your car in Barcelona", people will react badly and be prone to use it even more. Instead, we can give a message of empowerment: "You can be an example for others by choosing to use public transport". Messages that restrict people's freedom don't work.
What kind of messages are the most effective?
Well, we're still in the middle of research, but I can speculate a little. As seen in the above example, the most effective messages make people feel empowered. As the saying goes, "A carrot is better than a stick", in other words a prize is always better than punishment.
Your research has also focused on anti-tobacco campaigns.
Campaigns launched in recent decades have taught us that people care about their health, so we now know we can use the health factor in campaigns against climate change. For example, we can tell the inhabitants of North America that pollution travels from south to north and that there will be increasing rates of infectious agents in the air they breathe.

But there is not one general message that is always going to work: messages should vary depending on the values and needs of the different segments of the population. However, negative, apocalyptic messages should be avoided.
Environmental psychology also studies how to make buildings that are truly adapted to people. In recent years there has been a proliferation of "sick buildings" - mostly offices - that have had to close because they were making workers sick. What mistakes have been made in these cases?
For decades, there has been is a real concern for energy efficiency, which has led to the construction of many completely sealed buildings that have no chance of being aired. And, of course, ventilation systems can sometimes fail. Those responsible for creating such buildings argue that people can't be relied on to close the windows, and that their failure to do so leads to a significant waste of energy.

In the field of psychology, this has generated a great deal of debate: "Are people responsible enough, or can they learn to be, to fulfill the obligation to close the windows? Or it is preferable to avoid problems altogether by not giving them the chance to open them?" I think you have to trust people.

"We need to improve the communication of science so that it reaches the general public"



You are a member of the Canadian Obesity Network. What does your role involve?
I analyse the influence of social and cultural factors on obesity, and environmental measures to reduce the prevalence of this disease. For example, how can we move children away from screens and encourage them to do sport? How can we make neighbourhoods more attractive so that people would rather walk than drive?

One thing we can do is design neighbourhoods with green areas or shops that make it pleasant to walk around. A good example of this type of space is Barcelona's Avinguda Diagonal; I found the middle lane for pedestrians and cyclists very interesting.

In addition, we must make the most beneficial behaviour (eating healthy food, exercising, etc.) the easiest option, by making it more appealing to take the stairs of a building rather than the lift, for instance. A very attractive experience was developed in Sweden where some steps were painted to look like piano keys and made sounds as you walked up them. You can see it on YouTube.
You say psychologists are the bridge between scientists and the general public.
Yes, it's sometimes necessary to "translate" the language used by scientists so that scientific knowledge can reach the public. Scientists often complain that people don't listen to them, but what often happens is that they're difficult to understand and that is why we need to improve scientific communication so that it reaches the general public. What is happening with climate change is a good example.

Press contact

You may also be interested in…

Most popular