Psychologically Connecting with Wildlife: Using Human Intergroup Interaction Theories to Understand...

Psychologically Connecting with Wildlife: Using Human Intergroup Interaction

Theories to Understand the Treatment of Animals and Nature

Brittany Bloodhart, Ph.D.& Janet K. Swim, Ph.D.

Pathways ConferenceOctober 8, 2014

Introduction

• Can Social Psychology inform Human & Wildlife interactions?

– KEY: Connecting psychologically with the issue

1. Values2. Empathy3. Relativity

EcoFeminism

• Psychological Connection Values• Do we value:

– All people equally?– Some groups more than others?

(racism, sexism, etc)

– The interdependence of people and nature?– Humans using and exploiting nature?

Hegemonic / Dominance Values

Exploitation of Women

Exploitation of the

Environment

Mastery vs.

Harmony

Hierarchy vs.

Egalitarianism

Hegemonic Values

Bloodhart & Swim, 2010

Exploitation of Women

Exploitation of the

Environment

Mastery vs.

Harmony

Hierarchy vs.

EgalitarianismHegemonic

Values

B = .201*

B = .822**

B = .49* B = .28*

** p < .01, * p < .05

Psychological Connection Empathy• Impacts of climate change on

animals (Swim & Bloodhart, 2014)

– Empathic message• “Imagine how the animal feels, and what

has happened to it”

– Objective message• “Remain objective and detached. Don’t get

caught up in emotions”

• Participants given $1– Told they could donate it, keep it, or

return it to the researchers.

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

Money to self

Money to en-vironmental group

Mon

ey

(in

ce

nts

)

Psychological Connections

• Values ✔• Empathy ✔• Relativity

Relativity

• Psychological Connection Relativity– Groups that are Relative to the Self

• Human Intergroup Relations– Prejudiced toward groups we see as

“other”• “Derogation of Out-group”

– Prejudice Reduction Techniques• Share common experiences and goals• Work collaboratively on a task• Recognize positive qualities / breakdown

stereotypes

Relativity

• Relative Comparisons & Pro- Environmental Behavior

– Being pro-environmental can sometimes mean perceived restriction or loss of “privileges”

– If “everyone else” has same/more privilege, the anticipated loss of privilege seems unfair (deprivation)

– BUT – if “everyone else” include those with LESS privilege, loss of privilege doesn‘t seem unfair

Target Groups

• Animals• People in the Global South• Women

Feel Deprived

*Interaction is not significant*MEs are not significant

No Information Climate Change Information1

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

2

2.2

Not RelativeRelative

*

*

Behavioral Willingness

No Information Climate Change Information6

6.2

6.4

6.6

6.8

7

7.2

7.4

7.6

Not RelativeRelative

Willingness to Engage in Pro-Environmental Behavior

Subject Pool5.6

5.8

6

6.2

6.4

6.6

6.8

7

7.2

7.4

7.15

6.67

6.2

Animals

Global South

Women

Effect of Target GroupA

A, BB

• Questions?

Thank you -brittanybloodhart@gmail.com

Colorado State UniversityDepartment of Psychology

George Mason UniversityCenter for Climate Change Communication