In thinking about what I might want to say about the Environment and conflict, I came across a recent environment and conflict study involving 50,000 participants across 60 countries, including Algeria, China, Denmark, Germany, Israel, Japan, New Zealand, Peru, and the United States.
That’s a large study!
The study had people identify as either conservative or liberal and then asked about various aspects of environmentalism, including climate change. As could be predicted, participants beliefs aligned according to their political orientation with liberals believing and supporting climate policy more than those who reported being conservative.
What is worth highlighting is that their actions did not necessarily align with their political beliefs! This is significant and a surprise to the researchers as well.
Let me say this another way, quoting the study: “Polarized beliefs about climate change might not correspond to an equivalent polarization of climate action.”
One simple example cited was how farmers adopted “pro-environmental practices” despite lacking belief in climate change being attributed to humans.
So, you can have your political beliefs, often entrenched and echoed back to us through our media channels. But our actions are motivated by other factors as well.
The study hints at this by addressing what doesn’t work in influencing others: it doesn’t work to try to convince the other side with your facts: “Scientific consensus messaging (i.e., informing the public that most scientists are in agreement about the climate crisis) had limited effects on climate skeptics’ support for climate action or even sparked reactance and decreased support for climate policy.”
That’s consistent with what I’ve learned through mediating and coaching and teaching about conflict. We do not influence others by shoving our information at them. There is just too much information to go around these days – there will always be information to support our own beliefs.
Farmers weren’t convinced that they needed to change because scientists said so.
What did work? The study says: “self-identified conservatives’ pro-environmental attitudes and behaviors increased when climate change was framed in terms of binding moral foundations (e.g., loyalty to authority, purity).”
That’s consistent with what the conflict field knows to be true, with what we teach in conflict courses and consistent with many of us know to be true with regard to influence:
“Walk a mile in my shoes.”
We act when we think it’s in our self-interest to act. The farmers were negatively impacted so took action. When we feel understood, and are not lectured at, we can start to trust that the other person might also have our best interest at heart. This promotes common ground.
This study affirms my faith that dialogue is still the way. We can still hold on to our polarized political beliefs, yet take action together. We can find that common ground.
The keys I got from this study:
- perspective take – show you understand through reflective listening in the language the other is familiar with.
- focus on common ground – highlight what we can we agree on and both care about.
- Be kind (I threw that one in – and – it seems true!).
Action can emerge even with differing beliefs when we can find the way to understanding. That’s inspiring!
If you’re curious about the study – it’s here.