Researchers found that exposing people who held anti-sustainability opinions to a pro-sustainability viewpoint in the form of a spoken conversation or written exchange helped persuade them to support an environmentally friendly initiative. Credit: Katie Good | asst. Photo Editor
Convincing someone to develop a pro-sustainability stance might be as easy as having a chat, according to a new study from Ohio State researchers.
According to the December 2022 study, exposing people who held anti-sustainability opinions to an opposing viewpoint through a conversation or written exchange helped persuade them to support an environmentally-friendly initiative, such as support for plant-based foods in Ohio State dining halls.
The study, recently published in the Journal of Environmental Psychology, found those who are pro-sustainability did not change their opinion when exposed to the opposite viewpoint.
Senior author of the study Nicole Sintov said many sustainable behaviors are unique because they are often a group decision.
Sintov, an associate professor of behavior, said the study’s conversation-centered research came from her previous work with interpersonal dynamics and sustainability.
“I looked at how people within a household interact around thermostat settings,” Sintov said. “Most households have a single thermostat that controls the climate for the entire home, yet family members may have different preferences. That can result in some conflict.”
Sintov said the aim of this study was to understand how conversations can influence behavior.
According to the study results, having a discussion on sustainability prior to this call to action increased the likelihood of corresponding sustainable behavior.
Kristin Hurst, an author of the study and an assistant professor of sustainability at Southern Illinois University, said this outcome is connected to the sense of psychological safety — one will not be punished for speaking his or her mind — that one experiences when taking social risks.
“We found that for the people who engaged in the sustainability conversation, there was evidence of more psychological safety that was formed during the conversation and that this psychological safety led to stronger commitments to engage in the action,” Hurst said.
Sintov said the project was demanding, as it required data on the conversations of nearly 1,500 students to be analyzed in their entirety.
“It was truly a team effort. It was really resource intensive,” Sintov said. “It took a long time to pull everything together, but we had a lot of support.”
Hurst said the study has the potential to apply to a variety of sustainability topics, but more work is needed.
“I suspect that, depending on the extent to which an issue is very politicized, that this method may not work as well, but that’s just a hypothesis that I have that would need to be tested,” Hurst said.
Moving forward, Sintov said the research team plans to continue testing their findings with different contexts and sustainability topics, particularly solar energy.
“We are going to be looking at some aspects of interpersonal dynamics in household decision making to purchase solar panels,” Sintov said. “Really mapping out what that decision process looks like.”
