APA PRESIDENTIAL ADDRESS
Psychological Science’s Contributions to a
Sustainable Environment
Extending Our Reach to a Grand Challenge of Society
Alan E. Kazdin
Climate change and degradation of the environment are
global problems associated with many other challenges
(e.g., population increases, reduction of glaciers, and loss
of critical habitats). Psychological science can play a
critical role in addressing these problems by fostering a
sustainable environment. Multiple strategies for fostering a
sustainable environment could draw from the diversity of
topics and areas of specialization within psychology. Psy-
chological research on fostering environmentally sustain-
able behaviors is rather well developed, as illustrated by
interventions focusing on education of the public, message
framing, feedback, decision making, the media, incentives
and disincentives, and social marketing. Other sciences
and professions as well as religion and ethics are actively
involved in fostering a sustainable environment. Psychol-
ogy ought to be more involved directly, systematically, and
visibly to draw on our current knowledge and to have
palpable impact. We would serve the world very well and
in the process our discipline and profession.
Keywords: presidential address, psychological science,
sustainable environment, climate change
A year in the presidency of the American Psycho-
logical Association (APA) does not confer any
special wisdom or brillance on the topics of our
field. There are perspectives one acquires that capture a
moment in time and provide a verbal photo, touched up—if
not heavily doctored— by cognitive heuristics, the limita-
tions of one’s experience and knowledge, and the issues of
the times. Even so, the photo is useful when viewed in the
context of the other photos in the album, to wit, the other
presidential addresses over the years.1
At this moment in time, unprecedented advances and
challenges characterize both psychology and society. In
psychology and of course other sciences as well, remark-
able advances in the understanding of human functioning
have emerged. These come at a time when there are major
challenges facing the world. Of course, there are always
challenges facing the world, but an urgent one facing
humanity now is the degradation of the environment on a
global scale. Psychology’s contributions to society have
been remarkable already, but there are new opportunities to
extend our reach.
July–August 2009 ● American Psychologist
© 2009 American Psychological Association 0003-066X/09/$12.00
Vol. 64, No. 5, 339 –356 DOI: 10.1037/a0015685
Yale University
The purpose of this article is to urge that we extend
these contributions by fostering behaviors that will sustain
our environment. The article begins with a characterization
of psychology, with attention to the diversity of our subject
matter and the strengths and challenges this diversity offers
in establishing who we are and what our science does.
Climate change and many associated problems now facing
us will require multiple strategies from many disciplines.
Yet many areas within our own discipline could make
unique contributions.
Characteristics and Structure of
Psychology
Diversity of Our Subject Matter
An enormous strength of psychology is the diversity or
heterogeneity of its content areas. That diversity is evident
in many ways. Teaching introductory psychology is a chal-
lenge in part because so many different and seemingly
unrelated topics must be covered (e.g., sensation and per-
ception, cognitive neuroscience, development, personality,
interpersonal relations, psychotherapy). These varied top-
ics do not easily lend themselves to a connecting theme or
principle. Moreover, many topics in psychology (e.g.,
Editor’s note. Alan E. Kazdin was president of the American Psycho-
logical Association (APA) in 2008. This article is based on his presidential
address, delivered in Boston, Massachusetts, at APA’s 116th Annual
Convention on August 15, 2008.
Author’s note. This article was facilitated by the conceptual and vision-
ary addresses of many past APA presidents, only some of whom could be
acknowledged in the body of the text. I am grateful to Susan Clayton,
Anthony Leiserowitz, and Paul Stern, who provided thoughtful reviews
and comments on an earlier version of the article, and to Steven Breckler,
whose conversations with me contributed in multiple ways to the article’s
content, thrust, and focus.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Alan
E. Kazdin, Department of Psychology, Yale University, P. O. Box
208205, New Haven, CT 06520 – 8205. E-mail: alan.kazdin@yale.edu
1
In footnotes throughout the article, I make references to other APA
presidential addresses to convey contexts and recurring themes. APA
began in 1892 with our first president, G. Stanley Hall. The presidential
addresses from our inception to the present are available online at http://
www.apa.org/archives/apapresadd.html.
339

Alan E.
Kazdin
Photo by Joel Benjamin
sports, applied and engineering psychology, social justice,
military psychology) are often omitted from introductory
courses. If they were included, it would be even more
difficult for students or experts to find an intuitive concep-
tual vector that captures what psychologists do.
The diversity of our field is also evident in the settings
(e.g., industry, hospitals, schools, universities, private prac-
tice offices, the battlefield), the populations (e.g., from
infants to the elderly; athletes, college students, astronauts,
airline pilots, and community samples; and diverse and
multiple species), and the levels of analysis (e.g., from
molecules to culture, from individuals to groups, and from
neural to social networks) that characterize our work. For
example, memory, one of our core topics, encompasses
research on molecules and brain regions, human and non-
human animals, and laboratory and applied work with
individuals and larger groups (e.g., juries). This richness, to
an outsider, could easily make it difficult to consider these
as topics within a given field.
Our diversity is further evidenced by our ability to
fuse with and diffuse into many other disciplines and fields.
Examples include health (health psychology), aging (be-
havioral gerontology), and business and industry (industrial
and organizational psychology). New, combined, and hy-
brid areas of specialization have emerged. Examples in-
clude neuroeconomics (neurobiological models of decision
making, choice, and risk in social and economic contexts)
and social neuroscience (biological underpinnings of social
interaction). These combinations convey the reach of our
science.
Psychology has been identified as a hub discipline,
that is, a field from which other disciplines draw (Boyack,
Klavans, & Börner, 2005). The designation reflects how
340
disciplines relate to each other. Boyack et al. used multiple
quantitative mapping techniques drawing on 1 million jour-
nal articles, over 7,000 journals, and more than 23 million
references to identify clusters of disciplines and their in-
terconnections. Seven hub disciplines emerged: chemistry,
earth sciences, mathematics, medicine, physics, psychol-
ogy, and social sciences. The emergence of psychology is
noteworthy indeed. Psychological research is cited by sci-
entists in many other disciplines. The penetration of our
field into many other areas, especially other social sciences
and medicine, is another way in which we are drawn on by,
but also blend into, other areas.2
In a related vein, we are increasingly involved in
collaboration with other disciplines. In general, collabora-
tive or team science and multisite and multinational studies
have increased (Cacioppo, 2007; Kliegl, 2008). Years ago,
research was characterized more by an individual investi-
gator working in his or her lab with programmatic research.
This model remains important. However, collaborations
involving multiple disciplines are more common now.
Moreover, the impact of collaborative papers, as evaluated
by citation data, is greater than the impact of papers pub-
lished by individual researchers (Wuchty, Jones, & Uzzi,
2007). Collaborations in science have increased in part
because of increased specialization required in research. In
psychology, for example, neuroimaging and genetics re-
search often involves collaborative teams not merely be-
cause of the substantive focus of the questions but also
because of the methodological expertise required.
It is excellent that we are one of the sciences that
consistently emerges as a hub discipline and that we are
drawn into many other areas and collaborative relation-
ships. We should celebrate our widespread relevance. Be-
yond celebrating, we should capitalize on the many poten-
tial contributions we could make. There are opportunities
we could seize to contribute more to society and in the
process to our profession.
Recognition of Our Science
The public as well as policymakers do not consistently
recognize our science. The challenge for public recognition
is illustrated by the dominance of nonscientific depictions
of psychology in everyday life. Pop (and mom) psychology
books, talk show hosts, Web pages, newspapers and mag-
azines, and other media (from blogs to sitcoms) often
convey stereotypes about mental health, personality, child
rearing, happiness, criminal behavior, relationships, and, in
general, the commerce of everyday life. It is near to im-
possible to suggest that we have a remarkable scientific
base for understanding these topics. Indeed, against the
backdrop of a vast desert of psychobabble, the normally
2
Two decades ago, Fowler (1990), in his presidential address, noted
that psychology serves as a core field for other disciplines, particularly the
social sciences, foreseeing our hub discipline status.
July–August 2009 ● American Psychologist
unacceptable anecdotal case study sometimes looks like a
methodological oasis.3
We ourselves contribute to the problem by sometimes
giving personal opinions based on a favorite conceptual
model without providing any genuine empirical support.
We are unwittingly (and perhaps sometimes wittingly) used
by the media—put a microphone in front of us, seat us in
a comfy chair on a major TV network, and give us a trick
essay question (“What were these children trying to express
by their violence?”) that has to be answered in 20 seconds.
In these situations and others, sometimes opinions, expe-
rience, misinformation, and research findings are indistin-
guishable. Such imprecision can damage our credibility by
obscuring our knowledge base, the methodological under-
pinnings of our findings, and—a critical facet of science—
the ready acknowledgment of what we do and do not know.4
Public policymakers do not reliably recognize our
science either, and that can limit our ability to help society.
For example, in the United States, the American Compet-
itiveness Initiative (Domestic Policy Council, Office of
Science and Technology Policy, 2006) is designed to en-
sure that the United States retains economic and leadership
strength in the world. Scientific research is seen as the
means to achieve these strengths. Stated more succinctly in
the Initiative’s report, “Research pays off for our economy”
(p. 4). The report illustrates how research leads to technol-
ogies that improve the world (e.g., telecommunications,
fuels, and energy). Related to the report and the impetus
leading to it, federal funds are targeted to projects designed
to advance science and math education and the number of
science teachers. The education focuses on science, tech-
nology, engineering, and math (STEM) fields. At first
blush, this sounds inspiring.
Yet where is psychology in all of this? It is obvious to us
that we must be in the science part of STEM. Actually,
science in the above initiative and in STEM education in-
cludes the physical and biological sciences. Psychology is off
that list and on the list with other disciplines such as philos-
ophy and English. Astounding! The American Competitive-
ness Initiative is about education and learning, about training
a work force, and about evaluating programs designed to
improve American competitiveness. Ironically, these are piv-
otal topics and strengths of our science. Our science has direct
implications for making our country competitive as well as for
addressing a swath of other critical issues including, but going
well beyond, fostering a sustainable environment.
General Comments
Our field is very specialized. One could easily lament our
resulting fragmentation. Yet in light of challenges such as
fostering a sustainable environment, our diversity is strength,
as I illustrate later.5 Despite the specialization, or in my view
in large part because of it, our discipline has broad relevance
to social issues. The topics of our field are the elements of a
“psychological periodic table” of human functioning and
interaction: attachment, reasoning and decision making, per-
ception, ethnicity and culture, motivation, learning, conflict,
relationships, leadership, human– context relations, and artifi-
cial, “real,” and emotional intelligence. These and other topics
July–August 2009 ● American Psychologist
combine and mix to help us investigate and understand emer-
gent and enduring challenges such as terrorism, effects of
national disasters, abridgment of human rights, and uses and
abuses of the Internet, inter alia.
Psychology’s contributions to society have been an en-
during theme in our history. Two key points have dominated:
(a) Psychology has a responsibility to contribute to key social
issues, and (b) we have made significant contributions already
(e.g., in education, health care, business, and industry).6 Often
these contributions are so deeply embedded in everyday life
that psychology is not identified as their origin. Tacit influence
is quite fine—actually my personal preference— but not al-
ways a strong base from which to convey that we have
something palpable to contribute.
We are in a clear position to extend our reach to
address multifaceted critical issues and have further impact
on society. APA is the largest organization of psychologists
3
The frustration inherent in how our field is presented has a long-
documented history among APA presidents. Poffenberger (1936) la-
mented the fact that occasionally “we permit psychology to be sold to the
public by amateurs and charlatans” (p. 13). Before him, Jastrow (1901)
warned of “newspaper science” and noted how the layman cannot be
expected to distinguish that from our research (p. 15).
4
As Fox (1996) noted in his presidential address, some colleagues
“elevate the trivial, . . . glibly generalize from unique to bizarre particulars
to broadly applicable principles of conduct, or . . . spew forth a kind of
nonsensical psychobabble that confuses issues and encourages forms of
thinking or attribution that may well be worse than simple nonsense” (p.
780). Before Fox, Anastasi (1972) in her presidential address noted how
the failure of psychologists to distinguish research from individual values,
beliefs and preferences “diminishes credibility, arouses public skepticism,
and weakens the potential contribution of psychology to the solution of
social problems” (p. 1094).
5
I am hardly saying anything new in noting that the specialization
within psychology is laudatory. Early in the history of the APA, Stratton
(1909) reminded members in his presidential address that they ought to be
“thankful [that our work] is rich and vital enough to permit and encourage
different sects” (p. 68).
6
Ladd’s (1894) APA presidential address noted that the science of
psychology ought to contribute to “the practical welfare of mankind” (p.
18). Dewey’s (1900) address underscored the importance of applying
psychological science to improve educational practices and “social af-
fairs” (p. 123) more generally. DeLeon (2002) noted that we have a
“special responsibility to affirmatively address society’s pressing needs”
(p. 425). Other presidential addresses followed calling for contributions
from psychology to everyday life in public settings (schools, hospitals,
prisons, industry) and in more specific areas including violence, conflict,
criminality, and human rights (Anastasi, 1972; Miller, 1969; Seligman,
1999; Siegel, 1983). Several APA presidents emphasized the contribu-
tions psychologists have made to society including conceptualizations of
how the world views human motivation and behavior (Miller, 1969; Tyler,
1973). Of all psychology’s contributions, that of psychological assessment
has been singled out most in prior presidential addresses in terms of the
scope of its applications (e.g., schools, clinics, hospitals, the courts,
business and industry, the military, athletics; Hunt, 1952; Matarazzo,
1990; Terman, 1924). Just considering intelligence testing, Poffenberger
(1936) remarked in his presidential address that “this single contribution
of psychology will compare favorably with any single contribution from
any other science in the number of persons whom it affects and in the
potential and ultimate benefits that may accrue from it” (p. 28). Zimbardo
(2004) mentioned many areas where psychology has had a “profound and
pervasive impact” (p. 341) on society, including positive reinforcement in
applied settings such as schools and the home, psychological therapies,
understanding stress and conveying its impact on life, parenting practices,
and our strong involvement in human factors research and the criminal
justice, educational, and health care systems.
341
and a steady partner with other organizations whose aim is
to improve the quality of life. For psychology more gen-
erally, beyond any organization, a key question is whether
there are special issues or social needs now in the world
that could profit from what we know and do. Is there a next
step in our contributions that could make a difference, that
is needed, and to which our attentions, talents, and human
resources could or ought to be devoted?
Addressing the Sustainability of Our
Planet as a Grand Challenge
There are many grand challenges now facing us, including
global climate change, delivery of health care, crime, drug
trafficking, overpopulation, and the HIV/AIDS epidemic.7
A term occasionally used in policymaking, social planning,
and business that captures the novel features of a grand
challenge is wicked problem (Horn & Weber, 2007; Rittel
& Webber, 1973). Grand challenges, or wicked problems,
are likely to have several of the characteristics highlighted
in Table 1. What we gain by referring to grand challenges
as wicked problems is clarity about the fact that they
require novel ways of thinking in relation to problem
formulation, evaluation, and intervention strategies.
Fostering environmentally sustainable behavior is
clearly a wicked problem. Climate change and ozone de-
pletion are familiar points of departure to convey the key
issues and why fostering environmentally sustainable be-
havior is so critical. I shall emphasize climate change, but
the scope of the problem includes several other grand
challenges (see Table 2) that have diverse and dynamic
interrelations (e.g., causes and effects; concomitant, syner-
gistic, and bidirectional effects; and inversely related ef-
fects; L. B. Brown, 2008; Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change [IPCC], 2007; Speth, 2005).8 For example,
climate change co-occurs and is intricately related to a
diminished food supply and more costly food. In part this
is due to less arable land, temperature changes that reduce
global harvests, and depletion of our water supply (for
irrigation; see, e.g., Battisti & Naylor, 2009; IPCC, 2007).
In addition, the melting of glaciers makes less water avail-
able to irrigate major food sources (e.g., rivers that are
relied on to grow rice in China and India, the two leading
producers). Diminished food supply leads to increased star-
vation worldwide. Increased efforts to produce more food
lead to greater use of energy, which can increase green-
house gases. More land can be cleared for farming (e.g.,
deforestation), but increased energy use (farming is energy
intensive) and the loss of trees that might otherwise absorb
greenhouse gases can increase global warming.
I have simplified for clarity but perhaps still have
conveyed the cascading consequences of one wicked prob-
lem in relation to others (see Knowlton et al., 2007; Nick-
erson, 2003; Parry, Rosenzweig, & Livermore, 2005). To
convey these effects, I began with climate change, but other
challenges listed in Table 2 (e.g., overpopulation) could
serve as the point of departure and convey their own set of
342
cascading effects. The cascading effects also encompass
problems of a different order, that is, problems that are not
directly environmental in nature. For example, increased
food prices and starvation already are sources of political
unrest. More countries are likely to fail because they cannot
provide secure food, water, and political stability, and that
leads to greater unrest (demonstrations, civil or rather not-
so-civil disobedience, and violence).9
The nature of wicked problems, as I noted, implies
that there will be no single solution. For example, identi-
fying an alternative source of energy that minimizes pro-
duction of greenhouse gases and global warming will not
solve our problems. Indeed, the hope is that any partial or
interim solution (e.g., use of ethanol as an alternative fuel)
will not actually create more problems. For example, eth-
anol production from corn has complex consequences such
as increasing the price of corn and other crops (e.g., wheat)
as more farm land is dedicated to corn. Also, the clearing
of land for corn production can even make climate change
worse—agriculture as currently practiced is a high-energy
and high-water-use industry. Ethanol from biomass that is
not part of the food supply, such as switchgrass (tall grasses
7
One might say that invariably there are such challenges. For ex-
ample, Bevan (1982) in his presidential address referred to a “catalogue of
woes . . . [including] problems of energy, mineral reserves, population
growth, aging, productivity, the economy, environmental degradation,
climatic change, [and] nuclear proliferation” (p. 1307). Population
growth, environmental degradation, and climate change, central to the
present article, remain with us along with the broader question Bevan
raised: “The critical unresolved question of the world in which we live
now is whether its inhabitants can control their own destiny [and] . . .
preserve and improve the quality of our lives together” (pp. 1320 –1321).
(An uncanny feature about reading history is that it is so often about the
present.)
8
Climate change includes global warming but many other changes as
well (e.g., changes in precipitation, drought, and wind; see http://www
.epa.gov/climatechange/basicinfo.html). Natural factors (e.g., sun inten-
sity) can effect changes, but of course, contemporary concerns are those
resulting from human activity that have an impact on land and energy use,
such as burning of fossil fuels, reducing forests, overpopulation, and
increased urbanization. Greenhouse gases per se are not a problem insofar
as they help keep the planet’s surface warm. Yet the increased concen-
tration of these gases has made the earth’s temperature higher than usual.
The eight warmest years on record (since 1850) have all occurred since
1998, with the warmest year being 2005. Ozone depletion refers to the
thinning and loss of the protective layer that blocks ultraviolet radiation
coming to the earth. Depletion is caused by high levels of such chemicals
as chlorine and bromine compounds in the stratosphere. The origins of
these compounds are chlorofluorocarbons, used as cooling substances in
air conditioners and refrigerators or as aerosol propellants, and bromofluo-
rocarbons (halons), used in fire extinguishers. Ozone depletion can have
broad effects on human and nonhuman animals and plants and also
exacerbate climate change. For example, ozone depletion leads to in-
creased ultraviolet radiation reaching the earth, which decreases produc-
tion of phytoplankton in the oceans. Phytoplankton are not only are part
of a critical food chain but also absorb greenhouse gases. Their loss
accelerates the accumulation of greenhouse gases and global warming.
9
Failing is a technical designation and refers to governments not
having control over the personal security of their people; other groups
may play a significant role in governing or rule (e.g., tribal chiefs,
organized crime). Countries can be graded on multiple indicators (e.g.,
social, economic, political, and military). Some of the criteria that com-
prise these indicators include unemployment, overpopulation, political
instability, and lack of sufficient food (see L. B. Brown, 2008).
July–August 2009 ● American Psychologist
Table 1
Salient Characteristics of Wicked Problems
● There is no single, definitive, or simple formulation of the problem.
● The problem is not likely to be the result of an event (e.g., tsunami, hurricane), but rather a set of intersecting trends that
co-occur and co-influence each other.
● The problem has embedded in it other problems—including other wicked problems.
● There is no one solution, no single, one-shot effort that will eliminate the problem.
● The problem is never likely to be solved.
● Multiple stakeholders are likely to be involved, and this fact leads to multiple formulations of what “really” is the problem
and therefore what are legitimate or appropriate solutions.
● Values, culture, politics, and economics are likely to be involved in the problem and in possible strategies to address the
problem.
● Information as a basis for action will be incomplete because of the uniqueness of the problem and the complexities of its
interrelations with other problems.
● The problem is likely to be unique and therefore does not easily lend itself to previously tried strategies.
Note. These and other characteristics emerged in the context of urban planning (see Rittel & Webber, 1973) but have been extended to business, social, and public
policy and to many familiar social problems such as poverty, delivery of health care, crime, the HIV/AIDS epidemic, and terrorism. The table draws from multiple
sources (Conklin, 2006; Horn & Weber, 2007; www.strategykinetics.com).

on the plains), waste biomass from nonedible parts of
plants (stalks of wheat and corn), and algae, would not have
some of these disadvantages.
Some solutions will necessarily be quite temporary,
albeit important, band-aids. For example, starvation in the
world is increasing as the price of food increases. Many
nations through the World Bank have injected funds to help
ameliorate urgent crises now. That is important to do, but
not a solution. Some countries are purchasing land in other
countries to grow products that can be shipped home for
their citizens. This too is a temporary “solution” for one
country in which money and purchasing power are con-
verted to land use and food exportation for the parent
country. It is a new day. Proverbs and guiding wisdom
from the past that suggest solutions now seem less appli-
cable. Many of us grew up with the accepted wisdom of
“Give a man [person] a fish and he [she] will eat for a day.
Teach him [her] how to fish and he [she] will eat for a
lifetime” (Chinese proverb). This inspiring expression
might have been applicable (a) when lakes, rivers, and
streams were not diminishing in size and number, (b) when
fish were more plentiful, (c) when toxic levels of metals
(e.g., mercury, lead) did not accumulate in many species of
fish, and (d) before major bodies of water were contami-
nated. Giving a person a fish or teaching her how to fish,
today more readily than in the past, could be seen as a
hostile act.
Given the complexity of grand challenges or wicked
problems, multiple solutions and strategies are needed.
Even then, success may come from taming rather than
solving the problem (Camillus, 2008). In the case of cli-
mate change, strategies will need to focus on adaptation
(adjustment to the changing climate) and mitigation (ad-
dressing key factors to ameliorate the causes of change;
IPCC, 2007). The strategies will always need to be tried
under conditions in which data are not sufficient (see Horn
& Weber, 2007). This latter point is critical because we
want the best data, the most pertinent data, and so on, but
it will always be possible to ask, “Do we really do know
enough to act?” In everyday life, we are familiar with this
frustrating state of affairs—a treatment for a serious disease
often involves so many unknowns, including the basic one
of whether the treatment is really effective. We do not
forgo treatment for ourselves or our relatives because of
incomplete data. Climate change and strategies to mitigate
the change are much the same, and the luxury of complete
data and understanding will not be available for many
critical decisions, but we must move forward with what we
have. And, fortunately, we have a lot.
Psychology is a hub science for good reason—it is
relevant to all those areas interested in human behavior. It
is concretely relevant when advances are made in other
areas. For example, fabulous medicines are of little use if
people will not take them; excellent conservation ideas
remain merely ideas if one cannot get people to adopt them;
genetically or chemically modified products to help feed
the world or to feed small segments more nutritiously will
need to be accepted to be consumed. We can do a great deal
in partnership with other sciences to foster behaviors that
make a difference.
Psychological Science’s Contributions
to Environmentally Sustainable
Behaviors
Psychology can play an enormous role in fostering envi-
ronmentally sustainable behaviors. Indeed, several overlap-
ping areas of psychology have been delineated that are

July–August 2009 ● American Psychologist 343

Table 2
Climate Change Is Related to Other Challenges and Problems
● Ozone depletion
● Reduction of glaciers
● Deforestation
● Desertification (loss of arable land for crops)
● Increase in the acidity of the oceans
● Decrease of oxygen (more “dead zones”) in oceans, lakes, and rivers
● Contamination of water and air (toxins, waste)
● Depletion of the water supply
● Population increases
● Threats to a secure food supply (e.g., grains)
● Reduced fisheries
● Accelerated rate of extinction of nonhuman animal and plant species
● Spread of vector-borne diseases (e.g., illnesses carried by mosquitoes, sand flies, ticks, and rodents) as species move into
new regions
● Loss of critical habitats (e.g., coral reefs, wetlands, rain forests)
Note. More could be added, but the list conveys the point. These problems are related to each other in complex ways, covary, and overlap. They are also
distinguishable as separate challenges and separate indices of problems related to degradation of the environment. For additional information, other sources are
readily available (e.g., L. B. Brown, 2008; Speth, 2005; www.igbp.kva.se/; www.ipcc.ch/index.htm; www.iucnredlist.org/static/introduction;
www.nature.com/climate/about_site.html).

directly relevant to fostering environmentally significant
behaviors, as noted in Table 3. Although these areas con-
vey the relevance of our field, there are many additional
areas that could foster environmentally sustainable behav-
ior and that showcase the advantage of the diversity and
specialization of psychology. Among these psychological
subfields are media, industrial and organizational, con-
sumer, teaching, engineering, exercise and sport, group,
social, humanistic, political, peace, and family psycholo-
gies and conflict resolution, behavior analysis, human fac-
tors, and the psychology of religion. Each area reflects
different settings, clients, perspectives, technologies, or
points of interventions, yet each could make a difference.
There are many places to intervene and many topics to
study, and we could make this a research and application
priority for the decade—and we should. Let me illustrate
some of the options and avenues for intervention.
Fostering Concrete Behaviors to Support a
Sustainable Environment
Illustrations. From a psychological perspective,
it might seem that the challenge is rather clear. Behaviors
that promote a sustainable environment need to be devel-
oped. Perhaps we should identify and target low-hanging
behavioral fruit and pick them off one at a time. There are
many behaviors we could address that would promote
sustainability by saving energy and reducing degradation of
the environment.
As one example, in the United States, many consum-
ers drink bottled water and do so in a variety of settings
(e.g., movie theaters, gymnasiums, sports events, and of-
fices). Some view bottled water as better, safer, and health-
ier than tap water despite data that do not support these
health claims, that show standards for regulating tap water
in the United States usually are more stringent, and that
reveal that bottled water occasionally is tap water (see L. B.
Brown, 2008). In the United States, approximately 28
billion plastic bottles are used to package water, and that
requires 17 million barrels of oil. Add to that the energy for
shipping 1 billion bottles every two weeks from bottling
plants to various stores and the energy used for refrigera-
tion of the bottles, and the estimate is 50 million barrels of
oil per year. If we could reliably reduce consumption of
bottled water alone, the energy savings could be significant.
Consider another example. In hotels, people are often
given the option of having towels changed daily or reusing
them. The energy required to wash and dry hotel towels is
enormous nationally and internationally. Also, detergent-
related pollutants could be reduced by laundering less if
towels were reused. Psychology can help by drawing on
theory and research to craft the message to hotel guests as
they elect or do not elect to reuse their towels. Different
ways of framing the request that hotel guests reuse towels
and conserve energy can make a significant difference; this
was studied in randomized controlled trials in hotels and
measured by counting directly the number (proportion) of
guests who elected to reuse towels (Goldstein, Cialdini, &
Griskevicius, 2008). Messages based on social norms to

344 July–August 2009 ● American Psychologist

Table 3
Areas Within Psychology That Explicitly Address Fostering Sustainable Behavior
● Applied psychology (how behavioral science can be applied to many issues and problems of society including sustainable
behavior, health, disease, and discrimination)
● Conservation psychology (how psychology can contribute to behaviors that protect the environment)
● Ecopsychology (focus on the interdependence of humans and nature)
● Environmental psychology (effects of environments on human behavior and of human behavior on environments)
● Population psychology (how population and density can impact the environment, family planning)
● Psychology of social justice (how psychology can foster human dignity, rights, peace, and security as reflected in such
areas as crime, education, civil rights, war, and globalization)
Note. Each of these areas has no single agreed-upon definition, and many of them overlap when their many definitions are considered (see Brook, 2001;
Nickerson, 2007). Thus, a list that delineates so many areas unwittingly can give the impression that there is a rather large focus on the environment within
psychology. That would be incorrect. Apart from overlap of the areas listed, each area extends beyond the focus of degradation of the environment. For example,
applied psychology includes applied: cognitive, developmental, experimental, industrial/organizational, and social psychology, each with its own graduate training
programs and career paths (see Donaldson & Berger, 2006). The areas are highlighted in the table merely to make the broader point that our field has delineated
specific areas that readily accommodate fostering a sustainable environment.

convey what other people have done are more effective
than the usual nonnormative appeal. So, for example, the
typical nonnormative message would be “Help save the
environment” followed by a request that guests reuse their
towels. A social normative message, however, would sug-
gest that most or some high percentage of “other guests”
(i.e., the social norm) have elected to reuse their towels.
The social normative message has been found to encourage
greater reuse of towels among guests when compared with
the environmental message (44% and 37%, respectively).
This effect on reuse of towels could be augmented by
making the normative information more specific to the
guest’s situation (e.g., other guests in this room, by gender,
and degree of concern about the environment) as opposed
to a more general norm.
As these examples might suggest, perhaps the chal-
lenge is to identify the target behaviors as a start and utilize
our knowledge of behavior change. This task might be
facilitated by the fact that scores of concrete behaviors have
been listed as actions that we can and ought to perform. For
example, books, magazine, Web pages, and articles galore
list many actions that help the environment and are aimed
at different age groups (children, adults) and different
settings (e.g., home, business) (see, e.g., de Rothschild,
2007; Earth Works Group, 1989; “The Global Warming
Survival Guide,” 2007; Javna, Javna, & Javna, 2008;
MacEachern, 1990). The suggestions range from concrete
actions (using special light bulbs) to more sweeping rec-
ommendations (e.g., live more modestly).
Nuances and complexities must be consid-
ered first. The focus on concrete behaviors alerts us to
important complexities. First, there are different types of
behaviors and broader influences to which we might be
sensitive. For example, types of behaviors include curtail-
ment behaviors (e.g., using less water in a shower, lowering
thermostats), behavioral choices and decisions about doing
something or doing something differently (e.g., using pub-
lic transportation, buying food that uses few or no pesti-
cides), and technology choices (e.g., using products, cars,
or appliances that help or place less strain on the environ-
ment) (Clayton & Myers, 2009; Stern, 2000b). These be-
haviors have different costs, require different efforts, and
vary in requirements to sustain an impact. For example,
behaviors that improve efficiency in energy use may have
an initial cost outlay (e.g., selecting one appliance rather
than another, purchasing a hybrid car) but once in place do
not require further action. We want to consider many dimen-
sions before seizing any set of behaviors as our focus.
Second, behaviors can have quite different impacts.
Perhaps worse than not helping is the illusion of helping by
selecting behaviors that make little or no difference. Yes,
eliminating or greatly reducing bottled water use would be
important, but are there priorities we can identify to judge
the likely impact of such an action? For example, Gardner
and Stern (2008) compared the environmental impact of
specific activities in relation to transportation (e.g., car-
pooling, getting frequent car tune-ups, combining shopping
trips) and practices in the home (e.g., replacing incandes-
cent bulbs with compact fluorescent bulbs, adjusting the
thermostat in one’s home for heat and air conditioning).
Knowing the relative impact of different actions makes it
easier to prioritize what behaviors and practices to address.
Third, behaviors may be important even if they do not
have a direct impact. For example, picking up litter may not
help the overall sustainability of the planet, but it can
increase attention to environmental issues more generally
and serve as a setting event or foot in the door for other
changes that do make a difference or that set the stage for
receptivity to broader governmental and policy changes
(Clayton, 2009; Gardner & Stern, 2002). Behaviors that do
not have very much impact might foster others that do, but
that connection must be shown empirically. Similarly, sen-
sitivity to environmental issues might be increased by
making the public aware of connections they might not

July–August 2009 ● American Psychologist 345

ordinarily identify. For example, the increase in obesity in
the United States is associated with reduced car and truck
economy, leading to the use of slightly over 1 billion
additional gallons of fuel per year (Jacobson & King,
2009). This finding is not likely to have an impact on
obesity or fuel consumption, but it might have an indirect
impact by increasing sensitivity and receptivity to change
in domains that can be influenced more immediately. Em-
pirical connections and indirect impact need to be studied
to ensure that any impact, if present, is in the desired
direction.
Fourth, proenvironmental behaviors are likely to be
moderated by multiple influences such as values, beliefs,
norms, networking, choice or perception of choice, and
other factors at the individual, community, and population
levels (see, e.g., Maibach, Abroms, & Marosits, 2007;
Stern, 2000b). For example, risk perception (and misper-
ception) is critical insofar as individual action is often
influenced by the perceived likelihood and severity of
adverse environmental consequences stemming from that
action (Bohm, Nerb, McDaniels, & Spada, 2001; Leiser-
owitz, 2005; Nickerson, 2003; Sundblad, Biel, & Gärling,
2007). Individuals may see little risk to engaging in par-
ticular behaviors or little risk that the resulting environ-
mental impacts will affect them— certainly disincentives
for action or support for strong policy actions.
Fifth, approximately one third of the energy consumed
in the United States is used by individuals and households;
the remainder is used by business, industry, the military,
and other players (Gardner & Stern, 2002). Consequently,
the behavior of individuals is only one level of analysis.
Individual behavior and group behavior can affect larger
organizations, but achieving such an effect requires a dif-
ferent order of behavior (e.g., mobilizing grass roots move-
ments, devising policy) that exerts influence indirectly.
In general, there are many considerations and a liter-
ature well developed to convey that while changing behav-
ior is important there is more to changing behavior than,
well, changing behavior. Behavior change may come “at
the end of a long causal chain involving a variety of
personal and contextual factors” (Stern, 2000a, p. 525). A
direct onslaught on target behaviors may or may not be the
primary, best, or only focus. Often the context may even
preclude such an onslaught’s having much impact on spe-
cific behaviors. For example, getting people to use public
transportation or cars with alternative (nonfossil) fuel is not
very likely when the infrastructure for these actions is not
in place or when doing so introduces barriers that are
otherwise not present in people’s lives when driving to
work in the usual way. The many influences and factors
involved provide an advantage; they open the prospect of
multiple places to intervene, an absolute essential for
wicked problems. The multiple influences also convey that
a multidisciplinary perspective is critical in the design of
systems (e.g., urban planning, use of alternative energies),
social policy, and marketing, as are the essential contribu-
tions psychology can make to encourage changes in perti-
nent affect, cognition, and behavior (Schmuck & Vlek,
2003; Steg, Dreijerink, & Abrahamse, 2006).
346
The Broader Scope of Interventions
Many psychosocial interventions have emerged to foster
sustainable behaviors. This section is not a comprehensive
review, but it illustrates progress made and opportunities to
be seized.
Education, knowledge, and information.
Educational efforts are often the first point of intervening;
the long lists of behaviors in which one ought to engage is
a simple variant of providing information about what to do.
Information and knowledge alone, however, often are not
strongly related to what people actually do (Leiserowitz,
2006; Nickerson, 2003). Meta-analyses reveal a low cor-
relation (approximately .30) between knowledge about en-
vironmental problems and proenvironmental behaviors
(Bamberg & Moser, 2007; Hines, Hungerford, & Tomera,
1987). Information can be more effective when it is cred-
ible, is combined with a commitment to act, draws on
social networks, and focuses on simple, low-cost behaviors
(e.g., curbside recycling; Gardner & Stern, 2002), so pro-
vision of information is not to be cast aside lightly as
ineffective.
Education and information have an important role in
part because “climate literacy” is quite low among the
public, a situation that is driven by oversimplifications as
well as by the inherent complexities of climate change
(Leiserowitz, 2006, in press). For example, public attention
is currently drawn to new energy sources (e.g., drilling for
more oil) as a high priority, but this “solution” ignores
other strategies that might be cheaper, more immediate, and
more effective. At this point in time, the best source of
energy is not new energy (e.g., more or alternative fuels)
but rather better use of existing energy. The notion of a
“negawatt,” in contrast to a megawatt, refers to a unit of
electrical power saved as a result of reducing demand or
increasing efficiency (Lovins, 1989). Energy efficiency
should be a top priority, yet this message has not been well
conveyed. Also, once the message is conveyed, the specific
behaviors that have optimal impact are not intuitively clear
to many of us. Similarly, the public often sees recycling as
central to proenvironment behaviors. Recycling is valuable
but usually has less of a positive impact than reusing
materials, which in turn has less of an impact than reducing
the amount of materials used in the first place. For example,
plastic and paper shopping bags, which require energy to
fabricate and recycle, are less environmentally friendly
than reusing the same bag repeatedly. In turn, much less
material is used to create a reusable shopping bag than to
create paper and plastic shopping bags. Education also is
important because the public sees global warming as a
problem but gives it a low priority in relation to other issues
(e.g., education, health care). Global climate change ap-
pears to be less of a concern because it is not clearly local
or local enough (Leiserowitz, 2005; Uzzell, 2000; Weber,
2006). Education about the nature and scope of the prob-
lems and what will be required to address them thus re-
mains essential.
Message framing. Excellent work has demon-
strated the power of messages to encourage proenviron-
July–August 2009 ● American Psychologist
mental behaviors. I mentioned earlier the use of social
norms as an example to foster the reuse of towels in hotels.
Other research has shown that normative information in-
fluences energy use in the home (Nolan, Schultz, Cialdini,
Goldstein, & Griskevicius, 2008). The influences seem to
be out of consciousness; that is, people are unaware of the
influence on their behavior and indeed even state explicitly,
albeit incorrectly, that the normative information was not
an influence.
Messages surround us in everyday life (e.g., about
littering, nutrition, seat-belt use). Most of these messages,
however, do not rely on what we have learned about
message framing. Indeed, some of the messages present
information (e.g., “Many people litter, please do not be one
of them.”) that is likely to exacerbate the problem by
normative modeling of the behavior opposite from the one
that is needed (e.g., Cialdini, 2003). There is enormous
untapped potential here to foster efficient use of energy and
proenvironmental activities. In many cases, the need is not
to add to messages that are coming at us daily but rather to
integrate our science so the messages have an impact on
what they are designed to accomplish.
Worth mentioning, but yet to be exploited, are priming
interventions, that is, the presentation of stimuli in the
environment that activate and increase the probability of
behavior (Bargh & Morsella, 2008). Elegant research has
shown that the presentation of stimuli and cues that are not
perceived consciously can influence subsequent behavior.
Incidental objects that are made visible (e.g., brief cases) or
smells (e.g., all purpose cleaner) can influence performance
(e.g., competitiveness and being neater, respectively; see
Thaler & Sunstein, 2008). What one perceives indirectly
can activate subsequent reactions and behaviors. The acti-
vation refers to the increase in the probability of action. As
with social norms, the influence often is not recognized,
identified, or acknowledged by those exposed to the cues
(see Bargh, Gollwitzer, Lee-Chai, Barndollar, & Troet-
schel, 2001).
Feedback or knowledge of results. Much
of the information presented to us is not in a form that is
very useful because the metric is unfamiliar (e.g., a kilo-
watt of energy use), the feedback is delayed (e.g., state-
ments arrive at the end of the month after energy-consum-
ing behavior is long completed), and the feedback is not
connected readily to concrete behavior in real time (e.g.,
changing the temperature for heating or air conditioning) or
real costs. There is now a fairly extensive literature explor-
ing many different ways of providing feedback about con-
serving energy in the home (e.g., Darby, 2006; Fischer,
2007; Nickerson, 2003). Feedback has been combined with
different payment plans (direct payment from a keyboard in
the home) and diverse display systems (color feedback,
energy actually being used). Payment for energy in ad-
vance (e.g., by credit card) rather than the usual way (after
use), daily feedback on how much has been spent as
measured by a monitor or meter inside the home, and
scores of variations on these practices have led to reduc-
tions in energy consumption in several countries in which
they have been tried. In some systems one can see the cost
July–August 2009 ● American Psychologist
when an appliance is turned on. The reviews referred to
above indicate that feedback saves (reduces) between 5%
and 15% of gas and electricity consumed and that the
effects are enduring. Feedback plus social reinforcement
(e.g., for meeting or exceeding some criterion) or the lack
thereof (e.g., smiley vs. sad faces on utility bills) helps even
further. More efforts are underway to provide clear feed-
back (e.g., on the driver consoles of some hybrid cars) and
to connect momentary behavior (e.g., driving style at the
moment) to energy use. The potential here is enormous,
and largely untapped, despite strong demonstrations about
palpable impact.
Decision making. Decision making and social
cognition more generally are pertinent in fostering envi-
ronmentally sustainable behaviors (e.g., Nickerson, 2007).
All sorts of decisions (e.g., purchasing appliances, renovat-
ing one’s home, selecting an automobile) involve choices
and trade-offs. Many lines of work are relevant, but let me
illustrate the area by mentioning choice architecture, that is,
how choice is structured (Thaler & Sunstein, 2008).
Choice is always presented in some way that is not
truly neutral (e.g., always within the context in which it is
presented and whether a default option refers to one way of
acting versus another). For example, when people are asked
whether they wish to enroll in a company retirement plan,
often the default position (not enrolling) means that most
do not enroll. Enrollment, even despite the added incentive
of receiving matching (free) money from an employer, is
infrequent even though, when explicitly asked, people say
they want a plan. There is a strong tendency to opt for the
status quo or default position, which is captured nicely by
the statement that one should never underestimate “the
power of inertia” (Thaler & Sunstein, 2008, p. 8). If the
default position is reversed, that is, if doing nothing leads
to enrollment or if one has to choose explicitly (and there
is no default position), then enrollment is much higher.
Programs in retirement enrollment and organ donations are
concrete demonstrations of the importance of choice archi-
tecture and show that seemingly insignificant details of
choice presentation can very much influence how people
behave.
Default choices are already used in marketing. For
example, in magazine sales, the free issue of the magazine
is followed by the default position of continuing to receive
the magazine for a fee. The number of people who sub-
scribe increases, as people pay rather than cancel. Default
choices could be used to govern many energy-saving de-
vices. As a common example, automated lighting—in
which the light in each room goes off automatically (de-
fault position) unless activity is detected in the room—
could be required in all new homes. Similarly, choice
structure could be used with economic incentives; a default
nominal charge for a paper or plastic bag for one’s grocer-
ies could encourage people to bring bags that could be used
and reused or to carry one- or two-item purchases without
a bag. There is more to decision making than structuring
choice, but much of what we know about choice indicates
that making proenvironmental actions the default could
help.
347
 Use of the media. The media (e.g., radio, TV,
Internet) are almost unlimited in their reach and potential.
As a stellar illustration, for many years a field called
entertainment education has been used to exert social
change on critical issues including family planning, adult
literacy, HIV/AIDS prevention, sexual abstinence for ado-
lescents, parenting, and preservation of the environment
(Singhal, Cody, Rogers, & Sabido, 2003; Singhal & Rog-
ers, 1999). The model in this approach has been to study
individuals within a given culture (e.g., surveys, focus
groups) and develop characters for an extended radio or
television drama series (depending on the medium avail-
able to the community) that reflect people and their daily
lives within the culture. The characters take on different
roles, deal with daily challenges of life within the culture,
and model social-change behaviors.
The goal is to achieve concrete social change at the
level of the individual, the community, and society. For
example, one of the early applications in Mexico focused
on family planning and efforts to reduce fertility rates (see
Sabido, 1981; Singhal & Rogers, 1999). Family life, mar-
ital relations, and the daily drama and stressors were con-
veyed in detail as the televised drama series unfolded. The
fictional family gained control over their lives and bene-
fited from family planning—all in realistic episodes. The
impact: sales of contraceptives in the community rose
dramatically, and over a 5-year period, there was a 34%
drop in birthrates. Similar effects were obtained in Kenya.
More generally, the model has been used throughout the
world on other social issues. The model has produced
enormously engaging shows with high ratings; viewers or
listeners become involved with the characters, and there is
a genuine impact on the targeted social behavior rather than
a mere “raising of awareness.”
We know the media can promote antisocial messages
and behaviors (e.g., violence and crime in movies and videog-
ames) and promote products (e.g., product placement). The
media are platforms for placement of messages that could
readily enhance health (e.g., no smoking, drug use, or unpro-
tected sex among characters) and proenvironmental actions
(e.g., routinely turning off lights). Admittedly, buying energy-
efficient appliances and having solar panels installed on one’s
roof will not easily fit into the narratives of most serial dramas,
but there are many other places to intervene in our favorite
movies and television shows.
Incentives and disincentives. These obvi-
ously can play a critical role at many levels (e.g., individ-
uals, groups, communities, and corporations). For fostering
sustainable actions, we are familiar with rebates and tax
incentives for purchasing hybrid cars, solar panels in the
home, and energy-efficient light bulbs. Incentives have also
been used to foster sustainable farming, to reduce defores-
tation, and to reverse the collapse of fisheries (Clayton,
2009; Costello, Gaines, & Lynham, 2008).
Incentives are not always economic. In many areas of
public life, “challenges” are provided, sometimes with a
financial incentive. A challenge not only encourages exten-
sive efforts to meet the challenge but also gives great visibility
to the goal among those who do not participate. For example,
348
one energy-saving challenge to obtain over 100 miles per
gallon in driving a hybrid car also included an economic
incentive ($1 million in prize money; see http://hybridfest
.com/MPG.htm, http://mpgchallenge.greatrace.com/).
Disincentives occasionally are used to turn people
from their usual practices to alternative behaviors that
foster a sustainable environment. We are readily familiar
with high prices for gasoline and the decrease in driving
(and use of fossil fuel) that they cause. Public reaction and
protestation also can be a disincentive for practices un-
friendly to the environment. One such protest was mounted
against a fast-food chain to get it to cease using food
containers made of polystyrene (brand name of Styro-
foam), which is not only less biodegradable than alterna-
tives (paper) but generates chemical products in production
that contribute to pollution and produce greenhouse gases.
Mobilization of grassroots groups extended to organized
boycotts and pickets, moved the issue to national attention,
and was eventually effective in getting the chain to change
its product containers (see Gardner & Stern, 2002). Public
reaction to a product or practice (e.g., endorsement or outcry)
can be mobilized to provide incentives and disincentives that
are critical because of their impact on goodwill and profits.
Incentives often derive from marketing, economic,
and policy considerations, which are valuable perspectives
to be sure and already offer supportive evidence on such
topics as energy use in the home. However, an economics
perspective on the scheduling of rewards and how they are
deployed is somewhat different from a psychological per-
spective. Actually, this is not a matter of perspectives
alone. Advances in understanding how reinforcers operate,
identifying which reinforcers control behavior (functional
analysis), and using antecedents of behavior to augment the
impact of rewards (establishing operations) from psycho-
logical research (behavior analysis) could readily comple-
ment the use of incentives that emanate from economics. In
a related vein, challenges and the addition of gentle forms
of competition among neighborhoods, universities, com-
munities, businesses, and cities to be more green, followed
by recognition of the results, would be in keeping with
what psychologists know about fostering behavior. Ad-
vances in understanding how efforts to control can backfire
as, for example, in reactance (social psychological re-
search) are quite pertinent as well. In short, we could
mobilize incentives and disincentives better and more sys-
tematically on the basis of psychological research already
available.
Social marketing. Marketing strategies have
been used to promote sustainable behaviors. The approach
is referred to as community-based social marketing
(McKenzie-Mohr & Smith, 1999; see www.cbsm.com).
Key elements include a thorough analysis of the behavior
(goal) and marketing (advertising) with the goal of making
the desired sustainable behavior easier, more obvious, and
more convenient than alternative behaviors. The steps in-
clude identifying barriers to (real and perceived) and ben-
efits of an activity, developing a strategy for change, testing
the strategy on a pilot basis, and evaluating impact. At
www.toolsofchange.com, several examples of community-
July–August 2009 ● American Psychologist
based programs are provided that illustrate the approach
and its effects in decreasing energy use at home and use of
pesticides and increasing use of public transportation, fuel-
efficient driving among young drivers, bicycles as a pri-
mary means of transportation, telecommuting, behaviors
that improve air quality, and recycling. The website pro-
vides steps, costs, and outcomes (e.g., in emissions, in
energy saved) and thus shows how behavior change trans-
lates to critical environmental outcomes (e.g., energy saved).
Social marketing provides a broadly applicable ap-
proach. Barriers may be localized as a function of constraints
of the setting, the range of options that are feasible for a given
behavior, and perceptions that might be moderated by culture,
ethnicity, age, and other variables of the target group. Behav-
iors occur in contexts, and social marketing reflects an inte-
grative and systematic approach to addressing these contexts
and increasing the likelihood of behavior change.
Integrating and understanding multiple
influences. Research grounded in psychological theory
has integrated multiple influences to optimize change in fos-
tering environmentally sustainable behaviors (e.g., Hunecke,
Blöbaum, Matthies, & Höger, 2001). This is well illustrated
by the value-belief-norm theory (Gardner & Stern, 2002;
Stern, 2000b), a theory closely tied to data. Briefly, the theory
classifies different types of environmentally significant behav-
iors and provides an account and a causal chain that elaborates
the role of values (e.g., altruism, egoism), beliefs (e.g., con-
sequences, perceived ability to make a difference), personal
norms (e.g., sense of obligation), and behaviors (e.g., individ-
ual activities, participation in organizations).
Whether an individual is likely to engage in proenvi-
ronmental behaviors may depend on (be moderated by)
diverse variables (e.g., attitudes, personal capabilities, con-
textual influences, and routines) and the type of behavior.
For example, selection of a hybrid vehicle may be greatly
influenced by one’s attitude toward the environmental im-
pact of the car (e.g., energy use, consumption) and toward
luxury (e.g., speed, power, size of the car) and by personal
capabilities (e.g., social status, financial resources). The
theory conveys why just targeting behavior free from other
considerations is likely to have minimal impact. Multiple
moderators and mediators have been identified that can be
used to optimize the impact of interventions. There are
other integrative models that bring together multiple influ-
ences such as resource availability, governmental influ-
ences, technological influences, and the varied goals of
decision makers (e.g., Gifford, 2008). Such models lend
themselves to empirical evaluation to test links among the
influences and how these can translate to action.
Religion and ethics. Religion and ecology have
been part of the discourse on fostering a sustainable envi-
ronment for decades (see Tucker & Grim, 2001). Among
the challenges are reorienting people to convey the stands
of diverse religions on responsibility and respect in relation
to the environment and utilizing religion to “awaken a
renewed sense of awe and reverence for the Earth”
(Tucker, 2002, p. 14). A forum on religion and ecology that
is the largest international multireligious project of its kind
encompasses conferences, publications, and resources that
July–August 2009 ● American Psychologist
place environmental concerns in broader contexts (see
http://environment.harvard.edu/religion). The goal of the
forum is to foster interaction and dialogue among those in
religion, science, ethics, public policy, and education.
Among the many educational highlights one can find at
the forum’s website are position statements and views from
many religions on the relation and responsibilities of humans
to the environment, including worldviews, issues of steward-
ship, ethics, and practices that foster a sustainable environ-
ment. The impact of this work is not found only in broad
position statements. Religious leaders are drawing on envi-
ronmental concerns as part of their work with their congre-
gations, and concrete actions that go beyond general ethical
principles are being fostered and encouraged (e.g., Motavalli,
2002). Within psychology, religion and spirituality could con-
tribute greatly to understanding and fostering sustainable be-
haviors. Understanding the roles of belief, commitment, and
broad views of the world and how these translate into action
falls squarely within the realm of psychology.
Use of special contexts and settings. Var-
ious contexts and settings provide special opportunities to
foster sustainable behaviors. Businesses, schools, universi-
ties, professional organizations, and local communities that
have captive groups and contexts allow for focused inter-
ventions. An ethos and set of practices can be established
that foster sustainable behaviors. In business, for example,
environmentally friendly work practices such as permitting
work at home or providing incentives for using mass trans-
portation can be applied and fostered.
Settings and contexts raise opportunities to implement
interventions that are unique to those settings. For example,
zoos and aquariums represent a unique opportunity for fos-
tering environmentally sustainable behaviors (see World As-
sociation of Zoos and Aquariums, 2005). Surveys indicate that
zoos are a credible and trustworthy source of information.
Moreover, people welcome information from zoos regarding
the environment and climate change, and they see conserva-
tion advocacy as part of the mission of zoos (Wadler, 2007).
Also, parents see zoos as contributing to children’s moral
development and as providing an opportunity to teach respect
for nonhuman animals and nature. These findings alert us to
opportunities for interventions (e.g., demonstrations, exhibits)
that can focus on the dependence of nonhuman animals on
contextual influences that humans can control (e.g., protecting
habitats and ecosystems) and, indeed, on how our own less
than altruistic interests are served by care for all animal and
plant life. Then there is of course the higher moral imperative
of the “reverence for life” of which this care is a part (Meyer
& Bergel, 2002; Schweitzer, 1923/1949).10
Diverse contexts and settings raise special opportuni-
ties for localizing and setting-specific interventions. Within
some settings (e.g., business, universities, grocery stores) it
is possible to evaluate the impact of actions that affect
10
Albert Schweitzer (1875–1965) was a physician, philosopher, and
theologian whose philosophy of “reverence for life” served as the basis for
his receipt of the Nobel Peace Prize in 1952.
349
conservation and energy use (e.g., specific practices that
actually reduce energy consumption). In other settings
(e.g., zoos, aquariums, museums of natural history), the
focus may be more on views and attitudes. These latter foci
may translate to behavior change and actions that make a
difference. It might be that a broad alignment of messages
and cues in many contexts and settings will sensitize people
to other interventions or summate in a way that exerts
direct impact.
General comments. I have sampled several
psychosocial interventions. Effective interventions in many
instances will need to take into account local conditions,
culture, context, and other factors. A highlight of many of
the interventions is that they represent platforms or tem-
plates that can be adapted to different local conditions. For
example, social marketing, entertainment education, and
interventions based on value-belief-norm theory provide a
structure that adapts to diverse groups, conditions, and
contexts. This platform feature is important to allow adap-
tation of effective interventions to many cultures and coun-
tries.
The diversity of psychology’s content areas maps well
onto the challenge of and the scope of strategies needed for
fostering behaviors that sustain the environment. There is
general agreement that multiple interventions are needed
and that they are needed at multiple levels (e.g., Gardner &
Stern, 2002; Maibach, Roser-Renouf, & Leiserowitz,
2008). Intervening in many contexts and drawing on the
diversity of our strengths could make a difference.
The idea of fostering sustainable behavior through
psychological science is not new. The oil shortage and
national energy crisis of the 1970s first brought attention to
the impact of the use of fossil fuels on the environment as
well as to many issues that now face us again (e.g., Na-
tional Research Council, 1979). In 1973, the first multidi-
mensional scale to measure environmental concern was
developed with the goal of facilitating psychological re-
search (Maloney & Ward, 1973). The measure included
components (verbal commitment, actual commitment
[what a person does], affect, and knowledge) that still
figure prominently in current theories and applications
(Matthies & Blöbaum, 2007). Since that time, psycholog-
ical theory, research, and application in this area have
flourished, as reviewed in many books (e.g., Bamberg &
Moser, 2007; Gardner & Stern, 2002; Nickerson, 2003;
Schmuck & Schultz, 2002) and articles (e.g., Oskamp,
1995, 2000; Stern, 1992). The different areas of psychol-
ogy relevant to fostering sustainable behaviors are illus-
trated by the number of different journals with series of
articles on the topic. Examples in the English language
include the American Psychologist (2000, Vol. 55, No. 5),
Human Ecology Review (2003, Vol. 10, No. 2), Journal of
Environmental Psychology (1995, Vol. 15, No. 3), Journal
of Humanistic Psychology (2001, Vol. 41, No. 2), and
Journal of Social Issues (1995, Vol. 51, No. 44; 2000, Vol.
56, No. 3; 2007, Vol. 63, No. 1). If the area has been so
well developed for a period exceeding three decades, why
mention all of this now? What is new that warrants bring-
350
ing this issue to light and providing emphasis? I thought
you would never ask.
Why Raise the Topic Now?
Urgency and Scope of the Problems
Actually, several influences can be identified that are new,
newly salient, or at a critical stage. First and foremost is
urgency. The need for action in response to climate change
is more evident than ever before. Whether the issue is
endangered species, coastlines, or water and food supplies,
current levels and trends indicate that action is needed
(L. B. Brown, 2008; Speth, 2005). Invariably, trends are
based on linear extrapolations and slippery-slope types of
worries that often do not materialize. We are well beyond
extrapolations. For example, we do not need to look at
“trends” for glaciers melting; the changes are stark already
(British Antarctic Survey, 2008; Gillett et al., 2008; John-
son, Bentley, & Gohl, 2008). Similarly, global warming is
increasing the mortality rates of trees, a process mediated
by pathogens, insects, and droughts (van Mantgem & Ste-
phenson, 2007). Here, too, this is not something coming;
these effects are here. Some of the problems that contribute
to the urgency are not merely getting worse in a linear
fashion. For example, overpopulation is exponential, and a
seemingly small annual growth rate of 1.4% in the world
population means that it will actually double in approxi-
mately 50 years (Gardner & Stern, 2002). The use of
energy and resources to accommodate this increase alone
will accelerate the problems of climate change.
Second, breakthroughs in assessment methods and
novel statistical models that examine multiple systems
mean that we can recognize and better document individual
problems (from Table 2) and their interrelations (see, e.g.,
Diaz & Rosenberg, 2008; Rosenzweig et al., 2008). We
know that global warming, decreased food availability in
several countries, loss of fisheries, increasing population,
deforestation, increased oxygen depletion in oceans, lakes,
and rivers, and other such individual wicked problems are
all intricately related. For example, some animal and plant
species are moving to additional or different locations in
response to key environmental changes (e.g., Lenoir, Gé-
gout, Marquet, de Ruffray, & Brisse, 2008). Several spe-
cies that do not have this environment-enforced mobility
are at risk for extinction (Vié, Hilton-Taylor, & Stuart,
2008). We can now assess how problems cascade into
others and further exacerbate degradation of the environ-
ment. For example, and as noted previously, global warm-
ing can lead to the loss of trees—the same trees that help
reduce greenhouse gases and limit global warming. The
broad impact of a problem can be better monitored now,
and such better monitoring often conveys a problem’s
accelerated pace.
Third, more of the public recognizes a problem. In the
United States, 92% of the public are aware of global
warming; 76% view climate change as a serious problem
(Leiserowitz, 2006). Approximately one half of the U.S.
July–August 2009 ● American Psychologist
public believe climate change is already having a danger-
ous impact on people or will within the next decade (see
Maibach et al., 2008). Increased recognition of degradation
of the environment and the need to foster change was
enhanced by An Inconvenient Truth, the documentary and
book by Al Gore (2006), former vice president of the
United States. His contribution was recognized by many
awards, including most prominently, the Nobel Peace Prize
(2007). All of that attention has helped to make not-so-new
concerns fresher and more salient to the public.11
Fourth, what is new is that critical problems and their
consequences are now felt on a global scale. Energy con-
sumption (e.g., oil, ethanol) in one or a few industrialized
countries has cascading effects that spread to other coun-
tries. These effects can be felt in the price of energy but
also in the availability of food (e.g., rice, wheat, and corn)
and the rate of disease (e.g., from pollutants and insect-
borne illnesses) in diverse parts of the world (see L. B.
Brown, 2008). Many countries show the effects of these
problems; for example, expanding deserts are leading to
water refugees (people who leave their land because water
is no longer available), and increased food costs lead to
active political unrest and protests in the streets. The scale
of these problems and the increasing interconnectedness of
the world mean that we cannot neglect issues because they
are there (another country) but not here (our country). In
global warming and its associated problems, there is no
here and there. We have doctors without borders (www
.doctorswithoutborders.org), psychologists beyond borders
(www.psychologybeyondborders.com), and now a plethora
of problems without borders.
Fifth, we now live in a period referred to by some as
the Anthropocene era to denote our dominant influence on
the planet (Crutzen & Stoermer, 2000). We have an un-
usual ability to affect the world in part through our ad-
vances in science and technology. For example, our ability
to locate, catch, and haul tons of fish from the ocean
involves scores of advances in satellites and global posi-
tioning, electronics, building materials, and increased un-
derstanding of habitats and migration, to the disadvantage
of the fish. Similarly, our technological ability to draw and
drain water from subterranean depths for irrigation and to
clear forests to grow or transport more crops are remark-
able but also lamentable because of their subsequent envi-
ronmental impacts (e.g., diminished water supply, defores-
tation). Domination over the environment is not the same
as stewardship of the environment (i.e., protecting and
promoting sustainability).
Opportunities and Action
Some of what is new is less about the problems and their
impact and more about opportunities for change. First, as I
mentioned previously, science is more collaborative than
ever. Collaborative, cross-disciplinary, and interdiscipli-
nary work is pivotal because the great challenges are not
merely single-faceted problems. Psychology as a hub sci-
ence is related to many areas; collaborating on changing
July–August 2009 ● American Psychologist
human behavior (e.g., energy-efficient behaviors, adoption
of technology) is natural for psychologists. There are op-
portunities we should seize and others we should create.
Second, the public is involved in science and its use
and application more than ever before, as reflected, for
example, in the term citizen scientist and in organizations
that foster the participation of amateur scientists (e.g.,
www.sas.org). More generally, businesses, foundations,
science, mathematics, and medicine have turned over var-
ious challenges and incentives to the public at large and to
anyone interested. Some of these challenges have been
visible (e.g., privatization of space flight suitable for pas-
sengers), and the public follows them in the news, but there
are hundreds of other less-visible challenges that have been
addressed and solved in this way (e.g., identifying treat-
ments and disease markers, providing solutions to special
math problems, and finding novel methods to clean up oil
spills; Travis, 2008). Another way in which the public has
become involved in using science includes drawing on data
to guide personal decisions (e.g., looking up hospital suc-
cess rates for particular surgeries, checking airline safety
and late arrival records). And of course, the entire issue of
teaching intelligent design on a par with evolutionary the-
ory and research has, among its many consequences,
brought science education to the fore. There are new op-
portunities to enlist the public as allies by seeking their
direct involvement beyond playing the role of subjects in
some grand social intervention to foster environmentally
sustainable behaviors. The public is already involved in
many “green” movements in housing developments and
business and industry. This involvement can be better and
more systematically mobilized by applying psychological
science.
Third, there are new opportunities to reach the public
and to effect change. One such opportunity is provided by
technology, which can play a greater role in disseminating
information and behavior-change procedures. For example,
we can now deliver (and empirically evaluate) psycholog-
ical interventions for clinical dysfunction across the Inter-
net and across many countries and thousands of partici-
pants (e.g., Muñoz et al., 2006). The rapidly changing
technologies for locating and communicating with individ-
uals anywhere on the planet will provide new opportunities
to extend interventions for all sorts of ends beyond the
commercial ones that are leading the way. We now need to
harness other interventions that could be adapted to exist-
ing and emerging technologies to sustain our environment.
It is easy to imagine, for example, that our individual
carbon footprints, the levels of air pollution we are breath-
ing, and other measures of our “greenness” could be avail-
11
An Inconvenient Truth (Gore, 2006) is a movie, a book, and a
series of lesson plans for science classes. As of this writing, an opera is in
the works (Holden, 2008)! The Nobel Peace Prize was shared between the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and Al Gore Jr. “for their
efforts to build up and disseminate greater knowledge about man-made
climate change, and to lay the foundations for the measures that are
needed to counteract such change” (http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/
peace/laureates/2007/press.html).
351
able in real time on a yet-to-be-devised personal phone-like
gadget we could carry.
As to our science, we know a lot, albeit never enough;
as to our relevance, if it involves human or nonhuman
animal affect, cognition, or behavior, we should be in-
volved; if the focus requires mobilization of public interest
or action, that is us as well. So the question is not about
whether we fit in or where but whether we can commit,
focus, and move to a scale that makes a difference.
Extending Our Reach to Address the
Challenges
Psychology has enjoyed a long history of contributing to
society. It is on the basis of that record that I am arguing
that we extend our reach in scope, effort, and impact. Many
subfields within the sciences (e.g., green chemistry, green
agronomy, environmental sociology) and many professions
and disciplines (e.g., green architecture, sustainability en-
gineering, and sustainability law) have joined in meeting
the challenges of fostering a sustainable environment. Ex-
amples abound on the science side: Microbiology has rec-
ognized the opportunities that microbes (bacteria, yeast,
fungi, and archaea) and plant relationships provide in pro-
ducing efficient and sustainable fuels by converting bio-
mass (e.g., from trees, grasses, and nonedible parts of
crops) into energy. Microbes can also sequester carbon
dioxide and alleviate climate change (Tiedje & Donohue,
2008). Applied physics is working on new coatings to
collect energy for solar panels. These products will be able
to increase the efficiency and viability of solar energy
(Zhou, Zhang, Tvingstedt, Tian, & Inganäs, 2008). At a
more macro and planetary level, geoengineering has dis-
cussed options for reducing the amount of sunlight reach-
ing the earth’s surface, which could reduce or reverse
global warming. Introducing substances into the strato-
sphere to accomplish this goal is of course only at the
discussion and modeling stages (Tilmes, Müller, & Sala-
witch, 2008). On the nonscience side, I have already men-
tioned that religion is very much involved in efforts to
articulate our relation to the Earth and its care. Broad moral
principles, beliefs, and values as underpinnings of sustain-
able behavior place religion in a special role as well as in
a collaborative role with scientific research on moderators
and mediators of behavior change.
Among the sciences, psychology has a very special
role. As a science that understands human behavior, family
life, education, group processes, attitude– behavior rela-
tions, group influences, decision making and choice, and so
on, we need to be involved. To say that we need to be
involved draws on a point noted earlier, that we already are
involved as reflected in decades of excellent psychological
work conveying the role of psychological science and what
might be done to foster sustainable behavior. We have a
stew full of theory and research, but it has yet to be served
on a scale that feeds a very hungry world. Although I am
not the first to note psychology’s relevance and special role
in fostering a sustainable environment, I would like to be
the last.12
352
Many scientists who write about the environment un-
derscore that in our utilization of resources, we cannot
continue business as usual; what we are doing now is not
working. Perhaps we can apply that to our organization
(APA) and our science. APA as an organization has a
strong commitment to being “green,” as reflected in use of
renewable and nonfossil fuels, work-force policies that
provide incentives and opportunities for use of mass transit
and telecommuting, use and recycling of recyclable mate-
rials, selection of convention sites and hotels, and changes
in the physical facilities to reduce energy consumption
(Anderson, 2008).13 The impact of the organization
could be augmented by partnering with like-minded (and
like-behaviored) psychological but also nonpsychologi-
cal organizations at national and international levels.
Similarly, for our science, we have much to contribute
directly to the effort to foster behavior change among
individuals, groups, and organizations and to help guide
policy directed toward these changes. Our goal should
be to extend our reach through partnerships and syner-
gies with other professions.
I have an embarrassingly unsophisticated model of
change and impact that is best captured by a book for
young children (Stone Soup, M. Brown, 1947). The reader
who has children or who has been a child may recall the
story of three soldiers returning from war who came to a
village in hopes of finding food and a place to sleep. The
villagers were afraid and would give them neither. The
soldiers said they would make a soup from stones so they
would have something to eat. They heated a large cauldron
of water and dropped three stones to start their soup; the
villagers looked on with skepticism. As the water heated,
the soldiers noted that the soup would be better with a little
salt and pepper just to season it, and then a little cabbage,
and then some potatoes, and so on. Onlookers happily
agreed and brought a little bit of this and that. When the
soup was done, the soldiers and villagers joined in to eat
the soup. The villagers were amazed that such a delicious
soup could be made from stones.
In my stone soup (SS) model—permit me to use an
abbreviation in an effort to salvage some sophistication,
even if not credibility—we can achieve, rather than exert,
enormous impact simply by starting and then drawing on
others for small additions and contributions to the goal. Our
organization can be the three soldiers for other organiza-
tions, small and large; our science too can join with others.
12
As the reader knows, often the last rather than the first to identify
or discover something has the greatest impact. Familiar examples include
Columbus’s “discovery” of America, Pavlov’s demonstration of respon-
dent conditioning, and Alexander Graham Bell’s “invention” of the tele-
phone. Each added something others did not but was hardly the first. The
“last” occasion in which something is “discovered” is associated with a
qualitative change in how the event is perceived, used, and exploited.
Because of what psychology has done in the area of fostering sustainable
behavior, we are ready for the last occasion for discovery and the asso-
ciated qualitative change and impact.
13
In 1998, the APA Council of Representatives, the chief governing
body of the organization, directed the association staff to adopt green
policies.
July–August 2009 ● American Psychologist
We have a shared goal here, and it makes little difference
if we are the villagers or the soldiers, but we ought to build
toward a larger goal together. The individual contributions
will summate to make a huge difference.
The thrust of this article has been to advocate that
psychology ought to take leadership and partnership posi-
tions in fostering a sustainable environment. Educational
and teaching materials are available for classroom use to
convey psychological science’s role and areas of contribu-
tion (http://www.teachgreenpsych.com/index.html), and
these provide an important start. More efforts to dissemi-
nate this information and to clarify the opportunities psy-
chology provides are needed. Also, we know from our
research a great deal on how to foster behavior change
toward a sustainable environment. Yet we need to do more,
mobilize differently, and move to a scale that makes a
difference. For our field, perhaps designating the next 10
years as the Decade of Fostering a Sustainable Environ-
ment would provide a unifying theme for our richly diverse
topic areas. We could at once reduce the carbon footprint of
society and increase the psychological science footprint in
society.
Are there complexities, obstacles, and impediments?
Of course. Will we agree among ourselves on appropriate
action to take to have an impact? Of course not. The nature
of wicked problems means that the very formulation of the
problem and therefore the likely intervention strategies
invariably are debatable. Some of the obstacles are within
our own house. First, in academia, there is an occasional
disdain for research that directly helps people. Basic labo-
ratory research, generating and testing theoretical models,
and advances in design and evaluation techniques remain
the core strength of our science and without question are
important in addressing grand challenges such as climate
change. Applied research and applications of basic findings
are often demeaned or held as less valuable or prestigious,
with dramatic exceptions (e.g., Head Start).14 If we are
going to direct attention to the fostering of sustainable
behaviors, we must be sure that we do not derogate the
application and direct relevance of our work. We have
harmed ourselves by not seizing the high ground in
noting that the application of science is one of our
strengths and that rigorous evaluation of these applica-
tions is yet another.
A second obstacle within our own house is a tendency
to engage in actions that focus on problems without moving
to have an impact on them. For example, APA and other
organizations at state, national, and international levels, as
well as government agencies, routinely commission task
forces or panels to take stands, craft position statements,
and make resolutions or trainloads of recommendations
that never leave the station. Information and clarified po-
sitions are useful, but not as ends in themselves in relation
to a degrading environment. Our contributions in fostering
environmentally sustainable behaviors should be judged by
whether they make a difference on metrics that reflect their
impact on the environment.
A third obstacle, and one related to impact, has to do
with the scale of our interventions. Small demonstrations of
July–August 2009 ● American Psychologist
what we can do often are useful as a place to begin, but the
move from small demonstration to large-scale application
does not simply involve doing more of the same. New
influences enter that determine whether key features of the
smaller demonstration are feasible, relevant, and effective
when extended. We ought to begin with interventions that
could move to a larger scale and then not omit the next step
of moving them. This might be one more essential place to
partner with other fields.
Finally, noting the inadequacy of our database and
using that as a reason for inaction is another internal
problem. As scientists, we invariably and correctly note
that more research is needed, and that is certainly true with
regard to fostering sustainable behaviors. We are all aware
that quick action and action that is intended to solve a
problem may not be well advised. “First do no harm”
invariably is relevant but is also too simple. Sometimes an
interim solution is needed to get to a better one, and
simplistic dichotomies between harm and help do not cap-
ture the complexities. For example, current efforts to re-
duce dependence on fossil fuels by improving the fuel
economy of conventional vehicles, using hybrid vehicles,
and using biomass-derived fuels are considered interim
solutions that will be valuable for the next two decades,
after which hydrogen fuel cell vehicles are likely to be the
preferred strategy (National Research Council, Committee
on Assessment of Resource Needs for Fuel Cell and Hy-
drogen Technologies, 2008). The current research, policy,
and commercial infrastructure are not positioned to make
hydrogen fuel cell vehicles feasible now. Clearly, strategies
to tame the problem of climate change and its many related
challenges will require immediate, medium-range, and
long-range strategies based on the best information we
have now, and the “now” keeps changing.
Psychology ought to be involved more directly, sys-
tematically, and visibly in strategies that utilize our current
knowledge. There are multiple disciplines already partici-
pating, and their impact could be enhanced by our partic-
ipation because, of all things, changing behavior at multiple
levels and understanding the domains in which behavior is
embedded (e.g., decision making, culture, values) are our
specialty. We need to be more involved because “saving
civilization is not a spectator sport” (L. B. Brown, 2008,
xiii).
I mentioned at the beginning that a presidential ad-
dress may be useful as a verbal photograph of the times, not
because an APA president has any special talent as a
photographer, but rather because the context and times in
which he or she writes frame the comments. To that end, I
suggest we commit our knowledge base, intellectual and
applied resources, and organizational heft to the challenges
of our times. The need is great to address conditions
affecting us; we do not control a lot, but we have much to
offer that makes a difference. How wonderful it would be
14
Prior APA presidents, spanning many decades (e.g., Ladd, 1894;
Tyler, 1973), noted how research that helps people or the human condition
directly is often demeaned.
353
to do even more than we already do, apply what we have
learned, and partner with other sciences committed to mak-
ing a genuine difference in fostering a sustainable environ-
ment. We would inspire a generation and clarify the public
role and relevance of psychology, all as a consequence of
making a genuine difference in the world.
REFERENCES
Anastasi, A. (1972). The cultivation of diversity. American Psychologist,
27, 1091–1099.
Anderson, N. (2008, March). Going green. Monitor on Psychology, 39(3),
9. (Available at http://www.apa.org/monitor/2008/03/ceo.html)
Bamberg, S., & Moser, G. (2007). Twenty years after Hines, Hungerford,
& Tomera: A new meta-analysis of psycho-social determinants of
pro-environment behaviour. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 27,
14 –25.
Bargh, J. A., Gollwitzer, P. M., Lee-Chai, A. Y., Barndollar, K., &
Troetschel, R. (2001). The automated will: Nonconscious activation
and pursuit of behavioral goals. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 81, 1014 –1027.
Bargh, J. A., & Morsella, E. (2008). The unconscious mind. Perspectives
on Psychological Science, 3, 73–79.
Battisti, D. S., & Naylor, R. L. (2009, January 9). Historical warnings of
future food insecurity with unprecedented seasonal heat. Science, 323,
240 –244.
Bevan, W. (1982). A sermon of sorts in three parts. American Psycholo-
gist, 37, 1303–1322.
Bohm, G., Nerb, J., McDaniels, T., & Spada, H. (2001). Environmental
risks: Perception, evaluation and management. Stamford, CT: Elsevier
Science/JAI Press.
Boyack, K. W., Klavans, R., & Börner, K. (2005). Mapping the backbone
of science. Scientometrics, 64, 351–374.
British Antarctic Survey. (2008, March 25). Huge iceberg breaks away,
Antarctic ice shelf ‘hangs by a thread’. ScienceDaily. Retrieved March 23,
2009, from http://www.sciencedaily.com /releases/2008/03/080325120714.
htm
Brook, A. T. (2001). What is “conservation psychology”? Population and
Environmental Psychology Bulletin, 27(2), 1–2. Retrieved April 8,
2009, from http://apa34.cos.ucf.edu/pepb/PEPB272.pdf
Brown, L. B. (2008). Plan B 3.0: Mobilizing to save civilization (3rd ed.).
New York: W. W. Norton.
Brown, M. (1947). Stone soup. New York: Aladdin.
Cacioppo, J. T. (2007, October). The rise in collaborative psychological
sciences. Observer, 20(9), 1–3. Retrieved April 8, 2009, from http://
www.psychologicalscience.org/observer/getArticle.cfm?id⫽2228
Camillus, J. C. (2008, May). Strategy as a wicked problem. Harvard
Business Review, 86(5), 99 –106.
Cialdini, R. B. (2003). Crafting normative messages to protect the envi-
ronment. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 12, 105–109.
Clayton, S. (2009). Promoting sustainable behavior. In S. Clayton & M.
Myers (Eds.), Conservation psychology: Understanding and promoting
human care for nature (pp. 143–161). Boston: Blackwell.
Clayton, S., & Myers, M. (2009). Conservation psychology: Understand-
ing and promoting human care for nature. Boston: Blackwell.
Conklin, J. (2006). Dialogue mapping: Building shared understanding of
wicked problems. West Sussex, England: Wiley.
Costello, C., Gaines, S. D., & Lynham, J. (2008, September 19). Can catch
shares prevent fisheries collapse? Science, 321, 1678 –1681.
Crutzen, P. J., & Stoermer, E. F. (2000). The “Anthropocene.” Global
Change Newsletter [International Geosphere–Biosphere Programme],
41, 17–18. Retrieved March 23, 2009, from www.igbp.net/documents/
resources/NL_41.pdf
Darby, S. (2006, April). The effectiveness of feedback on energy consump-
tion: A review for DEFRA of the literature on metering, billing and
direct displays. Oxford, England: University of Oxford, Environmental
Change Institute. Retrieved March 23, 2009, from www.eci.ox.ac.uk/
research/energy/downloads/smart-metering-report.pdf
DeLeon, P. H. (2002). Presidential reflections: Past and future. American
Psychologist, 57, 425– 430.
354
de Rothschild, D. (2007). The Live Earth global warming survival hand-
book: 77 essential skills to stop climate change. New York: Rodale
Books.
Dewey, J. (1900). Psychology and social practice. Psychological Review,
7, 105–124.
Diaz, R. J., & Rosenberg, R. (2008, August 15). Spreading dead zones and
consequences for marine ecosystems. Science, 321, 926 –929.
Domestic Policy Council, Office of Science and Technology Policy.
(2006). American Competitiveness Initiative. Retrieved March 23,
2009, from www.nist.gov/director/reports/ACIBooklet.pdf
Donaldson, S. I., & Berger, D. E. (2006). The rise and promise of applied
psychology in the 21st century. In S. I. Donaldson, D. E., Berger, & K.
Pezdek (Eds.), Applied psychology: New frontiers and rewarding ca-
reers (pp. 3–23). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Earth Works Group. (1989). 50 simple things you can do to save the earth.
Berkeley, CA: Earthworks Press.
Fischer, C. (2007, June 4 –5). Consumer feedback: A helpful tool for
stimulating electricity conservation? In S. Lahlou & S. Emmert (Eds.),
Proceedings: SCP cases in the field of food, mobility, and housing
(chap. 31, pp. 509 –522). Workshop of the Sustainable Consumption
Research Exchange (SCORE!) Network, Paris, France.
Fowler, R. D. (1990). Psychology: The core discipline. American Psy-
chologist, 45, 1– 6.
Fox, R. E. (1996). Charlatanism, scientism, and psychology’s social
contract. American Psychologist, 51, 777–784.
Gardner, G. T., & Stern, P. C. (2002). Environmental problems and
human behavior (2nd ed.). Boston: Pearson.
Gardner, G. T., & Stern, P. C. (2008). The short-list: The most effective
actions US households can take to curb climate change. Environment:
Science and Policy for a Sustainable Environment, 50(5), 12–24.
Gifford, R. (2008). Psychology’s essential role in alleviating the impacts
of climate change. Canadian Psychology, 49, 273–280.
Gillett, N. P., Stone, D. A., Stott, P. A., Nozawa, T., Karpechko, A. Y.,
Hegerl, G. C., et al. (2008). Attribution of polar warming to human
influence. Nature Geoscience, 1, 750 –754.
The global warming survival guide: 51 things we can do to save the
environment. (2007, April 9). Time, 169(15). Retrieved March 23,
2009, from http://www.time.com/time/specials/2007/environment/
Goldstein, N. J., Cialdini, R. B., & Griskevicius, V. (2008). A room with
a viewpoint: Using social norms to motivate environmental conserva-
tion in hotels. Journal of Consumer Research, 35, 472– 482.
Gore, A., Jr. (2006). An inconvenient truth: The planetary emergency of
global warming and what we can do about it. New York: Rodale Press.
Hines, J. M., Hungerford, H. R., & Tomera, A. N. (1987). Analysis and
synthesis of research on responsible environmental behavior: A meta-
analysis. Journal of Environmental Education, 18, 1– 8.
Holden, C. (Ed.). (2008, June 13). Gore’s Götterdämmerung. Science,
320, 1401.
Horn, R. E., & Weber, R. P. (2007). New tools for resolving wicked
problems: Mess mapping and resolution mapping processes. Retrieved
March 23, 2009, from www.strategykinetics.com//New_Tools_For-
_Resolving_Wicked_Problems.pdf
Hunecke, M., Blöbaum, A., Matthies, E., & Höger, R. (2001). Responsi-
bility and environment: Ecological norm orientation and external fac-
tors in the domain of travel mode choice behavior. Environment and
Behavior, 33, 830 – 852.
Hunt, J. M. (1952). Psychological services in the tactics of psychological
science. American Psychologist, 7, 608 – 622.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. (2007). Climate change
2007 (Vols. 1–3). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Jacobson, S. H., & King, D. M. (2009). Measuring the potential for
automobile fuel savings in the US: The impact of obesity. Transpor-
tation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 14, 6 –13.
Jastrow, J. (1901). Currents and undercurrents in psychology. Psycholog-
ical Review, 8, 1–26.
Javna, J., Javna, S., & Javna, J. (2008). 50 simple things you can do to
save the Earth. New York: Hyperion.
Johnson, J. S., Bentley, M. J., & Gohl, K. (2008). First exposure ages from
the Amundsen Sea Embayment, West Antarctica: The Late Quaternary
context for recent thinning of Pine Island, Smith, and Pope Glaciers.
Geology, 36, 223–226.
July–August 2009 ● American Psychologist
Kliegl, R. (2008). Publication statistics show collaboration, not competi-
tion. Observer [Association for Psychological Science], 21, 29 –31.
Knowlton, K., Goldberg, R. A., Rosenzweig, C., Hogrefe, C., Rosenthal,
J. K., & Kinney, P. L. (2007). Projecting heat-related mortality impacts
under a changing climate in the New York City region. American
Journal of Public Health, 97, 2028 –2034.
Ladd, G. T. (1894). Address of the president. Psychological Review, 1,
1–21.
Leiserowitz, A. (2005). American risk perceptions: Is climate change
dangerous? Risk Analysis, 25, 1433–1442.
Leiserowitz, A. (2006). Climate change risk perception and policy pref-
erences: The role of affect, imagery, and values. Climatic Change,
77(1–2), 45–72.
Leiserowitz, A. (in press). Climate change risk perceptions and behavior
in the United States. In S. Schneider, A. Rosencranz, & M. Mastrandrea
(Eds.), Climate change science and policy. Washington, DC: Island
Press.
Lenoir, J., Gégout, J. C., Marquet, P. A., de Ruffray, P., & Brisse, H.
(2008, June 27). A significant upward shift in plant species optimum
elevation during the 20th century. Science, 320, 1768 –1771.
Lovins, A. B. (1989). The negawatt revolution. Across the Board: The
Conference Board Magazine, 27(9), 18 –23.
MacEachern, D. (1990). Save our planet: 750 Everyday ways you can help
clean up the earth. New York: Dell.
Maibach, E., Abroms, L., & Marosits, M. (2007). Communication and
marketing as tools to cultivate the public’s health: A proposed “people
and places” framework. BMC Public Health, 7, 88.
Maibach, E. W., Roser-Renouf, C., & Leiserowitz, A. (2008). Commu-
nication and marketing as climate change-intervention assets: A public
health perspective. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 35, 488 –
500.
Maloney, M. P., & Ward, M. P. (1973). Ecology: Let’s hear from the
people. An objective scale for the measurement of ecological attitudes
and knowledge, American Psychologist, 28, 583–586.
Matarazzo, J. D. (1990). Psychological assessment versus psychological
testing. American Psychologist, 45, 999 –1017.
Matthies, E., & Blöbaum, A. (2007). Ecological norm orientation and
private car use. In T. Gärling & L. Steg (Eds.), Threats from car traffic
to the quality of urban life (pp. 251–271). Oxford, England: Elsevier.
McKenzie-Mohr, D., & Smith, W. (1999). Fostering sustainable behav-
ior: An introduction to community-based social marketing. Gabriola
Island, British Columbia, Canada: New Society.
Meyer, M., & Bergel, K. (Eds.). (2002). Reverence for life: The ethics of
Albert Schweitzer for the twenty-first century. Syracuse, NY: Syracuse
University Press.
Miller, G. A. (1969). Psychology as a means of promoting human welfare.
American Psychologist, 24, 1063–1075.
Motavalli, J. (2002). The growing religious mission to protect the envi-
ronment: Stewards of the earth. E/The Environmental Magazine, 13(6),
2, 11, 14 –16.
Muñoz, R. F., Lenert, L. L., Delucci, K., Stoddard, J., Perez, J. E., Perilla,
C., & Pérez-Stable, E. J. (2006). Toward evidence-based Internet in-
terventions: A Spanish/English Web site for international smoking
cessation trials. Nicotine & Tobacco Research, 8, 77– 87.
National Research Council. (1979). Carbon dioxide and climate: A sci-
entific assessment. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
National Research Council, Committee on Assessment of Resource Needs
for Fuel Cell and Hydrogen Technologies. (2008). Transitions to alter-
native transportation technologies: A focus on hydrogen. Washington,
DC: National Academy Press.
Nickerson, R. S. (2003). Psychology and environmental change. Mahwah,
NJ: Erlbaum.
Nickerson, R. S. (2007). Protection of the environment. In F. T. Durso,
R. S. Nickerson, S. T. Dumais, & S. Lewandowsky (Eds.), Handbook
of applied cognition (2nd ed., pp. 713–738). West Sussex, England:
Wiley.
Nolan, J. M., Schultz, P. W., Cialdini, R. B., Goldstein, N. J., & Griskevi-
cius, V. (2008). Normative social influence is underdetected. Person-
ality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34, 913–923.
Oskamp, S. (1995). Applying social psychology to avoid ecological
disaster. Journal of Social Issues, 51, 217–238.
July–August 2009 ● American Psychologist
Oskamp, S. (2000). A sustainable future for humanity? How can psychol-
ogy help? American Psychologist, 55, 496 –508.
Parry, M., Rosenzweig, C., & Livermore, M. (2005). Climate change,
global food supply and risk of hunger. Philosophical Transactions of
the Royal Society of London Series B: Biological Sciences, 360, 2125–
2138.
Poffenberger, A. T. (1936). Psychology and life. Psychological Review,
43, 9 –31.
Rittel, H. W. J., & Webber, M. M. (1973). Dilemmas in a general theory
of planning. Policy Sciences, 4, 155–169.
Rosenzweig, C., Karoly, D., Vicarelli, M., Neofotis, P., Wu, Q., Casassa,
G., et al. (2008). Attributing physical and biological impacts to anthro-
pogenic climate change. Nature, 453, 353–357.
Sabido, M. (1981). Towards the social use of soap operas. Mexico City:
Institute for Communication Research.
Schmuck, P., & Schultz, W. P. (Eds.). (2002). Psychology of sustainable
development. Norwell, MA: Kluwer.
Schmuck, P., & Vlek, C. (2003). Psychologists can do much to support
sustainable development. European Psychologist, 8, 66 –76.
Schweitzer, A.. (1949). The philosophy of civilization (C. T. Campion,
Trans.). New York: Macmillan. (Original work published 1923)
Seligman, M. E. P. (1999). The president’s address [in the APA 1998
Annual Report]. American Psychologist, 54, 559 –562.
Siegel, M. (1983). Crime and violence in America: The victims. American
Psychologist, 38, 1267–1273.
Singhal, A., Cody, M. J., Rogers, E. M., & Sabido, M. (2003). Entertain-
ment education and social change: History, research, and practice.
Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Singhal, A., & Rogers, E. M. (1999). Entertainment-education: A com-
munication strategy for social change. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Speth, J. G. (2005). Red sky at morning: America and the crisis of the
global environment (2nd ed.). New Haven, CT: Yale University
Press.
Steg, L., Dreijerink, L., & Abrahamse, W. (2006). Why are energy policies
acceptable and effective? Environment and Behavior, 38, 92–111.
Stern, P. C. (1992). Psychological dimensions of global environmental
change. Annual Review of Psychology, 43, 269 –302.
Stern, P. C. (2000a). Psychology and the science of human– environment
interaction. American Psychologist, 55, 523–530.
Stern, P. C. (2000b). Toward a coherent theory of environmentally sig-
nificant behavior. Journal of Social Issues, 56, 407– 424.
Stratton, G. M. (1909). Toward the correction of some rival methods in
psychology. Psychological Review, 16, 67– 84.
Sundblad, E.-L., Biel, A., & Gärling, T. (2007). Cognitive and affective
risk judgements related to climate change. Journal of Environmental
Psychology, 27, 97–106.
Terman, L. M. (1924). The mental test as a psychological method.
Psychological Review, 31, 93–117.
Thaler, R. H., & Sunstein, C. R. (2008). Nudge: Improving decisions
about health, wealth, and happiness. New Haven, CT: Yale University
Press.
Tiedje, J., & Donohue, T. (2008). Microbes in the energy grid. Science,
320, 985.
Tilmes, S., Müller, R., & Salawitch, R. (2008). The sensitivity of polar
ozone depletion to proposed geoengineering schemes. Science, 320,
1201–1204.
Travis, J. (2008, March 28). Science by the masses. Science, 319, 1750 –
1752.
Tucker, M. E. (2002). Religions enter an ecological phase. E/The Envi-
ronmental Magazine, 13(6), 12–14.
Tucker, M. E., & Grim, J. (2001). Introduction: The emerging alliance of
world religions and ecology. Daedalus: Journal of the American Acad-
emy of Arts and Sciences, 130, 1–22.
Tyler, L. E. (1973). Design for a hopeful psychology. American Psychol-
ogist, 28, 1021–1029.
Uzzell, D. L. (2000). The psycho-spatial dimension of global environ-
mental problems. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 20, 307–318.
van Mantgem, P. J., & Stephenson, N. L. (2007). Apparent climatically
induced increase of tree mortality rates in a temperate forest. Ecology
Letters, 10, 909 –916.
Vié, J.-C., Hilton-Taylor, C., & Stuart, S. N. (Eds.). (2008). The 2008
355
 review of the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Gland, Switzer-
land: International Union for Conservation of Nature.
Wadler, R. (2007, March). Environmental consciousness: Global climate
change preliminary report (Visitor Evaluation Results, Program Report
No. 22). Bronx, NY: Wildlife Conservation Society.
Weber, E. U. (2006). Experience-based and description-based perceptions
of long-term risk: Why global warming does not scare us (yet)? Cli-
matic Change, 77, 103–120.
World Association of Zoos and Aquariums. (2005). Building a future for
wildlife: The World Zoo and Aquarium conservation strategy. Bern,
356
Switzerland: Author. Retrieved March 23, 2009, from http://www
.waza.org/conservation/wzacs.php
Wuchty, S. W., Jones, B., & Uzzi, B. (2007, May 18). The increasing
dominance of teams in the production of knowledge. Science, 316,
1036 –1039.
Zhou, Y., Zhang, F., Tvingstedt, K., Tian, W., & Inganäs, O. (2008, July
21). Multifolded polymer solar cells on flexible substrates. Applied
Physics Letters, 93(3), Article 033302. doi:10.1063/1.2957995
Zimbardo, P. G. (2004). Does psychology make a significant difference in
our lives? American Psychologist, 59, 339 –351.
July–August 2009 ● American Psychologist