Professional Documents
Culture Documents
net/publication/257804419
CITATIONS READS
8 40
2 authors:
All content following this page was uploaded by Adrienne Cachelin on 23 January 2017.
Introduction
Traditional
frames
that
paint
nature
as
resource
and
portray
humans
as
separate
from
ecological
systems
can
never
interrupt
dominant
narratives
that
lie
at
the
heart
of
our
ecological
crisis.
Because
ecology
is
fundamental
to
sustainability
education,
yet
often
antithetical
to
dominant
cultural
metaphors
of
individualism
and
self-‐reliance,
traditional
frames
cannot
effectively
serve
outcomes
of
education
for
sustainability.
Our
research
into
intentional
framing
is
grounded
not
only
in
environmental
education
and
pro-‐environmental
behavior
research,
but
also
in
cognitive
science
more
broadly.
Through
this
study,
we
measure
the
effectiveness
of
intentional
language
choice,
or
framing,
in
enhancing
critical
thinking
and
elaboration
as
recognized
antecedents
of
pro-‐environmental
behavior.
We
drew
on
the
education
and
attitude
literatures
to
craft
critical
elaboration,
a
measurable
outcome
of
educational
interventions
for
sustainability
in
university
classroom
settings.
Research
suggests
that
elaboration,
meaning
careful
consideration
of
an
issue,
is
essential
for
lasting
attitude
change
(Petty
&
Cacioppo,
1986;
Petty
&
Cacioppo,
1996),
while
critical
thinking
is
celebrated
as
a
key
outcome
in
education
(Stevenson,
2007).
Because
pro-‐environmental
behavior
modeling
asserts
that
both
knowledge
and
attitude
are
necessary
antecedents
to
sustainability
outcomes,
this
study
synthesized
critical
thinking
and
elaboration
into
a
single
variable
called
critical
elaboration.
We
feel
this
synthesis
is
an
important
step
in
the
evolution
of
a
field
whose
goals
are
so
far
reaching
as
to
include
cognitive,
affective,
and
behavioral
outcomes.
Framing,
recognized
as
an
effective
way
to
impact
both
attitude
and
knowledge,
is
especially
important
in
communicating
for
sustainability.
Frames
can
challenge
misconceptions
resulting
from
cultural
metaphors
and
impact
attitudes
about
the
role
of
humans
as
nature
(Jones,
Sinclair
&
Courneya,
2003).
Our
results
suggest
the
use
of
frames
portraying
humans
as
a
part
of
nature,
rather
than
apart
from
nature,
is
effective
for
eliciting
critical
elaboration
and
consequently
achieving
sustainability
education
outcomes.
1
Literature Review
Critical Thinking
Critical
thinking,
an
educational
outcome
mandated
by
the
authors
of
A
Nation
at
Risk
(1983)
and
more
recently
by
the
American
Association
for
the
Advancement
of
Science
(1990),
is
far
deeper
than
just
information
recall.
Critical
thinking
has
been
variously
defined
in
the
education
literature
as
“reflective
and
reasonable
thinking
that
is
focused
on
deciding
on
what
to
think
or
do”
(Ennis,
1985,
p.45),
“a
probing
inquisitiveness,
a
keenness
of
mind,
a
zealous
dedication
to
reason,
and
a
hunger
or
eagerness
for
reliable
information
which
good
critical
thinkers
possess
but
weak
critical
thinkers
do
not
seem
to
have”
(Facione,
1990,
p.11)
and
“the
ability
and
willingness
to
assess
claims
and
make
objective
judgments
on
the
basis
of
well-‐supported
reasons
and
evidence
rather
than
emotion
or
anecdote”
(Wade
&
Tarvis,
2008,
p.7).
While
these
definitions
share
a
foundation,
there
is
conflict
about
whether
critical
thinking
is
a
disposition,
an
ability,
or
a
combination
of
the
two
(Yanchar,
Slife,
&
Warne,
2008;
Stanovich,
2009).
If
critical
thinking
is
solely
dispositional
in
nature,
then
education
would
be
hard-‐pressed
to
impact
it,
yet
the
abilities
denoted
in
the
definitions
above
are
considered
vital
outcomes
not
only
in
sustainability
education,
but
in
education
more
broadly.
Traditional
measurement
of
critical
thinking
is
largely
unresponsive
to
this
ideological
split.
Most
critical
thinking
tests
use
a
multiple
choice
or
short
answer
format
to
test
reasoning,
argument
analysis,
deduction,
and
assumption
identification.
There
are
more
than
20
well-‐known
general
critical
thinking
tests
and
at
least
two
subject-‐specific
science
and
math
tests
(Ennis,
2006),
with
the
vast
majority
(n=19)
designed
to
examine
critical
thinking
as
a
skill.
Often
a
disposition
survey
is
used
in
combination
with
one
of
the
skills
exams.
The
format
of
these
tests
does
not
support
the
notion
that
critical
thinking
is
subject-‐specific
and
minimizes
the
importance
of
disposition.
For
this
reason,
and
because
we
recognize
that
both
understanding
(as
measured
by
critical
thinking)
and
attitude
are
factors
in
sustainability
outcomes,
we
believe
critical
thinking
provides
a
necessary
but
not
sufficient
proximal
goal
for
sustainability
education.
Elaboration
Elaboration,
a
seminal
construct
in
the
attitude
literature,
enables
us
to
understand
message
processing
more
broadly.
The
Elaboration
Likelihood
Model
(Petty
&
Cacioppi,
1986)
provides
a
theoretical
framework
suggesting
that
messages
are
processed
in
one
of
two
ways.
If
message
recipients
are
neither
able
nor
motivated
to
deeply
process
a
message,
then
information
will
not
be
considered.
Consequently,
behavior
related
to
the
message
will
not
be
influenced
by
the
message
itself,
but
rather
by
mental
shortcuts.
For
instance,
heuristics
like
“dad’s
usually
right”
(Crano
&
Prislin,
2006)
are
often
drivers
of
behavior
under
these
conditions.
If,
on
the
other
hand,
motivation
2
and
ability
to
process
a
message
are
present,
then
elaboration
will
occur.
Motivation
to
elaborate
is
often
activated
when
the
information
is
personally
relevant
to
message
recipients
or
when
the
information
involves
them
directly
(Johnson
&
Eagly,
1989).
Elaboration
is
essential
because
it
produces
attitudes
that
are
more
resistant
to
counter
pressure,
more
stable,
and
more
likely
to
impel
behavior
than
those
formed
through
mental
shortcuts
or
peripheral
cues
(Petty
&
Cacioppi,1986;
1996).
Because
attitude
is
consistently
a
significant
factor
in
environmental
education
models
(Borden
&
Schettino,
1979;
Hines
et
al.,
1986;
Hungerford
&
Volk,
1990,
Pooley
&
O'Connor,
2000;
Kollmuss
and
Agymen,
2004,
Bamberg
&
Moser,
2007)
fostering
elaboration
is
an
obvious
outcome
for
sustainability
education
programs.
Elaboration
is
similar
to
critical
thinking,
yet
there
are
important
differences.
Elaboration
has
been
defined
in
many
different
ways
in
the
attitude
literature,
including
to
systematically
analyze
(Crano
&
Prislin,
2006),
to
process
(Tormala,
Briñol,
&
Petty,
2007),
to
think
about
(Fleming
&
Petty,
2000;
Jones,
Sinclair,
&
Courneya,
2003),
an
effortful,
issue-‐relevant
cognitive
activity
(Petty
&
Cacioppo,
1996),
careful
and
thoughtful
consideration
of
the
true
merits
of
information
(Petty
&
Cacioppo,
1986),
evaluation
of
arguments
for
a
recommendation
(Petty
&
Cacioppo,
1986)
and
the
integration
[of
information]
into
an
overall
position
(Petty
&
Cacioppo,
1986).
Cognitive
abilities
are
embedded
in
all
of
the
elaboration
definitions
while
disposition
is
not.
The
thought-‐listing
technique
is
the
most
commonly
used
in
elaboration
measurement
(Petty
&
Cacioppi,
1996).
This
method
utilizes
an
open-‐ended
approach
to
examine
elaboration
and
attitude.
In
this
technique,
students
are
given
the
following
instructions
after
being
exposed
to
message
text:
We
are
now
interested
in
what
you
were
thinking
as
you
read
the
text
just
given
to
you.
You
might
have
had
ideas
all
favorable
to
the
ideas,
all
opposed,
all
irrelevant
to
the
idea,
or
a
mixture
of
all
three.
Any
case
is
fine;
simply
list
what
you
where
thinking
during
the
last
few
minutes.
The
next
page
is
for
you
to
record
your
thoughts.
Simply
write
down
the
first
idea
that
comes
to
mind
in
the
first
box,
the
second
idea
in
the
second
box,
etc.
Please
put
only
one
thought
or
idea
in
a
box.
You
should
try
to
record
only
those
ideas
that
you
were
thinking
in
the
last
few
minutes.
Please
state
your
thoughts
and
ideas
as
concisely
as
possible…a
phrase
is
sufficient.
Ignore
spelling,
grammar,
and
punctuation.
You
will
have
2.5
minutes
to
write
your
thoughts.
We
have
deliberately
provided
more
space
than
we
think
most
people
will
need
to
ensure
that
everyone
would
have
plenty
of
room
to
write
the
ideas
they
had
as
they
were
reading
the
text.
So
don’t
worry
of
you
don’t
fill
every
space.
Just
write
down
whatever
your
thoughts
were
during
the
last
few
minutes.
Please
be
completely
honest
and
list
all
of
the
thoughts
you
had.
(Petty
&
Cacioppo,
1986,
p.
38)
Responses
are
quantified
in
two
ways:
1)
in
terms
of
how
many
issue-‐
relevant
thoughts
are
listed,
and
2)
the
profile
of
favorable
/
unfavorable
issue-‐relevant
thoughts.
Both
this
technique
and
its
grounding
in
attitude
3
research
provide
important
possibilities
in
keeping
with
pro-‐environmental
behavior
research.
Critical Elaboration
Differences
in
the
origins,
theoretical
uses,
and
measurement
of
critical
thinking
and
elaboration
suggest
their
synthesis
will
make
an
important
contribution
to
measurement
in
sustainability
education.
Both
elaboration
and
critical
thinking
recognize
the
importance
of
ability,
yet
the
critical
thinking
literature
is
predominantly
based
in
the
idea
that
ability
works
in
concert
with
disposition
(Ennis,
1985;
Facione,
1990;
Yanchar,
Slife,
&
Warne,
2008;
Stanovich,
2009)
while
elaboration
emphasizes
that
ability
works
in
concert
with
motivation
(Petty
&
Cacioppo,
1986;
1996).
This
subtle
but
fundamental
difference
reveals
a
key
point
of
divergence
in
critical
thinking
and
elaboration;
it
has
shaped
measurement
of
these
two
constructs,
and
provides
a
way
forward
for
a
theoretically
supported,
integrated,
and
measurable
construct
in
sustainability
education
research.
Critical
elaboration
emphasizes
the
elements
of
critical
thinking
that
are
based
in
ability
while
acknowledging
the
role
of
motivation
for
elaboration,
thereby
integrating
knowledge
and
attitude.
Framing
Frames
were
initially
conceived
as
internal
cognitive
structures
that
organize
the
way
people
think
(Carroll,
1956;
Derry,
1996;
Lakoff,
2004).
While
this
conception
of
framing
still
dominates
much
literature
in
cognitive
science
and
education,
an
alternate
conception
of
framing
as
a
set
of
external,
socially
constructed
ideas
also
has
strong
presence,
particularly
in
the
fields
of
communication,
anthropology,
and
political
science.
Whether
considered
an
internal
cognitive
construction,
or
a
set
of
understandings
informed
by
cultural
practices,
frames
have
been
shown
to
be
effective
tools
for
understanding
and
operate
in
interesting
and
powerful
ways.
Cognitive
scientists
describe
frames
as
“the
mental
structures
that
shape
the
way
we
see
the
world”
(Lakoff,
2004,
p.
xv).
People
cannot
consciously
access
frames
because
they
are
part
of
the
cognitive
unconscious
but
any
word
activates
its
frame
in
the
brain
(Lakoff,
2004;
Benford
&
Snow,
2000).
In
this
sense,
frames
provide
organizing
structures
for
new
information
and
knowledge.
Education
researchers
label
these
cognitive
structures
of
the
mind
schemata
and
find
them
useful
in
understanding
how
comprehension
works.
Sociocultural
perspectives
suggest
that
schemata
are
necessarily
beyond
individuals
given
that
our
understandings
are
socially
constructed
and
exist
within
the
parameters
of
language.
The
idea
that
meaning
is
negotiated,
and
the
particular
language
educators
use
influences
how
students
think
about
reality
was
borne
out
of
a
study
of
language
in
diverse
cultures.
Linguistic
anthropologists
Edwin
Sapir
and
Benjamin
Whorf,
who
studied
Hopi,
Maya,
and
Aztec
cultures
note:
4
Formulation
of
ideas…is
of
a
particular
grammar,
and
differs…
between
different
grammars.
We
dissect
nature
along
lines
laid
down
by
our
native
languages.
The
categories…that
we
isolate
from
the
world
of
phenomena…do
not…stare
every
observer
in
the
face;
on
the
contrary,
the
world
is
presented
in
a
kaleidoscopic
flux
of
impressions
…organized
by
our
minds
-‐
and
this
means
largely
by
the
linguistic
system
in
our
minds.
We
cut
up
nature,
organize
it
into
concepts,
and
ascribe
significance
as
we
do…because
we
are
parties
to
an
agreement
to
organize
it
in
this
way
-‐
an
agreement
that
holds
throughout
our
speech
community
and
is
codified
in
the
patterns
of
our
language.
The
agreement
is…
an
implicit
and
unstated
one,
but
its
terms
are
absolutely
obligatory…
(Carroll,
1956,
pp.
212-‐213).
As
such,
framing
is
not
simply
a
matter
of
word
selection,
but
rather
the
pattern
of
language
itself
that
affects
both
how
people
think
and
how
people
articulate
ideas.
Language
both
shapes
and
is
shaped
by
cultural
interpretations
of
reality.
Frames
operate
at
a
subconscious
level,
embedded
in
metaphor
and
analogy.
They
are
robust
mediators,
helping
us
to
make
sense
of
new
ideas
and
fit
them
into
individual
mental
maps.
As
an
ingrained
way
of
thinking,
metaphors
come
to
be
taken
literally
(Lakoff
&
Johnson,
1980).
For
example,
language
used
to
describe
“argument”
effectively
elicits
a
war
metaphor:
“Claims
are
indefensible.
He
attacked
every
weak
point
in
my
argument.
His
criticisms
were
right
on
target.
He
shot
down
all
my
arguments”
(Lakoff
&
Johnson,
1980,
p.
4).
Lakoff
and
Johnson
suggest
that
people
might
think
and
act
differently
if
language
that
activated
a
dance
metaphor
was
used
to
frame
“argument.”
Because
humans
think
using
an
“extensive,
but
unconscious,
system
of
metaphorical
concepts”
(Lakoff,
1995,
p.
177)
and
language
activates
these
metaphors,
metaphors
are
especially
powerful
for
learners
and
can
effectively
challenge
existing
paradigms
(Gellat
&
Gellat,
2003;
Wells,
2006).
Sociologists
Snow,
Soule,
&
Kriesi
(2004)
argue
that
while
no
communication
is
devoid
of
a
frame,
there
is
a
valuable
distinction
between
interpretive
frames
and
those
designed
to
induce
action,
called
collective
action
frames.
Interpretive
frames
are
always
in
play
and
are
shaped
by
our
culture.
Collective
action
frames
include
three
functions:
a
diagnostic
function,
to
define
and
attribute
roles
in
a
problem;
a
prognostic
function,
to
articulate
a
solution
or
plan;
and
an
action-‐mobilization
function,
to
call
for
action
(Benford
and
Snow,
2000).
Ecological
literacy
entails
“thinking
broadly,
to
know
something
of
what
is
hitched
to
what”
and
“is
not
[only]
comprehension
of
how
the
world
works,
but
in
light
of
that
knowledge
a
life
lived
accordingly”
(Orr,
1992,
p.
87).
An
understanding
of
interdisciplinarity
and
systems
is
frequently
called
for
in
education
for
sustainability
(Association
for
the
Advancement
of
Sustainability
in
Higher
Education,
2012;
Wixon
&
Balser,
2012,
Ehrlich,
5
2011;
Orr,
2004;)
yet
language
itself
and
the
cultural
metaphors
embedded
in
that
language,
can
impede
systems
thinking
and
obscure
relationships
fundamental
to
ecological
literacy.
Research
on
ecological
misconceptions
illustrates
the
potential
impact
of
framing
and
critical
elaboration.
Misconceptions
about
ecology
and
ecosystem
processes,
including
matter
cycling,
energy
flow,
and
natural
selection
have
been
widely
studied
(Armstrong,
1997;
Griffiths
&
Grant,
1985;
Hellden,
1995;
Munson,
1994;
Smith
&
Anderson,
1986).
For
example,
matter
cycling
is
narrowly
understood
among
students
who
commonly
believe
that
matter
is
created
and
destroyed
in
biological
processes
(Smith
&
Anderson,
1986).
If
humans
were
able
to
create
matter,
we
would
live
in
a
world
without
limits;
if
humans
were
able
to
destroy
matter,
producing
“disposable”
items
would
not
be
an
ecological
liability.
That
matter
is
limited
is
rejected
by
consumer
culture,
and
misconceptions
about
the
limited
nature
of
matter
are
at
least
reinforced,
if
not
created,
in
how
culture
talks
about,
or
frames,
these
concepts
in
everyday
conversation.
From
advertising
slogans
like
“Crunch
all
you
want,
we’ll
make
more”
(Doritos
campaign)
to
ecological
textbooks
that
emphasize
the
cycling
process
rather
than
the
limited
nature
of
matter
(Cachelin,
Norvell,
&
Darling,
2010)
to
the
Guidelines
for
the
Initial
Preparation
for
Environmental
Educators
(Simmons
et
al.,
2004)
which
suggest
only
that
educators
should
be
able
to
“describe
biological,
geological,
and
chemical
cycles
and/or
processes
that
played
a
prominent
role
in
shaping
an
ecosystem,”
(p.
XX),
a
conceptual
understanding
of
matter
as
finite
is
not
emphasized.
Prevalent
frames
do
not
challenge
students
to
critically
elaborate
on
the
ecological
realities
of
matter
cycling.
Instead,
they
conform
to
culturally
shaped
schema
in
which
resources
are
conceived
of
and
often
largely
experienced
as
unlimited.
Syntax
is
an
element
of
framing
that
plays
an
important
role
in
students’
ability
to
evaluate
and
respond
to
complex
ecological
topics
and
issues
(Chenhansa
&
Schleppegrell,
1998).
In
science
texts,
as
in
science
writing,
abstract
concepts
are
explored
using
passive
voice
as
opposed
to
a
more
empowering
approach.
Concepts
like
habitat
loss,
biodiversity,
population
growth,
over
consumption,
and
introduced
species,
central
to
the
current
study
of
ecology,
are
frequently
presented
as
either
the
passive
subject
or
the
object
of
the
sentence,
meaning
that
there
is
no
concrete
actor.
Consider,
for
example,
“Bengal
tigers
once
roamed
widely
across
India
and
Southeast
Asia.
Now
they're
in
trouble
because
of
habitat
loss
and
people
killing
them
illegally
for
their
bones,
which
are
used
to
make
traditional
Asian
medicines”
(Braus,
1994,
p.
7,
as
cited
in
Chenhansa
&
Schleppegrell,
1998).
When
asked
the
cause
of
the
tigers’
trouble,
students
overwhelmingly
responded
that
people
were
killing
them,
as
opposed
to
mentioning
habitat
loss,
demonstrating,
perhaps,
the
relative
strength
of
active
versus
passive
voice
(Chenhansa
&
Schleppegrell,
1998).
Syntax
can
either
dissuade
or
encourage
involvement
and
as
such
it
has
an
important
role
to
play
in
framing
messages
to
activate
critical
elaboration.
Additionally,
language
frames
that
relegate
issues
to
the
category
“environmental”
separate
humans
from
the
environment
and
implicitly
make
6
the
environment
less
relevant,
while
consideration
of
these
issues
from
a
social
perspective
does
not.
Shellenberger
and
Nordhaus
(2005)
provide
a
powerful
example:
Why,
for
instance,
is
a
human-‐made
phenomenon
like
global
warming
—
which
may
kill
hundreds
of
millions
of
human
beings
over
the
next
century
—
considered
“environmental”?
Why
are
poverty
and
war
not
considered
environmental
problems
while
global
warming
is?
What
are
the
implications
of
framing
global
warming
as
an
environmental
problem
–
and
handing
off
the
responsibility
for
dealing
with
it
to
“environmentalists”?
(p.
12)
This
example
makes
obvious
not
only
the
role
that
framing
can
play,
but
also
hints
at
the
results
of
such
separation.
Perhaps
more
importantly,
Shellenberger
and
Nordhaus
(2005)
suggest
that:
The
concepts
of
“nature”
and
“environment”
have
been
thoroughly
deconstructed.
Yet
they
retain
their
mythic
and
debilitating
power
within
the
environmental
movement
and
the
public
at
large.
If
one
understands
the
notion
of
the
“environment”
to
include
humans,
then
the
way
the
environmental
community
designates
certain
problems
as
environmental
and
others
as
not
is
completely
arbitrary
(p.
12)
The
consistently
expressed
divide
between
humans
and
nature
may
be
indicative
of
the
fundamental
problem
in
the
metaphors
people
live
by.
Traditional
frames
activate
the
metaphorical
concept
“humans
=
non-‐nature”
and
this
conception
plays
a
powerful
role
in
shaping
the
synthesis
and
interpretation
of
ecological
information.
Students
can
attain
an
academic
understanding
that
they
are
included
in
natural
systems,
but
the
language
and
underlying
metaphors
inhibit
students
from
consistently
internalizing
this
knowledge
and
seeing
themselves
and
their
actions
as
ecologically
relevant.
This
is
significant
because
involvement
and
relevance
have
consistently
been
shown
to
be
critical
to
fostering
elaboration
(Johnson
&
Eagly,
1989).
Frames
may
be
intentionally
manipulated
to
clarify
ecological
realities
that
are
obscured
by
language
use,
and
counter
the
variety
of
cultural
messages
that
undermine
critical
elaboration
and
consequently
pro-‐environmental
behavior.
Taking
up
Benford
and
Snow’s
(1988)
conception
of
the
diagnostic
function
of
a
collective
action
frame,
we
sought
to
use
frames
that
would
include
humans
as
a
part
of
rather
than
apart
from
ecosystems.
We
also
believed
that
active
voice
might
provide
a
stronger
sense
of
inclusion
than
passive
voice.
We
called
this
frame
an
active
system
frame
(ASF),
based
on
its
systems-‐approach
to
the
environment.
For
example,
teaching
students
that
“the
sun
powers
us
all,”
a
notion
which
encompasses
these
criteria,
may
be
more
meaningful
and
drive
home
a
more
personally
relevant
conceptualization
of
the
realities
of
energy
flow
than
discussing
the
laws
of
thermodynamics.
Similarly,
teaching
students
that
there
is
no
“away”
to
which
to
throw
things
may
provide
the
much-‐needed
impetus
for
critical
elaboration
that
might
ultimately
result
in
conservation.
With
language
being
constitutive
of
reality,
as
much
as
reflective
of
it,
intentional
frames
7
may
provide
a
deeper
and
more
lasting
understanding
of
ecology
by
activating
critical
elaboration
and
consequently
education
for
sustainability.
The
purpose
of
our
work
then
was
to
test
the
impact
of
active
systems
frames
on
critical
elaboration.
Methods
Study design
In
order
to
determine
the
impact
of
frames
on
critical
elaboration,
a
2x2,
between
groups,
fully-‐crossed,
factorial
design
(Table
1)
was
used.
College
student
participants
were
systematically
assigned
to
read
one
of
four
different
types
of
frames,
operationalized
in
terms
of
voice
and
metaphor
type.
Frame development
Data Collection
Data
collection
took
place
on
two
large
university
campuses
in
the
intermountain
west
of
the
United
States.
The
sample
consisted
of
138
students
from
two
different
courses.
One
of
these
courses
was
required
for
parks,
recreation,
and
tourism
majors;
the
second
course
was
an
elective
ecology
course
for
non-‐ecology
majors
in
a
college
of
natural
resources.
Critical
elaboration
was
measured
using
an
adaptation
of
the
thought-‐listing
technique
(Greenwald,
1968
as
cited
in
Petty
&
Cacioppo,
1981).
This
approach
emphasizes
“how
people
personally
evaluate
the
information
8
provided…and
ultimately
it
is
the
person’s
own
self-‐statements
that
produce
change
or
resistance”
(Petty
&
Cacioppo,
1981,
p.
310).
This
measure,
usually
used
in
studying
the
impact
of
a
persuasive
message
on
attitude,
provides
a
testable
format
through
which
participants
can
respond
to
messages.
Students
who
elected
to
participate
read
three
paragraphs
of
texts
before
turning
over
their
page
and
completing
a
thought-‐listing
form.
They
were
instructed
not
to
turn
the
sheets
back
over
to
reread
the
text,
but
to
spend
as
much
time
with
it
as
they
needed
before
beginning
the
thought-‐listing
process
on
the
provided
form.
Frames
were
distributed
randomly
so
that
each
student
received
one
of
the
four
frame
types
and
samples
were
approximately
balanced.
Listed
thoughts
were
subsequently
coded
as
to
whether
or
not
they
exhibited
critical
elaboration,
defined
by
the
presence
or
absence
of
four
indicators
(identifying/questioning
unstated
assumptions,
looking
for
alternatives/suggesting
an
action,
seeking
clarification
and/or
challenge,
and
deriving
an
overall
evaluation
of,
or
attitude
toward,
the
issue
being
presented).
Any
one
of
these
indicators
meant
that
the
listed
thought
was
an
example
of
critical
elaboration
as
described
in
the
coding
definitions.
Two
code
developers
worked
from
broad
definitions
with
several
criteria
and
refined
both
definitions
and
decision
rules
creating
a
codebook
to
more
completely
operationalize
the
critical
elaboration
construct.
Data
was
coded
and
an
inter-‐rater
reliability
of
0.854
was
reached.
To
ensure
we
were
measuring
impacts
related
to
the
frames
themselves,
a
manipulation
check
was
conducted.
At
the
bottom
of
the
thought-‐listing
form,
participants
were
asked
to
respond
to
7-‐point
semantic
differential
item
that
read:
“The
text
I
just
read
portrayed
humans
as
a
part
of
natural
systems
-‐
apart
from
natural
systems”.
It
was
hypothesized
that
mean
scores
would
be
lower
for
those
who
read
the
“humans
as
a
part
of
nature”
frame
than
those
who
read
the
“humans
as
apart
from
nature”
frame.
Lower
mean
scores
would
indicate
that
respondents
were
judging
their
frame
as
toward
the
“apart
of
nature”
end
of
the
semantic
differential
scale.
An
independent
samples
t-‐test
showed
that
those
who
read
the
humans
as
a
part
of
nature
frames
had
significantly
lower
mean
scores
than
did
those
who
read
the
humans
as
apart
from
nature
frame.
This
provided
evidence
that
the
frame
manipulation
technique
itself
was
successful
(Table
4).
Data
were
entered
into
SPSS,
screened
for
outliers,
and
tests
for
normality
and
equality
of
variances
were
performed.
The
Kolmogorov-‐Smirnoff
test
for
normality
was
significant
(D
(137)
0.157,
p<0.001)
indicating
some
departure
from
normality.
However,
analysis
of
Q-‐plots
failed
to
show
serious
departures.
Data
transformations
were
attempted
and
analysis
of
Q-‐
plots
suggested
that
such
transformations
failed
to
improve
distributional
shape.
Thus,
data
analyses
were
performed
on
the
raw
scores.
One
case
was
eliminated
as
a
univariate
outlier
as
its
z-‐score
was
3.1
standard
deviations
away
from
the
mean.
Levene’s
test
for
equality
of
error
variances
was
not
significant
at
the
p<0.05
level.
Hypotheses
were
tested
using
a
two-‐factor
analysis
of
variance.
9
Results
Descriptive Statistics
The
mean
number
of
critical
elaborations
per
participant
ranged
from
0
–11.
The
mean
critical
elaboration
score
was
2
with
a
standard
deviation
of
1.69.
This
suggests
that
while
some
students
listed
many
thoughts,
few
were
examples
of
critical
elaboration.
In
fact,
the
majority
of
students
had
between
0
and
4
critical
elaborations.
The
distribution
was
somewhat
positively
skewed
(skewness
=
0.72)
and
neither
peaked
nor
flat
(kurtosis
=
0.05).
In
addition,
there
was
no
significant
difference
in
the
mean
number
of
responses
between
course
participants
(t
=
1.42,
p
=
0.15)
Hypothesis tests
The
average
number
of
critical
elaborations
was
greater
for
the
systems
metaphor
(mean
=
2.413)
than
the
non-‐systems
metaphor
(mean
=
1.669).
Additionally,
the
average
number
of
critical
elaborations
was
greater
for
active
voice
(mean
=
2.398)
than
in
passive
voice
(mean
=
1.684).
Table
5
presents
means
for
each
cell
in
the
design.
A
two-‐factor
analysis
of
variance
showed
no
significant
interaction
between
voice
and
metaphor
type
(F
=
0.948,
p
=
0.332).
Both
main
effects
were
significant
(metaphor,
F
=
5.723,
p
=0.018;
voice,
F
=
5.231,
p
=
0.024;
see
Table
6).
Discussion
These
data
show
that
framing
humans
as
a
part
of
a
nature
results
in
significantly
higher
mean
critical
elaboration
scores
than
does
more
traditional
framing
that
portrays
humans
as
apart
from
nature.
Frames
using
active
voice
also
resulted
in
significantly
higher
mean
critical
elaboration
scores
than
did
passive
voice
frames.
Given
these
results,
we
feel
confident
that
framing
has
a
valuable
role
to
play
in
sustainability
education.
In
determining
a
variable
that
made
sense
in
the
context
of
sustainability
education
outcomes
and
pro-‐environmental
behavior
modeling,
we
synthesized
and
effectively
measured
critical
elaboration,
which
in
itself
may
have
value
for
evaluation
in
the
field
more
broadly.
Ultimately,
this
research
advances
two
important
tools
for
sustainability
education:
1)
a
measurable
construct,
called
critical
elaboration,
that
integrates
knowledge
and
attitude
for
theoretically
driven
program
evaluation,
and
2)
active
systems
framing
which
we
have
shown
effective
in
fostering
critical
elaboration.
Theoretical
models
for
pro-‐environmental
behavior
consistently
emphasize
both
knowledge
and
attitude
(Borden
&
Schettino,
1979;
Hines
et
al.,
1986;
Hungerford
&
Volk,
1990,
Pooley
&
O'Connor,
2000;
Kollmuss
and
Agymen,
2004,
Bamberg
&
Moser,
2007),
yet
because
of
their
distinct
disciplinary
backgrounds
and
measurement
strategies,
researchers
have
not
synthesized
these
ideas
into
a
functional
construct.
With
this
in
mind,
we
offer
the
critical
10
elaboration
construct.
Critical
elaboration
allows
us
to
reach
beyond
pre-‐
fabricated
tests
of
ability
or
disposition
to
examine
critical
thinking
in
a
content-‐related
context.
Further,
this
method
uses
an
open-‐ended
thought
listing
technique
allowing
us
to
study
attitudes
as
traditionally
measured
(Petty
&
Cacioppo,
1981)
while
also
documenting
illustrations
of
critical
thinking.
Perhaps
more
importantly,
this
study
offers
support
for
the
idea
that
our
language
choice
matters:
not
only
in
terms
of
content
learning,
but
also
in
terms
of
providing
the
motivation
to
think
critically
about
and
elaborate
on,
foundational
ideas
in
ecology.
At
present,
educators
are
at
best
overlooking
effective
tools
and
at
worst
undermining
their
instruction
through
use
of
uninvolving
and
ecologically
inaccurate
frames
(Cachelin,
Norvell
&
Darling,
2010).
Many
valuable
research
questions
follow
from
this
work.
Can
critical
elaboration
be
used
to
more
broadly
measure
the
impact
of
sustainability
education
programs?
How
effective
can
the
thought-‐listing
technique
be,
in
combination
with
criteria
for
critical
thinking,
at
providing
insights
into
sustainability
education?
Will
manipulation
of
underlying
metaphors
elicit
differences
in
critical
elaboration
when
applied
to
different
topics
with
a
broader
diversity
of
participants?
While
the
construct
of
critical
elaboration
was
created
for
this
study,
we
hope
it
can
play
a
useful
role
in
sustainability
education
programs’
evaluation
more
generally.
A
common
critique
of
environmental
education
program
evaluation
is
the
lack
of
information
related
to
attitudes
and
to
affective
variables
(Cachelin,
Paisley,
&
Blanchard,
2009;
Chawla,
2007).
The
use
of
critical
elaboration
as
a
program
outcome,
and
the
use
of
the
thought-‐listing
technique,
may
attend
to
this
issue.
The
human/nature
divide
is
recognized
as
problematic
by
a
host
of
disciplines
from
biology
to
philosophy.
Can
consistently
framing
of
humans
as
a
part
of
nature
ameliorate
fragmented
and
piecemeal
understandings
of
systems?
Garrett
Hardin
notes
that
ecological
literacy
is
the
ability
to
ask
“what
then”
about
the
effect
of
our
own
actions
in
a
systems
context,
highlighting
an
understanding
of
the
importance
of
interrelatedness
and
systems
thinking.
Ehrlich
(2011)
suggests
an
understanding
of
environmental
and
socio-‐political
systems
is
critical
to
environmental
education,
noting
that
collective
action
and
public
policy
are
necessary
for
sustainability.
We
believe
that
ecological
content
alone
cannot
disrupt
our
consumer
culture
that
wreaks
ecological
and
thus
human
havoc.
Diligently
framing
our
interdependence
in
a
systems
context
may
be
the
most
effective
counter
strategy.
11
Implications for Practice
Frames
have
impact,
intended
or
not.
It
is
incumbent
on
sustainability
educators
to
select
frames
intentionally,
see
that
these
frames
are
consistent
with
ecological
realities,
and
wield
framing
and
metaphor
to
shape
thinking
and
learning.
There
is
no
absolute
neutrality
in
the
presentation
of
information.
Appreciating
the
power
of
language
and
metaphor
and
understanding
the
nuances
of
framing
are
vital
to
achieving
the
goals
of
sustainability
education.
By
definition,
environmental
or
sustainability
education
is
distinct
from
advocacy.
A
maxim
of
environmental
education
is
that
it
“teaches
you
how
to
think
not
what
to
think”.
Yet
educators
at
all
levels
face
challenges
in
navigating
ecological
issues
that
are
inseparable
from
social
ones.
Consider
the
following
from
a
university
professor,
“Advocacy
runs
counter
to
education
when
understanding
is
sacrificed
to
political
expediency.
And
yet,
from
fear
of
being
falsely
characterized
as
advocates,
educators
cannot
now
shy
away
from
the
implications
of
global
warming
science”
Goodstein
(2009).
Data
from
our
research
speaks
directly
to
education
and
advocacy
in
fundamental
ways
because
the
data
suggests
even
a
subtle
shift
in
language
yields
difference,
making
the
concept
of
absolute
neutrality
problematic.
A
common
approach
to
the
tension
between
education
and
advocacy
is
to
rely
upon
western
science,
specifically
reductionist
empiricism.
If
one
can
see,
touch,
experience
something,
then
it
must
be
real
and
unbiased.
If
people
can
look
closely
at
pieces
then
they
can
make
inference
to
wholes.
Science
is
celebrated
for
its
objectivity,
and
scientific
writing
has
traditionally
excised
all
first
person
language,
relied
on
passive
voice,
and
thus
removed
researchers
from
their
studies.
Yet
our
work
supports
the
idea
that
relevance
and
involvement
may
themselves
be
important
in
fostering
critical
elaboration.
Western
science
is
problematic
in
terms
of
furthering
the
“humans
apart”
worldview
as
well.
This
idea
is
beautifully
expressed
by
Chloete
(2011)
who
notes:
“one
has
to
question
to
what
extent
it
[science]
is
displacing
the
cultural
and
historical
contexts
of
other
languages.
Its
metropolitan
gaze
is
suppressing
deep
knowledge
about
the
natural
environment,
traditional
cultural
resources
and
past
social
phenomena,
and
has
replaced
these
with
western
narratives
about
ownership,
conservation
and
animals.”
(p.48)
Thus,
reductionist
science
itself
can
be
threatening
to
a
worldview
in
which
humans
are
a
part
of
nature.
Perhaps
rather
than
turning
to
science
to
avoid
advocacy,
educators
might
consider
conscientiousness
in
utilizing
diagnostic
frames
that
bring
cultural
proclivities
toward
consumption
and
perceived
independence
to
ecological
light
by
emphasizing
and
celebrating
our
dependence
on
a
beautiful
and
complex
system.
Avoiding
frames
that
are
prognostic
i.e.,
calling
for
a
specific
solution,
and
those
that
include
a
call
to
action
may
be
the
best
distinction
between
education
and
advocacy
as
we
consider
the
impacts
of
framing.
12
For
researchers
and
educators,
both
critical
elaboration
and
framing
are
important
means
for
advancing
sustainability
education.
The
synthesis
of
attitude
and
knowledge
measurements
into
a
theoretically
driven
construct
that
can
serve
as
an
indicator
of
program
strengths
and
weaknesses
in
the
pursuit
of
sustainability
outcomes
provides
a
valuable
tool
as
does
honing
powerful
frames
that
decenter
the
myth
of
self-‐reliance
and
individualism.
References
American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1990). Science for All Americans. New
York: Oxford University Press.
Association for the Advancement of Sustainability in Higher Education. (2012). STARS Version
1.2 Technical Manual. Denver: Association for the Advancement of Sustainability in Higher
Education.
Armstrong, C. (1997). Social metaphors and their implications for environmental education.
Environmental Education Research, 3(1), 29.
Bamberg, S., & Moser, G. (2007). Twenty years after Hines, Hungerford, and Tomera: A new
meta-analysis of psycho-social determinants of pro-environmental behaviour. Journal of
Environmental Psychology, 27(1), 14-25.
Benford, R. D., and Snow, D. A. (2000). Framing Processes and Social Movements: An Overview
and Assessment. Annual Review of Sociology 26: 611-639
Borden, R., & Schettino, A. (1979). Determinants of environmentally responsible behavior.
Journal of Environmental Education, 7(1), 14.
Cachelin, A., Norvell, R., & Darling, A. (2010). Language fouls in teaching ecology: Why
traditional metaphors undermine conservation literacy. Conservation Biology, 24(3), 669-674.
Cachelin, A., Paisley, K., & Blanchard, A. (2009). Using significant life experience research to
inform program evaluation: A case study of The Nature Conservancy’s Wings & Water wetlands
education program. Journal of Environmental Education, 40(2), 2-14.
Chloete, E.L., (2011) Going to the bush: language, power and the conserved environment in
southern Africa Environmental Education Research (17)1 35-51.
Carroll, J. B. (Ed.). (1956). Language Thought and Reality: Selected Writings of Benjamin Lee
Whorf. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Chawla, L. (2007). Education for strategic environmental behavior. Environmental Education
Research, 13(4), 437-452.
Chenhansa, S., & Schleppegrell, M. (1998). Linguistic features of middle school environmental
education texts. Environmental Education Research, 4(1), 53.
Crano, W. D., & Prislin, R. (2006). Attitudes and Persuasion. Annual Review of Psychology, 57,
345-374.
Derry, S. (1996). Cognitive schema theory and constructivist debate. Education Psychologist,
31(3/4), 163-174.
Ehrlich, P. R., (2011). A personal view: environmental education—its content and delivery.
Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences, (1) 1,6–13
13
Ennis, R. H. (1985). A logical basis for measuring critical thinking skills. Educational Leadership,
43(2), 44.
Ennis, R. H. (2006). Robert H. Ennis' Academic Web Site. Retrieved April 25 2009, from
http://faculty.ed.uiuc.edu/rhennis/Assessment.html
Facione, P. (1990). Critical Thinking: A Statement of Expert Consensus for Purposes of
Educational Assessment and Instruction. Sacramento, CA: California Academic Press.
Fleming, M. A., & Petty, R. E. (2000). Identity and persuasion: An elaboration likelihood
approach. In D. J. Terry & M. A. Hogg (Eds.), Attitudes, Behavior, and Social Context: The Role
of Norms and Group.
Gellat, H. B., & Gellat, C. (2003). Creative Decision Making: Using Rational and Intuitive
Techniques to Make the Best Decisions. Boston: Thomson Crisp Learning.
Goodstein, E. (2009). Education or advocacy? Engaging in a hotter world. Inside Higher
Education, (January, 20, 2009). Retrieved from:
http://www.insidehighered.com/views/2009/01/20/goodstein.
Griffiths, A. K., & Grant, B. A. C. (1985). High school students' understanding of food webs:
Identification of a learning hierarchy and related misconceptions. Journal of Research in Science
Teaching, 22(5), 421-436.
Hellden, G. (1995). Environmental education and pupils' conceptions of matter. Environmental
Education Research, 1(3), 267.
Hines, J., Hungerford, H. R., & Tomera, A. N. (1986). Analysis and synthesis of research on
responsible environmental behavior: A meta-analysis. Journal of Environmental Education, 18(2),
1-8.
Hungerford, H. R., & Volk, T. L. (1990). Changing learner behavior through environmental
education. Journal of Environmental Education, 21(3), 8.
Johnson, B. T., & Eagly, A. H. (1989). Effects of involvement on persuasion: A meta-analysis.
Psychological Bulletin, 106(2), 290-314.
Jones, L. W., Sinclair, R. C., & Courneya, K. S. (2003). The effects of source credibility and
message framing on exercise intentions, behaviors, and attitudes: An integration of the Elaboration
Likelihood Model and Prospect Theory. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 33(1), 179-196.
Kollmuss, A., & Agyeman, J. (2002). Mind the gap: Why do people act environmentally and what
are the barriers to pro-environmental behavior? Environmental Education Research, 8(3), 239.
Lakoff, G. (2010): Why it matters how we frame the environment, Environmental
Communication: A Journal of Nature and Culture, 4(1), 70-81
Lakoff, G. (1995). Metaphor, morality, and politics, or, Why conservatives have left liberals in the
dust. Social Research, 62(2), 177-213.
Lakoff, G. (2004). Don't Think of An Elephant (1st ed.). White River Junction, VT: Chelsea Green.
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors We Live By. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Munson, B. H. (1994). Ecological misconceptions. Journal of Environmental Education, 25(4),
30.
Orr, D. (1992). Ecological Literacy: Education and transition to a postmodern world. Albany:
State University of New York Press.
14
Orr, D. (2004). Earth in Mind. Washington D.C.: Island Press.
Petty, R., & Cacioppo, J. (1981). The thought-listing technique. In T. Merluzzi, C. Glass & M.
Genest (Eds.), Cognitive Assessment (pp. 309-342). New York: Guilford.
Petty, R., & Cacioppo, J. (1986). Communication and Persuasion: Central and Peripheral Route
Processing. New York: Springer-Verlag.
Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1996). Attitudes and Persuasion: Classic and Contemporary
Approaches. Boulder CO: Westview Press.
Pooley, J. A., & O'Connor, M. (2000). Environmental education and attitudes - Emotions and
beliefs are what is needed. Environment and Behavior, 32(5), 711-723.
Shellenberger, M., & Nordhaus, T. (2005). The Death of Environmentalism. Retrieved March 15,
2005, from www.grist.org/news/maindish/2005/01/13/doe-reprint/index.html
Simmons, B., Archie, M., Mann, L., Vymental-Taylor, M., Alston, C., Braus, J., et al. (2004).
Guidelines for the Preparation and Professional Development of Environmental Educators.
Washington DC: North American Association for Environmental Education.
Smith, L., & Anderson, A. (1986). Alternative conceptions of matter cycling in ecosystems. Paper
presented at the National Association of Research in Science Teaching, San Francisco.
Snow, D. A., Soule, S. A., & Kriesi, H.(2004). The Blackwell Companion to Social Movements.
Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Snow, David A., Benford, R.D., (1988). Ideology, Frame Resonance, and Participant Mobilization,
1(1) International Social Movement Research 197 – 217.
Stanovich, K. E. (2009). What intelligence tests miss: The psychology of rational thought. New
Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Stevenson, Robert B., (2007). Schooling and environmental education: contradictions in purpose
and practice. Environmental Education Research (13) 2, 139–153.
Tormala, Z. L., Briñol, P., & Petty, R. E. (2007). Multiple roles for source credibility under high
elaboration: it's all in the timing. Social Cognition, 25(4), 536-552.
Wade, C., & Tavris, C. (2008). Psychology (9th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Wells, P. E. (2006). Re-writing the ecological metaphor: part 1. Progress in Industrial Ecology -
An International Journal, 3(1/2), 114-128.
Wixon, D.L. & Balser, T.C. (2012). Environmental education for the masses: lessons from a large,
general enrollment environmental studies course. Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences,
(2) 3, 239-248.
Yanchar, S. Slife, B., & Warne, R. (2008). Critical thinking as disciplinary practice. Review of
General Psychology, 12(3), 265-281.
15
Table 1
Table 2
Active Frames
Systems Non-systems
Table 3
Passive Frames
Systems Non-systems
Manipulation Check
Table 5
Mean and Standard Error of Critical Elaboration Scores for Voice and Metaphor Type
Metaphor Type (2 Levels: ’A Part Of’ And ‘Apart From’) and Voice (2 Levels: ‘Active’
Or ‘Passive’).