Psychological Aspects of Environmental Conflicts;

2: Theory & General Principles

Herbert H. Blumberg

Goldsmiths College, University of London

h.blumberg@gold.ac.uk

Conflict Research Society, University of Essex, September 2013

• For fuller content and References, see 3rd and 4th slide from the end.

• Much of THIS ppt file is devoted to• (a) some preliminary new data (means and

dispersions will vary widely but unified factor and LACK of correlation with other demographic & personality domains would be sufficiently stable to provide the bases for general hypotheses as regards new broader data)

• (b) Examples from psychol. Of conservation conflict resolution to illustrate use of general AGIL scheme.

Previous (2012) paper - and an in-press chapter based on it - filled an apparent gap in the literature:

To review substantial diverse research on psychological aspects of conflict resolution related to conservation & environmental matters - A “birds-eye” serendipitous journey. Literature 2002-2012.

(Putting Descartes before Horace)• Present paper also concerns

psychological aspects of environmental & conservation conflict.

• Reverse of customary sequence: Some new data (on attitude “topography”) followed by a theoretical paradigm (4-category “AGIL” checklist based on Parsons).

A variety of conflicts are at issue. Two classes in particular are Between or among interested parties, such as farmers and conservationists Parties with similar objectives who need to cooperate so as, e.g., not to over-use a commons. Or how to reduce carbon footprints (e.g. recent “conflict” between an environmentalist perspective and EU parliament had declined to fix carbon-trading scheme allowances – “better” vote took place in July)

Warning: This is a humourless paper

… notwithstanding citing a paper on the value of humour in dealing with conservation conflicts – ask me about paper on gorillas and

farmers (final slide)…

First-year psychology undergrads (N = c.145) were asked about the importance of various issues facing Britain over the next ten years (rate from 1 to 7 high, form 2 reflected): Mean Std. Dev FA loadingClimate change 4.97 1.93 .67Conflict resolution 4.97 1.86 .78 drug use 4.41 1.85 .52new technology 4.47 1.80 .44poverty 5.59 1.82 .67sustainable develop. 5.20 1.76 .79

(All six of these load strongly on the single factor of exploratory FA)

Correlation Matrix clim. con. drug new. pov sus.

clim-ch 1.00 .44 .16 .18 .23 .47

con-res .44 1.00 .31 .22 .39 .50

drug-use .16 .31 1.00 .12 .34 .21

new-tec .18 .22 .12 1.00 .19 .23

pov .23 .39 .34 .19 1.00 .40

sus-dev .47 .50 .21 .23 .40 1.00

Sig. (1-tailed): r = 0.26 cutoff for uncorrected p < .01; .314 = .0005

Correlations negligible with a variety of other variables, which are internally consistent:

Age. Sex. Own & parents’ social class.City/town size where grew up.Political preference (Labour, LibDem & Green show

positive intercorr. but NIL with Conserv.)Personality: Big-five (tipi), SYMLOG, and F. Ext & Open linked with Symlog-UP. Agree & Emot.Stab &Consc, trend for link with Symlog-POS. Consc linked with Symlog-FWD (serious-conf.-task). - & trend for link with F (authoritarianism).

More data needed but one would expect correlations & factors to be more generalisable than means and SDs.

Encouraging (I think) that at least strong concern is not much associated with other - potentially divisive - dimensions.

Rationale Bibliometrics Zoom: Area & Discipline interface; Level (intrapersonal to planetary) Environmental topic Geographical Region (& Time)

Mode (theory, practice, experimental, animal, etc.) Parsonian functional New attitude data Conclusions References

Bibliometrics: Frequency of Records Year Frequencya 3-yearc rated (1973) (02) (0.011)(1983) (09) (0.087%)(1993) (16) (0.109%)2003 16 ‑‑ ‑‑2004 08 15.0 0.044%2005 21 17.7 0.038%2006 23 25.3 0.062%2007 32 29.7 0.063%2008 34 33.3 0.065%2009 34 31.7 0.057%2010 27 32.7 0.060%2011 37 38.0 0.067%2012 50b ‑‑ ‑‑ 

Frequency of Records (cont.) aNumber of PsycINFO records with environment* and conflict in record excl. dissertations (N = 2910) and clearly irrelevant records (c.90%) excluded. Sum = 274.

bRecords added as of 24 August 2012: figure here doubled to approximate pro-rated portion of overall records added to date with words such as psychology and social.

cThree-year rolling average centred on that year.dAs a proportion of all records having the word

psychology (30-60K per year), a marker for size of the database; table shows 3-year rolling average for this percentage.

Scope: Whole of psychology or even of academia?Blumberg, Herbert H. (In press). Psychology and conflicts.

In Stephen Redpath [s.redpath@abdn.ac.uk] & Juliette C. Young (Eds.). (In press). Conflicts in conservation: Integrating approaches for transformation. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. Main section includes chapters on ap- proaches from ecology, sociology, anthro-pology, psychology, political science, economics, arts, law and philosophy.

For psychological contributions to conflict resolution:[Subsequent to Deutsch, Coleman and Marcus (2006):]Coleman, Peter T.; & Deutsch, Morton (Eds.). (2012). The psychological components of a sustainable peace. New York & London: Springer.

Effective cooperation. Culture of peace.Constructive conflict resolution. Reconciliation between groups.Creative problem solving. Dynamical systems perspective.Transforming communication. Fostering global citizenship.Life-improving peaceful language Framework to develop a use. global community.Role of equality in negotiation. Education for sustainable peace.Psychologically informed policies. Comprehensive parsimonious Gender and sustainable peace. model of sustainable peace.Psychodynamics of peace.

Other Specific Environmental Topics(psychol. & conflict: see References)Biodiversity Land use (& land conflict)Conservation per se MiscellaneousCorporate responsibility Nature and rural identityDisasters Public healthEnergy Resource conflictsFraming and pesticides RiskForests SustainabilityInternational organiza- Tourism tions (and NGOs) Transport

Remainder of PaperDescribe Parsonian AGIL theory and

review the four categories impressionistically, as regards both the foregoing findings and sample post-2000 publications.

To resolve a conflict (as for many endeavours) attention must usually be given to all four areas. Also these provide a way of organising diverse research findings

Parsonian AGIL Theory: "AGIL Paradigm" (2012); Hare (1983).

L (Latent pattern maintenance) or Values: e.g. Culture, Ethics

I (Integrative, Interpersonal) matters also including roles and relationships.

G (goal-attainment): motivation, goal direction, leadership & proceeding with task.

A (adaptive) or Resources, both monetary and informational.

Eclectic: e.g. systems approach; complexity and chaos; diversity and globalisation.

Proceeding in reverse order, L-I-G-A

• L (Latent pattern maintenance) concerned with people's Values: Culture, Ethics, Miscellaneous.

• People’s concerns for dealing with environmental conflict are, in general, situated within this L area – and seems to span across major demographic distinctions.

• L (values): culture• Bercovitch, Jacob; Foulkes, Jon. (2012).

Cross cultural effects in conflict ‑management: Examining the nature and relationship between culture and international mediation. International Journal of Cross Cultural Management, 12, 25 47.‑

The importance of culture in organizational behaviour has long been accepted, but political scientists still traditionally (in approaches to conflict) emphasize the supremacy of the state. ... Examines how culture affects the process and effectiveness of international mediation. Develops a theoretical framework to examine culture, its dimensions, and how these may impact on mediation. Using a large scale dataset of international mediation ‑events, we find that cultural variation does indeed have a significant impact on mediation and conflict resolution. Greater attention should be paid to cross cultural factors in ‑international conflict management.

• L (values): ethics• Weston, Anthony. (2007). Creative

problem solving in ethics‑ . New York: Oxford University Press.

Offers uniquely constructive tools for engaging complex and controversial ethical problems. Covers such practical methods as diversifying options, lateral thinking, reframing problems, approaching conflicts as creative opportunities, and many others, it shows how to find "room to move" inside even the most challenging ethical problems, and thereby discover new and productive ways to deal with them. Numerous exercises and applications that consider a wide range of familiar ethical issues including the ‑‑moral status of animals, the death penalty, poverty, drug use, and many others and ends ‑‑with some of the toughest: abortion, assisted suicide, and environmental ethics.

• I (Integrative, Interpersonal) matters also including roles and relationships, communication, and teamwork - esp. negotiation, cooperation e.g. on commons resources, interdependence. Existing data could be expanded to examine

networking efforts of various interested parties; effects of different kinds of messages (e.g. latent norms to be consistent with overt ones).

• I: communication• Chakraverti, Meenakshi. (2009). Deliberate

dialogue. In J. de Rivera (ed.), Handbook on building cultures of peace (pp. 259 272). New ‑York: Springer Science.

Unlike negotiation & debate, deliberate dialogue simply attempts to build better communication, relationships, and understanding between persons or groups stuck in a repetitive conflict system. It may establish a foundation for negotiated agreements or constructive coexistence. Useful when people are "stuck" in overt and loud unproductive communication or in significant silences between groups. Also, in grave conflict or post conflict, showing ‑sharp partisanship and mistrust. Also may be helpful where there is international involvement around social change. Requires significant interest within the groups that are being brought together. Chapter provides an overview of major theoretical foundations, common facilitative practices and some examples of how dialogue fosters cultures of peace.

• I: interdependence• Van Lange, Paul A. M. (Ed) Rusbult, Caryl E.

(2012). Interdependence theory. In P. A. M. Van Lange, A. W. Kruglanski, & E. T. Higgins (eds.), Handbook of theories of social psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 251 272). Thousand ‑Oaks, CA: Sage.

Interdependence theory = where outcomes depend on the choices made by each party. (PDGs are best known example). Addresses broad themes such as dependence and power, rules and norms, as well as coordination and cooperation. Kelley and Thibaut provided a means to analyse attribution and self presentation, trust and distrust, love and ‑commitment, conflict and communication, and risk and self regulation. It identifies the most important ‑characteristics of interpersonal situations, and describes the implications of structure for understanding intrapersonal and interpersonal processes. This chapter describes key principles of the theory, including e.g. a basis for understanding generosity, and the ebbs and flows of intergroup relations.

• I: games• Kim, Julia M.; Hill, Randall W. Jr.; Durlach,

Paula J.; Lane, H. Chad; Forbell, Eric; Core, Mark; Marsella, Stacy; Pynadath, David; & Hart, John. (2009). BiLAT: A game based ‑environment for practicing negotiation in a cultural context. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 19, 289 308. ‑

Negotiation enables two parties to address misunderstandings and avoid conflicts through an exchange that depends as much on the interpersonal skills of the negotiators as the tactics employed. Describes the BiLAT game based ‑simulation and tutoring system developed to provide students, with an environment to practice preparing for and conducting bilateral negotiations. Initial assessment of the training effectiveness of the system indicates significant situation judgment gains by novices.‑

• I: games• Carpenter, Jeffrey Cardenas, Juan Camilo.

(2011). An intercultural examination of cooperation in the commons. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 55, 632 651.‑

•We design a real time, intercultural common ‑pool resource experiment using participants from cultures that derive different benefits from a global public good (extraction vs. conservation of biodiversity resources) to analyse the effect of group affiliation on cooperative behaviour. We also collect survey attitudes toward conservation to augment our experimental results. We find that when participants interact inter culturally, extraction choices change ‑significantly and that these changes can be attributed to an amplification of the relationship between attitudes and choices cued by the intercultural treatment.

• I: social dilemmas• Joireman, Jeff. (2005). Environmental

Problems as Social Dilemmas: The Temporal Dimension. In A. Strathman & J. Joireman (ed.), Understanding behaviour in the context of time: Theory, research, and application (pp. 289 304). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum ‑Associates.

•Viewing pro environmental behaviour as a social ‑dilemma suggests that when presented with a choice between more or less environmentally friendly behaviours, decision makers are faced with at least two basic underlying conflicts of interest: a social conflict (between individual and collective interests) and a temporal conflict (between immediate and delayed consequences of their actions). Understanding how decision makers resolve these conflicts of interest yields insights into the conditions under which people are willing to sacrifice for the environment. Reviews theory and research on social dilemmas related to pro environmental behaviour that has either directly or ‑indirectly addressed these issues.• (AND SEE NEXT SLIDE)

• Cf. Van Vugt, M., Meertens, R. M. & Van Lange, P. A. M. (1995). Car versus public transportation? The role of social value orientations in a real-life social dilemma. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 25, 258-278.

• G (goal-attainment) concerned with motivation, goal direction, leadership and simply proceeding with the task at hand.– (Again, data could be expanded to cover these

and the next category, Resource matters.)

• GL & GA (goal-attainment “sub-areas” dealing with values and resources): processing information & getting on with task

• Bean, Martha; Fisher, Larry; & Eng, Mike. (2007). Assessment in environmental and public policy conflict resolution: Emerging theory, patterns of practice, and a conceptual framework. Conflict Resolution Quarterly, 24, 447 468.‑

Assessment as currently practiced is not formulaic or standardized, nor should it be. A comprehensive but flexible conceptual framework for assessment work is preferable, one that asks participants to examine and probe the appropriateness of various tools, techniques, and desired outcomes.

• GL (goal-attainment): strategic nonviolence

• Dhir, Krishna S. (2007). Stakeholder activism through nonviolence. Corporate Communications, 12(1), 75 93.‑

Analyzes instances of nonviolent strategies adopted by a class of stakeholders the women of the Niger Delta ‑‑region. Design/methodology/approach: appraises successes and failures in terms of a set of prerequisite conditions that must be met for such strategies to be effective. These prerequisite conditions must be present in the environment: the agent and the methodology of nonviolent action. The experience of the women of Niger Delta with nonviolent action indicates that it is possible to meet the prerequisite conditions for assurance of efficacy and for formulation of nonviolent strategies to conflict resolution. Nonviolent action offers a viable alternative for persuasion of the multinational oil corporations in the Niger Delta region.

• G: participatory learning of goals• Eksvärd, Karin Rydberg, Torbjörn. (2010).

Integrating Participatory Learning and Action Research and Systems Ecology: A potential for sustainable agriculture transitions. Systemic Practice and Action Research, 23, 467 486.‑

This article explores the potential of integrating Participatory Learning and Action Research (PLAR) and Systems Ecology (SE) for improving research capability in facilitating sustainable development transitions in agriculture. Goal conflicts that arose in a PLAR group working on sustainability issues in small scale organic ‑tomato production are analysed from the perspective of SE. The possibility to improve agency for sustainable development by the merger of PLAR and SE are discussed. It is concluded that the approaches together could provide a sounder base for systemic research and transitions in agriculture.

• A (adaptive) concerned with Resources, both monetary and informational.

• AG: knowledge for politics & practice

• Böcher, Michael. (2008). The role of scientific knowledge in public policy in theory and in political practice The case of integrated ‑rural development. In N. Stehr (ed.), Knowledge and democracy: A 21st century perspective (pp. 183 198). Piscataway, NJ: ‑Transaction.

Political actors depend on scientific or expert knowledge to obtain and evaluate various alternative solutions to political problems. Questions relating to the environment, particularly the use of natural resources, depend on scientific research. But will political actors actually use this scientific knowledge? Other factors, such as power struggles, conflicts and sticking to routines, are also influential. Transfer of scientific expertise into policy requires looking at requirements for successful transfer. In particular -as an example -for successful knowledge ‑ ‑transfer in sustainable rural development policy: knowledge transfer is often considered to be a linear, ‑technocratic process ("speaking truth to power"); but knowledge transfer also builds upon participation, credibility of expertise, and the legitimacy of the knowledge transfer process.‑

• AG (resources): risk governance

• Klinke, Andreas Renn, Ortwin. (2012). Adaptive and integrative governance on risk and uncertainty. Journal of Risk Research, 15, 273 292.‑

Adaptive risk governance is supposed to address challenges raised by three characteristics that result from a lack of knowledge: complexity, scientific uncertainty, and socio political ambiguity. Politics and society can benefit ‑from a risk governance model that augments the classical model of risk analysis (risk assessment, management, communication) by including steps of pre estimation, ‑interdisciplinary risk estimation, risk characterization and evaluation, risk management as well as monitoring and control. This paradigm also incorporates expert, stakeholder and public involvement as a core feature in the stage of communication and deliberation ["A sub-I"]. A governance decision tree finally allows a systematic step by step procedure for the more inclusive ‑ ‑risk handling process.‑•

• Eclectic: e.g. systems approach; complexity and chaos; diversity and globalisation.

• Eclectic: multi disciplinary‑• Boehnke, Klaus Schmidtke, Henning Shani,

Maor. (2011). Peace making: ‑Socio psychological approaches‑ . In D. Bar Tal ‑(ed.), Intergroup conflicts and their resolution: A social psychological perspective (pp. 315 333). New York: Psychology Press.‑

•"Conflict management" is multidisciplinary -encompassing, e.g., ‑international law, psychology, socio biology, political science, ‑economics, and social anthropology. Work has focused on the source and nature of conflict as well as on third party ‑interventions and their characteristics; but with few comprehensive state of the art reviews. One section here ‑ ‑ ‑reviewed: two distinct approaches favouring positive peace. First, a top down notion of peacebuilding which refers to the creation ‑of a political environment conducive to negotiations. This includes approaches such as "track two" diplomacy and training. ‑Second, the grassroots societal process that ought to accompany the structural socio political facilitators of peacebuilding ‑(reconciliation) and a discussion of "peace education", i.e. interventions aiming at eliminating negative socio psychological ‑dynamics. Also, the quality of research -including two ‑methodological issues, namely the problem of a selection bias of participants and the issue of rigorous evaluation -impacts on ‑how research on socio psychological approaches to ‑peace making can be advanced.‑

• Eclectic (mainly framed as "L"?]: diversity• Marsella, Anthony J. (2009). Diversity in a

global era: The context and consequences of differences. Counselling Psychology Quarterly, 22, 119 135.‑

•Global challenges (e.g., hegemonic globalization, demographic shifts, poverty/famine, conflicts and wars, and environmental disasters) are bringing diverse populations into contact under conditions of rapid socio technical ‑changes, social upheaval, conflict, competition, uncertainty, and anger and resentment. This gives rise to widespread psycho social and socio political problems. Reducing ‑ ‑diversity conflicts by the hegemonic imposition of Western economic, political, and cultural systems is not a solution to the emerging diversity conflict issues. Instead, individual and collective solutions need to promote and to sustain both diversity and solidarity via both policies and actions. The recommendations include world citizenship, global leadership, diversity education and training, positive attitudinal shifts, universal human rights, and the development of the full functioning global citizen.‑

• Nobel Laureate Octavio Paz has noted: "Life is diversity, death is uniformity . . . . Every view of the world that becomes extinct, every culture that disappears, diminishes a possibility of life". Clearly, diversity and unity are not opposites to be pursued independently, but rather manifestations of the same principle on which our universe was born and functions fission and fusion ‑ ‑separation and connection. Diversity is life. Life is diversity.

Main Conclusion, I think, is that there is no one (nor ten) unifying paradigms for work on psychological aspects of conflict related to conservation/environment – but nonetheless there is a healthy ongoing literature covering both a wide variety of psychological (and other) areas and an equally broad swathe of environmental topics. There are some common themes, such as how to foster cooperation and environmental goals whilst maintaining peace and justice. New data (taken with existing literature) suggest that sustainability issues are widely viewed as very important and this view cuts across demographic, political and personality dimensions.

Copies of the present and previous paper are available on request from h.blumberg@gold.ac.uk

This includes: The PowerPoint file for this presentation + an AGIL-classified citations & file. A chapter I have in-press that covers the material (except new data) in much more detail. A document complementing the chapter so as to provide the complete classified bibliographic results for the present review. (I have also made that document available on the web.)

(R)EFERENCESFor a listing of approximately 250 references to 2003-2012

works related to psychological aspects of environmental issues and conflict resolution see:

http://eprints.gold.ac.uk/id/eprint/7594 OR go to http://learn.gold.ac.uk In the left column, click on “browse all course areas”,then Psychology (as main heading),Then page 3 & then Small Group Research,Finally Log In as a GUEST and select (References not yet on that list have been given in full in

relevant slides of the present PowerPoint file)

Closing anecdotal note These are serious matters but judicious use of humor can be useful. As an anecdotal account (Shiffman, 2011): Francine Madden of the Human-Wildlife Conflict Collaboration was working in Uganda addressing a difficult conservation challenge: due mostly to mountain gorillas‘ habituation from tourism, more gorillas were losing their fear of humans and were leaving the park to raid crops. Some lone gorillas had even injured local villagers. Fran- cine convened a large community stakeholder meeting, including villagers, government officials, conservationists, and development workers. She facilitated the discussion, and during a particularly contentious moment, she redirected the group by asking participants to brainstorm what they thought should be done about the conflict.

According to her account (slightly paraphrased): "One angry villager shouted `Kill all the gorillas! To everyone's surprise, I said `Great!' and wrote `Kill all gorillas' on the whiteboard. A shocked environmentalist said `You can't do that', and I said `Sure we can. ... It may not be the solution this group ends up with, but it is one possibility and would solve the problem.' The environmentalist then said `fine, then, you could also get rid of all the people!' I said `Yes, if we get rid of all the people, there won't be any more conflict between humans and gorillas.' I wrote on the whiteboard `get rid of all humans'. Immediately, everyone in the room laughed. The group continued to brainstorm ideas and make decisions about how to deal with the conflict. Because everyone felt heard and we created an atmosphere where we respected one another's views and allowed for a truly open dialogue, the entire group was able to move past the extremes and work together to find solutions agreeable to all. No one ever mentioned killing the gorillas or getting rid of the people again and the solutions that were implemented immediately after that meeting are still in effect today. …”