WUWT reader “Carl” Submits this story:
New research suggests people tend to hold negative views of political and social activists
Why don’t people behave in more environmentally friendly ways? New research presents one uncomfortable answer: They don’t want to be associated with environmentalists.
That’s the conclusion of troubling new research from Canada, which similarly finds support for feminist goals is hampered by a dislike of feminists.
Participants held strongly negative stereotypes about such activists, and those feelings reduced their willingness “to adopt the behaviors that these activities promoted,” reports a research team led by University of Toronto psychologist Nadia Bashir. This surprisingly cruel caricaturing, the researchers conclude, plays “a key role in creating resistance to social change.”
http://www.salon.com/2013/09/26/study_everyone_hates_environmentalists_and_feminists_partner/
[I dub it the “Gleick effect”. – Anthony]
UPDATE: Pamela Gray in comments provides the abstract:
Completely understandable : 1) people don’t cotton to “holier-than-thou and 2) people don’t like being implicitly accused of being bums, which, of course, is what activists’ arguments imply, although nominally activists find some institutions (companies, etc) to blame
Like Kaboom, link doesn’t work for me either. In UK, but using US provider.
Is this the right link?
http://www.psmag.com/blogs/news-blog/feminism-maybe-feminists-ewww-66918/
Took a while to find the article on the site, which seems rather full of pablum. There’s another story running right now on the need to act on global warming that is so full of blatantly wrong facts and panicky calls to action that it turned into a fine example of over the top rhetoric that turns rational people off. Turning back to the article which is the subject of this thread:
Another study, featuring 17 male and 45 female undergraduates, confirmed the pervasiveness of those stereotypes. It further found participants were less interested in befriending activists who participated in stereotypical behavior (such as staging protest rallies), but could easily envision hanging out with those who use “nonabrasive and mainstream methods” such as raising money or organizing social events.
So…. 62 undergrads represent the opinion of the world’s population? Seriously? 62 kids under the age of 22? Then the study goes on to admit that those same kids are happy to hang out with the crowd that actually does something positive about problems, just not the shrill in your face over the top crowd who do plenty of fixing the blame and precious little about fixing the problem.
A sample size too small and too narrow to be considered representative, and evidence right in their own paper that their conclusions are wrong. I really should go back to university and get a degree. Apparently fiction writing is now a sufficient skill set to get one.
To be fair, there are those who genuinely care about the environment and there are those like Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth, the EPA and any government environmental bureaucracy, whose leaders and acolytes are there for the glory of sticking it to the system and anyone who has made something of their lives.
Salon Study_Everyone hates environmenalists and fenminists
The ironic impact of activists: Negative stereotypes reduce social change influence
So, in a nutshell, you can’t tell people what to think. Who knew?
Baa Humbug:
At September 29, 2013 at 9:06 am you say
This is an interesting conclusion. Was your research peer reviewed?
Richard
Article is paywalled, but this is the link to the abstract “The ironic impact of activists: Negative stereotypes reduce social change influence”
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ejsp.1983/abstract
I think one would not find the same dislike of Martin Luther King and those who followed him (maybe except for Jessie Jackson, who became such a self-aggrandizing dweeb). The reason might be that King was never strident and always reasonable. He was loyal to the western political ideal, and wanted in to the American system as the Constitution clearly required. His whole project valued the Western ethic, and he merely demanded honor for his right to be included.
I think his loyalty explains the whole difference in attitude. Environmentalists and radical feminists too often take the political view that capitalism and liberal democracy are inherently bestial systems. They are hostile to it, and look to destroy the system rather than join it. People see that, inchoately or consciously, and react against it as the threat it is.
I work with an organization that has similar goals to what most environmentalists claim as their goals. This organization however raises its own money and relies on hard science for our projects.
We do not consider ourselves environmentalists, We call each other conservationists.
Did somebody say “Monbiot”. Bless George – the virulence of his attacks on opposing views in climate science were what started my move to scepticism. I could not see why on earth he needed to be so rude.
Direct link
http://www.salon.com/2013/09/26/study_everyone_hates_environmentalists_and_feminists_partner/
As much as I want to believe this, a poll done a few years ago (also) in Canada, “showed” that David Suzuki was one of the most trusted people in Canada. Not sure if it was independent study or one done by the CBC, in which case, the methodology would be in doubt.
He was recently at a televised public forum in Oz and a couple of credible people in the audience challenged Dr. Fruit Fly and Suzuki made an ass of himself as he did not have the most basic knowledge of climate, data sources and trends. (He could only utter the mantra, “The earth is warming. The earth is warming.”)
In Canada, Suzuki never gets challenged on the CBC. Heck, one of the CBC’s prominent “talk show” hosts is on the board of the Suzuki Foundation. You can imagine the incestuous love fest when Strombo and The Fruit Fly get together.
End of Suzuki rant. ☺
Social “science” is itself no better than climate “science”. Worthless sample groups and no control , I’d give this a much credibility as Lew-paper.
That said, they may be right about some of it. I argue for environmental changes since the early 80s. It jumped ship some time late in 2007 once I’d had time to realise AR4 was a con.
Activists, the agents of social change is enough to turn any stomach outside of academia..
These people have rejected the traditional social definition of themselves to embrace the letters after their names.. Safely floating above us all they dictate away they only self defining characteristics left to the common man, their beliefs..
These beliefs are either passed on from their parents or based on general observations of the world around them.. Cracking this egg by kicking over a information booth or blocking traffic is a exercise in delusion..
Why wont we listen to the PROBLEM CHILD cuts to the bone of human social interaction..
Why cant we get everybody to throw a temper tantrum?
Why do they insist on self regulating their own social interactions?
Why do these idiots think a few letters after their names puts them in control over human behaviour or the climate.. They don’t understand either..
Today we’re all nature lovers but could it be that there are people with 3 more brain cells than a three year old who smell a rat when they are dealing with the cloaked attempts of the Eco Nazi’s to lure them into the straight jacket of the UN Agenda 21 Bull Shit?
Please read “Blue Planet, Green Shackles” from Vaclav Claus and if you want a fast course about the effects of de-industrialiation and forced reduction of energy consumption will do to a the people of a Nation, please read about the Morgenthau Plan (Wiki) that was implemented in occupied Germany from 1945 until the end of 1947.
At the end the Americans had to make a choice:
a. kill 25.000.000 people, b. quit the deindustrialization process. remove the set restrictions and allow for new industrialization.
As for the image of environmentalist in general, I think people are fed up from all the tagged wild life and the doom stories of pending extinctions. Just stop screwing around with nature and leave those poor animals alone.
LOl – yes we have been dealing with this research through the National Post in Canada in the comment sections. Might I say the activists who came on the National Post were absolutely hysterical, abusive, land lost all sense of reason. According to the research many people looks at activists as criminals, or outright terrorists. Fun day in the comments.
Just for understanding, the Morgenschau, a combination from deindustrialization and power use restrictions is exactly what the EU has turned into law including a penalty system.
From this plan which is well documented we know Europe in the near future will turn into a slaughter house because a de industrialized economy in combination with restrictions on energy use won;t be able to support the current population numbers.
So screw these eco nazi’s and screw UN Agenda 21 and screw the EU.
The recent Eric Holthuas comment comes to mind when discussing extreme behavior.
What I see in Canada and the USA is that activists became prominent in the education areas and the junior political jobs and then moved up the ranks. It seems to me that many mid-level and senior government positions are now populated by the activists.
People who want sensible fact based policy have now become the activists.
Has nobody else noticed this flip-flop? Is it only me?
Just asking.
There is another backlash, probably in the unintended consequences category, that I noticed a few years ago during dozens of presentations to school students.
About 20 percent say, “You have convinced me the world is coming to an end. So I want the big house and the big car and I am going to enjoy the last few years as long as I can.” I understand there was a study in Texas a little while ago that confirmed what I had discovered.
I also know from hundreds of presentations that the same sentiment is held by a similar percentage of adults.
Environmentalism is the new religion and environmentalists are the new Puritans. Someone defined a Puritan as a person who was afraid that somewhere somebody was having a good time. Most people simply want to have a good time as the Founding Fathers understood with their phrase “pursuit of happiness”.
A political psychologists gives insight into the difficulties inherent in attempting to use statistics, university samples, and self-reporting in his field:
So the progressives will be looking to recast the World Empire (UN) activists as soccer moms who are demanding cotton tampons, food in their gas tanks, organic enforcement on all agriculture, and a 365-day school year, 14 hours a day, with after school programs and an on-campus “health care center.” (ref: Arne Duncan)
I’m not sure what a “Mechanical Turk” is but I would bet it’s not a recognised unbiased selector.
The three studies sound like a farce to me.
Let’s have a fund raising event. Then people will listen to use more. RIGHT.
Like black people got the voter because they were inoffensive and had lots of cheese and wine fund-raising social events.
Get Real buddy.
I think it is providing you take a look at the ‘articles’ posted at the target. The link then made perfect sense – to me at least.