View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE
provided by Western Washington University
Western Washington University Masthead Logo Western CEDAR
Huxley College on the Peninsulas Publications Huxley College on the Peninsulas
1999 A Value-Belief-Norm Theory of Support for Social Movements: The aC se of Environmentalism Paul C. Stern National Research Council (U.S.)
Thomas Dietz George Mason University
Troy D. Abel Western Washington University, [email protected]
Greg Guagnano George Mason University
Linda Kalof George Mason University
Follow this and additional works at: https://cedar.wwu.edu/hcop_facpubs Part of the Environmental Education Commons
Recommended Citation Stern, Paul C.; Dietz, Thomas; Abel, Troy D.; Guagnano, Greg; and Kalof, Linda, "A Value-Belief-Norm Theory of Support for Social Movements: The asC e of Environmentalism" (1999). Huxley College on the Peninsulas Publications. 1. https://cedar.wwu.edu/hcop_facpubs/1
This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Huxley College on the Peninsulas at Western CEDAR. It has been accepted for inclusion in Huxley College on the Peninsulas Publications by an authorized administrator of Western CEDAR. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Research in Human Ecology
A Value-Belief-Norm Theory of Support for Social Movements: The Case of Environmentalism
Paul C. Stern National Research Council 2101 Constitution Avenue, NW Washington, DC 02418 USA
Thomas Dietz, Troy Abel, Gregory A. Guagnano and Linda Kalof1 Department of Sociology & Anthropology George Mason University Fairfax, VA 22030 USA
Abstract for the environmental movement that is congruent with both research on environmentalism and with the theoretical We present a theory of the basis of support for a social approaches being used in the social movements literature. movement. Three types of support (citizenship actions, poli- We identify three dimensions of support and examine the cy support and acceptance, and personal-sphere behaviors determinants of each using data from a survey of the U.S. that accord with movement principles) are empirically dis- public. Our analysis suggests that support for the environ- tinct from each other and from committed activism. Drawing mental movement can be explained by a social psychological on theoretical work on values and norm-activation processes, theory that is congruent with existing social movement theo- we propose a value-belief-norm (VBN) theory of movement ry, while other contending theories of environmentalism have support. Individuals who accept a movement’s basic values, less explanatory power. believe that valued objects are threatened, and believe that their actions can help restore those values experience an Movement Activism and Movement Support obligation (personal norm) for pro-movement action that cre- ates a predisposition to provide support; the particular type Social movements depend upon highly committed and of support that results is dependent on the individual’s capa- engaged activists, but support by others is also important. bilities and constraints. Data from a national survey of 420 Supporters are potential recruits, as several researchers have respondents suggest that the VBN theory, when compared noted (e.g., Hunt et al. 1994; Klandermans and Oegema with other prevalent theories, offers the best available 1987). Public support also provides movement organizations account of support for the environmental movement. with a resource that can be mobilized in political struggle. Friedman and McAdam (1992, 168) note that “in many cases Keywords: values, beliefs, norms, environmentalism, it will suffice that those with power merely believe that there social movements is a large constituency for a given course of action.” Indeed our previous work shows that general public support may be Public support is one of the most important resources one of the most important resources for the environmental social movements mobilize in their efforts to overcome cul- movement, and one that is critical in struggles to define social tural inertia and the interests of powerful actors. Indeed, as problems (Dietz et al. 1989). For some movements, public the debate about the “new social movements” has empha- support in the form of widespread change in individual sized, changes in attitudes and behavior on the part of the behavior among non-activists is also necessary to achieve public can be a central goal of a movement. But while a num- movement goals (Johnston et al. 1994). ber of social movement scholars have acknowledged the One goal of this article is to link the extensive literature importance of public support, there has been little theory on the social psychology of environmentalism with scholar- developed to explain public support, and less empirical ship on social movements. Because rather different language research. In this paper, we offer a theory of public support has emerged in the two fields, it is helpful to begin by clari-
Human Ecology Review, Vol. 6, No. 2, 1999 81 © Society for Human Ecology Stern, Dietz, Abel, Guagnano, and Kalof fying the terms we use in referring to the environmental extensive involvement in social movement organizations movement. (McAdam, McCarthy and Zald 1988). Committed activism The U.S. environmental movement includes several dis- is essential, of course, for movement organizations to func- tinct discourses (Brulle 1995) and many different organiza- tion and for movements to move forward in the face of iner- tions. Despite this variety, all environmental movement dis- tia and active resistance. But other, less intense, kinds of sup- courses have common elements in their beliefs and values: port also are critical to a movement’s success. One is low- human action has the potential for adversely affecting the commitment active citizenship — political activities that are biophysical environment, changes in the biophysical environ- less public or present less risk than engaged activism. These ment can harm things people care about, and steps should be include writing letters to political officials, joining and con- taken to avoid at least some harmful actions. The discourses tributing funds to movement organizations, and reading and the organizations that promote them differ in how they movement literature. A second is support and acceptance of define harm, in their understandings of why humans act to public policies that may require material sacrifice in order to harm the environment, and in the remedies they propose for achieve the movement’s goals. Movements often press for the problem. But it is still meaningful to speak of them as social changes that require such sacrifices. For example, part of a single movement. The term movement, in this environmental policies often require individuals to pay high- usage, is rather like the term “social movement industry” as er prices or higher taxes or to submit to regulation of their used by Zald (1992). behavior (e.g., mandatory recycling, bans on lawn watering We define movement activists as those who are commit- during droughts). Movements’ struggles are made easier if ted to public actions intended to influence the behavior of the many people, not only activists, voluntarily make such sacri- policy system and of the broader population.2 Committed fices and support public policies that impose them on all. A activists are the core of a movement and have been the sub- third important kind of support involves changes in behavior ject of much recent work in the social movements literature. in the personal or private sphere. For the environmental For them the movement becomes an important part of their movement’s goals, consumer behaviors such as reductions in life and a central element in their identity. We define move- energy use and purchases of environmentally benign products ment supporters as those who are sympathetic to the move- can make a considerable contribution if they are sufficiently ment and who are willing to take some action and bear some widespread. They also serve as a signal to government and costs in order to support the movement. Of course the bound- industry regarding citizen concerns and consumer prefer- ary between supporters and activists is fuzzy, and as Snow et ences. al. (1986) have noted, people often move back and forth, All three non-activist types of public support are impor- being activists for a time then retreating to a less committed tant to many movements. For example, support for minority but still supportive role. As noted above, it is from the sup- rights movements can be measured not only in terms of com- porters that new activists are drawn (Hunt et al. 1994; mitted activism that puts bodies on the line, but also in terms Klandermans and Oegema 1987). of the willingness of majority group members to accept poli- Our conceptualization of the environmental movement, cies that may require them to make sacrifices (e.g., paying and by analogy other movements, includes not only activists increased taxes or accepting affirmative action programs to but supporters. Further, we emphasize that the movement is improve conditions for minorities), to change personal embedded in a broader society. It is engaged in struggles in behavior (e.g., engaging in more positive interactions with a policy system that includes not only elements of the state minority group members), and to take low-commitment polit- but also opponents. Here our conceptualization of the move- ical actions in their citizen roles (e.g., voting, signing peti- ment parallels that of McLaughlin and Khowaja (1999): the tions). Support for religious fundamentalists’ opposition to movement and movement organizations are engaged in a sexually explicit material in the mass media can be measured struggle with their opponents (and sometimes with other ele- not only by committed political actions, but also by willing- ments of the movement) to shape the ideological landscape ness of individuals to sacrifice elements of personal choice and societal practices. McLaughlin and Khowaja provide a by accepting restricted public access to objectionable books, macro-historical account of this process, while we focus on films, and recorded music; by personal behaviors, such as the social psychology of public support.3 keeping their children from exposure to these materials; and by ordinary political participation. What is Movement Support? In summary, all three types of non-activist public sup- Although support can take many forms, researchers on port can be essential for movement success. However, we social movements typically focus on committed public lack a theory of how individuals come to support movements activism, such as participation in demonstrations, and active, short of committed activism — how they become part of what
82 Human Ecology Review, Vol. 6, No. 2, 1999 Stern, Dietz, Abel, Guagnano, and Kalof
Klandermans and Oegema (1987) call the “moblization personal norms based on other kinds of values. For example, potential” of a movement. Here we offer the first steps some conservative social movements, which see traditional toward such a theory. values of duty, family loyalty, and the like as essential for providing public goods such as social order, refer to these Towards a Theory of Movement Support values in attempting to activate feelings of personal obliga- Social movements seek to provide collective goods. In tion to support movement objectives. some cases the good is distributed to a small and easily iden- In the case of committed activism, such processes of tifiable group, which may minimize the problem of free rid- generating support have been extensively examined in the lit- ers. But in the case of movements such as the environmental erature on framing (Snow et al. 1986; Friedman and McAdam movement, the collective good is often provided at a region- 1992; Snow and Benford 1992). To understand the shaping al, national or even global scale. This suggests that although of more general movement support, we apply a version of some individuals may expect enough personal gain to justify Schwartz’s (1972, 1977) moral norm-activation theory (Stern provision of the collective good on egoistic grounds, most are et al. 1993). We propose that norm-based actions flow from also motivated by a broader, altruistic concern — a willing- three factors: acceptance of particular personal values, beliefs ness to take action even in the face of the free rider problem. that things important to those values are under threat, and We propose that the base for general movement support beliefs that actions initiated by the individual can help allevi- lies in a conjunction of values, beliefs, and personal norms — ate the threat and restore the values. Each of these three feelings of personal obligation that are linked to one’s self- terms involves a generalization of Schwartz’s theory. The expectations (Schwartz 1977) — that impel individuals to act original theory presumes altruistic values; the generalization in ways that support movement goals. Personal norms and posits that personal norms may have roots in other values as altruistic values are important because social movements, well and that levels of altruism and other relevant values may unlike pure interest groups, are organized around normative vary across individuals. The original theory emphasizes claims on individuals and social organizations to act on the awareness of adverse consequences (AC) of events for other movement’s principles for reasons other than self-interest. people (the main objects valued by altruists); the generalized The labor movement, for example, is more than an interest theory emphasizes threats to whatever objects are the focus of group to the extent that it appeals to normatively laden prin- the values that underlie the norm. In the case of environ- ciples and altruistic values such as class solidarity and to mentalism, threats to the nonhuman species and the bios- other principles that even nonworkers can support, such as phere may be important (Stern et al. 1993; Stern and Dietz social justice, workplace democracy, or the right to bargain 1994). Finally, in Schwartz’s theory, norm activation collectively. Such principles sometimes impel supporters to depends on ascription of responsibility (AR) to self for the sacrifice personal benefits for the good of the movement. undesirable consequences to others, that is, the belief or Personal norms rather than social norms are central because denial that one’s own actions have contributed to or could to the extent that movements are forces for social change, alleviate those consequences. The generalized theory empha- they cannot build support on existing social norms.4 Personal sizes beliefs about responsibility for causing or ability to alle- norms that reflect a movement’s principles lead to support of viate threats to any valued objects.5 the movement’s goals through political participation in the In expanding the range of valued objects to be given the- citizen role, with personal-sphere behaviors, and by accept- oretical consideration, we adopt the topology of values devel- ing policies that may call for material sacrifices. Behavioral oped by S. H. Schwartz (1992, 1994), which maps all human differences across these types of movement support are values onto a psychological space that can be divided into ten likely to be due to capabilities and constraints specific to par- value types and four broader value clusters or orientations, ticular actions and particular individuals. Capabilities and arrayed in particular relationships to each other. Many social constraints determine the efficacy, real and perceived, of an movements build their normative claims on altruistic value individual’s taking particular actions. types such as that labeled by Schwartz as universalism. The We propose that movement success depends on move- environmental movement is an example (e.g., Stern and Dietz ment activists and organizations building support by activat- 1994; Stern, Dietz, Kalof and Guagnano 1995), as are move- ing or reshaping personal norms to create feelings of obliga- ments for civil rights, human rights, and social justice. Other tion. Many social movements, including the environmental movements, however, are built on other values. Religious movement, are aimed at producing public goods that are fundamentalist movements rest on conservative value types advocated by reference to altruistic values. Such movements such as those labeled tradition, conformity, and security work to activate personal norms tied to those values. It is also (Schwartz and Huismans 1995; Schwartz 1996). Libertarian possible, however, for a social movement to try to activate and human-potential movements may be based on individual-
Human Ecology Review, Vol. 6, No. 2, 1999 83 Stern, Dietz, Abel, Guagnano, and Kalof istic or openness-to-change value types such as stimulation, action (AR) and activation of a personal norm for action (PN) hedonism, or achievement. Movements based on altruistic parallel the account of Hunt et al. (1994), which distinguish- and conservative values tend to emphasize the importance of es diagnostic (AC), prognostic (AR) and motivational (PN) collective goods, while movements based on egoistic and steps in the framing process in which movement activists openness-to-change values tend to emphasize the importance construct their identities. In a similar vein, M. Schwartz and of private benefits. Shuva (1992, 214-215) suggest that free rider problems can It is possible to investigate any social movement’s ideol- be overcome when “1. There is an abiding sense of group ogy to reveal the values and beliefs that underlie its policy fate. 2. There is a belief in the viability of group action as a positions. We propose that each social movement seeking a strategy. 3. Individuals cannot distinguish themselves from collective good develops its positions based on certain basic other group members in terms of their capacity to contribute. human values and that each movement’s ideology contains 4. Personal ties among group members are sufficiently dense specific beliefs about consequences and responsibilities that, to activate group obligations in the face of free-rider impuls- in conjunction with its chosen values, activate personal es.” Their theory references individuals’ perceptions of the norms that obligate individuals to support the movement’s group. Their first condition involves a perception of conse- goals. quences (AC), their second implies a belief that action can While our approach draws on the social psychological alleviate the consequences (AR), and their fourth mentions theory of altruism, it is quite congruent with recent work on the activation of a norm about action. social movements. The role of values in social movements We are not arguing that the theory we propose is identi- has been emphasized by Johnston et al. (1994), Gamson cal to any of those offered in the literature on movement (1992), and Pichado (1997). In their analysis of the environ- activists. Nor should it be. The step towards intense activism mental movement, Cotgrove (1982) suggests that personal involves a substantial and transformational commitment, values may be of paramount importance in determining who including a reframing of key elements of identity, as the lit- is an environmentalist and who is not. Snow et al. (1986), in erature over the last decade has demonstrated. However, the their discussion of value amplification, argue that an intense processes that lead someone to take small steps in support of focus on values already held by prospective constituents is a movement should be logically congruent with the process one of the key steps toward committed movement activism. that leads to activism, and it appears that our value-belief- Further, our concepts of awareness of consequences of a norm theory has such congruence with key arguments in the problem (AC), ascription of responsibility to oneself for existing literature on activism.
Altruistic Environmental Values Activism