mark usher (2008) characteristics of individual activists

8/3/2019 Mark Usher (2008) Characteristics of Individual Activists

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/mark-usher-2008-characteristics-of-individual-activists 1/36

1

The Characteristics of Individual Activists

Motivating Membership, Facilitating Decisions, Consolidating Sensibilities, Communicating

Effectively and Developing Journeys.



2

Contents

1. Executive Summary

2. Introduction

3. Psychological Characteristics

3.1 Efficacy

3.2 Values, Beliefs and Norms

3.3 Rational Choice

3.4 Models of Activism

3.5 Internal Sources

4. Demographic Characteristics

4.1 Age

4.2 Gender

4.3 Class (Income and Education)

4.4 Ethnicity

5. Motivating Membership, Facilitating Decisions, Consolidating Sensibilities,Communicating Effectively and Developing Journeys

5.1 Motivating Membership

5.2 Facilitating Decisions

5.3 Consolidating Individual Sensibilities

5.4 Communicating Effectively

5.5 Developing Journeys



3

1. Executive Summary

To begin to understand the dynamics of individual activism, the report approaches the

phenomenon from two different but complementary angles. Initially, the psychological

characteristics of individual activists are explored, a sort of ‘bottom-up’ micro-structural

approach that looks at the associated cognitive processes and inner subjective reasoningthat goes on within the mind of the activist. The report found psychological characteristics to

be particularly useful for understanding why an individual may partake in activism and

indeed, why they may not. The report identifies three key areas where psychological

characteristics may have an effect on individual activism:

• Efficacy There is a general consensus within research that this psychological

characteristic is a strong determining factor of individual behaviour. A strong belief

in personal capabilities will motivate proenvironmental behaviour such as activism.

Crucially, self-efficacy is influenced strongly by the collective efficacy of an

environmental organisation, so this has clear and profound implications for the way

a group should organise itself. Activists tend to be optimistic regarding collectiveefficacy hence their proactive conduct. Efficacy (and anger) can be utilitarian.

• Values, Beliefs and Norms Individual attitudes towards environmental behaviour

are clustered into ‘higher-order values’ along a biocentric and anthropocentric

divide. These in turn shape the general beliefs and concerns of individuals along

altruistic, egoistic and biospheric lines, which determine specific attitudes (towards

biofuels for instance). Values, beliefs and norms differ between activists and

supporters of environmental organisations, as well as fluctuating throughout one

individual’s life. Therefore, past behaviour and social identity can be a significant

influence on individual activism. Crucially, a successful environmental organisation

must be sensitive to variation patterns in values, beliefs and norms and individualsensibilities.

• Rational Choice As well as knowing who participates in activism, it is important to

understand why they participate. The elementary and pivotal decisions facing the

potential activist can make or break whether or not action is carried out. An

individual will make a rational choice based on the condition/object, an evaluation

of whether or not it is important, and eventually an evaluation of the associated

costs and benefits. Participants will invest their energy in the organisation only if

they expect to receive some benefits in the form of material , solidary and purposive

incentives. Activism in this way can be regarded as a two-way process where both

the cause and the activist benefit from individual participation. However, if the costsare high the individual may not partake in activism. Crucially, costs and benefits are

subjectively perceived so an environmental organisation can influence the decisions

an individual makes by emphasising the potential benefits to the collective group

and to the individual him or herself. Efficacy and values, beliefs and norms are key

elements of the costs and benefits analysis. One of the principle findings of the

rational choice approach that has enormous leverage concerns the practical costs of

civic engagement and activism, where the capacity of individuals to engage in civic

matters is determined by their basic organisational and communicative abilities.

Environmental organisations must therefore make alternative types of activism

available to individuals to avoid specific costs and benefits halting activism

altogether, whilst exercising the benefits of participatory activism.



4

Subsequently, the report outlines a number of effective ‘activism models’. Models of

activism are useful as they integrate psychological and demographic characteristics to

explain how individual activism occurs. The models reveal that there are key determining

and mediating variables at work that have a huge impact on individual activism. Moreover,

the models have very valuable practical implications for how environmental organisations

can encourage, enable and empower participation, and improve and harness individualactivism- outlined in the concluding section.

The report then goes on to explore internally sourced research that has looked at activism

within FoE’s own membership. Markedly, the internal sources revealed very similar points to

the external sources. The key components that determine individual activism according to

the internal studies are motivations, needs, communication and trust.

Evidently, psychological characteristics are crucial to understanding individual activism, and

the report confirms this. However, the demographic characteristics of individual activists

have also traditionally been viewed as important, and are explored by adopting a ‘top-down’

macro-structural approach, which looks at how social structural forces and socialisationprocesses may impede or expedite individual action.

• Age Older and younger people tend to participate in environmental activism for

different costs and benefits analyses, therefore alternative kinds of action are

carried out across the ages. For instance, younger people tend to participate in more

physical activism whereas older people may write to their local MP and attend civic

meetings. Essentially, environmental concern is prevalent in all areas of the social

structure and therefore the age of an individual may scarcely be significant. Notably,

a number of studies indicate that it may not be age per se that determines

environmental behaviour; rather it is underlying factors (e.g. contextual, lifestyle)

that are affected by age. Nevertheless, internal sources found that middle-agedpersons are more likely to partake in activist behaviour.

• Gender Socialisation theory posits that men and women are socialised in accordance

to preconceived gender-based ideals, where this may account for a gendered

division in environmental activism. However, this theory may be becoming less

relevant in contemporary times due to the changing nature of traditional roles. A

similar strand of thinking argues that men and women have different value

orientations, where women exhibit more environmental and altruistic concern than

men. There may also be underlying factors that are bound up with gender that may

be potentially more of a determining variable than gender per se such as efficacy.

However, the principle point to take away from the gender and environmentalismliterature is that findings are inconclusive and sometimes contradictory making valid

conclusions difficult to come by.

• Class Many studies have found that socioeconomic status (sum of education and

income) is positively correlated with voluntary association membership and

activism, with higher levels of education being particularly significant, thus

supporting the social class hypothesis. This may be down to rational choice, as the

ability to pay the selective costs of environmental activism is related to the

availability of money, time and civic skills, where one would expect the costs of

environmental activism to be lower for educated and wealthier citizens because

they have more civic skills and money. Yet, there have been studies that have notsupported the social class hypothesis, where it has been shown that different classes



5

participate in different forms of activism, or that there are more significant

underlying factors rather than class per se (e.g. access to computer mediated

communication). Evidently, research regarding class has been inconclusive.

• Ethnicity Many studies on activism and race indicate that ethnic minorities do not

participate as much as whites, indeed the ‘Campaign Champions’ FoE internal datadid show that 88 per cent of respondents taking part were white British.

Environmental beliefs and values could be culture-specific, and this therefore may

explain why different races may exhibit different levels of environmental concern

and therefore activism. On the other hand, the fact that an ethnic group is not well

represented in environmental organisation membership does not necessarily

indicate that a particular ethnic group holds no concern for the environment, rather,

barriers to participation may be constraining expression of such concern. However,

the findings on environmentalism, activism and ethnicity are inconclusive and paint

a rather hazy picture of who participates and why they participate.

So, are demographic characteristics important? The report reveals research in this area to beinconclusive and sometimes contradictory. The demographic characteristics of an individual

may have an influence on whether or not activism is carried out, but it certainly doesn’t

appear to be a determining factor. This can only be a good thing for the future of activism

and ultimately for society as a whole.

From all the theories, studies and reports exploring the psychological and demographic

characteristics of individual activists, there are some very insightful, and more importantly,

practical implications that can be utilised by FoE to improve individual activism within its

membership. The report has drawn these out in the concluding section.



6

2. Introduction

In September 1999, Zoe ‘Fungus’ Weir climbed into a tree house at Cedar’s Wood to protest

the construction of Manchester Airport’s second runway. It was here that she stripped

naked (save for a pair of muddied boots), locked her head to the tree house with a bicycle

lock, and secured her arms inside two pipes which were also locked to the tree house.Eventually, after five hours of steadfast (and quite chilly) resistance, authorities cut through

the locks with hydraulic cutters and bundled ‘Fungus’ down again to be arrested and

charged. Nevertheless, through her persistence, Fungus had drawn a great deal of attention

to the protest camp’s cause.

In the summer of 1970, a young American consumer advocate now prominent political

activist Ralph Nader opposed the huge car company General Motors (GM) by announcing his

‘Campaign GM’ and ‘Project on Corporate Responsibility’. Nader used shareholder activism

(where environmental and social activists target shareholders in a company to utilise their

power and influence to shape corporate behaviour from ‘within’) to pressure GM to be more

responsible to society and nature’s needs. In light of this, GM did make changes due topublic pressure in which it created a public policy committee, a special committee of

scientists to monitor the corporation’s effects on the environment and hired an air pollution

expert.

In October 2008, more than one hundred people came together in Leeds City Centre to

participate in the ‘The Great Unfreeze’ protest, a public spectacle that was organised by the

activist group ‘Stop Climate Chaos Leeds’. The Great Unfreeze involved protestors stopping

perfectly motionless for five minutes, appearing to be frozen stiff in various positions; giving

and receiving gifts, falling from a bike and using a public telephone amongst other things.

The protest was organised to highlight the urgent need to tackle climate change, but also to

remind people running about their busy lives in a bustling shopping area that the biggerpicture is yet to be addressed. After the strangely silent five minutes had passed, the

protestors began to stir then seamlessly continued doing what they were formerly doing.

Accordingly, applause was heard to ring out from spectators and the protestors themselves;

indeed, this demonstration required the presence of both groups to be a success. But what

is it that separates the protesters from the spectators?

As each of these examples illustrate, activism can take on many forms and involve various

people of different and quite diverse backgrounds. Activism can involve collective

coordination of groups of like-minded people like that in Leeds City Centre; it can be based

upon cooperation with people one would not normally associate with like that in the GM

Campaign case; or it can involve dogged personal sacrifice like that shown by Fungus inCedar’s Wood. Yet, all forms of activism can only emerge through individual effort and

individual activism. So to begin to understand what activism is, one must look at what kind

of people are involved in environmental activism. Thereupon, it is the individual building

blocks of activism that this report sets out to explore.



7

3. Psychological Characteristics of Individual Activists

The pathway to individual activism inevitably begins with the individuals themselves; their

personal sense of capability, their worldview, their interests and their past experiences.

Accordingly, a satisfactory understanding of individual activism cannot be achieved by

exploring demographic characteristics alone. Rather, as McAdam and Paulsen (1993) testify,individual activism is determined by psychological characteristics (microstructural) and

demographic characteristics (structural) where both are intrinsically bound together. If an

individual is not ideologically or psychologically predisposed to participation, any structural

factors that expose the individual to participation opportunities or direct them into activity

will be inconsequential, the individual will remain inactive. Therefore, the significance of

psychological characteristics will be explored in the following sections.

3.1 Efficacy

There is a considerable amount of external research and theory available regarding personal

and collective group efficacy, and the effects of this on (activist) participation. The general

consensus appears to maintain that efficacy is a strong determining factor and thereforeshould be taken into account when scrutinising the psychological characteristics of activists.

The influential psychologist Albert Bandura was an early pioneer in the studying of self-

efficacy and the resulting effects on social behaviour, and his work seems to have catalysed

much of the efficacy studies since. Accordingly, it seems wholly appropriate to start with

Bandura’s (1989; 2000) work on Social Cognitive Theory. Nearly thirty years ago, Bandura

(1989) researched the ‘distinctively human’ characteristics motivation and action, and how

these self-determining psychological characteristics can affect change in the individuals

themselves and their situations. Crucially, Bandura found:

“Among the mechanisms of personal agency, none is more central or pervasive than people’s

beliefs about their capabilities to exercise control over events that affect their lives. Self-

efficacy beliefs function as an important set of proximal determinants of human motivation,

affect and action.” (p.1175).

Commitment to aspirations is determined by perceived self-efficacy; the higher the goals

people set for themselves, the more dedication they will channel into an endeavour.

“The stronger the belief in their capabilities, the greater and more persistent are their

efforts” (p.1176).

Hardy resilience and dogged self-belief appear to be what separates those who passively

participate with those who actively participate and excel when challenged. Therefore, self-

motivation can evidently mediate the effects of activism and non-activism. A criticalquestion can be asked here then: Can motivation be instilled in latent potential support from

external sources to boost activist behaviour? Recognising the value of such questions,

Bandura (2000) continued his important research on efficacy and action by examining the

effects of collective efficacy on individual participation.

“People’s shared beliefs in their collective efficacy influence the types of futures they seek to

achieve through collective action, how well they use their resources, how much effort they

put into their group endeavour, their staying power when collective efforts fail to produce

quick results or meet forcible opposition, and their vulnerability to the discouragement that

can beset people taking on tough social problems.” (p.76).

Clearly, collective achievements affect individual efficacy, motivation and perhaps most

importantly, action. The success of a collective group- like that of an organisation or



8

movement- will inevitably continue to shape the motivations and actions of its members

long after the impact of the collective has been assessed, for better or worse. Thus, these

findings infer that successful organisations will provide the conditions for optimistic

individual efficacy and motivations to bloom. Motivated collective movements breed

motivated individual activists. Hence:

“The conjoint influence of perceived collective political efficacy and trust in the

governmental system predicts the form and level of people’s political activity…” (p.78).

Similarly, a significant observation was made by Foster (2007) when researching Community

Building Initiatives in a local neighbourhood in that level of collective efficacy is more

significant than demographic variables in determining active citizenry in addressing social,

health and economic issues. Strikingly then, this study assumes that sense of collective

efficacy is more of a determining factor than a group member’s age, class, sex, ethnicity and

education in predicting participatory activism. A further finding established:

“…individuals who became activists initially possessed a strong sense of connection and ties

to their community” (p.94).

The type and strength of the relationship between the group and the individual activist is

apparently rather important. A sense of association between the individual member and the

collective group is seemingly vital for an individual activist to partake in action. The collective

efficacy of the group also has to be adequate for the individual to look beyond their

immediate life circumstances and deem participation worthwhile. Accordingly, activists tend

to be rather optimistic regarding collective efficacy and perceive the collective cause of the

group to be meaningful enough to address the ‘bigger picture’. Understandably, if a

potential activist witnesses an organisation acting in an unprofessional and unconvincing

manner, then he or she will presumably reason participation to be not worthwhile and

dedicate more time to scrutinising the small print on last week’s telephone bill. Seemingly,

“…people have a stronger sense of efficacy to manage various aspects of their lives in their

immediate environment than to bring about changes in society-wide problems.” (Ballesteros

et al, 2002, p.119)

Ballesteros et al (2002) draws awareness to the tension between immediate life

circumstances and society-wide problems, and the personal management that is required to

dedicate time to both. However, there appears to be more than a dichotomy of concern

emerging here; local concerns catalyse a higher level of collective efficacy than global

concerns. This is noteworthy as this infers that activists are participating in activism due to

local concerns, therefore it may be worth organisations and movements mobilising supportthrough a more localised focus. In this way, the collective efficacy of potential activists can

be harnessed more effectively by appealing to locally salient issues. Similarly, Harre (2007)

asserts that tension between immediate life circumstances and society-wide problems is

particularly evident within the younger generations, where studies have revealed that young

people are simply too busy with other priorities, usually because they are financially more

rewarding and ‘cooler’ than volunteering work. However, the young people of today are the

future of tomorrow and motivating this section of society to participate in activism is

essential for tackling social problems, as well as providing a positive experience for the

individuals themselves. Personal efficacy is a central psychological motivator for young

people, and if strong enough, will at least provide a platform for the individual to participate

in the collective context, and offer an abundance of potential for young people’s ongoingidentity projects:



9

“When young people are active in their communities, they not only help create a thriving society but

also help create themselves.” (p. 711).

Significantly, many studies have found that parental modelling has an important impact on

youth participation and is related to activism in adolescence and in adulthood. Indeed, if the

apple doesn’t fall far from the tree- as the proverb goes- the fruit may be more easily pickedand in a shorter period of time. This has clear implications for the way organisations should

go about increasing participation and their activist base. Furthermore, parental (activism)

networks provide opportunities for their children as well as for the parents themselves, so

networks between organisations and individuals can be developed to encourage activism

from different generations of the same family; that is if the message is transmitted in an

inclusive and appealing way. And crucially:

“That activism leads to more activism is also supported by some evidence that those who are

activists or volunteers at a particular stage in their lives are more likely to be doing these

projects later in their lives” (p.719).

Indeed, collected ‘apples’ can bloom into trees themselves and lead to further generations

of activists.

Activism is usually a characteristic of an empowered individual, where empowerment

appears to include an increased sense of efficacy (Angelique 2002). Therefore, as Wittig

(1996) argues, efficacy may be a predictor of activism. So, in addition to parental networks

and the home environment, are there other networks that stem from particular

environments that inspire activism, efficacy and participation? Angelique (2002) emphasises

the role of universities in creating such environments that are conducive to activism.

Universities promote the five main characteristics associated with empowering

environments: small group settings, a common belief system, opportunities to acquire skills

and knowledge, leadership and experience. The university environment provides the

optimum conditions for Kieffer’s (1984) four phases of development into grassroots

activism: entry , advancement , incorporation and commitment . So, universities can present

organisations with unique access to a thriving environment of potential activist support, and

provide an opportunity for network building to benefit the empowered individual activist

striving for justice, and the environmental movement as a whole.

Efficacy is also central psychological characteristic of the ‘Anger Activism Model’ proposed

by Turner (2007). This model reminds us of the strongly emotive nature of activism, and the

impassioned aspirations of the activists involved:

“The Anger Activism Model argues that the interaction between angry feelings towards the

target issue and efficacy predicts activism [and] despite its potential negative characteristics,

anger is utilitarian, and provides valuable functions to the people experiencing it…anger

intensity will interact with perceived efficacy to impact persuasive outcomes. ” (p.116)

One important implication (and application) of the model involves how anger can be called

upon to initiate activism in ‘inactive publics’ (p.115). Although only appropriate for particular

situations,



10

“Anger appeals are one effective method to get audiences to read a message carefully,

respond favourably, and act mightily.” (p.118).

To achieve this utilitarian function, the message must be communicated clearly , be

unambiguous on how the audience’s goals are being threatened , and the message must

make explicit that the issue is fixable (p.118) so as to be complementary to a sense of personal and collective efficacy. Organisations looking to recruit potential activists could

perhaps benefit from adopting a more nuanced approach that takes heed of individual

sensibilities.

3.2 Values, Beliefs and Norms

To understand how individual values, beliefs and norms impact on activism, it is worth

looking at how environmental behaviour more generally is determined. Wiseman and

Bogner (2003) propose that individual attitudes towards environmental behaviour are

clustered into ‘higher-order values’, outlined in their Model of Ecological Values (MEV):

“Ecological Values are determined by one’s position on two orthogonal dimensions, a biocentric

dimension that reflects conservation and protection of the environment (Preservation); and an

anthropocentric dimension that reflects the utilization of natural resources (Utilisation).” (p.787).

So, where an individual’s personality lays on the biocentric/anthropocentric dimension has

an impact on their everyday attitudes and ultimately has a ‘large influence’ on whether or

not environmental activism can be stimulated successfully. Similarly, McFarlane and Boxall

(2003) focus on the dimensions of anthropocentric and biocentric values, and proclaim:

“Several layers of cognitions are represented with basic values

[anthropocentrism/biocentrism] providing the foundation for higher order attitudes and

behaviors…General beliefs in turn influence specific attitudes and these in turn influence

specific actions or behaviors.” (p.80).

Distinguishing between basic values and specific attitudes is important then in

understanding individual environmental behaviour. An individual may be wholly engaged in

the environmental debate, and be extremely proenvironmental and conscientious of green

issues, but if their specific attitudes (e.g. views regarding the role of technology in achieving

sustainable biofuels) are not consistent with a certain cause, the individual will not

participate in activism. Environmental organisations can have an impact on the specific

attitudes of individuals, and therefore may be in a position to unite people and bring about

momentum for collective activism:

“Membership in an environmental group proved to be the most significant contributor to

activism, providing an alternative to the commonly held version of reality.” (p.85).

Likewise, environmental organisations could bring about a shift in environmental values by

campaigning for more outdoor activities in schools, universities and the workplace. This

could bring about a societal sense of nature-interconnectedness and catalyse greater levels

of activism (Schultz 2000). Alternatively, appealing to each cluster of environmental values

(anthropocentric/biocentric) could encourage further environmental activism (Schultz 2001)

from the more altruistic individuals, to persons with traditional conservational concerns, topersons driven by self-interest (Stern, Dietz and Kalof 2002). Then again, Bamberg and



11

Moser (2007) maintain that individual proenvironmental behaviour is a mixture of self-

interest and of concern for other people and the planet, so according to this argument,

appealing to the different clusters of environmental values is necessary even for engaging

environmental activism at the individual level. This study also revealed guilt to be an

important pro-social emotion and determiner of proenvironmental behaviour, as was

knowledge and awareness. Similarly, Stern, Dietz, and Kalof (1993) affirm that the threetypes of environmental concern- self-interest , concern for others and concern for other

species and natural environments- all have some influence on expressed willingness to take

political action. Again, findings such as these suggest environmental organisations may find

adopting a more nuanced approach to motivating activism effective within their supporters

and wider society.

Dietz et al (1999) attempt to develop such a strategy by focusing on the ‘Value-Belief-Norm

Theory’ that has just been briefly explored, as it draws attention to the causal relationships

involved with individuals advancing from basic pro-environmentalism to environmental

activism; an important distinction that has massive implications for the ways in which

environmental organisations may garner support:

Definition of movement activists:

• Activists are committed to public actions intended to influence the behaviour of the

policy system and of the broader population.

• Committed activists are the core of a movement and have been the subject of much

recent work in the social movements literature.

• For them the movement becomes an important part of their life and a central

element in their identity.

Definition of movement supporters:

• Movement supporters as those who are sympathetic to the movement and who arewilling to take some action and bear some costs in order to support the movement.

The casual relationships involved:

• The boundary between supporters and activists is fuzzy, and people often move

back and forth, being activists for a time then retreating to a less committed but still

supportive role.

• It is from the supporters that new activists are drawn.

(Dietz et al 1999)

Non-activist public support can be essential for movement success, where the base for

general movement support lies in a conjunction of values, beliefs, and personal norms.

Notably, these values, beliefs and norms are not static, but fluctuate throughout an

individual’s life, and environmental organisations can influence the changing shape of these

psychological characteristics:

“We propose that movement success depends on movement activists and organizations

building support by activating or reshaping personal norms to create feelings of obligation…It

is also possible, however, for a social movement to try to activate personal norms based on

other kinds of values.” (p.83).

To activate personal norms and mobilise support, organisations should highlight the threats

to the individual and the adverse consequences, but also emphasise that the individual hasthe ability to alleviate those threats by appropriate action. Fielding, MacDonald and Louis



12

(2005) found that belonging to an environmental organisation was a better predictor of

engaging in environmental activism than social structural variables and the other social

psychological variables. This again highlights the ability of organisations to overcome the

variance found in individual value orientations and social structural variables. Nevertheless,

psychological characteristics play a big part in determining whether an individual partakes in

environmental activism:

“The theory of planned behaviour (TPB) is one of the most influential and well supported

social psychological theories of human decision-making. The basic premise of the theory is

that the best predictor of behaviour is intention to perform that behaviour. In turn, TPB

proposes that intentions are predicted by attitudes to the specific behaviour, subjective

norms, and perceived behavioural control .” (p.3).

Fielding, MacDonald and Louis also reveal past behaviour and social identity to have a

significant influence on whether or not activism is carried out. Past engagement in

environmental activism is a predictor of future intentions, so once people are engaged in

environmental activism they are more likely to keep doing it. So, calling upon the actions of

those already involved in the activist movement may be a more worthwhile endeavour than

calling upon individuals whom have never participated in such behaviour, particularly if

action is required to be swift and effective. As for the significance of social identity, the

(perceived) psychological characteristics of environmental activists may in fact deter people

that haven’t participated in activism already from doing so, due to the persistence of

negative stereotypes. Accordingly, environmental organisations must take into

consideration the societal baggage that comes with each and every individual, and employ

varied techniques in achieving higher rates of participatory activism. Fielding, MacDonald

and Louis also emphasise the need for environmental organisations to adopt a strategic

approach when seeking to develop their existing support and increase their activist

numbers. One such approach involves the notion of ‘costs and benefits’:

“Findings from the belief-based measures of the model also indicate that convincing

community members of the benefits of engaging in environmental activism may be a more

fruitful strategy than downplaying the costs.” (Fielding, MacDonald and Louis, 2005, p.15).

The following section will explore the ‘cost and benefits’ literature, and the implications of

‘rational choice’ for individual environmental activism.

3.3 Rational Choice

The rational choice literature aims to take the issues of participation and activism beyondthe ‘who participates’ questions, to the ‘why they participate’ questions. Demographic

variables may be important for exploring who participates: are activists generally older or

younger? Do females participate more than males? Has class or ethnicity got anything to do

with activist participation? Similarly, exploring social psychological characteristics generates

valuable insights into participatory activism: do activists have greater levels of personal

efficacy? Do anthropocentric and biocentric value orientations have an impact on

participation? Is social identity important? Although both of these lines of inquiry are crucial

to understanding activism, the rational choice approach underlines the elementary but

pivotal decisions facing the potential activist that can make or break whether or not action is

carried out- the last port of call if you like. Wandersman et al (1987) set out to answer the



13

question ‘why do people participate’ by focusing on the notion of rational choice put

forward by costs and benefits theory.

“The theory suggests that a social exchange takes place in organizations such that

participants will invest their energy in the organization only if they expect to receive some

benefits.” (p.538).

They cite an important typology of incentives that influence an individual’s decision on

whether to proceed in participation and activism:

• Material Incentives - tangible rewards that can be translated into monetary value

such as wages, reduced taxes, and increased property values.

• Solidary Incentives - derived from social interactions and include socialising, status,

and group identification

• Purposive Incentives - derived from the ‘suprapersonal’ goals of the organisationand include bettering the community, doing one's duty, and feeling a sense of

responsibility

(Clark and Wilson 1961)

According to this typology, an organisation can potentially increase participation and

activism through the generation of incentives. Of course, for a voluntary organisation with

limited funds, incentives would usually be based on solidary and purposive principles.

Activism in this way can be regarded as a two-way process where both the cause and the

activist benefit from individual participation. However, where there are benefits there are

usually costs. An individual weighs up the benefits and costs in the final stage of a three-step

mobilisation process:

• First Step – An individual perceives a condition

• Second Step – Evaluates it as important to his or her well-being

• Third Step – Evaluates the costs and benefits of action

(Henig 1982)

Evidently, if the costs of participating in activism are deemed significant, action may not be

carried out. Wandersman et al concluded that:

“…although members do not differ from nonmembers in terms of their perceptions of the

possibilities of collective action, they do significantly differ in terms of their perceptions of

personal influence and general belief in political efficacy. Participants' calculations of their

own ability to act successfully thus seems to be different…The implication is that

nonmembers do not participate because they think it is costly (more costly than members

report).” (p.551).

Evaluation of costs and benefits appears to be subjective, existing in the eye of the beholder.

This indicates that an individual’s evaluation of participation can change, as it is not based on

objective observations. Herein lies an important question: can an organisation either



14

downplay the costs or alternatively, emphasise the benefits? From the literature, it would

appear that emphasising the benefits is a much more positive and fruitful strategy. One such

strategy would be to underline the positive experience of collective action. Lubell (2002)

develops a model of environmental activism linked to the logic of collective action, building

on rational choice theory.

“Following a rational actor assumption, the collective interest model argues people will

participate in environmental activism when the subjective expected value of participation is

positive.” (p.433).

Lubell identifies five factors that a potential activist will consider before making the decision

to participate in activism or not:

• The perceived value of the collective good produced by successful environmental

action

• The increase in the probability of success if the individual participates

• The extent to which the actions of the group as a whole are likely to be successful

• The selective costs of participation

• The selective benefits of participation

(Lubell 2002)

Lubell maintains that individual evaluations of costs and benefits are carried out

subjectively, and therefore psychological characteristics can determine whether or not anindividual becomes an activist. Efficacy, as discussed above, was found to contribute to

environmental activism. An individual with high levels of personal efficacy will deem

participation more worthwhile, as success is perceived to be more likely so benefits will

ultimately outweigh the costs. Individual environmental values are also a key element of

costs and benefits analysis:

“Citizens with strong environmental values are more likely to receive psychological benefits

from expressing their preferences through environmental activism or enjoy the social

benefits of participating with like-minded citizens. Conversely, citizens with more

conservative ideologies are less likely to have preferences for environmental protection and

thus perceive less selective benefits.” (p.437).

Likewise, Pattie, Seyd and Whitely (2003) affirm that those who feel strongly attached to a

group should be more likely to act on its behalf than those who do not share that

attachment. Again, this element of the costs and benefits theory highlights the importance

of individual sensibilities, where it may be worthwhile for an environmental organisation to

appeal to different forms of value orientation (e.g. anthropocentric/biocentric). One of the

principle findings of the rational choice approach that has enormous leverage concerns the

practical costs of civic engagement and activism. Bowers (2004) asserts that the capacity of

individuals to engage in civic matters is determined by their basic organisational and

communicative abilities:



15

“Those individuals who possess civic skills are more likely to engage in such activities than those

who do not because such skills decrease the costs in the cost-benefit calculus presumably

surrounding participation decisions.” (p.527).

This will make Pattie, Seyd and Whitely’s (2003) dimension of ‘contact activism’- which

includes making contact with organisations, and writing to the media and/or politicalleaders- more difficult to partake in, ‘the more troublesome people think civic engagement

is likely to be, the less likely they are to engage’ (p.454). Environmental organisations must

therefore make alternative types of activism available to individuals to avoid specific costs

and benefits halting activism altogether. On the other hand, environmental organisations

can exercise the benefits. Activists can enjoy the psychological benefits of participating in

action with like-minded citizens. Political discussion networks provided by environmental

organisations will facilitate interaction and may also reduce the costs of activism by exposing

people to recruitment networks (Lubell, Zahran and Vedlitz 2007).

3.4 Models of Activism

Models of activism are useful as they integrate an analysis of demographic and psychological

characteristics to achieve a more comprehensive understanding of the individual activist. In

this section, a small sample of a rather large area of research will be outlined and examined

for practical application.

Barkan (2004) looks to explain public support for the environmental movement using the

Civic Voluntarism Model, and asks why:

“Some individuals in the environmental movement are highly committed, full-time activists

who live and breathe their activism, while many more support the movement through

financial and other contributions but are not activists as that term is usually defined.” (p.913)

Individuals support environmental organisations and campaigns for similar reasons, but their

support is revealed in different ways. A distinction can be made between ‘spectators’ who

may support an organisation or campaign by wearing a badge or contributing some money

but otherwise are only minimally involved in politics, and the compellingly named

‘gladiators’ who exhibit high levels of political participation. Whether an individual is a

spectator or a gladiator depends upon the configuration of their four components of the

Civic Voluntarism Model:

• Resources – Time, money, and communication and organisational skills, that

provides the means and ability to be politically active. Demographic characteristics

can play a key role in this component.

• Psychological Engagement – Attitudes that incline citizens to become politically

active. Pscychological characteristics (e.g. efficacy) play a key role in this component.

• Recruitment – Friends and associates in one’s interpersonal networks. Common

networks are found in places of worship, voluntary organisations, and work settings.



16

Thus, people with greater involvement in such settings are more likely to be

recruited into political activity.

• Issue Engagements – Opinions about specific issues that induce political activity on

these issues.

According to this model, an individual depending on their social, political, economic and

psychological conditions will carry out different forms of environmental activism.

Demographic and psychological characteristics are both crucial in explaining (and prompting)

activism, with social networks playing no small role. Barkan provides a description of a

typical activist in relation to the four components of the Civic Voluntarism Model:

“Public supporters of the movement should be more likely to come from higher

socioeconomic backgrounds, which provide them with resources for their support; to be

engaged with the political process; to be members of interpersonal networks that provide

settings for recruitment; and to hold various concerns about the quality of the environment.”

(p.916).

However, Barkan fails to address how an inactive individual may become a ‘spectator’ or a

‘gladiator’, and whether or not other individuals and organisations can prompt such a

transition. Nevertheless a number of inferences can be established. Firstly, an environmental

organisation can present individuals with a number of alternative pathways to activism,

where an individual can choose to adopt a journey most conducive to their available

resources (e.g. time, money, skills). Similarly, offering alternative pathways to participation

that are engaging and attractive to different psychological characteristics can encourage

individual activism. Thirdly, potential pathways to activism should be advertised toindividuals already participating in various networks, as well as exposing individuals outside

of existing networks to activism opportunities. This will necessitate innovative strategies and

unique approaches to reaching disengaged individuals, as well as collaborating with

organisations and individuals in related networks. Fourthly, an environmental organisation

can campaign on a diverse range of issues that will prompt engagement from individuals

interested in various specific political concerns. This model implies that a multi-strategic

approach to mobilising activists will be worthwhile. Another model of environmental

activism has been proposed by Seguin, Pelletier and Hunsley (1998), which postulates that

the difficulty of an action is examined in contrast with the saliency and severity of the

environmental problem that requires it. Put simply, the perceived difficulty of a particular

environmental action will determine whether or not the action is carried out. This weighing

up of action against problem is where activists are separated from non-activists, where the

wheat is separated from the chaff, as it were.

“In sum, environmental activists are people who intentionally engage in the most difficult

ecological behaviors. They are usually members of environmental groups, are involved in

fundraising campaigns or the signing of petitions, write letters to the government and to

policy makers, and also try to influence people’s attitudes and behaviors toward the

environment” (p.631).

Determinants of activist behaviour include saliency and severity of environmental problem,

resource availability, knowledge level, efficacy, global disposition toward the environment



17

and perceived commonality between individual and other activists. The model proposes that

five variables determine activist behaviour, where ‘autonomy of motivation’ directs action

and the remaining four variables mediate the action of activists:

1) Autonomy of motivation

2) Perception of responsibility to prevent health risks

3) Perceived importance of environmental problems

4) Amount of information on health risks

5) Perception of health risks

The ideal activist according to this model is:

“…an individual who perceives as more important various possible problems in the

environment such as the quality of the air, level of pollution from automobiles and

industries, and the degradation of animals’ habitats. Activists are also more sensitive to

information on health risks, health issues, and the conditions of the environment.

Furthermore, activists feel that organizations such as public interest groups or environmental

groups have the responsibility to protect people from health risks, and they perceive more

health risks related to environmental conditions. In conclusion, we would say that activists

possess a high level of autonomy toward the environment.” (p.646)

It is the first variable, ‘autonomy of motivation’, which is perhaps the most striking and

utilitarian. Level of individual autonomy will influence whether or not activist behaviour iscarried out, where “generally, the more people are autonomous toward the environment,

the more they will be involved in environmental issues.” (p.635). There are three different

types of motivation:

• Intrinsic motivation – behaviours that are voluntarily engaged in purely for the

pleasure and satisfaction derived from their practice.

• Extrinsic motivation – behaviours that are performed for instrumental purposes

(e.g. to receive an award or to avoid punishment.

• Amotivation – behaviours performed with no sense of purpose and to associatedfeelings of incompetence and lack of control.

Individuals that are intrinsically motivated are more autonomous, and would therefore

generally be more likely to engage in activism. However, the remaining four variables (see

above) act as mediators and have a direct impact on individual activism. So, what are the

practical implications of this model? Firstly, as intrinsically, autonomously motivated

individuals are more likely to participate in activist behaviour; environmental organisations

can increase motivational autonomy by offering choices to individuals in the decision-

making process and particularly in the environmental domain, involving individuals in

decisions that have an affect on the environment. Secondly, environmental organisations

can optimise the mediating factors to encourage individual activism to take place. This could



18

be achieved in a number of ways; by making information on health risks more accessible to

individuals, by emphasising that responsibility rests with each and every individual, and by

underlining the importance of environmental problems and the associated health risks.

Kavanaugh et al (2005) offer the ‘Civic Effects Model’, which shows that demographic and

psychological characteristics explain activism:

This rather complicated looking diagram illustrates the different pathways to activism from

the exogenous variables (education, extroversion, age) through the mediating variables

(staying informed, membership, collective efficacy). The exogenous variables, made up of

demographic and psychological characteristics, play a crucial role in the pathways to

activism, where extroversion can lead directly to activism. The model posits that age is only

partly significant. Importantly, an individual may enter into activism through staying

informed and not necessarily through environmental group membership, although group

membership does represent an important avenue to activism:

“Our study also points to the importance of group memberships as a form of civic

participation. People who belong to multiple groups or organizations act as ‘bridges’ or weak

social ties between groups; they facilitate the flow of information across a community.

Bridges differ from people who belong to just one organization (this is typically church) or to

none at all. They tend to have higher socioeconomic status, a stronger sense of collective

efficacy, and to be more active and involved in the community. Being a member of a

voluntary association and staying informed on local affairs makes a difference for civic

participation. Informed members are more likely than others to vote, discuss politics and

attend meetings. They are also more likely than others to use the Internet to obtain local

political information, discuss politics online, and report that they are more involved in local

community and in local issues of interest since getting on the Internet.” (p.30)

There are a number of practical implications that can be extracted from the model. Firstly,

an environmental organisation can carve out political space for extroverts to flourish, within

and without the membership of the organisation. Moreover, the enthusiasm of extroverts

can be harnessed by an organisation if they are brought together in campaigns and projects.

This leads on to the second point; there are alternative pathways to activism, namely

individually informed activists and members of an organisation, where it may be possible to

bring activists together for a common cause. Finally, the model also underlines the utility of

the internet as a tool for promoting activism.

Ipsos Mori (2006), the social research institute, conducted an insightful study ‘Ingredientsfor Community Engagement: The Civic Pioneer Experience’. Although not strictly concerned

Education

Extroversion

Age

Staying

Informed

Membership

Collective

Efficacy

Online Civic

Involved

in Issues

Activism

Significant

Partly

Significant



19

with environmental activism, there are a number of useful concepts that can be drawn upon

to understand individual engagement. Successful engagement requires an organisation to:

• Encourage - the key elements of which are providing reassurance, removing

psychological barriers, communicating effectively, and feeding back about precious

exercises to display the value and impact of engaging and show that there issomething ‘in it for them’.

• Enable - it is important to have enablers in place - in particular, making sure people

have the information they need, having a range of accessible mechanisms and

providing the support and skills needed. Enabling engagement requires removing

practical barriers. Transparency is key.

• Empower – sharing strategy decisions and subsequent accountability, inclusive

decision-making, which can encourage involvement as well as being good in itself.

The Ipsos Mori research team also draw up a number of possible factors that may form partsof a successful model for engagement, which revolve around nine ‘ingredients’:

Core Ingredients

1. Leadership/ Championship (Having good leaders committed to

engagement, and appropriately placed)

2. Organisational Culture and Structure (Important for setting foundations,

arranged in a way that encourages a shared understanding of engagement)

3. Local Involvement Structures (Identifying what structures and mechanismswork best)

4. Agency-Partnership Working (Partnerships with other organisations to

achieve common goals)

5. Money/Resources (The key drivers and facilitators of engagement)

Secondary Ingredients

6. Community Led/Driven (Bottom-up approach, representing the ‘purest’

form of engagement)

7. Single Issues (Linked to community-led engagement, single issues identified

as useful way to reach a wider audience, which can ‘fire up’ local residents

and channel ‘fresh blood’ into existing mechanisms)

8. Targets/Performance Indicators (Targets are important if engagement is to

be taken seriously)

9. Stability (Personnel, structures and political control stabilised)



20

All nine ingredients interact with one another and should therefore not be considered in

isolation. If all ingredients are successfully introduced into the engagement process, then

activism through collective action (e.g. environmental organisation) can be achieved.

3.5 Internal Sources

Friends of the Earth has been involved with research that has explored activism within its

own membership. Within this research, there is data and discussions that have shed light on

the psychological characteristics of its activists, as well as providing insights into activism

more generally. The most relevant sources will now be considered in relation to external

research to achieve a greater understanding of the valuable activism that goes on within

FoE, and to gain an insight into the psychological characteristics of its most passionate and

ardent members.

Sargeant and Jay (2004) have produced a report that is based on qualitative and quantitative

research of FoE supporters, from monetary supporters to what they call ‘armchair activists’

to the dirty-handed campaigning activists. The research revealed some interesting themes

regarding supporter motivations and needs, where findings from the activist section are

particularly useful for understanding the psychology of individual activism. The qualitative

findings were based on a focus group of thirteen activists (italics will indicate significant

quotations), and quantitative findings were based on a postal survey.

Motivation

For many of the activists, motivations for participating in environmental activism were based

on careful consideration about particular issues, which had affected the individuals

personally:

“I think the enormity of the task makes causes like Friends of the Earth more worthy of

support – faced with globalisation and the power of multinational companies they have an

huge uphill struggle and personally I feel I have to support them in that” (p.52)

“I got involved years ago through health reasons – I suffered from lots of food allergies and

started taking an interest in what I was eating. Then the circles widened from there at acertain point it got bigger than just me and how I lived and I knew I had to get involved”

(p.52)

“…Friends of the Earth were still dealing with issues that I cared about so I never stopped

supporting them” (p.52)

Similarly, in the quantitative survey, supporters in the ‘activists’ group were more likely to

see several of the areas as more personally important than supporters in the other groups,

where they were to keen to learn how they could personally make a difference on an issue

that they felt personally passionate about. Evidently, personal factors are a determiner of

activist behaviour. This underlines the importance of individual values, beliefs and norms

(see 3.2), where the capability of environmental organisations increasing activism in its

membership may rest with their ability to appeal to different bands of values (e.g.



21

anthropocentric/biocentric concerns). It also highlights the significance of specific issues,

which can ‘fire up’ potential activists, particularly if the issue is locally salient (Barkan 2004;

Ipsos Mori 2006). An environmental organisation may therefore benefit from campaigning

on a broad range of issues rather than concentrating on just one or two specific issues to

attract more individuals. The motivation exhibited by activists taking part in Sargeant and

Jay’s research appears to generally be ‘intrinsic motivation’ (Seguin, Pelletier and Hunsley1998), as motivation was personally driven where the issue was autonomously identified to

be important. Quite feasibly, it may be this type of motivation that has spurred them on into

activist behaviour, marking them out from other kind of supporters:

“Activists were quite different – primarily in that they seem more passionate in their interest

in the issues, and are therefore disposed to spend more time and effort on actions. They also

care more deeply about the whole range of issues, and are obviously active in other areas

(not covered by Friends of the Earth) in addition.” (p.91)

Activists also came across as positive, and were optimistic about FoE campaigns success rate.

This appears to substantiate much of the theory on efficacy (see 3.1) where higher levels of

self and collective efficacy can be a predictor of activism. Ways of increasing efficacy in non-activists may therefore be worthwhile. A simple method of increasing efficacy could be to

communicate campaign successes to membership regularly on websites and through

letters/magazines. A successful organisation should breed successful activists.

Needs

Supporter needs were based on reported requirements by quantitative survey participants

and qualitative focus groups, namely concerning methods used at the welcoming stage,

feedback, fundraising asks and customer care. Activists were generally happy with the

communications they had received from FoE, although telephone calls and frequent ‘high

pressure’ fundraising techniques were not popular:

“If they are going to ask me for extra I’d prefer it to be as one offs – rather than constantly

badgering me to increase my monthly giving – I have to keep that under control and

changing the amount would be a more considered decision” (p.54)

“You do feel that you are being hammered by the groups you already support” (p.54)

“I’ve had calls where they have talked to you for ten minutes trying to convince you – that

tends to build up a resentment especially when you have been supporting for years and

probably know a damn sight more than the fundraisers do” (p.55)

Clearly, a fine line must be traversed where communication is concerned. However, effective

and selective communication with regular informative feedback can facilitate what the

rational choice literature terms ‘costs and benefits’ personal analysis (see 3.3), where the

benefits of activism/membership can be emphasised to maintain participation and

engagement, and ultimately to prompt action (Seguin, Pelletier and Hunsley 1998).

Furthermore, regular communication will provide environmental organisations with the

appropriate platform to make alternative types of activism available to individuals to avoid

specific costs and benefits halting activism altogether (Pattie, Seyd and Whitely 2003).

Effective communication will also assist the empowerment process, involving individuals inan inclusive decision-making channel to encourage involvement and activism (Ipsos Mori



22

2006). Also, clear communication can be used to promote ‘anger appeals’ that can initiate

activism in inactive publics (Turner 2007). But most importantly, communication will satisfy

supporter needs by building trust between individuals and an organisation- a vital ingredient

of engagement as a movement/organisation becomes a central part of an activist’s life:

“Trust is incredibly important – you can’t possibly know all the intricacies of the argumentsabout GM foods, for example, but you trust the people at Friends of the Earth who are

working on this sort of issue to summarise the information for you and to take the ‘right’ line

– you trust them because at base you feel they are people who feel the same way that you

do” (p.55)

“It is the same with the finances – I don’t know exactly what their financial situation is and I

don’t need to as long as I trust that they are using whatever money I give them broadly to

support and promote the worldview that they and I share” (p.55)

The link between communication and activism certainly appears to be worthy of

investigation, as in the quantitative survey, Sargeant and Jay revealed that activists are more

likely than the others to request more comprehensive information.

Rose, Dade and Scott’s (2007) research into how to motivate individuals with different

psychological dispositions to change behaviours that affect climate change emissions, has

been sourced internally by FoE due to its applicability and straightforward

recommendations. The report’s findings are based on qualitative research in the West of

England. Principally, the report’s greatest theoretical clout comes from its easily accessible

typology of individual psychological characteristics, which is classified into prospectors,

pioneers and settlers. The typologies have been classified by grouping ‘value modes’ or

attributes into recognisable clusters that are representative of an archetypal individual, with

data that has been ‘culled from thousands of questions put to hundreds of thousands of

people over decades of research’ (p.4). The typology has three classifications and twelve

subgroups:

Prospectors (40%) Pioneers (40%) Settlers (20%)

Golden Dreamers Transitionals Roots

Happy Followers Concerned Ethicals Smooth Sailing

Now People Flexible Individuals Brave New World

Tomorrow People Transcenders Certainty First

(Subgroups in italics particularly relevant to Rose, Dade and Scott’s (2007) report)

The report generated some insightful conclusions. Firstly, individuals can belong to either

the prospectors, pioneers or settlers typology. Pioneers, or perhaps more specifically

transcenders, are most often the initiators of new behaviours, they are curious and

experimental, representing society’s innovators. Prospectors on the other hand do not

initiate new behaviours, but they adopt behaviours from the pioneers through a number of

different cognitive and behavioural processes. Finally, the settlers are more stuck in their

ways, traditional and cautious. The typologies can be explored much more rigorously,

however the more pertinent point can be made without an in-depth analysis of the

classifications. As individuals belong to different typologies based on alternative values and



23

attributes, connecting with these individuals requires various strategies that appeal to

specific psychological characteristics. For instance:

“Any face to face execution for Prospectors needs to look and feel contemporary, ‘retail’

rather than NGO, product and service rather than ‘cause’. Any hint of politics, ethics or

campaigning will frighten Prospectors away. Prospectors like ‘experts’ on hand but they need

to be on hand not in front. The ideal salesperson for a Now Person is going to be another

Now Person, preferably glamorous but at least well kempt, not concerned with selling an

idea but the right stuff to have now. So don’t whatever you do, send a badly dressed Pioneer

who really would rather be talking about ‘the issue’, or the leading edge actions such as

pledging not to fly and growing their own vegetables to avoid food miles.” (p.27)

In other words, what may prompt activist behaviour in the concerned ethicals of the pioneer

group may be entirely different to what catalyses activism in the now people of the

prospectors group. This is an astute observation, and something which campaign promoters

must take heed of if they are to carve any major inroads into society’s various sensibilities.



24

4. Demographic Characteristics

Individuals will usually strive to participate in activism if they believe action is appropriate,

the cause is meaningful and compelling, the personal benefits and costs are agreeable

(where ‘agreeable’ changes from person to person), the likelihood of success is sufficient,

and they have the required information to make judgements. Clearly, psychologicalcharacteristics of individuals have a huge influence on whether or not activism is carried out.

However, put rather crudely, as people are affected by ‘internal’ influences, they are also

affected by ‘external’ influences. External influences are experienced through being a part of

society, an individual in a collectivity, and a node within a network. Personal decisions are

not autonomous; other people and groups can shape individual psychological

characteristics. An example of this would be folk ecological beliefs that can be seen as a link

between social structural forces and socialization processes (Stern, Dietz and Guagnano

1995). But it is the social structure itself that can impede or expedite individual action

depending on the demographic characteristics of that person. The area of environmental

activism is no different:

“The ability to pay the selective costs of environmental activism is related to the availability

of the money, time, and civic skills necessary for effective participation…In turn, the

availability of money, time, and civic skills is linked to the many demographic variables that

are traditionally considered in research on environmental behavior. The general conclusion

of the literature is that better educated, higher income, younger, female, and nonminority

citizens are more likely to support environmental protection and that pattern has not

changed over time.” (Lubell, 2002, p.437).

The literature on demographic characteristics in relation to environmental activism can be

rather dry and prescriptive, so to break it up a little and make it more accessible, the main

arguments will be divided and explored separately, broken up into the demographic bands

of age, gender, class and ethnicity. Internal demographic data regarding FoE activists will becontrasted with external theory/studies where relevant. This data has been collected from

‘Campaign Champions’ (464 responses) and activists more generally (Acxiom’s

BehaviourBank).

4.1 Age

Interestingly, Lubell (2002) analysed data from social surveys and suggested that age may

have no influence on levels of environmental activism due to ‘balancing factors’ (p.451). By

this, he means that younger people may have more ‘postmaterial values’ (where needs for

belonging, esteem, and intellectual and aesthetic satisfaction become more prominent as a

result of satisfied welfare and physiological requirements) and a greater awareness of environmental issues, so the benefits of environmental activism are significant. However,

older people may have more civic skills and experience with political action, therefore

reducing the costs of environmental activism. On analysing survey data, Pattie, Seyd and

Whitley (2003) did indeed find that older people are more likely to undertake most forms of

civic action. So, older and younger people tend to participate in environmental activism for

different costs and benefits analyses, but action is still carried out across the ages.

Nevertheless, Lubell does conclude by positing that younger people are more likely to

engage in individual activism due to the selective benefits of participation. This is not

supported by the Acxiom FoE internal data which revealed a much higher percentage of

middle-aged individuals (40-60 years old) were engaging in activist behaviour than their

younger or older counterparts. Likewise, the ‘Campaigns Champions’ internal data revealedthat a higher percentage of individuals partaking in activism are 45-64 year olds (40 per cent)



25

compared with the 25-44 age range (31 per cent). Johnson, Bowker and Cordell (2004) also

found that age was a consistent explanatory variable for environmental behaviour, but

different types were age-specific. For instance, older persons reported more reading and

recycling than younger ones but less group joining and participation in outdoor recreation

activities. Accordingly, one would expect to see younger people carrying out more visible

and ‘active’ activism, but this doesn’t mean that older individuals don’t partake in activismmore generally. Fernandez-Ballesteros et al (2002) suggest that the reason why ‘youth are

often the spearhead of political activism’ (p.120) is because they judge themselves more

efficacious than their older counterparts to bring about social change. Similarly, Van Liere

and Dunlap’s (1980) findings support the ‘age hypothesis’ where younger persons tend to be

more concerned about environmental quality. However, the relationship was moderate,

which indicates that:

“The limited utility of demographic variables in explaining variation in environmental concern

points to the widespread distribution of such concern in our society.” (p.193)

In other words, environmental concern is prevalent in all areas of the social structure;

therefore the age of an individual is scarcely significant. Notably, a number of studies have

progressed the debate further by indicating that it may not be age per se that determines

environmental behaviour, rather it is underlying factors that are affected by age. Zeidner

and Shechter (1988) examined people’s reactions towards air pollution, and found age to be

a meaningful predictor of affective reactions:

“Older individuals, compared to their younger counterparts, often have more serious social

problems and environmental concerns to deal with (deteriorated housing, health problems,

social status, etc.), which take priority over less critical environmental concerns, such as air

pollution.” (p.205)

In this view, older individuals have more immediate private problems to contend with so

personally less critical environmental issues such as global warming or marine pollution take

a back seat. However, although this argument is wholly valid and addresses the more

underlying issues of age and environmental behaviour; surely younger generations have

similar problems also that can restrict the amount of time available for activism?

Affirmatively, Bowers (2004) asserts that although moving home affects activism and civic

duties in older people more than younger people, younger generations move more often,

and usually further afield. As younger people move home more often, disruption to activism

patterns may occur, although money donations through direct debit and otherwise would

probably be more likely to continue. Wandersman et al (1987) also indicate how younger,more uprooted individuals may see their activism negatively affected:

“The results of our analysis of the demographic variables suggest that rootedness in the

community is related to participation. Living in an area longer, intending to stay longer, and

having more children can be seen as embedding an individual within a community, increasing

both the opportunities and incentives to participate.” (p.550)

However, this is where, as Pickerill (2003) argues, computer mediated communication (CMC)

can come into its own.



26

“While there remains a novelty (and hype) about the use of CMC which can distort its worth,

its use by environmentalists has had an impact upon the forms and processes of the

interviewees and their affiliated groups. British environmental activists are a diverse cohort

composed of individuals and groups with diverging aims, ideologies and forms of

organisation. These differences are exposed in their contrasting attitudes to, and use of CMC.

They are united, however, in their struggle to use CMC to their advantage and to continue

their protest, activism, and resistance (and creation of positive alternatives) through, and in,cyberspace. The environmental movement is particularly innovative, creative and skilful and

this has been extended to its use of CMC.” (p.131).

CMC can be utilised by individuals and organisations alike to overcome geographical

obstructions, something that more uprooted individuals would certainly benefit from.

Moreover, age is becoming less of a barrier to CMC use as computers and the Internet

increasingly become more commonplace in businesses, libraries, cafes and households.

4.2 Gender

There is a great deal of literature available on gender, concern and environmentalism. Inrecent years, gender, activism and civic duties have been explored increasingly more often,

which compliments the earlier investigations into environmental concern more generally. As

there are countless sources regarding this essential area, a select sample of influential

papers have been appropriated for this section. Firstly, it is important to point out that

findings on gender and environmentalism have been inconsistent and inconclusive.

Environmental concern has been frequently scrutinised for gender differences, with a

substantial proportion asserting that women are generally more concerned about issues

than their male counterparts (McFarlane and Boxall 2003). Blocker and Eckberg (1997) draw

attention to socialisation theory, where different roles are taken up by men and women

according to preconceived gender-based ideals. According to this argument, men are

socialised to be rational, masterful, accumulative and competitive, whereas women aresocialised into a compassionate, nurturing, protective and cooperative role. Argurably, such

gender divisions are becoming less relevant in modern times, however, Blocker and

Eckberg’s findings indicate that women have greater concern for health and safety issues,

greater concern for animals, are more concerned about pollution and have a greener

personal lifestyle than men. Markedly though, greater levels of concern do not translate into

environmental action. Therefore, gender appears to be a weak predictor of

environmentalism, rather:

“Women (and men) of higher social status, with more knowledge, and with greater trust in

science are more likely to engage in proenvironment action and are less likely to see the

economy as more important than the environment” (p.854).

Stern, Dietz and Kalof (1993) also emphasise the potential existence of a gender division, but

in terms of value orientations. They point to studies that have found women to have more

altruistic and biospheric concerns (see 3.2) than men, possibly due to being more ‘rooted’ in

the natural environment. In their discussion of the findings, they suggest that women are

apparently more accepting than men of links made between the environment and harm to

themselves, other humans and species or the biosphere. This indicates that socialization and

the social structure can indeed shape individual concern. In a later study, they stress the

importance of gender and value orientation:

“There were significant gender differences in one value priority, altruism, with women

reporting a substantially higher priority for this value than men. This is consequential for the



27

literature on gender and environment, since altruism is the value most closely related to

environmentalism in both theoretical and empirical work.”

(Stern, Dietz and Kalof, 2002, p.361)

Although women may be altruistically and biospherically more concerned than men, this

doesn’t necessarily suggest that activism is carried out by women more, rather, a number of

studies have indicated that less concerned men carry out more activism (Olli et al 2001;

Johnson, Bowker and Cordell 2004). On the other hand, studies have also concluded that

women do participate in environmental activism more! Lubell (2007) argues that males have

habitually been more active than females in traditional political participation but for

environmental issues, females are more likely to express concern and participate.

“One possible reason for this is a ‘‘gendered’’ division of labor, where women are

underrepresented in industrial occupations and overrepresented in culturally defined

nurturing roles” (p.398).

Similarly, Barkan (2004) argues that women show a greater level of environmental

citizenship than men, where men undertake activist roles in political participation moregenerally:

“Of these findings, perhaps the most interesting are those for education and psychological

and issue engagements. Women appear more likely than men to use the resources provided

by their education to support the environmental movement, and they are also more likely to

translate their psychological engagement with politics and their environmental concerns into

such support. Although women continue to lag slightly behind men in political participation

generally, they can still be more active than men on issues that are more important and

salient for them.” (p.929).

Indeed, the internal data prepared for FoE by Acxiom revealed that 66 per cent of activists

were in fact female. Nevertheless, the principle point to take away from the gender and

environmentalism literature is the inconclusive findings that have been generated. Although

some studies have found differences, a large number are contradictory, and many more

assert that there are no concrete variations between the genders in terms of environmental

concern and behaviour (Van Liere and Dunlap 1980; Schahn and Holzer 1990; Lubell 2002).

Other commentators like Wandersman et al (1987) argue that cultural differences are more

of a determining variable, as their study showed that gender was a significant factor in the

United States, where women are more likely to be a member of an organisation, but gender

is not significant in Israel. There are also underlying factors that are bound up with gender

that may potentially be more of a determining variable than gender per se; Fernandez-

Ballesteros et al (2002) underline the role that efficacy can play in either impeding or

expediting environmental activism:

“Men and women did not differ in their perceived efficacy to manage their personal lives,

but men expressed stronger efficacy that they can change their lives for the better through

their actions to effect social change. As previously noted, adult females judged themselves to

be less politically efficacious than males. However, recent years have witnessed substantial

changes in the roles women perform. Their increased participation in organisational,

political, and legislative activities is likely to reduce the gender gap in perceived efficacy to

influence institutional practices that affect the social and economic life of society.” (p.120).

Evidently, in much of the literature concerning gender and environmentalism, the division

between the genders is referred to regularly, but the relevance of it is decreasing as years goby, which can only be a good thing for society and the environment. CMC has often been



28

cited as a mediator of social change, acting as a ‘neutraliser’ of gender and also opening up

opportunities for environmental activism (Pickerill 2003). Indeed, CMC seems to have a part

to play in the future in advancing progress for social and environmental equity.

4.3 Class (Income and Education)

Class has become a little old-fashioned as a concept in recent years. However, it would be

absurd to propose that class divisions are no longer prevalent in society, so breaking class up

into more measurable criteria can elucidate the effects of class on environmental concern,

behaviour and activism. There are still allusions made to class as a concept, as will be

demonstrated in this section, but class components such as income and education will also

be explored.

Pattie, Seyd and Whitely (2003) argue that resources are important for activism where the

better educated and more middle class people are, the more likely they are to participate inmost forms of civic engagement. Interestingly however, people from affluent households are

less likely than poorer households to engage in contact and collective activism, but do

participate in more activism overall. Evidently ‘civic engagement is a diverse phenomenon’

(p.465), where class, education and income all affect different forms of activism- individual,

collective and contact- in alternative ways. This complexity was also illustrated by Van Liere

and Dunlap’s (1980) findings, which set out to test the ‘social class hypothesis’ that posits

environmental concern is positively related to social class as indicated by income, education

and occupational prestige. The social class hypothesis is based upon the assumptions that

upper and middle class people have solved basic material needs and are therefore free to

focus on environmental quality and other ‘postmaterial’ concerns. The findings found a

positive association between educational level and environmental concern, where higherlevels of education brought about higher environmental concern. However, sufficient

support for associations between income, occupation and environmental concern was

lacking. The social class hypothesis was therefore not supported, which casts doubt on the

relevance of class in understanding environmental concern and activism. Nevertheless, there

have been studies that indicate social class may be worthy of investigation: Kavanaugh et al

(2005) found that socioeconomic status (sum of education and income) was positively

correlated with voluntary association membership, with higher levels of education being

particularly significant in predicting activism. Similarly, Acxiom’s BehaviourBank data analysis

for FoE found that 36 per cent of activists in their sample were of upper-middle or middle-

middle class, whilst only 4 per cent were working class. In terms of income, the

BehaviourBank data analysis revealed that 41 per cent of activists in the sample earned£25,000 or over. Place of residence has also been explored in relation to environmental

citizenship and activism, with urbanites frequently associated with higher levels of such

behaviour (Van Liere and Dunlap 1980; Barkan 2004; Johnson, Bowker and Cordell 2004).

Researchers such as Lubell (2002) progress the class debate by looking at why certain people

partake in activism rather than who participates, in which he focuses on the notion of ‘costs

and benefits’ (see psychological characteristics). As the ability to pay the selective costs of

environmental activism is related to the availability of money, time and civic skills,

demographic variables such as class may influence an individual’s decision to engage in

activism or not. According to the costs and benefits literature, one would expect the costs of

environmental activism to be lower for educated citizens because they have more civic skills.

Also, the flexible budget constraints of higher income individuals should allow them to



29

better absorb the costs of environmental activism. Yet, whilst Lubell found that higher

educated individuals are more likely to engage in activism, income had no effect at all.

“This may occur because although higher income allows people to absorb the costs of

environmental activism (what economists call an income effect), it also may raise the price of

time spent on nonwork activities (substitution effect). These competing forces may cancel

out the effect of income on activism, but further study is needed to see when the income

effect dominates the substitution effect, which would lead to an increase in activism

behavior.” (p.445)

However, it is worth noting that a later study by Lubell (2007) looking at activism in relation

to global warming in particular, found higher educated and higher income citizens appear to

have the civic skills and resources necessary to absorb the selective costs and recognise

opportunities for participation. Again, this demonstrates the inconclusive findings of

demographic variables in relation to activism, perhaps indicating the irrelevancy of

demography in predicting engagement- though, not necessarily a bad thing for the prospects

of activism in future society. McFarlane and Boxall (2003) state that social structural

variables have been frequently linked with environmental activism by researchers andacademics; such as age, education, political ideology, and place of residence with the young,

well educated, liberal, and urban generally being seen as more active. However, in their

study, social structural variables were found not to influence behaviour:

“These results support the work of Dietz et al. (1998) which suggested that there is little

empirical support for social structural variables influencing behaviors associated with

environmentalism. This contradicts the hypothesis, often put forward by natural resource

managers and policy makers, that activists are a minority of the young, well-educated,

affluent, urban elites. Indeed, our results suggest those who participate in behaviors that

have the potential to influence natural resource policy and management are distributed

among socio-economic groups and are found in both urban and rural communities.” (p.85).

Indeed, these are positively optimistic conclusions. Likewise, Wandersman et al (1987) found

that demographic variables were not statistically related to membership:

“Therefore, we need to understand more than the "who" of participation; we also must

understand the why, when, where, and how of participation.” (p.552)

Social structural variables do appear to have limited use in predicting environmental

activism. However, there are indirect effects of demographic characteristics that can

influence activism in a roundabout way. For instance, Pickerill (2003) asserts that access to

CMC is not limited per se, but it is constrained unevenly across the population.

“Access to CMC is shaped by several constraining factors: finance, location and office space,

technical skills and training, technical specifications and support, gender, class and ethnicity,

and language…Precursors to using CMC are money to pay for access to the technology and

the education necessary to use it. These are facilitated by an individual’s social location

within society. CMC users in Britain are overwhelmingly white and middle class resulting in a

dominant monoculturalism online”

“This confines the possibility of CMC advancing the move towards greater participation”

(p.48).



30

4.4 Ethnicity

“The effect of race on environmental activism is subject to the most disagreement among

the demographic variables. While most theories suggest that minorities face barriers to

participation, some theories of environmental justice suggest that minorities may be more

motivated to participate in environmental activism in the face of disproportionate risk

exposure. However, this is more likely to be the case of immediate and visible problems like

air pollution rather than future and diffuse problems like global warming. Providing a

theoretical framework to understand the distinctions between different types of

environmental issues remains a major task.” (Lubell, 2007, p.399)

This quotation from Lubell (2007) summarises the inconclusiveness of ethnicity in

accounting for environmental activism, indicative of demographic variables as a whole.

Nevertheless, this section will outline the major arguments and issues that have shaped the

race and environmentalism literature thus far.

Parker and McDonough’s (1999) study challenges earlier works that suggest African

Americans show little concern about the environment and gives limited support to thetheory that feelings of powerlessness create a barrier to positive environmental behavior or

participation. The study reveals that there are two important factors at work here: a)

cultural environmental attitudes and beliefs, and b) the ability of individuals to express these

environmental attitudes and beliefs in the form of activism, particularly in collective action

and environmental organisations. Subculture theory has been influential in accounting for

differences in environmental attitudes and beliefs across ethnic groups in the same country:

“Beliefs and values are a critical part of culture—a group of people who think and act in

common ways. Behaviors, values, beliefs, and attitudes distinguish the group from other

parts of society. Culture is a people’s way of life. In the case of a dominant and a minority

culture within one society, “Ethnic groups, then, are subcultures, maintaining certain

behavioral characteristics that, in some degree, set them off from the society’s mainstream,

or modal, culture” (Marger, 1991, p. 12). Belonging to a culture means that similar histories

are shared, and this influences the creation of values within the culture.” (p.157)

Environmental beliefs and values could also be culture-specific, and therefore explain why

different races may exhibit different levels of environmental activism. The same can be said

for religious groups, income groups, gender groups and so on. Through subculture theory,

African Americans have been shown to be less concerned about environmental issues such

as air pollution and wildlife. However, Parker and McDonough’s findings show no support

for this theory, rather they provide empirical support for other studies suggesting that

African Americans are concerned about environmental issues, a trend that appears to be

increasingly common within the environment and race literature. The second factor relatingto an individual’s ability to express such concern may be more significant, this is where

barriers theory has been employed:

“The barriers theory suggests that African Americans and Euro-Americans have similar

environmental attitudes, but due to differences in participation styles, barriers to joining

environmental groups and feelings of disenfranchisement and powerlessness, African

Americans are less likely to act on their environmental concern” (p.159).

The fact that an ethnic group is not well represented in environmental organisation

membership does not necessarily indicate that a particular ethnic group holds no concern

for the environment, rather, barriers to participation may be constraining expression of such

concern. This is a critical distinction to be made, a distinction that has been made for other

demographic characteristics in the form of ‘costs and benefits’. As Parker and McDonough



31

found similar levels of concern for the environment between whites and blacks, they

examined levels of powerlessness and found support (although limited) for barriers theory,

in so much that blacks appeared to perceive barriers to be in place on the pathway to

activism. In terms of global warming, Lubell (2007) found that African Americans are not less

supportive than whites, with Hispanics actually more supportive. However, African

Americans have lower levels of political participation and environmental behaviour, andHispanics engage in less political action.

“What these differential effects suggest is that while minority support for global warming

policies is not much different from whites, their willingness or ability to follow through on

those preferences is limited, perhaps by structural factors associated with racial

discrimination or living in poorer communities.” (p.406)

Findings from Lubell’s study substantiate Parker and McDonough’s findings and subsequent

emphasis on barriers theory. An earlier study by Lubell (2002) also found that blacks are less

likely than whites to engage in environmental activism more generally, which he suggests

may be due to selective race-specific costs and benefits. One such example is provided by

Pickerill (2003), where environmental activism through computer-mediated communication(CMC) may be constrained by access problems for some ethnic groups. Indeed, white males

dominate the use of CMC. Similarly, Stern et al (1999) found that blacks were less likely to

offer environmental movement support, where this may indicate how social structural

variables can reflect on an individual’s access to resources to act as a social change agent-

race-specific opportunities and constraints may be at work. Markedly, the ‘Campaign

Champions’ FoE internal data did show that 88 per cent of respondents taking part were

white British. Whilst studies such as these indicate that different levels of activism by

different ethnic groups may be due to barriers rather than alternative environmental beliefs

and values, some studies reveal that distinctions between ethnic groups do not always take

place. Wandersman et al (1987) found that race was not related to participation, as Zeidner

and Shechter (1988) found that ethnicity is a marginal predictor of air pollution attitudes anddispositions which is ‘at variance with some previous studies conducted primarily in the U.S.,

pointing to major ethnic group differences in air pollution attitudes’ (p.206). On the other

hand, there have been studies that have suggested there are differences between ethnic

groups in terms of environmental beliefs and behaviours. Johnson, Bowker and Cordell

(2004) found that beliefs and behaviour are different between numerous ethnic groups, and

between different groups of similar ethnicity:

“Our results show that environmental belief and activism vary by ethnicity despite similarity

for certain socioeconomic characteristics and environmental belief. Most important, findings

show that the category of ethnic minority environmental perception and behavior is not

homogeneous when compared to Whites. Blacks and foreign-born Latinos were least similarto Whites, Asians most like Whites, and U.S.-born Latinos assumed a middle position

between Blacks and foreign-born Latinos and Asians. Especially interesting are differences

between the two Latino groups. U.S.-born Latino beliefs and behaviors more closely

resembled White environmentalism than foreign-born Latino environmentalism. These

findings highlight the importance of distinguishing between Latinos by criteria such as

immigrant status, acculturation level, language, or country of origin.” (p.178)

Barkan (2004) argues that environmental citizenship may be prompted in different ethnic

groups for alternative reasons. For whites, worry about the environment (biospheric

concerns) promotes citizenship, whilst perceptions of environmental danger

(egoistic/altruistic concerns) promotes citizenship in African Americans and not whites. Thisdistinction contradicts Parker and McDonough’s (1999) findings from their study, which did



32

not support the environmental racism literature that suggests African Americans are more

concerned with local environmental issues or urban environmental issues such as toxics,

ground water pollution, local incinerators, and waste facilities that assume to exist because

African Americans are thought to be disproportionately exposed to these types of hazards.

Evidently, like studies exploring other social demographic variables, the findings on

environmentalism, activism and ethnicity are inconclusive and paint a rather hazy picture of who participates and why they participate.

4.5 Are Demographics Important?

The demographic characteristics of an individual may have an influence on whether or not

activism is carried out, but it certainly doesn’t appear to be a determining factor. An image

of the archetypal activist has persisted within academia, and without:

“More educated and higher income citizens appear to have the civic skills and resources

necessary to absorb selective costs and recognize opportunities for participation.”

(Lubell, 2007, p.408)

“The civic voluntarism model is based on a socio-economic model of participation. Resources

are important in participation: the better educated, more affluent and more middle class

people are, the more likely they are to participate.”

(Pattie, Seyd and Whitely, 2003, p.445)

“…with the young, well educated, liberal, and urban being more active”

(McFarlane and Boxall, 2003, p.81)

“…thus we have confidence in concluding that younger, well-educated, and politically liberal

persons tend to be more concerned about environmental quality than their older, less-

educated, and politically conservative counterparts.”

(Van Liere and Dunlap, 1980, p.192)

“Net of controls, environmental citizenship is higher among women, whites, people born in

1941 or later, those who are more educated, and those living in more urban areas and

outside the south, while it is somewhat lower for people with children at home.”

(Barkan, 2004, p.932)

To some extent it has been quite accurate. However, such simplistic reasoning can give the

impression that demographic characteristics are particularly influential in individual activism,

which perhaps breezes over the inconclusiveness and contradictory nature of the related

findings and data. There is no such thing as a typical activist; in fact, activists are quite the

disparate bunch. Consequently, easy typologies of ‘activists’ must be taken with a pinch of

salt.



33

5. Motivating Membership, Facilitating Decisions, Consolidating Sensibilities,

Communicating Effectively and Developing Journeys

From the many studies, theories and reports that have explored the psychological and

demographic characteristics of individual activists, there are some important and practical

implications for the way FoE motivates its membership, facilitates their decisions,consolidates their individual sensibilities, communicates effectively, and develops their

journeys.

5.1 Motivating Membership

• FoE can increase an individual’s personal sense of capability through mechanisms of

collective efficacy.

• The success rate of a collective group- like that of Foe- will inevitably continue to

shape the motivations and actions of its members long after the impact of the

collective has been assessed, for better or worse. Thus, FoE should provide theconditions for optimistic individual efficacy and motivations to bloom by regularly

communicating successes that have been collectively achieved on websites and

through letters/magazines.

• Local concerns catalyse a higher level of collective efficacy than global concerns. The

collective efficacy of potential activists can therefore be ‘fired up’ more effectively

by appealing to locally salient issues.

• As intrinsically, autonomously motivated individuals are more likely to participate in

activist behaviour; FoE can increase motivational autonomy by offering choices to

individuals in the decision-making process.

• Anger appeals can be an effective method to get audiences to read a message

carefully, respond favourably, and act mightily. To achieve this utilitarian function,

the message must be communicated clearly , be unambiguous on how the audience’s

goals are being threatened , and the message must make explicit that the issue is

fixable so as to be complementary to a sense of personal and collective efficacy.

• FoE could bring about a shift in environmental values by campaigning for more

outdoor activities in schools, universities and the workplace.

5.2 Facilitating Decisions

• FoE can potentially increase participation and activism through the generation of

incentives. Of course, for a voluntary organisation with limited funds, incentives

would usually be based on solidary and purposive principles.

• From the literature, it would appear that emphasising the benefits is a much more

positive and fruitful strategy. One such strategy would be to underline the positive

experience of collective action.

• FoE should make alternative types of activism available to individuals to avoidspecific (and usually quite practical) costs and benefits halting activism altogether.



34

For instance, an individual’s capacity to engage in civic matters is determined by

their basic organisational and communicative abilities, whilst protesting at a camp

requires physical capability.

• Effective and selective communication with regular informative feedback can

facilitate what the rational choice literature terms ‘costs and benefits’ personalanalysis.

5.3 Consolidating Individual Sensibilities

• To increase their activist base, FoE can appeal to all the different ‘ higher order

values’ by addressing biospheric, egoistic and altruistic concerns. For instance,

attract a free-market economist by emphasising the financial benefits to humans in

reducing environmental degradation. By doing so, FoE can overcome variances in

specific attitudes.

• Appealing to the different clusters of environmental values may even be necessary

for engaging environmental activism at the individual level in some cases.

• FoE can have an impact on the specific attitudes of individuals by gathering diverse

values around a given issue, and therefore may be in a position to unite people and

bring about momentum for collective activism.

• The (perceived) psychological characteristics of environmental activists may in fact

deter people that haven’t participated in activism already from doing so, due to the

persistence of negative stereotypes. Accordingly, FoE must take into consideration

the societal baggage that comes with each and every individual, and employ variedtechniques in achieving higher rates of participatory activism.

• Campaign promoters must take heed of society’s disparate sensibilities, which

requires various strategies that appeal to specific psychological characteristics.

5.4 Communicating Effectively

• Effective and Selective communication will provide FoE with the appropriate

platform to make alternative types of activism available to individuals to avoid

specific costs and benefits halting activism altogether.

• To activate personal norms and mobilise support, FoE should highlight the threats to

the individual and the adverse consequences, but also emphasise that the individual

has the ability to alleviate those threats by appropriate action.

• Effective communication will also assist the empowerment process, involving

individuals in an inclusive decision-making channel to encourage involvement and

activism.

• Communication will satisfy supporter needs by building trust between individuals

and FoE- a vital ingredient of engagement as a movement/organisation becomes acentral part of an activist’s life.



35

• Through communication, FoE can optimise mediating factors to encourage

individual activism to take place. This could be achieved in a number of ways; by

making information on health risks more accessible to individuals, by emphasising

that responsibility rests with each and every individual, and by underlining the

importance of environmental problems and the associated health risks.

• Clear communication can be used to promote anger appeals that can initiate

activism in inactive publics.

• FoE should keep its membership informed, as knowledge, awareness and guilt are

frequently shown to be strong determining factors of proenvironmental behaviour.

• Computer mediated communication (CMC) can be utilised by FoE to overcome

geographical obstructions and specific costs/benefits analyses.

5.5 Developing Journeys

• FoE can present individuals with a number of alternative pathways to activism,

where an individual can choose to adopt a journey most conducive to their available

resources (e.g. time, money, skills).

• Similarly, offering alternative pathways to participation that are engaging and

attractive to different psychological characteristics can encourage individual

activism.

• Potential pathways to activism should be advertised to individuals alreadyparticipating in various networks, as well as exposing individuals outside of existing

networks to activism opportunities. This will necessitate innovative strategies and

unique approaches to reaching disengaged individuals.

• FoE can campaign on a diverse range of issues that will prompt engagement from

individuals interested in various specific political concerns. This model implies that a

multi-strategic approach to mobilising activists will be worthwhile.

• Networks between organisations and individuals can be developed to encourage

activism from different generations of the same family- that is if the message is

transmitted in an inclusive and appealing way.

• FoE can carve out political space for extroverts to flourish, within and without the

membership of the organisation. Moreover, the enthusiasm of extroverts can be

harnessed by an organisation if they are brought together in campaigns and

projects.

• Universities promote the five main characteristics associated with empowering

environments: small group settings, a common belief system, opportunities to

acquire skills and knowledge, leadership and experience. Universities can therefore

present FoE with unique access to a thriving environment of potential activist

support, and provide an opportunity for network building.



• The boundary between supporters and activists is fuzzy, and people often move

back and forth, being activists for a time then retreating to a less committed but still

supportive role. FoE can pursue effective strategies that encourage activists to stay

activists.

• There are alternative pathways to activism, namely individually informed activistsand members of an organisation, where it may be possible to bring activists together

for a common cause.

mark usher (2008) characteristics of individual activists

Documents