Maryland Marine Notes: November-December 1998 Sidebar

Volume 16, Number 6 • November-December 1998

Affecting Public Attitudes about the Environment

By Merrill Leffler

Would more effective communication with the average person about environmental problems lead to improved understanding and therefore, behavioral change? The belief that it can has been a prevailing underpinning of environmental communications efforts, says James Grunig, Professor of Journalism at the University of Maryland. "Unfortunately," he writes, "years of research on attitude change have not supported that deterministic assumption."

"People are more likely to be motivated to think, evaluate, and act in situations that involve them, situations which they view as problematic, and in which they feel unconstrained," Grunig says. In other words, people not only have to recognize there is a problem and that something needs to be done, but they have to feel that it has relevance to their own lives and that they can do something to change it.

Grunig has been conducting research on the relationship between communications and behavior for nearly 30 years, and has developed a "situational theory" that segments the public into multiple groups, or "publics." His theory of communication behavior accounts for why people communicate and when they are most likely to communicate; when communications are likely to have an effect and "publics for which those effects occur most often." Finally, Grunig writes, his research explains how individuals develop into activist groups that apply the pressure of their particular public.

In his situational theory, Grunig first defines citizen behavior as being either active – when people seek information; or passive – when people process information. It is situations, situations that may often be instigated by media reporting, that help to create publics. He defines three types:

Problem recognition: people feel that something should be done about a particular situation and think about what they might do.
Constraint recognition: people feel that obstacles are in the way that limit their ability to do anything about the situation.
Level of involvement: the extent to which people connect themselves with a situation.

As Grunig observes, "human beings simply do not have the time or the ability to be concerned about every problem in the world. They devote their time and energy to the problems that involve them and for which they can make a difference." His theory shows that while people may process information about low involvement situations, they will rarely act on that information or actively seek more if the situation does not appear to involve them directly.

Making a Difference

If clear and persuasive information in itself is not likely to lead to widespread behavioral change, are there communication strategies that can make a difference? According to Grunig, communications programs need to first address those publics that are already active and that can make a difference. "Active publics are considerably more likely to engage in behaviors than passive publics," Grunig writes, "and, therefore, more likely to use the information coming from a communications program as the basis for a behavior."

Do these conclusions mean that there is little hope in reaching citizens who do not recognize that environmental problems such as those related to Chesapeake Bay concern them personally? Not necessarily. It means, according to Grunig’s findings, that the challenge of creating publics lies in first using other means. "The answer to the challenge of creating publics out of non-publics lies not in the mass media but in creating publics by other means." Scientists and others active in the Chesapeake Bay Program, for example, could play a key role here, by reaching out directly to community leaders and local organizations who more directly influence behaviors in their communities.

Education represents perhaps the best hope for influencing citizen behavior over the long term, education that begins in the elementary grades and continues through high school and beyond. A newly-released study of 40 schools in thirteen states, including Maryland – Closing the Achievement Gap – concludes that the environment itself is a powerful basis for learning at all grade levels. In using the environment as an integrative context for teaching language arts, math, science, social studies and thinking skills, schools have found improved student capabilities, from better performance on standardized measures of achievement to increased engagement in learning.

Finally, there are times when media coverage calls such attention to an issue that it can create what Grunig calls a "hot-issue public." In such instances, a small public can grow into a larger one in which people now feel the issue affects them directly – they become, for a time at least, active seekers of information. Such times can become "teachable moments." The Pfiesteria outbreak in the summer of 1997 is a case in point.

The intensive television and newspaper coverage of dying fish in the Pocomoke River, fish with ugly ulcerous lesions, raised a fury of questions throughout the Chesapeake Bay region. Just what is Pfiesteria? What are the causes? Why now? What are the toxins that Pfiesteria is said to release? Can I catch it? How close do I have to be? Is it safe to eat crabs and oysters and fish?

"The public’s initial reaction was extreme and irrational," says Tim Wheeler of the Baltimore Sun, "but that was because people didn’t understand what was happening and they didn’t believe those who were giving assurances." And though he admits that excesses in the coverage added to public alarm, nevertheless, he says, "it did get people’s attention." In such "crises," says Grunig, organizations need to be open and express candor, explaining what they know and what they don’t. Numbers of organizations throughout the Bay tried to do just that, which led to citizen forums, scientific meetings, published reports such as the Cambridge Consensus on the potential relationship of Pfiesteria and nutrients, informative fact sheets, and a comprehensive web site.

The summer of 1998 passed with no reports of fish kills or human health effects due to Pfiesteria – while media interest naturally plummeted, it did not disappear. That is because meetings throughout the year brought scientists, managers and other now-active publics together for updates on the latest research and monitoring studies. The press has covered those meetings since the Pfiesteria story, though no longer a hot topic, is not yet cool either. This continuing interest – and the potential for further outbreaks of Pfiesteria in the future – may offer Chesapeake Bay organizations opportunities for reaching citizens in innovative ways.

One thing is clear from the Pfiesteria experience and from James Grunig’s research: a stronger connection between technical experts and important "publics" that includes genuine two-way communication is the most promising way to involve today’s citizenry in the vital work of restoring and protecting the environment. However, to sustain these efforts for the future, youth education – giving children direct experience with the Bay – may be the best hope to ensure that such work continues.

Top of Page

		Contents of this issue	Other Issues