Review
Teaching Psychology
for Sustainability:
The Why and How*
Susan M. Koger
Willamette University, USA
Britain A. Scott
University of St. Thomas, USA
Psychology Learning & Teaching
2016, Vol. 15(3) 214–225
! The Author(s) 2016
Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/1475725716648238
plat.sagepub.com
Abstract
The behavioral sciences can make vital contributions to environmental sustainability efforts, as relevant
basic and applied psychological research has grown considerably over the past dozen years. Recently,
conservation biologists, environmental policy makers, and other experts have recognized the import-
ance of engaging with experts on human behavior (i.e., psychologists) in order to effect behavioral
change in a sustainable direction. Lagging behind this trend, however, is the curricular integration of
psychology and environmental sustainability in most psychology or environmental science/studies pro-
grams (ESS). Consequently, most psychology majors are graduating with no background in applying the
field to promoting sustainability, and ESS students lack explicit education focused on understanding and
changing human behavior. This paper provides an introduction to the rationale for integrating sustain-
ability topics into psychology courses, and psychological concepts into ESS classes, along with some
strategies for doing so at the level of individual course units as well as full courses.
Keywords
Sustainability, social dilemmas, environmental education, conservation psychology, ecopsychology
Although he was writing about the potential for a nuclear holocaust, Lifton’s (1982) words
remain just as relevant today: ‘‘We live now in a special realm of absurdity. . . poised to
exterminate ourselves and the rest of the world’’ via the degradation of our very life support
systems, by means of pollution and catastrophic climate change. Why, then, aren’t we
mobilizing a swift and sure response? The answer lies with human psychology. Not only
are climate change, pollution, deforestation, species extinctions, and other so-called ‘‘envir-
onmental problems’’ all caused by maladaptive human behavior (Koger & Scott, 2007), the
*The authors presented sections of this paper at the Vancouver International Conference on the Teaching of Psychology,
Vancouver, BC, 2015, July 25.
Corresponding author:
Susan Koger, Willamette University, 900 State St., Salem, OR 97301.
Email: skoger@willamette.edu
Koger and Scott
215
basis of our relative failure to respond effectively, at least thus far, also rests within the
thoughts, attitudes, feelings, values, norms, and decisions driving unsustainable actions
(Gifford, 2011). Consequently, psychological research is critical to understanding why
people behave in unsustainable ways, and for designing interventions to motivate behavioral
change (Gardner & Stern, 2002; Kazdin, 2009; Koger & Winter, 2010; Scott, Amel, Koger, &
Manning, 2016; van Trijp, 2014).
Paradoxically, however, the fundamental connection between psychology and sustainabil-
ity is absent from most undergraduate curricula. The majority of Psychology majors gradu-
ate with no background in applying the field to promoting sustainability, and Environmental
Science/Environmental Studies (ESS) students typically lack explicit education focused on
understanding and changing human behavior (Koger & Scott, 2007). In the following sec-
tions, we will provide some background and strategies for rectifying this disconnect, both
within Psychology and ESS courses.
Sustainability-Related Psychology
Research on the psychology of environmental sustainability emerged from three directions.
The earliest psychological research on environmental issues originated in the 1970s, along-
side growing public concern about air and water pollution and nuclear waste. Most of this
research was conducted within the domain of environmental psychology, but only a minority
of environmental psychologists study nature-related topics (e.g., how spending time in
nature restores people’s ability to pay attention and cope with stress (Berman, Jonides, &
Kaplan, 2008; Gifford, 2014)).
In the 1990s, holistic thinkers calling themselves ecopsychologists began promoting the
idea that modern living erodes people’s connection to nature, leaving them developmen-
tally deprived and psychologically distressed (Roszak, 1992; Roszak, Gomes, & Kanner,
1995). Convinced by this notion, some clinicians incorporate ecopsychological therapies
into their practices. Their goal is to revive a connection to non-human nature that may
help people feel better and also guide them to behave in more environmentally friendly
ways (e.g., Buzzell & Chalquist, 2009). Empirical research testing the validity of
the ecopsychological premise materialized over the past decade; for example, several
researchers have created measures to operationally define ‘‘connection to nature’’ (reviewed
in Tam, 2013).
A third label describes the work of researchers in traditional branches of psychology
(primarily social, behavioral, and cognitive) who study how to promote pro-environmental
behaviors (such as energy conservation) and decrease anti-environmental behavior (e.g.,
material consumption). Conservation psychology is defined as the study of the interactive
relationships between humans and the rest of nature, with a particular focus on applying
psychological theory and research to enhance conservation of natural resources (Saunders,
2003; see also Clayton & Myers, 2015). Some, but not all, environmental psychologists and
ecopsychologists see their work fitting this definition.
Against this backdrop rest at least five arguments for teaching psychology for
sustainability:
1. As noted above, ‘‘environmental’’ problems are actually behavioral problems. There is
currently a profound mismatch between the ways in which humans (particularly in
the U.S. and other Western industrialized nations) meet their needs and wants, and
216
Psychology Learning & Teaching 15(3)
the natural processes that maintain ecological integrity. ‘‘Eighty-three percent of the
world’s population now live in countries that use more bio-capacity to support produc-
tion activities than they have available within their boundaries. The deficit is covered
through overexploitation. . . (e.g., through overharvesting and overfishing), net import of
resources, and the use of the global commons (for instance, by emitting CO2 from fossil
fuel into the atmosphere)’’ (Galli, Wackernagel, Iha, & Lazarus, 2014, p.125).
2. What’s bad for the planet is bad for human health and well-being. For instance, rapidly
accumulating evidence links chemical pollutants to birth defects, developmental/intel-
lectual disabilities, Parkinson’s disease, various forms of cancer, immunosuppression,
and reproductive abnormalities (see reviews in Grandjean & Landrigan, 2014; Koger,
2009; Scott et al., 2016). Epidemic prevalence of mental health challenges such as depres-
sion, anxiety, and substance use/abuse is linked to materialistic values and resource over-
consumption (Brown & Kasser, 2005; Kasser, 2003), and possibly to psychological dis-
connection from the natural world (Conn, 1998; Roszak et al., 1995). Perhaps most
importantly, global warming is widely recognized as the ‘‘biggest global health threat
of the twenty-first century,’’ including risks to both physical and psychological health
(Costello et al., 2009, p. 1693).
3. In contrast, what’s good for the planet is good for human health and well-being. Various
‘‘sustainable’’ practices including experiences in natural settings promote healthy child
development, subjective well-being, and other measures of health promotion and
reduced stress (reviewed in Hartig, Mitchell, deVries, & Frumkin, 2014). Likewise, a
sense of connection to nature (‘‘nature-relatedness’’; Nisbet, Zelenski & Murphy, 2011)
along with mindfulness practices are linked to pro-environmental behavior, health, and
happiness (Ericson, Kjønstad, & Barstad, 2014).
4. Psychologists are increasingly applying their expertise to environmental issues, and cer-
tainly the urgency of the consequences of a changing climate speaks to the relevance and
timeliness of integrating psychology and sustainability (Clayton & Myers, 2015; Harre´ ,
2011; Jones, 2015; Koger & Winter, 2010; Scott et al., 2016; Swim et al., 2011).
5. There is a moral imperative for applying the accumulated wisdom from the behavioral
sciences to solving contemporary social problems (Swim et al., 2011). Just as it is ‘‘wrong
to wreck the world’’ (Moore & Nelson, 2011), we have a shared responsibility to help
create a more sustainable society (see also Harre´ , 2011).
Although it would be naive to suggest that any one academic discipline will provide all of
the solutions to contemporary environmental crises, psychology has a lot to offer for under-
standing the roots of environmental destruction, the psychological forces maintaining it, and
what it will take for people to change. Ways in which the various sub-disciplines of psych-
ology can be taught as they relate to sustainability are described elsewhere (Koger & Scott,
2007, 2013, 2014; Koger & Winter, 2010; Scott & Koger, 2014; see also http://teachgreenp-
sych.com); thus, we will not repeat much of that content here. Rather, the following sections
focus on social dilemmas and some potential solution approaches because (a) these
‘‘dilemmas’’ underlie most if not all of our environmentally problematic behavior
(Gifford, 2014); (b) students can easily relate to the concept, and there are a number of
applicable class exercises (Koenig & Reyns, 2012; Koger, Scott, & Manning, 2016); (c) social
dilemmas can be explored through the lens of many aspects of psychology as well as other
Koger and Scott
217
disciplines, including ecology, economics, politics, sociology, and philosophy; and d) they
thus offer an opportunity to integrate across disciplinary ‘‘silos,’’ which are less apparent in
most researchers’ current work (Gurung et al., 2014). In fact, both intra- and interdisciplin-
ary collaborations are urgently needed in order to address pressing social concerns including
climate change, pollution, and other environmental and public health challenges (e.g., Smith,
Positano, Stocks, & Shearman, 2009).
We hope that instructors can use this material as a starting point for incorporating sus-
tainability into various courses: As ‘‘units’’ in traditional psychology courses (Introductory,
Social, Cognitive, Learning and Behavior, Emotion and Motivation, and Health), as a the-
matic application that is infused throughout an existing course, or as a full course. Please
note that a thorough review of Psychology for Sustainability is available in Scott et al. (2016);
see also Koger and Scott (2012) for an introduction to a special issue of Ecopsychology on
teaching environmentally focused psychology; and note that Aronson, Wilson and Sommers
(2016) and Myers (2012) address sustainability in their social psychology texts.
Me versus We: Social Dilemmas
Many aspects of ‘‘The American Dream’’ involve over-consuming and damaging limited
resources, such as driving single-occupant cars, living in large homes, transporting highly
packaged foods and other goods across long distances, and dumping toxic wastes into
oceans and the atmosphere. These actions generally reflect the power of short-term, self-
interest, where pleasure, status, and convenience trump the longer-term costs to be suffered
by the larger group (Gardner & Stern, 2002). Such commons dilemmas occur when individ-
uals are tempted by personal benefits to overuse and degrade a shared resource. Hardin’s
(1968) description of the ‘‘tragedy of the commons’’ is the classic example: If individual
farmers who graze their cows on a limited piece of common land allow too many of their
own animals to graze there, overgrazing will ruin the land for everyone. The immediate
consequence benefits the individual, but the long-term consequences punish the group, usu-
ally including the self-interested farmer. Similarly, individuals find themselves in a public
goods dilemma when they must decide whether to contribute to a pooled resource, such as
paying higher taxes to fund the local bus system.
In general, these social dilemmas (also known as social traps) can be framed in terms of
operant learning in behavioral psychology, where immediate reinforcers are more compelling
than delayed costs (i.e., self-control problems; Skinner, 1953). Likewise, the perceived costs of
behavior change represent a significant barrier, even given the promise of much larger ultim-
ate benefits or averted punishers. Cognitive psychologists would point to temporal discount-
ing to describe the supremacy of short-term self-interest. The potentially adverse, future
consequences of climate change are discounted, particularly in comparison to the definite
and immediate costs of taking action; that is, concrete current costs are much more salient
than abstract future ones (Weber, 2010). These proximal factors are compounded by cog-
nitive limitations on quantitative reasoning: it is difficult to comprehend abstract statistics
about the number of people who will likely suffer from the impacts of global warming
(Bennett, 2008); most people react more strongly to environmental threats after reading a
story about a personally salient individual, rather than statistics concerning thousands or
even a million potential victims (Slovic, 2007; Slovic & Slovic, 2004–2005).
From an evolutionary perspective, it was likely more adaptive for our ancestors to focus
on immediate needs and risks rather than longer-term concerns. Planning and worrying for
218
Psychology Learning & Teaching 15(3)
the future are relatively recent functions made possible by the comparably young frontal
lobes. Some researchers propose a dual-process or continuum-based model of cognition,
placing automatic, intuitive, rapid, and emotional (i.e., evolutionarily older, including limbic
system) processing on one end, and more deliberate, intentional, slow, and analytic (pre-
frontal cortical) mechanisms on the other (e.g., reviewed in Osman, 2004). Unsustainable
actions may thus result from weak pro-environmental intuition or emotion; strong anti-
environmental affect due to immediate, salient rewards such as pleasure from or convenience
with the unsustainable option; along with rational analysis that reveals clearer benefits and
typically lower costs for the unsustainable choice (Menzel, 2013). Comparably, Slovic and
colleagues (2002) described the ‘‘affect heuristic’’: if people enjoy an activity, they judge the
risks low and the benefits high, and vice versa (disliking an activity leads to high risk, low
benefit judgments).
Although emotion can be a powerful motivator of behavior change in a sustainable
direction (Weber, 2006), it also has the potential to overwhelm or produce psychic numbing
(Gregory, 2003; Lifton, 1982) or other psychological defenses related to identity, emotional
withdrawal, and resignation (Lertzman, 2012). To quote Skinner (1991), ‘‘the principle
modus operandi of [environmental] organizations is to frighten people, rather than offer
them a world to which they will turn because of the reinforcing consequences of doing so’’
(p. 28). In fact, messages about the predicted catastrophic consequences of climate change
can actually increase anti-environmental behavior: Dire messages threaten people’s ‘‘deeply
held beliefs that the world is just, orderly, and stable. Individuals overcome this threat by
denying or discounting the existence of global warming, and this process results in decreased
willingness to counteract climate change’’ (Feinberg & Willer, 2011, p. 34). Such messages
can also drive a more intense defense of the ‘‘American way of life’’ (i.e., cultural material-
ism), and attempts to enhance personal self-esteem, including via status symbols derived
from material consumption (terror management theory; Dickinson, 2009). In other words,
both personal and collective defense mechanisms (Freud, 1936/1946), including denial of
responsibility, rationalization, distancing, and suppression serve to protect people from
the internal conflict generated by knowingly engaging in unsustainable consumption prac-
tices (Norgaard, 2011; Stich & Wagner, 2012).
In addition to emotional defenses, a ‘‘finite pool of worry’’ (Weber, 2006), leads most
people to focus on immediate priorities related to work and family, rather than risks related
to climate change, which (so far) seem largely uncertain, delayed, or geographically distant
(Gattig & Hendrickx, 2007; Leiserowitz, 2007). Sustainable action is thus unlikely to follow
from fear-based appeals, particularly if people do not receive specific instruction about why
and how to make changes (Grundy & Osbaldiston, 2006), if they have low levels of self-
efficacy, or if they believe that the change will not make much overall impact (see review of
motivational theories related to sustainable behaviors in Scott et al., 2016; Chapter 8).
Within the context of social psychology, social dilemmas reflect the free-rider problem, i.e.,
‘‘if others aren’t changing, why should I?’’ (Capstick, 2013). The diffusion of responsibility
model is thus relevant. Frantz and Mayer (2009) applied Latane and Darley’s model of
helping behavior to the issue of climate change, arguing that (a) the ‘‘emergency’’ isn’t
(yet) directly salient; (b) it isn’t clear who is responsible for taking action; (c) it isn’t evident
which behaviors are most impactful; and (d) infrastructure, convenience, habits, and (unsus-
tainable) norms can all interfere with pro-environmental behavior.
It is clear that evolutionary/biological influences are compounded by a socio-cultural para-
digm of individual rights and limited responsibilities, which leads to the incorrect but prevalent
Koger and Scott
219
assumption that one person’s actions are insignificant (Smith, 2015; i.e., ‘‘a drop in the ocean’’
and associated fatalism; Capstick, 2013), along with other cognitive, emotional, and social
mechanisms that can interfere with sustainable actions. However, this broad understanding of
the influences maintaining social dilemmas can also inform strategies to overcome them, as
reviewed in the following sections (see also Gifford, 2014; Osbaldiston & Sheldon, 2002).
Moving from Me to We: Solution Approaches
Hardin (1968) argued that governmental laws, regulations and incentives are needed to
promote widespread prosocial behavior on the part of the public, and although these tech-
niques can be effective, individuals can also take steps to narrow the gap between their own
short- and long-term interests. For instance, one can deliberately alter short-term conse-
quences to align with longer-term outcomes. Refusing to buy a parking permit at one’s
workplace to promote use of alternative modes of transportation; setting a limit on the
amount of money one is willing to spend on gas, packaged foods, or other commodities;
implementing a point/reward system for riding one’s bike a certain number of times per
week; or developing another ‘‘self-control project’’ to align with environmental concerns can
alter behavior. Doing so not only reduces one’s own ecological footprint, but also provides a
model of sustainable behavior to friends and family; i.e., serving as an antecedent stimulus or
prompt for eliciting similar behaviors from others, and thereby initiating positive social
norming. Further, making change at any level is empowering and enhances feelings of
self-efficacy, which creates a positive feedback loop (the more empowered one feels, the
more action one is often willing to take).
Recent research suggests that it is possible to increase environmental engagement by
promoting a future orientation (e.g., via priming techniques: ‘‘imagine your life circum-
stances four years from now’’), while simultaneously minimizing immediate concerns
(‘‘e.g., overcoming opposition to the initial costs of solar energy production’’) (Arnocky,
Milfont, & Nicol, 2013). Exposure to scenes from nature may also reduce temporal dis-
counting. In one recent series of studies, participants who viewed photographs of landscapes
from natural settings (vs man-made urban environments) were less likely to discount future
rewards, measured by selecting a larger, delayed reward rather than a smaller, immediate one
(van der Wal, Schade, Krabbendam, & van Vugt, 2013). The authors attributed their find-
ings to participants’ concern for the future, as opposed to self-control or mood. ‘‘This is an
important result because delay of gratification is an essential ingredient for promoting indi-
vidual and social change’’ (van der Wal et al., 2013, ital. added).
A number of approaches grounded in social psychology and social cognition can likewise
contribute to ‘‘triumph over the commons dilemma,’’ including reducing uncertainty about
personal impacts; strengthening social relationships via a sense of belonging to community
(social identity) and enhanced interpersonal trust; as well as incentives, including social and
intrinsic reinforcers (van Vugt, 2009). Research suggests that when people are reminded of
the personal relevance of their ecological harmful actions, they are more willing to forgo
immediate benefits and make contributions for the benefit of the group, because they rec-
ognize that acting for the common good is acting in self-interest (Milinski, Sommerfeld,
Krambeck, Reed, & Marotzke, 2008; Ostrom, Burger, Field, Norgaard, & Policansky, 2007).
Likewise, studies have shown that people will forgo immediate personal reinforcers for
longer term group goals if they identify with the group and feel responsible toward it
(Dawes, 1980; van Vugt, 2002), rather than an ‘‘us vs them; their problem isn’t my problem’’
220
Psychology Learning & Teaching 15(3)
philosophy. Even in competitive situations where others are acting ‘‘greedy,’’ people who
hold pro-environmental values can exhibit self-restraint when the consequences of collective
self-interest are salient (Sussman, Lavallee, & Gifford, 2015).
Although several thinking distortions can defend against anxiety and concurrently main-
tain social dilemmas (‘‘I’m only one person;’’ ‘‘That’s just human nature’’), it is possible to
undermine the commons dilemma by pointing out the flipsides (e.g., have students generate
counter-arguments) (Smith, 2015; see also Lappe’s (2011) description of thought traps and
the conversely empowering ‘‘thought leaps’’). Likewise, the predictions from terror manage-
ment theory regarding attempts to enhance personal self-esteem when faced with anxiety
concerning one’s mortality can include efforts to leave a legacy, such as contributing to the
sustainability of one’s community and other prosocial behaviors (Wade-Benzoni, Tost,
Hernandez, & Larrick, 2012). In general, self-transcendent values are associated with pro-
environmental behavior (e.g., Milfont, Sibley, & Duckitt, 2010). Relatedly, Weber (2010)
concluded that actions stemming from ‘‘moral or social responsibility may hold out the best
prospects for sustainable action,’’ rather than affect- or analysis-based decisions. Some
studies suggest that morality can be induced, for instance, by sermonizing about ‘‘group
benefit, exploitation. . . ethics, and so on’’ (Dawes, 1980, p. 188), or by promoting altruistic
ideals and the Golden Rule (Edney & Bell, 1983).
Because ‘‘what’s good for the planet is also good for us’’ (Scott et al., 2016), recognizing
the personal and short-term benefits of sustainable lifestyles may ultimately over-ride the
short-term hedonic pleasures obtained via materialism and consumption; i.e., pursuit of
eudaimonic well-being via values clarification and committed action (e.g., Kashdan &
Ciarrochi, 2013). Positive feedback loops can support this relationship: Prosocial behavior
increases subjective well-being, which, in turn, promotes more prosocial behavior (Ericson
et al., 2014). It is possible that spiritually-oriented initiatives emphasizing mindfulness, inter-
connectedness with both human- and non-human nature, sense of community, and belief in
something greater than one’s self may enable a collective ‘‘recovery movement’’ that holds
promise for escaping the grasp of social dilemmas (Koger, 2015). Calling for a ‘‘Golden Rule
2.0’’ could help inspire acting towards future generations in ways one would have liked prior
generations to act (Revkin, 2010).
Mindfulness practices are receiving much research and popular attention for their positive
effects on physical and mental health, and may be a critical skill for promoting sustainable
behaviors for a number of reasons (reviewed in Ericson et al., 2014) relevant to resisting
social dilemmas:
. Being ‘‘here and now’’ enables greater intentional deliberation and evaluation of the
consequences of one’s actions, including environmental impact (vs unconscious, habitual
and unsustainable behaviors):
. Mindfulness can help avoid the ‘‘hedonic treadmill’’ of prioritizing materialistic consump-
tion and financial wealth:
. Mindfully clarifying and acting in accordance with core values is intrinsically reinforcing,
and can promote sustainable behavior; and
. Mindfulness can stimulate empathy and compassion, including for non-human nature.
Experiences in natural settings, including outdoor mindfulness-based practices, have
important therapeutic and restorative impacts via reducing sympathetic nervous system activ-
ity (Park, Tsunetsugu, Kasetani, Kagawa, & Miyazaki, 2010) and restoring attentional cap-
abilities (Kaplan, 1995; Staats, van Gemerden, & Hartig, 2010). In contrast, when one is
Koger and Scott
221
stressed or cognitively fatigued, it is much easier to fall into social traps. Conceivably, positive
experiences in nature can also foster a sense of place attachment that can lead to altruistic
efforts to protect and preserve those areas and their inhabitants (reviewed in Gifford, 2014).
Conclusions
Overall, it appears that localization efforts focused on people’s ‘‘everyday behavior within
place-based communities’’ are required, not only because of the ‘‘biophysical realities’’ of
our time (i.e., declining material and energy supplies; DeYoung & Princen, 2012), but also
because community-based initiatives can address the psycho-social-spiritual dimensions of a
changing climate (Doppelt, 2012, 2016). Strengthening local communities and fostering
social networks not only builds individual and collective resilience to weather the coming
storms (Doppelt, 2016), but also reduces the likelihood of prioritizing self-interest (e.g., van
Vugt, 2009). In something of a case study, a few residents of Martha’s Vineyard spearheaded
an initiative to improve the public bus system and expand community wind power (Nevin,
2005, 2010). By ‘‘thinking locally and acting locally,’’ people can avoid the overwhelm and
paralysis that can be associated with ‘‘thinking globally’’ (Kolbert, 2008). The Transition
Town Movement represents another example, enabling locally based conversions away from
fossil-fuel based economies and transportation systems (Hopkins, 2008).
Such problem-focused coping strategies can enliven and inspire, even in the face of daunt-
ing challenges. In fact, people are ‘‘at their best when they help themselves and help others,
when they are called on to be creative and self-directed, and when they are tackling problems
that are challenging, genuine, and meaningful. Human ingenuity, long aimed at crafting an
industrial society, must now be aimed at crafting a durable civilization. The creative effort
contains its own rewards’’ (DeYoung & Princen, 2012, p. xxiii).
We hope that by tackling these issues in their courses, instructors and their students will
join us in educating for – and building – a sustainable future. If each of tomorrow’s activists,
politicians, scientists, and citizens is better educated about human behavior and its under-
pinnings, all will benefit.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or
publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
References
Arnocky, S., Milfont, T. L., & Nicol, J. R. (2013). Time perspective and sustainable behavior: Evidence
for the distinction between consideration of immediate and future consequences. Environment and
Behavior. doi: 10.1177/0013916512474987
Aronson, E., Wilson, T. D., & Sommers, S. R. (2016). Social psychology (9th ed.). New York: Pearson.
Bennett, L. (2008, November 14). Are human beings hard-wired to ignore the threat of catastrophic
climate change? Greater Good, 2, 40–43. Retrieved 10/31/15 from http://www.alternet.org/story/
106982/are_human_beings_hard-wired_to_ignore_the_threat_of_catastrophic_climate_change
Berman, M. G., Jonides, J., & Kaplan, S. (2008). The cognitive benefits of interacting with nature.
Psychological Science, 19, 1207–1212.
222
Psychology Learning & Teaching 15(3)
Brown, K. W., & Kasser, T. (2005). Are psychological and ecological well-being compatible? The role
of values, mindfulness, and lifestyle. Social Indicators Research, 74, 349–368.
Buzzell, L., & Chalquist, C. (2009). Ecotherapy: Healing with nature in mind. San Francisco, CA: Sierra
Club Books.
Capstick, S. B. (2013). Public understanding of climate change as a social dilemma. Sustainability, 5,
3484–3501. doi:10.3390/su5083484
Clayton, S., & Myers, G. (2015). Conservation psychology: Understanding and promoting human care for
nature (2nd ed.). West Sussex, U.K: John Wiley & Sons.
Conn, S. (1998). Living in the earth: Ecopsychology, health and psychotherapy. The Humanistic
Psychologist, 26, 179–198.
Costello, A., Abbas, M., Allen, A., & Patterson, C. (2009). Managing the health effects of climate
change. Lancet, 373, 1693–1733. Retrieved 11/21/15 from http://www.ucl.ac.uk/global-health/pro
ject-pages/lancet1/ucl-lancet-climate-change.pdf
Dawes, R. M. (1980). Social dilemmas. Annual Review of Psychology, 31, 169–193.
DeYoung, R. K., & Princen, T. (2012). The Localization Reader: Adapting to the Coming Downshift.
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. doi: 10.13140/2.1.4821.8563
Dickinson, J. L. (2009). The people paradox: Self-esteem striving, immortality ideologies, and human
response to climate change. Ecology and Society, 14, 34–50.
Doppelt, B. (2012). From Me to We: The five transformational commitments required to rescue the
planet, your organization, and your life. Sheffield, U.K.: Greenleaf Publishing Ltd.
Doppelt, B. (2016). Transformational Resilience: How building human resilience to climate disruption can
safeguard society and increase wellbeing. Sheffield, U.K.: Greenleaf Publishing Limited.
Edney, J. J., & Bell, P. A. (1983). The commons dilemma: Comparing altruism, the golden rule, perfect
equality of outcomes, and territoriality. The Social Science Journal, 20, 23–33.
Ericson, T., Kjøstad, B. G., & Barstad, A. (2014). Mindfulness and sustainability. Ecological
Economics, 104, 73–79.
Feinberg, M., & Willer, R. (2011). Apocalypse soon? Dire messages reduce belief in global warming by
contradicting just-world beliefs. Psychological Science, 22, 34–38. doi: 10.1177/0956797610391911
Frantz, C. M., & Mayer, F. S. (2009). The emergency of climate change: Why are we failing to take
action? Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy, 9(1), 205–222.
Freud, A. (1936/1946). The ego and the mechanisms of defense, trans. C. Baines, New York:
International Universities Press.
Galli, A., Wackernagel, M., Iha, K., & Lazarus, E. (2014). Ecological footprint: Implications for
biodiversity. Biological Conservation, 173, 121–132. doi: 10.1016/j.biocon.2013.10.019
Gattig, A., & Hendrickx, L. (2007). Judgmental discounting and environmental risk perception:
Dimensional similarities, domain differences, and implications for sustainability. Journal of
Social Issues, 63, 21–39.
Gardner, G. T., & Stern, P. C. (2002). Environmental problems and human behavior. New York: Pearson.
Gifford, R. (2011). The dragons of inaction: Psychological barriers that limit climate change mitigation
and adaptation. American Psychologist, 66, 290–302. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0023566
Gifford, R. (2014). Environmental psychology: Principles and practices (5th ed.). Colville, WA:
Optimal Books.
Grandjean, P., & Landrigan, P. J. (2014). Neurobehavioural effects of developmental toxicity. The
Lancet Neurology, 13(3), 330–338.
Gregory, R. J. (2003). Venturing past psychic numbing: facing the issues. Journal for the
Psychoanalysis of Culture and Society, 8, 232–237.
Grundy, C. S., & Osbaldiston, R. (2006). Techniques of behavior change. In R. M. MacNair (Ed.), Working
for peace: A handbook of practical psychology and other tools (pp. 255–262). Atascadero, CA: Impact.
Gurung, R. A. R., Cacioppo, J., Enns, C., Frantz, S., Freeman, J., Hackathorn, J., & Loop, T. (2014).
Strengthening the common core of the introductory psychology course. American Psychological
Association (APA) Board of Educational Affairs Working Group on Strengthening the Common
Koger and Scott
223
Core of the Introductory Psychology Course. Retrieved, August 11, 2014 from www.apa.org/ed/
governance/bea/intro-psych-report.pdf
Hardin, G. (1968). The tragedy of the commons. Science, 162, 1243–1248.
Harre´ , N. (2011). Psychology for a better world: Strategies to inspire sustainability. Available at
psych.auckland.ac.nz/psychologyforabetterworld.
Hartig, T., Mitchell, R., de Vries, S., & Frumkin, H. (2014). Nature and health. Annual Review of
Public Health, 35, 207–228. DOI: 10.1146/annurev-publhealth-032013-182443.
Hopkins, R. (2008). The transition handbook: From oil dependency to local resilience. White River
Junction, VT: Chelsea Green Publishing.
Jones, R. G. (2015). Psychology of sustainability. New York: Routledge.
Kaplan, S. (1995). The restorative benefits of nature: Toward an integrative framework. Journal of
Experimental Psychology, 15, 169–182.
Kashdan, T. B., & Ciarrochi, J. V. (2013). Mindfulness, acceptance, and positive psychology. Oakland,
CA: Context Press.
Kasser, T. (2003). The high price of materialism. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Kazdin, A. E. (2009). Psychological science’s contributions to a sustainable environment. American
Psychologist, 64, 339–356. doi: 10.1037/a0015685
Koenig, A. M., & Reyns, N. B. (2012). Assignments integrating psychology and environmental studies.
Ecopsychology, 4, 110–116. doi: 10.1089/ECO.2012.0017
Koger, S. M. (2015). A burgeoning ecopsychological recovery movement. Ecopsychology, 7, 245–250.
Koger, S. M. (2009). Addressing barriers to changing environmentally relevant behaviors: Toxic chem-
icals as a case study. Ecopsychology, 1, 130–137. doi: 10.1089/eco.2009.0018
Koger, S. M., & Scott, B. A. (2007). Psychology and environmental sustainability: A call for integra-
tion. Teaching of Psychology, 34, 10–18.
Koger, S. M., & Winter, D. D. (2010). The psychology of environmental problems (3rd ed.): Psychology
for sustainability. New York: Psychology Press.
Koger, S. M., & Scott, B. A. (2013; Previous edition: 2011). Psychology and environmental sustain-
ability: conservation psychology. Appendix for W. Weiten, Psychology: Themes and variations (9th
ed.). Belmont, CA: Thomson Higher Education (Invited submission).
Koger, S. M. & Scott, B. A. (2014; previous edition, 2012). Psychology and environmental sustain-
ability: What’s good for the Earth is good for us. Appendix for Weiten, W., Dunn, D. S. &
Hammer, E. Y., Psychology applied to modern life (11th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, Cengage
Learning (invited submission).
Koger, S. M., & Scott, B. A. (2012). Teaching environmentally focused psychology. Ecopsychology, 4,
77–80 (invited editorial).
Koger, S. M., Scott, B. A., & Manning, C. M. (2016). Supplemental Instructor Resources for B. A.
Scott et al., (2016). Psychology for sustainability (4th ed). New York: Psychology Press. Companion
website available at https://www.routledge.com/products/9781848725805
Kolbert, E. (2008, July 7). The island in the wind: A Danish community’s victory over carbon emissions.
Retrieved 11/1/15 from http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2008/07/07/the-island-in-the-wind
Lappe´ , F. M. (2011). EcoMind: Changing the way we think, to create the world we want. New York:
Nation Books.
Leiserowitz, A. (2007). Communicating the risks of global warming: American risk perceptions, affect-
ive images, and interpretive communities. In S. C. Moser & L. Dilling (Eds.), Creating a Climate for
Change: Communicating Climate Change and facilitating Social Change (pp. 44–63). Cambridge,
UK: Cambridge University Press.
Lertzman, R. (2012). Researching psychic dimensions of ecological degradation: Notes from the field.
Psychoanalysis, Culture & Society, suppl. Special Section: Locating the psychosocial: Using Klein,
17.1, 92–101.
Lifton, R. J. (1982). Beyond psychic numbing: A call to awareness. American Journal of
Orthopsychiatry, 52(4), 619–629.
224
Psychology Learning & Teaching 15(3)
Menzel, S. (2013). Are emotions to blame? The impact of non-analytical information processing on
decision-making and implications for fostering sustainability. Ecological Economics, 96, 71–78.
Milfont, T. L., Sibley, C. G., & Duckitt, J. (2010). Testing the moderating role of the components of
norm activation on the relationship between values and environmental behaviour. Journal of Cross-
Cultural Psychology, 41, 124–131.
Milinski, M., Sommerfeld, R. D., Krambeck, H. J., Reed, F. A., & Marotzke, J. (2008). The collective-
risk social dilemma and the prevention of simulated dangerous climate change. Proceedings of the
National Academy of Sciences, 105(7), 2291–2294.
Moore, K. D., & Nelson, M. P. (2011). Moral ground: Ethical action for a planet in peril. San Antonio,
Texas: Trinity University Press.
Myers, D. G. (2012). Social psychology (11th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill Education.
Nevin, J. A. (2005). The inertia of affluence. Behavior and Social Issues, 14, 7–20.
Nevin, J. A. (2010). The power of cooperation. The Behavior Analyst, 33, 189–191.
Nisbet, E. K., Zelenski, J. M., & Murphy, S. A. (2011). Happiness is in our nature: Exploring nature
relatedness as a contributor to subjective well-being. Journal of Happiness Studies, 12, 303–322. doi:
10.1007/s10902-010-9197-7
Norgaard, K. M. (2011). Living in denial: Climate change, emotions, and everyday life. Cambridge, MA:
MIT Press.
Osbaldiston, R., & Sheldon, K. M. (2002). Social dilemmas and sustainability: promoting peoples’
motivation to ‘‘cooperate with the future’’. In P. Schmuck & W. P. Schultz (Eds.), Psychology of
sustainable development (pp. 37–57). Norwell, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Osman, M. (2004). An evaluation of dual-process theories of reasoning. Psychonomic Bulletin &
Review, 11, 988–1010.
Ostrom, E., Burger, J., Field, C. B., Norgaard, R. B., & Policansky, D. (2007). Revisiting the com-
mons: local lessons, global challenges. Science, 284, 278–282.
Park, B. J., Tsunetsugu, Y., Kasetani, T., Kagawa, T., & Miyazaki, Y. (2010). The physiological effects
of Shinrin-yoku (taking in the forest atmosphere or forest bathing): evidence from field experiments
in 24 forests across Japan. Environmental Health and Preventive Medicine, 15, 18–26.
Revkin, A. C. (2010, May 25). Do humans need a Golden Rule 2.0? The New York Times. Retrieved 11/
21/15 from http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/05/25/do-humans-need-a-golden-rule-2-0/?_r¼0
Roszak, T. (1992). The voice of the earth: An exploration of eco-psychology. New York: Simon &
Schuster.
Roszak, T., Gomes, M. E., & Kanner, A. D. (1995). Ecopsychology: Restoring the earth, healing the
mind. San Francisco: Sierra Club Books.
Saunders, C. D. (2003). The emerging field of conservation psychology. Human Ecology Review, 10,
137–149.
Scott, B. A. & Koger, S. M. (2014; previous edition: 2011). The psychology of environmental sustain-
ability. Appendix for W. Weiten, Psychology: Themes and variations, briefer version (9th ed.).
Belmont, CA: Thomson Higher Education (Invited submission).
Scott, B. A., Amel, E. L., Koger, S. M., & Manning, C. M. (2016). Psychology for sustainability (4th
ed.). New York: Psychology Press.
Skinner, B. F. (1953). Science and human behavior. New York: Macmillan.
Skinner, B. F. (1991). Why are we not acting to save the world? In W. Ishaq (Ed.), Human behavior in
today’s world (pp. 19–29). New York: Praeger.
Slovic, P. (2007). ‘‘If I look at the mass I will never act’’: Psychic numbing and genocide. Judgment and
Decision Making, 2, 79–97.
Slovic, S., & Slovic, P. (2004–2005). Numbers and nerves: Toward an affective apprehension of envir-
onmental risk. Whole Terrain, 13, 14–18.
Slovic, P., Finucane, M., Peters, E., & MacGregor, D. G. (2002). The affect heuristic. In T. Gilovich,
D. Griffin & D. Kahneman (Eds.), Heuristics and biases: The psychology of intuitive judgment
(pp. 397–420). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Koger and Scott
225
Smith, J. W., Positano, S., Stocks, N., & Shearman, D. (2009). A new way of thinking about our climate
crisis: The rational-comprehensive approach. Lewiston, NY: Edwin Mellen Press.
Smith, K. (2015, June 5). The transformative power of reframing the tragedy of the commons.
Presentation given at the Oregon Ecopsychology Symposium.
Staats, H., van Gemerden, E., & Hartig, T. (2010). Preference for restorative situations: interactive effects
of attentional state, activity-in-environment, and social context. Leisure Sciences, 32(5), 401–417.
Stich, A., & Wagner, T. (2012). Fooling yourself: The role of internal defense mechanisms in unsus-
tainable consumption behavior. Advances in Consumer Research, 40, 408–416.
Sussman, R., Lavallee, L., & Gifford, R. (2015). Pro-environmental values matter in competitive but
not cooperative commons dilemmas. The Journal of Social Psychology. Advance online publication.
doi:10.1080/00224545.2015.1052362
Swim, J. K., Stern, P. C., Doherty, T. J., & Howard, G. S. (2011). Psychology’s contributions to
understanding and addressing global climate change. American Psychologist, 66(4), 241–250.
doi:10.1037/a0023220
Tam, K. P. (2013). Concepts and measures related to connection to nature: Similarities and differences.
Journal of Environmental Psychology, 34, 64–78.
van der Wal, A. J., Schade, H. M., Krabbendam, L., & van Vugt, M. (2013). Do natural landscapes
reduce future discounting in humans? Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B: Biological
Sciences, 280, 20132295. doi: 10.1098/rspb.2013.2295. Retrieved from http://rspb.royalsocietypu
blishing.org/content/royprsb/280/1773/20132295.full.pdf
van Trijp, H. C. M. (2014). Encouraging sustainable behavior. New York: Psychology Press.
van Vugt, M. (2002). Central, individual, or collective control? Social dilemma strategies for natural
resource management. American Behavioral Scientist, 45, 783–800.
van Vugt, M. (2009, August 22). Triumph of the Commons. New Scientist, 40–43. Retrieved 10-23-15
from http://professormarkvanvugt.com/images/files/van%20Vugt%202009%20-%20Triumph%20
of%20Commons.pdf
Wade-Benzoni, K. A., Tost, L. P., Hernandez, M., & Larrick, R. P. (2012). It’s only a matter of time
death, legacies, and intergenerational decisions. Psychological Science, 23(7), 704–709.
Weber, E. U. (2006). Experience-based and description-based perceptions of long-term risk:
Why global warming does not scare us (yet). Climatic Change, 77, 103–120.
Weber, E. U. (2010). What shapes perceptions of climate change? Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews:
Climate Change, 1(3), 332–342.
Author biographies
Susan M. Koger teaches Psychology for Sustainability, Biopsychology, Psychology of
Learning, and Introductory Psychology, among other courses. Her scholarship focuses on
the effects of toxicants such as pesticides on brain development and function, and the role of
psychology in environmental studies.
Britain A. Scott has taught a variety of introductory and specialized topics courses in social
psychology, women’s studies, and environmental studies. Her ongoing research projects
center around three primary interest areas: physical attractiveness and media messages
about beauty, the impact of pornography on cognitive function and social interaction,
and humans’ relationship with the natural environment.