Hi Jim,

I don't think you read my response carefully.  I agreed that intention is a 
necessary for action, but it is not usually sufficient.

John

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "SoW Net" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Sunday, September 24, 2006 12:11 PM
Subject: Re: INTENTION & ACTION ON CLIMATE CHANGE


Dear John and anyone else interested,

Thank you for your response.  Feedback is always helpful for understanding one 
another's perspectives and one's own oversights!

I don't know how the studies you cite measured intention and contextual factors, 
whether they included strength of intention,and whether they were inductive or 
hypothesis testing deductive studies, but it sounds as if the intentions were 
somewhat casual, almost spin-of-the-coin type of choices or decisions for both 
'equal choice' and 'more significant choices'.  Taking a train or a plane for 
most people (who are not impassioned environmentalists!) is probably decided on 
the basis of convenience and cost.  But would:  whether to marry? whom you 
marry? where you live? whether to split up or divorce? be contextually decided? 
As to politicians, is not the finding a sad reflection of how compromised they 
are through subserviating what cry out for consideration as deliberate decisions 
to that of staying in office?

I agree that we need to give attention to contextual inducements for changing 
environmental behaviour, but also bolster people's intentions, motivation, and 
changing priorities and values - usually paraphrased as 'political will'.  As 
Aubrey, Meyer and others are continually finding, none of the contextual 
inducements can be implemented without the necessary intention or will of those 
with the authority to do so.  Therefore the case for strengthening intentions is 
irrefutable.

I realise I am over-simplifying the situation, but I would like to stimulate 
more participation in this matter!

Best wishes from Jim Scott

Sign up on-line to VALUE LIFE ITSELF ABOVE ALL ELSE !!!
and support the
NEW MOVEMENT FOR SURVIVAL
Global site: www.save-our-world.net, Challenge page

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "John Scull" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Thursday, September 21, 2006 6:54 PM
Subject: Re: INTENTION & ACTION ON CLIMATE CHANGE


> Hi Jim,
>
> Good letter to the editor, and it's always good to keep these issues before 
> the
> public.
>
> I think I may be the only psychologist on this list, so I'll comment.  Social
> psychological research mostly supports George's assertion.  For equal choices
> (such as voting or selecting different brands) there can sometimes be a fairly
> strong association between intention and action.  For more significant choices
> (such as taking a train rather than a plane) intention (and related cognitive
> factors such as knowledge, belief, attitude) usually account for very little
> variance.  For decisions by politicians, contextual factors seem to almost
> always trump intentions.
>
> You are correct that action necessarily follows from intention, but intention
> does not necessarily lead to action -- in most situations, contextual and
> situational variables seem to be much more influential than dispositional
> variables.
>
> It is important that we, as environmental activists, recognize this.  To 
> change
> human behaviour in significant ways, it is most important that we focus on
> providing people with environments that support the changes we want to see. 
> For
> politicians the context is public opinion, donations, party affiliation,
> lobbyists, etc.  For a good readable introduction to research in this area, 
> see
> Cialdini, R., "Influence: the psychology of persuasion."
>
> John
> =================================
> John Scull
> http://members.shaw.ca/jscull
> "It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends
> upon his not understanding it"
>                                        --Upton Sinclair
>
>> While being totally convinced by George Monbiot's arguments for grounding 
>> most
>> of the aeroplanes flying today ('On the flight path to global meltdown' 21
>> September), I question his assumption about connecting intention and action 
>> on
>> doing something about it. He maintains 'there seems o be no connection', but
>> this must be erroneous. For not only does all action follow from intention,
>> but the key to taking action on climate change must be to change intention -
>> for real.
>
> What Monbiot actually points to is half-hearted intention, or kidding oneself
> about one's real intention. It requires deeper insight than he gives it. Even
> his quotation from a Buddhist: "It doesn't matter what you do, as long as you 
> do
> it with love" has a deeper meaning than he draws from it. For if you really 
> love
> and value someone, something, or the world, you will ensure that what you do
> does not harm the object of your love and value.
>
> Behind actions lie progressively: intentions, attitudes, motivations, 
> priorities
> and values. The key to changing behaviour on climate change, as with all the
> other crises in the world, goes right back to values.
>
> This is why our rallying call on climate change in Save our World is to "Value
> Life Itself above ALL Else !!!". Otherwise we will all lose it.
>
> Yours faithfully,
>
>
> Jim Scott, Chairperson, SAVE OUR WORLD
>
> 14 Richborne Terrace, London SW8 1AU
> 020 7640 0492 & 07717 221617
>
> Sign up on-line to VALUE LIFE ITSELF ABOVE ALL ELSE !!!
> and support the
> NEW MOVEMENT FOR SURVIVAL
> Global site: www.save-our-world.net, Challenge page
>
>
>
> -- 
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.1.405 / Virus Database: 268.12.7/454 - Release Date: 21/09/2006
>
>