Does my little contribution to the Global Warming/Peak Oil/Economic Crisis movement really help?

Brian Morton Oct 2007

The “every little bit helps” platitude is easy to give, but I find that it rings hollow in my heart and isn’t enough to motivate me when things are hard.  But there is something close to this platitude that I think is true.  So let us think about what the mechanisms of social change are like so that we can see how exactly little contributions can turn into big ones.

"The mass do not now take their opinions from dignitaries in Church or State, from ostensible leaders, or from books. Their thinking is done for them by men much like themselves, addressing or speaking in their name, on the spur of the moment…."

-John Stuart Mill, On Liberty

Opinion Leaders and the Two-Step Flow of Information

The theory of two-step flow of communication propounded by Paul Lazafeld and Elihu Katz in 1955, although the basic idea is older.  The heart of this theory was that mass marketing does not influence mass audiences directly, at least not on important changes.  There is simply too much information available on all sides of a debate for people to make up their mind directly.  Instead a person will discuss the issue with a friend that they perceive as being more expert in the matter, which the theory calls an “opinion leader.”

The opinion leader interprets the complex media message for the less confident consulter.  The opinion leader helps the opinion follower to make sense of what is important and what isn’t and aides them in forming their own opinion.  Opinion leadership tends to be very field specific.  If I wonder what the best place around here to buy lumber at is, I’ll ask Valerie’s advice, if she wonders whether raw milk is safe or not, she may ask me or my wife.  We expect people to be able to sort through all the contradictory and confusing media messages in their own fields and special interests, but not necessarily to be able to do it for all fields and all interests, that would just be too time consuming.

Opinion leaders are not the same thing as experts.  Opinion leaders are expected to have some extra interest and expertise in the subject, but to be accessible to the audience, friendly with them.  If I happen to know an “expert” personally on a friend or acquaintance level, I may treat them as my opinion leader on the subject.  But for the most part, “what the experts say” is part of the confusing media message that I want someone I know and trust to help me sort out.  Experts may have vested interests, or be lying, or old fashioned, or whatever.  The function of the opinion leader is to be a bridge between the media message, and myself - half-expert / half-colleague, so that I can interactively piece my opinion together with his or her help, asking questions and getting answers I trust.    

The bottom line is that people tend to be much more affected in their decision making process by face to face encounters with influential peers than by the mass media, although the opinion leaders tend to be influenced by the mass media, or rather by the process of struggling to sort out the contradictory messages in it.  In order to be an opinion leader you need to be 1) perceived as a peer 2) perceived as knowledgeable and trustworthy on the subject. 3) engage in face to face interactions with peers on the subject.  Opinion leaders function both as a source of social pressure to make a choice, and a source of social re-inforcement for the choice once it has been made.  Advertisers have more or less embraced the two step flow of communication model for their own goals of influencing the public, and often call opinion leaders “influentials.” "Influentials are better educated and more affluent than the average American, but it is their interest in the world around them and their belief that they can make a difference that makes them influential (Crispell, 1989)."  Education helps, but it is the fact that your care about the issue that makes other people trust your opinion.  When they can see that you care about the issue and that you have thought about it seriously, it is very easy for them to conclude that you probably know more about it than they do, especially if a little chatting confirms this.

So what does this mean for Global Warming/Peak Oil/Economic Crisis?

The process of convincing the public to change its ways has two basic steps, and this is true whether we are trying to get them to buy more IPods, or prepare for a coming crisis.  First, you must use the mass media outlets, radio, TV, journals, blogs, whatnot to convince the opinion leaders.  Your opposition will also try to convince opinion leaders of their side, or if they are even further on the defensive will merely try to sow doubt and confusion so the opinion leaders remain skeptical or uncommitted.  Then as the opinion leaders become convinced the public as a whole will become convinced, fairly rapidly, via face to face interactions rather than media ones, (or more often face to face interactions which are interpreting media interactions).

If you are running media work, realize your target audience - not as narrow as experts, but not as broad as the whole population; you are trying to convince the half-experts, the people who are more expert than average on the topic, but still code as peers rather than experts to the population at large.  But the opinion leaders are pretty convinced already on global warming and peak oil issues, even the period of doubt and division is coming to a close, so this phase of the task is almost over, soon the issues will shift to struggles between different models of what exactly to do to respond to the problem.  But then again targeting opinion leaders will be key.

If instead you are an opinion leader on the topics of environmentalism, peak oil etc. strive to be a good opinion leader.  Your job is not to sell a line of thought, but to help your friends choose which line of thought to buy.  Be frank about the pros and cons.  Talk about why you have been convinced the way you are.  Be willing to engage the issues in face to face discussions, but keep things on a peer to peer chatting basis.  They may have heard only part of the story and be coming to you to try to get a fuller picture.  If you push too hard, your message will become part of the confusing packet of messages your friend is trying to sort out, and they will chat with someone else about the various things they’ve heard including your message.

It is precisely because you care about the issues that other people want your help in forming their opinion.  Develop skills related to your opinion, gardening, canning, bicycling, whatever.  Make these a part of your lifestyle so that others can see that you are an avid biker, gardener, etc.  Displaying what you care about, and creating openings to discuss it with others without seeming pushy make it easier to be persuasive about your message.

How much does me biking to work/gardening/canning/eating local/etc. help?

            Biking to work cuts your own personal carbon emissions a little bit, it helps a little but not very much directly.  Likewise, each bike on the road is an advertisement for biking, planting a tiny seed in the mind of all those who see you that perhaps biking would work for them too in some contexts.  But again this is only a small push.  The real value of biking is that it shows all who know you what you care about and think is important.  People who are curious or waffling or who don’t know what to think about the whole global warming thing, will interpret you as someone who cares about the issues.  If they can engage you in discussion, and you seem sane, balanced, a little partisan perhaps, but having thought seriously and engaged the issues, they are quite likely to swing to your side.  Especially if they know and trust you.  Because that is how most of us form our opinions on most issues most of the time, according to the current theories of sociologists and advertisers.  The same thing is true of canning, or gardening, or any of the other lifestyle choices.  Your biking to work is important because it is part of the beginning stage of a mass movement, and when many, many people bike to work that will have a non-trivial effect.  When more and more people bike to work, you will need to display the fact that you care and have thought about things in some other way, in as many ways as you can without ceasing to seem like a peer.  But if you really DO care, and you really are thinking hard about the many conflicting messages in books, and TV and blogs, and journals and whatnot, then that is precisely what you will be doing anyway because you care.  You seek technology advice from a friend who you perceive as being always a little ahead of the technology curve, because they think it is cool and are willing to spend the effort to keep abreast of the changes.  Your friends will seek lifestyle advice from someone they perceive as being always a little ahead of lifestyle curve, without out being so far ahead as to seem out of their league.  Maybe that person will be you. 

            Sometimes people use the metaphor of the pebbles that start the rockslide, or the tipping point of a balance, which are both OK but both misunderstand how public opinion works.  It isn’t that people are almost ready to landslide but just need an initial push.  It isn’t that they are almost at the tipping point and need one more nudge.  It is that people don’t know what to think, they haven’t made up their minds, because they are getting “change now!”  - “business as usual!” – and “doubt and indecision” messages in the culture at large.  If lots of “business as usual” types can display that they care about the issue, they have thought about it, and upon mature reflection they believe that the right response to global warming is business as usual, and can explain this to curious peers looking for guidance, while seeming trustworthy and showing that they have thought about the opposing messages, then public opinion will crystallize around that message.  If instead lots of “change now” types can display that they care about the issue, they have thought about it, and upon mature reflection they believe that the right response to global warming is to change now, and can explain this to peers looking for guidance, while seeming trustworthy and showing that they have thought about the opposing messages, then public opinion will crystallize around that message instead.

            The small initial differences that you can make via biking, canning, etc. are manifestations of the fact that you care deeply about the issues, and that care is more powerful than the initial manifestations, because it is persuasive to people who perceive themselves as caring some but not as deeply as you.  Care will influence the opinions of others like a magnet.  Care spreads and crystallizes opinions when it can be manifested clearly enough.

            Once the ball really gets rolling, and the “doubt and indecision” message no longer dominates, the main obstacle to change will be all the other things than normal Americans care about, besides providing a decent world for their children and grandchildren.  How do you maintain acceptable hygiene while trying to save the planet?  What do you eat?  How do you display your social status?  How do you make a living?  How do you escape from the drudgery of your job?  How do you stretch a buck?  What other things we care about get sacrificed on the altar of green-asceticism?  Again the key is for people who care about the planet to confront these problems honestly, search for the information through all the dreck of the media, form opinions, and be able to convey them to the curious.  The process works the same and the dangers are the same.  Take too extreme of a position, and you cease to seem like a peer.  No one should care about hygiene?  Ah just another stinky hippies opinion.  Take too moderate of a position and it is hard for others to perceive you as caring deeply about the topic, and easy to mistake your position for doubt and indecision.  If you want to influence the behaviour and opinions of others, display what you care about in your lifestyle clearly, but without seeming pushy or seeming not to be the peer of others. 

So does “every little bit help?” NO!  If you pick up some trash by the roadside once, and feel a little better about your self and your world, and haven’t really changed what you think or what you care about, your contribution will be drowned out by the next year’s trash.  Maybe that one little piece of trash will be part of a tipping point, but odds are very low that it will make any difference at all.  But every little bit of action that manifests what you genuinely care about DOES help, because manifesting what you deeply care about to others is a crucial step of any social change.  And that is the truth of the almost correct platitude that gets bandied about so much.

If you do genuinely care about global warming or peak oil then do what you can to manifest this concern within your own life.  Look to the media, and others who care for practical advice on how to do this, and in turn serve as an example for others.  Strive to be an opinion leader on the issue, by showing forth your values, and being willing to talk about them, by being a good peer to your peers, by sorting through what the various media say, so that you can help others to do so.  You do not have to be an expert or an ascetic, you just have to be a little further down the road to commitment than your peers so that they turn to you for advice.  That is how successful mass movements are built and what is needed urgently right now is a successful mass movement.

Crispell, Diane. (1989). The Influentials. Consumers who influence America. American Demographics, v11, n3, p12.

            Glock, Charles Y. (1952). The comparative study of communications and opinion formation. Public Opinion Quarterly, Winter, pp512-523.

Goeke, Joseph R. (1961). The two-step flow of communication-the theory re-examined. Proceedings of the Sixteenth Annual Conference of the American Association for Public Opinion Research. Public Opinion Quarterly, Fall, pp459-461.

Griswold, Sarah (?) The Two-Step Flow of Communication Theory, at http://www.ciadvertising.org/studies/student/99_spring/theory/griswold/twostep.html

Katz, Elihu (1973). The two-step flow of communication: an up-to-date report of an hypothesis. In Enis and Cox(eds.), Marketing Classics, p175-193.

Lazarsfeld, Paul and Menzel, Herbert. Mass Media and Personal Influence, in Schramm (ed.), The Science of Human Communication, pp.94-115.

Lazarsfeld, P., Berelson, B., and Gaudet H. (1948). The People's Choice. New York: Columbia University Press.

Leiss, Julie (1992). Print Ads top TV in reaching influentials (Roper Organization research on reaching influential consumers). Advertising Age, Sept 14, v63, n37, p44.

Poltrack, Terence. (1985). Influencing the Influentials (Corporate Advocacy Advertising). Marketing and Media Decisions, August, v20, p56.

Weimann, Gabriel (1991). The influentials: back to the concept of opinion leaders?. Public Opinion Quarterly, Summer, v55, n2, p 267.

Weimann, Gabriel. (1994). Is there a two-step flow of Agenda Setting? International Journal of Public Opinion, v6, n4, p323.

Wikipedia: “Opinion Leadership”