Environmental theorists frequently argue that human—nature alienations are to blame for the increasingly severe global environmental crisis. This article offers empirical evidence that supports such claims. Data and theory presented here show that phenomenal dissociation— defined as the lack of immediate, sensual engagement with the consequences of our everyday actions and with the human and nonhuman others that we affect with our actions—increases destructive tendency and that awareness is not enough to curb destructiveness. This study begins to reveal some of the psychodynamics by which phenomenal dissociations lead to destructive tendency; discusses how modern institutions, organizational structures, and technologies propagate harms by mediating between actor and consequences; and argues that environmental psychology, which commonly focuses on attitudinal variables such as awareness and concern, must expand its reach to account for the pervasive phenomenal dissociations of contemporary life.
Abram, D. (1996). The spell of the sensuous: Perception and language in a more-than-human world (1sted.). New York: Pantheon Books.
2.
Adams, C. (1997). "Mad cow" disease and the animal industrial complex . Organization & Environment, 10, 26-51.
3.
Adams, C. (2000a). A feeling for the language: Comments on Dunayer's "In the name of science."Organization & Environment, 13, 453-459.
4.
Adams, C. (2000b). The sexual politics of meat: A feminist-vegetarian critical theory. New York: Continuum .
5.
Alkon, A.H. (2004). Place, stories, and consequences: Heritage narratives and the control of erosion on Lake County, California, vineyards. Organization & Environment, 17, 145-169.
6.
Arendt, H. (1963). Eichmann in Jerusalem: A report on the banality of evil. New York: Viking Press .
7.
Bamberg, S. (2003). How does environmental concern influence specific environmentally related behaviors? A new answer to an old question. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 23, 21-32.
8.
Beck, U. (1995). Ecological enlightenment: Essays on the politics of the risk society. Atlantic Highlands, NJ: Humanities Press.
9.
Berenguer, J., Corraliza, J.A., & Martín, R. (2005). Rural-urban differences in environmental concern, attitudes, and actions. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 21, 128-138.
10.
Blass, T. (1991). Understanding behavior in the Milgram obedience experiment: The role of personality, situations, and their interactions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 398-413.
11.
Blass, T. (1999). The Milgram paradigm after 35 years: Some things we now know about obedience to authority. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 29, 955-978.
12.
Blass, T. (2000). Obedience to authority: Current perspectives on the Milgram paradigm. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
13.
Böhm, G., & Pfister, H.-R. (2000). Action tendencies and characteristics of environmental risks. Acta Psychologica , 104, 317-337.
14.
Burley, D., Jenkins, P., Laska, S., & Davis, T. (2007). Place attachment and environmental change in coastal Louisiana. Organization & Environment, 20, 347-366.
15.
Buss, A.H. (1966). Instrumentality of aggression feedback and frustration as determinants of physical aggression. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 3, 153-162.
16.
Butler, P.V. (1998). Destructive obedience in 1924: Landis' "Studies of emotional reactions" as a prototype of the Milgram paradigm. Irish Journal of Psychology, 19, 236-247.
17.
Christopher, M. (1999). An exploration of the "reflex" in reflexive modernity: The rational and prerational social causes of the affinity for ecological consciousness. Organization & Environment, 12, 357-400.
18.
Darley, J.M., & Latané, B. (1968). Bystander intervention in emergencies: Diffusion of responsibility. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 8, 377-383.
19.
Diekmann, A., & Preisendörfer, P. (2003). Green and greenback: The behavioral effects of environmental attitudes in low-cost and high-cost situations. Rationality and Society, 15, 441-472.
20.
Dunayer, J. (2000a). From vivisection to animal rights. Organization & Environment, 13, 429-431.
21.
Dunayer, J. (2000b). In the name of science: The language of vivisection . Organization & Environment, 13, 432-452.
22.
Dunlap, R.E., & Van Liere, K.D. (1978). The "new environmental paradigm": A proposed measuring instrument and preliminary results. Journal of Environmental Education, 9, 10-19.
23.
Dunlap, R.E., Van Liere, K.D., Mertig, A.G., & Emmet Jones, R. (2000). Measuring endorsement of the new ecological paradigm: A revised NEP scale. Journal of Social Issues, 56, 425-442.
24.
Fisher, A. (2002). Radical ecopsychology: psychology in the service of life. Albany: State University of New York Press.
25.
Frantz, C., Mayer, F.S., Norton, C., & Rock, M. (2005). There is no "I" in nature: The influence of self-awareness on connectedness to nature. Journal of Environmental Psychology , 25, 427-436.
26.
Gaard, G. (2001). Women, water, energy: An ecofeminist approach . Organization & Environment, 14, 157-172.
27.
Gardner, G.T., & Stern, P.C. (1996). Environmental problems and human behavior. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
28.
Greenberg, J.R., & Mitchell, S.A. (1983). Object relations in psychoanalytic theory. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
29.
Guagnano, G.A., Stern, P.C., & Dietz, T. (1995). Influences of attitude-behavior relationships: A natural experiment with curbside recycling. Environment and Behavior, 27, 699-718.
30.
Hatfield, J., & Job, R.F.S. (2001). Optimism bias about environmental degradation: The role of the range of impact of precautions. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 21, 17-30.
31.
Hopper, J.R., & Nielsen, J.M. (1991). Recycling as altruistic behavior: Normative and behavioral strategies to expand participation in a community recycling program . Environment and Behavior, 23, 195-220.
32.
Ignatow, G. (2006). Cultural models of nature and society: Reconsidering environmental attitudes and concern. Environment and Behavior , 38, 441-461.
33.
Kidner, D.W. (2001). Nature and psyche: Radical environmentalism and the politics of subjectivity. Albany: State University of New York Press.
34.
Kilham, W., & Mann, L. (1974). Level of destructive obedience as a function of transmitter and executant roles in the Milgram obedience paradigm. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 29, 696-702.
35.
Larson, E.W., & King, J.B. (1996). The systemic distortion of information: An ongoing challenge to management. Organizational Dynamics, 24, 49-61.
36.
Lertzman, R. (2004). Ecopsychological theory and critical intervention . Organization & Environment, 17, 396-401.
37.
Lüttke, H.B. (2004). Experimente unter dem Milgram-Paradigma [Experiments within the Milgram paradigm]. Gruppendynamik und Organisationsberatung , 35, 431-464.
38.
Macy, J. (1995). Working through environmental despair. In T. Roszak, M. E. Gomes & A. D. Kanner (Eds.), Ecopsychology : Restoring the earth, healing the mind (pp. 21-40). San Francisco: Sierra Club Books.
39.
Mayer, F.S., & Frantz, C.M. (2004). The Connectedness to Nature Scale: A measure of individuals' feeling in community with nature. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 24, 503-515.
40.
Meeus, W.H.J., & Raaijmakers, Q.A.W. (1995). Obedience in modern society: The Utrecht studies. Journal of Social Issues, 51, 155-175.
41.
Mellor, M. (1997). New woman, new earth: Setting the agenda. Organization & Environment, 10, 296-308.
42.
Merchant, C. (1980). The death of nature: Women, ecology, and the scientific revolution (1sted.). San Francisco : Harper & Row.
43.
Merchant, C. (1996). Earthcare: Women and the environment. New York: Routledge.
44.
Milgram, S. (1963). Behavioral study of obedience. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 67(4), 371-378.
45.
Milgram, S. (1965). Some conditions of obedience and disobedience to authority. Human Relations, 18, 57-76.
46.
Milgram, S. (1974). Obedience to authority: An experimental view (1st ed.). New York: Harper & Row.
47.
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. (2005). Ecosystems and human well-being: Synthesis. Washington, DC: Island Press.
48.
Miller, A.G. (1986). The obedience experiments: A case study of controversy in social science. New York: Praeger .
49.
Miller, A.G., Collins, B.E., & Brief, D.E. (1995). Perspectives on obedience to authority: The legacy of the Milgram experiments. Journal of Social Issues, 51, 1-19.
50.
Nicholsen, S.W. (2002). The love of nature and the end of the world: The unspoken dimensions of environmental concern. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
51.
Nilsson, A., von Borgstede, C., & Biel, A. (2004). Willingness to accept climate change strategies: The effect of values and norms. Journal of Environmental Psychology , 24(3), 267-277.
52.
Norgaard, K. (2003). Community, place and privilege: Double realities, denial and climate change in Norway. Unpublished Dissertation, University of Oregon.
53.
Norgaard, K. (2006). "We don't really want to know": Environmental justice and socially organized denial of global warming in Norway. Organization & Environment, 19, 347-370.
54.
Oreg, S., & Katz-gerro, T. (2006). Predicting proenvironmental behavior cross-nationally: Values, the theory of planned behavior, and value-belief-norm theory. Environment and Behavior, 38, 462-483.
55.
Pluhar, E. (2006). Legal and moral rights of sentient beings and the full personhood view. Organization & Environment, 19, 275-279.
56.
Plumwood, V. (1993). Feminism and the mastery of nature. New York: Routledge.
57.
Pollan, M. (2006). The omnivore's dilemma: A natural history of four meals. New York: Penguin Press.
58.
Poortinga, W., Steg, L., & Vlek, C. (2004). Values, environmental concern, and environmental behavior: A study into household energy use. Environment and Behavior, 36, 70-93.
59.
Puckett, J., Byster, L., Westervelt, S., Gutierrez, R., Davis, S., Hussain, A., et al. (2002). Exporting harm: The high-tech trashing of Asia. San Jose, CA: The Basel Action Network (BAN), Silicon Valley Toxics Coalition (SVTC).
60.
Roper Organization. (1990). The environment: Public attitudes and individual behavior. New York: Author.
61.
Roszak, T. (1992). The voice of the earth. New York: Simon & Schuster.
62.
Ruether, R.R. (1995). New woman, new earth : Sexist ideologies and human liberation. Boston: Beacon Press .
63.
Ryland, E. (2000). Gaia rising: A Jungian look at environmental consciousness and sustainable organizations. Organization & Environment , 13, 381-402.
64.
Schultz, P.W. (2001). The structure of environmental concern: Concern for self, other people, and the biosphere. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 21, 327-339.
65.
Schultz, P.W., & Oskamp, S. (1996). Effort as a moderator of the attitude-behavior relationship: General environmental concern and recycling. Social Psychology Quarterly, 59, 375-383.
66.
Sheridan, C.L., & King, R.G. (1972). Obedience to authority with an authentic victim . Proceedings of the 80th Annual Convention of the American Psychological Association, 7, 165-166.
67.
Solér, C. (1996). Ecologically friendly buying: Theoretical implications of a phenomenological perspective. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 12, 275-289.
68.
Soper, K. (1995). What is nature? Culture, politics and the non-human . Oxford, England: Blackwell.
69.
Staub, E. (1989). The roots of evil: The origins of genocide and other group violence. Cambridge England: Cambridge University Press.
70.
Steel, B.S., List, P., & Shindler, B. (1994). Conflicting values about federal forests: A comparison of national and Oregon publics. Society and Natural Resources , 7, 137.
71.
Stern, P.C., & Dietz, T. (1994). The value basis of environmental concern. Journal of Social Issues, 50, 65-84.
72.
Stern, P.C., Dietz, T., & Kalof, L. (1993). Value orientations, gender, and environmental concern. Environment and Behavior, 25, 322-348.
73.
Tarrant, M.A., & Cordell, H.K. (1997). The effect of respondent characteristics on general environmental attitude-behavior correspondence. Environment and Behavior, 29, 618-637.
74.
Thøgersen, J., & Ölander, F. (2006). To what degree are environmentally beneficial choices reflective of a general conservation stance?Environment and Behavior, 38, 550-569.
75.
Tilker, H.A. (1970). Socially responsible behavior as a function of observer responsibility and victim feedback. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 14, 95-100.
76.
Valle, P.O.D., Rebelo, E., Reis, E., & Menezes, J. (2005). Combining behavioral theories to predict recycling involvement. Environment and Behavior, 37, 364-396.
77.
Van der Pligt, J. (1985). Energy conservation: Two easy ways out. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 15, 3-15.
78.
Van Liere, K.D., & Dunlap, R.E. (1978). Moral norms and environmental behavior: An application of Schwartz's norm-activation model to yard burning. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 8, 174-188.
79.
Walck, C. (2004). Healing the divided mind: Land as an integrating concept for organizations and the natural environment. Organization & Environment, 17, 170-194.
80.
Weigel, R.H., & Weigel, J. (1978). Environmental concern: The development of a measure . Environment and Behavior, 10, 3-15.
81.
Williams, E.D., Ayres, R.U., & Heller, M. (2002). The 1.7 kilogram microchip: Energy and material use in the production of semiconductor devices. Environmental Science & Technology, 36, 5504-5510.
82.
Winter, D.D.N. (1996). Ecological psychology: Healing the split between planet and self. New York: HarperCollins .
