‘Climate psychologist’ sounds nice, but Gerdien de Vries (1975) always has to explain that she does not help people get rid of climate depression. As an associate professor at TU Delft, she researches climate psychology. Psychological mechanisms involved in the energy transition and climate adaptation. In a conversation lasting more than an hour, a colorful procession of topics comes along, De Vries tells enthusiastically about it. “Our research goes far beyond noticing that people don’t want a windmill in their backyard.”
From mid-January, TU Delft will be celebrating its 180th anniversary, with the energy transition as the lustrum theme, and in particular the role that Delft research plays in this. De Vries is one of the researchers who act as ambassador. On the day of our conversation she gives a lecture on psychology and wind energy, a few days later a children’s lecture.
A psychologist among the engineers at TU Delft, is that exceptional?
“There are more, spread across the faculties. But it is different from Leiden, where I obtained my PhD and where psychology is very large. I don’t know if it’s because this is a technical university, but here we look more applied. Psychologists often focus on a fundamental mechanism: what drives certain behavior? Here it is then said: OK, now we know, what are we going to do with it?”
And, what are you going to do with it?
“It depends on what you’re researching, of course. We try to answer the question of what that behavior means for society, what does it do within the system of technology, policy and behaviour? When it comes to the energy transition, technology alone is not enough, policy and behavior are just as important for the success of plans.
“For example, we are researching the social response to kites that generate wind energy by extending the kite line. A fairly new technology. We already want to know what people think about this. What we saw in literature research is that a lot has already been said about perceptions and acceptance of kite energy, but these are mainly assumptions of the engineers. They are optimistic. It is more environmentally friendly because much less material is needed, it is more fun to see. We find such an optimism bias interesting.
New technology often ties in with things that people already know
“We don’t want to dampen that optimism. It is important that engineers are enthusiastic about their ideas, otherwise nothing good will be created. But we have to see if the assumptions are correct, is everyone so enthusiastic? If you involve social science early, you may be able to use it in the development of technology. Maybe, and this is a completely made-up example, people think it is very important that the kites are blue and not red.”
How do you research future technology?
“New technology is also often in line with things that people already know. Take the kites, people already have experience with windmills and kites from kite surfers. We look at which variables match and then you can still do a lot with questionnaires. About something like the hyperloop, which doesn’t exist yet, you ask questions about how people think it is, you propose a scenario. Imagine: you are in a cab, there is no driver, it takes such a long time.
“It is difficult that people cannot properly estimate how they will react in a situation. In climate behavior you often find a gap between intention and action. Tomorrow I will go to work by bike. But then I have slept badly or it is drizzling and then I take the car anyway. While, if you ask me now, I’m convinced that I’m going to cycle. One virtual realityenvironment is already a lot, however, then you can fool your brain a little more. I would like to do more with that.”
You regularly hear that people are faced with fait accomplis
Is it important to make things quantitative?
“I think it helps in collaborating with engineers, who also know the numbers. I like it myself too. One of my pet peeves is what I call the hassle factor. I would like to provide clear insight into the extent to which hassle is an obstacle to sustainable behaviour. For example, I am working on a subsidy application at home. That is difficult, there are municipal subsidies, government subsidies, how and where should I do what? I would like to put a group of people behind the computer to find out subsidies, with a stress meter on it.
“We are also trying to involve psychology more in mathematical models. Individual behavior collects in collective behavior and through a model you can gain insight into the larger system. The question is, can we zero in on behavior in such a way that it does justice to the vastness of our psychology, its uniqueness? Of course you have to make concessions, but it is worth making models more realistic.”
Does psychology work differently for citizens than for policymakers?
“With policymakers, it makes a big difference at what level you are. I do a lot with municipalities, which have government policy to implement and they have to deal directly with citizens. They would like to do participatory processes, but in doing so you organize your own resistance. I am in favor of involving people very early on and setting clear frameworks about what people can and cannot influence. You regularly hear that people are faced with fait accomplis, or that sham participation has been organised. That is very undermining, then they go with their heels in the sand.”
You also see young people who really want to radiate wealth with Rolexes and trips to Dubai
Many of the examples you mention come down to getting things through to the public.
“Policy makers might look at it that way. They want to organize social acceptance and come to us to hear what works. I try to stay away from that, I think the concept of social acceptance is already a biased term. I am interested in how things work. In how people deal with technology, how they want to use it, and yes, also what they think about it and why.
“Policy makers are also interested in how you can unlearn undesirable behaviour. How do you get people out of the car? In that context, social tipping points are interesting, moments when you see that society is accepting new norms. Take smoking, for example, it became more expensive and legislation was introduced. And suddenly there was the moment that you no longer just light a cigarette in people’s homes. What happened there?
“We may be close with climate-oriented behavior, although I don’t have hard figures for that. In certain circles people fly less and eat less meat and young people like to work for sustainable companies. Although at the same time you see young people who really want to radiate wealth with Rolexes and trips to Dubai. In any case, the debate on more sustainable living is more on-going. Legislation and attention, that’s where it starts. Finally, reality kicks in. Yes, it was also strange that we ever went by plane to Paris.”