A balance theory perspective into lay perceptions of the three pillars of sustainability

Nathaniel Geiger, Indiana University

&

Janet K. Swim, Penn State University

Forthcoming in F. Weder, L. Krainer, & M. Karmasin (Eds.), The Sustainability

Communication Reader: A Reflective Compendium.

Note: This version may differ slightly from the final version of this manuscript.
 2

Summary

Meeting sustainability goals will be fostered by public acceptance and engagement with

sustainable development. Yet, there is little baseline knowledge about how lay individuals

conceptualize different aspects of sustainability. In the present chapter, we explore possibilities

for lay individuals’ mental models of sustainability, using the three-pillar sustainability

framework as a reference point. First, we consider how individuals could perceive pairs of

pillars (e.g., social and environmental sustainability) to be either complementary or in tension

with one another. Then, we use balance theory to explore implications of these perceived dyadic

relations for mental models of how all three pillars interrelate. We conclude by discussing

directions for additional research and communication outreach.

 3

Understanding Lay Individuals’ Mental Models of Sustainability

Increasing income inequality (Piketty, 2014), social and political instability (Spence,

2016), and the negative effects of anthropogenic climate change (IPCC, 2014; Missirian &

Schlenker, 2017) are revealing the drawbacks of assessing societal success solely by

maximizing GDP growth (Kubiszewski et al., 2013). An emerging alternative theme to assess the

success of societal development centers around the notion of sustainability, defined by the World

Commission on Environment and Development (1987) as “development that meets the needs of

the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.”

Supporters of this theme advocate for policies and socioeconomic systems that not only lead to

sustained economic output, but also preserve the environment and promote human flourishing.

Public opinion and engagement are likely to play a key role in guiding how sustainability

frameworks are adopted. Although some believe that it is mainly the powerful and influential

that should be guiding society toward sustainability (e.g., see Dsouli et al., 2018), others argue

that citizens should be actively engaged in the process of sustainable development (e.g.,

Dahlbeck, 2014). The importance of public involvement with sustainability is noted in

campaigns promoting education for sustainable development (Holfelder, 2019; UNESCO, 2017).

Advocates for such education tend to suggest that an informed public is better equipped to

constructively engage with sustainable development. Yet, developing an effective education

curriculum for lay individuals in part requires a baseline assessment of the lay public’s existing

mental models of sustainability. Additionally, these lay mental models are likely to influence

expectations, inferences, and decision making (Denzau & North, 1994; Gentner & Stevens,

2014).
 4

One key question in understanding lay mental models of sustainability is whether lay

individuals perceive sustainability goals as mutually complementary or in tension with one

another. For example, some may believe that environmental sustainability and economic

sustainability are inherently opposed to each other, while others might perceive them to be

mutually complementary. Even among policymakers and within the academic literature, there is

no consensus on this question (Purvis et al., 2019). Some imply complementarity, suggesting that

distinct sustainability goals are part of systems which strengthen and enhance one another (e.g.,

Hancock, 1993). Others describe fundamental tensions between sustainability goals and resultant

“trade-offs” inherent in actions designed to have positive impacts on one or more of the goals

(e.g., Macnaghten & Jacobs, 1997). Given this disagreement among expert models of

sustainability processes, lay individuals might also hold differing mental models regarding

whether sustainability goals are complementary or in tension.

In this book chapter, we use dyadic and triadic models to explore possible mental models

that lay individuals possess in response to considering the perceived relations between the

components of sustainability present in the three-pillar model of sustainability (Purvis et al.,

2019): 1) environmental, 2) social, and 3) economic. We begin with a brief description of the

three-pillar model of sustainability. Second, we explore how individuals could perceive two

components to be either complementary (i.e., policies designed to improve one pillar will also be

likely to improve a second pillar) or in tension with one another (i.e., policies designed to

improve one pillar will have unintended detrimental impacts on a second pillar). Third, we use

the framework provided by a classic psychological theory, balance theory (Heider, 1946;

Wasserman & Faust, 1994; Zajonc, 1960), to conceptualize the stability of mental models which

examine the interrelations between all three components of sustainability, examining how
 5

individuals are motivated to achieve structural balance in triadic mental models. We conclude by

exploring the practical relevance of these mental models for sustainability communication

efforts.

Three-Pillar Model of Sustainability

The three-pillar model of sustainability is a tripartite framework that conceptualizes

sustainability as involving not only the environment but all aspects of human society. This

framework proposes that sustainability results from pursuing and balancing three dimensions of

sustainability: environmental (i.e., preserving ecosystem resilience and environmental quality),

social (i.e. maximizing human health and well-being), and economic (i.e., maintaining

production of vital goods and services over the long term; World Commission on Environment

and Development, 1987). Although some have criticized the three-pillar framework (Dawe &

Ryan, 2003; Holden et al., 2014; Lehtonen, 2004) and several alternative frameworks for

sustainable development exist (e.g., James, 2014; United Nations, 2015), to date the three-pillar

model appears to be by far the most widely used framework for defining sustainability. The

three-pillar model of sustainability has also spawned the creation of the related triple bottom line

model, which proposes that businesses should seek to maximize and balance benefits to people

and the planet with their economic profits (Dawe & Ryan, 2003; Elkington, 1999; Slapper &

Hall, 2011).

Lay individuals value each of these three pillars (at least to an extent): most people report

valuing environmental protection and climate action in wealthy countries such as the US

(Leiserowitz et al., 2018) and in a variety of other countries around the world (Bloom, 1995;

Meyer, 2018). Further, voting preferences appears to be influenced by beliefs about what will

improve others’ well-being (i.e. potential concern about social sustainability; Edlin, Gelman, &
 6

Kaplan, 2007) and help the economy (i.e. potential concern about economic sustainability; de

Vries & Giger, 2014). Below, we provide extended definitions of each of the three pillars.

Environmental Sustainability

Nature, or Pacha Mama, where life is reproduced and occurs, has the right to integral

respect for its existence and for the maintenance and regeneration of its life cycles, structure,

functions and evolutionary processes. – Ecuador constitution

Environmental sustainability can be defined as reaching a state in which natural resource

extraction does not exceed the pace by which the natural resources are renewed, and pollution

(waste emissions) does not exceed the rates by which they can be assimilated into the ecosystem

(Daly, 1990). Imbalances in environmental sustainability can be characterized at a variety of

scales, including local environmental issues, climate change (i.e. emitting more carbon dioxide

than can be assimilated into the atmosphere), and other global-scale issues (e.g., changes in the

nitrogen cycle or phosphorous cycle caused by the widespread application of chemical fertilizers,

loss of biodiversity). Thus, working toward environmental sustainability involves a holistic

consideration of various environmental concerns.

Social Sustainability

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all [people] are created equal, that they are

endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and

the pursuit of Happiness.” – United States Declaration of Independence.

Social sustainability tends to refer to maintaining and improving individuals’ quality of

life, but whose quality of life and which metrics should be used to assess quality of life have been

debated (Lehtonen, 2004). Some have suggested that at a fundamental level, improvements in

average quality of life across populations constitutes greater social sustainability; these
 7

individuals might value outcomes such as increases in life expectancy, improvements in

education, and psychological well-being as either proxies for social sustainability or valuable

components of sustainability in themselves. Others have argued that social sustainability should

inherently entail lifting up historically marginalized groups and populations and that issues such

as gender inequality and poverty are fundamental threats to social sustainability. Most advocates

argue for a combination of both lifting up the most destitute and improving quality of life for

everyone on average. Yet, an alternative perspective, seemingly with racist overtones (Elliott,

1997), suggests that it is not possible for all populations to reach an equitable level of well-being

and decisions must be made as to which groups are deserving and which are undeserving

(typically, the implication is that wealthy societies in the global North tend to be deserving while

many societies in the global South are not; Hardin, 1996).

Economic Sustainability

“Most American cities find themselves caught in the Growth Ponzi Scheme. We

experience a modest, short term illusion of wealth in exchange for enormous, long term

liabilities. We deprive our communities of prosperity, overload our families with debt and

become trapped in a spiral of decline. This cannot continue.”

- Charles Marohn, Founder and President of Strong Towns

In general, economic sustainability is defined as an economic structure that provides

sustained economic output over the long-term, yet there is no consensus on the specific metrics

of a sustainable economy (Spangenberg, 2005). Some assess economic sustainability in terms of

sustainable economic growth (i.e., prolonged economic growth; World Commission on

Environment and Development, 1987), while others argue that infinite economic growth is

impossible and instead define economic sustainability as a healthy steady-state economy (i.e., an
 8

economic system that functions well without growth ; Daly & Daly, 1973)1. Both of these

definitions suggest that economic sustainability tends to consist of efficient use of resources and

development in such a way that promotes efficiency and resilience in local communities and

interconnected economies. Yet, because arguments about economics are frequently framed in

terms of economic growth, rather than steady-state economies, whether lay individuals perceive

that economic growth is necessary to actualize economic sustainability could have a relevant

impact on how they construct mental models of the interrelation between pillars. Additionally,

some may conceptualize economic sustainability as synonymous with the free-market and

private business, while others might conceptualize it more broadly to include the public sector

and/or alternative economic arrangements.

Perceptions of Dyadic Relations Among Pillars

Here we consider possibilities for perceived dyadic relations (i.e., tension or

complementarity) between pairs of pillars. These perceived relations could influence how

individuals respond to actions or policies targeted toward one specific pillar Yet, despite the

widespread use of the three-pillar model of sustainability among sustainability advocates, we are

not aware of any published research that has directly considered how lay people perceive these

pillars to be connected. We consider empirical and illustrative examples that could influence

whether the three pillars are perceived to be in tension (e.g., actions that promote environmental

sustainability are detrimental to social sustainability) or complementary (e.g., actions that

promote environmental sustainability also promote social sustainability).

1
A middle viewpoint is that less “developed” countries should prioritize economic growth while more
“developed” countries should consider moving away from this metric.
 9

Perceived Tension between Pillars

Many narratives about the differing pillars of sustainability suggest “trade-offs” between

a pair of pillars; that is, that improvements on one pillar will be associated with detrimental

effects on a second pillar. Below, we illustrate sources of some of this potential tension.

Environment vs. society.

Some mental models of sustainability highlight tensions between environmental and

social sustainability. Actions that some perceive to promote human well-being (social

sustainability) reduce environmental sustainability. For example, housing and land-use policies

promoting low-density housing development and suburban sprawl have been historically viewed

by many North Americans as socially desirable (Brueckner, 2000; Doberstein et al., 2016;

Pendall, 1999), and thus promoted, despite the detrimental effects of sprawl on deforestation,

climate change, and habitat destruction. Thus, those who perceive suburban sprawl and other

environmentally detrimental social practices as important to human well-being may also perceive

the converse: that environmentally friendly policies, such as increasing housing density, limiting

sprawl, and reducing car dependence, would be deleterious to human well-being. Thus, these

individuals would perceive tension between efforts to improve social sustainability and

environmental sustainability.

Environment vs. the economy.

Another antagonistic relation pits environmental sustainability against economic

sustainability, particularly when economic growth is viewed as necessary to achieve economic

sustainability. Both interests opposing environmental protection (e.g., the fossil fuel industry and

related free-market think tanks; e.g., Heartland Institute, 2019) and a radical subset of the

environmental movement (i.e., dark greens; Purvis et al., 2019) have argued that environmental
 10

protection is inherently in tension with economic growth; with the former arguing that economic

growth should be prioritized and the latter arguing for environmental protection over growth.

Thus, both ideologically-driven neoliberals (those who believe strongly in the power of the free

market to address all economic problems) and “dark greens” may be especially prone to

perceiving this tension (see Dobson & Lucardie, 1995; Heath & Gifford, 2006). This perceived

tension is also artificially created by the wording of a question regularly asked on national

surveys (e.g., Howe, Mildenberger, Marlon, & Leiserowitz, 2015) which asks survey takers

which they value more: environmental protection or economic growth.2 Indeed, some work

suggests that concern about economic costs can undermine support for climate change mitigation

policies (Geiger et al., 2020; Shwom et al., 2010, but also see Mildenberger & Leiserowitz, 2017

for a divergent view).

Society vs. the Economy.

Individuals may also perceive social and economic sustainability to be in tension, perhaps

particularly those who believe that economic growth is necessary for economic sustainability.

Some may believe that policies designed to promote economic growth are likely to promote

inequality and reduce human well-being (i.e., lower social sustainability). For example, huge

increases in economic productivity in China have been associated with massive increases in

inequality and decreases in subjective well-being (Brockmann et al., 2009); thus, it is possible

that many Chinese citizens might perceive this tension.

Perceived Complementarity between Pillars

In contrast to perceptions of tradeoffs as noted above, other possible mental models

emphasize complementary, “win-win” relations, as we explore below.

2
Trend data based on this question over the past 50 years has shown that at most points a solid majority
typically indicates favoring environmental protection over economic growth (Gallup, 2019).
 11

Environment and society.

Many have emphasized the positive connections between environmental preservation and

human well-being. Exposure to nature has been shown to exert powerful benefits on humans’

physical and mental health (Brymer et al., 2019; Kuo, 2015), while pollution has often led to

health problems in lower-income communities (Finkelstein et al., 2003), leading some to argue

that one important reason to preserve the environment (i.e., environmental sustainability) is to

advance human well-being (i.e. social sustainability). This connection has been highlighted by

various voices within the environmental movement since the 19th century (Carmichael et al.,

2012), and may be especially prominent among those negatively affected by pollution and

among cultures with a historical close connection to their natural environment, such as groups

living in less industrialized societies (Guha & Alier, 2013). Other work shows that concerns

about how environmental problems (i.e. a lack of environmental sustainability) will negatively

impact human well-being (i.e. a lack of social sustainability) are widely held even in wealthy

industrialized countries (Schultz, 2001).

Environment and the economy.

Some mental models might include the perception that environmental and economic

sustainability are complementary. These mental models may draw off examples such as energy

efficiency, which allows for less resources to be consumed and increased economic output at the

same time. Some argue that economic underdevelopment is a primary cause of environmental

degradation (and thus increasing the economic sustainability of a community is necessary to

increase environmental sustainability; Brown, 1999), while others believe that responsible

management of environmental resources (environmental sustainability; e.g., sustainable forestry

or fishing) creates important long-term economic benefits (economic sustainability). Still others
 12

refer to the “resource curse”, the counterintuitive finding that the economies in regions and

countries that heavily exploit natural resources (low environmental sustainability) sometimes

tend to grow less than economies in similar countries and regions which do not have similar

resources (Mehlum et al., 2006); potentially because relying on natural resources as an income

source can reduce economic diversification (low economic sustainability). Perceptions of

complementarity between these two pillars can be perceived either within a capitalistic, market-

based framework (e.g., “green” consumption; promoting energy efficiency through a carbon tax;

Vandenbergh & Gilligan, 2017) or through non-market mechanisms (public funds being

dedicated to stimulating the economy through increasing renewable energy availability;

volunteers improving energy efficiency in homes).

Society and the economy.

Some might view social and economic sustainability as being complementary. For

example, some argue that free-market capitalism is both the most socially sustainable (they argue

that capitalism has diminished poverty more than other economic systems) and economically

sustainable (they argue that capitalism is the best system to promote sustained economic growth

and efficiency) economic system (Caccavello, 2015). These individuals might thus argue that

policies which bolster free-market capitalism support both social and economic sustainability.

Others argue that progressive or social democratic policies which redistribute income to the

middle and working classes are the most socially sustainable (because distributing money more

evenly across a population is more equitable) and economically sustainable (because average

people are more likely than the ultra-wealthy to spend increases in income and thus boost the

economy; Hanauer, 2019). Those holding these beliefs middle and working classes might also
 13

perceive the boom-bust cycle of unregulated capitalism as being less socially and economically

sustainable.

Triadic Mental Models of Sustainability

Examining dyadic relations between each of the three pillars of sustainability in isolation

of each other does not fully consider holistic considerations of the entire triadic model. To

understand unique characteristics of these triadic mental models, we draw upon balance theory

(Heider, 1946; Insko, 1984). Balance theory has been used in a variety of circumstances (e.g.,

Han, Seo, & Ko, 2017; Sternberg, 1998) to understand how some tripartite mental models are

stable while others are unstable, making the latter less likely to be adopted and easily prone to

change if they are adopted. This framework proposes that triadic mental models are balanced (i.e.

stable) when either a) all three dyadic relationships are perceived to be positive (i.e., the friend of

my friend is my friend) or b) one of the dyadic relationships is perceived to be positive with the

other two negative (i.e. the friend of my enemy is my enemy). In contrast, mental models where

all three dyadic relationships are negative (i.e. the enemy of my enemy is my enemy) or where

two are positive with one negative (i.e. the friend of my friend is my enemy) are unbalanced (i.e.

unstable). Balance theory can be thought of as a specific application of cognitive dissonance

theory (Festinger, 1962), which proposes that holding two or more contradictory beliefs leads to

psychological discomfort. This discomfort motivates individuals to address the contradiction by

either changing one of the contradictory beliefs or finding an explanation for why they do not

actually contradict (Elliot & Devine, 1994).

Within the current context, balance theory suggests that perceived dyadic relations among

the three pillars of sustainability combine to create either balanced or unbalanced mental models

dependent upon patterns of positive (complementary) and negative (tradeoff-based) relations.

 14

Because unbalanced mental models are unstable, individuals should be motivated to avoid

imbalanced mental models and to update beliefs within a portion of existing imbalanced models

to achieve model balance (the four possible balanced models are shown in Figure 1). Because

strongly held beliefs are more resistant to change than weakly held beliefs (Petty et al., 1995;

Pomerantz et al., 1995), belief updating may be most likely to occur within the portion of the

model where one is less sure about the nature of the relation. Thus, among those who do not have

strong mental models about the relations between the three pillars of sustainability to begin with,

narratives and messaging strategies which clearly communicate relationships between two of the

pathways, creating strongly held beliefs among these two portions, may be likely to influence the

perceived relationship in the third path. However, for individuals who already strongly perceive a

relation between two of the pillars, persuasion attempts which ignore this pre-existing belief

could backfire if they create an unstable mental model which is likely to either be unconvincing

or shift to another model inconsistent with the desired messaging effort.

<Place Figure 1 about here>

Below we provide illustrations of the implications of consideration of balance among the

pillars. We first consider examples of social narratives which could lead to mental models with

two pillars positively related to one another and each of these two pillars negatively related to the

third pillar (i.e., one positive relation and two negative relations; Figure 1a-1c), then we consider

the possibility of a mental model with all three pillars positively related (Figure 1d). Although to

date there is limited empirical research into the extent to which individuals endorse each of these

models, the below examples illustrate how each of the models could arise and hopefully

stimulate ideas for future basic and applied research.

 15

Environment vs. Society and the Economy: Environmental Protection or Good Jobs and

Social Programs?

One balanced mental model of sustainability views economic and social sustainability to

be complementary and both economic and social sustainability in tension with environmental

sustainability (Figure 1a). It is possible that this mental model could be relatively common in

regions which are economically dependent on resource extraction and especially convincing

when the government uses some of the proceeds of this resource extraction to provide universal

social benefits or assistance for lower-income citizens (e.g., Alaska, Saudi Arabia, Venezuela; see

Dayen, 2018), or when workers’ unions argue that environmental protection would harm both

workers and the economy (e.g., Furnas & Drutman, 2014). In this case, a common narrative in

these regions may be that resource extraction, although bad for the environment (not

environmentally sustainable), is critical for the long-term economic sustainability of the region

(that is, environmental and economic sustainability are in tension). Further, resource extraction is

framed as closely related to citizens’ well-being because it provides well-paying jobs which lift

people out of poverty and taxes resulting from economic activity and growth allow the

government to fund generous social benefits (suggesting that economic and social sustainability

are complementary). Thus, by extension, individuals who accept these two premises may be

motivated to believe that environmental sustainability is in tension with social sustainability in

order to achieve balance in their mental model.

This notion that resource extraction supports economic and social sustainability despite

its negative impacts on environmental sustainability may be unconvincing to people who hold

strong pre-existing beliefs about the complementary relations between social sustainability and

environmental sustainability. For example, individuals within indigenous groups whose lands
 16

are being negatively impacted by resource extraction (or advocates who care about these groups)

are likely to perceive a decline (rather than an increase) in social sustainability as a result of the

loss of environmental sustainability (thus perceiving these two components to be positively

related to one another; see Guha & Alier, 2013). Thus, if these individuals accept the other two

portions of the above narrative, it would create an unstable mental model. One way to resolve

the unstable model would be to accept that environmental sustainability is in tension with

economic sustainability, but contrary to the prevailing narrative listed above, that economic

sustainability is also in tension with social sustainability (thereby creating a stable model with

one positive and two different negative relations; Figure 1c). These individuals might be open to

messaging suggesting how the harms to society promoted by economic development outweigh

any potential benefits and create a net negative toward human well-being. Another way to

resolve the unstable model is to accept that economic sustainability is complementary to social

sustainability but that true economic sustainability also requires environmental protection

(creating three positive relations; Figure 1d). These individuals might readily accept a message

suggesting that resource extraction is not economically (or socially) sustainable in the long term

because it allows them to resolve the conflict.

Society vs. the Environment and Economy: Neoliberal (or Third Way) Environmental

Protection

A second possible balanced mental model views economic and environmental

sustainability as complementary and both economic and environmental sustainability as in

tension with social sustainability (Figure 1b). This might be most clearly illustrated in situations

where neoliberal policymakers and communicators lay out an agenda for “business-friendly”

environmental protection which appears to particularly harm lower-income individuals, while

 17

also framing cutting social programs or workers’ protections as necessary to ensure economic

vitality. For example, French President Emmanuel Macron’s political platform has involved two

central and particularly controversial interconnected political planks: 1) “Making the Climate

Great Again” by reducing dependence on fossil fuels (i.e., environmental sustainability) using

business-friendly measures (potentially viewed as economic sustainability) , and 2)

“modernizing the economy” by reducing workers’ rights and cutting taxes on the wealthy

(framed as fostering economic sustainability, but at the potential expense of social sustainability;

Ezrati, 2018). Although his environmental platform sought to make a number of changes, the

most controversial and highest profile environmental policy involved an increase in the gas tax

(later reversed; Nossiter, 2018). Many were concerned that this tax would negatively impact

lower-income rural people who were dependent on driving (i.e., reduced social sustainability).

Thus, taken together, the Macron agenda may have promoted a narrative for many that economic

sustainability and environmental sustainability were complementary and that both economic and

environmental sustainability were in tension with social sustainability (i.e., some supporters may

have appeared to be arguing that the social sustainability had been overly emphasized in the past

and now it needed to be reduced to reach a sustainable economy and a healthy environment).

Those who perceive social and economic sustainability to be complementary may not

endorse this model. For example, some in rural areas perceived that Macron’s policies would

shift money from their communities to the wealthy; which would both harm lower-income

people in their communities and exacerbate the long-term economic decline of their regions

(Nossiter, 2018). Yet, perceiving these two pillars to be complementary while concurring with

the rest of the model in Figure 1b would create an unstable mental model. These individuals

may thus be motivated to attend to messaging arguing that environmental protection is likely to
 18

harm both the social and economic sustainability of their community (creating the model shown

in Figure 1a). Alternatively, they might find arguments that Macron’s policies are ineffective at

addressing environmental sustainability and that truly effective environmental policy would also

promote social sustainability (creating the model shown in Figure 1d) to be persuasive.

The Economy vs. the Environment and Society: Degrowth

A third balanced mental model views social and environmental sustainability as

complementary, with both social and environmental sustainability as in tension with economic

sustainability (Figure 1c). This mental model could be fostered by exposure to messaging from

degrowth advocates who suggest that reducing the number of hours that people work in a work

day (even if this reduces economic growth) could 1) improve human well-being (i.e., social

sustainability) by allowing people more free time to enjoy their lives and socialize with their

community, and 2) improve environmental sustainability by decreasing resource consumption

(Gunderson, 2019). Thus, this message implies a tension between economic growth (viewed by

some as necessary for economic sustainability) and both social and environmental sustainability.

Degrowth advocates argue this tension should be resolved by reducing or reversing economic

growth (Kallis et al., 2012). In contrast, the implication of this messaging is that structural

changes which improve environmental sustainability will also be beneficial for social

sustainability.

Individuals who strongly disagree with one of these three proposed dyadic relationships

might be less likely to develop and retain this mental model. For example, those who highly

value careers as a primary source of existential meaning might have concerns that reducing

individuals’ work hours would be detrimental to their well-being (i.e. that degrowth would harm

both social and economic sustainability; thus, perceiving a complementary relation between
 19

economic and social sustainability). If these individuals were to accept the other two proposed

paths in Figure 1c, this would create an unstable model (two positive and one negative). This

unstable model could be resolved by changing one of the other two paths. For example,

individuals could come to also believe that economic and environmental sustainability are

complementary (thus adopting Figure 1d). These individuals could be open to accepting

messaging suggesting that degrowth is likely to also harm the environment by preventing the

development of clean energy technology and by giving people more leisure time with which to

consume in an environmentally harmful manner (i.e., that degrowth harms all three pillars and

thus all three pillars may be complementary; Figure 1d).

Compatibility of All Three Pillars of Sustainability

A fourth balanced model is one in which all three pillars are perceived as complementary

to one another (Figure 1d). For example, the Green New Deal framework, which suggests a

broad array of economic, social, and environmental reforms designed to address climate change,

create jobs, and reduce inequality (Roberts, 2018), might promote the formation of this model.

By bundling these reforms into a single package, this proposal may promote a narrative of

positive interconnections between environmental, social and economic sustainability. Research

suggests that messaging which makes these positive interconnections salient can increase support

for policies designed to address climate change (Bergquist et al., 2020), and (in the US) perhaps

particularly for political conservatives (Gustafson et al., 2020, but also see Geiger et al., 2020).

Some may not find the framework promoted by the Green New Deal convincing. For

example, a person who perceives there to be a strong negative relation between economic and

environmental sustainability may be resistant to messages arguing that policies designed to foster

a more equitable society can also promote both environmental protection and economic growth,
 20

because holding these combination of beliefs would create an unstable mental model with one

negative relation and two positive relations. Thus, this individual might be motivated to perceive

tension in one of the other dyadic relations. These individuals may be motivated to accept

messaging suggesting that the environmental and other policies promoted by the Green New

Deal will harm not only the economy but also people’s well-being (lower social sustainability);

thus also perceiving a tension between environmental sustainability and social sustainability (see

Figure 1a), or alternatively, a message suggesting that there is a tradeoff between the economy

and people’s quality of life (tension between economic and social sustainability; Figure 1c).

Assessing the Content of Mental Models

Qualitative and quantitative work is needed to assess the prevalence of each possible

types of mental models noted above. At the most basic level, survey questions could simply ask

participants (representing of a population of interest) to what extent they view each dyad as

being complementary vs. in tension and use the results of this information to construct

individuals’ supposed mental models. Qualitative work (e.g., thematic analysis; Braun & Clarke,

2006) could provide deeper insights into mental models, examining which paths in a given

individual’s mental model are most salient to that individual, sources of mental models, and

conditions under which unbalanced mental models could evoke less dissonance (and thus be less

unstable). Relatedly, content analyses (for example, see Stecula & Merkley, 2019) could assess

how connections between each of the three pillars are presented in the media. Eventually, survey

items that assess models could be developed to identify who is most likely to endorse different

mental models. Research could also test assumptions about the dyadic paths. For example,

research could test whether people perceive dyadic relations to be equivalent regardless of

whether actions or policies are primarily intended to target one pillar or the other (e.g., whether
 21

those who perceive that actions fostering environmental sustainability will be good for social

sustainability also perceive that actions fostering social sustainability will be good for

environmental sustainability). Research could also test whether people adjust perceptions of

complementarity or tension between pillars based upon information that creates an imbalanced

mental model and conditions and strategies that people may use to live with imbalanced mental

models, such as ignoring or minimizing the importance of certain dyadic paths.

Following this initial work assessing details of mental models and developing effective

ways to measure this construct, research could turn to practical implications of the model that

can be used to develop more effective strategies of communicating about sustainability.

Communication researchers could develop and test persuasive messages which build on our

understanding of mental models. Specifically, research should test whether messages are more

effective when tailored to match individuals’ existing mental models or whether a one-size-fits-

all approach is more effective, perhaps because it shifts the salience of mental models. For

example, previous research on framing has demonstrated the effectiveness of messages

highlighting the social and economic co-benefits of climate action (Bain et al., 2016; Bergquist et

al., 2020); future work should examine whether these messages are equally effective among

those who already perceive these pillars to be aligned (i.e. Figure 1d) vs. among those who

perceive one or more of the dyads to be in tension. Although it is possible that such a frame

might be effective for all as it makes this mental model salient, an alternative possibility is that a

message frame highlighting the tension between a dyad might be perceived as more credible to

those who already perceive that tension. Future work should empirically evaluate these

competing hypotheses.
 22

Reflective Questions

1. Why is it important to understand lay individuals’ mental models of sustainability?

2. How are the key sustainability constructs presented and defined in this chapter?

3. What are some examples of experiences or messages which could promote the perception of

specific dyadic relations?

4. Why is it important to examine triadic mental models (vs. perceived dyadic relations)?

5. What does the chapter suggest would be likely to lead to a perceived unbalanced mental

model? How does it suggest this lack of balance could be resolved?

6. What are possible methodological approaches discussed here to analyze and explore mental

models and messaging strategies based on these models?

 23

Recommended Readings

Bloomberg, M., & Pope, C. (2017). Climate of hope: How cities, businesses, and citizens can

save the planet. St. Martin’s Press.

Carley, K., & Palmquist, M. (1992). Extracting, representing, and analyzing mental models.

Social Forces, 70(3), 601–636.

Gentner, D., & Stevens, A. L. (2014). Mental Models. Psychology Press.

Klein, N. (2014). This Changes Everything: Capitalism Vs. The Climate. Simon and Schuster.

Purvis, B., Mao, Y., & Robinson, D. (2019). Three pillars of sustainability: in search of

conceptual origins. Sustainability Science, 14(3), 681–695. https://doi.org/10/gf33s4

Tulloch, L., & Neilson, D. (2014). The Neoliberalisation of Sustainability. Citizenship, Social

and Economics Education, 13(1), 26–38. https://doi.org/10/gf388f

Zajonc, R. B. (1960). The Concepts of Balance, Congruity, and Dissonance. The Public Opinion

Quarterly, 24(2), 280–296. https://doi.org/10/ds3367

 24

References

Bain, P. G., Milfont, T. L., Kashima, Y., Bilewicz, M., Doron, G., Garðarsdóttir, R. B., Gouveia,

V. V., Guan, Y., Johansson, L.-O., & Pasquali, C. (2016). Co-benefits of addressing

climate change can motivate action around the world. Nature Climate Change, 6(2), 154.

https://doi.org/10/8w8

Bergquist, P., Mildenberger, M., & Stokes, L. (2020). Combining climate, economic, and social

policy builds public support for climate action in the US. Environmental Research

Letters. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/ab81c1

Bloom, D. E. (1995). International Public Opinion on the Environment. Science, 269(5222),

354–358. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.269.5222.354

Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in

Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa

Brockmann, H., Delhey, J., Welzel, C., & Yuan, H. (2009). The China Puzzle: Falling Happiness

in a Rising Economy. Journal of Happiness Studies, 10(4), 387–405.

https://doi.org/10/cgh747

Brown, M. (1999, December 13). Economic Growth is Good for Environmental Protection.

PERC. https://www.perc.org/1999/12/13/economic-growth-is-good-for-environmental-

protection/

Brueckner, J. K. (2000). Urban Sprawl: Diagnosis and Remedies. International Regional Science

Review, 23(2), 160–171. https://doi.org/10.1177/016001700761012710

Brymer, E., Freeman, D. E. L., & Richardson, M. (2019). Editorial: One Health: The wellbeing

impacts of human-nature relationships. Frontiers in Psychology, 10.

https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01611
 25

Caccavello, G. (2015, September 7). Inequality, Poverty, “The Free Market” and Capitalism:

The story of a wonderful success. Austrian Economics Center.

https://www.austriancenter.com/inequality-poverty-the-free-market-and-capitalism-the-

story-of-a-wonderful-success/

Carmichael, J. T., Jenkins, J. C., & Brulle, R. J. (2012). Building environmentalism: The

founding of environmental movement organizations in the United States, 1900–2000. The

Sociological Quarterly, 53(3), 422–453. https://doi.org/10/f327bf

Dahlbeck, J. (2014). Hope and fear in education for sustainable development. Critical Studies in

Education, 55(2), 154–169. https://doi.org/10/f22dh2

Daly, H. E. (1973). Toward a steady-state economy (Vol. 2). WH Freeman.

Daly, H. E. (1990). Toward some operational principles of sustainable development. Ecological

Economics, 2(1), 1–6.

Dawe, N. K., & Ryan, K. L. (2003). The Faulty Three-Legged-Stool Model of Sustainable

Development. Conservation Biology, 17(5), 1458–1460.

Dayen, D. (2018). Alaska Gives Cash To Citizens Every Year. The Rest Of The U.S. Could Too.

HuffPost. https://www.huffpost.com/entry/sovereign-wealth-fund-for-america-alaska-

norway_n_5b83ffb7e4b0cd327dfe878e

de Vries, C. E., & Giger, N. (2014). Holding governments accountable? Individual heterogeneity

in performance voting: Holding governments accountable? European Journal of Political

Research, 53(2), 345–362. https://doi.org/10/f5v9p4

Denzau, A. T., & North, D. C. (1994). Shared Mental Models: Ideologies and Institutions.

Kyklos, 47(1), 3–31. https://doi.org/10/dss4r5

 26

Doberstein, C., Hickey, R., & Li, E. (2016). Nudging NIMBY: Do positive messages regarding

the benefits of increased housing density influence resident stated housing development

preferences? Land Use Policy, 54, 276–289. https://doi.org/10/f8nxx9

Dobson, A., & Lucardie, P. (1995). The politics of nature: Explorations in green political theory.

Psychology Press.

Dsouli, O., Khan, N., Kakabadse, N. K., & Skouloudis, A. (2018). Mitigating the Davos

dilemma: Towards a global self-sustainability index. International Journal of Sustainable

Development & World Ecology, 25(1), 81–98.

https://doi.org/10.1080/13504509.2016.1278565

Edlin, A., Gelman, A., & Kaplan, N. (2007). Voting as a rational choice: Why and how people

vote to improve the well-being of others. Rationality and Society, 19(3), 293–314.

https://doi.org/10/fr3fd7

Elkington, J. (1999). Cannibals with Forks: The Triple Bottom Line of 21st Century Business.

Capstone Publishing Ltd.

Elliot, A. J., & Devine, P. G. (1994). On the motivational nature of cognitive dissonance:

Dissonance as psychological discomfort. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,

67(3), 382. https://doi.org/10/gq4

Elliott, H. (1997). A general statement of the tragedy of the commons. Population and

Environment, 18(6), 515–531. https://doi.org/10/cgb7v2

Ezrati, M. (2018). Will Macron Lead A French Economic Resurgence? Forbes.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/miltonezrati/2018/03/19/will-macron-lead-a-french-

economic-resurgence/
 27

Festinger, L. (1962). Cognitive Dissonance. SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN, 15.

https://doi.org/10/ch2bj5

Finkelstein, M. M., Jerrett, M., DeLuca, P., Finkelstein, N., Verma, D. K., Chapman, K., & Sears,

M. R. (2003). Relation between income, air pollution and mortality: A cohort study.

Cmaj, 169(5), 397–402.

Furnas, A., & Drutman, L. (2014, July 10). Labor is split on supporting Keystone XL, but not on

lobbying for it. Sunlight Foundation. https://sunlightfoundation.com/2014/07/10/labor-

keystonexl/

Gallup. (2019). Preference for Environment Over Economy Largest Since 2000. Gallup.Com.

https://news.gallup.com/poll/248243/preference-environment-economy-largest-2000.aspx

Geiger, N., Swim, J., & Benson, L. (2020). Lay evaluations of the three pillars of sustainability:

A multilevel approach to assessing predictors of support for climate policies.

Gentner, D., & Stevens, A. L. (2014). Mental Models. Psychology Press.

Guha, R., & Alier, J. M. (2013). Varieties of Environmentalism: Essays North and South.

Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315070766

Gunderson, R. (2019). Work time reduction and economic democracy as climate change

mitigation strategies: Or why the climate needs a renewed labor movement. Journal of

Environmental Studies and Sciences, 9(1), 35–44. https://doi.org/10/gfz6bm

Gustafson, A., Goldberg, M. H., Kotcher, J. E., Rosenthal, S. A., Maibach, E. W., Ballew, M. T.,

& Leiserowitz, A. (2020). Republicans and Democrats differ in why they support

renewable energy. Energy Policy, 141, 111448. https://doi.org/10/ggsczq

 28

Han, J., Seo, Y., & Ko, E. (2017). Staging luxury experiences for understanding sustainable

fashion consumption: A balance theory application. Journal of Business Research, 74,

162–167. https://doi.org/10/gf4rvb

Hanauer, N. (2019). A Sympathetic Zillionaire’s Advice to Democrats Tonight—POLITICO

Magazine. https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2019/06/26/democratic-debate-

economy-middle-class-analysis-growth-227217

Hancock, T. (1993). Health, human development and the community ecosystem: Three

ecological models. Health Promotion International, 8(1), 41–47.

https://doi.org/10/bp3pm9

Hardin, G. (1996). Lifeboat ethics: The case against helping the poor. World Hunger and

Morality, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Heartland Institute. (2019). Economics of Climate Change.

https://www.heartland.org/topics/climate-change/economics/index.html

Heath, Y., & Gifford, R. (2006). Free-Market Ideology and Environmental Degradation: The

Case of Belief in Global Climate Change. Environment and Behavior, 38(1), 48–71.

https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916505277998

Heider, F. (1946). Attitudes and cognitive organization. The Journal of Psychology, 21(1), 107–

112. https://doi.org/10/cq295s

Holden, E., Linnerud, K., & Banister, D. (2014). Sustainable development: Our Common Future

revisited. Global Environmental Change, 26(Supplement C), 130–139.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2014.04.006

Holfelder, A.-K. (2019). Towards a sustainable future with education? Sustainability Science,

14(4), 943–952. https://doi.org/10/gf33tc

 29

Howe, P. D., Mildenberger, M., Marlon, J. R., & Leiserowitz, A. (2015). Geographic variation in

opinions on climate change at state and local scales in the USA. Nature Climate Change,

5(6), 596.

Insko, C. A. (1984). Balance Theory, The Jordan Paradigm, and The Wiest Tetrahedron. In L.

Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology (Vol. 18, pp. 89–140).

Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60143-4

IPCC. (2014). Climate Change 2014: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and

III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (R.

K. Pachauri & L. Mayer, Eds.). IPCC. http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-

report/ar5/syr/SYR_AR5_FINAL_full.pdf

James, P. (2014). Urban sustainability in theory and practice: Circles of sustainability.

Routledge.

Kallis, G., Kerschner, C., & Martinez-Alier, J. (2012). The economics of degrowth. Ecological

Economics, 84, 172–180. https://doi.org/10/gfpjtp

Kubiszewski, I., Costanza, R., Franco, C., Lawn, P., Talberth, J., Jackson, T., & Aylmer, C.

(2013). Beyond GDP: Measuring and achieving global genuine progress. Ecological

Economics, 93, 57–68. https://doi.org/10/m53

Kuo, M. (2015). How might contact with nature promote human health? Promising mechanisms

and a possible central pathway. Frontiers in Psychology, 6. https://doi.org/10/f3qsjw

Lehtonen, M. (2004). The environmental–social interface of sustainable development:

Capabilities, social capital, institutions. Ecological Economics, 49(2), 199–214.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2004.03.019
 30

Leiserowitz, A., Maibach, E., Rosenthal, S., Kotcher, J., Ballew, M., Goldberg, M., & Gustafson,

A. (2018). Climate change in the American mind: December 2018. Yale University and

George Mason University. http://climatecommunication.yale.edu/wp-

content/uploads/2019/01/Climate-Change-American-Mind-December-2018.pdf

Macnaghten, P., & Jacobs, M. (1997). Public identification with sustainable development:

Investigating cultural barriers to participation. Global Environmental Change, 7(1), 5–24.

https://doi.org/10/drh7r5

Mehlum, H., Moene, K., & Torvik, R. (2006). Institutions and the resource curse. The Economic

Journal, 116(508), 1–20. https://doi.org/10/fkm3j2

Meyer, C. (2018). Perceptions of the environment and environmental issues in Stellenbosch,

South Africa: A mixed-methods approach. Stellenbosch: Stellenbosch University.

Mildenberger, M., & Leiserowitz, A. (2017). Public opinion on climate change: Is there an

economy–environment tradeoff? Environmental Politics, 26(5), 801–824.

https://doi.org/10.1080/09644016.2017.1322275

Missirian, A., & Schlenker, W. (2017). Asylum applications respond to temperature fluctuations.

Science, 358(6370), 1610–1614. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aao0432

Nossiter, A. (2018, December 4). France Suspends Fuel Tax Increase That Spurred Violent

Protests. The New York Times.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/04/world/europe/france-fuel-tax-yellow-vests.html

Pendall, R. (1999). Opposition to Housing: NIMBY and Beyond. Urban Affairs Review, 35(1),

112–136. https://doi.org/10/fkcjvr
 31

Petty, R. E., Haugtvedt, C. P., & Smith, S. M. (1995). Elaboration as a determinant of attitude

strength: Creating attitudes that are persistent, resistant, and predictive of behavior.

Attitude Strength: Antecedents and Consequences, 4(93–130).

Piketty, T. (2014). Capital in the twenty-first century (A. Goldhammer, Trans.). The Belknap

Press of Harvard University Press.

Pomerantz, E. M., Chaiken, S., & Tordesillas, R. S. (1995). Attitude strength and resistance

processes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69(3), 408–419.

https://doi.org/10/dn8fx6

Purvis, B., Mao, Y., & Robinson, D. (2019). Three pillars of sustainability: In search of

conceptual origins. Sustainability Science, 14(3), 681–695. https://doi.org/10/gf33s4

Roberts, D. (2018, December 21). The Green New Deal, explained. Vox.

https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2018/12/21/18144138/green-new-deal-

alexandria-ocasio-cortez

Schultz, P. W. (2001). THE STRUCTURE OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERN: CONCERN

FOR SELF, OTHER PEOPLE, AND THE BIOSPHERE. Journal of Environmental

Psychology, 21(4), 327–339. https://doi.org/10.1006/jevp.2001.0227

Shwom, R., Bidwell, D., Dan, A., & Dietz, T. (2010). Understanding US public support for

domestic climate change policies. Global Environmental Change, 20(3), 472–482.

https://doi.org/10/d5w3bg

Slapper, T. F., & Hall, T. J. (2011). The Triple Bottom Line: What Is It and How Does It Work?

Indiana Business Review, Spring, 4–8.

Spangenberg, J. H. (2005). Economic sustainability of the economy: Concepts and indicators.

International Journal of Sustainable Development, 8(1/2), 47. https://doi.org/10/bdnv8w

 32

Spence, M. (2016). Economics in a Time of Political Instability. Council on Foreign Relations.

https://www.cfr.org/blog/economics-time-political-instability

Stecula, D. A., & Merkley, E. (2019). Framing Climate Change: Economics, Ideology, and

Uncertainty in American News Media Content From 1988 to 2014. Frontiers in

Communication, 4. https://doi.org/10.3389/fcomm.2019.00006

Sternberg, R. J. (1998). A balance theory of wisdom. Review of General Psychology, 2(4), 347–

365. https://doi.org/10/d3s6d7

UNESCO. (2017). Learning for sustainable development goals.

http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0024/002474/247444e.pdf

United Nations. (2015). Transforming our world: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable

Development. http://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/RES/70/1&Lang=E

Vandenbergh, M. P., & Gilligan, J. M. (2017). Beyond Politics. Cambridge University Press.

Wasserman, S., & Faust, K. (1994). Social network analysis: Methods and applications (Vol. 8).

Cambridge University Press.

World Commission on Environment and Development. (1987). Our common future. Oxford

University Press.

Zajonc, R. B. (1960). The Concepts of Balance, Congruity, and Dissonance. The Public Opinion

Quarterly, 24(2), 280–296. JSTOR. https://doi.org/10/ds3367

33
34
35
36
37
38
 39

Figure 1. Visual depictions of the four possible balanced mental models.