Self–Other Relations in Biodiversity Conservation in the Community: Representational Processes and Adjustment to New Actions

Abstract

This research explores the simultaneous role of two Self–Other relations in the elaboration of representations at the micro‐ and ontogenetic levels, assuming that it can result in acceptance and/or resistance to new laws. Drawing on the Theory of Social Representations, it concretely looks at how individuals elaborate new representations relevant for biodiversity conservation in the context of their relations with their local community (an interactional Other) and with the legal/reified sphere (an institutional Other). This is explored in two studies in Portuguese Natura 2000 sites where a conservation project calls residents to protect an at‐risk species. Study 1 shows that (i) agreement with the institutional Other (the laws) and meta‐representations of the interactional Other (the community) as approving of conservation independently help explain (at the ontogenetic level) internalisation of conservation goals and willingness to act; (ii) the same meta‐representations operating at the micro‐genetic level attenuate the negative relation between ambivalence and willingness to act. Study 2 shows that a meta‐representation of the interactional Other as showing no clear position regarding conservation increases ambivalence. Findings demonstrate the necessarily social nature of representational processes and the importance of considering them at more than one level for understanding responses to new policy/legal proposals. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Talking in defence of species conservation: the role of laws and community norms conflicts across stages of a communicative action / La defensa de la conservación de las especies: el papel de los conflictos entre las leyes y las normas de la comunidad en diversas etapas de una acción comunicativa

“…A fundamental part of law-related changes is thus the joint elaboration of the new meanings and the communicative exchanges within the community about them (Mouro & Castro, 2016). In line with this, previous research showed how agreeing with the conservation laws and holding meta-representations of the community as favouring the protection a species is positively related to talking in defence of an at-risk species (Mouro & Castro, 2016). Yet the combinedor conflicting -effect of these two sources of influence and pressure for change has not been studied.…”

“…Considering multiple in-groups is consistent with the SRT view that various types of self-other relations always mediate the sense making regarding (new) objects (Moscovici, 1972). For the case at hand, this means that the Self works with beliefs about what fellow residents (the community Other) do and approve, and what the State (the institutional Other of the nation) approves (Elcheroth et al, 2011;Mouro & Castro, 2016). And that these meta-representations can either encourage resistance to the laws, thereby delaying change, or, when one agrees with what the law prescribes, stimulate change and help stabilize new meaning and actions (Mouro & Castro, 2016).…”

“…For the case at hand, this means that the Self works with beliefs about what fellow residents (the community Other) do and approve, and what the State (the institutional Other of the nation) approves (Elcheroth et al, 2011;Mouro & Castro, 2016). And that these meta-representations can either encourage resistance to the laws, thereby delaying change, or, when one agrees with what the law prescribes, stimulate change and help stabilize new meaning and actions (Mouro & Castro, 2016). In this last case, a conflict between what the laws prescribe and community norms may prompt the person to "become the change s/he wants to see in the world" (Smith et al, 2015;also McDonald et al, 2014a), and to speak out in order to try to persuade others (Smith et al, 2015).…”

“…The literature on norm conflicts, however, reports mixed results, showing that conflicting informal norms may instead sometimes encourage actione.g., when norms are associated with in-groups (McDonald, Fielding & Louis, 2014a). In the present study we thus look at the community and the laws as two relevant sources of pressure for change and elaboration of new meaning (Mouro & Castro, 2016), and examine whether the clashes between themi.e. between perceived community norms and agreeing with what the conservation laws prescribe for the community -are associated with residents' engagement with new conservation actions.…”

“…This, in turn, allows us to zoom into the processes of meaning making taking place at each stage. The TTM contemplates a set of individual-level processes (e.g., ambivalence, self-efficacy) happening across stages, but fails to take into account community-level and societal-level variablessuch as perceived community norms and agreement with the lawsthat may also shape the construction of meaning and the decision taking processes involved in behavioural change (Castro, 2012;Elcheroth, Doise & Reicher, 2011;Mouro & Castro, 2016). Here we will tackle these lacunae by examining the prevalence of conflict between the law and community norms for residents at the different stages of the TTM.…”