Psychology in an Age of Ecological Crisis
From Personal Angst to Collective Action
Daniel Stokols, Shalini Misra, Miryha Gould Runnerstrom, and J. Aaron Hipp
University of California, Irvine
Recent technological, geophysical, and societal forces have
fundamentally altered the structure and functioning of human
environments. Prominent among these forces are the
rise of the Internet; rapid rates of global environmental
change; and widening rifts among different socioeconomic,
racial, religious, and ethnic groups. The present article
traces the influence of these conditions on individuals’
cognition, behavior, and well-being. New theoretical questions
are raised and conceptual frameworks proposed to
understand how global conditions are restructuring people’s
relationships with their everyday environments. New
directions for psychological research and practice aimed
at reducing global threats to personal and societal wellbeing
are discussed.
Keywords: global environmental and social change, virtual
and place-based settings, psychological stress, restorative
environments
We live in an era fraught with technological hazards, degraded
natural resources, and the pervasive threat of global conflict . . . .
Many regions of the world continue to be plagued by war,
millions of people in the Third World are ravaged by disease and
famine, and people in industrialized nations are becoming painfully
aware of the health costs resulting from their exposure to
environmental pollution and other by-products of high technology.
(Stokols, 1992, p. 6)
The war in Afghanistan, the fight against terrorism, the war in
Iraq . . . . Back home there’s the struggling economy to deal with.
The housing market collapsed, and inflation is on the rise and
there’s fear we are already in a recession. There is also, of course,
the environment and global warming. The warnings continue with
greater urgency about a threat facing not just the country, but the
world and future generations. (Cooper, 2008)
In the 16 years separating those statements, the world
has witnessed the 9/11 terrorist attacks, genocidal killings
in Darfur, the Lebanon War, the Indian Ocean
tsunami, Hurricane Katrina, and a host of other disasters.
One billion members of the world’s population now live in
slums, and citizens of both industrialized and developing
countries are becoming increasingly worried about the public
health impacts of global destabilization (Davis, 2006;
UNFPA, 2007; UN-HABITAT, 2003). Two decades ago,
global problems and their pervasive impacts on local life
were coming into focus among scientists working in fields
ranging from atmospheric chemistry and molecular biology
to environmental, community, and health psychology; demography;
economics; urban planning; and public health
(cf. Bullard, 1990; Edelstein, 1988; Siver & DeFries,
1990). Concerns about the catastrophic implications of
economic and ecological crises, however, were less salient
and prevalent among the lay public. Yet today, frequent
coverage of these issues in the mass media and in widely
publicized scientific reports has sensitized millions of people
throughout the world to the potentially disastrous consequences
of global problems for their everyday lives and
well-being (cf. Bates, Kundzewicz, Wu, & Palutikof, 2008;
CNN, 2007; Giddens, 2002; Gore, 2006).
In this article, we examine the rapid changes that are
occurring in the structure of human environments at both
local and global levels and the implications of these
changes for personal and public health. Of central concern
are the roles that psychological research and practice can
play in enabling individuals, organizations, and communities
to better manage multiple sources of environmental
change and to collaborate effectively toward reducing their
negative impacts on population health and societal cohe-
sion.
Analyses of psychological phenomena are essential to
understanding the ways in which individuals perceive, experience,
and respond to global threats in the context of
their local communities and behavior settings. There is
growing evidence, for example, that individuals’ worries
about environmental health threats take a toll on their
subjective well-being (Barsky, 1988; Greenhalgh & Wessely,
2004; Petrie et al., 2005; Wandersman & Hallman,
1993). Moreover, people are confronted today by an onslaught
of rapid changes in the structure and functioning of
their residential, work, and community settings owing to
the advent of the Internet and wireless communications
technologies (Jackson, 2008; Stokols, 1999; Wellman &
Haythornthwaite, 2002). Psychological processes such as
environmental cognition, information processing, stress,
and coping play key roles in determining how global conditions
impinge on individuals’ psyche and behavior in the
context of their daily lives (cf. Baum & Fleming, 1993; S.
Daniel Stokols, Department of Psychology and Social Behavior and
Department of Planning, Policy, and Design, University of California,
Irvine; Shalini Misra and Miryha Gould Runnerstrom, Department of
Planning, Policy, and Design, University of California, Irvine; J. Aaron
Hipp, School of Social Ecology, University of California, Irvine.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to
Daniel Stokols, Department of Psychology and Social Behavior, University
of California, Irvine, Irvine, CA 92697. E-mail: dstokols@uci.edu
181April 2009 ● American Psychologist
© 2009 American Psychological Association 0003-066X/09/$12.00
Vol. 64, No. 3, 181–193 DOI: 10.1037/a0014717
Kaplan, 1972; Silver, Holman, McIntosh, Poulin, & GilRivas,
2002).
At the same time, the sources of global problems and
the development of strategies to ameliorate them are
closely linked to psychological and behavioral processes.
Global climate change and the depletion of the earth’s
ozone layer, for instance, are not explainable solely in
terms of atmospheric chemistry—they must be understood
also as by-products of individual motivation and behavior
(e.g., incentive structures that support solo car driving, coal
burning, and the use of aerosol products) that have led, in
the aggregate, to adverse environmental changes (National
Research Council Committee on Global Change Research,
1999; Stern, 1992). Furthermore, solutions to global problems
depend on the ways in which individuals and government
leaders perceive these threats and undertake collective
efforts to resolve them. Particularly important in this
regard is to identify and mobilize the psychological and
situational circumstances that enable individuals to move
from anxiety and passivity in the face of global threats
toward constructive collaborative action.
The ensuing discussion is organized around the following
goals and tasks: (a) Identify major categories of
global change (e.g., technological, geophysical, and social
forces) that have altered the organization and functioning
of local settings and communities in recent decades; (b)
present new theoretical questions and conceptual frameworks
to better understand how global conditions are restructuring
people’s relationships with their sociophysical
surroundings; (c) trace the influence of these global and
local environmental changes on individuals’ cognition, behavior,
and well-being; and (d) consider promising directions
for psychological research and practice that can help
reduce global threats to personal and collective well-being.
Global Sources of Change in Human
Environments
People’s relationships with their environments are not static;
rather, they are characterized by continual change (cf. I.
Altman & Rogoff, 1987; Bronfenbrenner, 1992). Some of
the changes that occur in human environments are incremental
in nature, are confined to a particular setting, and do
not alter the essential qualities and purposes of the setting.
Examples of such changes are temporal phases in the life
cycle of a behavior setting (e.g., a small business), including
its initial establishment, growth, maintenance, modification,
and eventual dissolution (Wicker, 1987). The focus
and timing of these change processes are unique to particular
settings and may not generalize to other similarly
structured settings within a community. In contrast to these
setting-specific changes, human environments occasionally
undergo fundamental shifts in their organization, functioning,
and purposes. These generic transformations of settings
are triggered by abrupt changes in the societal contexts
in which they are embedded. Generic changes extend
to multiple settings making up a particular category of
environments within a community (e.g., the recent proliferation
of home-based businesses and technology-enhanced
classrooms in educational settings made possible by
the Internet). This discussion focuses primarily on generic
transformations of settings, encompassing the pervasive,
nonincremental, externally driven shifts that sometimes
occur in the structure and organization of environments.
Transformative changes in human environments during
the early 21st century are attributable in large part to
certain technological, environmental, and social forces.
One of the most powerful among those is the rapid emergence
of the Internet and digital communications technologies
over the past two decades. These developments have
prompted fundamental shifts in the organization and functioning
of human environments. Whereas behavior settings
used to be organized around a distinct set of activities (e.g.,
parenting within residential settings, occupational activities
within workplaces), contemporary settings have become
more polyfunctional, whereby residential, work, and recreational
functions are now accommodated within the same
environment. The boundaries between individuals’ public
and private spheres have become less distinct, as now both
can be experienced within the same setting (e.g., when a
customer at a coffee house participates in a computer-based
chat with friends located elsewhere or talks to them on her
cell phone). Also, occupants of polyfunctional settings are
more continually accessible by others via cell phones, fax
machines, and computers and, consequently, are coping
with higher rates of communication and distraction than
they experienced in the past (Gleick, 2000; Guzzetta, 2005;
Jackson, 2008).
A second source of change in the functioning of
human environments is the increasing intensity and salience
of global shifts toward planetary warming, environmental
pollution, and the depletion of natural resources.
These geophysical forces are altering people’s sense of
security within various kinds of environments (Matthew,
Daniel
Stokols
182 April 2009 ● American Psychologist
2007; McDonald, 2008). For instance, heightened awareness
of the dangers associated with global warming (e.g.,
potential flooding of coastal plains due to the melting of
glacial ice packs, food shortages and fire dangers in arid
regions) has triggered political debates about the management
of scarce resources (e.g., potable water supplies,
petroleum, natural gas). Also, growing concerns about extreme
weather events are prompting families in some locales
to reassess their attachments to residential environments—for
instance, among those living in highly scenic
but potentially dangerous fire and flood zones (cf. Bates et
al., 2008; Ekins, 2000; Federal Emergency Management
Agency, 2007).
A third category of societal change and destabilization
encompasses the widening disparities among different socioeconomic,
racial, religious, and ethnic groups so evident
today at local, regional, and global levels (Bullard, 1990;
Castells, 1998; National Cancer Institute, 2006; Thomas &
Quinn, 2008). Environmental injustice, terrorism, and
longstanding struggles among groups espousing competing
worldviews are rampant throughout the world (Bullard &
Johnson, 2000; Delpech, 2007; Library of Congress, 2004).
These sociopolitical trends have elevated people’s concerns
about personal and collective safety within a wide range of
environments, including residential neighborhoods, public
spaces, transportation, and recreational settings (Lee &
Farrall, 2008; Stafford, Chandola, & Marmot, 2007).
The technological, geophysical, and sociopolitical
sources of global change noted above are synergistic: They
exert combined as well as separate influences on behavior
and well-being. For instance, the Internet affords individuals
instantaneous and frequent access to vivid descriptions
and imagery of worldwide events such as hurricanes,
floods, wildfires, oil spills, terrorist attacks, and military
conflicts. Continual exposure to information about these
problems raises the salience of global crises and can engender
anxiety and passivity in the face of seemingly
overwhelming threats. Digital technologies also have been
exploited to perpetrate criminal activities (e.g., cyber stalking,
identity theft) and racial prejudice (Ballard, Nornik, &
McKenzie, 2002; U.S. Department of Justice, 2008). Yet,
the Internet and wireless communications have the potential
to be used far more constructively to enable people to
better understand global problems and coordinate their
efforts to solve them. The interrelations among different
types of global change and the ways in which they can be
managed to promote greater stability and well-being are
discussed below. We begin by considering how information
technologies have transformed the structure and functioning
of human environments and the behavioral and
psychological ramifications of those changes.
Structural Changes in Behavior
Settings During the Early 21st
Century
More than three decades ago, Barker and Schoggen (1973)
published a comparative analysis of the behavior settings
they observed in an American town and an English town.
This massive work revealed contrasting types and distributions
of behavior settings in the two communities. Each
town had a relatively stable stock of settings that structured
residents’ day-to-day activities and experiences in each
locale. The tasks of identifying and counting the settings in
each town and categorizing them according to their major
functions (e.g., educational, commercial, recreational, residential)
were relatively straightforward as described by the
authors.
Fast forward to the year 2009: Striking features of
human environments in the context of modernity are the
rapidity with which they change and the diverse range of
activities carried out by participants in settings such as
workplaces, homes, and public spaces. Not only are contemporary
behavior settings increasingly polyfunctional (in
that they combine diverse behavioral programs), but they
also encompass both place-based and cyber-based (or virtual)
components (Blanchard, 2004; Blanchard & Horan,
1998; Stokols, 1999). When Barker, Schoggen, Wicker,
and other students of behavior settings published their
influential works during the 1970s and 1980s (e.g., Barker,
1968; Barker & Schoggen, 1973; Wicker, 1987), it was
relatively simple to identify the spatial and temporal
boundaries of settings located in a particular region and
categorize each setting according to its major behavioral
functions (e.g., residential, occupational). Nowadays, the
boundaries of many settings extend beyond specific geographical
coordinates to the expanding domain of cyberspace,
and they encompass diverse activities that are not
easily grouped into singular, simplex categories (Stokols &
Montero, 2002; Wellman, 2001).
Consider, for example, Oldenburg’s (1999) typology
of places. He defined first places as homes, second places
Shalini Misra
183April 2009 ● American Psychologist
as work environments, and third places as “the core settings
of informal public life” (Oldenburg, 1999, p. 16). A
major premise of Oldenburg’s conceptualization of settings
is that cities and towns of varying size should offer their
residents access to a wide array of third places, which
function as a kind of retreat from the pressures of home and
work life. Without third places where residents can mingle
with strangers in a relaxed and informal atmosphere, human
settlements become stifling and dreary.
Although Oldenburg’s (1999) typology offers an alluringly
simple and straightforward conceptualization of
settings, it no longer captures the growing diversity and
complexity of human environments (Guzzetta, 2005). For
instance, Oldenburg’s typology omits hybrid places, in
which the functions of first and second, second and third,
and first and third places are merged within the same
environment. Examples of this trend toward hybridization
of human environments include residential settings that are
wired to enable residents to work at home on a daily basis;
workplaces that now offer various domestic and recreational
services such as day-care centers, fitness centers,
athletic fields, and meditation rooms; and third places like
coffee shops and Internet cafes that are often populated by
solitary computer workers who interact more closely with
their laptops and cell phones than with fellow customers in
their immediate vicinity.
Considering the substantial changes that have occurred
and will continue to emerge in the design and
functioning of human environments, it is timely to rethink
earlier conceptualizations of settings and places and to
develop new ones that are more commensurate with the
realities of the 21st century. Analyses of human environments
are not simply of theoretical concern: They often
have direct practical implications for understanding contemporary
patterns of human behavior, social integration,
community planning, and population health. For instance,
Oldenburg (1999) advocated the provision of third places
to create vibrant cities, whereas other scholars have emphasized
the value of urban parks as a resource that promotes
physical activity, psychological restoration, and
stress reduction (Duany, Plater-Zyberk, & Speck, 2000;
Frumkin, 2001; R. Kaplan & Kaplan, 1989).
Emergence of Polyfunctional Environments
Research on the environmental psychology of the Internet
considers how people’s reliance on digital communication
technologies is changing the design and functioning of
place-based environments (Stokols & Montero, 2002).
Blanchard (2004) extended Barker’s (1968) behavior-setting
theory to the realm of cyber communities and defined
these new environmental forms as virtual behavior settings—that
is, “naturally-occurring, computer-accessible
social spaces in which groups of people participate in
on-going exchanges of communication” (Virtual Behavior
Settings section, para. 2). Time and space boundaries—
essential features of place-based environments—are considerably
weakened in virtual behavior settings. Virtual
settings possess several of the same qualities as physical
places (e.g., they afford social interaction and convey symbolic
meanings just as physical places do). They also
facilitate a sense of belonging and attachment (e.g., social
networking sites such as MySpace and Facebook) and
enable recreation and leisure activities through video sharing,
podcasting, and online gaming (e.g., YouTube, iTunes,
and World of Warcraft).1
People’s experiences of virtual behavior settings are,
of course, dependent on and influenced by the physical
locations from which they are accessed via computer, cell
phone, or some other electronic device. Places that incorporate
the requisite electronic infrastructure (e.g., computers,
Internet connectivity, cell phone coverage) permit access
to virtual settings, thereby enabling the intermingling
of behavioral programs associated with both the placebased
host setting and the virtual communities that are
accessed from it. Stokols (1999) characterized these link-
1
Whereas non-Internet communications (e.g., reading a book,
watching TV, talking with others on the telephone, or corresponding with
others by snail mail) can bring geographically distant people and places
psychologically closer to the individual, the Internet enables individuals to
communicate simultaneously and interactively with hundreds of other
persons—for example, through instant messaging among acquaintances
online at the same time and electronic mailing lists. By contrast, TV
programs are experienced more passively than interactively, and phone
conversations usually are restricted to dyads (or to slightly larger groups
participating in conference calls). Although print media can depict faraway
people and places through photographs, drawings, and text, they do
not offer real-time, interactive views of distant people and events, nor can
they deliver nearly instantaneous, multimodal communications as exemplified
by electronic mailings that contain document, voice, and video
attachments. The Internet also affords serendipitous encounters with large
numbers of unknown persons in cyberspace and opportunities to explore
hundreds of Web sites within relatively short time intervals.
Miryha
Gould
Runnerstrom
184 April 2009 ● American Psychologist
ages between real (place-based) and virtual (cyber-based)2
settings as “R-V” mesosystems, as distinct from “R-R”
units that link two or more place-based (nonvirtual) settings
(cf. Bronfenbrenner, 1992). The intermingling of placebased
and virtual behavior programs within R-V mesosystems
reflects the polyfunctional nature of these settings in
the sense that participants are able to pursue multiple and
diverse activities (e.g., babysitting and online banking)
concurrently. The virtual and place-based functions of R-V
settings may either complement each other (as when teachers
incorporate educational resources from the Internet into
their classroom teaching) or conflict with each other (as
when employees engage in recreational Web surfing while
at work).
Whereas some polyfunctional settings are devoid of
virtual elements and incorporate only place-based functions
(e.g., provision of exercise facilities and child care services
at corporate work sites), we focus here on the subset of
hybrid settings that encompasses both cyber-based and
place-based elements. These R-V polyfunctional settings
are less restricted by temporal constraints than are settings
whose multiple functions are entirely place based. An
essential condition for the existence of an R-V polyfunctional
setting is the ability of its members to use the Internet
or related digital communication tools.
Categories of Hybrid Environments
All physical behavior settings (e.g., Oldenburg’s, 1999,
first, second, and third places) have the potential to become
polyfunctional environments. Examples of the hybridization
of behavior settings are noted below.
Hybridization of home environments.
Personal computers and cell phones enable people to work
at home. Teleconferencing, videoconferencing, and other
synchronous communication methods replace travel to
meetings; electronic transmission of data and documents
replaces traditional mail delivery. The movement of information
replaces the movement of people and goods (Negroponte,
1995). Telecommuting, or the use of telecommunication
technologies in lieu of physically commuting
between home and work, has expanded people’s work
locations and yielded first–second hybrid places. Internet
access in domestic environments also enables residents to
participate in diverse recreational activities while at home.
Chat rooms, social networking Web sites, and virtual communities
such as Second Life, SeniorNet, eBay, and
Craigslist offer new opportunities for social interaction and
support while people are at home (Rheingold, 1993;
Schuler, 1996). Web sites that support video and radio
streaming, online gaming, blogging, and e-commerce afford
recreation for residents without requiring them to
leave home, thereby yielding first–third hybrid places.
Hybridization of work environments. In
addition to telecommuting and home computer work, wireless
communications further enlarge individuals’ access to
other people, places, and information. Employees and students
increasingly are taking their work away from traditional
workplaces and bringing it with them to coffee
shops, parks, and other public venues, resulting in hybrid
second–third places. Another pervasive change in work
environments is the temporal elasticity of their boundaries.
Work activities no longer are confined to the hours of
9 a.m. to 5 p.m. The structure of organizations also has
changed with the advent of virtual teams, whose members
are geographically, temporally, and culturally dispersed.
Virtual team members collaborate on tasks predominantly
through the Internet and other digital communication technologies
(Olson & Olson, 2000). Also, the Internet has
spawned new forms of employment such as managing
virtual stores on eBay and running other online businesses
from home.
Hybridization of recreational urban and
natural environments. The Internet has enlarged
the functions of third places, public spaces, and natural
environments by giving people multiple reasons to visit
public settings: for example, for work, personal entertainment,
and electronic communication with distant friends,
family, and strangers. The ease of communication afforded
by the Internet and mobile phones enables people to organize
their use of public spaces (e.g., plazas and parks)
efficiently and economically (Thompson, 2002). Besides
serving as the “core settings of informal public life” (Oldenburg,
1999, p. 16), some third places like coffee houses,
2
The term real denotes settings that have observable geographic
boundaries and a temporal patterning of activities (behavioral program)
coordinated with and attached to the physical milieu of the setting. The
term virtual denotes Internet-based social settings in which time–space
boundaries are absent or nonexplicit. Real settings may have virtual
components, but they are still located in physical space and provide
geographic contexts for face-to-face encounters among participants,
which set them apart from virtual behavior settings and virtual communities
as defined by Blanchard (2004).
J. Aaron
Hipp
185April 2009 ● American Psychologist
cafe´s, and bookstores have been transformed into settings
where private life can be pursued in public. At least in
some instances, the core functions of third places as sociable
settings that celebrate community have become more
diverse—many of them now offer a unique blend of togetherness
and remoteness. One wonders whether public
and private realms will become virtually indistinguishable
in the Internet age.
Behavioral, Psychological, and
Health Impacts of Environmental
Change
Global technological, geophysical, and social forces have
transformed local environments in fundamental ways, as
reflected in the emergence of Internet-enabled hybrid
places. What are the behavioral, psychological, and health
consequences of these pervasive environmental changes?
In many ways, Internet-supported behaviors have made
people’s daily lives more convenient and enjoyable. They
can telecommute and avoid the hassles of rush-hour traffic
between separate home and work locations. They can stay
in closer touch with geographically distant friends and
relatives by exchanging e-mail with them. They can engage
in recreational and political activities and pursue myriad
professional, friendship, and romantic relationships by networking
with large numbers of others who are also online
(cf. Bargh & McKenna, 2004; Gackenbach, 1998; Wallace,
1999).
Yet, the Internet age and the hybridization of places
also have imposed behavioral costs, psychological burdens,
and health challenges on citizens of the postmodern world.
People’s daily routines have become more fragmented, in
the sense that they switch between multiple tasks and
activities frequently and encounter a larger number of
interruptions throughout the day as a result of their reliance
on the Internet and wireless technologies. Recent studies of
knowledge workers indicate that they handle a large number
of tasks each day, spend relatively little time on one
task before switching their attention to another, and encounter
frequent interruptions (Mark, Gonzalez, & Harris,
2005; Mark, Gudith, & Klocke, 2008). Moreover, the complexity
and pace of people’s jobs, as well as the number of
hours they work each week, have increased in recent years
within the United States and several other countries (Jacobs
& Medalia, 2008; Maume & Purcell, 2007). These trends
toward behavioral fragmentation and “continuous partial
attention” (Stone, 2007) are also evident in residential and
family domains where the intersection of spousal, parenting,
and work behaviors has transformed the modern home
into a polyfunctional hub of activities rather than a refuge
from the pressures of work and the outside world (Jackson,
2002).
The demands of multitasking, frequent interruptions,
and managing large volumes of electronic communications
have been linked to a number of cognitive and affective
problems. Employees and managers from diverse occupations
and workplaces report that they are increasingly inundated
by a surfeit of information transmitted to them via
e-mail, faxes, and voice messages (Edmunds & Morris,
2000; Eppler & Mengis, 2004). Recipients of electronic
communications expend considerable amounts of time and
effort each day processing spam or junk messages, which
now constitute almost half of all e-mail traffic (Bargh &
McKenna, 2004).
The proliferation of cyber communications in recent
years (Lyman & Varian, 2003) has increased the frequency
with which people experience distraction and information
overload in workplaces and other settings (Gleick, 2000;
Jackson, 2008; Rosen, 2008). The subjective experience of
overload occurs when people feel overwhelmed by an
excessively high volume or rate of communications and
information, relative to their capacity to manage it (cf.
Lazarus & Folkman, 1984; Lipowski, 1975; Milgram,
1970; Miller, 1978). Higher levels of information overload
have been found to be associated with greater self-reported
stress, poorer health status, reduced productivity, and less
time devoted to contemplative activities (Misra & Stokols,
2008). The cognitive demands imposed by excessive stimulation
and interruptions also have been linked to poorer
decision making, degraded performance on complex tasks,
reduced sensitivity to social cues, and higher rates of medical
errors in health care settings (Hwang & Lin, 1999;
Kohn, Corrigan, & Donaldson, 2000; Mathews & Canon,
1975; Speier, Valacich, & Vessey, 1999).
Some scholars have suggested that in addition to promoting
performance deficits and stress, intensive Internet
use gives rise to interpersonal orientations that may be
detrimental at personal and societal levels. Gergen (2002b)
contended that people nowadays spend much of their time
immersed in “floating worlds” of cyber communication
where participants are psychologically present but physically
absent from each other; while at the same time being
physically present in their respective locations but psychologically
detached from events occurring in their immediate
surrounds. According to Gergen (2002a), these states of
“absent presence” undermine social cohesion and moral
understandings in local communities. Rosen (2007) expressed
similar concerns about the changing meaning of
friendship in the Internet age. She described online social
networks as “congeries of mostly weak ties” (Rosen, 2007,
p. 20; cf. Granovetter, 1973) devoid of intimacy and suggested
that people’s conceptions of friendship are becoming
more superficial and diluted in the context of Facebook,
MySpace, and other networking sites (whose members
often list hundreds of friends on their personal profile
pages). Rosen characterized this tendency to publicly trumpet
one’s online friendships as a narcissistic quest for social
status. Both Rosen and Gergen called attention to what they
regarded as contemporary trends toward superficiality in
interpersonal relationships and withdrawal from face-toface
discourse in local settings due to people’s immersion
in cyber networks.
In sum, although widespread Internet use and mobile
communications have distinct advantages, they exact a
considerable toll on people’s capacity to focus their attention,
increase their susceptibility to stress, and decrease the
time they can devote to face-to-face interactions in their
186 April 2009 ● American Psychologist
immediate locale. It is important to address these potential
costs of Internet life, as they may deter individuals from
paying close attention to impending threats at local and
global levels and from joining with others in collective
efforts to resolve them. Yet, while affluent and middleincome
Internet users withdraw into privatized cyber
enclaves (Boyer, 1996), large segments of the world’s
population remain excluded from the Internet, yielding an
ever-widening “digital divide” between the information
haves and have-nots (Castells, 1998; Investor Group
Against Digital Divide, 2008). Those living in poverty fall
further behind in education, employment, and health status
and become increasingly alienated from civil society
(Davis, 2006; Eberly, 2008).
Growing disparities in people’s access to information
and other resources, coupled with the pressures of living
and working in fast-paced polyfunctional environments,
pose important challenges for psychological research.
What role can psychological theory and practice play in
helping to repair socioeconomic divisions in society, while
also enabling people to cope more effectively with the
pressures of everyday life and shift from personal anxiety
and passivity toward engagement in collective efforts to
reduce global problems?
Psychological Perspectives on
People–Environment Relations in a
Turbulent World
Much research in environmental psychology suggests that
people ideally strive to achieve optimal environments or
those that maximize the fulfillment of their needs and the
accomplishment of their goals and plans (Stokols, 1978).
Individuals perceive, evaluate, and act on their surroundings
in an effort to enhance the fit between environmental
conditions and personal needs. In reality, people often must
satisfice, or accommodate less than optimal surroundings
because of a variety of external constraints (Simon, 1957).
But they expend considerable effort in trying to maintain a
modicum of compatibility between themselves and their
surroundings, even when environmental circumstances are
largely beyond their control (S. Kaplan, 1983). The field of
positive psychology also highlights human resilience in the
face of external challenges and individuals’ capacity to
achieve fulfillment and creativity, even in nonoptimal environments
(Aspinwall & Staudinger, 2003; Diener, Suh,
Lucas, & Smith, 1999; Seligman & Csikszentmihalyi,
2000). Yet, it seems plausible that when individuals are
regularly confronted by urgent warnings about impending
ecological disasters, socioeconomic disparities, and political
antagonisms and by the frenetic pace of modern life,
they are likely to experience attentional fatigue, feel helpless
against seemingly insurmountable odds, and curtail
social contacts with others in their local milieu. The ecological
realities and geopolitical exigencies of the 21st
century may simply overwhelm individuals’ best efforts to
improve, let alone optimize, their surroundings and to
strive toward self-actualization and flow (cf. Csikszentmihalyi,
1990; Maslow, 1943; Stokols, 2003).
Several psychological theories are pertinent to understanding
people’s responses to suboptimal environments.
Analyses of stress and coping have identified the circumstances
under which people appraise environmental challenges
as threatening and make adaptive efforts to alter the
immediate situation or their perception and evaluation of it
(Baum & Fleming, 1993; Lazarus, 1999). Studies of
learned helplessness and allostatic load have documented
the limits of humans’ capacity to cope with uncontrollable
and stressful conditions, especially when exposure to those
conditions is prolonged and unrelenting (G. W. Evans,
2004; McEwen & Stellar, 1993; Seeman, McEwen, Rowe,
& Singer, 2001). Theories of psychological restoration
highlight the value of providing people access to restorative
environments—those that offer respite from their usual
responsibilities and routines and opportunities to replenish
mental and physical energy—thus bolstering people’s coping
capacity and reducing their susceptibility to helplessness
(Hartig, 2004; R. Kaplan & Kaplan, 1989; Ulrich,
1983).
The above theories shed light on people’s efforts to
cope with environmental challenges, but they share some
important limitations when used to explain human responses
to ecological crises, sociopolitical conflicts, and
rapid technological change. Psychological analyses of
stress and coping, learned helplessness, and restoration
often have focused on individuals’ efforts to manage immediate
challenges in their local environments (although
some studies have examined responses to community stressors
over extended periods; cf. Baum & Fleming, 1993;
Silver et al., 2002). The individualistic, local, and shortterm
orientations of many psychological theories are useful
for understanding people–environment transactions in the
context of a particular behavior setting or community.
However, because people and events in different parts of
the world have become increasingly interdependent
through cyber communications, air travel, and other technologies,
individuals’ perceptions of environments and efforts
to achieve equanimity in their daily lives are now
substantially influenced by geographically remote as well
as proximal conditions. These realities of the modern era
suggest that even when individuals successfully cope with
local challenges, participate in restorative environments,
and experience creativity and fulfillment, their adaptive
successes may be illusory or short-lived, particularly if they
are myopically viewed as being insulated from objective
conditions elsewhere in the world that, at any moment,
could negatively impact one’s immediate situation. Examples
of these realities include the one billion people currently
living in slums, creating cauldrons of conflict and
destabilization, and the deleterious effects of burning coal
on air quality in one location and on population health in
other parts of the world. Thus, Sampson (1981) exhorted
psychologists to avoid the biases of subjectivism and individualism
in their theories, whereby objective realities are
ignored or cognitively diminished in the minds of individual
“knowers,” often to the detriment of their well-being.
Wohlwill (1973) similarly observed that “the [objective]
environment is not in the head” and must be addressed
187April 2009 ● American Psychologist
explicitly in studies of people’s transactions with their
surroundings.
New conceptualizations of human response to ecological,
social, and technological change are needed, particularly
those that (a) address the links between local and
global events, (b) encompass collective as well as individual
efforts to cope with impending threats, and (c) incorporate
an extended rather than narrow time perspective.
The predominant focus of psychological studies on individuals
interacting with local settings over short time periods
should be supplemented by future theorizing and
research that explains how and when people become aware
of and conceptualize the relationships between their immediate
and more distant surroundings; addresses the social
and collaborative dimensions of environmental decision
making, coping with stress, and achieving restoration and
well-being (especially today, as individuals find themselves
confronted by increasingly complex challenges at both
local and global levels); and gives broader attention to the
ways these phenomena unfold over extended time
frames—for example, developmental and intergenerational
influences on how individuals, organizations, and governments
construe and cope with environmental change.
Psychological Perspectives on the
Relationships Between Local and Global
Environments
Prior research has given considerable attention to the determinants
of ecologically supportive behaviors, such as
energy conservation, ridesharing, and recycling, that affect
environmental quality at local and global levels (Gardner &
Stern, 2002; Howard, 2000; Osbaldiston & Sheldon, 2003;
Stern, 2000; Winter, 2000). Other psychological facets of
the interplay between people’s local and global environments,
however, have been relatively neglected in earlier
studies. Little is known about how people mentally represent
distant settings and events—for instance, how affluent
individuals construe living conditions in urban slums that
are far removed from their own neighborhoods and whether
or when they ponder how those conditions might affect
their own lives or the well-being of future generations.
Also, there is scant empirical information about conditions
that predispose some people to embrace superordinate interests
and goals (Oskamp, 2000; Sherif, Harvey, White,
Hood, & Sherif, 1961; Sherif & Sherif, 1953), especially
those shared among diverse populations and world regions
(e.g., the goal of promoting global sustainability), rather
than identifying more narrowly with group-specific and
locally based interests. Earlier studies of place identity
demonstrated the strong influence of individuals’ emotional
attachments to local places (e.g., hometowns and
local neighborhoods) on their personal values and selfconcept
(Proshansky, 1978; Proshansky, Fabian, & Kaminoff,
1983). Yet, factors that encourage people to identify
with places and populations that are geographically distant
from their own barely have been explored (cf. Harre´,
2007).
Another important topic for further study is the influence
of remote environmental conditions on personal experiences
of stress, coping, and psychological restoration.
Even among people living in relatively stable and desirable
places, worries about remote and unseen environmental
threats such as air pollution, nuclear contamination, tainted
food, extreme weather events, random violence, and terrorist
attacks are engendering chronic stress and feelings of
insecurity (Baum & Fleming, 1993; Lee & Farrall, 2008;
McDonald, 2008; Petrie et al., 2005; Stafford et al., 2007;
Vaughan, 1993; Wandersman & Hallman, 1993). Increasing
worries about remote environmental threats may result
in a syndrome of topophobia, or chronic fear associated
with particular places (Gonza´lez, 2005; Hipp, 2006)—for
instance, scenic coastal areas that have been devastated by
hurricanes or tsunamis and downtown areas or transportation
depots that have been targeted by terrorists. Whereas
residents of scenic natural areas and those in urban settings
may continue to experience topophilia, or strongly favorable
attachments to their environments (Ogunseitan, 2005;
Tuan, 1974), they also may become more susceptible to
topophobia, or fearful reactions to those places, as concerns
about global ecological and social threats continue to grow.
Individuals’ efforts to minimize stress and maximize
restorative opportunities become more daunting when relatively
stable local environments are overshadowed by
broader ecological contexts that are turbulent and unstable.
Analyses of restorative environments (Hartig, 2004; R.
Kaplan & Kaplan, 1989; Ulrich, 1983) typically focus on
the psychological and physiological benefits derived by
individuals when they retreat from the demands of their
everyday environments into relatively serene natural settings
(e.g., scenic resorts and wilderness areas). However,
with the increasing severity of ecological and societal dangers
in recent years (e.g., related to global climate change
and terrorism), the individual’s capacity to achieve psychological
restoration has become heavily dependent on collective
efforts to protect the quality of remote as well as
local environments. New conceptualizations of restorative
environments are needed that address the interdependencies
between the psychological restoration experienced by
individuals in low-stress settings and environmental restoration
efforts undertaken by collectivities (e.g., local and
national governments, private foundations, international
organizations) to improve the quality of community and
global environments.
From Individualist to Collectivist Analyses of
Human Response to Environmental Change
Complex ecological, technological, and social crises, such
as global warming, information overload, environmental
racism, terrorism, and the digital divide—as well as personal
anxieties fueled by these problems—cannot be
averted through isolated individual efforts (Bullard & Johnson,
2000; Investor Group Against Digital Divide, 2008;
Wilson, 2002). Analyses of psychological stress in the
context of rapid environmental change must confront the
social and political dimensions of global crises and wellbeing.
Prilleltensky (2003, 2008), for example, contended
that psychologists should maximize the psychopolitical
validity of their theories, or the extent to which they ad-
188 April 2009 ● American Psychologist
dress power issues and encourage positive structural
changes in communities. In the context of stress research,
power issues are reflected in the differential access of
affluent and impoverished groups to mental health and
medical services, information technologies, employment
opportunities, and uncontaminated and restorative environments.
These objective disparities are an important source
of psychological stress among both affluent and low-income
groups because of their growing interdependence in
an increasingly unstable world.
The social dimensions of modern-day stressors are
evident not only in the origins of these problems but also in
the strategies people use to cope with them. For instance,
not only is it impossible for many individuals to escape to
restorative wilderness areas on a regular basis (e.g., going
for hikes in a national park) due to the demands of their
weekly schedules, but also, when given the choice, many
people select urban social settings over solitary rural environments
for restorative purposes (Gould, 2006; S. Kaplan,
Bardwell, & Slakter, 1993; Runnerstrom, 2008; Scopelliti
& Guiliani, 2004), for example, bookstores, museums, public
plazas, coffee shops, and other third places (Oldenburg,
1999) where they can relax with friends or acquaintances in
informal conversation, pursue creative activities, or engage
in casual people watching. These findings highlight the
importance of giving greater attention to social and collaborative
sources of psychological restoration in future research
(cf. Runnerstrom, 2008). Socially mediated restoration,
at least in some instances, may prove to be more
satisfying and enduring than solitary restorative experiences.
For instance, many individuals derive considerable
satisfaction and enjoyment from their collaboration with
others in community organizations that are working to
improve local environmental and social conditions (S. D.
Evans & Prilleltensky, 2007; Harre´, 2007; Saegert, Thompson,
& Warren, 2001; Shinn & Toohey, 2003; Venkatesh,
1999; Wandersman & Florin, 2000).
The challenges of managing complex local and global
environmental demands will require increasingly broadly
gauged partnerships that span multiple disciplines, societal
sectors, and world regions (Gardner & Stern, 2002; Wilson,
1998). A new science of transdisciplinary action research is
needed to guide these future interdisciplinary, cross-sectoral,
and international coalitions aimed at remediating
global problems (Christens & Perkins, 2008; Shen, 2008;
Stokols, 2006). This new area of study could address several
interrelated issues, including the contextual determinants
of collaborative effectiveness among partners representing
multiple disciplines, professions, cultures, and
nations; key personal and situational circumstances that
prompt individuals to join community activist groups and
collaborate with others to promote environmental and social
justice; and new strategies for cultivating social capital
at international as well as local community levels (Bullard
& Johnson, 2000; Harre´, 2007; Pancer, Pratt, Hunsberger,
& Alisat, 2007; Putnam, 2000; Stokols, Misra, Hall, Taylor,
& Moser, 2008).
Broadening the Temporal Scope of Research
on Human Response to Environmental
Change
Sources of ecological and social instability and their impacts
on individual and collective well-being emerge gradually
(and often invisibly) over extended periods (Hardin,
1968). Psychologists’ efforts to understand these problems,
while working in collaboration with scholars and professionals
from several other fields (e.g., political science,
public policy, sociology, urban planning, public health),
will necessitate research designs that span multiple years
and levels of analysis and include individual, community,
societal, and global perspectives (Siver & DeFries, 1990;
Stern, 1992). For instance, longitudinal studies are required
to identify circumstances that spawn environmental protection
and social reform movements, which emerge and gain
momentum gradually. Also, factors influencing the effectiveness
and sustainability of local, cross-regional, and
international partnerships to reduce environmental and
social threats must be studied over extended periods to
evaluate whether these collaborations are meeting their
intended goals (D. G. Altman, 1995; Warden, 2007). Moreover,
an understanding of the long-term behavioral and
health consequences of individuals’ routine exposure to
multitasking and information overload in polyfunctional
settings will require extended time-series research designs
that can gauge the effectiveness of personal and organizational
efforts to cope with chronic distraction and burgeoning
communications loads.
Summary and Conclusions:
Developing Evidence-Based
Strategies for Managing
Contemporary Ecological Challenges
Global technological, geophysical, and sociopolitical transitions
have transformed people’s local environments and
communities and the patterning of their everyday lives. In
those parts of the world where individuals have access to
the Internet and digital information technologies, they are
spending more and more of their time working, residing,
and socializing in polyfunctional settings where they are
confronted by escalating flows of electronic communications.
Although the Internet and wireless technologies have
afforded significant benefits, including unprecedented and
instantaneous access to vast stores of information and unlimited
opportunities to network with people in far-flung
locations, they also have imposed significant behavioral,
psychological, and health costs. The latter include the fragmentation
of people’s activities resulting from continual
multitasking, greater vulnerability to psychological stress
and physical strains generated by chronic exposure to information
overload, and heightened anxieties and feelings
of helplessness arising from frequent media reports of
ecological and sociopolitical dangers in local as well as
distant regions. These pressures of modern-day life can
distract and discourage people from confronting ecological
and social challenges and joining with others in constructive
efforts to resolve them.
189April 2009 ● American Psychologist
For psychologists to better comprehend local and
global threats to ecological stability, new lines of psychological
theory and research are needed that encompass
supraregional as well as local perspectives on people’s
transactions with their surroundings and illuminate social
and collaborative as well as intrapersonal dimensions of
stress reduction, poverty alleviation, conflict resolution,
and environmental management and decision making. Particularly
valuable would be investigations of how people
conceptualize the links between their local environments
and global events and why and when they begin to identify
with cross-national as well as local interests and goals.
Also, because many individuals feel overwhelmed by the
complex environmental and sociopolitical challenges facing
them and future generations, new studies are needed to
identify personal and situational factors that enable people
to move from personal states of anxiety and passivity
toward collective action to ameliorate local and global
problems. These new lines of theorizing and research necessarily
will be of broad temporal and interdisciplinary
scope to permit longitudinal assessments of the behavioral
and health impacts of global ecological conditions (e.g.,
rising information overload and repeated threats of terrorist
attacks) and the effectiveness of collaborative partnerships
implemented over several years to mitigate ecological and
societal sources of destabilization.
Future efforts to translate scientific research into evidence-based
strategies for managing environmental change
and averting global crises will require extensive interdisciplinary
collaboration as psychologists partner with urban
planners, political scientists, sociologists, information scientists,
public health and policy experts, and community
practitioners to develop local interventions, as well as
community-wide and international initiatives, aimed at resolving
urgent societal problems. For instance, environmental
and ecological psychologists might work with architects
and planners to establish design guidelines for
polyfunctional settings to ensure that they function as
smoothly as possible (cf. Alexander et al., 1977; Horan,
2000). Such guidelines would address the value of including
design features in residential and occupational settings
that afford privacy regulation and solitude (e.g., physical
separation of work and family activities in homes, incorporation
of meditation rooms in corporate workplaces) and
designing workplaces to accommodate organizational
shifts toward greater collaboration and teamwork (Becker,
Quinn, & Tennessen, 1995). Cognitive psychologists and
management professionals could collaborate to develop
organizational routines that assist employees in their efforts
to limit interruptions and handle increasing volumes of
e-mail and digitized information (Huff, 2008; Information
Overload Research Group, 2008). Also, community, social,
and health psychologists might partner with health professionals
and community activists to establish incentive
structures and educational programs that foster public participation
in environmental protection, antipoverty, and
health promotion initiatives. Examples of these interventions
include educational programs and public–private partnerships
to promote individuals’ understanding of ecological
crises, their identification with the plight of
impoverished communities, and their appreciation of superordinate
(e.g., cross-national) environmental interests
and concerns (Gore, 2006; Investor Group Against Digital
Divide, 2008; Mappin & Johnson, 2005; Palmer, 1998).
Despite the cognitive, behavioral, and social challenges
associated with the use of modern information technologies,
Internet-based communications are among the
most promising and powerful strategies for promoting
greater ecological and societal stability. In addition to
enabling the pursuit of individualized interests (e.g., forming
new friendships through social networking Web sites,
sharing creative ideas and personal experiences through
blogging), the Internet has changed the way collective
concerns are pursued. For instance, environmental educators
and proponents of civic governance have created interactive
Web sites for disseminating information about
global ecology, environmental protection, and communityorganizing
techniques (e.g., Conservation Science Institute,
2008; Work Group for Community Health and Development,
2008). Internet communications also can encourage
geographically dispersed people to broaden their awareness
of global events, organize and participate in political protests,
and collaborate in the creation of new products such
as open-source software (Kahn & Kellner, 2004). The
Internet, by lowering communication and coordination
costs, is well suited for promoting public participation in
social movements and a collective sense of identity and
community among people from across the globe (Garrett,
2006; Norris, 2004). Finally, the Internet and wireless
communication technologies can be used to warn people of
impending natural disasters and emergent crises. In California,
interactive Web sites have been created to assist the
public in preparing for a projected magnitude 7.8 or larger
earthquake along the San Andreas Fault (Southern California
Earthquake Center, 2008). The Japanese government
plans to use cell phone alerts to warn citizens about imminent
seismic events in their region (Williams, 2007). Cell
phones also can be used by emergency response personnel
to locate trapped or injured persons via GPS and wireless
signaling and by relatives and friends to provide social
support to victims during natural and technological disasters
(as occurred during the 9/11 terrorist attacks, the 2004
Indian Ocean tsunami, Hurricane Katrina, and the London
Tube bombings in 2005).
In the context of a rapidly changing and often unstable
world, psychological research and practice are positioned
to play a major role in broadening psychologists’ understanding
of how global environmental and social forces
are restructuring local settings and communities and the
diverse impacts of those changes on human cognition,
performance, social behavior, and well-being. Broader conceptualizations
of people–environment relations encompassing
the technological, geophysical, and social realities
of the 21st century will enable the creation of new and
effective strategies for sustaining ecological stability during
the coming decades.
190 April 2009 ● American Psychologist
REFERENCES
Alexander, C., Ishikawa, S., Silverstein, M., Jacobson, M., Fiksdahl-King,
I., & Angel, S. (1977). A pattern language. New York: Oxford University
Press.
Altman, D. G. (1995). Sustaining interventions in community systems: On
the relationship between researchers and communities. Health Psychology,
14, 526–536.
Altman, I., & Rogoff, B. (1987). World views in psychology: Trait,
interactional, organismic, and transactional perspectives. In D. Stokols
& I. Altman (Eds.), Handbook of environmental psychology (pp. 7–40).
New York: Wiley.
Aspinwall, L. G., & Staudinger, U. M. (Eds.). (2003). The psychology of
human strengths: Fundamental questions and future directions for a
positive psychology. Washington, DC: American Psychological Asso-
ciation.
Ballard, J. D., Nornik, J. G., & McKenzie, D. (2002). Technological
facilitation of terrorism: Definitional, legal, and policy issues. American
Behavioral Scientist, 45, 989–1016.
Bargh, J. A., & McKenna, K. Y. A. (2004). The Internet and social life.
Annual Review of Psychology, 55, 573–590.
Barker, R. G. (1968). Ecological psychology: Concepts and methods for
studying the environment of human behavior. Stanford, CA: Stanford
University Press.
Barker, R. G., & Schoggen, P. (1973). Qualities of community life. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Barsky, A. J. (1988). The paradox of health. New England Journal of
Medicine, 318, 414–418.
Bates, B. C., Kundzewicz, Z. W., Wu, S., & Palutikof, J. P. (Eds.). (2008).
Climate change and water (Technical Paper VI). Geneva, Switzerland:
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
Baum, A., & Fleming, I. (1993). Implications of psychological research
on stress and technological accidents. American Psychologist, 48, 665–
672.
Becker, F., Quinn, K. L., & Tennessen, C. M. (1995). The ecology of
collaborative work. New York: Cornell University International Workplace
Studies Program.
Blanchard, A. (2004). Virtual behavior settings: An application of behavior
setting theories to virtual communities. Journal of Computer Mediated
Communication, 9(2). Retrieved August 3, 2008, from http://
jcmc.indiana.edu/vol9/issue2/blanchard.html
Blanchard, A., & Horan, T. (1998). Virtual communities and social
capital. Social Science Computer Review, 16, 293–307.
Boyer, C. (1996). Cybercities: Visual perception in the age of electronic
communication. New York: Princeton Architectural Press.
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1992). Ecological systems theory. In R. Vasta (Ed.),
Six theories of child development: Revised formulations and current
issues (pp. 187–249). London: Jessica Kingsley.
Bullard, R. D. (1990). Dumping in Dixie: Race, class, and environmental
quality. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Bullard, R. D., & Johnson, G. S. (2000). Environmental justice: Grassroots
activism and its impact on public policy decision making. Journal
of Social Issues, 56, 555–578.
Castells, M. (1998). End of millennium. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Christens, B., & Perkins, D. D. (2008). Transdisciplinary, multilevel
action research to enhance ecological and psychopolitical validity.
Journal of Community Psychology, 36, 214–231.
CNN. (2007). Planet in peril: A worldwide investigation. Retrieved December
30, 2007, from http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2008/planet.
in.peril/
Conservation Science Institute. (2008). CSI’s environmental education
program. Retrieved August 8, 2008, from http://www.conservation
institute.org/education/environmental_education_program.htm
Cooper, A. (Anchor). (2008, August 1). Extreme challenges: The next
four years [Television broadcast]. In Anderson Cooper 360°. Rush
transcript retrieved August 1, 2008, from http://transcripts.cnn.com/
TRANSCRIPTS/0808/01/acd.02.html
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). Flow: The psychology of optimal experience.
New York: Harper & Row.
Davis, M. (2006). Planet of slums. London, England: Verso.
Delpech, T. (2007). Political responsibility. In T. Delpech, Savage century:
Back to barbarism (pp. 3–16). Washington, DC: Carnegie Endowment
for International Peace. Retrieved August 3, 2008, from
http://www.carnegieendowment.org/files/CEIPSavageChap1.pdf
Diener, E., Suh, E. M., Lucas, R. E., & Smith, H. L. (1999). Subjective
well-being: Three decades of progress. Psychological Bulletin, 125,
276–302.
Duany, A., Plater-Zyberk, E., & Speck, J. (2000). Suburban nation: The
rise of sprawl and the decline of the American dream. New York: North
Point Press.
Eberly, D. (2008). The rise of global civil society: Building communities
and nations from the bottom up. Lanham, MD: Encounter Books.
Edelstein, M. R. (1988). Contaminated communities: The social and
psychological impacts of residential toxic exposure. Boulder, CO:
Westview Press.
Edmunds, A., & Morris, A. (2000). The problem of information overload
in business organizations: A review of the literature. International
Journal of Information Management, 20(5), 17–28.
Ekins, P. (2000). Economic growth and environmental sustainability: The
prospects for green growth. London, England: Routledge.
Eppler, M. J., & Mengis, J. (2004). The concept of information overload:
A review of literature from organization science, accounting, marketing,
MIS, and related disciplines. The Information Society, 20(5), 325–
344.
Evans, G. W. (2004). The environment of childhood poverty. American
Psychologist, 59, 77–92.
Evans, S. D., & Prilleltensky, I. (2007). Youth and democracy: Participation
for personal, relational, and collective well-being. Journal of
Community Psychology, 35, 681–692.
Federal Emergency Management Agency. (2007). Get disaster information.
Retrieved August 3, 2008, from http://www.fema.gov/hazard/
index.shtm
Frumkin, H. (2001). Beyond toxicity: Human health and the natural
environment. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 20, 234–240.
Gackenbach, J. (Ed.). (1998). Psychology and the Internet: Intrapersonal,
interpersonal, and transpersonal implications. San Diego, CA: Academic
Press.
Gardner, G. T., & Stern, P. C. (2002). Environmental problems and
human behavior (2nd ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson Custom.
Garrett, R. K. (2006). Protest in an information society: A review of
literature on social movements and new ICTs. Information, Communication
& Society, 9, 202–224.
Gergen, K. (2002a). The challenge of absent presence. In J. E. Katz &
M. A. Aakhus (Eds.), Perpetual contact: Mobile communication, private
talk, public performance (pp. 227–241). Cambridge, England:
Cambridge University Press.
Gergen, K. (2002b). Self and community in the new floating worlds. In K.
Nyiri (Ed.), Mobile democracy: Essays on society, self and politics (pp.
103–114). Vienna: Passagen.
Giddens, A. (2002). Runaway world: How globalization is reshaping our
lives. New York: Routledge.
Gleick, J. (2000). Faster: The acceleration of just about everything. New
York: Vintage.
Gonza´lez, B. M. (2005). Topophilia and topophobia: The home as an
evocative place of contradictory emotions. Space and Culture, 8, 193–
213.
Gore, A. (2006). An inconvenient truth: The planetary emergency of
global warming and what we can do about it. Emmasus, PA: Rodale
Books.
Gould, M. (2006, July). Psychological restoration through self-actualization
processes in urban environments. Paper presented at the 26th
International Congress of Applied Psychology, Athens, Greece.
Granovetter, M. (1973). The strength of weak ties. American Journal of
Sociology, 78, 1360–1380.
Greenhalgh, T., & Wessely, S. (2004). “Health for me”: A sociocultural
analysis of healthism in the middle classes. British Medical Bulletin, 69,
197–213.
Guzzetta, J. D. (2005). From widgets to wireless: A theoretical look at the
social, behavioral, and health implications of a changing workplace
environment in the face of advanced technology. Unpublished master’s
thesis, University of California, Irvine, School of Social Ecology,
Department of Planning, Policy, and Design.
Hardin, G. (1968, December 13). The tragedy of the commons. Science,
162, 1243–1248.
191April 2009 ● American Psychologist
Harre´, N. (2007). Community service or activism as an identity project for
youth. Journal of Community Psychology, 35, 711–724.
Hartig, T. (2004). Restorative environments. In C. Spielberger (Ed.),
Encyclopedia of applied psychology (Vol. 3, pp. 273–279). Boston:
Elsevier.
Hipp, J. A. (2006). Towards a typology of topophobia in a post-natural
disaster setting. Unpublished manuscript, University of California,
Irvine, School of Social Ecology.
Horan, T. A. (2000). Digital places: Building our city of bits. Washington,
DC: Urban Land Institute.
Howard, G. S. (2000). Adapting human lifestyles for the 21st century.
American Psychologist, 55, 509–515.
Huff, C. (2008). Staying afloat in a digital flood. Retrieved August 9,
2008, from the Workforce Management Web site: http://www.
workforce.com/section/11/feature/25/64/16/index.html
Hwang, M. I., & Lin, J. W. (1999). Information dimension, information
overload and decision quality. Journal of Information Science, 25,
213–218.
Information Overload Research Group. (2008). Information Overload
Research Group: Reducing information pollution. Retrieved August 11,
2008, from http://www.iorgforum.org/index.htm
Investor Group Against Digital Divide. (2008). Digital divide: What it is
and why it matters. Retrieved August 7, 2008, from http://www.
digitaldivide.org/dd/digitaldivide.html
Jackson, M. (2002). What’s happening to home: Balancing work, life, and
refuge in the Information Age. Notre Dame, IN: Sorin Books.
Jackson, M. (2008). Distracted: The erosion of attention and the coming
dark age. Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books.
Jacobs, J. A., & Medalia, C. (2008, August). Work-time pressures on
families in 30 countries. Paper presented at the 103rd Annual Meeting
of the American Sociological Association, Boston, MA.
Kahn, R., & Kellner, D. (2004). New media and Internet activism: From
the ‘Battle of Seattle’ to blogging. New Media & Society, 16, 87–95.
Kaplan, R., & Kaplan, S. (1989). The experience of nature: A psychological
perspective. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Kaplan, S. (1972). The challenge of environmental psychology: A proposal
for a new functionalism. American Psychologist, 27, 140–143.
Kaplan, S. (1983). A model of person–environment compatibility. Environment
and Behavior, 15, 311–322.
Kaplan, S., Bardwell, L. V., & Slakter, D. B. (1993). The museum as a
restorative environment. Environment and Behavior, 25, 725–742.
Kohn, L. T., Corrigan, J., & Donaldson, M. S. (2000). To err is human:
Building a safer health system. Washington, DC: National Academy
Press.
Lazarus, R. S. (1999). Stress and emotion: A new synthesis. New York:
Springer.
Lazarus, R. S., & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, appraisal, and coping. New
York: Springer.
Lee, M., & Farrall, S. (Eds.). (2008). Fear of crime: Critical voices in an
age of anxiety. New York: Routledge.
Library of Congress. (2004). General resources on terrorism. Retrieved
August 3, 2008, from http://www.loc.gov/rr/international/hispanic/
terrorism/general.html
Lipowski, Z. J. (1975). Sensory and information inputs overload: Behavioral
effects. Comprehensive Psychiatry, 16, 199–221.
Lyman, P., & Varian, H. R. (2003). How much information? Retrieved
November 24, 2006, from the University of California, Berkeley,
School of Information Management and Systems Web site: http://
www2.sims.berkeley.edu/research/projects/how-much-info-2003
Mappin, M., & Johnson, E. (Eds.). (2005). Environmental education and
advocacy: Changing perspectives of ecology and education. Cambridge,
England: Cambridge University Press.
Mark, G., Gonzalez, V. M., & Harris, J. (2005, April). No task left behind?
Examining the nature of fragmented work. Paper presented at the
Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Portland, OR.
Mark, G., Gudith, D., & Klocke, U. (2008, April). The cost of interrupted
work: More speed and stress. Paper presented at the Conference on
Human Factors in Computing Systems, Florence, Italy.
Maslow, A. H. (1943). A theory of human motivation. Psychological
Review, 50, 370–396.
Mathews, K. E. J., & Canon, L. K. (1975). Environmental noise level as
a determinant of helping behavior. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 32, 571–577.
Matthew, R. (2007). Climate change and human security. In J. DiMento & P.
Doughman (Eds.), Climate change: What it means for us, our children, and
our grandchildren (pp. 161–180). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Maume, D. J., & Purcell, D. A. (2007). The “over-paced” American:
Recent trends in the intensification of work. Research in the Sociology
of Work, 17, 251–283.
McDonald, B. L. (2008). The food system and human security: Nutrition,
sustainability, and food safety in a time of global change. Unpublished
doctoral dissertation, University of California, Irvine, School of Social
Ecology.
McEwen, B. S., & Stellar, E. (1993). Stress and the individual: Mechanisms
leading to disease. Archives of Internal Medicine, 153, 2093–
2101.
Milgram, S. (1970, March 13). The experience of living in cities. Science,
167, 1461–1468.
Miller, J. G. (1978). Living systems. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Misra, S., & Stokols, D. (2008). Cyber-based sources of information
overload and their impacts on stress and health. Manuscript submitted
for publication, Irvine: University of California, Irvine, School of
Social Ecology.
National Cancer Institute. (2006). Centers for population health and health
disparities. Retrieved September 10, 2006, from http://cancercontrol
.cancer.gov/populationhealthcenters/
National Research Council Committee on Global Change Research.
(1999). Human dimensions of global environmental change. In Global
environmental change: Research pathways for the next decade (pp.
293–376). Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Negroponte, N. P. (1995). Being digital. New York: Vintage Books.
Norris, P. (2004). The bridging and bonding role of online communities.
In P. N. Howard & S. Jones (Eds.), Society online: The Internet in
context (pp. 31–41). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Ogunseitan, O. A. (2005). Topophilia and the quality of life. Environmental
Health Perspectives, 113, 143–148.
Oldenburg, R. (1999). The great good place: Cafe´s, coffee shops, bookstores,
bars, hair salons, and other hangouts at the heart of a community
(2nd ed.). New York: Marlowe.
Olson, G. M., & Olson, J. S. (2000). Distance matters. Human–Computer
Interaction, 15, 139–179.
Osbaldiston, R., & Sheldon, K. M. (2003). Promoting internalized motivation
for environmentally responsible behavior: A prospective study
of environmental goals. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 23,
349–357.
Oskamp, S. (2000). A sustainable future for humanity? How can psychology
help? American Psychologist, 55, 496–508.
Palmer, J. A. (1998). Environmental education in the 21st century: Theory,
practice, progress, and promise. New York: Routledge.
Pancer, S. M., Pratt, M., Hunsberger, B., & Alisat, S. (2007). Community
and political involvement in adolescence: What distinguishes the activists
from the uninvolved? Journal of Community Psychology, 35,
741–759.
Petrie, K. J., Broadbent, E. A., Kley, N., Moss-Morris, R., Horne, R., &
Rief, W. (2005). Worries about modernity predict symptom complaints
after environmental pesticide spraying. Psychosomatic Medicine, 67,
778–782.
Prilleltensky, I. (2003). Understanding, resisting, and overcoming oppression:
Toward psychopolitical validity. American Journal of Community
Psychology, 31, 195–201.
Prilleltensky, I. (2008). The role of power in wellness, oppression, and
liberation: The promise of psychopolitical validity. Journal of Community
Psychology, 36, 116–136.
Proshansky, H. M. (1978). The city and self identity. Environment and
Behavior, 10, 147–169.
Proshansky, H. M., Fabian, A. K., & Kaminoff, R. (1983). Place identity:
Physical world socialization of the self. Journal of Environmental
Psychology, 3, 57–83.
Putnam, R. D. (2000). Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American
community. New York: Simon & Schuster.
Rheingold, H. (1993). The virtual community: Homesteading on the
electronic frontier. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
192 April 2009 ● American Psychologist
Rosen, C. (2007, Summer). Virtual friendship and the new narcissism. The
New Atlantis, 17, 15–31.
Rosen, C. (2008, Spring). The myth of multi-tasking. The New Atlantis,
20, 105–110.
Runnerstrom, M. G. (2008). Testing a theory of psychological restoration
through self-actualization processes. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,
University of California, Irvine.
Saegert, S., Thompson, J. P., & Warren, M. R. (Eds.). (2001). Social
capital and poor communities. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
Sampson, E. E. (1981). Cognitive psychology as ideology. American
Psychologist, 36, 730–743.
Schuler, D. (1996). New community networks: Wired for change. Reading,
MA: Addison-Wesley.
Scopelliti, M., & Guiliani, M. V. (2004). Choosing restorative environments
across the lifespan: A matter of place experience. Journal of
Environmental Psychology, 24, 423–437.
Seeman, T. E., McEwen, B. S., Rowe, J. W., & Singer, B. H. (2001).
Allostatic load as a marker of cumulative biological risk: MacArthur
studies of successful aging. PNAS, 98, 4770–4775.
Seligman, M. E. P., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2000). Positive psychology:
An introduction. American Psychologist, 55, 5–14.
Shen, B. (2008). Toward cross-sectoral team science. American Journal of
Preventive Medicine, 35(2, Suppl. 1), S240–S242.
Sherif, M., Harvey, O. J., White, B. J., Hood, W. R., & Sherif, C. W.
(1961). Intergroup cooperation and competition: The Robbers Cave
experiment. Norman, OK: University Book Exchange.
Sherif, M., & Sherif, C. W. (1953). Groups in harmony and tension. New
York: Harper & Row.
Shinn, M., & Toohey, S. M. (2003). Community contexts of human
welfare. Annual Review of Psychology, 54, 427–459.
Silver, R. C., Holman, E. A., McIntosh, D. N., Poulin, M., & Gil-Rivas,
V. (2002). Nationwide longitudinal study of psychological responses to
September 11. JAMA, 288, 1235–1244.
Simon, H. A. (1957). Models of man: Explorations in the Western educational
tradition. New York: Wiley.
Siver, C., & DeFries, R. (1990). One earth, one future: Our changing
global environment. Washington, DC: National Academy of Science
Press.
Southern California Earthquake Center. (2008). The Great Southern
California ShakeOut. Retrieved August 1, 2008, from http://www.
shakeout.org/
Speier, C., Valacich, J. S., & Vessey, I. (1999). The influence of task
interruption on individual decision making: An information overload
perspective. Decision Sciences, 30, 337–360.
Stafford, M., Chandola, T., & Marmot, M. (2007). Association between
fear of crime and mental health and physical functioning. American
Journal of Public Health, 97, 2076–2081.
Stern, P. C. (1992). Psychological dimensions of global environmental
change. Annual Review of Psychology, 43, 269–302.
Stern, P. C. (2000). Psychology and the science of human–environment
interactions. American Psychologist, 55, 523–530.
Stokols, D. (1978). Environmental psychology. Annual Review of Psychology,
29, 253–295).
Stokols, D. (1992). Establishing and maintaining healthy environments:
Toward a social ecology of health promotion. American Psychologist,
47, 6–22.
Stokols, D. (1999). Human development in the age of the Internet:
Conceptual and methodological horizons. In S. L. Friedman & T. D.
Wachs (Eds.), Measuring environment across the lifespan: Emerging
methods and concepts (pp. 327–356). Washington, DC: American
Psychological Association.
Stokols, D. (2003). The ecology of human strengths. In L. G. Aspinwall
& U. M. Staudinger (Eds.), A psychology of human strengths: Fundamental
questions and future directions for a positive psychology (pp.
331–343). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Stokols, D. (2006). Toward a science of transdisciplinary action research.
American Journal of Community Psychology, 38, 63–77.
Stokols, D., Misra, S., Hall, K., Taylor, B., & Moser, R. (2008). The
ecology of team science: Understanding contextual influences on transdisciplinary
collaboration. American Journal of Preventive Medicine,
35(2, Suppl. 1), S96–S115.
Stokols, D., & Montero, M. (2002). Toward an environmental psychology
of the Internet. In R. B. Bechtel & A. Churchman (Eds.), New handbook
of environmental psychology (pp. 661–665). New York: Wiley.
Stone, L. (2007, February). Living with continuous partial attention.
Harvard Business Review, 28–29.
Thomas, S. B., & Quinn, S. C. (2008). Poverty and elimination of urban
health disparities. In S. G. Kaler & O. M. Rennert (Eds.), Annals of the
New York Academy of Sciences: Vol. 1136. Reducing the impact of
poverty on health and human development: Scientific approaches (pp.
111–125). New York: New York Academy of Sciences.
Thompson, C. W. (2002). Urban open space in the 21st century. Landscape
and Urban Planning, 60, 59–72.
Tuan, Y. F. (1974). Topophilia: A study of environmental perception,
attitudes, and values. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Ulrich, R. S. (1983). Aesthetic and affective response to natural environment.
In I. Altman & J. F. Wohlwill (Eds.), Human behavior and
environment: Vol. 6. Behavior and the natural environment (pp. 85–
125). New York: Plenum Press.
UNFPA. (2007). State of world population 2007: Unleashing the potential
of urban growth. Retrieved August 2, 2008, from http://www.
unfpa.org/swp/2007/english/introduction.html
UN-HABITAT. (2003). The challenge of slums: Global report on human
settlements 2003. London, United Kingdom: Earthscan.
U.S. Department of Justice. (2008). Computer crime and intellectual
property section: United States Department of Justice. Retrieved
August 4, 2008, from http://www.usdoj.gov/criminal/cybercrime/
reporting.htm
Vaughan, E. (1993). Individual and cultural differences in adaptation to
environmental risks. American Psychologist, 48, 673–680.
Venkatesh, S. A. (1999). Community-based interventions into street gang
activity. Journal of Community Psychology, 27, 551–567.
Wallace, P. (1999). The psychology of the Internet. New York: Cambridge
University Press.
Wandersman, A. H., & Florin, P. (2000). Citizen participation and community
organizations. In J. Rappaport & E. Seidman (Eds.), Handbook
of community psychology (pp. 247–272). New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum
Press.
Wandersman, A. H., & Hallman, W. K. (1993). Are people acting irrationally?
Understanding public concerns about environmental threats.
American Psychologist, 48, 681–686.
Warden, T. (2007). The engagement of U.S. cities and the global warming
issue, 2005–2007. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of
California, Irvine, School of Social Ecology.
Wellman, B. (2001). Physical place and cyberplace: The rise of personalized
networking. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research,
25, 227–252.
Wellman, B., & Haythornthwaite, C. A. (Eds.). (2002). The Internet in
everyday life. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Wicker, A. W. (1987). Behavior settings reconsidered: Temporal stages,
resources, internal dynamics, context. In D. Stokols & I. Altman (Eds.),
Handbook of environmental psychology (Vol. I, pp. 613–653). New
York: Wiley.
Williams, M. (2007). Earthquake warning system uses cell phones. Retrieved
from the PC World Web site: http://www.pcworld.com/article/
id,132387-c,cellphones/article.html
Wilson, E. O. (1998). Consilience: The unity of knowledge. New York:
Knopf.
Wilson, E. O. (2002). The future of life. New York: Knopf.
Winter, D. D. N. (2000). Some big ideas for some big problems. American
Psychologist, 55, 516–522.
Wohlwill, J. F. (1973). The environment is not in the head. In W. F. E.
Preiser (Ed.), Proceedings of the Environmental Design Research Association:
Vol. 2. Symposia and workshops (pp. 166–181). Stroudsburg,
PA: Dowden, Hutchinson, & Ross.
Work Group for Community Health and Development. (2008). The community
tool box. Retrieved August 11, 2008, from http://ctb.ku.edu/en/
connect/
193April 2009 ● American Psychologist