Environmental Politics and the Human Being: A New Interdisciplinary Perspective on Motivational Processes and Sustainable Change Behaviour

Burger-Menzel, Bettina Working Paper Environmental Politics and the Human Being: A New Interdisciplinary Perspective on Motivational Processes and Sustainable Change Behaviour Global Cooperation Research Papers, No. 13 Provided in Cooperation with: University of Duisburg-Essen, Käte Hamburger Kolleg / Centre for Global Cooperation Research (KHK/GCR21) Suggested Citation: Burger-Menzel, Bettina (2016) : Environmental Politics and the Human Being: A New Interdisciplinary Perspective on Motivational Processes and Sustainable Change Behaviour, Global Cooperation Research Papers, No. 13, University of Duisburg-Essen, Käte Hamburger Kolleg / Centre for Global Cooperation Research (KHK/GCR21), Duisburg, https://doi.org/10.14282/2198-0411-GCRP-13 This Version is available at: https://hdl.handle.net/10419/214706 Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen: Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden. Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen. Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. Terms of use: Documents in EconStor may be saved and copied for your personal and scholarly purposes. You are not to copy documents for public or commercial purposes, to exhibit the documents publicly, to make them publicly available on the internet, or to distribute or otherwise use the documents in public. If the documents have been made available under an Open Content Licence (especially Creative Commons Licences), you may exercise further usage rights as specified in the indicated licence. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/ Bettina Burger-Menzel Environmental Politics and the Human Being: A New Interdisciplinary Perspective on Motivational Processes and Sustainable Change Behaviour Käte Hamburger Kolleg / Centre for Global Cooperation Research (KHK/GCR21) Global Cooperation Research Papers 13 Global Cooperation Research Papers are available online. To learn more about the Käte Hamburger Kolleg / Centre for Global Cooperation Research, please visit www.gcr21.org. DuEPublico All issues are permanently archived at the University of Duisburg-Essen’s open-access repository: http://duepublico.uni-duisburgessen.de. Printed by UDZ, Duisburg © Duisburg 2016 Copyright is held by the contributing authors. ISSN: 2198-1949 (Print) ISSN: 2198-0411 (Online) DOI: 10.14282/2198-0411-GCRP-13 Editorial Board Rainer Baumann Katja Freistein Frank Gadinger Volker Heins Christine Unrau Editorial Offi ce Martin Wolf Tina Berntsen Käte Hamburger Kolleg / Centre for Global Cooperation Research (KHK/GCR21) Managing Board Markus Böckenförde Tobias Debiel Claus Leggewie Dirk Messner Schiff erstr. 196 47059 Duisburg Germany Tel: +49 (0)203 29861-100 Fax: +49 (0)203 29861-199 E-Mail: [email protected] Internet: www.gcr21.org A Central Research Institute of the University of Duisburg-Essen Licence: Creative Commons Attribution CC BY-ND 4.0 Attribution Please cite the work as follows: Bettina Burger-Menzel 2016. Environmental Politics and the Human Being: A New Interdisciplinary Perspective on Motivational Processes and Sustainable Change Behaviour (Global Cooperation Research Papers 13). Duisburg: Käte Hamburger Kolleg / Centre for Global Cooperation Research (KHK / GCR21). doi: 10.14282/2198-0411-GCRP-13. Licence: Creative Commons Attribution CC BY-ND 4.0. No Derivative Works You may not alter, transform, or build upon this work. Notice For any reuse or distribution, you must make clear to others the license terms of this work. The best way to do this is with a link to this Global Cooperation Research Papers 13 Contents Bettina Burger-Menzel Environmental Politics and the Human Being: A New Interdisciplinary Perspective on Motivational Processes and Sustainable Change Behaviour 1 'The future we want for all' OR the Story of (still) Poor Systemic Change 5 2 The Context: Human Behaviour as a Risk Factor in Global Environmental Politics 8 2.1 Global Environmental Politics as a System 8 2.2 Introducing Cognitive Blindspots as a Risk Factor 12 3 The Input: A Review of Interdisciplinary Literature on Human Behaviour 20 3.1 Selected Approaches on Motivation, Cognition and Environmental Sustainability 20 3.2 Assessing the Input from Literature for Further Analysis 28 4 The Proposal: Sequencing Human Motivation for Insights on Ecosustainable Change Behaviour 30 4.1 Human Motivation and its Sub-processes 30 4.2 Decoding Cognitive Matchmaking, Knowledge Creation and Decision-taking 31 4.3 Motivational Feedback Loops, Learning and Adaptive Behaviour in Complex Systems 39 5 (Policy) Conclusions and Outlook 46 5.1 Drawing Conclusions: Human Potential for Environmental Sustainability 46 5.2 Proposals for Future Research Agendas and Final Remarks 49 References 52 Figures and Tables Figure 1: 'The future we want for all' 6 Figure 2: Global cooperation as a diffusion system 9 Figure 3: Human behaviour as a precondition for systemic change 12 Figure 4: From pre-analytic visions to behavioural models and real human behaviour 21 Figure 5: Human motivation as structure and flux 31 Figure 6: Emotions and their action tendencies 38 Figure 7: Examples of 'cognitive exit points' in human change behaviour 48 Table 1: Ideas of the human being and their potential for environmental sustainability 26 Table 2: Values with potential as nature-related stimuli 32 Abstract Never before has the world been globalized to such an extent, which results in a rapid exploitation of global commons and natural resources and has cross-border effects on biological diversity and climate change. As a consequence, there is a new urgency in making global cooperation in environmental politics work. Although there is a broad consensus that systemic change is needed, progress towards the latter—first, through corresponding global agreements and, second, through effective implementation of those policies at home—seems to lag behind expectations. How can these gaps be explained? And how can new scientific insights help to make environmental politics more effective? Notwithstanding the importance of non-behavioural factors as explanations from the 'outside', the author argues that explanations also have to focus on the 'inside', i.e. individual motivation. The key interest is to better understand the motivational process of individuals who are willing to undergo sustainable change behaviour and to conceptualize the results for further research. This turns human behaviour into an important risk factor in global cooperation and cognition into its relevant feature. This work is on conceptualization with a qualitative methodology and is structured as follows: In order to better grasp the meaning of 'poor' systemic change through environmental politics, the introductory part describes global cooperation as a system and identifies three cognitive blindspots, which need further analysis. As a corresponding literature review proves rich in insights but is too implicit for the further analysis, the author provides her own scheme through which the motivational process is sequenced and linked to the system around the individual. This allows new perspectives on how to discuss change behaviour in globally initiated knowledge production, learning and trial and error adaptations. The conclusions consider what the results obtained so far imply for further research on environmental politics. Keywords Global environmental politics, human motivation, cognition, sustainability, systemic change Author Bettina Burger-Menzel is a Professor of Economics, esp. Competition and Technology Policy at the Brandenburg University of Applied Sciences and the holder of various scholarships during her career. She was a fellow at the Käte Hamburger Kolleg / Centre for Global Cooperation Research in 2014 and 2015 with her project 'Lessons from innovation systems: Increased (global) cooperation potential through the application of diffusion principles'. Short-term work stays at: Universidad Autónoma MetropolitanaXochimilco, Mexico-City, University of Arizona (Tucson), Georgia Institute of Technology (Atlanta). Papers and presentations include: Modern technology policy put to the test; Conocimiento tradicional, biotecnología moderna y desarrollo local en México; The economics of open sourcing: A new type of interactive learning within national innovation systems; Technology Transfer, University-Industry Linkages and the MicroLevel. Global Cooperation Research Papers 13 5 Environmental Politics and the Human Being: A New Interdisciplinary Perspective on Motivational Processes and Sustainable Change Behaviour Bettina Burger-Menzel 1 'The future we want for all' OR the Story of (still) Poor Systemic Change Convention on Biological Diversity (Article 5): Each Contracting Party shall, as far as possible and as appropriate, cooperate with other Contracting Parties, directly or where appropriate, through competent international organizations, in respect of areas beyond national jurisdiction and on other matters of mutual interest, for the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity. UN (1992) The human mind is something of an embarrassment to certain disciplines, notably economics, decision theory and others that have found the model of the rational consumer to be a powerfully productive one ... It is like a complex piece of machinery that has a mind of its own, and is not disposed to be our obedient servant. Schelling (1986) Technical progress and economic and geopolitical dynamics have globalized our world and its environmental challenges, which are the exploitation of global commons such as the high seas, transboundary pollution or the local cumulative effects of reduced natural resources. Global problems are not new. But their scale, scope and complexity have increased and more than justify international actions that aim at sustainable development and environmental change, thereby contributing to human security. Apart from equality and human rights, the United Nations (UN 2013) therefore names sustainability as one of the three principles which constitute the post-2015 Burger-Menzel | Environmental Politics and the Human Being . . . Global Cooperation Research Papers 13 6 Development Agenda; environmental sustainability itself is one of the four dimensions of development where progress is needed (grey-coded in Figure 1). Figure 1: 'The future we want for all' Based on UN (2013) Well-defined multi-stakeholder partnerships should then be mainstreamed under each thematic goal in order to 'better reflect the contributions of voluntary and purpose-specific partnerships, which could be coordinated and linked to the priority needs of developing countries in a more systematic manner' (UN 2013). Despite a broad consensus that governments and other stakeholders should act to reach 'the future we want for all', progress towards the latter—through global agreements and their effective implementation at home—seems to lag behind expectations. The UN (2013) itself points out that '[d]espite the ability of partnerships to mobilize resources, advocate for important issues and share knowledge, they have a poor record of promoting systemic change'. And for the UN Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), which tackles the conservation of species and ecosystems, Zelli, Gupta and van Asselt (2012) state that 'interlinkage management efforts to the biodiversity convention have yielded little effect to date'. Yet providing scientific answers to the 'why' question does not come easy. Due to the given context’s complexities, global cooperation research spawns a huge variety of disciplines to cover all angles. There is primatology research on key Burger-Menzel | Environmental Politics and the Human Being . . . Global Cooperation Research Papers 13 7 contexts like aggression, reconciliation, third party alliance or intervention (e.g. Thierry 2000), cognitive anthropology with issues like knowledge structures and cultural stereotyping (e.g. Medin, Ross et al. 2006), experimental economics on cooperation, offer behaviour, trust and risk preferences (e.g. Henrich 2000), evolutionary sociology dealing with altruism in humans (e.g. Bowles and Gintis 2013) and, last but not least, political science ranging from topics like the perception of power, historical memory and negotiation procedures to compliance and enforcement (e.g. von Stein 2010). Notwithstanding the value of each disciplinary contribution, such a scientific landscape bears the risk of fragmentation and specialization where the human being might even get ignored as a decisive factor. Messner, Guarín and Haun (2013) therefore suggest a 'behaviourally-sound theory' when analyzing global cooperation. This paper tries to link disciplines as well as to integrate human behaviour in a qualitative way. Its key interest is to better understand the motivational process of those individuals who are willing to practice sustainable behaviour and to conceptualize the results for further research. Let me suggest the following lead questions for structuring the paper: Chapter 2: How does human behaviour relate to systemic change and what turns it into a risk factor? In this introductory part, the goal is to underline the need to discuss global cooperation as a system, thereby offering new perspectives on actors, relationships and the scaling-up of change. Analogies will be drawn from innovation-system research, which has a rich and interdisciplinary tradition and acknowledges human nature as an impact factor. With reference to the real world of biodiversity-related politics, three motivational challenges are identified and defined as cognitive blindspots in order to highlight how difficult it is to get an individual's change behaviour started and to make it ongoing and even sustainable. Chapter 3: How does science explain motivational challenges to sustainable change behaviour and which solutions are offered? The goal is to take stock of that part of literature which discusses the human motivation to undergo behavioural changes. I draw from a wealth of interdisciplinary contributions on the human being to show that the dominant discussion is either context-related but deals with motivational processes rather implicitly or it describes the individual as someone motivationally complex but lacks in context-specificity. Chapter 4: What does this outcome mean for the conceptualization of human behaviour in environmental politics? The goal is to create a context-specific understanding of the human motivation to undergo learning and adaptations over time even if the system around the individual increases in complexity. Because all humans are 'run' by cognition, I argue in favour of using cognition as the basic descriptor for all global cooperation stakeholders regardless of how different they are from each other. The motivational process itself is conceptualized as a sequential arrangement with two subparts, i.e. a basic motivational process and a motivational feedback loop. Both subparts relate to those challenges which come with increased system complexity. The final chapter offers conclusions on the results. Empirically relevant aspects will be highlighted and interpreted for the further study of global cooperation. Burger-Menzel | Environmental Politics and the Human Being . . . Global Cooperation Research Papers 13 8 2 The Context: Human Behaviour as a Risk Factor in Global Environmental Politics Studying group membership as having a uniform influence on members only makes sense if membership itself is uniform: if every group member shares the same relation to the group. This is rarely the case. Even when something that would be recognised as a 'group' exists, some members are more or less committed, more or less tied to other group members, more or less identified with the group or more or less recognised by others as co-members of the group. Marin and Wellman (2011) 2. 1 Global Environmental Politics as a System Systemic performance largely depends on how actors 'tick' and 'relate' to each other as elements of a collective system of knowledge creation, learning and adaptation. Incorporating such a perspective into the analysis of global cooperation tracks the mentioned 'poor record of promoting systemic change' back to the actor itself and to the relevant questions of how to get individuals involved in real own change behaviour. Such a perspective can help to enrich corresponding (policy) strategies through aspects that include motivational structures and personal multirole environments and their changes over time. Global cooperation research commonly focuses on determinants like power distribution, external constraints, extrinsic incentive systems and strategies. Thus, 'in theorizing international relations and global governance the insights gained by the behavioural sciences beyond rational choice have been so far largely ignored' (Messner, Guarín et al. 2013). Richerzhagen (2014), who provides an interesting analysis of the architecture of biodiversity governance, additionally states: 'So far, much research has been done on the conditions under which multilateral agreements were established or how they function. Only little research has addressed the question of how such agreements evolve over time ...'. Yet it is not only agreements which change in an evolutionary way; so do people, their interrelationships, choices and actions. Therefore, global cooperation requires a deeper understanding of the human being. People are sources and sinks of new (embodied) knowledge and are connected by corresponding flows. This is highlighted in policy dialogues like the G20's Action Plan for knowledge sharing and mutual learning (G20 2013). Knowledge sharing itself is linked to 'the provision of task information and know-how to help others and to collaborate with others to solve problems, develop new ideas, or implement Burger-Menzel | Environmental Politics and the Human Being . . . Global Cooperation Research Papers 13 15 (i) The motivational challenge to start a certain change behaviour Ideally, at the international level as well as within all signature countries, the diverse actor groups are motivated to work in the spirit of the CBD and to put the Convention into practice through an increasingly shared and new common sense. Against that background, every cooperation is a social arrangement or—as Williamson (1979) calls it—'relational contracting'. In every social arrangement, transactions are needed to connect people for joint tasks (e.g. sharing of information) and to bridge separate processes to avoid frictions (e.g. how to hand over an assignment). The more recurrent transactions are, the more some form of joint governance is stimulated and expressed—not only through organizational charts and process manuals but also through codes of conduct. Yet as indicated above, social arrangements do not necessarily imply that the officially intended change behaviour is actually adopted. On the one hand, individuals act as representatives of organizations like governments. As countries substantially differ (e.g. natural resources, economic structure, historical development, political factors), not every party might assess a cooperative outcome as a gain in utility. 'Sometimes, to get countries with significantly different needs or priorities to sign a treaty, a lowest-common-denominator or compromise approach is adopted. Such halfway agreements, not surprisingly, are often insufficient to achieve the intended results' (Susskind 1994). Acknowledging a state's sovereign rights to determine how to implement agreements at home—as stated in Article 3 of the CBD (UN 1992)—might then indicate a risk rather than an opportunity. Article 3. Principle: States have, in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations and the principles of international law, the sovereign right to exploit their own resources pursuant to their own environmental policies, and the responsibility to ensure that activities within their jurisdiction or control do not cause damage to the environment of other States or of areas beyond the limits of national jurisdiction. On the other hand, the same individuals might also abstain from goal-oriented behaviour because the features of the given situation do not support their personal motivation. Thus, inherited and learned behaviour has an additional impact on decision-making due to human nature (e.g. ability to feel fear or shame), personality traits (e.g. strong intrinsic motivation) and culture. The latter 'influences participants' views regarding what a relationship is: its goals, what goes into making a good one, norms and expectations for exchanges and reciprocity, appropriate interactions, activities and rituals involved, and things that damage or destroy them. It also defines what relationships are appropriate for negotiations' (Moore 2010). All the named factors can lead to inadequate goal descriptions at the global and lower level. Thus, there may be a lack of information on what should be reached Burger-Menzel | Environmental Politics and the Human Being . . . Global Cooperation Research Papers 13 16 (intentionality) and/or on what the final status quo should look like (finality) and/or on how the acting party wants to reach the intended finality (cause-effect relationship) (Stein 2005). In the end and as described by political psychologists, 'the goals, abilities, and foibles of individuals are crucial to the intentions, capabilities, and strategies of a state' (Byman and Pollack 2001 in Winter 2013). A relative independence of partners, which allows resources to be pooled in a flexible way, also makes it easier to only 'officially' adopt a certain change behaviour and/or to break away from the cooperative setting in the future. In both cases, there will be, at most, a short-term effect on change behaviour. This is where I assume a first cognitive blindspot in cooperation. Exemplary questions are: When are people really willing to cooperate in favour of a new techno-economic and socio-institutional paradigm? What does a non-existing or small overlap of interests mean for people’s predisposition to listen carefully to communication messages and to act upon them? How much 'noise' in the cooperation channel stems from subjectively perceived (cultural) context gaps? Can individual preferences change over time? And if yes, what does that mean with regard to the stability of behavioural solutions? (ii) The motivation to keep a chosen change behaviour ongoing Usually, relational contracts are incomplete. Gaps in such relational contracts can be 'faultlessly filled in an adaptive, sequential way' (Williamson 1979). According to Williamson, contract-specific investment will be higher if there is  a lack of alternative uses (lock-in);  specialized training and learning-by-doing in operations (asset specificity);  successful contract adaptation to unfolding events and periodic contract renewals (transaction-cost savings);  evolving familiarity (communication economies);  responsibility with an increasing personal and organizational stake (institutional and personal trust relations);  a personal integrity that becomes operative (moral behaviour). In the case of the CBD, all contractual gaps are supposed to be filled by the Conference of the Parties (CBD Article 23), which holds ordinary meetings at regular intervals; has extraordinary meetings when deemed necessary by at least one third of the Parties; agrees upon rules of procedure and financial rules in a consensual way; reviews the implementation of the Convention; and admits observers and allows their participation, subject to the adopted rules. Up to now, ten Conferences of the Parties have taken place. The last one—after more than six years of renegotiation—led to the above-mentioned Nagoya Protocol, which was adopted in 2010. Thus, over the years the Parties seem to have invested a lot of time and resources in improving organizational, procedural and communicative routines. Additionally, they have tried to foresee all kind of options Burger-Menzel | Environmental Politics and the Human Being . . . Global Cooperation Research Papers 13 17 to solve disputes among the Parties (CBD Article 27), which include solutions such as negotiation; the good offices of or mediation by a third party; arbitration or submission to the International Court of Justice in unresolved disputes; or submission to conciliation. Conferences of the Parties and dispute settlements generally cover all measures defined as obligatory in the CBD (UN 1992), such as  General Measures for Conservation and Sustainable Use (Article 6);  Identification and Monitoring (Article 7);  In-situ Conservation (Article 8);  Ex-situ Conservation (Article 9);  Sustainable Use of Components of Biological Diversity (Article 10);  Incentive Measures (Article 11);  Research and Training (Article 12);  Public Education and Awareness (Article 13);  Impact Assessment and Minimizing Adverse Impacts (Article 14);  Access to Genetic Resources (Article 15);  Access to and Transfer of Technology (Article 16);  Exchange of Information (Article 17);  Technical and Scientific Cooperation (Article 18);  Handling of Biotechnology and Distribution of its Benefits (Article 19);  Financial Resources (Article 20);  Financial Mechanism (Article 21). As can be seen from all theoretical and real-world enumerations, contractual repair involves substantial learning and adaptation; it also requires a personal and social morality to be put into practice and maintained over a long time. Exposure to such a world of cooperation is like a steady and huge flow of incoming data, especially in environmental politics with its continuous production of new knowledge and needs. Thus, apart from the challenge of given preferences, there seem to be other bounds. People might simply feel overwhelmed when taking up new responsibilities in this field. This is where I assume a second cognitive blindspot. Exemplary questions are: What happens if continuous adaptation leads to information overload and cognitive stress? Can decision-relevant categories change in such situations or the way in which decisions are taken? What happens if decision-making affects the 'moral mind' as well? How does the mind deal with all these challenges, especially in a world which has huge context gaps between stakeholders, e.g. between an industrial lobbyist and a member of an indigenous community? Burger-Menzel | Environmental Politics and the Human Being . . . Global Cooperation Research Papers 13 18 (iii) The motivational challenge to transform change behaviour into a sustainable one Relational contracting is challenged by an additional phenomenon. Williamson (1981) also points to the fact that humans can be subject to opportunism, i.e. either principals or agents 'are dishonest (or, more generally, disguise attributes or preferences, distort data, obfuscate issues, and otherwise confuse transactions), and it is very costly to distinguish opportunistic from non-opportunistic types ex ante'. These humans look for opportunities to pursue undisclosed personal advantages and, by doing so, to cover up their tracks. This is enabled by information asymmetries (Fritsch, Wein et al. 1999), which increase in complex environments and offer room for hidden motives and actions. 'Biopiracy' can serve as such a case, when patent-protected 'novel' traits of biological varieties turn out to have existed prior to the filing of corresponding patents, with the result that traditional farming communities could have a claim to benefit-sharing (Lea 2008; Soria López and Burger-Menzel 2014). In the real world, the CBD seems to come with increased frustration, especially among providers of biodiversity. The Australian Government (2012) confirms: … Until now, the lack of a coherent standard has resulted in a high level of mistrust and obstacles to biodiversity research and its potentially valuable outcomes … Apart from an opportunistic interest, humans can also have an interest in their own being, i.e. an interest not only to 'have' but also to 'be' (Taylor 1987; Nozick 1989). A person then gains complexity through his or her own features and their lifelong changes (self) as well as through more diverse social factors and group dynamics (me and the others). In global cooperation, this certainly includes the need to tackle cultural stereotypes, when, for example, 'negotiators from collectivistic cultures, far from always being cooperative, tend to be more competitive when they have strong egoistic motives and high aspirations' (Chen, Mannix, and Okumura 2003, quoted in Imai and Gelfand 2009). Cooperative relationships evolve over time and adaptation needs motivational conditions which are sufficient to overcome (informational) challenges and their consequences. Against that background, mistrust would qualify as an adaptive problem that makes it necessary to find new reliable and resourceful cooperation partners. But mistrust does not only point to clues on opportunistic behaviour; it also draws attention to emotional determinations or motivational conflicts, which might cast an individual into roles which contradict original intentions. Or as Hocker (2008) puts it: 'The "incompleteness" of contracts has increased with globalization, radical uncertainty and self-referential complexity'. This is where I assume a third and final cognitive blindspot. Exemplary questions are: What are needs of a cognitive self who has increased moral hazards and selfreferential complexity? Is there a tension between the 'self' and those manifold pragmatic expectations that dynamically evolve in (global) cooperation? Do minds Burger-Menzel | Environmental Politics and the Human Being . . . Global Cooperation Research Papers 13 19 and a continuously changing world really fit together? Or does the mind rather escape from such challenges through strategies that are automatically or unconsciously employed? Let me finish with the introductory part on global cooperation and its three cognitive blindspots. In its 2006 resolution, the UN's General Assembly stressed the importance of multi-stakeholder partnerships at all levels (global, national, regional) and defined them 'as voluntary relationships between various parties, both public and non-public, in which all participants agree to work together to achieve a common purpose or undertake a specific task, and, as mutually agreed, to share risks and responsibilities, resources and benefits'; however, it also stressed that [d]espite the ability of partnerships to mobilize resources, advocate for important issues and share knowledge, they have a poor record of promoting systemic change (UN 2013). Usually, all these actors are diverse, as are their context conditions. As a consequence, there are goal-related context gaps, hidden motives and actions, and self-referential needs. Such challenges increase as a system becomes more complex. I have attempted to illustrate this problem by linking theoretical reasoning with the CBD's real world. Three motivational challenges were identified and defined as cognitive blindspots in order to highlight how difficult it is to get an individual's change behaviour started and to keep it ongoing and even sustainable. The following chapter attempts to find answers on how to deal with the human risk factor, based on a review of a rich body of interdisciplinary literature. Only some of these contributions stem from innovation system research because the latter, too, is still a learner with regard to human behaviour. Burger-Menzel | Environmental Politics and the Human Being . . . Global Cooperation Research Papers 13 20 3 The Input: A Review of Interdisciplinary Literature on Human Behaviour We are not students of some subject matter, but students of problems. And problems may cut right across the borders of any subject matter or discipline. Popper (1963) 3.1 Selected Approaches on Motivation, Cognition and Environmental Sustainability The literature on the human being is overwhelmingly dense and rich, in its century-spanning tradition as well as in its interdisciplinary perspectives. Broadly speaking, it falls into two domains. The first domain comprises a philosophical debate on topics such as human needs and morality, intentionality and compassion (e.g. Nussbaum 2001). The second domain is less general. As Huddy, Sears and Levy (2013) put it: 'Individuals do not act within a vacuum. Their behaviour varies with, and responds to, differences in political institutions, political cultures, leadership styles, and social norms'. In particular, proposals for governance modes need to be contextrelated; how otherwise to interpret early Utilitarians like Thomas Hobbes (Hobbes 1651, reprint 1966) who perceived the human existence as a fight of all against all and called for an authoritarian sovereign? Liberal counterparts like John Locke (Locke 1690, reprint 1989) rather assumed a precarious peace among men and a government which could therefore act with the consent and goodwill of the governed. Last but not least, the Scottish moral philosopher Adam Smith (Smith 1776, reprint 1994) reasoned that there is an interpersonal value system, which makes free-market mechanisms between people workable. Approaches with a functional view are called 'ideas of the human being' (in nongendered times: 'ideas of man'). These ideas are constructions by other human beings and can be defined as all assumptions on the nature of the individual and its actions which are explicitly or implicitly made by a person or a theory (Siebenhüner 2001). Due to their explanatory function, such ideas should be consistent, plausible and—if possible—accessible for empirical research. And they have become an appreciated academic tool in numerous disciplines, as is evident from their names, such as homo oeconomicus, homo politicus, homo psychologicus and homo sociologicus. Described through its attributes, the idealized human is then integrated into models which try to consistently explain context-related behaviour and are additionally used in academic training or as a frame of reference for policy-making and corresponding goal-setting. However, the use of such ideas needs an awareness of its consequences. First, the researcher's prescientific vision has to be made explicit because it entails subjective perceptions and normative assumptions about the research object which otherwise could put limits to any person's understanding (Siebenhüner 2001; Kirsch 2004). A Burger-Menzel | Environmental Politics and the Human Being . . . Global Cooperation Research Papers 13 21 famous example is the homo oeconomicus who is assumed to be purely rational and 'mechanically' inclined towards optimizing its own utility (Saßmannshausen 2009). Second, methodological designs such as the homo oeconomicus are often based on assumptions that are so restrictive that they become inadequate as interpretations of reality, which makes Sedlacek (2011) ask: 'How did morality disappear from economics, which was originally a branch of moral science?' And he claims '... not to forget that economic thought is much richer than just applied math and we should try to understand it all if we want to talk about all human behaviour'. Third, applying behavioural models has effects, too. Siebenhüner points to evidence by Frank, Gilovich and Regan and to evidence by Streeten. Their studies show that economics graduates, who were educated with the dominant idea of a rational and self-centered homo oeconomicus, tended to behave less cooperatively than graduates of other disciplines (Frank, Gilovich et al. 1993). Such behaviour might have societal consequences if executed in leadership positions (Streeten 1997). If it were political minds, such a purely rational formation could produce biased views on the world: 'The prevailing view among globalization's supporters is that markets and democracy are a kind of universal prescription for the multiple ills of underdevelopment. ... Working hand in hand, markets and democracy will gradually transform the world into a community of prosperous, war-shunning nations, and individuals into liberal, civic-minded citizens and consumers. In the process, ethnic hatred, religious zealotry, and other 'backward' aspects of underdevelopment will be swept away' (Chua 2004). How would somebody else perceive, judge and act if there were additional motivations like empathy? Figure 4: From pre-analytic visions to behavioural models and real human behaviour Siebenhüner 2001: 22; own translation Burger-Menzel | Environmental Politics and the Human Being . . . Global Cooperation Research Papers 13 22 Figure 4 sums up the recursive relationship between pre-analytic visions, ideas of human beings, behavioural models and real-world behaviour. It shows how scientific explanations of human behaviour are built up through a researcher's preanalytic vision, interpersonally comparable assumptions and a theoretical framework which links attributes to incentive systems. Since the mid-1980s, there has been increasing pressure on mainstream approaches which idealize and model the human being. These approaches were neither able to lower uncertainties in policy issues of risk. Nor did they work as explanatory guides in times of crisis while environmental challenges made perspectives in politics shift, e.g. from 'output orientation and environmental repair' towards 'input orientation and care'. Pressure has also been added through technological and scientific progress. Fields such as cognitive neuroscience see the brain 'naked' and provide new insights into human perception and decision-making (e.g. Edelman and Tononi 2000; Andreasen 2005; Restak 2006). As a consequence, there have been substantial advances in the idealization and modelling of the human being, which sometimes turns literature searches into breath-taking journeys. Yet there is no sole approach which fits all the needs of this research. This is due to the fact that all interdisciplinary developments vary in their goal, scope, depth, cognition-relatedness and contextual reference to environmental politics. Let me briefly outline some of the most valuable findings on selected approaches. Selection criteria were motivation, cognition and environmentally sustainable behaviour, which can be described as follows:  'Motivation refers to the initiation, choice, or persistence in specific, goaloriented behaviour' (Weiner 1992) while motives are certain types of incentives which are preferred by individuals. In order to directly influence behaviour and performance, an individual's motive structure has to match with the motivational characteristics of a given situation (current-state motivation). As motives differ between individuals, incentives might trigger different levels of state motivation (Reiss and Havercamp 1998). Thus, motivation is a process in which motives are embedded and scanned for relevance.  Cognition deals with those abilities and processes which determine how a sensory input is transformed, reduced, elaborated, stored or recovered in the brain (Andreasen 2005). Even if the term's usage varies across disciplines, the larger field of cognitive science helps to achieve a better understanding of how people think, perceive, remember and learn and why motivation affects behavioural outcomes.  'Whatever the precise definition, sustainability science is mostly about complex social-ecological systems' (de Vries 2012). For their survival, humans depend on favourable conditions on Earth. Climate change and biodiversity losses therefore affect integral parts of the human existence and need to be tackled. This is especially true in a world which has turned from 'human-empty to a human-full world' (Folke 2013) and where the anthropogenic impact on planetary boundaries is accelerating and is not Burger-Menzel | Environmental Politics and the Human Being . . . Global Cooperation Research Papers 13 23 an independent issue but interrelated with human existence. Environmental sustainability then describes a behaviour which aims to reduce the negative human impact on ecosystems within a broader societal context. How do recent approaches on the human being deal with these key contexts? Below, a basic distinction is made between approaches which are based on pre=scientific visions and those which are not, although this distinction is not always clear-cut. (i) Approaches without pre-scientific visions A first idealization which tries to comprise the human being in its totality and has also made its way into global cooperation research (Gadinger, Jarzebski et al. 2014) is the homo narrans. The approach is based on the anthropological understanding that each individual acquires a growing verbal and symbolic lexicon through social interaction. Narratives then provide a unique source which should be protected from the external power of interpretation. Such a '"narrative turn" in social studies' has an interest in texts as such and perceives them as a form of social life, a form of knowledge and a form of communication (Czarniawska 2004). Even analytical methods like 'signifier mapping' try to be a 'means to see the Other as Self, and the Self as Other' because they leave narratives within their contextual situatedness (Meriam 2010). Or as Schelling (2006) observes: 'Language is an almost completely adaptive behaviour. What language a person speaks depends on what languages he encounters, particularly within his own family... Accent, grammar and vocabulary are even more individualist in origin, slang being an outstanding example'. Another approach is to categorize ideal types of personalities based on empirical observations, i.e. personality traits which indicate a relative willingness in favour of change behaviour. Rogers (2003) describes people who are quicker than others to adopt an innovation (early adopters). The underlying process consists of five stages: Exposure to an innovation and understanding of how it works (knowledge); forming of a favourable or non-favourable attitude towards the proposed change (persuasion); attitude-driven adoption or rejection (decision); practicing of change behaviour (implementation); seeking of reinforcement when exposed to conflicting messages during adoption of and adaptation to the new practice (confirmation). At the last stage, a dissonant individual will feel motivated to reduce his or her condition of an uncomfortable state of mind through a change in his or her own knowledge, attitudes, or actions. As a result, an early or late adopter might not actually continue a certain change behaviour. According to Rogers, early adopters have greater empathy; have an rather open set of beliefs; are able to adopt new ideas on the basis of rather abstract stimuli; have greater rationality; have more intelligence; have more favourable attitudes towards change; are better able to cope with uncertainty and risk; have a more favourable attitude towards science; have more self-efficacy and believe that they are in control of their future; have higher aspirations and seek them through formal education, higher status or more attractive occupations. The importance of personality traits is confirmed by creativity research because it helps to achieve a better understanding of how Burger-Menzel | Environmental Politics and the Human Being . . . Global Cooperation Research Papers 13 24 creative people 'tick' (e.g. Andreasen 2005) and can be used to adapt incentive systems to foster the creativity of employees (e.g. Frey and Osterloh 2002; Kirchler 2008) or to improve the match between policy instruments and their target groups (e.g. Burger-Menzel 2011). (ii) Approaches with pre-scientific visions Modern approaches which are more strongly associated with pre-scientific visions aspire to no longer treat human behaviour as something of artificial security. In dealing with human behaviour, then, the goal is not to predict the future 'but to tell you what you need to know to take meaningful action in the present' (Saffo 2007). Let me sketch some examples from economics, where for a long time 'the psychological study of motivation has paralleled rather than complemented the economic one' (Ainslie 1986). Since the mid-1980s, an increasing number of interdisciplinary inputs from psychology, sociology, cognitive science and others has enriched the homo oeconomicus or inspired new ideas from a highly integrative perspective, although none of them ever made it into the mainstream:  The intrinsically motivated being, i.e. homo oeconomicus maturus (Frey 1997; Frey and Neckermann 2008): This human being is still dominantly rational and optimizes its own utility under conditions of scarcity. But now, there are motivational reflections. Motivation is triggered through incentives, which are set by a third party (e.g. monetary or reputational gain), as well as intrinsically. In such a case, the being is driven by a continuous impulse to grow personally, a sensation of complete devotion and a reward due to the action itself (Heckhausen 1989).  Simons's boundedly rational being (Simon 1976), who experiences informational bounds: Related to bounds through informational scarcity or overload, there can also be cognitive bounds and stress when decisions have to be taken (Lindstädt 2006). In such situations, humans tend towards decisions, which can be described as cognitive shortcuts, such as ecological heuristics (e.g. Todd and Gigerenzer 2007).  The cognitively competent and socially related being, i.e. homo culturalis (Goldschmidt, Nutzinger et al. 2009): Culture—due to cognition— becomes an open and unstable process that interrelates cognitively competent actors with different interests. These actors negotiate interpretations and evaluations of their world and conclude by compromising on their own social boundaries.  The multiple self as a result of impressive transdisciplinary efforts (Elster 1986): The concept was developed by an international workgroup on rationality and social change comprising psychologists, philosophers, economists and mathematicians, and describes the individual as someone highly complex. With emotions, weakness of will and self-deception, the individual is therefore liable to make contradictory decisions and be affected by motivational conflicts. Along with this comes the plea to accept ambivalence in human behaviour (Rorty 2010). Burger-Menzel | Environmental Politics and the Human Being . . . Global Cooperation Research Papers 13 31 Figure 5: Human motivation as structure and flux Based on Burger-Menzel (2014a) In order to facilitate these processes, self-regulatory efforts are needed all the time. Evolutionary psychology confirms that very simple learning may be mindless as in classical conditioning but 'value codes within the brain need to be felt if they are going to be optimal heuristics for learning' (Panksepp 2007). Yet, given the scope of this paper, there have to be limits to discussion. Like all analytical frameworks, mine remains an abstraction of reality. Some factors are stressed, others relegated to the background. When focusing on psychological and neurobiological findings on individual cognition and relating them to the socioeconomic and political dimension, one must bear in mind that one is not reducible to the other. 4.2 Decoding Cognitive Matchmaking, Knowledge Creation and Decision-taking a. Signaling value through incoming stimuli According to Rogers (2003), '[s]ome observers claim that an individual plays a relatively passive role when being exposed to awareness-knowledge about an innovation'. And he concludes that it is the predisposition of an individual which influences his or her behaviour towards a communication message and the effects that such a message is likely to have. Such a predisposition is motivation, which scans (single) motives for their relevance. Motivation grows if an activity is central to the individual and makes an activity interesting and likely to be performed; thus, the 'signal' of the incoming stimulus gets stronger. Motives are therefore determinants of motivation and they come with needs. An incoming signal, which serves to indicate a strong need, will be more easily recognized in its 'value message' than a stimulus, which is directed towards a relatively weak need. Or as Chong (2013) puts it: 'Instrumental reasoning and self- Burger-Menzel | Environmental Politics and the Human Being . . . Global Cooperation Research Papers 13 32 interested decision-making are more likely to be manifest when people can see that a policy will have a significant impact on their lives'. A negative value can be expressed as 'costs' (direct costs, indirect costs, opportunity costs). If motivation is lacking, the corresponding activity is not executed or not executed adequately. The early explanatory focus was on 'basic biological needs or drives connected to survival and procreation (e.g. hunger, thirst, sex) and extrinsic rewards or punishments' (Ryan and Deci 2000) that energize individuals towards reaching a particular goal. Instrumental values, which make an individual perceive nature as something important, are linked, for example, to personal income levels; consumption expenditures and living standard; employment situation; or life expectancy including available medical services and water and air quality (OECD 2000). Additionally, there are needs for a good life and corresponding stimuli (eudemonic values). A bureaucrat whose professional utility cannot only be described through pecuniary income (e.g. increased salary) and more prestige (e.g. leadership position) but also through a comfortable and conflict-free job life (e.g. slack) and non-pecuniary income (e.g. increasing size of office), as in models of public choice theory (Fritsch, Wein et al. 1999), certainly falls into this category. Eudemonic values, which include nature and go beyond material wealth, are, for example, recreational stays as well as other amenities which positively relate to eco-services. The state of Bhutan names for example the conservation of nature and sustainable development as two pillars of its Gross National Happiness and does regular studies on these matters (McDonald 2010). Nevertheless, a good life can be combined with economic values if the provision of tourism produces regional income, for example. However, and as discussed before, value categories go beyond instrumental and eudemonic ones. Krebs (1996 in Wiegleb 2003) mentions moral and absolute intrinsic values as complementary categories, which can have pervasive influence on the individual in his or her relationship with nature. Table 2 below gives a brief overview on all value categories. Table 2: Values with potential as nature-related stimuli Value category Origin of value Instrumental values Values stemming from direct utility (e.g. food, raw material, medicines) or indirect utility (e.g. ecological function of nature) Eudemonic values Values stemming from individual well-being ('the good life'), including aesthetic, emotional and religious values Moral values Values stemming from responsibilities for others (including stewardship) Absolute 'intrinsic values' Values stemming from an object's features alone (e.g. diversity, individuality) Based on Wiegleb (2003); own translation Burger-Menzel | Environmental Politics and the Human Being . . . Global Cooperation Research Papers 13 33 Moral values stem from a need for social relatedness. According to Elster (2007), such moral values include 'the norm to help others in distress, the norm of equal sharing, and the norm of 'everyday Kantianism' (do what would be best if everyone did the same)'. While the first two norms relate to social behaviour alone, the third norm can be interpreted as one with potential for environmental care. But can moral values really be perceived as strong incoming stimuli like instrumental or eudemonic values? Hume (1739, reprint 1978) observes: 'Morals excite passions, and produce or prevent actions. Reason of itself is utterly impotent in this particular. The rules of morality, therefore, are not conclusions of our reason'. Thinking of environmental activists, for example, there certainly can be moral stimuli which trigger passion for the protection of nature. Absolute intrinsic values can activate those inner needs that make people perform an activity for its own sake rather than as a means to an end. Wrong goalsetting can then be a negative stimulus and lead to demotivation (Frey and Osterloh 2002). Overall, values of intrinsic importance can have impressive consequences when the 'conventional work-play dichotomy does not apply' anymore because people 'don't perceive their work as duty or investment, but play time' (Choe 2006). And they can make people feel passionate about and get engaged in even seemingly impossible tasks that otherwise would not be tackled by them. Such intrinsically relevant stimuli are, for example, a self-satisfying joy of discovery or of one's own competence. Yet setting the 'right' stimuli is a challenging matter. On the one hand, every person has various value sets at the same time. As Elster (1986) stresses: 'Each of us seems to be split between a private and a public self'. The 'economic man' within us strives for personal hedonic satisfaction. He regards other people as so many means to his own selfish ends—or as constraints and obstacles in his pursuit of happiness. The 'social man', by contrast, is governed by moral and social norms'. Surely, cultural codes change over time, partly in response to changing needs and circumstances. And surely, individuals can rebel against these codes. But Clayton and Radcliffe (1996) confirm: 'As we are a social species, we generally find it hard to exist without group recognition and support. When people reject a given norm, therefore, they usually do it by adopting the behavioural norms of a deviant subgroup with similar views within the larger community'. On the other hand, and as an additional risk to consistent choices, a stimulus from one value category can be affected and even crowded out by a stimulus from another category. This has been researched for creative people in particular. If extrinsic stimuli are mixed with strict rules, time restrictions and sometimes even material rewards, creators with strong 'ego boundaries' and therefore a dislike of externally imposed rules are likely to feel a conflict of 'control versus autonomy' (Andreasen 2005). Ryan and Deci (2000) describe it as follows: 'Rewards are one important means through which people attempt to control others, but there are numerous other means of control and all of them appear to run the serious risk of undermining people's intrinsic motivation, conceptual learning, problem solving, creativity, and generosity towards others'. And not only instrumental and eudemonic values but also moral values can conflict with intrinsic motivational factors. Ryan and Deci add: 'In a culture that places strong emphasis on rewards, there will be an enticing pull to orient toward external rather than internal cues Burger-Menzel | Environmental Politics and the Human Being . . . Global Cooperation Research Papers 13 34 and to internalize the importance of rewards and their accompaniments'. An intrinsically motivated person would then feel rather inclined to seek activities, which are occasioned and rewarded by other people's actions and responses like compassion. How does the human mind deal with these challenges? How does it really match motives and values with the motivational features of situations, selecting some information as decision-relevant and other information as not? b. Screening of stimuli for knowledge creation Exposure to incoming stimuli can be described as receptiveness to raw sensory data, which must be selected and processed in the brain into knowledge for decision-making. How does cognitive matchmaking work? And what can be derived from that for describing motivated and nature-oriented change behaviour? In the following, the discussion will briefly focus on the composition of preferences and on the consistency and potential instability of their order. The composition of preferences serves as a filter through which incoming signals are screened. It reflects a person's desires and goals according to given motivational priorities. While substantive preferences 'relate to specific pairs of options, such as a preference for vanilla ice cream over chocolate or for one political candidate over another', formal preferences cover a wider scope and are linked to 'the rate of discounting of the future, risk aversion, loss aversion, and the like' (Elster 2010). For an individual to act in a way which is most likely to maximize net utility, preferences have to be consistent and the capacity to process all incoming information has to be unlimited. People with whom the individual has social relationships can influence the building of these preferences but not the decisiontaking itself (Siebenhüner 2001). A social context is then a field where an individual's personality plays out rather than a disposition within the person. Yet even seemingly consistent choices to maximize one's own utility need not relate to egoism. Sen (1982) identifies two cases where own-interest orientation has different causes and calls for a clearer formulation of meta preferences. First, revealed preferences might only express that a consistent chooser is concerned with his own interests due to 'the fact that his own consumption bundle—or that of his family—is the only bundle over which he has direct control in his acts of choice'. Second, there are two types of preferences. While one type of preferences does not trigger action although the individual is affected by the situation of others (subjective preferences), another type of preferences may even lead to counterpreferential actions in order to change such a situation (moral-based preferences). Sen describes it with the following words: 'If the knowledge of torture of others makes you sick, it is a case of sympathy; if it does not make you feel personally worse off, but you think it is wrong and you are ready to do something to make it stop, it is a case of commitment'. This turns the discussion of consistent preference orders and their interpretation into a challenge as well. Additionally, preferences must be enlarged by propensities, which stem from the alternative value categories discussed above. Burger-Menzel | Environmental Politics and the Human Being . . . Global Cooperation Research Papers 13 35 But the more is included into a preference set, the higher the risk of its (unexpected) inconsistencies when there are, for example:  Motivational conflicts due to multiple goals, as in the case of extrinsic versus intrinsic motivation (Frey and Osterloh 2002);  Varying risk-utility perceptions, which depend on the informational context, e.g. the net benefit of defection versus the net benefit of cooperation before and after being caught, as in the case of the prisoner's dilemma (Mag 1990);  Altruism, which is per se non-reciprocal but might be played out as altruistic competition, i.e. people 'compete to behave more altruistically than others and establish an altruistic reputation'; altruism then can be a strategy to find cooperation partners because 'if altruism is to act as a signal that makes the receiver behave preferentially towards the altruist, then it must be a reliable indicator of a person's resources, motivations, and/or intentions' (van Vugt, Roberts et al. 2007);  An aversion to violating cultural codes, which leads to an inversion of reason where to put self-interest within the motivational hierarchy. An individual might then cover his or her motivation with a motivation that is higher up in the hierarchy of social values, which Elster (2009) calls the 'hypocrisy' within the multiple self. Tocqueville (2004 in Elster 2009) illustrates: 'Americans ... are pleased to explain nearly all their actions in terms of self-interest properly understood. They will obligingly demonstrate how enlightened love of themselves regularly leads them to help one another out and makes them ready and willing to sacrifice a portion of their time and wealth for the good of the state. On this point I believe that they often fail to do themselves justice';  Shifting motivational impulses because motives are 'latent dispositions: over time they wax and wane in response to internal states and external opportunities' (Winter 2013). Some motives are even harder to detect but can come with a strong motivational effect such as (Ainslie 1986):  Rewards, which an individual perceives as important but come as unexpected by-products (e.g. laughter);  Seemingly value-less factors, which make people sometimes fail to maximize their expected incomes or minimize their costs (e.g. irrational value of friendship);  Temporary preferences for inferior rewards, which even include consenting to undergo pain (e.g. religious rituals);  An individual’s abstinence in rewarding himor herself in areas where he or she is freely able to do so (e.g. self-discipline as limiting factor);  Rewards, which lose their power with delay or repetition (e.g. need for something fashionable). Burger-Menzel | Environmental Politics and the Human Being . . . Global Cooperation Research Papers 13 36 Rorty (2010) therefore makes a 'plea for ambivalence' when referring to the human being and its 'different priorities in different contexts, without having criteria for distinguishing contexts, let alone well-formed principles for ranking compartmentalized preferences'. Schelling (1984), Nobel Laureate in Economics in 2005 for his contributions to game theory, which focus on cooperation and conflict behaviour, describes his own cognitive challenges as follows: 'An unavoidable question is whether I could be happier if only I could believe things more favourable, more complimentary, more in line with my hopes and wishes, than what I believe to be true. ... Or it might be accomplished by improving the mix of my beliefs by dropping out—forgetting— some of the things that cause me guilt, grief, remorse, and anxiety. Whether I would be happier, whether my welfare should be deemed greater, with those improved beliefs is one of the questions; another is whether, if I had the choice, I would elect a change in my beliefs. Set aside for the moment the question whether there is any way I could do that. The question whether I would choose to revise the contents of my mental library, so that even in my most rational thinking I would come to more positive conclusions, is independent of whether or not we know the technology by which it might be done.' Global cooperation needs people who perceive politically set stimuli as a match with their given preferences, regardless of how consistent or complete the latter are. How can politics deal with the ambivalent being who is already struggling with cognitive 'matchmaking' at an early stage? What does all that mean for corresponding decision-making? c. Bounds in and direction of decision-making Basic motivational processes end when the cognitive self decides to adopt a certain (global) policy goal or to reject it. As mentioned above, such a decision can only be taken in a frictionless way if there is optimal information as well as limitless cognitive capacity. 'A perfectly rational individual has a complete and coherent set of preferences, gathers an appropriate amount of information depending on the significance of choice, forms beliefs about the alternatives that reflect the relevant information or evidence needed to make the decision, and chooses the action that is optimally related to his beliefs and goals' (Chong 2013). But what happens to the decision mechanism if the information is too difficult to be understood right away or too much information has to be filtered? Such a procedural rationality results in optimization, which is more satisfying than maximizing (Simon 1976). According to Lindstädt (2006), informational bounds come in three forms: There can be a lack of information; too much information but appropriate for definite selections; or too much information but too indefinite for selection purposes. Once incoming stimuli match given preferences, information is processed into knowledge for decision-making. This is associated with costs. There can be costs for gaining more information (e.g. information search with time and number of personal contacts) and/or costs for the enlargement of information-processing capacities (IT infrastructure, evaluation of data quality). Such informational bounds and their consequences have stimulated a huge number of scientific contributions Burger-Menzel | Environmental Politics and the Human Being . . . Global Cooperation Research Papers 13 37 (Mag 1990), e.g. decision rules for situations with imperfect information (uncertainty) or imperfect information with no probability at all (insecurity). In addition to these categories, Lindstädt discusses indirect costs that occur due to 'physiological, psychological and cognitive stress'. This stress results from a 'misfit' between an individual and the challenge, which has to be handled and might cause threat or harm and loss. People try to avoid such stress, e.g. through premature cognitive closure or a hardening of those decision-relevant categories which can threaten self-esteem. As reasoned by Taylor (1987): 'Self-esteem is the unstable component of self-concept. Threats to self or self-esteem are experienced as anxiety and result in defensive maneuvers'. Thus, decision-making can even challenge how an individual perceives itself (self-concept) because such a selfconcept 'is gradually developed and changed through transactions with other persons, and it remains dependent to a large extent on the reflected appraisals of other persons' (Getzels 2008). It is no surprise that people have developed mechanisms or rules to deal with informational and cognitive stress in decision-making by simplifying tasks. They do so in three ways (Huddy, Sears et al. 2013):  Through decomposition, i.e. breaking a decision down into components, with each component presumably easier to evaluate than the whole decision;  Through editing, i.e. ignoring of relevant aspects;  And through heuristics, i.e. problem-solving strategies that are often automatically or unconsciously employed. The existence of these decision-making tools is backed by neuroscience. While incoming stimuli are stored and processed in the area of the short-term memory (working memory), formerly selected and processed stimuli are stored in long-term memory. The retrieval from long-term memory is a function of what was associated with the stimulus then, to which pre-existing schemes it was related, or how frequently the individual had been exposed to the same stimulus (Huddy, Sears et al. 2013). Thus, neurobiology mirrors what can be observed as practiced cognitive shortcuts. Usually, global cooperation increases given complexities because it adds 'new' to 'old' with a tendency to destroy the latter over time. These dynamics come under conditions of risk or insecurity. Additionally, it requires diverse stakeholders to cooperate with each other and thus bridge (cultural) context gaps through communication and knowledge transfer. Does all this support Siebenhüner's proposition to educationally and culturally prepare people for environmental sustainability? Certainly, education and training increase absorption capacities and lower rational bounds. But can they really erase cognitive shortcuts, which undermine sustainable change behaviour? And what about professionals who, even if academically trained, have gotten used to their cognitive 'safe house' and are no longer able to switch perspectives? Can, for example, institutional conditions do to professionals (e.g. bureaucrats) what academic training does to students familiar with the idea of the homo oeconomicus? Burger-Menzel | Environmental Politics and the Human Being . . . Global Cooperation Research Papers 13 38 Additionally, there is a growing consensus in neuroscience that emotions—which have been excluded from idealizations of the 'economic being' for so long—are interdependent with rationality, i.e. they can help to reach quick and presumably rational decisions. Gross Stein argues that it is even intuitive and associative decision-making, based on emotions, that comes first, before reason and rulegoverned decision-making kick in. While emotion-based decision-making is preconscious, automatic, fast, effortless but slowly changing due to strong emotional bonds, the second system is conscious, reflective, slow and flexible (Gross Stein 2013). If emotions are strong, they can bypass beliefs (e.g. passionate killing vs. religious belief that killing is sin) or even reverse preferences (e.g. feardriven desertion by a soldier who volunteered for army service) as Elster (2010) points out. Consequently, Ainslie (1986) describes a decision-maker as someone who is 'capable of voluntary action', 'certainly of responsible agency' and 'rational, at least by prudential and formal criteria', but also someone who fulfils all these requirements, can follow a large variety of motivational determinations and 'can, in the event, be voluntarily swept, against his better judgment, to follow a charismatic leader, allow himself to be cast into a role that does not coincide with his preferences, to be moved by empathy or by the excitement of crowd behaviour'. The following figure tries to illustrate action tendencies of emotions by differentiating between 'normal' emotions as the first and fast decision-taking mechanism and 'strong' emotions, which point to biased or even contradictory behaviour. Figure 6: Emotions and their action tendencies Based on Burger-Menzel (2014b) Burger-Menzel | Environmental Politics and the Human Being . . . Global Cooperation Research Papers 13 39 Thus, while normal emotions can lead to preconscious, automatic, fast and effortless decision-making, strong emotions tend to send the human mind on 'detours'. Or as Schelling (1986) puts it: '[T]he mind is a wanderer, a source of fantasy and an easy captive for puzzles, mysteries and daydreams'. Can environmental politics preor counteract and, if the answer is yes, in which way? Can politics make people not only cognitively less overwhelmed but also emotionally more intrigued by it? Is communication the clue to it all? 4.3 Motivational Feedback Loops, Learning and Adaptive Behaviour in Complex Systems a. Screening for confirming stimuli As described by Rogers, there seems to be a decider's need to get her/his choices confirmed. This is especially true in a world of uncertainty and therefore risk and it is all the more relevant if internal motives can shift or even fade away. 'When a person changes, he may regret some of the choices he made before the change. Also, he may find that he does not want to stick to his earlier decisions' (Elster 1986). An individual will then check whether the motives concerned relate to durable interests. This is also confirmed by neuroscience, which describes consciousness as 'a process that is continuous but continually changing' (Edelman and Tononi 2000). If a decision is confirmed, it may gain weight, which makes it not so easily rejected in the future and better retrieved from memory. Steedman and Krause (1986) point out that 'people do not often change drastically over a very short space of time (which is why one can refer to their characters)... one can say that a "person is constructed by choices he has made sequentially through time"'. Confirmations are produced in the inner world (autonomy) and/or through the outer world (interrelationship). Only the most autonomous individuals will not seek outer reinforcement at all. But as discussed above, no person seems to be without membership of some face-to-face or reference group. 'Even the most independent of pure scientists ... publish ... their work' and thereby become liable to group influence from peers and critics (Getzels 2008). Lebow (2005) even states: 'Individual identity is historically conditioned, took millennia to emerge and has been regarded as unnatural by most people for most of its existence' and that '[m]odern society's emphasis on individualism and free choice creates an entrenched predisposition to exaggerate the uniqueness of the inner self'. As in the basic motivational sequence, confirmation mechanisms entail awareness-building, gathering and processing of information, and remembering or forgetting. Reinforcement itself can happen intentionally or unintentionally. And as in the basic motivational sequence, it is here that the mechanisms of the cooperation hexagon become highly relevant. Small groups in particular offer shared cultural codes and a transparent environment to rein in their members, e.g. by means of tit-for-tat strategies. In these social environments, reputation matters a great deal, as do emotional enforcement mechanisms, which produce shame, guilt or sensitivity to social Burger-Menzel | Environmental Politics and the Human Being . . . Global Cooperation Research Papers 13 40 sanctions within an individual and induce him or her to interact in a codecorresponding way. Udéhn (1993 in Siebenhüner 2001) describes the need to communicate as follows: 'One of the most significant and most consistent results of experimentation over the years is that cooperation increases dramatically if people are allowed to communicate before being subjected to a social dilemma'. Language is also highly important if groups get larger or if boundaries between different groups are spanned because 'language is a capacity that can build alliances in large, dispersed groups', e.g. through gossip about others, which 'tends to revolve around the status, achievements and failures of other people' (van Vugt, Roberts et al. 2007). Rogers (2003) confirms for the diffusion of innovations that '[i]n order to explain the effect of the critical mass on the adoption behaviour of a system's members it is useful to think about micro-level personal communication networks'. Through communication, confirmation can be sought in overt and verbally direct or in more subtle and non-verbal ways depending on culture (Nisbett 2003). Intercultural management literature describes this difference as the one between low-context communication (explicit language) and high-context communication (implicit language). If cultural differences between people are substantial and cross-cultural awareness is low, there can be cognitive dissonance for those who encode and decode communication messages (Deresky 2000). Both sender and receiver would then tend to ignore differences in attitudes, thought patterns and language features, which are directly or indirectly transported through communication. Creating a 'we-identity' in larger groups, as suggested by Messner, Guarín and Haun (2013), has to take the latter into account. It is essential for global cooperation to understand the nature of communication flows in and between personal networks and what determines how successfully someone relays a message to someone else. But what follows from the recapturing of minds through confirmation signals? How can communication build up cognitive patterns of recognition and thereby induce learning? What is learning? b. Processing of knowledge for learning activities Positive confirmation leads to individual learning, while negative confirmation makes people forget the information that was dealt with. Learning itself produces changes within an individual, which can refer, for example, to a recombination of memory-stored information, the enlargement of knowledge, or the acquisition of new principles or skills. How do individuals learn and is it easy to reach learning goals? Let me refer back: Learning, which is intrinsically motivated, can be assumed to have its own rewards. Ryan and Deci (2000) point out that in a study by McGraw and McCullers (1979) participants who were rewarded, 'had a harder time thinking flexibly than did those who were not offered a reward'. But as discussed above, individuals are rarely autonomous. Knowledge creation mainly exists in a social context, which turns knowledge-sharing and learning into social interactions, i.e. knowledge-sharing, too, requires motivation (Quigley, Tesluk et al. 2007). This leads to reflective practices, which are learned and reproduced in communities of practitioners (Schoen 1983). Tomasello (2009) Burger-Menzel | Environmental Politics and the Human Being . . . Global Cooperation Research Papers 13 47  Going through all stages of sequenced motivation reveals how and to what extent scientific ideas and models were able to approach human complexity and—apart from the multiple self—what they (intentionally) left out.  Existential needs are of the utmost importance, especially if there is poverty. But even then, a lot of behaviour is occasioned and rewarded by other people's responses and/or relates to self-referential needs. In total, the inner world of a human being is more one of ambivalence than one of consistent rational behaviour. There is an individual sense of bounded rationality but it has tension with tacit and impulsively unordered rationales for action. Belief and value systems, which shape human behaviour, undergo contextual shifts because individuals can belong to multiple identity groups at any moment in their life. The emotional structure and dynamics of a person can either support or contradict rationality when expressed in action. Thus, modern ideas and models of the human being have to acknowledge that behavioural choices also involve unconscious incubation, cognitive shortcuts and intuitive interactions.  All this turns communication into an extremely important matter because it transmits key messages and know-how during the whole process of implementing (global) policies. By means of communication, the sender tries to convince the receiver through non-verbal signals and verbal messages that adopting a specific change is important while being aware of the receiver's needs and context restrictions. The major challenge is to avoid 'noise' in the communication channel, i.e. misunderstandings between sender and receiver due to (cultural) heterogeneity and / or shifting contexts (e.g. co-evolution of actors or new issue-links). Effective communication supports continuous reorganization to find the best fit between mind and environment. Modern studies of human behaviour have to take account of communication as an important mechanism which can support systemic change if practiced adequately. It is here that the methodological approach of the homo narrans and its insights could be exploited for corresponding groundwork.  The goal was to better understand cognitive blindspots, which turn humans into a risk factor in (global) environmental cooperation. The following figure shows the sequence of human motivation and exemplary explanations for such blindspots. The potential for moving from shortterm to long-term change behaviour is shown as a cycle. Once learning is executed as adaptation, the entire motivational sequence must be restarted in order to make change behaviour sustainable. If successful, there will be continuous learning through trial and error while the rerun experience becomes rooted in long-term memory for future retrieval. During every motivational cycle, humans can potentially 'opt out' at different stages e.g. through non-action (e.g. ignorance and forgetting), doubts (e.g. motivational conflicts) or some kind of stress (e.g. cognitive shortcuts such as decomposition, editing and heuristics). In order to better deal with cognitive blindspots in global cooperation, modern Burger-Menzel | Environmental Politics and the Human Being . . . Global Cooperation Research Papers 13 48 studies on human behaviour must apply an interdisciplinary approach, which integrates the 'neurobiological brain' instead of using it as pure add-on. This should also be done at the risk of eclectic approaches, which by nature can only scratch the surface, underneath which there are beautifully elaborated and specialized insights. Figure 7: Examples of 'cognitive exit points' in human change behaviour Burger-Menzel | Environmental Politics and the Human Being . . . Global Cooperation Research Papers 13 49  Higher complexity seems to create a stronger tendency in humans to opt out of sustainable change behaviour. It also seems that scientific worst-case scenarios or politics of guilt are rather weak incentives to heal motivational circuit breaks and fallbacks and might even lead to non-action. Modern approaches which focus on human behaviour in global environmental systems have to reconsider how far laboratory-based conditions (e.g. experimental game theory) match the challenges on which conclusions are drawn. Notwithstanding the importance of all experimental contributions, long-term adaptation needs methodologies which track human behaviour in its totality as far as possible and do so over time (e.g. socio-economic panels combined with narrative research). Against this background, this paper offers limited contributions. Cognitive exit points can be relevant to different people in different ways and an additional behavioural understanding of professional categories (e.g. politicians, bureaucrats, entrepreneurs, scientists, lobbyists) and of personality traits (e.g. early adopter, late adopter) certainly helps. Nevertheless, as all humans are 'run' by cognition regardless of how stakeholders vary, sequencing human motivation made me understand human behaviour much better and I hope to have adequately communicated it in writing. Let me now close with some ideas for future research agendas. 5.2 Proposals for Future Research Agendas and Final Remarks What can be derived from the insights presented in this paper for the future analysis of global environmental politics? Here are some initial tentative proposals which may be suitable for transformation into hypotheses for empirical research: Basic motivational processes  Proposal 1: In order to motivate an individual to embrace environmental sustainability, a set of signals is needed. It must include more than one need category (multi-value set) and be relatively important in the individual's world (strong needs). Context gaps between people must be acknowledged, increasing the importance of decentralized diversity management (localized governance modes). This is especially important for intrinsically motivated change behaviour, which can be crowded out by external factors.  Proposal 2: As human motivation entails intra-personal bargaining situations but is sensitive to social responses, ethical norms help to adjust the subjective evaluation of incoming data and to direct the latter towards long-term interests. These norms should evolve as codes through discourses between stakeholders and be based on lifelong education and training (ethical coding and the moral mind). Violations of ethical codes should come at high social costs for the violator in order to be motivationally powerful (strong sanctioning of misbehaviour).  Proposal 3: The evolution of ethical codes must be supported by key actors (role-model behaviour) in order to shape the normative hierarchy Burger-Menzel | Environmental Politics and the Human Being . . . Global Cooperation Research Papers 13 50 of motivations, which is given in every society. This is needed to render ethical codes effective and puts credibility issues such as corruption at the top of global agendas.  Proposal 4: People are averse to increasing complexity, both internal and external. Environmental policy therefore needs designs which serve as a conceptual anchor and use non-contradictory clues as stimuli (coherent but robust governance). Governance gaps between different policy fields can render such efforts useless and should be identified and dealt with (reduction of systemic fragmentation).  Proposal 5: Environmental politics can affect individual decision-making better if it services cognitive shortcuts and/or reduces the bounds which trigger them. Cognitive shortcuts, which are identified as opt-outs or contradictions to the system, should be redirected and integrated (considerate but experimental governance). This can be supported by positive emotional messages (political psychology). Bounds should be reduced by making the consequences of policies more visible (policy of early awareness) and the consequences better cognitively accessible (identification and enlargement of given absorptive capacities).  Proposal 6: The basic motivational process can only be influenced from the outside if information is mutually created and shared. As corresponding practices and skills vary between stakeholders and are of self-referential importance, effective communication depends on context-relatedness and peer-group environments (avoidance of 'noise' in the communication channel). This is also valid for all stages of motivational feedback oops. Motivational feedback loops There is cognitive dissonance after decision-making. Thus, motivational feedback loops face similar cognitive challenges as basic processes. There can be motivational conflicts, cognitive stress and shortcuts for some individuals and selfrewarding learning and altruistic teaching for others. Additional proposals are:  Proposal 7: Politics can capture the mind positively or negatively. Incoming and confirming signals, which contain clues of value, can build up cognitive patterns of recognition and support so that the receiver of those signals can identify herself/himself with the policy concerned (policy of incremental steps).  Proposal 8: As shown above, humans interpret information in terms of their own attitudes and beliefs but are perceptive to social response. Politics should identify role models in all key areas and stimulate imitation processes through communication or other social signaling (identification and encouragement of imitative practices).  Proposal 9: Education and training can again be seen as an instrument to increase an individual's awareness of problem dimensions and his or her capacity to change behaviour. As cognitive stress can lead to corresponding shortcuts in learning as well, learning must go beyond Burger-Menzel | Environmental Politics and the Human Being . . . Global Cooperation Research Papers 13 51 knowledge creation and include improved learning techniques to reduce risks to self-esteem (from know-how to learning to learn).  Proposal 10: If information is bounded, as in complex systems, decisions can no longer be predicted simply by drawing conclusions about alternatives and preferences but will be affected by the way decisionmakers attend to particular preferences, adaptive strategies and their consequences, as in learning systems. Key political actors therefore need their own learning and adaptation capabilities, an awareness of maladaptation and a willingness to stimulate changes—also in their own behaviour (reform of professional categories and required skills). There seem to be cognitive features in the human being that allow their transformation within complex systems. The clue seems to lie in matching the individual mind with the world around and to correspondingly reinterpret the performance qualities of decision-making. Against that background, the last proposal is the most challenging one: There has to be a nucleus of motivated people in order to set the ball rolling, and this nucleus must include public stakeholders, who would have to reform themselves and to put their own, often secure, life conditions at risk. Only if all stakeholders accept environmental policy goals as their priority and act upon it is there a chance of turning the (still) poor systemic change into a satisfactory one. That brings me to the end of this paper whose lengthy structure is like a narrative of my re-'search' at the Käte Hamburger Kolleg / Centre for Global Cooperation Research. Overall, it has been a challenging and exciting adventure across disciplinary borders, through which I learned how cognition is an integral part of human behaviour and how the latter is embedded in the understanding of systemic change. Although not all conclusions are new, they now derive from a fresh perspective on eco-sustainable change behaviour. And despite the fact that the core analysis had to be relatively abstract, there was context-relatedness throughout the paper which allowed proposals for global environmental policies at the end. There is no doubt that many relevant questions had to remain untouched. A follow-up paper will therefore pick up from here and put the 'cognitive self' deeper into the world of 'me and the others', with a focus on individual capabilities that are needed to scale up systemic change. This will enable effective policy formulation to be assessed against intraand inter-diffusion patterns of groups and networks. Let me close with Ryan and Deci (2000): '... learning, creativity, and prosocial behavior [are] all variables that relate to the proactive qualities of human motivation and behavior'. Against that background, I wish to thank the Käte Hamburger Kolleg / Centre for Global Cooperation Research at the University of Duisburg-Essen for its support and inspiring atmosphere during my six-month senior fellowship in 2014.* * Special thanks go to Prof. Dr Dirk Messner for rich discussions and intrinsically motivated curiosity for the same matters and to Prof. Dr Claudia Derichs, Dr Katja Freistein, Dr Felix Bethke and Dr Silke Weinlich for first helpful comments. Burger-Menzel | Environmental Politics and the Human Being . . . Global Cooperation Research Papers 13 52 References Ainslie, G. (1986). 'Beyond microeconomics. Conflict among interests in a multiple self as a determinant of value', in J. Elster (ed.), The Multiple Self, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 133–76. Andreasen, N.C. (2005). The Creative Brain, New York: Plume Book. Australian Government (2012). The Nagoya Protocol in Australia, http://www.Envir onment.gov.au/system/files/pages/9fc06ac0-f5af-4b47-a80f-d9378088d743/ files/nagoya-factsheet.pdf, accessed 12.05.2014. Bowles, S., and Gintis, H. (2013). A Cooperative Species: Human Reciprocity and its Evolution, Princeton: Princeton University Press. Brandenburger, A., and Nalebuff, B. (1996). Coopetition - kooperativ konkurrieren. Mit der Spieltheorie zum Unternehmenserfolg, Frankfurt a.M.: Campus Verlag. Burger-Menzel, B. (2011). 'Creators and National Innovation Systems: How to Integrate Motivational Factors into Policy Considerations', in J. Aboites et al. (eds.), Economía de la Innovación y Desarrollo, Siglo XXI, Universidad Autónoma Metropolitana, Unidad Xochimilco, Mexico-City, 267–85. — (2014a). Global Cooperation and the Acting Self, KHK/GCR21 Working Paper, Käte Hamburger Kolleg / Centre for Global Cooperation Research, University of Duisburg-Essen, Duisburg, 16.09.2014 (unpublished). — (2014b). 'Economics and the sticky image of a decider without emotions: In between rationality, bounded rationality and proper behavior', Workshop on 'Ideas of human beings and their research operationalization: An interdisciplinary perspective', KHK/GCR21, Duisburg, 21.07.2014. — (2014c). Finding common interdisciplinary grounds: On (global) cooperation and effectiveness, KHK/GCR21 Working Paper, Käte Hamburger Kolleg / Centre for Global Cooperation Research, University of Duisburg-Essen, Duisburg, 24.06.2014 (unpublished). — and Assadi, S. (2012). 'The economics of open sourcing: A new type of interactive learning within national innovation systems', Ide@s CONCYTEG 7 (80): 240– 60. — and Huyoff, S. (2015). 'Technologiepolitik auf dem Prüfstand', in D. Stronk (ed.), Moderne Wirtschaftsförderung. Strategien - Chancen - Best Practices, ESV, Berlin, 133–59. Byman, D., and Pollack, K. (2001). 'Let us now praise great men: Bringing the statesman back in', International Security 25: 107–46. Chen, Y., Mannix, E., and Okumura, T. (2003). 'The importance of who you meet: Effects of selfversus other-concerns among negotiators in the United States, the People's Republic of China, and Japan', Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 390: 1–15. Choe, I.-S. (2006). 'Creativity - A Sudden Rising Star in Korea', in J. C. Kaufman, and R. J. Sternberg (eds.), The International Handbook of Creativity, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 395–420. Chua, A. (2004). World on Fire: How Exporting Free Market Democracy Breeds Ethnic Hatred and Global Instability, New York: Anchor Books. Burger-Menzel | Environmental Politics and the Human Being . . . Global Cooperation Research Papers 13 53 Clayton, A. M. H., and Radcliffe, N. J. (1996). Sustainability - A Systems Approach, London: Earthscan Publications Ltd. Coase, R.H. (1960). 'The Problem of Social Cost', Journal of Law & Economics 3 (10): 1–44. Czarniawska, B. (2004). Narratives in Social Science Research, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Debiel, T., Leggewie, C., and Messner, D. (2014). 'Homo Cooperativus – "Fusion" als Strategie zur Erforschung globaler Problemlösungen', UNIKATE. Berichte aus Forschung und Lehre 45, University of Duisburg-Essen, 135–44. Deresky, H. (2000). International Management - Management Across Borders and Cultures, Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall. Deutsch, M. (2012). 'A Theory of Cooperation - Competition and Beyond', in P. A. M. Van Lange, A. W. Kruglanski, and E. T. Higgins (eds.), Handbook of Theories of Social Psychology, London: Sage Publ., 275–94. Deutsche Gesellschaft für die Vereinten Nationen (DGVN 2014). Biodiversität. Artenverlust, http://www.dgvn.de/themenschwerpunkte/biodiversit%tC3%A4t/, accessed 07.04.2015. de Vries, B. J. M. (2012). Sustainability Science, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Dobb, L. W. (1995). Sustainers and Sustainability. Attitudes, Attributes and Actions for Survival, London: Praeger. Dosi, G. (1982). 'Technological paradigms and technological trayectories - A suggested interpretation of the determinants and directions of technical change', Research Policy 11 (3): 147–62. Edelman, G. M., and Tononi, G. (2000). A Universe of Consciousness, New York: Basic Books. Elster, J. (1986). 'The Multiple Self: An Introduction', in J. Elster (ed.), The Multiple Self, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1–34. — (2007). Explaining Social Behavior - More Nuts and Bolts for the Social Sciences, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. — (2009). Reason and Rationality, Princeton: Princeton University Press. — (2010). 'Emotional Choice and Rational Choice', in P. Goldie (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Philosophy of Emotion, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 263–82. Fagerberg, J., Mowery, D. C., and Nelson, R. R. (eds.) (2005). The Oxford Handbook of Innovation, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Folke, C. (2013). 'Respecting Planetary Boundaries and Reconnecting to the Biosphere', in The Worldwatch Institute (ed.), Is Sustainability Still Possible? London: Island Press, 19–27. Frank, R. H., Gilovich, T., and Regan, D. T. (1993). 'Does studying economics inhibit cooperation?', The Journal of Economic Perspectives 7 (2): 159–72. Freeman, C., and Perez, C. (1984). 'Long Waves and New Technology', Nordisk Tidsskrift for Politisk Ekonomi 17: 5–14. — and Soete, L. (2004). The Economics of Industrial Innovation, Oxford: Routledge. Frey, B. S. (1997). Markt und Motivation. Wie ökonomische Anreize die (Arbeits-)Moral verdrängen, Munich: Franz Vahlen. Burger-Menzel | Environmental Politics and the Human Being . . . Global Cooperation Research Papers 13 54 — and Neckermann, S. (2008). Awards - A View from Psychological Economics, Working Paper, University of Zurich. — and Osterloh, M. (2002). 'Motivation - A Dual-Edged Factor of Production', in B. S. Frey, and M. Osterloh (eds.), Successful Management by Motivation. Balancing Intrinsic and Extrinsic Incentives, Heidelberg: Springer, 3–26. Fritsch, M., Wein, T., and Ewers, H.-J. (1999). Marktversagen und Wirtschaftspolitik, Munich: Franz Vahlen. G20 (2013). Saint Petersburg Accountability Report on G20 Development Commitments, G20 Development Working Group, Saint Petersburg. Gadinger, F., Jarzebski, S., and Yildiz, T. (2014). Politische Narrative. Konzepte - Analysen - Forschungspraxis, Wiesbaden: Springer. Gell-Mann, M. (1994). 'Complex Adaptive Systems', in G. Cowan, D. Pines, and D. Meltzer (eds.), Complexity: Metaphors, Models, and Reality, Addison-Wesley, XIX, 17–45. Getzels, J. W. (2008). 'Creativity: Prospects and Issues', in I. A. Taylor, and J. W. Getzels (eds.), Perspectives in Creativity, Aldine Transaction, New Brunswick, London, 326–44. Goldschmidt, N., and Nutzinger, H.G. (eds.) (2009). Vom homo oeconomicus zum homo culturalis - Handlung und Verhalten in der Ökonomie, Berlin: LIT. Gross Stein, J. (2013). 'Threat Perception in International Relations', in L. Huddy, D.O. Sears, and J.S. Levy (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Political Psychology, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 364–94. Heckhausen, H. (1989). Motivation und Handeln, Berlin: Springer. Henrich, J. (2000). 'Does culture matter in economic behavior: Ultimatum game bargaining among the Machiguenga', American Economic Review 90: 73–84. Hobbes, T. (1651, reprint 1966). Leviathan, Berlin. Hocker, G. (2008). Market - Hierarchy - Networking: Coordination in Times of Globalization, Fragmentation, and Uncertainty, Dissertation at the University of Bremen, Frankfurt am Main. Huddy, L., Sears, D. O., and Levy, J. S. (2013). 'Introduction: Theoretical Foundations of Political Psychology', in L. Huddy, D.O. Sears, and J. S. Levy (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Political Psychology, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1–22. Hume, D. (1739 reprint 1978). A Treatise of Human Nature, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Imai, L., and Gelfand, M. J. (2009). 'Culture, conflict, and negotiation', in R. S. Bhagat, and R. M. Steers (eds.), Cambridge Handbook of Culture, Organizations, and Work, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 334–72. Kaebnick, G. E. (2014). Humans in Nature - The World As We Find It and the World As We Create It, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Kirchler, E. (ed.) (2008). Arbeitsund Organisationspsychologie, Stuttgart: UTB. Kirsch, G. (2004). Neue Politische Ökonomie, Stuttgart: Lucius & Lucius. Krebs, A. (1996). '"Ich würde gerne aus dem Hause tretend ein paar Bäume sehen". Philosophische Überlegungen zum Eigenwert der Natur', in H. G. Nutzinger (ed.), Naturschutz - Ethik - Ökonomie. Theoretische Grundlagen und praktische Konsequenzen, Marburg: Metropolis, 31–48. Burger-Menzel | Environmental Politics and the Human Being . . . Global Cooperation Research Papers 13 55 Lea, D. (2008). Property Rights, Indigenous People and the Developing World, Leiden / Boston: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers. Lebow, R. N. (2005). 'Reason, Emotion and Cooperation', International Politics 42: 283–313. Lindstädt, H. (2006). Beschränkte Rationalität. Entscheidungsverhalten und Organisationsgestaltung bei beschränkter Informationsverarbeitungskapazität, München, Mering: Rainer Hampp. Locke, J. (1690, reprint 1989). Two Treaties of Government, London. Lundvall, B.-A. (ed.) (2010). National Systems of Innovation - Toward a Theory of Innovation and Interactive Learning, London / New York: Anthem Press. Mag, W. (1990). Grundzüge der Entscheidungstheorie, München: Franz Vahlen. Malerba, F., and Nelson, R. R. (2010). Catching up in Different Sectoral Systems: Evidence from Six Industries, Globelics Conference, Kuala Lumpur. Maniates, M. (2013). 'Teaching for Turbulence', in The Worldwatch Institute (ed.), Is Sustainability Still Possible?, London: Island Press, 255–68. Marin, A., and Wellman, B. (2011). 'Social Network Analysis: An introduction', in J. Scott, and P.J. Carrington (eds.), The SAGE Handbook of Social Network Analysis, Los Angeles / London, 11–25. McDonald, R. (2010). Taking Happiness Seriously - Eleven Dialogues on Gross National Happiness, The Centre for Buthan Studies, https://researchspace.auckland.ac. nz/docs/uoa-docs.rights.htm, accessed 15.06.2014. Medin, D. L., Ross, N. O., and Cox, D. G. (2006). Culture and Resource Conflict: Why Meanings Matter, New York: Russell Sage Foundation. Meinberg, E. (1995). Homo Oecologicus. Das neue Menschenbild im Zeichen der ökologischen Krise, Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft. Meriam, B. (2010). 'Signifier Mapping', Cognitive Edge, http://www.cognitiveedge.com, accessed 23.07.2014. Messner, D., Guarín, A., and Haun, D. (2013). The Behavioural Dimensions of International Cooperation, Global Cooperation Research Papers 1, Käte Hamburger Kolleg / Centre for Global Cooperation Research, University of Duisburg-Essen. Moore, C. W. (2010). Chapter 1: ‘Introduction to Culture and Negotiation‘, in C. W. Moore, and P. J. Woodrow (eds.), Handbook of Global and Multicultural Negotiation, San Francisco, CA : Jossey-Bass (A Wiley Imprint), 3–19. National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA 2013). How is the Global Earth System Changing?, http://www.science.nasa.gov/earth-science/bigquestions/is-the-global-earth-system-changing-and-what-are-the-consequences, accessed 07.04.2015. National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA 2014). Earth Right Now, http://www.science.nasa.gov/earth-science, accessed 07.04.2015. Nelson, R. R., and Winter, S. G. (1977). ‘In search of a useful theory of innovation’, Research Policy 6 (1): 36–76. Nisbett, R. E. (2003). Geography of Thought. How Asians and Westerners Think Differently and Why, London: Nicholas Brealey Publishing. Burger-Menzel | Environmental Politics and the Human Being . . . Global Cooperation Research Papers 13 56 Nowak, M., and Highfield, R. (2011). SuperCooperators - Evolution, Altruism and Human Behaviour or Why We Need Each Other to Succeed, Edinburgh/London: Canongate. Nozick, R. (1989). The Examined Life. Philosophical Meditations, New York: Touchstone. Nussbaum, M. C. (2001). Upheavals of Thought, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. O'Neill, K. (2009). The Environment and International Relations, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. OECD (2000). Towards Sustainable Development Indicators to Measure Progress, Rome Conference, Rome. Panksepp, J. (2007). 'The neuroevolutionary and neuroaffective psychobiology of the prosocial Brain', in R. I. M. Dunbar, and L. Barrett (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Evolutionary Psychology, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 145– 62. Parayil, G. (2003). 'Mapping technological trajectories of the Green Revolution and the Gene Revolution from modernization to globalization', Research Policy 32: 971–90. Perez, C. (2009). Technological Revolutions and Techno-economic Paradigms, TOC/TUT Working Paper 20. Popper K. R. (1963). Conjectures and Refutations: The Growth of Scientific Knowledge, New York: Routledge. Porter, M. E. (1990). The Competitive Advantage of Nations, New York: Free Press. Quigley, N. R. et al. (2007). 'A multilevel investigation of the motivational mechanisms underlying knowledge sharing and performance', Organization Science 18: 71–88. Reiss, S., and Havercamp, S. (1998). ‘Toward a comprehensive assessment of fundamental motivation: Factor structure of the reiss profiles’, Psychological Assessment 10: 97–106. Restak, R. (2006). The Naked Brain, New York: Three Rivers Press. Richerzhagen, C. (2014). 'The Nagoya Protocol: Fragmentation or Consolidation?', Resources 3: 135–51. Rogers, E.M. (2003). Diffusion of Innovations, New York: Free Press. Rorty, A. (2010). 'A Plea for Ambivalence', in P. Goldie (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Philosophy of Emotions, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 425–44. Ryan, R. M., and Deci, E. L. (2000). 'When Rewards Compete with Nature: The Undermining of Intrinsic Motivation and Self-Regulation', in C. Sansone, and J. M. Harackiewicz (eds.), Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivation. The Search for Optimal Motivation and Performance, San Diego: Academic Press, 13–56. Saffo, P. (2007). 'Six Rules for Effective Forecasting', Harvard Business Review 7: 122–31. Saßmannshausen, S. P. (2009). 'Der homo oeconomicus im Spiegel kognitionsund biopsychologischer Erkenntnisse', in N. Goldschmidt, and H. G. Nutzinger, (eds.), Vom homo oeconomicus zum homo culturalis, Berlin: LIT, 61–88.