Open Your Eyes: An Analysis of the Plastic Pollution Coalition’s Campaign Video

​

Introduction:

​

         The use of plastic is deeply imbedded in modern society, making it increasingly hard to imagine a world without it. Each year the average American disposes of 167 plastic water bottles, while the USA as a whole dispose of 50 billion. (“22 Facts About Plastic Pollution (And 10 Things We Can Do About It) - EcoWatch,” n.d.). Water bottles, however, are not the only plastic item of concern. Plastic bags, straws, to-go containers, packaging, and snack wrappers each contribute to the severe plastic problem facing the world today. Plastic pollution poses environmental and health threats that have devastating consequences for humans and ecosystems. Plastic is filling up landfills, causing BPA health disorders in humans, and is littering cities and waterways. 13 million tons of plastic enter marine waters each year and marine animals are mistaking plastic fragments as food (“Plastic Pollution - Surfrider Foundation,” n.d.). Public awareness of the problems posed by plastic pollution is beginning to rise, and organizations centered around solving plastic-related issues are growing in prevalence. One such organization fighting against plastics is the Plastic Pollution Coalition (PPC).

            The PPC’s mission is to stop plastic pollution and to resultantly end its toxic impacts on humans, animals and the environment (“Plastic Pollution Coalition,” n.d.). A video put out by the PPC entitled Open Your Eyesserves to inspire people to join the coalition and refuse disposable plastics. This paper uses the theoretical perspectives of framing, normative appeals (injunctive and descriptive norms), threat and efficacy to analyze the effectiveness of the PPC’s Open Your Eyescampaign video (“Plastic Pollution Coalition - OPEN YOUR EYES - Overview Narrated by Jeff Bridges (2016) - YouTube,” n.d.).The analysis found that the video’s message is strengthened through the use of a public health frame, and substantial threat messaging. The video, however, could be improved by focusing less on how prevalent plastics are by using a social modeling frame, strengthening its efficacy messaging, and aligning its injunctive and descriptive norms. 

 

Literature Review:

​

      Open Your Eyes is a brief four-minute video aimed at the general public. In those four minutes it attempts to explain the problem with plastics and to alter the audience’s view of plastic. The video uses framing to influence the way the audience thinks about and responds to the information relayed by the PPC. Understanding the social theory of framing is critical to recognizing how the PPC uses framing strategies in their campaign video. 

            Nisbet analyzes how different framing techniques of climate change might break through the political gridlock currently preventing more Republicans from viewing climate change as a valid and urgent issue (Nisbet, 2009). For example, the Pandora’s box framing strategy, often used by Democrats, frames climate change as out of control, and calls for immediate action. The economic development frame frames climate change as an opportunity for economic growth through new green technologies and jobs. Other frames include: public accountability, national security, public health, morality and ethics, and social progress. Nisbet considers different framing techniques as ways to highlight certain values. Nisbet states that audiences use frames to “make sense of” an issue, and that frames get people to think about an issue’s cause, importance and potential solutions in a specific way (Nisbet, 2009). In analyzing different frames used to break through the partisan gridlock surrounding climate change, Nisbet suggests that frames can bring people of diverse backgrounds together. When used effectively frames can be used to mobilize people to act on issues (Nisbet, 2009). 

            In his article, Framing: Toward Clarification of a Fractured Paradigm, Robert Entman discusses how frames work (Entman, 1993). Entman states that frames enhance the salience of certain information through strategic placement or repetition. Since framing can determine what public opinion is, and if/how people respond to information, it is important to use frames that will appeal and educate the largest portion of an audience (Entman, 1993). Further, it is critical to consider how to place certain information and how often to repeat information (Entman, 1993). If the information being relayed, however, does not align with the audience’s values, strategic placement and repetition may not engage the audience (Schultz & Zelezny, 2003). Schultz states that most Americans value “self-enhancing” life goals and thus tend hold more egoistic concerns about environmental issues (Schultz & Zelezny, 2003). Is is important to align environmental frames with the values of the audience being targeted. Previous research done on framing price reductions in retail shows that price reductions framed in dollar terms were viewed as more significant than the same price reduction framed in percentage terms (Chen et. Al, 1998). Further, coupon promotions were viewed more favorably, and changed purchase intentions, more than discount promotions (Chen et al., 1998). Given this literature and research on framing, one can argue that when using framing for communication campaigns it is important to consider what frames will make the audience take action, will align with the most values, and will most effectively set a specific train of thought. 

            Threat and efficacy messaging are also critical components of communicating an issue to a broad audience. The PPC uses threat messaging throughout their video, especially when communicating the health and environmental risks associated with plastics. Efficacy messaging plays a role in the video; however, it primarily focuses on individual lifestyle changes to lessen everyday plastic use. Witte discusses the factors that make up threat and efficacy in her paper on the Extended Parallel Process Model (Witte, 1992). The EPPM highlights the role that threat and efficacy play in effective risk communication (Witte, 1992). Witte suggests that strong threat messaging draws attention to an issue, but that threat information must be accompanied with equal efficacy regarding the actions the audience can take to address the threat.

      The EPPM attributes two factors to threat: susceptibility to, and severity of, a risk. Additionally, the EPPM names two types of efficacy: self efficacy (whether an individual can take action against the threat), and response efficacy (if said action will effectively lessen the threat). Later Witte’s model shows that when both perceived threat and efficacy are high, danger control will be practiced. Danger control is any action that lowers the threat posed by a risk in an adaptive way. However, when perceived threat is high but efficacy is low, the EPPM states that fear control will be practiced by an individual. Fear control is a maladaptive behavior such as denial and message avoidance (Witte, 1993). Based on Witte’s EPPM, communications campaigns must effectively communicate both threat and efficacy so as not to cause an individual to practice fear control behaviors.

 

            Other literature considered efficacy in a political way (Balch, 1974). Efficacy, as Balch suggests, can be conceptualized as internal or external. Internal efficacy is high when an individual is able to act effectively within politics, while external efficacy focuses on how political leaders actually respond to an individual’s action. If an individual does not feel they have sufficient internal efficacy, or that external efficacy is low in the political sphere, then the individual is likely to engage in fear control. The political adaptation of the EPPM is important to consider, with respect to communications campaigns, because societal issues often require societal changes which cannot be accomplished solely through individual behavioral changes. Instead, larger problems facing society may involve policy changes which require individuals and political figures alike to act effectively towards societal advancement. 

​

            Some research shows the effects of risk communication that does not align threat and efficacy. For example, research on the role of threat and efficacy in aids prevention looks at the threat of AIDS and the efficacy of condom use (Witte, 1991). This research shows that when the threat of AIDS was communicated as high, and condom efficacy was low, people failed to engage in danger control and did not use condoms due to fear control. However, when both threat and efficacy were high people used condoms and practiced protected sex (Witte, 1991). The results of this study show that positive behavior change are most likely to be made when threat and efficacy messages appear together. This research is useful for communications campaigns by displaying how audiences can be prompted to take specific actions if threat is communicated, related self efficacy opportunities are presented, and response efficacy is shown as high. 

            The last social theory that will be highlighted in this paper is the theory of normative approaches. Normative approaches include injunctive and descriptive norms. These norms are not aligned in the PPC’s which lowers the effectiveness of their message. In his paper on normative messages, Cialdini defines injunctive norms as behaviors that are typically approved or disapproved of, and descriptive norms as the behaviors that are typically preformed (Cialdini, 2003). Ultimately, injunctive norms are a message communicating what people shoulddo and what is morally acceptable. Descriptive norms showcase what action is being practiced by people, and do not always align with the injunctive norm of what should be.  For behaviors such as recycling that are environmentally beneficial, highlighting both the descriptive and injunctive norm is effective in engaging others in the desired behavior (Cialdini, 2003). However, in situations in which an unwanted behavior is being practiced, focusing on the injunctive norm, while not including the descriptive norm is most effective (Cialdini, 2003). 

            In one study done on normative social influence, California residents were surveyed about energy conservation (Nolan et. Al, 2008). The study asked participants about how important certain factors were in deciding to conserve energy—the factors included: saving money by using less energy, benefiting society, protecting the environment, a lot of other people are trying to conserve energy. The results showed that although the belief that others are conserving energy was rated as the lowest motivating factor by participants, this beliefe was actually the strongest predictor of taking part in energy conservation. This study shows the power of normative social influence. People’s behaviors can be changed by showing that other people are practicing a specific behavior. Normative messaging can be a powerful tool for campaigns as normative messaging can persuade people to engage in the actions being communicated by the campaign. 

​

​

Plastic Pollution Coalition Campaign Overview:  

​

     In 2009, in Berkeley California, the Plastic Pollution Coalition was founded as a project of the Earth Island Institute—a non-profit, public interest organization that “supports people who are creating solutions to protect our shared planet” (“Earth Island Institute | Welcome,” n.d.). The PPC’s main goal is aimed at fighting plastic pollution by advocating for the reduction of plastic consumption, the responsibility of policy and regulation, a change in production, environmental justice, and coalition building (“Plastic Pollution Coalition,” n.d.). After eight years, the PPC has grown in size to consist of over 500 member organizations including: Gift Scouts of America, Green Peace, Breast Cancer Fund, Two Hands Project, Aveda, Clean Water Action, and more. 

The PPC has partnered with famous individuals to reach a broader audience. Celebrities and bands such as Maroon 5, Chevy Chase, Jackson Browne, Margaret Atwood, and Loudon Wainwright have joined the coalition and helped spread the word about the problems that plastic pollution causes. Music has been a major strategy in spreading information about the PPC. Since 2014 the PPC has partnered with the Bonnaroo Music and Arts Festival. At Bonnaroo, the PPC encourage attendees to reuse collectible stainless steel cups which can be refilled with beer/water throughout the event. PPC started a project, based on their partnership with Bonnaroo, called the Refill Revolution, for other events and festivals, that provides models for reusable infrastructures (“Plastic Pollution Coalition,” n.d.). 

     On their Website, the PPC offers guides to living plastic free. There are guides for schools, towns, events, and eating out. For schools, the PPC lists four steps—education, collaboration, investigation, action—and provides detailed descriptions of specific activities and goals to for each of the steps (“Plastic Pollution Coalition,” n.d.). Similar steps are listed in the other informational guides to living plastic free. Through these guides, the PPC manages to list out ways to make their mission a reality. They direct people towards companies that sell alternatives to plastic products, and they suggest ways to get started on the solution to the plastic problem. The PPC’s website relies heavily on images with bold captions to relay information. On their homepage is a picture of shoreline littered with plastic with the words “Plastic is a substance the earth cannot digest. REFUSE SINGLE-USE PLASTIC” written over the image. Another image of a newborn baby’s feet is featured on their homepage, captioned “Plastic pollution is toxic to human health. Even babies are born pre-polluted.” These powerful image-events are followed by a tab that says “Donate” which leads visitors to their donation page.

    Under a section “The Facts”, facts about plastic pollution are listed. Each fact is listed in a short and bold sentence, and is followed by a few longer supporting sentences. For example, one fact reads “Plastic poisons our food chain,” and is followed by an explanation about how even the tiniest creature in the ocean, plankton, absorb plastic toxins by eating micro-plastics, which displaces algae that creatures higher up the food chain require to survive. Seven other well explained and eye-opening facts about plastic are listed. To follow the facts, a separate tab on the PPC’s website is focused on taking action. In this tab, the PPC encourages people to take their 4Rs Pledge to reduce plastic footprints, recycle what can’t be reused, reuse, and refuse disposable plastic whenever and wherever possible. 

     Their website itself has the space to cover information in depth, with great detail and references. In the four-minute video Open Your Eyesfeatured on their homepage, however, less information is covered due to time constraints. InOpen Your Eyes, whose audience is the general public,key facts and images are focused on in an attempt to efficiently relay their message. The main place the video is found is on the PPC website, and only those who go out of their way to visit the PPC website will find the video. The video has a little over 200,000 views on Youtube and has failed to reach a large audience. Open Your Eyes starts by covering how plastics have grown in popularity and how their use has gotten out of hand. Next, the video describes the threats that plastic pose to humans and the environment. It then introduces the PPC, its mission statement, and its partners. In the last part of the video, Jeff Bridges states that plastic pollution is a global problem that humans alone have caused, and then invites the viewer to join the coalition and visit the PPC’s website. Next, strategies for lessening plastic use are stated consecutively, while images of plastic alternatives sold by the PPC quickly flash across the screen (“Plastic Pollution Coalition - OPEN YOUR EYES,” n.d.).  

 

 

 

Analysis: 

​

    The Plastic Pollution Coalition’s Open Your Eyes video, which serves to mobilize their people to cut out plastics, successfully uses a public health frame to show the direct risk that plastics pose to human health (Nisbet, 2009). About one and a half minutes into the video, Jeff Bridges poses the question, “what effect does plastic have on human health?” This question shifts the focus of the video onto human health. Then a bold quote appears reading “93% OF AMERICANS HAVE BPA IN THEIR BODY”, and covers a picture in which select people in a crowd are highlighted in red (“Plastic Pollution Coalition - OPEN YOUR EYES,” n.d.).  This statement highlights the shocking percent of Americans affected by plastic, enhancing the salience of this information (Entman, 1993). Following this statistic the harmful effects of BPA are listed including: cancer, erectile dysfunction, diabetes, obesity, infertility and risk for cardiovascular disease. Given the egotistical concerns of most Americans, showing the ways in which BPA can directly harm people is an effective framing approach (Schultz et al., 2003). The public health frame used by the PPC prompts people to care about the harm plastics can cause to humans. Framing the plastic issue as a public health concern is powerful as it lessens the disconnect between plastic pollution and its potential harm to humans. 

    The public health frame, though, is only used in a brief section of the video, while yhe majority of the first three minutes are devoted to showing how prevalent plastics have become in society. The first three minutes of the video frame the plastic problem using a social norm frame. Clips of people using plastic bags, cups, water bottles, and straws are shown. Jeff Bridges states that the USA throws out 88 tons of plastic every day, while brief clips of cars filled with plastic bags and landfills brimming with plastics are panned across (“Plastic Pollution Coalition - OPEN YOUR EYES, ”n.d.). Using the social norm frame in the beginning of the video may send mixed messages to the audience as the injunctive norm is telling people to do the opposite of what most people are doing. In this video, the enhanced salience of information on how imbedded plastic is in our society could might cause people to think the problem is too monumental to be solved (Entman, 1993). The PPC could instead frame the start of the video using an environmental and social modeling frame. Rather than focusing on how ubiquitous plastics are, the video could focus on the environmental consequences of plastics while later showcasing a few examples of people who live plastic-free. The environmental and social modeling frames would not focus on how deeply imbedded plastics are in modern culture and society. Instead these frames would focus on the environmental harm plastics cause while later framing plastics as a substance that everyday people can live without, which would align the injunctive and descriptive norms. 

 

     Like other environmental campaign videos, the PPC not only tries to educate its audience on an issue, it also tries to get its audience to care about the issue. The PPC effectively communicates the threats involved with plastic pollution which helps to get its audience emotionally invested in the issue. Based on Witte’s EPPM, threat involves two components—severity, and susceptibility (Witte, 1992). In Open Your EyesJeff Bridges states that plastic makes up 90% of all trash on the ocean’s surface, and that plastic pieces outnumber sea lives six to one, which shows how severe and out of hand the problem has become (“Plastic Pollution Coalition - OPEN YOUR EYES ,” n.d.). These facts, along with with images and videos showing plastic filled oceans and beaches display the severity of the problem. The devastating extent of plastic pollution is reinforced throughout the video by showing dramatic clips of plastic pollution. The susceptibility of humans is then communicated using the public health frame which focuses on the harm BPA can cause. With both severity and susceptibility being communicated, the threat of plastics is directly conveyed to the audience. 

​

     Efficacy communication, however, is lacking in the PPC video. The end of the video highlights self efficacy by encouraging viewers to refuse plastics, buy plastic alternatives, and use reusable materials (Witte, 1992). These lifestyle mitigation choices are small-scale compared with the overwhelming problem of plastics being communicated. Buying reusable water-bottles and metal straws might make someone feel better about their choices; however, these individual choices will not change the production of plastics by large corporations, or policy surrounding plastics in states. Additionally, the response efficacy of these individual choices is not shown (Witte, 1992). The PCC does not display how making these changes would lessen the plastic problem, or would help control the threats that plastics pose to humans. The video fails to show how cutting out plastics would lower BPA poisoning, or would lessen the amount of plastics entering the oceans every day. Misalignment between threat and efficacy has been shown to cause people to engage in fear control (Witte, 1992). The PPC could increase the response efficacy messaging in their video, and could also offer internal efficacy options for how the audience could engage politically to help solve the issue of plastic pollution (Balch, 1974). Politically motivated options such as banning the plastic bags in different states, boycotting leading plastic companies, and writing letters to senators regarding plastic pollution could make audiences feel less threatened by the problem (Witte, 1991). By aligning threat and efficacy to be equal in their messaging, the PPC’s Open Your Eyesvideo could better educate and engage their audience on the issue of plastic pollution, while not leading individuals to practice fear control behaviors. 

     The narrative of plastic pollution is linked to the injunctive norm “do not use plastics.” At the end of the video Jeff Bridges offers alternative sustainable products and tells viewers to join the coalition and take a pledge to recycle, reduce and refuse plastics (“Plastic Pollution Coalition - OPEN YOUR EYES,” n.d.). The end of the video also shows images of coalition members holding signs that read “I will REFUSE disposable plastic.” The injunctive norm in Open Your Eyesis that people should not use plastics; but, the descriptive norm, which appears throughout the video, does not align with that (Cialdinid, 2003). Instead of reflecting the injunctive norm, the video focuses on all the ways people use plastic. People are shown carrying plastic grocery bags, using plastic Tupperware, and drinking from plastic straws. Jeff Bridges even goes so far as to call America a “plastic society” (“Plastic Pollution Coalition - OPEN YOUR EYES,” n.d.). By highlighting the frequency and popularity of plastic use, the PPC fails to align their injunctive and descriptive norms (Cialdini, 2003). Instead of focusing on how often plastics are used, the PPC could instead focus on individuals who successfully and happily live a zero waste, or plastic free, lifestyle. As the study by Nolan showed, normative social influence is an extremely powerful lever of persuasion. The PPC could apply this information to their campaign video by making living plastic free appear easy, fun and rising in popularity in order to mobilize people to make these lifestyle changes (Nolan, 2008). 

 

Conclusion: 

In an attempt to convey the harm that plastic pollution is causing worldwide, and to highlight how severe the problem of plastic use has gotten, Open Your Eyesfails to take into account the fact that normative social influence affects which behaviors people engage in (Cialdini, 2003).  If the PPC wants to successfully solve the powerful issue of plastic pollution, equally powerful solutions to plastic pollution will be needed. Though the threat of plastics was effectively shown, promoting internal and response efficacy would prevent people from engaging in fear control (Witte, 1992). While Open Your Eyessuccessfully uses a public health frame to make people feel directly affected by the issue, the video itself dedicates an excessive amount of time demonstrating how regularly people use plastics, becoming the video’s descriptive norm. However, the video’s injunctive norm tells people to stop using plastics entirely. The misalignment between these norms could be solved by focusing entirely on the injunctive norm, or by making the descriptive norm more centered around people using plastic alternatives.  Open Your Eyescould benefit from showing people living plastic free, describing how they manage it, how it improves their life, and how the viewers achieve a similar lifestyle. 

 

                   

 

 

 

 

            

 

 

 

 

 

 

Literature Cited:

22 Facts About Plastic Pollution (And 10 Things We Can Do About It) - EcoWatch. (n.d.). Retrieved December 10, 2017, from https://www.ecowatch.com/22-facts-about-plastic-pollution-and-10-things-we-can-do-about-it-1881885971.html

Balch, G. I. (1974). Multiple Indicators in Survey Research: The Concept “Sense of Political Efficacy.” Political Methodology, 1(2), 1–43. https://doi.org/10.2307/25791375

Chen, S. F. S., Monroe, K. B., & Lou, Y. C. (1998). The effects of framing price promotion messages on consumers’ perceptions and purchase intentions. Journal of Retailing, 74(3), 353–372. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-4359(99)80100-6

Cialdini, R. B. (2003). Crafting normative messages to protect the environment. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 12(4), 105–109. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8721.01242

Earth Island Institute | Welcome. (n.d.). Retrieved December 10, 2017, from http://www.earthisland.org/

Entman, R. M. (1993). Framing: Toward Clarification of a Fractured Paradigm. Journal of Communication, 43(4), 51–58. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.1993.tb01304.x

Nisbet, M. C. (2009). Communicating Climate Change: Why Frames Matter for Public Engagement. Environment: Science and Policy for Sustainable Development, 51(2), 12–23. https://doi.org/10.3200/ENVT.51.2.12-23

Nolan, J. M., Schultz, P. W., Cialdini, R. B., Goldstein, N. J., & Griskevicius, V. (2008). Normative Social Influence is Underdetected.Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34(7), 913–923. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167208316691

Plastic Pollution - Surfrider Foundation. (n.d.). Retrieved December 10, 2017, from http://www.surfrider.org/programs/plastic-pollution

Plastic Pollution Coalition. (n.d.). Retrieved December 10, 2017, from http://www.plasticpollutioncoalition.org/

Plastic Pollution Coalition - OPEN YOUR EYES - Overview Narrated by Jeff Bridges (2016) - YouTube. (n.d.). Retrieved December 13, 2017, from https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=2&v=9znvqIkIM-A

Schultz, P. W., & Zelezny, L. (2003). Reframing Environmental Messages to be Congruent with American Values. In Human Ecology Review(Vol. 10, pp. 126–136).

Witte, K. (1991). The Role of Threat and Efficacy in AIDS Prevention. International Quarterly of Community Health Education, 12(3), 225–249. https://doi.org/10.2190/U43P-9QLX-HJ5P-U2J5

Witte, K. (1992). Putting the fear back into fear appeals: The extended parallel process model. Communication Monographs, 59(4), 329–349. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637759209376276