What is the Explanation for Greta Thunberg’s Considerable Influence?

March 13, 2023 by Donald Gorassini, howinfluenceworks.com

In this blog, I propose an explanation for how climate activist, Greta Thunberg, became influential. The blog consists of a brief biography, a demonstration that her influence is indeed considerable, and the explanation.

Biography

Greta Thunberg was born on January 3, 2003, in Stockholm, Sweden. As an eight-year-old, she developed a concern for the physical environment. She came into public notice in August of 2018 in the weeks leading up to her country’s federal election as a result of her daily protests at the Swedish parliament, where she initially stood alone with a sign displaying the slogan (translated to English), “School Strike for Climate.” She was soon joined by many others in the protest. Media worldwide reported on the events. After the election, Greta carried on the protest every Friday in what came to be known as Fridays for Future. Under the Fridays for Future name, demonstrations involving hundreds of thousands of students took place in many countries in Western Europe and North America.

Over the course of a year after her initial protests Greta gave speeches to several legislatures and, in September of 2019, addressed the United Nations Climate Action Summit. Among her words: “You have stolen my dreams and my childhood with your empty words…We are in the beginning of a mass extinction, and all you can talk about is money, and fairy tales of eternal economic growth. How dare you!”

Greta has received numerous awards and was declared Time Magazine’s Person of the Year for 2019. Her advocacy continues to this day in interviews, books, a documentary, the courts, protests, and speeches given before legislatures, nongovernmental organizations, and large companies.

Degree of Influence

The degree of influence attained by Greta at such a young age is nothing short of astounding. She is well-known world wide. Vast numbers of people have been spurred to action by her actions. Her influence has spread to individuals, groups of various kinds, governments, and companies. Her impact has even been given a name: The Greta Effect.

Note that a worldwide environmental movement existed before Greta gained prominence. She was not the originator of the movement but a contributor. Her unique influence could be documented in the form of the Fridays for Future protests and the many other events in which she served as a key figure.

Explanation

Greta Thunberg’s influence emerged due to several factors, which I will go through. Each element is described in general terms in the tutorial of this website and applied here in the analysis of The Greta Effect.

Promise of Gain

The engine that drives compliance with a social influence attempt is perceived net gain. If the recipient of the attempt construes the outcomes of complying as more valuable to the self than the outcomes of not complying, compliance will be the chosen course. Greta asserted that action on behalf of the climate would allow us to avert what she claimed would be the soon to occur extinction of all living things on planet earth. How do you beat that for an outcome of importance? It even beats winning the lottery because you cannot enjoy a prize when you are dead. If you were to believe Greta’s assertions, you would perceive action on behalf of the climate as preferable to doing nothing.

The Totality of Information Generated

Four kinds of information would affect audience member compliance with Greta’s principal request. The information consisted of a definition of expected conduct; a definition of the outcomes of the conduct; material useful for judging message believability; and material useful for judging Greta’s credibility. All of these data types were abundant over mass media reports. In such a climate, it would not have seemed unreasonable to comply with Greta’s request.

Greta clearly defined expected behaviour and the principal outcome of expected behaviour. She demanded action on climate and claimed that this was necessary to avert an impending climate catastrophe. This simple message was repeated many times by Greta and her supporters and echoed widely in the mass media.

Was there information to suggest the message was believable? Yes, beginning with the fact that any social influence attempt has the built-in advantage that the requested action must be performed before its promised outcome can be verified. Thus, no one can say for sure, before complying, that the outcome will not occur. Greta asks people to change their behaviour, after which climate ameliorating effects should be expected; and she warns that if they do not change their behaviour, they along with everything else will soon die.

In the absence of direct verification of an outcome, the recipient must apply available clues in the quest to evaluate outcome likelihood. There are several highly available facts that suggest Greta might be correct. Sources besides Greta believe the extinction hypothesis. There are numerous such believers. The believers are diverse, including politicians, scientists, and cultural icons. Much of the group reside in the mainstream of society. The believers evince passion and confidence. Many in the media speak approvingly of Greta and her movement. These clues could easily be taken by at least some recipients as sufficient rationale to comply with Greta’s request for action.

Source credibility would also influence the believability of the message espoused by Greta and her supporters. Recipients tend to comply with the requests of credible sources, defined as people who are believable. The gold standard for assessing the credibility of a source is observing if the person has been correct in the past. This test would be impossible to perform in the case of Greta because she promises a singular future event, namely soon-to-occur extinction if we do not comply. Short of a direct assessment of credibility, the audience must reason based on clues. Here is where we get into something interesting.

How was Greta judged by so many people as worthy of compliance? It would be easy to deem going along with a 15-year-old of no accomplishment in climate science but asserting that all life was about to come to an end on the planet and requesting that we all change in fundamental ways as laughable. So what would overcome, at least in some people’s minds, this significant obstacle to judging Greta a credible person? A few factors could be at play.

First, some people already possessed beliefs consonant with those of Greta. They might have reasoned that if Greta believes such things she must possess a corresponding disposition, whether this be wisdom, intelligence, a special gift of discernment, sensitivity, courage, or some combination thereof. In short, she has the traits that comprise credibility.

A second factor was Greta’s behaviour. She acted like someone who knew what she was talking about. She was steadfast, confident, confrontative, and passionate.

Third, the social archetype of the child prodigy might have played a role. On rare occasions, an ability springs forth in a young person that so exceeds the norm that astonished observers deem it otherworldly. This happens most commonly in cases of musical, athletic, and mathematics performance. In Greta’s case some sort of unique capacity for discernment would be seen as the special ability. Possessing this marvellous skill she could foresee the incipient cataclysm whereas no one else could, and in her youthful innocence she would express her raw concerns. There is some evidence to support the application of prodigy beliefs in this case. Greta’s autism spectrum disorder has been cited by Greta and others as not a disorder but a superpower.

Fourth, the definition of Greta changed over time from the individual, Greta, to the group, Greta plus her supporters. The assertions being made became those of a diverse group with evidently good intentions and relevant expertise. So, even if Greta was not seen as particularly qualified, the group was seen as qualified. Greta would be seen as the inspiration and face of the wider movement.

How a Population Became Engaged

The influence of Greta spread in a remarkably short time to many people and organizations over many countries. Why was the fifteen-year-old holding the sign outside parliament not simply ignored? How did the demonstration by Greta, that first day, snowball into the Greta Effect?

A lone teenager standing with a sign in front of parliament prior to a federal election, when more than the usual number of reporters would be passing, would be noticed and seen as worthy of a story. Local activists used social media to communicate and organize support. This brought out supporters to Greta’s physical location. What became a crowd of protesters created further interest and more stories (by news organizations and individuals on social media), which were picked up internationally by a system of mass communication of unprecedented reach.

In this environment, even if only a small proportion of the world’s population of seven billion people attended to the message, the absolute number of people would be in the millions. One percent of 7 billion is 70 million. Of those who paid attention, some would be interested enough to try comprehending a news item depicting Greta and her support. The message would be easy to learn even if in the form of a mere 30-second item. A young, special girl in Sweden was exciting people with her environmental message. Even if the numbers of people who learned the message comprised a small proportion of those who attended to it, the absolute number of learners would comprise many people. One percent of 70 million is 700,000.

Virtually all the learners of the message would conduct an evaluation of the content. Human beings possess evolved mechanisms for rapidly assessing what they learn, in this case the compliance-worthiness of a request. A few of these people would extend the evaluation into a few minutes, or more, of reflection. Of the people who conducted the evaluation, whether rapid or reflective, a proportion of them would have decided to comply with the request. As I argue above, there was, in all the information communicated, data that at least some evaluators could take as sufficient justification for complying. This number likely reached into the tens or hundreds of thousands; and this group was not static.

Those complying were an active, evolving, and influential group with their own capacity to recruit. Initially, Greta followed up on her pre-election protest with her weekly post-election protests. Her actions and the continuing publicity to which they gave rise produced a synergy of social interactions. Supporters inspired other supporters along social media. Supporters in other countries took their own initiative to organize demonstrations. Governments invited Greta to speak in their legislatures. All was displayed by the media around the world over months.

More and more people would attend to, learn, and evaluate what became a multifaceted social phenomenon introducing many opportunities for expression and action in venues throughout at least the Western World. One could express support on social media, protest in a march, vote for green candidates, change personal habits, and do any number of things in support of the radical environmentalism of Greta.

What an incredible sequence. The solitary actions of one compelling youth holding a sign, an initial media story, the garnering of local support, more media stories, the spread of the stories over a modern mass media with unprecedented reach, and the concomitant spread of support over many countries all happened in the few months following September of 2018. It should be remarked that, even though only a small proportion of the world’s population became engaged in the cause, the absolute number of people that were supportive was large. Of these, some sources—politicians, CEOs, and educators—had considerable influence of their own. Thus, we see The Greta Effect.

How Fundamental Human Motivations were Utilized

The Greta Effect shows that multiple human motives can be harnessed by an influence attempt. I will go through the basic human motives that are proposed in psychology (see Lesson 5 of the tutorial in this website for elaboration) and suggest how the story of Greta could have activated these basic tendencies.

Well-being. The core of the message of Greta concerned the incipient extinction of life on the planet. For believers, support for the environmentalist cause espoused by Greta meant working to save life.

Competence. Going along with the cause was portrayed as necessary to accomplish the task at hand, which was saving the planet in a climate emergency. Thus, acting accordingly represented effective problem-solving.

Good standing in the community. A supporter had opportunities of various sorts to act in concert on a common cause. Gained would be a sense of acceptance and teamwork.

Goodness. Going along represented the moral thing to do.

Desirable emotional state. Some of the acts that reflected support for Greta would help supporters regulate their emotions. For example, participating in a protest could bring exhilaration, feelings of hope, and distraction from anxiety.

Any one or some combination of the motives could drive compliance. The believers in Greta’s message would see the need for strong environmental action to be undertaken without delay as a pathway to well-being, competence, and goodness. Even some nonbelievers would choose compliance. For them, compliance might be a way to gain standing in the community, the thrill of protest, or political power.

Summary

This blog addresses how Greta Thunberg has been able to attain such a level of social influence. Several factors operated to bring about the significant social movement known as The Greta Effect.

1. A repeated message promising a valuable net gain for recipients if they acted in a certain way was communicated. The message warned of the extinction in a few year’s time of all life on earth unless changes were made to humans’ climate-related behaviour.
2. At first, Greta expressed the message alone. As her influence spread, the message became that of a large, diverse, and international group of evidently mainstream members. It would be more difficult to dismiss the group than the individual.
3. There was sufficient information available to justify in the minds of some observers the acceptance of message assertions and behavioural prescriptions.
4. Even nonbelievers might follow behavioural prescriptions if this satisfied needs such as social acceptance, emotion regulation, or political power.
5. A vast worldwide media has repeatedly communicated the climate warning and information relevant to its believability. The publicity has insured compliance by many people, some influential in their own right, even if this group comprises a small proportion of the exposed audience.

Hence, we see how the actions of one person turned into a social movement.