Normative concerns and proenvironmental

Transcription

1 Date Normative concerns and proenvironmental behaviour Linda Steg University of Groningen Department of Psychology Promoting pro-environmental behaviour Date Select and measure behaviour to be changed 2. Examine factors causing behaviour 3. Intervene to change behaviour and its antecedents 4. Evaluate effects on antecedents, behaviour, environmental quality, and quality of life Steg & Vlek (2009) 1

2 Goal framing theory Date Goals frame what people attend to, what knowledge becomes cognitively most accessible, how people evaluate various aspects of the situation, and what alternatives are being considered Lindenberg & Steg (2007) Date

3 Date Goal framing theory Three goal frames: Hedonic: feel better right now Gain: guard and improve resources Normative: act appropriately Goal frames coincide with popular theories in environmental Lindenberg & Steg (2007) Date Goal framing theory Multiple goals: goal frames often conflict with background goals, e.g., recycling: appropriate but a fuss car use: pleasurable but not the right thing to do Hedonic frame apriori strongest, normative weakest Normative frame most solid base for environmental behaviour Lindenberg & Steg (2007) 3

4 Date Moral and normative concerns Pro-environmental behaviour often associated with higher costs Make gain and hedonic goals compatible with normative goals Strenghten normative goals: benefit the environment, even though this may be relatively costly in the short term Values Norm activation model Social norms Lindenberg & Steg (2007); De Groot & Steg (2009) Date Values A desirable transsituational goal varying in importance, which serves as a guiding principle in the life of a person or social entity. Schwartz,

5 Date Value theory Schwartz s value theory Social value orientations Environmental behaviour is especially related to the self-transcendent, prosocial versus selfenhancement, proself value dimension Environmental ethic: biospheric values Date Research questions 1. Do egoistic, altruistic and biospheric values form three separate factors (CFA)? Cross-cultural validation 2. Construct validity: do values predict behavioral specific beliefs and intentions? do altruistic and biospheric values uniquely contribute to the explanation of specific beliefs and intentions? 3. Predictive power of values in comparison to other general beliefs 5

6 Date Value instrument Egoistic: social power, wealth, authority, influential, ambitious Altruistic: equality, a world at peace, social justice, helpful Biospheric: preventing pollution, respecting the earth, unity with nature, protecting the environment Respondents rated the importance of these values as a guiding principle in their lives on a nine-point scale Date Values Egoistic α =.83 Altruistic α =.74 Biospheric α = Social power Wealth Authority Influential Ambitious Equality A world at peace Social justice Helpful Preventing pollution Respecting the earth Unity with nature Protecting the environment

7 Cross-cultural validation Date Factor structure supported in EU countries Austria, Czech Republic, Italy, Sweden, and The Netherlands Also supported in non-eu countries: Japan Indonesia Mexico In progress: Russia De Groot & Steg, 2007; Helbig, 2011; Hiratsuka, 2010 Date Construct validity Values explain 30% of the variance in NEP Egoistic (ß=-.15) and biospheric values (ß=.47) Values explain 20% of variance in personal norms to reduce car use Egoistic (ß=-.28) and biospheric values (ß=.33) Values explain 16% of variance in awareness of problems of car use Egoistic (ß=-.23) and biospheric values (ß=.33) De Groot & Steg,

8 Date Conflicts altruistic-biospheric values Donating intention: choice between donating 10 euro to humanitarian or environmental organisations E.g., Unicef or WWF Respondents with strong altruistic values more likely to donate to humanitarian organisations (ß=.41), while those who endorse biospheric values are more likely to donate to environmental organisations (ß=-.54); R 2 =.23 Date Predictive power of values Which general beliefs are most predictive of behaviour? Values, worldviews (NEP), environmental concern (EC), MTES Two competing hypotheses: 1. NEP, EC and MTES most predictive, less general (focus on environment) 2. Values most predictive, multiple motivations Steg, De Groot, Dreijerink, Abrahamse & Siero, in press; De Groot & Steg,

9 Date Predictive power of values Values more predictive of personal norms, policy acceptability and intentions than NEP, EC and MTES Biospheric values best predictor, but egoistic and altruistic values play a role too Multiple motivations Environmental, altruistic and egoistic Steg, De Groot, Dreijerink, Abrahamse & Siero, in press; De Groot & Steg, 2010 Values Date Three types of values underlie environmental behaviour: egoistic, altruistic, biospheric Validated, in different samples and countries Biosperic values most strongly related to behaviour-specific norms and beliefs, but egoistic and altruistic values play a role too Biospheric and altruistic positively correlated, but uniquely contribute to regression models when in conflict E.g., donate to humanitarian or environmental organisation Steg, Dreijerink & Abrahamse (2005); De Groot & Steg (2007; 2008) 9

10 Values Date Values better predictor of behaviour-specific beliefs than NEP, value-based environmental concern, and MTES Value reflect a broader range of motivations Steg et al. (in press); De Groot & Steg (2010) Date How can normative goals be strengthened? Norm activation model: AC, OE, PN, behaviour How are these factors causaly related? AC AR PN AC AR PN Behaviour Behaviour AC AR PN Behaviour 10

11 Date Aim Test relationships between key variables in the norm-activation model Hypothesis: mediation model supported First need to be aware of problem before considering own responsibility, and feeling a moral obligation to do something about it Correlational and experimental designs Pro-environmental and prosocial intentions and behaviour as dependent variables De Groot & Steg (2009); Steg & De Groot (2010) Date Correlational design Questionnaire study among representative sample in the city of Groningen (N = 112) Dependent variable: acceptability of energy policies AC: awareness of energy problems AR: responsibility for energy problems PN: moral obligation to save energy De Groot & Steg (2009) 11

12 Date Results Study 1 Mediator model supported: AR mediated relationship between AC and PN PN mediated relationship AR and acceptability In both cases, full mediation Moderator model not supported De Groot & Steg (2009) Date Correlational design Stuy 2-5 Same procedure for 5 different dependent variables acceptability of doubling of car costs, willingness to take action to reduce emissions of particulate matters, intention to demonstrate against establishment methadone point, intention to donate blood, and registration as a blood donor Different samples: EU citizens, inhabitants Groningen, students Mediator model supported in all studies Little and inconsistent support for moderator model De Groot & Steg (2009) 12

13 Date Experimental design: Study 2 Questionnaire study among students University of Groningen (N=92) Manipulate AC: stress negative (low AC) or positive effects (high AC) of child labour Manipulate AR: stress that actions would be either successful (high AR) or not successful (low AR) Dependent variables: PN, willingness to ban products produced by children Steg & De Groot (2010) Date Results Study 2 As expected, higher AR and PN, and lower likelihood of buying products produced by children in high AC condition than in low AC condition As expected, high AR results in stronger PN and higher willingness to ban products produced by children, but AR does not influence AC Steg & De Groot (2010) 13

14 Date Conclusions: causality NAM Most support for the mediator model following correlational and experimental designs AC AR PN Behaviour First need to be aware of the problem before thinking about one s own responsibility, and before feeling a moral obligation to do something about it De Groot & Steg (2009); Steg & De Groot (2010) Date Social norms Descriptive and injunctive norms Copy norm violations of others Cross norm inhibition effect? Keizer, Lindenberg, & Steg (2008) 14

15 Date Study 1 Graffiti vs no graffiti Flyer at handlebar of bicycles % people litter the flyer? Date Study 1 No graffiti (N= 77) 33% Graffiti (N=77): 69% 15

16 Date Study 4 Firework vs no firework Flyer at handlebar bicycles % people litter the flyer? Date Study 4 No firework (N= 50) 52% Firework (N=46) 80% 16

17 Date Study 5/6 Graffiti vs litter vs clean Envelope containing 5 Euro note sticking out of mailbox % people steal the envelope? Date Study 5/6 No graffiti or litter (N=71) 13% Graffiti (N=60) 27% Litter (N=72) 25% 17

18 Date Cross norm inhibition effect People are more likely to violate norms when they see that other norms are being violated Normative goals are pushed to the background in disordered settings (goal framing theory) Especially when norm is shown on a prohibition sign Keizer, Lindenberg, & Steg (2008; in press) Date Conclusions Strenghten or increase accessibility of biospheric values Increase problem awareness and efficacy Prevent or disapprove of norm violations by others Inform about good behaviour of others 18

19 Date Make gain en hedonic goals compatible with normative goals Pricing policies Make pro-environmental action fun Date

20 Date Thanks to Wokje Abrahamse, Lieke Dreijerink, Judith de Groot, Anne Helbig, Jiro Hiratsuka, Kees Keizer, Sigi Lindenberg, Frans Siero, Charles Vlek References Date De Groot, J.I.M. & Steg, L. (2009). Mean or green: Which values can promote stable pro-environmental behavior? Conservation Letters, 2, De Groot, J., & Steg, L. (2007). Value orientations and environmental beliefs in five countries: Validity of an instrument to measure egoistic, altruistic and biospheric value orientations. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 38 (3), De Groot, J., & Steg, L. (2008). Value orientations to explain beliefs related to environmental significant behavior: How to measure egoistic, altruistic, and biospheric value orientations. Environment and Behavior, 40 (3), De Groot, J. I. M. & Steg, L. (2009). Morality and prosocial behavior: the role of awareness, responsibility and norms in the norm activation model. Journal of Social Psychology, 149, De Groot, J.I.M., & Steg, L. (2010). Relationships between value orientations, self-determined motivational types and pro-environmental behavioural intentions. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 30, Helbig, A. (2010). Mexico city: Environmental problems caused by values and beliefs? Unpublished master thesis, University of Groningen, Faculty of Behavioural and Social Sciences. Hiratsuka, J. (2010). Testing the validity of an instrument to measure hedonic, egoistic, altruistic, and biospheric value orientations. Unpublished master thesis, University of Groningen, Faculty of Behavioural and Social Sciences.Lindenberg, S., & Steg, L. (2007). Normative, gain and hedonic goal-frames guiding environmental behavior. Journal of Social Issues, 63 (1), Keizer, K., Lindenberg, S., & Steg, L. (2008). The spreading of disorder. Science, 322, Keizer, K., Lindenberg, S., & Steg, L. (in press). The reversal effects of prohibition signs. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, in press. Steg, L., & De Groot, J.I.M. (2010). Explaining prosocial intentions: Testing causal relationships in the Norm Activation Model. British Journal of Social Psychology, 49, Steg, L., De Groot, J.I.M., Dreijerink, L., Abrahamse, W., & Siero, F. (2011). General antecedents of personal norms, policy acceptability, and intentions: The role of values, worldviews, and environmental concern. Society and Natural Resources, in press. Steg, L., Dreijerink, L., & Abrahamse, W. (2005). Factors influencing the acceptability of energy policies: testing VBN theory. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 25 (4), Steg, L., & Vlek, C. (2009). Encouraging pro-environmental behaviour: An integrative review and research agenda. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 29,