(H4): Environmental self-identity and public identity will each be significant positive predictors and account for unique variance in perceived social status ratings of PEBs

Research Rationale

The aim of this research is to better understand the factors that contribute to the perceived social status of PEBs. Previous research has indicated that behaviors that are perceived to hold social status are more likely to be adopted and spread (Berger, 2017), yet there remains uncertainty about the particular characteristics of PEBs that lend some higher social status

than others. Past research indicates that financial cost, visibility, effort, the type of PEB, and a personal connection with environmental may all influence the perceived social status of PEBs (Friedrichsen & Engelmann, 2014; Griskevicius et al., 2010; Hards, 2013; Welte &

Anastasio, 2010); however, we do not know to what extent these factors, alone or in combination, can account for variance in social status ratings. This article extends the work of others by looking at the social status associated with behaviors beyond that of sustainable consumption. This is important given concerns that encouraging high-status behaviors may reinforce ideologies predicated on unsustainable resource use consumption in the first place.

Finally, we look at the relationship between environmental identity and social status to see whether identifying as green is related to ratings of social status.

Method

Design

The online survey data analyzed in this article form part of a larger research project. We adopted a mixed methods approach, with a cross-sectional correlational design, and open coding of online survey short-answer responses.

Participants

The participants of this study consisted of two samples of Australian residents aged 18 years or older: a community convenience sample and a student convenience sample. In total, 758 participants completed the online survey with 688 coming from the community sample and 70 from the student sample. The community convenience sample of Australian residents aged 18 years and older was recruited via social media (Facebook) and by posting a link to the survey on the Reddit page associated with each Australian capital city (Brisbane, Sydney, Melbourne, Hobart, Adelaide, Darwin, Perth, and Canberra) to participate in an online survey. Student participants were recruited via a student participant pool and were rewarded with points required to pass their course. We were not able to calculate a response rate as we did not send out individual invitations to participate.

Participants who had more than five data points missing from a scale were deleted, these totaled 116 cases deleted (5 students, 112 community). Furthermore, 23 cases who failed an attention check on the social status measure were deleted (20 community, 3 students). The

132 final sample for this study was 601 (542 community and 59 students) Australian residents.

Participant demographics are presented in Table 1.

Table 2

Demographic Information for Community and Student Samples

Community Sample

Student Sample

Gender Male 43.40% (235) 33.90% (20)

Female 55.50% (301) 64.40% (38)

Prefer to self-define 0.90% (5) 1.70% (1)

Missing 0.20% (1) 0.00% (0)

Age Range 18-73 years 18-39 years

Mean 34.34 (SD = 12.96) 21.08 (SD = 4.08)

Highest Education Attained

Equivalent of Year 11 or below

4.10% (22) 3.40% (2)

Year 12 (High School) 13.80% (75) 79.70% (47) Vocational

Education/Training

12.20% (66) 10.20% (6)

An Undergraduate degree 44.50% (241) 5.10% (3) A Postgraduate degree 25.30% (137) 1.70% (1)

Weekly Income Less than $499 6.30% (34) 6.80% (4)

$500-$999 14.80% (80) 16.90% (10)

$1000-$1499 22.70% (123) 20.30% (12)

$1500-$1999 17.70% (96) 11.90% (7)

More than $2000 24.20% (131) 15.30% (9)

Prefer not to say 14.40% (77) 28.80% (17)

Measures

An online survey hosted on Qualtrics.com included the following measures.

Social status of PEBs

Participants were informed that social status is defined as “the respect, admiration, and high regard people receive from others.” Participants rated 16 PEBs (Table 2) on their perceived social status, ranging from 0 (no social status) to 100 (very high social status). Participants were then asked to report why they had rated behaviors the way they did.

Table 3

PEBs and Corresponding Categories Developed After Pilot Testing

Behavior Effort Cost Visibility Type

Bought an electric car High High High Efficiency

Installed solar panels on the roof of the home High High High Efficiency

Installed insulation in your home High High Low Efficiency

Installed a greywater recycling system at home High High Low Efficiency Made a special effort to walk or ride instead of

driving

High Low High Curtailment

Taken part in a political campaign about an environmental issue

High Low High Activism

Contacted an elected government member about an environmental issue

High Low Low Activism

Collected excess water from the shower to use elsewhere (e.g., in the garden)

High Low Low Curtailment

Refused plastic bags when shopping Low Low High Curtailment

Brought your own cup to a café when ordering takeaway

Low Low High Curtailment

Replaced conventional light globes with low energy fluorescent or LED bulbs

Low High Low Efficiency

Chosen to shop at an organic grocer Low High High Curtailment Donated money to an environmental organization Low High Low Activism Bought carbon offsets when purchasing flights Low Low Low Curtailment Signed an online petition regarding an

environmental issue

Low Low Low Activism

Recycled household waste Low Low Low Efficiency

Categorization of behaviors into effort, cost and visibility categories was based on a pilot test (n = 23).

134 Behaviors were chosen to be relevant to people living in Australia, and effort was made to include behaviors that varied on cost, effort, and visibility. The behaviors selected included efficiency, curtailment, and activism behaviors (Table 2). The categories were determined using a pilot test, where 23 people were asked to rate the effort, cost, and visibility of 33 PEBs on a 5-point Likert-type scales (e.g., low monetary cost to high monetary cost).

Behaviors with a mean score 1 SD above or below the mean were included as high or low in each of the categories and were then selected for inclusion.

Environmental Identity

The seven-item measure of environmental self-identity (Uren, Roberts, Dzidic, and Leviston, in preparation) was used to measure the extent to which people saw themselves as environmental citizens. An example item is, “I think of myself as someone who is very concerned with environmental issues” (7-point scale, strongly disagree to strongly agree), and the scale showed excellent internal consistency (Cronbach’s α = .93).

The five-item measure of environmental public-identity (Uren, Roberts, Dzidic, Leviston, in-preparation) was used to measure the extent to which people wanted others to see them as environmental citizens. An example item is, “It is important to me that others see me as a person who acts environmentally-friendly” (7-point scale, strongly disagree to strongly agree), and the scale showed very good internal consistency (Cronbach’s α = .84).

Procedure

This study was approved by the Curtin University Human Research Ethics Committee.

Potential participants were directed to an online information sheet and provided informed consent prior to being redirected to the online survey. Participants took a median of 16 min to complete the survey. On completion of the survey, community participants were redirected to a page with the option of entering a participation prize draw, and university participants were awarded participation points attached to completion of their undergraduate course. The survey was available online for 3 months between April and June 2016. Quantitative data were downloaded into IBM SPSS (Version 24) for quantitative analyses. All recruitment ceased prior to commencing the analysis. The proposed analyses determined during the design phase of the research were a 2 × 2 × 2 factorial analysis of variance (ANOVA) (H1, H2a, and H2b), a one-way between groups ANOVA (H3), and three hierarchical multiple regression analyses (HMRAs) (H4).

We used NVivo 11 to conduct a content analysis of answers to the open-ended question,

“How did you decide how much social status each behavior conveys?” We initially coded to three pre-existing codes—cost, effort, and visibility—to match the focus of our research.

Further inductive coding identified additional themes. One hundred cases were randomly selected for independent cross-coding by two authors. Coding was then discussed, and code descriptions were modified to address some ambiguities and increase the clarity of the intended meaning. The second round of independent coding with a different random sample of 100 cases was coded, this time using the amended codes. All content from the open-ended responses was coded, and the number of codes assigned to a response was not capped, meaning a single response could be assigned multiple codes. According to McHugh (2012), kappa for the second round of coding can be considered strong at .84.

Results

Correlations between overall status rating, efficiency, curtailment, and activism behaviors, and public- and self-identity are shown in Table 3. Social status scores for efficiency, curtailment, and activism were strongly correlated, and social status and identity were moderately correlated.

Table 3

Correlations Between Social Status Ratings and Identity Scores

Note. ** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

A graph of the overall means and standard deviations for the perceived social status ratings of efficiency, curtailment, and activism behaviors is presented in Figure 1. The mean scores indicate that efficiency behaviors were always rated highest followed by curtailment and activism. The behaviors rated as conveying the highest perceived social status were costly infrastructure items (e.g., buying an electric car and installing solar panels); the behaviors

Social Status 1 2 3 4 5 6

136 with the least social status tended to be inexpensive, low-effort behaviors, with the exception of installing insulation, which may have ranked low due to its lack of visibility. Signing an online petition was the lowest ranked behavior.

Figure 1. Mean perceived social status ratings of pro-environmental behaviors.