Normative concerns and proenvironmental

(1)

Normative concerns and pro- environmental behaviour

Linda Steg University of Groningen Department of Psychology

2

| Date 01.02.2010 faculty of behavioural

and social sciences

psychology

Promoting pro-environmental behaviour

1. 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)

(2)

Goal framing theory

› 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)

4

and social sciences

psychology

(3)

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 psychology

Lindenberg & Steg (2007)

6

and social sciences

psychology

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)

(4)

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)

8

and social sciences

psychology

Values

‘A desirable transsituational goal varying in importance, which serves as a guiding principle in the life of a person or social entity.’’

Schwartz, 1992

(5)

Value theory

› Schwartz’s value theory

› Social value orientations

› Environmental behaviour is especially related to the self-transcendent, prosocial versus self- enhancement, proself value dimension

› Environmental ethic: biospheric values

10

and social sciences

psychology

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

(6)

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

12

and social sciences

psychology

.04 -.03

3. Authority .63

.42 .71 .01

13. Protecting the environment

.47 .71 .01

12. Unity with nature

.26 .56 .08

11. Respecting the earth

.53 .66 -.16

10. Preventing pollution

.32 .01 .42

9. Helpful

.44 -.15 .66

8. Social justice

.39 -.14 .50

7. A world at peace

.37 -.19 .54

6. Equality

-.10 -.09

5. Ambitious .52

.01 -.08

4. Influential .60

.05 -.14

2. Wealth .53

-.06 -.27

1. Social power .68

Biospheric α = .83 Altruistic

α = .74 Egoistic

α = .83

Values

(7)

Cross-cultural validation

› 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

14

and social sciences

psychology

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, 2007

(8)

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

16

and social sciences

psychology

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, 2010

(9)

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

18

and social sciences

psychology

Values

› 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)

(10)

Values

› 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)

20

and social sciences

psychology

How can normative goals be strengthened?

› Norm activation model: AC, OE, PN, behaviour

› How are these factors causaly related?

PN

AC

AR

Behaviour

Behaviour AC

AR

PN

AC AR PN Behaviour

(11)

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)

22

and social sciences

psychology

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)

(12)

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)

24

and social sciences

psychology

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)

(13)

Experimental design: Study 2

› Questionnaire study among psychology 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)

26

and social sciences

psychology

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)

(14)

Conclusions: causality NAM

› Most support for the mediator model following correlational and experimental designs

› 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)

AC AR PN Behaviour

28

and social sciences

psychology

Social norms

› Descriptive and injunctive norms

› Copy norm violations of others

› Cross norm inhibition effect?

Keizer, Lindenberg, & Steg (2008)

(15)

Study 1

Graffiti vs no graffiti

Flyer at handlebar of bicycles

% people litter the flyer?

30

and social sciences

psychology

Study 1

No graffiti (N= 77) 33%

Graffiti (N=77): 69%

(16)

Study 4

Firework vs no firework Flyer at handlebar bicycles

% people litter the flyer?

32

and social sciences

psychology

Study 4

No firework (N= 50) 52%

Firework (N=46) 80%

(17)

Study 5/6

Graffiti vs litter vs clean

Envelope containing 5 Euro note sticking out of mailbox

% people steal the envelope?

34

and social sciences

psychology

Study 5/6

No graffiti or litter (N=71) 13%

Graffiti (N=60) 27%

Litter (N=72) 25%

(18)

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)

36

and social sciences

psychology

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

(19)

Make gain en hedonic goals

compatible with normative goals

› Pricing policies

› Make pro-environmental action fun

38

and social sciences

psychology

(20)

Thanks to

Wokje Abrahamse, Lieke Dreijerink, Judith de Groot, Anne Helbig,

Jiro Hiratsuka, Kees Keizer,

Sigi Lindenberg, Frans Siero, Charles Vlek

40

and social sciences

psychology

References

› De Groot, J.I.M. & Steg, L. (2009). Mean or green: Which values can promote stable pro-environmental behavior? Conservation Letters, 2, 61-66.

› 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), 318-332.

› 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), 330-354.

› 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, 425-449.

› 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, 368-378.

› 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), 117-137.

› Keizer, K., Lindenberg, S., & Steg, L. (2008). The spreading of disorder. Science, 322, 1681-1685.

› 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, 725-743.

› 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), 415-425.

› Steg, L., & Vlek, C. (2009). Encouraging pro-environmental behaviour: An integrative review and research agenda. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 29, 309-317.