Last Straw: The Effect of Guilt on Pro-Environmental Behavior

Honorable Mention Winner Although many environmental campaigns have pushed to eliminate plastic straws from daily consumption, concerns have surfaced that an increase in the simple behavior of refusing plastic straws will generate less action toward more effective pro-environmental behaviors (PEBs). This study implemented a guilt manipulation to urge participants to reduce their straw use and tested spillover effects to various household and travel PEBs. 234 Mturk participants (34% women) indicated their current PEBs at Time 1 and were randomly assigned to the guilt condition or a control condition. One week later (Time 2), participants completed a survey of the same measures, with 184 participants completing an identical survey three months later (Time 3). Results showed that, although the guilt manipulation did not affect straw use, a reduction in straw use positively spilled over to all PEBs at Time 2, with indirect effects through environmental identity for multiple PEBs. Several spillover effects had diminished by Time 3. The results show it is necessary to consider environmental identity when investigating PEB spillover and that negative spillover may not be a concern

Ok, Boomers: Generational Differences in Pro-Environmental Behavior

Existing literature shows positive correlation between age and sustainability efforts, as well as the influence life experience has on generational differences. However, it is unclear how generational influences impact pro-environmental behavior (PEB). Using 244 MTurk participants (64% men, 69% White), the study participants were categorized by cohort; Millennials, ages 22-38 (74.4%), Gen X, ages 39-54 (17.4%), and Baby Boomers, ages 55-73 (8.2%). We predicted that Baby Boomers will show stronger support towards Reusable PEBs when compared to Gen X and Millennials. We also hypothesized that Gen X and Millennials will show stronger support towards Travel PEBs and Food PEBs when compared to Baby Boomers. We found significant generational differences for all PEB categories investigated (Climate Policy Support, p = .003; Plastic Policy Support, p = .033; Recycling PEBs, p = .045; Food-Related PEBs,

Save the Turtles! Examining Motivators for Pro-Environmental Behaviors

In response to multiple vivid images about plastic straw pollution, multiple major corporations have started to reduce their straw waste or completely ban straw use. These images are assumed to lead to increased guilt, environmental identity, and environmental concern that is thought to then motivate additional pro-environmental behaviors (PEBs). In the first part of the study (Time 1), participants were randomly assigned to either watch a saddening video of a turtle struggling with a plastic straw stuck in its nose (the environmental appeal), or to not watch the video (controls). They were then surveyed on their levels of guilt, pro-environmental identity, and concern for the environment. The participants who watched the video were then asked to reduce their use of single-use plastic straws and to track their use for one week, while control participants were only asked to track their straw use for one week. After a week (Time 2), the participants were surveyed on their straw use, environmental policy support, levels of guilt, pro-environmental identity, and concern. This study supports the idea of guilt being a powerful motivator, but that eco-guilt can be reduced over time. On the other hand, other motivators, such as pro-environmental identity and concern, may not be affected by this particular environmental appeal. Overall, an individual’s straw use seems to be unaffected by the chosen environmental appeal, as well as an individual’s support for policies against single-use plastics

The Spillover Effect: Fact or Fiction

In light of recent pro-environmental behavior (PEB) campaigns like banning plastic straws, some have raised concerns that performing small behaviors may undermine support for more difficult, and arguably more effective, political PEBs. Recent psychological research has focused on understanding how performing one PEB may spill over to increase (positive spillover) or decrease (negative spillover) the likelihood of performing additional PEB. We hypothesized that participants asked to perform a PEB due to identity reasons would display positive spillover and that participants asked to perform a PEB due to guilt reasons would display negative spillover. 120 student participants (93 women) were randomly assigned to conditions fostering pro-environmental identity or guilt, or to a control condition. The participants were then asked to commit to use a reusable cup for an entire week (PEB1). One week later participants were asked if they would be willing to write a letter to the governor in support of alternative energy sources (PEB2). We found no evidence of the condition affecting PEB1 or PEB2. Additionally, there was no significant relationship between performing PEB1 and performing PEB2. Therefore, we found no evidence of spillover effects. Worry about negative PEB spillover to political behaviors may be unwarranted

Identity and Guilt as Mediators of Pro-environmental Spillover

Policymakers are interested in programs that increase targeted pro-environmental behavior (PEB) and spill over to increase non-targeted PEBs. Theoretically, guilt should lead to negative spillover and identity to positive spillover, though this has rarely been tested empirically. Additionally, little is known about how reminders of past PEB behavior might also lead to downstream spillover effects. Across two studies, participants (Study 1: 377 MTurk workers; Study 2: 172 undergraduates) were randomly assigned to write about a prior PEB, an anti-environmental behavior, or to a control condition. Subsequently, respondents were given an opportunity to perform a PEB2 and completed measures of PEB3 intentions. Results showed some evidence of positive (through increasing identity) and negative (through decreasing guilt) indirect spillover pathways from prior PEB reminders to PEB2 performance and PEB3 curtailment intentions (but not efficiency upgrade intentions). However, there were no overall spillover effects from PEB reminders to PEB2 performance or PEB3 intentions, as the positive and negative indirect effects canceled each other out. Results also showed positive spillover from PEB2 performance to PEB3 curtailment intentions through increasing environmental guilt. The strength of the spillover effects depended on the comparison group for the experimental manipulation, whether environmental guilt or global guilt was measured, and the type of PEB. The results suggest that environmental communications that remind people of their prior PEB may not meaningfully spill over to further PEB performance or intentions. &nbsp;</p

Perception of pro-environmental behavior

Interventions to change individual human behavior have real promise in helping to reach sustainability goals and emissions reductions targets. However, little is known about how laypeople characterize the vast array of behaviors they perform that impact the natural environment, which has major implications for the design of successful pro-environmental behavior (PEB) interventions. Drawing on the psychometric paradigm from risk perception research, the current project involves a two-study investigation (Study 1: n = 157, Study 2: n = 266) into the attributes laypeople consider when evaluating PEBs and assesses the influence of these attributes on PEB intention using aggregated factor analysis. We find that laypeople\u27s perceptions differ from experts’ and include characterizations in terms of financial and behavioral cost, environmental impact and financial savings, external pressures, and health and safety impacts, with all factors except environmental impact and financial savings relating to PEB intention. Furthermore, our plots of behaviors on 2-dimensional attribute planes provide key information to researchers and policymakers about which factors to address in future PEB campaigns

Straw wars: Pro-environmental spillover following a guilt appeal

As straw reduction campaigns have become ubiquitous, some have worried that adopting the relatively easy behavior of refusing plastic straws will detract from arguably more impactful and important pro-environmental behaviors (PEBs) and policy support. The present study utilized a guilt appeal to encourage reducing straw use (PEB1) and tested spillover effects to a wide range of household and travel PEBs (PEB2s) as well as support for plastic policies and climate change policies. 234 Mturk participants (34% women) completed Time 1 including a survey assessing current PEB practices and policy support and were randomly assigned to the guilt appeal or a control condition and then completed a follow up survey one week later (Time 2) with the same measures. 184 participants also completed an identical survey three months later (Time 3). Results showed evidence of positive relationships between straw use reductions and all PEB2s at Time 2, with several PEB2s showing indirect effects through environmental identity, though no relationships with policy support were found. The guilt manipulation had no effect on straw use and limited our ability to test for spillover effects. By Time 3, many positive relationships between PEB1 and PEB2s had faded. The results underscore the importance of environmental identity in PEB spillover research and also suggest that concerns about negative spillover may be unwarranted

The influence of environmental identity labeling on the uptake of pro-environmental behaviors

In this era of green marketing, consumers can earn the label of being pro-environmental for relatively simple and mundane actions. Researchers and practitioners have raised concerns that highlighting consumer behaviors as green might spill over, therefore increasing (positive spillover) or decreasing (negative spillover) an individual’s propensity to adopt a subsequent pro-environmental behavior (PEB). We report the results of two experimental studies that sought to investigate how labeling a person’s consumer behaviors or preferences as pro-environmental or not influences their decision to engage in a second PEB (donating to an environmental charity). Study 1 found that receiving a green label had no effect on environmental donations. Study 2 revealed that when a respondent’s consumer preferences were labeled as “not green”, they were significantly less likely to donate to an environmental cause relative to the control. We also find evidence that green labels interact with political identity. When Republicans were labeled as green, they were more likely to make an environmental donation than Republicans in the control condition. The donation behaviors of Democrats and Independents were not responsive to the label manipulation. Finally, both studies suggest that pre-existing environmental values are predictive of donation behavior. With additional research, the policy implications of using social labels to encourage PEBs can be better understood

A socio-psychological model for analyzing climate change adaptation: A case study of Sri Lankan paddy farmers

Farmers in developing countries are among the most vulnerable to climate change effects, particularly drought. However, little research has focused on the psychological mechanisms that facilitate or constrain agricultural adaptation behavior. Drawing on the protection motivation theory from health promotion research, we propose a risk, coping, and social appraisal (RCSA) model of adaptation decisions. To test the model, we assessed drought risk perceptions, efficacy beliefs, village identification, and perceived descriptive norms among a sample of 192 paddy farmers from five villages in the dry zone of Sri Lanka. Results revealed that the RCSA model was a better predictor of agricultural adaptation intention than a strictly demographic model. Efficacy beliefs were the strongest predictor of behavioral intentions, with descriptive norms also consistently relating to intentions. Drought risk perceptions related only to intention to adopt one of the behaviors, while village identification related only to a very communal behavior. The results have implications for agricultural extension officers, irrigation officers, and water management officials in their efforts to assist farmers in adapting to limited water resources

Are Implicit Associations With Nuclear Energy Related to Policy Support? Evidence From the Brief Implicit Association Test

Nuclear energy has long been assumed to elicit automatic, negative reactions. However, little research has investigated implicit associations with nuclear energy. To assess implicit and explicit attitudes toward nuclear energy, 704 U.S. consumer panelists completed a multicategory Implicit Association Test (IAT) and an Internet survey. Results showed that participants held negative implicit attitudes toward nuclear energy (vs. wind and natural gas) and positive implicit attitudes toward nuclear energy (vs. coal). Strong opponents of nuclear policy implicitly preferred natural gas over nuclear and implicitly disliked nuclear as much as coal. Strong supporters of nuclear policy implicitly preferred nuclear over coal, and showed no implicit preference for gas over nuclear. Implicit attitudes toward nuclear energy (vs. gas and wind) were related to policy support when controlling for explicit attitudes and demographics. Understanding both implicit and explicit nuclear attitudes is important for decision makers as the United States charts its energy future