Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online 2022-05
Estimating one’s own environmental impact: others,acceptability and offsetting ( Estimando el propio impacto ambiental: los demás,lo aceptable y lo compensable )
Despite people’s concern for the environment, there are psychological barriers that make it difficult to adopt a pro-environmental lifestyle, including difficulties in estimating the environmental impact of behaviours. In a first study (n = 374), we see that, when estimating the environmental impact of our own behaviours, we believe that pro-environmental actions can offset the environmental impact of those that are harmful to the environment. In addition, we believe that others have a greater impact. A second study (n = 497) finds that people who believe they have a lower impact on the environment than others and less than should be deemed acceptable display less intent to behave pro-environmentally. These findings highlight the difficulty people face in knowing the environmental consequences of their own behaviour, as well as the importance of perceptions regarding others’ behaviours in explaining the intent to behave pro-environmentally.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AdamsI.HurstK.SintovN. D. (2020). Experienced guilt, but not pride, mediates the effect of feedback on pro-environmental behavior. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 71, 101476. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2020.101476
2.
BergquistM. (2020). Most people think they are more pro-environmental than others: A demonstration of the better-than-average effect in perceived pro-environmental behavioral engagement. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 42(1), 50–61. https://doi.org/10.1080/01973533.2019.1689364
3.
BöhmG. (2003). Emotional reactions to environmental risks: Consequentialist versus ethical evaluation. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 23(2), 199–212. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0272-4944(02)00114-7
4.
ByrkaK.KaminskaK. (2015). Can recycling compensate for speeding on highways? Similarity and difficulty of behaviors as key characteristics of green compensatory beliefs. Polish Psychological Bulletin, 46(3), 477–487. https://doi.org/10.1515/ppb-2015-0054
5.
CapstickS.WhitmarshL.PoortingaW.PidgeonN.UphamP. (2015). International trends in public perceptions of climate change over the past quarter century. Climate Change, 6(1), 35–61. https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.321
6.
CialdiniR. B.RenoR. R.KallgrenC. A. (1991). A focus theory of normative conduct: Recycling the concept of norms to reduce littering in public places. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58(6), 1015–1026. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.58.6.1015
7.
De GrootJ.StegL. (2009). Morality and prosocial behavior: The role of awareness, responsibility, and norms in the norm activation model. Journal of Social Psychology, 149(4), 425–449. https://doi.org/10.3200/SOCP.149.4.425-449
8.
FaulF.ErdfelderE.LangA.-G.BuchnerA. (2007). G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39(2), 175–191. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193146
9.
FestingerL. (1954). A theory of social comparison processes. Human Relations, 7(2), 117–140. https://doi.org/10.1177/001872675400700202
10.
GiffordR. (2011). The dragons of inaction: Psychological barriers that limit climate change mitigation and adaptation. American Psychologist, 66(4), 290–302. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0023566
11.
GorissenK.WeijtersB. (2016). The negative footprint illusion: Perceptual bias in sustainable food consumption. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 45, 50–65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2015.11.009
HolmgrenM.AnderssonH.SörqvistP. (2018). Averaging bias in environmental impact estimates: Evidence from the negative footprint illusion. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 55, 48–52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2017.12.005
14.
HolmgrenM.KabanshiA.LangeborgL.BarthelS.ColdingJ.ErikssonO.SörqvistP. (2019). Deceptive sustainability: Cognitive bias in people’s judgment of the benefits of CO2 emission cuts. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 64, 48–55. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2019.05.005
15.
HolmgrenM.KabanshiA.MarshJ. E.SörqvistP. (2018). When A+B < A: Cognitive bias in experts’ judgment of environmental impact. Frontiers in Psychology, 9. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00823
16.
HoogendoornG.SütterlinB.SiegristM. (2019). When good intentions go bad: The biased perception of the environmental impact of a behavior due to reliance on an actor’s behavioral intention. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 64, 65–77. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2019.05.003
17.
HopeA. L. B.JonesC. R.WebbT. L.WatsonM. T.KaklamanouD. (2018). The role of compensatory beliefs in rationalizing environmentally detrimental behaviors. Environment and Behavior, 50(4), 401–425. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916517706730
18.
IPCC. (2014). Climate change 2014: Synthesis Report. Contribution of working groups I, II and III to the fifth assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (Core Writing Team, Pachauri, R. K., & Meyer, L. A., Eds.).
19.
KaklamanouD.JonesC. R.WebbT. L.WalkerS. R. (2015). Using public transport can make up for flying abroad on holiday: Compensatory green beliefs and environmentally significant behavior. Environment and Behavior, 47(2), 184–204. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916513488784
20.
KimB.SchuldtJ. P. (2018). Judging the environmental impact of green consumption: Evidence of quantity insensitivity. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 60, 122–127. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2018.10.005
21.
KuschS.FiebelkornF. (2019). Environmental impact judgments of meat, vegetarian, and insect burgers: Unifying the negative footprint illusion and quantity insensitivity. Food Quality and Preference, 78, 103731. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2019.103731
22.
LarrickR. P.SollJ. B. (2008). The MPG illusion. Science, 320(5883), 1593–1594. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1154983
23.
LimaM. L.BrancoC. (2018). Recycling for my neighbourhood? Using place identity and social norms to promote pro-environmental behaviour/¿Reciclar para mi barrio? Empleando la identidad de lugar y las normas sociales para fomentar el comportamiento pro-ambiental. Psyecology, 9(1), 1–32. https://doi.org/10.1080/21711976.2017.1412574
24.
MacCutcheonD.HolmgrenM.HagaA. (2020). Assuming the best: Individual differences in compensatory “green” beliefs predict susceptibility to the negative footprint illusion. Sustainability, 12(8), 3414. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12083414
MallettR. K.MelchioriK. J.StrickrothT. (2013). Self-confrontation via a carbon footprint calculator increases guilt and support for a proenvironmental group. Ecopsychology, 5(1), 9–16. https://doi.org/10.1089/eco.2012.0067
27.
MertensS. N.SchultzP. W. (2021). Referent group specificity: Optimizing normative feedback to increase residential recycling. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 73, 101541. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2020.101541
28.
MoninB.MillerD. T. (2001). Moral credentials and the expression of prejudice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81(1), 33–43. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.81.1.33
29.
MoussaouiL. S.DesrichardO. (2017). Ser verde no vale de nada si los demás no lo son: El efecto de las normas descriptivas sobre el comportamiento proambiental está mediado por la expectativa de resultado. Psyecology, 8(3), 267–296. https://doi.org/10.1080/21711976.2017.1359370
30.
PascaL. (preparación). Pride and guilt as mediators in the relationship between nature connection and pro-environmental intention.
31.
PascaL.PoggioL. (2021). Biased perception of the environmental impact of everyday behaviors. The Journal of Social Psychology, 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224545.2021.2000354
32.
ReesJ. H.KlugS.BambergS. (2015). Guilty conscience: Motivating pro-environmental behavior by inducing negative moral emotions. Climatic Change, 130(3), 439–452. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-014-1278-x
33.
SachdevaS.IlievR.MedinD. L. (2009). Sinning saints and saintly sinners: The paradox of moral self-regulation. Psychological Science, 20(4), 523–528. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2009.02326.x
34.
SchultzP. W.NolanJ. M.CialdiniR. B.GoldsteinN. J.GriskeviciusV. (2007). The constructive, destructive, and reconstructive power of social norms. Psychological Science, 18(5), 429. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2007.01917.x
35.
SevillanoV.OlivosP. (2019). Social behavior and environment: The influence of social norms on environmental behavior. Papeles del Psicólogo, 40(3), 182–189. https://doi.org/10.23923/pap.psicol2019.2898
36.
TamK. P. (2019). Anthropomorphism of nature, environmental guilt, and pro-environmental behavior. Sustainability, 11(19), 5430. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11195430
37.
WangX. (2018). The role of attitudinal motivations and collective efficacy on Chinese consumers’ intentions to engage in personal behaviors to mitigate climate change. Journal of Social Psychology, 158(1), 51–63. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224545.2017.1302401
38.
WynesS.NicholasK. A. (2017). The climate mitigation gap: Education and government recommendations miss the most effective individual actions. Environmental Research Letters, 12(7), 074024. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/aa7541
