Estimating one’s own environmental impact: others,acceptability and offsetting ( Estimando el propio impacto ambiental: los demás,lo aceptable y lo compensable )

Abstract

Spanish

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

Adams

Hurst

Sintov

N. 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

Bergquist

(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

Böhm

. (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

Byrka

Kaminska

. (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

Capstick

Whitmarsh

Poortinga

Pidgeon

Upham

. (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

Cialdini

R. B.

Reno

R. R.

Kallgren

C. 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

De Groot

Steg

. (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

Faul

Erdfelder

Lang

A.-G.

Buchner

. (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

Festinger

. (1954). A theory of social comparison processes. Human Relations, 7(2), 117–140. https://doi.org/10.1177/001872675400700202

10.

Gifford

. (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.

Gorissen

Weijters

. (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

12.

Grinstein

Kodra

Chen

Sheldon

Zik

. (2018). Carbon innumeracy. PLoS ONE, 13(5), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0196282

13.

Holmgren

Andersson

Sörqvist

. (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.

Holmgren

Kabanshi

Langeborg

Barthel

Colding

Eriksson

Sörqvist

. (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.

Holmgren

Kabanshi

Marsh

J. E.

Sörqvist

. (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.

Hoogendoorn

Sütterlin

Siegrist

. (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.

Hope

A. L. B.

Jones

C. R.

Webb

T. L.

Watson

M. T.

Kaklamanou

. (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.

Kaklamanou

Jones

C. R.

Webb

T. L.

Walker

S. 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.

Kim

Schuldt

J. 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.

Kusch

Fiebelkorn

. (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.

Larrick

R. P.

Soll

J. B

. (2008). The MPG illusion. Science, 320(5883), 1593–1594. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1154983

23.

Lima

M. L.

Branco

. (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.

MacCutcheon

Holmgren

Haga

. (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

25.

Mallett

R. K

. (2012). Eco-guilt motivates eco-friendly behavior. Ecopsychology, 4(3), 223–231. https://doi.org/10.1089/eco.2012.0031

26.

Mallett

R. K.

Melchiori

K. J.

Strickroth

. (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.

Mertens

S. N.

Schultz

P. 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.

Monin

Miller

D. 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.

Moussaoui

L. S.

Desrichard

. (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.

Pasca

. (preparación). Pride and guilt as mediators in the relationship between nature connection and pro-environmental intention.

31.

Pasca

Poggio

. (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.

Rees

J. H.

Klug

Bamberg

. (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.

Sachdeva

Iliev

Medin

D. 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.

Schultz

P. W.

Nolan

J. M.

Cialdini

R. B.

Goldstein

N. J.

Griskevicius

. (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.

Sevillano

Olivos

. (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.

Tam

K. P

. (2019). Anthropomorphism of nature, environmental guilt, and pro-environmental behavior. Sustainability, 11(19), 5430. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11195430

37.

Wang

. (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.

Wynes

Nicholas

K. 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