In highlighting the potentially catastrophic effects of environmentally harmful behavior, proenvironmental campaigns may inadvertently induce what social psychologists call mortality salience. An uncomfortable awareness of one's inevitable demise, mortality salience motivates individuals to act in line with important social values and to feel guilty when they fail to do so. Guilt, in turn, motivates proenvironmental behavior. It is unclear, however, whether individuals who do not value the environment are influenced by such appeals. The present research tests the conditions under which drawing attention to mortality increases environmental guilt (i.e., ecoguilt) among individuals who vary in their endorsement of proenvironmental values. We find that mortality salience increases ecoguilt when individuals who strongly endorse environmental values have those proenvironmental values made salient. In comparison, mortality salience does not influence ecoguilt for individuals who weakly endorse environmental values, regardless of whether environmental values are made salient.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AikenL. S., WestS. G.1991. Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
2.
ArndtJ., GreenbergJ., SolomonS., PyszczynskiT., SchimelJ.1999. Creativity and terror management: Evidence that creative activity increases guilt and social projection following mortality salience. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77:19–32.
3.
ArndtJ., RoutledgeC., GreenbergJ., SheldonK. M.2005. Illuminating the dark side of creative expression: Assimilation needs and the consequences of creative action following mortality salience. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31:1327–1339.
4.
BambergS., MoserG.2007. Twenty years after Hines, Hungerford and Tomera: A new meta-analysis of psychosocial determinants of pro-environmental behavior. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 27:14–25.
5.
BeckerE.1973. The denial of death. New York, NY: Free Press.
6.
ButtelF. H., FlinnW. L.1978. The politics of environmental concern: The impacts of party identification and political ideology on environmental attitudes. Environment and Behavior, 10:17–36.
7.
CialdiniR. B., KallgrenC. A., RenoR. R.1991. A focus theory of normative conduct: A theoretical refinement and reevaluation of the role of norms in human behavior. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 24:201–234.
8.
CialdiniR. B., TrostM. R.1998. Social influence: Social norms, conformity, and compliance. GilbertD., FiskeS., LindzeyG.The handbook of social psychology, 4th2:151–192. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
9.
DiCaprioL.Producer. 2007. The 11th HourMotion pictureUnited States: Warner Independent Pictures.
10.
DoosjeB., BranscombeN. R., SpearsR., MansteadA. S.1998. Guilty by association: When one's group has a negative history. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75:872–886.
11.
DossD.Executive Producer. 2007. Planet in peril[Television series]Atlanta, GA: CNN.
12.
DunlapR. E., GaleR. P.1974. Party membership and environmental politics: A legislative role-call analysis. Social Science Quarterly, 55:670–690.
13.
Estrada-HollenbeckM., HeathertonT. F.1998. Avoiding and alleviating guilt through prosocial behavior. BybeeJ.Guilt and children, 215–231. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
14.
FergusonM. A., BranscombeN. R.2010. Collective guilt mediates the effect of beliefs about global warming on willingness to engage in mitigation behavior. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 30:135–142.
15.
FrijdaN. H.1988. The laws of emotion. American Psychologist, 43:349–358.
16.
FrijdaN. H., KuipersP., Ter SchureE.1989. Relations among emotion, appraisal, and emotional action readiness. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 57:212–228.
17.
FritscheI., JonasE., KayserD., KoranyiN.2010. Existential threat and compliance with pro-environmental norms. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 30:67–79.
18.
GailliotM. T., StillmanT. F., SchmeichelB. J., ManerJ. K., PlantE. A.2008. Mortality salience increases adherence to salient norms and values. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34:993–1003.
19.
GreenbergJ., SolomonS., PyszczynskiT.1997. Terror Management Theory of self-esteem and social behavior: Empirical assessments and conceptual refinements. ZannaM.P.Advances in experimental social psychology, 29:61–139. New York, NY: Academic Press.
20.
GuggenheimD.Director. 2006. An inconvenient truth[Motion picture]United States: Lawrence Bender Productions.
21.
IsenA. M., LevinP. F.1972. Effect of feeling good on helping: Cookies and kindness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 21:384–388.
22.
JonasE., SchimelJ., GreenbergJ., PyszczynskiT.2002. The Scrooge effect: Evidence that mortality salience increases prosocial attitudes and behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28:1342–1353.
23.
KaiserF. G.2006. A moral extension of the theory of planned behavior: Norms and anticipated feelings of regret in conservationism. Personality and Individual Differences, 41:71–81.
24.
KarpD. R.1996. Values and their effect on pro-environmental behavior. Environment and Behavior, 28:111–133.
MonteithM. J.1993. Self-regulation of prejudiced responses: Implications for progress in prejudice reduction efforts. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65:469–485.
27.
OskampS.2001. Psychologists' roles in achieving a sustainable future. American Psychologist, 56:459–460.
28.
OskampS., SchultzP. W.2005. Attitudes and opinions. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
29.
RokeachM.1973. The nature of human values. New York, NY: Free Press.
30.
RosenblattA., GreenbergJ., SolomonS., PyszczynskiT., LyonD.1989. Evidence for Terror Management Theory, I. The effects of mortality salience on reactions to those who violate or uphold cultural values. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57:681–690.
31.
SchultzP. W.2001. The structure of environmental concern: Concern for self, other people, and the biosphere. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 21:327–339.
32.
SchultzP. W., GouveiaV. V., CameronL. D., TankhaG., SchmuckP., FranekM.2005. Values and their relationship to environmental concern and conservation behavior. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 36:457–475.
33.
SchwartzS. H.1977. Normative influences on altruism. BerkowitzL.Advances in experimental social psychology, 10:221–279. New York, NY: Academic Press.
34.
SchwartzS. H.1992. Universals in the content and structure of values: Theoretical advances and empirical tests in 20 countries. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 25:1–65.
35.
SolomonS., GreenbergJ., PyszczynskiT.2004. The cultural animal: Twenty years of Terror Management Theory and research. GreenbergJ., KooleS., PyszczynskiT.Handbook of experimental existential psychology, 13–34. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
36.
SternP. C.2000. Psychology, sustainability, and the science of human-environment interactions. American Psychologist, 55:523–530.
37.
SternP. C., DietzT.1994. The value basis of environmental concern. Journal of Social Issues, 50:65–84.
38.
SwimJ. K., MillerD. L.1999. White guilt: Its antecedents and consequences for attitudes toward affirmative action. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25:500–514.
39.
Van DykeN.1998. Hotbeds of activism: Locations of student protest. Social Problems, 45:205–220.
40.
VessM., ArndtJ.2008. The nature of death and the death of nature: The impact of mortality salience on environmental concern. Journal of Research in Personality, 42:1376–1380.
41.
WatsonD., ClarkL. A., TellegenA.1988. Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: The PANAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54:1063–1070.
