In ecological commons dilemma research, environmental values tend to be treated as a monolith. However, environmental values vary and they do not equally predict proenvironmental behavior. In this study, we investigated the impact of three kinds of proenvironmental values (egoistic, altruistic, and biospheric) on competitive and cooperative behavior in a hypothetical ecological commons dilemma scenario. Two hundred Canadian undergraduate students completed an online survey assessing proenvironmental value orientation and commons dilemma decision-making tendencies. In line with our hypothesis, controlling for demographic characteristics (e.g., gender) and key facets of social desirability (e.g., impression management), egoistic, altruistic, and biospheric values positively predicted competition, altruistic cooperation, and ecological cooperation, respectively, within the commons dilemma. Results show that to promote the sustainable consumption of shared ecological resources, it is prudent for educators, environmental managers, and policy makers to encourage the expression of biospheric values.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AitkenC., ChapmanR., & McClureJ. (2011). Climate change, powerlessness and the commons dilemma: Assessing New Zealanders' preparedness to act. Global Environmental Change, 21, 752–760.
2.
ArnockyS., & StroinkM. L. (2011). Gender differences in environmental concern and cooperation: The mediating role of emotional empathy. Current Research in Social Psychology, 16, 1–14.
3.
ArnockyS., StroinkM., & DeCiccoT. (2007). Self-construal predicts environmental concern, cooperation, and conservation. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 27, 255–264.
4.
BaurI., LiechtiK., & BinderC. (2014). Why do individuals behave differently in commons dilemmas? The case of alpine farmers using common property pastures in Grindelwald, Switzerland. International Journal of the Commons, 8, 657–685.
5.
BielA., & GarlingT. (1995). The role of uncertainty in resource dilemmas. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 15, 221–223.
6.
BobbioA., & ManganelliA. M. (2011). Measuring social desirability responding. A short version of Paulhus' BIDR 6. Testing, Psychometrics Methodology in Applied Psychology, 18, 117–135.
7.
BonaiutoM., BilottaE., BonnesM., CeccarelliM., MartorellaH., & CarrusG. (2008). Local identity and the role of individual differences in the use of natural resources: The case of water consumption 1. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 38, 947–967.
8.
BrucksW. M., & Van LangeP. A. (2007). When prosocials act like proselfs in a commons dilemma. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 33, 750–758.
9.
BruniC. M., FraserJ., & SchultzP. W. (2008). The values of zoo experiences for connecting people with nature. Visitors Studies, 11, 139–150.
10.
CampbellW. K., BonacciA. M., SheltonJ., ExlineJ. J., & BushmanB. J. (2004). Psychological entitlement: Interpersonal consequences and validation of a self-report measure. Journal of Personality Assessment, 83, 29–45.
11.
CampbellW. K., BushC. P., BrunellA. B., & SheltonJ. (2005). Understanding the social costs of narcissism: The case of the tragedy of the commons. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31, 1358–1368.
12.
ChanakyaH. N., & De AlwisA. A. P. (2004). Environmental issues and management in primary coffee processing. Process Safety and Environmental Protection, 82, 291–300.
13.
ChenA., & GiffordR. (2015). “I wanted to cooperate, but…”: Justifying suboptimal cooperation in a commons dilemma. Canadian Journal of Behavioral Science, 47, 282–291.
14.
CornerA., RobertsO., ChiariS., VöllerS., MayrhuberE. S., MandlS., & MonsonK. (2015). How do young people engage with climate change? The role of knowledge, values, message framing, and trusted communicators. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change message framing, 523–534.
15.
DavisA. C., ArnockyS., & StroinkM. (2019). The problem of overpopulation: Proenvironmental concerns and behavior predict reproductive attitudes. Ecopsychology, 11, 92–100.
16.
DavisA. D., & StroinkM. L. (2016). Within-culture differences in self-construal, environmental concern, and proenvironmental behavior. Ecopsychology, 86, 64–73.
17.
DawesR. M. (1980). Social dilemmas. Annual Review of Psychology, 31, 169–193.
18.
de GrootJ. I., & StegL. (2009). Mean or green: Which values can promote stable pro-environmental behavior?. Conservation Letters, 2, 61–66.
19.
DespotovićJ., RodićV., & CaraccioloF. (2021). Farmers’ environmental awareness: Construct development, measurement, and use. Journal of Cleaner Production, 295, Article 126378.
20.
DesrochersJ. E., AlbertG., MilfontT. L., KellyB., & ArnockyS. (2019). Does personality mediate the relationship between sex and environmentalism?. Personality and Individual Differences, 147, 204–213.
21.
FergusonC. J. (2016). An effect size primer: A guide for clinicians and researchers. In A. E. Kazdin (ed.), Methodological issues and strategies in clinical research (pp. 301–310). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
22.
GiffordR. (2006). A general model of social dilemmas. International Journal of Ecological Economics and Statistics, 5, 23–40.
23.
GiffordR. (2008). Toward a comprehensive model of social dilemmas. In New issues and paradigms in research on social dilemmas (pp. 265–279). Boston, MA: Springer.
24.
GiffordJ., & GiffordR. (2000). FISH 3: A microworld for studying social dilemmas and resource management. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 32, 417–422.
25.
GiffordR., & NilssonA. (2014). Personal and social factors that influence pro-environmental concern and behaviour: A review. International Journal of Psychology, 49, 141–157.
26.
GiffordR., & HineD. W. (1997). Towards cooperation in the commons dilemma. Canadian Journal of Behavioral Science, 29, 167–178.
27.
GiffordR., & WellsJ. (1991). FISH: A commons dilemma simulation. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 23, 437–441.
28.
GkargkavouziA., HalkosG., & MatsioriS. (2019). Environmental behavior in a private-sphere context: Integrating theories of planned behavior and value belief norm, self-identity and habit. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 148, 145–156.
29.
HardinG. (1968). The tragedy of the commons. Science, 162, 1243–1248.
30.
HineD. W., GiffordR., HeathY., CookseyR., & QuainP. (2009). A cue utilization approach for investigating harvest decisions in commons dilemmas. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 39, 564–588.
31.
HuckelbaA. L., & Van LangeP. A. (2020). The silent killer: Consequences of climate change and how to survive past the year 2050. Sustainability, 12, 3757.
KahnP. H., & KellertS. R. (2002). Children and nature: Psychological, sociocultural, and evolutionary investigations. Boston, MA: MIT Press.
34.
KaiserF. G., & ByrkaK. (2011). Environmentalism as a trait: Gauging people's prosocial personality in terms of environmental engagement. International Journal of Psychology, 46, 71–79.
35.
KnezI. (2016). Is climate change a moral issue? Effects of egoism and altruism on pro-environmental behavior. Current Urban Studies, 4, 157–174.
36.
KopelmanS. (2009). The effect of culture and power on cooperation in commons dilemmas: Implications for global resource management. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 108, 153–163.
37.
KortenkampK. V., & MooreC. F. (2001). Ecocentrism and anthropocentrism: Moral reasoning about ecological commons dilemmas. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 21, 261–272.
38.
KramerR. M., McClintockC. G., & MessickD. M. (1986). Social values and cooperative response to a simulated resource conservation crisis. Journal of Personality, 54, 576–582.
LiebrandW. B. (1984). The effect of social motives, communication and group size on behaviour in an N-person multi-stage mixed-motive game. European Journal of Social Psychology, 14, 239–264.
41.
LiefländerA. K., FröhlichG., BognerF. X., & SchultzP. W. (2013). Promoting connectedness with nature through environmental education. Environmental Education Research, 19, 370–384.
42.
LiuC. J., & HaoF. (2020). The impact of social and ecological factors on environmentally responsible behavior. Journal of Cleaner Production, 254, 120173.
43.
MerchantC. (1992). Radical ecology. The search for a livable world. New York, NY: Routledge.
44.
MeyerA. (2015). Does education increase pro-environmental behavior? Evidence from Europe. Ecological Economics, 116, 108–121.
45.
MilfontT. L. (2009). The effects of social desirability on self-reported environmental attitudes and ecological behaviour. The Environmentalist, 29, 263–269.
46.
OjalaM., & LakewY. (2017). Young people and climate change communication. In H. von Storch (ed.), Oxford research encyclopedia of climate science. Oxford, EN: Oxford University Press
47.
PaulhusD. L. (1991). Measurement and control of response bias. In J. P. Robinson, P. R. Shaver, & L. S. Wrightsman (eds.), Measures of personality and social psychological attitudes (pp. 17–59). Academic Press.
48.
PletzerJ. L., BallietD., JoiremanJ., KuhlmanD. M., VoelpelS. C., Van LangeP. A., & BackM. (2018). Social value orientation, expectations, and cooperation in social dilemmas: A meta–analysis. European Journal of Personality, 32, 62–83.
49.
PontingC. (1993). A green history of the world. The environment and the collapse of great civilizations. New York, NY: Penguin Books.
50.
SchultzP. W. (2001). The structure of environmental concern: Concern for self, other people, and the biosphere. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 21, 327–339.
51.
SchultzP. W., GouveiaV. V., CameronL. D., TankhaG., SchmuckP., & FraněkM. (2005). Values and their relationship to environmental concern and conservation behavior. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 36, 457–475.
52.
SchultzP. W., MilfontT. L., ChanceR. C., TronuG., LuísS., AndoK., ... & GouveiaV. V. (2014). Cross-cultural evidence for spatial bias in beliefs about the severity of environmental problems. Environment and Behavior, 46, 267–302.
53.
SchultzP. W., ShriverC., TabanicoJ. J., & KhazianA. M. (2004). Implicit connections with nature. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 24, 31–42.
54.
SchultzP. W., & TabanicoJ. (2007). Self, identity, and the natural environment: Exploring implicit connections with nature. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 37, 1219–1247.
55.
SchultzW., & ZeleznyL. (1999). Values as predictors of environmental attitudes: Evidence for consistency across 14 countries. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 19, 255–265.
56.
ShafieiA., & MaleksaeidiH. (2020). Pro-environmental behavior of university students: Application of protection motivation theory. Global Ecology and Conservation. [Epub ahead of print]; DOI: 10.1016/j.gecco.2020.e00908.
57.
ShankarA., & PavittC. (2002). Resource and public goods dilemmas: A new issue for communication research. The Review of Communication, 2, 251–272.
58.
SheldonK. M., & KasserT. (1995). Coherence and congruence: Two aspects of personality integration. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68, 531–543.
59.
SheldonK. M., & McGregorH. A. (2000). Extrinsic value orientation and “the tragedy of the commons.” Journal of Personality, 68, 383–411.
60.
SintovN. D., & PrescottC. A. (2011). The influence of social desirability and item priming effects on reports of proenvironmental behavior. Ecopsychology, 3, 257–267.
61.
SmithF. (2017). Natural resource and global value chains: What role for the WTO? In C. Tan & J. Faundez (eds.), Natural resources and sustainable development: International economic law perspectives (pp. 237–256). Cheltenham, United Kingdom: Edward Elgar Publishing.
62.
SmithJ. M., & BellP. A. (1992). Environmental concern and cooperative-competitive behavior in a simulated commons dilemma. The Journal of Social Psychology, 132, 461–468.
SternP. C., & DietzT. (1994). The value basis of environmental concern. Journal of Social Issues, 50, 65–84.
65.
SternP. C., DietzT., & KalofL. (1993). Value orientations, gender, and environmental concern. Environment and Behavior, 25, 322–348.
66.
SussmanR., LavalleeL. F., & GiffordR. (2016). Pro-environmental values matter in competitive but not cooperative commons dilemmas. The Journal of Social Psychology, 156, 43–55.
67.
SwamiV., Chamorro-PremuzicT., SnelgarR., & FurnhamA. (2010). Egoistic, altruistic, and biospheric environmental concerns: A path analytic investigation of their determinants. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 51, 139–145.
68.
ThompsonC. G., KimR. S., AloeA. M., & BeckerB. J. (2017). Extracting the variance inflation factor and other multicollinearity diagnostics from typical regression results. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 39, 81–90.
69.
Van VugtM. (2009). Averting the tragedy of the commons: Using social psychological science to protect the environment. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 18, 169–173.
70.
VilarR., MilfontT. L., & SibleyC. G. (2020). The role of social desirability responding in the longitudinal relations between intention and behaviour. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 70, 101457.
71.
YuT. Y., YuT. K., & ChaoC. M. (2017). Understanding Taiwanese undergraduate students' pro-environmental behavioral intention towards green products in the fight against climate change. Journal of Cleaner Production, 161, 390–402.
72.
ZhangL., Ruiz-MenjivarJ., LuoB., LiangZ., & SwisherM. E. (2020). Predicting climate change mitigation and adaptation behaviors in agricultural production: A comparison of the theory of planned behavior and the Value-Belief-Norm Theory. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 68, Article 101408.
