Developing a more sustainable lifestyle is becoming an important challenge of our times; it is thus crucial to understand the factors that drive resource consumption decisions. We investigated the impact of trait affect and state emotion on individual consumption decisions in social dilemma tasks. Affective factors interacted strongly with the specific structural features of the choice situation. In Experiment 1, participants with high trait affect were especially likely to reduce their consumption when resource scarcity increased, but only when the choice was presented in a gain frame. In Experiment 2, induced guilt led to reduced consumption in the gain frame in participants with high trait affect, whereas induced pride led to increased investments in the loss frame in these participants. Our research highlights the adaptive function of affective factors in decision making in social dilemma tasks and illustrates how emotions may be leveraged to promote more sustainable resource consumption.
AbrahamseW.StegL. (2011). Factors related to household energy use and intention to reduce it: The role of psychological and socio-demographic variables. Human Ecology Review, 18, 30-40.
2.
AndreoniJ. (1995). Warm-glow versus cold-prickle: The effects of positive and negative framing on cooperation in experiments. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 110, 1-21.
3.
AntonettiP.MaklanS. (2014). Feelings that make a difference: How guilt and pride convince consumers of the effectiveness of sustainable consumption choices. Journal of Business Ethics, 124, 117-134. doi:10.1007/s10551-013-1841-9
4.
ArnoldJ. E. M. (1999). Managing Forests as Common property (Forestry paper, 136). Rome, Italy: Food and Agriculture Organization.
5.
BallietD.ParksC.JoiremanJ. (2009). Social value orientation and cooperation in social dilemmas: A meta-analysis. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 12, 533-547. doi:10.1177/1368430209105040
6.
Bissing-OlsonM. J.FieldingK. S.IyerA. (2016). Experiences of pride, not guilt, predict pro-environmental behavior when pro-environmental descriptive norms are more positive. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 45, 145-153. doi:10.1016/j.jenvp.2016.01.001
7.
BrewerM. B.KramerR. M. (1986). Choice behavior in social dilemmas: Effects of social identity, group size, and decision framing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 543-549. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.50.3.543
8.
BroschT. (2013). Comment: On the role of appraisal processes in the construction of emotion. Emotion Review, 5, 369-373. doi:10.1177/1754073913489752
9.
BroschT.PatelM. K.SanderD. (2014). Affective influences on energy-related decisions and behaviors. Frontiers in Energy Research, 2, 53-12. doi:10.3389/fenrg.2014.00011
10.
BroschT.SanderD. (2016). Handbook of value: Perspectives from economics, neuroscience, philosophy, psychology and sociology. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
11.
BroschT.SchererK. R.GrandjeanD.SanderD. (2013). The impact of emotion on perception, attention, memory, and decision-making. Swiss Medical Weekly, 143, w13786. doi:10.4414/smw.2013.13786
12.
CohenJ. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
13.
CohenT. R.WolfS. T.PanterA. T.InskoC. A. (2011). Introducing the GASP scale: A new measure of guilt and shame proneness. Journal of personality and social psychology, 100(5), 947.
14.
DamasioA. R. (1994). Descartes’ error: Emotion, reason, and the human brain. New York, NY: Putnam Publishing.
15.
de GrootJ. I. M.StegL. (2008). Value orientations to explain beliefs related to environmental significant behavior: How to measure egoistic, altruistic, and biospheric value orientations. Environment and Behavior, 40, 330-354. doi:10.1177/0013916506297831
16.
DeStenoD.LiY.DickensL.LernerJ. S. (2014). Gratitude: A tool for reducing economic impatience. Psychological Science, 25(6), 1262-1267.
17.
DietzT.FitzgeraldA.ShwomR. (2005). Environmental values. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 30, 335-372. doi:10.1146/annurev.energy.30.050504.144444
18.
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. doi:10.1016/j.jenvp.2009.11.010
19.
FrijdaN. H. (2007). The laws of emotion. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
20.
GratonA.RicF.GonzalezE. (2015). Reparation or reactance? The influence of guilt on reaction to persuasive communication. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 62, 40-49. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2015.09.016
21.
GriskeviciusV.ShiotaM. N.NowlisS. M. (2010). The many shades of rose-colored glasses: An evolutionary approach to the influence of different positive emotions. Journal of Consumer Research, 37, 238-250. doi:10.1086/651442
22.
HahnelU. J. J.OrtmannC.KorcajL.SpadaH. (2014). What is green worth to you? Activating environmental values lowers price sensitivity towards electric vehicles. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 40, 306-319. doi:10.1016/j.jenvp.2014.08.002
23.
HardinG. (1968). The tragedy of the commons. Science, 162, 1243-1248. doi:10.1126/science.162.3859.1243
24.
HarthN. S.LeachC. W.KesslerT. (2013). Guilt, anger, and pride about in-group environmental behaviour: Different emotions predict distinct intentions. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 34, 18-26. doi:10.1016/j.jenvp.2012.12.005
25.
HertwigR.OrtmannA. (2001). Experimental practices in economics: A methodological challenge for psychologists?Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 24, 383-451.
26.
KahnemanD.TverskyA. (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica, 47, 263-291.
27.
KalsE.SchumacherD.MontadaL. (1999). Emotional affinity toward nature as a motivational basis to protect nature. Environment and Behavior, 31, 178-202. doi:10.1177/00139169921972056
28.
KetelaarT.AuW. T. (2003). The effects of feelings of guilt on the behaviour of uncooperative individuals in repeated social bargaining games: An affect-as-information interpretation of the role of emotion in social interaction. Cognition & Emotion, 17, 429-453. doi:10.1080/02699930143000662
29.
KleinA. A.HilbigB. E.HeckD. W. (2017). Which is the greater good? A social dilemma paradigm disentangling environmentalism and cooperation. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 53, 40-49. doi:10.1016/j.jenvp.2017.06.001
30.
KopelmanS.WeberJ. M.MessickD. M. (2002). Factors influencing cooperation in commons dilemmas: A review of experimental psychological research. In OstromE.DietzT.DolsakN.SternP. C.StonichS.WeberE. U. (Eds.), The drama of the commons (pp. 113-156). Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
31.
KramerR. M. (1989). When the going gets tough: The effects of resource scarcity on group conflict and cooperation. In LawlerE.MarkovskyB. (Eds.), Advances in group processes (Vol. 7, pp. 151-177). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
32.
LernerJ. S.LiY.ValdesoloP.KassamK. S. (2015). Emotion and decision making. Annual Review of Psychology, 66, 799-823. doi:10.1146/annurev-psych-010213-115043
33.
NelissenR.ZeelenbergM. (2009). When guilt evokes self-punishment: Evidence for the existence of a Dobby Effect. Emotion, 9, 118-122. doi:10.1037/a0014540
34.
Oéses-ErasoN.UdinaF.Viladrich-GrauM. (2008). Environmental versus human-induced scarcity in the commons: Do they trigger the same response?Environmental and Resource Economics, 40, 529-550. doi:10.1007/s10640-007-9168-6
35.
OnwezenM. C.AntonidesG.BartelsJ. (2013). The norm activation model: An exploration of the functions of anticipated pride and guilt in pro-environmental behaviour. Journal of Economic Psychology, 39, 141-153. doi:10.1016/j.joep.2013.07.005
36.
OrtmannA.HertwigA. (2002). The costs of deception: Evidence from psychology. Experimental Economics, 5, 111-131. doi:10.1023/A:1020365204768
37.
OstromE.BurgerJ.FieldC. B.NorgaardR. B.PolicanskyD. (1999). Revisiting the commons: Local lessons, global challenges. Science, 284, 278-282. doi:10.1126/science.284.5412.278
38.
PhamM. T. (2007). Emotion and rationality: A critical review and interpretation of empirical evidence. Review of general psychology, 11(2), 155.
39.
RutteC. G.WilkeH. A. M.MessickD. M. (1987). Scarcity or abundance caused by people or the environment as determinants of behavior in the resource dilemma. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 23, 208-216. doi:10.1016/0022-1031(87)90032-1
40.
SamuelsonC. D. (1990). Energy conservation: A social dilemma approach. Social Behaviour, 5, 207-230.
41.
SamuelsonC. D.MessickD. M.RutteC.WilkeH. (1984). Individual and structural solutions to resource dilemmas in two cultures. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 47, 94-104. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.47.1.94
42.
SchererK. R. (2009). The dynamic architecture of emotion: Evidence for the component process model. Cognition & Emotion, 23, 1307-1351. doi:10.1080/02699930902928969
43.
SchererK. R.BroschT. (2009). Culture-specific appraisal biases contribute to emotion dispositions. European Journal of Personality, 23, 265-288. doi:10.1002/per.714
44.
SchneiderC. R.ZavalL.WeberE. U.MarkowitzE. M. (2017). The influence of anticipated pride and guilt on pro-environmental decision making. PLoS ONE, 12(11), e0188781. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0188781
45.
SchultzW. P. (2001). The structure of environmental concern: Concern for self, other people, and the biosphere. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 21, 327-339. doi:10.1006/jevp.2001.0227
46.
SchwartzS. H. (1992). Universals in the content and structure of values: Theoretical advances and empirical tests in 20 countries. In ZannaM. P. (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 25, pp. 1-65). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
47.
SheldonK. M.McGregorH. A. (2000). Extrinsic value orientation and “the tragedy of the commons”. Journal of Personality, 68, 383-411. doi:10.1111/1467-6494.00101
48.
ShiotaM. N.KeltnerD.JohnO. P. (2006). Positive emotion dispositions differentially associated with Big Five personality and attachment style. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 1(2), 61-71.
49.
Sokol-HessnerP.HsuM.CurleyN. G.DelgadoM. R.CamererC. F.PhelpsE. A. (2009). Thinking like a trader selectively reduces individuals’ loss aversion. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 106, 5035-5040. doi:10.1073/pnas.0806761106
50.
SpielbergerC. D.SydemanS. J.OwenA. E.MarshB. J. (1999). Measuring anxiety and anger with the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI) and the State-Trait Anger Expression Inventory (STAXI). In MaruishM. E. (Ed.), The use of psychological testing for treatment planning and outcomes assessment (pp. 993-1021). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
51.
StegL.PerlaviciuteG.van der WerffE.LurvinkJ. (2014). The significance of hedonic values for environmentally relevant attitudes, preferences, and actions. Environment and Behavior, 46, 163-192. doi:10.1177/0013916512454730
52.
SternP. C. (2011). Contributions of psychology to limiting climate change. American Psychologist, 66, 303-314. doi:10.1037/a0023235
53.
ThøgersenJ. (2006). Norms for environmentally responsible behaviour: An extended taxonomy. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 26, 247-261. doi:10.1016/j.jenvp.2006.09.004
54.
TracyJ. L.ShariffA. F.ChengJ. T. (2010). A naturalist’s view of pride. Emotion Review, 2, 163-177. doi:10.1177/1754073909354627
55.
Van LangeP. A. M. (1999). The pursuit of joint outcomes and equality in outcomes: An integrative model of social value orientation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77, 337-349. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.77.2.337
56.
Van LangeP. A. M.JoiremanJ.ParksC. D.Van DijkE. (2013). The psychology of social dilemmas: A review. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 120, 125-141. doi:10.1016/j.obhdp.2012.11.003
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
