We expand on the plausible role of access to cognitive alternatives to the environmental status quo (i.e., the ability of people to imagine what a sustainable relationship with nature would look like) in motivating pro-environmental collective action. Using a representative sample of Canadians on age, gender, and ethnicity (N = 1,029) we evaluate the associations between access to environmental cognitive alternatives, politicized environmental identity, and willingness to engage in pro-environmental activist behavior. Additionally, we move beyond self-reported behavior by giving participants the opportunity to write and sign a pro-environmental letter to the Canadian Minister of the Environment and Climate Change. Our results suggest that access to cognitive alternatives is associated with stronger politicized environmental identity, greater willingness to engage in pro-environmental activist behavior, and increased likelihood of writing and signing a pro-environmental letter. All methods and analyses follow our preregistration and all materials and data are openly available.
AbramsD.HoggM. A. (1990). An introduction to the social identity approach. In AbramsD.HoggM. A. (Eds.), Social identity theory: Constructive and critical advances (pp. 1–9). Springer-Verlag Publishing.
2.
AjzenI.FishbeinM. (2005). The influence of attitudes on behavior. In AlbarracínD.JohnsonB. T.ZannaM. P. (Eds.), The handbook of attitudes (pp. 173–221). Erlbaum.
3.
BambergS.ReesJ.SeebauerS. (2015). Collective climate action: Determinants of participation intention in community-based pro-environmental initiatives. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 43, 155–165.
4.
BandalosD. L. (2002). The effects of item parceling on goodness-of-fit and parameter estimate bias in structural equation modeling. Structural Equation Modeling A Multidisciplinary Journal, 9(1), 78–102. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15328007SEM0901_5
5.
BashirN. Y.LockwoodP.ChasteenA. L.NadolnyD.NoyesI. (2013). The ironic impact of activists: Negative stereotypes reduce social change influence. European Journal of Social Psychology, 43, 614–626. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.1983
6.
BaumeisterR. F.VohsK. D.FunderD. C. (2007). Psychology as the science of self-reports and finger movements: Whatever happened to actual behavior?Perspectives on Psychological Science, 2(4), 396–403. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6916.2007.00051.x
7.
BeckerJ. C.TauschN.WagnerU. (2011). Emotional consequences of collective action participation: Differentiating self-directed and outgroup-directed emotions. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 37(12), 1587–1598. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167211414145
8.
BlakeJ. H.CleaverE. (1969). Black nationalism. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 382(1), 15–25. https://doi.org/10.1177/000271626938200103
9.
BratanovaB.LoughnanS.GaterslebenB. (2012). The moral circle as a common motivational cause of cross-situational pro-environmentalism. European Journal of Social Psychology, 42(5), 539–545. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.1871
10.
BrewerM. B. (1999). The psychology of prejudice: Ingroup love and outgroup hate?Journal of Social Issues, 55(3), 429–444. https://doi.org/10.1111/0022-4537.00126
CinnirellaM. (1998). Exploring temporal aspects of social identity: The concept of possible social identities. European Journal of Social Psychology, 28, 227–248.
CydersM. A.CoskunpinarA. (2011). Measurement of constructs using self-report and behavioral lab tasks: Is there overlap in nomothetic span and construct representation for impulsivity?Clinical Psychology Review, 31(6), 965–982.
15.
DunlapR. E.Van LiereK. D.MertigA. G.JonesR. E. (2000). New trends in measuring environmental attitudes: Measuring endorsement of the new ecological paradigm: A revised NEP scale. Journal of Social Issues, 56(3), 425–442. https://doi.org/10.1111/0022-4537.00176
FieldingK. S.McDonaldR.LouisW. R. (2008). Theory of planned behaviour, identity and intentions to engage in environmental activism. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 28, 318–326.
18.
FrantzC. M.MayerF. S. (2009). The emergency of climate change: Why are we failing to take action?Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy, 9(1), 205–222. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1530-2415.2009.01180.x
19.
FritscheI.BarthM.JugertP.MassonT.ReeseG. (2018). A social identity model of pro-environmental action (SIMPEA). Psychological Review, 125(2), 245–269. https://doi.org/10.1037/rev0000090
20.
HeathY.GiffordR. (2006). Free-market ideology and environmental degradation: The case of belief in global climate change. Environment and Behavior, 38(1), 48–71. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916505277998
21.
HoggM. A. (2018). Social identity theory. In BurkeP. J. (Ed.), Contemporary social psychological theories (pp. 112–138). Stanford University Press.
22.
IPCC. (2018). Global warming of 1.5°C: An IPCC special report on the impacts of global warming of 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels and related global greenhouse gas emission pathways, in the context of strengthening the global response to the threat of climate change, sustainable development, and efforts to eradicate poverty. https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/sites/2/2019/06/SR15_Full_Report_Low_Res.pdf
23.
IyerA.ZhangA.JettenJ.HaoZ.CuiL. (2017). The promise of a better group future: Cognitive alternatives increase students’ self-efficacy and academic performance. British Journal of Social Psychology, 56(4), 750–765. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjso.12201
24.
KennyD. (1979). Correlation and causality. John Wiley & Sons.
25.
KormosC.GiffordR. (2014). The validity of self-report measures of proenvironmental behavior: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 40, 359–371.
26.
LemmerG.GollwitzerM. (2017). The “true” indirect effect won’t (always) stand up: When and why reverse mediation testing fails. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 69, 144–149.
27.
LittleT. D.CunninghamW. A.ShaharG.WidamanK. F. (2002). To parcel or not to parcel: Exploring the question, weighing the merits. Structural Equation Modeling A Multidisciplinary Journal, 9(2), 151–173. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15328007SEM0902_1
28.
MackayC. M. L.SchmittM. T. (2019). Do people who feel connected to nature do more to protect it? A meta-analysis. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 65, 101323. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2019.101323
29.
MaoG. R.HaddockG. (2010). The psychology of attitudes and attitude change. SAGE Publications.
30.
MatsunagaM. (2008). Item parceling in structural equation modeling: A primer. Communication Methods and Measures, 2(4), 260–293. https://doi.org/10.1080/19312450802458935
31.
MaxwellS. E.ColeD. A. (2007). Bias in cross-sectional analyses of longitudinal mediation. Psychological Methods, 12(1), 23–44.
PatrickK. (2019). How to save the world: How tomake changing the world the greatest game we’ve ever played. Hello World Labs.
35.
PetersonR. A.KerinR. A. (1981). The quality of self-report data: Review and synthesis. In EnisB. M.RoeringK. J. (Eds.), Review of marketing (pp. 5–20). American Marketing Association.
36.
PetrocelliJ. V. (2003). Factor validation of the consideration of future consequences scale: Evidence for a short version. The Journal of Social Psychology, 143(4), 405–413. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224540309598453
37.
PrinceS. A.AdamoK. B.HamelM. E.HardtJ.GorberS. C.TremblayM. (2008). A comparison of direct versus self-report measures for assessing physical activity in adults: A systematic review. International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity, 5, 56. https://doi.org/10.1186/1479-5868-5-56
38.
ReicherS.HaslamS. A. (2006). Rethinking the psychology of tyranny: The BBC prison study. British Journal of Social Psychology, 45(Pt 1), 1–40. discussion 47 https://doi.org/10.1348/014466605X48998
39.
ReicherS. D.HaslamS. A. (2012). Change we can believe in: The role of social identity, cognitive alternatives and leadership in group mobilization and social transformation. In WagonerB.JensenE.OldmeadowJ. (Eds.), Culture and social change: Transforming society through the power of ideas (pp. 53–73). Routledge.
40.
RobinsonK. S. (2020). The Ministry for the future. Orbit Books.
41.
SchmittM. T.AkninL. B.AxsenJ.ShwomR. L. (2018). Unpacking the relationships between pro-environmental behavior, life satisfaction, and perceived ecological threat. Ecological Economics, 143, 130–140. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2017.07.007
42.
SchmittM. T.MackayC. M. L.DroogendykL. M.PayneD. (2019). What predicts environmental activism? The roles of identification with nature and politicized environmental identity. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 61, 20–29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2018.11.003
43.
SimonB.KlandermansB. (2001). Politicized collective identity: A social psychological analysis. American Psychologist, 56(4), 319–331. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066x.56.4.319
44.
SimonB.LoewyM.StürmerS.WeberU.FreytagP.HabigC.KampmeierC.SpahlingerP. (1998). Collective identification and social movement participation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(3), 646–658. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.74.3.646
45.
TajfelH.TurnerJ. C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In AustinW. G.WorchelS. (Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 33–47). Brooks/Cole Publishing Company.
46.
TurnerJ. C.BrownR. (1978). Social status, cognitive alternatives and intergroup relations. In TajfelH. (Ed.), Differentiation between social groups: Studies in the social psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 201–234). Academic Press.
47.
van der WerffE.StegL.KeizerK. (2013). The value of environmental self-identity: The relationship between biospheric values, environmental self-identity and environmental preferences, intentions and behaviour. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 34, 55–63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2012.12.006
48.
van ZomerenM.PostmesT.SpearsR. (2008). Toward an integrative social identity model of collective action: A quantitative research synthesis of three socio-psychological perspectives. Psychological Bulletin, 134(4), 504–535. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.134.4.504
49.
van ZomerenM.SaguyT.SchellhaasF. M. H. (2013). Believing in “making a difference” to collective efforts: Participative efficacy beliefs as a unique predictor of collective action. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 16(5), 618–634. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430212467476
50.
WrightJ. D. (2015). A social identity and social power perspective on terrorism. Journal of Terrorism Research, 6(3), 76–83. https://doi.org/10.15664/jtr.1184
51.
WrightJ. D. (2018). Development of a three-factor model of psychological ownership of country: Applications for outgroup attitudes and citizenship behaviors [Doctoral dissertation]. Electronic Thesis and Dissertation Repository. 5519. https://ir.lib.uwo.ca/etd/5519
52.
WrightJ. D.EssesV. M. (2017). Support for the Confederate battle flag in the southern United States: Racism or southern pride?Journal of Social and Political Psychology, 5(1), 224–243. https://doi.org/10.5964/jspp.v5i1.687
53.
WrightJ. D.SchmittM. T.MackayC. M. L.NeufeldS. D. (2020). Imagining a sustainable world: Measuring cognitive alternatives to the environmental status quo. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 72, 101523. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2020.101523
YzerbytV.DemoulinS. (2010). Intergroup relations. In FiskeS. T.GilbertD. T.LindzeyG. (Eds.), Handbook of Social Psychology (Vol. 5, pp. 1024–1083). John Wiley & Sons Inc.
56.
ZhangA.JettenJ.IyerA.CuiL. (2013). “It will not always be this way”: Cognitive alternatives improve self-esteem in contexts of segregation. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 4(2), 159–166. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550612452890
