Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online 2023-5
Population Migration Damages the Natural Environment: A Multilevel Investigation of the Relationship Between Residential Mobility and Pro-Environmental Behaviors
Residential mobility is increasing worldwide, and it objectively boosts economic strength. However, frequent moves create a specific habitat in which environmental degradation is aggravated. This research explored the relationship between residential mobility and pro-environmental behavior (PEB) from the perspective of environmental adaptation. We conducted five studies to test the hypothesis that high residential mobility decreased private-sphere PEBs at both personal and regional levels. The results showed that high personal residential mobility (Study 1) and high regional residential mobility (Study 2) were negatively correlated with self-reported private-sphere PEBs. Study 3 suggested that individuals primed with a high (vs. low) residential mobility mindset showed less actual private-sphere PEBs. Studies 4 and 5 further demonstrated that the preference for collective benefits played a mediating role in this relationship. These findings extend the adverse impacts of residential mobility to natural environments and highlight the role of social habitat changes in understanding environmental degradation.
AdlerN. E.EpelE. S.CastellazzoG.IckovicsJ. R. (2000). Relationship of subjective and objective social status with psychological and physiological functioning: Preliminary data in healthy white women. Health Psychology, 19, 586–592.
2.
AfsarB.UmraniW. A. (2020). Corporate social responsibility and pro-environmental behavior at workplace: The role of moral reflectiveness, coworker advocacy, and environmental commitment. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 27, 109–125.
3.
AxelrodR.HamiltonW. D. (1981). The evolution of cooperation. Science, 211, 1390–1396.
4.
BaldassarriD.GrossmanG. (2011). Centralized sanctioning and legitimate authority promote cooperation in humans. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 108, 11023–11027.
5.
BarberJ. S.BiddlecomA. E.AxinnW. G. (2003). Neighborhood social change and perceptions of environmental degradation. Population and Environment, 25, 77–108.
6.
BatesD. C. (2002). Environmental refugees? Classifying human migrations caused by environmental change. Population and Environment, 23, 465–477.
7.
BillingtonR. A.HedgesJ. B. (1949). Westward expansion: A history of the American frontier. Macmillan.
8.
BrykA. S.RaudenbushS. W. (1992). Hierarchical linear models in social and behavioral research: Applications and data analysis methods. SAGE.
9.
CatlinJ. R.WangY. (2013). Recycling gone bad: When the option to recycle increases resource consumption. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 23, 122–127.
10.
CavanaghS. E.HustonA. C. (2006). Family instability and children’s early problem behavior. Social Forces, 85, 551–582.
11.
CohenJ. (1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 155–159.
12.
Corral-VerdugoV.PinheiroJ. Q. (2006). Sustainability, future orientation and water conservation. European Review of Applied Psychology, 56, 191–198.
13.
DawesR. M. (1980). Social dilemmas. Annual Review of Psychology, 31, 169–193.
14.
EllisB. J.Del GiudiceM. (2019). Developmental adaptation to stress: An evolutionary perspective. Annual Review of Psychology, 70, 111–139.
15.
EnzlerH. B. (2015). Consideration of future consequences as a predictor of environmentally responsible behavior: Evidence from a general population study. Environment and Behavior, 47, 618–643.
16.
FaulF.ErdfelderE.LangA. G.BuchnerA. (2007). G* Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39, 175–191.
17.
HamiltonW. D. (1964). The genetical evolution of social behaviour. II. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 7, 17–52.
18.
HayesA. F. (2013). An introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. Guilford Press.
19.
HenryS.PichéV.OuédraogoD.LambinE. F. (2004). Descriptive analysis of the individual migratory pathways according to environmental typologies. Population and Environment, 25, 397–422.
20.
HuangN.ZuoS.WangF.CaiP.WangF. (2019). Environmental attitudes in China: The roles of the dark triad, future orientation and place attachment. International Journal of Psychology, 54, 563–572.
21.
HunterL. M.HatchA.JohnsonA. (2004). Cross-national gender variation in environmental behaviors. Social Science Quarterly, 85, 677–694.
22.
JelleymanT.SpencerN. (2008). Residential mobility in childhood and health outcomes: A systematic review. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 62, 584–592.
23.
JettenJ.MolsF.PostmesT. (2015). Relative deprivation and relative wealth enhances anti-immigrant sentiments: The v-curve re-examined. PLOS ONE, 10(10), Article e0139156.
24.
JoiremanJ.ShafferM. J.BallietD.StrathmanA. (2012). Promotion orientation explains why future-oriented people exercise and eat healthy: Evidence from the two-factor consideration of future consequences-14 scale. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 38, 1272–1287.
25.
JuonH. S.EnsmingerM. E.FeehanM. (2003). Childhood adversity and later mortality in an urban African American cohort. American Journal of Public Health, 93, 2044–2046.
26.
KlinebergS. L.McKeeverM.RothenbachB. (1998). Demographic predictors of environmental concern: It does make a difference how it’s measured. Social Science Quarterly, 79, 734–753.
27.
KollockP. (1998). Social dilemmas: The anatomy of cooperation. Annual Review of Sociology, 24, 183–214.
LaidleyT. M. (2013). The influence of social class and cultural variables on environmental behaviors: Municipal-level evidence from Massachusetts. Environment and Behavior, 45, 170–197.
30.
LarsenR. J.BussD. M. (2008). Personality psychology: Domains of knowledge about human nature. McGraw-Hill.
31.
LarsonL. R.StedmanR. C.CooperC. B.DeckerD. J. (2015). Understanding the multi-dimensional structure of pro-environmental behavior. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 43, 112–124.
32.
LiebermanD.LobelT. (2012). Kinship on the Kibbutz: Coresidence duration predicts altruism, personal sexual aversions and moral attitudes among communally reared peers. Evolution and Human Behavior, 33, 26–34.
33.
LindenbergS.StegL. (2007). Normative, gain and hedonic goal frames guiding environmental behavior. Journal of Social Issues, 63, 117–137.
34.
LorahJ. (2018). Effect size measures for multilevel models: Definition, interpretation, and TIMSS example. Large-scale Assessments in Education, 6, 1–11.
35.
LuH.LiuX.ChenH.LongR.YueT. (2017). Who contributed to “corporation green” in China? A view of public-and private-sphere pro-environmental behavior among employees. Resources. Conservation and Recycling, 120, 166–175.
36.
LunJ.RothD.OishiS.KesebirS. (2013). Residential mobility, social support concerns, and friendship strategy. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 4, 332–339.
37.
McCainR. A. (2007). Cooperation and effort, reciprocity and mutual supervision in worker cooperatives. In NovkovicS.SenaV. (Eds.), Cooperative firms in global markets (pp. 185–203). Emerald Group Publishing.
38.
McGeeT. R.WickesR.CorcoranJ.BorW.NajmanJ. (2011). Antisocial behaviour: An examination of individual, family, and neighbourhood factors. Trends and Issues in Crime and Criminal Justice, 2011, 1–6.
39.
McNamaraR. A.HenrichJ. (2017). Kin and kinship psychology both influence cooperative coordination in Yasawa, Fiji. Evolution and Human Behavior, 38, 197–207.
40.
MiL.QiaoL.XuT.GanX.YangH.ZhaoJ.Qiao.Y.HouJ. (2020). Promoting sustainable development: The impact of differences in cultural values on residents’ pro-environmental behaviors. Sustainable Development, 28, 1539–1553.
41.
NilssonA.von BorgstedeC.BielA. (2004). Willingness to accept climate change strategies: The effect of values and norms. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 24, 267–277.
42.
OishiS. (2010). The psychology of residential mobility implications for the self, social relationships, and well-being. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 5, 5–21.
43.
OishiS. (2014). Socioecological psychology. Annual Review of Psychology, 65, 581–609.
44.
OishiS.IshiiK.LunJ. (2009). Residential mobility and conditionality of group identification. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45, 913–919.
45.
OishiS.KesebirS. (2012). Optimal social-networking strategy is a function of socioeconomic conditions. Psychological Science, 23, 1542–1548.
46.
OishiS.KrochikM.RothD.ShermanG. D. (2012). Residential mobility, personality, and subjective and physical well-being: An analysis of cortisol secretion. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 3, 153–161.
47.
OishiS.LunJ.ShermanG. (2007). Residential mobility, self-concept, and positive affect in social interactions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93, 131–141.
48.
OishiS.SchimmackU. (2010). Residential mobility, well-being, and mortality. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 98, 980–994.
49.
PisanoI.LubellM. (2017). Environmental behavior in cross-national perspective: A multilevel analysis of 30 countries. Environment and Behavior, 49, 31–58.
50.
SampsonR. J.RaudenbushS. W.EarlsF. (1997). Neighborhoods and violent crime: A multilevel study of collective efficacy. Science, 277, 918–924.
51.
SngO.NeubergS. L.VarnumM. E.KenrickD. T. (2018). The behavioral ecology of cultural psychological variation. Psychological Review, 125, 714–743.
52.
SternP. C. (2000). New environmental theories: Toward a coherent theory of environmentally significant behavior. Journal of Social Issues, 56(3), 407–424.
53.
SutterM.HaignerS.KocherM. G. (2010). Choosing the carrot or the stick? Endogenous institutional choice in social dilemma situations. The Review of Economic Studies, 77, 1540–1566.
54.
TakalaM. (1991). Environmental awareness and human activity. International Journal of Psychology, 26, 585–597.
55.
TamK. P.ChanH. W. (2017). Environmental concern has a weaker association with pro-environmental behavior in some societies than others: A cross-cultural psychology perspective. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 53, 213–223.
56.
TerrierL.MarfaingB. (2015). Using social norms and commitment to promote pro-environmental behavior among hotel guests. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 44, 10–15.
57.
TriversR. L. (1971). The evolution of reciprocal altruism. The Quarterly Review of Biology, 46, 35–57.
58.
Van Den BroekK.BolderdijkJ. W.StegL. (2017). Individual differences in values determine the relative persuasiveness of biospheric, economic and combined appeals. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 53, 145–156.
59.
VandenbrouckeG. (2008). The US westward expansion. International Economic Review, 49, 81–110.
60.
WeberJ. M.KopelmanS.MessickD. M. (2004). A conceptual review of decision making in social dilemmas: Applying a logic of appropriateness. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 8, 281–307.
61.
YamagishiT. (1986). The provision of a sanctioning system as a public good. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 110–116.
62.
YamagishiT.CookK. S. (1993). Generalized exchange and social dilemmas. Social Psychology Quarterly, 235–248.
63.
YuX. (2014). Is environment “a city thing” in China? Rural–urban differences in environmental attitudes. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 38, 39–48.
64.
ZhengY.YoshinoR. (2003). Diversity patterns of attitudes toward nature and environment in Japan, USA, and European nations. Behaviormetrika, 30, 21–37.
65.
ZuoS.HuangN.CaiP.WangF. (2018). The lure of antagonistic social strategy in unstable socioecological environment: Residential mobility facilitates individuals’ antisocial behavior. Evolution and Human Behavior, 39, 364–371.
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.
