Motivating Society-wide Pro-environmental Change
Bouman, Thijs; Steg, Linda
Published in:
One Earth
DOI:
10.1016/j.oneear.2019.08.002
IMPORTANT NOTE: You are advised to consult the publisher's version (publisher's PDF) if you wish to cite from
it. Please check the document version below.
Document Version
Publisher's PDF, also known as Version of record
Publication date:
2019
Link to publication in University of Groningen/UMCG research database
Citation for published version (APA):
Bouman, T., & Steg, L. (2019). Motivating Society-wide Pro-environmental Change. One Earth, 1(1), 27-30.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oneear.2019.08.002
Copyright
Other than for strictly personal use, it is not permitted to download or to forward/distribute the text or part of it without the consent of the author(s) and/or copyright holder(s), unless the work is under an open content license (like Creative Commons).
Take-down policy
If you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact us providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediately and investigate your claim.
Downloaded from the University of Groningen/UMCG research database (Pure): http://www.rug.nl/research/portal. For technical reasons the number of authors shown on this cover page is limited to 10 maximum.
Motivating Society-wide Pro-environmental Change
Thijs Bouman1,*and Linda Steg1
1Faculty of Behavioural and Social Sciences, University of Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands
*Correspondence:t.bouman@rug.nl https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oneear.2019.08.002
We are facing environmental crises, but pro-environmental action is seriously lagging behind. Contrary to
popular beliefs, we argue that this is not caused by people undervaluing the environment but rather by people
structurally underestimating how much others care. Only through showing that many do value the
environ-ment will we inspire society-wide pro-environenviron-mental action.
Introduction
Human activity overshoots planetary boundaries and causes global climate change, which has severe and negative impacts on society and the environment. Yet, despite the many ways in which we can change our behaviors to mitigate and adapt to these crises, such actions have not seen widespread adoption. For instance, fossil fuels are still the dominant sources of energy in most countries even though sustainable alternatives, such as solar, wind, or thermal power, are widely available. Similarly, the production, con-sumption, and disposal of products are often far less sustainable than current technologies and services would allow them to be.1
Popular explanations for this lack of consistent pro-environmental action focus on people undervaluing the environment and prioritizing options that are financially profitable and convenient. Indeed, the me-dia and political discourse frequently stress that people prioritize self-interest over collective environmental interest and regard people as unwilling to change their behaviors for the sake of the environ-ment.2,3Fortunately, recent evidence and events suggest that the picture is not as bleak as this popular discourse would lead us to believe. Most individuals do value the environment, providing a solid foundation for pro-environmental actions and policies.4,5 Moreover, increasing numbers of people appear supportive of pro-environmental measures and move-ments, exemplified by the School Strikes for Climate, Fridays for Future, Sunrise Movement, and Extinction Rebellion. Why then is there a lack of society-wide pro-environmental action?
We argue that the lack of consistent so-ciety-wide pro-environmental action is not primarily caused by people
undervalu-ing the environment, as popular explana-tions suggest, but rather by these popular explanations themselves. Specifically, the apparent widespread underestimation of the extent to which pro-environmental values are endorsed within society could strongly demotivate people from taking pro-environmental action. When individ-uals recognize their own values reflected in others, pro-environmental action could quickly spread.
People Care
Studies on basic human values provide rich insights into what people care about. Basic human values represent universal, general, and desirable goals that guide our preferences and actions. All individ-uals endorse all values to some extent but differ in which values they prioritize over others. The more important a value is to an individual, the more likely this per-son will act in accordance with this value.6,7
Four types of values appear particularly relevant to understanding individuals’ engagement in pro-environmental ac-tions: biospheric, altruistic, egoistic, and hedonic values (see Figure 1).8,9 Bio-spheric and altruistic values relate to goals that enhance the circumstances of things larger than the self, specifically nature and the environment (biospheric values) and others and society in general (altruistic values). Both generally encourage pro-environmental actions because such actions are inherently beneficial for nature and the environment, and they mostly benefit others and soci-ety too. Egoistic and hedonic values relate to goals that enhance one’s own circum-stances, specifically one’s possessions, power, and status (egoistic values) and pleasure and comfort (hedonic values). Egoistic and hedonic values often
demoti-vate pro-environmental actions because such actions are mostly associated with personal costs. For instance, egoistic and hedonic values can explain why an in-dividual chooses to fly to a destination rather than travel by train, given that flying is often considered cheaper, faster, and more convenient.
As mentioned above, it is generally assumed that the lack of consistent and widespread pro-environmental action is due to society’s prioritization of egoistic and hedonistic values and weak endorse-ment of biospheric and altruistic values. However, this popular assumption is not supported by empirical evidence. In fact, many studies have shown that biospheric and altruistic values are generally priori-tized over egoistic and hedonic values, as can also be observed in recent data from the European Social Survey10(see Figure 2). Studies testing the effects of different appeals further support this observation.2,11For example, advertising biospheric benefits appeared more effec-tive in promoting participation in energy-saving programs than did advertising financial benefits, and financial appeals could even backfire.11 Moreover, for many pro-environmental actions, such as switching off lights, eco-driving, or die-tary changes, individuals find the biospheric benefits more rewarding than any associated financial benefit.12
The Collective
If people care about the environment and feel motivated to act, why does this not translate into consistent pro-environ-mental actions? We argue that one expla-nation for this gap between the apparent society-wide endorsement of biospheric values and the lack of pro-environmental actions can be found in people’s percep-tions of the values of others. Notably,
individuals seem to structurally underesti-mate the endorsement of biospheric values by relevant others, including groups and society.3
The underestimation of biospheric values in others could strongly demoti-vate individual pro-environmental ac-tion—such as installing solar panels, adopting a plant-based diet, or cycling to work—because individuals could see others as unsupportive of, or disapprov-ing of, such actions. Moreover, individuals who do carry out such actions can feel un-supported, disliked, or even marginalized, leaving many feeling as though they need to justify their choices, for instance, by saying that they mainly installed solar panels to save money, eat vegetarian because of culinary preference, or cycle to work to keep fit. This suggests that environmental motives could be perceived as deviant and insufficient rea-sons to engage in these actions.
This underestimation of others’ bio-spheric values can thus impede or slow in-dividual pro-environmental action, but the consequences it can have for collective action could be even more detrimental. Collective actions depend on the support of others, and underestimating others’
biospheric values can therefore strongly inhibit an individual to initiate or take part in collective action (e.g., join community environmental initiatives or start pro-envi-ronmental petitions). This could seriously hamper bottom-up environmental initia-tives, which appear to be effective ways of promoting pro-environmental actions.13 Underestimating others’ biospheric values can similarly impede top-down ac-tion by governments, which are urgently needed to realize the required systemic changes that make pro-environmental ac-tions more feasible.1 Because decision makers (e.g., political leaders and man-agers) often have to represent their group, their decisions and actions are likely to be guided by the values they perceive to be prioritized within their group, particularly when their evaluation or re-election de-pends on it.14Underestimations of group members’ biospheric values could there-fore explain why political leaders often appear hesitant to take pro-environ-mental actions, unless such actions are explicitly demanded by the public, as was the case for the plastic-reduction pol-icy in the UK, for example.
Hence, systematic underestimations of the biospheric values of others could
explain the lack of pro-environmental ac-tions at all societal levels. Critically, this lack of pro-environmental action again confirms and strengthens the mispercep-tion that people generally do not care about the environment, which could turn these underestimations into a self-fulfill-ing prophecy. Only through makself-fulfill-ing the biospheric values and actions of individ-uals and groups more visible will the ur-gently needed widespread pro-environ-mental change be achieved.
Making Values Visible
Recent events might have enhanced this visibility, resulting in more realistic and optimistic perceptions of others’ biospheric values. For example, global climate marches that were attended by hundreds of thousands and supported by far more conveyed the message that many individuals do care about the envi-ronment. Similarly, more and more orga-nizations (e.g., the World Business Coun-cil for Sustainable Development) and governments (e.g., C40 cities and Cove-nant of Majors) advocate their envi-ronmental vision and emphasize the pro-environmental motivations behind their policies, strategies, and actions, signi-fying they care about the environment. These positive messages, particularly when accentuated through mainstream communication channels and the media, have the potential to correct the structural underestimation of others’ biospheric values and increase the likelihood that individuals and groups will undertake pro-environmental action, even those with relatively weak personal biospheric values.15
Unfortunately, propagation and dis-semination of this positive pro-environ-mental messaging via the mainstream media remain limited and often have to compete with conflicting messages. For instance, around the time of the climate marches, elected governments (e.g., the US and Brazil) and protests (e.g., the yellow-vest movement) opposed pro-environmental measures, which was largely publicized. Although these events were mostly inspired by discontent with current political systems and the specific measures proposed (e.g., disproportion-ally burdening the working and middle classes), they were often presented and interpreted as originating from anti-environmental sentiments, feeding and Figure 1. How Individuals’ Personal Biospheric, Altruistic, Hedonic, and Egoistic Values, as
well as Their Perceptions of Others’ Values, Affect Pro-environmental Actions
Green arrows represent positive relationships, and red arrows represent negative relationships.
confirming the already present underesti-mation of others’ biospheric values.
It therefore appears critical to identify how the widespread endorsement of biospheric values could be communi-cated more powerfully and effectively, for which we propose three strategies. First, pro-environmental motives behind actions could be accentuated and communicated more clearly, ensuring that people see that actions are taken out of environmental considerations. For instance, many employees and
cus-tomers seem unaware of organizations’ pro-environmental ambitions and actions, and many citizens appear unaware of their city’s commitments to pro-environ-mental goals, rendering it unlikely that they would perceive these groups as strongly endorsing biospheric values. Second, it is critical to demonstrate that individuals’ and groups’ pro-environ-mental claims are accompanied by consistent and concrete pro-environ-mental actions. In fact, organizations and movements that claim to be
pro-envi-ronmental are easily portrayed as ‘‘green-washing’’ or ‘‘hypocrites’’ when some of their actions do not appear to be in line with these statements, suggesting that these statements are primarily made out of self-interest rather than environmental interest, thereby potentially harming a pro-environmental identity. Third, strate-gies communicating biospheric values could be more impactful and have a larger reach when initiated by individuals or groups with whom many people can iden-tify. For example, protests by the general public (e.g., climate marches) might have a stronger and more widespread impact than protests by specific activist groups because the general public might not identify with the latter group. Similarly, organizational and political leaders can explicitly advocate their pro-environ-mental vision and policy, which would particularly motivate pro-environmental actions among their members and followers.
Showing Care for the Environment
Research consistently shows that— contrary to popular belief—individuals, groups, and society rather strongly endorse biospheric values, which has great potential in motivating and acceler-ating pro-environmental change across all societal levels. Yet, individuals struc-turally underestimate the biospheric values of others, which could hold them back from taking action. To unlock the full potential of people’s biospheric values, people need to recognize that biospheric values are widely endorsed within the groups and society they belong to. Although recent events might have enhanced this recognition, negative messaging remains prominent, and public and political consensus still appears to be that individuals and society prioritize profit and convenience over environ-mental benefits. Political and organiza-tional leaders, as well as the media, seem particularly powerful in shaping per-ceptions about others’ biospheric values and could strongly enhance these per-ceptions by clearly communicating that many people do care. Moreover, leaders could show their groups’ true biospheric values through initiating top-down pro-environmental actions and policies, underlining the biospheric motives for these actions, and emphasizing bio-spheric values in their vision. Thereby, Figure 2. Mean Endorsement of Egoistic, Hedonic, Altruistic, and Biospheric Values in 22
European Countries and Israel
Means are based on unweighted data from the European Social Survey.10
Respondents (n = 44,387) were presented with descriptions of what was important to a person and for each description had to indicate on a 6-point scale whether the person was (1, ‘‘very much’’) or was not (6, ‘‘not at all’’) like themselves. We reverse coded the items so that higher scores represent stronger endorsement. Biospheric values (the item about ‘‘caring for nature and the environment’’) and egoistic values (the item about ‘‘being rich and having money and expensive things’’) were each measured with one item. Altruistic values (items about ‘‘helping people and caring for their well-being’’ and ‘‘treating people equally and having equal opportu-nities’’) and hedonic values (items about ‘‘having a good time’’ and ‘‘seeking fun and pleasure’’) were each measured with two items, for which we computed the mean.
they could create a social context that is open and supportive to bottom-up pro-environmental actions and initiatives, motivating and empowering individuals to act upon their personal and their groups’ biospheric values, which in turn will inspire others.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This work is part of the ‘‘MatchIT’’ (651.001.011) and ‘‘TOP-UP’’ (651.001.022) projects from the ‘‘ERA-Net Smart Energy Systems’’ program. These projects are financed by the Netherlands Organiza-tion for Scientific Research.
REFERENCES
1. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2018). Global Warming of 1.5C. https:// www.ipcc.ch/sr15/.
2.Bolderdijk, J.W., Steg, L., Geller, E.S., Lehman, P.K., and Postmes, T. (2013). Comparing the effectiveness of monetary versus moral motives in environmental cam-paigning. Nat. Clim. Chang. 3, 413–416. 3.Hanel, P.H.P., Wolfradt, U., Lins de Holanda
Coelho, G., Wolf, L.J., Vilar, R., Pereira
Monteiro, R., Gouveia, V.V., Crompton, T., and Maio, G.R. (2018). The perception of fam-ily, city, and country values is often biased. J. Cross Cult. Psychol. 49, 831–850. 4.Dietz, T., Fitzgerald, A., and Shwom, R. (2005).
Environmental values. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 30, 335–372.
5.Steg, L., Bolderdijk, J.W., Keizer, K., and Perlaviciute, G. (2014). An integrated frame-work for encouraging pro-environmental behaviour: the role of values, situational fac-tors and goals. J. Environ. Psychol. 38, 104–115.
6.Schwartz, S.H., Cieciuch, J., Vecchione, M., Davidov, E., Fischer, R., Beierlein, C., Ramos, A., Verkasalo, M., Lo¨nnqvist, J.E., Demirutku, K., et al. (2012). Refining the theory of basic in-dividual values. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 103, 663–688.
7.Stern, P.C., and Dietz, T. (1994). The value ba-sis of environmental concern. J. Soc. Issues 50, 65–84.
8.Steg, L., Perlaviciute, G., Van Der Werff, E., and Lurvink, J. (2014). The significance of he-donic values for environmentally relevant atti-tudes, preferences, and actions. Environ. Behav. 46, 163–192.
9.Bouman, T., Steg, L., and Kiers, H.A.L. (2018). Measuring values in environmental research: a test of an environmental portrait value ques-tionnaire. Front. Psychol. 9, 564.
10. European Social Survey (2016). ESS Round 8 Source Questionnaire.https://www. europeansocialsurvey.org/data/download.html?r=8. 11.Schwartz, D., Bruine de Bruin, W., Fischhoff, B., and Lave, L. (2015). Advertising energy saving programs: The potential environmental cost of emphasizing monetary savings. J. Exp. Psychol. Appl. 21, 158–166. 12.Dogan, E., Bolderdijk, J.W., and Steg, L.
(2014). Making small numbers count: environ-mental and financial feedback in promoting eco-driving behaviours. J. Consum. Policy 37, 413–422.
13.Sloot, D., Jans, L., and Steg, L. (2018). Can community energy initiatives motivate sustain-able energy behaviours? The role of initia-tive involvement and personal pro-environ-mental motivation. J. Environ. Psychol. 57, 99–106.
14.Willis, R. (2018). Constructing a ‘representative claim’ for action on climate change: evidence from interviews with politicians. Polit. Stud. 66, 940–958.
15.Ruepert, A.M., Keizer, K., and Steg, L. (2017). The relationship between corporate environ-mental responsibility, employees’ biospheric values and pro-environmental behaviour at work. J. Environ. Psychol. 54, 65–78.
