1
Investigating the relationship between an Environmental Advocates’
Individual Behavior on their perceived Psychological Standing and the
potential moderating effect of Internal Locus of Control
University of Groningen
Faculty of Economics and Business
MSc Marketing Management
Master Thesis
Completion date: 15 June 2019
First supervisor: Dr. Mathilde van Dijk
Second supervisor: Dr. Sumaya Albalooshi
Chrysoula (Chryssa) Kanaki
S3389685
2 Abstract
Environmental degradation and its subsequent negative effects on the environment itself and the human well-being are a universal issue most individuals are aware of. However, despite the increasing awareness around this issue, environmental pollution still continues. As an answer to this problem, environmental activist movements have risen, with the most profound manifestation of their opposition to the environmental degradation being protesting. Although this universal issue affects everyone, one would think that the efforts of the protesters should be supported by everyone. However, that is not the case. Many individuals condemn the protests as they believe that people participating are not pro environmental in their private lives. This thesis is reviewing the effect that the advocates’ individual behavior has on their perceived psychological standing and the potential moderating effect of internal locus of control. A 2x1 between subjects design was conducted in order to test for the aforementioned relationship. The results of the research showed that indeed the direct relationship between the environmental advocates’ individual behavior and their perceived psychological standing is significant. However, moderating effects of the internal locus of control on this relationship there were not found.
3 Pre-face & Acknowledgments
Hereby, I present you my thesis, the final step of completing my MSc in Marketing Management at University of Groningen. This research project began in February and was completed in
approximately 6 months, until June 2019.
I would like to sincerely thank my supervisor, Dr. Mathilde van Dijk for helping me so willingly during this period. Her advice and guidance were valuable in completing this journey. I would
also like to thank in advance my second supervisor, Dr. Sumaya Albalooshi for reading and grading this thesis.
4 Table of Contents 1. Introduction ...5 1.1 Practical Relevance ...7 1.2 Theoretical Relevance ...8 2. Theoretical Framework ... 10
2.1 Pro environmental Behavior ... 10
2.2 Environmental Activism ... 11
2.3 Pro-environmental behavior and Environmental activism... 12
2.4 Psychological Standing... 13
2.5 Hypocrisy ... 15
2.6 Locus of Control ... 17
3. Conceptual Model ... 18
4. Methodology ... 19
4.1 Measurement of Advocate’s Individual Behavior ... 19
4.2 Measurement of Internal Locus of Control (Awareness) ... 20
4.3 Measurement of Psychological Standing ... 20
4.4 Control Measures - Comprehension & Attention Check... 21
4.5 Analysis Plan ... 21
5. Results ... 22
5.1 Descriptive Statistics of Sample ... 22
5.2 Scale Development ... 24
5.3 Main Analysis ... 24
5.4 Potential Effect of Hypocrisy on Psychological Standing ... 28
6. Discussion ... 30
6.1 Limitations & Future Research ... 31
References... 33
5
1. Introduction
It is commonly understood that numerous of environmental problems pose a direct threat to the sustainability of the environment, such as global warming, water shortages and climate change. Many of these problems have their roots in human behavior (DuNann Winter & Koger, 2004; Gardner & Stern, 2002; Vlek & Steg, 2007). Consistent evidence from Vlek (2000) suggests that human activities are the main cause of environmental degradation. Consequently, we can argue that the threat to the environment can be managed and the negative effects of human actions can be reduced by changing the relevant behavior (Steg, L., & Vlek, C., 2009). Individuals themselves have recognized the importance of their behavior towards environmental issues and feel responsible for taking action when they are aware of the severe consequences that their behavior might have on themselves, others and the environment (Stern and Dietz, 1994).
However, although awareness regarding environmental issues has been increased, environmental degradation still continues (Scerri, A., 2009). As an answer to the increasing environmental issues and environmental degradation, environmental activism and pro-environmental behavior movements have risen. Pro-pro-environmental behavior can be observed in the individual’s everyday behavior (Tindall, Davies, & Mauboules, 2003). Recycling, energy consumption, or the choice of transport, are all examples of pro-environmental behavior. Contrarily, environmental activism is more of a collective action meant to be performed in large groups publicly (Stern, 2000). The most profound manifestation of environmental activism is protesting.
It is important to mention that the effects of actively participating in environmental activist movements and engaging in a pro environmental behavior are more widespread than ever before. From environmental protection campaigns of non-profit organizations to protests of students across the world, environmental conservation is becoming more and more relevant.
6 on climate change (BBC, 2019) and another student march in UK, where more than 10.000 students protested for the same cause (The Guardian,2019), we can conclude that environmental degradation is a major issue that concerns the citizens globally. Inspired by the student protest in Belgium, in February 2019, Dutch students also protested in The Hague for climate change and environmental degradation (Dutch News, 2019).
However, not everyone welcomed the students’ initiative. The former secretary of state for migration, Theo Francken, has shared controversial tweets about students who are protesting but are not willing to give up their comfort for the greater good in regards to the environmental protection (The Guardian, 2019). Theo’s Francken perspective on the topic finds common ground with the theory suggested by Ostman & Parker (1987). According to that, although individuals express high levels of concern related to environmental issues, they engage in very few environmentally oriented behaviors. In addition, people might be willing to change their behavior in some aspects of their lives but continue having the same behavior in others. Furthermore, the prime minister of education in the Netherlands, Arie Slob, condemned the protest being held on school hours as, according to his statement, is considered truancy (Dutch News, 2019).
As stated previously, environmental conservation is one major issue that has to be resolved and concern citizens globally. The severe consequences of environmental degradation are well known to the public and as the latest evidence suggests. People are becoming more and more involved in trying to resolve this issue, by putting pressure on governments and companies, in order to change their policies in favor of environmental conservation. A hopeful sign in taking steps towards environmental conservation, are the numerous of protests, mostly held by the youth. However, not everyone is fully supportive of these actions as critical voices are also present.
7 According to Miller & Effron (2010); Miller, Effron & Zak (2009), psychological standing describes the phenomenon where there is a subjective sense that an individual is allowed to engage in a particular behavior. In their relevant research, Miller & Effron provide a valuable example that clarifies the notion of psychological standing. In the case where two individuals have been victims of a crime spree, the victim who suffered the greater material or psychological loss would probably be perceived as more entitled to publicly condemn this action, speak up about how could crime be reduced or claim damages. In another study by Ratner & Miller (2001, Study 3), participants were informed about an imaginary health issue that directly affected only their own gender. Results showed that although participants of both genders were strongly opinionated on the matter, the individuals with greater material stake, hence from the gender that was directly affected by the issue, were more likely to sign petitions, write statements or to express their attitudes towards it.
Based on these theoretical premises, I intent to show that people who actively engage in pro-environmental behavior will be perceived to have higher psychological standing than other individuals who do not engage in this kind of behavior and therefore they will be judged more positively by others. Thereby, we aim to test the following research question:
“How do people judge the environmental advocates’ psychological standing when they are subjected to information regarding the advocate’s individual behavior?”
1.1 Practical Relevance
8 practical relevance. Gillham’s (2008) proposition finds common ground in today’s current affairs. According to The Guardian (2019), approximately 500 events for environmental protesting have been listed to take place on March 15th, across 51 countries around the globe. In these protests concerning climate change, we again find students being the most active advocates. Continuing to voice their increasing concern about the planet’s and their own future, students are actively advocating for the environment, fighting back on their critics. As previously mentioned, judgements on the advocates’ individual behavior, are in a way undermining the initiative of protesting, creating tension between the two parties. According to Fielding, K. S., McDonald, R., & Louis, W. R. (2008), positive attitudes towards the environment, which are reinforced by environmental advocates, are likely to motivate individuals in becoming members of environmental groups and/or identify as environmentalists and actively engage in activism.
This thesis will hopefully give insights to all individuals who advocate for the environment by providing them with a deeper understanding of how others might form judgements regarding their behavior. Potentially, this can positively influence the efforts of the advocates and reduce the negative criticism of others. Finally, non-profit organizations (NGOs) can retrieve valuable insights from this thesis. When targeting individuals to sign campaigns or to participate in protests, NGOs can potentially maximize not only the positive outcome of their cause but also the public support, if they target individuals that are perceived to have a high psychological standing or else a high legitimacy to voice their concerns on an issue. In this way, public disapproval can be minimized and a greater, more valid pressure can be put into other parties, such as governments or companies, in order to ensure environmental protection.
1.2 Theoretical Relevance
9 combined yet into one research. This thesis aims to contribute to this part of theory, by trying to prove a relationship between individual behavior and psychological standing, in the environmental context. Moreover, there is no research made yet that explores potential moderating effects in the relationship between the advocates’ individual behavior and psychological standing.
10
2. Theoretical Framework
To familiarize with the concepts of this thesis, the theoretical definitions of pro environmental behavior and psychological standing will be presented. Continuing, relevant literature will be discussed in order to support the argumentation of this paper. Existing research has not yet investigated the relationship between people’s judgement on environmental advocates standing, when taking into consideration the advocates individual behavior. Therefore, by examining similar researches that closely approach this topic; I aim to support my argumentation for both pro environmental behavior and psychological standing based on these premises. Finally, I will proceed to the presentation of the conceptual model.
2.1 Pro environmental Behavior
Although environmental preservation is a global issue that concerns every citizen, there are some constraints that prevent individuals from acting pro-environmental. As mentioned previously, environmental concerns or attitudes most of the times fail to correspond with pro-environmental behavior and actions (Hines et al., 1986/87; Scott & Willis, 1994; Schultz et al.1995). Research suggests that these non-action effects are triggered by the lack of motivation or opportunity, although attitudes and intentions to act remain positive (Tanner, C., 1999). In order to gain a better understanding of what constitutes a pro-environmental behavior, we will hereby provide the definition:
11 pro-environmental behavior include the minimization of energy and resource consumption, waste production and the use of toxic substances in order to preserve the natural habitat.
According to various researches, individuals are more likely to adhere to pro-environmental behavior when they believe that their behavior has the power to contribute to the solution of environmental problems (Trigg et al. 1976; Huebner & Lipsey, 1981; Hines et al.1986/87; Axelrod & Lenman, 1993; Grob, 1995). Moreover, as Stern & Dietz (1994) argued, pro-environmental behavior is also affected by social-altruistic values. In their relevant research, they proposed that responsibility and therefore pro-environmental action is higher when individuals are aware of the severe consequences their actions might have on themselves, other people or the human species in general. In line with these findings, researches from the fields of health (Rippetoe & Rogers, 1987) and environmental (Gardner & Stern, 1996) psychology suggest that personal threat and harm appraisal are indeed a motive in acting environmentally. Therefore, as Heberlein & Black (1976) and Stern et al., (1986) suggested, pro-environmental behavior is partially connected with moral thinking.
2.2 Environmental Activism
12 influence policies or management decisions in favor of the environmental preservation (McFarlane & Hunt, 2006). In addition to the above, researchers from the fields of sociology and political science also suggest that environmental activism can be considered as a collective action that aims to support the environmental movement (Horton, 2003; Tindall, 2002; Mohai, 1992; Tranter, 1999). Therefore, we can conclude that environmental activism has have public good characteristics as it aims in preventing further degradation of common-pool resources and ultimately influences the public policy processing in favor of the environment (Lubell, M., 2002).
2.3 Pro-environmental behavior and Environmental activism
Both pro-environmental behavior and environmental activism fall under the category of environmental behavior construct, although the differences between them are hard to distinguish (Dono, J., Webb, J. and Richardson, B., 2010). As previously mentioned, pro-environmental behavior is confided in the notion of intentionally reducing the negative effects of the individual’s actions on the environment (Kollmuss & Agyeman, 2002). The most common manifestations of pro-environmental behavior are considered to be household energy consumption (Gatersleben, Steg, & Vlek, 2002), recycling (Schultz,Oskamp, & Mainieri, 1995) and transport use (van Lange, van Vugt, Meertens, & Ruiter, 1998). According to Tindall, Davies, & Mauboules (2003), these types of behavior fall under the categories of everyday environmental behavior and conservation behavior respectively. As for the environmental activism, it is mostly confined in being an active member of an environmental organization and in participating in environmental demonstrations, such as protests (Stern, 2000).
13 in the intent and the impact on environmental protection. Numbers of researchers have tried to clarify this relationship by creating measurement scales; however, there is still a considerable amount of scientists that are being skeptical towards this method. More specifically, Gatersleben et al. (2002) and Poortinga et al. (2004) suggest that measurement scales does little to clarify the relationship between environmental activism and pro-environmental behavior. However, despite the fact that the models and the variables which are trying to explain the relationship between pro-environmental behavior and environmental activism are poor predictors of the latter, other measures such as recycling or consumer behavior are more successful in predicting environmental activism.
In order to gain a better understanding of what differentiates pro-environmental behavior and environmental activism, it is important to mention that environmental activism is highly related with a collectivist orientation given the fact that environmentalists are more focused on the bigger picture; the community and the ecosystem (Clayton, 2003). In other words, environmental activism is a collective action, a social movement (Tindall et al.’s, 2003). Pro- environmental behavior relies to individuals’ values and as previously mentioned concerns more every day and preservation behavior.
2.4 Psychological Standing
14 moralization of the issues; hence linking the problem/cause to moral values, grants individuals psychological standing and gives them the legitimacy to act on it.
Moreover, the source of psychological standing for individuals derives from the justification for action when it is characterized as socially legitimate. Miller (1999) suggests that having a material stake on an issue is a very powerful justification of taking action and therefore psychological standing. Material stake, as defined by Effron, D. A., & Miller, D. T. (2012), arises when an individual’s economic or physical state is, or has the potential to be negatively affected by an issue. Various researchers, such as Green & Cowden, (1992), Miller (1999), Regan & Fazio (1977), Sears, Sivacek & Crano (1982) have suggested that having a material stake is the premise for psychological standing and legitimates action. Consequently, people who lack a material stake in an issue’s outcome are not likely to take action on it. Crano (1995) adds to this argumentation by suggesting that others do not expect that the above mentioned individuals to act on the issue as well.
As Green & Cowden (1992) demonstrated in their relevant research, people who lack a material stake in an issue’s outcome also lack of motivation to act on it. Therefore, when an individual lacks a material stake also lacks psychological standing (Miller, 1999; Miller & Ratner, 1996, 1998; Ratner & Miller, 2001). However, not everyone can derive the same amount of psychological standing when they have a material stake in an issue’s outcome. The amount of standing heavily relies on whether other individuals have a greater material stake. People with greater material stakes, or that have suffered greater consequences from an issue’s outcome are considered to have greater psychological standing. Besides that, if these people decide not to take action on the issue, others with lower material stake and therefore psychological standing will feel less legitimacy in taking action or voicing their opposition (Ratner & Miller, 2001).
15 2.5 Hypocrisy
A very relevant notion that is highly related to the confusion of the observers when there is an inconsistency between lack of standing and action is hypocrisy. According to Lammers, J., Stapel, D.A. and Galinsky, A.D (2010), an individual is considered to be a hypocrite when they implicitly or explicitly support principles that their behavior contradicts. Therefore, hypocrisy can be defined as the inconsistency between what one endorses and what one does. Tedeschi, Schlenker, & Bonoma (1971) argue that hypocrisy is negatively perceived by individuals due to this inconsistency of words and deeds.
The reason why hypocrites are highly disliked and rejected by others is that they falsely signal their behavior as being moral. By condemning bad or immoral behavior, they imply their moral standing. Relevant research suggests that this kind of behavior has the characteristics of free riding as hypocrites do not bear any costs of actually acting moral (Jordan, J.J., Sommers, R., Bloom, P. and Rand, D.G.,2017). Moreover, according to Righetti & Finkenauer (2011), another negative quality is attributed to hypocrites; they fail to resist temptation to transgress. Furthermore, individuals who condemn a certain behavior in public but then they act hypocritical, are perceived to be as more intentionally immoral compared to others that do not condemn this specific behavior.
However, event order is an important factor when judging others as hypocrites (Barden, J., Rucker, D.D. and Petty, R.E., 2005). In the relevant research made regarding this topic, it is suggested that conventional order (expressing an opinion and then do not act accordingly) is perceived as more hypocritical than reverse order. Reverse order opens the possibility that an individual has genuinely reconsidered his standing. It is important to mention that hypocrisy is a major class of social judgement. Charges of being a hypocrite have strong negative consequences to one's reputation and social standing (Alicke, M., Gordon, E. and Rose, D., 2013).
16 present thesis is formed. It is hypothesized that the perceived negative effects of the discrepancies can also be found on psychological standing. Therefore:
Hypothesis 1
“Respondents classed in the positive message (vs negative message) regarding the environmental advocates’ individual behavior will perceive the advocate having a higher psychological standing (vs lower psychological standing)”.
17 2.6 Locus of Control
The performance of an individual’s behavior maybe be altered, facilitated or impeded, by various factors. These factors are dissected to internal and external to the individual’s behavior. Skills and willpower for example, are internal factors while task demands and actions performed by another individual are located externally (Ajzen, 1985). It is important to mention that the distinction between internal and external causes of a behavior can have various implications to the person’s actions. For instance, failure or success is more likely to be attributed to the individual when the perceived cause of this behavior is located internally (effort or ability), whereas success or failure are attributed less to the individual when the perceived cause of the behavior is located externally (luck or task difficulty; Weiner, Frieze, Kukla, Reed, & Rosenbaum, 1971; Weiner & Kukla, 1970).
However, the internal versus external focus of control factors are often confused with control or lack of control as far as it concerns performance of behavior. According to Rotter (1996), this confusion can be attributed to the locus of control concept. The extent to which individuals perceive rewards, punishments or other events in their lives as a consequence of their own actions or by factors beyond their own control, differ significantly. When the individual is perceived to have behavioral control over an outcome, this outcome is attributed to internal locus of control. On the contrary, when the perception that an outcome is determined by non-behavioral factors, it is attributed to external locus of control.
18 Hypothesis 2
“Respondents in negative message (vs positive message) in regards to the environmental advocates’ individual behavior will perceive the advocate having a lower psychological standing (vs higher) if the internal locus of control (awareness) is higher”.
3. Conceptual Model
19
4. Methodology
The objective of this study is to provide evidence for our aforementioned hypotheses, by showing that environmental advocates who are perceived to have a hypocritical behavior, will have lower psychological standing compared to ones who do not (higher perceived psychological standing). Moreover, I suggest that the relationship between the environmental advocate’s individual behavior and the perceived psychological standing will be moderated by the internal locus of control (awareness). Therefore, I aim to show that respondents subjected to positive messaging regarding the environmental advocates’ individual behavior, that are also high on awareness, will judge the advocate as having a higher psychological standing. In addition, respondents subjected to negative messaging, that also score high on awareness, will judge the advocate as having lower psychological standing.
In total 100 participants (53 Males , 47 Females) were recruited from Amazon Mechanical Turk to take part in this study in exchange for a monetary compensation of .80 US Dollars. Participants were randomly assigned to a 2x1 between subjects design that consists of one manipulated factor (advocate’s individual behavior: positive vs negative) and one measured factor (internal locus of control: high vs low) that is also a moderator in the model.
4.1 Measurement of Advocate’s Individual Behavior
20 According to various researches, people of younger ages tend to be more environmentally concerned due to the fact that they are less committed to traditional materialistic values and therefore less affected by conflicts between economic interests and environmental concern (Jones & Dunlap, 1992; Malkis & Grasmick, 1977). Moreover, gender information was also requested from the respondents as studies suggest that gender does influence environmental attitudes and pro-environmental behavior. In order to also check for this relationship, political views were also requested from the respondents. By requesting all the above information from the respondents, we will try to investigate whether there is any underlying relationship with the respondent having pro-environmental attitudes. In this way, we aim to gain a better understanding of how people form a judgement regarding another individual’s psychological standing.
4.2 Measurement of Internal Locus of Control (Awareness)
In general, the most common scale to measure locus of control is the I-E scale created by Rotter (1996). However, in this study the focus is solely on the internal locus of control, more specifically; the awareness of the respondent, which is also the moderator in the model. In order to measure the moderator, we will use the following question: “Consider Leo's daily routines as described in the story. “Do you think Leo's daily routines are harmful to the environment?” We used a 5-point Likert Scale that consists of five items (i.e. Definitely Yes/Definitely Not).
4.3 Measurement of Psychological Standing
21 appropriate for Leo to participate in this protest”, “Leo is entitled to speak up about the government's environmental actions”, “It is Leo's place to criticize the government on its actions”, “Leo has a personal stake as far as it concerns governmental policies regarding climate change”). It is important to mention that low levels on the Likert scale represent higher levels of psychological standing, whereas the higher levels on the Likert scale represent lower levels of psychological standing.
4.4 Control Measures - Comprehension & Attention Check
At the end of the study, participants were asked to answer a question in order to assess whether they were sufficiently attentive. In order to measure the attention of the respondents, we used a multiple choice question that demanded careful reading to be answered correctly. More specifically they were asked to answer the following question: “Most people like to watch television programs. Recently, sports television programs have seen a major increase in ratings. Many sports start with the letter 'B'. However, we ask that from the list below you select a sport that does not start with the letter 'B' but starts with the letter 'H'.” and we provided the below answers (Baseball, Basketball, Soccer, Bowling, Hockey, Other). This check aims to contribute to more valuable and of higher quality results, since inattentive respondents can be excluded from the dataset.
4.5 Analysis Plan
22 score higher than .6 and considered to be acceptable (Malhotra & Birks, 2006). As the dependent variable was measured by four questions measured in a 7-point Likert scale, a new single variable was computed. Furthermore, in order to test the main relationship and hence the Hypothesis 1 (H1) of the experiment, an one-way ANOVA analysis was performed. Lastly, in order to check for the moderation effect, we used the Hayes 1 PROCESS model.
5. Results
For the Results section of the present thesis, firstly, there will presented the descriptive statistics of the sample (survey participants), followed by the scale development for the main variables used in this experiment. Continuing, the main analysis will be presented and discussed, including One-way Anova analysis and Hayes model 1 as well as assumption checks and the test of the hypotheses.
5.1 Descriptive Statistics of Sample
The survey was completed by a total of a hundred participants (n=100). However, in order to measure which of them were indeed attentive in completing the survey, we firstly checked the aforementioned attention checks. Seven participants (n=7) failed to correctly answer the attention check question, therefore they were excluded from the analysis. Finally, ninety-three (n=93) respondents were attentive and succeed in matching the above mentioned criterion.
23 participants’ views on climate change, the majority of them indicated that climate change is mostly caused by human activities (48.1%) and felt “A great deal” of personal responsibility on reducing climate change. Moreover, the sample’s views on protesting as a mechanism of reinforcing political change in favor of the environmental protection were positive (58.1%). More detailed sample statistics are presented in the table below:
24 5.2 Scale Development
The main variables used in the survey were the following: Psychological Standing, Advocate’s individual behavior and Internal Locus of Control (Awareness) which also served as the Moderator.
Psychological Standing was measured by means of four items. In order to test the fit scale of psychological standing, a confirmatory factor analysis was performed. The analysis met the criteria (KMO Bartlett's test of sphericity =.759, sig=.000, communalities>.4) and based on the Scree Plot (Appendix B) we retained one factor. Finally, reliability analysis was performed showing that the Cronbach’s alpha computed for psychological standing had a high internal consistency.
5.3 Main Analysis
25 Figure 4: Psychological Standing depending on Environmental Advocates’ Behavior (lower values on the y-axis represent higher levels of psychological standing, whereas higher values represent lower levels of psychological standing).
26 revealed (β = -2.0651, SE =.7788, t = -2.7580, p = .071, 95% CI = [-3.5529, -.5773]), that environmental advocates’ behavior had significant main effects on psychological standing. Finally, the interaction effect between the dependent variable and the moderator, hence the second hypothesis of this paper was found marginal significant (b=0.4029, se=0.2311, t=-1.7434, p=0.0847, 95%CI = [-.563, .8624]. However, due to the marginal significance hypothesis 2 (H2) was rejected.
Figure 5: Moderation analysis
The results supported only the first hypothesis (H1) and hence the direct relationship of the conceptual model. As far as it concerns the second hypothesis (H2) of this thesis, results did not support the hypothesized moderation effect of internal locus of control (awareness) on the direct relationship between the advocates’ individual behavior and the perceived psychological standing. However, it is possible to explore potential patterns that may appear in the rest of the analysis concerning the internal locus of control.
27 [-2.0074, -.5113]) is significant. In addition, for moderate levels of internal locus of control, the interaction effect (β =-.8565, SE =.3041, t = -2.8159, p = .0060, 95% CI = [-1.4608, -0.2521]) is found again to be significant. On the contrary, for higher levels of internal locus of control, the conditional effect (β =-.4536, SE =.3874, t = -1.708, p = .2448, 95% CI = [-1.2233, .3162]) is found to be not significant.
Figure 6: Conditional effects of internal locus of control on Psychological Standing
28 alterations in the perceived psychological standing levels. Moreover, in the case where the environmental advocates’ individual behavior is portrayed in a negative way (negative scenario), the perceived psychological standing is lower for higher levels of internal locus of control (awareness). As seen from the graph, in the case of the negative scenario, the moderation effect is stronger, as it alters the perceived psychological standing levels in a more significant way. Nonetheless, hypothesis two (H2) is still rejected, since no significant interaction effects were found in the analysis.
5.4 Potential Effect of Hypocrisy on Psychological Standing
29 Figure 7: Mediation Analysis
30
6. Discussion
As previously established by research, a substantial part environmental degradation has its roots on human behavior and activities (DuNann Winter & Koger, 2004; Gardner & Stern, 2002; Vlek & Steg, 2007). As times evolve, environmental awareness is increasing more and more amongst individuals, although environmental deterioration does not seem to decrease (Scerri, A., 2009). Various movements, such as environmental protests and pro-environmental behavior seem to emerge as a way of haltering the negative effects of human activities on the environment. Clear evidence of the above, are the numerous of environmental protests that take place around the globe, with the majority of protestants being students and children. According to research, people of younger ages have a higher sensitivity when it comes to environmental concern as they are less attached to materialistic values (Jones & Dunlap, 1992; Malkis & Grasmick, 1977).
As environmental conservation is a global issue that concerns everyone, and the negative outcomes of environmental degradation are obvious and affect the individuals’ life, one would think that making steps towards a pro-environmental behavior and supporting the cause by participating in collective efforts, such as protests, would be self- implied. However, environmental concern does not always translate to pro-environmental behavior (Hines et al., 1986/87; Scott & Willis, 1994; Schultz et al.1995) and not everyone is supportive to initiatives aiming in environmental protection. Recent example for the latter, is the voices of condemn that were raised towards the students’ environmental protests (The Guardian, 2019). The main argument of the critics was the hypocritical behavior of the students that although they participate on protests, they do not act accordingly in their private lives.
31 individual behavior of an environmental advocate has on his perceived standing, and if that effect is moderated by awareness (Internal Locus of Control).
In the first hypothesis (H1), where respondents classed in the positive message (vs negative message) regarding the environmental advocates’ individual behavior will perceive the advocate having a higher psychological standing (vs lower psychological standing), we tried to prove a significant direct relationship between the two constructs. The outcome of the analysis confirmed the hypothesis and proved a direct relationship between the advocate’s individual behavior and his perceived psychological standing.
In the second hypothesis (H2), that respondents in negative message (vs positive message) in regards to the environmental advocates’ individual behavior will perceive the advocate having a lower psychological standing (vs higher) if the internal locus of control (awareness) is higher, a marginal significance was found but it was not sufficient evidence of accepting the hypothesis, therefore it had to be rejected.
6.1 Limitations & Future Research
32 on an issue. Therefore, greater material stake legitimates one’s standing. It would be interesting to explore the potential moderating effects of the material stake of the environmental advocate on the perceived psychological standing.
Moreover, in the further analysis performed, hypocrisy found to partially mediate the relationship between the advocates’ individual behavior and the perceived psychological standing. Although the effects of the main relationship partially go through hypocrisy, the construct does not fully explain the relationship. Other constructs, such as moralization of the issue, environmental conservation, might have an effect on the perceived psychological standing of the advocate. As research suggests (Effron & Miller, D. T. ,2012), moralization of an issue, or else signaling that everyone is entitled to act (for example participate in a protest) should have strong effects on the legitimacy of people who otherwise would be disentitled to act (for example in the negative scenario).
33 References
Ajzen, I. (1985). From intentions to actions: A theory of planned behavior. In Act ion control (pp.11-39). Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg.
Alicke, M., Gordon, E., & Rose, D. (2013). Hypocrisy: what counts?. Philosophical Psychology, 26(5), 673-701.
Axelrod, L. J. & Lehman, D. R. (1993). Responding to environmental concerns: what factors guide individual action? Journal of Environmental Psychology, 13, 149±159.
Barden, J., Rucker, D. D., & Petty, R. E. (2005). “Saying one thing and doing another”: Examining the impact of event order on hypocrisy judgments of others. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 3.
Birks, D. F., & Malhotra, N. K. (2006). Marketing Research: an applied approach. Pearson Education UK.
Boffey, D. (2019). Belgian kids march against climate change – why don't ours, ask Dutch.
[online] the Guardian. Available at:
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/feb/03/belgian-kids-march-against-climate-change-why-dont-ours-ask-dutch [Accessed 16 Jun. 2019].
Clayton, L. W. (2003). Identity and the natural environment: The psychological significance of nature. Mit Press.
Crano, W. D. (1995). Attitude strength and vested interest. Attitude strength: Antecedents and consequences, 4, 131-157.
34 Dono, J., Webb, J., & Richardson, B. (2010). The relationship between environmental activism, pro-environmental behaviour and social identity. Journal of environmental psychology, 30(2), 178-186.
DuNann Winter, D., & Koger, S. M. (2004). The psychology of environmental problems. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Dweck, C. S., & Leggett, E. L. (1988). A social-cognitive approach to motivation and personality. Psychological review, 95(2), 256.
Effron, D. A., & Miller, D. T. (2012). How the moralization of issues grants social legitimacy to act on one’s attitudes. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 38(5), 690-701.
Effron, D. A., & Miller, D. T. (2015). Do as I say, not as I’ve done: Suffering for a misdeed reduces the hypocrisy of advising others against it. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 131, 16-32.
Effron, D. A., Miller, D. T., & Monin, B. (2012). Inventing racist roads not taken: The licensing effect of immoral counterfactual behaviors. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 103(6), 916.
Fielding, K. S., McDonald, R., & Louis, W. R. (2008). Theory of planned behaviour, identity and intentions to engage in environmental activism. Journal of environmental psychology, 28(4), 318-326.
Gardner, G. T., & Stern, P. C. (1996). Environmental problems and human behavior. Allyn & Bacon.
Gardner, G. T., & Stern, P. C. (2002). Environmental problems and human behavior (2nd ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson Custom Publishing
Gatersleben, B., Steg, L., & Vlek, C. (2002). Measurement and determinants of environmentally significant consumer behavior. Environment and behavior, 34(3), 335-362.
35 Green, D. P., & Cowden, J. A. (1992). Who protests: Self-interest and White opposition to busing. Journal of Politics, 54, 471-496
Grob, A. (1995). A structural model of environmental attitudes and behavior. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 15, 209±220.
DutchReview. (2019). Dutch Students Plan to Miss a Day of School to Protest Climate Change – DutchReview. [online] Available at: https://dutchreview.com/culture/society/dutch-students-protest-climate-change/ [Accessed 16 Jun. 2019].
Heberlein, T. A,, & Black, J. S. (1976). Attitudinal specificity and the prediction of behavior in a field setting. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 33, 474-479.
Hines, J. M., Hungerford, H. R. & Tomera, A. N. (1986±87). Analysis and synthesis of research on environmental behavior. A meta-analysis. Journal of Environment Education, 18, 1±8.
Homburg, A., & Stolberg, A. (2006). Explaining pro-environmental behavior with a cognitive theory of stress. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 26(1), 1-14.
Hong, Y. Y., Chiu, C. Y., Dweck, C. S., Lin, D. M. S., & Wan, W. (1999). Implicit theories, attributions, and coping: A meaning system approach. Journal of Personality and Social psychology, 77(3), 588.
Horton, D. (2003). Green distinctions: the performance of identity among environmental activists. Sociological Review, 51, 63–77.
Huebner, R. B. & Lipsey, M. W. (1981). The relationship of three measures of locus of control to environment activism. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 2, 45±58.
Jones, R. E., & Dunlap, R. E. (1992). The social bases of environmental concern: Have they changed over time? 1. Rural sociology, 57(1), 28-47.
36 Kollmuss, A., & Agyeman, J. (2002). Mind the gap: why do people act environmentally and what are the barriers to pro-environmental behavior?. Environmental education research, 8(3), 239-260.
Lammers, J., Stapel, D. A., & Galinsky, A. D. (2010). Power increases hypocrisy: Moralizing in reasoning, immorality in behavior. Psychological Science, 21(5), 737-744.
Lubell, M., Schneider, M., Scholz, J. T., & Mete, M. (2002). Watershed partnerships and the emergence of collective action institutions. American Journal of Political Science, 148-163.
Malkis, A., & Grasmick, H. G. (1977). Support for the ideology of the environmental movement: Tests of alternative hypotheses. Western Sociological Review, 8(1), 25-47.
McFarlane, B. L., & Hunt, L. M. (2006). Environmental activism in the forest sector: Social psychological, social-cultural, and contextual effects. Environment and behavior, 38(2), 266-285.
Miller, D. T. (1999). The norm of self-interest. American Psychologist, 54, 1053-1060. Miller, D. T., & Effron, D. A. (2010). Psychological license: When it is needed and how it functions. In Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 43, pp. 115-155). Academic Press.
Miller, D. T., & Ratner, R. K. (1996). The power of the myth of self-interest. In Current societal concerns about justice (pp. 25-48). Springer, Boston, MA.
Milman, O. (2019). Rise for Climate: thousands march across US to protest environment
crisis. [online] the Guardian. Available at:
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/sep/08/rise-for-climate-protests-san-francisco-new-york [Accessed 16 Jun. 2019].
37 Nordlund, A. M., & Garvill, J. (2002). Value structures behind pro environmental behavior. Environment and Behavior, 34, 740-756.
Ortiz, I., Burke, S., Berrada, M., & Cortés, H. (2013). World Protests 2006-2013. Initiative for Policy Dialogue and Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung New York Working Paper, (2013).
Ostman, R. E., & Parker, J. L. (1987). Impact of education, age, newspapers, and television on environmental knowledge, concerns, and behaviors. The Journal of Environmental Education, 19(1), 3-9.
Poortinga, W., Steg, L., & Vlek, C. (2004). Values, environmental concern, and environmental behavior: A study into household energy use. Environment and behavior, 36(1), 70-93.
Ratner, R. K., & Miller, D. T. (2001). The norm of self-interest and its effects on social action. Journal of personality and social psychology, 81(1), 5.
Regan, D. T, & Fazio, R. (1977). On the consistency between attitudes and behavior: Look to the method of attitude formation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 13, 28-45.
Righetti, F., & Finkenauer, C. (2011). If you are able to control yourself, I will trust you: The role of perceived self-control in interpersonal trust. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 100(5), 874.
Rippetoe, P. A., & Rogers, R. W. (1987). Effects of components of protection-motivation theory on adaptive and maladaptive coping with a health threat. Journal of personality and social psychology, 52(3), 596.
Rotter, J. B. Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of reinforcement. Psychological Monographs, 1966, 80(1, Whole No. 609)
38 Schultz, P. W., Oskamp, S., & Mainieri, T. (1995). Who recycles and when? A review of personal and situational factors. Journal of environmental psychology, 15(2), 105-121.
Scott, D. & Willis, F. K. (1994). Environmental attitudes and behavior. A Pennsylvania survey. Environment and Behavior, 26, 239±260.
SGuin, C., Pelletier, L. G., & Hunsley, J. (1998). Toward a model of environmental activism. Environment and Behavior, 30(5), 628-652.
Sivacek, J., & Crano, W. D. (1982). Vested interest as a moderator of attitude-behavior consistency. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 43, 210-221
Smart-Knight, R. (2019). I am taking part in the school climate strike. It’s the only power I have | Rosie Smart-Knight. [online] the Guardian. Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/feb/15/school-climate-strike-classroom-climate-change [Accessed 16 Jun. 2019].
Steg, L., & Vlek, C. (2009). Encouraging pro-environmental behaviour: An integrative review and research agenda. Journal of environmental psychology, 29(3), 309-317.
Stem, P. C., Dietz, T., & Black, J. S. (1986). Support for environmental protection: The role of moral norms. Population and Environment, 8, 204-222.
Stern, P. C. (2000). New environmental theories: toward a coherent theory of environmentally significant behavior. Journal of social issues, 56(3), 407-424.
Stern, P. C., & Dietz, T. (1994). The value basis of environmental concern. Journal of social issues, 50(3), 65-84.
Stern, P. C., & Dietz, T. (1994). The value basis of environmental concern. Journal of Social Issues, 50, 65-84
39 Stern, P. C., Dietz, T., & Kalof, L. (1993). Value orientations, gender, and environmental concern. Environment and Behavior, 25, 322-348
Stern, P. C., Dietz, T., Kalof, L., & Guagnano, G. A. (1995). Values, beliefs, and proenvironmental action: Attitude formation toward emergent attitude objects. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 25, 1611-1636.
Tanner, C. (1999). Constraints on environmental behaviour. Journal of environmental psychology, 19(2), 145-157.
Tedeschi, J. T., Schlenker, B. R., & Bonoma, T. V. (1971). Cognitive dissonance: Private ratiocination or public spectacle?. American Psychologist, 26(8), 685.
Tindall, D. B. (2002). Social networks, identification and participation in an environmental movement: low-medium cost activism within the British Columbia wilderness preservation movement. Canadian Review of Sociology and Anthropology,39, 413–452.
Tindall, D. B., Davies, S., & Mauboules, C. (2003). Activism and conservation behavior in an environmental movement: The contradictory effects of gender. Society & Natural Resources, 16(10), 909-932.
Tranter, B. (1999). Environmentalism in Australia: elites and the public. Journal of Sociology, 35, 331–414.
Trigg, L. J., Perlman, D., Perry, R. P. & Janisse, M. P. (1976). Anti-pollution behavior: a function of perceived outcome and locus of control. Environment and Behavior, 8, 307±313.
Van Lange, P. A., Vugt, M. V., Meertens, R. M., & Ruiter, R. A. (1998). A Social Dilemma Analysis of Commuting Preferences: The Roles of Social Value Orientation and Trust 1. Journal of applied social psychology, 28(9), 796-820.
Vlek, C. (2000). Essential psychology for environmental policy making. International Journal of Psychology, 35(2), 153–167
40 Weiner, B., & Kukla, A. (1970). An attributional analysis of achievement motivation. Journal of personality and Social Psychology, 15(1), 1.
Weiner, B., Frieze, I., & Kukla, A. (1971). Reed., L., Rest, S., & Rosenbaum, RM Perceiving the causes of success and failure. Attribution: Perceiving the Causes of Behavior, (General Learning Press, New York, 1971/72).
41
Appendices
A. Positive Scenario
Leo gets up early on Sunday and takes a quick shower. He eats a bowl of oatmeal and a banana. He sees that the paper bin is quite full and decides to take the paper and the glass away. He is going to a protest today for the first time in his life. The protest starts at eleven and ends at three in the afternoon. At 10 o'clock Leo cycles from home.
The purpose of the protest is to address the government on their climate policy. Leo has made a sign with the text: "I am angry: the government must change now". Leo wants to participate in this protest because he is worried about climate change. There are many others and Leo is happy that he has gone. Leo brought his own food and a bottle of water. At half past three Leo cycles home again. In the evening he eats pasta with tomato sauce and various vegetables. When weighing the pasta, he uses a measuring cup to cook exactly enough pasta. After dinner Leo watches some more television and then goes to sleep.
B. Negative Scenario
Leo gets up early on Sunday and takes a long shower. He eats sandwiches, fried eggs and bacon. He sees a pile of paper and decides to throw it away. The paper bin is quite far away, so he throws the paper in the residual waste. He is going to a protest today for the first time in his life. The protest starts at eleven and ends at three in the afternoon. Leo could cycle to the protest, but finds it easier to take the car. Leo leaves home at 10 am.
42 cooked too much pasta. He wants to eat something else the next day and therefore throws the rest away. After dinner Leo watches some more television and then goes to sleep.
