MSc Marketing Management Thesis

(1)

MSc Marketing Management Thesis

Psychological standing: The influence of personal environmental

feedback on psychological standing

By

G.J.W. Borgesius

S2732556

Oostersingel 23-20, 9713EX Groningen

G.j.w.borgesius@student.rug.nl

University of Groningen, Faculty of Economics and Business

Supervisor: Dr. M. Van Dijk

(2)

Abstract

This study researches the influences of perceived environmental behaviour on psychological standing. Furthermore, it researches the potential moderating effect of the use of descriptive normative messages on the relationship between perceived environmental behaviour and psychological standing. Using qualitative data, derived from an online survey, hypotheses are tested. By using SPSS, the relationships between the independent, dependant and moderating variable are explored. Results show no significant relationship between personal environmental feedback and psychological standing. Besides, no moderating effect is found for the use of normative messages on the relationship between personal environmental feedback and psychological standing. however, in some cases, a direct effect of the use of normative messages on psychological standing is found. furthermore, this study researches different closely related phenomenons to psychological standing.

Keywords: psychological standing, environmental behaviour, environmentalism, normative messages, social norms, personal environmental feedback, descriptive normative messages, licensing, environmental protest, category membership, moralization

(3)

(4)

1. Introduction

“We have to understand the emergency of the situation. Our leadership has failed us. Young people must hold older generations accountable for the mess they have created. We need to get angry, and transform that anger into action.”Greta Thunberg, 2018.

This quote originates from a tweet from Greta Thunberg. The 16-year old Swedish environmentalist who started the large youth and student strikes and marches throughout Europe. Looking at the European elections of 2019, the green parties grew with approximately 50% (Verbeek, 2019). The growing interest in the environment has been increasingly embraced not only by politics but also by the general public (Kotler, 2011). As a result of this growing interest, a shift towards more sustainable ways of living, consumption and behaviour has started (Datta, 2011). Although governments and large companies are often blamed for climate change, science is insufficient in showing who is responsible and who ought to be counted culpable (Verweij et al., 2006). However, the mentioned students do blame these institutions. These students supposedly feel psychological standing to demonstrate and protest.

Psychological standing is the perceived legitimacy, license or entitlement to perform a particular action (Miller, Effron & Zak, 2009). This psychological standing is needed to be able to engage in emotion and protest, such as environmental activism. The students mentioned above do demonstrate and show psychological standing by demonstrating. 'Let he who is without sin cast the first stone'; the students in the protests are likely not always to be environmentally friendly themselves. However, these students do engage in environmental activism. Interesting to investigate is how (perceived) environmental behaviour influences psychological standing.

(5)

Subsequently, the use of social norms might influence the strength of the relationship between perceived environmental behaviour and psychological standing. People, who are shown that their behaviour is in line with that of others, might feel more category membership, which would grow psychological standing (Sherf, Tangirala & Weber, 2017).

Current research on psychological standing has mainly focussed on the drivers of expressing engagement and emotions in social protests (Effron & Miller, 2012). Researchers found that individuals need to feel the existence of a "social license" or sense of entitlement to express emotions or engagement (Ratner & Miller, 2001; Sherf, Tangirala & Weber, 2017; Miller & Effron, 2010). This research contributes to current academic research by further elaborations on the research on psychological standing. The research will investigate whether personal environmental feedback influences psychological standing. Furthermore, this thesis will examine whether individual environmental feedback can be manipulated to influence future behaviour. Thirdly, this research investigates if using normative messages influences the relation of personal environmental feedback on psychological standing. Consequently, this research enhances not only an academic understanding of psychological standing but also adds a potential extra driver: normative messages. Furthermore, this study approaches psychological standing differently from other studies. Four different elements of psychological standing are studied.

Furthermore, this research potentially has managerial implications. When research shows, normative messages do influence the relationship between perceived environmental behaviour and psychological standing, environmental organisations could use these types of messages to grow psychological standing and thus harvest emotions and engagement. Besides, to research whether individuals allow researchers/organisations to manipulate their perceived environmental behaviour is relevant. If this would indeed be the case, organisations can potentially easily manipulate outcomes to let individuals believe their (environmental) contribution is different from reality.

(6)

implications will be presented. The research ends with the limitations of this research, recommendations for future research and a final conclusion.

2. Theoretical framework

In this chapter, the theoretical framework will be presented. Theory obtained from the current literature is used to set the stage for the research. Definitions, relationships and drivers between phenomenons will be discussed, including the moderating effect of normative messages on the relation between personal environmental feedback and psychological standing. Furthermore, the conceptual model and hypotheses will be presented based on the theory and the evident research gaps.

2.1 Environmental behaviour

To categorise the different types of environmental behaviour, Stern (2000) developed four different categories of behaviour. Stern (2000) mentioned that determining the context of environmental behaviour is essential for developing a definition. The first relevant context type is “Environmental activism”. Environmental activism is the most collective behaviour described by Stern (2000). This behaviour entails active participation and involvement in "green" organisations and demonstrations. The main research focus is not so much on personal behaviour yet more on social movement participation. Examples of such behaviour could be participating in climate marches or other direct group activism. The second context described by Stern (2000) is related to behaviours, which are viewed as a more active kind of environmental citizenship. Stern (2000) called this context “non-activist behaviour in the public sphere”. It entails not so much direct activism and concerns more the acceptance of public environmentally friendly policies. Examples of such behaviour are becoming members of environmental organisations or signing petitions. “Private sphere environmentalism” is the last described context. Most research considering this subject is conducted on this type of behaviour. This type of behaviour is defined by personal behaviour such as purchasing and using products that have an environmental impact. Private sphere behaviour sets itself apart from public-sphere environmentalism by concerning actual personal behaviour that has an environmental impact. Stern (2000) mentions that this behaviour is of importance because it is a sizeable direct source of many environmental problems.

(7)

this particular research, non-activist behaviour in the public sphere supposedly is the environmental behaviour on which to focus. However, other researches ply a more liberal distinction on environmental behaviour. Often, the distinction between individual - and collective behaviour is made. Stern (2000) does not explicitly make this distinction. However, when looking at the different types of behaviour, all types except private sphere environmentalism could be seen as collective behaviour.

Furthermore, these types of behaviour could be categorised as indirect environmental behaviour. Indirect environmental behaviour is a form of activism used to actively influence (political) systems by creating a collective public opinion and support of environmental measures (Stern, Dietz, Abel, Guagnano, & Kalof, 1999). Indirect environmental behaviour focuses on active participation and membership and could be seen as political activism (Dalton, 2015). A notable example of this type of behaviour is signing petitions (Dalton, 2015). Due to the fact this study operationalised psychological standing as personal signing intention, it advocates that indirect environmental behaviour is relevant for this study.

Collective behaviour could it be seen as behaviour of a group of two or more individuals who (try to) influence another public through action (Grunig, 1992). Looking at the earlier mentioned research, collective behaviour could be both environmental activism and non-activist behaviour in the public sphere. Looking at the definition given by Coombs and Holladay (2010), collective environmental behaviour could be seen as actions made looking from a perspective of moral obligation to society. In other words: behaving in a way that is seen as "proper" in the eyes of society. For this particular study, blaming an institution by signing a petition is researched. In contrary to personal behaviour, it is about the respondents their view on an external institution. Signing a petition should be seen as non-activist behaviour in the public sphere or from a more comprehensive standpoint: collectivist indirect environmental behaviour.

2.2 Psychological standing

(8)

participate and act upon an issue. Other authors such as Miller and Effron (2010) and Ratner and Miller (2001) write about the existence of a "social license". The "license" permits to act on the issue. Without this permission, people would not act upon the issue by, e.g. signing a petition because they would not feel they have the right to do so. Psychological standing could be seen as a partial explanation between the lack of correspondence of attitudes and action (Ratner & Miller, 2001). Self-perceived legitimacy could come from several different drivers, discussed below.

2.2.1 Drivers for Psychological standing

Psychological standing may have several drivers. It evolved from a legal standing, which highlights that only individuals that are personally harmed or affected can ask a court to intervene on their behalf (Sherf, Tangirala & Weber, 2017; Miller, 1999). In other words; if individuals do not feel they have a vested interest in a case, people will not act upon it. This is the case even when the individuals have a healthy attitude towards the issue (Miller, 1999). Earlier studies found several critical influences on Psychological Standing. Ratner and Miller (2001) found that individuals lack Psychological Standing when the issue does not directly affect them. For instance, the fact Europeans might not feel urgency to donate towards food aid in Africa because they are not personally affected by the famine. Yet, everyone condemns starvations. Even though individuals have a strong opinion on the matter, they do not feel the standing or legitimacy to act because they were not directly affected. This type of f driver is called material stake. A material stake is defined as a driver that "arises when one's psychological or economic wellbeing has been or has the potential to be, directly affected by an issue" (Effron & Miller, 2012; p. 690). The granted example above could also be seen as the driver "category membership". Sherf, Tangirala and Weber (2017) found that individuals who are not a member of the category, feel less standing and feel hesitant to act upon the problem even though they have a strong opinion on the matter.

(9)

Contrary to the other drivers, licensing might be seen as a driver for the lack of psychological standing. Licensing could be seen as contradicting or compensatory behaviour due to earlier obtained 'moral credentials' (Monin & Miller, 2001). In other words: doing something right now would give individuals the permit to act less moral in the future. Other authors do find the same results. Khan and Dhar (2006), for instance, found that a moral act now does lead to less altruism and more self-indulgent and egoistic behaviour. A constant recurring mechanism in current research is the usage of moral licensing. The theory underlines the findings that past behaviour influences people's' individual moral actions. At this point, licensing is mostly researched in terms of excusing for individual behaviour. The literature indicates that past moral behaviour seems to affect moral behaviour negatively in a later stadium. A discrepancy between licensing and the other drivers is evident. Because all other drivers suggest that a (personal) connection to the matter would lead to more standing while licensing potentially suggests the opposite. For this research, the assumption is made that the results will be in line with the earlier standing research. However, the recognition of the potential force of licensing is evident.

2.2.2 Connection psychological standing to environmental behaviour

(10)

Hypothesis 1: People whose personal environmental feedback is positive will show more psychological standing for environmental activism.

2.3 Influence of norms

Human social behaviour is partially explainable by looking at social norms (Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975). Social norms are the shared understandings on obligations, permissions and forbidden actions among human-beings (Crawford & Ostrom, 1995). The influence of social norms on personal behaviour has been researched extensively before. Cialdini, Reno, and Kallren, (1990), for instance, found that salient social norms directly influence human behaviour. This suggests that the norms should be as focused as possible to influence behaviour directly. In the literature, the distinction between two different types of social norms is made; descriptive and injunctive meaning. Descriptive norms are describing what is typically and commonly done, in a particular situation, by the majority of people (Cialdini et al., 1990). By looking at how other individuals act, people do make their own choices based on the majority's actions. Important to understand is the fact that descriptive norms are about real actions and not about perceptions.

On the other hand, injunctive norms are about perceptions of what most people tend to approve (Cialdini et al., 1990). Injunctive norms resemble the subjective norm applied in the theory of reasoned action (Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975). It is not only about sheer approval but also motivated by imposing sanctions and rewards in the social domain (Cialdini et al., 1990). Furthermore, a distinction is made between individual and collective norm levels (Rimal & Lapinski, 2005). Collective norms are created through shared interactions among a group of people and prescribed social codes of conduct, while individuals also create their perspective and interpretation of the norm (Bettenhausen & Murnighan, 1985).

(11)

for their social identity. This shows that norms could change behaviour and can increase pro-environmental behaviour. In table 1, the most important aspects of social norms are schematically shown.

Table 1. Aspects of social norms

Aspects Description and examples Study

Definition The shared understandings on obligations, permissions and forbidden actions among human-beings

Crawford & Ostrom, 1995 Distinction in kind of message Descriptive normative messages Describe what is typically and commonly done, in a particular situation, by the majority of people. E.g. 70% of people recycle.

Cialdini, Reno, and Kallren, 1990

Reno et al., 1993

Cialdini, Reno, and Kallren, 1990 Descriptive

norms best used in the environment in which they are made salient. Injunctive normative messages Messages on perceptions on what most people tend to approve. E.g. 70% of people think we should recycle more often. generalisable to other similar settings

Levels of norms Collective level Norms existing at group level. Prescribed social codes of

conduct.

Rimal and Lapinski, 2005

(12)

Next to the direct effect of normative messages on environmental behaviour, this study examines the moderating effect of normative messages on the relationship of personal environmental feedback and psychological standing. This moderating effect is based on the assumption that individuals think it is important to be part of a group of postive environmental behaviour and compare to others. People, who are shown that their behaviour, in a similar setting is in line with that of others, might feel confirmation of category membership, which would positively influence the effect of personal environmental feedback on psychological standing. (Sherf, Tangirala & Weber, 2017). The following hypothesis is drawn:

Hypothesis 2: Descriptive normative messages strenghten the relation between personal environmental feedback and psychological standing.

2.4 Other influencers of environmental activism

(13)

The two drafted study hypotheses are graphically represented as the following conceptual framework in figure 1.

Figure 1. Conceptual framework

3. Methodology

3.1 Research design and participants

An online experiment was conducted to test the effect of personal environmental feedback on psychological standing and the moderating effect of descriptive normative messages. Data was collected by using Qualtrics survey questionnaires. This method was chosen as they are more convenient in terms of distribution and analysis than physical surveys (DeFranzo, 2012). The survey was first shared through personal connections yet further on the process; respondents were acquired using the Snowball sampling method. The study sample comes through referrals that do not know what kind of interest the research serves (Biernacki & Waldorf, 1981). Convenience sampling was used due to convenience and limited resources. Convenience sampling is the least costly in terms of time, effort and monetary resources. (Marshall, 1996). The survey has been distributed in English. Therefore, the sample would not necessarily exist out of merely Dutch respondents. In total, 252 respondents completed the study.

(14)

3.2 Research procedure

Before the study started, participants were introduced to the study (see Appendix 7.1.1). In addition, the participants were asked for the consent of participation. The fact that respondents could retract from research at any time without offering a reason and without consequences was highlighted. The survey contained four main parts. After a short introduction of the study (which does not contain the full truth regarding the aim, a set of questions asked for the respondents’ environmental behaviour. Questions on transgressive behaviour such as “home isolation”, “consuming meat” and “use of plastic” were posted (see Appendix 7.1.2). The set of questions used were extracted from the “WWF footprint calculator”. However, genuine footprints were not calculated. After this set of questions, respondents were randomly yet evenly distributed to one of the four conditions. Positive personal environmental feedback was shown; “If everybody would behave like you we would only need 1.1 planets!” or negative personal environmental was shown: “we would need 3.0 globes if everybody would behave like you!”. In addition to the feedback, half of both groups got either a descriptive normative message: 80% of respondents in this study score between 1.1 and 1.5 earths or no additional message (see Appendix 7.1.4). A descriptive normative message is chosen instead of an injunctive message because it is deemed to be effective when made salient in a particular situation like in this study. After receiving these messages, the respondents were told the second part of the study would begin. In this part of the study, the respondents found information on environmental misconduct of a large profit-institution. The respondents were asked to opt to sign a petition regarding the environmental misconduct of this organization (see Appendix 7.1.5). Besides questions on signing the petition, questions on whether respondents wanted to share the petition on social media, demographics, and questions on whether respondents felt they had the standing to sign and share the petition were asked (see Appendix 7.1.6-7.1.10. After these sets of questions, questions on feelings considering the outcomes were asked (see Appendix 7.1.11). The last part of the design is a debriefing (see Appendix 7.1.12). This vital part of the study, explains that the “environmental verdict” was not linked to their behaviour and the real aim for the research was explained.

Figure 2. Condition overview

The use of normative messages Personal environmental feedback No normative message Normative message

Postive Condition 1 Condition 3

(15)

3.3. Manipulations of environmental behaviour

For this particular study, environmental behaviour is not truly measured. All respondents were being exposed to the same set of questions regarding their environmental behaviour. The used questions were extracted from the “WWF footprint calculator”. After filling in the questions, respondents were randomly, yet evenly, categorized in one of the four conditions explained earlier. By using a programmed spurious animated delay (see Appendix 7.1.3), respondents were misled by thinking their action footprint was calculated. Respondents did not know the outcomes were randomly generated, and respondents were of the opinion the generated feedback was genuinely computed from their answers.

3.4. Measures

For answering the main hypotheses of this study, psychological standing is measured by asking for personal signing intentions of the respondents. Three items capture this. For this particular dependent variable, the following three items were measured: likeliness to sign, willingness to sign and incline to sign. The variable is measured on a 7-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 “Not at all” to 7 “Very much”. This type of measure is comparable to the measures used in the research of Effron and Miller (2011). For answering the hypotheses, this measure is the operationalisation of psychological standing. Signing the petition could be seen as engagement in environmental activism. Furthermore, the two control variables are measured. Age is measured by asking respondents to fill in their current age in the survey (ratio scale). Gender is measured by giving respondents a question with three possible answers: male, female and other/don’t want to say (nominal scale).

Besides the earlier mentioned dependent variable, this research used three additional variables to operationalise psychological standing. This option was chosen because earlier research only investigated psychological standing by measuring actual actions. However, when looking at the definition of psychological standing, it is about the subjective sense or feeling of legitimacy to act on the matter and not purely on the action (Miller et al. 2009). All additional variables are measured on the same 7-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 “Not at all” to 7 “Very much”. The first additional measure is personal sharing intention. Three items also capture this variable. For personal sharing intention, the following three items were measured: likeliness to share, willingness to share and incline to share.

(16)

The last operationalisation of psychological standing is feeling sharing standing. The next three items measure this last variable: appropriacy to share, legitimisation to share and right to share. In Table 2, an overview of all variables and questions is given.

3.5 Plan of analysis

The data of the questionnaires are analysed using the statistical software SPSS. Both reliability and factor analysis are conducted. The factor analysis was conducted to check whether question items loaded on the correct variables. The reliability test, a Cronbach’s alpha, is conducted to check whether the measured are internally consistent. Before analysing the hypotheses, a mean score was calculated for each of the four dependent variables. This was computed for the sake of facility for further analysis. Through a 2x2 analysis of variance (ANOVA), the relation of two independent variables and its interaction effect on the dependent variable are measured. Both the direct effect and the moderation effect of the use of normative messages on the relation of personal environmental feedback on psychological standing are measured. This has been done for all four dependent variables. Furthermore, the control variables are tested in relation to the dependant variable to control for personal characteristics influencing the dependent variable.

Table 2. Variables overview including variable items

Variables considering “the action”

Variable: personal signing intention Variable: feeling Standing to sign How likely would you be to sign this

petition?

To what extent do you feel that it is appropriate for you to sign this petition? How willing would you be to sign the

petition? To what extent do you feel legitimised to sign this petition? How inclined would you be to sign the

petition?

To what extent do you feel that you have the right to sign this petition?

Variables considering “feeling of legitimacy”

Variable: personal sharing intention Variable: feeling standing to share How likely would you be to share this

message on social media?

To what extent do you feel that it is appropriate for you to share this petition? How willing would you be to share this

message on social media?

To what extent do you feel legitimised to share this petition?

How inclined would you be to share this

(17)

4. Results

This chapter discusses the results of the SPSS analysis. The results are summarized and presented.

4.1. Descriptive Statistics

Table 3 gives the demographic details of the respondents. Table 3. Demographics

Frequency Percent

Gender

Male 192 76%

Female 56 22%

Other/Don't want to say 4 2%

Age Upto 20 years 10 4% 21-30 years 92 37% 31-40 years 48 19% 41-50 years 50 20% 51-60 years 31 12% 61-70 years 16 6%

More than 70 years 5 2%

Area

A big city 77 31%

The suburbs or outskirts of a big city 46 18%

A town or a small city 79 31%

A country village 37 15%

A farm or home in the countryside 9 4%

Don’t know/Don't want to say 4 2%

From table 3, it is observed that the majority of the respondents (76%) are male. Up to 80% of the respondents are below 50 years of age. Most of the respondents (80%) are living in urban areas such as cities, suburbs or towns. These findings suggest that the respondents’ views may be skewed in favour of younger males, living in urban centers. Another relevant demographic is the reaction of the respondents on the survey results. Results show that most respondents tentatively agreed that their survey results were accurate (M=4,56, SD=1,45) and reflected their knowledge about their environmental behaviour (M=4,48, SD=1,42) (See Appendix 7.2, Table 7.2.1). This results show the fact that the manipulation of personal environmental feedback was successful.

4.2 Assumptions check

(18)

The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) examines the appropriateness of factor analysis (Malhotra, 2010). The factor analysis is deemed appropriate when KMO indicates high values, those between ,5 and 1. The Bartlett’s test is used to check whether the variables correlate. The variables need to be correlated. The factor analysis is deemed appropriate when the significance level is smaller than ,05. Both the KMO value (,88) and Bartlett’s test of Sphericity (,00) (see Appendix 7.2, Table 7.2.2) meet the criteria to continue with the principal component analysis (Malhotra, 2010). The communalities test is used to research the proportion of variance explained by all the extracted factors (Malhotra, 2010). The standard rule for this test is that the value of each variable should be greater than ,4. When performing the communalities test, with the principal component analysis method, the outcome shows that each variable has a value higher than ,4 (see Appendix 7.2, Table 7.2.3). All tests mentioned above show valid outcomes. This confirms that it is appropriate to conduct a factor analysis.

(19)

Table 4. Rotated Component Matrix

Component

1 2 3 4

How inclined would you be to sign this petition?

,90 ,28 ,14 ,10

How likely would you be to sign this petition?

,89 ,31 ,12 ,09

How willing would you be to sign this petition?

,89 ,25 ,13 ,16

To what extent do you feel that it's appropriate for you to sign this petition?

,80 ,16 ,22 ,33

To what extent do you feel legitimized to sign this petition?

,59 ,12 ,34 ,54

How inclined would you be to share this message on social media?

,26 ,92 ,09 ,18

How likely would you be to share this message on social media?

,25 ,92 ,05 ,20

How willing would you be to share this message on social media?

,27 ,91 ,08 ,21

To what extent do you feel that you have the right to share this petition on social media?

,07 ,14 ,89 ,27

To what extent do you feel that you have the right to sign this petition?

,35 ,00 ,85 ,18

To what extent do you feel

legitimized to share this petition on social media?

,15 ,27 ,42 ,77

To what extent do you feel that it's appropriate for you to share this petition on social media?

,29 ,42 ,18 ,75

Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization.

(20)

(M=3,22, SD=2,01), personal sharing intention (M=1,88, SD=1,53), standing to sign (M=3,92, SD=1,89) and standing to share (M=3,31, SD=1,86) based on their mean scores (see Appendix 7.2, Table 7.2.5).

4.2 Hypotheses testing

In this paragraph, the resuls of the 2-way ANOVA tests will be presented. In order to examine the effect of personal environmental feedback and the use of normative messages on psychological standing a 2 (positive – vs negative personal environmental feedback) x2 (normative message vs no normative message) ANOVA is conducted. The 2-way ANOVA test is conducted four times, for personal signing intention, personal sharing intention, feeling signing standing and feeling sharing standing. The results of these tests are summarized in Table 5.

Table 5. 2-way ANOVA results summary

Df Mean

square

F p

Personal signing intention

Feedback environmental behavior 1 ,09 ,02 ,88

Normative message 1 12,88 3,20 ,08

Feedback environmental behavior * normative message

1 ,33 ,08 ,78

Personal sharing intention

Feedback environmental behavior 1 ,09 ,19 ,67

Normative message 1 12,88 ,55 ,46

1 ,33 ,29 ,59

Feeling signing standing

Feedback environmental behavior 1 6,94 1,99 ,16

Feedback environmental behavior * normative

message 1 ,40 ,11 ,74

Feeling sharing standing

Feedback environmental behavior 1 5,67 1,68 ,20

1 2,82 ,83 ,36

(21)

suggest that respondents with positive feedback were generally not stronger inclined to sign the petition. No significant differences are found between the two feedback conditions. This means that hypothesis 1 can be rejected. Respondents who got positive personal environmental feedback (M=3,21, SD=1,92), would not sign the petition more often than people who got negative personal environmental feedback (M=3.24, SD=2,11) (see Table 6).

Furthermore, the results show that the interaction effect of personal environmental feedback and the use of normative messages did not reach significance (F(1, 248)=,08, p=,78) (see Table 5 and Appendix 7.3, Table 7.3.1). Therefore, hypothesis 2 is also rejected. The moderator normative messages does not significantly influence the strength of the relation of personal environmental feedback on personal signing intention. Although the results are not significant, the mean scores of psychological standing show a trend in the expected direction. Respondents that were shown normative messages do express more psychological standing (M=3,46, SD=1,96) than respondents that were not shown any normative message (M=3,01, SD=2,03 This is the case for both types of personal environmental feedback. In Table 6, the means for psychological standing are given, and the influence of the use of normative messages is shown.

Table 6. Influence of feedback and normative messages on personal signing intention Personal environmental Feedback Normative message Mean SD Negative feedback No normative message

2,99 2,10 Normative message 3,51 2,10 Total 3,24 2,11 Positive feedback No normative message

3,02 1,99 Normative message 3,41 1,85 Total 3,21 1,92

Total No normative message

(22)

4.2.1 control variables

The control variables are individually included in the 2-way ANOVA analysis on personal signing intention, to test for potential effects on the model (see Table 7). The results show an insignificant effect of age on personal signing intention, F(55, 159)=1,35, p=,08. Age does not predict psychological standing. However, the other control variable; gender, does show a significant effect on personal signing intention, F(2, 246)=10,3 p=,00. Gender does significantly affect personal signing intentions. When the means are compared (see Figure 3), it can be stated that females (M=4,23, SD=1,74) tend to experience more psychological standing than man (M=2,93, SD-2,0) and other genders (M=3,08, SD=1,73).

4.3. Additional analyses

Three other 2X2 ANOVA’s are conducted to research other dependent variables that relate to psychological standing. The other 3 dependent variables personal sharing intention (M=1,88, SD=1,53), standing to sign (M=3,92, SD=1,89) and standing to share (M=3.31, SD=1,86) are all ought to be reliable with a Cronbach’s alpha of ,98 for personal sharing intention, a Cronbach’s alpha of ,84 for standing to sign and a Cronbach’s alpha of ,81 for standing to share (see Appendix 7.2, Table 7.2.3) since all analysis pass the threshold of 0,70 (Malhotra, 2010). 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Male (N=192) Female (N=56) Other (N=4)

Figure 3. Scores of psychological standing for different genders

Mean SD M=2,93 SD= 2,0 M=4,23 SD= 1,74 M=3,08 SD= 1,73

Table 7. Separate 2X2 ANOVA for control variables in one table. Dependent variable: Personal signing intention

Control Variable df F p

Gender 2 10,30 ,00

(23)

4.3.1 Personal sharing intention

The next test is conducted to find out whether there is an effect of personal environmental feedback on sharing intentions (see Table 5 and Appendix 7.3, Table 7.3.2). Results show no significant main effect is found for environmental behaviour feedback on sharing intentions (F(1,248)=,19, p=,67). Table 8 suggests that respondents with positive feedback (M=1,92, SD=1,54), were only non-significantly stronger inclined to share the petition than respondents with negative feedback (M=1.83, SD=1,52). No significant differences are found between the two feedback conditions. Furthermore, the results show that the interaction effect of personal environmental feedback and the use of normative messages did not reach significance (F(1, 248)=,29, p=,59) (see Table 5 and Appendix 7.3, Table 7.3.2). The moderator normative messages does not significantly influence the strength of the relation of personal environmental feedback on personal sharing intention. Although the results are not significant, the mean scores of psychological standing show a trend in the expected direction. Table 8 shows that respondents that were shown normative messages do express more psychological standing (M=1,95, SD=1,58) than respondents that were not shown any normative message (M=1,81, SD=1,48). This is the case for both types of personal environmental feedback. In Table 8, the means for psychological standing are given, and the influence of the use of normative messages is shown.

Table 8. Influence of feedback and normative messages on personal sharing intention Personal environmental

Feedback Normative_message Mean SD

Negative feedback No normative message 1,71 1,27

Normative message 1,96 1,75

Total 1,83 1,52

Positive feedback No normative message 1,90 1,65

Total 1,92 1,54

Total No normative message 1,81 1,48

(24)

4.3.2 Feeling standing to sign

This test is conducted to find out whether there is an effect of personal environmental feedback on the feeling of standing to sign (see Table 5 and Appendix 7.3, Table 7.3.3). Results show that no significant main effect is found for environmental behaviour feedback on the feeling of standing to sign (F(1, 248)=1,99, p=,16). Results suggest a non-significant effect (see Table 8); respondents with positive feedback (M=4.08, SD=1,89) felt slightly more standing (non-significant) to sign the petition than respondents with negative feedback (M=3,75, SD=1,87). No significant differences are found between the two feedback conditions. Furthermore, the results show that the interaction effect of personal environmental feedback and the use of normative messages did not reach significance (F(1,248)=0,11, p=,74). However, a significant direct effect of the use of normative messages on the feeling of sign standing is found (F(1,248)=5,18, p=0,02). Due to the use of normative messages, respondents felt more feeling of signing standing than respondents that did not see a normative message. As Table 9 shows, the influence of normative messages is strongest when combined with positive feedback.

Table 9. Influence of normative messages on the feeling of sign standing Feedback_environmental_beh

aviour Normative_message Mean SD

Normative message 3,98 1,80

Total 3,75 1,87

Total 4,08 1,89

(25)

4.3.3 Feeling standing to share

This test is conducted to find out whether there is an effect of personal environmental feedback on the feeling standing to share (see Table 5 and Appendix 7.3, Table 7.3.4). Results show that no significant main effect is found for environmental behaviour feedback on the feeling standing to share (F(1, 248)=1,68, p=,20). Results suggest a not-significant effect; respondents with positive feedback (M=3,45, SD=1,84) were feeling non-significantly more standing to share the petition than respondents that got negative feedback (M=3,15, SD=1,87) (see Table 10).

Furthermore, the results show that the interaction effect of personal environmental feedback and the use of normative messages did not reach significance (F(1, 248)=,83, p=,36). However, a significant direct effect of the use of normative messages on the feeling of share standing is found (F(1, 248)=5,85, p=0,02). Due to the use of normative messages, respondents felt more share standing than respondents that did not see a normative message. As Table 10 shows, the influence of normative messages is strongest when combined with positive feedback

Table 10. Influence of normative messages on the feeling of share standing Feedback_environmental_behavi

our Normative_message Mean SD

Total 3,15 1,87

Total 3,45 1,84

(26)

5. General discussion

The findings of this thesis provide information on the influence of perceived environmental behaviour and descriptive normative messages on psychological standing. The purpose of this study was to answer the question of how personal environmental feedback can influence psychological standing and what role normative messages play in this. The study aimed to extend previous findings on drivers for psychological standing for environmental activism.

This study has four main findings. Firstly, previous research found a significant relation of category membership on psychological standing (Sherf, Tangirala & Weber 2017). For this particular research, the condition positive environmental feedback is closely related to category membership. The results of the current study do not show this significant effect. Furthermore, the results are not in line with the moralisation theory of Effron and Miller (2012); respondents with positive feedback did not significantly act differently from the other group. Psychological standing to sign the petition did not change when the feedback type changed. However, a second finding is that the mean scores of psychological standing showed an evident yet non-significant trend in the expected direction. Respondents that were shown normative messages do express more psychological standing than respondents that were not shown any normative message. This was the case for both types of personal environmental feedback. Although the results were not significant, this finding is in line with the research of Cialdini et al. (1991) and Goldstein et al. (2008), which states that normative messages would lead to pro-environmental behaviour. Relevant to mention is the fact that the control variable gender does significantly directly affect psychological standing. Women were more inclined to sign the petition. For the control variable of age, no significant effect was found.

(27)

normative messages does not influence the relation between personal environmental feedback and psychological standing.

5.1 Implications for theory

This research aimed to enhance current understanding of drivers for psychological standing and the effect of personal environmental feedback on psychological standing. Three implications for theory are made. Firstly, most earlier conducted research, for example, Effron and Miller, (2012), Miller and Effron, (2010) and Sherf, Tangirala and Weber, (2017) focused on respondents’ actual behaviour. This research extends prior research by using personal environmental feedback based on manipulated outcomes. Results show that respondents did not observe the fact the personal environmental feedback was manipulated. This indicates that, for future research, academics could manipulate outcomes to examine or alter individuals’ behaviour. Secondly, this research contributes to theory by presenting the use of normative messages as a potential driver for psychological standing. Results show that the use of normative messages does directly affect psychological standing. A third contribution is that this research investigated psychological standing looking at four different dependent variables. This study found that when splitting psychological standing in both the action and the feeling behind the action, different outcomes are found. This is a contribution to the current field because this distinction might influence the way future research looks at psychological standing. The finding that women engage in environmental activism more than men is in line with the research of Sherkan and Ellison (2007), and Mattheis, Kuhn and Klockner (2002). This research endorses the general idea that women do engage in psycholiogical standing more often than men.

5.2 Implications for practice

(28)

activism. When combining these findings, suggestions could be made to improve effectiviness of campaigns towards environmental activism. Environmental organizations should create messages including normative messages. According to the results, showing what other people did in the same situation, lets women engage in environmental activism. These women will be more inclined to engage in signing petitions and potentially other types of environmental activism.

5.3 Limitations and further research

The current research provides insights into the relationship between perceived environmental behaviour and psychological standing. Despite some useful indications, this research shows several limitations. First, although results show that individuals found personal environmental feedback to be realistic, this research did not measure environmental behaviour. Without this limitation, drivers for standing could be measured more in-depth. This also limited the possibility to research licensing because licensing is usually researched by looking at behaviour at two different time points. Although this study shows that respondents’ feedback could be manipulated, future research on licensing could better use actual behaviour instead of manipulated feedback.

Second, respondents were not asked why they decided to answer the questions on standing in a certain way. The current study solely asked the participants to fill in the questionnaire. Potentially, respondents had other reasoning, besides the tested variables, to answer the questions in a particular fashion. The current study does not take those into account. Potentially, adding open questions in future research could be an alternative to understand the reasoning behind the given answers better.

Another limitation of this research is the demographics of the respondents. The vast majority of respondents is male and lives in urban areas. Potentially the reactions to the research are skewed due to the fact this group does not represent a good view of the general population. Furthermore, the results on the significant influence of gender on psychological standing, is based on a relatively small sample of women. For future research, using a better representation of the general population is recommended.

(29)

accurate demarcation between components was evident. Potentially questions could have been removed to create better demarcation. However, this was not done due to the limited set of questions asked. This limitation should be accounted for in future research by using a better instrument with sharp demarcations between components

5.4 Conclusion

Concerning the research question of this study, it can be concluded that personal environmental feedback does not significantly influence psychological standing. Moreover, the use of normative messages does not have a moderating effect on this relation. However, in several cases, a direct effect of the use of normative messages on psychological standing is found. In several cases, people who were shown a normative message felt more psychological standing. The insights of this study contribute to the understandings of the drivers of psychological standing. However, it is worth digging more in-depth in order to investigate psychological standing further.

(30)

Reference list

Bettenhausen, K.L., & Murnighan, J.K. (1985). The emergence of norms in competitive decision-making groups. Administrative Science Quarterly, 30, 350–372.

Biernacki, P., & Waldorf, D. (1981). Snowball Sampling: Problems and Techniques of Chain Referral Sampling. Sociological Methods & Research, 10(2), 141–163.

Brenton M., Wiernik, D.S., & Ones, S.D. (2013). Age and environmental sustainability: a meta-analysis. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 28(7/8), 826-856,

Cialdini, R. B., Kallgren, C. A., & Reno, R. R. (1991). A focus theory of normative conduct: A theoretical refinement and reevaluation of the role of norms in

human behavior. Advances in experimental social psychology, 24(20), 1-243. Coombs, W.T., Holladay, S.J. (2010). PR strategy and application – managing influence.

UK: Wiley Blackwell

Crawford, S. E., & Ostrom, E. (1995). A grammar of institutions. American Political Science Review, 89(3), 582-600.

Dahling, J.J., & Wiley. S., & Fishman, Z.A., & Loihle, A. (2016) A stake in the fight: When do heterosexual employees resist organizational policies that deny marriage equality to LGB peers? Organ. Behav. Human Decision Processes, 132, 1–15.

Dalton, R. J. (2015). Waxing or waning? The changing patterns of environmental activism. Environmental Politics, 24(4), 530-552.

Datta, S. K. (2011). Pro-environmental concern influencing green buying: A study on Indian consumers. International Journal of Business and Management, 6(6), 124.

DeFranzo, S. (2012). Advantages and Disadvantages of Surveys.

Retrieved from https://www.snapsurveys.com/blog/advantages-disadvantages-surveys/ Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention and behavior: An introduction to

theory and research. Reading, United States: Addison-Wesley.

Goldstein, N. J., Cialdini, R. B., & Griskevicius, V. (2008). A room with a viewpoint: Using social norms to motivate environmental conservation in hotels. Journal of consumer Research, 35(3), 472-482.

Grunig, J. (1992). Excellence in public relations and communication management. Hillsdale, United States: L. Erlbaum Associates.

Khan, U., & Dhar, R. (2006). Licensing effect in consumer choice. Journal of Marketing Research, 43, 259 – 266.

(31)

Malhotra, N.K. (2010). Marketing research; an applied orientation. New Jersey, USA: Pearson Education, Inc., publishing as Prentice Hall.

Marshall, M. (1996). Sampling for qualitative research. Family Practice, 13(6), 522-526.

Matthies, E., Kuhn, S., & Klockner, C. (2002). Travel mode choice of women: The result of limitation, ecological norm, or weak habit? Environment and Behavior, 34(2), 163– 177.

Miller, D.T. (1999). The norm of self-interest. American Psychology, 54(12), 1053–1060. Miller D.T., & Effron D.A. (2010). Psychological license: When it is needed and how it

functions. Zanna MP, Olson JM, eds. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology (Elsevier, San Diego), 115–155.

Miller, D. T., Effron, D. A., & Zak, S. V. (2009). From moral outrage to social protest: The role of psychological standing. In D. R. Bobocel, A. C. Kay, M. P. Zanna, & J. M. Olson (Eds.), The psychology of justice and legitimacy: The Ontario symposium, 11, 103–123. New York: Psychological Press.

Monin, B., & Miller, D.T. (2001). Moral credentials and the expression of prejudice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 33 – 43.

Ramus, C., & Steger, U. (2000). The Role of Supervisory Support Behaviors and

Environmental Policy in Employee ‘Ecoinitiatives’ at Leading Edge European Companies. Academy of Management Journal, 43, 605-626.

Ratner R.K., & Miller D.T. (2001). The norm of self-interest and its effects on social action. Journal Personality Social Psychology, 81(1),5–16

Reber, A.S. (1989). Woordenboek van de psychologie. Amsterdam, Nederland: Uitgeverij Bert Bakker.

Reno, R.R., Cialdini, R.B., & Kallgren, C.A. (1993). The transsituational influence of social norms. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64(1), 104–112.

Sherf, E.N., Tangirala, S., & Weber K.C. (2017). It Is Not My Place! Psychological Standing and Men’s Voice and Participation in Gender-Parity Initiatives. Organization Science, 28(2):193-210.

Sherkat, D.E., & Ellison, C.G. (2007). Structuring the religion-environment connection: Identifying religious influences on environmental concern and activism. Journal of the Scientific Study of Religion, 46(1), 71–85.

Stern, P. C., Dietz, T., Abel, T., Guagnano, G. A., & Kalof, L. (1999). A value-belief-norm theory of support for social movements: The case of environmentalism.

(32)

Stern, P.C. (2000). Towards a coherent theory of environmentally significant behavior. Journal of Social Issues, 56 (3), 407–424.

Tindall, D.B. (1994). Collective action in the rainforest: Personal networks, identity, and participation in the Vancouver Island Wilderness Preservation Movement. Unpublished PhD dissertation, University of Toronto, Canada.

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.

Verbeek, F. (2019). De uitslagen van de Europese verkiezingen op een rij – Elsevier

Weekblad. Retrieved from

https://www.elsevierweekblad.nl/buitenland/achtergrond/2019/05/de-uitslagen-van-de-europese-verkiezingen-op-een-rij-690297/

Verweij, M., Douglas, M., Ellis, R., Engel, C., Hendriks, F., Lohmann, S. Ney,

(33)

(34)

The next few questions will evaluate your environmental behaviour to calculate your carbon footprint.

(35)

(36)

(37)

(38)

(39)

(40)

In a typical month, how much do you spend on phone, internet and TV contracts?

o

€0 (1)

o

€1-€10 (2)

o

€10-€40 (3)

o

€40+ (4)

7.1.3 spurious animated delay Thank you for taking our survey! We are now calculating your CO2 emissions based on your responses. Please wait a few seconds for your result to load.

7.1.4 Personal environmental feedback

(41)

7.1.4.2 Positive environmental feedback X normative message

Please let the results sink in and continue to the next questions when ready.

7.4.3 Negative environmental feedback X no normative message

Please let the results sink in and continue to the next questions when ready.

7.1.4.4 Negative environmental feedback X normative message

80% of the

(42)

(43)

(44)

(45)

(46)

(47)

(48)

(49)

To what extent do you feel that you have the right to sign this petition?

o

Not at all (1)

o

(2)

o

(3)

o

Somewhat (4)

o

(5)

o

(6)

o

Very much (7)

(50)

(51)

7.1.11 questions on feelings considering the survey Think back to your carbon footprint result. How did you feel when you received your result? Strongly disagree (1) Disagree (2) Somewhat disagree (3) Neither agree nor disagree (4) Somewhat

(52)

(53)

(54)

7.2 Results descriptive statistics and factor analysis Table 7.2.1. Respondents’ feeling on the survey

Mean SD

The results confirmed what I already know about my environmental behaviours.

4.56 1.45

The survey results were accurate. 4.48 1.42

Table 7.2.2. KMO and Bartlett's Test

Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy ,88

Bartlett’s Test of sphericity _Sig. _,00

Table 7.2.3. Communalities test Extraction

How likely would you be to sign this petition? ,92

How willing would you be to sign this petition? ,90

How inclined would you be to sign this petition? ,92

How likely would you be to share this message on social media?

,95 How willing would you be to share this message on social

media?

,96 How inclined would you be to share this message on social

media?

,95 To what extent do you feel that it's appropriate for you to sign

this petition?

,83 To what extent do you feel legitimized to sign this petition? ,76 To what extent do you feel that you have the right to sign this

petition?

,87 To what extent do you feel that it's appropriate for you to share

this petition on social media?

,85 To what extent do you feel legitimized to share this petition on

social media?

,86 To what extent do you feel that you have the right to share this

petition on social media?

,89

(55)

Table 7.2.5 Components discriptives

Mean SD

Component 1 3,22 2,01

All items of the scale 3,08 1,49

7.3 Results 2x2 ANOVA

Table 7.3.1. 2X2 ANOVA for Personal Signing intention

Source df F p Corrected Model 3 1,08 ,36 Intercept 1 650,48 ,00 Feeback_environmental_behaviour 1 ,02 ,88 Normative_Message 1 3,20 ,08 Feedback_environmental_behaviour * Normative_Message 1 ,08 ,78 Error 248 Total 252 Corrected Total 251

a. R Squared = ,013 (Adjusted R Squared = ,001) Table 7.3.2. 2X2 ANOVA for Personal Sharing Intention

Source df F p Corrected Model 3 ,33 ,80 Intercept 1 374,72 ,00 Feeback_environmental_behaviour 1 ,19 ,67 Normative_Message 1 ,56 ,46 Feeback_environmental_behaviour * Normative_Message 1 ,29 ,59 Error 248 Total 252 Corrected Total 251

a. R Squared = ,004 (Adjusted R Squared = -,008) Table 7.2.4. Reliability test for the four components Cronbach's Alpha Inter-Item correlation N of Items

Component 1 ,97 ,91 3

(56)

Table 7.3.3. 2X2 ANOVA for Feeling Signing Standing Source df F p Corrected Model 3 2,46 ,06 Intercept 1 1102,03 ,00 Feeback_environmental_behaviour 1 1,99 ,16 Normative_Message 1 5,18 ,02 Feeback_environmental_behaviour * Normative_Message 1 ,11 ,74 Error 248 Total 252 Corrected Total 251

a. R Squared = ,029 (Adjusted R Squared = ,017) Table 7.3.4. 2X2 ANOVA for Feeling Sharing Standing Source df F p Corrected Model 3 2,87 ,04 Intercept 1 811,68 ,00 Feeback_environmental_behaviour 1 1,68 ,20 Normative_Message 1 5,85 ,02 Feeback_environmental_behaviour * Normative_Message 1 ,83 ,36 Error 248 Total 252 Corrected Total 251

a. R Squared = ,034 (Adjusted R Squared = ,022)