„We“ Make(s) A Difference · – Ingroup bias – Outgroup discrimination – Conformity to...

„We“ Make(s) ADifference

The Social Psychology of Pro-Environmental Action

Immo FritscheUniversität Leipzig

Talk at the ESCALATE Colloquium, UFZ Leipzig, 21 May 2015

„We“ Make(s) ADifference

Thanks toMarkus Barth, Christopher Cohrs,Katie Greenaway, Katrin Häfner,Philipp Jugert, Thomas Kessler,Torsten Masson, Gerhard Reese,Sabrina Viereckel

Climate Change

(IPC

C,2013)

The PsychologicalView

The SocialDimension

Collective Efficacy

Ingroup Norms

Responses toClimate ChangeThreat

Conclusions

Aggregatedhuman behavior

Psychology isthe science ofexplaininghuman cognitionand behavior

• Political behavior / Collective action– Participtation in environmental

action groups– Signing Petitions– Boykotting harmful

products/companies– etc.

• Everyday behavior– Private energy consumption– Purchase of pro-environmental

products– Travel mode choice– Private waste separation– etc.

Environmental Behavior Asthe Focal Variable


The SocialDimension

Collective Efficacy

Ingroup Norms


Conclusions

„EnvironmentalConsciousness“ As the Key?


The SocialDimension

Collective Efficacy

Ingroup Norms


Conclusions

Attitude-BehaviorDiscrepancy

General Pro-EnvironmentalAttitude

Self-Reported Pro-EnvironmentalBehavior

r = .35 (SD = .22)(Hines, Hungerford & Tomera, 1987)

12,25 % explained variance


The SocialDimension

Collective Efficacy

Ingroup Norms


Conclusions

• Attitudes and Behavior are often measuredon different levels of abstraction

Why Discrepancy?

Attitude: „Wildlife conservation isgreat!!“

Behavior: Tonight we will havespiny dogfish for the guests


The SocialDimension

Collective Efficacy

Ingroup Norms


Conclusions


Why Discrepancy?

Attitude: „I like renewableenergies!“

© Alexandra H. / pixelio.de

Behavior: Next weekend, I willparticipate in the demonstrationagainst a local wind farm in our village

© Rainer Golitz / pixelio.de

© Stephanie Hofschlaeger / pixelio.de


The SocialDimension

Collective Efficacy

Ingroup Norms


Conclusions


Why Discrepancy?

TACT-Principle (Ajzen & Fishbein, 2005):Attitudes predict behavior if they refer to similarobjectsT arget: against wind farmA ction: participating in demonstrationC ontext: in the villageT ime: next weekend


The SocialDimension

Collective Efficacy

Ingroup Norms


Conclusions


Why Discrepancy

TACT-Principle (Ajzen & Fishbein, 2005):Attitudes predict behavior if they refer to similarobjectsT arget: dogfishA ction: shopping for dinnerC ontext: dinner with guestsT ime: tonight


The SocialDimension

Collective Efficacy

Ingroup Norms


Conclusions

More Predictors of Pro-Environmental Behavior

Behavior

Intention

Attitude

Subjective Norm

Perceived BehavioralControl

(behavioral outcomebeliefs x value)

(anticipated evaluationby significant others xwillingness to comply)

(anticipated barriers /faciliting conditions xpower of the barriers)


The SocialDimension

Collective Efficacy

Ingroup Norms


Conclusions

Theory of Planned Behavior(Ajzen & Fishbein, 2005)

Behavior

Intention

Attitude

Subjective Norm

Perceived BehavioralControl

(behavioral outcomebeliefs x value)

(anticipated evaluationby significant others xwillingness to comply)

(anticipated barriers /faciliting conditions xpower of the barriers)

BackgroundFactors

-GeneralAttitudes &Values (env.consciousness)-Knowledge-Culture / Milieu/ Identity-Personality- …


The SocialDimension

Collective Efficacy

Ingroup Norms


Conclusions

Attitude(according to Ajzen & Fishbein, 2005)

z.B. „shopping with fishlist“

Behavioral beliefs ValueX

Shopping with fishlist willtake longer

Bad (I want to get homequickly)

Shopping with fishlist willbecome more expensive

Moderately bad (I want tosave money)

Shopping with fishlist savesendangered species

Good (I want to saveendangered species)

Shopping with fishlistmeans I can‘t buy dogfish

Very bad (dogfish is mymost favorite fish)


The SocialDimension

Collective Efficacy

Ingroup Norms


Conclusions

Climate Change

(IPC

C,2013)

Aggregatedhuman behavior

Climate changeis a collectiveproblem


The SocialDimension

Collective Efficacy

Ingroup Norms


Conclusions

Collective Problems RequireCollective Answers• Previous reserach focussed on

personal or inter-personalvariables– Personal values and attitudes– Personal costs/benefits– Self-efficacy– Subjective norms

• Individual actions are insufficientto solve the climate change crisis

• Personal helplessness preventspersonal action


The SocialDimension

Collective Efficacy

Ingroup Norms


Conclusions

• Do my personal actions save theenvironment?

Personal Helplessness


The SocialDimension

Collective Efficacy

Ingroup Norms


Conclusions

• Am I efficacious in contributing to environmentalprotection?– 13,7% explained variance of pro-environmental behavior

(Hines et al., 1987)

• Effective pro-environmental action is a collectiveendeavor– Contribution of individuals low: Free-riding– Individual contribution not identifiable: Social loafing

• Environmental conservation as collective action– Collective efficacy is more important than personal

efficacy (Homburg, 2007; Jugert, Greenaway, Fritsche &Barth, in prep)

Self-EfficacyThe PsychologicalView

The SocialDimension

Collective Efficacy

Ingroup Norms


Conclusions

• Model of group-based control (Fritsche, Jonas &Kessler, 2011; Fritsche et al., 2013)

• Perceived collective efficacy cancompensate for personal helplessness

• Self-definition: „We“ instead of „I“– „social identity“

Collective Efficacy Instead ofPersonal Efficacy

Ingroup associal self:

wePersonalself: I

Environment


The SocialDimension

Collective Efficacy

Ingroup Norms


Conclusions

Closing Ranks Under Threat

• Membership in groups / social identitypreserves the satisfaction of basicpsychological needs– Control (Fritsche et al., 2011, 2013)– Reduction of uncertainty (Hogg, 2007)

• Threat to control / uncertainty increasescollective thinking and action– Ingroup bias– Outgroup discrimination– Conformity to ingroup norms– Punishment of norm deviants

(authoritarianism)


The SocialDimension

Collective Efficacy

Ingroup Norms


Conclusions

Social Identity Model ofClimate Change

Social Identity Salient / Important(identification with a meaningful ingroup; e.g.,

environmentalists, citizens of town X)

Collective Efficacy Beliefs

Ingroup Norms of Behavior

(Collective) Pro-Climate Behavior

Perceived ClimateChange Threat

Threat toPsychic Needs

EthnocentricResponses

Intergroup Conflict

CLIMATE CHANGE

Social Identity


The SocialDimension

Collective Efficacy

Ingroup Norms


Conclusions










Intergroup Conflict

CLIMATE CHANGE


The SocialDimension

Collective Efficacy

Ingroup Norms


Conclusions

• Collective efficacy: The perception that theingroup has „control, influence, strength,and effectiveness to change a group-relatedproblem“ (cf. van Zomeren et al., 2008)

• Ingroup identification empowers people– Identification with social ingroups increases

perceived personal efficacy via collectiveefficacy beliefs (Greenaway et al., in press)

– Threatened personal control leads to increasedidentification with agentic groups (Stollberg,Fritsche & Bäcker, in press)

• (How) Does collective efficacy increase pro-climate action intentions?

Collective EfficacyThe PsychologicalView

The SocialDimension

Collective Efficacy

Ingroup Norms


Conclusions

• 284 German university students (18-30 years;online experiment)

• IVs– High/low collective efficacy salient– Climate change threat salient/not salient

• DV: Pro-environmental mobility intentions– „To me it is more important to arrive quickly at the desired

holiday destination than to travel environmentally friendly“[r]; 6 items; =.82

• Mediators– Perceived collective efficacy („I am certain that we will find

ways to be ecologically mobile”; 6 items; =.81)– Perceived personal efficacy („I am certain that I will find

ways to be ecologically mobile“; 6 items; =.82)• Identity of young generation (U30) was made

salient for all participants

Study: Collective Efficacy(Jugert, Greenaway, Barth, Büchner, Eisentraut & Fritsche, 2014)


The SocialDimension

Collective Efficacy

Ingroup Norms


Conclusions

Manipulation of CollectiveEfficacy„Generation U30 is [not] making the switch to New Mobility“The Psychological

View

The SocialDimension

Collective Efficacy

Ingroup Norms


Conclusions

Study: Collective Efficacy(Jugert, Greenaway, Barth, Büchner, Eisentraut & Fritsche, 2014)

Perception ofCollectiveEfficacy

Perception ofCollectiveEfficacy

Perception ofPersonalEfficacy

Perception ofPersonalEfficacy

Pro-Envir.Mobility

Intentions

Pro-Envir.Mobility

Intentions

CollectiveEfficacy

(manipulated)

CollectiveEfficacy

(manipulated)

.26* .59*** .44***

IE=0.07, SE=0.03, bias-corrected 95% CI: 0.023, 0.127

Replicated in an Australian sample:• Perceived collective efficacy increases pro-

environmental mobility intentions for highlyidentified group members

• … mediated via perceptions of personal efficacy


The SocialDimension

Collective Efficacy

Ingroup Norms


Conclusions










Intergroup Conflict

CLIMATE CHANGE


The SocialDimension

Collective Efficacy

Ingroup Norms


Conclusions

• Social Norms:– „Rules and standards that are understood by

members of a group, and that guide and/or constrainsocial behavior without the force of laws“ (Cialdini &Trost, 1998)

– „attitudinal and behavioral regularities that map thecontours of social groups such that normativediscontinuities mark group boundaries“ (Hogg, 2010)

• Both prescriptive and descriptive norms haveeffects (Smith et al., 2012; Göckeritz et al., 2010)– Prescriptive norms (what should be done in a group)– Descriptive norms (what is actually been done in a

group)• Influence of norms on pro-environmental

behavior (e.g., saving energy) seems to beunderdetected by lay people (Nolan et al., 2008)

Ingroup NormsThe PsychologicalView

The SocialDimension

Collective Efficacy

Ingroup Norms


Conclusions

Influence of Social Norms isUnderdetected(Nolan, Schultz, Cialdini, Goldstein & Griskevicius, 2008)

In deciding to conserve energy,how important is it to you …

Rating(Scale from 1=„not at all

important“ to4=„extremely important“)

… that it protects the environment 3.41

… that it benefits society 3.17

… that it saves money 3.07

… that a lot of other people aretrying to conserve energy

2.93

• 810 randomly selected Californians (2003/2004)• Naive explanations for own energy conservation behavior• Actual correlations between beliefs about energy

conservation and self-reported behavior

Actualcorrelation(-1 to +1)

.06

.23

.03

.45


The SocialDimension

Collective Efficacy

Ingroup Norms


Conclusions

„All Others Do It“: The Powerof Descriptive Norms(Goldstein, Cialdini & Griskevicius, 2008)

Standard: „HELP SAVE THEENVIRONMENT. You can show yourrespect for nature and help save theenvironment by reusing your towelsduring your stay. “

= prescriptive norm


The SocialDimension

Collective Efficacy

Ingroup Norms


Conclusions


Gäste-Norm: „JOIN YOURFELLOW GUESTS IN HELPING TOSAVE THE ENVIRONMENT. In astudy conducted in Fall 2003, 75% ofthe guests participated in our newresource savings program by usingtheir towels more than once. You canjoin your fellow guests in thisprogram to help save theenvironment by reusing your towelsduring your stay. „

= descriptive norm


The SocialDimension

Collective Efficacy

Ingroup Norms


Conclusions


30

35

40

45

50

PrescriptiveNorm

DescriptiveNorm

(Guests)

Participation


The SocialDimension

Collective Efficacy

Ingroup Norms


Conclusions


Zimmer-Norm: „JOIN YOURFELLOW GUESTS IN HELPING TOSAVE THE ENVIRONMENT. In astudy conducted in Fall 2003, 75% ofthe guests who stayed in this room(#xxx) participated in our newresource savings program by usingtheir towels more than once. You canjoin your fellow guests in thisprogram to help save theenvironment by reusing your towelsduring your stay.“ „


The SocialDimension

Collective Efficacy

Ingroup Norms


Conclusions


30

35

40

45

50

PrescriptiveNorm

DescriptiveNorm

(Guests)

DescriptiveNorm (Same

Room)

Participation


The SocialDimension

Collective Efficacy

Ingroup Norms


Conclusions

• Do ingroup norms affect the early adoptionof ecological innovations?– E-Car use

• What is the relative importance of socialidentity vs. personal cost/benefit variables?

Study: Social IdentityPredictors of E-Car Use(Barth, Jugert & Fritsche, 2014)


The SocialDimension

Collective Efficacy

Ingroup Norms


Conclusions

• 548 Germans (17-73 years, Mage = 33; 54,3female; online; crowd-sourcing platformWorkHub)

• Questionnaire study on predictors of e-caruse intention– Buying scenario– Car-sharing scenario

• DV: E-car use intention

Study: Social IdentityPredictors of E-Car Use(Barth, Jugert & Fritsche, 2014)


The SocialDimension

Collective Efficacy

Ingroup Norms


Conclusions

Study: Results(Barth, Jugert & Fritsche, 2014)

E-Car UseIntention

Gender

Age

Knowledge

Experience

Personal Costs

Lower Maintenance Costs

Sustainability

Subjective Norm

Prescriptive Neighborhood Norm

Prescriptive Regional Norm

Descriptive Regional Norm

Collective Efficacy

SocialDemog

PersonalExperience

PersonalCosts/Benefits/Attitudes

SocialIdentityVariables

-.07*.08**-.07°

.14**-.13***

.07*.08*

.29*

.09*

.10*** .13***

R2=.54The PsychologicalView

The SocialDimension

Collective Efficacy

Ingroup Norms


Conclusions

• Early adoption phase• Low diagnosticity of low descriptive norm

– Manipulating high vs. low diagnosticity of (low) descriptivenorm decreased e-car use intention (Barth, Jugert &Fritsche, 2015)

Why Is There No Effect ofDescriptive Norms?(Barth, Jugert & Fritsche, 2014)


The SocialDimension

Collective Efficacy

Ingroup Norms


Conclusions










Intergroup Conflict

CLIMATE CHANGE


The SocialDimension

Collective Efficacy

Ingroup Norms


Conclusions

• Two components of ingroup identification(Leach et al., 2008)– Self-investment (affective & motivational)– Self-definition (cognitive)

• N = 205 students of U Leipzig (MAge = 24.14, SD= 3.12; 79 men, 126 women)

• IVs– High/low descriptive ingroup norm to buy organic

food salient– Self-investment student ingroup (measured; 7 items; = .88)

– Self-definition student ingroup (measured; 4 items; = .84)

• DV– Intention to purchase organic food (4 items; = .83)

Study: The Role of IngroupIdentification in Norm Effects(Masson & Fritsche, 2014, EJSP, Study 2)


The SocialDimension

Collective Efficacy

Ingroup Norms


Conclusions

• No effects involving self-definition

Study: The Role of IngroupIdentification in Norm Effects(Masson & Fritsche, 2014, EJSP)


The SocialDimension

Collective Efficacy

Ingroup Norms


Conclusions










Intergroup Conflict

CLIMATE CHANGE


The SocialDimension

Collective Efficacy

Ingroup Norms


Conclusions

Ethnocentric Responses toClimate Change Threat

Climate ChangeThreat

Realistic threat andinstrumental intergroup

conflict

IntergroupConflict

Automatic Ethnocentric responses:Authoritarian attitudes / ingroup bias

Hsiang, Burke & Miguel (2013)


The SocialDimension

Collective Efficacy

Ingroup Norms


Conclusions

Authoritarian Responses

• Authoritarian attitudes as an ethnocentricresponse

• Authoritarianism maintains/establishesingroup integrity by fostering intra-groupcooperation (Kessler & Cohrs, 2008)– Intolerance & punishment of norm deviants

(Authoritarian Aggression)– Approval of system supporting

individuals/groups (Authoritarian Submission)– Conformity with ingroup norms

(Conventionalism)


The SocialDimension

Collective Efficacy

Ingroup Norms


Conclusions

Study: Manipulation of CCThreat Salience

The following information all refer to Germany! [homecountry]

I Didnot

knowyet

Ialready knew

this

The number of „tropical nights“ (minimum temperature over20 degrees centigrade) will triple until 2100. This reducesthe recreation of the human body during the night.

Rising temperatures lead to the melting of alpine glaciersand to reduced likelihood of snow. Winter sports will vanishfrom the German low mountain range.

…

• Cover story: Pretesting a knowledge test• Climate change facts vs. neutral geographic facts

salient


The SocialDimension

Collective Efficacy

Ingroup Norms


Conclusions

Study: AutoritarianAggression(1-10; = .62-.73)(Fritsche, Cohrs, Kessler & Bauer, 2012, JEnvP)

Study 1 (N=94; delay group): p = .04; Study 2 (N=56): p = .30; Study 3(N=155): p = .03

4

4,5

5

5,5

6

6,5

7

Study 1(Germany)

Study 2(Germany)

Study 3(UK)

Climate ChangeFacts

Geo Facts


The SocialDimension

Collective Efficacy

Ingroup Norms


Conclusions

Study: Ratings of SystemThreatening Groups(1-10; = .74-.81; Fritsche, Cohrs, Kessler & Bauer, 2012, JEnvP)

1

1,5

2

2,5

3

3,5

4

Study 1(Germany)

Study 2(Germany)

Study 3(UK)

Climate ChangeFactsGeo Facts

The effects onlyoccurred after a

delay

Study 1 (delay group): p = .007; Study 2: p = .008; Study 3: p = .05


The SocialDimension

Collective Efficacy

Ingroup Norms


Conclusions

Study: Ratings of SystemSupporting Groups(Fritsche, Cohrs, Kessler & Bauer, 2012, JEnvP, Study 3)


The SocialDimension

Collective Efficacy

Ingroup Norms


Conclusions

Additional Data: Evaluationof Immigrant Groups (1-10; = .91)(Fritsche & Viereckel, unpublished: N = 66 Europeans, online study)

4

4,5

5

5,5

6

6,5

7

Climate ChangeFactsGeo Facts

t(64) = -2.07, p = .04


The SocialDimension

Collective Efficacy

Ingroup Norms


Conclusions










Intergroup Conflict

CLIMATE CHANGE


The SocialDimension

Collective Efficacy

Ingroup Norms


Conclusions

Threat x Collective Efficacy(back to first study)(Jugert, Greenaway, Barth, Büchner, Eisentraut & Fritsche, 2014)

1

2

3

4

CC threat salient CC threat not salient

Pro-environmental mobility intentions

High collect. efficacysalientLow collect. Efficacysalient

**


The SocialDimension

Collective Efficacy

Ingroup Norms


Conclusions

• N = 107 university students• 2 (Death salient/not salient) x 2 (Pro-

environment norm salient/not salient)• Death = Lack of generalized personal

conrol (Fritsche et al., 2008, JPSP)

Study: Threat x Social Norms(Fritsche, Jonas, Niesta Kayser & Koranyi, 2010, JEnvP)


The SocialDimension

Collective Efficacy

Ingroup Norms


Conclusions

Manipulation of DeathSalience

From: A Funeral PhantasyFriedrich Schiller

Pale, at its ghastly noon,Pauses above the death-still wood--the moon;The night-sprite, sighing, through the dim air

stirs;The clouds descend in rain;

Mourning, the wan stars wane,Flickering like dying lamps in sepulchres!

Haggard as spectres--vision-like and dumb,Dark with the pomp of death, and moving

slow,Towards that sad lair the pale procession

comeWhere the grave closes on the night below.


The SocialDimension

Collective Efficacy

Ingroup Norms


Conclusions

Setting and DependentVariable


The SocialDimension

Collective Efficacy

Ingroup Norms


Conclusions

Pro-Environment NormSalience Manipulation

“…I like that youalso have thesereusable cups here.They are better forthe environment.“


The SocialDimension

Collective Efficacy

Ingroup Norms


Conclusions

Study: Conformity with Pro-Environmental Norm(Fritsche, Jonas, Niesta Kayser & Koranyi, 2010, JEnvP)

0

20

40

60

80

100

"FuneralPhantasy"

"MidnightPhantasy"

Reu

sabl

eC

ups

Take

n(%

)Pro-environmentnorm salient

Pro-environmentnorm not salient

Interaction Threat x Norm: F(1,99) = 3.76; p = .055


The SocialDimension

Collective Efficacy

Ingroup Norms


Conclusions










Intergroup Conflict

CLIMATE CHANGE


The SocialDimension

Collective Efficacy

Ingroup Norms


Conclusions

• Personal cost-benefit analyses are notsufficient for predicting individuals‘ behaviorin collective environmental crises

• Thinking and acting in terms of the „We“instead of the „I“ can motivate people‘severyday environmental behavior

Conclusions I: HumanSociality is Critical


The SocialDimension

Collective Efficacy

Ingroup Norms


Conclusions

• Reminding people of– Pro-environmental ingroup norms– Collective efficacy

• Creating/supporting pro-environmentalaction communities

Conclusions II: „SocialNudging“?


The SocialDimension

Collective Efficacy

Ingroup Norms


Conclusions

• Collective threat responses as an automaticcollective problem solving device

• But: Direction of Responses depend onsalient ingroup norms

• Channeling ethnocentric threat responsesto collective pro-environmental action– Social norms are critical in times of societal

crises!

Conclusions III: MindingPerceptions of Crisis


The SocialDimension

Collective Efficacy

Ingroup Norms


Conclusions

Thank you for yourattention

[email protected]

„We“ Make(s) A Difference · – Ingroup bias – Outgroup discrimination – Conformity to...

Documents

Transcript of „We“ Make(s) A Difference · – Ingroup bias – Outgroup discrimination – Conformity to...