Overcoming the psychological barriers to energy conservation behaviour: The influence of objective and subjective environmental knowledge

Abstract

Energy conservation is a crucial aspect of responsible consumption which is the reflection of individual efforts for sustainability. However, especially young consumers are reluctant to reduce their energy consumption despite their pro‐environmental attitudes. Resistance to behavioural change can be attributed to various psychological barriers that help consumer to avoid engaging in pro‐environmental actions. In this context, the first aim of the study is to extend the theoretical and empirical evidence regarding impeding effects of psychological barriers on individual energy conservation behaviour. Secondly, the study investigates the alleviating role of environmental knowledge on those barriers that limit energy conservation. Proposed impeding effects of objective and subjective environmental knowledge on various denial mechanisms, which are in turn expected to hinder energy conservation, were tested using the survey data collected from young Turkish consumers. Results suggest that denial mechanisms hinder young consumers’ energy conservation behaviour indirectly through diminishing feelings of moral obligations. Moreover, it was found that objective environmental knowledge's effect can be used to break down the psychological barriers and to facilitate the change towards more sustainable energy consumption patterns. Implications of the findings and directions for future research are discussed.

Do Consumers Really Want to Reduce Plastic Usage? Exploring the Determinants of Plastic Avoidance in Food-Related Consumption Decisions

“…In other words, high plastic-related subjective knowledge increased plastic concern (both environmentand health-related), which in turn increased the probability that consumers avoided plastic items. This finding is in line with previous research stressing that environmental knowledge does not directly increase PEBs, but contributes to drive sustainability-oriented behaviors by influencing other variables, including concern [17,18,21,46]. This approach has become increasingly accepted in the literature on PEBs [23,50] and was further confirmed by the evidence of this study.…”

“…However, several studies suggested that subjective knowledge is a better predictor of both pro-environmental intentions and behaviors. Such evidence emerged in past research involving different PEBs such as recycling behavior [16], energy conservation behaviors [17], and organic food consumption [18]. On these grounds, the second hypothesis of this work was formulated as follows: Hypothesis 2-1 (H2-1).…”

“…In fact, evidence demonstrate that in many cases environmental knowledge does not directly increase PEBs. Instead, it positively affects the extent to which individuals act sustainably by influencing other variables, such as emotional engagement, values, attitudes, awareness, as well as concern [17,18,21,46].…”

“…Consumers' decision to limit their purchase and use of plastics can be described as a pro-environmental behavior (PEB), that is a voluntary action geared at contributing to environmental preservation and/or conservation [15]. Many studies in the past have investigated the determinants of consumers' decision to engage in various PEBs, such as recycling [16], energy conservation [17], and organic food consumption [18]. However, to date, very few have specifically focused on consumers' avoidance of plastic objects, especially in the food context.…”

Taboo in consumption: Social structure, gender and sustainable menstrual products

“…Several previous studies have found that consumers often exhibit attitude‐behaviour inconsistency in sustainable consumption (Moraes, Carrigan, & Szmigin, ; Papaoikonomou, Ryan, & Ginieis, ; Prothero et al, ; Wiederhold & Martinez, ). Studies have found that beliefs, justifications and biases can result in attitude‐behaviour inconsistency in sustainable consumption (Arli, Tan, Tjiptono, & Yang, ; Dursun, Kabadayı, & Tuğer, ; Eckhardt, Belk, & Devinney, ; Kilbourne & Pickett, ; Luchs, Naylor, Irwin, & Raghunathan, ). Luchs et al () argue that sustainability may not always be an asset even if most consumers care about social and environmental issues.…”