The role of perceived government style in the facilitation of self-determined and non self-determined motivation for pro-environmental behavior

Lavergne, Karine J.; Sharp, Elizabeth C.; Pelletier, Luc G.; Holtby, Alixandra

doi:10.1016/j.jenvp.2009.11.002

Cited by 110 publications

(78 citation statements)

References 25 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…However, in a recent crosssectional study, both PBC and guilty conscience independently predicted individuals' intention to participate in a neighborhood-based climate protection initiative (Rees and Bamberg 2014). In future studies including cognitive (such as PBC) and emotional variables (such as guilt and shame), we would expect both to have independent effects on environmental behavior (see also the work on self determination-theory for another influential theory of human motivation that has been linked with environmental behavior; Lavergne et al 2010;Ryan and Deci 2000).…”

Section: Limitations Of the Current Study And Future Directionsmentioning

confidence: 96%

Guilty conscience: motivating pro-environmental behavior by inducing negative moral emotions

2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Conceptual frameworks in the realm of climate-related policy, attitudes and behavior frequently argue that moral emotions play a crucial role in mobilizing pro-environmental action. Yet, little is known about the direct impact of moral emotions on environmental attitudes and behavior. Drawing on emotion research in the context of intergroup relations, the current paper investigates the role of guilty conscience (guilt and shame) as well as other emotions (anger, sadness, pride, and emotional coldness) in motivating pro-environmental behavior intentions and actual behavior as a specific form of reparative action. When confronted with human-caused (vs. seemingly natural) environmental damages, participants (N=114) reported significantly more guilty conscience. Importantly, participants in the humancaused condition were significantly more likely to spontaneously display actual proenvironmental behavior (sign a petition addressing environmental issues). Highlighting its psychological significance in motivating pro-environmental behavior, a guilty conscience mediated the experimental manipulation's effect on behavioral intentions as well as on actual behavior. We conclude by discussing the potential of moral emotions in developing timely and sustainable climate policies and interventions.

show abstract

Section: Limitations Of the Current Study And Future Directionsmentioning

confidence: 96%

Guilty conscience: motivating pro-environmental behavior by inducing negative moral emotions

2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Lifestyles and power relationships are deeply entrenched in society. Changes to environmental governance often disrupt existing social structures, so any change in environmental governance risks being seen as a loss of power (Kemp et al 1998, Cote andNightingale 2012), thereby increasing resistance to change (e.g., Attari et al 2009, Lavergne et al 2010). There are many cases in which government officials deliberately defied laws requiring public participation because they viewed participation as a loss of control (e.g., Arnstein 1969, Castro and Batel 2008, Marshall 2008.…”

Section: Loss Aversionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Participatory practices include stakeholders in the feedback, design, decision making, or implementation of governance systems. Participation can promote cooperation and improve ecological outcomes by satisfying fundamental needs for procedural justice and self-determination, which encourage policy acceptance and internalized motivation (e.g., Leach and Sabatier 2005, Lavergne et al 2010, McComas et al 2011see Frey et al 2004, DeCaro and Stokes 2008 for review). When properly implemented, participation can also facilitate social learning (Pahl-Wostl 2009, Leach et al 2013), diversity (Reed 2008, Huitema et al 2009), and social-ecological fit (DeCaro and Stokes 2013), which are major components of adaptive governance systems (Marshall 2008, Ruhl 2011.…”

Section: Participatory Democracymentioning

confidence: 99%

Understanding and applying principles of social cognition and decision making in adaptive environmental governance

DeCaro¹,

Arnold²,

Boamah³

et al. 2017

E&S

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ABSTRACT. Environmental governance systems are under greater pressure to adapt and to cope with increased social and ecological uncertainty from stressors like climate change. We review principles of social cognition and decision making that shape and constrain how environmental governance systems adapt. We focus primarily on the interplay between key decision makers in society and legal systems. We argue that adaptive governance must overcome three cooperative dilemmas to facilitate adaptation: (1) encouraging collaborative problem solving, (2) garnering social acceptance and commitment, and (3) cultivating a culture of trust and tolerance for change and uncertainty. However, to do so governance systems must cope with biases in people's decision making that cloud their judgment and create conflict. These systems must also satisfy people's fundamental needs for self-determination, fairness, and security, ensuring that changes to environmental governance are perceived as legitimate, trustworthy, and acceptable. We discuss the implications of these principles for common governance solutions (e.g., public participation, enforcement) and conclude with methodological recommendations. We outline how scholars can investigate the social cognitive principles involved in cases of adaptive governance.

show abstract

“…In this context, it has been shown that overly dire messages about climate change can backfire with some individuals (Feinberg & Willer, 2011). In terms of SDT (Lavergne, Sharp, Pelletier, & Holtby, 2010), skeptics may feel particularly pressured by the supporters of climate change prevention and this perceived external pressure might explain their high levels of resistance to the notion of prevention. Under these conditions, public appeals designed to help the mitigation process may in fact be counterproductive.…”

Section: Nature and Climate Changementioning

confidence: 99%

“…Although this can be seen as possible support for the option, it is important for mitigation strategies not just to wait for an internally motivated, prevention oriented change and to develop a complementary approach. However, a crucial theme in SDT is that such an approach should take into account how social forces influence motivation (Lavergne et al, 2010). Contextual factors perceived by consumers as external pressure on their own judgment are expected to lead to negative impacts on their motivation.…”

Section: Mitigation Strategiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Climate change and meat eating: An inconvenient couple?

Boer

Schösler

Boersema

2013

Journal of Environmental Psychology

159

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper addresses the relationship between meat eating and climate change focusing on motivational explanations of environmentally-relevant consumer behavior. Based on a sample of 1,083 Dutch consumers, it examines their responses to the idea that they can make a big difference to nature and climate protection by choosing one or more meals without meat every week. This idea can be seen as a new opportunity to help mitigation, but also as a counterproductive message that might trigger negative responses among consumers who are skeptical about climate change. As hypothesized, the meat-free meal idea was received more positively by consumers who valued care for nature and more negatively by those who did not value it. Also as hypothesized, the meat-free meal idea was received more negatively by consumers who were skeptical about the seriousness of climate change. The idea was not received more positively by those who did take it seriously. The results support the notion that the meat-free meal idea may serve as a counterproductive message. From the perspective of motivation, it is preferable not to isolate the meat-climate issue but to develop an approach that combines multiple values regarding food choices, including health and nature-related values. Highlights Presents consumers' view on the links between agriculture and climate change. Consumers were asked about meat eating, valuing nature and climate change. Valuing care for nature was associated with being low on meat consumption. Skepticism about climate change was not conducive to a change in meat eating. It might be better to combine the meat-free meal idea with multiple values. 3Climate change and meat eating: An inconvenient couple?

show abstract

The role of perceived government style in the facilitation of self-determined and non self-determined motivation for pro-environmental behavior

Cited by 110 publications

References 25 publications

Guilty conscience: motivating pro-environmental behavior by inducing negative moral emotions

Guilty conscience: motivating pro-environmental behavior by inducing negative moral emotions

Understanding and applying principles of social cognition and decision making in adaptive environmental governance

Climate change and meat eating: An inconvenient couple?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About