Three Psychological Reasons for The Concern Behavior Gap

[Music] Greetings Earthlings! Today we're talking about pro-environmental behavior. We're also talking about the relationship between proenvironmental attitudes like environmental concern and proenvironmental behavior. And, we're also talking about how to use psychology to promote sustainability and proenvironmental behavior.

So first, let's get clear on a little bit of terminology. When we talk about pro-environmental behavior, or PEB for short, or if we're talking about proenvironmental behaviors we'll say PEBs. A lot of environmental problems are human behavior problems, and so that means psychology has a role to play. Proenvironmental behavior is environmentally friendly behavior that minimizes negative impacts on the environment. And there are lots of different kinds-- ranging from recycling, turning off your lights, driving a fuel-efficient vehicle, green consumer behavior, political advocacy-- lots of different proenvironmental behaviors. Keep in mind too that proenvironmental behavior goes by some other names as well. Some people call it "ecologically responsible behavior" or "environmentally responsible behavior." Some people call it "sustainability behavior." Some people call it "green behavior." Some people call it "conservation behavior." So it does have a variety of names.

[Music] If pro-environmental behaviors are the good behaviors, what do we call the "bad behaviors"? The answer to that is "depreciative behavior" is what we call it. Depreciative behavior is behavior that's unfriendly to the environment. It involves actions that degrade or diminish the natural environment or natural resources––threatening their future viability, threatening environmental quality. These are the behaviors that contribute to aesthetic environmental problems, resource-related environmental problems, and health-related environmental problems. Littering is a depreciative behavior. So is carving your initials in a tree in a forest. So is going off a trail into ecologically sensitive areas. Driving a gas-guzzling SUV is a depreciative behavior, and so is buying and throwing away lots of stuff.

Now psychologists measure what pro-environmental actions people do and don't do. They examine pro-environmental behavior sources, its correlates, and barriers. And they use that information to develop and test methods for increasing it and decreasing depreciative behavior. Like I said last week, the psychology of sustainability is important. As experts on the way people think, feel, and behave, psychologists can contribute to understanding and responding to environmental problems. Remember, most environmental problems are human behavior problems. Human actions are almost entirely responsible for problems like climate change, air and water pollution, deforestation, and the depletion of natural resources. Your textbook mentions something called "anthropocentric climate change." Many geologists say we have entered a geological period called "the anthropocene." "Anthro" is a word root that means "human," and "cene" means new. The anthropocene is a geological period where human activities are the dominant influence on climate and the physical environment. This includes impacts on geology, landscape, ecosystems, and also anthropocentric climate change-- climate change arising because of human activities. A group of scientists known as the Anthropocene Working Group identify the 1950s as the beginning of this geological period.

As I said last time, the growth in environmental concern is a good thing. After all, caring about the environment and about environmental problems should translate into more pro-environmental behavior. But does it? Psychologists have conducted a lot of research on this topic, and while it's somewhat true that there's a relationship between pro-environmental concern and pro-environmental behavior, it's not as strong a relationship as you would think. In fact, EV and EC aren't that strongly correlated with PEB. The research says that environmental attitudes like concern aren't very good predictors of proenvironmental behavior. In fact, environmental concern and environmental values aren't strongly correlated with pro-environmental behavior. In studies, the Pearson r --remember this Pearson product moment correlation from your stats class--- in studies the Pearson r typically ranges from .17 to .19. And remember, the closer to one in either direction, plus or minus, the stronger the relationship between two variables. So this is at the high end of what's considered a small correlation. So pretty small correlation between pro-environmental behavior and pro-environmental attitudes.

Now environmental psychologists have long noted this inconsistency between people's environmental concern and their pro-environmental behavior, and we call this a concern-behavior gap. Like I said before, we've been concerned about this for a long time. For instance, in 1972 psychologist Bickman found that 94% of students leaving a university library agreed it was everyone's responsibility to pick up litter when they see it, and yet only 1.4% picked up litter that was placed in their way by the experimenter. So there's that concern-behavior gap for you, first documented in the study in 1972.

[Music] Why is there a concern-behavior gap, and what do we do about it? These are the things that keep some of us environmental psychologists up at night. And because of all these late nights, psychologists actually have some good ideas about what's going on. So first, I'm going to talk about three psychological reasons for the concern-behavior gap. These have been identified in qualitative research studies. Qualitative research studies ask people open-ended questions and then look for themes in what they say. We've talked about the present bias before, and in surveys people often explain their depreciative behavior choices in ways that are consistent with it. Remember that the present bias is a cognitive bias that arises from human cognition-- the way our brains process information. We're kind of "set up" cognitively to make quick decisions based on the now. What's salient to us, that is, what's more obvious to us, are the present benefits of our depreciative behavior or the present costs of pro-environmental behavior. Thinking about future consequences requires a lot more thought instead of making quick decisions based on the now. So people tend to focus on what's right in front of them (the here-and-now), and this leads them to prioritize the immediate rewards of depreciative behavior over its cumulative future costs. For example, they drive when they could walk, they took long showers when water scarcity is a problem, and they buy single-use bottles of water.

Let's talk about a second psychological reason. It has to do with distrust of others, and distrust of others has to do with fairness. If you perceive that most other people are making the selfish choice, then you may feel it unfair that you're the one making all of the pro-environmental effort and sacrifice. Why should you be the one responsible for saving the environment while others get to act selfishly and depreciatively? But remember, this can lead to what's called an "environmental social trap." In other words, if many people make the selfish choice because others are making the selfish choice, then environmental problems will escalate.

[Music] A third psychological reason that comes up in surveys is that people don't think their proenvironmental behavior will make a difference. Environmental problems are huge, including climate change. Environmental problems don't only result from the actions of individuals; they result from the actions of businesses, corporations, and governments. You can be very concerned but feel that your actions won't make a difference and that preventing and solving environmental problems is not under your control. That can make you feel helpless and passive. Another way to look at this is through the lens of self-efficacy theory. If you think that individual behavior alone is not enough to solve big environmental problems or if you feel that because so many people act depreciatively your pro-environmental actions won't make a difference, you may conclude it's pointless to behave pro-environmentally-- you have "low self-efficacy" because you don't believe your actions will be effective. Efficacy is key to motivation and action, and we know that if people don't feel their efforts will affect outcomes they're unmotivated to act. Pro-environmental psychologists like Susan Clayton and Amara Brooke point out that sustainability depends on bottom-up change in the form of individual behavior as well as top-down change in the form of policy and corporate practice. It's also important to recognize that top-down change might not occur without pressure from the bottom-up. All this means that we need to address the psychological barriers that interfere with our own proenvironmental action so that we can act consistently with our values and do our part for sustainability.

So here are some things that I've found helpful. So for example, the problem: the present bias. You know, people tend to focus on what's right in front of them, that here-and-now, and that means they prioritize immediate rewards of depreciative behavior over cumulative future costs. The solution: Adopt a future-oriented mindset. Acting sustainably requires future-oriented thinking because it's about meeting our current needs in ways that don't compromise the ability of people to meet their needs in the future. It's about playing the long game to guarantee your future and the future of the children in your life. Many of the gains arising from our own depreciative behavior are trivial and short-term, like the convenience of single-use plastics, and the cost of change are really low. I find it motivating to think about my future and the future of the children in my life if we fail to act sustainably. I also look ahead to the future and know that we'll be held responsible for inaction. Your children and your grandchildren will ask what you did to prevent climate change and other environmental problems, and they will blame your generation for failing to act. I also feel better when I do my part. It's clearly better to be part of the solution instead of part of the problem. Admittedly this is more cognitive work. The present bias arises from the cognitive system that provides cognitive economy allowing us to act quickly without much thought. And it's true that weighing future consequences and delaying gratification so that we can act pro-environmentally requires more cognitive work than making a quick decision based on present rewards. But I'd argue that it's worth it since there's so much riding on it.

Next let's think about psychological reason number two and how to counter it. Now remember this one has to do with distrust of others and how we won't act sustainably if others aren't. It doesn't seem fair to us that others act selfishly when we do the heavy lifting of acting proenvironmentally. It seems like we might as well act in our own selfish self-interest when everyone else is. But this is kind of bogus when you think about it. It's just a way to justify your depreciative behavior. It doesn't really hold up when you give it a bit of a poke. So we'd say, "Stop rationalizing and justifying your depreciative behavior by pointing to others' depreciative behavior." If some people act selfishly, doesn't that make your actions even more important? Why not focus on how many people do act for sustainability? Your actions combined with theirs is what makes a difference. Remember too, if you act sustainably, others are more likely to believe that their actions in concert with like-behaving people might make a difference. If you don't act sustainably, you contribute to others' depreciative behavior because they'll use your selfish behavior to justify also being selfish. In other words, you're a source of distrust, and your depreciative behavior discourages others. Also, when you think about it, there are always people that behave selfishly or irresponsibly, and people that don't do the right thing, yet we don't use that as an excuse to do every wrong or boneheaded thing that they do! Likewise, just because some people don't do the right thing doesn't mean you shouldn't. And remember, if not you, then who? You know we need some people out there doing the right thing and modeling that for others.

Let's think about how we can counter the third psychological reason people often give for their concern-behavior gap, low perceived control and low efficacy. Many people say they care about environmental problems and they're very concerned about climate change, but they just don't think their pro-environmental behavior will make a difference in preventing or solving these problems. One antidote to this helplessness and passivity is to recognize that this is in many ways what risk perception researcher Paul Slavic calls "pseudoinefficacy." Pseudoinefficacy is the false feeling of inefficacy. "Pseudo" means not genuine, insincere, or sham, if that helps you remember what this means. The truth is that individuals' actions do make a difference, and without them there really is no hope. Now it's true that your actions alone are a drop in the bucket and aren't enough to solve the problem, but your actions are part of a bigger picture. It's downright false to say that it's pointless for individuals to act proenvironmentally. It's a fact that when many people act, huge problems can be solved. It's the aggregate of many people's actions that add up to elect politicians that pass pro-environmental laws and make proenvironmental policies. If enough people demand alternatives to single-use plastics and reduce their use of them, then corporations will develop alternatives. If enough voters contact a political representative in favor of a pro-environmental policy, it makes a difference. If most people that can compost do, and most people reduce their intake of red meat, it would significantly reduce methane emissions. Environmental organizations funded by small contributions from individuals successfully lobby politicians to pass proenvironmental legislation and successfully sue corporations to force them to comply with environmental laws. When enough people in a community rise up and say "We don't want this polluting industry to be allowed in our community!", it's often stopped. You get the picture. So also remember that while it's true that little ol' you can't solve the whole problem, that doesn't mean your actions don't make a difference and that you shouldn't bother-- that's pseudoinefficacy. Another antidote to proenvironmental inefficacy is empowering yourself. Helplessness is depressing and passive. Take what control you do have. Individuals can do many things to reduce environmental problems, including the problem of climate change. Learn about them and act personally and politically for a sustainable future.

I'd also like you to think about the possibility that many people use distrust and inefficacy as excuses to justify their depreciative behavior and whether you might do that. Deep down many people know they're selfishly choosing to harm the environment because of short-term, often trivial benefits to themselves in the moment. They experience cognitive dissonance, in other words, internal conflict, because their depreciative behavior is inconsistent with their environmental concerns and values. To resolve the dissonance, which manifests as guilt or shame or embarrassment, they say it won't make a difference anyway. When you think about it, I think you'll agree that the higher road is to resolve the dissonance by reducing or eliminating our depreciative behavior and by increasing our proenvironmental behavior so that our concern and our PEB are more consistent.

[Music]