Judith I. M. de Groot

Value orientations to explain beliefs related to environmental significant behavior: How to measure egoistic, altruistic, and biospheric value orientations

In environmental literature it is argued that three different value orientations may be relevant for understanding environmental beliefs and intentions: egoistic, altruistic, and biospheric. Until now, the distinction between altruistic and biospheric value orientations has hardly been supported empirically. In this article, three studies are reported aimed to examine whether an egoistic, altruistic, and biospheric value orientation can indeed be distinguished empirically by using an adapted value instrument. Also, it is examined whether these value orientations are differently and uniquely related to general and specific beliefs and behavioral intention. Results provide support for the reliability and validity of the value instrument. All studies replicated the distinction into three value orientations, with sufficient internal consistency. Furthermore, when altruistic and biospheric goals conflict, they seem to provide a distinct basis for proenvironmental intentions. The value instrument could therefor...

Value orientations to explain environmental attitudes and beliefs:How to measure egoistic, altruistic and biospheric value orientations

In environmental literature it is argued that three different value orientations may be relevant for understanding environmental beliefs and intentions: egoistic, altruistic, and biospheric. Until now, the distinction between altruistic and biospheric value orientations has hardly been supported empirically. In this article, three studies are reported aimed to examine whether an egoistic, altruistic, and biospheric value orientation can indeed be distinguished empirically by using an adapted value instrument. Also, it is examined whether these value orientations are differently and uniquely related to general and specific beliefs and behavioral intention. Results provide support for the reliability and validity of the value instrument. All studies replicated the distinction into three value orientations, with sufficient internal consistency. Furthermore, when altruistic and biospheric goals conflict, they seem to provide a distinct basis for proenvironmental intentions. The value instrument could therefor...

Value Orientations and Environmental Beliefs in Five Countries Validity of an Instrument to Measure Egoistic, Altruistic and Biospheric Value Orientations

Various scholars argue that egoistic, altruistic, and biospheric value orientations are important for understanding environmental beliefs and behavior. However, little empirical evidence has been provided for the distinction between altruistic and biospheric values. This study examines whether this distinction is valid across different countries (i.e., Austria, Czech Republic, Italy, the Netherlands, and Sweden) by using a new value instrument. Relationships between these value orientations and behavior-specific beliefs (i.e., awareness of environmental consequences and personal norms) are investigated to further examine the validity of the value instrument. Results provide support for the generalization of the three-way distinction. Furthermore, value orientations were related to behavior-specific beliefs in all countries. The authors conclude that the distinction between the three value orientations is valid and useful for examining environmentally relevant behavior.

Morality and prosocial behavior: The role of awareness, responsibility and norms in the norm activation model

The authors examined the relationships between variables included in the Norm Activation Model (NAM; S. H. Schwartz, 1977) of prosocial behavior. Specifically, they evaluated the strength of 2 commonly used interpretations of this model: the NAM as a mediator model and the NAM as a moderator model. For the most part, 5 studies focusing on a variety of prosocial intentions and behavior support the NAM as a mediator model. Furthermore, these studies validate past research by showing that variables included in the NAM are powerful in explaining a diversity of prosocial intentions and behavior in the social and environmental contexts.

Explaining prosocial intentions: Testing causal relationships in the norm activation model

This paper examines factors influencing prosocial intentions. On the basis of the norm activation model (NAM), we propose that four variables influence prosocial intentions or behaviours: (1) personal norms (PN), reflecting feelings of moral obligation to engage in prosocial behaviour, (2) awareness of adverse consequences of not acting prosocially, (3) ascription of responsibility for the negative consequences of not acting prosocially, and (4) perceived control over the problems. We conducted a series of experimental studies to examine how the NAM variables are causally related. As hypothesized, problem awareness, responsibility, and outcome efficacy played an important role in the development of PN and various types of prosocial intentions in the social as well as environmental domain.

General Antecedents of Personal Norms, Policy Acceptability, and Intentions: The Role of Values, Worldviews, and Environmental Concern

Results of two studies are reported, in which we compare the predictive power of three general behavioral antecedents (i.e., values, worldviews, and environmental concern) in explaining personal norms, behavioral intentions (i.e., environmental activism), and acceptability of energy policies. Values—especially biospheric—appeared to be more powerful in explaining personal norms, intentions, and policy acceptability than were worldviews and environmental concern, although these differences were in some cases not statistically significant.

Values, Perceived Risks and Benefits, and Acceptability of Nuclear Energy

We examined how personal values and perceptions of risks and benefits are associated with the acceptability of nuclear energy (NE). A theoretical model is tested in which beliefs about the risks and benefits of NE mediate the relationship between values and acceptability. The results showed that egoistic values are positively related to the perceived benefits and acceptability of NE. In contrast, altruistic and biospheric values were positively related to the perceived risks of NE. Although it has been argued that NE may help to combat climate change through lower CO(2) emissions, these environmental benefits were not acknowledged by people with strong biospheric values. Furthermore, results confirmed that the more risks respondents perceived, the less they were inclined to accept NE. In contrast, the more a person believed that NE has beneficial consequences, the more acceptable NE was. Finally, as expected, perceived risks and benefits were found to partly mediate the relationship between personal values and acceptability. We discuss the theoretical and practical implications of these findings.

Morality and nuclear energy: Perceptions of risks and benefits, personal norms, and willingness to take action related to nuclear energy

We examined factors underlying peoples willingness to take action in favor of or against nuclear energy from a moral perspective. We conducted a questionnaire study among a sample of the Dutch population (N = 123). As expected, perceptions of risks and benefits were related to personal norms (PN), that is, feelings of moral obligation toward taking action in favor of or against nuclear energy. In turn, PN predicted willingness to take action. Furthermore, PN mediated the relationships between perceptions of risk and benefits and willingness to take action. In line with our hypothesis, beliefs about the risks and benefits of nuclear energy were less powerful in explaining PN for supporters compared to PN of opponents. Also, beliefs on risks and benefits and PN explained significantly more variance in willingness to take action of opponents than of supporters. Our results suggest that a moral framework is useful to explain willingness to take action in favor of and against nuclear energy, and that people are more likely to protest in favor of or against nuclear energy when PN are strong.

Psychological Perspectives on the Geological Disposal of Radioactive Waste and Carbon Dioxide

Public acceptability of risky technologies is not only related to the objective risks involved, but to a number of subjective factors as well. Therefore, various studies examined psychological factors related to acceptability judgements. In this chapter we demonstrate the relevance of psychological factors that contribute to the explanation of the acceptability of radioactive waste disposal and carbon dioxide (CO2) disposal technologies. The acceptability of CO2 disposal has received far less attention in psychological studies than the acceptability of radioactive waste disposal, and therefore we have made an assessment of possible psychological determinants based on research on the acceptability of the latter. We conclude that the acceptability of CO2 disposal may be explained by similar factors to those influencing the acceptability of radioactive waste disposal, i.e. risk characteristics (dread and the unknown), affect, values and worldviews, fairness and trust. We argue that these psychological factors are directly related to the acceptability of CO2 disposal as well as indirectly, via the perceived risks and benefits of CO2 disposal. Furthermore, we discuss group differences (i.e. lay versus experts, and cross-cultural differences) in acceptability of radioactive waste disposal and, again, translate these results for possible consequences in psychological research in the area of the acceptability of geological disposal of CO2. Finally, we integrate the psychological factors into a conceptual model and discuss the limitations of current research, future research directions and policy implications for the acceptability of both types of technologies.

Understanding Effectiveness Skepticism

Policy makers have proposed various incentive programs to curb consumption-related problems, such as traffic congestion and carbon emissions. While experts consider such programs effective in reducing those problems, consumers are more skeptical. Although this “effectiveness skepticism” is currently viewed as an important cause of public opposition, the authors argue that it may also arise as a consequence of opposition. Specifically, consumers oppose policies they consider personally unattractive or unfair. This opposition motivates them to also be skeptical about the potential effectiveness of such policies. Three studies that include a variety of methods, policies, and samples provide empirical support for this reasoning: perceptions of expected effects can be biased by consumers’ perceptions of personal attractiveness and fairness. In line with this causal ordering, the authors find that offering optimistic effectiveness estimates, although successful in reducing effectiveness skepticism, did not boost policy support. Policy makers aiming to boost support prior to implementation should thus not only communicate a policys effectiveness, but also address other causes of opposition.