Categorizing pro-environmental behavior: What do you think Categorizing pro-environmental behavior: What do you think? Ashley Jade Gillis & Heather Barnes Truelove, Ph.D. University of North Florida Pro-environmental Behavior Categorization PEBs can be systematically organized based on behavior attributes (e.g., financial cost, environmental impact, frequency of action). Understanding similarities and differences among PEBs is necessary for developing effective interventions to reduce energy use (Karlin et al., 2012). Existing Categorizations PEB categorizations have been determined by either self-reported behavior or attributes that experts view as relevant. Examples Current Study Adopting the psychometric paradigm used to categorize ecological hazards, we aimed to Determine how laypersons perceive PEBs and, Discover how PEBs differ based upon laypersons’ perceptions Methods Design Participants evaluated 74 PEBs on 18 attribute items Each participant rated all behaviors on 2 attributes randomly assigned Participants N = 271 (59% female, 41% male) recruited from Amazon’s MTurk Measures PEB attribute semantic differential scale* Example scale items: How financially costly is this behavior? (1 not at all costly, 9 very costly) If you did this behavior, how much of a positive impact would it have on the environment overall? (1 no impact, 9 very large impact) *PEB attributes used to measure perceptions of PEBs were identified from an earlier qualitative study on an MTurk sample Results Exploratory factor analysis with promax rotation revealed a 4 factor solution that explained 73% of total variance in attribute ratings. Results (continued) Discussion Implications Viewing PEBs in terms of the identified factors Highlights barriers specific to certain behaviors and, Illuminates misperceptions about environmental impact Potential to stimulate spillover research Does perceived cost of behavior moderate spillover effects? Does reducing perception of barrier for one behavior affect engagement in other PEBs with same barrier? Acknowledgements NSF Grant # SES-1325660 UNF Graduate School References available upon request Frequency of Action Low High Consumer Cost Maintenance Pull fridge away from wall Install weather-stripping Curtailment Turn off lights Reduce highway speed Efficiency Upgrade Install energy-efficient appliances Drive electric vehicle N/A Karlin et al., 2012; Laitner, Ehrhardt-Martinez, & Mckinney, 2009 Quadrant legend High cost High savings Large environmental impact Low cost Low savings Small environmental impact Rotated Factor Pattern from Aggregate-Level Behavior-Focused Analysis PEB Attribute Factor 1 Financial and Behavioral Cost Factor 2 External Pressures Factor 3 Financial and Environmental savings Factor 4 Health and Safety Impact Frequency -.906 -.188 .174 .029 Financial cost .891 .295 .097 .128 Time -.845 .064 -.222 -.184 Inconvenience -.703 .466 -.013 -.017 Discomfort .034 -.995 .291 -.063 Cold weather influence -.231 .753 .106 -.242 Structural influences -.094 .649 .263 -.215 Injunctive norm .218 .504 .246 .172 Environmental impact -.077 -.073 .932 Financial savings -.104 .056 .743 -.207 Environmental knowledge .157 .578 .391 Safety impact -.022 .081 -.141 .894 Health impact -.202 -.238 -.062 .633 Hot weather influence -.131 .385 .043 .387 Tendency to forget -.084 -.349 -.366 .112 Interfactor correlations .297 .009 .499 .383 .580 .571 Household PEBs Weatherization Equipment Maintenance Adjustments Daily Dietz et al., 2009