1. 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
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