Does recycling make up for driving a car? Measuring compensatory green beliefs

Does recycling make up for driving a car? Measuring compensatory green beliefs

Social or psychological "nudges" — such as showing people how their water use compares to their neighbors or asking people to voluntarily reduce their electricity consumption — have become a popular tool for policymakers trying to encourage pro-environmental behavior. Little is known, however, about the possible competing effects of compensatory green beliefs.

Original Paper:
Kaklamanou, D., Jones, C. R., Webb, T. L., & Walker, S. R. (2015). "Using Public Transport Can Make Up for Flying Abroad on Holiday: Compensatory Green Beliefs and Environmentally Significant Behavior." Environment and Behavior 47(2), DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0013916513488784

Motivating people to change their habits can be tricky, and behavioral interventions don't always have straightforward results. There can be a "rebound effect," in which increases in efficiency are offset by less careful behavior. For example, people often drive more when they have more fuel-efficient cars, or leave on the lights and heat when they have more energy-efficient light bulbs and better-insulated homes.
 
The psychological underpinnings of the rebound effect are not well understood. Compensatory beliefs could play an important role. A compensatory belief is the idea that a positive action or behavior can compensate for the effects of a negative one – say, "I went to the gym this morning, so I can have a doughnut for breakfast." Such beliefs are documented extensively in health-related psychology, but have not been well studied in relation to energy use and environmental behavior. A recent article published in the journal Environment and Behavior sheds some light on the subject of compensatory green beliefs (CGBs).
 
Using an inventory to measure participants' endorsement of CGBs, the authors conducted a detailed survey of 770 volunteers. They find that participants did not often agree with CGB statements (e.g. "Recycling compensates for driving a car" or "Flying abroad can be made up for by being a vegetarian"), but also did not completely reject the idea of compensatory behavior. The authors note that their results are likely a conservative estimate of real-world use of CGBs. One reason for underreporting may be that the survey's CGB statements were phrased in third person rather than first, which made them broadly applicable but less personal. Openly endorsing CGBs is also socially undesirable, perhaps especially so among survey volunteers, so participants would be motivated to express less support than they might actually practice in their private lives.
 
In addition to support for CGBs, the survey gathered data on the participants' pro-environmental behaviors and identity, ecological worldview, beliefs about climate change, and social and demographic information. The researchers found that support for CGBs was lower among those who reported behaving and identifying in a manner that is "pro-environmental." This finding suggests that people who are more environmentally literate and attach moral meaning to environmental behavior are less likely to believe in the validity of compensatory actions.
 
Compensatory green beliefs are of potential interest to both psychologists and environmental policymakers. Psychologists may use them to learn more about the rebound effect in general. Understanding how personal habits and beliefs shape environmental behaviors could help policymakers effectively encourage environmental behavior without having to promulgate mandatory regulations. The article achieves a first step in measuring people's self-reported beliefs, although there is plenty of room for further research on this topic.

You might like these articles that share the same topics