„We“ Make(s) A Difference The Social Psychology of Pro- Environmental Action Immo Fritsche Universität Leipzig Talk at the ESCALATE Colloquium, UFZ Leipzig, 21 May 2015
„We“ Make(s) ADifference
The Social Psychology of Pro-Environmental Action
Immo FritscheUniversität Leipzig
Talk at the ESCALATE Colloquium, UFZ Leipzig, 21 May 2015
„We“ Make(s) ADifference
Thanks toMarkus Barth, Christopher Cohrs,Katie Greenaway, Katrin Häfner,Philipp Jugert, Thomas Kessler,Torsten Masson, Gerhard Reese,Sabrina Viereckel
Climate Change
(IPC
C,2013)
The PsychologicalView
The SocialDimension
Collective Efficacy
Ingroup Norms
Responses toClimate ChangeThreat
Conclusions
Aggregatedhuman behavior
Psychology isthe science ofexplaininghuman cognitionand behavior
• Political behavior / Collective action– Participtation in environmental
action groups– Signing Petitions– Boykotting harmful
products/companies– etc.
• Everyday behavior– Private energy consumption– Purchase of pro-environmental
products– Travel mode choice– Private waste separation– etc.
Environmental Behavior Asthe Focal Variable
The PsychologicalView
The SocialDimension
Collective Efficacy
Ingroup Norms
Responses toClimate ChangeThreat
Conclusions
„EnvironmentalConsciousness“ As the Key?
The PsychologicalView
The SocialDimension
Collective Efficacy
Ingroup Norms
Responses toClimate ChangeThreat
Conclusions
Attitude-BehaviorDiscrepancy
General Pro-EnvironmentalAttitude
Self-Reported Pro-EnvironmentalBehavior
r = .35 (SD = .22)(Hines, Hungerford & Tomera, 1987)
12,25 % explained variance
The PsychologicalView
The SocialDimension
Collective Efficacy
Ingroup Norms
Responses toClimate ChangeThreat
Conclusions
• Attitudes and Behavior are often measuredon different levels of abstraction
Why Discrepancy?
Attitude: „Wildlife conservation isgreat!!“
Behavior: Tonight we will havespiny dogfish for the guests
The PsychologicalView
The SocialDimension
Collective Efficacy
Ingroup Norms
Responses toClimate ChangeThreat
Conclusions
• Attitudes and Behavior are often measuredon different levels of abstraction
Why Discrepancy?
Attitude: „I like renewableenergies!“
© Alexandra H. / pixelio.de
Behavior: Next weekend, I willparticipate in the demonstrationagainst a local wind farm in our village
© Rainer Golitz / pixelio.de
© Stephanie Hofschlaeger / pixelio.de
The PsychologicalView
The SocialDimension
Collective Efficacy
Ingroup Norms
Responses toClimate ChangeThreat
Conclusions
• Attitudes and Behavior are often measuredon different levels of abstraction
Why Discrepancy?
TACT-Principle (Ajzen & Fishbein, 2005):Attitudes predict behavior if they refer to similarobjectsT arget: against wind farmA ction: participating in demonstrationC ontext: in the villageT ime: next weekend
The PsychologicalView
The SocialDimension
Collective Efficacy
Ingroup Norms
Responses toClimate ChangeThreat
Conclusions
• Attitudes and Behavior are often measuredon different levels of abstraction
Why Discrepancy
TACT-Principle (Ajzen & Fishbein, 2005):Attitudes predict behavior if they refer to similarobjectsT arget: dogfishA ction: shopping for dinnerC ontext: dinner with guestsT ime: tonight
The PsychologicalView
The SocialDimension
Collective Efficacy
Ingroup Norms
Responses toClimate ChangeThreat
Conclusions
More Predictors of Pro-Environmental Behavior
Behavior
Intention
Attitude
Subjective Norm
Perceived BehavioralControl
(behavioral outcomebeliefs x value)
(anticipated evaluationby significant others xwillingness to comply)
(anticipated barriers /faciliting conditions xpower of the barriers)
The PsychologicalView
The SocialDimension
Collective Efficacy
Ingroup Norms
Responses toClimate ChangeThreat
Conclusions
Theory of Planned Behavior(Ajzen & Fishbein, 2005)
Behavior
Intention
Attitude
Subjective Norm
Perceived BehavioralControl
(behavioral outcomebeliefs x value)
(anticipated evaluationby significant others xwillingness to comply)
(anticipated barriers /faciliting conditions xpower of the barriers)
BackgroundFactors
-GeneralAttitudes &Values (env.consciousness)-Knowledge-Culture / Milieu/ Identity-Personality- …
The PsychologicalView
The SocialDimension
Collective Efficacy
Ingroup Norms
Responses toClimate ChangeThreat
Conclusions
Attitude(according to Ajzen & Fishbein, 2005)
z.B. „shopping with fishlist“
Behavioral beliefs ValueX
Shopping with fishlist willtake longer
Bad (I want to get homequickly)
Shopping with fishlist willbecome more expensive
Moderately bad (I want tosave money)
Shopping with fishlist savesendangered species
Good (I want to saveendangered species)
Shopping with fishlistmeans I can‘t buy dogfish
Very bad (dogfish is mymost favorite fish)
The PsychologicalView
The SocialDimension
Collective Efficacy
Ingroup Norms
Responses toClimate ChangeThreat
Conclusions
Climate Change
(IPC
C,2013)
Aggregatedhuman behavior
Climate changeis a collectiveproblem
The PsychologicalView
The SocialDimension
Collective Efficacy
Ingroup Norms
Responses toClimate ChangeThreat
Conclusions
Collective Problems RequireCollective Answers• Previous reserach focussed on
personal or inter-personalvariables– Personal values and attitudes– Personal costs/benefits– Self-efficacy– Subjective norms
• Individual actions are insufficientto solve the climate change crisis
• Personal helplessness preventspersonal action
The PsychologicalView
The SocialDimension
Collective Efficacy
Ingroup Norms
Responses toClimate ChangeThreat
Conclusions
• Do my personal actions save theenvironment?
Personal Helplessness
The PsychologicalView
The SocialDimension
Collective Efficacy
Ingroup Norms
Responses toClimate ChangeThreat
Conclusions
• Am I efficacious in contributing to environmentalprotection?– 13,7% explained variance of pro-environmental behavior
(Hines et al., 1987)
• Effective pro-environmental action is a collectiveendeavor– Contribution of individuals low: Free-riding– Individual contribution not identifiable: Social loafing
• Environmental conservation as collective action– Collective efficacy is more important than personal
efficacy (Homburg, 2007; Jugert, Greenaway, Fritsche &Barth, in prep)
Self-EfficacyThe PsychologicalView
The SocialDimension
Collective Efficacy
Ingroup Norms
Responses toClimate ChangeThreat
Conclusions
• Model of group-based control (Fritsche, Jonas &Kessler, 2011; Fritsche et al., 2013)
• Perceived collective efficacy cancompensate for personal helplessness
• Self-definition: „We“ instead of „I“– „social identity“
Collective Efficacy Instead ofPersonal Efficacy
Ingroup associal self:
wePersonalself: I
Environment
The PsychologicalView
The SocialDimension
Collective Efficacy
Ingroup Norms
Responses toClimate ChangeThreat
Conclusions
Closing Ranks Under Threat
• Membership in groups / social identitypreserves the satisfaction of basicpsychological needs– Control (Fritsche et al., 2011, 2013)– Reduction of uncertainty (Hogg, 2007)
• Threat to control / uncertainty increasescollective thinking and action– Ingroup bias– Outgroup discrimination– Conformity to ingroup norms– Punishment of norm deviants
(authoritarianism)
The PsychologicalView
The SocialDimension
Collective Efficacy
Ingroup Norms
Responses toClimate ChangeThreat
Conclusions
Social Identity Model ofClimate Change
Social Identity Salient / Important(identification with a meaningful ingroup; e.g.,
environmentalists, citizens of town X)
Collective Efficacy Beliefs
Ingroup Norms of Behavior
(Collective) Pro-Climate Behavior
Perceived ClimateChange Threat
Threat toPsychic Needs
EthnocentricResponses
Intergroup Conflict
CLIMATE CHANGE
Social Identity
The PsychologicalView
The SocialDimension
Collective Efficacy
Ingroup Norms
Responses toClimate ChangeThreat
Conclusions
Social Identity Model ofClimate Change
Social Identity Salient / Important(identification with a meaningful ingroup; e.g.,
environmentalists, citizens of town X)
Collective Efficacy Beliefs
Ingroup Norms of Behavior
(Collective) Pro-Climate Behavior
Perceived ClimateChange Threat
Threat toPsychic Needs
EthnocentricResponses
Intergroup Conflict
CLIMATE CHANGE
The PsychologicalView
The SocialDimension
Collective Efficacy
Ingroup Norms
Responses toClimate ChangeThreat
Conclusions
• Collective efficacy: The perception that theingroup has „control, influence, strength,and effectiveness to change a group-relatedproblem“ (cf. van Zomeren et al., 2008)
• Ingroup identification empowers people– Identification with social ingroups increases
perceived personal efficacy via collectiveefficacy beliefs (Greenaway et al., in press)
– Threatened personal control leads to increasedidentification with agentic groups (Stollberg,Fritsche & Bäcker, in press)
• (How) Does collective efficacy increase pro-climate action intentions?
Collective EfficacyThe PsychologicalView
The SocialDimension
Collective Efficacy
Ingroup Norms
Responses toClimate ChangeThreat
Conclusions
• 284 German university students (18-30 years;online experiment)
• IVs– High/low collective efficacy salient– Climate change threat salient/not salient
• DV: Pro-environmental mobility intentions– „To me it is more important to arrive quickly at the desired
holiday destination than to travel environmentally friendly“[r]; 6 items; =.82
• Mediators– Perceived collective efficacy („I am certain that we will find
ways to be ecologically mobile”; 6 items; =.81)– Perceived personal efficacy („I am certain that I will find
ways to be ecologically mobile“; 6 items; =.82)• Identity of young generation (U30) was made
salient for all participants
Study: Collective Efficacy(Jugert, Greenaway, Barth, Büchner, Eisentraut & Fritsche, 2014)
The PsychologicalView
The SocialDimension
Collective Efficacy
Ingroup Norms
Responses toClimate ChangeThreat
Conclusions
Manipulation of CollectiveEfficacy„Generation U30 is [not] making the switch to New Mobility“The Psychological
View
The SocialDimension
Collective Efficacy
Ingroup Norms
Responses toClimate ChangeThreat
Conclusions
Study: Collective Efficacy(Jugert, Greenaway, Barth, Büchner, Eisentraut & Fritsche, 2014)
Perception ofCollectiveEfficacy
Perception ofCollectiveEfficacy
Perception ofPersonalEfficacy
Perception ofPersonalEfficacy
Pro-Envir.Mobility
Intentions
Pro-Envir.Mobility
Intentions
CollectiveEfficacy
(manipulated)
CollectiveEfficacy
(manipulated)
.26* .59*** .44***
IE=0.07, SE=0.03, bias-corrected 95% CI: 0.023, 0.127
Replicated in an Australian sample:• Perceived collective efficacy increases pro-
environmental mobility intentions for highlyidentified group members
• … mediated via perceptions of personal efficacy
The PsychologicalView
The SocialDimension
Collective Efficacy
Ingroup Norms
Responses toClimate ChangeThreat
Conclusions
Social Identity Model ofClimate Change
Social Identity Salient / Important(identification with a meaningful ingroup; e.g.,
environmentalists, citizens of town X)
Collective Efficacy Beliefs
Ingroup Norms of Behavior
(Collective) Pro-Climate Behavior
Perceived ClimateChange Threat
Threat toPsychic Needs
EthnocentricResponses
Intergroup Conflict
CLIMATE CHANGE
The PsychologicalView
The SocialDimension
Collective Efficacy
Ingroup Norms
Responses toClimate ChangeThreat
Conclusions
• Social Norms:– „Rules and standards that are understood by
members of a group, and that guide and/or constrainsocial behavior without the force of laws“ (Cialdini &Trost, 1998)
– „attitudinal and behavioral regularities that map thecontours of social groups such that normativediscontinuities mark group boundaries“ (Hogg, 2010)
• Both prescriptive and descriptive norms haveeffects (Smith et al., 2012; Göckeritz et al., 2010)– Prescriptive norms (what should be done in a group)– Descriptive norms (what is actually been done in a
group)• Influence of norms on pro-environmental
behavior (e.g., saving energy) seems to beunderdetected by lay people (Nolan et al., 2008)
Ingroup NormsThe PsychologicalView
The SocialDimension
Collective Efficacy
Ingroup Norms
Responses toClimate ChangeThreat
Conclusions
Influence of Social Norms isUnderdetected(Nolan, Schultz, Cialdini, Goldstein & Griskevicius, 2008)
In deciding to conserve energy,how important is it to you …
Rating(Scale from 1=„not at all
important“ to4=„extremely important“)
… that it protects the environment 3.41
… that it benefits society 3.17
… that it saves money 3.07
… that a lot of other people aretrying to conserve energy
2.93
• 810 randomly selected Californians (2003/2004)• Naive explanations for own energy conservation behavior• Actual correlations between beliefs about energy
conservation and self-reported behavior
Actualcorrelation(-1 to +1)
.06
.23
.03
.45
The PsychologicalView
The SocialDimension
Collective Efficacy
Ingroup Norms
Responses toClimate ChangeThreat
Conclusions
„All Others Do It“: The Powerof Descriptive Norms(Goldstein, Cialdini & Griskevicius, 2008)
Standard: „HELP SAVE THEENVIRONMENT. You can show yourrespect for nature and help save theenvironment by reusing your towelsduring your stay. “
= prescriptive norm
The PsychologicalView
The SocialDimension
Collective Efficacy
Ingroup Norms
Responses toClimate ChangeThreat
Conclusions
„All Others Do It“: The Powerof Descriptive Norms(Goldstein, Cialdini & Griskevicius, 2008)
Gäste-Norm: „JOIN YOURFELLOW GUESTS IN HELPING TOSAVE THE ENVIRONMENT. In astudy conducted in Fall 2003, 75% ofthe guests participated in our newresource savings program by usingtheir towels more than once. You canjoin your fellow guests in thisprogram to help save theenvironment by reusing your towelsduring your stay. „
= descriptive norm
The PsychologicalView
The SocialDimension
Collective Efficacy
Ingroup Norms
Responses toClimate ChangeThreat
Conclusions
„All Others Do It“: The Powerof Descriptive Norms(Goldstein, Cialdini & Griskevicius, 2008)
30
35
40
45
50
PrescriptiveNorm
DescriptiveNorm
(Guests)
Participation
The PsychologicalView
The SocialDimension
Collective Efficacy
Ingroup Norms
Responses toClimate ChangeThreat
Conclusions
„All Others Do It“: The Powerof Descriptive Norms(Goldstein, Cialdini & Griskevicius, 2008)
Zimmer-Norm: „JOIN YOURFELLOW GUESTS IN HELPING TOSAVE THE ENVIRONMENT. In astudy conducted in Fall 2003, 75% ofthe guests who stayed in this room(#xxx) participated in our newresource savings program by usingtheir towels more than once. You canjoin your fellow guests in thisprogram to help save theenvironment by reusing your towelsduring your stay.“ „
The PsychologicalView
The SocialDimension
Collective Efficacy
Ingroup Norms
Responses toClimate ChangeThreat
Conclusions
„All Others Do It“: The Powerof Descriptive Norms(Goldstein, Cialdini & Griskevicius, 2008)
30
35
40
45
50
PrescriptiveNorm
DescriptiveNorm
(Guests)
DescriptiveNorm (Same
Room)
Participation
The PsychologicalView
The SocialDimension
Collective Efficacy
Ingroup Norms
Responses toClimate ChangeThreat
Conclusions
• Do ingroup norms affect the early adoptionof ecological innovations?– E-Car use
• What is the relative importance of socialidentity vs. personal cost/benefit variables?
Study: Social IdentityPredictors of E-Car Use(Barth, Jugert & Fritsche, 2014)
The PsychologicalView
The SocialDimension
Collective Efficacy
Ingroup Norms
Responses toClimate ChangeThreat
Conclusions
• 548 Germans (17-73 years, Mage = 33; 54,3female; online; crowd-sourcing platformWorkHub)
• Questionnaire study on predictors of e-caruse intention– Buying scenario– Car-sharing scenario
• DV: E-car use intention
Study: Social IdentityPredictors of E-Car Use(Barth, Jugert & Fritsche, 2014)
The PsychologicalView
The SocialDimension
Collective Efficacy
Ingroup Norms
Responses toClimate ChangeThreat
Conclusions
Study: Results(Barth, Jugert & Fritsche, 2014)
E-Car UseIntention
Gender
Age
Knowledge
Experience
Personal Costs
Lower Maintenance Costs
Sustainability
Subjective Norm
Prescriptive Neighborhood Norm
Prescriptive Regional Norm
Descriptive Regional Norm
Collective Efficacy
SocialDemog
PersonalExperience
PersonalCosts/Benefits/Attitudes
SocialIdentityVariables
-.07*.08**-.07°
.14**-.13***
.07*.08*
.29*
.09*
.10*** .13***
R2=.54The PsychologicalView
The SocialDimension
Collective Efficacy
Ingroup Norms
Responses toClimate ChangeThreat
Conclusions
• Early adoption phase• Low diagnosticity of low descriptive norm
– Manipulating high vs. low diagnosticity of (low) descriptivenorm decreased e-car use intention (Barth, Jugert &Fritsche, 2015)
Why Is There No Effect ofDescriptive Norms?(Barth, Jugert & Fritsche, 2014)
The PsychologicalView
The SocialDimension
Collective Efficacy
Ingroup Norms
Responses toClimate ChangeThreat
Conclusions
Social Identity Model ofClimate Change
Social Identity Salient / Important(identification with a meaningful ingroup; e.g.,
environmentalists, citizens of town X)
Collective Efficacy Beliefs
Ingroup Norms of Behavior
(Collective) Pro-Climate Behavior
Perceived ClimateChange Threat
Threat toPsychic Needs
EthnocentricResponses
Intergroup Conflict
CLIMATE CHANGE
The PsychologicalView
The SocialDimension
Collective Efficacy
Ingroup Norms
Responses toClimate ChangeThreat
Conclusions
• Two components of ingroup identification(Leach et al., 2008)– Self-investment (affective & motivational)– Self-definition (cognitive)
• N = 205 students of U Leipzig (MAge = 24.14, SD= 3.12; 79 men, 126 women)
• IVs– High/low descriptive ingroup norm to buy organic
food salient– Self-investment student ingroup (measured; 7 items; = .88)
– Self-definition student ingroup (measured; 4 items; = .84)
• DV– Intention to purchase organic food (4 items; = .83)
Study: The Role of IngroupIdentification in Norm Effects(Masson & Fritsche, 2014, EJSP, Study 2)
The PsychologicalView
The SocialDimension
Collective Efficacy
Ingroup Norms
Responses toClimate ChangeThreat
Conclusions
• No effects involving self-definition
Study: The Role of IngroupIdentification in Norm Effects(Masson & Fritsche, 2014, EJSP)
The PsychologicalView
The SocialDimension
Collective Efficacy
Ingroup Norms
Responses toClimate ChangeThreat
Conclusions
Social Identity Model ofClimate Change
Social Identity Salient / Important(identification with a meaningful ingroup; e.g.,
environmentalists, citizens of town X)
Collective Efficacy Beliefs
Ingroup Norms of Behavior
(Collective) Pro-Climate Behavior
Perceived ClimateChange Threat
Threat toPsychic Needs
EthnocentricResponses
Intergroup Conflict
CLIMATE CHANGE
The PsychologicalView
The SocialDimension
Collective Efficacy
Ingroup Norms
Responses toClimate ChangeThreat
Conclusions
Ethnocentric Responses toClimate Change Threat
Climate ChangeThreat
Realistic threat andinstrumental intergroup
conflict
IntergroupConflict
Automatic Ethnocentric responses:Authoritarian attitudes / ingroup bias
Hsiang, Burke & Miguel (2013)
The PsychologicalView
The SocialDimension
Collective Efficacy
Ingroup Norms
Responses toClimate ChangeThreat
Conclusions
Authoritarian Responses
• Authoritarian attitudes as an ethnocentricresponse
• Authoritarianism maintains/establishesingroup integrity by fostering intra-groupcooperation (Kessler & Cohrs, 2008)– Intolerance & punishment of norm deviants
(Authoritarian Aggression)– Approval of system supporting
individuals/groups (Authoritarian Submission)– Conformity with ingroup norms
(Conventionalism)
The PsychologicalView
The SocialDimension
Collective Efficacy
Ingroup Norms
Responses toClimate ChangeThreat
Conclusions
Study: Manipulation of CCThreat Salience
The following information all refer to Germany! [homecountry]
I Didnot
knowyet
Ialready knew
this
The number of „tropical nights“ (minimum temperature over20 degrees centigrade) will triple until 2100. This reducesthe recreation of the human body during the night.
Rising temperatures lead to the melting of alpine glaciersand to reduced likelihood of snow. Winter sports will vanishfrom the German low mountain range.
…
• Cover story: Pretesting a knowledge test• Climate change facts vs. neutral geographic facts
salient
The PsychologicalView
The SocialDimension
Collective Efficacy
Ingroup Norms
Responses toClimate ChangeThreat
Conclusions
Study: AutoritarianAggression(1-10; = .62-.73)(Fritsche, Cohrs, Kessler & Bauer, 2012, JEnvP)
Study 1 (N=94; delay group): p = .04; Study 2 (N=56): p = .30; Study 3(N=155): p = .03
4
4,5
5
5,5
6
6,5
7
Study 1(Germany)
Study 2(Germany)
Study 3(UK)
Climate ChangeFacts
Geo Facts
The PsychologicalView
The SocialDimension
Collective Efficacy
Ingroup Norms
Responses toClimate ChangeThreat
Conclusions
Study: Ratings of SystemThreatening Groups(1-10; = .74-.81; Fritsche, Cohrs, Kessler & Bauer, 2012, JEnvP)
1
1,5
2
2,5
3
3,5
4
Study 1(Germany)
Study 2(Germany)
Study 3(UK)
Climate ChangeFactsGeo Facts
The effects onlyoccurred after a
delay
Study 1 (delay group): p = .007; Study 2: p = .008; Study 3: p = .05
The PsychologicalView
The SocialDimension
Collective Efficacy
Ingroup Norms
Responses toClimate ChangeThreat
Conclusions
Study: Ratings of SystemSupporting Groups(Fritsche, Cohrs, Kessler & Bauer, 2012, JEnvP, Study 3)
The PsychologicalView
The SocialDimension
Collective Efficacy
Ingroup Norms
Responses toClimate ChangeThreat
Conclusions
Additional Data: Evaluationof Immigrant Groups (1-10; = .91)(Fritsche & Viereckel, unpublished: N = 66 Europeans, online study)
4
4,5
5
5,5
6
6,5
7
Climate ChangeFactsGeo Facts
t(64) = -2.07, p = .04
The PsychologicalView
The SocialDimension
Collective Efficacy
Ingroup Norms
Responses toClimate ChangeThreat
Conclusions
Social Identity Model ofClimate Change
Social Identity Salient / Important(identification with a meaningful ingroup; e.g.,
environmentalists, citizens of town X)
Collective Efficacy Beliefs
Ingroup Norms of Behavior
(Collective) Pro-Climate Behavior
Perceived ClimateChange Threat
Threat toPsychic Needs
EthnocentricResponses
Intergroup Conflict
CLIMATE CHANGE
The PsychologicalView
The SocialDimension
Collective Efficacy
Ingroup Norms
Responses toClimate ChangeThreat
Conclusions
Threat x Collective Efficacy(back to first study)(Jugert, Greenaway, Barth, Büchner, Eisentraut & Fritsche, 2014)
1
2
3
4
CC threat salient CC threat not salient
Pro-environmental mobility intentions
High collect. efficacysalientLow collect. Efficacysalient
**
The PsychologicalView
The SocialDimension
Collective Efficacy
Ingroup Norms
Responses toClimate ChangeThreat
Conclusions
• N = 107 university students• 2 (Death salient/not salient) x 2 (Pro-
environment norm salient/not salient)• Death = Lack of generalized personal
conrol (Fritsche et al., 2008, JPSP)
Study: Threat x Social Norms(Fritsche, Jonas, Niesta Kayser & Koranyi, 2010, JEnvP)
The PsychologicalView
The SocialDimension
Collective Efficacy
Ingroup Norms
Responses toClimate ChangeThreat
Conclusions
Manipulation of DeathSalience
From: A Funeral PhantasyFriedrich Schiller
Pale, at its ghastly noon,Pauses above the death-still wood--the moon;The night-sprite, sighing, through the dim air
stirs;The clouds descend in rain;
Mourning, the wan stars wane,Flickering like dying lamps in sepulchres!
Haggard as spectres--vision-like and dumb,Dark with the pomp of death, and moving
slow,Towards that sad lair the pale procession
comeWhere the grave closes on the night below.
The PsychologicalView
The SocialDimension
Collective Efficacy
Ingroup Norms
Responses toClimate ChangeThreat
Conclusions
Setting and DependentVariable
The PsychologicalView
The SocialDimension
Collective Efficacy
Ingroup Norms
Responses toClimate ChangeThreat
Conclusions
Pro-Environment NormSalience Manipulation
“…I like that youalso have thesereusable cups here.They are better forthe environment.“
The PsychologicalView
The SocialDimension
Collective Efficacy
Ingroup Norms
Responses toClimate ChangeThreat
Conclusions
Study: Conformity with Pro-Environmental Norm(Fritsche, Jonas, Niesta Kayser & Koranyi, 2010, JEnvP)
0
20
40
60
80
100
"FuneralPhantasy"
"MidnightPhantasy"
Reu
sabl
eC
ups
Take
n(%
)Pro-environmentnorm salient
Pro-environmentnorm not salient
Interaction Threat x Norm: F(1,99) = 3.76; p = .055
The PsychologicalView
The SocialDimension
Collective Efficacy
Ingroup Norms
Responses toClimate ChangeThreat
Conclusions
Social Identity Model ofClimate Change
Social Identity Salient / Important(identification with a meaningful ingroup; e.g.,
environmentalists, citizens of town X)
Collective Efficacy Beliefs
Ingroup Norms of Behavior
(Collective) Pro-Climate Behavior
Perceived ClimateChange Threat
Threat toPsychic Needs
EthnocentricResponses
Intergroup Conflict
CLIMATE CHANGE
The PsychologicalView
The SocialDimension
Collective Efficacy
Ingroup Norms
Responses toClimate ChangeThreat
Conclusions
Social Identity Model ofClimate Change
Social Identity Salient / Important(identification with a meaningful ingroup; e.g.,
environmentalists, citizens of town X)
Collective Efficacy Beliefs
Ingroup Norms of Behavior
(Collective) Pro-Climate Behavior
Perceived ClimateChange Threat
Threat toPsychic Needs
EthnocentricResponses
Intergroup Conflict
CLIMATE CHANGE
The PsychologicalView
The SocialDimension
Collective Efficacy
Ingroup Norms
Responses toClimate ChangeThreat
Conclusions
• Personal cost-benefit analyses are notsufficient for predicting individuals‘ behaviorin collective environmental crises
• Thinking and acting in terms of the „We“instead of the „I“ can motivate people‘severyday environmental behavior
Conclusions I: HumanSociality is Critical
The PsychologicalView
The SocialDimension
Collective Efficacy
Ingroup Norms
Responses toClimate ChangeThreat
Conclusions
• Reminding people of– Pro-environmental ingroup norms– Collective efficacy
• Creating/supporting pro-environmentalaction communities
Conclusions II: „SocialNudging“?
The PsychologicalView
The SocialDimension
Collective Efficacy
Ingroup Norms
Responses toClimate ChangeThreat
Conclusions
• Collective threat responses as an automaticcollective problem solving device
• But: Direction of Responses depend onsalient ingroup norms
• Channeling ethnocentric threat responsesto collective pro-environmental action– Social norms are critical in times of societal
crises!
Conclusions III: MindingPerceptions of Crisis
The PsychologicalView
The SocialDimension
Collective Efficacy
Ingroup Norms
Responses toClimate ChangeThreat
Conclusions
Thank you for yourattention