Skip to main content

Re-shuffling the Deck on Environmental Sustainability: Using a Card Sort to Uncover Perceived Behavioral Categories, Effort, and Impact in a College Environment

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Handbook of Sustainability and Social Science Research

Part of the book series: World Sustainability Series ((WSUSE))

  • 2039 Accesses

Abstract

Definitions of sustainability in social settings can vary widely across contexts and age groups. The aim of this experiment is to identify actions college students classify as sustainable within their everyday context, how such actions are grouped into behavioral categories, the perceived effort and impact of actions, and ways that public spaces can limit these actions. A card-sort, co-current interview, and ranking task was conducted with ten students (ages 20–27). Student listed sustainable actions and behavioral categories were compared against a researcher-generated list of categorized actions possible within their college environment. Ranking data of perceived effort and impact was used to identify which behaviors would be easy and difficult to encourage in college buildings. Key findings are that students’ perceptions of effort and impact varied widely, students categorized actions based on many types of commonalities, students consistently placed actions appropriately in predetermined categories, and that educational environments contain social and physical norms limiting perceived ability to act. In the future, these methods could be replicated to identify perceptions influencing sustainable behaviors in multiple contexts.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 229.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 299.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 299.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Barlett, P. F., & Chase, G. W. (2004). Sustainability on campus: Stories and strategies for change. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Block, L. G., & Keller, P. A. (1995). When to accentuate the negative: The effects of perceived efficacy and message framing on intentions to perform a health-related behavior. Journal of Marketing Research, XXXII, 192–203.

    Google Scholar 

  • Canter, D., Brown, J., & Groat, L. (1985). A multiple sorting procedure for studying conceptual systems. 27th research interview: uses and approaches. London: Academic.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davis, J. J. (1995). The effects of message framing on response to environmental communications. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 72(2), 285–299.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DiMaggio, P. (1997). Culture and cognition. Annual review of sociology, 23, 263–287.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dinas, E. (2010). The impressionable years: The formative role of family, vote and political events during early adulthood. Florence: European University Institute.

    Google Scholar 

  • Everitt, B. S., Landau, S., Leese, M., & Stahl, D. (2011). Hierarchical clustering. Cluster Analysis, 5th Edition, 2011, 71–110.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fincher, S., & Tenenberg, J. (2005). Making sense of card sorting data. Expert Systems, 22(3), 89–93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Franklin, C. G. (2014). The impact of energy information upon small business owners. Lawrence: University of Kansas.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kleider, H. M., Pezdek, K., Goldinger, S. D., & Kirk, A. (2008). Schema-driven source misattribution errors: Remembering the expected from a witnessed event. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 22(1), 1–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lindley, R. H. (1966). Recoding as a function of chunking and meaningfulness. Psychonomic Science, 6(8), 393–394.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Markman, A. B., & Ross, B. H. (2003). Category use and category learning. Psychological bulletin, 129(4), 592.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miller, G. A. (1956). The magical number seven, plus or minus two: Some limits on our capacity for processing information. Psychological review, 63(2), 81.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Nadkarni, S., & Narayanan, V. K. (2007). Strategic schemas, strategic flexibility, and firm performance: The moderating role of industry clockspeed. Strategic management journal, 28(3), 243–270.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paul, C. L. (2014). Analyzing card-sorting data using graphic visualization. Journal of Usability Studies, 9(3), 87–104.

    Google Scholar 

  • Princeton Review. (2016). Guide to Green Colleges 2016.

    Google Scholar 

  • Righi, C., James, J., Beasley, M., Day, D. L., Fox, J. E., Gieber, J., et al. (2013). Card sort analysis best practices. Journal of Usability Studies, 8(3), 69–89.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tulving, E., & Craik, F. I. (2000). The Oxford handbook of memory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Casey G. Franklin .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Franklin, C.G., Alebiosu, A. (2018). Re-shuffling the Deck on Environmental Sustainability: Using a Card Sort to Uncover Perceived Behavioral Categories, Effort, and Impact in a College Environment. In: Leal Filho, W., Marans, R., Callewaert, J. (eds) Handbook of Sustainability and Social Science Research. World Sustainability Series. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-67122-2_11

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics