Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

The Role of Social Influences on Pro-Environment Behaviors in the San Diego Region

  • Published:
Journal of Urban Health Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

From a social psychological perspective, addressing the threats of climate change involves not only education, which imparts objective facts upon a passive individual, but also a socializing process. The Tripartite Integration Model of Social Influence (TIMSI) provides a theoretical framework that connects acquiring climate change knowledge with integration into a community, which results in greater engagement in climate friendly behaviors. Survey data were collected from 1000 residents in San Diego County. Measures included (a) knowledge about climate change; (b) self-efficacy, what pro-environmental actions they felt they could do; (c) identity, to what extent they identified as part of a community that is concerned about climate change; (d) values, endorsement of values of the community that is concerned about climate change; and (e) pro-environmental behavior, engagement in conservation behaviors. Results indicated that self-efficacy and values mediated the relationship between knowledge and pro-environmental behavior.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Climate change 2014: synthesis report. Contribution of working groups I, II and III to the fifth assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. IPCC; 2014.

  2. National Research Council. Adapting to the Impacts of Climate Change. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press; 2010.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Spence A, Pidgeon N, Uzzell D. Climate change—psychology’s contribution. Psychologist. 2009; 21: 108–111.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Bulkeley H, Betsill MM. Cities and Climate Change: urban Sustainability and Global Environmental Governance. Vol 4: Psychology Press; 2005.

  5. Steg L, Vlek C. Encouraging pro-environmental behaviour: an integrative review and research agenda. J Environ Psychol. 2009; 29(3): 309–317.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Dietz T, Gardner GT, Gilligan J, Stern PC, Vandenbergh MP. Household actions can provide a behavioral wedge to rapidly reduce US carbon emissions. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2009; 106(44): 18452–18456.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. Ajzen I. From intentions to actions: a theory of planned behavior. Action control: Springer; 1985. p. 11–39.

  8. Stern PC, Dietz T, Abel TD, Guagnano GA, Kalof L. A value-belief-norm theory of support for social movements: the case of environmentalism. Hum Ecol Rev. 1999; 6(2): 81–97.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Schultz PW. Strategies for promoting proenvironmental behavior. Eur Psychol. 2014.

  10. Stern PC. Contributions of psychology to limiting climate change. Am Psychol. 2011; 66(4): 303.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Swim JK, Clayton S, Howard GS. Human behavioral contributions to climate change: psychological and contextual drivers. Am Psychol. 2011; 66(4): 251.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Swim JK, Markowitz EM, Bloodhart B. Psychology and climate change: beliefs, impacts, and human contributions. In: Clayton SD, ed. The Oxford Handbook of Environmental and Conservation Psychology. New York, NY: Oxford University Press; 2012.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Beatty A. Climate Change Education in Formal Settings, K-14: a Workshop Summary. National Academies Press; 2012.

  14. Forest S, Feder MA. Climate Change Education: goals, Audiences, and Strategies: a Workshop Summary. National Academies Press; 2011.

  15. Geller ES, Erickson JB, Buttram BA. Attempts to promote residential water conservation with educational, behavioral and engineering strategies. Popul Environ. 1983; 6(2): 96–112.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Staats H, Wit A, Midden C. Communicating the greenhouse effect to the public: evaluation of a mass media campaign from a social dilemma perspective. J Environ Manag. 1996; 46(2): 189–203.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Schultz PW. Knowledge, education, and household recycling: examining the knowledge-deficit model of behavior change. In: Dietz T, Stern PC, eds. New Tools for Environmental Protection: Education, Information, and Voluntary Measures. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press; 2002: 67–82.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Schultz PW. Changing behavior with normative feedback interventions: a field experiment on curbside recycling. Basic Appl Soc Psychol. 1999; 21(1): 25–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Schultz P, Tabanico J. Self, identity, and the natural environment: exploring implicit connections with nature. J Appl Soc Psychol. 2007; 37(6): 1219–1247.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Nolan JM, Schultz PW, Cialdini RB, Goldstein NJ, Griskevicius V. Normative social influence is underdetected. Personal Soc Psychol Bull. 2008; 34(7): 913–923.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Kaiser FG, Roczen N, Bogner FX. Competence formation in environmental education: advancing ecology-specific rather than general abilities. 2008.

  22. Kaiser FG, Fuhrer U. Ecological behavior’s dependency on different forms of knowledge. Appl Psychol. 2003; 52(4): 598–613.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Göckeritz S, Schultz P, Rendón T, Cialdini RB, Goldstein NJ, Griskevicius V. Descriptive normative beliefs and conservation behavior: the moderating roles of personal involvement and injunctive normative beliefs. Eur J Soc Psychol. 2010; 40(3): 514–523.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Ajzen I. The theory of planned behavior. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process. 1991; 50(2): 179–211.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Stern PC. New environmental theories: toward a coherent theory of environmentally significant behavior. J Soc Issues. 2000; 56(3): 407–424.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Milfont TL, Duckitt J, Wagner C. A cross-cultural test of the value-attitude-behavior hierarchy. J Appl Soc Psychol. 2010; 40(11): 2791–2813.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Estrada M, Woodcock A, Hernandez PR, Schultz P. Toward a model of social influence that explains minority student integration into the scientific community. J Educ Psychol. 2011; 103(1): 206.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Cialdini RB, Trost MR. Social influence: social norms, conformity and compliance. In: Gilbert DT, Fiske ST, Lindzey G, eds. The Handbook of Social Psychology, vol. 2. 4th ed. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill; 1998: 151–192.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Kelman HC. Compliance, identification, and internalization: a theoretical and experimental approach to the study of social influence. 1956.

  30. Kelman HC. Compliance, identification, and internalization: three processes of attitude change. J Confl Resolut. 1958:51–60.

  31. Kelman HC. Interests, relationships, identities: three central issues for individuals and groups in negotiating their social environment. Annu Rev Psychol. 2006; 57: 1–26.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Thomas EF, McGarty C, Mavor KI. Aligning identities, emotions, and beliefs to create commitment to sustainable social and political action. Personal Soc Psychol Rev. 2009; 13(3): 194–218.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Bandura A. Self-efficacy: the exercise of control. New York: Freeman; 1997.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Bandura A, Locke EA. Negative self-efficacy and goal effects revisited. J Appl Psychol. 2003; 88(1): 87.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Lam S-P. Predicting intention to save water: theory of planned behavior, response efficacy, vulnerability, and perceived efficiency of alternative solutions. J Appl Soc Psychol. 2006; 36(11): 2803–2824.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Gifford R, Comeau LA. Message framing influences perceived climate change competence, engagement, and behavioral intentions. Glob Environ Chang. 2011; 21(4): 1301–1307.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Meinhold JL, Malkus AJ. Adolescent environmental behaviors: can knowledge, attitudes, and self-efficacy make a difference? Environ Behav. 2005; 37(4): 511–532.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Hines JM, Hungerford HR, Tomera AN. Analysis and synthesis of research on responsible environmental behavior: a meta-analysis. J Environ Educ. 1987; 18(2): 1–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Spence A, Poortinga W, Butler C, Pidgeon NF. Perceptions of climate change and willingness to save energy related to flood experience. Nat Clim Chang. 2011; 1(1): 46–49.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Milfont TL. The interplay between knowledge, perceived efficacy, and concern about global warming and climate change: a one‐year longitudinal study. Risk Anal. 2012; 32(6): 1003–1020.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Bamberg S, Möser G. Twenty years after Hines, Hungerford, and Tomera: a new meta-analysis of psycho-social determinants of pro-environmental behaviour. J Environ Psychol. 2007; 27(1): 14–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Turner JC, Oakes PJ. The significance of the social identity concept for social psychology with reference to individualism, interactionism and social influence. Br J Soc Psychol. 1986; 25(3): 237–252.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Cook AJ, Kerr GN, Moore K. Attitudes and intentions towards purchasing GM food. J Econ Psychol. 2002; 23(5): 557–572.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Van der Werff E, Steg L, Keizer K. The value of environmental self-identity: the relationship between biospheric values, environmental self-identity and environmental preferences, intentions and behaviour. J Environ Psychol. 2013; 34: 55–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Clayton SD. Identity and the Natural Environment: the Psychological Significance of Nature. Mit Press; 2003.

  46. Clayton SD. Environment and identity. In: Clayton S, ed. The Oxford Handbook of Environmental and Conservation Psychology. New York, NY: Oxford University Press; 2012: 164–180.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  47. Kelman HC, Hamilton VL. Crimes of Obedience. New Haven: Yale University Press; 1989.

    Google Scholar 

  48. Clark CF, Kotchen MJ, Moore MR. Internal and external influences on pro-environmental behavior: participation in a green electricity program. J Environ Psychol. 2003; 23(3): 237–246.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Steg L, de Groot JI. Environmental values. In: Clayton SD, ed. The Oxford Handbook of Environmental and Conservation Psychology. New York, NY: Oxford University Press; 2012: 81–92.

    Google Scholar 

  50. Schwartz SH, Melech G, Lehmann A, Burgess S, Harris M, Owens V. Extending the cross-cultural validity of the theory of basic human values with a different method of measurement. J Cross-Cult Psychol. 2001; 32(5): 519–542.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Schultz PW, Zelezny LC. Values and proenvironmental behavior: a five-country survey. J Cross-Cult Psychol. 1998; 29(4): 540–558.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. De Groot JI, Steg L. Relationships between value orientations, self-determined motivational types and pro-environmental behavioural intentions. J Environ Psychol. 2010; 30(4): 368–378.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Bolderdijk JW, Gorsira M, Keizer K, Steg L. Values determine the (in) effectiveness of informational interventions in promoting pro-environmental behavior. PLoS One. 2013; 8(12): e83911.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  54. Kahan DM. Climate science communication and the measurement problem. Polit Psychol. 2015; 36(S1): 1–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Hayes AF. Introduction to Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional Process Analysis: a Regression-Based Approach. Guilford Press; 2013.

  56. MacKinnon DP, Fairchild AJ, Fritz MS. Mediation analysis. Annu Rev Psychol. 2007; 58: 593.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  57. Kahan DM, Peters E, Wittlin M, et al. The polarizing impact of science literacy and numeracy on perceived climate change risks. Nat Clim Chang. 2012; 2(10): 732–735.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Baumeister RF, Vohs KD. Self and Identity, vol. I–V. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE; 2012.

    Google Scholar 

  59. Tajfel H, Turner JC. The social identity theory of intergroup behavior. 2004.

Download references

Acknowledgements

This study was conducted as a part of the Climate Education Partners—San Diego Region research program and was funded by the National Science Foundation’s Climate Change Education Partnership Phase 2 grant (Award Number DUE–1239797). We want to acknowledge with gratitude contributions of Steve Alexander, Scott Anders, Alexander Gershunov, Nicola Hedge, Zhi-Yong Yin, Emily Young, Sharon Danoff-Burg, and Christiana DeBenedict on the execution of this project.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Social & Behavioral Sciences, Institute for Health Aging, School of Medicine, University of California San Francisco, 3333 California Street, Suite 340, San Francisco, CA, 94118-0646, USA

    Mica Estrada

  2. Department of Psychology, California State University San Marcos, San Marcos, CA, USA

    P. Wesley Schultz

  3. Department of Environmental and Ocean Sciences, College of Arts and Sciences, University of San Diego, San Diego, CA, USA

    Nilmini Silva-Send & Michel A. Boudrias

Authors
  1. Mica Estrada
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. P. Wesley Schultz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Nilmini Silva-Send
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Michel A. Boudrias
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mica Estrada.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Estrada, M., Schultz, P.W., Silva-Send, N. et al. The Role of Social Influences on Pro-Environment Behaviors in the San Diego Region. J Urban Health 94, 170–179 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11524-017-0139-0

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11524-017-0139-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation