Advertisement

Population and Environment

, Volume 8, Issue 3–4, pp 204–222 | Cite as

Support for environmental protection: The role of moral norms

  • Paul C. Stern
  • Thomas Dietz
  • J. Stanley Black
Article

Abstract

A theoretical model is presented that traces support for environmental protection to a social-psychological process involving the activation of moral norms against harming innocent people. In a preliminary test of the model's social-psychological hypotheses, judgments about the moral obligations of industry with respect to hazardous chemicals were found to depend both on awareness of harmful consequences to people and on ascription of responsibility for those consequences to industry; government, however, was held to be morally obligated to act even if it was not responsible for the harm. Suggestions are offered for using the model to study the determinants of changing public opinion on the environment, the tactics of advocacy groups in environmental policy conflicts, and the process that mobilizes pressure for political causes in the absence of tangible group interests.

Keywords

Theoretical Model Environmental Protection Harmful Consequence Group Interest Environmental Policy 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Black, J. S. (1978). Attitudinal, normative, and economic factors in early response to an energyuse field experiment. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Wisconsin, Department of Sociology.Google Scholar
  2. Black, J. S. and Heberlein, T. A. (1976, August).Emergent norms and environmental action: Reciprocal causation of personal and perceived social norms in the purchase of lead-free gasoline. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Rural Sociological Society, New York.Google Scholar
  3. Black, J. S., Stern, P. C., and Elworth, J. T. (1985) Personal and contextual influences on household energy adaptations.Journal of Applied Psychology, 70 3–21.Google Scholar
  4. Crenson, M. A. (1971).The un-politics of air pollution: A study of non-decision making in the cities. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Dunlap, R. E. (1985) Public opinion: Behind the transformation.EPA Journal, 11 (July–August), 15–17.Google Scholar
  6. Dunlap, R. E., Grieneeks, J. K., & Rokeach, M. (1983) Human values and pro-environmental behavior. In W. D. Conn (ed.),Energy and material resources: Attitudes, values, and public policy. AAAS Selected Symposium 75. Boulder, Colo.: Westview Press.Google Scholar
  7. Dunlap, R. E., and Van Liere, K. D. (1977). Land ethic or golden rule: Comment on "Land ethic realized" by Thomas A. Heberlein.Journal of Social Issues, 33(3), 200–207.Google Scholar
  8. Dunlap, R. E., and Van Liere, K. D. (1980) The new environmental paradigm: A proposed measuring instrument and preliminary results.Journal of Environmental Education, 9 10–19.Google Scholar
  9. Dunlap, R. E., and Van Liere, K. D. (1984). Commitment to the dominant social paradigm and concern for environmental quality.Social Science Quarterly 64, 1013–1028.Google Scholar
  10. Gamson, W. (1975).The strategy of social protest. Homewood, Ill: Dorsey.Google Scholar
  11. Gamson, W., and Modigliani, A. (1985).The changing culture of affirmative action. Unpublished manuscript, Department of Sociology, Boston College.Google Scholar
  12. Gorz, A. (1980).Ecology as politics. Boston: South End Press.Google Scholar
  13. Heberlein, T. A. (1972). The land ethic realized: Some social psychological explanations for changing environmental attitudes.Journal of Social Issues, 28(4), 79–87.Google Scholar
  14. Heberlein, T. A. (1977). Norm activation and environmental action: A rejoinder to R. E. Dunlap and K. D. Van Liere.Journal of Social Issues 33(3), 207–211.Google Scholar
  15. Kates, R. W., (1978).Risk assessment of environmental hazard. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  16. McCarthy, J., and Zald, M. (1977). Resource mobilization and social movements: A partial theory.American Journal of Sociology 82, 1212–1241.Google Scholar
  17. Melnick, R. S. (1984, Spring). Pollution deadlines and the coalition for failure.The Public Interest, 123–134.Google Scholar
  18. Mitchell, R. C. (1980). National environmental lobbies and the apparent illogic of collective action. In C. S. Russell, ed.,Collective decision making: Applications from public choice theory. Baltimore, Md.: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Morrison, D. E., and Dunlap, R. E. (1986). Environmentalism and elitism: A conceptual and empirical analysis.Environmental Management 10, 581–589.Google Scholar
  20. Olson, M. (1965).The logic of collective action. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Schnaiberg, A. (1980).The Environment: From Surplus to Scarcity. New York: Oxford.Google Scholar
  22. Schwartz, S. H. (1970). Moral decision making and behavior. In J. Macauley and L. Berkowitz, eds.Altruism and helping behavior. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  23. Schwartz, S. H. (1977). Normative influences on altruism. In L. Berkowitz, Ed.Advances in experimental social psychology, Vol. 10, New York: Academic Press. Pp. 221–279.Google Scholar
  24. Slovic, P., Fischhoff, B., & Lichtenstein, S. (1982). Facts versus fears: Understanding perceived risk. In D. Kahneman, P. Slovic, & A. Tversky, eds.Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  25. Stern, P. C., and Aronson, E. (Eds.). (1984).Energy use: The human dimension. New York: Freeman.Google Scholar
  26. Stern, P. C., and Oskamp, S. (1986). Managing scarce environmental resources. In D. Stokols and I. Altman, eds.Handbook of environmental psychology. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  27. Van Liere, K. D., & Dunlap, R. E. (1978). Moral norms and environmental behavior: An application of Schwartz's norm-activation model to yard burning.Journal of Applied Social Psychology 8, 174–188.Google Scholar
  28. Van Liere, K. D., & Dunlap, R. E. (1980). The social bases of environmental concern: A review of hypotheses, explanation and empirical evidence.Public Opinion Quarterly, 44 43–59.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Human Sciences Press 1986

Authors and Affiliations

  • Paul C. Stern
    • 1
  • Thomas Dietz
    • 2
  • J. Stanley Black
    • 3
  1. 1.National Research CouncilUSA
  2. 2.George Mason UniversityUSA
  3. 3.Illinois Environmental Protection AgencyUSA

Personalised recommendations