Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The promise of asymmetric interventions for addressing risks to environmental systems

  • Published:
Environment Systems and Decisions Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Recent studies suggest that people the world over are becoming increasingly concerned about the health of environmental systems. However, research has also shown that many people still fail to make decisions that will result in even small behavioral changes that, when aggregated across society, might lead to positive environmental consequences. This paper reports the results of three naturalistic experiments—each involving asymmetric interventions and set in the context of real-world decisions—aimed at helping people to make decisions at the individual level that, when scaled up, can help to address risks to environmental systems.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Abdalla CW, Lawton JL (2006) Environmental issues in animal agriculture. Choices 21:177–181

    Google Scholar 

  • Abrahamse W, Steg L, Vlek C, Rothengatter JA (2005) A review of intervention studies aimed at household energy consumption. J Environ Psychol 25:273–291

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ariely D, Loewenstein G (2006) The heat of the moment: the effect of sexual arousal on sexual decision making. J Behav Decis Mak 19:87–98

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arvai J, Campbell-Arvai V (2013) Risk communication: insights from the decision sciences. In: Arvai J, Rivers L (eds) Effective risk communication: learning from the past, charting a course for the future. Taylor & Francis, London, UK, pp 234–257

    Google Scholar 

  • Arvai JL, Gregory R (2003) Testing alternative decision approaches for identifying cleanup priorities at contaminated sites. Environ Sci Technol 37:1469–1476

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Arvai J, Post K (2012) Risk management in a developing country context: improving decisions about point-of-use water treatment among the rural poor in Tanzania. Risk Anal 32:67–80

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arvai J, Kellon D, Leon R, Gregory R, Richardson R (2014) Structuring international development decisions: confronting trade-offs between land use and community development in Costa Rica. Environ Syst Decis 34:224–236

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Asch SE (1956) Studies of independence and conformity: a minority of one against a unanimous majority. Psychol Monogr 70:9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bazerman MH, Tenbrunsel AE, Wade-Benzoni KA (1998) Negotiating with yourself and losing: making decisions with competing internal preferences. Acad Manag Rev 23:225–241

    Google Scholar 

  • Benartzi S, Peleg E, Thaler RH (2007) Choice architecture and retirement saving plans. SSRN eLibrary

  • Bessette D, Arvai J, Campbell-Arvai V (2014) Decision support framework for developing regional energy strategies. Environ Sci Technol 48:1401–1408

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Bögeholz S (2006) Nature experience and its importance for environmental knowledge, values and action: recent German empirical contributions. Environ Educ Res 12:65–84

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bond S, Carlson K, Keeney RL (2008) Generating objectives: can decision makers articulate what they want? Manage Sci 54:56–70

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown CL, Krishna A (2004) The skeptical shopper: a metacognitive account for the effects of default options on choice. J Consum Res 31:529–539

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Campbell-Arvai V, Arvai J, Kalof L (2014) Motivating sustainable food choices: the role of nudges, value orientation, and information provision. Environ Behav 46:453–475

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cialdini RB, Goldstein NJ (2004) Social influence: compliance and conformity. Annu Rev Psychol 55:591–621

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clemen RT (2004) Making hard decisions: an introduction to decision analysis. PWS-Kent Publishing Co., Boston, MA

    Google Scholar 

  • de Leeuw A, Valois P, Ajzen I, Scmidt P (2015) Using the theory of planned behavior to identify key beliefs underlying pro-environmental behavior in high-school students: implications for educational interventions. J Environ Psychol 42:128–138

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deckers J (2010) Should the consumption of farmed animal products be restricted, and if so, by how much? Food Policy 35:497–503

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Derksen L, Gartrell J (1993) The social context of recycling. Am Sociol Assoc 58:434–442

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Downs JS, Loewenstein G, Wisdom J (2009) Strategies for promoting healthier food choices. Am Econ Rev 99:159–164

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Epstein S (1994) Integration of the cognitive and the psychodynamic unconscious. Am Psychol 49:709–724

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Felsen G, Castelo N, Reiner P (2013) Decisional enhancement and autonomy: public attitudes towards overt and covert nudges. Judgm Decis Mak 8:202–213

    Google Scholar 

  • Fischhoff B (2012) Risk analysis and human behavior. Routledge, London, UK

    Google Scholar 

  • Fisher RJ (1993) Social desireability and the validity of indirect questioning. J Consum Res 20:303–315

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gardner GT, Stern PC (1995) Environmental problems and human behavior. Allyn and Bacon, Boston

    Google Scholar 

  • Gerbens-Leenes PW, Nonhebel S (2002) Consumption patterns and their effects on land required for food. Ecol Econ 42:185–199

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gigerenzer G, Hertwig R, Pachur T (2011) Heuristics. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Gilovich T, Griffin D, Kahneman D (2002a) Heuristics and biases: the psychology of intuitive judgment. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Gilovich T, Griffin D, Kahneman D (2002b) Intuitive Judgement: heuristics and biases. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Goldstein NJ, Cialdini RB, Griskevicius V (2008) A room with a viewpoint: using social norms to motivate environmental conservation in hotels. J Consum Res 35:472–482

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guagnano GA, Stern PC, Dietz T (1995) Influences on attitude-behavior relationships: a natural experiment with curbside recycling. Environ Behav 27:699–718

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hamilton LC, Saito K (2014) A four-party view of US environmental concern. Environ Politics 24:212–227

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hershfield HE, Bang HM, Weber EU (2014) National differences in environmental concern and performance are predicted by country age. Psychol Sci 25:152–160

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson EJ, Goldstein D (2003) Do defaults save lives? Science 302:1338–1339

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Kahneman D, Tversky A (1979) Prospect theory: an analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica 47:263–291

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kahneman D, Tversky A (2000) Choices, values, and frames. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK

    Google Scholar 

  • Kahneman D, Slovic P, Tversky A (1982) Judgment under uncertainty: heuristics and biases. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Keeney RL (1992) Value-focused thinking. A path to creative decision making. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA

    Google Scholar 

  • Kenney L, Arvai J, Vardhan M, Catacutan D (2015) Bringing stakeholder values into climate risk management programs: decision aiding for REDD in Vietnam. Soc Nat Resour 28:261–279

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kesan JP, Shah RC (2006) Setting software defaults: perspectives from law, computer science and behavioral economics. Notre Dame Law Review 82:583–634

    Google Scholar 

  • Kiker GA, Bridges TS, Varghese A, Seager TP, Linkov I (2005) Application of multicriteria decision analysis in environmental decision making. Integr Environ Assess Manage 1:95–108

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kollmuss A, Agyeman J (2002) Mind the gap; Why do people act environmentally and what are the barriers to pro-environmental behavior? Environ Educ Res 8:239–260

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lerner J, Keltner D (2001) Fear, anger, and risk. J Pers Soc Psychol 81:146–159

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Lindenberg S, Steg L (2007) Normative, gain and hedonic goal frames guiding environmental behavior. J Soc Issues 63:117–137

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Loewenstein G (1996) Out of control: visceral influences on behavior. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process 65:272–292

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McKenzie CRM, Liersch MJ, Finkelstien SR (2006) Recommendations implicit in policy defaults. Psychol Sci 17:414–420

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Milkman KL, Rogers T, Bazerman MH (2008) Harnessing our inner angels and demons: what we have learned about want/should conflicts and how that knowledge can help us reduce short-sighted decision making. Perspect Psychol Sci 3:324–338

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Monroe M (2011) Engaging the public in environmental decisions: strategies for environmental education and communication. In: Gökçekus H, Türker U, LaMoreaux JW (eds) Survival and sustainability. Springer, Berlin, pp 741–749

    Google Scholar 

  • Payne JW, Bettman JR, Johnson EJ (1992) Behavioral decision research: a constructive processing perspective. Annu Rev Psychol 43:87–132

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pichert D, Katsikopoulos KV (2008) Green defaults: information presentation and pro-environmental behaviour. J Environ Psychol 28:63–73

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Quattrone GA, Tversky A (1988) Contrasting rational and psychological analyses of political choice. Am Polit Sci Rev 82:719–736

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ratner RK, Soman D, Zauberman G, Ariely D, Carmon Z, Keller PA, Kim BK, Lin F, Malkoc S, Small DA, Wertenbroch K (2008) How behavioral decision research can enhance consumer welfare: from freedom of choice to paternalistic intervention. Mark Lett 19:383–397

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Samuelson W, Zeckhauser R (1988) Status quo bias in decision making. J Risk Uncertain 1:7–59

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scheibehenne B, Miesler L, Todd PM (2007) Fast and frugal food choices: uncovering individual decision heuristics. Appetite 49:578–589

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shefrin H, Statman M (1985) The disposition to sell winners too early and ride losers too long: theory and evidence. J Financ 40:777–790

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shiv B, Fedorikhin A (1999) Heart and mind in conflict: the interplay of affect and cognition in consumer decision-making. J Consum Res 26:278–292

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simon HA (1955) A behavioral model of rational choice. Quart J Econ 69:99–118

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Slovic P, Finucane ML, Peters E, MacGregor DG (2002) The affect heuristic. In: Gilovich T, Griffin D, Kahneman D (eds) Intuitive judgment: heuristics and biases. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, pp 397–420

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Smil V (2002) Worldwide transformation of diets, burdens of meat production and opportunities for novel food proteins. Enzym Microb Technol 30:305–311

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Smith NC, Goldstein DG, Johnson EJ (2013) Choice without awareness: ethical and policy implications of defaults. J Public Policy Mark 32:159–172

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spotswood F, French J, Tapp A, Stead M (2012) Some reasonable but uncomfortable questions about social marketing. J Soc Market 2:163–175

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stern PC (1999) Information, incentives and proenvironmental consumer behavior. J Consum Policy 22:461–478

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stern PC, Dietz T, Kalof L (1993) Value orientations, gender and environmental concern. Environ Behav 25:322–348

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tetlock PE (2000) Coping with trade-offs: psychological constraints and political implications. In: Lupia A, Popkin SL, McCubbins MD (eds) Elements of reason: cognition, choice, and the bounds of rationality. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK

    Google Scholar 

  • Thaler RH, Sunstein CR (2003) Libertarian paternalism. Am Econ Rev 93:175–179

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thaler RH, Sunstein CR (2008) Nudge: improving decisions about health, wealth, and happiness. Yale University Press, New Haven, CT

    Google Scholar 

  • Verplanken B, Wood W (2006) Interventions to break and create consumer habits. J Public Policy Market 25:90–103

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Von Bergen CW, Miles MP (2015) Social negative option marketing: a partial response to one of Spotswood, French, Tapp and Stead’s (2012) “uncomfortable questions”. J Soc Market 5:125–138

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • White T (2000) Diet and the distribution of environmental impact. Ecol Econ 34:145–153

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilson RS, Arvai JL (2006) When less is more: how affect influences preferences when comparing low and high-risk options. J Risk Res 9:165–178

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilson RS, Arvai JL (2010) Why less is more: exploring affect-based value neglect. J Risk Res 13:399–409

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zajonc RB (1980) Feeling and thinking: preferences need no inferences. Am Psychol 35:151–175

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This research was supported by The National Science Foundation under award number SES-0924210. Additional support was provided by the Office of the Vice President for Finance and Operations, and the Office of Campus Sustainability at Michigan State University. We acknowledge the support of John Reed of the Westin Detroit, as well as Vennie Gore, Bruce Haskell, Guy Procopio, Laurie Thorpe, and Diane Barker at Michigan State University. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions expressed in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of our sponsors or collaborators.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Natural Resources and Environment, University of Michigan, 440 Church St., Ann Arbor, MI, 48109, USA

    Victoria Campbell-Arvai & Joseph Arvai

  2. Erb Institute for Global Sustainable Enterprise, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA

    Joseph Arvai

  3. Ross School of Business, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA

    Joseph Arvai

  4. Decision Research, Eugene, OR, USA

    Joseph Arvai

Authors
  1. Victoria Campbell-Arvai
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Joseph Arvai
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Victoria Campbell-Arvai.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Campbell-Arvai, V., Arvai, J. The promise of asymmetric interventions for addressing risks to environmental systems. Environ Syst Decis 35, 472–482 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10669-015-9566-1

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10669-015-9566-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation