Material Values, Goals, and Water Use: Results from a Campus Residence Hall Survey

  • Kala J. Melchiori
  • Robyn K. Mallett
  • Aaron N. Durnbaugh
  • Hanh D. Pham
Chapter
Part of the World Sustainability Series book series (WSUSE)

Abstract

The social sciences, psychology in particular, offer a growing body of research to address sustainability issues. We specifically turn to the psychological literature on values and goals to predict eco-friendly behavior. Material values, such as the desire to gain happiness from purchasing products, predict consumption behavior (Richins and Dawsons in J Consum Res 19(3):303–316, 1992). We test whether material values predict water use, and whether the relationship will be mediated through the competing goals to conserve resources and maintain personal comfort. Specifically, we hypothesize that people will use more natural resources when the goal for personal comfort outweighs the goal to conserve resources (Gaspar in Sustainability 5(7):2960–2975, 2013). 269 residence hall students completed an online survey that included the Material Values Scale, a conservation goal item, and a personal comfort goal item. Students also reported water use, including shower time and dish washing habits. As predicted, material values, the conservation goal, and the comfort goal independently predicted water use. However, only the personal comfort goal explained the relation between material values and water use. To increase the likelihood of behavior change, campus water conservation campaigns should try to activate the goal to conserve resources, like reminding students to shorten showers, while dissuading material values, possibly by emphasizing the value of experience over consumption.

Keywords

Ecopsychology Water conservation Campus sustainability Residence halls 

References

  1. Allcott H, Mullainathan S (2010) Behavior and energy policy. Science 327(5970):1204–1205CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Attari SZ (2014) Perceptions of water use. Proc Natl Acad Sci 111(14):5129–5134CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bamberg S, Moser G (2007) Twenty years after Hines, Hungerford and Tomera: a new meta-analysis of psychosocial determinants of pro-environmental behavior. J Environ Psychol 27(1):14–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bliuc AM, McGarty C, Thomas EF, Lala G, Berndsen M, Misajon R (2015) Public division about climate change rooted in conflicting socio-political identities. Nat Clim Change 5:226–229CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bloodhart B, Swim JK, Zawadzk MJ (2013) Spreading the eco-message: using proactive coping to aid eco-rep behavior change programming. Sustainability 5(4):1661–1679CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Campbell-Arvai V, Arvai J, Kalof L (2014) Motivating sustainable food choices: the role of nudges, value orientation, and information provision. Environ Behav 46(4):453–475CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Chaplin G, Wyton P (2014) Student engagement with sustainability: understanding the value–action gap. Int J Sustain High Educ 15(4):404–417CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cialdini RB, Trost MR (1998) Social influence: social norms, conformity, and compliance. In: Gilbert D, Fiske S, Lindzey G (eds) The handbook of social psychology. McGraw-Hill, New York, pp 151–192Google Scholar
  9. Cialdini RB, Reno RR, Kallgren CA (1990) A focus theory of normative conduct: recycling the concept of norms to reduce littering in public places. J Pers Soc Psychol 58:1015–1026CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cialdini RB, Kallgren CA, Reno RR (1991) A focus theory of normative conduct: a theoretical refinement and reevaluation of the role of norms in human behavior. Adv Exp Soc Psychol 24(1):201–234CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Collins RL (1996) For better or worse: the impact of upward social comparison on self-evaluations. Psychol Bull 119(1):51–69CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cortese AD, Hattan AS (2010) Research and solutions: education for sustainability as the mission of higher education. Sustain: J Record 3(1):48–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Dijksterhuis A, Aarts H (2010) Goals, attention, and (un)consciousness. Annu Rev Psychol 61(2):467–490CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Dunlap RE (2002) Environmental sociology. In: Bechtel RB, Churchman A (eds) Handbook of environmental psychology. Wiley, New York, pp 160–171Google Scholar
  15. Erickson C, Skoglund C (2008) Eco-reps programs: conducting peer outreach in residence halls. Sustain: J Record 1(1):57–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Ferguson MA, Branscombe NR, ReynoldsK J (2011) The effect of intergroup comparison on willingness to perform sustainable behavior. J Environ Psychol 31(4):275–281CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Froehlich J, Findlater L, Landay J (2010) The design of eco-feedback technology. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems, New York, NY, pp 1999–2008Google Scholar
  18. Gaspar R (2013) Understanding the reasons for behavioral failure: a process view of psychosocial barriers and constraints to pro-ecological behavior. Sustainability 5(7):2960–2975CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Gaspar R, Palma-Oliveira JM, Corral-Verdugo V (2010) Why do people fail to act? Situational barriers and constraints on ecological behavior. In: Corral-Verdugo V, García-Cadena CH, Frías-Armenta M (eds) Psychological approaches to sustainability: current trends in research, theory and practice. Nova Science Publishers, New York, pp 269–294Google Scholar
  20. Gaspar R, Palma-Oliveira JM, Wyer N, Corral-Verdugo V (2011) Cognitive and context “tuning”: tools to break anti-ecological habits. Int J Hispanic Psychol 4(1):69–91Google Scholar
  21. Gifford R (2001) The dragons of inaction: psychological barriers that limit climate change mitigation and adaptation. Am Psychol 66(4):290–302CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Gifford R, Kormos C, McIntyre A (2011) Behavioral dimensions of climate change: drivers, responses, barriers, and interventions. Wiley Interdisc Rev: Clim Change 2(6):801–827Google Scholar
  23. Gleick PH (1996) Basic water requirements for human activities: meeting basic needs. Water Int 21(2):83–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hardin G (1968) The tragedy of the commons. Science 162(3859):1243–1248CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hayes AF (2013) Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: a regression-based approach. The Guilford Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  26. Hogg MA, Abrams D (1988) Comments on the motivational status of self-esteem in social identity and intergroup discrimination. Eur J Soc Psychol 18(4):317–334CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Horhota M, Asman J, Stratton JP, Halfacre AC (2014) Identifying behavioral barriers to campus sustainability. Int J Sustain High Educ 15(3):343–358CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Kallgren CA, Raymond RR, Cialdini RB (2000) Focus theory of normative conduct: when norms do and do not affect behavior. Pers Soc Psychol Bull 26(8):1002–1012CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Karp DG (1996) Values and their effect on pro-environmental behavior. Environ Behav 28(1):111–133CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Kenny JF, Barber NL, Hutson SS, Linsey KS, Lovelace JK, Maupin MA (2009) Estimated use of water in the United States in 2005. U.S. geological survey circular, available at: http://pubs.usgs.gov/circ/1344/pdf/c1344.pdf. Accessed 10 Mar 2015
  31. 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(3):239–260CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Krosnick JA, Alwin DF (1989) Aging and susceptibility to attitude change. J Pers Soc Psychol 57(3):416–425CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Mok H (2015) Gauchos power down, come up big for conservation. The UC Santa Barbara Current, available at: http://www.news.ucsb.edu/2015/015243/gauchos-power-down-come-big-conservation. Accessed 24 Mar 2015
  34. Oskamp S, Schultz PW (2005) Attitudes and opinions. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, MahwahGoogle Scholar
  35. Parce TE, Younos T, Grossman LS, Geller ES (2013) A study of environmentally relevant behavior in university residence halls. Int J Sustain High Educ 14(4):466–481CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Petersen JE, Shunturov V, Janda K, Platt G, Weinberger K (2007) Dormitory residents reduce electricity consumption when exposed to real-time visual feedback and incentives. Int J Sustain High Educ 8(1):16–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Richins ML (2004) The material values scale: measurement properties and development of a short form. J Consum Res 31(1):209–219CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Richins ML, Dawsons S (1992) A consumer values orientation for materialism and its measurement: scale development and validation. J Consum Res 19(3):303–316CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Rokeach M (1971) Long-range experimental modification of values, attitudes, and behavior. Am Psychol 26(5):453–459CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Rokeach M (1973) The nature of human values. Free Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  41. Ryan RM, Deci EL (2000) Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. Am Psychol 55(1):68–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Savageau AE (2013) Let’s get personal: making sustainability tangible to students. Int J Sustain High Educ 14(1):15–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Schultz PW, Gouveia VV, Cameron LD, Tankha G, Schmuck P, Franek M (2005) Values and their relationship to environmental concern and conservation behavior. J Cross Cult Psychol 36(4):457–475CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Schwartz SH (1992) Universals in the content and structure of values: theoretical advances and empirical tests in 20 countries. Adv Exp Soc Psychol 25(1):1–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Schwartz SH (1994) Are there universal aspects in the structure and contents of human values? J Soc Issues 50(4):19–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Schwartz SH (1996) Value priorities and behavior: applying a theory of integrated value systems. In: Seligman C, Olson JM, Zanna MP (eds) Thepsychology of values: the Ontario symposium, vol 8. Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ, pp 1–24Google Scholar
  47. Shriberg M (2000) Sustainability management in campus housing. Int J Sustain High Educ 1(2):137–153Google Scholar
  48. Steg L, Vlek C (2008) Encouraging pro-environmental behavior: an integrative review and research agenda. J Environ Psychol 29(3):309–317CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Stern PC (2000) Psychology, sustainability, and the science of human-environment interactions. Am Psychol 55(2):523–530CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Stern PC, Dietz T, Kalof L (1993) Value orientations, gender, and environmental concern. Environ Behav 25(5):322–348CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Thaler RH, Sunstein CR (2008) Nudge: improving decisions about health, wealth, and happiness. Yale University Press, New Haven, CTGoogle Scholar
  52. Too L, Bajracharya B (2015) Sustainable campus: engaging the community in sustainability. Int J Sustain High Educ 16(1):57–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. UNEP, UN-Water, UN-Habitat (2010) Water quality facts and statistics, available at: http://www.unwater.org/wwd10/downloads/WWD2010_Facts_web.pdf. Accessed 10 Mar 2015
  54. van der Linden S (2014) On the relationship between personal experience, affect and risk perception: the case of climate change. Eur J Soc Psychol 44:430–440CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Watson L, Johnson C, Hegtvedt KA, Parris CL (2015) Living green: examining sustainable dorms and identities. Int J Sustain High Educ 16(3), (online first edition)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kala J. Melchiori
    • 1
  • Robyn K. Mallett
    • 1
  • Aaron N. Durnbaugh
    • 2
  • Hanh D. Pham
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of PsychologyLoyola University ChicagoChicagoUSA
  2. 2.Institute for Environmental SustainabilityLoyola University ChicagoChicagoUSA

Personalised recommendations