Changing Household Behaviors to Curb Climate Change: How Hard Can it Be?

The impact of personal motivation on perceived effort and performance of pro-environmental behaviors

In order to minimize climate change it is important that people take up a sustainable lifestyle. Sustainable lifestyles call for pro-environmental behaviors (PEBs) in several domains, such as in-home energy use, mobility, and consumption of food and goods. However, studies show that people often do not consistently behave pro-environmentally in all domains. In this study we investigated how a combination of personal motivation, and the difficulty and the perceived effort of a PEB, predicts the performance of PEBs in various domains, using a survey (n = 1,536). By means of Rasch analysis we identified the difficulty of 17 PEBs and estimated respondents’ pro-environmental motivations. In addition, we investigated if performance of certain PEBs increased the probability of performing other PEBs. This way we could identify for each level of motivation which behaviors respondents were (probably) performing and which behaviors they did not yet perform, but would be least effortful new behaviors. Furthermore, using a non-recursive structural equation model we investigated the relations between perceived effort, PEB performance, motivation, underlying traits, and demographics. Results showed a feedback loop between motivation and perceived effort: when respondents were motivated they perceived behaviors as less effortful and also lower perception of effort was related to higher motivation. Our results imply that people mainly perform PEBs that fit their level of pro-environmental motivation and that they are inclined to do the things of which they can justify the effort they need to invest. This amount of effort seems quite similar for people: no one wants to invest too much effort, but people highly differ in how effortful they assess different behaviors. Our study thus indicates that rationalizations play a key role. Encouraging people to embrace more sustainable lifestyles may involve step-by-step increases in PEB performance. We propose that people should be encouraged to perform behaviors that are closest to their current motivation level in order for them to progress from performing easy to more difficult PEBs.

Rationalizing Inconsistent Consumer Behavior. Understanding Pathways That Lead to Negative Spillover of Pro-environmental Behaviors in Daily Life

Ideally, pro-environmental consumer behavior leads to a lower impact on the environment. However, due to negative behavioral spillovers environmentally friendly behavior could lead to an overall higher environmental impact if subsequent environmentally unfriendly behavior occurs. In this exploratory interview study we focused on two pathways leading to negative spillover: a psychological path (perceived effort, moral licensing) and an economic path (rebound effects). We wanted to gain insight into people's motivations to behave environmentally unfriendly and to explore people's level of awareness of both pathways. Our results indicate that pro-environmental behaviors that are associated with higher effort are performed less frequently, and that when people do not perform these behaviors they associate them with higher effort levels. When people perceive behaviors as more effortful they increasingly seem to use arguments to motivate and rationalize why performing the behavior is difficult or impossible. Moreover, we found that although some people can imagine that moral licensing and rebound effects could occur and can provide examples from their own lives, most people assess these concepts as not rational. People seem unaware of the relation between a first pro-environmental behavior (PEB) and a subsequent behavior, and therefore inconsistencies in behavior go unnoticed. As people are good at rationalizing why they do not perform specific PEBs, they in general feel satisfied with their own pro-environmental actions. In order to discourage negative spillovers, we describe a number of approaches and research ideas aimed at taking away the grounds for rationalization.

Efficacy Foundations for Risk Communication: How People Think About Reducing the Risks of Climate Change

Believing action to reduce the risks of climate change is both possible (self-efficacy) and effective (response efficacy) is essential to motivate and sustain risk mitigation efforts, according to current risk communication theory. Although the public recognizes the dangers of climate change, and is deluged with lists of possible mitigative actions, little is known about public efficacy beliefs in the context of climate change. Prior efficacy studies rely on conflicting constructs and measures of efficacy, and links between efficacy and risk management actions are muddled. As a result, much remains to learn about how laypersons think about the ease and effectiveness of potential mitigative actions. To bring clarity and inform risk communication and management efforts, we investigate how people think about efficacy in the context of climate change risk management by analyzing unprompted and prompted beliefs from two national surveys (N = 405, N = 1,820). In general, respondents distinguish little between effective and ineffective climate strategies. While many respondents appreciate that reducing fossil fuel use is an effective risk mitigation strategy, overall assessments reflect persistent misconceptions about climate change causes, and uncertainties about the effectiveness of risk mitigation strategies. Our findings suggest targeting climate change risk communication and management strategies to (1) address gaps in people's existing mental models of climate action, (2) leverage existing public understanding of both potentially effective mitigation strategies and the collective action dilemma at the heart of climate change action, and (3) take into account ideologically driven reactions to behavior change and government action framed as climate action.

Efficacy, Action, and Support for Reducing Climate Change Risks

A growing body of research demonstrates that believing action to reduce the risks of climate change is both possible (self-efficacy) and effective (response efficacy) is essential to motivate and sustain risk mitigation efforts. Despite this potentially critical role of efficacy beliefs, measures and their use vary wildly in climate change risk perception and communication research, making it hard to compare and learn from efficacy studies. To address this problem and advance our understanding of efficacy beliefs, this article makes three contributions. First, we present a theoretically motivated approach to measuring climate change mitigation efficacy, in light of diverse proposed, perceived, and previously researched strategies. Second, we test this in two national survey samples (Amazon's Mechanical Turk N = 405, GfK Knowledge Panel N = 1,820), demonstrating largely coherent beliefs by level of action and discrimination between types of efficacy. Four additive efficacy scales emerge: personal self-efficacy, personal response efficacy, government and collective self-efficacy, and government and collective response efficacy. Third, we employ the resulting efficacy scales in mediation models to test how well efficacy beliefs predict climate change policy support, controlling for specific knowledge, risk perceptions, and ideology, and allowing for mediation by concern. Concern fully mediates the relatively strong effects of perceived risk on policy support, but only partly mediates efficacy beliefs. Stronger government and collective response efficacy beliefs and personal self-efficacy beliefs are both directly and indirectly associated with greater support for reducing the risks of climate change, even after controlling for ideology and causal beliefs about climate change.

Communicating science-based recommendations with memorable and actionable guidelines

For many domains of basic and applied science, a key set of scientific facts is well established and there is a need for public action in light of those facts. However, individual citizens do not consistently follow science-based recommendations, even when they accept the veracity of the advice. To address this challenge, science communicators need to develop a guideline that individuals can commit to memory easily and act on straightforwardly at moments of decision. We draw on research from psychology to discuss several characteristics that will enhance a guideline's memorability and actionability and illustrate using a case study from the US Department of Agriculture's communications based on nutrition science. We conclude by discussing the importance of careful research to test whether any given guideline is memorable and actionable by the intended target audience.