Pro-environmentalism: Environmentalist Social Identity, Environmentalist Stereotypes, and Green Consumerism Engagement
by
Annamaria Klas B.A. (Psych, Media) (Psych, Hons)
Submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Philosophy (Psychology)
Deakin University
October, 2016
iv
Acknowledgements
Although this PhD is a culmination of my hard work and dedication, I could not have achieved this milestone without the help and guidance of many others. Therefore it is with great pleasure I offer a number of people with much deserved gratitude and thanks. First and foremost I begin by thanking my current supervision team of Dr Lucy Zinkiewicz and Dr Jin Zhou who although came on to this project late in the game, still treated me like I was with them from the beginning. Thanks especially to Lucy for her guidance and assistance, for her infinite enthusiasm and support, and for her extremely detailed feedback (which only helped me become a better writer). Thanks also to Jin for being so welcoming and friendly, for offering much emotional support and practical advice, and for reading multiple drafts at once (which is a feat in itself). Special thanks also goes to Dr Gery Karantzas who may have not been an ‘official’ supervisor still took me under his wing from the start, and provided me with much support, wisdom, and honesty. Thanks also to Professor Ben Richardson for always making time to provide me with statistical, professional, and common sense advice, even when he moved on to greener pastures. Further thanks to Dr Janine McGuinness, who originally begun this project with me, and to all the academics I have met through SASP. They all helped to nurture my love for social psychology and continuously offered me new and interesting insights for my research. And of course, thanks to the School of Psychology at Deakin for making this project possible, including providing me the funds pursue it. I’ve been blessed to be able to learn so much from such a diverse and talented range of academics and researchers. I must also thank the many PhD students who I have met along the way, especially those from Deakin and SASP, who have only improved this experience. There are too many to personally name each one but I must single out Gemma, Meaghan, Morgana, Michael, the other Michael, and Gill who all provided me with much laughter, kindness, and support. Thanks also to my fellow social psych PhD candidates at Deakin Mathew and Eddie who were always willing to provide me with theoretical and statistical advice. And of course an extra special mention to Jacquie who went through every stage of this PhD with me. She has been a wonderful friend through it all, being both my biggest supporter and constant confidant.
v
I also cannot forget to thank my family and friends. Firstly, sincere thanks to my mum, dad and brother, for their continuous encouragement, support, and love. My mum and dad’s tenacity provided me the opportunities to pursue this, and looking back on my childhood, their knowledge of politics and social issues begun my love affair with social psychology, long before I even knew what it was. This is their achievement as much as mine. Thanks also to the Gilbert family (including the Males and Wallaces) for being forever helpful, kind, and understanding. Finally, thanks to all my close and cherished friends – especially Adelle, Hayley, Bec, Emma, Michelle, Eloise, Jess, Amy, and Kate – who have been so thoughtful and considerate, and have constantly checked in with me, especially near the end. Your belief in me to get this done was often what I needed the most. Finally, heartfelt thanks and love goes to my partner of 10 years, Seán. I feel that anything I write will never truly convey how much Seán has had to put up with, especially during this PhD, and often with no compliant at all. I don’t feel I could have gotten to this point without his never-ending support, and his pragmatic and down-to- earth attitude. His kind and encouraging words, and his warm and loving gestures, have all been so valued and appreciated, and will never be forgotten.
vi
I’d like to dedicate this thesis to all those individuals who work tirelessly to make this earth a better place for this generation and for those generations to come.
vii
Table of Contents
Title Page ...... i Acknowledgements ...... iv Table of Contents ...... vii List of Tables ...... xiii List of Figures ...... xiv Thesis Abstract ...... xv
Chapter 1 General Introduction and Thesis Overview ...... 1 Introduction ...... 1 Aims and Scope of the Present Thesis ...... 3 Definitions of Major Constructs Used within the Present Thesis ...... 7 Structure of the Present Thesis and Organisation of its Studies ...... 11
Chapter 2 Literature Review ...... 13 Introduction ...... 13 Pro-environmental Behaviour: A General Overview ...... 14 Current Conceptualisations of Green Consumerism Within the Pro- environmental Behaviour Literature ...... 17 Clarifying what behaviours are considered to be a part of green consumerism...... 17 Exploring the mechanisms by which green consumerism is effective in protecting the natural environment...... 20 Predictors of Green Consumerism ...... 22 Demographic variables...... 23 Perceptions of green branding and marketing...... 23 Individual-level psychological variables...... 24 ‘Green’ or ‘environmental’ identity...... 28
Chapter 3 Theoretical Framework: The Social Identity Approach ...... 34 Introduction ...... 34 viii
The Social Identity Approach and its Central Tenets ...... 35 Consequences of Social Identification ...... 43 Employing the Social Identity Approach to Explore the Relationship between Social Identity Processes and Green Consumerism ...... 45 Evidence Supportive of the Role of Social Identification in Pro-Environmental Behaviour ...... 47 Evidence Supportive of the Role of Social Identification in Green Consumerism ...... 49 The Importance of the Social Context to Environmentalist Social Identity and Green Consumerism ...... 51 The Present Research ...... 54
Chapter 4 Study 1: Making Sense of Green Consumerism and its Relationship to Environmentalism and Social Identity ...... 58 Introduction ...... 58 Extending Current Conceptualisations of Green Consumerism by Exploring Individuals’ Perceptions ...... 59 Social Identity Processes and their Relationship to Individuals’ Conceptualisations of Green Consumerism ...... 60 The Current Study ...... 62 Method ...... 62 Participants ...... 62 Data Collection ...... 63 Data Analysis ...... 66 Results ...... 67 Theme 1: Multiple dimensions of green consumerism...... 69 Theme 2: Green Consumerism as a Strategy to Reduce Environmental Problems ...... 72 Subtheme 2a: Employing green consumerism as an individual, private sphere behaviour to help the environment...... 72 Subtheme 2b: Employing green consumerism as a collective, activist strategy...... 74 Theme 3: Reluctance to Identify as an Environmentalist ...... 75 Subtheme 3a: To be an environmentalist is to be ‘active’...... 77
ix
Subtheme 3b: Negative perceptions of environmentalists...... 77 Discussion ...... 79 Limitations ...... 83 Concluding Remarks ...... 84
Chapter 5 Study 2: “Not all environmentalists are like that…”: Exploring How Outgroup Members Perceive the Environmentalist Social Category ...... 86 Introduction ...... 86 Stereotypical Outgroup Perceptions of Environmentalists ...... 87 The Current Study ...... 90 Method ...... 91 Participants ...... 91 Materials ...... 93 Procedure ...... 94 Data Analysis ...... 95 Thematic analysis...... 96 Qualitative content analysis...... 97 Results ...... 98 Thematic Analysis: Exploring Outgroup Members Broad Perceptions of the Environmentalist Social Category ...... 98 Theme 1: Environmentalists are active in protecting, conserving, and improving nature...... 100 Theme 2: Environmentalists may all care about nature but they do not all do the same things...... 103 Theme 3: Environmentalists are evaluated positively due to their perceived altruism...... 104 Theme 4: Not all environmentalists are extreme and aggressive, but many act that way...... 107 Content Analysis: Traits Perceived by Outgroup Members to be Stereotypical of Environmentalists ...... 109 Discussion ...... 112 Limitations ...... 116 Concluding Remarks ...... 118
x
Chapter 6 Study 3: Investigating Whether Environmentalist Social Identity is Predictive of Green Consumerism in Members of the General Public ...... 119 Introduction ...... 119 The Relationship Green Consumerism has with Individualistic Pro- environmental Behaviours and Environmental Collective Action ...... 120 Environmentalist Social Identity and its Relationship to Green Consumerism ...... 122 The Current Study ...... 125 Method ...... 127 Participants ...... 127 Measures ...... 128 Procedure ...... 130 Results ...... 131 Preliminary Analyses and Manipulation Checks ...... 131 Environmental organisation membership...... 131 Group salience check...... 134 Confirmatory Factor Analysis of Variables Used in Path Analysis ...... 134 Environmentalist social identity ...... 135 Political consumerism ...... 135 Environmental activism ...... 135 Pro-environmental behaviour ...... 136 Green consumerism ...... 136 Path Analysis: Model Fit ...... 136 Model 1...... 137 Model 2...... 139 Path Analysis: Direct and Indirect Effects ...... 141 Discussion ...... 142 Limitations ...... 146 Conclusion ...... 147
Chapter 7 Study 4: The Contribution of Social Identity and Group Stereotypes to Engagement in Green Consumerism among Non-Environmentalists ...... 148 Introduction ...... 148
xi
Environmentalist Stereotypes and Reluctance to Identify as an Environmentalist ...... 149 The Present Study ...... 153 Method ...... 156 Participants ...... 156 Measures ...... 157 Procedure ...... 158 Results ...... 159 Preliminary Analyses and Manipulation Checks ...... 160 Environmental organisation membership...... 160 Group salience manipulation check...... 162 Regression Analysis ...... 162 Mediation Analysis ...... 164 Discussion ...... 169 Limitations ...... 173 Conclusion ...... 174
Chapter 8 General Discussion and Concluding Remarks ...... 175 Introduction ...... 175 Summary of the Empirical Findings ...... 176 Study 1: Making Sense of Green Consumerism and its Relationship to Environmentalism and Social Identity ...... 176 Study 2: “Not all environmentalists are like that…”: Exploring How Outgroup Members Perceive the Environmentalist Social Category ...... 178 Study 3: Investigating Whether Environmentalist Social Identity is Predictive of Green Consumerism in Members of the General Public ...... 180 Study 4: The Contribution of Social Identity and Group Stereotypes to Engagement in Green Consumerism among Non-Environmentalists ...... 181 Theoretical Implications for the Pro-Environmental Behaviour Literature ...... 183 Theoretical Implications for the Social Identity Approach ...... 187 Practical Implications for Fostering Green Consumerism and Other Pro-Environmental Behaviour ...... 190 Limitations of the Research and Directions for Future Research ...... 194
xii
Concluding Remarks ...... 199
References ...... 201
Appendix A Ethics Approval for Studies ...... 240 Appendix B Plain Language Statements and Consent Forms for Studies ...... 244 Appendix C Study 1: Interview Materials ...... 261 Appendix D Study 2: Qualitative Survey Materials ...... 263 Appendix E Study 3: Stimulus Materials and Measures ...... 265 Appendix F Study 3: Data Screening and Assumption Testing ...... 273 Appendix G Study 3: Green Consumerism Exploratory Factor Analysis ...... 274 Appendix H Study 3: Confirmatory Factor Analyses – Additional Information ...... 278 Appendix I Study 3: Re-specifications of Model 1 Predicting Green Consumerism ... 281 Appendix J Study 3: Initial Path Model for Model 2 Predicting Green Consumerism . 285 Appendix K Study 4: Stimulus Materials and Measures ...... 286 Appendix L Study 4: Piloting of Prototypical Traits ...... 293 Appendix M Study 4: Data Screening and Assumption Testing for Study 4 ...... 296 Appendix N Study 4: Additional Descriptive Information ...... 297
xiii
List of Tables
Table 4.1 Demographic Characteristics of Participants ...... 64 Table 4.2 Interview Schedule ...... 65 Table 4.3 Inductively Developed Thematic Categories ...... 68 Table 5.1 Demographic Information for Participants Included in Data Analysis ...... 93 Table 5.2 Open-ended Questions Employed in Section 1 of the Qualitative Survey .. 94 Table 5.3 Inductively Developed Thematic Descriptions of Environmentalists ...... 99 Table 5.4 Positive and Negative Trait Terms Used To Describe Environmentalists . 110 Table 5.5 Clusters of Positive and Negative Trait Categories Emerging in the Data 111 Table 6.1 Participants’ Demographic Characteristics ...... 127 Table 6.2 Bivariate Pearson’s Correlations, Means, Standard Deviations, and Ranges for Variables Included in the Path Analysis ...... 132 Table 6.3 Univariate F-Tests for Environmentalist Social Identity, Pro-environmental Behaviour, Collective Action, and Green Consumerism by Environmental Organisation Membership ...... 133 Table 6.4 Fit Indices for Confirmatory Factor Analyses of Scales ...... 135 Table 6.5 Specific Indirect Effects for Re-specified Path Model 2 ...... 141 Table 7.1 Demographics of Participants ...... 156 Table 7.2 Descriptive Statistics, Bivariate Pearson’s Correlations, and Cronbach Alphas for Major Variables ...... 160 Table 7.3 Univariate F-Tests for Environmentalist Social Identity, Green Consumerism and Stereotypical Traits by Environmental Organisation Membership . 162 Table 7.4 Hierarchical Multiple Regression Analysis Predicting Environmentalist Social Identity ...... 163 Table 7.5 Total Effect of Environmentalist Stereotypical Traits on Green Consumerism ...... 165 Table 7.6 Regression Coefficients, Confidence Intervals, and Effect Sizes for Paths in the Mediation Model ...... 166 xiv
List of Figures
Figure 6.1 Model 1, with environmental citizenship included, predicting green consumerism ...... 138 Figure 6.2 Final re-specified Model 2, without environmental citizenship, predicting green consumerism ...... 140 Figure 7.1 Theoretical model for indirect effects of positive and negative stereotypical traits on green consumerism through environmentalist social identity ...... 155 Figure 7.2 Standardised regression coefficients (β) for the indirect effects of positive and negative stereotypical traits on green consumerism through environmentalist social identity ...... 168
xv
Thesis Abstract
Given that much of the world’s current environmental damage can be attributed to unsustainable consumption behaviour, green consumerism can be employed as a means to decrease the severity of these environmental issues. However, although many individual-level psychological variables have emerged as related to green consumerism, there has been little focus within the current literature on how group-level variables contribute to green consumerism, including such variables as social identity and group stereotypes. Thus, the central aim of the present thesis was to explore how environmentalist social identity and environmentalist stereotypes each contributed to green consumerism amongst individuals who were not members of environmental organisations (i.e., ‘environmentalist outgroup members’ or ‘non-environmentalists’).
Drawing upon a review of the relevant literature and the social identity approach
(Chapters 2 and 3), four research questions were developed. These were: 1) what do environmentalists and non-environmentalists perceive to be involved in green consumerism; 2) what is the content of the stereotypes that non-environmentalists hold of the superordinate environmentalist social category; 3) is environmentalist social identity predictive of green consumerism amongst non-environmentalists; and 4) does environmentalist social identity mediate the relationship between outgroup stereotypes of environmentalists and green consumerism for non-environmentalists. As these research questions focused on broadly exploring the relationship between social identity processes and green consumerism in non-environmentalists, the present thesis employed a mixed methods research approach, and primarily used samples of individuals who did not belong to environmental organisations, rather than self-identified environmentalists. xvi
The empirical work in this present thesis consisted of four studies, each exploring one of the research questions. Chapter 4 presents Study 1 (N = 28), where a qualitative analysis of one-on-one interviews demonstrated that self-identified environmentalists and non-environmentalists alike perceived green consumerism to be both an individual and collective pro-environmental behaviour that involved a number of environmentally friendly consumption actions. Study 1 also presented potential reasons as to why some individuals of the general public may fail to identify with the environmentalist social category, with participants suggesting that those who did not consistently engage in pro-environmental behaviours, or who were not ‘active’ enough, could not be labelled an environmentalist. Furthermore, participants also suggested that there were too many negative perceptions surrounding the environmentalist social category, which would decrease the likelihood of some identifying as environmentalists.
In Chapter 5, Study 2 (N = 89), an inductive, open-ended qualitative survey was employed to further explore how the environmentalist social category was broadly perceived by non-environmentalists. This study demonstrated that non-environmentalists held a stereotype of the environmentalist social category that incorporated both positive traits (caring, informed, and dedicated) and negative traits (pushy, stubborn, and arrogant). Furthermore, non-environmentalists saw all environmentalists as protective and concerned for the natural environment, yet also acknowledged that environmentalists would not engage in all the same pro-environmental behaviours.
Study 3 (N = 275), presented in Chapter 6, used a quantitative survey to investigate whether environmentalist social identity, as well as both individualistic pro- environmental behaviours and collective environmental actions, were predictive of green consumerism in non-environmentalists. A path analysis demonstrated that
xvii environmentalist social identity, willingness to sacrifice, environmental activism, and political consumerism were all predictive of green consumerism, with environmentalist social identity found to be the strongest predictor of the four. Willingness to sacrifice, environmental activism and political consumerism were also found to partially mediate the relationship between environmentalist social identity and green consumerism, suggesting that environmentalist social identification was the mechanism that underpinned engagement in numerous pro-environmental behaviours including green consumerism.
Chapter 7 presents Study 4 (N = 248) which employed a quantitative survey to investigate whether environmentalist social identity mediated the relationship between the endorsement of environmentalist stereotypes and green consumerism for non- environmentalists. Findings of this study revealed that perceptions of positive and negative stereotypical traits of environmentalists directly contributed to non- environemtnalists strength of environmentalist social identity. A mediation analysis also demonstrated that environmentalist stereotypes exerted an indirect effect on green consumerism through environmentalist social identity. Non-environmentalists who endorsed positive traits as stereotypical of environmentalists were more likely to identify as an environmentalist, and subsequently engage in higher rates of green consumerism.
By contrast, non-environmentalists who endorsed negative traits as stereotypical of environmentalists were less likely to identify as an environmentalist, and engage in lower rates of green consumerism.
The thesis contributes to the research literature by confirming that environmentalist social identity and environmentalist stereotypes do indeed play a role in green consumerism, at least for those individuals in the general public who are not
xviii already members of environmental organisations (i.e., non-environmentalists). The findings of these four studies also contribute to broader discussions concerning how researchers, policy makers, and environmentalists alike can encourage non- environmentalists to engage in pro-environmental behaviour, by demonstrating the importance of social identity processes for these behaviours. Chapter 8 therefore concludes the thesis by not only summarising and integrating its findings, but by making suggestions based on these empirical findings, and on the social identity approach, for ways to encourage non-environmentalists to identify with the environmentalist social category and to engage in green consumerism.
CH. 1. GENERAL INTRO AND THESIS OVERVIEW 1
Chapter 1
General Introduction and Thesis Overview
“Every time you spend money, you’re casting a vote for the kind of world you want”
Anna Lappé (Leiber, 2003, p. 72).1
“I’m not a greenie but… I want a clean, safe future for my kids” (Environment Victoria,
2014).2
Introduction
A number of environmental issues facing the global community – such as anthropogenic climate change, deforestation, and the warming of the ocean – are seen to result at least partly from unsustainable human behaviour (Clayton & Brook, 2005;
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), 2013; Laffoley & Baxter, 2016;
Swim, Clayton, & Howard, 2011a; Swim et al., 2011b). Unsurprisingly, then, researchers, policy makers, and environmentalists alike have increasingly turned their attention to encouraging individuals to engage in behaviours that conserve and protect the natural environment (e.g., Gifford, 2014; Girod, van Vuuren, & Hertwich, 2014;
Osbaldiston & Schott, 2012; Oskamp, 2000; Pelletier, Lavergne, & Sharp, 2008; Steg &
Vlek, 2009; Vlek & Steg, 2007; Stern, 2011). Indeed, much focus within WEIRD3
1 Anna Lappé is an environmentalist and research expert on food systems and sustainable agriculture. 2 A slogan used during Environment Victoria’s advertising campaign in the 2014 Victorian State Election. Environment Victoria is an independent, environmental organisation in the state of Victoria, Australia, which campaigns for legislative change whilst also providing resources for individuals to become more environmentally friendly. 3 WEIRD is an acronym used to describe westernised, educated, industrialised, rich, and democratic societies (see Henrich, Heine, & Norenzayan, 2010; Jones, 2010). CH. 1. GENERAL INTRO AND THESIS OVERVIEW 2 nations has been upon the benefits of increasing green consumerism – those consumption practices that are ‘environmentally friendly’ (Connor, 2012; Erickson,
2011; Jackson, 2005; Ölander & Thøgersen, 1995; Niva & Timonen, 2001;
Papaoikonomou, Ryan, & Valverde, 2011; Peattie, 2010; Reisch & Thøgersen, 2015).
This is because, as Anna Lappé’s opening quote above aptly illustrates, for many consumption is no longer a private act that is used to fulfil personal desires and needs.
Instead, green consumerism can be a public and collective way in which individuals can
‘vote’ with their money to create positive environmental change, whilst also reducing their own personal impact on the natural environment.
However, despite the increased availability ‘green’ products and services
(FoodDrinkEurope, 2012; Mintel, 2014; Nielsen, 2011), as well as the growing availability of resources that help individuals to enact green consumerism (e.g., The
Shop Ethical! smartphone application and the advent of the Green Consumer Guide), much of the general public still fails to engage in the behaviour (Peattie, 2010). Whilst this failure may often be due to the cost or availability of green products and services
(Carrington, Neville, & Whitwell, 2010; D’Souza, Taghian, & Khosla, 2007), it may also be due to a perception that green consumerism is something that environmentalists do, and should do (Horton, 2004; Holland, Tesch, Kitchell, & Kempton, 2000). Non- environmentalists may therefore be unwilling to engage in green consumerism because, as the quote above from Environment Victoria succinctly shows, they do not identify themselves as an environmentalist, and therefore do not want to engage in behaviours that such ‘greenies’ do. Also hinted at by the quote, this lack of identification may perhaps be due to negative stereotypes that they have of environmentalists.
CH. 1. GENERAL INTRO AND THESIS OVERVIEW 3
These points so far illustrate a number of interesting tensions and questions that have yet to be fully explored in the pro-environmental behaviour literature. For one, these points suggest that green consumerism may not only be an individual act but a collective, political action, and therefore perceived as a strategy by individuals to minimise the severity of current environmental issues. These points also suggest that perceived group membership, and the resulting psychological processes that arise from this membership, may also contribute to individuals’ green consumerism. In particular, negative perceptions surrounding the environmentalist social category may limit green consumerism if these negative perceptions lead individuals to avoid identifying as an environmentalist. This last point in particular has important implications when encouraging members of the general public to engage in green consumerism, as it suggests that social identity and social context, not just individual-level variables, are important to consider when attempting to understand and increase pro-environmental behaviour. These issues and tensions thus form the basis of the present thesis.
Aims and Scope of the Present Thesis
Adopting the view that green consumerism can help to mitigate current environmental problems (Niva & Timonen, 2001; Peattie, 2010; Reisch & Thøgersen,
2015) and is normative for environmentalists (Horton, 2004; Holland et al., 2000), this thesis employs the social identity approach (Tajfel & Turner, 1979; Turner, Hogg, Oakes,
Reicher, & Wetherell, 1987) to investigate whether social identity processes, especially those related to social identification and group stereotyping, are predictive of green consumerism. Therefore the central aim of the present thesis is to determine: Do outgroup stereotypes of environmentalists and environmentalist social identity each contribute to engagement in green consumerism, particularly amongst individuals’ in
CH. 1. GENERAL INTRO AND THESIS OVERVIEW 4 the general public who are not members of environmental organisations (i.e.,
‘environmentalist outgroup members’ or ‘non-environmentalists’)? This research question itself connects to a much larger one recently discussed in the social identity literature (Fielding & Hornsey, 2016) – that is, can social identity and group processes be drawn upon as a means to encourage pro-environmental behaviour within the general population?
Arising from the central aim, the present thesis has four research questions which are to be investigated across four empirical studies. Firstly, this thesis aims to explore what do environmentalists and non-environmentalists perceive to be involved in green consumerism. Secondly, this thesis aims to explore and clarify the content of the stereotypes that non-environmentalists hold of the superordinate environmentalist social category. Thirdly, this thesis aims to examine whether environmentalist social identity is predictive of green consumerism amongst non-environmentalists. Lastly, this thesis aims to investigate whether social identity processes, such as the stereotypes non- environmentalists hold of environmentalists, can also predict green consumerism, and whether this relationship is mediated by strength of environmentalist social identification.
As a consequence of the four research questions outlined above, the present thesis takes on a broad and exploratory focus, rather than an experimental or confirmatory one. That is, the studies presented in this thesis do not attempt to experimentally manipulate environmentalist social identity, outgroup stereotypes of environmentalists, or green consumerism. These studies also do not intend to determine whether environmentalist social identity is a stronger predictor of green consumerism when compared to other psychological variables seen in the pro-environmental
CH. 1. GENERAL INTRO AND THESIS OVERVIEW 5 behaviour literature. Instead, this thesis is specifically interested in exploring the possible collective nature of green consumerism, and how the psychological processes that arise from a group-based conceptualisation of ‘environmental’ or ‘green’ identity contribute to engagement in green consumerism. Hence, a mixed methods research approach is taken within the present thesis, wherein qualitative and quantitative methods are combined in order to explore participants’ perceptions of the constructs under study and their relationships to one another.
It must also be noted that the present thesis makes a number of assumptions concerning the environmentalist social category and the accompanying social identity.
These assumptions are necessary to make explicit due to the direct consequences they have on how environmentalist social identity is conceptualised and measured within the present thesis. Firstly, this thesis assumes that the environmentalist social category can be seen as a broad superordinate social category (Turner et al., 1987). This is because although the political ideology of environmentalism can encompass varying perspectives and subgroups (e.g., radical activists, eco-feminists, conservationists, ‘tree-huggers’,
‘hippies’, deep ecologists, etc.), all environmentalists share the same underlying belief that the natural environment is to be protected (see Anderson, 2010; Brulle, 1996;
Dalton, Recchia, & Rohrschneider, 2003; Ogrodnik & Staggenborg, 2016). Furthermore, individuals who hold a superficial understanding of environmentalism, as is the case with most members of the general public, also typically view environmentalists as one homogeneous social group (Holland et al., 2000; Tesch & Kempton, 2004; Tranter,
2010). Nevertheless, the implication of this assumption is that the present thesis minimises the possible intragroup differences that may exist in the environmentalist
CH. 1. GENERAL INTRO AND THESIS OVERVIEW 6 social category, instead considering all those individuals who identify with any form of environmentalism to be considered an environmentalist ingroup member.
Secondly, the present thesis also assumes that the superordinate environmentalist social category is highly contentious and politicised because environmentalists are often part of the political discourse, especially within western nations such as the US and
Australia (Connor, 2012; Dalton et al., 2003; Erickson, 2011; Huddy, 2001). Indeed, oppositional groups who are in direct conflict with environmentalists often hold negative evaluations of environmentalists as a result of such groups’ ideological beliefs and promotion of social change (Balch, 2014; Bashir, Lockwood, Chasteen, Nadolny, &
Noyes, 2013; Hoffarth & Hodson, 2016; Opotow & Brook, 2003; Opotow & Weiss,
2000; Watt, 2014). A direct implication that arises from this assumption is that because environmentalists are a politicised group, they are more likely to be viewed negatively by outgroup members than those social groups who are not political in nature.
Finally, the present thesis assumes the superordinate environmentalist social category is not only a fuzzy social category centring on a prototype, like other social groups and categories, but also has much more fluid and permeable boundaries than do categories possessing distinct physical characteristics, such as gender or ethnicity
(Reicher, 2004; Tajfel & Turner, 1979). This is because the defining feature of the environmentalist social category is the shared ideology amongst group members (Brulle,
1996; Dalton, 2015; Ogrodnik & Staggenborg, 2016). This ideology can be easily hidden in most circumstances, unlike the immediate markers of one’s gender or ethnicity.
The implication that arises from this assumption is that, due to the permeability and choice-based nature of the category, environmentalists are seen in the present thesis to have the ability to easily exit or dis-identify from the category if they feel there are too
CH. 1. GENERAL INTRO AND THESIS OVERVIEW 7 many unwanted consequences as a result of being an ingroup member, unlike with some other social categories.
Definitions of Major Constructs Used within the Present Thesis
A number of conceptually similar constructs, utilised by numerous disciplines, are widely discussed throughout this thesis. This following section therefore provides clear and concise definitions of these constructs, in order to not only provide clarity to the reader, but to elucidate the assumptions that are made throughout the present thesis.
Environmentalism: This thesis views environmentalism as a social and political ideology that strongly emphasises the need to protect and conserve the natural environment (Anderson, 2010; Ogrodnik & Staggenborg, 2016). Although it encompasses varying perspectives regarding how exactly the environment should be conserved (e.g., conservationism, ecocentrism, deep ecology, etc.), these orientations all share the underlying belief that the natural environment is to be protected (Brulle, 1996;
Dalton, 2015; Holland et al., 2000; Tesch & Kempton, 2004).
Pro-environmental behaviour: Those behaviours that proactively attempt to conserve and protect the natural environment (Pelletier et al., 2008; Steg, van den Berg,
& de Groot, 2012; Steg & Vlek, 2009). This wide range of behaviours can either be intentional or unintentional, or individual or collective actions (Gatersleben, 2012; Stern,
2000).
Green consumerism: The tendency for individuals or groups to engage in consumption behaviour that attempts to conserve the natural environment, which includes the purchase, use and disposal of products and services that are perceived to be
CH. 1. GENERAL INTRO AND THESIS OVERVIEW 8
‘green’4 (Antil, 1984; Peattie, 2001; Roberts, 1996; Straughan & Roberts, 1999). This thesis classifies green consumerism as a type of pro-environmental behaviour (as do
Stern, 2000; Reisch & Thøgersen, 2015; Thøgersen & Ölander, 2002, 2003).
Environmental activism: Those collective and public behaviours that groups engage in to support and protect the natural environment (McFarlane & Boxall, 2003;
McFarlane & Hunt, 2006; Séguin, Pelletier, & Hunsley, 1998). These behaviours typically aim to bring about positive institutional and policy change for the natural environment, and can include protesting, rallying, and petitioning.
Political consumerism: A consumption process by which individuals use their consumer choices to display their political or ethical concerns (Micheletti & Stolle,
2012; Stolle, Hooghe, & Micheletti, 2005). Political consumerism involves both boycotting (actively refusing to purchase products or services that do not contain certain political or ethical credentials) and buy-cotting (actively choosing to purchase products or services that maintain political or ethical standards), and is seen as a type of consumer activism that usually occurs within WEIRD societies (as argued by Bossy, 2014;
Friedman, 1995, 1996; Neilson, 2010).
Personal identity: The part of an individual’s self-concept that is derived from their personal experiences and interpersonal relationships, as well as the idiosyncratic characteristics of the self (Tajfel & Turner, 1979). Personal identity is distinct from social identity, and individuals are able to possess multiple personal identities.
4 Although there is little agreement concerning which products or services are objectively ‘green’ (e.g., Stern, Dietz, Kalof, Guagnano, & Abel, 1999; Whitmarsh & O’Neill, 2010), in this thesis, as suggested by Dangelico and Pontrandolfo (2010) a product is considered to be ‘green’ if it protects or improves the natural environment at any stage of the product’s lifespan. This includes manufacturing and production, transportation, use and disposal. Therefore green products may include recycled content or reduced packaging, or use less toxic materials or chemicals, or are organic.
CH. 1. GENERAL INTRO AND THESIS OVERVIEW 9
Social identity: The “part of an individual’s self-concept which derives from his
[or her] knowledge of his [or her] membership of a social group (or groups) together with the value and emotional significance attached to that membership” (Tajfel &
Turner, 1979, p. 63). Social identity is distinct from personal identity, with individuals also able to possess multiple social identities.
Environmental identity: The part of an individual’s self-concept that arises from their personal sense of connection to the nonhuman natural environment (Clayton,
2003, 2012; Clayton & Myers, 2015). Environmental identity “affects the way we perceive and act toward the world; a belief that the environment is important to us and an important part of who we are” (Clayton, 2003, pp. 45-46). The present thesis conceptualises environmental identity as a type of personal identity, as its defining feature is an individual’s perceived connection to the natural environment.
Environmental self-identity: The extent to which an individual perceives themselves as a person who acts environmentally friendly (Sparks & Shepherd, 1992; van der Werff, Steg, & Keizer, 2013a, 2013b, 2013c, 2014; Whitmarsh & O’Neill, 2010).
The present thesis views environmental self-identity as a type of personal identity, as the focus here is on the way in which individuals perceive themselves and their own behaviour.
Environmentalist social identity: The sense of self that is derived from a psychologically meaningful group membership in the superordinate environmentalist social category. Within this thesis, the environmentalist social category is conceptualised as a type of opinion-based social category (Bliuc, McGarty, Reynolds, & Muntele, 2007;
McGarty, Bliuc, Thomas, & Bongiorno, 2009) that is extremely fluid and highly politicised because its defining feature is the shared ideology of protection for the
CH. 1. GENERAL INTRO AND THESIS OVERVIEW 10 natural environment. Environmentalist social identity is also seen to be conceptually distinct from environmental identity and environmental self-identity, as it arises from perceived membership to a psychologically meaningful group, rather than an idiosyncratic and personal relationship to the natural environment.
Environmentalist ingroup member (‘environmentalist’): Individuals who perceive themselves as a member of the environmentalist social category. Therefore, although someone may be concerned for the environment, this thesis only considers the person to be an environmentalist if they also perceive themselves to be one.
Environmentalist outgroup member (‘non-environmentalist’): Any members of the general public who do not perceive themselves to be members of the environmentalist social category and who are not members of a environmental organisation. This thesis acknowledges that non-environmentalists may be still concerned for the environment, despite not identifying or perceiving themselves as a ingroup member.
Environmentalist stereotypes: Widely shared and simplified evaluative images of the superordinate environmentalist social category and its ingroup members (Haslam,
Oakes, Reynolds, & Turner, 1999; McGarty, Yzerbyt, & Spears, 2002; Tajfel, 1981).
Following the theoretical framework of the social identity approach, it is assumed that stereotypes are primarily an intergroup phenomenon (Haslam, Oakes, McGarty, Turner,
& Onorato, 1995a; Haslam, Oakes, Turner, & McGarty, 1995; Haslam, Oakes, McGarty,
Turner, Reynolds, & Eggins, 1996), although self-stereotyping is an intrinsic part of self-categorisation as a group member (Oakes, Haslam, & Turner, 1994). There are two types of environmentalist stereotypes, with one being those consensual beliefs held by outgroup members about the environmentalist social category (i.e., outgroup stereotypes
CH. 1. GENERAL INTRO AND THESIS OVERVIEW 11 of environmentalists), and another being those shared beliefs environmentalists hold of themselves and members of their ingroup (i.e., environmentalist self-stereotypes). This thesis focuses on outgroup environmentalist stereotypes, and uses the term environmentalist steretotypes through out the thesis when referring to these outgroup stereotypes.
Structure of the Present Thesis and Organisation of its Studies
The present thesis aims to explore how green consumerism and the superordinate environmentalist social category are perceived, and to investigate the relationships between environmentalist social identity, environmentalist stereotypes, and green consumerism. As such, the concept of environmentalist social identity is seen throughout most of the studies within the present thesis, and is explicitly investigated in Studies 1, 3, and 4 (Chapters 4, 6, and 7 respectively). Perceptions of green consumerism are explored in Study 1 (Chapter 4), with further investigation of whether green consumerism is related to other pro-environmental behaviours seen in Study 3 (Chapter
6). Finally, outgroup stereotypes of environmentalists are investigated in Studies 2 and 4
(Chapters 5 and 7 respectively).
Describing the chapters in this thesis one by one, Chapters 2 and 3 are introductory and review chapters. Chapter 2 broadly reviews the pro-environmental behaviour literature that has investigated green consumerism and is followed by Chapter
3, wherein the theoretical framework of this thesis – the social identity approach – is introduced. The empirical work of the present thesis then begins in Chapter 4, with
Study 1 employing one-on-one interviews with environmentalists and non- environmentalists to investigate whether self-identification as an environmentalist is associated with the way in one perceives green consumerism. Study 2 (Chapter 5) then
CH. 1. GENERAL INTRO AND THESIS OVERVIEW 12 uses a qualitative open-ended survey to further explore and clarify the subjective perceptions non-environmentalsits hold of the superordinate environmentalist social category. Chapter 6 presents Study 3 which employs a quantitative survey methodology to investigate the relationship between environmentalist social identity and green consumerism for non-environmentalists. Finally, Study 4 (in Chapter 7) employs a quantitative, survey methodology to investigate whether environmentalist social identity mediates the relationship between environmentalist stereotypes (operationalised as traits perceived to be stereotypical of the environmentalist social category) and green consumerism for non-environmentalists. Chapter 8 then concludes this thesis, providing a general discussion that summarises and integrates the results of all four studies with the existing literature. Chapter 8 also considers the thereoretical and practical implications of the overall findings of the thesis, as well as directions for future research that arise from its findings.
CH. 2. LITERATURE REVIEW 13
Chapter 2
Literature Review
Introduction
This chapter focuses on reviewing and critically appraising research within the pro-environmental behaviour literature that has investigated green consumerism. It first begins with a brief overview of how green consumerism is often conceptualised as the purchase of ‘green’ products that reduce an individual’s negative impact on the natural environment. This chapter then goes on to argue that green consumerism may actually be better conceptualised as extending beyond purchasing to instead include a range of environmentally friendly consumption behaviours. This argument leads to the suggestion that further research is needed to examine what consumers perceive to be involved in green consumerism, in order to clarify this construct.
Following this, the present literature review goes on to briefly outline the psychological variables found to be predictive of green consumerism. This overview reveals that ‘green’ or ‘environmental’ identities are often just as strong predictors of green consumerism as are other psychological variables such as environmental concern, environmental attitudes, biospheric values, and personal norms. However, it is argued that an individualised view of identity is predominantly taken within this research, and this view is subsequently critiqued. This critique then leads to the argument that there is a need to investigate how social identity processes may also predict engagement in green consumerism. CH. 2. LITERATURE REVIEW 14
Pro-environmental Behaviour: A General Overview
Given the need for humanity to mitigate current environmental problems (IPCC,
2013; Oskamp, 2000; Stern, 2011; Swim et al., 2011a, 2011b; Vlek & Steg, 2007), there has been much empirical interest in pro-environmental behaviour5 – those behaviours that individuals engage in that conserve and protect the natural environment (Pelletier et al., 2008; Steg et al., 2012; Steg & Vlek, 2009). These behaviours may either directly or indirectly improve the environment, and can be either intentional or unintentional, given that individuals often engage in behaviours which inadvertently benefit the natural environment (e.g., riding a bicycle to stay healthy also avoids the greenhouse gas emissions produced when cars are driven) (Gifford, 2014; Kaiser & Wilson, 2000; Steg
& Vlek, 2009).
Due to this broad definition of pro-environmental behaviour, actions that fit the definition range widely, from recycling and turning off lights to environmental activism
(Bamberg & Möser, 2007; Gatersleben, 2012; Stern, 2000). Given this variability, then, attempts have been made to classify pro-environmental behaviours into categories, with these classifications based on whether the behaviour occurs within the private or public sphere, and whether it is individually or collectively employed (Bamberg & Möser,
2007; Gatersleben, 2012; Kaiser, 1998; Kaiser & Wilson, 2000; Larson, Stedman,
Cooper, & Decker, 2015; Markle, 2013; Stern, 2000). Indeed, Stern’s (2000) commonly
5 A number of terms have been employed to refer to those behaviours that have a positive impact on the environment. These include ‘conservation behaviour’ (Schultz, Gouevia, Cameron, Schmuck, Franëk, & Tankha, 2005), ‘ecological behaviour’ (Kaiser, 1998; Kaiser & Wilson, 2000), and environmentally ‘friendly’ (Dolnicar & Grün, 2008), ‘responsible’ (Hines, Hungerford, & Tomera, 1987) or ‘significant’ (Stern, 2000) behaviour. Given its relative clarity, and recent increase in use within environmental psychology (e.g., Bamberg & Möser, 2006; Osbaldiston & Schott, 2012; Steg & Vlek, 2009), the term ‘pro-environmental behaviour’ is employed in this thesis.
CH. 2. LITERATURE REVIEW 15 used classification system categorises pro-environmental behaviours into four main categories:
private sphere environmentalism (individual actions that have a positive
environmental impact, such as green consumerism, purchasing major household
goods that reduce energy use, or household waste disposal);
organisational environmentalism (environmentally friendly behaviours or
policies that organisations employ to decrease their employees’ individual waste
and energy use);
nonactivist behaviours that occur in the public sphere (individuals’ support and
acceptance of pro-environmental government policies); and
environmental activism (collective involvement in public displays of
environmental concern such as protesting or petitioning).
Following this classification system, then, a pro-environmental behaviour that is said to be a clear example of private sphere environmentalism is green consumerism6 (Peattie,
2010; Stern, 1999, 2000; Thøgersen, 2009, 2011). Despite varying perspectives regarding what constitutes green consumerism (which are discussed in more detail below), green consumerism is often described as the tendency to engage in consumption behaviour that attempts to conserve and protect the natural environment, especially the purchase of green products (Antil, 1984; Barr & Gilg, 2005; Gatersleben, Steg, & Vlek,
6 A variety of terms have been used to refer to green consumerism, including ‘sustainable consumption’ (Connolly & Prothero, 2003; Reisch & Thøgersen, 2014); ‘environmentally responsible purchasing behaviour’ (Follows & Jobber, 2000); ‘socially responsible consumption’ (e.g., Antil, 1984; Webb, Mohr, & Harris, 2008); ‘environmentally friendly consumer behaviour’ (Thøgersen & Ölander, 2003); and ‘pro- environmental consumer behaviour’ (Stern, 1999). Due to its wide use across a number of disciplines, this thesis employs the term ‘green consumerism’.
CH. 2. LITERATURE REVIEW 16
2002; Peattie, 2001, 2010; Polonsky, Vocino, Grau, Garma, & Ferdous, 2012; Stern,
2000; Straughan & Roberts, 1999).
As individuals’ excessive and unsustainable consumption is one of the leading behavioural causes of current environmental problems, green consumerism is of particular interest to investigate in order to mitigate these environmental issues (Girod et al., 2014; IPCC, 2013; Jackson, 2005; Niva & Timonen, 2001; Stern, 1999; Thøgersen,
2011). Yet the green consumerism construct is seen by many as inherently problematic given that the term ‘green’ implies protection and conservation of the environment, whilst ‘consumerism’ often involves the overuse of environmental resources (Peattie,
2010; Reisch & Thøgersen, 2014). Indeed, some sociologists argue that green consumerism is a reflection of western consumerist and capitalist ideologies, and debate whether it is actually beneficial to the environment in the long term (Akenji, 2014;
Dauvergne & Lister, 2010; Muldoon, 2006; Spaargaren, 2003).
However, the majority of researchers within the pro-environmental behaviour and marketing literatures argue that green consumerism is still effective in reducing environmental problems because it results in individuals reducing their unsustainable consumption practices overall (Girod et al., 2014; Jackson, 2005; Peattie, 2010; Reisch
& Thøgersen, 2015; Steg, 2015; Stern, 1999; Thøgersen, 2011), and this is the stance taken in the present thesis. In fact, green consumerism provides a low-cost and small- scale behavioural intervention that can help to reduce individuals’ personal negative impact on the environment (Bamberg & Möser, 2007; Carrington et al., 2010;
Osbaldiston & Schott, 2012; Pelletier et al., 2008; Steg & Vlek, 2009; Stern, 2011), whilst also ensuring that environmental improvements that result from large-scale technological innovations do not become undermined by increases in unsustainable
CH. 2. LITERATURE REVIEW 17 consumption (as suggested by Dauvergne & Lister, 2010; Gifford, 2014; Peattie, 2010).
Due to these considerations, then, the rest of this literature review will not attempt to provide a comprehensive review of the broad pro-environmental behaviour literature, with its focus instead upon the specific pro-environmental behaviour of green consumerism.
Current Conceptualisations of Green Consumerism Within the Pro-environmental
Behaviour Literature
Whilst green consumerism may be a useful strategy to reduce current environmental problems arising from unsustainable consumption practices (Carrington et al., 2010; Girod et al., 2014; Jackson, 2005; Peattie, 2010; Stern, 1999), the construct remains ill-defined within the pro-environmental behaviour literature. As a result the following sections summarise how green consumerism is currently conceptualised, including outlining what behaviours have been considered to be a part of the construct, whilst also noting the mechanisms by which green consumerism is seen to be effective in dealing with environmental problems.
Clarifying what behaviours are considered to be a part of green consumerism. Currently, of the studies that have investigated green consumerism within the pro-environmental behaviour literature, many do not provide a definition of the construct, even when it is a major variable in their study (e.g., Barr & Gilg, 2006;
Ellen, 1994; Tanner & Kast, 2003). Others present vague or unspecified definitions of green consumerism, failing to provide an explanation of what the term ‘green’ refers to, or exactly what types of behaviours can be considered to fall under the construct of consumerism (e.g., Gatersleben et al., 2002; Paladino, 2005; Thøgersen & Ölander,
2003).
CH. 2. LITERATURE REVIEW 18
Of the studies that do define green consumerism, it appears there is no clear consensus on how to define the construct. For example, some researchers see green consumerism as an example of individualised purchasing (Dembkowski & Hanmer-
Lloyd, 1994; Fisher, Bashyal, & Bachman, 2012; Griskevicius, Tybur, & van den Bergh,
2010; Stern, 2000). Indeed, many have suggested that green consumerism involves individuals purchasing ‘green products’ that are ultimately less environmentally damaging, such as organic produce or recycled products, (e.g., Arvola et al., 2008;
Bamberg, 2002; Bartels & Hoogenham, 2011; Bartels & van den Berg, 2011; Thøgersen,
2011; Thøgersen & Ölander, 2002, 2003).
Yet others have suggested, although far less commonly, that green consumerism extends beyond the purchasing of green products to include the purchase, use, and disposal of products and services that are perceived by individuals to be ‘green’ (e.g.,
Antil, 1984; Barr & Gilg, 2006; Gilg, Barr, & Ford, 2005; Grønhøj, 2006; Peattie, 2010;
Roberts, 1996). This suggestion is consistent with marketing and consumer studies perspectives which argue that consumption involves all those behaviours that fall along the entire cycle of consumption, from the manufacture of the product, to initial purchase, and then to final disposal (e.g., Balderjahn, Peyer, & Paulseen, 2013; Jacoby, 2001).
Such a perspective on green consumerism is explored in the present thesis, given the various intertwined consumption behaviours individuals engage in when attempting to be ‘environmentally friendly’, as well as the decision making that leads to these practices (Peattie, 2010). For example, those concerned about the environment may modify their use and maintenance of products and resources (e.g., decreasing energy use), household disposal (e.g., kerbside recycling), and choice of household goods and services (e.g., utilising ‘green electricity’ tariffs) (Dietz, Stern, & Guagnano, 1998; Durif,
CH. 2. LITERATURE REVIEW 19
Roy, & Boivin, 2012; Clark, Kotchen, & Moore, 2003; Follows & Jobber, 2000; Stern,
Dietz, Kalof, Guagnano, & Abel, 1999; Thøgersen, 2009, 2011). Furthermore, to compensate for situations where there are no green alternatives to products and services, individuals may also engage in consumption behaviours that do not involve purchasing, such as minimising the use of such non-green products, or disposing them in an environmentally friendly manner (Durif et al., 2012; Jansson, Marell, & Nordlund, 2010;
Olson, 2013; Zamwel, Sasson-Levy, & Ben-Porat, 2014).
Even when individuals purchase green products or services, many of them may also engage in a variety of post-purchase behaviours (such as recycling, reusing or composting) in an attempt to further reduce the environmental impact of their initial purchase (Jansson et al., 2010; Stern, 1999; Thøgersen, 1999). Others may choose to boycott non-green products or actively choose to buy green products, even if the product is perceived to be less effective than a non-green product, in order to increase the demand for green products and services (Cherrier, 2009; Friedman, 1995; Griskevicius et al., 2010; Micheletti & Stolle, 2012). Finally, individuals may also search for appropriate information about products, and evaluate various behavioural options to ensure their consumption behaviours are as green as possible (Fuentes, 2014; McDonald,
Oates, Thyne, Aleizou, & McMorland, 2009; Wagner-Tsukamoto & Tadajewski, 2006).
The examples above point to how green consumerism is a complex construct that extends beyond simply purchasing a green product, and therefore may be better defined and conceptualised as including the acquisition, use, and disposal of a range of ‘green’ products and services (Barr & Gilg, 2006; Connolly & Prothero, 2003; Peattie, 2010;
Roberts, 1996; Roberts & Bacon, 1997; Straughan & Roberts, 1999). However, there is no research to date investigating how consumers make sense of green consumerism,
CH. 2. LITERATURE REVIEW 20 including what behaviours they think are involved in it, and whether they see it as extending beyond the purchase of green products. Indeed, investigating how individuals perceive and make sense of green consumerism may help to clarify the key defining features of the construct.
Exploring the mechanisms by which green consumerism is effective in protecting the natural environment. Although there is no consensus on how to conceptualise green consumerism, as described above, implicit within all current definitions of green consumerism are two assumptions. The first assumption is that those who engage in green consumerism typically do so because they are concerned for the environment (e.g., Bamberg, 2003; Crane, 2010Peattie, 2010). This assumption exists despite empirical evidence demonstrating that those who engage in green consumerism can also be motivated by price or status, and not just environmental concern (e.g.,
D’Souza et al., 2007; Griskevicius et al., 2010) (the various predictors of green consumerism are discussed later in this chapter). Secondly, it is assumed that consumers view green consumerism as an effective means to deal with numerous environmental concerns (e.g., Follows & Jobber, 2000; Mohr, Webb, & Harris, 2001; Moisander, 2007;
Spaargaren, 2003; Stern, 2000). Although some research has attempted to investigate these assumptions, arguing that individuals who engage in green consumerism do so for status or to be environmentally responsible (see Autio, Heiskanen, & Heinonen, 2009;
Connolly & Prothero, 2003; Moisander, 2007), little has been done explore in detail how exactly consumers perceive green consumerism to be an effective strategy for reducing current environmental issues, if they do perceive this to be the case.
Clarifying the ways in which green consumerism is perceived to be effective in protecting the natural environment can help to determine whether it is an individual
CH. 2. LITERATURE REVIEW 21 action, as often assumed within the pro-environmental behaviour literuatre (Stern, 2000), whilst also helping researchers to understand what motivates individuals to engage in green consumerism over other pro-environmental behaviours (Moisander, 2007; Pieter,
Bijmolt, van Raaij, & de Kruijk, 1998). The little research that has been done on this issue suggests that consumers see green consumerism as reducing the environmentally negative impact of their own individual consumption, especially if it is part of a lifestyle in which all their personal actions are ‘green’ or ‘environmentally friendly’ (Barr & Gilg,
2006; Black & Cherrier, 2010; Fraj & Martinez, 2006; Gatersleben, White, Abrahamse,
Jackson, & Uzzell, 2010).
Yet this focus on green consumerism as an individual action within the pro- environmental behaviour literature overlooks how green consumerism’s overall effectiveness is reliant upon large numbers of individuals acting in the same way – that is, that green consumerism is ‘collectively employed’ (Peattie, 2010). That is, even though the individual actions that are seen as part of green consumerism may occur in the private sphere, they are only effective in decreasing environmental problems in the long term if a group of individuals collectively and consistently choose to engage in these actions, as argued by several theorists (Akenji, 2014; Alfredsson, 2004; Crane,
2010; Dauvergne & Lister, 2010; Friedman, 1995; Girod et al., 2014; Peattie, 2010;
Spaargaren, 2003). Indeed, green consumerism could be argued to be a collective pro- environmental behaviour, either through the additive effect of individuals operating privately, or as a mixture of private and public acts done with the awareness of others also engaging in green consumerism and the desire to work as a group or collective to meet their shared goal of reducing environmental problems.
CH. 2. LITERATURE REVIEW 22
Whilst no research to date has examined whether green consumerism is better conceptualised as a pro-environmental behaviour that is individually or collectively employed, some researchers have suggested that green consumerism may be a form of political action that individuals engage in with likeminded others to reduce current environmental problems (Autio et al., 2009; Micheletti & Stolle, 2012; Moisander &
Pesonen, 2002). That is, when a large group of individuals actively change their consumption practices to be more sustainable or green, this change in consumption can serve as a form of consumer activism in capitalist societies (Crane, 2010; Friedman,
1995, 1996). Indeed, green consumerism’s capacity to serve as a form of consumer activism may be some individuals’ underlying motivation for engaging in the behaviour, and for preferring it to other forms of pro-environmental behaviour (Moisander, 2007).
This argument suggests that, for some consumers at least, green consumerism may be a pro-environmental behaviour that can be collectively employed. Nevertheless, further research is needed to investigate this possibility.
Predictors of Green Consumerism
Despite the lack of consensus as to how to define and conceptualise green consumerism (Peattie, 2010), research has nonetheless investigated variables which help to increase behaviours that can be considered facets of green consumerism, such as purchasing green products, recycling, and conservation of resources or services. This research has been summarised and meta-analysed in a number of seminal papers (see
Bamberg & Möser, 2007; Gifford & Nilsson, 2014; Hines, Hungerford, & Tomera,
1987; Osbaldiston, 2013; Osbaldiston & Schott, 2012; Peattie, 2010; Stern, 2000), with some key findings particularly relevant to the present thesis summarised below.
CH. 2. LITERATURE REVIEW 23
Demographic variables. Some research, especially within the marketing field, indicates that women, younger people, and more well educated individuals are more willing to purchase recycled products and organic food than are men, older people, and less educated individuals (e.g., Mostafa, 2007; Stern, Dietz, & Guagnano, 1995;
Straughan & Roberts, 1999). Yet other studies suggest that age, occupation, level of education, and gender do not predict the purchase of green products such as recycled paper products and ‘green detergent’ (e.g., Akehurst, Afonso, & Goncalves, 2012;
Diamantopoulos, Schlegelmilch, Sinkovics, & Bohlen, 2003; Fisher et al., 2012). Given these mixed findings, many researchers have concluded that demographic variables alone are unable to predict green consumerism (e.g., Akehurst et al., 2012; Clark et al.,
2003; Diamantopoulos et al., 2003; Papaoikonomou er al., 2011, Peattie, 2010;
Straughan & Roberts, 1999; Tanner & Kast, 2003).
Perceptions of green branding and marketing. The subjective perceptions consumers have of green branding also appears to have minimal explanatory power for green consumerism (Griskevicius et al., 2010; Henion, Gregory & Clee, 1981; Peattie,
2010). For example, it has been shown that whilst the aim of green or eco labels is to provide clear information to consumers, they are in actuality perceived to be confusing and overwhelming for most (Borin, Lindsey-Mullikin, & Krishuan, 2013; Brécard,
Hlaimi, Lucas, Perraudeau, & Salladarré, 2009; Chen, 2010; Pedersen & Neergaard,
2006). Individuals also have both positive and negative perceptions of green marketing claims (Chan, 2000; Kim, Lee, & Park, 2010; Shrum, McCarty, & Lowrey, 1995), and are less likely to engage in green consumerism when a product is seen to be dishonestly labelled as environmentally friendly – that is, when ‘greenwashing’ occurs (Lim, Ting,
Bonaventure, Sendiawan, & Tanusina, 2013).
CH. 2. LITERATURE REVIEW 24
Individual-level psychological variables. As demographic variables and subjective perceptions of green branding appear to inadequately predict green consumerism, many researchers have instead focused on psychological variables in order to provide more stable and stronger explanations for green consumerism (Peattie,
2010; Reisch & Thøgersen, 2015; Stern, 2000). This research has primarily focused on individual-level variables, including environmental knowledge (e.g., Paladino, 2005;
Schlegelmilch, Bohlen, & Diamantopoulos, 1996), pro-environmental attitudes or concern (e.g., Balderjahn, 1988; D’Souza et al., 2007; Roberts & Bacon, 1997), personal norms (e.g., Dean, Raats, & Shepherd, 2008; Thøgersen & Ölander, 2006), perceived behavioural control (e.g., Sparks & Shepherd, 1992), biospheric values (Gatersleben,
Murtagh, & Abrahamse, 2014), and ‘green’ or ‘environmental’ identities (van der Werff et al., 2014; Whitmarsh & O’Neill, 2010), each of which is briefly addressed below.
Firstly, of this literature, environmental knowledge appears to only explain a marginal amount of variance in green consumerism. For instance, although environmental knowledge is positively and moderately related to green purchasing and to conserving household energy (Bamberg, 2003; Chan & Lau, 2000; Paladino, 2005;
Poortinga, Steg, & Vlek, 2004; Schlegelmilch et al., 1996), when subjective (perceived) knowledge and objective (actual) knowledge of the natural environment were separately assessed, each form of environmental knowledge accounted for between 4-8% of variance in reducing, reusing, and recycling behaviour (Ellen, 1994).
Similarly, positive environmental attitudes and concern have only been found to predict a small proportion of variance in green purchasing (8–20%) in most studies (e.g.,
Balderjahn, 1988; Bamberg, 2003; D‘Souza et al., 2007; Leonidou, Leonidou, &
Kvasova, 2010; Minton & Rose, 1997; Pagiaslis & Krontalis, 2014; Roberts & Bacon,
CH. 2. LITERATURE REVIEW 25
1997). The variance explained does increase (to 30–42%) when the specific attitude towards a ‘green product’ is measured and used to predict purchasing of that specific product (e.g., Mostafa, 2007; Vermeir & Verbeke, 2008) – this is in line with the compability principle as outlined by the Theory of Planned Behaviour (Ajzen, 1985;
1991). However, when environmental self-identity is included as a predictor alongside environmental attitudes, attitudes are no longer predictive of a range of pro- environmental behaviours, including green purchasing (Whitmarsh & O’Neill, 2010).
Indeed, recent research has shown that environmental self-identity fully mediates the relationship between environmental concern and sustainable consumption (Dermody,
Hanmer-Llyod, Koenig, & Zhoa, 2015) (as is further discussed below). Despite these studies measuring environmental attitudes, concerns, and identity in varying ways, thus limiting the ability to make general conclusions, the above findings do indicate that identity appears to be important predictor for green purchasing behaviour.
Research into whether personal norms are predictive of green consumerism has also produced mixed findings (e.g., Bertoldo & Castro, 2016; Harland, Staats, & Wilke,
1999; Johe & Bhullar, 2016; Thøgersen & Ölander, 2006). For instance, personal norms
(defined as ‘personal beliefs about right and wrong’, see Dean et al., 2008) moderately predicted intention to purchase organic food products (Dean et al.; Thøgersen & Ölander,
2006), but did not significantly predict individuals’ intentions to purchase
‘environmentally friendly’ apparel online (Kim, Lee, & Hur, 2012).
One reason for these variable findings is that the personal norm-behaviour relationship appears to be much stronger in instances where all that is asked of the individual is to engage in an ‘easier’ pro-environmental behaviour (e.g., Aguilar-Luźon,
García-Martínez, Calvo-Salguero, & Salinas, 2012; Steg & Nordlund, 2012; Turaga,
CH. 2. LITERATURE REVIEW 26
Howarth, & Borsuk, 2010). For example, Black, Stern, and Elworth (1985) showed that personal norms more strongly predicted the inexpensive and easier behaviour of adjusting temperature settings than it predicted actions involving major investments in energy efficiency, such as purchasing household products that save on energy. However, the predictive ability of personal norms for more difficult aspects of green consumerism associated with high personal costs, such as waste prevention and recycling, is strengthened when environmental self-identity is included in predictive models (Nigbur,
Lyons, & Uzzell, 2010; Ruepert et al., 2016).
Given that environmental attitudes and personal norms alone have often been unable to strongly predict facets of green consumerism, some researchers have instead employed the more comprehensive theory of planned behaviour7 (TPB) as a theoretical model, demonstrating it has a moderate level of predictive power for green purchasing, recycling, and reusing behaviour (e.g., Bamberg, 2002; Bang, Ellinger, Hadjimarcou, &
Traichal, 2000; Cook, Kerr, & Moore, 2002; Mannetti, Pierro, & Livi, 2004). Variables from the TPB that are particularly relevant are environmental attitudes and subjective norms which have both been found to moderately predict reduction in meat consumption and the use of energy-saving lightbulbs (Harland et al., 1999), as well as the purchase of organic and sustainable food (e.g., Arvola et al., 2008; Cook et al., 2002; Vermeir &
Verbeke, 2008).
7 The theory of planned behaviour (Ajzen, 1985, 1991) states that intention to engage in a specific behaviour such as green consumerism is the best predictor of the behaviour (e.g., Harland, Staats, & Wilke, 1999; Steg & Nordlund, 2012). This intention is predicted by specific attitudes towards the behaviour, perceived subjective norms related to the behaviour, and perceived behavioural control over the behaviour. Other variables, such as demographics, knowledge and values, are seen to influence behaviour indirectly via attitudes, subjective norms, and perceived behavioural control.
CH. 2. LITERATURE REVIEW 27
Interestingly, when an identity variable is added to the TPB, it has often emerged as a stronger predictor of both pro-environmental intentions and behaviour than are the usual TPB variables of environmental attitudes, subjective norms, and perceived behavioural control (e.g., Cook et al., 2002; Mancha & Yoder, 2015; White & Hyde,
2012). For instance, environmental self-identity was a stronger predictor of carbon off- setting behaviour than were TPB variables (Whitmarsh & O’Neil, 2010), as was the
‘recycler’ self-identity for kerbside recycling (Nigbur et al., 2010). Furthermore, including self-identity as an ‘organic consumer’ or ‘health conscious consumer’ increased the predictive utility of the TPB for such behaviours as organic purchasing, reduction in meat consumption, and consuming a diet low in animal fats (Sparks &
Guthrie, 1998; Sparks & Shepherd, 1992). ‘Organic consumer self-identity’ was also found to increase intention to purchase organic products by initially influencing consumer attitudes and norms (Johe & Bhullar, 2016). These findings suggest that, whilst the TPB can predict green consumerism, identity explains a unique amount of additional variance in green consumerism, with identity often making a greater contribution in explaining pro-environmental intentions and behaviour over and above that of variables found in the TPB.
Researchers have also examined whether personal values may predict green consumerism, particularly in relation to the purchasing of green products, the reduction in energy and car use, and the reuse of resources and products (Barr, 2007; Dembkowski
& Hanmer-Lloyd, 1994; Jansson et al., 2010; Steg, 2015; Thøgersen & Ölander, 2002;
Vermeir & Verbeke, 2008). In fact, studies have consistently shown that biospheric values, defined as perceiving the intrinsic value of the natural environment, are predictive of numerous pro-environmental behaviours (for a review, see Steg & de Groot,
CH. 2. LITERATURE REVIEW 28
2012). Unsurprisingly, then, biospheric values have been found to predict ‘sustainable’ consumption (Thøgersen & Ölander, 2002).
Yet recent research has also demonstrated that the relationship between biospheric values and green purchasing (as well as a range of other pro-environmental behaviours) is mediated by environmental self-identity (Gatersleben et al., 2014;
Ruepert et al., 2016; van der Werff et al., 2013a, 2013c). That identity mediates the relationship between values and pro-environmental behaviours has led to the suggestion
(Gatersleben et al., 2014; Hiltin, 2003; Steg & de Groot, 2012) that having a ‘green’ or
‘environmental’ identity encompasses one having biospheric values in the first place, as valuing nature is an important component of seeing oneself as ‘green’ or
‘environmentally friendly’.
‘Green’ or ‘environmental’ identity. Identity can be defined as an organisational framework of the self, essentially providing information on how we perceive ourselves and others (Clayton, 2003, 2012; Clayton & Myers, 2015; Light,
2000; Sparks, 2013). An identity typically emerges from social structures and interactions and, when made salient by situational cues, guides our attitudes and behaviour (Baumeister & Twenge, 2003; Brown, 2000; Stapleton, 2015; Stets & Biga,
2003; Stets & Burke, 2000).
Within the pro-environmental behaviour literature, it has been suggested that making an ‘environmental’ or ‘green’ identity salient is especially useful for fostering a range of pro-environmental behaviours (Clayton & Myers, 2015; Clayton & Opotow,
2003; Schultz & Tabanico, 2007; van der Werff et al., 2014). Arguably, this is because
‘environmental’ or ‘green’ identities reflect an individual’s acknowledgement that their personal relationship to the natural environment is a central part of whom they are.
CH. 2. LITERATURE REVIEW 29
Given this, individuals therefore need to engage in pro-environmental behaviour in order to accurately reflect their perception of being an ‘environmentally friendly’ person
(Clayton, 2003; Clayton & Opotow, 2003; Sparks, 2013; Stets & Biga, 2003). This can include consumption behaviour, especially if it is consumption that is intended to be green or sustainable (as suggested by Crane, 2010; Soron, 2010). As such, researchers have examined identities that are specific towards a certain pro-environmental behaviour
(e.g., ‘recycler self-identity’, ‘organic consumer’ self-identity) (Nigbur et al., 2010;
Sparks & Shepherd, 1992) and those which are more general (e.g., ‘environmental identity’ or ‘environmental self-identity’) (Clayton, Fraser, & Burgess, 2011; Kashima,
Paladino, & Margetts, 2014; Kim et al., 2012; van der Werff et al., 2013a, 2013b, 2013c,
2014; Whitmarsh & O’Neill, 2010).
Broadly speaking, these ‘green’ or ‘environmental’ identities in particular have been found to be strongly predictive of numerous pro-environmental behaviours, including energy conservation, adopting green energy or electric cars, recycling, travel mode choice, environmentally friendly transport, participation in environmental stewardship programs, and waste minimisation behaviour (e.g., Barbarossa, Beckman,
De Pelsmacker, Moons, & Gwozdz, 2015; Dresner, Handelman, Braun, & Rollwagen-
Bollens, 2015; Gatersleben et al., 2014; Kashima et al., 2014; Murtagh, Gatersleben, &
Uzzell, 2012; Nigbur et al., 2010; van der Werff et al., 2013a, 2013b; White & Hyde,
2012; Whitmarsh & O’Neill, 2010). Moreover, ‘green’ or ‘environmental’ identities are also predictive of green purchasing choices (Costa Pinto, Herter, Rossi, & Borges, 2014;
Herter, Costa Pinto, Borges, & Nique, 2011; Sparks & Shepherd, 1992; Whitmarsh &
O’Neill, 2010). Indeed, a consumer’s tendency to identify as a ‘green’, ‘sustainable’ or
‘organic’ consumer also strongly predicts their purchase of ‘green’, ‘sustainable’, and
CH. 2. LITERATURE REVIEW 30
‘organic’ products (Bartels & Reindeers, 2016; Johe & Bhullar, 2016; Kim et al., 2012;
Sparks & Shepherd, 1992).
Furthermore, and as outlined earlier in this chapter, whilst numerous individual- level psychological variables are moderately predictive of facets of green consumerism such as green purchasing and the reuse of products, the predictive ultility of these models that include environmental attitudes or concern are often increased when ‘green’ or ‘environmental’ identity is also included (e.g., Cook et al., 2002; Dermody et al.,
2015; Gatersleben et al., 2014; Ruepert et al., 2016; Mancha & Yoder, 2015; Nigbur et al., 2010; Whitmarsh & O’Neill, 2010). ‘Green’ or ‘environmental’ identities are also shown to mediate the relationships environmental concern, personal norms, and biospheric values have with various pro-environmental behaviours (Johe & Bhullar,
2016; Nigbur et al., 2010; Ruepert et al., 2016; Whitmarsh & O’Neill, 2010). Together, these findings suggest that identity is a strong predictor of pro-environmental behaviour, including green consumerism, as argued by a number of researchers (Clayton, 2012;
Clayton & Myers, 2015; Kashima et al., 2014; Sparks, 2013; Whitmarsh & O’Neill,
2010).
Reconceptualising green or environmental identity. Whilst one can hold multiple identities that can be either personal (self or personal identity) or collective
(group or social identity) (Tajfel & Turner, 1979), the present thesis argues that the current pro-environmental behaviour literature has typically focused solely upon an individualised or ‘personal’ view of ‘green’ or ‘environmental’ identity. That is, the research focus is usually upon the part of the self-concept that arises from personal views of the self or idiosyncratic experiences. This includes individuals seeing themselves as someone who engages in ‘environmental friendly’ behaviour or
CH. 2. LITERATURE REVIEW 31 individuals perceiving themselves as having a close relationship with the natural environment (Clayton, 2003; Light, 2000; Sparks, 2013; van der Werff et al., 2014).
Such ‘personal’ identities that have been studied include:
‘ecological’ identity, defined as one’s perceived interdependence with nature
(Light, 2000; Thomashow, 1996),
‘environmental identity’, defined as the sense of connection to some part of
the nonhuman natural environment that contributes to the way one perceives
and acts towards the natural world (Clayton, 2003, 2012), and
‘environmental self-identity’, defined as someone perceiving themselves as a
person who engages in a range of pro-environmental behaviours (van der
Werff et al., 2013a, 2013b, 2013c, 2014).
Although these various types of personal identities are conceptually different, they all share the underlying view that ones personal experiences of the natural environment contributes to their sense of self. However, identity does not only arise from idiosyncratic and personal experiences, like one seeing themselves as part of nature
(i.e., environmental identity), or as a person who acts pro-environmentally (i.e., environmental self-identity). An individual’s self-concept can also be derived from membership to psychologically meaningful social groups – that is, social or group identities (Tajfel, 1981; Tajfel & Turner, 1979; Turner, 1982; Turner et al., 1987; Turner
& Oakes, 1986). Indeed, individuals can perceive themselves to be members of groups based on shared ideology and opinion, including the ideology of environmentalism
(Bliuc et al., 2007; McGarty et al., 2009).
Given this, membership in pro-environmental social categories or groups that have an underlying environmental ideology (or groups that hold pro-environmental
CH. 2. LITERATURE REVIEW 32 norms more generally) are likely to also significantly contribute to individuals’ perceptions of themselves, and to their associated behaviour. Indeed, a plethora of studies show that when social identities become salient, those who identify with these identities assimilate their attitudes, beliefs and behaviour to the norms of the group, viewing themselves as having similar qualities with other ingroup members (for some summaries, see Brown, 2000; Ellemers, Spears, & Doosje, 2002; Reicher, Spears, &
Haslam, 2010; Terry & Hogg, 2000). Quite simply, identification to the social group or category becomes the psychological mechanism that underpins group normative attitudes, beliefs, and behaviours.
Given these considerations, many researchers have previously suggested that seeing oneself as ‘green’ or ‘environmental’ is important to members of environmental movements and groups, and therefore contributes to their behaviour (Holland et al.,
2000; Light, 2000; Matsuba, 2012; Owen, Videras, & Wu, 2010; Ruiz-Junco, 2011;
Stapleton, 2015). However, the relationship between social identity and different types of pro-environmental behaviour has only received recent empirical attention (e.g.,
Bartels & Hoogendam, 2011; Bartels & Reinders, 2016; Dono, Webb, Richardson,
2010; Fielding, McDonald, & Louis, 2008a). Nevertheless, this emerging body of research demonstrates that an identity based on environmental group membership – that is, social identity – is positively and moderately associated with numerous pro- environmental attitudes and behaviours (e.g., Bamberg, Rees, & Seebauer, 2015; Bliuc,
McGarty, Thomas, Lala, Berndsen, & Misajon, 2015; Rees & Bamberg, 2014;
Sweetman & Whitmarsh, 2016; Veenstra, Lyons, & Fowler-Dawson, 2016).
Yet, to date, no research has investigated the relationship between social identity and green consumerism in particular. As such, in the following chapter, it is argued that
CH. 2. LITERATURE REVIEW 33 the social identity approach (Tajfel & Turner, 1979; Turner et al., 1987), a theoretical framework that acknowledges both personal and social identity, could help to further explain the relationship between identity and green consumerism, as well as elucidate how other group and intergroup processes (such as group stereotyping) may contribute to green consumerism, and pro-environmental behaviour more generally. This argument is accompanied by a review of research that, although not directly measuring the relationship between social identity and green consumerism, provides some initial evidence as to how social identity, and the processes that arise from ingroup identification, can contribute to engagement in green consumerism.
CH. 3. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK 34
Chapter 3
Theoretical Framework: The Social Identity Approach
Introduction
In Chapter 2, the pro-environmental behaviour literature that has investigated green consumerism was outlined, and two key conclusions were drawn. Firstly it was noted that green consumerism is typically conceptualised as a type of individualised purchasing behaviour – specifically as the purchase of green products (Dembkowski &
Hanmer-Lloyd, 1994; Griskevicius et al., 2010; Stern, 2000; Thøgersen & Ölander, 2002,
2003). However, the chapter argued that not only could green consumerism be better conceptualised as including multiple consumption behaviours, it could also be seen as a behaviour that is collectively employed, given that it needs to be enacted by many people to be as effective as possible in reducing current environmental problems (Crane,
2010; Girod et al., 2014; Peattie, 2010; Spaargaren, 2003).
Secondly, Chapter 2 also demonstrated that while various individual-level variables are positively related to green consumerism, ‘green’ or ‘environmental’ identities have often been found to be just as strong predictors of green purchasing (and pro-environmental behaviour more generally) than other such variables (e.g., Dean et al.,
2008; Gatersleben et al., 2014; Ruepert et al., 2016; van der Werff et al., 2013a, 2013b,
2013c, 2014; Whitmarsh & O’Neill, 2010). Yet by taking an individualistic view of identity, this literature often overlooks how psychologically meaningful group memberships also impact on one’s perceptions of the self and, through this, on behaviour (Tajfel & Turner, 1979; Turner et al., 1987). It was subsequently argued that this focus on personal environmental identities was a limitation of the current research
CH. 3. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK 35 literature, as it neglects the contribution that social groups, and thus social identity, can have on green consumerism, and pro-environmental behaviour more generally (Fielding
& Hornsey, 2016).
Drawing upon these arguments, then, the aims of the present chapter were: (1) to introduce the social identity approach, a meta-theoretical framework that acknowledges the contributions that social identity processes make to social behaviours; and (2) to discuss the advantages of employing this approach when investigating engagement in green consumerism. The following section now introduces the social identity approach.
The Social Identity Approach and its Central Tenets
The social identity approach8 is a meta-theoretical framework for understanding group processes, intergroup relations, and social behaviour across many social contexts, including political and environmental ones (Hogg, 2006a; Hogg & Turner, 1987; Tajfel,
1981; Tajfel & Turner, 1979; Turner et al., 1987). Its development arose as a reaction to individualistic and reductionist theoretical explanations of group-mediated phenomena, and it instead emphasises that psychological group membership is both necessary and sufficient to produce intra- and intergroup processes (Abrams & Hogg, 1990; Hornsey,
2008; Tajfel & Turner, 1979; Turner et al., 1987; Turner & Oakes, 1986). Indeed, one’s identification with relevant social groups is one of the psychological mechanisms that underpins attitudes and social behaviours in many social contexts, with theorists recently suggesting that the broad environmental movement may be one such context (see
8 The social identity approach contains two distinct, yet closely aligned theories: social identity theory (SIT) (Tajfel & Turner, 1979) and self-categorisation theory (SCT) (Turner et al., 1987). Although these two theories hold different foci and emphases, they are highly complementary given that they hold the same underlying ideological positions and assumptions (Hogg, 2006a; Turner, 1999). Therefore the ‘social identity approach’ is employed in the present thesis to refer to conceptual and empirical work that is derived from both social identity theory and self-categorisation theory.
CH. 3. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK 36
Batalha & Reynolds, 2012; Fielding & Hornsey, 2016; Postmes, Rabinovich, Morton, & van Zomeren, 2013).
At its foundation, the social identity approach rests upon the assumption that society is comprised of numerous social categories and groups that seek to distinguish themselves from one another (Hogg & Abrams, 1988; Hogg, Terry, & White, 1995;
Hornsey, 2008; Spears, 2011; Tajfel & Turner, 1979). These social categories exist within hierarchically stratified societies, where individuals are aware that the social groups to which they belong differ in status from other groups. Moreover, groups are not static and may compete for such status as well as for concrete resources, via social change and other more psychological strategies (Brewer & Brown, 1998; Ellemers et al.,
2002; Tajfel & Turner, 1979).
Principally, from this perspective, such social categories and groups are not aggregates of individuals, but are qualitatively different to individuals, with members brought together by a shared self-perception and social reality (Tajfel, 1981; Turner,
1982; Turner & Oakes, 1986). Although social psychologists have defined groups in numerous ways, for social identity theorists groups are not defined by their function, size, or structure, but rather by ingroup members’ subjective perceptions regarding what are the defining features of the group. Thus, even though one may fulfil the external or objective criterion for being a member of the social category or group (e.g., ‘I was born in Australia and therefore am an Australian’), this is not the same as subjectively perceiving oneself as a member of a psychological group (e.g., ‘I feel that I am an
Australian’).
CH. 3. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK 37
Furthermore, as described by the interpersonal-intergroup continuum9, individuals’ behaviours that occur within groups as well as between groups are primarily determined by how salient a social category and group is in a given social context (Hogg
& Abrams, 1988; Hornsey, 2008; McGarty, 2001; Spears, 2011; Tajfel & Turner, 1979).
For example, at the interpersonal extreme of this continuum, human interaction involves people relating to one another entirely as individuals, with no awareness of social categories or groups. Therefore, the resulting behaviour that arises from this interaction is fully determined by an individual’s idiosyncratic characteristics and the interpersonal relationships that exist between individuals. However, at the intergroup extreme of this continuum, human interactions involve people relating to one another as representative members of their social groups, resulting in numerous intra- and intergroup processes that reflect group-level perceptions.
What is important to note is that individuals can shift between the opposing ends of the interpersonal-intergroup continuum as a result of categorisation, the automatic cognitive process wherein the most meaningful stimuli within a particular social context
– be it social or non-social stimuli – are brought into sharper focus (Hogg & Abrams,
1988; Tajfel, 1981; Tajfel & Turner, 1979). Individuals employ social categories as the basis of categorisation in social situations in order to simplify their interpretation of the social world, either as members of the same category as the self (ingroup members), or as members of a different category from the self (outgroup members) (Hogg, 2006a;
Hogg & Abrams, 1990; Tajfel & Turner, 1979). This categorisation produces an
9 The social identity approach does acknowledge that, in real life, social behaviour is often driven by a compromise between the two extremes of the interpersonal-intergroup continuum (Tajfel & Turner, 1979; Turner, 1981). However it is generally argued that almost all social encounters would be influenced to some degree by an individual’s assignment of themselves and others to social categories.
CH. 3. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK 38 accentuation effect (Tajfel, 1957, 1959; Tajfel & Wilkes, 1963); that is, the similarities between people within the same category, and the differences between people in different categories, are simultaneously exaggerated (Hogg & Abrams, 1988).
This process of categorisation, and its resulting accentuation effect, changes the way in which people see themselves – that is, their self-concept (Hornsey, 2008;
Ellemers et al., 2002; Postmes & Jetten, 2006; Tajfel & Turner, 1979). When a particular social context leads to shifts in self-categorisation, this activates different parts of one’s self-concept: either personal identities, those self-definitions which are individual-based and derived mostly from personal or idiosyncratic experiences, or social identities, those self-definitions that arise from psychologically meaningful group memberships (Hitlin,
2003; Hogg et al., 1995; Tajfel & Turner, 1979; Turner & Oakes, 1986; Turner, Oakes,
Haslam, & McGarty, 1994). Given that the social identity approach argues that it is primarily social groups and categories that underpin intergroup relations and social behaviour, the focus within this meta-theoretical paradigm is typically upon social identities10.
As such, social identity is defined as “that part of an individual’s self-concept which derives from his [or her] knowledge of his [or her] membership of a social group
(or groups) together with the value and emotional significance attached to that membership” (Tajfel & Turner, 1979, p. 63). Social identities are also inherently fluid and flexible, as ingroup members’ shared social reality can alter over time and across social contexts (Reicher, 2004; Turner, 1982; Turner, Oakes, Haslam, & McGarty, 1994;
10 That is not to say the impact of personal identity on human behaviour and interactions is not acknowledged. It is just argued that personal identity is better suited to explain close personal relationships and the individual attributes of the person (Ellemers et al., 2002; Hitlin, 2003; Hogg, 2006a; Hogg et al., 1995; Turner, 1982).
CH. 3. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK 39
Turner & Tajfel, 1979). For example, what it means to be part of the ‘Australian’ social group can change over time with changes in the political context, and when Australians are compared to different social groups (Haslam et al., 1995a, 1995b).
Social identities can be formed on the basis of many different types of social categories and groups, including broad socio-demographic categories (e.g., ethnicity, gender), smaller, interactive groups (e.g., sports teams, clubs), and also shared social and political ideologies and opinions (Huddy, 2001; McGarty et al., 2009; Tajfel, 1981;
Tajfel & Turner, 1979). In the latter type of group, termed opinion-based social groups, individuals identify with a psychological group of people who share the same broad ideology (e.g., feminism, environmentalism, liberalism, conservativism), rather than a group that shares any external or objective characteristics such as gender or ethnicity
(Bliuc et al., 2007; McGarty et al., 2009). This can include specific political or activist groups such as climate change believers or sceptics (Bliuc et al., 2007, 2015), as well as more general social justice ideologies (Thomas, Mavor, & McGarty, 2012; Thomas,
McGarty, & Mavor, 2010).
As with non-social categories, people cognitively represent social categories and groups as groups as prototypes – a fuzzy set of attributes (perceptions, attitudes, feelings, and behaviours) that embody the central features of the category or group (Hogg & Reid,
2006; Oakes, 1987; Oakes, Turner, & Haslam, 1991). Prototypes are subjective representations of the defining features of groups, rather than an objective reality, and follow the meta-contrast principle in that they seek to maximise intergroup differences, whilst enhancing intragroup similarities (Oakes, 1987). Prototypes are also context- dependent, as they arise as a function of the social comparisons individuals make between and within groups salient in a given situation. For instance, what it means to be
CH. 3. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK 40 an Australian will change when the group is Americans then when it is compared to the
English.
As self-categorisation as a group member heightens the similarities one has to other ingroup members, and the differences between the self and outgroup members, one’s perception of the self and other ingroup members becomes aligned with the ingroup prototype – that is, the perception of self becomes depersonalised11, resulting in individual’s self-perception becoming closer to the stereotypical or defining characteristics of the group (Hogg, 2001b; Hogg & Reid, 2006; Oakes, 2002; Turner,
1999; Turner et al., 1987). As part of this, individuals assimilate to the ingroup’s attitudinal and behavioural norms (Amiot, Sansfaçon, & Louis, 2014; Hogg, 2006a;
Reynolds, Subašić, & Tindall, 2015; Tajfel & Turner, 1979; Terry & Hogg, 2000).
Therefore, if a social identity is meaningful for an individual and salient within a given social context, this will generally result in the individual ‘taking on’ this identity, and engaging in normative behaviours of the group (Ellemers et al., 2002; Hogg & Reid,
2006; McGarty, 2001; Reicher, 2004; Tajfel & Turner, 1979).
What makes a social identity salient in a particular context is the ease with which the identity can be cognitively activated by the individual (perceiver readiness); the extent to which social categories are perceived by the individual to actually reflect social reality (fit); and the relative accessibility of that categorisation for the individual
(accessibility) (Oakes, 1987; Oakes et al., 1991, 1994; Turner et al., 1987). For instance, individuals can perceive a high level of fit for a social category in a particular social
11 In the context of the social identity approach, depersonalisation does not mean a loss of personhood, and therefore does not hold the same negative connotations as dehumanisation. Rather, depersonalisation simply refers to how individual’s perceptions of the self become less individual and instead more ‘groupy’ (Hogg & Abrams, 1988; Turner et al., 1987).
CH. 3. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK 41 context if it enhances intragroup similarities, whilst maximising intergroup differences
(comparative fit); but a social category can also have high fit within a specific social context if a group and its social behaviour reflect stereotypical expectations the individual holds of the group (normative fit). Furthermore, although social categories need to be cognitively accessible for them to become salient, this accessibility can be because the social category was specifically primed within a given situation (situational accessibility), or because the social category is frequently employed by the individual
(chronic accessibility). As such, it is the social category with the optimal fit and one which is easily accessible that will become the basis of self-categorisation and depersonalisation, and therefore social identification (Oakes, 1987, 2002). These processes become important when one considers the range of social identities individuals can hold (e.g., mother, Australian, academic, musician) and how this group membership is then drawn upon by the individual within a given situation.
Speaking more broadly, the social identity approach also posits that the need for positive group distinctiveness, partnered with the need to reduce uncertainty in social contexts, motivate social identification (and the group processes that arise from this identification) (Ellemers, Kortekaas, & Ouwerker, 1999; Hogg, 2000; Hornsey, 2008;
Rubin & Hewstone, 1998; Tajfel & Turner, 1979). Given that with self-categorisation the self becomes instilled with the attributes of the ingroup, and the fact we wish to feel positive about the groups we belong to, individuals are motivated for their ingroup to appear favourably when compared to relevant outgroups, whilst also ensuring the ingroup is clearly distinct from such groups (Hornsey, 2008; Hornsey & Hogg, 2000a;
Jetten, Spears, & Postmes, 2004). In certain contexts, such as intergroup conflict over resources or status, this motivation for the ingroup to be evaluated positively can lead to
CH. 3. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK 42 ingroup favouritism or ingroup members discriminating against outgroup members
(Brewer & Brown, 1998; Hornsey, 2008; McGarty, 2001; Oakes, 2002). Social identities also reduce subjectivity uncertainty within social contexts, as group norms provide guidance as to how one should think and behave (Hogg, 2000; Mullin & Hogg, 1999).
Finally, as mentioned earlier, the wider intergroup context and the ingroup’s position within it impact on group-based behaviour, operating via group members’ subjective belief structures (Ellemers et al., 2002; Jetten et al., 2004; Tajfel & Turner,
1979). These beliefs concerning intergroup relations are subjective reflections of the ingroup’s social reality, rather than a necessarily accurate reflection of the “true”, objective nature of reality between groups. Beliefs of particular importance are those concerning the past and present relations between the ingroup and relevant outgroups, and include the relative status and power groups have within society when compared to other groups, the extent to which these status differences are stable and legitimate, and the permeability of group boundaries (Ellemers, van Knippenberg, de Vries, & Wilke,
1988; Ellemers, van Knippenberg, & Wilke, 1990; Ellemers, Wilke, & van Knippenberg,
1993; Hogg & Abrams, 1988; Tajfel & Turner, 1979).
These subjective belief structures influence the specific strategies and behaviours a group member adopts in order to obtain, maintain, and protect a positive and distinct social identity (Ellemers et al., 2002; Hogg & Abrams, 1988; Hornsey, 2008; Rubin &
Hewstone, 1998; Tajfel & Turner, 1979). For example, depending upon whether group boundaries are perceived to be legitimate, stable, and/or permeable (i.e., individuals can leave the group), strategies that can be employed by ingroup members when they are a member of a low status group include: exiting their ingroup, either physically or psychologically; making downward intergroup comparisons that are flattering to the
CH. 3. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK 43 ingroup; devaluing or converting a negative attribute of the ingroup into a positive one; and engaging in intergroup conflict or social change in order to overturn the existing status quo (Ellemers et al., 1988, 1990, 1993). Indeed, if members of a low status group believe that the ingroup’s low status is legitimate and stable, but its boundaries are permeable, then these group members are unlikely to identify strongly with the ingroup or attempt to improve the group’s status, instead actively choosing to disidentify from the group. Indeed, those groups that are based on shared ideology are likely to perceive group boundaries as permeable and therefore would just as easily engage in protective behaviours for the category or to leave the group if they feel there are too many unwanted consequences as a result of being an ingroup member.
Consequences of Social Identification
Broadly speaking, the social identity approach emphasises how groups, and the broader social context that surrounds the existence of groups, contribute to human interaction and social behaviour (Abrams & Hogg, 1990; Hornsey, 2008; Tajfel &
Turner, 1979; Turner et al., 1987). In particular, this meta-theoretical framework provides a clear psychological mechanism to explain why groups matter to behaviour, by showing in repeated studies that it is an individual’s social identification with a salient social category in a given social context that results in identity congruent social behaviour (Hogg, 2006a; Spears, 2011; Reynolds et al., 2015; Tajfel & Turner, 1979;
Turner et al., 1987). As just a sample of such evidence, the social identity approach has been employed to explain social behaviours that occur in contexts such as organisations
(Cornelissen, Haslam, & Balmer, 2007; Haslam, 2004; Hogg, 2001a), education
(Bizumic, Reynolds, Turner, Brombead, & Subasic, 2009; Bliuc, Ellis, Goodyear, &
Hendres, 2011), and health (Greenaway, Haslam, Cruwys, Branscombe, Ysseldyk, &
CH. 3. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK 44
Heldreth, 2015; Haslam, Cruwys, Haslam, Dingle, & Chang, 2016; Jetten, Haslam, &
Haslam, 2012). Most appropriate for the present thesis, some researchers have also recently argued that the social identity approach, including the psychological mechanism of social identification, can also help to explain pro-environmental attitudes and behaviour (see Batalha & Reynolds, 2012; Fielding & Hornsey, 2016; Postmes et al.,
2013).
Given social identification is the psychological mechanism that drives ‘groupy’ behaviour, the social identity approach has also been employed to explain both intra and intergroup processes. Such intragroup processes include conformity, leadership, group polarisation, group cohesiveness, social influence, minority influence, and leadership
(Brown, 2000; Hogg, 2001; Hogg et al., 2006a; Hornsey, 2008; Turner, 1991; Turner,
Wetherell, & Hogg, 1989). Indeed, social identification explains why ingroup members are more influential than outgroup members (because ingroup members are seen as more credible and trustworthy when compared to outgroup members) and why group membership enhances self-esteem (because ingroup members work collaboratively towards group goals) (Hornsey, Oppes, & Svensson, 2002; Greenaway, Wright,
Willingham, Reynolds, & Haslam, 2015; McGarty, Turner, Hogg, David, & Wetherell,
1992; Rubin & Hewstone, 1998; Schultz & Fielding, 2015). Social identification also explains intergroup phenomena, such as stereotyping, prejudice, discrimination, and intergroup attribution (Brewer & Brown, 1998; Brown, 2000; Hogg, 2006a; Hogg &
Abrams, 1988; Tajfel, 1981).
Stereotyping in particular is an important intergroup behaviour that arises from social identification (Haslam et al., 1995a, 1995b, 1996; Oakes et al., 1994; Tajfel,
1981). Given that when individuals identify with a social group an accentuation effect
CH. 3. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK 45 occurs (Haslam et al., 1999; Oakes et al., 1994), ‘stereotypic’ perceptions therefore arise for both individuals ingroup (i.e., self-stereotypes) and relevant outgroups (i.e., outgroup stereotypes) (Haslam et al., 1998; McGarty et al., 2002). These stereotypic perceptions take on the form of a group prototype – a multidimensional fuzzy sets of attributes or traits that capture the most representative and distinguishable features of the group
(Haslam et al., 1996; Oakes, 1987; Oakes et al., 1994; Oakes, Haslam, & Reynolds,
1999). As one can identify with all manners of groups, self and outgroup stereotypes can arise for all manner of groups, including those groups defined by shared political or social ideologies. However, the content of the stereotypes one holds, of the ingroup and outgroups, reflects the ingroup’s subjective social reality – the ingroup’s perceptions regarding the relations between the groups and how they compare to others (Haslam et al., 1992, 1998; 1999). Quite simply, then, self and outgroup stereotypes can change when perceived social relations between groups, the intergroup context, changes.
Employing the Social Identity Approach to Explore the Relationship between
Social Identity Processes and Green Consumerism
As demonstrated in Chapter 2, ‘green’ or ‘environmental’ identities are predictive of numerous behaviours that can be considered to be facets of green consumerism, such as green or organic purchasing, energy conservation, and recycling
(e.g., Kashima et al., 2014; Kim et al., 2012; Sparks & Shepherd, 1992; White & Hyde,
2012; Whitmarsh & O’Neill, 2010). In fact, ‘green’ or ‘environmental’ identities are often just as strong of a predictor of these behaviours as other individual-level variables including environmental concern and attitudes, biospheric values, and personal norms
(e.g., Cook et al., 2002; Dermody et al., 2015; Gatersleben et al., 2014; Mancha &
Yoder, 2015; Nigbur et al., 2010; Ruepert et al., 2016; Whitmarsh & O’Neill, 2010).
CH. 3. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK 46
These findings therefore show that one’s self-concept can significantly contribute to engagement in pro-environmental behaviours, including perhaps green consumerism
(Clayton, 2003, 2012).
However, as also noted in Chapter 2, research that has investigated whether
‘green’ or ‘environmental’ identities are predictive of pro-environmental behaviour often employ an individualistic conceptualisation of identity. That is, researchers tend to investigate how an individual’s personal connection with the natural environment, or their perception that they are environmentally friendly, contributes to their pro- environmental attitudes and behaviours (e.g., Clayton, 2003; Ruepert et al., 2016; van der Werff et al., 2013a, 2013b, 2013c, 2014; Whitmarsh & O’Neill, 2010). Yet, as outlined by the social identity approach above, identity in fact arises from both personal idiosyncratic experiences, such as one’s experiences with the natural environment, and psychologically meaningful group memberships, such as individuals’ membership in environmental social groups or categories (Hogg & Abrams, 1988; Tajfel & Turner,
1979, Turner & Oakes, 1986).
Social identities in particular can be formed on the basis of shared opinion, including the social and political ideology of environmentalism (McGarty et al., 2009;
Tajfel, 1981; Tajfel & Turner, 1979). The ideology of environmentalism strongly emphasises the need to conserve the natural environment, and although environmentalism may encompass numerous subgroups (e.g., conservationism, ecocentrism, deep ecology, etc.), they all share the same underlying belief that the natural environment is to be protected (Anderson, 2010; Brulle, 1996; Dalton, 2015;
Ogrodnik & Staggenborg, 2016). Indeed, Opotow and Brook (2003) suggest that when the environmentalist social category is made salient, individuals will see their own
CH. 3. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK 47 ingroup members as ‘environmentalists’, with everyone else seen as ‘non- environmentalists’. Thus, environmentalism can form the basis of a social category, with those who perceive themselves to be members of this broad environmentalist category its ingroup members (‘environmentalists’ or ‘environmentalist ingroup members’), and those who do not outgroup members (‘non-environmentalists’ or ‘environmentalist outgroup members’).
Furthermore, as engagement in pro-environmental behaviours such as green consumerism is typically normative of the environmentalist social category (Holland et al., 2000; Horton, 2004; Perera, 2014; Tesch & Kempton, 2004; Tranter, 2010; Ruiz-
Junco, 2011; Stapleton, 2015), holding an environmentalist social identity12 can therefore be one of the psychological mechanisms that drives individuals to engage in numerous pro-environmental behaviours including green consumerism (Fielding &
Hornsey, 2016). That is, one’s identification with an environmentalist social category will lead one to assimilate to the norms of the group and subsequently engage in identity congruent social behaviours including such pro-environmental behaviours as green consumerism.
Evidence Supportive of the Role of Social Identification in Pro-Environmental
Behaviour
Consistent with the above conceptualisation, a number of studies have begun to investigate whether an identity based upon membership to an environmental group or organisation is positively associated with pro-environmental attitudes, beliefs, and
12 As noted in Chapter 1, within this thesis the environmentalist social identity is seen as conceptually distinct from environmentalist identity or environment self-identity as it as the former arises from perceived membership in a psychologically meaningful group, rather than an idiosyncratic and personal relationship to the natural environment.
CH. 3. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK 48 behaviour (e.g., Bamberg et al., 2015; Bliuc et al., 2015; Fielding et al., 2008a; Rees &
Bamberg, 2014; Sweetman & Whitmarsh, 2016; Veenstra et al., 2016). Overall, these studies have shown that environmental group membership predicts environmental activism (Fielding et al., 2008a), whilst strength of identification as a climate change believer or sceptic (Bliuc et al., 2015), or with a community-based climate collective
(Bamberg et al., 2015), each predict intentions to engage in differing types of climate change activism. Additionally, environmentalist social identity predicts an individual’s sense of environmental citizenship and their willingness to personally sacrifice for the environment (Dono et al., 2010), whilst identification with a pro-environmental ingroup
(that is, when an individual views their national or student ingroup as pro- environmental) also predicts conservation of water and energy, reductions in travelling, and recycling behaviour (Bertolodo & Castro, 2016; Prati, Albanesi, & Pietrantoni,
2015; Sweetman & Whitmarsh, 2016).
Other research has shown that stronger identification with a group that is described as holding pro-environmental norms can also predict higher levels of pro- environmental intentions and behaviour (McDonald, Fielding, & Louis, 2014; Terry,
Hogg, & White, 1999; White, Smith, Terry, Greenslade, & McKimmie, 2009). For instance, a group’s norm of recycling is only influential for one’s own recycling behaviour when participants’ strength of social identification with a recycling or student group (that is perceived to be pro-environmental) is high (Nigbur et al., 2010; Terry et al., 1999). Additionally, favourably comparing the ingroup to relevant outgroups in terms of pro-environmental norms can also increase one’s willingness to engage in pro- environmental behaviour (Ferguson, Branscombe, & Reynolds, 2011; Fielding, Terry,
Masser, & Hogg, 2008b; Harth, Leach, & Kessler, 2013; Rabinovich, Morton, Postmes,
CH. 3. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK 49
& Verplanken, 2012). Furthermore when outgroup members make negative comments regarding ingroup members not engaging in group normative pro-environmental behaviour such as cycling, this also increases ingroup members’ tendency to endorse cycling and walking behaviour over driving a car (Gaffney, Hogg, Cooper, & Stone,
2012).
Evidence Supportive of the Role of Social Identification in Green Consumerism
Despite the findings outlined above, little has been done to investigate whether environmentalist social identity is predictive of green consumerism specifically, especially when green consumerism is conceptualised to extend beyond purchasing practices (see Chapter 2). However, qualitative research has shown that membership in environmental organisations contributes to individuals’ green consumption practices
(Autio et al., 2009; Black, 2010; Connolly & Prothereo, 2003; Forno & Graziano, 2014;
Fuentes, 2014; Horton, 2004; Moisander & Pesonen, 2002). For example, residents of eco-communes argued in interviews that engaging in green consumerism was an important part of being in an environmental group that resisted materialistic consumption (Moisander & Pesonen, 2002). Similarly, Horton (2004) found that individuals belonging to environmental activist organisations, such as Friends of the
Earth or Earth First!, often chose to consume products that were a reflection of their green identity and a demonstration of their membership in such environmental lifestyles and groups. Furthermore, these environmental activists noted that if they chose to purchase ‘non-green’ products over green products, other environmentalists in their groups would question the legitimacy of their group membership.
That those who were part of environmental groups or organisations found green consumerism to be a reflection of their social identity suggests that one’s identification
CH. 3. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK 50 as an environmentalist may contribute to the way in which they perceive green consumerism. In particular, as one’s identification to a salient social group contributes to their attitudes, behaviours, and perceptions (Terry & Hogg, 2000), through simply identifying with the environmentalist social category, environmentalists may have different perspectives of green consumerism compared to non-environmentalists – including what behaviours are involved in green consumerism and how it may be effective in reducing environmental problems. Indeed, those who identify as environmentalists note that collectively engaging in green consumerism, rather than engaging in the practice individually, provides them with a greater sense of effectiveness and control over achieving positive outcomes for the environment (Kozinets &
Handelman, 2004). Furthermore, those who hold a collectivist orientation (where the group rather than the individual has a stronger influence on the self-concept) are more likely to engage in green buying behaviour, with this relationship mediated by perceptions of consumer group effectiveness (Kim & Choi, 2005).
Quantitatively, research has also shown that ‘reference groups’, or consumer group based social identities, are predictive of ‘green’ purchasing (Bartels &
Hoogendam, 2011; Bartels & Onwezen, 2014; Bartels & Reinders, 2016; Costa Pinto et al., 2014; Gupta & Ogden 2009; Welsch & Kühling, 2006). For instance, when reference groups, defined as those groups or communities that individuals use as a basis for their consumption decisions, purchase or use green products, reference groups are predictive of individuals purchasing green products such as energy saving light bulbs and organic produce (Gupta & Ogden, 2009; Welsch & Kühling, 2006; Wang et al., 2016).
Furthermore, identification with ‘organic’, ‘fair trade’ and ‘environmentally conscious consumer’ groups have also been found to be moderately predictive of
CH. 3. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK 51 organic food consumption, fair trade consumption, and environmentally friendly behaviour13 respectively (Bartels & Hoggendam, 2011; Bartels & Onwezen, 2014), even over a one year period in several western cultures (i.e., Australia, Germany, Canada, the
US, the UK, and the Netherlands) (Bartels & Reinders, 2016). However, identification with one consumer group, such as the fair trade consumer group, was not predictive of behaviour related to that group membership, such as organic product consumption
(Bartels & Reinders, 2016). Given these findings, then, it appears that environmentalist social identity could be predictive of green consumerism, consistent with the social identity approach. Further research is needed to investigate this possibility.
The Importance of the Social Context to Environmentalist Social Identity and
Green Consumerism
Although environmentalist social identity could be predictive of green consumerism, the social identity approach also highlights the need to consider the wider social contexts that surround social categories and groups, especially when looking at one’s choice to identify with opinion-based and permeable social groups such as the environmentalist social category (Hornsey, 2008; Tajfel & Turner, 1979; Turner et al.,
1987). This is because the group-based stereotype one holds of a social category, particularly when compared to other groups, contributes to whether one will identify with that group in the first place, and whether one will therefore assimilate to and engage in its normative behaviours (Haslam et al., 1995a, 1995b).
13 Bartels and Reinders (2016) operationalised environmentally friendly behaviour as including buying products with environmentally friendly packaging, reading publications about environmental problems, contributing financially to environmental organisations, and learning about environmental issues from the media, so encompassing some aspects of green consumerism.
CH. 3. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK 52
In the case of the environmentalist social category then, the stereotypes individuals hold of environmentalists could contribute to whether they wish to identify as one, and therefore engage in identity congruent behaviours such as green consumerism. In particular, as those who do not hold an ‘environmental’ identity tend to be less likely to engage in numerous pro-environmental behaviours (Clayton & Myers,
2015; Clayton & Opotow, 2003; Schultz & Tabanico, 2007; Sparks, 2013; van der Werff et al., 2014), and therefore are more likely to have a negative impact on the natural environment than environmentalists, it is pertinent to study what limits these individuals willingness to identify as an environmentalist group member in the first place.
Currently, very little research has systematically investigated those group-based stereotypes of the environmentalist social category held by individuals of the general public who either do not perceive themselves to be members of the environmentalist social category or who are not members of an environmental organisation (hereonin referred to as ‘environmentalist outgroup members’ or ‘non-environmentalists’). Indeed, many researchers merely assume that the environmentalist social category overall is typically perceived negatively by non-environmentalists within the general public
(Hutchings, 2005; Murphy & Dee, 1996; Wright, Nyberg, & Grant, 2012). Others still have instead focused on the subgroup of environmental activists, rather than the broader superordinate category, showing that environmental activists are stereotyped as aggressive, eccentric, and less warm by those who are not environmentalists or activists
(Bashir et al., 2013; Castro, Uzelgun, & Bertoldo, 2016). However, while outgroup members typically tend to hold negative perceptions of groups with whom they are in conflict for status and resources (Brewer & Brown, 1998; Tajfel & Turner, 1979), in this context many individuals in the general public who are environmentalist outgroup
CH. 3. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK 53 members do not engage in conflict with environmentalists, thereby suggesting that perceptions that environmentalist outgroup members hold of this social category may perhaps not be wholly negative. Therefore research is needed to investigate how the broad superordinate environmentalist social category is perceived by the general public, especially by those who do not perceive themselves to be an environmentalist or who are not members of an environmental organisation (i.e., environmentalist outgroup members or non-environmentalists).
Furthermore, little has been done to investigate whether the stereotypes non- environmentalists hold of the environmentalist social category contribute to their willingness to identify with the environmentalist social category and, in turn, engage in identity congruent green consumerism. Indeed, findings from a small number of qualitative studies have suggested that because many individuals think that the environmentalist social category is negatively perceived by others, they are reluctant to identify or label themselves as environmentalists, even if they engage in pro- environmental behaviours or are concerned for the environment (Perera, 2014;
Whitehouse & Evans, 2010). Additionally, whilst not measuring identification specifically, Bashir et al. (2013) showed that individuals who evaluated environmental activists negatively were less likely to affiliate (i.e., interact and maintain relationships) with these activists and were subsequently less influenced to engage in the pro- environmental behaviours that they promoted.
Further still, social identity has been found to mediate the relationship between group stereotypes and group normative behaviour, particularly in highly politicised social groups, for example, feminists, liberals, and conservatives (e.g., Chatard,
Selimbegović, & Konan, 2008; Graham, Haidt, & Nosek, 2014; Nelson et al., 2008;
CH. 3. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK 54
Robnett, Anderson, & Hunter, 2012; Roy, Weibust, & Miller, 2007). Given this suggestive evidence, it is possible that environmentalist stereotypes contribute to green consumerism, perhaps indirectly through environmentalist social identity, especially amongst non-environmentalists.
The Present Research
The literature review presented in Chapters 2 and 3 identified four clear gaps within the literature relating to green consumerism. Firstly, it is still unclear whether green consumerism is better conceptualised as an individual purchasing behaviour or as a behaviour that can be collectively employed and that extends beyond purchasing practices. Secondly, although an individualistic conceptualisation of ‘green’ or
‘environmental’ identity is positively related to behaviours that can be considered to be facets of green consumerism, it is still unclear whether social identification with the superordinate environmentalist social category (i.e., environmentalist social identity) is also predictive of green consumerism. Thirdly, little is known regarding the nature and content of environmentalist stereotypes, including whether environmentalists are perceived negatively by members of the general public who do not see themselves as environmentalists (i.e., are environmentalist outgroup members). Finally, no research has yet examined whether such stereotypes of the environmentalist social category contribute to identification with the environmentalist social category, as well as to green consumerism. Indeed, it is unclear whether environmentalist social identity mediates the relationship between environmentalist stereotypes and green consumerism – especially amongst non-environmentalists.
Given these gaps in the literature, the central aim of the thesis was to determine:
Do outgroup stereotypes of environmentalists and environmentalist social identity each
CH. 3. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK 55 contribute to engagement in green consumerism, particularly amongst individuals’ in the general public who are not members of environmental organisations (i.e.,
‘environmentalist outgroup members’ or ‘non-environmentalists’)? Given that little research has been done to investigate how social identity processes are related to green consumerism, an exploratory mixed methods research approach was employed, with the current thesis seeking to answer four research questions across four empirical studies.
These were:
1. What do environmentalists and non-environmentalists perceive to be
involved in green consumerism? (Study 1)
2. What is the content of the stereotypes that non-environmentalists hold of the
superordinate environmentalist social category? (Study 2)
3. Is environmentalist social identity predictive of green consumerism amongst
non-environmentalists? (Study 3)
4. Does environmentalist social identity mediate the relationship between
outgroup stereotypes of environmentalists and green consumerism for non-
environmentalists? (Study 4)
A brief overview of each study is now presented.
Study 1 (N = 28) (Chapter 4) of the present thesis starts by addressing the gap in the literature in terms of how green consumerism should be conceptualised. To do this, it explored in depth how participants perceived green consumerism, and whether this varied by individuals’ strength of environmentalist social identity. A qualitative methodology was employed, with one-on-one interviews with both self-identified environmentalists and non-environmentalists conducted. Semi-structured interviews focussed particularly upon determining whether green consumerism was perceived as a
CH. 3. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK 56 behaviour that can be collectively employed and whether it was seen as effective in reducing current environmental problems. A thematic analysis employed a critical realist epistemology14 in order to identify consistent and meaningful patterns across the data.
The second study (N = 89) (Chapter 5) aimed to explore the nature and content of environmentalist stereotypes, addressing the gap in the literature concerning how the superordinate social category is broadly perceived by non-environmentalists. A qualitative open-ended survey was employed, with those who did not belong to environmental organisations asked to provide their thoughts and opinions regarding environmentalists. Two qualitative analyses were subsequently conducted, both which were also grounded in critical realist epistemology. Firstly, an inductive thematic analysis was conducted, to explore the broad perceptions participants held of environmentalists. This was followed by a qualitative content analysis that inductively determined the specific trait terms and phrases that were commonly used by participants to describe environmentalists. These trait terms were then employed as the basis of the environmentalist stereotype measure used in Study 4 (Chapter 7).
Study 3 (N = 275) (Chapter 6) aimed to investigate whether environmentalist social identity was predictive of green consumerism amongst non-environmentalists; addressing the gap in the literature concerning whether identification with the environmentalist social category was associated with green consumerism. Given that this study was interested in clarifying the relationships between these constructs, a
14 Despite the flexibility of thematic analysis, it lacks a grounding theoretical framework and therefore requires an epistemology to be actively chosen and drawn upon when conducting its analyses (as outlined by Braun & Clarke, 2006). A critical realist epistemology was chosen for both Studies 1 and 2, with details of this choice and explanation of this epistemology provided in the chapters that present these two studies (Chapters 5 and 6 respectively).
CH. 3. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK 57 quantitative survey methodology was employed. In particular, a confirmatory factor analysis was conducted to investigate the statistical properties of the scales that were employed in this study (and also employed in Study 4), whilst a path analysis was conducted in order to quantify the relationship between environmentalist social identity and green consumerism for non-environmentalists.
Finally, the fourth study (N = 248) (Chapter 7) investigated whether the relationship between the stereotypes outgroup members held of environmentalists and green consumerism was mediated by their strength of environmentalist social identity.
This study therefore addressed the gap in the literature concerning whether social identity and group processes in general could contribute to green consumerism in members of the general population. As this study was essentially interested in investigating the strength of relationships, as well as the mediating impact of environmentalist social identity, a quantitative survey methodology was employed, with a mediation analysis undertaken.
The following chapter now presents Study 1.
CH. 4 STUDY 1: EXPLORING GREEN CONSUMERISM 58
Chapter 4
Study 1:
Making Sense of Green Consumerism and its Relationship to Environmentalism
and Social Identity
Introduction
Within the current pro-environmental behaviour literature, green consumerism is often conceptualised as a type of individualised purchasing that decreases individuals’ personal impact on the environment (Antil, 1984; Ölander & Thøgersen, 1995; Roberts,
1996; Stern, 2000). Yet, as outlined in Chapter 2, the validity of this assumption is still to be determined, with little investigation into whether green consumerism is perceived to extend beyond purchasing, and whether green consumerism is seen to be effective in helping to reduce numeorous environmental issues as either a behaviour that is individually or collectively employed (Peattie, 2010). Indeed, examining laypeoples beliefs concerning green consumerism may provide a clearer idea concerning how to conceptualise green consumerism within the research literature.
However, as discussed in Chapter 3, environmentalist social identity may help to explain the way in which individuals perceive green consumerism, given that identification with psychologically meaningful groups contributes to individuals’ general perceptions, attitudes, and behaviour (Tajfel & Turner, 1979; Turner et al.,
1987). Indeed, identification with the environmentalist social category may contribute to individual’s perceptions of green consumerism, and their subsequent green consumerism engagement, given that pro-environmental behaviours are typically seen as normative of environmental social groups (Holland et al., 2000; Horton, 2004; Perera, 2014; Tesch &
CH. 4 STUDY 1: EXPLORING GREEN CONSUMERISM 59
Kempton, 2004; Tranter, 2010). Given these considerations, this first study of the thesis recruited both environmentalists and non-environmentalists in order to qualitatively explore the ways in which individuals’ made sense of green consumerism and whether this was related to their strength of environmentalist social identity.
A detailed justification for the study now follows.
Extending Current Conceptualisations of Green Consumerism by Exploring
Individuals’ Perceptions
As outlined in Chapter 2, of the studies that provide a definition for green consumerism, most suggest that green consumerism can be conceptualised as an individualised purchasing behaviour (Peattie, 2010; Sparks & Shepherd, 1992; Stern,
2000), in which people engage because they believe it to be effective in reducing their personal negative impact on the environment (Antil, 1984; Gatersleben et al., 2002; Gilg et al., 2005; Roberts & Bacon, 1997; Straughan & Roberts, 1999; Thøgersen & Ölander,
2003). Yet despite this common conceptualisation within the pro-environmental behaviour literature, green consumerism may in fact extend beyond individualised purchasing practices to involve several stages of consumption that attempt to be environmentally friendly, as suggested by a number of researchers (Antil, 1984; Grønhøj,
2006; Peattie, 2010; Polonsky et al., 2012)..
Exploring individuals perceptions of green consumerism may help to clarify what behaviours should be deemed to be a part of the construct and thereby how it should be conceptualised within the pro-environmental behaviour literature. Indeed, if green consumerism is perceived by individuals as extending beyond purchasing, this can also help to account for the various green consumption behaviours individuals engage in
CH. 4 STUDY 1: EXPLORING GREEN CONSUMERISM 60 when attempting to be environmentally friendly (Peattie, 2010; Thøgersen, 1999), as outlined in the literature review of the present thesis (see Chapter 2).
Prior research has also assumed that individuals engage in green purchasing behaviour because it is effective in decreasing environmental problems (Fraj & Martinez,
2006; Peattie, 2010; Webb et al., 2001), yet it is unclear exactly how green consumerism is perceived to be effective (Moisander, 2007; Spaargaren, 2003). For example, individuals may perceive green consumerism to be only effective in reducing the environmentally negative impact of an individual’s consumption when it forms part of a sustainable ‘lifestyle’ (as suggested by several researchers, e.g., Fraj & Martinez, 2006;
Gatersleben et al., 2010; Gilg et al., 2005). Others may instead perceive green consumerism to be only effective when it is collectively employed as a political action against environmentally irresponsible corporations (Autio et al., 2009; Micheletti &
Stolle, 2012). Given this, the present study also explored whether green consumerism was seen to be effective in helping to reduce environmental problems, and through what mechanisms it was seen to operate.
Social Identity Processes and their Relationship to Individuals’ Conceptualisations of Green Consumerism
According to the social identity approach (Abrams & Hogg, 1990; Tajfel &
Turner, 1979; Turner et al., 1987), when an individual’s self-definition shifts from the individual to the collective – a process referred to as depersonalisation – group memberships contribute to an individual’s perceptions, attitudes, and behaviour (Hogg,
2001b; Turner & Oakes, 1986). In particular, when group membership is made salient, individuals internalise the norms of the group and act according to those groups’ norms
(Terry & Hogg, 2000). For groups that wish to achieve social change in particular – be
CH. 4 STUDY 1: EXPLORING GREEN CONSUMERISM 61 in political or environmental change – strength of identification with the group can therefore act as a moderator between beliefs or perceptions and group normative behaviour (de Weerd & Klandermans, 1999; Kelly, 1993; Kelly & Breinlinger, 1995;
Terry et al., 1999).
Consistent with this idea, research shows that social identity is moderately related to engagement in environmental activism and consumption of organic products
(Bamberg et al., 2015; Bartels & Onwezen, 2014; Dono et al., 2010; Fielding et al.,
2008a), whilst identification with a group that holds environmental norms can also increase an individual’s environmental intentions and behaviour (McDonald et al., 2014;
Postmes et al., 2014; Rabinovich et al., 2012; Terry et al., 1999). Those who strongly identify with environmental groups (such as those who live in alternative eco- communities) also view green consumerism as an effective means to reduce their environmental impact as it serves to resist and challenge a prevalent materialistic culture
(e.g., Forno & Graziano, 2014; Fuentes, 2014; Horton, 2004; Moisander & Pesonen,
2002; Shirani, Henwood, Parkhill, Pidgeon, & Butler, 2015), whilst some environmentalists believe engaging in green consumerism, and other socially non- normative consumption practices, is central to being an environmentalist (Autio et al.,
2009; Black, 2010; Horton, 2004).
Given these findings, it is possible that the strength of an individual’s environmentalist social identity may contribute to the way in which they perceive green consumerism, in particular what behaviours are involved in green consumerism and how they may be effective in reducing environmental problems, and the present study explored this possibility. As existing research has not studied how perceptions held by
CH. 4 STUDY 1: EXPLORING GREEN CONSUMERISM 62 those taking on an environmentalist social identity compare to those held by individuals who do not identify as environmentalists, this was also explored.
The Current Study
Following on from the literature reviewed above, this study aimed to explore the ways in which people made sense of green consumerism and how this may be related to an individual’s strength of environmentalist social identity. In particular, the study had three main research questions: (i) what did individuals perceive to be involved in green consumerism; (ii) how was green consumerism perceived to be effective in reducing environmental issues; and, (iii) how did identification as an environmentalist contribute to the perceptions of green consumerism offered by participants. Given that these research questions focused on participants’ subjective perceptions, a qualitative research approach was chosen for the study, with semi-structured, one-on-one interviews employed to ensure a rich exploration of these questions. Patterned thematic analysis was used during data collection and analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2006), with details of this method given below.
Method
Participants
Research participants comprised of 28 Australians (17 women, 11 men), ranging in age from 19 to 64 years (M = 28.64; SD = 10.81). The sample represented a range of education levels and occupations, with only three participants reporting membership in environmental organisations (see Table 4.1). Participants also varied in their strength of identification as an environmentalist and their engagement in green consumerism. In fact, even though participants were asked outright whether they identified as an environmentalist or whether they engaged in green consumerism, the responses given
CH. 4 STUDY 1: EXPLORING GREEN CONSUMERISM 63 did not result in simple yes or no responses. Participant responses were therefore categorised both by how participants framed their identity (identified, reluctant to identify, did not identity), and their engagement in green consumerism (yes, sometimes, try to, no), as shown in Table 4.1.
Data Collection
After approval for the study was granted by Deakin University’s Human
Research Ethics Committee (project number HEAG-H 59_2014, see Appendix A.1), a convenience sample of 28 Australian adults was recruited through online social networks (i.e., Facebook). Recruitment notices were posted on the author’s social networking page and in environmental groups asking for volunteers to take part in a study about consumer perceptions of green consumerism. The recruitment notice also asked individuals to share the study’s details amongst their family, friends or peers. A purposive snowballing method was employed during recruitment to try and obtain a diverse range of perspectives (Patton, 2002; Robinson, 2014). This entailed purposefully seeking a large range of ages and occupations, as well as ensuring both genders were represented when recruiting participants (see Table 4.1). Effort was also made to ensure environmentalists and non-environmentalists alike were recruited as well as those who did and did not engage in green consumerism.
The author conducted all semi-structured one-on-one interviews between May and September, 2014, either over the phone (n = 20) or in person on campus at Deakin
University (n = 8) (see Appendix C for interview protocol). Informed consent was obtained from every participant before commencing the interview (see Appendix B.1 for the Plain Language Statement), with the length of interviews ranging from 30.52 to
65.19 minutes (M = 43.82; SD = 7.26).
CH. 4 STUDY 1: EXPLORING GREEN CONSUMERISM 64
Table 4.1 Demographic Characteristics of Participants Pseudonym Gender Age Occupation Education Level Environmentalist social Engagement in green identity consumerism (GC) Elizaᵃ F 23 Academic demonstrator Undergraduate degree Identified Engaged in GC Victoria F 37 Teacher (primary) Undergraduate degree Identified Sometimes Tim M 26 Tradesperson (carpenter) TAFE Identified Sometimes Katherine F 23 Teacher (tertiary) Honours Identified Tried to Daniel M 27 Academic Graduate diploma Identified Tried to Ashleighᵃ F 54 Psychologist Masters Identified Tried to Flynn M 24 Sports coach Masters Reluctant to identify Engaged in GC Kelly F 24 Customer service High school completion Reluctant to identify Engaged in GC Ryan M 26 Retail manager TAFE Reluctant to identify Sometimes Hannah F 23 Student Honours Reluctant to identify Sometimes Michelle F 22 Teacher (tertiary) Honours Reluctant to identify Sometimes Emma F 24 Childcare professional TAFE Reluctant to identify Sometimes Ella F 24 Tradesperson (roofer) Did not complete high school Reluctant to identify Tried to Isobel F 34 Finance manager High school completion Reluctant to identify Tried to Renee F 23 Exercise physiologist Masters Reluctant to identify Tried to Sophie F 64 Homemaker Did not complete high school Reluctant to identify Tried to Scott M 26 Tradesperson (landscaper) Did not complete high school Reluctant to identify Didn't engage in GC Rebecca F 23 Retail assistant Honours Did not identify Sometimes Robert M 23 Retail assistant High school completion Did not identify Sometimes James M 19 Retail assistant High school completion Did not identify Sometimes Teagan F 24 External auditor TAFE Did not identify Sometimes Amyᵃ F 23 Community service officer TAFE Did not identify Sometimes John M 26 Tradesperson (baker) TAFE Did not identify Sometimes Sarah F 54 Nurse Did not complete high school Did not identify Sometimes Marcus M 27 Research assistant Graduate diploma Did not identify Tried to Jen F 25 Tax accountant Undergraduate degree Did not identify Didn't engage in GC Mark M 28 Academic PhD Did not identify Didn't engage in GC Patrick M 26 Finance manager Undergraduate degree Did not identify Didn't engage in GC Note. F = Female; M = Male; ᵃ = member of an environmental organisation; TAFE = post-secondary non-tertiary education.
CH. 4. STUDY 1: EXPLORING GREEN CONSUMERISM 65
A number of open-ended questions about environmentalists and green consumerism were used as prompts for the interview (see Table 4.2 and Appendix C); with probing and follow up questions orientated towards participants’ responses also used in order to fully explore participant perceptions (e.g., “Can you provide some more detail about that?” and “Why do you think that’s the case?”). This flexible approach was used to ensure that interviews yielded in-depth and meaningful responses (Braun &
Clarke, 2013; Jacob & Furgerson, 2012). Data collection continued until additional interviews were unable to generate any new information or insights, thereby indicating theoretical saturation had been reached (Morse, 1995; O’Reilly & Parker, 2012;
Sandelowski, 1995).
Table 4.2 Interview Schedule Question 1 Tell me about yourself (Age? Current occupation? Highest level of education obtained? Member of any environmental organisation/s?) 2 Do you self-identify as an environmentalist? 3 Please describe what you perceive to be an environmentalist 4 Please describe what comes to mind when you hear the term green consumerism 5 What do you think is involved in green consumerism? 6 What do you think has a relationship or is similar to green consumerism? 7 How may green consumerism be an effective strategy for tackling environmental problems? 8 What types of people may engage in green consumerism? 9 Do you perceive yourself as engaging in green consumerism? (If so, how come? If not, how come?) 10 Please describe what comes to mind when you hear the term green product 11 Is there anything else that you want to note about these matters? Note. After eight interviews Question 5 was altered to “what do you think has a relationship to green consumerism” to make the question clearer for participants.
CH. 4 STUDY 1: EXPLORING GREEN CONSUMERISM 66
Data Analysis
All interviews were digitally recorded and then transcribed verbatim by the author, with identifying information and names changed during transcription to ensure participant anonymity. Although information in regards to emphasis and inflection in speech was transcribed to give the reader a greater understanding of the interviewee discourse (as suggested by Potter & Hepburn, 2005), any unnecessary detail from interviews (such as repetitions) were still removed during transcription to increase interpretability (otherwise known as ‘cleaning the data’, see Braun & Clarke, 2013;
Sandelowski, 1994). All completed transcripts were subsequently double checked by the author for accuracy.
Patterned thematic analysis was chosen for data analysis due to its flexible framework (Braun & Clarke, 2006). This method allows for the identification of consistent patterns across data, without the influence of any a priori theoretical assumptions (Braun & Clarke, 2013). Yet due to thematic analysis’ lack of grounding theoretical framework, a critical realist epistemology was employed during data analysis
(as suggested by Braun & Clarke, 2006; Carter & Little, 2007). Critical realist theorists argue that even though an independent, objective reality exists, the reality that is experienced by individuals themselves is often socially constructed (Easton, 2010;
Houston, 2001; Sims-Schouten, Riley, & Willig, 2007; Wikgren, 2004). Furthermore, the epistemological stance of critical realism also assumes that there is an association between rhetoric and cognitions, in that cognitions can be inferred from the in-depth responses that are given by individuals (Wikgren, 2004). Therefore, by employing a critical realist approach, both behaviours grounded in an objective reality, and the
CH. 4 STUDY 1: EXPLORING GREEN CONSUMERISM 67 various perceptions participants experienced in regards to green consumerism, could be examined.
In accordance with Braun and Clarke’s six-phase methodology for thematic analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2006, 2013), the author analysed the data using a reiterative process of identifying, interpreting, and analysing common themes across participant discourses. Categories and codes were inductively constructed by close readings of interview transcripts (Morse, 2008), with the research questions then used as a guide for identifying themes during formal analysis. This was followed by examining conflicting and non-fitting data to further re-define codes and categories, with any remaining data that did not answer the research questions discarded from further analysis (Braun &
Clarke, 2016). The remaining codes were then constructed into major themes and these were then discussed between the author and principal supervisor to ensure a consistent level of agreement. Any disagreement between the team was resolved through a re- analysis of coding and further discussion until consensus was reached.
Results
Three major synthesised themes were identified across the majority of participants, regardless of their strength of environmentalist identification (see Table 4.3 for a summary). These themes are detailed below, with quotes and extracts from the interviews used to provide examples of each theme and sub-theme. “I:” is used for the interviewer and pseudonyms (see Table 4.1) are used for participants. Capital letters are used to represent elevated volume, whilst underlined words within quotes indicate emphasis in speech.
CH. 4 STUDY 1: EXPLORING GREEN CONSUMERISM 68
Table 4.3 Inductively Developed Thematic Categories Theme Sub-theme Explanation of theme Exemplar quotations 1. Multiple Green consumerism was Katherine: “I think (green dimensions of perceived to include consumerism) can be a green purchase, intentional non- whole range of things”. consumerism purchase, use, disposal, searching for information, Victoria: “Green and comparative decision consumerism is about the making. whole cycle (of consumption)”. 2. Green 2a. Employing Participants suggested Michelle: “Green consumerism is a green that individuals could consumerism is about strategy to reduce consumerism as employ green personal choices… like environmental an individual, consumerism as a way to actively engaging with… a problems private sphere ensure their individual, green lifestyle… to reflect behaviour to help private actions helped the your beliefs”. the environment. natural environment
2b. Employing Green consumerism was Flynn: “I think (green green perceived to be an activist consumerism) can turn consumerism as a strategy that could be into activism rather than collective, collectively employed to individuals doing their activist strategy. improve outcomes for the own thing”. natural environment
3. Reluctance to 3a. To be an Participants suggested Hannah: “… an identify as an environmentalist that one could only environmentalist (is) environmentalist is to be ‘active’ strongly identify as an someone who seeks out environmentalist if they and takes a more active actively engaged in a approach… (where I) number of pro- would take more of a environmental behaviours passive approach”.
3b. Negative Some participants viewed Renee: “I perceive perceptions of environmentalists (environmentalists) with environmentalist negatively, often negative connotations, as suggesting that you know, those people environmentalists that just… go around… engaged in extremist protesting and…um are behaviour. more on the… radical sides of things”. Note. N = 28.
CH. 4 STUDY 1: EXPLORING GREEN CONSUMERISM 69
To alleviate concerns of the possible vagueness of the qualitative data and to demonstrate the strength of consistency of a theme across participants (Sandelowski,
2001), quantifying terms are also used for the results and discussion15. Using Braun and
Clarke (2013) as a guide: ‘many’ refers to 17 or more occurrences of an interpretation;
‘most’ or ‘almost all’ refers to between 12-14 occurrences; and ‘some’ means six to eight occurrences. Use of such terms as ‘commonly’, ‘typically’, or ‘often’ also broadly refer to occurrences ranging from ten to 17 participants, whilst ‘occasionally’ or
‘uncommon’ refers to less than half of the participants offering that specific interpretation.
Theme 1: Multiple dimensions of green consumerism.
Interviews with all participants, regardless of the strength of their environmentalist social identity, began with discussions about how purchasing was an integral part of green consumerism. Green consumerism involved “buying things that are environmentally friendly” (Hannah) or “built to last” (Sarah), including products that were “carbon-neutral” (Mark), “natural” (Sarah), “ethical” (Ryan), “recycled” (John) or
“recyclable” (Katherine), “biodegradable” (Kelly), “locally made” (Hannah),
“sustainable” (Mark), and “organic” (Flynn). Alternative forms of purchasing such as
“sharing purchasing with others” (Isobel) or “buying in bulk” (Victoria) were also
15 The need to present the numerical frequency of an interpretation across participants is an ongoing debate within qualitative research (Braun & Clarke, 2013; Sandelowski, 2001). For some, using phrases such as “a common theme…” or “many participants noted that...” does not provide enough accurate or clear information regarding the strength of a perception amongst participants, with frequency counts instead encouraged. Nonetheless, for others, meaningful interpretations within the data are said to be irrelevant to their frequency as qualitative research is said to be interested in meaning making, rather than numerical scores. As such quantifying terms (as advocated by Braun & Clarke, 2013) are given to ensure the focus remains on participants meaning making, whilst also providing the reader some clarity of the general strength of an interpretation.
CH. 4 STUDY 1: EXPLORING GREEN CONSUMERISM 70 considered to be a part of green consumerism, as was purchasing “less” (Tim) or
“minimising purchasing” (Sarah).
Both environmentalists and non-environmentalists also strongly emphasised that green consumerism was also “obviously (about) not purchasing” (Eliza). This intentional non-purchase was seen as a direct way to reduce environmentally damaging consumption practices, with Isobel noting that “if we need to harvest…less fish in the sea… maybe we just… eat less or no fish”. Even so, it was acknowledged that intentional non-purchase was encouraged less in “product based societies” (Sarah) as individuals were instead always encouraged to “buy the latest newest stuff” (Mark).
As interviews progressed, both environmentalists and those who did not identify as environmentalists also explicitly noted that green consumerism extended beyond purchasing practices to include such consumption behaviours as use, re-use, and disposal of products and services. An extract from the interview with Flynn illustrates this point:
Flynn: “… you know, (green consumerism) doesn’t just stop at… um… buying products, it continues on… once you have things then… *inhales breath* what you do with them, how you dispose of them, ummmmm you know, what energy you use to… cook or change them or do whatever… you know, you want to them, so it just doesn’t stop simply at buying or not buying”.
Marcus also reflected Flynn’s comments noting that “ANY sort of behaviour that falls into that bracket of… reusing and… recycling those purchased products is gonna be one of those things that falls under (the idea of green consumerism)”. These suggestions tapped into a larger perception that almost all participants (regardless of their strength of environmentalist social identity) offered – that green consumerism involved the “whole cycle” (Victoria) or the “entire process” (James) of consumption from “start till end”
(James). That is, from the beginning of the production process to final disposal.
CH. 4 STUDY 1: EXPLORING GREEN CONSUMERISM 71
When probed to think further about what else could be considered a part of green consumerism, almost all participants (regardless of their strength of environmentalist social identity) discussed the need to “seek information” (Mark) about the products and services an individual was buying or using. It was the “consumer’s responsibility” (Tim) to “do some research” (John) about whether a product or service was environmentally friendly. This involved the dual process of critically analysing and “checking labels”
(Ella) as well as seeking “trustworthy” (Victoria) or “credible” (Patrick) sources to verify information.
The actual source was especially important – it had to be someone who did not have ulterior motives for encouraging others to engage in green consumerism. Patrick even suggested that potential sources should not be those that presented a “one sided view about environmental issues” like some “left-leaning environmental organisations” or “far right business or mainstream industry”. Therefore, it was suggested that those who attempted to engage in some form of green consumerism would typically ask respected friends, peers or family for their opinion. For example, Ryan spoke about how he valued his partner’s opinion more than others when he sought more information about green consumerism.
Ryan: “… I wasn’t very green consumerist and then… just my girlfriend’s influence sort of… ahum… ahhhhh made me… cause I respected that opinion more than just stuff on TV or in a newspaper or whatever…”
Many participants, regardless of their strength of environmentalist social identity, also suggested that green consumerism involved what could be referred to as comparative decision making. Many participants spoke about the need to “weigh up”
(Victoria) between consumption options by thinking about “what impact products have on the environment” (Daniel) and “what happens to a product once (you) get rid of it”
CH. 4 STUDY 1: EXPLORING GREEN CONSUMERISM 72
(Ella). However, it was acknowledged that this comparative decision making was also highly dependent upon how informed and knowledgeable an individual was, with
Sophie stating that individuals needed the “correct knowledge to actually do the right thing”.
Theme 2: Green Consumerism as a Strategy to Reduce Environmental Problems
All participants, regardless of their environmentalist social identity or lack thereof, perceived green consumerism to decrease the “negative” (Marcus) contribution consumption had on a variety of environmental problems16. When probed further about how exactly green consumerism reduced environmental problems, almost all participants implied that green consumerism’s effectiveness arose from its ability to be
“both a… individual and collective activist behaviour” (Daniel). These two perceptions of effectiveness were often spoken about interchangeably; suggesting participants saw green consumerism as behaviour that could be both individually and collectively employed. However, in order to aid in interpretability, they are discussed separately below.
Subtheme 2a: Employing green consumerism as an individual, private sphere behaviour to help the environment. When asked how green consumerism was effective in “helping” (Michelle) the environment, both environmentalists and non- environmentalists alike suggested that green consumerism allowed individuals to be
“considerate” (Ryan) of how their personal consumption in their private lives negatively
16 Environmental problems specified by participants included “deforestation” (Tim), “drought” (Mark), “pollution” (Ella), “waste and landfill” (James), “wildlife extinction” (Kelly), “carbon emissions” (Renee), use of “pesticides and chemicals” (Mark), as well as “climate change” (Ashleigh) or “global warming” (Rebecca).
CH. 4 STUDY 1: EXPLORING GREEN CONSUMERISM 73 impacted the environment17. This led to suggestions that green consumerism was about being “responsible” (Ashleigh) for your individual actions and “doing the right thing”
(Robert) for “animals” (Renee), “wildlife” (Scott), “forests” (Tim), “oceans” (Kelly),
“the earth” (Michelle), “future generations” (Emma), as well as the “the rest of humanity”
(John).
While many participants did initially note that an individual engaging in green consumerism was about an individual doing the right thing by the environment, almost all participants noted that this would inadvertently cause individuals to be conscious of other social issues too. This included the “ethical treatment of animals” (Flynn), “fair trade issues” (Hannah) and “labour or worker rights” (Renee). This was because those who engaged in individual, private acts to improve the environment would often have a
“social consciousness bent in general” (Patrick).
It was also noted that for green consumerism to be effective as a private sphere behaviour, people would have to engage in a strong “green lifestyle” (Amy). This was because your individual actions and “what you’re doing everyday” (Scott) was perceived as more important than “occasionally purchasing the ‘right’ product” (Ella). Therefore, green consumerism was a continuous and conscious behaviour wherein it had to “apply to a lot of different aspects of your life” (Katherine), otherwise engaging in green consumerism was not an example of an individual trying to “do the right thing” (John) by the environment.
17 Although John did note that there would be some products and services (like fossil fuels and petrol) that would always damage the environment. Therefore consumption that involved these products could never be ‘green’ or ‘sustainable’.
CH. 4 STUDY 1: EXPLORING GREEN CONSUMERISM 74
Subtheme 2b: Employing green consumerism as a collective, activist strategy. During participant interviews, both environmentalists and non- environmentalists also suggested that green consumerism could help to minimise various environmental problems due to consumer “purchasing power” (Ryan). It was argued that as the “the dollar absolutely speaks… to business” (Ashleigh), companies could be forced to “change their practices to suit the consumer” (Flynn). Most participants suggested that green consumerism could be employed to “fight against” (Sarah) practices that were un-environmental or socially irresponsible, often using such language as the “power of the consumer” (Flynn), the “force of consumers” (Hannah), consumers
“hav(ing) a voice” (Sarah) or consumers “vot(ing) with their dollar” (Mark). Eliza went so far to say that engaging in green consumerism was “empowering”. Due to these considerations, it appears that some participants saw green consumerism as a form of powerful, collective action.
Both environmentalists and non-environmentalists alike emphasised the importance of purchasing behaviours when collectively employing green consumerism.
Here, participants distinguished between “avoiding buying things” (Ella) from un- environmental companies or actively “looking for and buying” (Emma) products or services from environmentally conscious companies. However, although these two types of purchasing were perceived as changing company practices overall, the way in which they were perceived to be effective substantially differed. Intentional non-purchase was generally viewed as a way to “punish” (Ryan) un-environmental companies as it directly
“threatened” (Renee) their business and profits. Intentional purchasing was instead perceived as offering “incentives” (Amy), “support” (Ryan) or “rewards” (Emma) to environmentally friendly businesses by directing profits towards them.
CH. 4 STUDY 1: EXPLORING GREEN CONSUMERISM 75
Living in a free market system – described as a “consumer based economic world” (Daniel) or a “globalised capitalist world” (Flynn) – was also perceived as integral when collectively employing green consumerism. Both environmentalists and non-environmentalists alike suggested that because companies were concerned by “how much revenue or profit they generate” (Mark), the economic principle of “supply and demand” (Ryan) would signal to them the need to change their practices to be more environmentally friendly. An extract from the interview with Marcus provides an example of this common perception.
Marcus: “IF you have enough people engaging in… green consumer behaviour then the market will drive it into a direction that is MORE sustainable… for example, IF everyone stops buying... errr old growth timber products, THEN the old growth timber product market dries up and everything becomes sustainable timber … in the end… the environmental outcomes will improve”.
Most participants who identified as an environmentalist (such as Hannah, Eliza,
Victoria, Flynn and Daniel) also noted collectively employing green consumerism was reliant upon a large number of individuals engaging in the behaviour. Green consumerism could only “make a difference” (Hannah) in having “rippling effects on the economy” (Daniel) when a “good portion of people did it” (Daniel). Others also noted that this idea to use green consumerism as a type of activism was still “niche”
(Robert) and therefore needed to “spread to more customers” (Ryan) for it to be truly effective in decreasing environmental problems. However, ensuring individuals were well-informed about unethical or environmentally damaging company practices could encourage a large collective to “vote with their dollar” (Mark).
Theme 3: Reluctance to Identify as an Environmentalist
Across a number of interviews, participants were often reluctant to identify as an environmentalist – even if they indicated they were concerned for the environment or
CH. 4 STUDY 1: EXPLORING GREEN CONSUMERISM 76 engaged in some level of green consumerism. When asked directly if they identified as an environmentalist, many responses were hesitant and uncertain, with such comments as “not sure” (Sophie), “I don’t know” (Teagan), and “yes and no” (Michelle). Some participants (such as Ryan, Ashleigh, John and Sarah) even engaged in lengthy reflections upon who could actually be considered to be an environmentalist. An extract from the interview with Daniel provides an example of this.
Daniel: “Well I think… I think it’s a very sort of broad um … thing you can be…. because it involves so many different things. I mean it involves…. People that go OUT and I guess are politically active… I guess in terms of pushing for certain things… you know POLICY WISE.... And I guess there’s also a different type of environmentalist that is probably more the individual type… they do things on a more of an individual level…”
Many other participants (such as Katherine, Ryan, Jen, Tim and Flynn) also offered broad interpretations of what it meant to be an environmentalist, often suggesting that the defining feature of the environmentalist social category was that ingroup members were “passionate” (Flynn) or “cared about the environment” (Jen).
Some participants went so far to say that environmentalists fell along a “continuum”
(Victoria) according to how much they did for the environment.
Yet even with such wide-ranging definitions of environmentalists, a third of participants were reluctant to identify as an environmentalist (see Table 4.1). Even for
Eliza (a participant who was a member of environmental organisations), identification as an environmentalist was fraught with issues concerning whether she adequately reflected what she thought was the ideal or prototypical environmentalist. Subsequently, many participants could not be clearly separated into those who did or did not identify as an environmentalist and were instead categorised as being reluctant to identify as an environmentalist (see Table 4.1). Upon closer inspection of interviews, two reasons were recognised as to why this may have been the case and are outlined below.
CH. 4 STUDY 1: EXPLORING GREEN CONSUMERISM 77
Subtheme 3a: To be an environmentalist is to be ‘active’. Most participants, regardless of their strength of environmentalist social identity, perceived that being an environmentalist required a large amount of “effort” (Jen). Participants (such as Ryan,
Mark, Patrick, Robert and James) suggested that environmentalists went “out of their way to take care of our environment a bit more than most… other people” (James) and were therefore “active” (Patrick), “actively involved” (Renee) or had an “active role”
(Ashleigh) in conserving the environment.
Tegan: “I guess (an environmentalist is) someone who’s ACTIVELY involved… just someone that’s concerned… with the environment… BUT who is also ACTIVELY involved in it. Soooooo… someone THAT is actually involved in recycling and takes action by going to protests”.
Many other participants shared Tegan’s view (e.g., e.g., Sophie, Hannah, Ryan,
Amy, Jen), noting they could not be considered environmentalists as they did not always
“go beyond” (James) what the average, presumably non-environmentally conscious, person does.
Regarding green consumerism specifically, participants often viewed it as something that “anyone could do” (Ryan). However engagement in green consumerism would more likely occur, and therefore be the norm, with environmentalists or those who were members of environmental organisations (e.g., “Sea Shepherd” (Tim) or
“Greenpeace” (Ella)). This was because environmentalists would be actively trying to achieve a “green lifestyle” (Jen). Others went further (such as John, Sophie and Scott), suggesting that if you identified as an environmentalist, it would be “hypocritical”
(Scott) not to engage in green consumerism as it would be the expected norm for all group members.
Subtheme 3b: Negative perceptions of environmentalists. Throughout interviews, many participants (such as Hannah, Amy, Sophie, Ashleigh, Mark, Jen,
CH. 4 STUDY 1: EXPLORING GREEN CONSUMERISM 78
Rebecca, Robert, and John) also voiced how they held negative perceptions of environmentalists, regardless of whether they identified as an environmentalist or not. It was common for participants to refer to environmentalists either in disdain or comically as “hippies” (Hannah), “greenies” (Mark) or “tree huggers” (Jen), whilst perceiving them to “support the Greens18” (Ryan), be very “left leaning” (Robert) and “definitely vegetarian or vegan” (Michelle). Environmentalists were also regarded as occasionally arrogant, with this often attributed to how environmentalists often brought up how environmentally conscious they were. An extract from the interview with John provides an example of this.
John: [An environmentalist is] “quite… in your face about their opinion about the environment…. (they’re) someone who like… it has to be known that they’re doing the right thing...”
Across participant interviews, the arrogance associated with environmentalists was also perceived to distance the public from environmental causes, including those people who shared a common concern for the environment. For instance, Ashleigh noted that even though she agreed with the objectives of environmentalists and identified as an environmentalist, the fact that they were always “telling us all that we’re doing the wrong thing and that we’re…. bad people” was frustrating and disheartening. Others noted that because environmentalists were always “preaching at others” (Michelle),
“trying to prove something” (John) or “only (saw) one side” (Patrick) of the issue, environmentalists could also appear uncompromising and confrontational.
A few participants went even further, describing environmentalists as “radical”
(Renee), “irrational” (Rebecca), “hard core” (Sophie) or “extreme” (Isobel) – especially
18 The Greens are a minor Australian political party that grew out of the environmental activist movement of the 1960s and 1970s.
CH. 4 STUDY 1: EXPLORING GREEN CONSUMERISM 79 if they engaged in explicit displays of activism. In particular, if environmentalists engaged in highly contentious actions such as “protesting” (Michelle) or “tying themselves to trees and stuff” (Rebecca) it was suggested that the nature of these behaviours would “put people off” (Emma) becoming an environmentalist and/or engaging in environmentally conscious behaviours. Renee, an exercise physiologist, went so far to say that because environmentalists “were not represented in a positive light” in the media, she was hesitant to identify as one despite trying to engage in green consumerism herself.
Across participant interviews, it also appeared that the more negatively a participant (such as Rebecca, John, Amy and Renee) perceived environmentalists, the less likely they would identify as an environmentalist. This was even the case for those participants who demonstrated a concern for the environment or who tried to engage in green consumerism themselves. Although not explicitly stated, many participants indicated that identifying as an environmentalist was not reflective of themselves, as they did not see themselves as “irrational” (Rebecca) or “radical” (Renee). This suggests that the way in which the environmentalist social category itself is perceived may contribute to whether individuals choose to identify as an environmentalist and engage in identity congruent behaviour.
Discussion
The aim of this study was to explore the ways in which individuals made sense of green consumerism and how this may have been explained by an individual’s strength of environmentalist social identity. In-line with the research questions proposed, particular interest was paid to examining whether environmentalists and non- environmentalists differed in what behaviours they considered to be a part of green
CH. 4 STUDY 1: EXPLORING GREEN CONSUMERISM 80 consumerism as well as how they perceived green consumerism to be effective in improving the environment. A patterned thematic analysis demonstrated that both environmentalists and non-environmentalists alike perceived green consumerism to contain multiple environmentally friendly consumption behaviours. Green consumerism was also seen to be effective in reducing environmental problems because it could be employed as an individual, private behaviour or as a collective, activist strategy.
Findings from this study also demonstrated that most participants viewed environmentalists simultaneously as ‘active’ but also as ‘extreme’, which carried negative connotations.
All participants, regardless of their strength of environmentalist social identification, consistently offered broad conceptualisations of green consumerism, lending further support to those who have previously argued that green consumerism should be viewed as extending beyond individualised purchasing (Antil, 1984; Fuentes,
2014; Gilg et al., 2005; Peattie, 2010; Polonsky et al., 2012). That individuals viewed green consumerism to include numerous behaviours that attempt to be green also suggests that the measurement of green consumerism should include reference to various consumption behaviours (as previously noted by Gilg et al., 2005; Peattie, 2010;
Polonsky et al., 2012). Indeed, current scales that only reference individualised purchasing may be unable to capture those who engage in other facets of green consumerism (such as reusing products or disposal). Furthermore, even though previous research often views information seeking and decision making as separate constructs to green consumerism (McDonald et al., 2009; Pedersen & Neergaard, 2006; Wagner-
Tsukamoto & Tadajewski, 2006), these behaviours were perceived by individuals as integral part of the green consumerism construct, particularly if one critically analyses
CH. 4 STUDY 1: EXPLORING GREEN CONSUMERISM 81 information and uses it as a basis for various consumption decisions. Nonetheless, further research is needed to investigate and further clarify how information seeking and comparative decision making may be a part of green consumerism.
Conceptualising green consumerism as extending beyond purchasing also has implications for the pro-environmental behaviour research literature more broadly
(Gatersleben, 2012; Gatersleben et al., 2002; Stern, 2000). It has been previously suggested that green consumerism (when operationalised as the purchase of green products) is one type of pro-environmental behaviour and is therefore separate to such behaviours as energy saving or recycling (Larson et al., 2015; Markle, 2013; Olli,
Grendstad, & Wollebaek, 2001), Stern, 2000). However, it may be inappropriate to conceptualise pro-environmental behaviour in this way as it does not allow for acknowledgement of the various pro-environmental behaviours that are perceived to be a part of green consumerism. Further research therefore must examine the validity of having such a broad conceptualisation of green consumerism and the impact it may have on measurements of pro-environmental behaviour.
This study also highlights how some individuals may employ green consumerism as a form of collective action. This finding is consistent with recent papers within the political science literature that argue consumer behaviour can be employed as an activist strategy (see Micheletti & Stolle, 2012; Stolle et al., 2005), especially since intentional purchase (buy-cotting) or non-purchase (boycotting) can influence institutions within capitalist societies to change their practices to be more ethical or sustainable (Friedman,
1995; Stolle et al., 2005). It also indicates that green consumerism may have a strong relationship to other forms of environmental activism (such as petitioning and protesting). Future research should investigate how and why people use consumerism as
CH. 4 STUDY 1: EXPLORING GREEN CONSUMERISM 82 a form of collective action for environmental problems and how green consumerism may be related to more ‘traditional’ forms of environmental activism (such as protesting).
A key finding of the present study is that environmentalists and non- environmentalists also did not substantially vary in their perceptions of green consumerism and its potential effectiveness in reducing environmental problems. For example, it appeared that both environmentalists and non-environmentalists perceived green consumerism to be a normative behaviour of environmentalists, partially reflecting previous research that has shown those who are a part of environmental social groups perceive pro-environmental behaviours to be normative of the group (Horton, 2004;
Holland et al., 2000; Tesch & Kempton, 2004; Tranter, 2010; Perera, 2014; Rabinovich et al., 2012). This lack of difference in perceptions between environmentalists and non- environmentalists may have occurred because many participants failed to out-rightly identify as an environmentalist. Indeed, social identity theorists argue that social identity only contributes to individual perceptions, attitudes, and behaviours when one is said to both self-categorise and socially identify with the group (Hogg, 2006a; Hogg & Abrams,
1990; McGarty, 2001; Tajfel & Turner, 1979). Furthermore, as social identification with the environmentalist social category was not directly measured in this study, with participants simply asked if they self-identified as an environmentalist, it is possible that participants did not view the question as a reflection of group membership to the environmentalist social category, instead seeing it as a question of whether they personally saw themselves as an environmentally friendly person (Tesch & Kempton,
2004). Nevertheless, the finding that individuals engaged in lengthy reflections concerning what is meant to be an environmentalist suggests that the environmentalist
CH. 4 STUDY 1: EXPLORING GREEN CONSUMERISM 83 social identity itself is extremely fluid and flexible – something that could not have been adequately determined without the use of qualitative methods (Reicher, 1984, 2004).
Findings from this study also indicated that some individuals are reluctant to identify as environmentalists, even if they say they are concerned for the environment or engage in some form of green consumerism. This finding extends previous research that demonstrates how some individuals are hesitant to adopt the environmentalist label, even if they teach environmental sustainability (Whitehouse, 2001; Whitehouse & Evans,
2010), engage in pro-environmental behaviours in the workplace (Wright et al., 2012), or accept themselves as environmentalists (Perera, 2014). Within this study, it appeared that this failure to identify as an environmentalist was often due to negative perceptions of environmentalists and the idea that high levels of effort were required to be considered an environmentalist. Therefore, environmentalists were simultaneously idealised as being ‘active’ and stigmatised for being ‘extreme’. Although some previous research has suggested subgroups of environmentalists are often perceived negatively by others (Bashir et al., 2013; Hutchings, 2005; Murphy & Dee, 1996; Thatcher, 2013), additional research investigating whether these perceptions translate to widely held stereotypes of the superordinate environmentalist social category is warranted, and therefore explored in Studies 2 and 4 (Chapters 5 and 7 respectively).
Limitations
One of the limitations of the current study was that majority of participants who were recruited were highly educated and between the ages of 23 and 27. Although particular effort was made to obtain a varied range of demographics, a more diverse collection of ages as well as the inclusion of a wider range of education levels may have altered the overall conclusions made in this study. Secondly, as most participants were
CH. 4 STUDY 1: EXPLORING GREEN CONSUMERISM 84 raised in Australia, their focus upon using the free market as a way to encourage environmental change may be a reflection of their socialisation in a capitalist society
(Heath & Gifford, 2006; Gifford & Nilsson, 2014). It is entirely possible that subgroups of environmentalists that do not subscribe to free market ideologies would not perceive green consumerism as effective in minimising environmental damage (such as radical environmental activists or deep ecologists) (see Anderson, 2010; Brulle, 1996; Dalton et al., 2003; Ogrodnik & Staggenborg, 2016). Finally, due to the focus of the study being on how environmentalists and non-environmentalists made sense of green consumerism, there were some issues that were apparent within the data that could not be explored fully. This included how, in subtheme 2a, green consumerism was often perceived as a morally superior and value-laden behaviour (as has been previously suggested by Fraj &
Martinez, 2006; Thøgersen, 2011; Thøgersen & Ölander, 2002). Future research should therefore investigate how biospheric values and morality contribute to green consumerism and environmentalist social identity to broaden our understanding of these constructs and how they may be related.
Concluding Remarks
The aim of this qualitative study was to investigate the subjective perceptions individuals held of green consumerism and to determine whether these may have varied according to an individual’s strength of environmentalist social identity. Overall, the findings of this first study of the present thesis demonstrated that environmentalists and non-environmentalists shared the same perceptions of green consumerism. In particular, findings indicated that common conceptualisations and measurements of green consumerism may require reference to a multitude of consumption behaviours, rather than just individualised purchasing practices. Findings from the study also indicated that
CH. 4 STUDY 1: EXPLORING GREEN CONSUMERISM 85 green consumerism was perceived to be effective in reducing environmental problems as both an individual, private action and a collective, activist strategy. Therefore, it appears that many of those who engage in green consumerism may do so because they wish to foster collective change and are motivated to be environmentally responsible. Finally, this study provides further insight into why some individuals may find it difficult to identify as environmentalists, even if they are concerned for the environment or engage in some facets of green consumerism. It indicates that employing environmentalist social identity as a predictor for green consumerism may be limited by the perceptions individuals hold of the environmentalist social category, including that ingroup members are ‘active’ but also at times ‘extreme’. That is, the broader social context surrounding the environmentalist social category is important to consider when attempting to encourage individuals to identify as an ingroup member.
CH. 5 STUDY 2: OUTGROUP PERCEPTIONS OF ENVIRONMENTALISTS 86
Chapter 5
Study 2:
“Not all environmentalists are like that…”: Exploring How Outgroup Members
Perceive the Environmentalist Social Category
Introduction
Although Study 1 (Chapter 4) aimed to explore how individuals strength of environmentalist social identity contributed to their perceptions of green consumerism, it was instead found that many participants were reluctant to identify as an environmentalist in the first place. Analysis for Study 1 indicated that this was either because participants were not active enough in their pro-environmenal behaviours or that there were too many negative perceptions surrounding the environmentalist social category. Subsequently, these findings indicated that the broader social context – especially how environmentalists are perceived by others – may have important consequences for outgroup members’ potential identification as an environmentalist (as well as their willingness to engage in pro-environmental behaviours such as green consumerism).
However, despite considerable research investigating the stereotypes social groups hold of one another (e.g., Hilton & van Hippel, 1996; McGarty et al., 2002), including politicised and opinion-based social groups such as feminists, liberals, and conservatives (see Chatard et al., 2008; Graham et al., 2009; Robnett et al., 2012; Roy, et al., 2007; Williams & Wittig, 1997), little is still known about how members of the environmentalist social category – that is, environmentalists – are perceived and characterised by those who are not a part of their ingroup.
CH. 5 STUDY 2: OUTGROUP PERCEPTIONS OF ENVIRONMENTALISTS 87
Given these considerations, this second study of the present thesis went on to further explore how members of the environmentalist social category were perceived by environmentalist outgroup members (i.e., non-environmentalists). Using a qualitative survey methodology, this study aimed to not only determine the wide-ranging views non-environmentalists held of the environmentalist social category, but to also determine the specific traits that non-environmentalists thought to be characteristic of environmentalists. This was done in order to gain a deeper understanding of the potential stereotypes outgroup members held of environmentalists, and to provide a foundation for the measure of environmentalist stereotypes that was used in Study 4 (Chapter 7).
A detailed justification for the study now follows.
Stereotypical Outgroup Perceptions of Environmentalists
Although recent work has begun investigating how other highly politicised and ideological groups – such as liberals, conservatives, and feminists – are stereotypically perceived by outgroup members (see Chatard et al., 2008; Graham et al., 2014;
Berryman-Fink & Verderber, 1995; Robnett et al., 2012; Roy et al., 2007; Swirsky &
Angelone, 2014; Twenge & Zucker, 1999), less work has examined the general impressions outgroup members hold of environmentalists (although see Bashir, 2010;
Bashir et al., 2013; Castro et al., 2016). In fact, of the little research that has investigated outgroup stereotypes of environmentalistss, findings are disperse and unclear, with it especially ambiguous as to how environmentalists are broadly perceived by members of the general public who do not perceive themselves to be environmentalists. In particular, it is unclear what traits outgroup members deem to be prototypical of environmentalist ingroup members.
CH. 5 STUDY 2: OUTGROUP PERCEPTIONS OF ENVIRONMENTALISTS 88
For instance, it has been previously suggested that opposing groups who engage in direct conflict with environmentalists tend to evaluate environmentalists negatively
(Hutchings, 2005; Murphy & Dee, 1996; Thatcher, 2013; Wright et al., 2012). This literature has argued that oppositional groups, such as corporate decision makers, tend to perceive environmentalists to be anti-progress or anti-technology, as well as uncompromising and unwilling to negotiate (Hutchings, 2005; Murphy & Dee, 1996).
Indeed, as the debate around environmental issues becomes increasingly polarised in the
United States (Dunlap, McCright, & Yarosh, 2016; Layman, Carsey, & Horowitz, 2006;
McCright, Xiao, & McDunlap, 2014) and Australia (Fielding, Head, Laffan, Western, &
Hoegh-Guldberg, 2012; Tranter, 2010), many non-environmentalists who advocate for business interests have been seen to disparage environmentalists within the public sphere as being militant and economically illiterate (Balch, 2014; Vidal, 2012; Watt, 2014;
Wright, 2012). Nevertheless, it is somewhat unsurprising that those who are in direct conflict with environmentalists may evaluate environmentalists negatively, given that those groups who are in competition for status and resources tend to view one another negatively in general (Colvin, Witt, & Lacey, 2015; Fielding et al., 2005; Hornsey,
2008; Opotow & Brook, 2003; Tajfel & Turner, 1979).
Other research, although minimal, has investigated how individuals (within the general public) view various sub-groups of environmentalists (Bashir, 2010) as well as those who are described as engaging in activism or different types of pro-environmental behaviours (but who are not out rightly labelled as an environmentalist within the study)
(Bashir et al., 2013; Castro et al., 2016). This research has demonstrated that subgroups of environmentalists, such as ‘tree-huggers’, ‘radical environmental activists’ and
‘mainstream environmentalists’ were evaluated as less likable and more militant than
CH. 5 STUDY 2: OUTGROUP PERCEPTIONS OF ENVIRONMENTALISTS 89 students (Bashir, 2010). Furthermore environmentalists who were described as engaging in activism (e.g., protesting) were perceived to be more aggressive, less warm, and less personable than those who were described as engaging in non-active forms of pro- environmental behaviour (e.g., recycling, organic purchasing, energy and water saving)
(Bashir et al., 2013; Castro et al., 2016). Environmentalists were also seen as threatening by those who held right-wing ideologies due to the social change environmentalists promoted (Hoffarth & Hodson, 2016). Inded those who self-identify as environmentalists themselves were aware that others view the social change orientated behaviour they engage in as aggressive and excessive (Shirani et al., 2015; Wright et al.,
2012), leading some environmentalists to engage in identity strategies where they label themselves as ‘green’, rather than as an ‘environmentalist’, to counteract these perceived negative evaluations in their day-to-day life (Perera, 2014).
Other empirical work also only provides preliminary evidence regarding which traits are perceived by outgroup members to be prototypical of the environmentalist social category, typically focusing on certain subgroups of environmentalists (Bashir et al., 2013; Castro et al., 2016). For instance, Bashir et al. (2013) employed trait rating scales to demonstrate that environmentalists who were perceived to conform to negative stereotypes of activists (i.e., ‘typical’) were rated as more eccentric and aggressive when compared to those environmentalists who did not conform to the activist stereotype (i.e.,
‘atypical’). Furthermore, although not interested in investigating stereotypes of the broader environmentalist group per se, Castro et al. (2016) also showed that individuals who were described as engaging in different types of pro-environmental behaviours
(without referencing the environmentalist social category) differed in how they were evaluated on the two trait dimensions of warmth (i.e., ‘good person’, ‘friendly’, ‘warm’,
CH. 5 STUDY 2: OUTGROUP PERCEPTIONS OF ENVIRONMENTALISTS 90
‘cheerful’, and ‘tolerant’) and competence (i.e., ‘capable’, ‘intelligent’, and ‘competent’).
Those who were described as engaging in any form of pro-environmental behaviour were seen as highly competent; however those who engaged in activist behaviour were evaluated as less warm when compared to those who engaged in private sphere environmentalism (such as recycling, organic purchasing, saving energy and water).
Similarly, study 1 of this thesis also demonstrated that participants often employed such trait terms as ‘radical’, ‘irrational’ and ‘extreme’ to describe environmentalists.
The Current Study
The findings outlined above provide some indication that the superordinate environmentalist social category may be perceived negatively by outgroup members and that there may be certain traits perceived by outgroup members to be prototypical of environmentalists. However, given that these previous studies were either focused on subgroups of environmentalists (Bashir et al., 2013), those who were described as engaging in pro-environmental behaviours but not labelled as environmentalists (Castro et al., 2016), or were not interested in exploring perceptions of environmentalists specifically (Study 1 of the present thesis), it is still unclear what traits are seen asprototypical of the environmentalist social category. It is also unclear whether the perceptions outgroup members hold of environmentalists are only negative in nature
(given that most of the public are not in direct conflict with environmentalists).
Therefore, to achieve a better idea of how environmentalists are perceived by environmentalist outgroup members (i.e., non-environmentalists), the current study aimed to explore the overall impressions non-environmentalists held of the environmentalist social category. This included investigating which specific traits were deemed by outgroup members to be characteristic or stereotypical of all
CH. 5 STUDY 2: OUTGROUP PERCEPTIONS OF ENVIRONMENTALISTS 91 environmentalist, not just sub-groups of environmentalists. To this end, the research questions of the study were, firstly, how did outgroup members in general describe and define environmentalists, and, secondly, what traits did outgroup members frequently employ when describing environmentalists?
Method
As this study aimed to explore how the environmentalist social category was perceived by outgroup members, an inductive, qualitative methodology was employed, with a qualitative survey used for data collection. Qualitative surveys are a type of textual data collection where participants are given a series of standardised open-ended questions to write short responses to (Braun & Clarke, 2013; Toeriena & Wilkinson,
2004). By employing a standardised open-ended questionnaire format, qualitative surveys not only allow for the ambiguities and complexity in participants’ perceptions to be explored deeply, they also substantially increase the breadth and specificity of the data collected when compared to interactive qualitative approaches such as one-on-one interviews and focus groups (Braun & Clarke, 2013; Frith & Gleeson, 2008; Opperman,
Braun, Clarke, & Rogers, 2014; Toeriena & Wilkinson, 2004). Consequently, qualitative surveys are well-suited to providing preliminary information for early areas of research as they provide researchers with a comprehensive and standardised idea of the perceptions individuals hold on a particular phenomenon (Braun & Clarke, 2013;
Toeriena & Wilkinson, 2004).
Participants
A total of 100 participants took part in the study. Participant data were screened prior to qualitative analysis in order to ensure that the data analysed only represented the perspectives of the public who were outgroup members of the environmentalist social
CH. 5 STUDY 2: OUTGROUP PERCEPTIONS OF ENVIRONMENTALISTS 92 category. However, it was decided that participants were not to be asked directly if they idenitfied as an environmentalist given that, as seen in Study 1 (see Chapter 4), participants could struggle to determine whether they were an environmentalist. Indeed, research has indicated that individuals define the term ‘environmentalist’ in multiple ways, often seeing it as a term to describe both the individual environmentalist and one that is part of a group (see Tesch & Kempton, 2004).
Therefore, to enforce the inclusion criteria that participants were to be environmentalist outgroup members, membership to an environmental organisation was instead employed as a proxy for environmentalist social category membership. It was reasoned that those who perceived themselves as an environmentalist would more likely be involved in an environmental organisation in some capacity – either as an active member or as a financial contributor. Subsequently, participants who indicated they were members of an environmental organisation (n = 7), not sure if they were (n = 1), or preferred not to say (n = 3) were deleted from all further analyses19.
A total of 89 participants aged 21 to 53 (M = 32.74, SD = 7.98) were utilised in the data analysis (37 women, 52 men). All participants that provided information concerning their country of origin originated from the United States (one participant did not answer this item). Table 5.1 shows the full demographic profile of participants.
Participants wrote an average of 21 words (M = 21.82, SD = 18.61) for each question, ranging from 1 to 178 words.
CH. 5 STUDY 2: OUTGROUP PERCEPTIONS OF ENVIRONMENTALISTS 93
Table 5.1 Demographic Information for Participants Included in Data Analysis Frequency % Gender Female 37 41.6% Male 52 58.4% Country of residence USA (United States of America) 88 98.9% Missing 1 1.1% Education Lower secondary education (year 10/sophomore year) 0 0.0% Upper secondary education (high school completion) 24 27% Post-secondary non-tertiary education (TAFE, Diploma) 10 11.2% First stage of tertiary education (undergraduate degree) 50 56.2% Second stage of tertiary education (graduate degree) 5 5.6% Annual income (in US dollars, before taxes) Less than $15,000 20 22.5% $15,000 to $24,999 14 15.7% $25,000 to $34,999 20 22.5% $35,000 to $49,999 17 19.1% $50,000 to $74,999 11 12.4% $75,000 and above 7 7.9% Student status Currently a student 9 10.1% Not a student 79 88.8% Missing 1 1.1% Note. N = 89. Age range 21 to 53; M = 32.74; SD = 7.89.
Materials
Each participant completed a short online questionnaire consisting of two sections (see Appendix D). The first section contained four open-ended questions asking participants to offer their views and descriptions of environmentalists (see Table 5.2 for item list). These four items were developed by the author and principal supervisor on the basis of past qualitative research that has investigated stereotypes of other politicised, ideological social groups such as feminists (e.g., Liss, Crawford, & Popp, 2004; Nelson
19 The eleven participants that were excluded from further analysis were: P3, P6, P7, P11, P14, P43, P49, P58, P60, P68, and P76.
CH. 5 STUDY 2: OUTGROUP PERCEPTIONS OF ENVIRONMENTALISTS 94 et al., 2008; Swirsky & Angelone, 2014). These questions were refined through discussion amongst the research team concerning the clarity and conciseness of each question.
The second section of the qualitative survey collected participants’ demographics, including whether they were a member of an environmental organisation (which served as a proxy screening measure for whether the participant was an environmentalists and therefore an ingroup member of the environmental social category). As suggested by
Braun and Clarke (2013), demographic information was collected after the open-ended questions to minimise participants’ feelings of being threatened by the immediate need for personal information and to minimise the possibility that the demographic items could prime responses to open-ended questions, especially the item concerning their membership in environmental organisations.
Table 5.2 Open-ended Questions Employed in Section 1 of the Qualitative Survey Question 1 In one or two sentences, how would you define the term ‘environmentalist’? 2 What words, phrases or statements would you use to describe environmentalists? 3 What is your overall view of environmentalists? 4 Could you please outline why you hold this view?
Procedure
After ethics approval was obtained from Deakin University’s Human Research
Ethics Committee (project number: HEAG-H 128_2015, see Appendix A.2), participants were recruited online via Amazon’s Mechanical Turk (MTurk). MTurk was chosen as a recruitment method given previous research has shown that samples recruited through MTurk are more diverse and representative of the US population than
CH. 5 STUDY 2: OUTGROUP PERCEPTIONS OF ENVIRONMENTALISTS 95 in-person convenience and student samples (Berinsky, Huber, & Lenz, 2012; Levay,
Freese, & Druckman, 2016). Furthermore, the quality of data obtained from MTurk has been found to be comparable to traditional recruitment methods, often meeting or exceeding psychometric best practice (Buhrmester, Kwang, & Gosling, 2011). Finally, although this thesis was based in Australia, US samples were collected through MTurk in order to ensure a diverse range of participants were obtained. In fact, as previous research has shown that the US and Australia are comparable in their rates of environmentalism (Bamberg, 2003; Bartels & Reinders, 2016; Castro, 2006), using a US sample for Study 2 (as well as Study 3 and 4, see chapters 6 and 7) were deemed to be acceptable for the present thesis.
In order to ensure a diverse range of individuals were recruited, and that those who were not interested in environmentalism did not self-select themselves out of the study, the recruitment notice on MTurk asked participants to take part in a short survey about the social beliefs they held about social groups (see Appendix D). Participants first read the study’s Plain Language Statement (see Appendix B.2), which indicated they had between 15 to 30 minutes to complete the study. They then answered the four open- ended questions and were asked to write as much as they liked in the text boxes provided under each question. Although the study requested participants to answer each open-ended question in as much detail as possible, participants were not forced to complete each question. Participants were then given the demographic items. Upon submission of the online questionnaire, which signified participants’ informed consent to the study, participants were paid $US1.50.
CH. 5 STUDY 2: OUTGROUP PERCEPTIONS OF ENVIRONMENTALISTS 96
Data Analysis
Data analysis was divided into two parts. The first part involved determining the common themes evident across participant responses (thematic analysis). Part two involved identifying the specific trait terms or phrases used by participants to describe environmentalists (qualitative content analysis). Details of both analyses now follow.
Thematic analysis. Given the first research question of the study was to explore the broad views outgroup members held of the environmentalist social category, the first part of the data analysis was guided by the principles of thematic analysis – a flexible yet systematic method of examining recurring themes within qualitative data (Braun &
Clarke, 2006, 2013). In accordance with this six-stage method, the author and principal supervisor engaged in an iterative process of identifying, interpreting, and analysing common themes across participant responses (Braun & Clarke, 2006). Categories and codes were initially constructed by close readings of interview transcripts (Morse, 2008), with these codes then used as a guide for identifying themes during formal analysis. This thematic analysis was also performed across the open-ended questions, rather than for each open-ended question individually, in order to identify the commonalities throughout the data. Any disagreement between the researchers in terms of the themes generated was resolved through discussion and a re-analysis of coding.
As thematic analysis is devoid of a grounding theoretical framework, the way in which the data are interpreted depends upon the epistemological position that is adopted during data analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2006, 2013). Given this, a critical realist perspective was taken for this study (Willig, 1999). A critical realist approach asserts that an independent, objective reality exists, but also acknowledges that the way in which reality is experienced by individuals is often socially constructed by culture,
CH. 5 STUDY 2: OUTGROUP PERCEPTIONS OF ENVIRONMENTALISTS 97 language, and political beliefs (Sims-Schouten, Riley, & Willig, 2007; Wikgren, 2005).
In terms of the focus of this study, employing this epistemological position meant that participant’s responses could be taken as they were and interpreted as depicting the reality of people’s cognitions, without minimising the contribution of the wider social context. These cognitions included their views of, and potential experiences with, environmentalists.
Qualitative content analysis. As the second research question of the study was to determine the trait terms outgroup members used to describe environmentalists, a qualitative content analysis was also conducted (Forman & Damschroder, 2008; Hsieh
& Shannon, 2005; Mayring, 2004). Qualitative content analysis focuses on identifying the specific language or words within text data, which are then coded according to a systematic inductive classification system (Hsieh & Shannon, 2005). Following this method, once the common themes across participant responses were identified through a thematic analysis (see above), participant responses were re-read twice more by the author with the aim of identifying and making note of the specific traits employed by participants when describing environmentalists (Stemler, 2001). The frequency of each trait term was also recorded (see Table 5.4 for frequency counts). The occurrence and frequency of each trait term was then checked by the principal supervisor.
Once a comprehensive list of trait terms was created, a joint inductive analysis by the author and principal supervisor indicated that the trait terms could be categorised according to whether they were positive or negative in nature (Hsieh & Shannon, 2005;
Mayring, 2004). Following this, the negative and positive traits were further coded into subcategories by the author and principal supervisor, with the positive and negative traits grouped with others similar in meaning (e.g., informed is similar in meaning to educated
CH. 5 STUDY 2: OUTGROUP PERCEPTIONS OF ENVIRONMENTALISTS 98 or knowledgeable and therefore was grouped together with these words) (see Table 5.5 for details of these subcategories). This was done in order to determine whether outgroup members viewed environmentalists to hold both positive and negative characteristics. As with the thematic analysis above, disagreement between the researchers in terms of the coding of the trait terms was resolved through discussion and a re-analysis of coding.
Results
The following results section is split into two parts to reflect the two different modes of qualitative data analysis that were undertaken. In the thematic analysis specifically, quotations and extracts from participant responses are used to provide examples of each theme. Furthermore, as questionnaire responses were anonymous, unique identifier numbers for each participant are included with each quotation (rather than pseudonyms). No significant changes were made to participants responses, except for the correction of minor spelling mistakes in order to increase readability and comprehension of the data (otherwise known as ‘cleaning the data’, see Braun & Clarke,
2013; Sandelowski, 1994).
Thematic Analysis: Exploring Outgroup Members Broad Perceptions of the
Environmentalist Social Category
As stated previously, the first research question of the study was to explore the broad views outgroup members held of environmentalists. This was done in order to achieve a better understanding of how environmentalists may be stereotyped by those who do not perceive themselves to be environmentalists. Following an inductive thematic analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2006, 2013), four major synthesised themes were identified across the majority of participants. These were: (1) Environmentalists are
CH. 5 STUDY 2: OUTGROUP PERCEPTIONS OF ENVIRONMENTALISTS 99 active in protecting, conserving, and improving nature; (2) Environmentalists may all care about nature but they do not all do the same things; (3) Environmentalists are evaluated positively due to their perceived altruism; and (4) Not all environmentalists are extreme and aggressive, but many act that way. Table 5.3 presents a definition of, and an exemplar quotation for, each theme.
Table 5.3 Inductively Developed Thematic Descriptions of Environmentalists Theme Definition Exemplar quotations 1. Environmentalists Environmentalists were An environmentalist is are active in viewed as actively involved “someone who is actively protecting, because they fought to bring trying to clean up or change conserving, and about positive outcomes for the environment for the improving nature. the environment. better”. (P87)
2. Environmentalists Although one of the defining “Someone who cares about may all care about features of environmentalists and believes in preserving the nature but they do not was perceived to be that they environment”. (P89) all do the same cared about nature, this caring things. about the natural environment was perceived to be enacted in different ways across environmentalists.
3. Environmentalists Many participants held “I really admire and respect are evaluated positive views of environmentalists. They do a positively due to their environmentalists, deeming lot of hard work to help us all, perceived altruism. them to be ‘good’ people often without much support because they helped to from the general public”. improve the natural (P14) environment (and inadvertently humans).
4. Not all Not all environmentalists were “Some environmentalists are environmentalists are perceived to be extreme, but too hard core, but not the extreme and participants still viewed many majority aren’t” (P36) aggressive, but many environmentalists to be intense act that way and aggressive. “(Environmentalists) can be a bit preachy in regards to trying to force people to live a certain
CH. 5 STUDY 2: OUTGROUP PERCEPTIONS OF ENVIRONMENTALISTS 100
way”. (P40)
Note. N = 89.
Frequency counts for the thematic analysis are not provided, unlike some other qualitative survey studies (Frith & Gleeson, 2004; Toeriena & Wilkinson, 2004). This was because the aim of this thematic analysis was to achieve a comprehensive sense of the broad perceptions held by participants, not to determine the numerical frequency of those perspectives which were given (Sandelowski, 2001). However, to provide an idea of the strength of perceptions offered, quantifying terms are employed in the results section as suggested by Braun and Clarke (2013) (and as also was seen in Study 1,
Chapter 4). Following the guidelines in Opperman and colleagues (2014), who also employed a qualitative survey methodology, the terms ‘majority’ or ‘most’ are used when almost all participants provided the same or similar perception; ‘frequently’ is employed when perceptions were offered by more than half of participants; and the term
‘some’ is employed when less than half of participants offered that specific interpretation.
Theme 1: Environmentalists are active in protecting, conserving, and improving nature. The first theme reflects how the overwhelming majority of participants perceived environmentalists as dynamic actors in their pursuit to conserve and protect the environment. Most participants explicitly described environmentalists using such terms as “active” (P37), “actively involved” (P22), or “(taking) action” (P26), while the remaining participants simply implied environmentalists were active by describing how environmentalists “(made) some effort” (P48), were “willing to put everything they’ve got into that one goal” (P64) or were people who were “willing to speak up” (P16). That environmentalists were seen by the majority of participants as
CH. 5 STUDY 2: OUTGROUP PERCEPTIONS OF ENVIRONMENTALISTS 101 active – either explicitly or implicitly – indicated that outgroup members perceived
‘being active’ in helping the natural environment as one the key characteristics that made environmentalists different from the general, presumably non-environmental, public.
Following their statements of how environmentalists were active, most participants outlined the various ways that being active made environmentalists positively contribute to the natural environment. That is, because environmentalists were
‘active’ they were perceived as “maintaining” (P64), “preserving” (P66), “saving” (P19),
“protecting” (P36), “conserving” (P90) and “improving” (P13) the natural environment.
Some participants went further by suggesting that environmentalists stopped the negative impacts humans had on earth by “chang(ing) the environment for the better”
(P87) by “preventing” (P94), “reducing” (P72) or “minimising” (P40) the “damage”
(P1) or “harm” (P21) humans caused towards nature. One participant went so far as to note that environmentalists were “stewards” (P88) of the earth because
“environmentalists work to or live in such a way to reduce the negative consequences of human impact” (P88).
Broadly speaking, most participants viewed environmentalists’ role as active actors through a political lens. For example, some participants described environmentalists using political terms, noting that environmentalists would be “liberals at heart” (P79), “leftist” (P73), “progressive” (P74) or “socially aware” (P89). Some participants even indicated the political party affiliation they thought environmentalists would have, suggesting that environmentalists would most likely be “Democrats”
CH. 5 STUDY 2: OUTGROUP PERCEPTIONS OF ENVIRONMENTALISTS 102
(P59)20. Nonetheless, a few participants did indicate that environmentalists were only active in helping the natural environment because they were typically “privileged” (P74) or were part of the “middle-class” (P78), with one participant elaborating that:
“(Environmentalists) tend to be wealthy people who engage in behaviour that might be impractical and expensive because they can afford it… (They) often try to enforce behaviour that they can afford on people who can’t.” (P78)
Across participant responses, the majority of participants also suggested that the key reason as to why environmentalists were active was because they valued nature and were concerned about the well-being of the natural environment. That is, environmentalists were “nature lovers” (P18), “as one with nature” (P42), “in harmony with nature” (P62) and “connected to nature” (P61) and therefore were interested in:
“making the world a sound and healthy place for people and animals to live” (P66);
“protecting our natural resources” (P67); “keep(ing) nature clean” (P87); and,
“conserving the world’s natural spaces, animals, and oceans” (P90). Some participants even perceived environmentalists to be concerned about the natural environment to the extent that they often “equated the importance of the environment about the same as they would another human being” (P70).
As environmentalists were perceived by the majority of participants as “nature lovers” (P55), some participants used a number of well-known labels that referenced environmentalists love of nature when describing them. These labels included: “greenie”
(P50); “hippie” (P20); “tree-hugger” (P69); “naturalist” (P100); and, “conservationist”
(P31). These participants offered these labels in a neutral way – devoid of any positive or negative connotations. However, a few participants did propose that these labels were
20 The use of the political party Democrat is understandable given the US sample used within the study. The US Democratic Party is the more liberal (left-leaning) of the two major parties in the US.
CH. 5 STUDY 2: OUTGROUP PERCEPTIONS OF ENVIRONMENTALISTS 103 employed negatively against environmentalists by others in the general public, with one participant even noting that “some people call environmentalists ‘tree-huggers’ but I think that’s just rude” (P69).
Theme 2: Environmentalists may all care about nature but they do not all do the same things. Whilst theme 1 demonstrated that outgroup members perceived environmentalists to actively engage in some type of pro-environmental behaviour, theme 2 reflects how the majority of participants suggested that although all environmentalists cared about nature, they were seen to engage in varying behaviours in order to help the natural environment. For instance, as environmentalists “cared deeply”
(P95) or “sincerely cared” (P87) about “the state of the environment” (P84) and “treating the planet well” (P21) they would therefore “do anything to help the (environment)”
(P52). This included taking “steps” (P59) to “help” (P51) the environment at an
“individual, local, national, or international level” (P63). Yet these ‘steps’ were seen to be diverse across environmentalists, with participants noting that there was not one, typical pro-environmental behaviour in which all environmentalists would engage in, as the following quotations illustrate:
“An environmentalist in my mind is someone… who is green in everything that they say and do, drives a Prius, recycles, things that Captain Planet21 would endorse.” (P12)
“An environmentalist is someone who cares about the environment and takes care of it to the best of their ability. They recycle their glass, paper, metal and aluminium. They reduce their usage of electricity, gas and water. They buy products made out of recycled material. And they may even drive electric cars.” (P33)
“An environmentalist is someone who cares about the world around us and wants to maintain a healthy world vs destroying it. To do this they do things such
21 Captain Planet is a US children’s animated television show that teaches children about environmental sustainability.
CH. 5 STUDY 2: OUTGROUP PERCEPTIONS OF ENVIRONMENTALISTS 104
as track their carbon footprint, recycle and reuse, and buy things that are good for our environment instead of detrimental to it.” (P53)
“An environmentalist is a person that is actively involved in preserving the environment. They recycle and buy sustainable products as well as engaging in environmental activism by protesting or circulating a petition.” (P46)
Of the varied behaviours that environmentalists engaged in, participants frequently emphasised those individual actions that environmentalist did in their everyday life. For instance, environmentalists did “small things each day” (P71) or tried to live a “lifestyle” (P72) that reduced their “impact on the environment” (P72), thereby ensuring that environmentalists would “have the smallest footprint possible” (P52).
These individual actions could include environmentalists tracking their carbon footprint, recycling, and buying environmentally friendly products, as evidenced in the extracts above.
Some participants did however acknowledge that environmentalists also often engaged in actions that were collective in nature. For example, environmentalists could
“advocate” (P73) for environmental causes and therefore could engage in collective action behaviours such as “protesting or circulating a petition” (P46). This focus on collective action led a few participants to refer to environmentalists as “activists” (P100),
“who (were) willing to be an activist for environmental causes” (P50), and who would be “active in an organisation or movement that has an environmental preservation mission” (P31). However, many participants did not make any reference to environmentalists engaging in collective action, and therefore it appears most environmentalist outgroup members did not seem to perceive environmentalism to be synonymous with environmental activism.
Theme 3: Environmentalists are evaluated positively due to their perceived altruism. The third theme of this study relates to how participants frequently held
CH. 5 STUDY 2: OUTGROUP PERCEPTIONS OF ENVIRONMENTALISTS 105 positive perceptions of environmentalists, often viewing them as people who “mean well”
(P34). For instance, some participants described environmentalists as “genuine” (P22) or
“good” (P8) people who were “working for a great cause” (P1) and whose intentions were “honourable” (P34). Some other participants also noted how they “admired” (P80) and “respected” (P86) environmentalists because of the “effort they put forth in helping to protect the environment” (P35), and the fact that they “operated according to their principles” (P63). This overall perception of environmentalists’ ‘goodness’ generally arose when participants’ responses focused on how environmentalists wanted to take care of the earth and make sure that “forests, animals, air, water etc. are well taken care of for the future generation” (P64) or “future generations” (P12). Therefore, participants frequently perceived environmentalists as ‘good’ to the extent that they tried to care for the environment and the whole of humanity.
Some participants also noted how environmentalists served “an important role”
(P35) in society because they “raise(d) awareness about environmental issues” (P40) and acted as “alarmists when it pertained to the state (of the) planet” (P46). That environmentalists raised awareness was deemed vital by some participants, as there was a “need” (P52) to “sound the alarm” (P42) regarding how the decisions humans made impacted the natural environment. A few participants even noted that environmentalists tried to “wake us up” (P39) or “educate those who may not know better” (P16), whilst also providing “potential solutions to environmental issues” (P90) (even if these solutions were perceived as “unrealistic” (P66) by some participants). Therefore, as one participant succinctly summarised, environmentalists “serve a greater purpose – not only for the environment, but for the preservation of humanity overall” (P96).
CH. 5 STUDY 2: OUTGROUP PERCEPTIONS OF ENVIRONMENTALISTS 106
Given that environmentalists were often perceived as raising awareness and engaging in a large range of pro-environmental behaviours for the good of humanity, it is somewhat unsurprising that participants frequently also saw environmentalists as selfless and self-sacrificing. Environmentalists were frequently seen by participants to be
“unselfish” (P5) or “altruistic in the way that they are willing to sacrifice things for the good of people in the future” (P8). A few participants even suggested that environmentalists received “little credit” (P2) for their selfless actions.
“I think (environmentalists) are unselfish because generally being an environmentalist and living an environmentally friendly life style means making sacrifices so that society, future generations, and nature can benefit. It’s usually not immediately self-serving to be an environmentalist, and sometimes could even hold the person back or inconvenience them.” (P72)
Nevertheless, although participants frequently did appear to hold reasonably positive perceptions of environmentalists, these perceptions appeared to be conditional on how environmentalists chose to act. That is, many participants often included the caveat that they held positive perceptions of environmentalists only to the point that environmentalists did not become ‘extreme’ in their behaviour or views when compared to themselves or presumably a non-environmental person:
“(I view them as) generally positive as long as they don’t get militant with their agenda.” (P19)
“I have a neutral view on them, so long as they don’t try to force their lifestyle on me.” (P83)
“I think they can be great as long as they are not extremists or willing to kill people for their beliefs.” (P52)
“Anybody looking to do good is right by me but I think forcing people to do things because of your agenda can be a bit overwhelming and a bit of a put off even if people agree with what you’re trying to accomplish.” (P40)
“So long as environmentalists don’t go to extremes to push their views, I have nothing but respect for them.” (P70)
CH. 5 STUDY 2: OUTGROUP PERCEPTIONS OF ENVIRONMENTALISTS 107
Overall, the extracts above demonstrate that participants only maintained their positive evaluations of environmentalists ‘so long’ as that they did not ‘force’ their views on others or engage in militant or socially undesirable behaviours. Therefore it appeared that if environmentalists did engage in behaviour that was “not congruent with how they should act” (P50), or went against what was deemed to be socially appropriate by participants, then the positive views held participants could quickly become negative
– even if they initially saw environmentalists as caring and selfless.
Theme 4: Not all environmentalists are extreme and aggressive, but many act that way. The final theme highlights that whilst more than half of the participants evaluated environmentalists positively (see theme 3), they also simultaneously held negative perceptions of environmentalists. Here participants frequently suggested that although not all environmentalists were extreme and aggressive, enough environmentalists were problematic in their views and behaviour that it warranted participants to view the superordinate environmentalist social category negatively to some extent. For instance, many participants emphasised the extremity of some environmentalists by describing them as “zealots” (P78), “intense” (P87), “extreme”
(P98) and “hard-core” (P36). Others proposed that some environmentalists could be
“over the top” (P99) “get carried away and go overboard” (P53) or go to “unnecessary extremes” (P71).
As well as emphasising the extremity of some environmentalists, participants also frequently highlighted the negative characteristics they perceived many environmentalists to hold. For instance, several participants suggested that some environmentalists were inherently “self-righteous (and) arrogant” (P47) as they could get “on a bit of a high horse about how much good they do” (P75), or could be “so
CH. 5 STUDY 2: OUTGROUP PERCEPTIONS OF ENVIRONMENTALISTS 108 egotistical and didactic that it (turned) people off the movement” (P74). Other participants stressed how “unrealistic” (P47) or “overly idealistic” (P63) environmentalists could be in the goals they were trying to achieve:
“The environmentalists I see talk of unrealistic goals – zero net carbon emissions (we’d basically have to go to a pre-industrial age), non-pesticide food (which means less food and more hunger), and a widespread conversion to solar power (ignoring the fact that few areas are suitable for it).” (P66)
“Their total resistance to the need for real solutions rather than “pie-in-the-sky” demands, etc. Take things like responsible land management of public lands, which would actually prevent the widespread wildfires we see every summer.” (P24)
The way in which some environmentalists interacted with others – including when attempting to influence others – was also frequently perceived by participants to be problematic. For example, some participants outlined how some environmentalists found it difficult to talk to those who held a “different view” (P34) because environmentalists were often “biased and closed minded” (P64) or were “unable to hear any kind of counter-argument” (P24). Some participants also highlighted how some environmentalists could be too “aggressive” (P50) and “heavy handed” (P36) in their tactics, especially “when trying to convince sceptics” (P36).
This forcefulness was also seen to be “a bit overwhelming and a bit of a put off”
(P40) for those individuals who were sympathetic to the environmentalist cause. As one participant succinctly put it, it was “annoying to have (environmentalists) scream their message in your ear. I do not think every environmentalist serves their mission that way”
(P48). Subsequently, it appeared then that, due to the ‘aggressive’ tactics some environmentalists employed, and their potential unwillingness to engage with non- environmentalists in respectful debate, participants frequently saw environmentalists own actions as potentially dissuading people from affiliating with environmentalism.
CH. 5 STUDY 2: OUTGROUP PERCEPTIONS OF ENVIRONMENTALISTS 109
When outlining their negative views of environmentalists, many participants did acknowledge that they did not view all environmentalists as extreme and forceful. In order to emphasise this perspective, these participants would use strategic phrases like
“there are some that go too far” (P71), “most of them are well-meaning” (P50), and “just like any group, they (have) a far wing of their movement who will do anything” (P27).
The use of terms such as ‘some’, ‘most’ or ‘like any group’ by these participants allowed them to indicate that they did not think negatively of every single environmentalist, whilst simultaneously still providing them the opportunity to outline the negative evaluations they did hold of environmentalists as a whole. That these overall negative views were frequently offered by participants does suggest that these negative aspects of environmentalists were explicitly associated with the group. That is, even though not all environmentalists were extreme or aggressive, enough were to warrant these negative qualities to be used to describe environmentalists and the environmental social category as a whole.
Content Analysis: Traits Perceived by Outgroup Members to be Stereotypical of
Environmentalists
As the second research question of the study was to determine the trait terms commonly used by outgroup members to describe environmentalists, a qualitative content analysis was conducted on participants’ responses across the four open-ended questions. Following multiple readings of participant responses, a wide variety of trait terms were identified (with their frequency of use shown in Table 5.4). An inductive analysis of these identified trait terms indicated that they could be initially categorised according to whether they were positive or negative descriptors of the environmentalist social category, and this was subsequently done (see Table 5.4).
CH. 5 STUDY 2: OUTGROUP PERCEPTIONS OF ENVIRONMENTALISTS 110
As seen in Table 5.4, for Questions 1 and 2 the number of positive trait terms offered by participants was larger and more diverse when compared to those negative trait terms that were offered. Nonetheless, for Questions 3 and 4 there was a larger number of negative trait terms offered than positive trait terms. This could be because the framing of Questions 1 and 2 implied to participants that they were to describe how an environmentalist probably is, whereas Questions 3 and 4 were framed in such a way that participants were asked to provide a more personal view of environmentalists.
Table 5.4 Positive and Negative Trait Terms Used To Describe Environmentalists Prompt item Positive (N = 79) Negative (N = 52) 1. In one or two Caring (35); pro-active (23); sentences, how concerned (12); passionate (3); would you define the dedicated (2); compassionate (2); term rational (1); strong convictions (1); ‘environmentalist’? informed (1); knowledgeable (1); aware (1); expert (1); worried (1)
2. What words, Caring (44); passionate (14); Overly idealistic (3); unrealistic phrases or concerned (11); thoughtful (9); (3); self-righteous (2); zealous (2); statements would compassionate (7); Intelligent (6); extreme (2); entitled (1); smug (1); you use to describe loving (6); conscientious (5); strident (1); polemic (1); stubborn environmentalists? helpful (5); brave (5); committed (1); aggressive (1); uppity (1); (4); worried (4); smart (4); aware pushy (1); political bully (1); (3) devoted (3); motivated (1); hypocrites (1); dogmatic (1); rigid dedicated (3); responsible (3); (1); privileged (1); intense (1); altruistic (3); educated (2); driven over the top (1) (2); down to earth (2); considerate (2); hard working (2); knowledgeable (2); kind (2); determined (2); rational (2); giving (2); comprising (1); diligent (1); informed (1); selfless (1); unselfish (1); reliable (1); sincere (1); common sense (1); peaceful (1); warm (1); realistic (1)
3. What is your Positive (24); caring (8); Extreme (2); overbearing (1); overall view of passionate (6); hard working (2); pushy (1); zealots (1); militant (1); environmentalists? concerned (1); genuine (1); smart uncompromising (1); hard-core (1); intelligent (1); altruistic (1); (1); preachy (1); arrogant (1); worried (1); educated (1); crazy (1); aggressive (1); determined (1); dedicated (1) unrealistic (1); biased (1); close- minded (1); overly idealistic (1);
CH. 5 STUDY 2: OUTGROUP PERCEPTIONS OF ENVIRONMENTALISTS 111
not always pragmatic (1); deceitful (1); egoistical (1); didactic (1); ill- informed (1); annoying (1)
4. Could you please Caring (4); concerned (4); sacrifice Forceful (2); uncompromising (2); outline why you hold (3); honourable (2); unselfish (2); rigid (1); heavy handed (1); this view? disciplined (1); courageous (1); annoying (1); aggressive (1); altruistic (1); principled (1) inconsistent (1); unrealistic (1); arrogant (1); impractical (1) Note. While only 89 participants were used for data analysis, more than 89 traits were identified as each participant could provide multiple traits in their responses. N = the total number of positive or negative trait terms offered by participants.
In terms of the trait terms that were offered, their frequency of use also varied.
For instance, the terms of ‘caring’ and ‘concerned’ were seen to be employed by most participants to describe environmentalist ingroup members, with the use of caring ranging from 8 to 44 across the four open-ended questions. In comparison to the positive trait terms, the frequency of participants’ use of negative trait terms across responses was much lower. For example, although participants offered numerous negative traits to describe environmentalists in response to Question 3 (e.g., extreme, overbearing, egoistical), the frequency of their use was substantially less – often just once or twice – when compared to the positive trait terms given for the same question.
Table 5.5 Clusters of Positive and Negative Trait Categories Emerging in the Data Exemplar traits Exemplar quotations Positive traits Caring and concerned Caring, concerned, “Someone who cares about and compassionate, considerate, believes in preserving the thoughtful environment”. (P89)
Informed Informed, expert, “They’re informed on what knowledgeable, smart, educated, impacts we are making”. (P15) intelligent; aware
Dedicated Dedicated, devoted, motivated, “An environmentalist is someone disciplined, committed; strong dedicated to the idea of preserving convictions; passionate the earth”. (P5) Negative traits
CH. 5 STUDY 2: OUTGROUP PERCEPTIONS OF ENVIRONMENTALISTS 112
Pushy and in-your- Aggressive, pushy, extreme, “Environmentalists as a whole face overbearing, hard-core, forceful, tend to be overbearing and pushy militant with their agenda”. (P7)
Smug and self- Self-righteous, smug, preachy, “I think they think they are better righteous arrogant, entitled than everyone else”. (P65)
Unrealistic and Stubborn, dogmatic, unrealistic, “Unfortunately, the most active uncompromising impractical, rigid and vocal are usually completely unwilling or unable to hear any kind of counter-argument”. (P24)
Once the number and frequency of trait terms were examined, further inductive analysis of the categorised negative and positive trait terms used by participants was conducted. This analysis suggested that both positive and negative trait terms could be further coded into six clusters of traits, three positive (‘caring and concerned’, ‘well- informed’ and ‘dedicated’), and three negative (‘pushy and in-your-face’, ‘smug and self-righteous’ and ‘unrealistic and uncompromising’), as shown in Table 5.5. Therefore it appeared that participants saw both positive and negative clusters of traits as stereotypical of environmentalists, and therefore part of the larger stereotype they held of the environmentalist social category.
Discussion
Following on from the findings of Study 1 (see Chapter 4) that some participants may have perceived environmentalists negatively, the aim of the second study was to explore further how members of the environmentalist social category were broadly viewed and characterised by those who did not share their group membership (i.e., outgroup members). This was done in order to gain a deeper understanding of the potential stereotypes environmentalist outgroup members within the general public may hold of the environmentalists. Subsequently, this study employed a qualitative methodology, with its two key research questions being: how did outgroup members in
CH. 5 STUDY 2: OUTGROUP PERCEPTIONS OF ENVIRONMENTALISTS 113 general describe and define environmentalists, and what traits did outgroup members frequently employ when describing environmentalists?
A key finding of the current study was that the environmentalist social category was defined as being concerned for the natural environment, with outgroup members often employing the term ‘caring’ or ‘concerned’ to describe environmentalists. This finding adds further clarification to previous research which has attempted to define an environmentalist (Autio et al., 2009; Holland et al., 2000; Light, 2000; Perera, 2014;
Tesch & Kempton, 2004; Tranter, 2010) by emphasising that shared environmental concern is one of the defining features of the group, even as perceived by outgroup members. This also suggests that the perception of oneself as a member of the environmentalist social category very much relies upon sharing the foundational belief of environmental concern, just as other politicised groups (such as feminists, liberals, and conservatives) are bound together by shared ideology (Bliuc et al., 2007; McGarty et al., 2009). Although this study did not measure environmental concern directly, this finding is also in line with previous research that demonstrates positive environmental attitudes, biospheric values, and environmental concern are predictive of one holding a more ‘personal’ environmental identity (Clayton, 2012; Gatersleben et al., 2012; Hinds
& Sparks, 2008; van der Werff et al., 2013a, 2013c).
The findings of this study also indicated that outgroup members perceived environmentalists to actively engage in numerous pro-environmental behaviours – including those that are individually and collectively employed (Stern, 2000). This suggests that, although shared ideology may be the defining characteristic of the environmentalist social category, consistent engagement in a range of pro-environmental behaviour is also a key requirement of whether one is considered an environmental
CH. 5 STUDY 2: OUTGROUP PERCEPTIONS OF ENVIRONMENTALISTS 114 ingroup member (Bashir et al., 2013; Tesch & Kempton, 2004). Not only does this finding build upon those of Study 1 wherein being active was an important consideration for whether participants were willing to self-identify as an environmentalist, it also lends further support to recent research that demonstrates how members of groups with pro- environmental norms will be deemed to be hypocrites if they did not engage in the environmental groups normative behaviours (Gaffney et al., 2012). However, given the diverse range of behaviours perceived to be prototypical of the environmentalist social category, it also demonstrates, as shown within the social identity literature, that heterogeneity of behaviour can be tolerated within categories, even by outgroup members (Hornsey, 2006). Indeed, it may be that outgroup members perceive the environmentalist social category as a whole to engage in a range of pro-environmental behaviours, but it is different sub-groups of environmentalists which are perceived to engage in specific pro-environmental behaviours (Bashir, 2010; Bashir et al., 2013;
Castro et al., 2016).
This study also found that environmentalist outgroup members simultaneously held both positive and negative perceptions of the environmentalists, describing them with positive trait terms (caring, informed, dedicated) and negative trait terms (smug, irrational, pushy). This finding indicates that the broader stereotype of the environmentalist social category may contain both positive and negative elements.
Although not explicitly tested in the current study, it is certainly possible that these positive and negative elements could then be activated in different social contexts. This finding is also in comparison to previous research that has suggested that environmentalists are only evaluated negatively by those who have differing ideologies, including individuals who hold right-wing ideologies perceiving environmentalists to be
CH. 5 STUDY 2: OUTGROUP PERCEPTIONS OF ENVIRONMENTALISTS 115 problematic and threatening (Hoffarth & Hodson, 2016; Hutchings, 2005; Murphy &
Dee, 1996). Indeed, different types of groups may have differing stereotypes of environmentalists in different contexts, but may still hold the same stereotype in the same context (such as when they are in conflict with environmentalists). This possibility provides a fruitful area for future research.
Previous research also outlines how the majority of traits seen as characteristic of environmentalists suggest that they are also only militant/aggressive (e.g., forceful) and eccentric/unconventional (e.g., eccentric) (Bashir, 2010; Bashir et al., 2013). Yet, this study suggests that the outgroup stereotype of environmentalists is made up of positive and negative characteristics and, in line with the social identity approach, what traits are voiced to be stereotypical of environmentalists depends upon the social context (Haslam et al., 1995a, 1995b). That is, outgroup stereotypes of environmentalists may alter depending upon whether the social context emphasises negative traits (such as one engaging in intergroup conflict with environmentalists) or positive traits, with perhaps positive stereotypes more easily drawn upon in day-to-day perceptions of environmentalists. Indeed, the strategic use of language by participants, such as suggesting that only ‘some’ environmentalists were extreme and aggressive, demonstrated that the positive perceptions of environmentalist were conditional on whether the behaviours that environmentalist ingroup members engaged in did not become too antagonistic or socially unacceptable. This is similar to findings in that those who engage in political activism tend to be viewed negatively due to the nature of the socially extreme behaviours they engage in (Bashir et al., 2013; Lindblom & Jacobsson,
2014).
CH. 5 STUDY 2: OUTGROUP PERCEPTIONS OF ENVIRONMENTALISTS 116
Limitations
Although this study offered further insights into how outgroup members perceive the environmentalist social category, thereby providing a deeper understanding of the potential stereotypes that surround the group, a number of limitations must be noted.
Firstly, as the focus of the study was upon the broad perceptions environmentalist outgroup members held of environmentalists, it is unclear whether the perceptions offered would have changed if participants were asked to recall, for example, an instance where they directly interacted with environmentalists. Given the importance of social context to stereotypes (Haslam et al., 1995a, 1995b; Oakes et al., 1999; Tajfel & Turner,
1979; Turner, 1999), it is entirely possible that the valence of certain perceptions offered could have intensified or diminished depending on different social contexts. Future research should examine how social context, including past positive and negative experiences with environmentalists, also contribute to how outgroup members perceive the superordinate environmentalist social category.
Secondly, the perceptions that were given by participants may have also been culturally specific given that participants were from the US and therefore would have drawn upon current representations of environmentalists within US society. It is entirely possible that participants recruited from different countries, including even Australia (as was the case in Study 1), could hold different perceptions of the environmentalist social category. Indeed, the Greens political party in Australia has had much more coverage within the Australian media landscape than in the US and therefore it is possible that
Australian participants see the environmentalist social category as a much more politicised group (Fielding et al., 2012). Future research should therefore investigate whether stereotypes of environmentalists differ across cultures, including the possible
CH. 5 STUDY 2: OUTGROUP PERCEPTIONS OF ENVIRONMENTALISTS 117 consequences these potentially different perceptions have upon ones potential identification as an environmentalist and their willingness to engage in pro- environmental behaviour.
Due to the focus of the study being upon how non-environmentalists of the general public broadly perceived environmentalists, there was little analysis regarding how certain demographic characteristics may have intersected with participant responses, including such demographics such as age, gender, or political ideology. For instance, debates around environmental issues have become increasingly politically polarised within the US (Dunlap et al., 2016; Layman et al., 2006; McCright et al., 2014), with recent research demonstrating that conservatives tend to view environmentalists as threatening (Hoffarth & Hodson, 2016). Therefore age, gender, and political affiliation may have had a large contribution to how participants perceived environmentalists and should be explored in future studies.
Finally, a possible methodological limitation of the current study was the use of environmental orgnaisational membership as a critierion to determine whether participants were or were not environmentalist outgroup members. Indeed, the current study employed environmental organisational membership instead of a measure of environmentalist social identity to ensure participants were not primed before providing answers to the open-ended questions. Nevertheless, given that in Study 1 some participants who identified as an environmentalist did not belong to environmental organisation, it is possible that the final participant sample within Study 2 also contained participants who identified as an environmentalist even if they did not belong to an environmental organisation. If this is the case, then it is possible that the results of the
CH. 5 STUDY 2: OUTGROUP PERCEPTIONS OF ENVIRONMENTALISTS 118 current study may have been skewed by inadvertently including self-identified environmentalists within the sample.
Concluding Remarks
The aim of this qualitative study was to investigate the subjective perceptions outgroup members held of the environmentalist social category in order to provide further information regarding the stereotypes non-environmentalists may have of environmentalists. Overall, the findings of this study suggest that non-environmentalists generally see the defining characteristics of the group to be their concern for the natural environment and their active engagement in numerous pro-environmental behaviours – although what was considered to be normative of the group substantially varied from individualistic to collectivistic pro-environmental actions. Furthermore, participant responses also suggested that the stereotype of environmentalists was not solely negative.
Rather the perceptions of environmentalists were simultaneously both negative and positive; with outgroup members deeming environmentalist ingroup members to be caring, informed and dedicated, but also pushy, stubborn, and arrogant.
CH. 6 STUDY 3: SOCIAL IDENTITY & GREEN CONSUMERISM 119
Chapter 6
Study 3:
Investigating Whether Environmentalist Social Identity is Predictive of Green
Consumerism in Members of the General Public
Introduction
Whilst green consumerism is often defined as a type of individualised, environmentally friendly purchasing within the pro-environmental behaviour literature
(Stern, 2000), findings of Study 1 (Chapter 4) demonstrated that environmentalists and non-environmentalists alike perceived green consumerism to involve multiple consumption behaviours that could be individually and collectively employed to improve environmental outcomes (Antil, 1984; Peattie, 2010; Polonsky et al., 2012). As such, green consumerism may not only be positively related to other types of individualistic pro-environmental behaviours, it may also be positively associated with collective action that is done on behalf of the environment.
Additionally, as argued in Chapter 3, environmentalist social identification may be one of the psychological mechanisms that drive engagement in green consumerism.
For instance, previous research has shown that there are strong, positive associations between identification with social groups that hold pro-environmental norms and pro- environmental behaviours that are both individually and collectively employed (Bartels
& Hoggendam, 2011; Bartels & Onwezen, 2014; Bartels & Reinders, 2016; Dono et al.,
2010; Fielding et al., 2008a). In fact, if a person identifies as an environmentalist and engages in numerous types of pro-environmental behaviours, this may make them more
CH. 6 STUDY 3: SOCIAL IDENTITY & GREEN CONSUMERISM 120 likely to engage in green consumerism, as Dono et al. (2010) found in relation to environmental activism.
Against this background, the third study of this thesis investigated whether environmentalist social identity was predictive of green consumerism for members of the general public who did not belong to environmental organisations (i.e., non- environmentalists). Furthermore, it also investigated through a path analysis whether engagement in both individualistic pro-environmental behaviours and environmental collective actions mediated the relationship between environmentalist social identity and green consumerism.
A detailed justification for the study’s aims and methodology now follows.
The Relationship Green Consumerism has with Individualistic Pro-environmental
Behaviours and Environmental Collective Action
Pro-environmental behaviours have often been classified into sub-categories according to whether they are an individual action that occurs within the private sphere, or whether they are collectively employed within the private sphere (Bamberg & Möser,
2007; Gatersleben, 2012; Markle, 2013; Stern, 2000; Whitmarsh & O’Neill, 2010).
Following this classification, then, the pro-environmental behaviour literature has predominantly conceptualised green consumerism as an individualistic, private sphere behaviour that reduces consumers’ personal impact on the environment (Dietz et al.,
1998; Sparks & Shepherd, 1992; Stern, 2000; Thøgersen & Ölander, 2003).
However, findings of Study 1 demonstrated that both self-identified environmentalists and non-environmentalists perceived green consumerism to extend beyond the purchase of green products to instead include a wide range of environmentally friendly consumption behaviours. Furthermore, green consumerism was
CH. 6 STUDY 3: SOCIAL IDENTITY & GREEN CONSUMERISM 121 not perceived as simply an individual action, but rather as both an individualistic and collective pro-environmental behaviour. In particular, participants suggested that green consumerism may be collectively employed as an activist strategy in order to reduce environmental problems arising from unsustainable practices (as previously suggested by Autio et al., 2009; Friedman, 1995; Micheletti & Stolle, 2012; Peattie, 2010). Given this, green consumerism may not only be positively associated with other types of individualistic private sphere pro-environmental behaviours, but it could also be positively related to collective action that is done on behalf of the environment.
Although little research has examined how numerous pro-environmental behaviours are related to one another (although for some initial work see Dono et al.,
2010; Larson et al., 2015; Markle, 2013; Olli et al., 2001), some preliminary evidence does suggest that green consumerism may be positively associated with other pro- environmental behaviours that occur in the private sphere. For example, green purchasing has been shown to have a moderate positive relationship with such pro- environmental behaviours as willingness to make personal financial sacrifices for the environment, environmental citizenship (personally joining and contributing to environmental organisations), and recycling behaviour (Dietz et al., 1998; Dono et al.,
2010; Stern et al., 1999; Thøgersen & Ölander, 2003; Whitmarsh & O’Neill, 2010).
Moreover, behaviours that are considered to be examples of green consumerism, such as the purchasing of organic food and fair trade products, have been found to be positively associated with other environmentally friendly behaviour (purchasing products with green packaging, contributing financially to environmental organisations, and learning about the environment) (Bartels & Hoggendam, 2011; Bartels & Onwezen, 2014;
Bartels & Reinders, 2016).
CH. 6 STUDY 3: SOCIAL IDENTITY & GREEN CONSUMERISM 122
Furthermore, as Study 1 showed, individuals may be motivated to engage in green consumerism as a way of indirectly enabling positive environmental change through consumers’ buying power (Autio et al., 2009; Cherrier, Black, & Lee, 2011).
Given this, green consumerism may be related to public collective behaviours such as environmental activism, the act of engaging in collective public displays such as protesting, rallying and petitioning (Séguin et al., 1998), and political consumerism, the act of publicly displaying political or ethical concerns through collective consumer choices such as boycotting and buy-cotting (Neilson, 2010). Although no research to date has investigated these possibilities, research has shown a moderate relationship between green purchasing and environmental activism (Dietz et al., 1998; Dono et al.,
2010; Stern et al., 1999). Furthermore, some measures of green consumerism (as used by
Bohlen, Schlegelmilch, & Diamantopoulos, 1993; Dietz et al., 1998; Stern et al., 1999) even include items that reference boycotting, suggesting that this political consumerism practice is inherently tied to green consumerism. The associations between these behaviours are therefore investigated in the present study.
Environmentalist Social Identity and its Relationship to Green Consumerism
As outlined in Chapter 2, previous research has shown that ‘green’ or
‘environmental’ identities not only predict engagement in various types of pro- environmental behaviour such as green purchasing, they often do so to a stronger extent than other variables such as personal values and environmental attitudes (Gatersleben et al., 2014; Kim et al., 2012; Nigbur et al., 2010; Sparks & Shepherd, 1992; Whitmarsh &
O’Neill, 2010). Yet, as argued in Chapters 2 and 3, an individual’s self-concept does not just involve personal, idiosyncratic characteristics such as one’s personal connection to the natural environment (Clayton, 2003), but involves ones membership to
CH. 6 STUDY 3: SOCIAL IDENTITY & GREEN CONSUMERISM 123 psychologically meaningful social groups (Reicher et al., 2010; Spears, 2011; Tajfel,
1981; Tajfel & Turner, 1979; Turner et al. 1987; Turner & Oakes, 1986).
As shown by research from the social identity perspective, identification with a social group or category leads an individual’s perception of the self to become depersonalised – that is, they define themselves in terms of the group’s stereotypical group characteristics (Ellemers et al., 1999; Oakes, 2002; Tajfel & Turner, 1979; Turner,
1982; Turner et al., 1994). When this social identity is made salient, ingroup members then assimilate their attitudes, beliefs, and behaviour to the norms of the salient ingroup
(Hogg & Abrams, 1988; Reynolds et al., 2015; Terry & Hogg, 2000), subsequently engaging in group-normative behaviour, partly in order to affirm this social identification (Amiot et al., 2014; Reicher et al., 2010).
In the case of the environmentalist social category, then, those who identify strongly as an environmentalist ingroup member will therefore engage in identity congruent behaviour. This includes individualistic and collectivistic pro-environmental behaviours, which Studies 1 and 2 (Chapters 4 and 5) showed were both perceived to be normative for that social category. This suggestion is consistent with research showing that individuals who identify with groups that hold pro-environmental norms are more likely to engage in both individualistic pro-environmental behaviours (e.g., willingness to sacrifice, environmental citizenship, recycling) and collectivistic ones (e.g., environmental activism) (Bartels & Reinders, 2016; Dono et al., 2010; Fielding et al.,
2008a; Fielding et al., 2008b; Terry et al., 1999; White & Hyde, 2012; White et al.,
2009). However, no research to date has investigated whether identification with the environmentalist social category is predictive of green consumerism specifically, which
Studies 1 and 2 showed is also normative of environmentalists (as also shown in Fuentes,
CH. 6 STUDY 3: SOCIAL IDENTITY & GREEN CONSUMERISM 124
2014; Horton, 2004; Moisander & Pesonen, 2002). The current study investigated this possibility.
Given that social identification is the psychological mechanism that can underpin group normative behaviour (Amiot et al., 2014; Hogg & Reid, 2006; Tajfel & Turner,
1979; Terry & Hogg, 2000), it is also possible that if one identifies with the environmentalist social category, engaging in one type of pro-environmental behaviour that is normative of the group may lead to an individual engaging in another (as these behaviours would mututally reinforce one another). Indeed, Dono et al. (2010) found that, for environmental activism, the relationship between environmentalist social identity and environmental activism was partially mediated by pro-environmental behaviour – in particular, by high levels of environmental citizenship (joining and contributing to environmental organisations). This finding suggested that when an individual identified as an environmentalist and was a part of environmental organisations, this strengthened their desire to engage in collective actions.
In the case of green consumerism then, environmentalist social identity may also actually contribute to green consumerism engagment indirectly through both individualistic and collective pro-environmental behaviours, given that green consumerism is seen as both an individual action and collective behaviour (as shown in
Study 1). In particular, as engaging in green consumerism comes at personal cost to the individual (D’Souza et al., 2007), an individual who identifies as an environmentalist and chooses to sacrifice their personal finances to protect the environment is subsequently more likely to act on such a choice and engage in green consumerism.
Further still, someone who identifies as an environmentalist and engages in collective action that is environmentally focussed (i.e., environmental activism or political
CH. 6 STUDY 3: SOCIAL IDENTITY & GREEN CONSUMERISM 125 consumerism) may become even more willing to engage in green consumerism, as being part of such collective action may lead them to wish to engage in other behaviours that can be collectively employed. Indeed, an environmentalist who engages in collective action may want to ensure consistency in all their behaviours, and therefore ensure that their consumption behaviours also result in positive environmental change. However, these potential mediated relationships have yet to be investigated, and as such are focused on in the present study.
Nevertheless, it is entirely possible that environmentalist social identity itself mediates the relationship between individualised pro-environmental behaviour, environmental collective action, and green consumerism (as recently suggested by
Veenstra et al., 2016). However, as Dono et al. (2010) demonstrated that social identification as an environmentalist leads one to engage in numerous pro-environmental behaviours that mutually reinforce one another, and in particular that environmental citizenship strengthened environmental activism in environmentalist ingroup members, it was decided to use Dono et al. as a template for this study to test the hypothesis that individualistic pro-environmental behaviour and collective environmental action would mediate the relationship between environmentalist social identity and green consumerism. That is, this study served as a partial replication of the causal pathways proposed by Dono et al.
The Current Study
Given the argument presented above, the first aim of the current study was to investigate whether pro-environmental behaviours that are collectively or individually employed were strongly associated with green consumerism in members of the general public who did not belong to environmental organisations. Based on previous research
CH. 6 STUDY 3: SOCIAL IDENTITY & GREEN CONSUMERISM 126
(Study 1; Dietz et al., 1998; Dono et al., 2010; Whitmarsh & O’Neill, 2010), it was hypothesised that:
H1: Both individualistic pro-environmental behaviour (operationalised as
willingness to sacrifice, and environmental citizenship) and collective
environmental action (operationalised as environmental activism, and political
consumerism) would be moderately predictive of green consumerism.
Secondly, this study also aimed to investigate whether environmentalist social identity both directly predicted green consumerism, as well as indirectly through pro- environmental behaviours that are individually and collectively employed. Based on previous research (Studies 1 and 2; Dietz et al., 1998; Dono et al., 2010; Fielding et al.,
2008a; Stern et al., 1999), it was hypothesised that:
H2: Stronger environmentalist social identity would directly predict greater
green consumerism.
H3: The relationship between environmentalist social identity and green
consumerism would be partially mediated by individualised pro-environmental
behaviour (operationalised as willingness to sacrifice, and environmental
citizenship) and environmental collective action (operationalised as
environmental activism, and political consumerism).
CH. 6 STUDY 3: SOCIAL IDENTITY & GREEN CONSUMERISM 127
Method
Participants
The sample used for data analysis consisted of 320 adults22 living in the United
States of America (US). It was made up of 143 men (44.7%) and 177 women (55.3%).
Participant age ranged from 18 to 78 years (M = 36.68, SD = 11.34), and annual income and education levels were diverse (see Table 6.1 for participant demographics). Only 34 participants (10.6%) were currently students.
Table 6.1 Participants’ Demographic Characteristics Frequency % Education Lower secondary education (year 10/sophomore year) 2 0.6% Upper secondary education (high school completion) 91 28.4% Post-secondary non-tertiary education (TAFE, diploma) 51 15.9% First stage of tertiary education (undergraduate degree) 133 41.6% Second stage of tertiary education (graduate degree) 43 13.4% Annual income (in US dollars, before taxes) Less than $15,000 72 22.5% $15,000 to $24,999 55 17.2% $25,000 to $34,999 46 14.4% $35,000 to $49,999 54 16.9% $50,000 to $74,999 54 16.9% $75,000 and above 38 11.9% Missing 1 0.3% Student status Currently a student 34 10.6% Not a student 286 89.4% Environmental organisation membership Yes 30 9.4% No 275 85.9% Not sure 8 2.5% Prefer not to say 7 2.2% Note. N = 320.
22 The number of participants initially recruited was 358. However, upon data cleaning and the subsequent identification and deletion of 38 multivariate outliers (see Appendix F for details), the final dataset comprised 320 participants.
CH. 6 STUDY 3: SOCIAL IDENTITY & GREEN CONSUMERISM 128
Measures
Unless otherwise specified, all measures described below were responded to on a
7-point Likert-type response scale (1 = never, 7 = always).
Demographic items. Demographic details that were collected were gender; age; country of residence; annual income (in $US and before taxes); education level; student status; and membership in environmental organisations.
Environmentalist social identity. As employed by Dono et al. (2010), the 5- item, one-factor version of the Strength of Group Identification Scale (Brown, Condor,
Matthews, Wade, & Williams, 1986) measured participants’ level of identification with the environmentalist social category (e.g., “I am a person who identifies with environmentalists”; see Appendix H, Table H2 for items) (α = .97).
Political consumerism. Stolle et al.’s (2005) 6-item, one-factor Political
Consumerism Index (PCI) measured participants’ prior engagement in political consumerism (including both boycotting and buy-cotting) (e.g., “Do you participate in boycotting products?”; see Appendix H, Table H2 for items) (α = .89). Initially measured on a 10-point Likert-type scale, this measure was rescaled as a 7-point scale for the present study to maintain consistency with other measures used.
Environmental activism. Séguin et al.’s (1998) 6-item, one-factor
Environmental Activism Scale was employed to measure past engagement in environmental activism (e.g., “I participate in protests against current environmental conditions”, see Appendix H, Table H2 for items) (α = .85).
Pro-environmental behaviour. To facilitate comparison to prior research that has investigated the relationship between different types of pro-environmental behaviour
(Dono et al., 2010; Stern et al., 1999), two subscales of Stern et al.’s (1999) pro-
CH. 6 STUDY 3: SOCIAL IDENTITY & GREEN CONSUMERISM 129 environmental behaviour measure were employed23 (see Appendix H, Table H2 for items). The 3-item ‘willingness to sacrifice’ subscale measured the extent to which individuals were willing to make personal financial sacrifices for the environment (e.g.,
“I would be willing to pay much higher taxes in order to protect the environment”) (α
= .91). The 7-item ‘environmental citizenship’ subscale measured the extent to which individuals were willing to contribute to, and be a part of, environmental causes (e.g.,
“Have you given money to an environmental group in the last 12 months?”) (α = .85).
Green consumerism. To ensure that green consumerism was measured as extending beyond purchasing, as suggested by findings of Study 1 (Chapter 4), Roberts’
(1996) 22-item Ecologically Conscious Consumer Behaviour Scale was employed (e.g.,
“I try only to buy products that can be recycled”, see Appendix G, Table G2 for items).
Given previous research has demonstrated varying factor structures for this scale
(Roberts, 1996; Roberts & Bacon, 1997; Straughan & Roberts, 1999), a series of factor analyses were conducted to validate the scale, with a shortened 19-version of the scale subsequently employed for the path analysis (α = .95) (see Appendix G for more details).
Group salience manipulation checks. As participants were given a vignette in order to make environmentalist group membership salient (see Procedure), two items measured on a 7-point Likert-type scale determined whether participants viewed themselves as members of the environmentalist social category or as individuals (1 very much like a group member; 7 very much like an individual). Items assessed the extent to which participants both felt like a member of the environmentalist social category, and saw themselves as a member of the environmentalist social category.
23 Only two of the three subscales from Stern et al.’s (1999) pro-environmental behaviour measure were employed, given the third subscale measured green purchasing behaviour, which was instead measured in the current study by Roberts’ Ecologically Conscious Consumer Behaviour Scale.
CH. 6 STUDY 3: SOCIAL IDENTITY & GREEN CONSUMERISM 130
Procedure
Once ethics approval for the study was obtained from Deakin University’s Ethics
Committee (project number: HEAG-H 06_2016, see Appendix A.3 for letter of approval), participants were recruited via the online marketplace Amazon Mechanical
Turk (MTurk). Research has shown that samples recruited through MTurk are more diverse and representative of the general US population than in-person convenience and student samples (Clifford, Jewell, & Waggoner, 2015; Huff & Tingley, 2015; Levay et al., 2016). The quality of data collected through this medium also consistently either meets or exceeds requirements for validity and reliability (Berinsky et al., 2012;
Buhrmester et al., 2011).
The recruitment notice provided on MTurk asked participants to complete a short survey that examined their engagement in various prosocial behaviours (see Appendix
B.3 for the notice). The notice did not specify that the study was interested in participants’ engagement in pro-environmental behaviour or whether they identified as an environmentalist, to ensure those who were not interested in environmentalism did not self-select out of the study. Once directed to the online questionnaire (see Appendix
E for a copy of the questionnaire), participants first read the Plain Language Statement
(see Appendix B.3) and then answered demographic items. Participants then read a vignette that made membership to the environmentalist social category salient:
People’s views on the environment vary widely. For instance, some people do not think about the environment and are not worried about the issues it may be facing. In comparison, others are worried about the environment. This group of people often wish to do something to help the environment and may employ such strategies as: buying environmentally friendly products and services; reducing their energy use; reusing and repairing items; and recycling.
Participants then completed the environmentalist social identity measure. This was then followed by the collective action and pro-environmental scales, the order of which was
CH. 6 STUDY 3: SOCIAL IDENTITY & GREEN CONSUMERISM 131 randomised across participants. The study then concluded with the green consumerism scale, the group salience manipulation checks, and the environmental organisation membership item24, in that order. Submission of the questionnaire signified participants’ informed consent, with participants paid $US1.00 upon completion of the study.
Results
Before path analysis of the relationships between variables was conducted, a two-step approach was adopted for measurement scale validation and composite variable construction (Anderson & Gerbing, 1988). First, factor analyses on each measure were conducted to establish scale validity. Items were then averaged for each scale to create composite variables. Means, standard deviations, ranges, and bivariate correlations between the major variables employed in the path analysis are reported in Table 6.2.
Preliminary Analyses and Manipulation Checks
Following data screening and assumption checks (see Appendix F for more details), a number of preliminary analyses were conducted.
Environmental organisation membership. As the focus of the current study was to investigate whether environmentalist social identity could contribute to non- environmentalists’ tendency to engage in pro-environmental behaviours, participants were initially screened to determine whether they were all environmentalist outgroup members. As in Study 2, membership in an environmental organisation was employed as a proxy for environmentalist social category membership, given participants may be uncertain whether they are environmentalists (see Study 2, Chapter 5 for more details).
24 The environmentalist organisation membership item was given at the end of the survey in order to ensure environmentalist group membership was not made salient before participants were given the vignette that made membership to the environmentalist social category salient.
CH. 6 STUDY 3: SOCIAL IDENTITY & GREEN CONSUMERISM 132
Table 6.2 Bivariate Pearson’s Correlations, Means, Standard Deviations, and Ranges for Variables Included in the Path Analysis Variables 1 2 3 4 5 6 1. Environmentalist – social identity 2. Political .52** – consumerism 3. Environmental .57** .55** – activism 4. Willingness to .61** .44** .49** – sacrifice 5. Environmental .64** .67** .81** .64** – citizenship 6. Green consumerism .66** .53** .54** .58** .59** – M 3.91 3.38 2.11 3.46 2.36 3.91 SD 1.62 1.33 1.12 1.44 1.23 1.37 Range 1-7.00 1-6.67 1-6.67 1-7.00 1-6.14 1-6.89 Note. N = 275. All variables measured on a Likert-type scale, where 1 = never, 7 = always. M = mean; SD = standard deviation; Range = observed range of scores. ** p < .01 (two-tailed).
Before participants who indicated they were environmental organisation members were deleted from the sample, a one-way MANOVA was conducted to check whether there were any statistically significant differences between members and non- members on key outcome variables. As it was reasoned that participants who indicated that they were either a member of an environmental organisation (n = 30), not sure (n =
8), or preferred not to indicate their membership status (n = 7) were more likely to be members of an environmental organisation than not, these participants were recoded as being members of an environmental organisation for the sake of statistical simplicity
(total n = 45).
Using Pillai’s Trace, a significant multivariate effect of environmental organisation membership emerged, V =.36, F(6, 313) = 28.88, p < .001, η2 partial = .36.
CH. 6 STUDY 3: SOCIAL IDENTITY & GREEN CONSUMERISM 133
Separate univariate ANOVAs on the variables revealed significant main effects of environmental organisation membership on all variables (see Table 6.3), with higher mean scores for members across all measures. This sub-group of participants were therefore deleted from subsequent analyses (n = 45), ensuring that the remaining data were only from those who were outgroup members of the environmentalist social category (i.e., non-environmentalists) (n = 275).
Table 6.3 Univariate F-Tests for Environmentalist Social Identity, Pro-environmental Behaviour, Collective Action, and Green Consumerism by Environmental Organisation Membership F η2 partial Environmental Non-member organisation (n = 275) member (n = 45) Variables M (SD) M (SD) Environmentalist 63.35*** .17 5.91 (1.12) 3.91 (1.62) social identity Political 22.02*** .07 4.41 (1.52) 3.38 (1.33) consumerism Environmental 120.29*** .27 4.16 (1.38) 2.11 (1.12) activism Willingness to 42.46*** .12 4.98 (1.54) 3.46 (1.43) sacrifice Environmental 142.37*** .31 4.78 (1.40) 2.36 (1.23) citizenship Green 43.62*** .12 5.32 (1.09) 3.91 (1.36) consumerism Note. For all univariate F-tests, df = 1, 318. F = F-ratio; η2 partial = eta squared partial; M = mean; SD = standard deviation. *** p < .001.
Group salience check. To further verify that all remaining participants did not consider themselves to be ingroup members of the environmentalist social group, mean scores on the two group salience manipulation checks were also inspected. Means demonstrated that participants who did not belong to environmental organisations
CH. 6 STUDY 3: SOCIAL IDENTITY & GREEN CONSUMERISM 134 generally felt (M = 5.39; SD = 1.48) and saw (M = 5.35, SD = 1.54) themselves as individuals rather than as members of the environmentalist social category (where 7 = very much like an individual).
Confirmatory Factor Analysis of Variables Used in Path Analysis
A series of confirmatory factor analyses (CFA) of the scales, using the maximum likelihood estimation method, were then run using AMOS 20.0 (2012) in order to establish the construct validity of the variables employed in the path analysis. The chi- square statistic (χ²) and a number of fit indices were inspected to determine the model fit of the proposed factor structures for each scale, given the χ² statistic can become significant when the sample size increases and models become more complex (Byrne,
2001; Hu & Bentler, 1999; Kline, 2004).
Specifically, two incremental fit indices (the comparative fit index (CFI) and
Tucker Lewis index (TLI)) were employed to measure whether the hypothesised model was a better fit than a null model. Furthermore, two absolute fit indices (standardised root mean square residual (SRMR) and root mean square error of approximation
(RMSEA)) were employed to measure the rate of error in the hypothesised model.
Following the recommendations of Hu and Bentler (1999), a scales factor structure was said to be absolute fitting when it had a CFI or TLI of > .90 (ideally greater than .95), a
SRMR value < .06 and a RMSEA value < .08 (ideally less than .05).
The fit indices for the confirmatory factor analyses conducted for the variables are provided in Table 6.4, whilst the standardised factor loadings for scale items can be seen in Appendix H.
CH. 6 STUDY 3: SOCIAL IDENTITY & GREEN CONSUMERISM 135
Table 6.4 Fit Indices for Confirmatory Factor Analyses of Scales Latent variables χ²(df) CFI TLI SRMR RMSEA Environmentalist 66.71 (5)*** .96 .93 .02 .21 social identity Political 270.62 (9)*** .76 .60 .09 .33 consumerism Environmental 49.25 (9)*** .96 .93 .05 .13 activism Pro-environmental 139.48(35)*** .93 .90 .06 .10 behaviour (two factors) Green consumerism 426.66(152)*** .93 .92 .04 .08 (19-item, one-factor) Note. χ² = maximum likelihood estimation chi-square; df = degrees of freedom for χ²; CFI = comparative fit index; TLI = Tucker Lewis index; SRMR = standardised root mean square residual; RMSEA = root mean square error of approximation. *** p < .001.
Environmentalist social identity. The 5-item, one-factor measure of environmentalist social identity demonstrated a good fit to the data (despite the high
RMSEA score) (see Table 6.4 for fit indices). All factor loading coefficients were also significant (see Appendix H, Table H1 for standardised factor loadings).
Political consumerism. The 6-item Political Consumerism Index demonstrated poor fit to the data (see Table 6.4 for fit indices). However this measure was retained for further analysis given factor loadings exceeded .60 and the Cronbach’s alpha for the scale exceeded .80 (Field, 2013) (see Appendix H, Table H2 for standardised factor loadings)
Environmental activism. Besides the high RMSEA value, the 6-item environmental activism scale demonstrated a good fit to the data (see Table 6.4 for fit indices). All factor loadings were also high, except for the item “I vote for a government proposing environmentally conscious policies”, where the factor loading just passed the .40 threshold (see Appendix H, Table H2 for standardised factor loadings). Given the
CH. 6 STUDY 3: SOCIAL IDENTITY & GREEN CONSUMERISM 136 high Cronbach alpha of the scale with this item included (α = .85), this item was retained in the measure (Field, 2013)
Pro-environmental behaviour. The two-factor measure of individualistic pro- environmental behaviour demonstrated a good fit to the data (see Table 6.4 for fit indices). The two subfactors of willingness to sacrifice and environmental citizenship were also strongly correlated (r = .70, p < .001), indicating they measured similar, yet distinct, pro-environmental behaviours. Standardised factor loadings also varied between .64 and .93 (see Appendix H, Table H3 for standardised factor loadings).
Green consumerism. Given previous research has demonstrated varying factor structures for this scale (Roberts, 1996; Roberts & Bacon, 1997; Straughan & Roberts,
1999), an exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was first conducted in order to explore the number and content of factors that best represented the 22-item scale (as suggested by
Worthington & Whittaker, 2006). A respecified 19-item one-factor green consumerism scale arose from this EFA (see Appendix G for more details).
The 19-item, one-factor measure of green consumerism that was developed from the EFA was a good fit to the model (see Table 6.4 for fit indices). The factor loadings
(see Appendix H, Figure H1 for standardised factor loadings) were comparable to those seen in the EFA, ranging from .50 to .91.
Path Analysis: Model Fit
Following results of the confirmatory analyses, items for each scale were averaged to create composite variables to be included in the path analysis.
Model 1. A path analysis employing maximum likelihood estimation was conducted to determine the relationships between environmentalist social identity, environmental collective action, individualistic pro-environmental behaviours, and green
CH. 6 STUDY 3: SOCIAL IDENTITY & GREEN CONSUMERISM 137 consumerism. This initial model was found to explain 52% of the variance in green consumerism (see Figure 6.1 for variance explained and standardised regression coefficients). However it also demonstrated a poor fit to the data, χ²(6, N = 275) =
329.87, p < .001, CFI = .67, TLI = .18, SRMR = .16, RMSEA = .44 (90% CI [.40, .46]).
Following this poor fitting model, modification indices (MI, Lagrange
Multiplier) and expected parameter changes (EPC) were inspected in order to identify any sources of model misfit. As suggested by Byrne (2001), only those modification indices that were above 10 were inspected as potential areas to re-specify the model. A series of re-specifications were undertaken based on the MIs and EPCs. These suggested that improvements in the model could be made by covarying a number of error terms, and in particular that the error term for environmental citizenship should be covaried with other error terms for the other pro-environmental behaviour measures (see
Appendix I for an overview of these re-specifications). Despite these re-specifications, improvements in the model fit were minimal.
Upon re-inspection of the items of the environmental citizenship scale, it was found that many of these items were similar to those in the other scales. This may have therefore led to the high level of error found in the path model. Given this, the environmental citizenship subscale was removed for the path model, and a new path model (Model 2) was specified (see Appendix J, Figure J1 for Model 2).
CH. 6 STUDY 3: SOCIAL IDENTITY & GREEN CONSUMERISM 138
Figure 6.1. Model 1, with environmental citizenship included, predicting green consumerism. R² = variance explained; β = standardized regression coefficient. p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001.
CH. 6 STUDY 3: SOCIAL IDENTITY & GREEN CONSUMERISM 139
Model 2. A path analysis for the re-specified Model 2 (see Appendix J, Figure J1 for Model 2) employed the maximum likelihood estimation to determine the regression relationships between environmentalist social identity, environmental activism, political consumerism, willingness to sacrifice, and green consumerism. The initial model freely estimated the regressions among the intermediate variables to allow for the computation of indirect effects (Hayes & Preacher, 2013). This model was found to explain 51% percent of the variance in green consumerism. The fit indices for Model 2 also demonstrated that Model 2 was a reasonably fitting model and was a better fitting model when compared to Model 1, χ²(3, N = 275) = 56.07, p < .001, CFI = .91, TLI = .69,
SRMR = .09, RMSEA = .25 (90% CI [.20, .31]), (see Appendix J, Figure J1 for standardised regression coefficients).
Inspection of the MIs and EPCs indicated that there was one potential modification indice that satisfied the above 10 rule, as specified by Byrne (2001). This was including a covariance between the error terms for political consumerism and environmental activism (MI = 37.07, EPC = .37). This re-specification significantly improved model fit, as determined by nested chi-square difference testing between the two models (Kline, 2004) (χ² difference = 39.83, p < .05). The respecified Model 2 accounted for 52% variance in green consumerism (see Figure 6.2) and demonstrated a good fit to the data, χ²(2, N = 275) = 16.24, p < .001, CFI = .96, TLI = .86, SRMR = .06,
RMSEA = .16 (90% CI [.09, .24]).
CH. 6 STUDY 3: SOCIAL IDENTITY & GREEN CONSUMERISM 140
Figure 6.2. Final re-specified Model 2, without environmental citizenship, predicting green consumerism. R² = variance explained; β = standardized regression coefficient. p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001.
CH. 6 STUDY 3: SOCIAL IDENTITY & GREEN CONSUMERISM 141
Path Analysis: Direct and Indirect Effects
A statistically significant direct effect of environmentalist social identity on green consumerism was found, with environmentalist social identity accounting for 43% of the variance in green consumerism engagement. In particular, the more participants identified with the environmentalist social category, the more likely they were to engage in green consumerism (β (SE) = .66 (.04), p < .001; BCa 95% CI =.57, .72).
An assessment of specific indirect effects of environmentalist social identity on green consumerism through each of political consumerism, environmental activism, and willingness to sacrifice was also conducted. Using the procedure outlined by Kline
(2004), and in line with recommendations of Preacher and Hayes (2008), the sample was bootstrapped to 1000 replications, with bias-corrected and accelerated 95% confidence intervals then estimated for each sequentially modelled path. As Table 6.5 shows, there was a partial mediation effect of environmentalist social identity on green consumerism, through each of the three variables.
Table 6.5 Specific Indirect Effects for Re-specified Path Model 2 β (SE) p BCa 95% CI 1. Environmentalist social identity .07 (.03) .014 [.02, .14] → Political consumerism → Green consumerism 2. Environmentalist social identity .07 (.03) .008 [.02, .13] → Environmental activism → Green consumerism 3. Environmentalist social identity .11 (.05) .002 [.05, .18] → Willingness to sacrifice → Green consumerism Note. β = standardised regression coefficient; SE = standard error; p = probability value; BCa 95% CI = 95% bias corrected and accelerated confidence intervals.
CH. 6 STUDY 3: SOCIAL IDENTITY & GREEN CONSUMERISM 142
Discussion
Although previous research typically conceptualises green consumerism to be a type of individualised, environmentally friendly purchasing (Stern, 2000), green consumerism may in fact involve multiple consumer behaviours that can be collectively employed to reduce environmental problems – as suggested by Study 1 and other researchers (Peattie, 2010; Polonsky et al., 2012). Due to these findings, the present study hypothesised that both pro-environmental behaviours that are individually employed (operationalised as willingness to sacrifice, and environmental citizenship) and collectively employed (operationalised as political consumerism, and environmental activism) may be moderately predictive of green consumerism.
Furthermore, given that those who identify with a social group that holds pro- environmental norms are more willing to engage in pro-environmental behaviours and environmental activism (Bartels & Hoogendam, 2011; Dono et al., 2010; Rabinovich et al., 2012; Terry et al., 1999), it was also hypothesised that environmentalist social identity may not only be directly predictive of green consumerism, but that the relationship between these two constructs may also be partially mediated by those pro- environmental behaviours that are individually and collectively employed.
Findings of the current study revealed that pro-environmental behaviours that are individually and collectively employed both predicted green consumerism engagement in individuals who did not belong to environmental organisations. However, whilst willingness to sacrifice, environmental activism, and political consumerism were found to be predictive of green consumerism, this was not the case with environmental citizenship. These findings indicate that each of these pro-environmental behaviours is somewhat distinct from green consumerism and is in line with previous research that has CH. 6 STUDY 3: SOCIAL IDENTITY & GREEN CONSUMERISM 143 shown the overarching construct of pro-environmental behaviour contains various subcomponents (Gatersleben, 2012; Markle, 2013; Stern, 2000; Stern et al., 1999).
Nonetheless, further research is still needed to further specify how green consumerism differs from these other types of pro-environmental behaviours. It may be that green consumerism is seen as more of a private-sphere behaviour that is dependent upon being aware of the environmental consequences of using green products, services, and resources, whereas environmental activism and political activism are those behaviours which are more so enacted in the public sphere.
That willingness to sacrifice was moderately predictive of green consumerism reflects prior literature that has shown that those who are willing to make financial sacrifices are more likely to engage in numerous pro-environmental behaviours in general (Davis, Le, & Coy, 2011; López-Mosquera, Garcia, & Barrena, 2014; Roe, Teisl,
Levy, & Russell, 2001). Indeed, to actually engage in green consumerism, one has to be willing to purchase products, services, or resources that are often more expensive than their non-green equivalents (D’Souza et al., 2007).
However, it is somewhat surprising that environmental activism and political consumerism each only weakly predicted green consumerism, given the conceptual similarity between green consumerism and political consumerism (Micheletti et al.,
2003; Stolle et al., 2005), and that in capitalist societies, at least, green consumerism is often seen as a ‘new’ form of environmental collective action (Friedman, 1995, 1996;
Peattie, 2010). It may be that that those who engage in more traditional forms of activism (e.g., protesting, petitioning, boycotting) do not see green consumerism to be as effective as these other, more extreme forms of activism, or they may feel that they have already done enough to help the environment through engaging in these more
CH. 6 STUDY 3: SOCIAL IDENTITY & GREEN CONSUMERISM 144
‘traditional’ forms of activism (Moisander, 2007, Peattie, 2010). Future research therefore should move towards further teasing apart these relationships, especially if engaging in green consumerism leads to lower rates of environmental activism.
Despite the weak relationships green consumerism had with individualistic and collectivistic pro-environmental behaviours, an important contribution of this study is to demonstrate the importance of social identity processes for engagement in green consumerism, even among members of the general public who are not members of environmental organisations (i.e. environmentalist outgroup members or non- environmentalists). For instance, the path analysis revealed a moderate direct effect of environmentalist social identity on green consumerism, as well as environmentalist social identity being moderately predictive of all the pro-environmental behaviour constructs employed in the current study. These findings are in line with previous research that shows social identification with pro-environmental social groups is predictive of numerous pro-environmental behaviours in general (Bartels & Hoogendam,
2011; Bartels & Reinders, 2010; Dono et al., 2010; Fielding et al., 2008a), adding further weight to the argument that encouraging higher rates of environmentalist social identity in members of the general public can lead to higher rates of pro-environmental behaviour overall (Fielding & Hornsey, 2016).
Adding to this, it must also be noted that the relationship between environmentalist social identity and green consumerism was also partially mediated by willingness to sacrifice, political consumerism, and environmental activism (however these indirect effects were very small). Therefore, although individualistic and collectivistic pro-environmental behaviours were not strongly predictive of green consumerism on their own, it appeared that engaging in one type of pro-environmental
CH. 6 STUDY 3: SOCIAL IDENTITY & GREEN CONSUMERISM 145 behaviour could help to explain the relationship social identity had with green consumerism. Indeed, it appeared that social identification itself was the psychological mechanism that led to one engaging in numerous pro-environmental behaviours (Amiot, et al., 2014; Hogg & Reid, 2006; Tajfel & Turner, 1979; Terry & Hogg, 2000). This further suggests that, as argued in Chapter 3 of the present thesis, group processes that arise as a consequence of social identity, such as group stereotypes, may also contribute to green consumerism in the general public (Haslam et al., 1996, 1999; Oakes et al.,
1994, 1999; Tajfel & Turner, 1979). This possibility is explored in the next study of the thesis (Study 4, Chapter 7).
Another finding worth noting is that participants who did not belong to environmental organisations substantially differed on key measures of the study to those participants who indicated they were members. Indeed, environmental organisation members were more likely to sacrifice financially for the environment, engage in political consumerism, environmental activism and green consumerism, and to identify with the environmentalist social category. These findings tentatively suggest environmental organisations themselves may serve as drivers of positive pro- environmental change (Bamberg et al., 2015; Forno & Graziano, 2014; Owen et al.,
2010; Veenstra et al., 2016). Memberships in organisations that promote environmentalist ideologies therefore serves a fertile ground for future research that aims to develop effective pro-environmental behaviour interventions, in that these organisations can serve as direct way of encouraging non-environmentalists to not only engage in variety of pro-environmental behaviours but also to later identify as an environmentalist (which will only serve to increase their rate of pro-environmental behaviours).
CH. 6 STUDY 3: SOCIAL IDENTITY & GREEN CONSUMERISM 146
Limitations
One limitation of the current study is that, given it was based on the path model that emerged in Dono et al. (2010), it did not test alternative models of the relationships between variables. Therefore it is certainly possible, given the poor fitting models, that other relationships might better fit the data. Furthermore, as it was a correlational study, concrete conclusions regarding causality between variables, or even of the direction of any relationships, cannot be made. Therefore future research should not only go on to test alterantive models of the relationships between models, such as placing social identity as the mediating variable between these behaviours, it should also employ experimental or longintudinal designs to determine the causal direction of these relationships.
A methodology limitation also present within the current study arises from the use of the vignette in order to make the environmentalist social category salient. Given that the social identity approach argues that ingroup identification requires the social category to be made salient before one can identify with the group, many within the social identity literature employ vignettes to make the social identity under study salient before one measures social identity (see Bliuc et al., 2007, 2015; Hogg 2006a, Hogg et al., 1995; Tajfel & Turner, 1979). Yet the vignette employed within the current study may have primed certain responses by the participants as it provided explicit examples of behaviours that most environmentalists were likely to engage in (e.g., buy environmentally friendly products, reduce their energy use, reuse and repair items). As such it is advisable that future measurements of environmentalist social identity do not include reference to pro-environmental behaviour – especially if this study goes on to measure participants engagement in pro-environmental behaviour.
CH. 6 STUDY 3: SOCIAL IDENTITY & GREEN CONSUMERISM 147
Finally, although the current study demonstrated the validity of Roberts’ and colleagues measure of green consumerism (see Roberts, 1996; Roberts & Bacon, 1997;
Straughan & Roberts, 1999), this measure was still limited in that the length of the scale remained impractically long, and it did not assess all the consumption behaviours which participants in Study 1 suggested were a part of green consumerism. As such, future research is needed to develop a scale which accurately reflects the various consumption behaviours that are part of the green consumerism construct and were uncovered in the in-depth qualitative research.
Conclusion
In sum, this study employed a correlational methodology to investigate whether environmentalist social identity, as well as pro-environmental behaviours that are individually (willingness to sacrifice, environmental citizenship) and collectively
(political consumerism, environmental activism) employed, were predictive of green consumerism for individuals who did not belong to environmental organisations (i.e., non-environmentalists). A path analysis indicated that environmentalist social identity was positively and moderately predictive of green consumerism, even to a stronger degree than other types of pro-environmental behaviours. Furthermore, this path analysis also revealed that the relationship between environmentalist social identity and green consumerism was partially mediated by willingness to sacrifice, political consumerism, and environmental activism. The findings of this study therefore suggest that social identity processes may indeed be important determinants of green consumerism in non- environmentalists.
CH. 7 STUDY 4: STEREOTYPES, IDENTITY & GREEN CONSUMERISM 148
Chapter 7
Study 4:
The Contribution of Social Identity and Group Stereotypes to Engagement in
Green Consumerism among Non-Environmentalists
Introduction
In Chapters 2 and 3 it was argued that social identity processes may contribute to the general public’s willingness to engage in pro-environmental behaviours (Fielding &
Hornsey, 2016). Indeed, Study 3 (Chapter 6) demonstrated that environmentalist social identity was predictive of green consumerism engagement in members of the general public who did not belong to environmental organisations (and therefore were considered to be ‘non-environmentalists’). The question then arises: why is it that those of the general public who hold an ecological worldview or attempt to engage in pro- environmental behaviours do not identify themselves as environmentalists?
As noted by the social identity approach, the stereotypic perceptions one holds of a social group or category can contribute to whether one is willing to perceive oneself as a member of that group (Haslam et al., 1995a, 1995b; Hogg & Turner, 1987; Oakes et al.,
1991, 1994). As such, the negative stereotypes individuals hold of environmentalists may be a barrier to their identification as an environmentalist ingroup member, and therefore may result in less engagement in identity congruent pro-environmental behaviours such as green consumerism (as suggested in Study 1, Chapter 4; also see
Perera, 2014; Whitehouse & Evans, 2010; Wright et al., 2012). By contrast, positive stereotypes of environmentalists may function to strengthen environmentalist social identification and subsequent green consumerism. As research has yet to explore these CH. 7 STUDY 4: STEREOTYPES, IDENTITY & GREEN CONSUMERISM 149 possibilities, this fourth and final study of the present thesis aimed to investigate whether positive and negative environmentalist stereotypes predicted environmentalist social identification in environmentalist outgroup members, and whether the relationship between environmentalist stereotypes and green consumerism was mediated by ones strength of environmentalist social identity.
A detailed justification for the study, as well as its methods, is now provided below.
Environmentalist Stereotypes and Reluctance to Identify as an Environmentalist
Despite Study 3 (Chapter 6) finding that environmentalist social identity can moderately predict green consumerism engagement in environmentalist outgroup members, findings from Study 1 (Chapter 4) of this thesis also showed that many individuals who engaged in green consumerism, were concerned for the environment, or held an ecological worldview (defined as a set of beliefs and values that see human activity and the environment as inherently interconnected) (Dunlap, Van Liere, Mertig,
& Jones, 2000) were reluctant to identify as an environmentalist. This is consistent with other qualitative studies showing that individuals may be hesitant to adopt the environmentalist label, or struggle to outrightly identify as an environmentalist, even if they hold pro-environmental attitudes or engage in pro-environmental behaviours
(Perera, 2014; Shirani et al., 2015; Stapleton, 2015; Whitehouse & Evans, 2010). This is also similar to findings of the feminist social category where many women fail to identify with or label themselves as feminists, even if they hold beliefs for gender equality (Duncan, 2010; Liss, O’Connor, Morosky, & Crawford, 2001; Zucker, 2004).
This reluctance to identify with the environmentalist social category is problematic, given that identification with a group drives engagement in behaviour
CH. 7 STUDY 4: STEREOTYPES, IDENTITY & GREEN CONSUMERISM 150 perceived to be normative of that group (Hogg & Reid, 2006; Terry & Hogg, 2010;
Reicher et al. , 2010; Turner et al., 1987). In fact, as suggested by Studies 1 and 2, one of the defining features or characteristics of the environmentalist social category is its ingroup members ecological worldview (as also suggested by Dunlap et al., 2000). Yet despite increased rates of environmental concern and stronger endorsements of an ecological worldview among citizens of westernised nations (Bamberg, 2003; Castro,
2006; Dunlap, 1991; Dunlap et al., 2000), it appears many individuals within these cultures still do not identify as an environmentalist or engage in pro-environmental actions.
Although this reluctance to identify as an environmentalist may arise as a consequence of individual-level variables, such as a lack of personal connection to the natural environment (Hinds & Sparks, 2008), or differences in how individuals interpret the environmentalist label (Tesch & Kempton, 2004), group-level processes can also help to explain why this may occur. In particular, given that the social identity approach argues that group stereotypes influence intergroup evaluations and behaviour (Haslam et al., 1995a, 1999; Oakes et al., 1991, 1994, 1999), the way in which the environmentalist social category is perceived by the public may be particularly relevant in explaining why outgroup members, even those who hold an ecological worldview, are reluctant to identify as an environmentalist. Given previous research has shown that social identity often mediates the relationship between group stereotypes and group normative behaviour (Costarelli & Callà, 2007; Cundiff, Vescio, Loken, & Low, 2013; Roy et al.,
2007; Peters, Ryan, & Haslam, 2015), this relationship may in turn explain individual’s engagement in green consumerism.
CH. 7 STUDY 4: STEREOTYPES, IDENTITY & GREEN CONSUMERISM 151
Some preliminary evidence has indicated holding negative stereotypes of environmentalists is associated with individuals being less willing to identify as an environmentalist, and subsequently being less likely to engage in pro-environmental behaviours (see Study 2; Bashir et al., 2013). For example, interviews with primary school teachers demonstrated that many were hesitant to adopt the environmentalist label due to the fear that they may be perceived as biased when teaching students about environmental sustainability (Whitehouse, 2001; Whitehouse & Evans, 2010). Other qualitative studies have also revealed that individuals who were aware of the negative perceptions others had of environmentalists often engaged in strategies to minimise the chances that others saw them as members of the environmentalist social category, either by normalising the pro-environmental behaviour they engaged in by stating how non- environmentalists also engaged in these behaviours (Shirani et al., 2015), or by choosing to label themselves as ‘green’ rather than as an ‘environmentalist’ (Perera, 2014).
Furthermore, whilst not measuring social identification specifically, Bashir et al. (2013) showed that individuals who evaluated environmental activists negatively, especially activists who were described as engaging in ‘extreme’ collective action, were less likely to affiliate (i.e., interact and maintain relationships) with these activists and subsequently to engage in the social change behaviours that these activists promoted.
Outside of environmentalism, research that has investigated feminists (another highly politicised social group) has also demonstrated how group-based stereotypes can contribute to whether one identifies as a feminist, and subsequently whether one engages in group normative behaviour (Liss et al., 2001; Nelson et al., 2008; Roy et al., 2007).
For instance, women who held negative stereotypes of feminists were less likely to label themselves as feminist, or identify as one (Robnett et al., 2012), which made them less
CH. 7 STUDY 4: STEREOTYPES, IDENTITY & GREEN CONSUMERISM 152 likely to engage in gender equality activism compared to those women who did label themselves as a feminist or identified with the feminist social category (Duncan, 2010;
Roy et al., 2007; Yoder, Tobias, & Snell, 2011; Zucker, 2004). Furthermore, when feminists were described in terms of negative stereotypes, such as engaging in radical collective action, both women and men were less likely to affiliate with feminist activists, and consequently were less likely to engage in radical collective action promoted by these feminists (Bashir et al., 2013). By contrast, positive stereotypes of feminists were associated with higher rates of feminist social identification and self- labelling (Roy et al., 2007; Williams & Wittig, 1997), which in turn contributed to higher rates of engagement in behaviours that promoted gender equality (Liss et al.,
2004).
Together, these findings suggest non-environmentalists who hold negative stereotypes of environmentalists (or in the present study endorse negative traits as stereotypical of environmentalists) may be less willing to identify with the environmentalist social category, even if they hold ecological worldviews, resulting in lower rates of green consumerism. However, as shown in Study 2 (Chapter 5), the stereotype that members of the general public hold of environmentalists (especially those who are not in direct conflict with environmentalists) also includes positive components. In particular, outgroup members tend to perceive environmentalists in a positive light as long as they do not engage in behaviours that are deemed to be non- normative or ‘extreme’, such as radical collective action.
Therefore, given the social identity approach argues that one of the key reasons as to why individuals join groups is to achieve a sense of positive group self-esteem and distinctiveness (Hogg & Abrams, 1988; Hornsey, 2008; Rubin & Hewstone, 1998;
CH. 7 STUDY 4: STEREOTYPES, IDENTITY & GREEN CONSUMERISM 153
Tajfel & Turner, 1979; Turner et al., 1987), those individuals who hold more positive stereotypes of environmentalists, or in the present study strongly endorse positive traits as typical of environmentalists, may be more willing to identify with the environmentalist social category. This may be the case even when one initally holds an ecological worldview. In turn, these individuals may be more willing to engage in types of normative pro-environmental behaviours that are not as ‘extreme’ as radical collective action – such as green consumerism.
The Present Study
Given the argument presented above, this study had two primary aims. The first aim was to investigate whether the stereotypes that non-environmentalists held of the environmentalist social category was associated with their willingness to identify as an environmentalist, even if they held an ecological worldview. Given individuals join groups in part to achieve a sense of positive distinctiveness (Rubin & Hewstone, 1998;
Tajfel & Turner, 1979), and that previous research has indicated that some individuals may fail to identify as an environmentalist due in part to negative environmentalist stereotypes (see Bashir et al., 2013; Study 1, Chapter 4), it was hypothesised that:
H1: When controlling for ecological worldviews, stronger endorsement of
positive traits as stereotypical of environmentalists by non-environmentalists
would predict stronger environmentalist social identity, while stronger
endorsement of negative traits as stereotypical of environmentalists would
predict weaker environmentalist social identity.
The second aim of this study was to investigate whether environmentalist social identity mediated the relationship between the stereotypes non-environmentalists held of the environmentalist social category and their engagement in green consumerism. Given
CH. 7 STUDY 4: STEREOTYPES, IDENTITY & GREEN CONSUMERISM 154 previous research has shown that social identity is the psychological mechanism that underpins the relationship between group stereotypes and group normative behaviour
(Duncan, 2010; Roy et al., 2007; Yoder et al., 2011), it was hypothesised that:
H2: Environmentalist stereotypes would exert an effect on green consumerism
indirectly through environmentalist social identity (see Figure 7.1). More
specifically, endorsement of positive environmentalist stereotypical traits would
strengthen one’s environmentalist social identity, which in turn would promote
greater rates of green consumerism. Further still, endorsement of negative
environmentalist stereotypical traits would weaken one’s environmentalist social
identity, which in turn would lead to lower rates of green consumerism.
CH. 7 STUDY 4: STEREOTYPES, IDENTITY & GREEN CONSUMERISM 155
Positive Environmentalist Stereotypical Traits
c’1
a1
Environmentalist Green Social Identity Consumerism b
a2
c’2
Negative Environmentalist
Stereotypical Traits
Figure 7.1. Theoretical model for indirect effects of positive and negative stereotypical traits on green consumerism through environmentalist social identity (non-significant paths denoted by dotted lines).
Note. a1 = relationship between positive stereotypical traits and environmentalist social identity; a2 = relationship between negative stereotypical traits and environmentalist social identity; b = relationship between environmentalist social identity and green consumerism; c’1 = direct effect of positive stereotypical traits on green consumerism; c’2 = direct effect of negative stereotypical traits on green consumerism; a1xb = indirect effect of positive stereotypical traits; a2xb = indirect effect of negative stereotypical traits.
CH. 7 STUDY 4: STEREOTYPES, IDENTITY & GREEN CONSUMERISM 156
Method
Participants
The sample used for data analysis comprised of 282 participants25, including 128 women (45.4%) and 154 men (54.6%). Participant age ranged from 18 to 70 years (M =
36.50; SD = 11.34), with 35 participants (12.4%) currently students. Participants’ annual income and education levels were also diverse (see Table 7.1 for more details). All participants resided in the United States of America (US).
Table 7.1 Demographics of Participants Frequency % Education Lower secondary education (year 10/sophomore year) 0 0.0% Upper secondary education (high school completion) 89 31.6% Post-secondary non-tertiary education (diploma) 34 12.1% First stage of tertiary education (undergraduate degree) 123 43.6% Second stage of tertiary education (graduate degree) 35 12.4% Missing 1 0.4% Annual income (in US dollars, before taxes) Less than $15,000 57 20.2% $15,000 to $24,999 42 14.9% $25,000 to $34,999 50 17.7% $35,000 to $49,999 52 18.4% $50,000 to $74,999 40 14.2% $75,000 and above 40 14.2% Missing 1 0.4% Student status Currently a student 35 12.4% Not a student 247 87.6% Environmental organisation membership Yes 23 8.2% No 248 87.9% Not sure 7 2.5% Prefer not to say 4 1.4%
25 The number of participants initially recruited was 312. As data screening identified and removed 30 multivariate outliers (see Appendix M), the final dataset used for analysis comprised of 282 participants.
CH. 7 STUDY 4: STEREOTYPES, IDENTITY & GREEN CONSUMERISM 157
Measures
Demographic items, as well as measures of environmentalist social identity, green consumerism, and group salience were identical to those used in Study 3 and so are described in Chapter 6.
Environmentalist stereotypes. Following previous stereotyping research within the social identity literature (Haslam et al., 1999; Haslam, Turner, Oakes, McGarty, &
Hayes, 1992), stereotypical environmentalist traits were measured on a 5-point Likert- type scale that assessed the degree to which certain traits were representative (i.e., prototypical) of the environmentalist social category (1 not at all, 2 rarely, 3 sometimes,
4 frequently, 5 all the time). Only six traits were utilised in order to reduce participant burden: three positive (caring, informed, dedicated) and three negative (pushy, stubborn, arrogant) traits, with their order randomised for each participant. These traits were chosen upon the basis of the qualitative content analysis conducted in Study 2 (Chapter
5), with pilot testing conducted prior to their use to ensure these traits were familiar to participants and were not so negative that participants would be reluctant to use them
(see Appendix L). As there were moderate to strong correlations between traits (see
Appendix N for trait correlations), positive traits were summed to create a measure of positive stereotypical environmentalist traits, and negative traits summed to create a measure of negative stereotypical environmentalist traits.
Ecological worldview. In order to control for participants (as environmentalist outgroup members) ecological worldview, the 15-item New Ecological Paradigm scale was employed (Dunlap et al., 2000). Measured on a 7-point Likert-type scale (1 strongly disagree, 7 strongly agree), items included “Humans are severely abusing the environment” and “Humans were meant to rule over the rest of nature” (reverse coded).
CH. 7 STUDY 4: STEREOTYPES, IDENTITY & GREEN CONSUMERISM 158
Procedure
After ethics approval was obtained from Deakin University’s Human Research
Ethics Committee (project number: HEAG-H 128_2015, see Appendix A.4 for approval letter), participants were recruited via the online marketplace Amazon Mechanical Turk
(MTurk). MTurk was used not only maintain consistency with Studies 2 and 3 (Chapters
5 and 6), but also because samples recruited through MTurk tend to be more representative of the US population when compared to student and in-person convenience samples (Berinsky et al., 2012; Buhrmester et al.; Clifford et al., 2015;
Levay et al., 2016).
The recruitment notice provided on MTurk only specified participants were to complete a short survey indicating their beliefs about certain social groups (see
Appendix B.4 for the recruitment notice). This was done to ensure that participants who were interested in environmentalism weren’t the only participants who were recruited, consequently increasing the chances of instead obtaining participants who were not members of environmental organisations (i.e., environmentalist outgroup members).
Upon reading the Plain Language Statement (see Appendix B.4), participants were then directed to the online questionnaire (see Appendix K). Environmentalist stereotypes were measured first, before demographic items, to ensure the stereotype measurement was not influenced by any confounding factors potentially present in the demographic items. As the social identity approach argues that the intergroup social context is essential to how groups perceive one another (Haslam et al., 1992, 1995a,
1995b, 1999; Tajfel & Turner, 1979; Oakes et al., 1999), a vignette was presented to participants to make the intergroup context surrounding environmentalists salient:
CH. 7 STUDY 4: STEREOTYPES, IDENTITY & GREEN CONSUMERISM 159
Different social groups can be distinguished by their values, attitudes, and personal characteristics. For example, environmentalists are often seen as intelligent, whilst miners are typically viewed as hard-working. These two groups may also differ in opinion regarding environmental issues, with environmentalists typically believing climate change is occurring. In comparison many miners are sceptical of climate change.26
Participants then completed the environmentalist stereotype measure wherein the order of the six traits was randomised, followed by the demographic items. Another vignette which made membership to the environmentalist social category salient was then given (as was the case in Study 3, see Chapter 6):
People’s views on the environment vary widely. For instance, some people do not think about the environment and are not worried about the issues it may be facing. In comparison, others are worried about the environment. This group of people often wish to do something to help the environment and may employ such strategies as: buying environmentally friendly products and services; reducing their energy use; reusing and repairing items; and recycling.
Participants then completed the measures of environmentalist social identity, green consumerism, and ecological worldview. The study then concluded with the group salience manipulation checks and the environmental organisation membership item.27
Upon submission of the questionnaire, which signified participants’ informed consent for their data to be used, participants were paid $US1.50.
Results
Data screening and analyses were conducted using IBM SPSS Statistics 23.0
(2016) and the PROCESS Macro for SPSS (v2.16) developed by Andrew Hayes (Hayes,
26 Miners were chosen as an example of an outgroup for environmentalists for this vignette given the long history of environmentalists typically engaging in political actions to disrupt or stop mining (Brulle, 1996; Colvin et al., 2015; Dalton et al., 2003). 27 The environmentalist organisation membership item was given at the end of the survey in order to ensure the environmentalist social category was not inadvertently made salient before participants were given the two vignettes.
CH. 7 STUDY 4: STEREOTYPES, IDENTITY & GREEN CONSUMERISM 160
2013). The means, standard deviations, Cronbach alphas, and bivariate correlations of the major variables employed for the study are reported in Table 7.2.
Table 7.2 Descriptive Statistics, Bivariate Pearson’s Correlations, and Cronbach Alphas for Major Variables Variables 1 2 3 4 5 1. Environmentalist – social identityᵃ 2. Ecological .58** – worldviewᵃ 3. Green .71** .49** – consumerismᵃ 4. Positive .52** .41** .38** – stereotypical traitsᵇ 5. Negative -.51** -.40** -.29** -.39** – stereotypical traitsᵇ M 3.97 4.75 3.83 3.71 3.12 SD 1.56 1.18 1.42 0.59 0.75 Range 1-7 1.60-7 1-6.89 1-5 1.67-5 α .95 .96 .91 .69 .82 Note. N = 248. M = mean; SD = standard deviation; Range = observed range of scores; α = Cronbach’s alpha. ᵃ = variable measured a 7-point Likert-type scale; ᵇ = variable measured on a 5-point Likert-type scale. ** p < .01 (two-tailed).
Preliminary Analyses and Manipulation Checks
Following data screening and assumption checks (see Appendix M for more details); a number of preliminary analyses were conducted.
Environmental organisation membership. Just as with Studies 2 and 3, membership in an environmental organisation was employed as a proxy for group membership in the superordinate environmentalist social category (see Chapters 5 and 6 for more details). However before participants who indicated that they were members of an environmental organisation were deleted from the sample, a one-way MANOVA was
CH. 7 STUDY 4: STEREOTYPES, IDENTITY & GREEN CONSUMERISM 161 conducted to check whether there were any statistically significant differences between members and non-members on key variables. As with Study 3 (see Chapter 6), responses to the environmental organisation membership item were recoded before analysis, with participants indicating that they were either a member (n = 23), not sure (n = 7) or preferred not to indicate their membership status (n = 4) recoded as being members of environmental organisations (total n = 34) for the sake of statistical simplicity.
Using Pillai’s Trace, a significant multivariate effect of environmental organisation membership emerged, V =.16, F(5, 276) = 10.31, p < .001, η2 partial = .16.
As shown in Table 7.3, separate univariate ANOVAs on key variables revealed significant main effects of environmental organisation membership for four of the five variables. Those who belonged to environmental organisations (i.e., were environmentalist ingroup members) had significantly higher levels of environmentalist social identity, ecological worldviews, and green consumerism engagement.
Furthermore, although non-members were significantly more likely to endorse negative traits as stereotypical of the environmentalist social category, there was no significant difference between members and non-members in their level of endorsement of positive traits as stereotypical of environmentalists.
Given that the MANOVA demonstrated a significant effect of environmental organisation membership on four of the five measures, participants who indicated that they were members of an environmental organisation were therefore deleted from further analysis (n = 34). This ensured that the remaining data were only from outgroup members of the environmentalist social category (i.e., non-environmentalists) (n = 248).
CH. 7 STUDY 4: STEREOTYPES, IDENTITY & GREEN CONSUMERISM 162
Table 7.3 Univariate F-Tests for Environmentalist Social Identity, Green Consumerism and Stereotypical Traits by Environmental Organisation Membership F p η2 Environmental Non-member partial organisation (n = 248) member (n = 34) Variables M (SD) M (SD) Environmentalist 36.10 .000 .114 5.62 (1.00) 3.97 (1.56) social identityᵃ Ecological 11.89 .001 .041 5.49 (1.15) 4.75 (1.18) worldviewsᵃ Green consumerismᵃ 44.03 .000 .136 5.49 (0.88) 3.83 (1.42) Positive 0.52 .470 .002 3.79 (0.73) 3.71 (0.59) stereotypical traitsᵇ Negative 4.53 .034 .016 2.82 (0.80) 3.12 (0.75) stereotypical traitsᵇ Note. For all univariate F-tests, df = 1, 280. F = F-ratio; p = probability value; η2 partial = eta squared partial; M = mean; SD = standard deviation. ᵃ = measured on a 7-point Likert-type scale; ᵇ = measured on a 5-point Likert-type scale.
Group salience manipulation check. In order to further verify that the remaining participants did not consider themselves to be ingroup members of the environmentalist social category, mean scores on the two group salience manipulation checks were reviewed. The remaining participants generally felt (M = 5.24; SD = 1.62) and saw (M = 5.29, SD = 1.62) themselves to be individuals rather than members of the environmentalist social category (where 7 = very much like an individual).
Regression Analysis
A two-step hierarchical multiple regression analysis using 5,000 bias-corrected and accelerated bootstrapped resamples was conducted to investigate the unique contribution positive and negative stereotypical environmentalist traits had on environmentalist social identification (after controlling for participants ecological worldviews).
CH. 7 STUDY 4: STEREOTYPES, IDENTITY & GREEN CONSUMERISM 163
Table 7.4 Hierarchical Multiple Regression Analysis Predicting Environmentalist Social Identity Δ R² F (df) b (SE) BCa 95% β CI Step 1 .33 123.26 (1, 246)*** Constant 0.33 [-0.19, (0.28) 0.90] Ecological 0.77 [0.64, .58 worldviews (0.06)*** 0.88] Step 2 .14 73.93 (3, 244)*** Constant .71 (0.72) [-0.68, 2.07] Ecological 0.48 [0.35, .36 worldviews (0.07)*** 0.62] Positive 0.70 [0.42, .27 stereotypical traits (0.14)*** 0.98] Negative -0.53 [-0.74, -.25 stereotypical traits (0.11)*** -0.30] Note. Δ R² = change in explained variance; F = F-ratio; df = degrees of freedom for F-ratio; b = unstandardized regression coefficient; SE = standard error for b; BCa 95% CI = 95% bias corrected and accelerated confidence intervals for b based on 5,000 bootstrapped resamples; β = standardised b. ***p < .001.
As shown in Table 7.4, the hierarchical multiple regression revealed that at Step
1, ecological worldviews accounted for 33% of the variance in environmentalist social identity, significantly predicting environmentalist social identity for those who did not belong to environmental organisations (i.e., non-environmentalists).
At Step 2, positive and negative stereotypical environmentalist traits were added to the regression model, and accounted for a statistically significant additional 14% variance in environmentalist social identity. Ecological worldviews, and endorsement of positive stereotypical traits and negative stereotypical traits, were also found to all significantly predict environmentalist social identity, with ecological worldviews the
CH. 7 STUDY 4: STEREOTYPES, IDENTITY & GREEN CONSUMERISM 164 strongest predictor of the three for those who did not belong to environmental organisations (i.e., non-environmentalists).
Mediation Analysis
A mediation analysis, using ordinary least squares path analysis, was conducted in order to determine whether environmentalist social identity mediated the relationship between environmentalist stereotypes and green consumerism for non-environmentalists
(see Figure 7.1). This analysis included positive and negative stereotypical traits as two separate variables to compare the indirect effect of each.
The PROCESS macro developed by Hayes (2013) was employed in SPSS to conduct the mediation analysis, with bootstrapping and confidence intervals subsequently used to determine the significance of mediational effects (Hayes, 2013;
Preacher & Hayes, 2008)28. The analysis employed 95% bias-corrected and accelerated confidence intervals based on 5,000 bootstrapped resamples (as recommended by
Preacher & Hayes, 2008). When the value of zero was not contained within a confidence interval, then that specific mediational effect was considered to be statistically significant (Hayes, 2013).
Total effect of environmentalist stereotypical traits on green consumerism.
Without the inclusion of environmentalist social identity in the mediation model, a statistically significant total effect of environmentalist stereotypical traits on green
28 Currently, there are three approaches to conducting mediation analyses. These are following that causal steps as outlined by Baron and Kenny (1986); examining product coefficients and conducting a Sobel test (1982); and conducting bootstrapping and examining confidence intervals (Hayes, 2013; Preacher & Hayes, 2008). Given that the first two methods are based on unrealistic assumptions concerning the normality of indirect effects and have therefore been found to be unreliable (Hayes, 2013), the third method was implemented.
CH. 7 STUDY 4: STEREOTYPES, IDENTITY & GREEN CONSUMERISM 165 consumerism emerged for non-environmentalists, with stereotypical traits accounting for
17% of the variance in green consumerism (R² = .17; F(2, 245) = 24.56, p < .001).
Table 7.5 Total Effect of Environmentalist Stereotypical Traits on Green Consumerism b (SE) p BCa 95% CI β
Positive 0.75 (0.15) < .001 [0.45, 1.05] .31 stereotypical traits Negative -0.32 (0.12) .007 [-0.56, -0.09] -.17 stereotypical traits Note. b = unstandardised regression coefficient; SE = standard error of b; p = probability value for b; BCa 95% CI = 95% bias corrected and accelerated confidence intervals for b based on 5,000 bootstrapped resamples; β = standardised b.
In particular, as shown in Table 7.5, the more environmentalist outgroup members perceived positive traits to be stereotypical of the environmentalist social category, the more likely they were to engage in green consumerism. However, the more they perceived negative traits to be stereotypical of the environmentalist social category, the less likely they were to engage in green consumerism.
Effect of environmentalist stereotypical traits on environmentalist social identity (paths a1 and a2). A statistically significant effect of environmentalist stereotypical traits on environmentalist social identity was found, with environmentalist stereotypes accounting for 37% of the variance in environmentalist social identity for non-environmentalists (R² = .37; F(2, 245) = 73.31, p < .001). In particular, as shown in
Table 7.6, the more participants saw positive traits as stereotypical of environmentalists, the more likely they identified as an environmentalist. However, the more they saw negative traits as stereotypical of environmentalists, the less likely they identified as an environmentalist.
CH. 7 STUDY 4: STEREOTYPES, IDENTITY & GREEN CONSUMERISM 166
Table 7.6 Regression Coefficients, Confidence Intervals, and Effect Sizes for Paths in the Mediation Model b (SE) p BCa 95% CI β
Path a1 (Positive 0.99 (0.15) < .001 [0.70, 1.27] .38 stereotypical traits → green consumerism) Path a2 (Negative -0.74 (0.11) < .001 [-0.97, -0.52] -.36 stereotypical traits → green consumerism) Path b (Environmentalist 0.68 (0.05) < .001 [0.58, 0.78] .75 social identity → green consumerism) Path c’1 (Direct effect of 0.07 (0.13) .581 [-0.18, 0.32] .03 positive stereotypical traits → green consumerism) Path c’2 (Direct effect of 0.18 (0.10) .063 [-0.01, 0.38] .10 negative stereotypical traits → green consumerism) Note. b = unstandardised regression coefficient; SE = standard error of b; p = probability value for b; BCa 95% CI = 95% bias corrected and accelerated confidence intervals for b based on 5,000 bootstrapped resamples; β = standardised regression coefficient.
Effect of environmentalist social identity on green consumerism (path b). A statistically significant effect of environmentalist social identity on green consumerism was found, with environmentalist social identity accounting for 51% of the variance in green consumerism engagement for non-environmentalists (R² = .51; F(1, 246) = 256.04, p < .001). As seen in Table 7.6, the stronger the participant’s environmentalist social identity, the more likely they were to engage in green consumerism (even though they were not members of environmental organisations).
Direct effect of environmentalist stereotypical traits on green consumerism
(paths c’1 and c’2). As shown in Table 7.6, after controlling for environmentalist social identity, the mediation analysis demonstrated a non-significant effect of positive and negative stereotypical traits on green consumerism.
CH. 7 STUDY 4: STEREOTYPES, IDENTITY & GREEN CONSUMERISM 167
Indirect effect of environmentalist stereotypical traits on green consumerism through environmentalist social identity (paths a1xb and a2xb). There was a statistically significant indirect effect of positive stereotypical traits on green consumerism through environmentalist social identity for non-environmentalists, b (SE)
= .68 (.10), β = .28, BCa 95% CI [.48, .89]. Given there were two independent variables, the effect size was measured using the index of mediation (as recommended by Field,
2013), which indicated statistical significance, .27, BCa 95% CI [.19, .35].
There was also a statistically significant indirect effect of negative stereotypical traits on green consumerism through environmentalist social identity for non- environmentalists, b (SE) = -.51 (.09), β = -.27, 95% BCa 95% CI [-.69, -.34]. Again, the effect size was measured using the index of mediation, and indicated statistical significance, -.27, BCa 95% CI [-.36, -.18].
Overall, the indirect effects of positive and negative environmentalist stereotypical traits were statistically significant, suggesting that environmentalist stereotypes exerted an effect on green consumerism indirectly through participant’s strength of environmentalist social identity. More specifically, when non- environmentalists strongly endorsed positive traits (i.e., caring, informed, and dedicated) as stereotypical of environmentalists, they were more likely to identify with the environmentalist social category, and consequently more likely to engage in green consumerism (a behaviour that is normative of the environmentalist social category, see
Studies 1 and 2). However, when non-environmentalists strongly endorsed negative traits (i.e., pushy, stubborn, and arrogant) as stereotypical of environmentalists, they were less likely to identify as an environmentalist, and consequently less likely to engage in green consumerism.
CH. 7 STUDY 4: STEREOTYPES, IDENTITY & GREEN CONSUMERISM 168
Positive Environmentalist Stereotypical Traits
β = .03
β = .38***
Environmentalist Green Social Identity β = Consumerism .75***
β = -.36***
β = .10
Negative Environmentalist Stereotypical Traits
Indirect effect of positive stereotypical traits; β = .28, BCa 95% CI [.48, .89] Indirect effect of negative stereotypical traits; β = -.27, BCa 95% CI [-.69, -.34]
Figure 7.2. Standardised regression coefficients (β) for the indirect effects of positive and negative stereotypical traits on green consumerism through environmentalist social identity. Non-significant paths denoted by dotted lines. BCa 95% CI = 95% bias corrected and accelerated confidence intervals based on 5,000 bootstrapped resamples *** p < .001.
Note. Standardised regression coefficients presented reflect tests of the full model and may slightly differ from standardised regression coefficients of separate hypotheses.
CH. 7 STUDY 4: STEREOTYPES, IDENTITY & GREEN CONSUMERISM 169
Discussion
Although Study 3 demonstrated that identification with the environmentalist social category was predictive of green consumerism engagement, the stereotypes that the general public hold of environmentalists may have consequences on whether they are willing to identify as an environmentalist and subsequently engage in green consumerism – even if these individuals initially hold an ecological worldview (as suggested by Study 1). Given these considerations then, the present study had two primary aims. Firstly, it aimed to investigate whether the endorsement of positive and negative traits as stereotypical of environmentalists, particularly when one controls for ecological worldviews, would be associated with non-environmentalists willingness to identify as an environmentalist. The second aim was to investigate, through a mediation analysis, whether positive and negative environmentalist stereotypical traits would exert an indirect effect on green consumerism through environmentalist social identity in iniviuduals who were considered environmentalist outgroup members.
Firstly, findings of the current study demonstrated that although ecological worldviews did significantly predict environmentalist social identity in environmentalist outgroup members, environmentalist stereotypes were also uniquely predictive of environmentalist social identity when ecological worldviews were controlled for. This therefore suggests that the positive or negative environmentalist stereotypes environmentalist outgroup members hold of the environmentalist social category may contribute to whether they identify as an environmentalist, regardless of whether they initially hold ecological worldviews. As such, this finding extends on Study 1 where many participants were found to be reluctant to identify as an environmentalist by demonstrating that stereotypes can contribute to this possible lack of identification for
CH. 7 STUDY 4: STEREOTYPES, IDENTITY & GREEN CONSUMERISM 170 non-environmentalists. It also extends on previous research that has shown that those who are aware of the negative evaluations others hold of environmentalists are often reluctant to label themselves as environmentalists by also showing that both negative and positive environmentalist stereotypes contribute to environmentalist social identification (Perera, 2014; Shirani et al., 2015; Whitehouse & Evans, 2010; Wright et al., 2010). Furthermore, it must also be noted that environmentalist social identity was found to be moderately predictive of green consumerism engagement, thus replicating the finding of Study 3. This adds to the literature which has shown a relationship between social identity and pro-environmental behaviour (e.g., Bamberg et al., 2015;
Bartels & Hoogendam, 2011; Bartels & Reinders, 2016; Bertolodo & Castro, 2016;
Dono et al., 2010; Fielding et al., 2008; Prati et al., 2015; Sweetman & Whitmarsh,
2016) and emphasises the potential that increasing people’s environmentalist social identity can have in also increasing green consumerism.
The mediation analysis conducted in this study also demonstrated that the endorsement of environmentalist stereotypes exerted an indirect effect on green consumerism though environmentalist social identity. In particular, individuals who endorsed negative traits as stereotypical of environmentalists were less likely to identify with the environmentalist social category, which lead to lower rates of green consumerism, adding to what has been seen in qualitative studies (Perera, 2014; Shirani et al., 2015), whilst also reflecting the feminist literature (Nelson et al., 2008; Roy et al.,
2007). This finding also extends on those of Bashir et al. (2013), by demonstrating that not only do negative stereotypes decrease individuals’ likelihood of interacting with environmentalist activists and engaging in the activist behaviours they promote, negative stereotypes of the superordinate environmentalist social category can make individuals
CH. 7 STUDY 4: STEREOTYPES, IDENTITY & GREEN CONSUMERISM 171 less willing to identify as an environmentalist and engage in less contentious or ‘extreme’ pro-environmental behaviours such as green consumerism. Therefore, as evidenced by this finding, this lack of identification may have important implications for whether one engages in numerous types of pro-environmental behaviour, given that social identification with relevant social categories leads to engaging in group normative behaviour (Abrams & Hogg, 1990; Hogg & Terry, 2000; Spears, 2011; Tajfel & Turner,
1979).
Nevertheless, this study also demonstrated that when positive traits were seen as stereotypical of environmentalists, participants had higher rates of environmentalist social identity, which lead to higher rates of green consumerism. Indeed, it was found that the strength of the effect that positive environmentalist stereotypes had on identification was comparable to negative environmentalist stereotypes (that is, the standardised regression coefficients were very similar, see Figure 7.2). This is consistent with research showing that positive evaluations of feminists leads to higher levels of feminist social identification, and subsequent increases in gender-equality behaviours
(Robnett et al., 2012; Roy et al., 2007), and accords with evidence from the social identity approach that individuals identify with groups to achieve a sense of positive distinctiveness (Abrams & Hogg, 1990; Hogg & Abrams, 1988; Rubin & Hewstone,
1998). Through the lens of the social identity perspective, this finding therefore underscores how accentuating the positive aspects of social categories for non- environmentalists, even those who hold ecological worldviews, provides a mechanism for boosting environmentalist social identification and therefore identity congruent behaviours.
CH. 7 STUDY 4: STEREOTYPES, IDENTITY & GREEN CONSUMERISM 172
Finally, another finding worth noting is that whilst participants who were members of an environmentalist organisation endorsed negative traits as less stereotypical of the environmentalist social category than non-group members, there was no statistically significant difference between these two groups in terms of their endorsement of positive stereotypical traits for the environmentalist social category.
These findings therefore show that the stereotypes both ingroup and outgroup members
(at least if not in an oppositional relationship) hold of the environmentalist social category are similar in content in respect to positivity. However, this finding may have occurred given the samples generally ecological worldview to begin with, possibly making non-environmentalists more predisposed to acknowledge the positive aspects of the environmentalist social category. Nonetheless, this finding does suggest that it is only the negative environmentalist stereotypes that vary between ingroup and outgroup members. It may be that the valence of these negative stereotypes may depend much more on the social context – such as if individuals are in direct conflict with environmentalist ingroup members (Colvin et al., 2015; Fielding et al., 2005; Opotow &
Brook, 2003) or whether environmentalists are engaging in ‘extreme’ behaviour (as suggested in Study 2, also see Bashir et al., 2013; Hoffarth & Hodson, 2016). Further research should therefore not only examine how environmentalists self-stereotype, to further determine whether ingroup members hold the same positive stereotype of the category as outgroup members, but also to examine how the prototypically of their traits may change depending on the social context and intergroup comparisons, as argued by the social identity approach (Haslam et al., 1992, 1999).
CH. 7 STUDY 4: STEREOTYPES, IDENTITY & GREEN CONSUMERISM 173
Limitations
A key limitation of the current study is that due to its correlational methodology, conclusions about causality cannot be concretely made (even if the mediational model postulates directional relationships). Indeed, it is possible that the causal relationships specified in the mediational model exist in different directions – such as social identification leading to the endorsement of stereotypes. Another limitation is also how environmentalist stereotypes were not measured simultaneously with those of other groups. In fact, although the vignette given before the environmentalist stereotype measure did reference a relevant outgroup (e.g., miners) to create an intergroup context for stereotypes to arise, it is still unclear how the environmentalist social category is stereotyped when directly compared to other relevant outgroups. Future research therefore could go towards examining how these intergroup comparisons on stereotypes contribute to environmentalist social identification and pro-environmental behaviour.
Related to this, given individuals can hold multiple social identities (Reicher, 2004;
Spears, 2011; Tajfel & Turner, 1979; Turner, 1982; Turner et al., 1994), it is worth exploring whether the strength of environmentalist stereotypes also differs as a result of the social identities non-environmentalists already hold (e.g., how does one holding a national identity contribute to the endorsement of these environmentalist stereotypes?).
One methodology limitation evident within the current study was that the vignette which made the intergroup context salient for participants made reference to environmentalists being seen as intelligent – a trait that was outlined by outgroup members as beign positive of the environmentalist social category (see Study 2 for more details). As such it is possibly that this vignette may inadvertenly contributed to the finding that ingroup members and outgroup members both have positive streotypes of
CH. 7 STUDY 4: STEREOTYPES, IDENTITY & GREEN CONSUMERISM 174 environmentalists. Therefore future research should ensure vignettes that are developed in order to create an intergroup context do not make reference to either negative and positive traits of the environmentalist social category.
Conclusion
To summarise, this study investigated whether environmentalist stereotypes contributed to social identification as environmentalist, and subsequent engagement in green consumerism – particularly for those individuals who were not members of environmental organisations (i.e., environmentalist outgroup members or non- environmentalists). Findings of this study indicated that that even if non- environmentalists held an ecological worldview, positive traits were just as important to their environmentalist social identification as the endorsement of negative traits were to their reluctance to identify as an environmentalists. Furthermore, environmentalist social identity was found to mediate the relationship between environmentalist stereotypes and green consumerism. This finding suggested that emphasising the positive traits of the environmentalist social category could increase environmentalist social identity, consequently increasing rates of pro-environmental behaviours such as green consumerism.
CH. 8. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUDING REMARKS 175
Chapter 8
General Discussion and Concluding Remarks
Introduction
The present thesis applied a social identity perspective to explore how social identification and group stereotypes contributed to green consumerism amongst those who did not perceive themselves to be environmentalists (i.e., ‘non-environmentalists’ or ‘environmentalist outgroup members’). In particular, across four empirical studies, the present thesis explored how environmentalists and non-environmentalists alike made sense of green consumerism (Study 1, Chapter 4), what was the content of the stereotypes that non-environmentalists held of the superordinate environmentalist social category (Study 2, Chapter 5), and whether both environmentalist social identity (Study
3, Chapter 6) and environmentalist stereotypes (Study 4, Chapter 7) were predictive of green consumerism amongst non-environmentalists.
This concluding chapter now provides an extensive discussion of the general findings and implications of the four empirical studies. It first begins with restating the four research questions of the thesis, followed by reviewing the answers that emerged for these research questions. This chapter then discusses the theoretical implications of the empirical findings, for both the pro-environmental behaviour and the social identity literatures. Practical implications of the findings for researchers, environmentalists, and policy makers are then outlined, including possible research-based ways to encourage non-environmentalists to identify with the environmentalist social category and to increase their engagement in green consumerism. A discussion of limitations of the research program, and of avenues for future research, concludes the chapter. CH. 8. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUDING REMARKS 176
Summary of the Empirical Findings
As outlined at the end of Chapter 3, the central aim of the present thesis was to determine: Do outgroup stereotypes of environmentalists and environmentalist social identity each contribute to engagement in green consumerism, particularly amongst individuals’ in the general public who are not members of environmental organisations
(i.e.,‘environmentalist outgroup members’ or ‘non-environmentalists’)? Arising from this aim, the present thesis consequently sought to answer four research questions across four empirical studies. These questions were:
1. What do environmentalists and non-environmentalists perceive to be involved in
green consumerism? (answered in Study 1)
2. What is the content of the stereotypes that non-environmentalists hold of the
superordinate environmentalist social category? (answered in Study 2)
3. Is environmentalist social identity predictive of green consumerism amongst non-
environmentalists? (answered in Study 3)
4. Does environmentalist social identity mediate the relationship between outgroup
stereotypes of environmentalists and green consumerism for non-
environmentalists? (answered in Study 4)
A summary of each study’s findings is now presented, with comments on how these findings address each research question.
Study 1: Making Sense of Green Consumerism and its Relationship to
Environmentalism and Social Identity
Study 1 sought to answer the first research question, regarding what environmentalists and non-environmentalists perceived to be involved in green consumerism. Using qualitative one-on-one interviews that were analysed with inductive
CH. 8. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUDING REMARKS 177 thematic analysis it was found that environmentalists and non-environmentalists made sense of green consumerism in the same way – that is, they shared similar perceptions of green consumerism. More specifically, it was demonstrated that environmentalists and non-environmentalists alike saw green consumerism as a complex array of environmentally friendly consumption behaviours, as recently suggested by some researchers (e.g., Peattie, 2010; Polonsky et al., 2012).
Green consumerism was also seen as effective in reducing environmental problems as both a private sphere action enacted as part of a green lifestyle, and as a collective activist behaviour that could punish and/or reward institutions through individuals consumer choices. These findings are significant for researchers in the field of pro-environmental behaviour as they show that green consumerism is not just a type of simplistic, individualised ‘green’ purchasing as often assumed (Peattie, 2010; Stern,
2000), whilst also highlighting the mechanisms through which green consumerism is perceived by individuals to address environmental issues (Moisander, 2007; Moisander
& Pesonen, 2002). Furthermore these findings also emphasise how although green consumerism may be normative of environmentalists (Horton, 2004), group membership as an environmentalist does not appear to alter the way in which people perceive green consumerism.
Whilst this study did not aim to investigate environmentalist social identity per se, its findings also revealed the general reluctance of many participants to outright identify as environmentalists, with many of the participants instead engaging in what appeared to be lengthy reflections concerning what it meant to be member of this group.
Although previous research has touched upon how some individuals may be hesitant to self-identify as an environmentalist (e.g., Perera, 2014; Whitehouse & Evans, 2010;
CH. 8. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUDING REMARKS 178
Wright et al., 2012), the analysis of participants’ discourse in this study was able to elucidate specific reasons as to why this may be the case. In particular, it was found that those who did not self-identify as an environmentalist felt that they did not engage in enough ‘active’ pro-environmental behaviours to be considered one, or felt that there were too many negative perceptions surrounding the environmentalist social category to affiliate or identify themselves with the group. This finding therefore adds to this emerging literature by qualitatively demonstrating that identification as an environmentalist depends not only on one’s perceived fit to the environmentalist group prototype, but also on how the group itself is perceived in the given social context – findings that were further supported in Study 4, when environmentalist stereotypes emerged as being predictive of environmentalist social identity for non- environmentalists.
Study 2: “Not all environmentalists are like that…”: Exploring How Outgroup
Members Perceive the Environmentalist Social Category
Study 2 went on to answer the second research question of the thesis regarding the content of the stereotypes that non-environmentalists held of the superordinate environmentalist social category. Findings from both the thematic analysis and qualitative content analysis demonstrated that both positive traits (caring, informed, dedicated) and negative traits (pushy, stubborn, arrogant) were perceived by non- environmentalists to be stereotypical of the category – a finding that was replicated quantitatively in Study 4. Furthermore, non-environmentalists saw all environmentalists as protective and concerned for the natural environment, yet also acknowledged that environmentalists would not all engage in the same pro-environmental behaviours. Thus the content of the stereotype that non-environmentalists held of the group contained both
CH. 8. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUDING REMARKS 179 negative and positive components, with many outgroup members referencing environmentalists beliefs and behaviours alongside these positive and negative perceptions.
Additionally, Study 2 was able to demonstrate, through their strategic use of language, that outgroup members simultaneously perceived the superordinate environmentalist social category to be both negative and positive, that is, these conflicting views of environmentalist ingroup members were not mutually exclusive. In fact, the majority of outgroup members initially evaluated environmentalists positively by overwhelming employing the terms “caring” or “concerned” to describe them.
However, this baseline positive impression appeared to be conditional on how environmentalists behaved, and only applied “so long as” environmentalists did not promote “unrealistic” solutions or “go to extremes to push their views”, such as engaging in socially non-normative “extreme” or “aggressive” actions. Indeed, this finding built on what was found in Study 1, where participants also suggested environmentalists could be “extreme” when they engaged in highly contentious actions such as “tying themselves to trees”. Nonetheless, by often specifying that only “some” environmentalists were extreme or aggressive, environmentalist outgroup members in
Study 2 were also able to emphasise that they did not see all environmentalists as inherently “negative” or “bad”.
Another significant finding of Study 2 was that environmentalists were seen to be defined by both their shared beliefs and their “active” engagement in conserving the natural environment. This replicated findings from Study 1, where individuals felt they had to be sufficiently “active” or “actively involved” in conserving the natural environment to legitimately self-identify as an environmentalist. Although it has been
CH. 8. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUDING REMARKS 180 previously suggested that the defining feature of the environmentalist social category are members’ shared environmentalist ideology and valuing of nature (Brulle, 1996;
Holland et al., 2000; Ogrodnik & Staggenborg, 2016), Studies 1 and 2 showed that
‘active’ engagement in numerous pro-environmental behaviours was also considered to be a specific defining feature of the category. In fact, these behaviours were not just normative for the environmentalist social category, but appeared to be a prerequisite to even being considered as an environmentalist. Yet, given that participants in Study 2 acknowledged that all environmentalists did not engage in the same pro-environmental behaviours, whether there was one specific pro-environmental behaviour one must engage in to be considered an environmentalist was not clear.
Study 3: Investigating Whether Environmentalist Social Identity is Predictive of
Green Consumerism in Members of the General Public
Study 3 aimed to answer the third research question of the present thesis, whether environmentalist social identity was predictive of green consumerism in environmentalist outgroup members. Furthermore, drawing upon the findings of Study 1 where green consumerism was perceived to be both an individual and collective pro- environmental behaviour, Study 3 also went on to investigate whether pro- environmental behaviours that are individuallyother individualistic (willingness to sacrifice) or collectively employed (environmental activism and political consumerism) were also directly predictive of green consumerism in non-environmentalists, and whether these behaviours themselves meditated the relationship between environmentalist social identity and green consumerism.
A path analysis demonstrated that environmentalist social identity was indeed moderately and directly predictive of green consumerism in environmentalist outgroup
CH. 8. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUDING REMARKS 181 members, a finding that was also replicated in Study 4. Furthermore, environmentalist social identity was also a stronger predictor of green consumerism when compared to the other pro-environmental behaviours measured in the study. Yet political consumerism, environmental activism, and willingness to sacrifice each partially mediated the relationship between environmentalist social identity and green consumerism, although only weakly.
These findings therefore suggest that perhaps the relationships between these variables can be better conceptualised as one where social identification as an environmentalist underpins all of these group-normative behaviours (as previously suggested in the case of environmental self-identity by van der Werff et al., 2014 and
Whitmarsh & O’Neill, 2010). As such, these findings subsequently extend upon previous research showing identification with the environmentalist social category, or even with psychologically meaningful groups that hold pro-environmental norms, predicts numerous pro-environmental behaviours such as the purchasing of organic products, recycling, energy conservation, and environmental activism (e.g., Bamberg et al., 2015; Bartels & Hoogendam, 2011; Dono et al., 2010; Fielding et al., 2008a; Prati et al., 2015; Sweetman & Whitmarsh, 2016; Terry et al., 1999).
Study 4: The Contribution of Social Identity and Group Stereotypes to
Engagement in Green Consumerism among Non-Environmentalists
Study 4 sought to answer the fourth and final research question, whether environmentalist social identity mediated the relationship between environmentalist stereotypes and green consumerism within non-environmentalists. Mediation analysis demonstrated that not only did the endorsement of negative and positive outgroup stereotypes of environmentalists exert a moderate direct effect on environmentalist
CH. 8. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUDING REMARKS 182 social identification for non-environmentalists, but that these negative and positive environmentalist stereotypes also had an indirect effect on green consumerism, through its impact on environmentalist social identity.
This finding confirmed what was hinted at in the qualitative interpretations of
Study 1, by showing that the broader social context, as manifested in group stereotypes, contribute to non-environmentalists’ willingness to identify as an environmentalist. In particular, when non-environmentalists endorsed positive traits (caring, informed, and dedicated) as stereotypical of environmentalists, they were more likely to identify with the environmentalist social category, and consequently more likely to engage in green consumerism. Yet when non-environmentalists endorsed negative traits (pushy, stubborn, and arrogant) as stereotypical of environmentalists, they were less likely to identify as an environmentalist, and consequently less likely to engage in green consumerism. This finding thus makes a significant contribution to the research literature by demonstrating that whilst environmentalist social identification may underpin green consumerism, it is also important to consider how non-environmentalists perceive the environmentalist social category within the broader social context, as these perceptions may contribute both directly, and indirectly through social identification, to their willingness to engage in green consumerism.
Broadly speaking, Study 4 also quantitatively replicated Study 2’s finding in that the stereotypes non-environmentalists held of environmentalists contained both positive and negative components, and was therefore contrary to previous researchers concluding that environmentalists tend to be perceived entirely negatively by the general public (e.g.,
Hutchings, 2005; Murphy & Dee, 1996; Shirani et al., 2015; Whitehouse & Evans,
2010; Wright et al., 2012). Furthermore, those participants who belonged to
CH. 8. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUDING REMARKS 183 environmental organisation members (i.e., environmentalist ingroup members) were less likely to endorse negative traits as stereotypical of the group when compared to non- members (outgroup members), yet there was no statistically significant difference between ingroup and outgroup members when endorsing positive traits. That is, environmental organisation members and non-members (the general public) were in agreement about the positive aspects of the superordinate environmentalist social category – a finding that is certainly a unique contribution to the pro-environmental behaviour literature. Yet this finding is entirely in line with the social identity approach
(Haslam et al., 1992, 1995a, 1995b; Hogg & Turner, 1987), as ingroup and outgroup members may equally endorse a group’s positive attributes when outgroup members are not in a confrontational relationship with the ingroup, as was the case in Study 4.
Theoretical Implications for the Pro-Environmental Behaviour Literature
As the first set of studies to investigate how green consumerism and the superordinate environmentalist social category are perceived, and to investigate the relationships between environmentalist social identity, outgroup stereotypes of environmentalists, and green consumerism, this thesis has a number of theoretical implications for the pro-environmental behaviour literature.
Firstly, the thesis provides further evidence for the utility of the social identity approach for pro-environmental behaviour research, building upon prior arguments for the usefulness of social identity-based research in this field (see Batalha & Reynolds,
2012; Fielding & Hornsey, 2016). As argued in Chapters 2 and 3, most of the current pro-environmental behaviour research employs theoretical paradigms that emphasise individual-level variables, and neglect group processes and the role of social context (for some summaries, see the seminal papers by Bamberg & Möser, 2007; Gifford & Nilsson,
CH. 8. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUDING REMARKS 184
2014; Hines, Hungerford, & Tomera, 1987; Peattie, 2010; Stern, 2000). However, as demonstrated in this thesis, the well-established theoretical framework of the social identity approach can help to elucidate how group-level variables, such as group stereotypes and social identification itself, can account for green consumerism, among other pro-environmental behaviours. The approach also offers an account of how the broader social context can interact with social identity and other group processes to impact on such behaviours.
As social identification is said to be the psychological mechanism that drives
‘groupy’ behaviour (Ellemers et al., 2002; Hogg, 2006a; Spears, 2011), the social identity approach can also be employed by pro-environmental behaviour researchers to explain both intra- and intergroup processes that are relevant to pro-environmental attitudes and behaviours, such as social influence and intergroup conflict (as has been also suggested by Colvin et al., 2015; Fielding & Hornsey, 2016; Opotow & Brook,
2003). For example, the social identity framework could help to explain why some members of the environmentalist social category are more influential than others, given that social identity research shows that group members who better represent a group’s prototype are more influential than those who are less prototypical (Hogg, 2001a; Hogg et al., 2006b; Turner & Oakes, 1986). Furthermore, the approach can help to explain why certain pro-environmental messages are more effective than others (Greenway et al.,
2015; Hogg & Reid, 2006; Hornsey et al., 2002; McGarty et al., 1992). For example, recent research has shown scientists only obtained public support for recycled water schemes when they emphasised the regional identity they shared with the public
(Schultz & Fielding, 2014).
CH. 8. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUDING REMARKS 185
Moreover, not only does the social identity approach provide a rich theoretical paradigm to understand how group processes contribute to pro-environmental behaviours such as green consumerism (as suggested by Fielding & Hornsey, 2016), it also provides a useful framework for clarifying the range of identity concepts currently seen within the pro-environmental behaviour literature (Clayton, 2003, 2012; Clayton &
Myers, 2015), and the ways in which they operate to impact on pro-environmental behaviours. Indeed, the social identity approach specifies that people can have multiple identities that are either personal or social (Hogg et al., 1995; Tajfel & Turner, 1979;
Turner, 1982; Turner et al., 1994). Accordingly, by anchoring these conceptualisations of identity within the social identity approach, researchers can be more precise in terms of what kind of identity they are measuring, what type of behaviour such identity may be predict, and in what contexts.
From a social identity perspective, then, the constructs of ‘environmental identity’
(Clayton, 2003) and ‘environmental self-identity’ (Sparks & Shepherd, 1992; van der
Werff et al., 2014) appear to be personal identities, at the interpersonal end of the interpersonal-intergroup continuum (Tajfel & Turner, 1979; Turner, 1999; Turner et al.,
1994), as they reflect idiosyncratic personal experiences and relationships such as one’s personal relationship with the natural environment (Clayton, 2003; Clayton & Myers,
2015). Such identities are therefore likely to have more influence on behaviour when people are operating as individuals, and group membership is not salient – for instance, if completing a survey on their own, interacting with personal friends and family, or out in nature by oneself. If this pro-environmental self-identity is made salient then it is likely to be related to certain pro-environmental behaviours that tap into that identity, and in particular more individualistic private sphere pro-environmental behaviours (as
CH. 8. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUDING REMARKS 186 seen in Gatersleben et al., 2012; Kashima et al., 2014; van der Werff et al., 2014;
Whitmarsh & O’Neill, 2010).
However, when individuals identify themselves as members of a group (e.g., of environmentalists), and that identity is salient in that context, group members (as they see themselves to be) will be more likely to engage in pro-environmental behaviours that are normative for the environmentalist social category. Where the behaviour is intrinsically collective and therefore requires a group, such as environmental activism, one would expect that these behaviours would be even more likely when this group- based identity is made salient, consistent with the findings of several social identity- informed studies (Brunsting & Postmes, 2002; Dono et al., 2010; Fielding et al., 2008a).
Greater cohesion among group members (Hogg, 2001b), and pro-environmental behaviour messages from prototypical group members and group leaders (Hogg, 2001a), will also further strengthen the likelihood of such behaviours.
The findings of the present thesis also have important implications for how green consumerism is defined and conceptualised within the pro-environmental behaviour literature. Firstly, as outlined in Chapter 2, there is currently no clear consensus regarding the way in which green consumerism should be conceptualised (Dembkowski
& Hanmer-Lloyd, 1994; Fisher et al., 2012; Griskevicius et al., 2010; Stern, 2000). Yet, and consistent with the suggestions of other researchers (Antil, 1984; Barr & Gilg, 2006;
Barr, Shaw, & Gilg, 2011; Gilg, Barr, & Ford, 2005; Grønhøj, 2006; Peattie, 2010;
Roberts, 1996), this thesis demonstrated that green consumerism may be better conceptualised as extending beyond purchasing given behaviours such as shared purchasing, intentional non-purchase, use, re-use, comparative decision making, and
CH. 8. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUDING REMARKS 187 searching for reputable information were all considered by participants to be part of green consumerism.
Furthermore, empirical findings of the thesis also demonstrated that green consumerism was seen in capitalist societies such as Australia and the US as both an individual behaviour and a collective, activist behaviour, and that green consumerism was moderately related to environmental activism, as well as to political consumerism.
These findings are in line with recent suggestions that consumption may be better seen as a collective behaviour, given that it can be leveraged by groups of consumers to enact positive environmental change (Autio et al., 2009; Harrison, 2006; Peattie, 2010). It could even be possible that some consumers perhaps even prefer consumption practices as an activist strategy over ‘traditional’ activism such as protesting and petitioning
(Autio et al., 2009; Cherrier et al., 2011; Peattie, 2010). Indeed, the findings imply that green consumerism is not simply about reflecting individuals’ moralistic concerns for the environment and for others (as suggested by Thøgersen, 1999, 2011), but could also be a ‘new’ form of environmental collective action (Peattie, 2010). This calls into question whether it is appropriate to distinguish green consumerism from environmental activism because it is an individualistic behaviour (as suggested by Stern), as it is with a group of like-minded individuals that green consumerism achieves the most positive environmental change (Dalton et al., 2003; Friedman, 1996; Micheletti & Stolle, 2012).
Theoretical Implications for the Social Identity Approach
Consistent with the idea that social identity processes contribute to our day-to- day lives (Abrams & Hogg, 1990; Hogg & Abrams, 1988; Tajfel & Turner, 1979), this thesis is part of a current push within the social identity literature to apply the approach to numerous practical domains including health and well-being (Greenaway et al., 2015;
CH. 8. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUDING REMARKS 188
Haslam et al., 2016; Jetten et al., 2012), organisational behaviour (Cornelissen et al.,
2007; Haslam, 2004), and educational outcomes (Bizumic et al., 2009; Bliuc et al.,
2011) The current thesis consequently adds to this applied literature by showing that the social identity processes of environmentalist social identification and environmentalist stereotypes can help to explain green consumerism, and therefore pro-environmental behaviour more generally, as previously proposed by a number of researchers (Batalha
& Reynolds, 2012; Fielding & Hornsey, 2016; Postmes et al., 2014). Indeed, only recently has research begun to use the social identity perspective to investigate pro- environmental behaviour, even though such behaviour is inherently ideological and politicised and, as such, is likely to make one’s social identity more salient, and foster intergroup behaviour such as stereotyping, hostility, and conflict (as suggested by Colvin et al., 2015; Opotow & Brook, 2003).
Given that much of the social identity literature still investigates more ‘fixed’ social categories (such as ethnicity and gender), less politicised groups (such as occupations or student groups), or employs experimentally constructed nominal groups devoid of social context (Brown, 2000; Hornsey, 2008; Huddy, 2001), the current thesis also contributes to social identity-based research by focusing on a superordinate social identity that is based on shared ideology – that is, an opinion-based social identity (Bliuc et al., 2007; Thomas et al., 2010, 2012). These opinion-based groups are ones that individuals can choose to join, with permeable, fluid and unfixed boundaries, and fuzzy prototypes, changing in parallel with the social context (Bliuc et al., 2015; McGarty et al., 2009). The current thesis therefore makes a useful contribution by exploring with mixed methods what individuals perceive to be the defining (prototypical) features of one opinion-based group, that of environmentalists, and the impact that the content of
CH. 8. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUDING REMARKS 189 such identities have on people’s willingness to consider joining and identifying with opinion-based groups (Postmes & Jetten, 2006).
For instance, in Studies 1 and 2, participants suggested that in order for one to even consider identifying as an environmentalist one has to hold pro-environmental beliefs and engage in a range of group-normative behaviour, although there was no clear agreement about which behaviours were central to the prototype of this opinion-based social category. This finding demonstrates the importance of the perceived content of an identity to self-categorisation as a group member (Cruwys, Haslam, Dingle, Haslam, &
Jetten, 2014; Jetten, Postmes, & Mcauliffe, 2002; Postmes & Jetten, 2006), as although shared ideology may be important in initially distinguishing the environmentalist group from other groups, sharing this ideology is insufficient for someone to consider themselves part of the group. Instead, individuals need to consistently enact this ideology to be considered part of the group, by themselves and by others (Barr, 2004;
Holland et al., 2000; Ruiz-Junco, 2011; Tesch & Kempton, 2004; Tranter, 2010).
Furthermore as the social identity approach suggests that personal identity is more strongly related to individualistic behaviours, whilst social identity is instead related to collectively employed behaviours, it is therefore possible that collective pro- environmental behaviours would strengthen the extent to which one sees themselves as an ingroup member of the environmentalist social category.
These findings also show that identification and behaviour may be mutually reinforcing of one another for opinion-based social groups, operating in a ‘virtuous circle’ (as has been previously suggested in clinical and health arenas, see Cruwys et al.,
2014; Jetten, Haslam, Haslam, & Branscombe, 2009; Haslam & Reicher, 2006). While identification fosters further engagement in pro-environmental action, engaging in pro-
CH. 8. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUDING REMARKS 190 environmental behaviours may be essential for forming an environmentalist social identity in the first place (Matsuba et al., 2012; van der Werff, Steg, & Keizer, 2013a,
2014). Indeed, previous longitudinal research has shown a recursive relationship between identity and collective action, where social identification helps to foster protest participation, and protest participation then going on to reinforce group identification
(Klandermans, 2002).
Yet it is important to note that this particular emphasis on behaviour as an important component of environmentalist social identity may have emerged because concern for the natural environment is a widely held belief amongst residents of westernised, educated, industrialised, rich, and democratic (WEIRD) societies (Bamberg,
2003; Barr, 2004; Castro, 2006; Dunlap, 1991), such as those sampled in this thesis. As a consequence, it may be that to consider oneself a ‘true’ environmentalist within these societies, it is not enough to say you are concerned for the environment, given most people do so; you must also be consistently acting on this belief (Ruiz-Junco, 2011).
Practical Implications for Fostering Green Consumerism and Other Pro-
Environmental Behaviour
Taken together, the findings of the present thesis suggest that social identity processes can be harnessed to help increase rates of green consumerism, thereby potentially decreasing the severity of current global environmental issues arising from unsustainable consumption (Girod et al., 2014; IPCC, 2013; Niva & Timonen, 2001).
Indeed, fostering identification with the environmentalist social category could be used as one of the underlying psychological mechanisms for future interventions that attempt to increase pro-environmental behaviours more generally in the public, in line with
CH. 8. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUDING REMARKS 191 previous proposals by social identity researchers (Batalha & Reynolds, 2012; Fielding &
Hornsey, 2016; Postmes et al., 2013; Rabinovich et al., 2012).
However, according to the social identity approach, for a social identity to contribute to behaviour individuals not only need to identify with the relevant social category or group, but the social category or group also needs to be one which hold norms that encourage the behaviour, and this social identity must be salient in the behavioural context (Hogg & Reid, 2006; Reynolds et al., 2015; Tajfel & Turner, 1979;
Terry & Hogg, 2000; Terry et al., 1999; Turner et al., 1987). Therefore, if attempting to use social identity to foster green consumerism or other pro-environmental behaviours in the general public, environmentalists and policy makers need to ensure that the group with which individuals are encouraged to identify endorses pro-environmental norms (as also suggested by Fielding & Hornsey, 2016; Reynolds et al., 2015). This identity should also be made salient in contexts in which they wish individuals to engage in pro- environmental behaviours.
Findings from this thesis also suggest that whilst encouraging identification with the environmentalist social category could be used to increase rates of green consumerism, environmentalists and policy makers need to be aware of how non- environmentalists perceive the superordinate environmentalist social category (Bashir et al., 2013; Castro et al., 2016). This is because the stereotypes held of this group can have consequences on whether someone identifies with the environmentalist social category in the first place, and therefore engages in group normative behaviours such as green consumerism – as shown in Study 4. Furthermore, Study 2 also showed that although non-environmentalists generally held positive impressions of the environmentalist social category, these positive evaluations were also conditional on how ingroup members
CH. 8. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUDING REMARKS 192 behaved, and if they were engaged in conflict, and with whom. Indeed, these finding are especially important to be aware of in situations where environmentalists engage in intergroup conflict with stakeholders such as governments and industry (Colvin et al.,
2015; Fielding et al., 2005; Opotow & Brook, 2003), or in radical forms of collective action that are seen as disruptive or socially deviant, but are essential to engage in because they achieve positive environmental outcomes (Bashir et al., 2013; Castro et al.,
2016).
Given these considerations, environmentalists and policy makers should emphasise the positive aspects of the superordinate environmentalist social category in order to encourage members of the general public who do not perceive themselves as environmentalists to choose to join the group, and subsequently to engage in pro- environmental behaviours. This could include highlighting the altruistic and self- sacrificing nature of environmentalists (which emerged in Study 2), as well as their positive traits (which emerged in Studies 2 and 4). In addition, negative components of the environmentalist stereotype could also be reframed. For example, the ‘extreme’ or disruptive behaviour environmentalists are perceived to engage in could be reframed as being ultimately altruistic and beneficial for the general public (Bashir et al., 2013), whilst the intergroup conflict they engage in could be reframed as fulfilling goals of another group with which the general public already identify, such as a national identity
(Clayton & Myers, 2015; Colvin et al., 2015; Opotow & Brook, 2003). For example, engaging in collective action against industries that are negatively impacting on the
Great Barrier Reef could be reframed as helping Australians save an icon that is an important part of their national identity.
CH. 8. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUDING REMARKS 193
Another potential way to encourage members of the general public to identify as an environmentalist is to also challenge their perception that they do not engage in enough pro-environmental behaviours to even consider self-identifying as a group member in the first place (as shown in Studies 1 and 2). Indeed, emphasising how the behaviours members of the general public already engage in are actually protective of the environment could help them to perceive themselves as ‘active’ enough. This reframing or re-establishing of past or current behaviour as being pro-environmental may increase willingness to identify as an environmentalist ingroup member, and thereby strengthen potential engagement in subsequent pro-environmental behaviours such as green consumerism, as was also suggested by van der Werff et al. (2013a, 2014).
This could include, for example, emphasising to individuals who ride a bicycle for health or cost reasons that cycling also avoids the greenhouse gas emissions produced when cars are driven.
More broadly, a practical suggestion that also arises from the social identity approach is the utility of employing a superordinate social category to encourage individuals to engage in identity congruent behaviours. Individuals can be members of smaller, interactive subgroups as well as of broader, superordinate categories (Hornsey
& Hogg, 2000a, 2000b; Turner et al., 1987), and whilst previous research has showed that certain subgroups of environmentalists such as activists are perceived negatively
(Bashir et al., 2013; Castro et al., 2016), the present thesis demonstrated that non- environmentalists generally perceived the superordinate environmentalist social category positively. Environmentalists and policymakers should therefore emphasise the superordinate social environmentalist category when attempting to increase social identification and group normative behaviour, rather than the subgroups of
CH. 8. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUDING REMARKS 194 environmentalism with which many of the general public may disagree. These subgroups of environmentalism could include those who perhaps engage in contentious intergroup conflict or in radical forms of collective action that are seen as disruptive.
By extension, highlighting other superordinate social categories to which individuals already belong could also be used as a strategy to encourage engagement in pro-environmental behaviour, particularly if the norms of these group are already pro- environmental or can be changed to be more pro-environmental (a tactic also suggested by Batalha & Reynolds, 2012; Fielding & Hornsey, 2016). For instance, encouraging non-environmentalists to identify with a national identity could be particularly useful for this task, if the national identity is seen to hold pro-environmental norms, as is the case with some European countries. Similarly, as the superordinate social category of humanity is also important to some individuals self-concept (Hornsey, 2008; Turner et al., 1987), non-environmentalists could also be encouraged to identify with the common human group, as suggested by Reese (2016), given social identification to this group has been found to predict pro-environmental behaviours and fair trade consumption (Reese
& Kohlmann, 2015; Reysen & Katzarska-Miller, 2013). Such strategies therefore could circumvent the impact that negative stereotypes of environmentalists have on environmentalist social identification all together, by removing the need to make environmentalist social identity salient in the first place.
Limitations of the Research and Directions for Future Research
Although the current thesis was exploratory in nature, findings from the four empirical studies clearly suggest that environmentalist stereotypes and environmentalist social identity each contribute to engagement in green consumerism, even amongst individuals of the general public who do not belong environmental organisations (i.e.,
CH. 8. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUDING REMARKS 195 non-environmentalists or environmentalist outgroup members). Yet, as only qualitative and cross-sectional correlational research methods were utilised in the present thesis, whether the relationships are causal has yet to be confirmed. Furthermore, if causal relationships exist between these variables, the direction of such relationships, and whether they are unidirectional or bidirectional, has also to be verified.
However it must be noted that the current thesis employed the social identity approach, which posits that social identity is a precursor to both social behaviour and group processes (Tajfel & Turner, 1979/1986; Turner et al., 1987), with a plethora of studies demonstrating this is be the case (see Ellemers et al., 2002; Jetten et al., 2004, for example, for some reviews). Nevertheless, it is still possible that the link between social identification and pro-environmental behaviour may be in the opposite direction, with behaviour strengthening identity, given participants in Studies 1 and 2 indicated that one needed to be ‘active’ in their pro-environmental behaviours in order to identify oneself as an environmentalist. Indeed, previous studies have showed that individuals’ strength of environmentalist self-identity increases when they are alerted to their past behaviour being pro-environmental, with self-identity and pro-environmental behaviour found to mutually reinforce one another (Matsuba et al., 2012; van der Werff, Steg, & Keizer,
2013a, 2014). Identification and stereotypes may also have a reciprocal relationship, with positive stereotypes of environmentalists fostering identification with that identity, and stronger environmentalist social identity further strengthening this positive stereotype by exposure to consensual validation of the stereotype from ingroup members
(Haslam et al., 1996, 1999).
Given these considerations, then, future research should employ experimental and longitudinal methodologies in order to clarify the causal influence social identity
CH. 8. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUDING REMARKS 196 processes such as social identification and group stereotypes have on green consumerism
(and pro-environmental behaviour more generally). Future research could include, but is not limited to, manipulating the content and salience of both environmentalist social identity and environmentalist stereotypes, and measuring whether these manipulations change individuals’ green consumerism. By employing longitudinal methodologies that employ cross-lagged designs in particular, future research could also go on to investigate whether the variables investigated within the current thesis also mutually reinforce one another.
Another limitation of this research project is the reliance on behavioural self- reports to measure pro-environmental constructs as well as the use of plain language statements that stated the purpose of the studies (see Appendix A). For instance, in
Studies 3 and 4, participants were asked to rate their level of green consumerism, rather than their actual consumption behaviour being measured, whilst all of the studies within the present thesis contained statements that outlined the aims of the studies (as was required by the ethics board). Some within the pro-environmental literature (e.g.,
Gatersleben et al., 2002; Gifford, 2014; Stern, 2011) have raised concerns about whether using such self-report measures accurately reflect pro-environmental behaviour, especially given social desirability pressures, and difficulties in recalling pro- environmental behaviours. Furthermore it is possible that indicating the purpose of each of the studies may have set up demand characteristics. As such, to further strengthen the conclusions made in this thesis, future research should therefore measure green consumerism more directly, either with behavioural observation, or through the proxy measurement of consumption (such as energy or water consumption), as suggested by
Stern (2011).
CH. 8. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUDING REMARKS 197
It is also important to acknowledge that whilst this thesis was predominantly interested in exploring how social identity processes were related to green consumerism, this does not mean that self-identity is no longer considered to be predictive of green consumerism (or pro-environmental behaviour more generally). In fact, previous research has consistently shown that personal ‘green’ or ‘environmental’ identities are also predictive of a wealth of pro-environmental behaviours (e.g., Clayton, 2003, 2012;
Gatersleben et al., 2014; Sparks & Shepherd, 1992; Whitmarsh & O’Neill, 2010). As it was outside the scope of this thesis to measure such personal identities, this thesis cannot conclude whether environmentalist social identity is a ‘better’ predictor of pro- environmental behaviour when compared to such personal identities. Nevertheless, the integration of personal and social identity in relation to environmentalism, including which of the two is a stronger predictor of pro-environmental behaviours and in what social contexts, presents a fruitful area for future research.
On a related point, although the focus of the research program was upon social identity processes, warranting the exclusion of other individual-level variables, findings of Studies 1 and 2 did suggest that biospheric values and political ideology were potentially important to environmentalist social identification as well as outgroup stereotypes of environmentalists. For instance, in Studies 1 and 2 participants discussed how valuing nature was a key aspect of the environmentalist social category, suggesting the need for one to hold biospheric values to share that social identity. As biospheric values have been found to precede environmental self-identity (Gatersleben et al., 2014;
Ruepert et al., 2016; van der Werff, Steg, & Keizer, 2013a, 2013c), it is possible that fostering biospheric values in non-environmentalists could further strengthen non- environmentalists’ willingness to identify as an environmentalist ingroup member.
CH. 8. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUDING REMARKS 198
Furthermore, Studies 1 and 2 also showed that many participants saw environmentalists as left-leaning and politically contentious. It is important to highlight that environmental issues have become increasingly politically polarised (Dunlap et al.,
2016; Fielding et al., 2012; McCright et al., 2014), and that those who hold right wing ideologies have been shown to be threatened by environmentalists due to the social change they promote (Hoffarth & Hodson, 2016). Given this, it is also possible that those who hold conservative political ideologies may have stronger negative stereotypes of environmentalists, leading them to be less likely to identify as an environmentalist ingroup member than would their liberal or moderate counterparts. This avoidance of the environmentalist social category could in turn contribute to their possible lower levels of green consumerism (and pro-environmental behaviour more generally). Future research should pursue these possibilities, especially the contribution of biospheric values and political ideology, in order to gain a greater understanding of what leads to and limits one from identifying as an environmentalist and engaging in identity congruent behaviour.
At a broader level, another potential limitation of this work is that it can only be safely generalised to the national contexts from which samples were recruited. Although the use of samples from Australia (Study 1) and the US (Studies 2, 3, and 4) was warranted given these countries’ focus on green consumerism as a means to address environmental concerns (Connor, 2012; Erickson, 2011; Jackson, 2005; Ölander &
Thøgersen, 1995; Stern, 1998), the findings of this thesis are likely to reflect the social realities of these countries. In fact, in other westernised countries where environmentalism is seen as more normative of their cultural or national identity, such as
Germany or Scandinavian countries, green consumerism may not even be perceived as
CH. 8. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUDING REMARKS 199 something that is solely the domain of environmentalists (Gifford, 2014). That is, some cultures may have incorporated environmentalism and pro-environmental norms as part of their national belief system, with consequences for how they view environmentalists.
Further research should therefore investigate the relationships between environmentalist social identities, environmentalist stereotypes, and green consumerism, in both developing nations and other westernised nations where environmentalism is part of their national identity, to determine how these relationships differ cross-culturally.
Concluding Remarks
Given the need to mitigate current global environmental issues that arise from unsustainable consumption practices (Girod et al., 2014; IPCC, 2013; Niva & Timonen,
2001; Peattie, 2010; Stern, 1999), the current thesis aimed to investigate how social identity processes, especially those related to social identification and group stereotypes, could help to encourage engagement in green consumerism amongst individuals who did not perceive themselves to be environmentalists. In particular, the current thesis was the first to explore what environmentalists and non-environmentalists alike perceived to be involved in green consumerism, what stereotypes non-environmentalists held of the superordinate environmentalist social category, and whether environmentalist social identity and outgroup stereotypes of environmentalists were predictive of green consumerism in non-environmentalists.
Across four empirical studies that employed complementary research approaches, this thesis illustrated that not only could green consumerism be seen as a pro- environmental that could be individually and collectively employed and that encompassed multiple environmentally friendly consumption acts, it was also moderately related to other individualistic (i.e., willingness to sacrifice) and
CH. 8. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUDING REMARKS 200 collectivistic (i.e., political consumerism and environmental activism) behaviours intended to preserve the environment. Furthermore, environmentalist social identity was found to be moderately predictive of engagement in green consumerism, with outgroup members’ stereotypes of environmentalists exerting an indirect effect on green consumerism through their strength of environmentalist social identity.
As such, the results of the four studies presented provide further evidence that social identity processes, especially the psychological mechanism of social identification, may underpin green consumerism. Indeed, findings of the present thesis support the suggestion of Fielding and Hornsey (2016) that enhancing social identity may serve as a fruitful strategy to help increase pro-environmental attitudes and behaviours, and thereby mitigate environmental problems such as climate change. Yet, the findings of the present thesis also show that although engaging in green consumerism and ‘voting with your dollar’ is perceived to create positive outcomes for the environment, one’s identification as a ‘greenie’, and the perceptions one has of ‘greenies’, are important for researchers, environmentalists, and policy makers alike to consider when attempting to increase such green consumerism, and perhaps even pro-environmental behaviour more generally.
REFERENCES 201
References
Abrams, D., & Hogg, M. A. (1990). Social identification, self-categorization and social influence. European Review of Social Psychology, 1(1), 195-228. doi:10.1080/14792779108401862 Aguilar-Luzón, M. C., García-Martínez, J. M. Á., Calvo-Salguero, A., & Salinas, J. M. (2012). Comparative study between the theory of planned behavior and the value-belief-norm model regarding the environment, on Spanish housewives’ recycling behavior. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 42(11), 2797-2833. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.2012.00962.x Ajzen, I. (1985). From intentions to actions: A theory of planned behaviour. New York: Springer-Verlag. Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 179-211. doi:10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-T Akehurst, G., Afonso, C., & Gonçalves, H. M. (2012). Re-examining green purchase behaviour and the green consumer profile: New evidences. Management Decision, 50(5), 972-988. doi:10.1108/00251741211227726 Akenji, L. (2014). Consumer scapegoatism and limits to green consumerism. Journal of Cleaner Production, 63, 13-23. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.05.022 Alfredsson, E. C. (2004). “Green” consumption—No solution for climate change. Energy, 29(4), 513-524. doi:10.1016/j.energy.2003.10.013 Amiot, C. E., Sansfaçon, S., & Louis, W. R. (2014). How normative and social identification processes predict self-determination to engage in derogatory behaviours against outgroup hockey fans. European Journal of Social Psychology, 44, 216-239. doi:10.1002/ejsp.2006 Anderson, J. (2010). From ‘zombies’ to ‘coyotes’: Environmentalism where we are. Environmental Politics, 19(6), 973-991. doi:10.1080/09644016.2010.518684 Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. (1988). Structural equation modeling in practice: A review and recommended two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103(3), 411-423. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.103.3.411 REFERENCES 202
Antil, J. H. (1984). Socially responsible consumers: Profile and implications for public policy. Journal of Macromarketing, 4(2), 18-39. doi:10.1177/027614678400400203 Arvola, A., Vassallo, M., Dean, M., Lampila, P., Saba, A., Lähteenmäki, L., & Shepherd, R. (2008). Predicting intentions to purchase organic food: The role of affective and moral attitudes in the Theory of Planned Behaviour. Appetite, 50(2–3), 443- 454. doi:10.1016/j.appet.2007.09.010 Autio, M., Heiskanen, E., & Heinonen, V. (2009). Narratives of ‘green’ consumers - The antihero, the environmental hero and the anarchist. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 8(1), 40-53. doi:10.1002/cb.272 Balch, O. (2014, October 15). Fighting over groundwater: Water companies vs environmentalists. The Guardian. Retrieved from http://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2014/oct/14/water-companies- environmentalists-fight-groundwater-over-abstraction Balderjahn, I. (1988). Personality variables and environmental attitudes as predictors of ecologically responsible consumption patterns. Journal of Business Ethics, 17, 51-56. Balderjahn, I., Peyer, M., & Paulssen, M. (2013). Consciousness for fair consumption: Conceptualization, scale development and empirical validation. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 37(5), 546-555. doi:10.1111/ijcs.12030 Bamberg, S. (2002). Implementation intention versus monetary incentive comparing the effects of interventions to promote the purchase of organically produced food. Journal of Economic Psychology, 23(5), 573-587. doi:10.1016/S0167- 4870(02)00118-6 Bamberg, S. (2003). How does environmental concern influence specific environmentally related behaviors? A new answer to an old question. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 23(1), 21-32. doi:10.1016/S0272-4944(02)00078-6 Bamberg, S., & Möser, G. (2007). Twenty years after Hines, Hungerford, and Tomera: A new meta-analysis of psycho-social determinants of pro-environmental behaviour. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 27(1), 14-25. doi:10.1016/j.jenvp.2006.12.002
REFERENCES 203
Bamberg, S., Rees, J., & Seebauer, S. (2015). Collective climate action: Determinants of participation intention in community-based pro-environmental initiatives. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 43, 155-165. doi:10.1016/j.jenvp.2015.06.006 Bang, H. K., Ellinger, A. E., Hadjimarcou, J., & Traichal, P. A. (2000). Consumer concern, knowledge, belief, and attitude toward renewable energy: An application of the reasoned action theory. Psychology and Marketing, 17(6), 449- 468. Barbarossa, C., Beckmann, S. C., De Pelsmacker, P., Moons, I., & Gwozdz, W. (2015). A self-identity based model of electric car adoption intention: A cross-cultural comparative study. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 42, 149-160. doi:10.1016/j.jenvp.2015.04.001 Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator–mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(6), 1173-1182. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.51.6.1173 Barr, S. (2004). Are we all environmentalists now? Rhetoric and reality in environmental action. Geoforum, 35(2), 231-249. doi:10.1016/j.geoforum.2003.08.009 Barr, S. (2007). Factors influencing environmental attitudes and behaviors: A U.K. case study of household waste management. Environment and Behavior, 39(4), 435- 473. doi:10.1177/0013916505283421 Barr, S., & Gilg, A. (2006). Sustainable lifestyles: Framing environmental action in and around the home. Geoforum, 37(6), 906-920. doi:10.1016/j.geoforum.2006.05.002 Barr, S., Shaw, G., & Gilg, A. W. (2011). The policy and practice of ‘sustainable lifestyles’. Journal of Environmental Planning & Management, 54(10), 1331- 1350. doi:10.1080/09640568.2011.574996 Bartels, J., & Hoogendam, K. (2011). The role of social identity and attitudes toward sustainability brands in buying behaviors for organic products. Journal of Brand Management, 18(9), 697-708. doi:10.1057/bm.2011.3
REFERENCES 204
Bartels, J., & Onwezen, M. C. (2014). Consumers’ willingness to buy products with environmental and ethical claims: The roles of social representations and social identity. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 38(1), 82-89. doi:10.1111/ijcs.12067 Bartels, J., & Reinders, M. J. (2016). Consuming apart, together: The role of multiple identities in sustainable behaviour. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 40(4), 444-452. doi:10.1111/ijcs.12269 Bartels, J., & van den Berg, I. (2011). Fresh fruit and vegetables and the added value of antioxidants: Attitudes of non-, light, and heavy organic food users. British Food Journal, 113(11), 1339-1352. Bashir, N. Y. (2010). “Green” doesn’t always make good impressions: Evaluations of different types of environmentalists (Doctoral thesis, University of Toronto, Canada). Retrieved from http://tspace.library.utoronto.ca Bashir, N. Y., Lockwood, P., Chasteen, A. L., Nadolny, D., & Noyes, I. (2013). The ironic impact of activists: Negative stereotypes reduce social change influence. European Journal of Social Psychology, 43(7), 614-626. doi:10.1002/ejsp.1983 Batalha, L., & Reynolds, K. J. (2012). ASPIRing to mitigate climate change: Superordinate identity in global climate negotiations. Political Psychology, 33(5), 743-760. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9221.2012.00896.x Baumeister, R. F., & Twenge, J. M. (2003). The social self. In Handbook of psychology Part three: Social psychology, 14, 327-352. Berinsky, A. J., Huber, G. A., & Lenz, G. S. (2012). Evaluating online labor markets for experimental research: Amazon.com’s Mechanical Turk. Political Analysis, 20(3), 351-368. doi:10.1093/pan/mpr057 Berryman-Fink, C., & Verderber, K. S. (1985). Attributions of the term feminist: A factor analytic development of a measuring instrument. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 9(1), 51-64. Bertoldo, R., & Castro, P. (2016). The outer influence inside us: Exploring the relation between social and personal norms. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 112, 45-53. Bizumic, B., Reynolds, K. J., Turner, J. C., Bromhead, D., & Subasic, E. (2009). The role of the group in individual functioning: School identification and the
REFERENCES 205
psychological well-being of staff and students. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 58(1), 171-192. doi:10.1111/j.1464-0597.2008.00387.x Black, I. (2010). Sustainability through anti-consumption. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 9(6), 403-411. doi:10.1002/cb.340 Black, I. R., & Cherrier, H. (2010). Anti-consumption as part of living a sustainable lifestyle: Daily practices, contextual motivations and subjective values. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 9(6), 437-453. Black, J. S., Stern, P. C., & Elworth, J. T. (1985). Personal and contextual influences on household energy adaptations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 70(1), 3-21. Bliuc, A.-M., Ellis, R., Goodyear, P., & Hendres, D. (2011). Understanding student learning in context: Relationships between university students’ social identity, approaches to learning, and academic performance. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 26(3), 417-433. doi:10.1007/s10212-011-0065-6 Bliuc, A.-M., McGarty, C., Reynolds, K., & Muntele, D. (2007). Opinion-based group membership as a predictor of commitment to political action. European Journal of Social Psychology, 37(1), 19-32. doi:10.1002/ejsp.334 Bliuc, A.-M., McGarty, C., Thomas, E. F., Lala, G., Berndsen, M., & Misajon, R. (2015). Public division about climate change rooted in conflicting socio-political identities. Nature: Climate Change, 5, 226-229. doi:10.1038/nclimate2507 Bohlen, G., Schlegelmilch, B. B., & Diamantopoulos, A. (1993). Measuring ecological concern: A multi-construct perspective. Journal of Marketing Management, 9(4), 415-430. Borin, N., Lindsey-Mullikin, J., & Krishnan, R. (2013). An analysis of consumer reactions to green strategies. Journal of Product & Brand Management, 22(2), 118-128. doi:10.1108/10610421311320997 Bossy, S. (2014). The utopias of political consumerism: The search of alternatives to mass consumption. Journal of Consumer Culture, 14(2), 179-198. doi:10.1177/1469540514526238 Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77-101. doi:10.1191/1478088706qp063oa Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2013). Successful qualitative research: A practical guide for beginners. London: Sage.
REFERENCES 206
Brécard, D., Hlaimi, B., Lucas, S., Perraudeau, Y., & Salladarré, F. (2009). Determinants of demand for green products: An application to eco-label demand for fish in Europe. Ecological Economics, 69(1), 115-125. doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2009.07.017 Brewer, M. B., & Brown, R. J. (1998). Intergroup relations. New York: McGraw-Hill. Brown, R. (2000). Social identity theory: Past achievements, current problems and future challenges. European Journal of Social Psychology, 30(6), 745-778. Brown, R., Condor, S., Mathews, A., Wade, G., & Williams, J. (1986). Explaining intergroup differentiation in an industrial organization. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 59(4), 273-286. Brügger, A., Kaiser, F. G., & Roczen, N. (2011). One for all? Connectedness to nature, inclusion of nature, environmental identity, and implicit association with nature. European Psychologist, 16(4), 324-333. doi:10.1027/1016-9040/a000032 Brulle, R. J. (1996). Environmental discourse and social movement organizations: A historical and rhetorical perspective on the development of U.S. environmental organizations. Sociological Inquiry, 66(1), 58-83. Brunsting, S., & Postmes, T. (2002). Social movement participation in the digital age: Predicting offline and online collective action. Small Group Research, 33, 525- 554. doi:10.1177/104649602237169 Buhrmester, M., Kwang, T., & Gosling, S. D. (2011). Amazon’s Mechanical Turk: A new source of inexpensive, yet high-quality, data? Perspectives on Psychological Science, 6(1), 3-5. doi:10.1177/1745691610393980 Byrne, B. M. (2001). Structural equation modeling with AMOS, EQS, and LISREL: Comparative approaches to testing for the factorial validity of a measuring instrument. International Journal of Testing, 1(1), 55-86. Carrington, M. J., Neville, B. A., & Whitwell, G. J. (2010). Why ethical consumers don’t walk their talk: Towards a framework for understanding the gap between the ethical purchase intentions and actual buying behaviour of ethically minded consumers. Journal of Business Ethics, 97, 139-158. Carter, S. M., & Little, M. (2007). Justifying knowledge, justifying method, taking action: Epistemologies, methodologies, and methods in qualitative research.
REFERENCES 207
Qualitative Health Research, 17(10), 1316-1328. doi:10.1177/1049732307306927 Castro, P. (2006). Applying social psychology to the study of environmental concern and environmental worldviews: Contributions from the social representations approach. Journal of Community and Applied Social Psychology, 16(4), 247-266. Castro, P., Uzelgun, M. A., & Bertolodo, R. (2016). Climate change activism between weak and strong environmentalism: Advocating social change with moderate argumentation strategies? In C. Howarth & E. Andreouli (Eds.), The social psychology of everyday politics (pp. 1-22). London: Routledge. Chan, R. Y. K. (2000). The effectiveness of environmental advertising: The role of claim type and the source country green image. International Journal of Advertising, 19(3), 349-375. Chan, R. Y. K., & Lau, L. B. Y. (2000). Antecedents of green purchases: A survey in China. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 17(4), 338-357. doi:10.1108/07363760010335358 Chatard, A., Selimbegović, L., & Konan, P. N. D. (2008). Leftists’ and rightists’ IQ as a function of stereotype salience. Journal of Research in Personality, 42(6), 1602- 1606. doi:10.1016/j.jrp.2008.05.004 Chen, Y.-S. (2010). The drivers of green brand equity: Green brand image, green satisfaction, and green trust. Journal of Business Ethics, 93(2), 307-319. doi:10.1007/s10551-009-0223-9 Cherrier, H. (2009). Anti-consumption discourses and consumer-resistant identities. Journal of Business Research, 62(2), 181-190. doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2008.01.025 Cherrier, H., Black, I. R., & Lee, M. (2011). Intentional non‐consumption for sustainability. European Journal of Marketing, 45(11/12), 1757-1767. doi:10.1108/03090561111167397 Clark, C. F., Kotchen, M. J., & Moore, M. R. (2003). Internal and external influences on pro-environmental behavior: Participation in a green electricity program. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 23(3), 237-246. doi:10.1016/S0272- 4944(02)00105-6
REFERENCES 208
Clayton, S. (2003). Environmental identity: A conceptual and an operational definition. In S. Clayton & S. Opotow (Eds.), Identity and the natural environment: The psychological significance of nature (pp. 45-65). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Clayton, S. (2012). Environment and identity. In S. Clayton (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of environmental and conservation psychology (pp. 164-180). New York: Oxford University Press. Clayton, S., & Brook, A. (2005). Can psychology help save the world? A model for conservation psychology. Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy, 5(1), 87- 102. Clayton, S., Fraser, J., & Burgess, C. (2011). The role of zoos in fostering environmental identity. Ecopsychology, 3(2), 87-96. doi:10.1089/eco.2010.0079 Clayton, S. D., & Myers, G. (2015). Conservation psychology: Understanding and promoting human care for nature (2nd ed.). Chichester, West Sussex: Wiley Blackwell. Clayton, S. D., & Opotow, S. (Eds.) (2003). Identity and the natural environment: The psychological significance of nature: Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Clifford, S., Jewell, R. M., & Waggoner, P. D. (2015). Are samples drawn from Mechanical Turk valid for research on political ideology? Research & Politics, 2(4), 1-9. doi:10.1177/2053168015622072 Colvin, R. M., Witt, G. B., & Lacey, J. (2015). The social identity approach to understanding socio-political conflict in environmental and natural resources management. Global Environmental Change, 34, 237-246. Connolly, J., & Prothero, A. (2003). Sustainable consumption: Consumption, consumers and the commodity discourse. Consumption, Markets & Culture, 6(4), 275-291. doi:10.1080/1025386032000168311 Connor, L. H. (2012). Experimental publics: Activist culture and political intelligibility of climate change action in the Hunter Valley, southeast Australia. Oceania, 82(3), 228-249. doi:10.1002/j.1834-4461.2012.tb00131.x Cook, A. J., Kerr, G. N., & Moore, K. (2002). Attitudes and intentions towards purchasing GM food. Journal of Economic Psychology, 23, 557-572. doi:10.1016/S0167-4870(02)00117-4
REFERENCES 209
Cornelissen, J. P., Haslam, S. A., & Balmer, J. T. (2007). Social identity, organizational identity and corporate identity: Towards an integrated understanding of processes, patternings and products. British Journal of Management, 18(S1), S1-S16. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8551.2007.00522.x Costa Pinto, D., Herter, M. M., Rossi, P., & Borges, A. (2014). Going green for self or for others? Gender and identity salience effects on sustainable consumption. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 38(5), 540-549. doi:10.1111/ijcs.12114 Costarelli, S., & Callà, R. M. (2007). Cross-dimension-ambivalent in-group stereotypes: The moderating roles of social context of stereotype endorsement and in-group identification. Journal of Social Psychology, 147(5), 543-554. Crane, D. (2010). Environmental change and the future of consumption: Implications for consumer identity. Anuario Filosófico, 43(2), 353-379. Cruwys, T., Haslam, S. A., Dingle, G. A., Haslam, C., & Jetten, J. (2014). Depression and social identity: An integrative review. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 18(3), 215-238. doi:10.1177/1088868314523839 Cundiff, J. L., Vescio, T. K., Loken, E., & Lo, L. (2013). Do gender–science stereotypes predict science identification and science career aspirations among undergraduate science majors? Social Psychology of Education, 16(4), 541-554. doi:10.1007/s11218-013-9232-8 Dalton, R. J. (2015). Waxing or waning? The changing patterns of environmental activism. Environmental Politics, 24(4), 441-459. Dalton, R. J., Recchia, S., & Rohrschneider, R. (2003). The environmental movement and the modes of political action. Comparative Political Studies, 36(7), 743-771. Dangelico, R. M., & Pontrandolfo, P. (2010). From green product definitions and classifications to the Green Option Matrix. Journal of Cleaner Production, 18(16–17), 1608-1628. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2010.07.007 Dauvergne, P., & Lister, J. (2010). The prospects and limits of eco-consumerism: Shopping our way to less deforestation? Organization & Environment, 23(2), 132-154. doi:10.1177/1086026610368370
REFERENCES 210
Davis, J. L., Le, B., & Coy, A. E. (2011). Building a model of commitment to the natural environment to predict ecological behavior and willingness to sacrifice. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 31(3), 257-265. doi:10.1016/j.jenvp.2011.01.004 Dean, M., Raats, M. M., & Shepherd, R. (2008). Moral concerns and consumer choice of fresh and processed organic foods. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 38(8), 2088-2107. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.2008.00382.x Dembkowski, S., & Hanmer-Lloyd, S. (1994). The environmental value-attitude-system model: A framework to guide the understanding of environmentally-conscious consumer behaviour. Journal of Marketing Management, 10, 593-603. Dermody, J., Hanmer-Lloyd, S., Koenig-Lewis, N., & Zhao, A. L. (2015). Advancing sustainable consumption in the UK and China: The mediating effect of pro- environmental self-identity. Journal of Marketing Management, 31, 1472-1502. doi:10.1080/0267257X.2015.1061039 de Weerd, M., & Klandermans, B. (1999). Group identification and political protest: Farmers’ protest in the Netherlands. European Journal of Social Psychology, 29(8), 1073-1095. Diamantopoulos, A., Schlegelmilch, B. B., Sinkovics, R. R., & Bohlen, G. M. (2003). Can socio-demographics still play a role in profiling green consumers? A review of the evidence and an empirical investigation. Journal of Business Research, 56(6), 465-480. doi:10.1016/S0148-2963(01)00241-7 Dietz, T., Stern, P. C., & Guagnano, G. A. (1998). Social structural and social psychological bases of environmental concern. Environment and Behavior, 30(4), 450-471. doi:10.1177/001391659803000402 Dolnicar, S., & Grün, B. (2009). Environmentally friendly behavior: Can heterogeneity among individuals and contexts/environments be harvested for improved sustainable management? Environment and Behavior, 41(5), 693-714. doi:10.1177/0013916508319448 Dono, J., Webb, J., & Richardson, B. (2010). The relationship between environmental activism, pro-environmental behaviour and social identity. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 30(2), 178-186. doi:10.1016/j.jenvp.2009.11.006 Dresner, M., Handelman, C., Braun, S., & Rollwagen-Bollens, G. (2015). Environmental identity, pro-environmental behaviors, and civic engagement of
REFERENCES 211
volunteer stewards in Portland area parks. Environmental Education Research, 21(7), 991-1010. doi:10.1080/13504622.2014.964188 D’Souza, C., Taghian, M., & Khosla, R. (2007). Examination of environmental beliefs and its impact on the influence of price, quality and demographic characteristics with respect to green purchase intention. Journal of Targeting, Measurement & Analysis for Marketing, 15(2), 69-78. doi:10.1057/palgrave.jt.5750039 Duncan, L. E. (2010). Women’s relationship to feminism: Effects of generation and feminist self-labeling. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 34(4), 498-507. doi:10.1111/j.1471-6402.2010.01599.x Dunlap, R. E. (1991). Trends in public opinion toward environmental issues: 1965–1990. Society and Natural Resources, 4(3), 285-312. doi:10.1080/08941929109380761 Dunlap, R. E., McCright, A. M., & Yarosh, J. H. (2016). The political divide on climate change: Partisan polarization widens in the U.S. Environment: Science and Policy for Sustainable Development, 58(5), 4-23. doi:10.1080/00139157.2016.1208995 Dunlap, R. E., van Liere, K. D., Mertig, A. G., & Jones, R. E. (2000). New trends in measuring environmental attitudes: Measuring endorsement of the new ecological paradigm: A revised NEP Scale. Journal of Social Issues, 56(3), 425- 442. doi:10.1111/0022-4537.00176 Durif, F., Roy, J., & Boivin, C. (2012). Could perceived risks explain the ‘green gap’ in green product consumption? Electronic Green Journal, 1(33), 1-15. Easton, G. (2010). Critical realism in case study research. Industrial Marketing Management, 39, 118-128. doi:10.1016/j.indmarman.2008.06.004 Ellemers, N., Kortekaas, P., & Ouwerkerk, J. W. (1999). Self-categorisation, commitment to the group and group self-esteem as related but distinct aspects of social identity. European Journal of Social Psychology, 29(2/3), 371-389. Ellemers, N., Spears, R., & Doosje, B. (2002). Self and social identity. Annual Review of Psychology, 53(1), 161-186. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.53.100901.135228 Ellemers, N., van Knippenberg, A., de Vries, N., & Wilke, H. (1988). Social identification and permeability of group boundaries. European Journal of Social Psychology, 18(6), 497-513.
REFERENCES 212
Ellemers, N., van Knippenberg, A., & Wilke, H. A. (1990). The influence of permeability of group boundaries and stability of group status on strategies of individual mobility and social change. British Journal of Social Psychology, 29(3), 233-246. Ellemers, N., Wilke, H., & van Knippenberg, A. (1993). Effects of the legitimacy of low group or individual status on individual and collective status-enhancement strategies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64(5), 766-778. Ellen, P. S. (1994). Do we know what we need to know? Objective and subjective knowledge effects on pro-ecological behaviors. Journal of Business Research, 30(1), 43-52. Environment Victoria. (2014). Why ‘I’m not a greenie but...’. Retrieved from http://environmentvictoria.org.au/whynotagreenie Erickson, B. (2011). Recreational activism: Politics, nature, and the rise of neoliberalism. Leisure Studies, 30(4), 477-494. doi:10.1080/02614367.2011.594078 Ferguson, M. A., Branscombe, N. R., & Reynolds, K. J. (2011). The effect of intergroup comparison on willingness to perform sustainable behavior. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 31(4), 275-281. doi:10.1016/j.jenvp.2011.04.001 Field, A. (2013). Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS statistics. London: Sage. Fielding, K. S., Head, B. W., Laffan, W., Western, M., & Hoegh-Guldberg, O. (2012). Australian politicians’ beliefs about climate change: Political partisanship and political ideology. Environmental Politics, 21(5), 712-733. doi:10.1080/09644016.2012.698887 Fielding, K. S., & Hornsey, M. J. (2016). A social identity analysis of climate change and environmental attitudes and behaviors: Insights and opportunities. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 121. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00121 Fielding, K. S., McDonald, R., & Louis, W. R. (2008a). Theory of planned behaviour, identity and intentions to engage in environmental activism. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 28(4), 318-326. doi:10.1016/j.jenvp.2008.03.003 Fielding, K. S., Terry, D. J., Masser, B. M., Bordia, P., & Hogg, M. A. (2005). Explaining landholders’ decisions about riparian zone management: The role of behavioural, normative, and control beliefs. Journal of Environmental Management, 77(1), 12-21. doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2005.03.002
REFERENCES 213
Fielding, K. S., Terry, D. J., Masser, B. M., & Hogg, M. A. (2008b). Integrating social identity theory and the theory of planned behaviour to explain decisions to engage in sustainable agricultural practices. British Journal of Social Psychology, 47(1), 23-48. doi:10.1348/014466607X206792 Fisher, C., Bashyal, S., & Bachman, B. (2012). Demographic impacts on environmentally friendly purchase behaviors. Journal of Targeting, Measurement & Analysis for Marketing, 20(3/4), 172-184. doi:10.1057/jt.2012.13 Follows, S. B., & Jobber, D. (2000). Environmentally responsible purchase behaviour: A test of a consumer model. European Journal of Marketing, 34(5/6), 723-746. FoodDrinkEurope. (2012). Environmental sustainability vision toward 2030: Achievements, challenges and opportunities (3rd ed.). Brussels: Author. Retrieved from http://sustainability.fooddrinkeurope.eu Forman, J., & Damschroder, L. (2008). Qualitative content analysis. In L. Jacoby & L. A. Siminoff (Eds.), Empirical methods for bioethics: A primer (pp. 39-62). Oxford, UK: JAI Press. Forno, F., & Graziano, P. R. (2014). Sustainable community movement organisations. Journal of Consumer Culture, 14(2), 139-157. doi:10.1177/1469540514526225 Fraj, E., & Martinez, E. (2006). Environmental values and lifestyles as determining factors of ecological consumer behaviour: An empirical analysis. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 23(3), 133-144. doi:10.1108/07363760610663295 Friedman, M. (1995). On promoting a sustainable future through consumer activism. Journal of Social Issues, 51(4), 197-215. doi:O22-4537/95/lJ0O-O197$03.OO Friedman, M. (1996). A positive approach to organized consumer action: The ‘boycott’ as an alternative to the boycott. Journal of Consumer Policy, 19(4), 439-451. Frith, H., & Gleeson, K. (2008). Dressing the body: The role of clothing in sustaining body pride and managing body distress. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 5(4), 249-264. doi:10.1080/14780880701752950 Fuentes, C. (2014). Managing green complexities: Consumers’ strategies and techniques for greener shopping. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 38(5), 485-492. doi:10.1111/ijcs.12124
REFERENCES 214
Gaffney, A. M., Hogg, M. A., Cooper, J., & Stone, J. (2012). Witness to hypocrisy: Reacting to ingroup hypocrites in the presence of others. Social Influence, 7(2), 98-112. doi:10.1080/15534510.2012.663741 Gatersleben, B. (2012). Measuring environmental behaviour. In L. Steg, A. E. van den Berg & J. I. M. de Groot (Eds.), Environmental psychology: An introduction (pp. 132-140). Chichester, West Sussex; Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell. Gatersleben, B., Murtagh, N., & Abrahamse, W. (2014). Values, identity and pro- environmental behaviour. Contemporary Social Science, 9(4), 374-392. doi:10.1080/21582041.2012.682086 Gatersleben, B., Steg, L., & Vlek, C. (2002). Measurement and determinants of environmentally significant consumer behavior. Environment & Behavior, 34(3), 335-362. doi:10.1177/0013916502034003004 Gatersleben, B., White, E., Abrahamse, W., Jackson, T., & Uzzell, D. (2010). Values and sustainable lifestyles. Architectural Science Review, 53(1), 37-50. doi:10.3763/asre.2009.0101 Gifford, R. (2014). Environmental psychology matters. Annual Review of Psychology, 65, 541-579. doi:10.1146/annurev-psych-010213-115048 Gifford, R., & Nilsson, A. (2014). Personal and social factors that influence pro- environmental concern and behaviour: A review. International Journal Of Psychology, 49(3), 141-157. doi:10.1002/ijop.12034 Gilg, A., Barr, S., & Ford, N. (2005). Green consumption or sustainable lifestyles? Identifying the sustainable consumer. Futures, 37(6), 481-504. doi:10.1016/j.futures.2004.10.016 Girod, B., van Vuuren, D. P., & Hertwich, E. G. (2014). Climate policy through changing consumption choices: Options and obstacles for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Global Environmental Change, 25, 5-15. doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2014.01.004 Graham, J., Haidt, J., & Nosek, B. A. (2009). Liberals and conservatives rely on different sets of moral foundations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96(5), 1029-1046. Greenaway, K. H., Haslam, S. A., Cruwys, T., Branscombe, N. R., Ysseldyk, R., & Heldreth, C. (2015). From ‘we’ to ‘me’: Group identification enhances perceived
REFERENCES 215
personal control with consequences for health and well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 109(1), 53-74. doi:10.1037/pspi0000019 Greenaway, K. H., Wright, R. G., Willingham, J., Reynolds, K. J., & Haslam, S. A. (2015). Shared identity is key to effective communication. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 41(2), 171-182. Griskevicius, V., Tybur, J. M., & Van den Bergh, B. (2010). Going green to be seen: Status, reputation, and conspicuous conservation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 98(3), 392-404. Grønhøj, A. (2006). Communication about consumption: A family process perspective on ‘green’ consumer practices. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 5(6), 491-503. Gupta, S., & Ogden, D. T. (2009). To buy or not to buy? A social dilemma perspective on green buying. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 26(6), 376-391. doi:10.1108/07363760910988201 Harland, P., Staats, H., & Wilke, H. A. M. (1999). Explaining proenvironmental intention and behavior by personal norms and the theory of planned behavior. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 29(12), 2505-2528. Harth, N. S., Leach, C. W., & Kessler, T. (2013). Guilt, anger, and pride about in-group environmental behaviour: Different emotions predict distinct intentions. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 34, 18-26. doi:10.1016/j.jenvp.2012.12.005 Harrison, B. (2006). Shopping to save: Green consumerism and the struggle for northern Maine. Cultural Geographies, 13(3), 395-420. doi:10.1191/1474474006eu365oa Haslam, C., Cruwys, T., Haslam, S. A., Dingle, G., & Chang, M. X. (2016). GROUPS 4 HEALTH: Evidence that a social-identity intervention that builds and strengthens social group membership improves mental health. Journal of Affective Disorders, 194, 188-195. doi:10.1016/j.jad.2016.01.010 Haslam, S. A. (2004). Psychology in organizations. London: Sage. Haslam, S. A., Oakes, P. J., McGarty, C., Turner, J. C., & Onorato, R. S. (1995a). Contextual changes in the prototypicality of extreme and moderate outgroup members. European Journal of Social Psychology, 25(5), 509-530. Haslam, S. A., Oakes, P. J., McGarty, C., Turner, J. C., Reynolds, K. J., & Eggins, R. A. (1996). Stereotyping and social influence: The mediation of stereotype applicability and sharedness by the views of in-group and out-group members.
REFERENCES 216
British Journal of Social Psychology, 35(3), 369-397. doi:10.1111/j.2044- 8309.1996.tb01103.x Haslam, S. A., Oakes, P. J., Reynolds, K. J., & Turner, J. C. (1999). Social identity salience and the emergence of stereotype consensus. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25(7), 809-818. doi:10.1177/0146167299025007004 Haslam, S. A., Oakes, P. J., Turner, J. C., & McGarty, C. (1995b). Social categorization and group homogeneity: Changes in the perceived applicability of stereotype content as a function of comparative context and trait favourableness. British Journal of Social Psychology, 34(2), 139-160. doi:10.1111/j.2044- 8309.1995.tb01054.x Haslam, S. A., & Reicher, S. (2006). Stressing the group: Social identity and the unfolding dynamics of responses to stress. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(5), 1037-1052. Haslam, S. A., Turner, J. C., Oakes, P. J., McGarty, C., & Hayes, B. K. (1992). Context- dependent variation in social stereotyping 1: The effects of intergroup relations as mediated by social change and frame of reference. European Journal of Social Psychology, 22(1), 3-20. Hayes, A. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. New York: Guilford Press. Heath, Y., & Gifford, R. (2006). Free-market ideology and environmental degradation: The case of belief in global climate change. Environment and Behavior, 38(1), 48-71. doi:10.1177/0013916505277998 Henion, K. E., Gregory, R., & Clee, M. A. (1981). Trade-offs in attribute levels made by ecologically concerned and unconcerned consumers when buying detergents. Advances in Consumer Research, 8(1), 624-629. Henrich, J., Heine, S. J., & Norenzayan, A. (2010). The weirdest people in the world? Behavioral & Brain Sciences, 33(2-3), 61-135. doi:10.1017/S0140525X0999152X Herter, M., Costa-Pinto, D., Borges, A., & Nique, W. (2011). Going green for friends, family or community? How different levels of subject norms and identity influence green behavior. Advances in Consumer Research, 39, 707-708.
REFERENCES 217
Hilton, J. L., & van Hippel, W. (1996). Stereotypes. Annual Review of Psychology, 47(1), 237-271. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.47.1.237 Hinds, J., & Sparks, P. (2008). Engaging with the natural environment: The role of affective connection and identity. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 28(2), 109-120. doi:10.1016/j.jenvp.2007.11.001 Hines, J. M., Hungerford, H. R., & Tomera, A. N. (1987). Analysis and synthesis of research on responsible environmental behavior: A meta-analysis. Journal of Environmental Education, 18(2), 1-8. doi:10.1080/00958964.1987.9943482 Hitlin, S. (2003). Values as the core of personal identity: Drawing links between two theories of self. Social Psychology Quarterly, 66(2), 118-137. Hoffarth, M. R., & Hodson, G. (2016). Green on the outside, red on the inside: Perceived environmentalist threat as a factor explaining political polarization of climate change. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 45, 40-49. doi:10.1016/j.jenvp.2015.11.002 Hogg, M. A. (2000). Subjective uncertainty reduction through self-categorization: A motivational theory of social identity processes. European Review of Social Psychology, 11(1), 223-255. Hogg, M. A. (2001a). A social identity theory of leadership. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 5(3), 184-200. doi:10.1207/s15327957pspr0503_1 Hogg, M. A. (2001b). Social categorization, depersonalization, and group behavior. In M. A. Hogg & R. S. Tindale (Eds.), Blackwell handbook of social psychology: Group processes (pp. 56-85). Oxford: Blackwell. Hogg, M. A. (2006a). Social identity theory. In P. J. Burke (Ed.), Contemporary social psychological theories (pp. 111-136). Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press. Hogg, M. A., & Abrams, D. (1988). Social identifications: A social psychology of intergroup relations and group processes. London: Routledge. Hogg, M. A., Fielding, K. S., Johnson, D., Masser, B., Russell, E., & Svensson, A. (2006b). Demographic category membership and leadership in small groups: A social identity analysis. Leadership Quarterly, 17(4), 335-350. doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2006.04.007 Hogg, M. A., & Reid, S. A. (2006). Social identity, self‐categorization, and the communication of group norms. Communication Theory, 16(1), 7-30.
REFERENCES 218
Hogg, M. A., Terry, D. J., & White, K. M. (1995). A tale of two theories: A critical comparison of identity theory with social identity theory. Social Psychology Quarterly, 58(4), 255-269. Hogg, M. A., & Turner, J. C. (1987). Intergroup behaviour, self-stereotyping and the salience of social categories. British Journal of Social Psychology, 26(4), 325- 340. doi:10.1111/j.2044-8309.1987.tb00795.x Holland, D., Tesch, D., Kitchell, A., & Kempton, W. (2000). Identities and actions within environmental groups. Human Ecology Review, 7(2), 1-20. Hornsey, M. J. (2006). Ingroup critics and their influence on groups. In T. Postmes & J. Jetten (Eds.), Individuality and the group: Advances in social identity (pp. 74– 91). London: Sage. Hornsey, M. J. (2008). Social identity theory and self-categorization theory: A historical review. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 2(1), 204-222. Hornsey, M. J., & Hogg, M. A. (2000a). Assimilation and diversity: An integrative model of subgroup relations. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 4(2), 143-156. Hornsey, M. J., & Hogg, M. A. (2000b). Subgroup relations: A comparison of mutual intergroup differentiation and common ingroup identity models of prejudice reduction. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26(2), 242-256. Hornsey, M. J., Oppes, T., & Svensson, A. (2002). “It’s OK if we say it, but you can’t”: Responses to intergroup and intragroup criticism. European Journal of Social Psychology, 32(3), 293-307. Horton, D. (2004). Green distinctions: The performance of identity among environmental activists. Sociological Review, 52(Supp 1), 63-77. doi:10.1111/j.1467-954X.2004.00451.x Houston, S. (2001). Beyond social constructionism: Critical realism and social work. British Journal of Social Work, 31(6), 845-861. Hsieh, H.-F., & Shannon, S. E. (2005). Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qualitative Health Research, 15(9), 1277-1288. doi:10.1177/1049732305276687 Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation
REFERENCES 219
Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1-55. doi:10.1080/10705519909540118 Huddy, L. (2001). From social to political identity: A critical examination of social identity theory. Political Psychology, 22(1), 127-156. doi:10.1111/0162- 895X.00230 Huff, C., & Tingley, D. (2015). “Who are these people?” Evaluating the demographic characteristics and political preferences of MTurk survey respondents. Research & Politics, 2(3), 1-12. doi:10.1177/2053168015604648 Hutchings, K. (2005). Don’t call me a tree hugger!: Sticks, stones, and stereotypes in ecocriticism. Interdisciplinary Literary Studies, 7(1), 5-26. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). (2013). Summary for policymakers. In T. F. Stocker, D. Quin, G.-K. Plattner, M. Tignor, S. K. Allen, J. Boschung, A. Nauels, Y. Xia, V. Bex & P. M. Midgley (Eds.). Climate change 2013: The Physical science basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, and New York. Jackson, T. (2005). Motivating sustainable consumption: A review of evidence on consumer behaviour and behavioural change (Report to the Sustainable Development Research Network). Retrieved from http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.337.433&rep=rep1&ty pe=pdf Jacob, S. A., & Furgerson, S. P. (2012). Writing interview protocols and conducting interviews. The Qualitative Report, 17(6), 1-10. Jacoby, J. (2001). Consumer psychology. In N. J. Smelser & P. B. Baltes (Eds.), International encyclopedia of the social and behavioral sciences (pp. 2674-2678). Oxford: Pergamon. Jansson, J., Marell, A., & Nordlund, A. (2010). Green consumer behavior: Determinants of curtailment and eco-innovation adoption. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 27(4), 358-370. doi:10.1108/07363761011052396 Jetten, J., Haslam, C., & Haslam, S. A. (Eds.) (2012). The social cure: Identity, health and well-being. New York: Psychology Press.
REFERENCES 220
Jetten, J., Haslam, C., Haslam, S. A., & Branscombe, N. R. (2009). The social cure. Scientific American Mind, 20(5), 26-33. Jetten, J., Postmes, T., & McAuliffe, B. J. (2002). ‘We’re all individuals’: Group norms of individualism and collectivism, levels of identification and identity threat. European Journal of Social Psychology, 32(2), 189-207. doi:10.1002/ejsp.65 Jetten, J., Spears, R., & Postmes, T. (2004). Intergroup distinctiveness and differentiation: A meta-analytic investigation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86, 862-879. Johe, M. H., & Bhullar, N. (2016). To buy or not to buy: The roles of self-identity, attitudes, perceived behavioral control and norms in organic consumerism. Ecological Economics, 128, 99-105. doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2016.02.019 Jones, D. (2010). A WEIRD view of human nature skews psychologists’ studies. Science, 328(5986), 1627-1627. Kaiser, F. G. (1998). A general measure of ecological behavior. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 28(5), 395-422. Kaiser, F. G., & Wilson, M. (2000). Assessing people’s general ecological behavior: A cross-cultural measure. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 30(5), 952-978. Kashima, Y., Paladino, A., & Margetts, E. A. (2014). Environmentalist identity and environmental striving. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 38, 64-75. doi:10.1016/j.jenvp.2013.12.014 Kelly, C. (1993). Group identification, intergroup perceptions and collective action. European Review of Social Psychology, 4(1), 59-83. doi:10.1080/14792779343000022 Kelly, C., & Breinlinger, S. (1995). Attitudes, intentions, and behavior: A study of women’s participation in collective action. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 25(16), 1430-1445. Kim, G. S., Lee, G. Y., & Park, K. (2010). A cross-national investigation on how ethical consumers build loyalty toward fair trade brands. Journal of Business Ethics, 96(4), 589-611. Kim, H., Lee, E.-J., & Hur, W.-M. (2012). The mediating role of norms in the relationship between green identity and purchase intention of eco-friendly products. Human Ecology Review, 19(2), 125-135.
REFERENCES 221
Kim, Y., & Choi, S. M. (2005). Antecedents of green purchase behavior: An examination of collectivism, environmental concern, and PCE. Advances in Consumer Research, 32(1), 592-599. Kline, R. B. (2004). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. New York: Guilford Press. Kozinets, R. V., & Handelman, J. M. (2004). Adversaries of consumption: Consumer movements, activism, and ideology. Journal of Consumer Research, 31(3), 691- 704. Laffoley, D., & Baxter, J. M. (Eds.). (2016). Explaining ocean warming: Causes, scale, effects and consequences. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN. Larson, L. R., Stedman, R. C., Cooper, C. B., & Decker, D. J. (2015). Understanding the multi-dimensional structure of pro-environmental behavior. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 43, 112-124. doi:10.1016/j.jenvp.2015.06.004 Layman, G. C., Carsey, T. M., & Horowitz, J. M. (2006). Party polarization in American politics: Characteristics, causes, and consequences. Annual Review of Political Science, 9, 83-110. doi:10.1146/annurev.polisci.9.070204.105138 Leiber, N. (2003, June). 3 questions for Anna Lappé. O, The Oprah Magazine, 4, 72. Leonidou, L. C., Leonidou, C. N., & Kvasova, O. (2010). Antecedents and outcomes of consumer environmentally friendly attitudes and behaviour. Journal of Marketing Management, 26(13/14), 1319-1344. doi:10.1080/0267257X.2010.523710 Levay, K. E., Freese, J., & Druckman, J. N. (2016). The demographic and political composition of Mechanical Turk samples. SAGE Open, 6(1), 1-17. Light, A. (2000). What is an ecological identity? Environmental Politics, 9(4), 59-81. Lim, W. M., Ting, D. H., Bonaventure, V. S., Sendiawan, A. P., & Tanusina, P. P. (2013). What happens when consumers realise about green washing? A qualitative investigation. International Journal of Global Environmental Issues, 13(1), 14-24. doi:10.1504/IJGENVI.2013.057323 Lindblom, J., & Jacobsson, K. (2014). A deviance perspective on social movements: The case of animal rights activism. Deviant Behavior, 35(2), 133-151. Liss, M., Crawford, M., & Popp, D. (2004). Predictors and correlates of collective action. Sex Roles, 50(11/12), 771-779.
REFERENCES 222
Liss, M., O’Connor, C., Morosky, E., & Crawford, M. (2001). What makes a feminist? Predictors and correlates of feminist social identity in college women. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 25(2), 124-133. doi:10.1111/1471-6402.00014 López-Mosquera, N., Garcia, T., & Barrena, R. (2014). An extension of the Theory of Planned Behavior to predict willingness to pay for the conservation of an urban park. Journal of Environmental Management, 135, 91-99. doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2014.01.019 Mancha, R. M., & Yoder, C. Y. (2015). Cultural antecedents of green behavioral intent: An environmental theory of planned behavior. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 43, 145-154. doi:10.1016/j.jenvp.2015.06.005 Mannetti, L., Pierro, A., & Livi, S. (2004). Recycling: Planned and self-expressive behaviour. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 24(2), 227-236. Markle, G. L. (2013). Pro-environmental behavior: Does it matter how it’s measured? Development and validation of the Pro-Environmental Behavior Scale (PEBS). Human Ecology, 41(6), 905-914. doi:10.1007/s10745-013-9614-8 Matsuba, M. K., Pratt, M. W., Norris, J. E., Mohle, E., Alisat, S., & McAdams, D. P. (2012). Environmentalism as a context for expressing identity and generativity: Patterns among activists and uninvolved youth and midlife adults. Journal of Personality, 80(4), 1091-1115. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6494.2012.00765. Mayring, P. (2004). Qualitative content analysis. In U. Flick, E. von Kardorff & I. Steinke (Eds.), A companion to qualitative research (pp. 266-269). London: Sage. McCright, A. M., Xiao, C., & Dunlap, R. E. (2014). Political polarization on support for government spending on environmental protection in the USA, 1974-2012. Social Science Research, 48, 251-260. doi:10.1016/j.ssresearch.201.06.008 McDonald, R. I., Fielding, K. S., & Louis, W. R. (2014). Conflicting norms highlight the need for action. Environment and Behavior, 46, 139-162. doi:10.1177/0013916512453992 McDonald, S., Oates, C., Thyne, M., Alevizou, P., & McMorland, L.-A. (2009). Comparing sustainable consumption patterns across product sectors. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 33(2), 137-145. doi:10.1111/j.1470- 6431.2009.00755.x
REFERENCES 223
McFarlane, B. L., & Boxall, P. C. (2003). The role of social psychological and social structural variables in environmental activism: An example of the forest sector. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 23(1), 79-87. doi:10.1016/S0272- 4944(02)00080-4 McFarlane, B. L., & Hunt, L. M. (2006). Environmental activism in the forest sector: Social psychological, social-cultural, and contextual effects. Environment & Behavior, 38(2), 266-285. doi:10.1177/0013916505277999 McGarty, C. (2001). Social Identity Theory does not maintain that identification produces bias, and Self-categorization Theory does not maintain that salience is identification: Two comments on Mummendey, Klink and Brown. British Journal of Social Psychology, 40(2), 173–176. McGarty, C., Bliuc, A.-M., Thomas, E. F., & Bongiorno, R. (2009). Collective action as the material expression of opinion-based group membership. Journal of Social Issues, 65(4), 839-857. McGarty, C., Turner, J. C., Hogg, M. A., David, B., & Wetherell, M. S. (1992). Group polarization as conformity to the prototypical group member. British Journal of Social Psychology, 31(1), 1-19. doi:10.1111/j.2044-8309.1992.tb00952.x McGarty, C., Yzerbyt, V. Y., & Spears, R. (Eds.) (2002). Stereotypes as explanations: The formation of meaningful beliefs about social groups. New York: Cambridge University Press. Micheletti, M., & Stolle, D. (2012). Sustainable citizenship and the new politics of consumption. Annals of the American Academy of Political & Social Science, 644(1), 88-120. doi:10.1177/0002716212454836 Mintel International Group Ltd. (2014). Marketing to the green consumer – US – March 2013. Retrieved from http://www.marketresearch.com/Mintel-International- Group-Ltd-v614/Green-Consumer-March-7502261/ Minton, A. P., & Rose, R. L. (1997). The effects of environmental concern on environmentally friendly consumer behavior: An exploratory study. Journal of Business Research, 40(1), 37-48. doi:10.1016/S0148-2963(96)00209-3 Moisander, J. (2007). Motivational complexity of green consumerism. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 31(4), 404-409. doi:10.1111/j.1470- 6431.2007.00586.x
REFERENCES 224
Moisander, J., & Pesonen, S. (2002). Narratives of sustainable ways of living: Constructing the self and the other as a green consumer. Management Decision, 40(4), 329-342. doi:10.1108/00251740210426321 Morse, J. M. (1995). Editorial: The significance of saturation. Qualitative Health Research, 5(2), 147-149. Morse, J. M. (2008). Confusing categories and themes. Qualitative Health Research, 18(6), 727-728. doi:10.1177/1049732308314930 Mostafa, M. M. (2007). Gender differences in Egyptian consumers’ green purchase behaviour: The effects of environmental knowledge, concern and attitude. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 31(3), 220-229. doi:10.1111/j.1470- 6431.2006.00523.x Muldoon, A. (2006). Where the green is: Examining the paradox of environmentally conscious consumption. Electronic Green Journal, 1(23). Mullin, B.-A., & Hogg, M. A. (1999). Motivations for group membership: The role of subjective importance and uncertainty reduction. Basic & Applied Social Psychology, 21(2), 91-102. Murphy, P., & Dee, J. (1996). Reconciling the preferences of environmental activists and corporate policymakers. Journal of Public Relations Research, 8(1), 1-33. Neilson, L. A. (2010). Boycott or buycott? Understanding political consumerism. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 9(3), 214-227. doi:10.1002/cb.313 Nelson, J. A., Liss, M., Erchull, M. J., Hurt, M. M., Ramsey, L. R., Turner, D. L., & Haines, M. E. (2008). Identity in action: Predictors of feminist self-identification and collective action. Sex Roles, 58(9/10), 721-728. doi:10.1007/s11199-007- 9384-0 Nielsen. (2011). Sustainable efforts and environmental concerns. Retrieved from www.nielsen.com/us/en/insights/reports-downloads/2011/sustainable-eíforts- environmentalconcerns.html Nigbur, D., Lyons, E., & Uzzell, D. (2010). Attitudes, norms, identity and environmental behaviour: Using an expanded theory of planned behaviour to predict participation in a kerbside recycling programme. British Journal of Social Psychology, 49(2), 259-284. doi:10.1348/014466609X449395
REFERENCES 225
Niva, M., & Timonen, P. (2001). The role of consumers in product-oriented environmental policy: Can the consumer be the driving force for environmental improvements? International Journal of Consumer Studies, 25(4), 331-338. doi:10.1046/j.1470-6431.2001.00204.x Oakes, P. (2002). Psychological groups and political psychology: A response to Huddy’s “Critical examination of social identity theory”. Political Psychology, 23(4), 809-824. doi:10.1111/0162-895X.00308 Oakes, P. J. (1987). The salience of social categories. In J. C. Turner, M. A. Hogg, P. J. Oakes, S. D. Reicher & M. S. Wetherell (Eds.), Rediscovering the social group: A self-categorization theory (pp. 117-141). Oxford: Blackwell. Oakes, P. J., Haslam, S. A., & Reynolds, K. J. (1999). Social categorization and social context: Is stereotype change a matter of information or of meaning? In D. Abrams, M. A. Hogg, D. Abrams & M. A. Hogg (Eds.), Social identity and social cognition. (pp. 55-79). Malden: Blackwell Publishing. Oakes, P. J., Haslam, S. A., & Turner, J. C. (1994). Stereotyping and social reality. Oxford: Blackwell. Oakes, P. J., Turner, J. C., & Haslam, S. A. (1991). Perceiving people as group members: The role of fit in the salience of social categorizations. British Journal of Social Psychology, 30(2), 125-144. doi:10.1111/j.2044-8309.1991.tb00930.x Ogrodnik, C., & Staggenborg, S. (2016). The ebb and flow of environmentalism. Sociology Compass, 10(3), 218-229. Ölander, F., & Thøgersen, J. (1995). Understanding of consumer behaviour as a prerequisite for environmental protection. Journal of Consumer Policy, 18, 345- 385. Olli, E., Grendstad, G., & Wollebaek, D. (2001). Correlates of environmental behaviors: Bringing back social context. Environment and Behavior, 33(2), 181-208. doi:10.1177/0013916501332002 Olson, E. (2013). It’s not easy being green: The effects of attribute tradeoffs on green product preference and choice. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 41(2), 171-184. doi:10.1007/s11747-012-0305-6
REFERENCES 226
Opotow, S., & Brook, A. T. (2003). Identity and exclusion in rangeland conflict. In S. Clayton & S. Opotow (Eds.), Identity and the natural environment (pp. 249–272). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Opotow, S., & Weiss, L. (2000). Denial and the process of moral exclusion in environmental conflict. Journal of Social Issues, 56(3), 475-490. doi:10.1111/0022-4537.00179 Opperman, E., Braun, V., Clarke, V., & Rogers, C. (2014). “It feels so good it almost hurts”: Young adults’ experiences of orgasm and sexual pleasure. Journal of Sex Research, 51(5), 503-515. doi:10.1080/00224499.2012.753982 O’Reilly, M., & Parker, N. (2012). ‘Unsatisfactory saturation’: A critical exploration of the notion of saturated sample sizes in qualitative research. Qualitative Research, 13(2), 190-197. doi:10.1177/1468794112446106 Osbaldiston, R. (2013). Synthesizing the experiments and theories of conservation psychology. Sustainability, 5(6), 2770-2795. doi:10.3390/su5062770 Osbaldiston, R., & Schott, J. P. (2012). Environmental sustainability and behavioral science: Meta-analysis of proenvironmental behavior experiments. Environment and Behavior, 44(2), 257-299. doi:10.1177/0013916511402673 Oskamp, S. (2000). Psychology of promoting environmentalism: Psychological contributions to achieving an ecologically sustainable future for humanity. Journal of Social Issues, 56(3), 373-390. doi:10.1111/0022-4537.00173 Owen, A., Videras, J., & Wu, S. (2010). Identity and environmentalism: the influence of community characteristics. Review of Social Economy, 68(4), 465-486. doi:10.1080/00346760903480533 Pagiaslis, A., & Krontalis, A. K. (2014). Green consumption behavior antecedents: Environmental concern, knowledge, and beliefs. Psychology & Marketing, 31(5), 335-348. doi:10.1002/mar.20698 Paladino, A. (2005). Understanding the green consumer: An empirical analysis. Journal of Customer Behaviour, 4(1), 69-102. doi:10.1362/1475392053750306 Papaoikonomou, E., Ryan, G., & Valverde, M. (2011). Mapping ethical consumer behavior: Integrating the empirical research and identifying future directions. Ethics & Behavior, 21(3), 197-221. doi:10.1080/10508422.2011.570165
REFERENCES 227
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications. Peattie, K. (2001). Golden goose or wild goose? The hunt for the green consumer. Business Strategy & the Environment, 10(4), 187-199. doi:10.1002/bse.292 Peattie, K. (2010). Green consumption: Behavior and norms. Annual Review of Environment & Resources, 35(1), 195-228. doi:10.1146/annurev-environ- 032609-094328 Pedersen, E. R., & Neergaard, P. (2006). Caveat emptor – Let the buyer beware! Environmental labelling and the limitations of ‘green’ consumerism. Business Strategy & the Environment, 15(1), 15-29. doi:10.1002/bse.434 Pelletier, L. G., Lavergne, K. J., & Sharp, E. C. (2008). Environmental psychology and sustainability: Comments on topics important for our future. Canadian Psychology/Psychologie Canadienne, 49(4), 304-308. doi:10.1037/a0013658 Perera, L. C. R. (2014). A processual theory of green identity formation: The case of young environmentalists in Australia. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 38(3), 289-296. doi:10.1111/ijcs.12096 Peters, K., Ryan, M. K., & Haslam, S. A. (2015). Marines, medics, and machismo: Lack of fit with masculine occupational stereotypes discourages men’s participation. British Journal of Psychology, 106(4), 635-655. doi:10.1111/bjop.12106 Pieters, R., Bijmolt, T., van Raaij, F., & de Kruijk, M. (1998). Consumers’ attributions of proenvironmental behavior, motivation, and ability to self and others. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 17(2), 215-225. Polonsky, M. J., Vocino, A., Grau, S. L., Garma, R., & Ferdous, A. S. (2012). The impact of general and carbon-related environmental knowledge on attitudes and behaviour of US consumers. Journal of Marketing Management, 28(3/4), 238- 263. doi:10.1080/0267257X.2012.659279 Poortinga, W., Steg, L., & Vlek, C. (2004). Values, environmental concern, and environmental behavior: A study into household energy use. Environment and Behavior, 36(1), 70-93. doi:10.1177/0013916503251466 Postmes, T., & Jetten, J. (Eds.). (2006). Individuality and the group: Advances in social identity. London: Sage.
REFERENCES 228
Postmes, T., Rabinovich, A., Morton, T. A., & van Zomeren, M. (2014). Toward sustainable social identities: Including our collective future into the self-concept. In H. C. M. van Trijp (Ed.), Encouraging sustainable behavior: Psychology and the environment (pp. 185-202). New York: Psychology Press. Potter, J., & Hepburn, A. (2005). Qualitative interviews in psychology: Problems and possibilities. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 2(4), 281-307. doi:10.1191/1478088705qp045oa Prati, G., Albanesi, C., & Pietrantoni, L. (2015). The interplay among environmental attitudes, pro-environmental behavior, social identity, and pro-environmental institutional climate. A longitudinal study. Environmental Education Research. Advance online publication. doi:10.1080/13504622.2015.1118752 Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2008). Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior Research Methods, 40(3), 879-891. Rabinovich, A., Morton, T. A., Postmes, T., & Verplanken, B. (2012). Collective self and individual choice: The effects of inter‐group comparative context on environmental values and behaviour. British Journal of Social Psychology, 51(4), 551-569. doi:10.1111/j.2044-8309.2011.02022.x Rees, J. H., & Bamberg, S. (2014). Climate protection needs societal change: Determinants of intention to participate in collective climate action. European Journal of Social Psychology, 44(5), 466-473. doi:10.1002/ejsp.2032 Reese, G. (2016). Common human identity and the path to global climate justice. Climatic Change, 134(4), 521-531. doi:10.1007/s10584-015-1548-2 Reese, G., & Kohlmann, F. (2015). Feeling global, acting ethically: Global identification and fairtrade consumption. Journal of Social Psychology, 155(2), 98-106. doi:10.1080/00224545.2014.992850 Reicher, S. (1984). The St. Pauls’ riot: An explanation of the limits of crowd action in terms of a social identity model. European Journal of Social Psychology, 14, 1- 21. doi:10.1002/ejsp.2420140102 Reicher, S. (2004). The context of social identity: Domination, resistance, and change. Political Psychology, 25(6), 921-94
REFERENCES 229
Reicher, S., Spears, R., & Haslam, S. A. (2010). The social identity approach in social psychology. In M. Wetherell & C. Mohanty (Eds.), The SAGE identities handbook (pp. 45-62). London: Sage. Reisch, L. A., & Thøgersen, J. (Eds.) (2015). Handbook of research on sustainable consumption. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing. Reynolds, K. J., Subašić, E., & Tindall, K. (2015). The problem of behaviour change: From social norms to an ingroup focus. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 9(1), 45-56. doi:10.1111/spc3.12155 Reysen, S., & Katzarska-Miller, I. (2013). A model of global citizenship: Antecedents and outcomes. International Journal of Psychology, 48(5), 858-870. Roberts, J. A. (1996). Green consumers in the 1990s: Profile and implications for advertising. Journal of Business Research, 36, 217-231. Roberts, J. A., & Bacon, D. R. (1997). Exploring the subtle relationships between environmental concern and ecologically conscious consumer behavior. Journal of Business Research, 40(1), 79-89. doi:10.1016/S0148-2963(96)00280-9 Robinson, O. C. (2014). Sampling in interview-based qualitative research: Theoretical and practical guide. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 11(1), 25-41. doi:10.1080/14780887.2013.801543 Robnett, R., Anderson, K., & Hunter, L. (2012). Predicting feminist identity: Associations between gender-traditional attitudes, feminist stereotyping, and ethnicity. Sex Roles, 67(3-4), 143-157. doi:10.1007/s11199-012-0170-2 Roe, B., Teisl, M. F., Levy, A., & Russell, M. (2001). US consumers’ willingness to pay for green electricity. Energy Policy, 29(11), 917-925. Roy, R. E., Weibust, K. S., & Miller, C. T. (2007). Effects of stereotypes about feminists on feminist self-identification. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 31(2), 146-156. Rubin, M., & Hewstone, M. (1998). Social identity theory’s self-esteem hypothesis: A review and some suggestions for clarification. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 2(1), 40-62. Ruepert, A., Keizer, K., Steg, L., Maricchiolo, F., Carrus, G., Dumitru, A., . . . Moza, D. (2016). Environmental considerations in the organizational context: A pathway to pro-environmental behaviour at work. Energy Research and Social Science, 17, 59-70. doi:10.1016/j.erss.2016.04.004
REFERENCES 230
Ruiz-Junco, N. (2011). “Losing neutrality in your everyday life”: Framing experience and activist identity construction in the Spanish environmental movement. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 40(6), 709-729. doi:10.1177/0891241611420842 Sandelowski, M. (1994). Notes on qualitative methods: Notes on transcriptions. Research in Nursing & Health, 17, 311-314. Sandelowski, M. (1995). Sample size in qualitative research. Research in Nursing & Health, 18(2), 179-183. doi:10.1002/nur.4770180211 Sandelowski, M. (2001). Real qualitative researchers do not count: The use of numbers in qualitative research. Research in Nursing & Health, 24(3), 230-240. Schlegelmilch, B. B., Bohlen, G. M., & Diamantopoulos, A. (1996). The link between green purchasing decisions and measures of environmental consciousness. European Journal of Marketing, 30(5), 35-55. Schultz, T., & Fielding, K. (2014). The common in-group identity model enhances communication about recycled water. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 40, 296-305. doi:10.1016/j.jenvp.2014.07.006 Schultz, P. W., Gouveia, V. V., Cameron, L. D., Tankha, G., Schmuck, P., & Franëk, M. (2005). Values and their relationship to environmental concern and conservation behavior. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 36(4), 457-475. doi:10.1177/0022022105275962 Séguin, C., Pelletier, L. G., & Hunsley, J. (1998). Toward a model of environmental activism. Environment and Behavior, 30(5), 628-652. doi:10.1177/001391659803000503 Shirani, F., Henwood, K., Parkhill, K., Pidgeon, N., & Butler, C. (2015). ‘I’m not a tree hugger, I’m just like you’: Changing perceptions of sustainable lifestyles. Environmental Politics, 24(1), 57-74. doi:10.1080/09644016.2014.959247 Shrum, L. J., McCarty, J. A., & Lowrey, T. M. (1995). Buyer characteristics of the green consumer and their implications for advertising strategy. Journal of Advertising, 24(2), 71-82. Sims-Schouten, W., Riley, S. C. E., & Willig, C. (2007). Critical realism in discourse analysis. Theory & Psychology, 17(1), 101-124. doi:10.1177/0959354307073153
REFERENCES 231
Sobel, M. E. (1982). Asymptotic confidence intervals for indirect effects in structural equation models. In S. Leinart (Ed.), Sociological methodology (Vol. 13, pp. 290-312). New York: Wiley. Soron, D. (2010). Sustainability, self-identity and the sociology of consumption. Sustainable Development, 18(3), 172-181. doi:10.1002/sd.457 Spaargaren, G. (2003). Sustainable consumption: A theoretical and environmental policy perspective. Society and Natural Resources, 16, 687-701. doi:10.1080/089419203920390217429 Sparks, P. (2013). The psychology of sustainability: Attitudes, identities, actions, and engaging with the welfare of others. In H. C. M. van Trijp (Ed.), Encouraging sustainable behavior: Psychology and the environment (pp. 169-184). New York: Psychology Press. Sparks, P., & Guthrie, C. A. (1998). Self-identity and the theory of planned behavior: A Useful addition or an unhelpful artifice? Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 28(15), 1393-1410. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.1998.tb01683.x Sparks, P., & Shepherd, R. (1992). Self-identity and the theory of planned behavior: Assessing the role of identification with “green consumerism”. Social Psychology Quarterly, 55(4), 388-399. Spears, R. (2011). Group identities: The social identity perspective. In S. J. Schwartz, K. Luyckx, & V. L. Vignoles (Eds.), Handbook of identity theory and research (pp. 201-224). New York: Springer New York. Stapleton, S. R. (2015). Environmental identity development through social interactions, action, and recognition. Journal of Environmental Education, 46(2), 94-113. doi:10.1080/00958964.2014.1000813 Steg, L. (2015). Environmental psychology and sustainable consumption. In L. A. Reisch & J. Thøgersen (Eds.), Handbook of research on sustainable consumption (pp. 70-83). Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing. Steg, L., & de Groot, J. I. M. (2012). Environmental values. In S. D. Clayton (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of environmental and conservation psychology (pp. 81-92). New York: Oxford University Press.
REFERENCES 232
Steg, L., & Nordlund, A. (2012). Models to explain environmental behaviour. In L. Steg, A. E. van den Berg & J. I. M. de Groot (Eds.), Environmental psychology: An Introduction (pp. 185-194). Chichester, West Sussex: Wiley-Blackwell. Steg, L., van den Berg, A. E., & de Groot, J. I. M. (Eds.). (2012). Environmental psychology: An introduction. Chichester, West Sussex: Wiley-Blackwell. Steg, L., & Vlek, C. (2009). Encouraging pro-environmental behaviour: An integrative review and research agenda. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 29(3), 309- 317. doi:10.1016/j.jenvp.2008.10.004 Stemler, S. (2001). An overview of content analysis. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 7(17). Stern, P. C. (1999). Information, incentives, and proenvironmental consumer behavior. Journal of Consumer Policy, 22(4), 461-478. Stern, P. C. (2000). New environmental theories: Toward a coherent theory of environmentally significant behavior. Journal of Social Issues, 56(3), 407-424. doi:10.1111/0022-4537.00175 Stern, P. C. (2011). Contributions of psychology to limiting climate change. American Psychologist, 66(4), 303-314. doi:10.1037/a0023235 Stern, P. C., Dietz, T., & Guagnano, G. A. (1995). The new ecological paradigm in social-psychological context. Environment and Behavior, 27(6), 723-743. doi:10.1177/0013916595276001 Stern, P. C., Dietz, T., Kalof, L., Guagnano, G. A., & Abel, T. (1999). A value-belief- norm theory of support for social movements: The case of environmentalism. Human Ecology Review, 6(2), 82-97. Stets, J. E., & Biga, C. F. (2003). Bringing identity theory into environmental sociology. Sociological Theory, 21(4), 398-423. doi:10.1046/j.1467-9558.2003.00196.x Stets, J. E., & Burke, P. J. (2000). Identity theory and social identity theory. Social Psychology Quarterly, 63(3), 224-237. Stolle, D., Hooghe, M., & Micheletti, M. (2005). Politics in the supermarket: Political consumerism as a form of political participation. International Political Science Review, 26(3), 245-269. doi:10.1177/0192512105053784
REFERENCES 233
Straughan, R. D., & Roberts, J. A. (1999). Environmental segmentation alternatives: A look at green consumer behavior in the new millennium. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 16(6), 531-575. Sweetman, J., & Whitmarsh, L. E. (2016). Climate justice: High‐status ingroup social models increase pro‐environmental action through making actions seem more moral. Topics in Cognitive Science, 8(1), 196-221. doi:10.1111/tops.12178 Swim, J. K., Clayton, S., & Howard, G. S. (2011a). Human behavioral contributions to climate change: Psychological and contextual drivers. American Psychologist, 66(4), 251-264. doi:10.1037/a0023472 Swim, J. K., Stern, P. C., Doherty, T. J., Clayton, S., Reser, J. P., Weber, E. U., . . . Howard, G. S. (2011b). Psychology’s contributions to understanding and addressing global climate change. American Psychologist, 66(4), 241-250. doi:10.1037/a0023220 Swirsky, J. M., & Angelone, D. (2014). Femi-nazis and bra burning crazies: A qualitative evaluation of contemporary beliefs about feminism. Current Psychology, 33(3), 229-245. Tajfel, H. (1957). Value and the perceptual judgement of magnitude. Psychological Review, 64, 192-204. Tajfel, H. (1959). Quantitative judgement in social perception. British Journal of Psychology, 50, 16-29. Tajfel, H. (1981). Social stereotypes and social groups. In J. C. Turner & H. Giles (Eds.), Intergroup behaviour (pp. 144-167). Oxford: Blackwell. Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In W. G. Austin & S. Worchel (Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 33-47). Monterey, CA: Brooks-Cole. Tajfel, H., & Wilkes, A. L. (1963). Classification and quantitative judgement. British Journal of Social Psychology, 54, 101-114. Tanner, C., & Kast, S. W. (2003). Promoting sustainable consumption: Determinants of green purchases by Swiss consumers. Psychology & Marketing, 20(10), 883-902. Terry, D. J., & Hogg, M. A. (Eds.). (2000). Attitudes, behavior, and social context: The role of norms and group membership. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
REFERENCES 234
Terry, D. J., Hogg, M. A., & White, K. M. (1999). The theory of planned behaviour: Self-identity, social identity and group norms. British Journal of Social Psychology, 38(3), 225-244. doi:10.1348/014466699164149 Tesch, D., & Kempton, W. (2004). Who is an environmentalist? The polysemy of environmentalist terms and correlated environmental actions. Journal of Ecological Anthropology, 8(1), 67-83. doi:10.5038/2162-4593.8.1.4 Thatcher, V. L. (2014). The atypical environmentalist: The rhetoric of environmentalist identity and citizenship in the Texas coal plant opposition movement (Doctoral thesis, University of Texas at Austin, US). Retrieved from http://utexas-ir.tdl.org Thøgersen, J. (1999). The ethical consumer. Moral norms and packaging choice. Journal of Consumer Policy, 22(4), 439-460. Thøgersen, J. (2011). Green shopping: For selfish reasons or the common good? American Behavioral Scientist, 55(8), 1052-1076. doi:10.1177/0002764211407903 Thøgersen, J., & Ölander, F. (2002). Human values and the emergence of a sustainable consumption pattern: A panel study. Journal of Economic Psychology, 23(5), 605-630. Thøgersen, J., & Ölander, F. (2003). Spillover of environment-friendly consumer behaviour. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 23(3), 225-236. doi:10.1016/S0272-4944(03)00018-5 Thøgersen, J., & Ölander, F. (2006). The dynamic interaction of personal norms and environment-friendly buying behavior: A panel study. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 36(7), 1758-1780. doi:10.1111/j.0021-9029.2006.00080.x Thomas, E. F., Mavor, K. I., & McGarty, C. (2012). Social identities facilitate and encapsulate action-relevant constructs: A test of the social identity model of collective action. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 15(1), 75-88. doi:10.1177/1368430211413619 Thomas, E., McGarty, C., & Mavor, K. (2010). Social psychology of Making Poverty History: Motivating anti-poverty action in Australia. Australian Psychologist, 45(1), 4-15. doi:10.1080/00050060903447095 Thomashow, M. (1996). Ecological identity: Becoming a reflective environmentalist. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
REFERENCES 235
Toeriena, M., & Wilkinson, S. (2004). Exploring the depilation norm: A qualitative questionnaire study of women’s body hair removal. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 1(1), 69-92. doi:10.1191/1478088704qp006oa Tranter, B. (2010). Environmental activists and non-active environmentalists in Australia. Environmental Politics, 19(3), 413-429. doi:10.1080/09644011003690898 Turaga, R. M. R., Howarth, R. B., & Borsuk, M. E. (2010). Pro-environmental behavior: Rational choice meets moral motivation. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1185, 211-224. Turner, J. C. (1982). Towards a cognitive redefinition of the social group. In H. Tajfel (Ed.), Social identity and intergroup relations (pp. 15-40). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Turner, J. C. (1991). Social influence. Milton Keynes: Open University Press. Turner, J. C. (1999). Some current issues in research on social identity and self- categorization theories. In N. Ellemers, R. Spears, & B. Doosje (Eds.), Social identity: Context, commitment, content (pp. 6-34). Oxford: Blackwell. Turner, J. C., & Oakes, P. J. (1986). The significance of the social identity concept for social psychology with reference to individualism, interactionism and social influence. British Journal of Social Psychology, 25(3), 237-252. doi:10.1111/j.2044-8309.1986.tb00732.x Turner, J. C., Hogg, M. A., Oakes, P. J., Reicher, S. D., & Wetherell, M. S. (1987). Rediscovering the social group: A self-categorization theory. Oxford, UK: Blackwell. Turner, J. C., Oakes, P. J., Haslam, S. A., & McGarty, C. (1994). Self and collective: Cognition and social context. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 20(5), 454-463. Turner, J. C., Wetherell, M. S., & Hogg, M. A. (1989). Referent informational influence and group polarization. British Journal of Social Psychology, 28, 135-147. doi:10.1111/j.2044-8309.1989.tb00855.x Twenge, J. M., & Zucker, A. N. (1999). What is a feminist? Psychology of Women Quarterly, 23(3), 591-605.
REFERENCES 236 van der Werff, E., Steg, L., & Keizer, K. (2013a). I am what I am, by looking past the present: The influence of biospheric values and past behavior on environmental self-identity. Environment and Behavior, 46(5), 626-657. doi:10.1177/0013916512475209 van der Werff, E., Steg, L., & Keizer, K. (2013b). It is a moral issue: The relationship between environmental self-identity, obligation-based intrinsic motivation and pro-environmental behaviour. Global Environmental Change, 23(5), 1258-1265. doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2013.07.018 van der Werff, E., Steg, L., & Keizer, K. (2013c). The value of environmental self- identity: The relationship between biospheric values, environmental self-identity and environmental preferences, intentions and behaviour. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 34, 55-63. doi:10.1016/j.jenvp.2012.12.006 van der Werff, E., Steg, L., & Keizer, K. (2014). Follow the signal: When past pro- environmental actions signal who you are. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 40(0), 273-282. doi:10.1016/j.jenvp.2014.07.004 Veenstra, A. S., Lyons, B. A., & Fowler-Dawson, A. (2016). Conservatism vs. conservationism: Differential influences of social identities on beliefs about fracking. Environmental Communication, 10(3), 322-336. doi:10.1080/17524032.2015.1127851 Vermeir, I., & Verbeke, W. (2008). Sustainable food consumption among young adults in Belgium: Theory of planned behaviour and the role of confidence and values. Ecological Economics, 64(3), 542-553. doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2007.03.007 Vidal, J. (2012, October 20). ‘Environmental Taliban’ is the latest in a series of insults aimed at the greens. The Guardian. Retrieved from http://www.theguardian.com/environment/blog/2012/oct/19/environmental- taliban-george-osborne Vlek, C., & Steg, L. (2007). Human behavior and environmental sustainability: Problems, driving forces, and research topics. Journal of Social Issues, 63(1), 1- 19. doi:10.1111/j.1540-4560.2007.00493.x Wagner-Tsukamoto, S., & Tadajewski, M. (2006). Cognitive anthropology and the problem-solving behaviour of green consumers. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 5(3), 235-244. doi:10.1002/cb.175
REFERENCES 237
Wang, X., Tu, M., Yang, R., Guo, J., Yuan, Z., & Liu, W. (2016). Determinants of pro- environmental consumption intention in rural China: The role of traditional cultures, personal attitudes and reference groups. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 19(3), 215-224. doi:10.1111/ajsp.12142 Watt, J. (2014, May 6). Brazil’s ‘chainsaw queen’ takes on environmentalists. The Guardian. Retrieved from http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/may/05/brazil-chainsaw-queen- katia-abreu-amazon-deforestation Webb, D. J., Mohr, L. A., & Harris, K. E. (2008). A re-examination of socially responsible consumption and its measurement. Journal of Business Research, 61(2), 91-98. doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2007.05.007 Welsch, H., & Kühling, J. (2009). Determinants of pro-environmental consumption: The role of reference groups and routine behavior. Ecological Economics, 69(1), 166- 176. doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2009.08.009 White, K. J., & Simpson, B. (2013). When do (and don’t) normative appeals influence sustainable consumer behaviors. Journal of Marketing, 77(2), 78-95. White, K. M., & Hyde, M. K. (2012). The role of self-perceptions in the prediction of household recycling behavior in Australia. Environment & Behavior, 44(6), 785- 799. doi:10.1177/0013916511408069 White, K. M., Smith, J. R., Terry, D. J., Greenslade, J. H., & McKimmie, B. M. (2009). Social influence in the theory of planned behaviour: The role of descriptive, injunctive, and in-group norms. British Journal of Social Psychology, 48(1), 135- 158. doi:10.1348/014466608X295207 White, K., & Simpson, B. (2013). When do (and don't) normative appeals influence sustainable consumer behaviors. Journal of Marketing, 77(2), 78-95. Whitehouse, H. (2001). ‘Not greenies’ at school: Investigating the discourses of environmental activism in regional Australia. Australian Journal of Environmental Education, 17, 71-76. Whitehouse, H., & Evans, N. (2010). “I am not a greenie, but”: Negotiating a cultural discourse. Australian Journal of Environmental Education, 26, 19-31. Whitmarsh, L., & O’Neill, S. (2010). Green identity, green living? The role of pro- environmental self-identity in determining consistency across diverse pro-
REFERENCES 238
environmental behaviours. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 30(3), 305-314. doi:10.1016/j.jenvp.2010.01.003 Wikgren, M. (2005). Critical realism as a philosophy and social theory in information science? Journal of Documentation, 61(1), 11-22. doi:10.1108/00220410510577989 Williams, R., & Wittig, M. A. (1997). “I’m not a feminist, but…”: Factors contributing to the discrepancy between pro-feminist orientation and feminist social identity. Sex Roles, 37(11), 885-904. doi:10.1007/bf02936345 Willig, C. (2001). Introducing qualitative research in psychology: Adventures in theory and method. Philadelphia, PA: Open University Press. Worthington, R. L., & Whittaker, T. A. (2006). Scale development research: A content analysis and recommendations for best practices. Counseling Psychologist, 34(6), 806-838. doi:10.1177/0011000006288127 Wright, C., Nyberg, D., & Grant, D. (2012). “Hippies on the third floor”: Climate change, narrative identity and the micro-politics of corporate environmentalism. Organization Studies, 33(11), 1451-1475. doi:10.1177/0170840612463316 Wright, O. (2012, October 18). ‘The environmental Taliban’: George Orborne slams Parliamentary climate change campaigners as Treasury fights to water down Energy Bill commitments. The Independent. Retrieved from http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/the-environmental-taliban- george-osborne-slams-parliamentary-climate-change-campaigners-as-treasury- fights-to-water-down-energy-bill-commitments-8215495.html Yoder, J. D., Tobias, A., & Snell, A. F. (2011). When declaring “I am a feminist” matters: Labeling is linked to activism. Sex Roles, 64(1), 9-18. doi:10.1007/s11199-010-9890-3 Zamwel, E., Sasson-Levy, O., & Ben-Porat, G. (2014). Voluntary simplifiers as political consumers: Individuals practicing politics through reduced consumption. Journal of Consumer Culture, 14(2), 199-217. Zucker, A. N. (2004). Disavowing social identities: What it means when women say, “I’m not a feminist, but...”. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 28(4), 423-435. doi:10.1111/j.1471-6402.2004.00159.x
APPENDICES 239
Appendix A
Ethics Approval for Studies
A.1 Ethics Approval for Study 1 HEAG-H 59_2014
APPENDICES 240
A.2 Ethics Approval for Study 2 HEAG-H 128_2015
APPENDICES 241
A.3 Ethics Approval for Study 3 HEAG-H 06_2015
APPENDICES 243
Appendix B
Plain Language Statements and Consent Forms for Studies
B.1 Study 1 HEAG-H 59_2014
PLAIN LANGUAGE STATEMENT
TO: Participant
Plain Language Statement
Date:
Full Project Title: BUYING ‘GREEN’ PRODUCTS TO ACHIEVE ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGE: AN INVESTIGATION INTO CONSUMER’S PERCEPTIONS OF ‘GREEN CONSUMERISM’ Principal Researcher: Dr Janine McGuinness Student researcher: Ms Annamaria Klas Associate Researcher(s): Nil
You are invited to participate in this research project. Participation in any research project is voluntary. If you do not wish to take part in this research project, you are not obliged to. This Plain Language Statement contains detailed information about the research project. Its purpose is to explain to you as openly and clearly as possible all the procedures involved in this project so that you can make a fully informed decision about whether you are going to participate. Please read this Plain Language Statement carefully. Feel free to ask questions about any information in the document. You may also wish to discuss the project with a relative, friend or colleague. Feel free to do this.
APPENDICES 244
Once you have read this form and agree to participate, please sign the attached consent form and return it to the research team. You may keep this copy of the Plain Language Statement.
Purpose The purpose of this project is to investigate perceptions and experiences of ‘green consumerism’. ‘Green consumerism’ loosely refers to the phenomenon of individuals purchasing certain products in the hope of reducing environmental harm. Even though some research has examined individuals perceptions of price and effectiveness of these products, it is still unclear how consumers perceive ‘green consumerism’ overall. You do not need to be a consumer who buys these products to participate within this study. We are just interested in how the average consumer perceives ‘green consumerism’. The student researcher on this project is currently studying a Doctor of Philosophy (PhD) at Deakin University under the supervision of Dr Janine McGuinness. The results of this research will be used to help the student researcher to obtain their PhD in the discipline of Psychology.
Methods This research project will be an interview of approximately 40 minutes. It will be conducted either over the phone or at Deakin University. The interview will also be audio-recorded. It is expected that up to 20 people will participate in this project.
Demands By agreeing to be a participant in this study, you are agreeing to take part in an interview that will be audio-recorded and last up to 40 minutes. This interview will be either conducted face to face or over the phone. You will also not be reimbursed for the time it takes to conduct the interview. If you choose to do the interview in person, you will be required to travel to Deakin University, Burwood. You will not be reimbursed for this travel. Within the interview, you will be asked about your perceptions of ‘green consumerism’. Indicative interview questions include:
Please describe what comes to mind when you hear the term ‘green consumerism’? What do you think is involved in ‘green consumerism’?
You will also be asked some questions relating to demographics such as your age and level of education obtained.
APPENDICES 245
Payments A lottery will be held so that you will have the opportunity to win a $100 Coles-Myer voucher to compensate you for your time. One winner will be selected at random.
Funding This research is totally funded by the School of Psychology at Deakin University.
Risks and potential benefits to participants The risk of harm to you is not expected to be greater than that experienced in everyday life. We cannot guarantee or promise that you will receive any benefits from this project.
Expected benefits to the wider community It is expected that this project will benefit the wider community as it will assist us in examining green consumerism and how it may be related to other behaviours.
Provision of services to participants adversely affected by the research If you have any queries, complaints or concerns about the research project, you can contact principal investigator on this project Dr Janine McGuinness on (03) 9244 3735 or at [email protected]
How your privacy and confidentiality will be protected Only researchers associated within this project will have access to the collected data. The collected data will be kept in secure storage at Deakin University for a minimum of 6 years, in line with Deakin University regulations. Tape recordings of interviews will be stored in separate documents to other collected data. Once the data (including the tape recordings) are no longer needed after 6 years, it will then be destroyed. A report of the study may be submitted for publication but individual participants will not be identifiable in such a report as only pseudonyms will be used. For participants who choose to participate in the lottery, your email address will be kept for the duration of the study and stored within the School of Psychology’s storage system. Once the lottery is drawn, and a winner is contacted, your email addresses will be destroyed.
How you can access the results of the study, including publications The research, using pseudonyms, will be reported in a PhD thesis and may be presented at a conference. You are able to contact Dr Janine McGuinness on (03) 9244 3735 or at [email protected] at the completion of this study
APPENDICES 246
for a copy of the results. If you seek out this information, you will receive a brief written or verbal summary of the results. The research may also be submitted to a professional journal for publication if deemed appropriate. In this case, you are able to contact Dr Janine McGuinness for a copy of the publication.
How will the research will be monitored At all stages of this study, the research will be monitored by Dr Janine McGuinness (principal investigator).
Your rights as a research participant The interview is completely voluntary and you are in no way obliged to participate in this research project. If you do choose to participate, you also have the right to withdraw from the research project at any time. You may also ask up to the time of publication of the study that any information collected at your interview be destroyed and not used for the research project. Deciding not to participate or withdrawing your consent will not affect your relationship to the researchers or Deakin University. You have the right to decline to answer any questions if you experience discomfort. You also have the right to access transcripts of your interview. You can edit them if you wish.
Complaints Approval to undertake this project has been given by the Human Research Ethics Committee of Deakin University. If you have any complaints about any aspect of the project, the way it is being conducted or any questions about your rights as a research participant, then you may contact:
The Manager, Research Integrity, Deakin University, 221 Burwood Highway, Burwood Victoria 3125, Telephone: 9251 7129, [email protected]
Please quote project number [HEAG-H 59_2014].
APPENDICES 247
CONSENT FORM
TO: Participant
Consent Form
Date: Full Project Title: Buying ‘Green’ Products to Achieve Environmental Change: An Investigation into Consumer Perceptions of ‘Green Consumerism’ Reference Number: [HEAG-H 59_2014].
I have read and I understand the attached Plain Language Statement.
I freely agree to participate in this project according to the conditions in the Plain Language Statement.
I have been given a copy of the Plain Language Statement and Consent Form to keep.
The researcher has agreed not to reveal my identity and personal details, including where information about this project is published, or presented in any public form.
I understand that my participation will include audio taping. I understand that this audio data will be kept in secure storage for a minimum of 6 years, in line with Deakin University regulations.
I also understand that I have the option of reviewing and editing my interview transcript from the research project.
Participant’s Name (printed) ……………………………………………………………………
Signature ……………………………………………………… Date …………………………
APPENDICES 248
B.2 Study 2 HEAG-H 128_2015
LANDING PAGE
Thank you for your interest in our study. The purpose of this research project is to investigate people’s beliefs regarding various social groups. Participation in this anonymous online survey is completely voluntary. The survey will take between 10-15 minutes to complete. You will receive $1.50 upon completing the survey. If you wish to participate, you must be at least 18 years of age. Please click the button below to direct you to beginning of the study.
Approval to undertake this project has been given by the Human Research Ethics Committee of Deakin University, Australia.
APPENDICES 249
PLAIN LANGUAGE STATEMENT AND CONSENT FORM
TO: Participant
Plain Language Statement and Consent Form
Full Project Title: BELIEFS ABOUT ENVIRONMENTALISTS AND THEIR RELATIONSHIP TO IDENTITY, CONSUMERISM AND ACTIVISM
Principal Researcher: Dr Janine McGuinness (until 22/10/15), Dr Ben Richardson (from 23/10/15)
Student Researcher: Ms Annamaria Klas
You are invited to participate in this research project. You are not obliged to participate if you do not wish to. Please read this Plain Language Statement carefully. Its purpose is to clearly explain all the procedures involved in this research project so you can make a fully informed decision about whether you wish to participate. If you decide to participate, this anonymous online survey will take 10-15 minutes to complete. You will receive $1.50 upon completing the survey.
Purpose Current research is unclear whether people’s perceptions of environmentalists are related to their tendency to both engage in environmental behaviours and to identify as an environmentalist. We wish to investigate this possibility in more detail. As we are interested in getting a wide range of perspectives and opinions, you do not need to consider yourself an environmentalist to participate. You only need to be 18 or above to participate.
APPENDICES 250
Procedure and Demands This study will utilize a 10-15 minute anonymous online survey. This survey will contain items designed to assess your level of environmental identity and engagement in various environmental behaviours. You will also be asked some questions relating to your views on environmentalists as well as some demographic items (such as your age and annual income). You will indicate your consent to participate in the study by submitting the survey online. Data will then be screened to ensure valid responding. Subsequent analysis will be undertaken by the research team with the non-identified data. Amazon MTurk will not have access to this data.
Payments and Funding As a reimbursement for your time and effort, you will receive $1.50 as dispensed through the Amazon MTurk service. This research is totally funded by the School of Psychology at Deakin University, Melbourne, Australia.
Risk and Benefits The risk of harm to you is not expected to be greater than that experienced in everyday life. We cannot guarantee that you will receive any benefits from this project.
Privacy and Confidentiality Protection As your responses will be collected anonymously, there is no way the research team can connect participant responses to specific individuals. Only researchers associated with this project will have access to the non- identified, anonymous data. It will be kept in a secure storage at Deakin University for a minimum of 5 years – in line with Deakin University regulations – before it is permanently destroyed.
Access to the Results The research will be reported in a PhD thesis and may be presented at a conference. The research may also be submitted to a professional journal for publication. Only group averages will be reported. If you wish to do so, you are able to contact Ms Annamaria Klas at [email protected] for a copy of the results. If you seek out this information, you will receive a brief written summary once it is available.
APPENDICES 251
Provision of services to participants adversely affected by the research At all stages of this study, the research will be monitored by Dr Janine McGuinness (until 22/10/15) and Dr Ben Richardson (from 23/10/15) (principal investigators). If you have any queries, complaints or concerns about the research project, you can contact the principal investigators Dr Janine McGuinness (School of Psychology, Deakin University) at [email protected] (until 22/10/15), or Dr Ben Richardson (School of Psychology, Deakin University) at [email protected] (from 23/10/15). If you are experiencing a crisis, cannot contact a counsellor and need help urgently, we recommend contacting a mental health professional for further guidance (see http://www.mentalhealthamerica.net/find-affiliate).
Your Rights as a Research Participant Participation in this anonymous survey is completely voluntary. You are in no way obliged to participate. You also have the right to withdraw at any time up to the completion of your online questionnaire. However, due to our privacy protocols, removal of your responses from the sample after this time is impossible. Deciding not to participate or withdrawing your consent will not affect your relationship to the researchers or Deakin University. You also have the right to decline to answer any questions if you experience any discomfort.
Complaints If you have any complaints about any aspect of the project, the way it is being conducted or any questions about your rights as a research participant, then you may contact:
The Manager, Ethics and Biosafety, Deakin University, 221 Burwood Highway, Burwood Victoria 3125, Telephone: +61 03 9251 7129, research- [email protected]
Please quote project number [HEAG-H 128_2015].
By clicking the button below, you agree that you have read and understood the Plain Language Statement and that you consent to participate in this research. Thank you for your generosity in participating; it is sincerely appreciated.
APPENDICES 252
B.3 Study 3 HEAG-H 06_2015
RECRUITMENT NOTICE
Thank you for your interest in our study.
The purpose of this research project is to investigate people’s engagement in certain behaviours. It also aims to investigate whether these behaviours are related to one's identity.
Participation in this anonymous online survey is completely voluntary. The survey will take between 10-15 minutes to complete.
You will receive $1.00 upon completing the survey. If you wish to participate, you must be at least 18 years of age.
Please click the button below to direct you to beginning of the study.
Approval to undertake this project has been given by the Human Research Ethics Committee of Deakin University, Australia.
APPENDICES 253
PLAIN LANGUAGE STATEMENT AND CONSENT FORM
TO: Participant
Plain Language Statement and Consent Form
Full Project Title: THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN GREEN CONSUMERISM AND ENVIRONMENTAL ACTIVISM
Principal Researcher: Dr Lucy Zinkiewicz
Student Researcher: Ms Annamaria Klas
You are invited to participate in this research project. Participation in any research project is voluntary. You are not obliged to participate if you do not wish to. Please read this Plain Language Statement carefully. Its purpose is to clearly explain all the procedures involved in this research project so you can make a fully informed decision about whether you wish to participate. To participate in this study, you are required to be over the age of 18 years. If you decide to participate, this anonymous online survey will take 10-15 minutes to complete. You will receive $1.00 upon completing the survey.
Purpose Current research is unclear regarding the relationship between various environmental behaviors and environmentalist identity. We therefore wish to investigate this in more detail. As we are interested in getting a wide range of perspectives and opinions, you do not need to consider yourself an environmentalist to participate. You only need to be 18 or above to participate.
APPENDICES 254
Procedure and Demands This study will utilize an anonymous online survey. This survey will contain items designed to assess your level of environmentalist identity and engagement in various environmental behaviours. You will also be asked some questions relating to demographics (such as your age and annual income). You will indicate your consent to participate in the study by submitting the survey online. Data will then be screened to ensure valid responding. Subsequent analysis will be undertaken by the research team with the non-identified data. Amazon MTurk will not have access to this data.
Payments and Funding As a reimbursement for your time and effort, you will receive $1.00 as dispensed through the Amazon MTurk service.
Risk and Benefits The risk of harm to you is not expected to be greater than that experienced in everyday life. We cannot guarantee that you will receive any benefits from this project.
Privacy and Confidentiality Protection As your responses will be collected anonymously, there is no way the research team can connect participant responses to specific individuals. Only researchers associated with this project will have access to the non- identified, anonymous data. It will be kept in a secure storage at Deakin University for a minimum of 6 years – in line with Deakin University regulations – before it is permanently destroyed.
Access to the Results The research will be reported in a PhD thesis and may be presented at a conference. The research may also be submitted to a professional journal for publication. Only group averages will be reported. If you wish to do so, you are able to contact Ms Annamaria Klas at [email protected] for a copy of the results. If you seek out this information, you will receive a brief written summary once it is available.
Provision of services to participants adversely affected by the research At all stages of this study, the research will be monitored by Dr Lucy Zinkiewicz (principal investigator).
APPENDICES 255
If you have any queries, complaints or concerns about the research project, you can contact the principal investigator Dr Lucy Zinkiewicz (School of Psychology, Deakin University) at [email protected] If you are experiencing a crisis, cannot contact a counsellor and need help urgently, we recommend contacting a mental health professional for further guidance (see http://www.mentalhealthamerica.net/find-affiliate).
Your Rights as a Research Participant Participation in this anonymous survey is completely voluntary. You are in no way obliged to participate. You also have the right to withdraw at any time up to the completion of your online questionnaire. However, due to our privacy protocols, removal of your responses after submission of the survey is impossible. Deciding not to participate or withdrawing your consent will not affect your relationship to the researchers or Deakin University. You also have the right to decline to answer any questions if you experience any discomfort.
Ethical Guidelines This project will be carried out according to the National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human Research (2007) produced by the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia. This statement has been developed to protect the interests of people who agree to participate in human research studies. Approval to undertake this project has been given by the Human Research Ethics Committee of Deakin University.
Complaints If you have any complaints about any aspect of the project, the way it is being conducted or any questions about your rights as a research participant, then you may contact:
The Manager, Ethics and Biosafety, Deakin University, 221 Burwood Highway, Burwood Victoria 3125, Telephone: +61 03 9251 7129, research- [email protected]
Please quote project number [HEAG-H 06_2015].
By clicking the button below, you agree that you have read and understood the Plain Language Statement and that you consent to participate in this research. Thank you for your generosity in participating; it is sincerely appreciated.
APPENDICES 256
B.4 Study 4 HEAG-H 128_2015
LANDING PAGE
Thank you for your interest in our study.
The purpose of this research project is to investigate people’s beliefs regarding certain social groups. It also aims to investigate whether these beliefs are related to one's identity and behaviour.
Participation in this anonymous online survey is completely voluntary. The survey will take between 10-15 minutes to complete.
You will receive $1.50 upon completing the survey. If you wish to participate, you must be at least 18 years of age.
Please click the button below to direct you to beginning of the study.
Approval to undertake this project has been given by the Human Research Ethics Committee of Deakin University, Australia.
APPENDICES 257
PLAIN LANGUAGE STATEMENT AND CONSENT FORM
TO: Participant
Plain Language Statement and Consent Form
Full Project Title: THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN GREEN CONSUMERISM AND ENVIRONMENTAL ACTIVISM
Principal Researcher: Dr Lucy Zinkiewicz, Dr Ben Richardson
Student Researcher: Ms Annamaria Klas
You are invited to participate in this research project. You are not obliged to participate if you do not wish to. Please read this Plain Language Statement carefully. Its purpose is to clearly explain all the procedures involved in this research project so you can make a fully informed decision about whether you wish to participate. If you decide to participate, this anonymous online survey will take 10-15 minutes to complete. You will receive $1.50 upon completing the survey.
Purpose Current research is unclear whether people’s perceptions of environmentalists are related to their tendency to both engage in environmental behaviours and to identify as an environmentalist. We wish to investigate this possibility in more detail. As we are interested in getting a wide range of perspectives and opinions, you do not need to consider yourself an environmentalist to participate. You only need to be 18 or above to participate.
APPENDICES 258
Procedure and Demands This study will utilize an anonymous online survey. This survey will contain items designed to assess your level of environmental identity and engagement in various environmental behaviours. You will also be asked some questions relating to your views on environmentalists as well as some demographic items (such as your age and annual income). You will indicate your consent to participate in the study by submitting the survey online. Data will then be screened to ensure valid responding. Subsequent analysis will be undertaken by the research team with the non-identified data. Amazon MTurk will not have access to this data.
Payments and Funding As a reimbursement for your time and effort, you will receive $1.50 as dispensed through the Amazon MTurk service. This research is totally funded by the School of Psychology at Deakin University, Melbourne, Australia.
Risk and Benefits The risk of harm to you is not expected to be greater than that experienced in everyday life. We cannot guarantee that you will receive any benefits from this project.
Privacy and Confidentiality Protection As your responses will be collected anonymously, there is no way the research team can connect participant responses to specific individuals. Only researchers associated with this project will have access to the non- identified, anonymous data. It will be kept in a secure storage at Deakin University for a minimum of 5 years – in line with Deakin University regulations – before it is permanently destroyed.
Access to the Results The research will be reported in a PhD thesis and may be presented at a conference. The research may also be submitted to a professional journal for publication. Only group averages will be reported. If you wish to do so, you are able to contact Ms Annamaria Klas at [email protected] for a copy of the results. If you seek out this information, you will receive a brief written summary once it is available.
APPENDICES 259
Provision of services to participants adversely affected by the research At all stages of this study, the research will be monitored by Dr Lucy Zinkiewicz and Dr Ben Richardson (principal investigators). If you have any queries, complaints or concerns about the research project, you can contact the principal investigators Dr Lucy Zinkiewicz (School of Psychology, Deakin University) at [email protected] or Dr Ben Richardson (School of Psychology, Deakin University) at [email protected] If you are experiencing a crisis, cannot contact a counsellor and need help urgently, we recommend contacting a mental health professional for further guidance (see http://www.mentalhealthamerica.net/find-affiliate).
Your Rights as a Research Participant Participation in this anonymous survey is completely voluntary. You are in no way obliged to participate. You also have the right to withdraw at any time up to the completion of your online questionnaire. However, due to our privacy protocols, removal of your responses from the sample after this time is impossible. Deciding not to participate or withdrawing your consent will not affect your relationship to the researchers or Deakin University. You also have the right to decline to answer any questions if you experience any discomfort.
Complaints If you have any complaints about any aspect of the project, the way it is being conducted or any questions about your rights as a research participant, then you may contact:
The Manager, Ethics and Biosafety, Deakin University, 221 Burwood Highway, Burwood Victoria 3125, Telephone: +61 03 9251 7129, [email protected]
Please quote project number [HEAG-H 128_2015].
By clicking the button below, you agree that you have read and understood the Plain Language Statement and that you consent to participate in this research. Thank you for your generosity in participating; it is sincerely appreciated.
APPENDICES 260
Appendix C
Study 1: Interview Materials
Interview Protocol Form Date: ______Time: ______Location: ______Consent Form Signed: Y/N Notes to the interviewee: Have you read through the Plain Language Statement? Any questions? Just to clarify: Purpose of research: We want to discover more about people’s perceptions and/or experiences of ‘green consumerism’. Even though some research has examined barriers to ‘green consumerism’, it’s unclear how various individuals perceive or experience green consumerism. You don’t need to be someone who engages in ‘green consumerism’ to partake in this study. We’re interested in both overall perceptions and possible experiences. Interview – will be 40-50 minutes long. I will be asking you 6-10 major questions that may require me to clarify or probe you for more information. It will be audio-recorded. Is that ok? I want to ensure you that confidentiality of responses is guaranteed. The results of the study will be published in a PhD thesis, and may be presented at a conference or published in an academic journal. Even though we may publish your results, we will be using pseudonyms. We will keep the data for a minimum of 6 years after which it will be destroyed. Methods for providing results: You can receive the results from this study from the principal supervisor – Dr Janine McGuinness Payment: You have the opportunity to win a $100 Coles-Myer gift card. You can give me your contact details at the end of the study if you wish to partake.
APPENDICES 261
Interview Prompts
1. Tell me a bit about yourself a. What is your age? b. What is your occupation? c. What is your level of education attained? d. Are you a member of an environmental organisation/s? 2. Do you self-identify as an environmentalist? a. If so, please describe what you perceive to be an environmentalist 3. Please describe what you perceive to be an environmentalist 4. Please describe what comes to mind when you hear the term ‘green consumerism’ 5. What do you think is involved in ‘green consumerism’? 6. What do you think has a relationship or is similar to green consumerism? a. How come these? b. What other environmental behaviours may be similar or related to green consumerism? c. What other consumer behaviours may be similar or related to green consumerism? 7. How may green consumerism be an effective strategy for tackling environmental problems? a. If yes, why? If not, why? 8. What people may engage in ‘green consumerism’? a. What social groups have an impact on peoples ‘green consumerism’? Why these ones? 9. Do you perceive yourself as engaging in ‘green consumerism’? a. If so, how come? If not, how come? 10. Please describe what comes to mind when you gear the term ‘green product’ a. Can you please list any product that you perceive to be ‘green’? 11. Are there any assumptions made about green consumerism or green products or the perceptions of those things that you wish to discuss? 12. Is there anything else that you want to note about these matters? Final comments 1. Do you wish to be included in the raffle to win a $100 Coles-Myer gift card? If so, please provide an active email address for the research team to contact you if you win. 2. Do you wish to know the results of this study once completed? If so, here is the email of the principal investigator of the project to contact.
APPENDICES 262
Appendix D
Study 2: Qualitative Survey Materials
Questionnaire
Full Project Title: BELIEFS ABOUT ENVIRONMENTALISTS AND THEIR RELATIONSHIP TO IDENTITY, CONSUMERISM AND ACTIVISM Principal Researcher/s: Dr Lucy Zinkiewicz, Dr Ben Richardson Student Researcher: Ms Annamaria Klas
What do you think about environmentalists?
We are interested in your personal beliefs regarding environmentalists. To maintain the anonymity of this research, please do not provide any identifying information when answering these questions.
1. In one or two sentences, how would you define the term ‘environmentalist’?
2. What words, phrases or statements would you use to describe environmentalists?
3. What is your overall view of environmentalists?
4. Could you please outline why you hold this view?
APPENDICES 263
Demographic Information
Please select the option that is most appropriate for you.
What is your gender? Female Male Other – please specify
What is your age? _ years
Country of residence? _ (List of countries)
What is currently the highest level of education you have obtained? Lower secondary education (year 10/sophomore year or below) Upper secondary education (high school completion) Post-secondary non-tertiary education (TAFE, Certificate I to IV, Diploma) First stage of tertiary education (Undergraduate degree, Bachelor Degree) Second stage of tertiary education (Graduate degree, Masters, PhD, Doctorate) Other – please specify
Are you currently a student? Yes No
What is your annual income (before taxes)? Less than $15,000 $15,000 to $24,999 $25,000 to $34,999 $35,000 to $49,999 $50,000 to $74,999 $75,000 and above.
Are you currently a member of an environmental organization/s? Yes No Not Sure Prefer Not to Say
APPENDICES 264
Appendix E
Study 3: Stimulus Materials and Measures
Questionnaire
Full Project Title: BELIEFS ABOUT ENVIRONMENTALISTS AND THEIR RELATIONSHIP TO IDENTITY, CONSUMERISM AND ACTIVISM Principal Researcher/s: Dr Lucy Zinkiewicz, Dr Ben Richardson Student Researcher: Ms Annamaria Klas
Demographic Information
Please select the option that is most appropriate for you.
What is your gender? Female Male Other – please specify
What is your age? _ years
Country of residence? _ (List of countries)
APPENDICES 265
What is currently the highest level of education you have obtained? Lower secondary education (year 10/sophomore year or below) Upper secondary education (high school completion) Post-secondary non-tertiary education (TAFE, Certificate I to IV, Diploma) First stage of tertiary education (Undergraduate degree, Bachelor Degree) Second stage of tertiary education (Graduate degree, Masters, PhD, Doctorate) Other – please specify
Are you currently a student? Yes No
What is your annual income (before taxes)? Less than $15,000 $15,000 to $24,999 $25,000 to $34,999 $35,000 to $49,999 $50,000 to $74,999 $75,000 and above.
APPENDICES 266
Environmentalist Social Identity Vignette
People’s views on the environment vary widely.
For instance, some people do not think about the environment and are not worried about the issues it may be facing. In comparison, others are worried about the environment. These people often wish to do something to help the environment and may employ such strategies as: buying environmentally friendly products and services; reducing their energy use; reusing and repairing items; and recycling.
While your views might not fall exactly into one of these two categories, please indicate which category best represents your own views on the environment:
1. I am not worried about the environment 2. I am worried about the environment
Now please respond to the next ten statements. 1. 7. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Never Always
1. I am a person who considers environmentalists important 2. I am a person who identifies with environmentalists 3. I am a person who feels strong ties with environmentalists 4. I am a person who is glad to belong with environmentalists 5. I am a person who sees myself as belonging with environmentalists 6. I am a person who makes excuses for belonging with environmentalists 7. I am a person who tries to hide belonging with environmentalists 8. I am a person who feels held back by environmentalists 9. I am a person who is annoyed to say I’m an environmentalist 10. I am a person who criticizes environmentalists
APPENDICES 267
Collective Action and Pro-Environmental Behaviour Measures
Political Consumerism Index
Sometimes people engage in boycotting or buy-cotting behaviour.
Boycotting is defined as an active refusal to spend money on a product or service as a means to punish institutions or businesses for unfavourable behavior.
Buy-cotting is defined as an active effort of spending money on a product or service in the hopes of rewarding businesses that exhibit desirable behaviour.
To clarify that you understand what is involved in boycotting, please indicate which option is the most appropriate definition.
Boycotting is...
Spending money on products or services because you enjoy using them Refusing to spend money on products or services to punish businesses for bad behaviour Refusing to spend money on things because you don’t like the quality of the product Spending money on products or services to reward businesses for good behaviour
Please respond. 1. Never 2. 3. 4. Sometimes 5. 6. 7. Always
1. Do you participate in boycotting products? 2. How often do you boycott for political/ethical reasons?
APPENDICES 268
To clarify that you understand what is involved in buy-cotting, please indicate which option is the most appropriate definition.
Buy-cotting is…
Refusing to spend money on things because you don’t like the quality of the product Spending money on products or services to reward businesses for good behaviour Spending money on products or services because you enjoy using them Refusing to spend money on products or services to punish businesses for bad behaviour
Please respond. 1. Never 2. 3. 4. Sometimes 5. 6. 7. Always
1. Do you participate in buying some products over others (buy-cott)? 2. How often do you “buy-cott” for political/ethical reasons? 3. Do you have ethical considerations when buying groceries? 4. Do you have ethical considerations when buying clothes?
Environmental Activism
Please respond to the following statements. 1. Never 2. 3. 4. Sometimes 5. 6. 7. Always
1. I participate in events organised by environmental groups 2. I give financial support to an environmental group 3. I circulate petitions demanding an improvement of government policies regarding the environment 4. I participate in protests against current environmental conditions 5. I vote for a government proposing environmentally conscious policies 6. I write letters to firms that manufacture harmful products
APPENDICES 269
Environmental Citizenship Subscale
Please respond to the following statements. 1. Never 2. 3. 4. Sometimes 5. 6. 7. Always
1. Do you consider yourself a member of any group whose main aim is to preserve or protect the environment? 2. In the last 12 months, have you read any newsletters, magazines or other publications written by environmental groups? 3. Have you signed a petition in support of protecting the environment in the last 12 months? 4. Have you given money to an environmental group in the last 12 months? 5. Have you written a letter or called your government official to support strong environmental protection in the last 12 months? 6. Have you boycotted or avoided buying the products of a company because you felt that company was harming the environment in the last 12 months? 7. Have you voted for a candidate in a political election, at least in part, because he or she was in favour of strong environmental protection?
Willingness to Sacrifice Subscale
Please respond to the following statements. 1. Never 2. 3. 4. Sometimes 5. 6. 7. Always
1. I would be willing to pay much higher taxes in order 2. I would be willing to accept cuts in my standard of living to protect the environment 3. I would be willing to pay much higher prices in order to protect the environment.
APPENDICES 270
Green Consumerism Measure
Please respond to the following statements. 1. Never 2. 3. 4. Sometimes 5. 6. 7. Always
1. I normally make a conscious effort to limit my use of products that are made of or use scarce resources. 2. I always try to use electric appliances (e.g. dishwasher, washer and dryer) before 10 a.m. and after 10 p.m. 3. I will not buy products which have excessive packaging. 4. When there is a choice, I always choose that product which contributes to the least amount of pollution. 5. If I understand the potential damage to the environment that some products can cause, I do not purchase these products. 6. I have switched products for ecological reasons. 7. I use a recycling centre or in some way recycle some of my household trash. 8. I make every effort to buy paper products made from recycled paper. 9. I use a low-phosphate detergent (or soap) for my laundry. 10. I have convinced members of my family or friends not to buy some products which are harmful to the environment. 11. I have purchased products because they cause less pollution. 12. I do not buy products in aerosol containers. 13. Whenever possible, I buy products packaged in reusable containers. 14. When I purchase products, I always make a conscious effort to buy those products that are low in pollutants. 15. When I have a choice between two equal products, I always purchase the one which is less harmful to other people and the environment. 16. I buy toilet paper made from recycled paper. 17. I buy Kleenex (tissues) made from recycled paper. 18. I buy paper towels made from recycled paper. 19. I will not buy a product if the company that sells it is ecologically irresponsible. 20. I try only to buy products that can be recycled. 21. To reduce our reliance on foreign oil, I drive my car as little as possible. 22. I do not buy household products that harm the environment.
APPENDICES 271
Manipulation Checks
Please respond to the following statements.
During the survey, to what extent did you feel like a member of the environmentalist group, as opposed to feeling like a distinct individual?
1. Very 7. Very much like much like 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. a group an member individual
To what extent do you see yourself as a member of the environmentalist social group?
1. Very 7. Very much like much like 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. a group an member individual
Are you currently a member of an environmental organization/s? Yes No Not Sure Prefer Not to Say
APPENDICES 272
Appendix F
Study 3: Data Screening and Assumption Testing
Data Preparation and Assumption Testing
Data screening and analyses were conducted using IBM SPSS Statistics 23.0
(2016) and IBM SPSS AMOS 23.0 (2016). Prior to analysis, all initially collected data
(N = 358) was screened for missing values using the SPSS Missing Values function.
The percentage of missing data was minimal (<2%), yet not missing completely at random (Little’s MCAR test: χ²(1514) = 1766.73, p < .001). Nonetheless, given the small percentage, all missing data were replaced using the expectation maximisation function in SPSS (as recommended by Hair, Black, Babin, & Anderson, 2104; West,
Finch, & Curran, 1995).
Data were then screened for outliers. Using the z > 3.29 criterion and the
Mahalanobis Distance test (p < .001) (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007), 37 univariate outliers and 38 multivariate outliers were found in the data. As the minimal number of univariate outliers would have little impact on analysis, these were left as they were (Hair, Black,
Babin, & Anderson, 2014). However, given that the study was utilising path analyses, which require no multivariate outliers, the 37 multivariate outliers were deleted, thereby decreasing the sample size to 320. Scale items were then assessed for normality (i.e., skewness > 2 and kurtosis > 4, as outlined in West, Finch, & Curran, 1995), with no violations found. Multicollinearity was also examined using the .90 rule (Field, 2013), with no violations found.
APPENDICES 273
Appendix G
Study 3: Green Consumerism Exploratory Factor Analysis
As previous research has demonstrated varying factor structures for the green consumerism scale employed in the current study (see Roberts, 1996; Straughan &
Roberts, 1999), an exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was first conducted to explore the number and content of factors that best represented the 22-item scale as suggested by
Worthington and Whittaker (2006). With the subsample of 275 participants, a maximum likelihood factor analysis with an oblique rotation (direct oblimin) was employed (as it was expected that any extracted factors would correlate). The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin
(KMO) (Kaiser, 1970) measure confirmed the sampling adequacy for the analysis, KMO
= .95 (‘marvellous’, according to Hutcheson & Sofroniou, 1999). All of the KMO values for the individual scale items were also greater than .89, exceeding the acceptable limit of .50 (Field, 2013) (see Table G1 for KMO values and item communalities for individual scale items). Bartlett’s test of sphericity was also significant, χ²(231) =
4553.59, p < .001, indicating data were suitable for an EFA.
As the sample size exceeded 250, the number of factors were determined using
Kaiser’s rule (eigenvalue > 1) (Kaiser, 1960) and by inspecting the scree plot (Cattell,
1966), as recommended by Field (2013). Two factors were found, each with an eigenvalue of > 1, that in combination accounted for 60.41% of the variance in the data
(see Table G2 for factor loadings, eigenvalues, percentage of variance explained and
Cronbach alphas). Yet the scree plot (see Figure G1) demonstrated a steep inflexion that justified retaining only the first factor, whilst the inter-factor bivariate correlation between the two extracted factors was also negative and moderate (r = -.59, p < .001).
APPENDICES 274
Furthermore, the three items that made up the second factor all asked participants whether they bought products made from recycled paper, suggesting that this factor was redundant. Given these considerations, the first factor was only retained for further analyses; especially since it still explained a large proportion of variance (53.25%) and that the average communality of items for this factor was .54.
Figure G1. Scree plot for 22-item green consumerism scale following exploratory factor analysis.
APPENDICES 275
Table G1 KMO Values and Item Communalities for Individual Scale Items in the 22-item Green Consumerism Scale KMO Communalities I normally make a conscious effort to limit my use of .96 .61 products that are made of or use scarce resources. I always try to use electric appliances (e.g. dishwasher, .94 .27 washer and dryer) before 10 a.m. and after 10 p.m. I will not buy products which have excessive .96 .47 packaging. When there is a choice, I always choose that product .96 .66 which contributes to the least amount of pollution. If I understand the potential damage to the environment .97 .66 that some products can cause, I do not purchase these products. I have switched products for ecological reasons. .97 .68 I use a recycling centre or in some way recycle some of .91 .26 my household trash. I make every effort to buy paper products made from .96 .63 recycled paper. I use a low-phosphate detergent (or soap) for my .95 .40 laundry. I have convinced members of my family or friends not .96 .50 to buy some products which are harmful to the environment. I have purchased products because they cause less .97 .83 pollution. I do not buy products in aerosol containers. .96 .29 Whenever possible, I buy products packaged in reusable .95 .48 containers. When I purchase products, I always make a conscious .97 .74 effort to buy those products that are low in pollutants. When I have a choice between two equal products, I .96 .70 always purchase the one which is less harmful to other people and the environment. I buy toilet paper made from recycled paper. .90 .83 I buy Kleenex (tissues) made from recycled paper. .89 .83 I buy paper towels made from recycled paper. .94 .76 I will not buy a product if the company that sells it is .97 .53 ecologically irresponsible. I try only to buy products that can be recycled. .96 .66 To reduce our reliance on foreign oil, I drive my car as .94 .29 little as possible. I do not buy household products that harm the .95 .57 environment. Note. KMO = Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin measure of sampling adequacy.
APPENDICES 276
Table G2 Summary of Exploratory Factor Analysis Results for Green Consumerism Scale Factor 1 Factor 2 I have purchased products because they cause less pollution .96 .09 When I have a choice between two equal products, I always purchase the one which is less .86 .04 harmful to other people and the environment When I purchase products, I always make a conscious effort to buy those products that are low in .85 -.02 pollutants If I understand the potential damage to the environment that some products can cause, I do not .84 .05 purchase these products When there is a choice, I always choose the product which contributes to the least amount of .84 .04 pollution I have switched products for ecological reasons .84 .02 I normally make a conscious effort to limit my use of products that are made of or use scarce .79 .02 resources I will not buy products which have excessive packaging .76 -.14 I make every effort to buy paper products made from recycled paper .75 -.07 I do not buy household products that harm the environment .72 -.06 I try only to buy products that can be recycled .71 -.15 I will not buy a product if the company that sells it is ecologically irresponsible .70 -.05 Whenever possible, I buy products packaged in reusable containers .62 -.11 I have convinced members of my family or friends not to by some products which are harmful to .62 -.14 the environment I use a low phosphate detergent (or soap) for my laundry .58 -.09 I use a recycling centre or in some way recycle some of my household trash .54 .06 I do not buy products in aerosol containers .54 -.01 To reduce our reliance on foreign oil, I drive my car as little as possible .53 -.02 I always try to use electric appliances (e.g. dishwasher, washer, dryer) before 10 a.m. and after .42 -.14 10 p.m. I buy Kleenex (tissues) made from recycled paper -.01 -.92 I buy toilet paper made from recycled paper .02 -.90 I buy paper towels made from recycled paper .16 -.77 Eigenvalues 11.71 1.58 % of variance 53.25 7.16 α .95 .92 Note. Rotated factor loadings over .40 appear in bold. α = Cronbach’s alpha
APPENDICES 277
Appendix H
Study 3: Confirmatory Factor Analyses – Additional Information
Figure H1. Confirmatory measurement model for green consumerism. All regression paths significant at p < .001.
APPENDICES 278
Table H1 Standardised Factor Loadings for the Environmentalist Social Identity Scale Standardised Factor loadings Affirm group membership (α = .97) I am a person who is glad to belong with environmentalists .96 I am a person who sees myself as belonging with .95 environmentalists I am a person who identifies with environmentalists .93 I am a person who feels strong ties with environmentalists .93 I am a person who considers environmentalists important .74 Note. α = Cronbach alpha. All factor loadings were significant at p < .001.
Table H2 Standardised Factor Loadings for the Political Consumerism and Environmental Activism Scales Standardised Factor loadings PC EA Scale 1: Political consumerism (α = .89) Do you have ethical or political considerations when buying .84 groceries? Do you have ethical or political considerations when buying clothes? .82 Do you participate in buying some products over others (buy-cott)? .76 How often do you boycott for political/ethical reasons? .73 How often do you “buy-cott” for political/ethical reasons? .73 Do you participate in boycotting products? .68 Scale 2: Environmental activism (α = .85) I participate in protests against current environmental conditions .87 I circulate petitions demanding an improvement of government .84 policies regarding the environment I write letters to firms that manufacture harmful products .83 I participate in events organised by environmental groups .83 I give financial support to an environmental group .72 I vote for a government proposing environmentally conscious policies .41 Note. α = Cronbach alpha. PC = political consumerism; EA = environmental activism. All factor loadings were significant at p < .00
APPENDICES 279
Table H3 Standardised Factor Loadings for Pro-environmental Behaviour Subscales Standardised Factor loadings WS EC Subscale 1: Willingness to sacrifice (α = .91) I would be willing to pay much higher prices in order to protect the .93 environment I would be willing to pay much higher taxes in order to protect the .86 environment I would be willing to accept cuts in my standard of living to protect .83 the environment Subscale 2: Environmental citizenship (α = .85) Have you signed a petition in support of protecting the environment in .78 the last 12 months? Have you given money to an environmental group in the last 12 .69 months? Do you consider yourself a member of any group whose main aim is .68 to preserve or protect the environment? Have you boycotted or avoided buying the products of a company .68 because you felt that company was harming the environment in the last 12 months? In the last 12 months, have you read any newsletters, magazines or .67 other publications written by environmental groups? Have you voted for a candidate in a political election, at least in part, .66 because he or she was in favour of strong environmental protection? Have you written a letter or called your government official to support .64 strong environmental protection in the last 12 months? Note. α = Cronbach alpha.WS = willingness to sacrifice; EC = environmental citizenship. All factor loadings were significant at p < .001
APPENDICES 280
Appendix I
Study 3: Re-specifications of Model 1 Predicting Green Consumerism
Given that the initial estimation of Model 1 demonstrated an extremely poor fit to the data (see Figure 1 in Chapter 6 for the first model), modification indices (MI, Lagrange Multiplier), expected parameter changes (EPC), and standardised residuals were inspected in order to identify any sources of model misfit. Only those modification indices that were above 10 were inspected as potential areas to re-specify the model (Byrne, 2001).
Figure I1. First re-specification for Model 1 predicting green consumerism. * p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001.
Following inspection of modification indices for Model 1, a covariance path was added between the error terms for environmental citizenship and environmental activism (MI = 136.55, EPC = .62). This re-specification produced a significant improvement in fit as determined by nested chi-square difference testing (Kline, 2004) (χ² difference = 189.03, p < .05).
However, the model still demonstrated a poor fit to the data, χ²(5, N = 275) = 140.84, p < .001; CFI = .86, TLI = .59, SRMR = .12, RMSEA = .32 (90% CIs [.27, .36]).
APPENDICES 281
Figure I2. Second re-specification for Model 1 predicting green consumerism. * p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001.
Following inspection of modification indices for the first re-specification for Model 1 (see Figure I1) a second covariance path was added between the error terms for political consumerism and environmental activism (MI = 36.79, EPC = .28). This re- specification produced a significant improvement in fit as determined by nested chi- square difference testing (Kline, 2004) (χ² difference = 46.25, p < .05).
Although the CFI was improved, the second re-specified model still demonstrated a poor fit to the data, χ²(4, N = 275) = 94.59, p < .001; CFI = .91, TLI = .65, SRMR = .09, RMSEA = .29 (90% CIs [.24, .34].
APPENDICES 282
Figure I3. Third re-specification for Model 1 predicting green consumerism. * p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001.
Following inspection of modification indices for the second re-specification for Model 1 (see Figure I2) a third covariance path was added between the error terms for willingness to sacrifice and environmental citizenship (MI = 33.87, EPC = .25). This re- specification produced a significant improvement in fit as determined by nested chi- square difference testing (Kline, 2004) (χ² difference = 38.52, p < .05).
Although both the CFI and SRMR demonstrated improvement, the third re- specified model still demonstrated a poor fit to the data, χ²(3, N = 275) = 56.07, p < .001; CFI = .95, TLI = .73, SRMR = .08, RMSEA = .25 (90% CIs [20, .31]).
APPENDICES 283
Figure I4. Fourth re-specification for Model 1 predicting green consumerism. * p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001.
Following inspection of modification indices for the third re-specification for Model 1 (see Figure I3), a fourth and final covariance path was added between the error terms for willingness to sacrifice and environmental citizenship (MI = 15.64, EPC = .16). This re-specification produced a significant improvement in fit as determined by nested chi-square difference testing (Kline, 2004) (χ² difference = 39.83, p < .05).
Both the CFI and SRMR demonstrated a vast improvement, with the fourth re- specified model demonstrating an acceptable fit to the data, χ²(2, N = 275) =16.240, p < .001; CFI = .97, TLI = .89, SRMR = .05, RMSEA = .16 (90% CIs [.09, .24]). Nonetheless given that almost all of the possible paths between error terms had been specified in this model, the final re-specification model was deemed to be meaningless.
APPENDICES 284
Appendix J
Study 3: Initial Path Model for Model 2 Predicting Green Consumerism
Following inspection of the re-specifications for Model 1 (see Appendix I), the environmental citizenship construct was removed from the path model thereby creating Model 2 predicting green consumerism.
Figure J1. Model 2 predicting green consumerism. p < .01, *** p < .001.
Although the fit indices did demonstrate a poor fitting model, this second model was still a better fit to the data than was Model 1 (see Figure 1, Chapter 6), χ²(3, N = 275) = 56.07, p < .001; CFI = .91, TLI = .69, SRMR = .09, RMSEA = .25 (90% CIs [.20, .31]).
APPENDICES 285
Appendix K
Study 4: Stimulus Materials and Measures
Questionnaire
Full Project Title: BELIEFS ABOUT ENVIRONMENTALISTS AND THEIR RELATIONSHIP TO IDENTITY, CONSUMERISM AND ACTIVISM Principal Researcher/s: Dr Lucy Zinkiewicz, Dr Ben Richardson Student Researcher: Ms Annamaria Klas
Environmentalist Stereotypes Vignette
Different social groups can be distinguished by their values, attitudes and personal characteristics.
For example, environmentalists are often seen as intelligent, whilst miners are typically viewed as hard-working. These two groups may also differ in opinion regarding environmental issues, with environmentalists typically believing climate change is happening. In comparison many miners are sceptical of climate change.
APPENDICES 286
Environmentalist Stereotypes Prototype Measure
Even though environmentalists will not be identical, some characteristics will be common in most, if not all, environmentalists.
In the following task, we are interested to know what characteristics you perceive as the most representative or common of environmentalists. Note that the most representative position doesn’t have to be the most popular, or average, position. Using the example of students, if you feel ‘rarely’ friendly best represents students as a whole, then you would choose that option.
Students are... Friendly
Not at all Rarely Sometimes Frequently All the time
Below is a list of personal characteristics that are commonly used to describe environmentalists. Your task is chose only one level on the scale below that you perceive best represents the environmentalist group as a whole.
Please choose the option that is most representative or common, and be sure to only choose one option for each scale.
Environmentalists are... Caring Informed Dedicated Pushy Stubborn
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Not at all Rarely Sometimes Frequently All the time
APPENDICES 287
Demographic Information
Please select the option that is most appropriate for you.
What is your gender? Female Male Other – please specify
What is your age? _ years
Country of residence? _ (List of countries)
What is currently the highest level of education you have obtained? Lower secondary education (year 10/sophomore year or below) Upper secondary education (high school completion) Post-secondary non-tertiary education (TAFE, Certificate I to IV, Diploma) First stage of tertiary education (Undergraduate degree, Bachelor Degree) Second stage of tertiary education (Graduate degree, Masters, PhD, Doctorate) Other – please specify
Are you currently a student? Yes No
What is your annual income (before taxes)? Less than $15,000 $15,000 to $24,999 $25,000 to $34,999 $35,000 to $49,999 $50,000 to $74,999 $75,000 and above.
APPENDICES 288
Environmentalist Social Identity Vignette
People’s views on the environment vary widely. For instance, some people do not think about the environment and are not worried about the issues it may be facing. In comparison, others are worried about the environment. These people often wish to do something to help the environment and may employ such strategies as: buying environmentally friendly products and services; reducing their energy use; reusing and repairing items; and recycling.
While your views might not fall exactly into one of these two categories, please indicate which category best represents your own views on the environment: I am not worried about the environment I am worried about the environment
Now please respond to the next ten statements. 1. 7. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Never Always
1. I am a person who considers environmentalists important 2. I am a person who identifies with environmentalists 3. I am a person who feels strong ties with environmentalists 4. I am a person who is glad to belong with environmentalists 5. I am a person who sees myself as belonging with environmentalists 6. I am a person who makes excuses for belonging with environmentalists 7. I am a person who tries to hide belonging with environmentalists 8. I am a person who feels held back by environmentalists 9. I am a person who is annoyed to say I’m an environmentalist 10. I am a person who criticizes environmentalists
APPENDICES 289
Green Consumerism Measure
Please respond to the following statements. 1. 4. 7. 2. 3. 5. 6. Never Sometimes Always
1. I normally make a conscious effort to limit my use of products that are made of or use scarce resources. 2. I always try to use electric appliances (e.g. dishwasher, washer and dryer) before 10 a.m. and after 10 p.m. 3. I will not buy products which have excessive packaging. 4. When there is a choice, I always choose that product which contributes to the least amount of pollution. 5. If I understand the potential damage to the environment that some products can cause, I do not purchase these products. 6. I have switched products for ecological reasons. 7. I use a recycling centre or in some way recycle some of my household trash. 8. I make every effort to buy paper products made from recycled paper. 9. I use a low-phosphate detergent (or soap) for my laundry. 10. I have convinced members of my family or friends not to buy some products which are harmful to the environment. 11. I have purchased products because they cause less pollution. 12. I do not buy products in aerosol containers. 13. Whenever possible, I buy products packaged in reusable containers. 14. When I purchase products, I always make a conscious effort to buy those products that are low in pollutants. 15. When I have a choice between two equal products, I always purchase the one which is less harmful to other people and the environment. 16. I buy toilet paper made from recycled paper. 17. I buy Kleenex (tissues) made from recycled paper. 18. I buy paper towels made from recycled paper. 19. I will not buy a product if the company that sells it is ecologically irresponsible. 20. I try only to buy products that can be recycled. 21. To reduce our reliance on foreign oil, I drive my car as little as possible. 22. I do not buy household products that harm the environment.
APPENDICES 290
New Ecological Paradigm Scale
Listed below are statements about the relationship between humans and the environment.
Do you agree or disagree that: 1. 7. 4. Strongly 2. 3. 5. 6. Strongly Unsure disagree agree
1. We are approaching the limit of the number of people the earth can support 2. Humans have the right to modify the natural environmental to suit their needs 3. When humans interfere with nature it often produces disastrous consequences 4. Human ingenuity will ensure that we do NOT make the earth unliveable 5. Humans are severely abusing the environment 6. The earth has plenty of natural resources if we just learn how to develop them 7. Plants and animals have as much right as humans to exist 8. The balance of nature is strong enough to cope with the impacts of modern industrial nations 9. Despite our abilities, humans are still subject to the laws of nature 10. The so-called “ecological crisis” facing humankind has been greatly exaggerated 11. The earth is like a spaceship with very limited room and resources 12. Humans were meant to rule over the rest of nature 13. The balance of nature is very delicate and easily upset 14. Humans will eventually learn enough about how nature works to be able control it 15. If things continue on their present course, we will soon experience a major ecological catastrophe
APPENDICES 291
Manipulation Checks
Please respond to the final three questions.
During the survey, to what extent did you feel like a member of the environmentalist group, as opposed to feeling like a distinct individual?
1. Very 7. Very much like 4. much like 2. 3. 5. 6. a group an member individual
To what extent do you see yourself as a member of the environmentalist social group?
1. Very 7. Very much like 4. much like 2. 3. 5. 6. a group an member individual
Are you currently a member of an environmental organization/s? Yes No Not Sure
APPENDICES 292
Appendix L
Study 4: Piloting of Prototypical Traits
Before the contribution environmentalist outgroup stereotypes and environmentalist social identity had upon green consumerism could be investigated a pilot study was conducted to confirm the content of environmentalist outgroup stereotypes and to investigate whether participants understood the meaning of the various trait terms used for the environmentalist stereotype measure.
Method
Participants. Thirty participants took part in the pilot study, including 12 women (40%) and 18 men (60%). Participant age ranged from 21 to 59 years (M =
34.50; SD = 10.61), with the majority of participants (27, 90%) indicating they were not students. All participants resided in the United States.
Measures. Eight trait terms (e.g. caring, informed, dedicated, pushy, smug, dogmatic, arrogant, and stubborn) were measured. Participants familiarity and perceptions of negativity for these trait terms were measured using a single-item (e.g.
‘how familiar are you with this word?’ and ‘how negative is this word?’) along a seven-point likert scale (e.g. 1not at all familiar, 7 very familiar;1 not at all negative,
7 very negative). This was followed by a short-answer question in which participants were asked to briefly define each of the trait words.
Procedure. Once ethics approval was obtained from Deakin University’s
Human Research Ethics Committee, participants were recruited online via Amazon’s
Mechanical Turk. Demographic items were asked first, followed by the familiarity, negativity and definition task (in that order) per each trait term. However trait terms were randomized across participants. Participants were also only asked to fill out the negativity item and complete the definition task if they scored two or above on the
APPENDICES 293
familiarity item. Participants were paid 50 cents for their participation. Submission of the questionnaire signified participant consent.
Results
Table L1 Mean and Standard Deviations for Positive Trait Terms of the Environmentalist Category Caring Informed Dedicated Familiarity M 6.70 6.67 6.57 SD .84 .84 .90 Total 30 30 30 Negativity M 1.52 1.80 1.90 SD 1.23 1.57 1.72 Total 25 29 30 Note. Caring, informed and dedicated are generally considered to be positive trait terms. Therefore low scores on this item indicate that participants perceived these terms as positive.
Table L2 Mean and Standard Deviations for Negative Trait Terms of the Environmentalist Category Pushy Smug Dogmatic Arrogant Stubborn Familiarity M 6.57 5.53 4.13 6.63 6.40 SD .68 1.91 2.24 0.76 1.19 Total 30 30 30 30 30 Negativity M 5.17 5.24 4.00 5.66 4.73 SD 1.47 1.27 1.45 1.47 1.22 Total 29 25 21 29 26 .
Discussion
Mean and standard deviation analyses were run to determine participant’s familiarity and negative perceptions of eight trait terms (see table sbove). The traits of caring, informed, dedicated, pushy, arrogant and stubborn received high means for
APPENDICES 294
familiarity, thereby indicating these traits were well-known to participants. However smug and dogmatic only demonstrated moderate levels of familiarity.
Mean scores for perceptions of negativity also indicated that caring, informed and dedicated were perceived as positive trait terms by participants (that is, they received low mean scores on the negativity single-item measure). There was no trait term that was seen as extremely negative, with pushy, smug, stubborn and arrogant receiving moderate means. Furthermore dogmatic was also perceived as somewhat negative. It is possible that due to participant’s lack of familiarity with the trait term of dogmatic, they were less likely to see it as negative. Given these findings, future measurements of environmentalist stereotypes should not employ the trait terms of smug and dogmatic due to the low level of familiarity with these words.
APPENDICES 295
Appendix M
Study 4: Data Screening and Assumption Testing for Study 4
Data Preparation and Assumption Testing
Data screening and analyses were conducted using IBM SPSS Statistics 23.0
(2016) and the PROCESS Macro (v2.16) for SPSS developed by Andrew Hayes
(Hayes, 2013). Prior to analysis, all data that was initially collected (N = 312) was screened in SPSS for missing values using the Missing Values function. The percentage of missing data across scale items was minimal (<1.5%), however a
Little’s MCAR test did indicate that this data was not missing completely at random
(Little’s MCAR test: χ²(1072) = 1227.94, p = .001). Nonetheless missing data was still replaced using the expectation maximisation function in SPSS given the small percentage of missing data (Hair, Black, Babin, & Anderson, 2104; West, Finch, &
Curran, 1995).
Data was then screened for outliers. Using the z > 3.29 criterion, 17 univariate outliers were found. A Mahalanobis Distance test (p < .001) also revealed
30 multivariate outliers (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007). Univariate outliers were left as is as it was reasoned the small number would have little impact on analysis (Hair,
Black, Babin, & Anderson, 2014). However, given that the study was interested in conducting regression and mediation analyses which can be unduly influenced by multivariate outliers (Aiken & West, 1991; Cohen, Cohen, Aiken, & West, 2008;
Hayes, 2013), participants who demonstrated multivariate outliers were deleted from the sample – thereby decreasing the sample size to 282. Scale items were then assessed for normality (e.g., skewness > 2 and kurtosis > 4); with no violations found
(West, Finch, & Curran, 1995). Multicollinearity was also examined using the .90 rule (Field, 2013) with no violations evident across items.
APPENDICES 296
Appendix N
Study 4: Additional Descriptive Information
Table N1 Bivariate Correlations, Means, Standard Deviations, and Range Scores for Stereotypical Traits 1 2 3 4 5 6 1. Caring prototype – 2. Informed .59** – prototype 3. Dedicated .27** .39** – prototype 4. Pushy prototype -.30** -.29** .09 – 5. Stubborn -.36** -.34** .04 .62** – prototype 6. Arrogant -.47** -.42** -.19** .63** .58** – prototype
M 3.71 3.60 3.83 3.22 3.25 2.88 SD .78 .80 .67 .82 .85 .95 Range 1 - 5 1 - 5 2 - 5 1 - 5 1 - 5 1 - 5 Note. M = mean; SD = standard deviation; Range = observed range of data scores; ᵃ = measured on a 7- point likert scale; ᵇ = measured on a 5-point likert scale. ** p < .01 (two-tailed).