250 likes | 398 Views
Antecedents of energy behavior. Overview. Method Reliability scales Values Goal frames Social representations Institutional factors Urban/ rural. Method. Response rate Response rate in urban area bit higher Same introduction for experimental and control group (HU: student helped)
E N D
Overview • Method • Reliability scales • Values • Goal frames • Social representations • Institutional factors • Urban/ rural
Method • Response rate • Response rate in urban area bit higher • Same introduction for experimental and control group (HU: student helped) • Time range: February - May
Reliability scales (NL) Values: • Altruistic (0,766) • Egoistic (0,718) • Biospheric (0,867) • Hedonic (0,832)
Reliability scales Social representations: • Perception of causes (0,831) • Social efficacy (0,550) • Outcome efficacy (0,749) • Perception of climate change (0,775).
Low reliability • Social efficacy: NL α = 0,550; CZ α = 0,004; HU α = 0,297; DE α = 0,414; SCO α = 0,442 • 2 items: • Climate change will be effectively tackled if Europe reduces CO2 emissions drastically • Climate change is an unstoppable process; humans cannot do anything about it • Hungary: outcome efficacy α = 0,298
Values • General antecedents of behavior: guiding principles in your life • Altruistic • Egoistic • Biospheric • Hedonic
Values • People with strong altruistic and biospheric values: • Eat less meat • Shower less • No significant effect for driving style (p = 0,09)
Social representations • More specific; focus on climate change • Perception of climate change • Perception of causes • Outcome efficacy • Social efficacy • Consequences of climate change
Values – social representations Altruistic values + Egoistic values - Social representations + Biospheric values
Social representations - behavior Perception of climate change weak but negative relationship with: • Meat consumption • Showering Only in the Netherlands and Germany no relations in Czech Republic and Hungary (Scotland?)
Goal frames • Goals influence what people attend to; which knowledge and attitudes become accessible • 3 goals: • Hedonic • Gain • Normative • Goal strength depends on the situation and on the behavior
Normative goal (greenhouse gas emissions) β = -0,17 Hedonic goal (taste) β = 0,29 Meat consumption β = -0,15 Health Goal frames - behavior The Netherlands: 21% of the variance explained
Goal frames - behavior Czech Republic: Normative goal (greenhouse gas emissions) β = 0,14 Hedonic goal (taste) β = 0,33 Meat consumption 14% of the variance explained
Goal frames - behavior Germany: Normative goal (greenhouse gas emissions) β = -0,09 Hedonic goal (enjoyable) β = 0,11 Showering 3% of the variance explained
Goal frames - behavior The Netherlands: Normative goal (greenhouse gas emissions) β = -0,12 Hedonic goal (enjoyable) β = 0,17 Showering β = 0,16 Personal care 11% of the variance explained
Institutional factors • Effort of institutions • Importance of actors • Policy preferences
Institutional factors - behavior • People who find environmental NGOs important for energy consumption eat less meat and shower less (in Germany, Hungary and the Netherlands, not in Czech Republic) • Positive relationship between altruistic/ biospheric values and preference for a carbon label
Institutional factors Effort: Altruistic and biospheric values environmental NGOs ( r = 0,14) Egoistic and hedonic values energy producers ( r = 0,15)
Institutional factors • Preference for strategies is in line with cultural theory/ myths of nature (Schwartz & Thompson, 1990) • Individualistic people think environmental problems should be solved via the free market • Egalitarian people believe problems can be controlled by radical behavioral changes
Urban / rural • People in rural areas use less energy
Urban / rural • Czech Republic: drive more frugal than urban dwellers • Hungary: • eat less meat when they grew up in a rural area. • shower less in rural area • The Netherlands: shower less • Germany: eat more meat
Data analyses and publications • Relationship between values, goal frames and behavior Leading party: University of Groningen • How do lifestyles influence social representations, beliefs and behavior? Leading party: PIK • Social representations Leading party: MLURI, PIK, Czech Republic, Hungary
Data analyses and publications • Institutional factors and behavior Leading party: Hungary • Urban/ rural and behavior Leading party: Czech team