1932

Abstract

Humanity faces an unprecedented set of global environmental problems. We argue that to promote pro-environmental decisions and to achieve public consensus on the need for action we must address individual and collective understanding (cognition) of environmental problems, as well as individual and collective commitments to take action to mitigate or prevent those problems. We review literature pertaining to psychological predispositions, mental models, framing, psychological distance, and the social context of decisions that help elucidate how these goals of cognition and commitment can be achieved. This article reveals the complex and multiply determined nature of environmental decisions. However, we argue that this complexity points to opportunities to reduce the inherent uncertainty surrounding global environmental challenges via appeals to the psychological mechanisms that underpin our decisions.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-environ-010713-094623
2014-10-17
2024-06-20
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/energy/39/1/annurev-environ-010713-094623.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-environ-010713-094623&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

Literature Cited

  1. Crutzen PJ, Stoermer EF. 1.  2000. The “Anthropocene.”. Global Change Newsletter May 2000 41:17–18 http://www.igbp.net/download/18.316f18321323470177580001401/NL41.pdf [Google Scholar]
  2. De Groot JIM, Steg L. 2.  2010. Relationships between value orientations, self-determined motivational types and pro-environmental behavioural intentions. J. Environ. Psychol. 30:368–78 [Google Scholar]
  3. Kinzig AP, Ehrlich PR, Alston LJ, Arrow K, Barrett S. 3.  et al. 2013. Social norms and global environmental challenges: the complex interaction of behaviors, values, and policy. Bioscience 63:164–75 [Google Scholar]
  4. Kiker GA, Bridges TS, Varghese A, Seager TP, Linkov I. 4.  2005. Application of multicriteria decision analysis in environmental decision making. Integr. Environ. Assess. Manag. 1:95–108 [Google Scholar]
  5. Axsen J, Kurani KS. 5.  2012. Social influence, consumer behavior, and low-carbon energy transitions. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 37:311–40 [Google Scholar]
  6. Dinner I, Johnson EJ, Goldstein DG, Liu K. 6.  2011. Partitioning default effects: why people choose not to choose. J. Exp. Psychol. Appl. 17:332–41 [Google Scholar]
  7. Wilson C, Dowlatabadi H. 7.  2007. Models of decision making and residential energy use. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 32:169–203 [Google Scholar]
  8. De Groot JIM, Steg L. 8.  2008. Value orientations to explain beliefs related to environmental significant behavior: how to measure egoistic, altruistic, and biospheric value orientations. Environ. Behav. 40:330–54 [Google Scholar]
  9. Stern PC. 9.  2000. New environmental theories: toward a coherent theory of environmentally significant behavior. J. Soc. Issues 56:407–24 [Google Scholar]
  10. Newell BR, Lagnado DA, Shanks DR. 10.  2010. Straight Choices: The Psychology of Decision Making Hove, UK: Psychology [Google Scholar]
  11. Polasky S, Carpenter SR, Folke C, Keeler B. 11.  2011. Decision-making under great uncertainty: environmental management in an era of global change. Trends Ecol. Evol. 26:398–404 [Google Scholar]
  12. Newell BR, Pitman AJ. 12.  2010. The psychology of global warming: improving the fit between the science and the message. Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc. 91:1003–14 [Google Scholar]
  13. Gigerenzer G, Gaissmaier W. 13.  2011. Heuristic decision making. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 62:451–82 [Google Scholar]
  14. Newell B. 14.  2013. Judgment under uncertainty. Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Psychology D Reisberg 603–17 New York: Oxford Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  15. Tversky A, Kahneman D. 15.  1974. Judgment under uncertainty: heuristics and biases. Science 185:1124–31 [Google Scholar]
  16. Gifford R. 16.  2011. The dragons of inaction: psychological barriers that limit climate change mitigation and adaptation. Am. Psychol. 66:290–302 [Google Scholar]
  17. Price J, Walker I, Boschetti F. 17.  2014. Measuring cultural values and beliefs about environment to identify their role in climate change responses. J. Environ. Psychol. 37:8–20 [Google Scholar]
  18. Guy S, Kashima Y, Walker I, O'Neill S. 18.  2013. Comparing the atmosphere to a bathtub: effectiveness of analogy for reasoning about accumulation. Clim. Change 121:579–94 [Google Scholar]
  19. Spence A, Poortinga W, Pidgeon N. 19.  2012. The psychological distance of climate change. Risk Anal. 32:957–72 [Google Scholar]
  20. Fischhoff B. 20.  2011. Applying the science of communication to the communication of science. Clim. Change 108:701–5 [Google Scholar]
  21. Steg L, Vlek C. 21.  2009. Encouraging pro-environmental behaviour: an integrative review and research agenda. J. Environ. Psychol. 29:309–17 [Google Scholar]
  22. Schwartz SH. 22.  1992. Universals in the content and structure of values: theoretical advances and empirical tests in 20 countries. Adv. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 25:1–65 [Google Scholar]
  23. Villacorta M, Koestner R, Lekes N. 23.  2003. Further validation of the motivation toward the environment scale. Environ. Behav. 35:486–505 [Google Scholar]
  24. Steg L, De Groot JIM, Dreijerink L, Abrahamse W, Siero F. 24.  2011. General antecedents of personal norms, policy acceptability, and intentions: the role of values, worldviews, and environmental concern. Soc. Nat. Resour. 24:349–67 [Google Scholar]
  25. Dunlap RE, Van Liere KD, Mertig AG, Jones RE. 25.  2000. Measuring endorsement of the new ecological paradigm: a revised NEP scale. J. Soc. Issues 56:425–42 [Google Scholar]
  26. Dunlap RE. 26.  2008. The new environmental paradigm scale: from marginality to worldwide use. J. Environ. Educ. 40:3–18 [Google Scholar]
  27. Kahan DM, Jenkins-Smith H, Braman D. 27.  2011. Cultural cognition of scientific consensus. J. Risk Res. 14:147–74 [Google Scholar]
  28. Kahan DM, Peters E, Wittlin M, Slovic P, Ouellette LL. 28.  et al. 2012. The polarizing impact of science literacy and numeracy on perceived climate change risks. Nat. Clim. Change 2:732–35 [Google Scholar]
  29. Douglas M. 29.  1978. Cultural Bias London: R. Anthropol. Inst. [Google Scholar]
  30. Slovic P. 30.  2000. The Perception of Risk London: Earthscan [Google Scholar]
  31. McCaffrey M, Rosenau J. 31.  2012. Science literacy still matters. Nat. Clim. Change 2:636 [Google Scholar]
  32. Feinberg M, Willer R. 32.  2013. The moral roots of environmental attitudes. Psychol. Sci. 24:56–62 [Google Scholar]
  33. Markowitz EM, Shariff AF. 33.  2012. Climate change and moral judgement. Nat. Clim. Change 2:243–47 [Google Scholar]
  34. Oreskes N, Conway EM. 34.  2010. Defeating the merchants of doubt. Nature 465:686–87 [Google Scholar]
  35. Dunlap RE. 35.  2013. Climate change skepticism and denial: an introduction. Am. Behav. Sci. 57:691–98 [Google Scholar]
  36. Lewandowsky S, Oberauer K, Gignac G. 36.  2013. NASA faked the moon landing—therefore (climate) science is a hoax: an anatomy of the motivated rejection of science. Psychol. Sci. 24:622–33 [Google Scholar]
  37. Bain PG, Hornsey MJ, Bongiorno R, Jeffries C. 37.  2012. Promoting pro-environmental action in climate change deniers. Nat. Clim. Change 2:600–3 [Google Scholar]
  38. Morgan MG, Fischhoff B, Bostrom A, Atman CJ. 38.  2001. Risk Communication: A Mental Models Approach Boston, MA: Cambridge Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  39. Sloman SA, Fernbach PM. 39.  2011. Human representation and reasoning about complex causal systems. Inf. Knowl. Syst. Manag. 10:85–99 [Google Scholar]
  40. Johnson-Laird PN. 40.  1983. Mental Models: Towards a Cognitive Science of Language, Inference, and Consciousness Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  41. Chowdhury PD, Haque CE, Driedger SM. 41.  2012. Public versus expert knowledge and perception of climate change-induced heat wave risk: a modified mental model approach. J. Risk Res. 15:149–68 [Google Scholar]
  42. Bord RJ, O'Connor RE, Fisher A. 42.  2000. In what sense does the public need to understand global climate change?. Public Underst. Sci. 9:205–18 [Google Scholar]
  43. Bostrom A, O'Connor RE, Böhm G, Hanss D, Bodi O. 43.  et al. 2012. Causal thinking and support for climate change policies: international survey findings. Glob. Environ. Change 22:210–22 [Google Scholar]
  44. Spence A, Poortinga W, Butler C, Pidgeon NF. 44.  2011. Perceptions of climate change and willingness to save energy related to flood experience. Nat. Clim. Change 1:46–49 [Google Scholar]
  45. Pidgeon N, Fischhoff B. 45.  2011. The role of social and decision sciences in communicating uncertain climate risks. Nat. Clim. Change 1:35–41 [Google Scholar]
  46. Brechin SR. 46.  2010. Public opinion: a cross-national view. Routledge Handbook of Climate Change and Society C Lever-Tracy 179–209 New York: Routledge [Google Scholar]
  47. Reynolds TW, Bostrom A, Read D, Morgan MG. 47.  2010. Now what do people know about global climate change? Survey studies of educated laypeople. Risk Anal. 30:1520–38 [Google Scholar]
  48. Truelove HB, Parks C. 48.  2012. Perceptions of behaviors that cause and mitigate global warming and intentions to perform these behaviors. J. Environ. Psychol. 32:246–59 [Google Scholar]
  49. Otto-Banaszak I, Matczak P, Wesseler J, Wechsung F. 49.  2011. Different perceptions of adaptation to climate change: a mental model approach applied to the evidence from expert interviews. Reg. Environ. Change 11:217–28 [Google Scholar]
  50. Hatfield-Dodds S, Morrison M. 50.  2010. Confusing opportunity costs, losses and forgone gains: assessing the effect of communication bias on support for climate change policy in the United States and Australia Work. Pap. 9.10. CCEP, Crawford School of Public Policy, Australian Natl. Univ., Canberra [Google Scholar]
  51. Akerlof K, Maibach EW, Fitzgerald D, Cedeno AY, Neuman A. 51.  2013. Do people “personally experience” global warming, and if so how, and does it matter?. Glob. Environ. Change 23:81–91 [Google Scholar]
  52. Blennow K, Persson J, Tomé M, Hanewinkel M. 52.  2012. Climate change: Believing and seeing implies adapting. PLOS ONE 7:e50182 [Google Scholar]
  53. Myers TA, Maibach EW, Roser-Renouf C, Akerlof K, Leiserowitz AA. 53.  2013. The relationship between personal experience and belief in the reality of global warming. Nat. Clim. Change 3:343–47 [Google Scholar]
  54. Reser JP, Bradley GL, Glendon AI, Ellul MC, Callaghan R. 54.  2012. Public risk perceptions, understandings, and responses to climate change and natural disasters in Australia, 2010 and 2011. Final report. Natl. Clim. Change Adapt. Res. Facil., Gold Coast, Aust. [Google Scholar]
  55. Weber EU, Stern PC. 55.  2011. Public understanding of climate change in the United States. Am. Psychol. 66:315–28 [Google Scholar]
  56. Li Y, Johnson EJ, Zaval L. 56.  2011. Local warming: Daily temperature change influences belief in global warming. Psychol. Sci. 22:454–59 [Google Scholar]
  57. Sterman JD. 57.  2011. Communicating climate change risks in a skeptical world. Clim. Change 108:811–26 [Google Scholar]
  58. Sterman JD, Sweeney LB. 58.  2007. Understanding public complacency about climate change: Adults' mental models of climate change violate conservation of matter. Clim. Change 80:213–38 [Google Scholar]
  59. Cronin MA, Gonzalez C, Sterman JD. 59.  2009. Why don't well-educated adults understand accumulation? A challenge to researchers, educators, and citizens. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 108:116–30 [Google Scholar]
  60. Moxnes E, Saysel AK. 60.  2009. Misperceptions of global climate change: information policies. Clim. Change 93:15–37 [Google Scholar]
  61. Gentner D, Smith L. 61.  2012. Analogical reasoning. Encyclopedia of Human Behavior VS Ramachandran 130–36 Oxford, UK: Elsevier [Google Scholar]
  62. Newell BR, Kary A, Moore C, Gonzalez C. 62.  2013. Managing our debt: changing context reduces misunderstanding of global warming Presented at Annu. Meet. Cognitive Sci. Soc., 35th, Berlin [Google Scholar]
  63. Smith LA, Gentner D. 63.  2012. Using spatial analogy to facilitate graph learning. Spatial Cognition VIII C Stachniss, K Schill, D Uttal 196–209 Freiburg, Ger: Springer [Google Scholar]
  64. Sterman JD, Fiddaman T, Franck T, Jones A, McCauley S. 64.  et al. 2012. Climate interactive: the C-ROADS climate policy model. Syst. Dyn. Rev. 28:295–305 [Google Scholar]
  65. Dutt V, Gonzalez C. 65.  2012. Human control of climate change. Clim. Change 111:497–518 [Google Scholar]
  66. Winz I, Brierley G, Trowsdale S. 66.  2009. The use of system dynamics simulation in water resources management. Water Resour. Manag. 23:1301–23 [Google Scholar]
  67. Biggs D, Abel N, Knight AT, Leitch A, Langston A, Ban NC. 67.  2011. The implementation crisis in conservation planning: Could “mental models” help?. Conserv. Lett. 4:169–83 [Google Scholar]
  68. Mohammed S, Ferzandi L, Hamilton K. 68.  2010. Metaphor no more: a 15-year review of the team mental model construct. J. Manag. 36:876–910 [Google Scholar]
  69. Mathevet R, Etienne M, Lynam T, Calvet C. 69.  2011. Water management in the Camargue Biosphere Reserve: insights from comparative mental models analysis. Ecol. Soc. 16:43 [Google Scholar]
  70. Tversky A, Kahneman D. 70.  1981. The framing of decisions. Science 211:453–58 [Google Scholar]
  71. Hardisty DJ, Johnson EJ, Weber EU. 71.  2010. A dirty word or a dirty world? Attribute framing, political affiliation, and query theory. Psychol. Sci. 21:86–92 [Google Scholar]
  72. Goldstein DG, Johnson EJ, Herrmann A, Heitmann M. 72.  2008. Nudge your customers toward better choices. Harv. Bus. Rev. 86:99–105 [Google Scholar]
  73. Pichert D, Katsikopoulos KV. 73.  2008. Green defaults: information presentation and pro-environmental behaviour. J. Environ. Psychol. 28:63–73 [Google Scholar]
  74. Thaler RH, Sunstein CR. 74.  2008. Nudge: Improving Decisions About Health, Wealth, and Happiness New Haven, CT: Yale Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  75. John P, Cotterill S, Moseley A, Richardson L, Smith G. 75.  et al. 2011. Nudge, Nudge, Think, Think: Experimenting with Ways to Change Civic Behaviour London: Bloomsbury Acad. [Google Scholar]
  76. Johnson EJ, Shu SB, Dellaert BGC, Fox C, Goldstein DG. 76.  et al. 2012. Beyond nudges: tools of a choice architecture. Mark. Lett. 23:487–504 [Google Scholar]
  77. 77. Cent. Res. Environ. Decis 2009. The Psychology of Climate Change Communication: A Guide for Scientists, Journalists, Educators, Political Aides, and the Interested Public. New York: Columbia Univ http://guide.cred.columbia.edu [Google Scholar]
  78. Kirchhoff C, Lemos MC, Dessai S. 78.  2013. Actionable knowledge for environmental decision making: broadening the usability of climate science. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 38:393–414 [Google Scholar]
  79. Allcott H, Rogers TT. 79.  2012. How long do treatment effects last? Persistence and durability of a descriptive norms intervention's effect on energy conservation HKS Fac. Res. Work. Pap. Ser. RWP12-045, John F. Kennedy Sch. Gov., Harvard Univ. http://dash.harvard.edu/bitstream/handle/1/9804492/RWP12-045_Rogers.pdf?sequence=1 [Google Scholar]
  80. Howe PD, Markowitz EM, Lee TM, Ko C-Y, Leiserowitz A. 80.  2013. Global perceptions of local temperature change. Nat. Clim. Change 3:352–56 [Google Scholar]
  81. Donner SD, McDaniels J. 81.  2013. The influence of national temperature fluctuations on opinions about climate change in the U.S. since 1990. Clim. Change 118:537–50 [Google Scholar]
  82. Joireman J, Barnes Truelove H, Duell B. 82.  2010. Effect of outdoor temperature, heat primes and anchoring on belief in global warming. J. Environ. Psychol. 30:358–67 [Google Scholar]
  83. Hamilton LC, Stampone MD. 83.  2013. Blowin' in the wind: short-term weather and belief in anthropogenic climate change. Weather Clim. Soc. 5:112–19 [Google Scholar]
  84. Borick CP, Rabe BG. 84.  2012. Weather or not? Examining the impact of meteorological conditions on public opinion regarding climate change Presented at Annu. Meet. Am. Polit. Sci. Assoc. 2012 [Google Scholar]
  85. Egan PJ, Mullin M. 85.  2012. Turning personal experience into political attitudes: the effect of local weather on Americans' perceptions about global warming. J. Polit. 74:796–809 [Google Scholar]
  86. Rudman LA, McLean MC, Bunzl M. 86.  2013. When truth is personally inconvenient, attitudes change: the impact of extreme weather on implicit support for green politicians and explicit climate-change beliefs. Psychol. Sci. 24:2290–96 [Google Scholar]
  87. Trope Y, Liberman N. 87.  2003. Temporal construal. Psychol. Rev. 110:403–21 [Google Scholar]
  88. Fujita K, Clark SL, Freitas AL. 88.  2014. “Think globally, act locally”: construal levels and environmentally relevant decision-making. Encouraging Sustainable Behavior: Psychology and the Environment HCM van Trijp 87–107 New York: Psychology [Google Scholar]
  89. Vallacher RR, Wegner DM. 89.  1989. Levels of personal agency: individual variation in action identification. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 57:660–71 [Google Scholar]
  90. Trope Y, Liberman N. 90.  2010. Construal-level theory of psychological distance. Psychol. Rev. 117:440–63 [Google Scholar]
  91. Weber EU. 91.  2006. Experience-based and description-based perceptions of long-term risk: why global warming does not scare us (yet). Clim. Change 77:103–20 [Google Scholar]
  92. Weber EU. 92.  2010. What shapes perceptions of climate change?. Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. Clim. Change 1:332–42 [Google Scholar]
  93. Swim J, Clayton S, Doherty T, Gifford R, Howard G. 93.  et al. 2009. Psychology and global climate change: addressing a multi-faceted phenomenon and set of challenges. A report by the American Psychological Association's task force on the interface between psychology and global climate change. Am. Psychol. Assoc., Washington, DC. http://www.apa.org/science/about/publications/climate-change.aspx [Google Scholar]
  94. Lorenzoni I, Pidgeon NF. 94.  2006. Public views on climate change: European and USA perspectives. Clim. Change 77:73–95 [Google Scholar]
  95. Rayner S, Malone EL. 95.  1997. Zen and the art of climate maintenance. Nature 390:332–34 [Google Scholar]
  96. Milfont TL. 96.  2010. Global warming, climate change and human psychology. Psychological Approaches to Sustainability: Current Trends in Theory, Research and Practice V Corral-Verdugo, CH Garcia-Cadena, M Frias-Armenta 19–42 New York: Nova Science [Google Scholar]
  97. Nicolaij S, Hendrickx L. 97.  2003. The influence of temporal distance of negative consequences on the evaluation of environmental risks. Human Decision Making and Environmental Perception: Understanding and Assisting Human Decision Making in Real-Life Situations L Hendrickx, W Jager, L Steg 47–67 Groningen, Neth: Univ. Groningen Press [Google Scholar]
  98. Hardisty DJ, Weber EU. 98.  2009. Discounting future green: money versus the environment. J. Exp. Psychol.: Gen. 138:329–40 [Google Scholar]
  99. Ding D, Maibach EW, Zhao X, Roser-Renouf C, Leiserowitz A. 99.  2011. Support for climate policy and societal action are linked to perceptions about scientific agreement. Nat. Clim. Change 1:462–66 [Google Scholar]
  100. Lewandowsky S, Gignac GE, Vaughan S. 100.  2013. The pivotal role of perceived scientific consensus in acceptance of science. Nat. Clim. Change 3:399–404 [Google Scholar]
  101. Budescu DV, Por HH, Broomell SB. 101.  2012. Effective communication of uncertainty in the IPCC reports. Clim. Change 113:181–200 [Google Scholar]
  102. Spence A, Pidgeon N. 102.  2010. Framing and communicating climate change: The effects of distance and outcome frame manipulations. Glob. Environ. Change 20:656–67 [Google Scholar]
  103. Hart PS, Nisbet EC. 103.  2012. Boomerang effects in science communication: how motivated reasoning and identity cues amplify opinion polarization about climate mitigation policies. Commun. Res. 39:701–23 [Google Scholar]
  104. White K, MacDonnell R, Dahl DW. 104.  2011. It's the mind-set that matters: the role of construal level and message framing in influencing consumer efficacy and conservation behaviors. J. Mark. Res. 48:472–85 [Google Scholar]
  105. Rabinovich A, Morton TA, Postmes T, Verplanken B. 105.  2009. Think global, act local: the effect of goal and mindset specificity on willingness to donate to an environmental organization. J. Environ. Psychol. 29:391–99 [Google Scholar]
  106. Fujita K, Eyal T, Chaiken S, Trope Y, Liberman N. 106.  2008. Influencing attitudes toward near and distant objects. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 44:562–72 [Google Scholar]
  107. Sherif M. 107.  1965. The Psychology of Social Norms New York: Octagon [Google Scholar]
  108. Cialdini RB, Reno RR, Kallgren CA. 108.  1990. A focus theory of normative conduct: recycling the concept of norms to reduce littering in public places. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 58:1015–26 [Google Scholar]
  109. Schultz PW, Nolan JM, Cialdini RB, Goldstein NJ, Griskevicius V. 109.  2007. The constructive, destructive, and reconstructive power of social norms. Psychol. Sci. 18:429–34 [Google Scholar]
  110. Nolan JM, Schultz PW, Cialdini RB, Goldstein NJ, Griskevicius V. 110.  2008. Normative social influence is underdetected. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 34:913–23 [Google Scholar]
  111. Schultz PW. 111.  1999. Changing behavior with normative feedback interventions: a field experiment on curbside recycling. Basic Appl. Soc. Psychol. 21:25–36 [Google Scholar]
  112. Krupka E, Weber RA. 112.  2009. The focusing and informational effects of norms on pro-social behavior. J. Econ. Psychol. 30:307–20 [Google Scholar]
  113. Cordano M, Welcomer S, Scherer RF, Pradenas L, Parada V. 113.  2011. A cross-cultural assessment of three theories of pro-environmental behavior: a comparison between business students of Chile and the United States. Environ. Behav. 43:634–57 [Google Scholar]
  114. Smith JR, Louis WR, Terry DJ, Greenaway KH, Clarke MR, Cheng X. 114.  2012. Congruent or conflicted? The impact of injunctive and descriptive norms on environmental intentions. J. Environ. Psychol. 32:353–61 [Google Scholar]
  115. Göckeritz S, Schultz PW, Rendon T, Cialdini RB, Goldstein NJ, Griskevicius V. 115.  2010. Descriptive normative beliefs and conservation behavior: the moderating roles of personal involvement and injunctive normative beliefs. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 40:514–23 [Google Scholar]
  116. Thøgersen J. 116.  2008. Social norms and cooperation in real-life social dilemmas. J. Econ. Psychol. 29:458–72 [Google Scholar]
  117. McDonald RI, Fielding KS, Louis WR. 117.  2013. Energizing and de-motivating effects of norm-conflict. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 39:57–72 [Google Scholar]
  118. McDonald RI, Fielding KS, Louis WR. 118.  2014. Conflicting norms highlight the need for action. Environ. Behav. 46:139–62 [Google Scholar]
  119. McDonald RI, Fielding KS, Louis WR. 119.  2014. Conflicting social norms and community conservation compliance. J. Nat. Conserv. 22:212–16 [Google Scholar]
  120. Griskevicius V, Tybur JM, Van den Bergh B. 120.  2010. Going green to be seen: status, reputation, and conspicuous conservation. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 98:392–404 [Google Scholar]
  121. Fritsche I, Jonas E, Kayser DN, Koranyi N. 121.  2010. Existential threat and compliance with pro-environmental norms. J. Environ. Psychol. 30:67–79 [Google Scholar]
  122. Robertson JL, Barling J. 122.  2012. Greening organizations through leaders' influence on employees' pro-environmental behaviors. J. Organ. Behav. 34:176–94 [Google Scholar]
  123. Grønhøj A, Thøgersen J. 123.  2012. Action speaks louder than words: the effect of personal attitudes and family norms on adolescents' pro-environmental behaviour. J. Econ. Psychol. 33:292–302 [Google Scholar]
  124. Hardin G. 124.  1968. The tragedy of the commons. Science 162:1243–48 [Google Scholar]
  125. Parks CD, Joireman J, Van Lange PAM. 125.  2013. Cooperation, trust, and antagonism: how public goods are promoted. Psychol. Sci. Public Interest 14:119–65 [Google Scholar]
  126. Van Lange PAM, Joireman J, Parks CD, Van Dijk E. 126.  2013. The psychology of social dilemmas: a review. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 120:125–41 [Google Scholar]
  127. Balliet D, Parks C, Joireman J. 127.  2009. Social value orientation and cooperation in social dilemmas: a meta-analysis. Group Process. Intergroup Relat. 12:533–47 [Google Scholar]
  128. Bogaert S, Boone C, Declerck C. 128.  2008. Social value orientation and cooperation in social dilemmas: a review and conceptual model. Br. J. Soc. Psychol. 47:453–80 [Google Scholar]
  129. Fischbacher U, Gächter S. 129.  2010. Social preferences, beliefs, and the dynamics of free riding in public goods experiments. Am. Econ. Rev. 100:541–56 [Google Scholar]
  130. Balliet D, Van Lange PAM. 130.  2013. Trust, punishment, and cooperation across 18 societies: a meta-analysis. Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 8:363–79 [Google Scholar]
  131. Balliet D. 131.  2010. Communication and cooperation in social dilemmas: a meta-analytic review. J. Confl. Resolut. 54:39–57 [Google Scholar]
  132. Balliet D, Mulder LB, Van Lange PAM. 132.  2011. Reward, punishment, and cooperation: a meta-analysis. Psychol. Bull. 137:594–615 [Google Scholar]
  133. Bowles S. 133.  2008. Policies designed for self-interested citizens may undermine “the moral sentiments”: evidence from economic experiments. Science 320:1605–9 [Google Scholar]
  134. Fuster A, Meier S. 134.  2010. Another hidden cost of incentives: the detrimental effect on norm enforcement. Manag. Sci. 56:57–70 [Google Scholar]
  135. Chen X-P, Pillutla MM, Yao X. 135.  2009. Unintended consequences of cooperation inducing and maintaining mechanisms in public goods dilemmas: sanctions and moral appeals. Group Process. Intergroup Relat. 12:241–55 [Google Scholar]
  136. Carpenter J, Matthews PH. 136.  2009. What norms trigger punishment?. Exp. Econ. 12:272–88 [Google Scholar]
  137. Herrmann B, Thöni C, Gächter S. 137.  2008. Antisocial punishment across societies. Science 319:1362–67 [Google Scholar]
  138. van Dijk E, de Kwaadsteniet EW, De Cremer D. 138.  2009. Tacit coordination in social dilemmas: the importance of having a common understanding. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 96:665–78 [Google Scholar]
  139. Brucks WM, Van Lange PAM. 139.  2008. No control, no drive: how noise may undermine conservation behavior in a commons dilemma. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 38:810–22 [Google Scholar]
  140. Joireman J, Posey DC, Truelove HB, Parks CD. 140.  2009. The environmentalist who cried drought: reactions to repeated warnings about depleting resources under conditions of uncertainty. J. Environ. Psychol. 29:181–92 [Google Scholar]
  141. Milinski M, Sommerfeld RD, Krambeck H-J, Reed FA, Marotzke J. 141.  2008. The collective-risk social dilemma and the prevention of simulated dangerous climate change. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 105:2291–94 [Google Scholar]
  142. Barrett S, Dannenberg A. 142.  2012. Climate negotiations under scientific uncertainty. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 109:17372–76 [Google Scholar]
  143. Jacquet J, Hagel K, Hauert C, Marotzke J, Röhl T, Milinski M. 143.  2013. Intra- and intergenerational discounting in the climate game. Nat. Clim. Change 3:1025–28 [Google Scholar]
  144. Weber JM, Murnighan JK. 144.  2008. Suckers or saviors? Consistent contributors in social dilemmas. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 95:1340–53 [Google Scholar]
  145. Kerr NL, Rumble AC, Park ES, Ouwerkerk JW, Parks CD. 145.  et al. 2009. “How many bad apples does it take to spoil the whole barrel?”: social exclusion and toleration for bad apples. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 45:603–13 [Google Scholar]
  146. De Cremer D, Van Knippenberg D, Van Dijk E, Van Leeuwen E. 146.  2008. Cooperating if one's goals are collective-based: social identification effects in social dilemmas as a function of goal transformation. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 38:1562–79 [Google Scholar]
  147. Jackson JW. 147.  2008. Reactions to social dilemmas as a function of group identity, rational calculations, and social context. Small Group Res. 39:673–705 [Google Scholar]
  148. Jackson JW. 148.  2011. Intragroup cooperation as a function of group performance and group identity. Group Dyn. Theory, Res. Pract. 15:343–56 [Google Scholar]
  149. Buchan NR, Brewer MB, Grimalda G, Wilson RK, Fatas E, Foddy M. 149.  2011. Global social identity and global cooperation. Psychol. Sci. 22:821–28 [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-environ-010713-094623
Loading
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-environ-010713-094623
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Review Article
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error