Keywords
pro environmental behavior
social dilemma
How to Cite
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to develop an instrument to measure expectation of others’ environmental behavior, and notice if there is a relationship between this variable and self-report of pro-environmental behaviors. Thirteen items Likert-type were development, and was applied to a sample of two hundred eighteen Mexican young adults. The exploratory factor analysis shows a bi-factorial structure distinguishes between, expectation of pro-environmental behavior, and expectation of anti-environmental behavior. Their Cronbach’s alpha score was 0.77 and 0.79; both factors accounted for 57.65% of the variance. A scale of pro-environmental actions was applied too. A structural equation model showed that the factor expectation of pro-environmental behavior has a significant effect on pro-environmental actions. The result shows evidence for bi-factorial scale with acceptable psychometrics properties.
Arnon, S., & Nurit, C. (2014). Pro-environmental behavior and its antecedents as a case of social and temporal dilemmas. British Journal of Education, Society & Behavioral Science, 4(4), 508-526. Recuperado de http://www.journalrepository.org/media/journals/BJESBS_21/2014/Jan/Sara442013BJESBS6573_1.pdf
Bell, P.A., Greene, T. C., Fisher, J. D., & Baum, A. (2001). Environmental psychology (5.a ed.). Forth Worth, TX: Harcourt College Publishers.
Biel, A., & Thøgersen, J. (2007). Activation of social norms in social dilemmas: A review of the evidence and reflections on the implications for environmental behavior. Journal of Economic Psychology, 28, 93-112. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.joep.2006.03.003
Blake, D. E. (2001). Contextual effects on environmental attitudes and behavior. Environment and Behavior, 33(5), 708-725. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/00139160121973205
Brechner, K. C. (1977). An experimental analysis of social traps. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 13(6), 552-564. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0022-1031(77)90054-3
Carrus, G., Bonnes, M., Corral-Verdugo, V., Moser, G., & Sinha, J. (2013). Social-psychological and contextual predictors of sustainable water consumption. En V. Corral-Verdugo, C. H. García-Cadena & M. Frías-Armenta (Eds.), Psychological approaches to sustainability (pp. 43-60). Nueva York: Nova Science Publishers.
Colmenares, V. L., & Santoyo, V. C. (2012). Evaluación de la consistencia del comportamiento prosocial en dos juegos experimentales. Revista Mexicana de Análisis de la Conducta, 38(2), 69-86. Recuperado de http://www.redalyc.org/html/593/59335805006/
Corral-Verdugo, V. (2012). Sustentabilidad y Psicologia positiva. Una visión optimista de las conducta proambientales y prosociales. México: Manual Moderno
Corral-Verdugo, V. (2001). Comportamiento proambiental. Una introducción al estudio de las conductas protectoras del ambiente. Santa Cruz de Tenerife, ES: Resma.
Corral-Verdugo, V. (2002). A structural model of proenvironmental competency. Environment and Behavior, 34(4), 531-549. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/00116502034004008
Corral-Verdugo, V. (2010). Psicología de la sustentabilidad. México: Trillas.
Corral-Verdugo, V., & Domínguez, G. R. L. (2011). El rol de los eventos antecedentes y consecuentes en la conducta sustentable. Revista Mexicana de Análisis de la Conducta, 37(2), 9-29. http://dx.doi.org/10.5514/rmac.v37.i2.26137
Corral-Verdugo, V., Bonnes, M., Tapia-Fonllem, C., Fraijo-Sing, B., Frías-Armenta, M., & Carrus, G. (2009). Correlates of pro-sustainability orientation: The affinity towards diversity. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 29, 34-43. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2008.09.001
Corral-Verdugo, V., & Encinas-Norzagaray, L. (2001). Variables disposicionales, situacionales y demográficas en el reciclaje de metal y papel. Medio Ambiente y Comportamiento Humano, 2(2), 1-19. Recuperado de http://mach.webs.ull.es/PDFS/VOL2_2/VOL_2_2_a.pdf
Corral-Verdugo, V., Frías-Armenta, M., Pérez-Urias, F., Orduña-Cabrera, V., & Espinoza-Gallego, N. (2002). Residential water consumption, motivation for conserving water and the continuing tragedy of the commons. Environmental Management, 30(4), 527-535. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00267-002-2599-5
Dawes, R. M. (1980). Social dilemmas. Annual Review of Psychology, 31, 169-193. http://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.ps.31.020180.001125
Dewitte, S., & Cremer, D. D. (2001). Self-control and cooperation: different concepts, similar decisions? A question of the right perspective. The Journal of Psychology: Interdisciplinary and Applied, 135(2), 133-153. http://doi.org/10.1080/00223980109603686
Fujii, S., Gärling, T., & Kitamura, R. (2001). Changes in driver’s perceptions and use of public transport during a freeway closure. Effects of temporary structural change on cooperation in a real-life social dilemma. Environment and Behavior, 33(6), 796-808. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/00139160121973241
Fujii, S., & Taniguchi, A. (2013). Promoting pro-environmental intentions. Theoretical background and practical applications of travel feedback programs for car use reduction. En V. Corral-Verdugo, C. H. García-Cadena & M. Frías-Armenta (Eds.), Psychological approaches to sustainability (pp. 141-160). Nueva York: Nova Science Publishers.
Gardner, G. T., & Stern, P. C. (2002). Environmental problems and human behavior (2.a ed.). Boston: Pearson Custom Publishing.
Gifford, R. (2014). Environmental psychology matters. Annual Review of Psychology, 65, 541-579. http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-010213-115048
González, B. L. F., & Santoyo, V. C. (2007). Cooperación en dilemas de bienes públicos: el tamaño del grupo como señal de aportación. Revista Mexicana de Análisis de la Conducta, 33(2), 205-224. http://dx.doi.org/10.5514/ rmac.v33.i2
de Groot, J. I. M., Abrahamse, W., & Kaiyleigh, J. (2013). Persuasive normative messages: The influence or injunctive and personal norms on using free plastic bags. Sustainability, 5, 1829-1844. http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su5051829
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. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/07363760910988201
Hine, D. W., & Gifford, R. (1996). Attributions about self and others in commons dilemmas. European Journal of Social Psychology, 26(3), 429-445. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-0992(199605)26:3<429::AID-EJSP767>3.0.CO;2-P
Hoe, S. L. (2008). Issues and procedures in adopting structural equation modeling technique. Journal of Applied Quantitative Methods, 3(1), 76-83. Recuperado de http://jaqm.ro/issues/volume-3,issue-1/pdfs/hoe.pdf
Kaiser, F. G. (1998). A general measure of ecological behavior. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 28(5), 395-422. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.1998.tb01712.x
Kollmuss, A., & Agyeman, J. (2002). Mind the gap: Why do people act environmentally and what are the barriers to pro-environmental behavior? Environmental Education Research, 8(3), 239-260. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13504620220145401
Kormos, C., & Gifford, R. (2014). The validity of self-report measures of proenvironmental behavior: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 40, 359-371. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2014.09.003
Kuhlman, M. D., & Wimberley, D. L. (1976). Expectations of choice behavior held by cooperators, competitors, and individualists across four classes of experimental games. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 34(1), 69-81. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.34.1.69
Moreno, M., Ruiz, J. P., & Corraliza, J. A. (2007). Dilemas sociales y transporte urbano. Revista de Psicología Social, 22(3), 255-266. http://dx.doi.org/10.1174/021347407782194380
Osbaldiston, R., & Schott, J. P. (2012). Environmental sustainability and behavioral science: Meta-analysis of proenvironmental behavior experiments. Environment and Behavior, 44(2), 257-299. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0013916511402673
Pruitt, D. G., & Kimmel, M. J. (1977). Twenty years of experimental gaming: Critique, synthesis, and suggestions for the future. Annual Review of Psychology, 28, 363-392. http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev.ps.28.020177.002051
Ramírez, M. J., García P. I., & Vázquez, P. F. (2004). Cooperación y teoría conductual de juegos. En C. Santoyo & F. Vázquez (Comps), Teoría conductual de la elección: decisiones que se revierten (pp. 63-88). México: UNAM.
Samuelson, C. D. (1990). Energy conservation: A social dilemma approach. Social Behavior, 5(4), 207-230. Recuperado de http://www.academia.edu/781752/Energy_Conservation_A_Social_Dilemma_Approach
Sheldon, K. M. (1999). Learning the lessons of tit-for-tat: Even competitors can get the message. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77(6), 1245-1253. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.77.6.1245
Smith, J. M., & Bell, P. A. (1991). Environment concern and cooperative-competitive behavior in a simulated commons dilemma. The Journal of Social Psychology, 132(4), 461-468. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00224545.1992.9924725
Suárez, E. (2010). Problemas ambientales y soluciones conductuales. En J. I. Aragonés & M. Amérigo (Coord.), Psicología Ambiental (pp. 307-331). Madrid: Pirámide.
Tapia-Fonllem, C., Corral-Verdugo, V., Fraijo-Sing, B., & Durón-Ramos, M. F. (2013). Assessing sustainable behavior and its correlates: a measure of pro-ecological, frugal, altruistic and equitable actions. Sustainability, 5, 711-723. http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su5020711
Thøgersen, J. (2008). Social norms and cooperation in real-life social dilemmas. Journal of Economic Psychology, 29, 458-472. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.joep.2007.12.004
Vázquez, P. F. (2004). Modelos analíticos y de negociación en pequeños grupos. En C. Santoyo & F. Vázquez (Comps.), Teoría conductual de la elección: decisiones que se revierten (pp. 31-62). México: UNAM.
Wiernik, B. M., Ones, D. S., & Dilchert, S. (2013). Age and environmental sustainability: A meta-analysis. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 28(7-8), 826-856. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/JMP-07-2013-0221
This journal is registered under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International Public License. Thus, this work may be reproduced, distributed, and publicly shared in digital format, as long as the names of the authors and Pontificia Universidad Javeriana are acknowledged. Others are allowed to quote, adapt, transform, auto-archive, republish, and create based on this material, for any purpose (even commercial ones), provided the authorship is duly acknowledged, a link to the original work is provided, and it is specified if changes have been made. Pontificia Universidad Javeriana does not hold the rights of published works and the authors are solely responsible for the contents of their works; they keep the moral, intellectual, privacy, and publicity rights. Approving the intervention of the work (review, copy-editing, translation, layout) and the following outreach, are granted through an use license and not through an assignment of rights. This means the journal and Pontificia Universidad Javeriana cannot be held responsible for any ethical malpractice by the authors. As a consequence of the protection granted by the use license, the journal is not required to publish recantations or modify information already published, unless the errata stems from the editorial management process. Publishing contents in this journal does not generate royalties for contributors.