Take-down policy If you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact us providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediately and investigate your claim.
A meta‐analysis of 76 studies (N = 31,016) examined the relationship between social identification and depression. Overall, individuals who identify highly with a group tend to report less depression (average rz = −.15). However, a large amount of variability between studies was observed. The 95% prediction interval, which indicates the true effect size that can be expected in future research, ranged from rz = −.50 to .19. The relationship between depression and social identification is more complex than previously assumed. Some variability is related to the social identification measure used. Studies that focused on identification with interactive groups (rz = −.28) had larger effect sizes than studies that focused on social categories (rz = −.11). Moreover, studies of non‐stigmatized groups (rz = −.24) had larger effect sizes than studies of stigmatized groups (rz = −.10). In conclusion, the structure and social identity content of groups appear to play an important role in the relationship between depression and social identification.
Encouraging pro-environmental behaviour is necessary to reduce CO 2 emissions and limit global climate change. Many reviews and meta-analyses have been published examining the effectiveness of interventions to promote pro-environmental behaviour. Yet, it remains unclear which interventions are most effective, when and why. Because interventions are more likely to encourage pro-environmental behaviour when they target key determinants of the relevant behaviour, it is critical to understand which interventions target which determinants. We introduce a classification system that links six types of interventions to 13 determinants of environmental behaviour. Our classification enables a theory-based understanding of when and why interventions are effective (or not) in encouraging pro-environmental behaviour and provides guidelines to practitioners to select interventions that are most likely to change the key determinants of a specific target behaviour, and thus likely to be the most successful in changing behaviour in the given context.
People are increasingly exposed to climate-related hazards, including floods, droughts, and vector-borne diseases. A broad repertoire of adaptation actions is needed to adapt to these various hazards. It is therefore important to identify general psychological antecedents that motivate people to engage in many different adaptation actions, in response to different hazards, and in different contexts. We examined if people’s climate change perceptions act as such general antecedents. Questionnaire studies in the Netherlands (n = 3,546) and the UK (n = 803) revealed that the more people perceive climate change as real, human-caused, and having negative consequences, the more likely they are to support adaptation policy and to seek information about local climate impacts and ways to adapt. These relationships were stronger and more consistent when the information and policies were introduced as measures to adapt to risks of climate change specifically. However, the three types of climate change perceptions were inconsistently associated with intentions to implement adaptation behaviours (e.g. installing a green roof). This suggests that climate change perceptions can be an important gateway for adaptation actions, especially policy support and information seeking, but that it may be necessary to address additional barriers in order to fully harness the potential of climate change perceptions to promote widespread adaptation behaviour.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.