Many studies have demonstrated that moral philosophies, such as idealism and relativism, could be used as robust predictors of judgements and behaviours related to common moral issues, such as business ethics, unethical beliefs, workplace deviance, marketing practices, gambling, etc. However, little consideration has been given to using moral philosophies to predict environmentally (un)friendly attitudes and behaviours, which could also be classified as moral. In this study, we have assessed the impact of idealism and relativism using the Ethics Position Theory. We have tested its capacity to predict moral identity, moral judgement of social vs. environmental issues, and self-reported pro-environmental behaviours. The results from an online MTurk study of 432 US participants revealed that idealism had a significant impact on all the tested variables, but the case was different with relativism. Consistently with the findings of previous studies, we found relativism to be a strong predictor of moral identity and moral judgement of social issues. In contrast, relativism only weakly interacted with making moral judgements of environmental issues, and had no effects in predicting pro-environmental behaviours. These findings suggest that Ethics Position Theory could have a strong potential for defining moral differences between environmental attitudes and behaviours, capturing the moral drivers of an attitude-behaviour gap, which continuously stands as a barrier in motivating people to become more pro-environmental.

The inconsistency between pro-environmental attitudes and behaviours, known as the “attitude-behaviour” gap, is exceptionally pronounced in scenarios associated with “green” choice. The current literature offers numerous explanations for the reasons behind the “attitude-behaviour” gap, however, the generalisability of these explanations is complex. In addition, the answer to the question of whether the gap occurs between attitudes and intentions, or intentions and behaviours is also unknown. In this study, we propose the moral dimension as a generalisable driver of the “attitude-behaviour” gap and investigate its effectiveness in predicting attitudes, pro-environmental intentions and subsequent behaviours. We do so by using Hunt–Vitell’s moral philosophy-based framework of ethical decision-making, which conceptualises morality as the central decision-making parameter. The results from 557 US MTurk participants revealed that the manipulation of moral dimensions, specifically deontology and teleology, impacted ethical evaluation of presented dilemmas, however, failed to translate into subsequent intentions and behaviours. This finding suggests (i) that the moral dimension has an effect in shaping attitudes toward environmental issues, and (ii) that gap occurs between attitudes and intentions rather than intentions and behaviours. Further investigation of what strengthens and/or overrides the effects of the moral dimension would help understand the reasons why moral attitudes do not always translate into subsequent intentions and behaviours in the pro-environmental domain.

No abstract

The inconsistency between pro-environmental attitudes and behaviour, known as the ‘attitude-behaviour’ gap, is not uncommon to ethical decision-making, however it’s exceptionally pronounced in scenarios associated with ‘green’ choice. Despite existing research offering numerous attempts to investigate the causes of the ‘attitude-behaviour’ gap in the pro-environmental domain, it is surprising that the major factors driving the ‘attitude-behaviour’ gap are still unknown. Therefore, we have grounded this study in Hunt-Vitell’s moral philosophy-based framework of ethical decision-making, which assumes morality as the central force impacting one’s behaviour and tested its effectiveness in predicting pro-environmental intentions vs. behaviours. The results from an online study of 612 MTurk participants from the US revealed that participants’ decision-making indeed depended on deontological and teleological framing of pro-environmental scenarios, and this in turn predicted the declining relationship between intention vs. behaviour. These findings suggest that morality is central to pro-environmental decision-making, and the ‘attitude-behaviour’ gap is the result of the disintegrated effects of moral dimension. For this reason, strengthening the impact of morality could be sufficient for aligning intentions with behaviours and thus closing the ‘attitude-behaviour’ gap.