2019
DOI: 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2019.101941
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

A meta-analysis of field-experiments using social norms to promote pro-environmental behaviors

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

8
95
3
1

Year Published

2020
2020
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
7
1

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 133 publications
(107 citation statements)
references
References 144 publications
8
95
3
1
Order By: Relevance
“…Respondents who did more for pollinators were characterised by (in order of importance) having a greater diversity of interactions with nature, feeling better able to help pollinators (perceived behavioural control), having more positive attitudes towards pollinators, having greater knowledge of pollinators and how to help them (aspects of behavioural control), perceiving a greater social pressure to help pollinators (subjective norm) and identifying more strongly as an environmentalist (Hypothesis 1). These findings, including subjective norm being a relatively weaker predictor, are in‐line with reviews of factors predicting pro‐environmental behaviour in the TPB (Armitage & Conner, 2001) and other socio‐psychological models (Bergquist et al., 2019; Klöckner, 2013). Notably, knowledge was far less important than people's perceptions and other socio‐psychological factors, and many people did not carry out pollinator conservation actions which they knew would help.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 88%
“…Respondents who did more for pollinators were characterised by (in order of importance) having a greater diversity of interactions with nature, feeling better able to help pollinators (perceived behavioural control), having more positive attitudes towards pollinators, having greater knowledge of pollinators and how to help them (aspects of behavioural control), perceiving a greater social pressure to help pollinators (subjective norm) and identifying more strongly as an environmentalist (Hypothesis 1). These findings, including subjective norm being a relatively weaker predictor, are in‐line with reviews of factors predicting pro‐environmental behaviour in the TPB (Armitage & Conner, 2001) and other socio‐psychological models (Bergquist et al., 2019; Klöckner, 2013). Notably, knowledge was far less important than people's perceptions and other socio‐psychological factors, and many people did not carry out pollinator conservation actions which they knew would help.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 88%
“…The finding might be further explained by the income gap between east and west China. Although the expected financial benefit seems be important to household energy-saving intention, the qualitative analysis result is in line with Bergquist et al (2019) and De Dominicis et al (2019), who noted that social motives are more influential in pro-environmental intentions than financial motives [78,79]. Therefore, policymakers may consider encouraging household energy conservation with monetary benefits.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 81%
“…This previous empirical difference between individualistic and collectivistic cultures bolsters our results that suggest that the descriptive norms directly influenced U.S. participants, but attitudes moderated this effect in Japanese participants. Furthermore, Bergquist et al (2019) indicated that social norms were more influential for those living in individualistic countries than in collectivistic countries, contrary to their initial assumption.…”
Section: Explanation Of the Inconsistent Resultsmentioning
confidence: 70%