Cross-Cultural Evidence for Spatial Bias in Beliefs About the Severity of Environmental Problems

Abstract

Prior research has shown a tendency for environmental problems to be rated as more severe at the global level than at the local level. The present article reports reanalyses of a large cross-cultural data set (Study 1: k = 22, N = 3,277) and new cross-cultural data (Study 2: k = 8, N = 1,131) examining the prevalence of this spatial bias in the rated severity of environmental problems Article 268 Environment and Behavior 46(3)along with analyses of individual and country-level predictors of this bias. Results from multilevel modeling analyses showed that spatial bias was greater for happier and younger individuals and for those from smaller communities. We interpret these results as evidence for self-serving and "place-serving" biases in which the bias tempers the severity of environmental problems in one's local area. Considering the large cross-cultural evidence, we argue that spatial bias is a plausible candidate of a psychological universal identified by research in environmental psychology.

We are at risk, and so what? Place attachment, environmental risk perceptions and preventive coping behaviours

“…Consistent with the previous literature on flood risk (Baan & Klijn, 2004;Stefanovic, 2003;Terpstra et al, 2006), risk perception has been found to be a predictor of preventive behaviour. However, considering the affective level, it was predicted that place attachment may negatively moderate this positive relation, according to the possible effect of place-specific biases, such as the optimistic bias applied to environmental risk perception (Gifford et al, 2009;Radcliffe & Klein, 2002;Schultz et al, 2014). This restraining effect should be stronger for contexts where the risk is higher and where the bias may be greater.…”

“…Past research has shown that individuals view environmental risks as more likely to happen elsewhere, thus affecting other people and other local areas rather than themselves (e.g., Dunlap et al, 1993;Gifford et al, 2009;Hatfield & Job, 2001;Lima & Castro, 2005;Pahl et al, 2005;Uzzell, 2000). This bias, based on unrealistic optimism, is likely to function as a barrier for individuals to face local environmental problems (Schultz et al, 2014). However, spatial optimism may occur not only by the comparison of local vs. global (Gifford et al, 2009) or here vs. there (Hatfield & Job, 2001).…”

“…Therefore, in order to better understand the role of a possible antecedent of resilient behaviours in case of environmental risk, the present research specifically investigates the moderating role of neighbourhood attachment in the relation between flood risk perception and related preventive behaviours. Thus, according to the possible effect of place-specific biases (Bonaiuto et al, 1996;Gifford et al, 2009;Radcliffe & Klein, 2002;Schultz et al, 2014), and the possible barrier effect of place attachment in influencing people-environment transactions (Bonaiuto et al, 2011;Brown et al, 2012;Devine-Wright, 2009Devine-Wright & Howes, 2010;Fried, 2000;Gifford, 2014;Scannell, 2013;Scannell & Gifford, 2013), we expect a negative moderating effect of place attachment on risk perception and preventive behaviours. Given previous evidence that has highlighted potential differences of such a moderating effect in relation to different areas (as in the previously reported studies by Bernardo (2013), Bonaiuto et al (2011), Casakin, Hern andez, and Ruiz (2015)), we have conducted two studies in two cities in Italy, which are respectively subject to low and high objective flood risk (Bonaiuto et al, 2011;De Dominicis, 2012;De Dominicis et al, 2014): Rome and Vibo Valentia.…”

“…Step Schultz et al, 2014). Accordingly, this barrier effect should be stronger for objectively higher risk contexts, places in which the bias may be greater.…”

“…Given the link between place attachment, place identity and in-place biases (Bonaiuto et al, 1996;Devine-Wright, 2013;Gifford et al, 2009;Radcliffe & Klein, 2002;Schultz et al, 2014), as well the previous research on the barrier effect of place attachment on behaviours (conative level of influence), it is generally hypothesized that the positive relationship between risk perception and preventive behaviour (Terpstra et al, 2006) will be weaker for higher level of neighbourhood attachment (Gifford et al, 2009;Twigger-Ross & Uzzell, 1996;Uzzell, 2000). More specifically, given that previous studies (Bonaiuto et al, 2011;De Dominicis et al, 2014;De Dominicis, 2012) demonstrated a realistic perception of the objective flood risk for citizens living in these contexts, we expect that the moderating effect is greater in the higher risk context, the city of Vibo Valentia, since they would perceive themselves as exposed to a higher risk and therefore the moderating effect of place attachment should be magnified within this subsample compared to the one in the lower risk area.…”