How do I see myself? A systematic review of identities in pro‐environmental behaviour research

Abstract

Encouraging pro‐environmental behaviour (PEB) is an environmental and societal concern. Encouraging PEB focussing on how consumers see themselves (their identity) has blossomed. However, a theoretical assessment of this research is missing. Three main identity theories seem to best explain the research, specifically, and two‐fold, identity, and social identity theory (SIT), collectively known as the unified identity theory (UIT), and place identity theory (PIT). As these theories overlap more than differ in their understanding of identity, we argue that combining these theories is needed to avoid redundancies in identity theorizing, provide a universal approach to identity in terms of the processes and outcomes, and explain the PEB research most succinctly. Therefore, we understand identity similarly between the theories and offer a universal identity theory approach based on the theoretical definitions and assumptions. Finally, we demonstrate how the theory can be used to explain the research. Next, research was identified by conducting a systematic review using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta‐Analyses guidelines, where 62 studies were relevant. Multiple identities relevant for a given PEB are assumed and evidenced: 99. Identities are assumed to be either individually‐, group‐, and/or place‐focused, drawing on the specific subsets of the universal theory: identity theory, social identity theory, and place identity theory, respectively. Identities are assumed to relate to behaviour, where identity increased PEB with medium effect sizes. Finally, to move the field forward, we provide a theoretical framework of how to test identities in relation to other psychological variables relevant for PEB research.

The influence mechanism of environmental anxiety on pro‐environmental behaviour: The role of self‐discrepancy

“…How they see themselves is an essential factor affecting consumer behaviour (Udall, de Groot, de Jong, & Shankar, 2020), when the self‐discrepancy increases, consumers would lead to compensatory consumption behaviour (Mandel et al., 2017). Compensatory consumer behaviour indicates any purchase, use or consumption of products or services motivated by a desire to offset or reduce a self‐discrepancy (Rucker & Galinsky, 2008).…”

Coping with multiple identities related to meat consumption

“…However, it has been argued that the distinction between social and personal identity may often not be necessary as the process of dealing with identity-congruent feedback is the same whether the identity has its origin in the social or the personal sphere (Reed et al, 2012). Similarly, Udall et al (2020) argue that the identity approach suggested by Stets and Burke (2000) and social identity theory (Tajfel, 1981) should be understood in an integrated way. According to both theories, individuals have the capacity to reflect upon and categorize themselves with respect to personally based features (e.g., personality, appearance, and behavior), roles they occupy, groups they belong to (in-groups) and groups to which they do not belong (out-groups; Stryker & Burke, 2000;Tajfel, 1981).…”

“…However, identity research struggles with a fragmented terminology and lack of an integrated framework (M. A. Hogg et al, 1995;Reed et al, 2012;Udall et al, 2020). It is clear from extant research that people may have multiple identities due, among other things, to an ever-increasing number of roles and group memberships.…”

“…Another reason may be that social media, a globalized community and a proliferation of novel products offer many possibilities of constructing a range of identities (Giddens, 1991). However, identity research struggles with a fragmented terminology and lack of an integrated framework (M. A. Hogg et al, 1995; Reed et al, 2012; Udall et al, 2020). It is clear from extant research that people may have multiple identities due, among other things, to an ever‐increasing number of roles and group memberships.…”

Erratum

“…In Udall et al (2020), the email address of the corresponding author appeared incorrectly in the published version. The correct email address should be alinamiaudall@bath.edu.…”