Last Straw: The Effect of Guilt on Pro-Environmental Behavior

Presenter Information

M. Ryan Nugent
Heather Barnes Truelove

Faculty Sponsor

Heather Barnes Truelove

Faculty Sponsor College

College of Arts and Sciences

Faculty Sponsor Department

Psychology

Location

SOARS Virtual Conference

Presentation Website

https://unfsoars.domains.unf.edu/2021/posters/the-last-straw-the-effect-of-guilt-on-pro-environmental-behavior/

Keywords

SOARS (Conference) (2021 : University of North Florida) – Archives; SOARS (Conference) (2021 : University of North Florida) – Posters; University of North Florida -- Students -- Research – Posters; University of North Florida. Office of Undergraduate Research; University of North Florida. Graduate School; College students – Research -- Florida – Jacksonville – Posters; University of North Florida – Undergraduates -- Research – Posters; University of North Florida. Department of Psychology -- Research – Posters; Guilt -- Environmental aspects -- Research – Posters; Environmental compliance -- Psychological aspects -- Research – Posters; Honorable Mention Award Winner

Abstract

Honorable Mention Winner

Although many environmental campaigns have pushed to eliminate plastic straws from daily consumption, concerns have surfaced that an increase in the simple behavior of refusing plastic straws will generate less action toward more effective pro-environmental behaviors (PEBs). This study implemented a guilt manipulation to urge participants to reduce their straw use and tested spillover effects to various household and travel PEBs. 234 Mturk participants (34% women) indicated their current PEBs at Time 1 and were randomly assigned to the guilt condition or a control condition. One week later (Time 2), participants completed a survey of the same measures, with 184 participants completing an identical survey three months later (Time 3). Results showed that, although the guilt manipulation did not affect straw use, a reduction in straw use positively spilled over to all PEBs at Time 2, with indirect effects through environmental identity for multiple PEBs. Several spillover effects had diminished by Time 3. The results show it is necessary to consider environmental identity when investigating PEB spillover and that negative spillover may not be a concern.

Comments

Audio Presentation Transcript:

Hello everyone, my name is Ryan Nugent and I am studying psychology at the University of North Florida in Jacksonville, Florida. Today, I will be commentating over a poster that is based on a study that my research supervisor, Dr. Truelove, and I conducted, which is referenced throughout. Thank you all for taking the time to view this poster presentation. Now, let’s get started!
While many campaigns and researchers have focused on reducing single-use plastic straw use to combat plastic pollution, others have argued against its effectiveness to eliminate plastic pollution and that it may detract from drives for more important environmental issues such as climate change. This concern led us to investigate the mechanisms driving environmental spillover. Environmental spillover is the idea that performing an initial, seemingly simple environmental behavior may either lead to an increase (positive spillover) or a decrease (negative spillover) in the willingness to perform an additional, more difficult pro-environmental behavior.
When adding guilt into the realm of environmental spillover, research suggests that guilty feelings result in a higher willingness to perform an initial behavior. However, after performing the behavior, these guilty feelings are alleviated, resulting in a decreasing willingness to perform the additional pro-environmental behavior.
What this study aims to accomplish is investigate guilt-centered spillover effects to additional pro-environmental behaviors by conducting the first longitudinal study that focuses on reducing plastic straw use. This may provide insight into if these concerns about plastic straw campaigns are warranted or not.
In this study, we hypothesized that participants in the guilt condition will display higher levels of straw use change compared to the control condition. This is based on the previously mentioned theory about guilt and environmental spillover. Second, we hypothesized that changes in straw use will positively spillover to changes in policy support and pro-environmental behavior performance. Third, we hypothesized that, compared to the control condition, participants in the guilt condition will have lower levels of policy support change and pro-environmental behavior performance change because of negative spillover effects emphasized by past research. We lastly hypothesized that spillover effects would be positively mediated by environmental identity, positively mediated by environmental concern, and negatively mediated by environmental guilt.
Our study was divided into three parts. In the first part (Time 1), participants were randomly selected into two groups. The first group, the video condition, watched an upsetting video of researchers pulling a plastic straw out of a wild sea turtle’s nose, while the second group, the control condition, did not watch any video. Then, both groups answered questions relating to guilt, identity, and concern measures. Participants in the video condition were asked to reduce and track their single-use, plastic straw use for one week, while participants in the control condition were only asked to track their single-use, plastic straw use for one week. One week later (Time 2), all participants recorded their straw use from questions that were administered in Time 1. Three months later (Time 3), all participants answered the same questions administered in Time 2. Time 3 served as an exploratory survey to gauge possible lingering spillover effects.
So, as you can see, our first hypothesis was not supported as there was a minimal and non-significant positive effect of video condition on change in straw use. Our second hypothesis was partially supported, as you can see in the top graph. Straw use change significantly related positively to changes in Curtailment and Reuse and Recycle pro-environmental behaviors, but not to changes in Plastic or Climate Policy Support. Our third hypothesis was not supported, which is shown in the bottom graph. None of the interaction effects between video condition and straw use change were significant. Lastly, our fourth hypothesis was partially supported. Only environmental identity significantly and indirectly affected changes in Climate Policy Support, Reuse and Recycle pro-environmental behaviors, and Food pro-environmental behaviors.
So, to conclude everything, we propose that additional research on guilt-centered interventions in pro-environmental behavior change is warranted. Additionally, in our exploratory Time 3 intervention, several spillover effects were either eliminated or diminished. And because of our significant findings about environmental identity mediation, we think that environmental identity plays a more important role in pro-environmental behavior spillover than environmental guilt. Finally, we found no evidence that relatively ineffective pro-environmental behaviors undermine broader, more important pro-environmental behaviors.
If you guys would like more information about this study, please refer to the publication citation at the bottom of the discussion. Thank you again for viewing this poster and listening to this presentation!