IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ecolec/v166y2019ic2.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Experimental evidence of an environmental attitude-behavior gap in high-cost situations

Author

Listed:
  • Farjam, Mike
  • Nikolaychuk, Olexandr
  • Bravo, Giangiacomo

Abstract

So far, there has been mixed evidence in the literature regarding the relationship between environmental attitudes and actual ‘green’ actions, something known as the attitude-behavior gap. This raises the question of when attitudes can actually work as a lever to promote environmental objectives, such as climate change mitigation, and, conversely, when other factors would be more effective. This paper presents an online experiment with real money at stake and real-world consequences designed to test the effect of environmental attitudes on behavior under various conditions. We found that environmental attitudes affected behavior only in low-cost situations. This finding is consistent with the low-cost hypothesis of environmental behavior postulating that concerned individuals will undertake low-cost actions in order to reduce the cognitive dissonance between their attitudes and rational realization of the environmental impact of their behavior but avoid higher-cost actions despite their greater potential as far as environmental protection. This finding has important consequences for the design of more effective climate policies as it puts limits on what can be achieved by raising environmental concern alone.

Suggested Citation

  • Farjam, Mike & Nikolaychuk, Olexandr & Bravo, Giangiacomo, 2019. "Experimental evidence of an environmental attitude-behavior gap in high-cost situations," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 166(C), pages 1-1.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:ecolec:v:166:y:2019:i:c:2
    DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2019.106434
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921800919303969
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2019.106434?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version below or search for a different version of it.

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. David Hagmann & Emily H Ho & George Loewenstein, 2019. "Nudging out support for a carbon tax," Nature Climate Change, Nature, vol. 9(6), pages 484-489, June.
    2. Olivier Oullier, 2013. "Behavioural insights are vital to policy-making," Nature, Nature, vol. 501(7468), pages 463-463, September.
    3. Paul C. Stern & Benjamin K. Sovacool & Thomas Dietz, 2016. "Towards a science of climate and energy choices," Nature Climate Change, Nature, vol. 6(6), pages 547-555, June.
    4. Babutsidze, Zakaria & Chai, Andreas, 2018. "Look at me Saving the Planet! The Imitation of Visible Green Behavior and its Impact on the Climate Value-Action Gap," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 146(C), pages 290-303.
    5. Mike Farjam & Olexandr Nikolaychuk & Giangiacomo Bravo, 2019. "Investing into climate change mitigation despite the risk of failure," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 154(3), pages 453-460, June.
    6. Mike Farjam & Olexandr Nikolaychuk & Giangiacomo Bravo, 2018. "Does risk communication really decrease cooperation in climate change mitigation?," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 149(2), pages 147-158, July.
    7. Nauges, Céline & Wheeler, Sarah Ann, 2017. "The Complex Relationship Between Households' Climate Change Concerns and Their Water and Energy Mitigation Behaviour," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 141(C), pages 87-94.
    8. Tavoni, Alessandro & Dannenberg, Astrid & Kallis, Giorgos & Löschel, Andreas, 2011. "Inequality, communication and the avoidance of disastrous climate change," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 37570, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    9. Stefano Carattini & Steffen Kallbekken & Anton Orlov, 2019. "How to win public support for a global carbon tax," Nature, Nature, vol. 565(7739), pages 289-291, January.
    10. Matthew J. Hornsey & Emily A. Harris & Kelly S. Fielding, 2018. "Relationships among conspiratorial beliefs, conservatism and climate scepticism across nations," Nature Climate Change, Nature, vol. 8(7), pages 614-620, July.
    11. Chen, Daniel L. & Schonger, Martin & Wickens, Chris, 2016. "oTree—An open-source platform for laboratory, online, and field experiments," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance, Elsevier, vol. 9(C), pages 88-97.
    12. Gosnell, Greer K., 2018. "Communicating Resourcefully: A Natural Field Experiment on Environmental Framing and Cognitive Dissonance in Going Paperless," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 154(C), pages 128-144.
    13. van den Bergh, Jeroen C.J.M., 2008. "Environmental regulation of households: An empirical review of economic and psychological factors," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 66(4), pages 559-574, July.
    14. Bürkner, Paul-Christian, 2017. "brms: An R Package for Bayesian Multilevel Models Using Stan," Journal of Statistical Software, Foundation for Open Access Statistics, vol. 80(i01).
    15. Jouni Paavola, 2001. "Towards Sustainable Consumption: Economics and Ethical Concerns for the Environment in Consumer Choices," Review of Social Economy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 59(2), pages 227-248.
    16. Astrid Dannenberg & Andreas Löschel & Gabriele Paolacci & Christiane Reif & Alessandro Tavoni, 2015. "On the Provision of Public Goods with Probabilistic and Ambiguous Thresholds," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 61(3), pages 365-383, July.
    17. Louise M. Hassan & Edward Shiu & Deirdre Shaw, 2016. "Who Says There is an Intention–Behaviour Gap? Assessing the Empirical Evidence of an Intention–Behaviour Gap in Ethical Consumption," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 136(2), pages 219-236, June.
    18. Carrington, Michal J. & Neville, Benjamin A. & Whitwell, Gregory J., 2014. "Lost in translation: Exploring the ethical consumer intention–behavior gap," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 67(1), pages 2759-2767.
    19. Nico Stehr, 2015. "Climate policy: Democracy is not an inconvenience," Nature, Nature, vol. 525(7570), pages 449-450, September.
    20. Gosnell, Greer, 2018. "Communicating resourcefully: a natural field experiment on environmental framing and cognitive dissonance in going paperless," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 89815, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    21. Newsom, Jason T. & McFarland, Bentson H. & Kaplan, Mark S. & Huguet, Nathalie & Zani, Brigid, 2005. "The health consciousness myth: implications of the near independence of major health behaviors in the North American population," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 60(2), pages 433-437, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Petra Lindemann-Matthies & Julia Werdermann & Martin Remmele, 2023. "‘Simply Make a Change’—Individual Commitment as a Stepping Stone for Sustainable Behaviors," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(16), pages 1-22, August.
    2. Mike Farjam & Olexandr Nikolaychuk & Giangiacomo Bravo, 2019. "Investing into climate change mitigation despite the risk of failure," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 154(3), pages 453-460, June.
    3. Fabian Bopp, 2023. "An Experiment on Dilemma Aversion and Information Avoidance," Working Papers Dissertations 111, Paderborn University, Faculty of Business Administration and Economics.
    4. Robert Mai & Stefan Hoffmann & Ingo Balderjahn, 2021. "When drivers become inhibitors of organic consumption: the need for a multistage view," Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Springer, vol. 49(6), pages 1151-1174, November.
    5. Holly Caggiano & Sonya Ahamed & William Lytle & Chelsea Schelly & Kristin Floress & Cara L. Cuite & Rachael Shwom, 2023. "Green roles at home: exploring the impact of household social dynamic processes on consumption at the food-energy-water (FEW) nexus," Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences, Springer;Association of Environmental Studies and Sciences, vol. 13(2), pages 298-311, June.
    6. Frauke Meyer & Hawal Shamon & Stefan Vögele, 2022. "Dynamics and Heterogeneity of Environmental Attitude, Willingness and Behavior in Germany from 1993 to 2021," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(23), pages 1-22, December.
    7. Stefania Tonin & Diego Benedetto, 2024. "Exploring Sustainability Concerns and Ecosystem Services: The Role of the New Ecological Paradigm Scale in Understanding Public Opinion," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(5), pages 1-18, February.
    8. Verena Haider & Franz Essl & Klaus Peter Zulka & Stefan Schindler, 2022. "Achieving Transformative Change in Food Consumption in Austria: A Survey on Opportunities and Obstacles," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(14), pages 1-15, July.
    9. Ho, Thong Quoc & Nie, Zihan & Alpizar, Francisco & Carlsson, Fredrik & Nam, Pham Khanh, 2022. "Celebrity endorsement in promoting pro-environmental behavior," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 198(C), pages 68-86.
    10. Lingyun Mi & Yuhuan Sun & Lijie Qiao & Tianwen Jia & Yang Yang & Tao Lv, 2021. "Analysis of the Cause of Household Carbon Lock-In for Chinese Urban Households," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(4), pages 1-16, February.
    11. Joerß, Tom & Hoffmann, Stefan & Mai, Robert & Akbar, Payam, 2021. "Digitalization as solution to environmental problems? When users rely on augmented reality-recommendation agents," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 128(C), pages 510-523.
    12. Takumi Kato & Katsuya Hayami & Kenta Kasahara & Minami Morino & Yui Ikuma & Ryosuke Ikeda & Masaki Koizumi, 2023. "Environmental vs. labor issues: evidence of influence on intention to purchase ethical coffee in Japan," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 10(1), pages 1-10, December.
    13. Joachim P. Hasebrook & Leonie Michalak & Anna Wessels & Sabine Koenig & Stefan Spierling & Stefan Kirmsse, 2022. "Green Behavior: Factors Influencing Behavioral Intention and Actual Environmental Behavior of Employees in the Financial Service Sector," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(17), pages 1-35, August.
    14. Hoffmann, Stefan & Lasarov, Wassili & Reimers, Hanna, 2022. "Carbon footprint tracking apps. What drives consumers' adoption intention?," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 69(C).
    15. Saari, Ulla A. & Damberg, Svenja & Frömbling, Lena & Ringle, Christian M., 2021. "Sustainable consumption behavior of Europeans: The influence of environmental knowledge and risk perception on environmental concern and behavioral intention," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 189(C).
    16. Long, Ruyin & Wang, Jiaqi & Chen, Hong & Li, Qianwen & Wu, Meifen & Tan-Soo, Jie-Sheng, 2023. "Applying multilevel structural equation modeling to energy-saving behavior: The interaction of individual- and city-level factors," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 174(C).
    17. Cozzio, Claudia & Volgger, Michael & Taplin, Ross & Woodside, Arch G., 2020. "Nurturing tourists’ ethical food consumption: Testing the persuasive strengths of alternative messages in a natural hotel setting," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 117(C), pages 268-279.
    18. Yuanhong Liao & Weihong Yang, 2022. "The determinants of different types of private-sphere pro-environmental behaviour: an integrating framework," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 24(6), pages 8566-8592, June.
    19. Marissa L. Varade & Francis Choi & Brian Helmuth & Steven Scyphers, 2022. "Catching versus Counting: Comparing the Pro-Environmental Attitudes, Behaviors, and Climate Concerns of Recreational Fishers and Citizen Scientists," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(1), pages 1-19, December.
    20. Anh Thi Van Tran & Nhung Thi Nguyen, 2021. "Organic Food Consumption among Households in Hanoi: Importance of Situational Factors," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(22), pages 1-16, November.
    21. Farjam, Mike & Wolf, Stephan, 2021. "If future generations had a say: An experiment on fair sharing of a common-pool resource across generations," SocArXiv 759ks, Center for Open Science.
    22. Stephan Hankammer & Robin Kleer & Frank T. Piller, 2021. "Sustainability nudges in the context of customer co-design for consumer electronics," Journal of Business Economics, Springer, vol. 91(6), pages 897-933, August.
    23. Kyriakos Riskos & Paraskevi (Evi) Dekoulou & Naoum Mylonas & George Tsourvakas, 2021. "Ecolabels and the Attitude–Behavior Relationship towards Green Product Purchase: A Multiple Mediation Model," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(12), pages 1-22, June.
    24. Lukasz Andrzej Derdowski & Åsa Helen Grahn & Håvard Hansen & Heidi Skeiseid, 2020. "The New Ecological Paradigm, Pro-Environmental Behaviour, and the Moderating Effects of Locus of Control and Self-Construal," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(18), pages 1-15, September.
    25. Monika Wawer & Kalina Grzesiuk & Dorota Jegorow, 2022. "Smart Mobility in a Smart City in the Context of Generation Z Sustainability, Use of ICT, and Participation," Energies, MDPI, vol. 15(13), pages 1-30, June.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Mike Farjam & Olexandr Nikolaychuk & Giangiacomo Bravo, 2019. "Investing into climate change mitigation despite the risk of failure," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 154(3), pages 453-460, June.
    2. Bouma, J.A. & Nguyen, Binh & van der Heijden, Eline & Dijk, J.J., 2018. "Analysing Group Contract Design Using a Lab and a Lab-in-the-Field Threshold Public Good Experiment," Discussion Paper 2018-049, Tilburg University, Center for Economic Research.
    3. Elena Kossmann & Mónica Gómez-Suárez, 2018. "Decision-making processes for purchases of ethical products: gaps between academic research and needs of marketing practitioners," International Review on Public and Nonprofit Marketing, Springer;International Association of Public and Non-Profit Marketing, vol. 15(3), pages 353-370, September.
    4. Hye Jung Jung & Yun Jung Choi & Kyung Wha Oh, 2020. "Influencing Factors of Chinese Consumers’ Purchase Intention to Sustainable Apparel Products: Exploring Consumer “Attitude–Behavioral Intention” Gap," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(5), pages 1-14, February.
    5. Doruk İriş & Jungmin Lee & Alessandro Tavoni, 2015. "Delegation and public pressure in a threshold public goods game: theory and experimental evidence," GRI Working Papers 186, Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment.
    6. Ghidoni, Riccardo & Calzolari, Giacomo & Casari, Marco, 2017. "Climate change: Behavioral responses from extreme events and delayed damages," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(S1), pages 103-115.
    7. Valentina Bosetti & Melanie Heugues & Alessandro Tavoni, 2017. "Luring others into climate action: coalition formation games with threshold and spillover effects," Oxford Economic Papers, Oxford University Press, vol. 69(2), pages 410-431.
    8. Guilfoos, Todd & Miao, Haoran & Trandafir, Simona & Uchida, Emi, 2019. "Social learning and communication with threshold uncertainty," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 55(C), pages 81-101.
    9. Ertör-Akyazi, Pinar & Akçay, Çağlar, 2021. "Moral intuitions predict pro-social behaviour in a climate commons game," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 181(C).
    10. Alessandro Tavoni & Ralph Winkler, 2021. "Domestic Pressure and International Climate Cooperation," Annual Review of Resource Economics, Annual Reviews, vol. 13(1), pages 225-243, October.
    11. Chica, Manuel & Hernández, Juan M. & Santos, Francisco C., 2022. "Cooperation dynamics under pandemic risks and heterogeneous economic interdependence," Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, Elsevier, vol. 155(C).
    12. Sommer, Stephan & Mattauch, Linus & Pahle, Michael, 2022. "Supporting carbon taxes: The role of fairness," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 195(C).
    13. Frommeyer, Britta & Wagner, Elisa & Hossiep, C. Richard & Schewe, Gerhard, 2022. "The utility of intention as a proxy for sustainable buying behavior – A necessary condition analysis," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 143(C), pages 201-213.
    14. Greer Gosnell & Alessandro Tavoni, 2017. "A bargaining experiment on heterogeneity and side deals in climate negotiations," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 142(3), pages 575-586, June.
    15. Saari, Ulla A. & Damberg, Svenja & Frömbling, Lena & Ringle, Christian M., 2021. "Sustainable consumption behavior of Europeans: The influence of environmental knowledge and risk perception on environmental concern and behavioral intention," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 189(C).
    16. Lazaric, Nathalie & Toumi, Mira, 2022. "Reducing consumption of electricity: A field experiment in Monaco with boosts and goal setting," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 191(C).
    17. Scott Barrett & Astrid Dannenberg, 2016. "An experimental investigation into ‘pledge and review’ in climate negotiations," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 138(1), pages 339-351, September.
    18. Daniele Malerba, 2022. "The Effects of Social Protection and Social Cohesion on the Acceptability of Climate Change Mitigation Policies: What Do We (Not) Know in the Context of Low- and Middle-Income Countries?," The European Journal of Development Research, Palgrave Macmillan;European Association of Development Research and Training Institutes (EADI), vol. 34(3), pages 1358-1382, June.
    19. Doncaster, C. Patrick & Tavoni, Alessandro & Dyke, James G., 2017. "Using Adaptation Insurance to Incentivize Climate-change Mitigation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 135(C), pages 246-258.
    20. Bülow, Catharina Wolff von & Liu, Xiufeng, 2020. "Ready-made oTree applications for the study of climate change adaptation behavior," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 88(C).

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:ecolec:v:166:y:2019:i:c:2. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/ecolecon .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.