Climate Justice: High-Status Ingroup Social Models Increase Pro-Environmental Action Through Making Actions Seem More Moral

Recent work has suggested that our cognitive biases and moral psychology may pose significant barriers to tackling climate change. Here, we report evidence that through status and group-based social influence processes, and our moral sense of justice, it may be possible to employ such characteristics of the human mind in efforts to engender pro-environmental action. We draw on applied work demonstrating the efficacy of social modeling techniques in order to examine the indirect effects of social model status and group membership (through perceptions of efficacy, pro-environmental social identity and moral judgments of how fair it is for individuals to perform particular pro-environmental actions) on pro-environmental action tendencies. We find evidence that high- (vs. low-) status models increase pro-environmental action, in part, through making such actions seem morally fairer to undertake. This effect of high-status models only occurs when they share a meaningful ingroup membership with the target of influence. Further, we find evidence that this conditional effect of high-status models may also have a direct impact on action tendencies. While the exact behaviors that are influenced may vary across student and non-student samples, we argue that a focus on the "justice pathway" to action and the social-cognitive features of models may offer a good opportunity for cognitive and behavioral scientists to integrate insights from basic research with those stemming from more applied research efforts.

[1]  A. Hayes Introduction to Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional Process Analysis: A Regression-Based Approach , 2013 .

[2]  Richard Osbaldiston,et al.  Environmental Sustainability and Behavioral Science , 2012 .

[3]  Lukas H. Meyer,et al.  Summary for Policymakers , 2022, The Ocean and Cryosphere in a Changing Climate.

[4]  Russell Spears,et al.  Put your money where your mouth is! Explaining collective action tendencies through group-based anger and group efficacy. , 2004, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[5]  D. Moore,et al.  Leaders’ Use of Moral Justifications Increases Policy Support , 2015, Psychological science.

[6]  James J. Lindsay,et al.  Research in the Psychological Laboratory , 1999 .

[7]  Amanda K Montoya,et al.  Two-condition within-participant statistical mediation analysis: A path-analytic framework. , 2017, Psychological methods.

[8]  Carolyn T. Dang,et al.  Moralized Leadership: The Construction and Consequences of Ethical Leader Perceptions , 2015 .

[9]  B. Verplanken,et al.  Collective self and individual choice: the effects of inter-group comparative context on environmental values and behaviour. , 2012, The British journal of social psychology.

[10]  Robb Willer,et al.  The Moral Roots of Environmental Attitudes , 2013, Psychological science.

[11]  T. Insel,et al.  How the brain processes social information: searching for the social brain. , 2004, Annual review of neuroscience.

[12]  T. Postmes,et al.  Toward an integrative social identity model of collective action: a quantitative research synthesis of three socio-psychological perspectives. , 2008, Psychological bulletin.

[13]  J. Henrich,et al.  The evolution of prestige: freely conferred deference as a mechanism for enhancing the benefits of cultural transmission. , 2001, Evolution and human behavior : official journal of the Human Behavior and Evolution Society.

[14]  Andrew G. Livingstone,et al.  Admiration regulates social hierarchy: Antecedents, dispositions, and effects on intergroup behavior , 2013, Journal of experimental social psychology.

[15]  F. H. Hankins,et al.  The Psychology of Social Norms , 1937 .

[16]  J. Haidt The New Synthesis in Moral Psychology , 2007, Science.

[17]  S. Asch Opinions and Social Pressure , 1955, Nature.

[18]  Joseph R. Hopper,et al.  Recycling as Altruistic Behavior , 1991 .

[19]  R. Gifford The dragons of inaction: psychological barriers that limit climate change mitigation and adaptation. , 2011, The American psychologist.

[20]  Matthew S. Fritz,et al.  PSYCHOLOGICAL SCIENCE Research Article Required Sample Size to Detect the Mediated Effect , 2022 .

[21]  Michael A. Hogg,et al.  A Social Identity Theory of Leadership , 2001 .

[22]  Bernd Simon,et al.  Collective action: Towards a dual-pathway model , 2004 .

[23]  D. O. Sears College sophomores in the laboratory: Influences of a narrow data base on social psychology's view of human nature. , 1986 .

[24]  Amy J. C. Cuddy,et al.  Universal dimensions of social cognition: warmth and competence , 2007, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[25]  Matthew S. Fritz,et al.  Mediation analysis. , 2019, Annual review of psychology.

[26]  S. Thompson Social Learning Theory , 2008 .

[27]  R A Winett,et al.  Effects of television modeling on residential energy conservation. , 1985, Journal of applied behavior analysis.

[28]  Sophie A. Nicholson-Cole,et al.  Barriers perceived to engaging with climate change among the UK public and their policy implications , 2007 .

[29]  R. Cialdini Influence: Science and Practice , 1984 .

[30]  J. Haidt The emotional dog and its rational tail: a social intuitionist approach to moral judgment. , 2001, Psychological review.

[31]  Donald J. Hughes,et al.  International Cooperation in Nuclear Power , 1955 .

[32]  S. Bamberg,et al.  Twenty years after Hines, Hungerford, and Tomera: A new meta-analysis of psycho-social determinants of pro-environmental behaviour , 2007 .

[33]  M. Sherif The Psychology of Social Norms , 1937 .

[34]  Mark Rubin,et al.  Intergroup bias. , 2002, Annual review of psychology.

[35]  Michael W. Kraus,et al.  A Reciprocal Influence Model of Social Power: Emerging Principles and Lines of Inquiry , 2008 .

[36]  M. Hogg,et al.  Knowing what to think by knowing who you are: self-categorization and the nature of norm formation, conformity and group polarization. , 1990, The British journal of social psychology.

[37]  T. Shultz,et al.  Moral Rules: Their Content and Acquisition , 1990 .

[38]  H. Tajfel,et al.  An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. , 1979 .

[39]  Ezra M. Markowitz,et al.  Climate change and moral judgement , 2012 .

[40]  J. M. Hines,et al.  Analysis and synthesis of research on responsible environmental behavior: A meta-analysis. , 1987 .

[41]  S. O'Neill,et al.  Green identity, green living? The role of pro-environmental self-identity in determining consistency across diverse pro-environmental behaviours , 2010 .

[42]  C Anderson,et al.  Who attains social status? Effects of personality and physical attractiveness in social groups. , 2001, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[43]  R. Dawes,et al.  Psychological perspectives on justice: Fairness in groups: Comparing the self-interest and social identity perspectives , 1993 .

[44]  A. Manstead,et al.  Intergroup norms and intergroup discrimination: distinctive self-categorization and social identity effects. , 1996, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[45]  G. T. Gardner,et al.  Household actions can provide a behavioral wedge to rapidly reduce US carbon emissions , 2009, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[46]  Shawn Meghan Burn,et al.  Social Psychology and the Stimulation of Recycling Behaviors: The Block Leader Approach , 1991 .