Photo Credit: Eric Slomanson (Slomo Photos)

Click on one of the links below or scroll down the page to see:

Lecture/Discussion Topics 

1. THE GAP BETWEEN ENVIRONMENTAL ATTITUDES AND BEHAVIORS

2. SOCIAL NORMS AND SUSTAINABLE BEHAVIORS

3. ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES AS SOCIAL DILEMMAS

4. SOCIAL CONSTRUCTION OF "ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEMS"

5. ENVIRONMENTAL RACISM

6. SOCIAL IDENTITY AND SUSTAINABILITY: IS IT EASY BEING GREEN?

   

Class Activities

1. EXPLORING THE ENVIRONMENTAL ATTITUDE-BEHAVIOR LINK

2. SOCIAL DILEMMA EXERCISES

3. CONTENT ANALYSIS OF (ANTI)ENVIRONMENTAL MESSAGES

4. COMMUNITY-BASED SOCIAL MARKETING IN ACTION

  

Multimedia Resources

1. WEBSITE: COMMUNITY-BASED SOCIAL MARKETING

2. FILM: FURY FOR THE SOUND

Suggested Readings for Students

Click here to jump to list

References Cited in this Section

Click here to jump to list

LECTURE/DISCUSSION TOPICS

THE GAP BETWEEN ENVIRONMENTAL ATTITUDES AND BEHAVIORS

The sometimes weak link between attitudes and relevant behaviors is easily demonstrated in the domain of environmental issues (Kollmus & Agyeman, 2002; see Hines, Hungerford, & Tomera, 1986, for an early meta-analysis of studies on the environmental attitude-behavior link and Staats, 2003 for a more recent review of research based on the Theory of Planned Behavior).  Researchers have addressed the fact that proenvironmental attitudes seem to be poor predictors of proenvironmental behaviors by exploring several classes of barriers that may prevent behavioral expression of proenvironmental behaviors.  Categories of barriers include social context (e.g., Olli, Grendstad, & Wollebaek, 2001) and cognitive factors such as perceived behavioral control and efficacy (e.g., Axelrod & Lehman, 1993). Kaiser, Wölfing, and Fuhrer (1999), demonstrate that environmental attitudes are a powerful predictor of behaviors when (a) attitudes are measured in a way that includes affect, knowledge, and behavioral intention; (b) attitudes and behaviors are measured at the same level of specificity; and (c) behavioral constraints beyond the control of the actor are taken into consideration.  Social psychologist Doug McKenzie-Mohr has developed a program for identifying and eliminating barriers in an effort to increase proenvironmental behavior.  He calls his approach Community-Based Social Marketing (McKenzie-Mohr & Smith, 1999).  In addition to explaining environmental attitude-behavior inconsistency, some researchers have attempted to understand inconsistency between various environmental behaviors that one would expect to be correlated.  For example, Thøgersen (2004) studied environmentally responsible behaviors (ERB) of Danish shoppers and concluded that in addition to measurement issues, the degree of consistency in ERBs was influenced by individuals' subjective perceptions regarding the similarity of different ERB (specifically of "buying organic milk" and "delivering empty packaging glass and used newspapers to recycling") and on individual feelings about the moral importance of ERB. 

[back to top]

SOCIAL NORMS AND SUSTAINABLE BEHAVIORS

Bob Cialdini's classic work on compliance techniques is a standard topic in the social influence portion of every social psychology class, but most instructors will be less familiar with his work on social norms and environmental behaviors.  Environmental educators intuitively know that social norms influence environmental behaviors, but how is one to harness the power of norms in favor of the environment when it is so often the anti-environmental behaviors that are normative? Cialdini's (2003) answer is to explore the influence of different varieties of social norms.  In most introductory social psychology textbooks, the discussion of conformity is limited to behavior in response to normative influence (i.e., "I don't want to stick out") and informational influence ("I don't want to do the wrong thing").  Cialdini, Reno, & Kallgren (1990) further distinguish between "injunctive" norms ( what most people approve or disapprove, what one feels one ought to do) and "descriptive" norms (what most people actually do).  In the case of environmentally responsible behaviors (ERB), these are often inconsistent; that is, most people approve of ERB but most people don't do them.  To test the importance of these two types of norms, these researchers conducted a series of five field experiments on littering.  Our society has injunctive norms against littering, but in some situations the descriptive norm is to litter so some interesting interactions are likely to occur. For example, in the first study, the researchers found that in an already littered environment, participants were more likely to litter after witnessing a confederate littering; in a clean environment, however, the participants who saw a confederate littering were less likely to litter than those who saw no littering behavior.  In both situations there is a society-wide injuctive norm against littering, but the participants' behavior was influenced by the descriptive norms indicated by the setting and the confederate's behavior.  Cialdini (2003) argues that environmental campaigns emphasizing all the bad behaviors people do may backfire in that they inadvertently draw attention to descriptive norms for anti-environmental behavior.

[back to top]

ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES AS SOCIAL DILEMMAS

Social dilemmas, also known as social traps, reflect a conflict between one’s self-interest and the interest of a larger group.  Many environmental problems can be conceptualized as social dilemmas in that acting in self-interest results in a less-than-optimal situation for the greater whole.  Encourage students to generate examples of environmental social dilemmas.  Get them started with some facts about the U.S.  For example, according to the Worldwatch Institute (2004), although the U.S. represents less than 5% of the global population, it consumes about 25% of the world’s fossil fuel resources.  In 2003, the U.S. had more privately-owned cars than licensed drivers.  New homes built in the U.S. in 2002 were 38% bigger than in 1975, despite average household size being less.  The U.S. also uses about one third of the world’s paper and plastic (Hibbard, Wheeler, & Church, 2004).  All of these examples illustrate "commons" dilemmas (first articulated as the "tragedy of the commons" by Hardin, 1968) in which the individual is taking more than his or her fair share of a limited resource.  Tragedies of the commons usually involve ordinary people doing ordinary things, rather than villainous or greedy people doing especially nasty things. Further, even if each person understands that his or her actions are contributing to the ongoing destruction of the resource, each is powerless to stop the process via unilateral individual action (e.g., if I reduce consumption, that leaves more for others to consume!) (Gardner & Stern, 2002).  Hardin (1968) argues that only governmental laws, regulations and incentives will ensure widespread prosocial (e.g., pro-environmental) behavior on the part of the general public. Like Thomas Hobbes, Hardin assumes that humans are innately egoistic, so it is important to make pro-environmental behavior in the individual’s best interests.  He rejects education and religious/moral approaches because he believes they’re too weak to overcome human egoism. (Ask students if they agree).  However, Hardin doesn’t consider the small-group approach – which has been shown to be very effective (Gardner & Stern, 2002).  Importantly, environmental social dilemmas differ from some other social dilemmas in that they have a temporal dimension (Joireman, 2005; Osbaldiston & Sheldon, 2002).  For example, Joireman, Van Lange, & Van Vugt (2004) studied consumers automobile-related behaviors and found that having a "future orientation" was more predictive of environmentally responsible behavior than was having a "prosocial orientation" (that would typically predict taking the selfless route in a social dilemma). 

Not all environmental issues are commons dilemmas.  Some are "public goods" dilemmas in which an individual is contributing less than his or her fair share to a resource (e.g., not doing voluntary litter clean up, not making an effort to use public transportation).  Ask students to analyze whether the environmental social dilemmas they have identified can be labeled commons or public goods dilemmas.  They will likely come up with some that don't fit.  For example, Britain Scott's students described "contamination dilemmas" and "risk dilemmas" in which acting in self-interest leads to one contributing more than one's fair share to the hazards associated with the greater whole.  An example would be the homeowner who pours toxic chemicals down the drain or uses pesticides on her lawn.  They also described "ecological" dilemmas in which acting in self-interest upsets the larger balance of things.  An example would be the landowner who fills in a wetland on his property, thereby interfering with waterfowl migration.

[back to top]

SOCIAL CONSTRUCTION OF "ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEMS"

One of the important contributions that psychologists can make to a sustainable future is to help activists and educators better understand social cognition.  In our experience, many environmental advocates are not schooled in the nuances of people's less-than-logical mental processes.  On the cognition page of this site we address a variety of biases and heuristics that apply to people's environmental judgments and decisions.  These would be good topics in a social psychology class.  Another way to tie a discussion of social cognition to sustainability issues is to address the social construction of environmental perceptions.  One powerful social construction tool is language.  It is mostly journalists, sociologists, and communication researchers, rather than psychologists, who have analyzed how people's perceptions of environmental issues and of people engaged in environmental conflicts are shaped by the strategic use of language.  To begin a discussion on this topic, ask students what the old labels were for rainforests and wetlands (jungles and swamps).  How do these terms affect students' perceptions of the landscapes?  What about the term "ancient forests"; does it make old trees feel more precious?  People, too, are labeled within the context of environmental issues.  Introduce students to the terms "NIMBY" (Not in my backyard) and "LULU" (Locally unwanted land use) (e.g., Freudenburg & Pastor, 1992).  Ask students to consider how the NIMBY label could be used to discredit citizens' objections to industry practices.  When a citizen who voices protest against an environmental hazard (e.g., the siting of a nuclear waste storage facility) is labeled a NIMBY, the implication is that the person selfishly objects to the location, but does not necessarily object to the hazard itself.  Knowing that humans are heuristic thinkers raises questions about how public perceptions of environmental issues are shaped by media soundbytes.  When a reporter describes how a senator's vote was influenced by "pressure from environmentalists" (as was the case when Minnesota Public Radio reported on Senator Norm Coleman's vote against drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge), the listener's perception is bound to be different than if the reporter had described the thousands of calls to the senator's office as "pressure from concerned citizens."  Some prime examples of language used strategically to influence public perception can be found in the environmental policies of the George W. Bush administration.  If students are unaware, ask them what the "Clear Skies" and the "Healthy Forests" initiatives sound like.  How will most Americans perceive these lables if they are engaged in heuristic processing?  The Clear Skies Initiative has been promoted as mandating a 70% decrease in air pollution from power plants over 15 years (White House fact sheet), but it is actually weaker policy than the Clean Air Act that has been in place since the 1970s.  The Healthy Forests Initiative gives timber companies more liberty to log so as to reduce available "fuel" for forest fires, without regard to scientific guidance on how to best protect human communities from the risks of forest fires. In general, Bush's environmental policies have been consistent with a Wise Use approach (e.g., Helvarg, 2004), favoring industry interests under the guise of environmental protection.  Wise Use strategists skillfully use language and other social influence tactics to persuade a credulous (and self-interested) public that Wise Users are the "true environmentalists." (Beder, 2002). 

[back to top]

ENVIRONMENTAL RACISM

Social psychology classes help students understand the cognitive and social factors that contribute to racist attitudes and discriminatory behaviors, and textbooks generally do a good job of describing how these things influence social interactions, but the discussion doesn't have to end there.  To help students grasp racism on a society-wide level, the instructor can introduce the topic of environmental justice.  Environmental risk is not equally distributed in our society.  Individuals living in low-income urban neighborhoods, economically-deprived rural areas, and on reservation lands bear a disproportionate amount of risk from environmental hazards such as chemical spills, radioactive contamination, and toxic air and water pollution (e.g., Bullard, 2005; LaDuke, 1999; see also Simon, 2000, for a discussion of how economically advantaged members of society are disproporionately responsible for the hazards).  Major environmental advocacy organizations including the Sierra Club currently have campaigns focused on environmental justice. 

[back to top]

SOCIAL IDENTITY AND SUSTAINABILITY: IS IT EASY BEING GREEN?

A sustainable future will not only depend upon people exhibiting positive attitudes and behaviors toward nonhuman nature, but also will depend upon people redefining themselves personally and socially.  How we think of who we are in relation to nonhuman nature, and each other, is a very important factor in determining our environmental behaviors (see Clayton & Opotow, 2003, for a collection of essays on this topic).  Most psychology research on "green identity" has focused on what it means subjectively to have an ecologically connected sense of self and what factors facilitate or inhibit this connected self-concept.  It is interesting to extend the discussion to the realm of self-presentation.  Ask students to brainstorm connections between self-presentation and sustainability.  They will likely bring up the issue of material possessions as a means to display status and personality (see Kasser & Kanner, 2003, for a collection of essays on materialism in consumer culture).  If so, press them to describe in more detail what would be the differences between a green self-presentation and a nongreen one (see Horton, 2004, for a discussion of the performance of green identity among environmentalists).  Given that a green identity is not universally viewed as positive (or negative), ask students to describe any pressure they have felt to appear more or less green across different situations.  Ask them how they manage to do this.  Ask them why they feel pressure to regulate the greenness of their self-presentations.

[back to top]

CLASS ACTIVITIES

EXPLORING THE ENVIRONMENTAL ATTITUDE-BEHAVIOR LINK

Administer Kaiser et al.''s (1999) 28 environmental attitude items (which include knowledge, values, and behavioral intention subscales) and their 38-item General Ecological Behavior scale to students and calculate the correlations between the three environmental attitude subscales and ecological behaviors in the class sample. (Instructors might consider using just a subset of these items since this administration is for demonstration purposes only.) Whether the correlation is high or not, several topics can be addressed in an interactive follow-up discussion.  Ask students whether they felt social desirability pressure when they responded and whether they think social desirability is a general concern in the assessment of environmental attitudes and behaviors (Kaiser et al. report that responses to their measures were only marginally related to social desirability).  Have students identify barriers between proenvironmental attitudes and environmentally friendly behaviors; encourage them to consider both cognitive barriers and situational barriers.  Discuss implications for the predication of behavior when a researcher measures attitudes toward the natural environment (affect) versus attitudes regarding environmental problems (beliefs) versus attitudes toward environmental behaviors (behavioral intention).  Christie Manning suggests visiting the website of Aceti Associaties, an independent consulting business in Boston that has created a set of barrier/motivation inventories for several different activities such as recycling and earth friendly lawn care: www.acetiassociates.com/publications.html.

[back to top]

SOCIAL DILEMMA EXERCISES

There are several engaging simulation activities that help students to grasp how social dilemmas and how limits on natural resources (and on access to those resources) create social dilemmas.  Some of these involve computer simulations.  For example, click here for a description of Gifford & Gifford's (2000) Fish 3 simulation program.

Below are three simulation activities that can be done without a computer. 

A) LET THEM EAT COOKIES: A LESSON IN INEQUITABLE USE OF RESOURCES

The table available here displays the 2003 world consumption of petroleum-based energy (in thousands of barrels per day), according to Energy Information Administration, International Energy Annual, 2003, available at http://www.eia.doe.gov/iea/.  Because such statistics are often difficult for students to grasp at a personal level, the following exercise can help to illustrate the issue. (Note: You will need to bring cookies, a cake, or other similar treat that can be divided among the students.)

1) Based on the number of students in the class, divide them into groups reflecting the regions’ respective population size, as indicated in the chart below.

Note: For convenience with smaller classes, one could combine Eastern and Western Europe.

2) Tell the students that you have brought enough cookies to share, but rather than distributing them equally (1 per person), you will divide them based on their region’s relative energy (petroleum) consumption.  Thus, the distribution would be as follows: 

3) Questions for class discussion or reflective writing (adapted from Wheeler, et al., 2002):

• Ask particular regions how they feel about their share of cookies. Ask Asia and Africa how they are going to divide the cookies among their population. Will they try to divide their share equally? 
• Is the situation “fair”? What could be done about it? Are some students tempted to “migrate” to North America and take some of theirs, perhaps by force? How does North America feel about the situation (e.g., guilty, or motivated to share)? 
• Identify various themes that arise, such as discrimination (only some groups/individuals deserve more) or conflict (fighting over scarce resources). 
• How would this exercise have been different if individuals were really hungry and hadn’t eaten much, if anything, for several days? 
• Brainstorm situations of unequal distribution in the “real world” (e.g., campus, larger community, state, country, or internationally). 
• How could a comfortable and fulfilling lifestyle be provided for all the world’s people? If this does not seem possible, what are some of the potential consequences of continued and increasing inequity between individuals and nations? 
• What are some ethical, social, and security implications of this inequity? Are examples already occurring? What consequences are evident, and where? 
• Brainstorm specific ways students could personally address the inequitable distribution of resources (e.g., reduce, reuse, and recycle resources; buy energy efficient and sustainable products; volunteer at nonprofit organizations working toward social justice; talk about the issues with friends and family).
• For more ideas on how to personally address poverty, hunger, and inequitable consumption patterns, have students visit Facing the Future's Quick Action list .

B) RED-BLACK: A SOCIAL DILEMMA EXERCISE

Acting out a social dilemma is a wonderful pedagogical tool. The following exercise works very well in either small or large classes.  We have used it in groups ranging from 16 to 60.  (We are indebted to Kris King, President of Wings, Eugene, Oregon, for developing this exercise based on John Nash's Equilibrium Theory.)

Note: You will need a way to separate the class into 2 groups; a second classroom or meeting area should be secured in advance. Both spaces should have a blackboard where you can post the scoring information. A “runner” (either the instructor or a student volunteer) between groups is needed for inter-group communication and scoring.

The script should be read verbatim.  Provide NO preliminary explanations. Just read the script once, slowly and carefully, and demonstrate the scoring. Do NOT ask/answer any questions. Try to be as neutral/straight faced as possible. Click here for INSTRUCTOR'S SCRIPT.  

Questions for post-activity discussion (or prompts for a reflective writing assignment):

• How does the social dilemma paradigm affect us world-wide & personally? 
• What are the assumptions you made? 

[typical assumptions are competition; winners/losers; us/them.  If we are aware of such assumptions, we can choose to stop the unconscious cycle of competition.]

• Did you feel set up? Defensive?

[You were set up, but not by me or the exercise, but by cultural perspectives and beliefs]

• When was this exercise lost? [When the last frame was voted, reported and accepted.]
• Did anyone want to get up and go to the other team?  What stopped you? Who said you couldn’t? [Self imposed limitations/assumptions in action.]
• How many people does it take to win the exercise? [ONE!]  How?   [By negotiating/ communicating with other group & abstaining from vote until everybody votes black.

At any given moment, YOU had the power to make a difference, just as in life.]

• How many had an intuition that something was going on that you didn’t understand?

[IMPORTANT TO CHECK IT OUT.]

• What did you do/not do as result of not understanding? Under stress, what patterns of behavior & thought did you observe in self or others during exercise?  (Make list on board.)
• How do you play win/lose, right/wrong in your life? Now imagine that that's all there is on the planet;  everyone just like you.  Some will play “win at all costs,” some will “lose so others will win”   What about you? WHAT WOULD IT BE LIKE TO BE DEVOTED TO VOTING BLACK?

[QUOTE: "I must be the change I wish to see in the world.”  Gandhi]

C) THE NUTS GAME

Psychologist Julian Edney, author of the 2005 book Greed: A treatise in two essays demonstrated this game in a 1998 ABC-TV special on greed.  It is a quick and easy way to illustrate commons dilemmas.  Instructions can be found online at http://www.g-r-e-e-d.com/Nuts%20Game.htm.

[back to top]

CONTENT ANALYSIS OF (ANTI)ENVIRONMENTAL MESSAGES

This activity is a good one to use in conjunction with the topic of processing of persuasive messages.  Have students visit the following websites and analyze their content for peripheral and heuristic cues that would lead the cognitively occupied or unmotivated viewer to perceive them as proenvironmental sites. 

• National Wilderness Institute
• The Abundant Wildlife Society of North America
• The National Council for Air and Stream Improvement
• The National Council for Science and the Environment

All of these sites are examples of industry-funded "wise use" groups.  The Wise Use movement was launched as a backlash against progress made in environmental regulations during the 1970s.  Ron Arnold, author of the "Wise Use Agenda," co-founded the movement in the late 1980s to promote two basic tenets: the removal of all constraints on the use of private property and unrestricted access to public lands.  Arnold refers to himself and his peers as "the true environmentalists."  (click here for an essay by Arnold that sums up the Wise Use position).  After students have analyzed antienvironmental websites, the instructor can introduce the concept of "greenwashing" (making a practice or product seem more environmentally sound than it actually is).

[back to top]

COMMUNITY BASED SOCIAL MARKETING IN ACTION

After reading Doug McKenzie-Mohr's (2000) article about Community-Based Social Marketing, set students up with a service learning project in which they help a community member accomplish some social science related goals. For example, students might interview residents who live along a creek to assess their behaviors relevant to creek water quality: disposing of wastes, use of pesticides, etc. Students then compile the data and present the results to local officials. This class project allows them to learn about barriers to human behavior change, as well as that they are capable of making contributions to solving environmental problems with psychological tools. They also get out of the classroom and into the community, which helps them bond with each other, and learn about the course material using kineasthetic and experiential learning modalities. Organizing them into subgroups to tackle various parts of the project is useful, and making sure that students have the necessary statistical skills in the subgroup heading up the data analysis is also important.  (contributed by Deborah DuNann Winter)

[back to top]

MULTIMEDIA RESOURCES

WEBSITE: COMMUNITY-BASED SOCIAL MARKETING

Doug McKenzie-Mohr's Community-Based Social Marketing website is at www.cbsm.com. The site includes,

...six resources: an online guide which illustrates how to use community-based social marketing to design and evaluate programs to foster sustainable behavior; searchable databases of articles, downloadable reports, graphics, and case studies on fostering sustainable behavior; and a listserv for sharing information and asking questions of others. [excerpt from the front page of the site]

Users must register with the site in order to access resources.

[back to top]

FILM: FURY FOR THE SOUND: THE WOMEN AT CLAYOQUOT (1997, 86 or 52 min.)

This dramatic film documents grassroots civil disobedience to protect the ancient temperate rainforest of Clayquot Sound off the coast of Vancouver Island, British Columbia. In a social psychology class, this film can be used to illustrate how many basic topics relate to sustainability (e.g., social norms and violation of them, prosocial behavior, persuasion, aggression). See the film description on the Bullfrog Films website here. 

[back to top]

SUGGESTED READINGS FOR STUDENTS

Gifford, R. (2005).  Applying social psychology to the environment.  In F. W. Schneider, J. A.

Gruman, & L. M. Coutts (Eds.), Applied social psychology: Understanding and addressing social and practical problems (pp. 307-330).  Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Kremer, J., Sheehy, N., Reilly, J., Trew, K., & Muldoon, O. (2003).  The environment.  In Applying

Social Psychology (pp. 16-39).  New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Myers, D. G. (2002).  Social psychology and the sustainable future (module c). In Social Psychology

(7th ed., pp. 632-649). New York: McGraw-Hill.   [This reading focuses on materialism and consumption]

Oskamp, S., & Schultz, P. W. (1998). Environmental issues-- energy and resource conservation. In

Applied Social Psychology (2nd ed., pp. 205-208). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Winter, D. D., & Koger, S. M. (2004).  Social psychology. In The psychology of environmental

problems (2nd ed., pp. 55-86). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

[back to top]

REFERENCES CITED IN THIS SECTION

Axelrod, L. J., & Lehman, D. R. (1993).  Responding to environmental concerns: What

factors guide individual action?  Journal of Environmental Psychology, 13, 149-159.

Beder, S. (2002).  Global spin: The corporate assault on environmentalism (2nd ed.).  Devon, UK:

Green Books.

Bullard, R. D. (Ed.) (2005).  The quest for environmental justice: Human rights and the politics of

pollution. San Francisco: Sierra Club Books.

Cialdini, R. B. (2003). Crafting normative messages to protect the environment. Current Directions in

Psychological Science, 12, 105-109.

Cialdini, R. B., Reno, R. R., & Kallgren, C. A. (1990). A focus theory of normative conduct: Recycling

the concept of norms to reduce littering in public places. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58, 1015-1026.

Clayton, S., & Opotow, S. (Eds.) (2003).  Identity and the natural environment. Cambridge, MA: MIT

Press.

Edney, J. (2005).  Greed: A treatise in two essays. Lincoln, NE: iUniverse.

Freudenburg, W. R., & Pastor, S. K. (1992). NIMBYs and LULUs: Stalking the syndromes. Journal of

Social Issues, 48, 39-61.

Gardner, G.T., & Stern, P.C. (2002). Environmental problems and human behavior (2nd ed.). Boston:

Pearson Custom Publishing.

Gifford, R. (2005).  Applying social psychology to the environment.  In F. W. Schneider, J. A.

Gruman, & L. M. Coutts (Eds.), Applied social psychology: Understanding and addressing social and practical problems (pp. 307-330).  Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Gifford, J., & Gifford, R. (2000). FISH 3: A microworld for studying social dilemmas and resource

management. Behavior Research Methods, Instrumentation, and Computers, 32, 417-422.

Hardin, G. (1968). The tragedy of the commons. Science, 162, 1243-1248.

Helvarg, D. (2004).  The war against the greens: The wise use movement, the new right,

and the browning of American (Rev. ed.).  Boulder, CO: Johnson Books.

Hibbard, D., Wheeler, G., & Church W. (2004). Global issues & sustainable solutions: Population,

poverty, consumption, conflict, and the environment. Seattle, WA: Facing the Future: People and the Planet.

Hines, J. M., Hungerford, H. R., & Tomera, A. N. (1986).  Analysis and synthesis of

research on responsible environmental behavior: A meta-analysis.  Journal of Environmental Education, 18, 1-8.

Horton, D. (2004).  Green distinctions: The performance of identity among environmental activists. 

Sociological Review, 52, 63-77.

Joireman, J. (2005).  Environmental problems as social dilemmas: The temporal dimension.  In S.

Strathman & J. Joireman (Eds.), Understanding behavior in the context of time: Theory, research, and application (pp. 289-304). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Joireman, J. A., Van Lange, E. A. M. & Van Vugt, M. (2004). Who cares about the environmental

impact of cars? Those with an eye toward the future. Environment and Behavior, 36, 187-206.

Kaiser, F. G., Wölfing, S., & Fuhrer, U. (1999).  Environmental attitude and ecological

behavior.  Journal of Environmental Psychology, 19, 1-19.

Kasser, T., & Kanner, A. D. (Eds.) (2003). Psychology and consumer culture:

The struggle for a good life in a materialistic world. Washington DC: American Psychological Association.

Kollmuss, A. & Agyeman, J. (2002). Mind the gap: Why do people act environmentally and what are

the barriers to pro-environmental behaviour? Environmental Education Research, 8, 239-260.

Kremer, J., Sheehy, N., Reilly, J., Trew, K., & Muldoon, O. (2003).  Applying Social Psychology.  New

York: Palgrave Macmillan.

LaDuke, W. (1999).  All our relations: Native struggles for land and life.  Cambridge, MA: South End

Press.

McKenzie-Mohr, D. (2000). Fostering sustainable behavior through community-based

social marketing. American Psychologist, 55, 531-537.

McKenzie-Mohr, D., & Smith, W. (1999). Fostering sustainable behavior: An introduction to

community-based social marketing (2nd ed.). Gabriola Island, British Columbia: New Society.

Myers, D. G. (2002).  Social Psychology (7th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill. 

Olli, E., Grendstad, G., & Wollebauk, D. (2001). Correlates of environmental behaviors: Bringing back

social context. Environment and Behavior, 33, 181-208.

Osbaldiston, R., & Sheldon, K. M. (2002).  Social dilemmas and sustainability: Promoting peoples’

motivation to “cooperate with the future.”  In P. Schmuck & W. P. Schultz (Eds.), Psychology of sustainable development (pp. 37-58).  Boston: Kluwer Academic Press.

Oskamp, S., & Schultz, P. W. (1998). Applied Social Psychology (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ:

Prentice Hall.

Simon, D. R. (2000). Corporate environmental crimes and social inequality: New directions for

environmental justice research. American Behavioral Scientist, 43, 633-645.

Staats, H. (2003). Understanding proenvironmental attitudes and behavior: An analysis and review of

research based on the theory of planned behavior.  In M. Bonnes, T. Lee, & M. Bonaiuto (Eds.),  Psychological theories for environmental issues (pp. 171-202). Wiltshire, UK: Antony Rowe.

Thøgersen, J. (2004). A cognitive dissonance interpretation of consistencies and inconsistencies in

environmentally responsible behavior. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 24, 93-103.

Wheeler, G., Goekler, J., Hibbard, D., Boyd, D., Wondra, M., & Bush, K. (2002). Facing the future:

People and the planet, curriculum guide. Available at www.facingthe future.org.

Winter, D. D. & Koger, S. M. (2004).  In The psychology of environmental problems (2nd ed.).

Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Worldwatch Institute (2004).  State of the World 2004 (Special Focus: The Consumer

Society). Retrieved March 15, 2006 at http://www.worldwatch.org/node/1043.

[back to top]