Psychology
2013. Vol.4, No.10, 744-752
Published Online October 2013 in SciRes (http://www.scirp.org/journal/psych) http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/psych.2013.410106
Copyright © 2013 SciRes.
744
How Concerned, Afraid and Hopeful Are We? Effects of Egoism
and Altruism on Climate Change Related Issues
Igor Knez
Department of Social Work and Psychology, University of Gävle, Gävle, Sweden
Email: igor.knez@hig.se
Received June 17th, 2013; revised July 19th, 2013; accepted August 23rd, 2013
Copyright © 2013 Igor Knez. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution
License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original
work is properly cited.
The idea that concerns for and emotional reactions to climate change may be due to environment-related
egoism and altruism was tested. Participants assessed as “high” on egoism were shown to be more con-
cerned for myself-related issues and afraid of the climate change impact on their local environment, indi-
cating a self-benefit goal motive. Participants assessed as “high” on altruism were those more concerned
for issues related to others and nature and more afraid and less hopeful for the whole world, indicating a
pro-social goal motive in this group of individuals. This indicates that environment-related value orienta-
tions of egoism and altruism may prompt concerns and convey feelings differently about the climate
change issue. Accordingly, when encouraging sustainable development, policy and pro-environmental ac-
tions, we have to bear in mind people’s world views grounded in environment-related selfishness vs. un-
selfishness; indicating different goal-directed motives in climate change decision making.
Keywords: Egoism; Altruism; Concern; Fear; Hope; Climate Change Issues
Introduction
Consequences of climate change such as floods, heat waves
and storms and their impact on society and our lifestyle are
frequently in the news. According to some predictions an air
temperature boost of 2˚C - 5˚C, due to anthropogenic green-
house gas emissions, will drastically affect nature and in turn
our ways of living (Koppe, Jendritzky, Kovats, & Menne, 2004;
IPCC, 2007; UNWTO, 2008). Climate change is not only an
ecological and economic predicament (Markham, 1996; Han-
son & Ostrand, 2011), but also a social and psychological one
(Stehr & Storch, 1995; Saad, 2002; Schmuck & Vlek, 2003)
demanding sustainable development, policy and pro-environ-
mental actions (UNCED, 1992; Smith & Lenart, 1996; WRI,
2000; Sparks, Jessop, Chapman, & Holmes, 2010).
Behavioral research of sustainable development have previ-
ously reported findings on climate-change-related behavior and
risk judgment (Bonnes & Bonaiuto, 2002; Sundblad, Biel, &
Gärling, 2007), moral and ethics (Ehrich, 2002; Hoffman &
Sandelands, 2005; Jordan, 2007; Posas, 2007; Karpiak & Baril,
2008), emotions such as worry and hope (Boehnke, Fuss, &
Rupf, 2001; Ojala, 2007), as well as on how information and
knowledge about climate change is disseminated, interpreted
and understood (Wilson, 2000; Böhm & Pfister, 2001; Stern,
2006; Sundblad, Biel, & Gärling, 2009; Cook, Boyd, Grossmann,
& Bero, 2009). In addition and due to the embedded conflict
between an individual level of short-term self-interests (I will
use my car, despite its production of harmful gases.) and a
long-term collectivistic natural resource management (How can
we decrease air pollution?), the climate change issue can also
be conceptualized as a resource dilemma involving a conflict
between the two types of interests (Hardin, 1968; Vugt, 2002;
Schmuck & Vlek, 2003; Kortenkamp & Moore, 2006; Biel and
Thögersen, 2007).
Based on Schwartz (1992; 1994) work on human values (see
also Lewin, 1951; Batson, Van Lange, Ahmad &Lishner, 2003)
indicating relationships between value orientations, beliefs and
concerns, several studies have moreover tried to extended this
account as to comprise environmental issues (Stern, 2000;
Schultz, 2001; Oreg & Gerro, 2006; Hansla, Gamble, Juliusson,
& Gärling, 2008; Henry & Dietz, 2012) involving social
(Schultz, Gouveia, Cameron, Tankha, Schmuck, & Franek,
2005; Stern & Dietz, 1994) and spatial (Milfont, Abrahamse, &
McCarthy, 2011) conflicts. Given this, it is suggested that a
value orientation of, for example, egoism (to benefit oneself)
may antecede and positively correlate with a belief that, for
example, protecting the environment will threat jobs for people
like me (awareness of consequences for oneself), which in turn
may antecede and positively correlate with myself-related
concerns for, for example, my lifestyle and health (type of af-
fect linked to consequences for oneself).
Previous research has also indicated effects of demographic
variables on environment-related concerns (Olofsson & Öhman,
2006) and emotions (Ojala, 2007). It is, for example, shown
that women may be more concerned for and afraid of the cli-
mate change impact than men, and that less educated individu-
als may believe that claims about climate change are exagger-
ated (Knez, Thorsson, & Eliasson, 2013). Regarding the envi-
ronment-related emotions (Boehnke et al., 2001), it is further-
more reported that we may estimate local (increased number of
cars) compare to global (increased anthropogenic greenhouse
gas emission) environmental problems as less worrying (Gar-
cia-Mira, Real, & Romay, 2005); and that worriment may vary
I. KNEZ
with gender, suggesting women to embrace environmental re-
lated altruistic values to a higher degree than do men (Ojala,
2007).
These types of feelings can also be classified as anticipatory
vs. anticipated emotions (Loewenstein, Weber, Hsee, & Welch,
2001). The former are faster bottom-up, viscelar processes
compared to the latter, slower and analytically driven top-down
processes of emotional anticipation. According to Weber
(2006), people who show less concern for climate change issues
do that because they do not have personal experience of envi-
ronment-related problems. In emotion psychology terms, they
have not as yet activated the fast visceral reactions of anticipa-
tory emotions, but the slow top-down processes of emotional
anticipation (see also Peters & Slovic, 2000; Marx, Weber,
Orlove, Leiserowitz, Krantz, Roncoli, & Phillips, 2007). Ac-
cordingly, this suggests that decision making on long-term
environmental risks is not only a cognitive activity but also an
emotional one (Slovic, Finucane, Peters, & MacGregor, 2002;
Leiserowitz, 2006).
Present Study
Previous research, as above mentioned (Ehrich, 2002; Hoff-
man & Sandelands, 2005; Jordan, 2007; Posas, 2007; Karpiak
& Baril, 2008), has indicated a link between sustainable policy
and environmental ethics: “…we cannot get very far in dis-
cussing why climate change is a problem without invoking
ethical considerations… we appear to need some account of
moral responsibility, morally important interests, and what to
do about that” (Gardiner, 2006: p. 398). This implies an intrin-
sic (We should care for the good of milieu, because it has a
value independent of us.) compared to an instrumental (We
should care for the good of milieu, because it satisfies our
needs.) value (see Dietz, Fitzgerald, & Shwom, 2005 for a re-
view). As formulated by Leopold (1949/1987: p. 224): “A thing
is right when it tends to preserve the integrity, stability, and
beauty of the biotic community. It is wrong when it tends oth-
erwise.”
But, can we truly behave morally “right”; that is, altruisti-
cally? Or is our pro-sociality basically driven by egoistic mo-
tives? Alluding to this ancient debate (Schroeder, Penner,
Dovidio, & Piliavin, 1995; Cialdini, Brown, Lewis, Luce, &
Neuberg, 1997; Batson et al., 2003; Maner, Luce, Neuberg,
Cialdini, Brown, & Sagarin, 2002; Stocks, Lishner & Decker,
2009) on whether: “...benefiting others is an instrumental goal
on the way to some self-interested ultimate goal or an ultimate
goal in its own right with the self-benefits being unintended
consequences” (Batson et al., 2003: p. 281), the idea that peo-
ple’s concerns for, and emotions about, climate change may be
due to environment-related egoism and altruism was tested. In
other words, and alluding to Oceja and Salgado (2012): Does
different world change orientations (in this study, values of
altruism vs. egoism) convey different prosocial actions (in this
study, concerns and emotions) as a function of making the
world a better place?
Concerns about myself, others and nature (e.g., Stern &
Dietz, 1994; Stern, Dietz, & Kalof, 1993; Merchant, 1992), and
emotional reactions of hope and fear (e.g., Ojala, 2005; 2007)
were included as dependent variables. Two hypotheses were
tested, predicting that concerns and feelings will be affected
differently by environment-related egoism and altruism.
Hypothesis 1:
1) Participants assessed as “high” on egoism will be more
concerned about myself-related issues than issues related to
others and nature (a self-benefit goal—Batson, 1995).
2) Participants assessed as “high” on altruism will be more
concerned about all types of issue, but mostly about issues re-
lated to others and nature (acting more selflessly, according to
empathy-altruism hypothesis—Batson, 1991; 1998).
Hypothesis 2:
1) Participants assessed as “high” on egoism will be more
afraid for local environment issues than for global issues as the
former is closer and a less abstract geographical dimension for
the individual (a type of attachment, “kinship”; Neyer & Lang,
2003; Maner & Gailliot, 2007). They will strive for local mate-
rial and social self-benefits (Schroeder et al., 1995). Those with
a high level of egoism will also be more hopeful regarding both
environments indicating a sense of shared self (“unintended
consequences”; Batson et al., 2003), which in the long run will
benefit the individual (Cialdini et al., 1997), but mostly the
local environment according to the self-benefit goal hypothesis
(Batson, 1995).
2) Participants assessed as “high” on altruism will be more
afraid and less hopeful for both environments, but more afraid
and less hopeful for the whole world (acting more selflessly,
according to empathy-altruism hypothesis—Batson, 1991; 1998).
Method
Sample
A total of 1000 households (randomly identified from a
population register) located within the City of Gothenburg
(Göteborg, Sweden, 57˚42’N, 11˚58’E—with a population of ca.
500,000) and 1000 tourists visiting the town were sent a “cli-
mate survey”. This comprised a number of sections including
questions about demographic variables, climate, climate-change-
related behaviours, attitudes, etc. Data on climate-change- re-
lated beliefs, concerns, hope and fear will be reported in the
present article.
Procedures and response rates. After two contacts 1257 re-
sponses from 681 residents and 576 tourists were received;
comprising 50.5% women and 49.5% men, distributed similarly
across six age groups of 25 (11.8%), 26 - 35 (16.9%), 36 - 45
(20.5%), 46 - 55 (18.7%), 55 - 65 (16.7%) and 66+ (15.5%).
Measures
Value orientations. Climate-change-related beliefs were used
as a measure of environment-related egoism vs. altruism, de-
rived from Hansla et al. (2008; see also Schultz, 2001): Egoism
1) Laws that protect the environment limit my choices and per-
sonal freedom and 2) Protecting the environment will threaten
jobs for people like me (two items, α = .64); Altruism: 3) Ef-
fects of climate change on public health are worse than people
realize; 4) Pollution generated in one country harms people all
over the world (two items, α = .56). Participants were asked to
respond to these statements on a 7-point Likert scale ranging
from 1 (completely disagree) to 7 (completely agree). These
scales were first transformed into a general variable of egoism
vs. altruism by calculating a mean value for the statements (1)
+ (2) and (3) + (4) respectively. Then, subjects scoring lower
than 4 (1 - 3) were considered to be “low” and those higher
than 5 (5 - 7) were considered to be “high” on the respective
independent variable of Egoism (low vs. high) vs. Altruism
Copyright © 2013 SciRes. 745
I. KNEZ
(low vs. high).
Psychological research usually recommends three types of
method for splitting a continuously scaled variable: 1) At the
midpoint of the scale; 2) At the median; and 3) At the top and
bottom third, which is used in the present paper because the aim
of this study was to investigate contrasting positions (Knez,
2005) of “low” vs. “high” estimations on egoism and altruism
respectively. According to DeCoster, Iselin and Gallucci (2009:
p. 364) a dichotomization of a continuous variable/measure is
justified when using “extreme group analysis”; that is, includ-
ing only individuals scoring low and high on a scale.
Concerns. Climate-change-related concerns related to myself,
others and nature were used, derived from Hansla et al. (2008):
Myself—“I am concerned about climate change because of the
consequences for myself, my lifestyle, my health, my future.”
(four items, α = .91); Others—“…because of the consequences
for all people, people in my country, children, my children.”
(four items, α = .87); Nature—“…because of the consequences
for plants, marine life, birds, other animals (four items, α = .91).
This was conducted using a 7-point Likert scale ranging from 1
(completely disagree) to 7 (completely agree).
Climate-change-related fear and hope (Ojala, 2005) were
measured with one question (two items) respectively: Fear—
“How much do you feel afraid for the place where you live
(item 1) vs. the whole world (item 2) when you think about
climate change risks?” Hope—“How much do you feel hopeful
for the place where you live (item 1) vs. the whole world (item
2) when you think about climate change risks?” Participants
were asked to respond to these questions on a 7-point Likert
scale ranging from 1 (not at all) to 7 (very much).
Design, Independent and Dependent Variables
A non-equivalent comparison-group quasi-experimental de-
sign (McGuigan, 1983) was used. Compared with a “true ex-
periment” (Liebert & Liebert, 1995), this means that the infer-
ences drawn about the causal relationships between independ-
ent and dependent variables are considered to be weaker.
Independent variables. Two independent variables of envi-
ronment-related Egoism (low vs. high; 890 vs. 79 participants)
and Altruism (low vs. high; 91 vs. 806 participants) were used
in the study. Due to (1) the cross-sectional data and (2) the aim
of this study, i.e. to investigate concerns and affect in “polar-
ized” individuals (“low” vs. “high” on egoism vs. altruism),
two one-way analyses of variance were performed involving
independent variables of Egoism and Altruism respectively.
Accordingly, the aim of this study was to investigate differ-
ences related to “low” vs. “high” individuals in respective value
orientation of egoism and altruism.
Dependent variables included 12 concern statements (4 × 3
myself/others/nature) and 8 affect questions (2 fear + 2 hope ×
2 types of environment).
Results
The aim of this study was to analyse the effects of “polar-
ized” individuals of “low” and “high” environment-related
egoism vs. altruism on climate-change-related concerns and
affect. Before doing so we have to ensure that the classification
procedure used (see Method/Measures/Value orientations) pro-
vides a better test of contrasting position than a correlational
analysis. This was done by performing: 1) A MANOVA for
each dependent variable with egoism and altruism as inde-
pendent variables, especially testing for the interaction effects
of egoism (low vs. high) X altruism (low vs. high); and 2) A
regression analysis involving the two general scales of egoism
and altruism (see Method/Measures/Value orientations), testing
for the degree of relationship between these two scales.
The two-way MANOVAs showed no significant interaction
effects of egoism and altruism (p > .16 for concerns; p > .09 for
fear; p > .30 for hope), and the regression analysis showed no
significant association between the two scales of egoism and
altruism (p > .61). Thus, the value orientations of environ-
ment-related egoism and altruism are indicated to be two rather
than one egoism-altruism dimension demonstrating an uncorre-
lated (regression analysis), unrelated (MANOVA) relationship
between the two constructs. We can, therefore, proceed safely
in analysing the “contrasting positions” of “low” vs. “high”
individuals in respective value orientation of environment-
related egoism and altruism on climate change related concerns
and affect.
In addition, the SD differences between the cells (unequal
cell sizes of low vs. high egoism/altruism) for the dependent
variables of concerns, fear and hope were between .0 and .4;
thus, indicating no or a very small potential distortion of α lev-
els (Tabachnick & Fidell, 1989). Also, the statistical software
SPSS uses the “Type III model” as default, taking in to account
unweighted means.
The Result section comprises two headings, related to Hy-
potheses 1 and 2 respectively (see Introduction): 1) “Effects of
Egoism vs. Altruism on Concerns”; and 2) “Effects of Egoism
vs. Altruism on Fear and Hope”.
Effects of Egoism vs. Altruism on Concerns
Two MANOVAs were performed involving 12 concerns as a
dependent variable (4 myself- + 4 others- + 4 nature-related);
one analysis for each of the two value orientations of egoism
and altruism respectively. Thus, two one-way analyses of vari-
ance were performed involving “low” vs. “high” individuals in
respective analysis and independent variable of Egoism vs.
Altruism.
Egoism. A main significant effect of “low” vs. “high” on
concerns was obtained, Wilk’s Lambda = .96, F(12, 836) =
3.09, p < .01, η2 = .04. As can be seen in Figure 1 and as pre-
dicted (Hypotheses 1a), this effect was associated only with the
myself-related concerns for: Myself (p < .01, η2 = .01); My
lifestyle (p < .01, η2 = .03); My health (p < .01, η2 = .01); and
My future (p = .09, a tendency to a significant result). Thus,
participants assessed as “high” compared to those assessed as
“low” on egoism were those most concerned for the myself-
related issues regarding climate change impact; especially for
“my lifestyle” (largest difference between “low” and “high”).
Altruism. A main significant effect of “low” vs. “high” on
concerns was obtained, Wilk’s Lambda = .64, F(12, 775) =
36.46, p < .01, η2 = .36. As predicted (Hypotheses 1b) this ef-
fect was associated with all types of concerns: Myself (p < .01,
η2 = .58); My lifestyle (p < .01, η2 = .54); My health (p < .01, η2
= .59); My future (p < .01, η2 = .61); All people (p < .01, η2
= .82); People in my country (p < .01, η2 = .72); Children (p
< .01, η2 = .83); My children (p < .01, η2 = .78); Plants (p < .01,
η2 = .81); Marine life (p < .01, η2 = .85); Birds (p < .01, η2
= .81); and Other animals (p < .01, η2 = .83). Thus, participants
assessed as “high” compared to those assessed as “low” on
Copyright © 2013 SciRes.
746
I. KNEZ
Copyright © 2013 SciRes. 747
1
2
3
4
5
myself mylifestyle myhealth myfuture
concern
low
high
Figure 1.
Mean climate change related concern for myself-related concerns in participants estimated to be
“low” vs. “high” on Egoism.
altruism were those most concerned about issues related to
myself, others and nature. In addition, they (“high”) were shown
to be mostly concerned about others- and nature-related issues
and least concerned for “my lifestyle” regarding climate change
impact (see Figure 2).
Effects of Egoism vs. Altruism on Fear and Hope
Four MANOVAs were performed (involving 2 dependent
variables of fear and hope by 2 types of environments); two
analyses for each of the two value orientations of egoism and
altruism respectively.
Egoism. A main significant effect of “low” vs. “high” on fear
was obtained, Wilk’s Lambda = .98, F(2, 966) = 8.58, p < .01,
η2 = .02, associated with the place where I live (p < .01, η2
= .01). As predicted (Hypothesis 2a), participants assessed as
“high” on egoism were shown to be more afraid for the climate
change impact on their local environment than participants
assessed as “low” on egoism (M = 4.0, SD = .19 vs. M = 3.38,
SD = .06).
A main significant effect of “low” vs. “high” on hope was
also obtained, Wilk’s Lambda = .97, F(2, 958) = 16.18, p < .01,
η2 = .03, associated with place where I live (p < .01, η2 = .01)
and whole world (p < .01, η2 = .03). As can be seen in Figure 3,
participants assessed as “high” compared to those assessed as
“low” on egoism were shown to be more hopeful for both types
of milieu. However and as predicted (Hypothesis 2a), they were
more hopeful for the local environment than for the whole
world, t(78) = 4.76, p < .01, d = .30.
Altruism. A main significant effect of “low” vs. “high” on
fear was obtained, Wilk’s Lambda = .86, F(2, 894) = 74.97, p
< .01, η2 = .14, associated with place where I live (p < .01, η2
= .11) and whole world (p < .01, η2 = .12). As predicted (Hy-
pothesis 2b), participants assessed as “high” on altruism were
shown to be more afraid for climate change impact related to
both types of milieu than participants assessed as “low” on
altruism. However, they were more fearful for the whole world
than for the local environment, t(805) = 18.56, p < .01, d = 1.18
(see Figure 4).
A main significant effect of “low” vs. “high” on hope was
also obtained, Wilk’s Lambda = .98, F(2, 886) = 9.28, p < .01,
η2 = .02, associated with place where I live (p = .03, η2 = .01)
and whole world (p < .01, η2 = .02). As can be seen in Figure 5
and as predicted (Hypothesis 2b), participants assessed as
“high” compared to those assessed as “low” on altruism were
shown to be less hopeful for both types of milieu. However,
they were less hopeful for the whole world than for the local
environment, t(797) = 20.06, p < .01, d = .87.
Discussion
The idea that concerns for and emotional reactions to the
consequences of climate change may be due to an environ-
ent-related type of egoism vs. altruism was tested. It was m
I. KNEZ
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
concern
lo
w
high
Figure 2.
Mean climate change related concern for myself-, others- and nature-related con-
rticipants estimated to be “low” vs. “high” on Altruism.
cerns in pa
1
2
3
4
5
forplacewhere Ilive forwhole world
hope
low
high
Figure 3.
Mean climate change related hope for neighbouring environment vs. whole world
in participants estimated to be “low” vs. “high” on Egoism.
Copyright © 2013 SciRes.
748
I. KNEZ
1
2
3
4
5
forpl ace whereIlive forwholeworld
fear
lo
w
high
Figure 4.
Mean climate change related fear for neighbouring environment vs. whole world in
participants estimated to be “low” vs. “high” on Altruism.
1
2
3
4
5
forplacewhe reIlive forwholeworl d
hope
low
high
Figure 5.
Mean climate change related hope for neighbouring environment vs. whole world in
participants estimated to be “low” vs. “high” on Altruism.
Copyright © 2013 SciRes. 749
I. KNEZ
Copyright © 2013 SciRes.
750
shown that participants as
assessed as “low” on ego
REFERENCES
. (1991). The altruism question: Toward a social psycho-
Batson, C. D. (1998). Aavior. In D. T. Gilbert,
sessed as “high” compared to those
ism were those most concerned for
ding climate change impact, indicat-Batson, C. D
myself-related issues regar
ing a self-benefit goal (Batson, 1995) in the former group of
individuals. They (“high”) were also shown to be more afraid
for their local milieu than the global situation. This suggests a
type of attachment (“kinship” Neyer & Lang, 2003; Maner &
Gaillot, 2007) between me and place where I live and thus a
motive for local material and social self-benefits (Schroeder et
al., 1995).
Participants assessed as “high” on egoism were shown to be
more hopeful for both types of milieu suggesting a sense of
shared self, benefiting oneself in the long run (Cialdini et al.,
1997). This result implies also a reduction of aversive arousal
in the individual related to the suffering of others that might
upset oneself. “...The ultimate goal is the self-benefit of having
one’s own discomfort go away” (Batson et al., 2003: p. 284);
hence, a type of “unintended consequence” which is: “...a result
of acting to reach a goal but is not itself sought as a goal” (Bat-
son et al., 2003: p. 281). However, and as predicted, partici-
pants assessed as “high” on egoism were shown to be more
hopeful for their local environment than for the whole world,
thus indicating a self-benefit goal (Batson, 1995) in this group
of individuals.
On the other hand, participants assessed as “high” on altru-
ism were shown to be more concerned for issues relating to
others and nature than participants with a “low” altruism score;
thus, acting more selflessly according to the empathy-altruism
hypothesis (Batson, 1991; 1998). They were also shown to be
more afraid and less hopeful for both types of milieu than par-
ticipants assessed as “low” on altruism. However, and as pre-
dicted, they were most fearful and less hopeful for the whole
world with regard to climate change impact; thus, acting more
selflessly according to the empathy-altruism hypothesis (Batson,
1991; 1998).
In sum, the environment-related value orientations of egoism
and altruism were shown to significantly affect persons’ con-
cerns and emotions, meaning that egoism and altruism may
prompt concerns and convey feelings differently about the cli-
mate change issue. This indicates that people undertake proso-
cial actions differently “in an attempt to increase the welfare of
the world.”(Oceja & Saldago, 2012), and suggests that the ethi-
cal dimensions of climate change may be part of the judgment
analyses involved in the global climate change issue (Gardiner,
2006; Posas, 2007). In other words, a self-benefit-goal-motive
(a type of an instrumental value about the worth of milieu—e.g.
Light & Katz, 1996) was indicated in individuals assessed as
“high” on egoism, whereas a pro-social-goal-motive (a type of
an intrinsic value about the worth of milieu—e.g. Leopold,
1949/1987) was indicated in individuals assessed as “high” on
altruism—alluding to the words of Proverbs 11:25: “...a gener-
ous man will prosper, he who refreshes others will himself be
refreshed” (cited in Post, 2005).
Correspondingly, when encouraging sustainable develop-
ment, policy and pro-environmental actions (UNCED, 1992;
UNWTO, 2008; Menzel & Bögeholz, 2010), we have to bear in
mind people’s world views grounded in environment-related
selfishness vs. unselfishness, indicating different goal-directed
motives as means to benefit oneself vs. others; and that evalua-
tions of, and decision making about, environment-related issues
are not only cognitive, intellectual, activities but emotional ones
as well (Slovic et al., 2002; Leiserowitz, 2006).
logical answer. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Batson, C. D. (1995). Prosocial motivation: Why do we help others? In
A. Tesser (Ed.), Advanced social psychology (pp. 333-381). New
York: McGraw-Hill.
ltruism and prosocialbeh
S. T. Fiske, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology
(4th Edition, pp. 282-316). Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill.
Batson, C. D., Van Lange, P. A. M., Ahmad, N., & Lishner, D. A.
(2003). Altruism and helping behavior. In M. A. Hogg, & J. Cooper
(Eds.), The SAGE handbook of social psychology (pp. 279-295).
London: SAGE Publications.
Biel, A., & Thögerson, J. (2007). Activation of social norms in social
dilemmas: A review of the evidence and reflections on the implica-
tions for environmental behavior. Journal of Economic Psychology,
28, 93-112. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.joep.2006.03.003
oehnke, K., Fuss, D., & Rupf, M. (2001). Values and well-being: The
mediating roles of worries. In P. Schmuck, & K. M. Sheldon (Eds.),
B
B
B
Life-goals and wellbeing: Towards a positive psychology of human
striving (pp. 85-101). Seattle: Hogrefe & Huber Publishers.
onnes, M., & Bonaiuto, M. (2002). Environmental psychology: From
spatial-physical Environment to sustainable development. In R. B.
Bechtel, & A. Churchman (Eds.), Handbook of environmental psy-
chology (pp. 28-54). New York: John Wiley & Sons.
öhm, G., & Pfister, H.-R. (2001). Mental representations of global
environmental risks. Research in Social Problems and Public Policy,
9, 1-30. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0196-1152(01)80022-3
Cook, D. M., Boyd, E. A., Grossmann, C., & Bero, L. A. (2009). Jour-
nalists and conflicts of interest in science: Beliefs and practices. Eth-
ics in science and environmental politics, 9, 33-40.
http://dx.doi.org/10.3354/esep00100
Cialdini, R. B., Brown, S. L., Lewis, B. P., Luce, C., & Neuberg, S. L.
(1997). Reinterpreting the empathy-altruism relationship: When one
into one equals oneness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychol-
ogy, 73, 481-494. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.73.3.481
eCoster, J., Iselin, A.-M. R., & Galluci, M. (2009). A conceptual and
empirical examination of justifications for dichotom
D
ization. Psycho-
logical Methods, 4, 349-366. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0016956
Dietz, T., Fitzgerald, A., & Shwom, R. (2005). Environmental values.
Annual Review of Environmental Resources, 30, 335-372.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev.energy.30.050504.144444
Ehrich, P. R. (2002). Human nature, nature conservation and environ-
mental ethics. BioScience, 52, 31-43.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1641/0006-3568(2002)052[0031:HNNCAE]2.0.
CO;2
Garcia-Mira, R., Real, J. E., & Romay, J. (2005). Temporal and spatial
dimensions in the perception of environmental problems: An inves-
tigation of the concept of environmental hyperopia. International
Journal of Psychology, 1, 5-10.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00207590444000078
ardiner, S. M. (2006). A perfect moral storm: Climate change inter-G
generational ethics and the problem of moral corruption. Environ-
mental Values, 15, 397-413.
http://dx.doi.org/10.3197/096327106778226293
ansla, A., Gamble, A., Juliusson, A., & Gärling, T. (2008). The rela-
tionships between awareness of consequences,
H
environmental con-
cern, and value orientations. Journal of Environmental Psychology,
28, 1-9. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2007.08.004
anson, K. C., & Ostrand, K. G. (2011). Potential effects of global
climate change on National Fish Hatchery opera
H
tions in the Pacific
Northwest, USA. Aquaculture Environment Interactions, 1, 175-186.
http://dx.doi.org/10.3354/aei00018
ardin, G. (1968). The tragedy of the common. Science, 162, 1243-
1248.
H
http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.162.3859.1243
Henry, A. D., & Dietz, T. (2012). Understanding environmental cogni-
tion. Organization & Environment, 3, 238-258.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1086026612456538
offman, A. J., & Sandelands, L. E. (2005). Getting right with nature:
Anthropocentrism, ecocentrism, an
H
d theocentrism. Organization &
I. KNEZ
Environment, 2, 141-162.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1086026605276197
IPCC (2007). Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. AR4 Syn-
thesis report, Full Report.
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/syr/ar4_syr.pdf
Politics, 9, 23-29.
Kng and concern for the
jenvp.2007.12.001
Jordan, S. M. (2007). Ethical risks of attenuating climate change
through new energy systems: The case of a biofuel system. Ethics in
Science and Environmental
arpiak, C., & Baril, G. L. (2008). Moral reasoni
environment. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 28, 203-208.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
K. Heat
Kime, uncertainty, and
Kted to a place and its
oppe, C. G., Jendritzky, R. S., Kovats, & Menne B. (2004)
waves: Risks and responses. Copenhagen: World Health Organiza-
tion.
ortenkamp, K.V., & Moore, C. F. (2006). T
individual differences in decisions to cooperate in resource dilemmas.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 5, 603-615.
nez, I. (2005). Attachment and identity as rela
perceived climate. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 25, 207-
218. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2005.03.003
Kurz, T., Augoustinos, M., & Crabb, S. (2010). Contesting the “na-
tional interest” and maintaining “our lifestyle”: A discursive analysis
of political rhetoric around climate change. British Journal of Social
Psychology, 49, 601-625.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1348/014466609X481173
ight, A., & Katz, E. (1996). Environmental pragmatism. London:
Routledge.
L
Leiserowitz, A. (2006). Climate change risk perception and policy
preferences: The role of affect, imagery, and values. Climate Change,
77, 45-72. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10584-006-9059-9
eopold, A. (1949/1987). A s
and there. New York: Oxford University Press.
Land county almanac and sketches here
L, & Liebert, L. L. (1995).Science and behavior: An in-
L, N. (2001).
Lewin, K. (1951). Field theory in social science. New York: Harper.
iebert, R. M.
troduction to methods of psychological research. New York: Prentice
Hall.
oewenstein, G. F., Weber, E. U., Hsee, C. K., & Welch
Risk as feelings. Psychological Bulletin, 2, 267-286.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.127.2.267
Maner, J. K., & Gailliot, M. T. (2007). Altruism and egoism: Prosocial
x.doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.364
motivations for helping depend on relationship context. European
Journal of Social Psychology, 37, 347-358.
http://d
g on helping:
d Social Psychology
Maner, J. K., Luce, C. L., Neuberg, S. L., Cialdini, R. B., Brown, S., &
Sagarin, B. J. (2002). The effects of perspective takin
Still no evidence for altruism. Personality an
Bulletin, 28, 1601-1610. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/014616702237586
arkham, A. (1996). Potential impacts of climate change on ecosys-
tems: A review of implications for policym
biologists. Climate Research, 6, 179
M
akers and conservation
-191.
http://dx.doi.org/10.3354/cr006179
arx, S. M., Weber, E. U., Orlove, B. S., Leiserowitz, A., Krantz, D.
H., Roncoli, C., & Phillips, J. (2007). Communication and mental
processes: Experiential and analytic processing of uncertain climate
M
information. Global Environmental Change, 17, 47-58.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2006.10.004
enzel, S., & Bögeholz, S. (2010). Values
foster Chilean and German pupils’ co
M, beliefs and norms that
mmitment to protect biodiver-
M
Mthods of research.
M
. New Zealand Journal of Psychology, 40, 56-67.
ood. Journal of Personality and Social Psy-
sity. International Journal of Environmental & Science Education, 1,
31-49.
erchant, C. (1992). Radical ecology: The search for a liveable world.
New York: Routledge.
cGuigan, F. J. (1983). Experimental psychology: Me
Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Prentice Hall, Inc.
ilfont, T. L., Abrahamse, W., & McCarthy, N. (2011). Spatial and
temporal biases in assessments of environmental conditions in New
Zealand
Neyer, F. J., & Lang, F. R. (2003). Blood is thicker than water: Kinship
orientation across adulth
chology, 84, 310-321. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.84.2.310
ceja, L., & Salgado, S. (2012). Why do we help? WOorld change ori-
entation as an antecedent of prosocial action. European Journal of
Social Psychology, 43, 127-136.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.1925
Ojala, M. (2005). Adolescents’ worries about environmental risks:
Subjective well-being, values, and existential dimensions. Journal of
Youth Studies, 3, 331-347.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13676260500261934
jala, M. (2007). Hope and worry: Exploring young people’s values,
emotions, and behaviour regardin
Doctoral Dissertation, Örebro: Örebr
O
g global environmental problems.
o University.
.1177/0013916506287388
Olofsson, A., & Öhman, S. (2006). General beliefs and environmental
concern: Transatlantic comparison. Environment and Behavior, 6,
768-790. http://dx.doi.org/10
Or ironmental behavior eg, S., & Gerro, T. K. (2006). Predicting proenv
cross-nationally: Values, the theory of planned behavior, and value-
belief-norm theory. Environment and Behavior, 38, 462-483.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0013916505286012
Peters, E., & Slovic, P. (2000). The springs of action: Affective and
analytical information processing in choice. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 26, 1465-1475.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/01461672002612002
osas, P. (2007). Roles of religion and ethics in addressing climate
change. Ethics in Science and Environmental Politics, 2007, 31
ost, S. G. (2005). Altruism, happiness, and he
P
-49.
Palth: It’s good to be
good. International Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 2, 66-77.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15327558ijbm1202_4
abinovich, A., Morton, T. A., Postmes,
Collective self and individual choice: The effect
R T., & Verplanken, B. (2011).
s of inter-group com-
parative context on environmental values and behaviour. British
Journal of Social Psychology, 51, 551-569.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8309.2011.02022.x
aad, L. (2002). American sharply divided on seriousness of g
warming. Gallup Poll Monthly (Report No. 438, pp. 43-
Slobal
48). Prince-
S
S Piliavin, J. A. (1995).
d puzzles. New
S
er people, and the biosphere. Journal of Environ-
Shmuck,
475.
ton, NJ: Gallup.
chmuck, P., & Vlek, C. (2003). Psychologists can do much to support
sustainable development. European Psychologist, 2, 66-76.
chroeder, D. A., Penner, L. A., Dovidio, J. F., &
The psychology of helping and altruism: Problems an
York: McGraw-Hill.
chultz, P. W. (2001). The structure of environmental concern: Con-
cern for self, oth
mental Psychology, 21, 1-13.
chultz, P. W., Gouveia, V. V., Cameron, L. D., Tankha, G., Sc
P., & Franek, M. (2005). Values and their relationship to environ-
mental concern and conservation behavior. Journal of Cross-Cul-
tural Psychology, 36, 457-
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0022022105275962
chwartz, S. H. (1992). Universals in the content and structure of val-
ues: Theoretical advances and
S
empirical tests in 20 countries. In M.
S
l of Social Issues, 50, 19-45.
96.x
Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental psychology (pp. 1-65). Or-
lando, FL: Academic Press.
chwartz, S. H. (1994). Are there universal aspects in the structure and
contents of human values? Journa
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4560.1994.tb011
mbridge University Press.
self-
beliefs about
Slovic, P., Finucane, M. L., Peters, E., & MacGregor, D. G. (2002).
The affect heuristic. In T. Gilovich, D. Griffin, & D. Kahneman
(Eds.), Heuristics and biases: The psychology of intuitive judgment
(pp. 397-420). New York: Ca
Sparks, P., Jessop, D. C., Chapman, J., & Holmes, K. (2010). Pro-
environmental actions, climate change, and defensiveness: Do
affirmations make a difference to people’s motives and
making a difference? British Journal of Social Psychology, 49, 553-
568. http://dx.doi.org/10.1348/014466609X471976
mith, J. B., & Lenhart, S. S. (1996). Climate change adaptation policy
options. Climate Research, 6, 193-201.
S
http://dx.doi.org/10.3354/cr006193
tehr, N., & Von Storch, H. (1995). The social construct of climate and
climate change. Climate Research, 5, 99-105.
S
http://dx.doi.org/10.3354/cr005099
Copyright © 2013 SciRes. 751
I. KNEZ
Copyright © 2013 SciRes.
752
She stern review.
Sory of environmentally sig-
ssues, 56, 407-424.
tern, N. (2006). The economics of climate change: T
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
tern, P. C. (2000). Toward a coherent the
nificant behavior. Journal of Social I
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/0022-4537.00175
tern, P. C., & Dietz, T. (1994). The value basis o
cern. Journal of Social Issues, 50, 65
Sf environmental con-
-84.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4560.1994.tb02420.x
tern, P., Dietz, T., & Kalof, L. (1993). ValuSe orientations, gender, and
environmental concern. Environment and Behavior, 25, 322-348.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0013916593255002
tocks, E. L., Lishner, D. A., & Decker, S. K.S (2008). European Jour-
nal of Social Psychology, 39, 649-665.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.561
undblad, E.-L., Biel, A., & Gärling, T. (2007). CognitiveS and affective
risk judgements related to climate change. Journal of Environmental
Psychology, 27, 97-106.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2007.01.003
Sundblad, E.-L., Biel, A., & Gärling, T. (2009). Knowledge and confi-
dence in knowledge about climate change
politicians, and laypersons. Environ
among experts, journalists,
ment and Behavior, 2, 281-302.
U
U Responding to global
V. (2002). Central, individual, or collective control? Ameri-
Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (1989). Using multivariate statistics.
New York: Harper & Row, Publishers, Inc.
NCED (United Nations Conference on Environment and Develop-
ment) (1992). Convention on Biological Diversity. Rio de Janeiro:
UNCED.
NWTO (2008). Climate change and tourism:
challenges. World Tourism Organization and United Nations Envi-
ronment. Madrid: World Tourism Organization.
an Vugt, M
can Behavioral Scientist, 5, 783-800.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0002764202045005004
eber, E. U. (2006). Experience-based and descriWption-based percep-
tions of long-term risk: Why global warming does not scare us. Cli-
matic Change, 77, 103-120.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10584-006-9060-3
Wilson, K. M. (2000). Drought, debate, and uncertainty: Measuring
reports knowledge and ignorance about climate change. Public Un-
derstanding of Science, 9, 1-13.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/0963-6625/9/1/301
World Resource Institute (2000). World resources 2000-2001People
and ecosystems: The fraying web of life. www.wri.org/wr2000/