Beyond Personal Responsibility: Analyzing How Attributing Responsibility for Environmental Protection Can Hinder Action
Abstract
:1. Introduction
1.1. Fear Appeals
1.2. Attribution Theory
1.3. Current Study Context
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Experimental Design
2.1.1. Manipulation Check
2.1.2. Participants and Protocol
2.1.3. Measures
2.1.4. Analytical Strategy
3. Results
4. Discussion
4.1. Research Translation
4.2. Study Limitations and Future Directions
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Howarth, C.; Waterson, B.; McDonald, M. Are European Climate Change Awareness Campaigns Targeting Correctly to Encourage Sustainable Travel? 2010. Available online: https://eprints.soton.ac.uk/207791/ (accessed on 1 July 2022).
- Cialdini, R.B.; Kallgren, C.A.; Reno, R.R. A Focus Theory of Normative Conduct: A Theoretical Refinement and Reevaluation of the Role of Norms in Human Behavior. In Advances in Experimental Social Psychology; Zanna, M.P., Ed.; Academic Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 1991; pp. 201–234. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Walnum, H.J.; Simonsen, M. Does driving behavior matter? An analysis of fuel consumption data from heavy-duty trucks. Transp. Res. Part D Transp. Environ. 2015, 36, 107–120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Molinario, E.; Kruglanski, A.W.; Bonaiuto, F.; Bonnes, M.; Cicero, L.; Fornara, F.; Scopelliti, M.; Admiraal, J.; Beringer, A.; Dedeurwaerdere, T.; et al. Motivations to Act for the Protection of Nature Biodiversity and the Environment: A Matter of “Significance”. Environ. Behav. 2020, 52, 1133–1163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Obradovich, N.; Guenther, S.M. Collective responsibility amplifies mitigation behaviors. Clim. Chang. 2016, 137, 307–319. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Whitmarsh, L.; O’Neill, S.; Lorenzoni, I. Climate Change or Social Change? Debate within, amongst, and beyond Disciplines. Environ. Plan. A 2011, 43, 258–261. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hagmann, D.; Ho, E.H.; Loewenstein, G. Nudging out support for a carbon tax. Nat. Clim. Chang. 2019, 9, 484–489. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tobin, M. New Gallup Water Data Shows Rising Concern. Available online: https://waterpolls.org/gallup-water-data-pollution/ (accessed on 9 September 2022).
- Gaffield, S.J.; Goo, R.L.; Richards, L.A.; Jackson, R.J. Public health effects of inadequately managed stormwater runoff. Am. J. Public Health 2003, 93, 1527–1533. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fissore, C.; Baker, L.A.; Hobbie, S.E.; King, J.Y.; McFadden, J.P.; Nelson, K.C.; Jakobsdottir, I. Carbon, nitrogen, and phosphorus fluxes in household ecosystems in the Minneapolis-Saint Paul, Minnesota, urban region. Ecol. Appl. 2011, 21, 619–639. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Kollmuss, A.; Agyeman, J. Mind the Gap: Why do people act environmentally and what are the barriers to pro-environmental behavior? Environ. Educ. Res. 2002, 8, 239–260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Bryner, G. Cooperative instruments and policy making: Assessing public participation in US environmental regulation. Eur. Environ. 2001, 11, 49–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hobbie, S.E.; Finlay, J.C.; Janke, B.D.; Nidzgorski, D.A.; Millet, D.B.; Baker, L.A. Contrasting nitrogen and phosphorus budgets in urban watersheds and implications for managing urban water pollution. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2017, 114, 4177–4182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Barr, S. Are we all environmentalists now? Rhetoric and reality in environmental action. Geoforum 2004, 35, 231–249. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Blake, J. Overcoming the “value-action gap” in environmental policy: Tensions between national policy and local experience. Local Environ. 1999, 4, 257–278. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bushell, S.; Buisson, G.S.; Workman, M.; Colley, T. Strategic narratives in climate change: Towards a unifying narrative to address the action gap on climate change. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 2017, 28, 39–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Garðarsdóttir, R.B.; Andradóttir, H.Ó.; Thorsteinsson, T. Protect Me from What I Want: Understanding Excessive Polluting Behavior and the Willingness to Act. Sustainability 2020, 12, 5867. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Witte, K. Putting the fear back into fear appeals: The extended parallel process model. Commun. Monogr. 1992, 59, 329–349. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Baldassare, M.; Katz, C. The Personal Threat of Environmental Problems as Predictor of Environmental Practices. Environ. Behav. 1992, 24, 602–616. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Arbuthnot, J. The Roles of Attitudinal and Personality Variables in the Prediction of Environmental Behavior and Knowledge. Environ. Behav. 1977, 9, 217–232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Selman, P.H.; Selman, P. Local Sustainability: Managing and Planning Ecologically Sound Places; SAGE: Singapore, 1996; Available online: https://play.google.com/store/books/details?id=mtnHKARLhDQC (accessed on 1 July 2022).
- Myrick, J.G.; Nabi, R.L. Fear arousal and health and risk messaging. Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Communication. 2017. Available online: https://oxfordre.com/communication/view/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228613.001.0001/acrefore-9780190228613-e-266 (accessed on 1 July 2022).
- Chen, M.-F. Impact of fear appeals on pro-environmental behavior and crucial determinants. Int. J. Advert. 2016, 35, 74–92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hart, P.S.; Feldman, L. Threat Without Efficacy? Climate Change on U.S. Network News. Sci. Commun. 2014, 36, 325–351. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yzer, M.C.; Southwell, B.G.; Stephenson, M.T. Inducing Fear As a Public Communication Campaign Strategy. Available online: https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=B7J1AwAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PA163&dq=Yzer+Southwell+Stephenson+2012&ots=CxF7bNY8QF&sig=2NchywG_MIBW3YfwiIMjYnlfta4 (accessed on 1 July 2022).
- Perrault, E.K.; Clark, S.K. Sustainability attitudes and behavioral motivations of college students: Testing the extended parallel process model. Int. J. Sustain. High. Educ. 2018, 19, 32–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Armbruster, S.T.; Manchanda, R.V.; Vo, N. When Are Loss Frames More Effective in Climate Change Communication? An Application of Fear Appeal Theory. Sustainability 2022, 14, 7411. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Park, S. How celebrities’ green messages on Twitter influence public attitudes and behavioral intentions to mitigate climate change. Sustainability 2020, 12, 7948. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Beehler, G.P.; McGuinness, B.M.; Vena, J.E. Characterizing Latino anglers’ environmental risk perceptions, sport fish consumption, and advisory awareness. Med Anthr. Q. 2003, 17, 99–116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Withanachchi, S.S.; Ghambashidze, G.; Kunchulia, I.; Urushadze, T.; Ploeger, A. Water Quality in Surface Water: A Preliminary Assessment of Heavy Metal Contamination of the Mashavera River, Georgia. Int. J. Env. Res. Public Health 2018, 15, 621. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Yamashita, S. Perception and Evaluation of Water in Landscape: Use of Photo-Projective Method to Compare Child and Adult Residents’ Perceptions of a Japanese River Environment. Available online: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0169204602000932 (accessed on 1 July 2022).
- Vyner, H.M. Invisible Trauma: The Psychosocial Effects of Invisible Environmental Contaminants. 1988. Available online: https://psycnet.apa.org/fulltext/1988-97092-000.pdf (accessed on 1 July 2022).
- Nicholson-Cole, S.A. Representing climate change futures: A critique on the use of images for visual communication. Comput. Env. Urban Syst. 2005, 29, 255–273. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Houts, P.S.; Doak, C.C.; Doak, L.G.; Loscalzo, M.J. The role of pictures in improving health communication: A review of research on attention, comprehension, recall, and adherence. Patient Educ. Couns. 2006, 61, 173–190. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lipkus, I.M. Numeric, verbal, and visual formats of conveying health risks: Suggested best practices and future recommendations. Med. Decis. Mak. 2007, 27, 696–713. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Feldman, L.; Hart, P.S. Using Political Efficacy Messages to Increase Climate Activism: The Mediating Role of Emotions. Sci. Commun. 2016, 38, 99–127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hamann, K.R.S.; Reese, G. My influence on the world (of others): Goal efficacy beliefs and efficacy affect predict private, public, and activist pro-environmental behavior. J. Soc. Issues 2020, 76, 35–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Huang, H. Media use, environmental beliefs, self-efficacy, and pro-environmental behavior. J. Bus. Res. 2016, 69, 2206–2212. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tannenbaum, M.B.; Hepler, J.; Zimmerman, R.S.; Saul, L.; Jacobs, S.; Wilson, K.; Albarracín, D. Appealing to fear: A meta-analysis of fear appeal effectiveness and theories. Psychol. Bull. 2015, 141, 1178–1204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Popova, L. The extended parallel process model: Illuminating the gaps in research. Health Educ. Behav. 2012, 39, 455–473. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Heider, F. The Psychology of Interpersonal Relations; Wiley: New York, NY, USA, 1958. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Iyengar, S. How Citizens Think about National Issues: A Matter of Responsibility. Am. J. Pol. Sci. 1989, 33, 878–900. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yang, Z.J.; Seo, M.; Rickard, L.N.; Harrison, T.M. Information sufficiency and attribution of responsibility: Predicting support for climate change policy and pro-environmental behavior. J. Risk Res. 2015, 18, 727–746. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Iyengar, S. Framing Responsibility for Political Issues. Ann. Am. Acad. Pol. Soc. Sci. 1996, 546, 59–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Doyle, J. Where has All the Oil Gone? BP Branding and the Discursive Elimination of Climate Change Risk. In Culture, Environment and Ecopolitics; Cambridge Scholars Publishing: Newcastle upon Tyne, UK; Available online: https://research.brighton.ac.uk/en/publications/where-has-all-the-oil-gone-bp-branding-and-the-discursive-elimina (accessed on 12 October 2022).
- Minor, J.; Boyce, G.A. Smokey Bear and the pyropolitics of United States forest governance. Political Geogr. 2018, 62, 79–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Bickerstaff, K.; Walker, G. Risk, responsibility, and blame: An analysis of vocabularies of motive in air-pollution(ing) discourses. Environ. Plan. A 2002, 34, 2175–2192. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Roulet, T.J.; Touboul, S. The Intentions with Which the Road is Paved: Attitudes to Liberalism as Determinants of Greenwashing. J. Bus. Ethics. 2015, 128, 305–320. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hallman, W.K.; Wandersman, A. Attribution of Responsibility and Individual and Collective Coping with Environmental Threats. J. Soc. Issues 1992, 48, 101–118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kim, H.W.; Li, M.-H. Managing stormwater for urban sustainability: An evaluation of local comprehensive plans in the Chesapeake Bay watershed region. J Env. Plan. Manag. 2017, 60, 1702–1725. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tabor, C.W.; Virts, M.; LeRose, G.; Jones, M. Chesapeake Bay TMDL Phase II Watershed Improvement Plan BMP Strategy Analysis for the City of Richmond, Virginia. Proc. Water Environ. Fed. 2013, 2013, 6005–6016. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bolsen, T.; Druckman, J.N.; Cook, F.L. Communication and Collective Actions: A Survey Experiment on Motivating Energy Conservation in the U.S. J. Exp. Political Sci. 2014, 1, 24–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Survey Basic Overview. Available online: https://www.qualtrics.com/support/survey-platform/survey-module/survey-module-overview/ (accessed on 12 October 2022).
- Kim, S.; Jeong, S.-H.; Hwang, Y. Predictors of Pro-Environmental Behaviors of American and Korean Students: The Application of the Theory of Reasoned Action and Protection Motivation Theory. Sci. Commun. 2013, 35, 168–188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lin, T.T.C.; Bautista, J.R. Predicting Intention to Take Protective Measures During Haze: The Roles of Efficacy, Threat, Media Trust, and Affective Attitude. J. Health Commun. 2016, 21, 790–799. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Ajzen, I. Attitudes, Personality and Behaviour; McGraw-Hill Education (UK): Maidenhead, UK, 2005; Available online: https://play.google.com/store/books/details?id=ZbDlAAAAQBAJ (accessed on 1 July 2022).
- Hayes, A.F. Introduction to Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional Process Analysis, Second Edition: A Regression-Based Approach; Guilford Publications: New York, NY, USA, 2017; Available online: https://play.google.com/store/books/details?id=6uk7DwAAQBAJ (accessed on 1 July 2022).
- Damania, R.; Desbureaux, S.; Rodella, A.-S.; Russ, J.; Zaveri, E. Quality Unknown: The Invisible Water Crisis; World Bank Publications: Washington, DC, USA, 2019; Available online: https://play.google.com/store/books/details?id=gYSzDwAAQBAJ (accessed on 1 July 2022).
- Strauch, K.A. Invisible pollution: The impact of pharmaceuticals in the water supply. AAOHN J. 2011, 59, 525–532. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Noar, S.M.; Zimmerman, R.S. Health Behavior Theory and cumulative knowledge regarding health behaviors: Are we moving in the right direction? Health Educ. Res. 2005, 20, 275–290. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Willoughby, J.F.; Smith, H. Communication Strategies and New Media Platforms: Exploring the Synergistic Potential of Health and Environmental Communication. Sci. Commun. 2016, 38, 535–545. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Avery, E.J.; Park, S. HPV vaccination campaign fear visuals: An eye-tracking study exploring effects of visual attention and type on message informative value, recall, and behavioral intentions. Public Relat. Rev. 2018, 44, 321–330. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, S.; Leviston, Z.; Hurlstone, M.; Lawrence, C.; Walker, I. Emotions predict policy support: Why it matters how people feel about climate change. Glob. Environ. Chang. 2018, 50, 25–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Brough, A.R.; Wilkie, J.E.B.; Ma, J.; Isaac, M.S.; Gal, D. Is Eco-Friendly Unmanly? The Green-Feminine Stereotype and Its Effect on Sustainable Consumption. J. Consum. Res. 2016, 43, 567–582. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Pearson, A.R.; Schuldt, J.P.; Romero-Canyas, R.; Ballew, M.T.; Larson-Konar, D. Diverse segments of the US public underestimate the environmental concerns of minority and low-income Americans. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2018, 115, 12429–12434. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Mihelcic, J.R.; Rains, M. Where’s the Science? Recent Changes to Clean Water Act Threaten Wetlands and Thousands of Miles of Our Nation’s Rivers and Streams. Environ. Eng. Sci. 2020, 37, 173–177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Hirschkorn, M.; Geelan, D. Bridging the Research-Practice Gap: Research Translation and/or Research Transformation. Alta. J. Educ. Res. 2008, 54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sheeran, P.; Webb, T.L. The intention-behavior gap. Soc. Pers. Psychol. Compass 2016, 10, 503–518. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- O’Keefe, D.J. Persuasion: Theory and Research; SAGE Publications: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2015; Available online: https://play.google.com/store/books/details?id=HXq3BgAAQBAJ (accessed on 1 July 2022).
Position | Personal | Government |
---|---|---|
Heading | Local residents can help to protect the James River for future generations. | State government “pollution diet” plans can help to protect the James River for future generations. |
First mention | Individual citizens’ actions significantly contribute to the health of the river. | The government’s actions significantly contribute to the health of the river. |
Second mention | The ultimate success of reaching pollution reduction goals for the James depends largely on engaged citizens caring about restoration efforts. | The ultimate success of reaching pollution reduction goals for the James depends largely on governmental decisions about implementing restoration efforts in this plan. |
Conclusion | The James River faces numerous challenges on a daily basis, with pollution being one of the largest. “Human health continues to be at risk due to pollution entering the James River. To ensure that the James is safe for everyone to enjoy, we need to inform local citizens about the ways that their actions can protect the future of the river” said Tom White, River keeper for the James River Association. Engaging citizens in large-scale cleanups, conservation efforts, and policy conversations can have direct and positive impacts on the river. | The James River faces numerous challenges on a daily basis, with pollution being one of the largest. “Human health continues to be at risk due to pollution entering the James River. To ensure that the James is safe for everyone to enjoy, we need to strengthen and adequately fund state and local programs to protect the future of the river” said Tom White, River keeper for the James River Association. The government’s “pollution diet” plan can have a direct and positive impact on the river. |
Frequency | Percent | |
---|---|---|
Income | ||
Less than $20,000 | 64 | 12.7% |
$20,000 to $34,999 | 73 | 14.5% |
$35,000 to $49,999 | 80 | 15.9% |
$50,000 to $74,999 | 116 | 23.1% |
$75,000 to $99,999 | 58 | 11.6% |
Over $100,000 | 110 | 21.9% |
Missing | 1 | 0.2% |
Total | 502 | 100% |
Education | ||
Less than high school degree | 13 | 2.6% |
High school graduate (including GED) | 77 | 15.3% |
Some college but no degree | 142 | 28.3% |
Associate degree in college (2-year) | 56 | 11.2% |
Bachelor’s degree in college (4-year) | 134 | 26.7% |
Master’s degree | 62 | 12.4% |
Doctoral degree | 6 | 1.2% |
Professional degree (JD, MD) | 12 | 2.4% |
Total | 502 | 100% |
Political ideology | ||
Very conservative | 59 | 11.8% |
Conservative | 116 | 23.1% |
Moderate | 209 | 41.6% |
Liberal | 82 | 16.3% |
Very liberal | 33 | 6.6% |
Total | 499 | 99.4% |
Missing | 3 | 0.6% |
Total | 502 | 100% |
River use | ||
Enjoying the scenery | 361 | 71.9% |
Family recreation | 156 | 31.1% |
Fishing | 148 | 29.5% |
Swimming | 90 | 17.9% |
Watersports | 64 | 12.7% |
Other | 5 | 1% |
To Self-Efficacy | To Response Efficacy | To Personal Responsibility | To Perceived Susceptibility | To Perceived Severity | To Fear | To Intentions | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Age | 0.00 (0.00) | −0.00 (0.00) | 0.00 (0.00) | 0.00 (0.00) | 0.00 (0.00) | 0.00 (0.00) | 0.00 (0.00) |
Sex | 0.21 (0.09) * | 0.26 (0.10) * | 0.19 (0.09) * | 0.28 (0.11) * | 0.29 (0.12) * | −0.01 (0.08) | 0.12 (0.07) |
Race | 0.21 (0.10) * | 0.09 (0.11) | −0.16 (0.10) | −0.30 (0.12) | −0.13 (0.13) | −0.17 (0.09) | 0.01 (0.08) |
Income | 0.10 (0.03) * | 0.09 (0.03) * | 0.06 (0.03) * | 0.07 (0.03) * | 0.06 (0.03) * | 0.03 (0.02) | 0.02 (0.02) |
Education | 0.00 (0.03) | −0.04 (0.03) | −0.01 (0.03) | −0.01 (0.04) | −0.05 (0.04) | −0.01 (0.02) | 0.02 (0.02) |
Political ideology | 0.10 (0.04) * | 0.11 (0.05) * | 0.01 (0.04) | 0.11 (0.05) | 0.11 (0.05) | 0.01 (0.04) | 0.01 (0.03) |
River use | 0.30 (0.06) * | 0.25 (0.07) * | 0.27 (0.06) * | 0.35 (0.07) * | 0.33 (0.08) * | 0.10 (0.05) | 0.06 (0.05) |
X1: Personal resp.-clean water | 0.05 (0.14) | 0.28 (0.15) | 0.09 (0.14) | 0.21 (0.17) | 0.26 (0.18) | 0.03 (0.12) | 0.03 (0.10) |
X2: Government resp.-clean water | 0.12 (0.14) | 0.32 (0.15) * | 0.22 (0.14) | 0.23 (0.17) | 0.42 (0.18) * | −0.02 (0.12) | −0.00 (0.10) |
X3: Personal resp.-dirty water | −0.12 (0.14) | 0.11 (0.16) | 0.04 (0.14) | 0.29 (0.18) | 0.40 (0.18) * | 0.09 (0.13) | 0.06 (0.11) |
X4: Government resp.-dirty water | 0.07 (0.14) | 0.46 (0.16) * | 0.14 (0.14) | 0.36 (0.17) * | 0.50 (0.18) * | 0.18 (0.12) | −0.06 (0.10) |
M1: Self-efficacy | −0.10 (0.05) | 0.52 (0.04) * | |||||
M2: Response efficacy | −0.02 (0.04) | 0.22 (0.04) * | |||||
M3: Personal responsibility | 0.15 (0.04) * | −0.06 (0.03) | |||||
M4: Perceived susceptibility | 0.28 (0.05) * | 0.07 (0.04) | |||||
M5: Perceived severity | 0.20 (0.04) * | 0.06 (0.04) | |||||
M6: Fear | 0.14 (0.03) * |
To Self-Efficacy | To Response Efficacy | To Personal Responsibility | To Perceived Susceptibility | To Perceived Severity | To Fear | To Intentions | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Age | −0.01 (0.00) | −0.00 (0.00) | 0.00 (0.00) | 0.00 (0.00) | 0.01 (0.00) | 0.00 (0.00) | −0.00 (0.00) |
Sex | 0.13 (0.14) | 0.24 (0.11) * | 0.19 (0.09) | 0.28 (0.13) * | 0.26 (0.12) * | 0.00 (0.00) | 0.18 (0.10) |
Race | −0.07 (0.00) | 0.05 (0.13) | −0.15 (0.10) | −0.28 (0.12) * | −0.15 (0.13) | −0.00 (0.02) | −0.44 (0.11) * |
Income | 0.07 (0.16) | 0.07 (0.03) | 0.05 (0.03) | 0.05 (0.03) * | 0.04 (0.03) | 0.02 (0.02) | 0.05 (0.03) |
Education | 0.02 (0.05) | −0.02 (0.04) | −0.00 (0.03) | −0.00 (0.04) | −0.03 (0.04) | −0.01 (0.02) | −0.07 (0.03) |
Political ideology | −0.06 (0.07) | 0.06 (0.05) | 0.01 (0.04) | 0.10 (0.05) | 0.11 (0.05) | 0.01 (0.04) | −0.14 (0.04) |
River use | 0.64 (0.09) * | 0.25 (0.08) * | 0.27 (0.06) * | 0.34 (0.07) * | 0.32 (0.08) * | 0.02 (0.04) | 0.12 (0.07) |
X1: Personal resp.-clean water | 0.12 (0.21) | 0.20 (0.18) | 0.06 (0.14) | 0.17 (0.17) | 0.25 (0.18) | 0.06 (0.12) | −0.07 (0.15) |
X2: Government resp.-clean water | 0.20 (0.21) | 0.04 (0.18) | 0.19 (0.14) | 0.18 (0.17) | 0.37 (0.18) * | 0.01 (0.12) | −0.09 (0.15) |
X3: Personal resp.-dirty water | −0.08 (0.22) | 0.03 (0.18) | 0.03 (0.14) | 0.27 (0.17) | 0.37 (0.18) * | 0.15 (0.13) | 0.00 (0.15) |
X4: Government resp.-dirty water | −0.08 (0.21) | 0.27 (0.18) | 0.12 (0.14) | 0.33 (0.17) | 0.46 (0.18) * | 0.23 (0.12) | −0.03 (0.15) |
M1: Self-efficacy | 0.12 (0.02) * | 0.58 (0.04) * | |||||
M2: Response efficacy | −0.05 (0.04) | 0.09 (0.04) * | |||||
M3: Personal responsibility | 0.12 (0.01) * | −0.03 (0.05) | |||||
M4: Perceived susceptibility | 0.24 (0.05) * | 0.03 (0.04) | |||||
M5: Perceived severity | 0.18 (0.04) * | 0.01 (0.05) | |||||
M6: Fear | 0.30 (0.05) * |
Model 1 | Model 2 | Model 3 | |
---|---|---|---|
Predictor Variables | B (SE) | B (SE) | B (SE) |
Age | 0.00 (0.00) | 0.00 (0.00) | 0.00 (0.00) |
Female | 0.22 (0.08) * | 0.16 (0.08) | 0.16 (0.08) |
White | −0.18 (0.09) * | −0.15 (0.09) * | −0.16 (0.09) * |
Income | 0.08 (0.03) * | 0.07 (0.03) * | 0.07 (0.03) * |
Education | −0.02 (0.03) | −0.02 (0.03) | −0.02 (0.03) |
Political ideology | 0.01 (0.04) | −0.00 (0.04) | −0.00 (0.04) |
River use | 0.50 (0.06) * | 0.43 (0.06) * | 0.42 (0.06) * |
Perception of government responsibility | 0.08 (0.04) * | 0.08 (0.04) * | |
Perception of personal responsibility | 0.20 (0.04) * | 0.20 (0.04) * | |
Personal resp. -clean water | −0.01 (0.12) | ||
Government resp. -_clean water | 0.02 (0.12) | ||
Personal resp. - dirty water | 0.05 (0.12) | ||
Government resp. - _dirty water | −0.03 (0.12) | ||
Constant | 1.73 (0.20) * | 1.12 (0.22) * | 1.11 (0.23) |
R2 | 0.16 * | 0.23 * | 0.24 |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
O’Donnell, N.H.; Guidry, J.P.D. Beyond Personal Responsibility: Analyzing How Attributing Responsibility for Environmental Protection Can Hinder Action. Sustainability 2022, 14, 13503. https://doi.org/10.3390/su142013503
O’Donnell NH, Guidry JPD. Beyond Personal Responsibility: Analyzing How Attributing Responsibility for Environmental Protection Can Hinder Action. Sustainability. 2022; 14(20):13503. https://doi.org/10.3390/su142013503
Chicago/Turabian StyleO’Donnell, Nicole H., and Jeanine P. D. Guidry. 2022. "Beyond Personal Responsibility: Analyzing How Attributing Responsibility for Environmental Protection Can Hinder Action" Sustainability 14, no. 20: 13503. https://doi.org/10.3390/su142013503
APA StyleO’Donnell, N. H., & Guidry, J. P. D. (2022). Beyond Personal Responsibility: Analyzing How Attributing Responsibility for Environmental Protection Can Hinder Action. Sustainability, 14(20), 13503. https://doi.org/10.3390/su142013503