Are Proenvironmental Commitments Motivated by Health Concerns or by Perceived Justice?

  • Elisabeth Kals
Part of the Critical Issues in Social Justice book series (CISJ)

Abstract

Environmental Psychology is a relatively young discipline. Within this discipline, new approaches to handling justice relevant questions on preserving the natural environment were developed (“questions of socioecological justice”). As an introduction to this research field, its premises are discussed first. Subsequently, an overview of environmentally oriented justice relevant research questions is provided.

Keywords

Criterion Group Conservation Group Individual Citizen Unpolluted Area Motor Sport 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Amelang, M., Tepe, K., Vagt, G. & Wendt, W. (1977). Mitteilung über einige Schritte der Entwicklung einer Skala zum Umweltbewußtsein. Diagnostica, 23, 86–88.Google Scholar
  2. Becker, L. J., Seligman, C., Fazio, R. H. & Darley, J. M. (1981). Relating attitudes to residential energy use. Environment and Behavior, 13, 590–609.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Borsutzky, D. & Nöldner, W. (1989). Psychosoziale Determinanten des Energiesparverhaltens. Theorie und Forschung (79): Psychologie ( 28 ). Regensburg: S. Roderer Verlag.Google Scholar
  4. Bossel, H. (1990). Umweltwissen: Daten, Fakten, Zusammenhänge. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  5. Clayton, S. (1994). Appeals to justice in the environmental debate. Journal of Social Issues, 50, 13–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Conference of European Statisticians (ed.). (1987). Environment statistics in Europe and North America: An experimental compendium. New York: United Nations Publications.Google Scholar
  7. Craik, K. H. (1973). Environmental psychology. Annual Review of Psychology, 24, 403–422.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Crosby, F., Cordova, D. & Jaskar, K. (1993). On the failure to see oneself as disadvantaged: Cognitive and emotional components. In M.A. Hogg and D. Abrams (eds.), Group motivation. Social psychological perspectives (pp. 87–104 ).Google Scholar
  9. Crowne, D. P. & Marlowe, D. (1960). A new scale of social desirability independent of psychopathology. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 24, 349–354.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Darnay, A. J. (ed.). (1992). Statistical record of the environment. Detroit: Gale Research Company.Google Scholar
  11. De Young, R. (1985–1986). Encouraging environmentally appropriate behavior: The role of intrinsic motivation. Journal of Environmental Systems, 15, 281–292.Google Scholar
  12. Ernst, A. M. & Spada, H. (1993). Bis zum bitteren Ende? In J. Schahn & T. Giesinger (Hrsg.), Psychologie für den Umweltschutz (pp. 17–27 ). Weinheim: Psychologie Verlags Union.Google Scholar
  13. Fiske, S.T. & Taylor, S. E. (1984). Social cognition. New York: McGraw-HillGoogle Scholar
  14. Hardin, G. (1968). The tragedy of the commons. Science, 162, 1243–1248.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hines, J. M., Hungerford, H. R. & Tomera, A. N. (1986/87). Analysis and synthe-sis of research on environmental behavior: A meta-analysis. Journal of Environmental Education, 18, 1–8.Google Scholar
  16. Horwitz, W. A. (1994). Characteristics of environmental ethics: environmental activists’ accounts. Ethics and Behavior, 4, 345–467.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hummel, C. F., Levit, L., & Loomis, R. J. (1978). Perceptions of energy crisis. Who is blamed and how do citizens react to environment-lifestyle tradeoffs? Environment and Behavior, 10, 37–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kals, E. (1994). Straßenverkehr und Umweltschutz: Die ökologische Verantwortung des Bürgers. In A. Flade (Hrsg.), Mobilitätsverhalten (S. 255–266 ). Weinheim: Psychologie Verlags Union.Google Scholar
  19. Kals, E. & Montada, L. (1994). Umweltschutz und die Verantwortung der Bürger. Zeitschrift für Sozialpsychologie, 25, 326–337.Google Scholar
  20. Kaminski, G. (1988). Is the development of a psychological ecology useful and possible? (Bericht Nr. 28 ). Tübingen: Universität, Psychologisches Institut.Google Scholar
  21. Kessel, H. & Tischler, W. (1984). Umweltbewußtsein. Ökologische Wertvorstellungen westlicher Industrienationen. Berlin: Edition Sigma Rainer Bohn Verlag.Google Scholar
  22. Kley, J. & Fietkau, H.-J. (1979). Verhaltenswirksame Variablen des Umweltbewußtseins. Psychologie und Praxis, 1, 13–22.Google Scholar
  23. Krämer, M. (1989). Problembewältigungsstrategien und politisches Engagement. PP-Aktuell, 8, 111–123.Google Scholar
  24. Kruse, L. & Arlt, R. (1984). Environment and behavior. An international and multidisciplinary bibliography. 1970–1981. Vol. 1. Alphabetical listing by authors. Key word index. Vol. 2. Abstracts. München: K.G. Saur.Google Scholar
  25. Kushler, M. G. (1989). Use of evaluation to improve energy conservation pro- grams: A review and case study. Journal of Social Issues, 45, 153–168.Google Scholar
  26. Löfstedt, R. E. (1992). Lay perspectives concerning climate change in Sweden. Energy and Environment, 3, 161–175.Google Scholar
  27. Löfstedt, R. E. (1993). Lay perspectives concerning global climate change in Vienna, Austria. Energy and Environment, 4, 140–154.Google Scholar
  28. Lück, H. E. & Timaeus, E. (1969). Skalen zur Messung Manifester Angst (MAS) und Sozialer Wünschbarkeit ( SDS-E und SDS-CM ). Diagnostica, 15, 134–141.Google Scholar
  29. Maloney, M. R & Ward, M. P. (1973). Ecology: Let’s hear from the people. An objective scale for the measurement of ecological attitudes and knowledge. American Psychologist, 28, 583–586.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Mitchell, R. C. & Carson, R. T. (1989). Using surveys to value public goods: The contingent valuation method. Washington: Resources for the future.Google Scholar
  31. Montada, L. & Kals, E. (1995). Perceived justice of ecological policy and proenvironmental commitments. Social Justice Research, 8, 305–327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Montada, L., Schmitt, M. & Dalbert, C. (1986). Thinking about justice and dealing with one’s own privileges: A study of existential guilt. In H.W. Bierhoff, R. Cohen and J. Greenberg (eds.), Justice in social relations (pp. 125–143 ). New York: Plenum Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Nagata, D. & Crosby, F. (1991). Comparisons, justice, and the internment of Japanese-Americans. In J. Suls and T.A. Wills (eds.), Social comparison: Contemporary theory and research (pp. 347–368 ). Hillsdale: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  34. Nozick, R. (1974), Anarchy, state and utopia. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  35. Platt, J. (1973). Social traps. American Psychologist, 28, 641–651.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Preiser, S. & Wannemacher, W. (1983). Kognitive Bedingungen sozialen und politischen Handelns. In S. Preiser (Hrsg.), Soziales und politisches Engagement (S. 108–167 ). Weinheim: Beltz.Google Scholar
  37. Renn, O., Webler, T. & Kastenholz, H. (1994). Fairness and competence in siting a landfill: A case study from Switzerland. Laxenburg: Conference on Risk and Fairness. IIASA, Laxenburg, Austria (May 23–24, 1994 ).Google Scholar
  38. Schahn, J. & Holzer, E. (1990). Konstruktion, Validierung und Anwendung von Skalen zur Erfassung des individuellen Umweltbewußtseins. Zeitschrift für Differentielle und Diagnostische Psychologie, 11, 185–204.Google Scholar
  39. Sia, A. P., Hungerford, H. R. & Tomera, A.N. (1986). Selected predictors of responsible environmental behavior: An analysis. Journal of Environmental Education, 17, 31–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Sitter, B. (1987). Wie läßt sich ökologische Gerechtigkeit denken? Zeitschrift für ökologische Ethik, 31, 271–295.Google Scholar
  41. Spada, H. & Opwis, K. (1985). Ökologisches Handeln im Konflikt: Die Allmende-Klemme In P. Day, U. Fuhrer and U. Laucken (Hrsg.), Umwelt und Handeln (S. 63–85 ). Tübingen: Attempto.Google Scholar
  42. Stern, P. C. & Gardener, G. T. (1981). The place of behavior change in the management of environmental problems. Zeitschrift für Umweltpolitik, 2, 213–239.Google Scholar
  43. Syme, G. J., Beven, C. E., & Sumner, N. R. (1993). Motivation for reported involvement in local wetland preservation: The roles of knowledge, disposition, problem assessment, and arousal. Environment and Behavior, 25, 586–606.Google Scholar
  44. Tyler, T. R., Orwin, R., & Schurer, L. (1982). Defensive denial and high cost prosocial behavior. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 3, 267–281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Umweltbundesamt (Hrsg.). (1988). Umweltpolitik. Vierter Immissionss-chutzbericht der Bundesregierung. Bonn: Universitäts-Buchdruckerei.Google Scholar
  46. Umweltbundesamt (Hrsg.). (1994). Daten zur Umwelt 1992/93. Berlin: Erich Schmidt Verlag.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1996

Authors and Affiliations

  • Elisabeth Kals
    • 1
  1. 1.Fachbereich I -PsychologieUniversität TrierTrierGermany

Personalised recommendations