Socio-Demographic Determinants of the Better-than-Average Effect in the Context of Pro-Environmental Behavior

The overestimating effect of one's tendency and contribution to pro-environmental practices, and underestimating the pro-environmental behavior of others has been noted recently in cross-country studies. The present work is devoted to a detailed post-hoc analysis of the available empirical data on this effect on the Russian sample (N = 109, M_age = 28.3, SD_age = 10.4, 39% men) and identification of the role of socio-demographic variables (gender, age, income, employment, size of city) as its predictors. The analysis showed that the nature of the contribution of the variables under consideration to the respondents' self-estimation and estimation of others with respect to pro-environmental behavior is non-consistent, which is in line with recent studies. On average for all models and statistically significant determinants, the standardized coefficient ???? does not exceed ∓0.25, which formally corresponds to a small effect size. However, given the empirical distribution of effect size typical of social psychology, it is more likely to be medium effects. The prediction power of linear models based on individual socio-demographic characteristics also turns out to be low, the coefficient of determination varies from 0.02 to 0.11. Therefore, it is acceptable to speak about the considered variables as predictors except in relation to resource saving and eco-mobility. The conclusion is made that along with socio-demographic determinants it is necessary to include other predictors in the design of experiments and investigate them more deeply.

1. Antonenko V.V., Karaulova N.M. Statistical analysis of the “cross-sectional” effects of the dependence of income on the level of education. Jekonomicheskij analiz: teorija i praktika = Economic Analysis: Theory and Practice, 2017. Vol. 3(462), pp. 472—487. (In Russ.).
2. Ivanova A.A., Agissova F.B., Sautkina E.V., Kabanova V.S., Patrakova N.A., Ivande K.S. Russian scale of pro-environmental behavior: development and psychometric assessment. Eksperimental’naya psikhologiya = Experimental Psychology (Russia), 2023. Vol. 16(2), pp. 218—234. DOI: 10.17759/exppsy.2023160213 (In Russ.).
3. Sautkina E.V., Agissova F.B., Ivanova A.A., Ivande K.S., Kabanova V.S. Pro-Environmental Behaviour in Russia. A Systematic Review. Eksperimental’naya psikhologiya = Experimental Psychology (Russia), 2022. Vol. 15(2), pp. 172—193. DOI:10.17759/exppsy.2022150213 (In Russ.).
4. Bazerman M.H., Messick D.M., Tenbrunzel A.E., Wade-Benzoni K.A. Environment, Ethics, & Behavior. The Psychology of Environmental Valuation and Degradation. Jason Aronson Inc., 1998. 416 p.
5. Bergquist M. Most people think they are more pro-environmental than others: a demonstration of the better-than-average effect in perceived pro-environmental behavioral engagement. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 2020. Vol. 42(1), pp. 50—61. DOI:10.1080/01973533.2019.1689364
6. Blankenberg A.-K., Alhusen H. On the Determinants of Pro-Environmental Behavior: A Literature Review and Guide for the Empirical Economist. Center for European, Governance, and Economic Development Research (CEGE), 2019. Pp. 350. DOI:10.2139/ssrn.3473702
7. Bouman T., van der Werff E., Perlaviciute G., Steg L. Environmental values and identities at the personal and group level. Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences, 2021. Vol. 42, pp. 47—53. DOI:10.1016/j.cobeha.2021.02.022
8. Brown J.D. Understanding the Better Than Average Effect: Motives (Still) Matter. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 2012. Vol. 38(2), pp. 209—219. DOI:10.1177/0146167211432763
9. Clot S., Grolleau G., Ibanez L. Projection bias in environmental beliefs and behavioural intentions - An application to solar panels and eco-friendly transport. Energy Policy, 2022. Vol. 160, Article 12645. DOI:10.1016/j.enpol.2021.112645.
10. Davis M.H., Conklin L., Smith A., Luce C. Effect of perspective taking on the cognitive representation of persons: A merging of self and other. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1996. Vol. 70(4), pp. 713—726. DOI:10.1037/0022-3514.70.4.713
11. Dietz T., Gardner G.T., Gilligan J., Stern P.C., Vandenbergh M.P. Household actions can provide a behavioral wedge to rapidly duce US carbon emissions. Science, 2009. Vol. 106(44), pp. 18452—18456. DOI:10.1126/science.1091015
12. Fritz C.O., Morris P.E., Richler J.J. Effect size estimates: Current use, calculations, and interpretation. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 2012. Vol. 141(1), pp. 2—18. DOI:10.1037/a0024338
13. Gifford R. Dragons of inaction: Psychological barriers that limit climate change mitigation. American Psychologist, 2011. Vol. 66(4), pp. 290—302. DOI:10.1037/a0023566
14. Hanel P.H.P., Wolfradt U., Lins de Holanda Coelho G., Wolf L.J., Vilar R., Monteiro R.P., Gouveia V.V., Crompton T., Maio G.R. The Perception of Family, City, and Country Values Is Often Biased. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 2018. Vol. 49(5), pp. 831—850. DOI:10.1177/0022022118767574
15. Heider F. The psychology of interpersonal relations. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1958. Chapter 3, pp. 59—78. DOI:10.1037/10628-000
16. Klöckner C.A. The Psychology of Pro-Environmental Communication: Beyond Standard Information Strategies. Palgrave Macmillan UK, 2015. 271 p. DOI:10.1057/9781137348326
17. Koller K., Pankowska K.P., Brick C. Identifying bias in self-reported pro-environmental behavior. Current Research in Ecological and Social Psychology, 2023. Vol. 4, Article 100087. DOI:10.1016/j.cresp.2022.100087
18. Leviston Z., Uren H.V. Overestimating one’s “Green” behavior: better-than-average bias may function to reduce perceived personal threat from climate change. Journal of Social Issues, 2020. Vol. 76, pp. 70—85. DOI:10.1111/josi.12365
19. Lovakov A., Agadullina E.R. Empirically derived guidelines for effect size interpretation in social psychology. European Journal of Social Psychology, 2021. Vol. 51(3), pp. 485—504. DOI:10.1002/ejsp.2752
20. Nieminen P. Application of Standardized Regression Coefficient in Meta-Analysis. BioMedInformatics, 2022. Vol. 2, pp. 434—458. DOI:10.3390/biomedinformatics2030028
21. Pasca L., Poggio L. Biased perception of the environmental impact of everyday behaviors. The Journal of Social Psychology, 2023. Vol. 163(4), pp. 515—521. DOI:10.1080/00224545.2021.2000354
22. Ratay C., Webb. T.L., Wood W., Mohnen A. Does a holiday break disrupt pro-environmental behaviors? Using field data to test the durability of pro-environmental behaviors and the moderating effect of habit. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 2024. Vol. 203, Article 107440. DOI:10.1016/j.resconrec.2024.107440
23. Sautkina E., Agissova F., Ivanova A., Ivande K., Kabanova V., Patrakova N. Political, environmental and social determinants of pro-environmental behaviour in Russia. Higher School of Economics Research Paper No. WP BRP 130/PSY/2021, 2021. DOI:10.2139/ssrn.3995972
24. Sautkina E., Agissova F., Ivanova A. Political values, patriotism, institutional trust and connectedness to nature predict environmental attitudes and pro-environmental behaviour (Los valores políticos, el patriotismo, la confianza en las instituciones y la conexión con la naturaleza predicen las actitudes y la conducta proambientales). PsyEcology, 2023. Vol. 14(2), pp. 244—296. DOI:10.1080/21711976.2023.2204012
25. Schultz P.W. The structure of environmental concern: concern for self, other people, and the biosphere. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 2001. Vol. 21(4), pp. 327—339. DOI:10.1006/jevp.2001.0227
26. Sharot T. The optimism bias. Current Biology, 2011. Vol. 21(23), pp. 941—945. DOI:10.1016/j.cub.2011.10.030
27. Stern P.C., Dietz T. The value basis of environmental concern. Journal of Social Issues, 1994. Vol. 50, pp. 65—84. DOI:10.1111/j.1540-4560.1994.tb02420.x
28. Stern P.C., Dietz T., Abel T., Guagnano G.A., Kalof L. A value-belief-norm theory of support for social movements: the case of environmentalism. Human Ecology Review, 1999. Vol. 6, pp. 81—97.
29. Sunstein C.R., Bobadilla-Suarez S., Lazzaro S.C., Sharot T. How people update beliefs about climate change: Good news and bad news. Cornell Law Review, 2006. Vol. 102, pp. 1431—1444.
30. Syropoulos S., Markowitz E.M. Perceived responsibility to address climate change consistently relates to increased pro-environmental attitudes, behaviors and policy support: Evidence across 23 countries. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 2022. Vol. 83, Article 101868. DOI:10.1016/j.jenvp.2022.101868
31. Valko D. Environmental attitudes and contextual stimuli in emerging environmental culture: An empirical study from Russia. Sustainable Production and Consumption, 2021. Vol. 27, pp. 2075—2089. DOI:10.1016/j.spc.2021.05.008
32. Vlasceanu, M., Doell, K. C., Bak-Coleman, J. B. et al. Addressing climate change with behavioral science: A global intervention tournament in 63 countries. Science Advances, 2024. Vol. 10, Iss. 6. DOI:10.1126/sciadv.adj5778
33. Weinstein N.D. Unrealistic optimism about future life events. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1980. Vol. 39(5), pp. 806—820. DOI:10.1037/0022-3514.39.5.806
34. Zell E., Strickhouser J. E., Sedikides C., Alicke M.D. The better-than-average effect in comparative self-evaluation: A comprehensive review and meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 2020. Vol. 146(2), pp. 118—149. DOI:10.1037/bul0000218