This study examined the relationships between risk, responsibility, and green behaviors. It found that personal risk and species/nature risk were equally good predictors of feelings of responsibility to act and responsibility for the problem. Responsibility to act better predicted large green behaviors, while responsibility for the problem better predicted small behaviors. The results suggest risk perceptions and feelings of responsibility influence willingness to engage in environmentally-friendly actions.

1. Introduction
1. Personal risk will be a better predictor of both responsibilities than species/
nature risk.
2. Responsibility to act will be a better predictor of small green behaviors than
large green behaviors.
2. Responsibility to act will be a better predictor of small and large behaviors than
responsibility for the problem.
3. Responsibility for the problem will be a better predictor of policy support than
responsibility to act.
Methods Results
Participants:
-59 residents from the greater Worcester, MA area
-25 males, 32 females, 2 N/A
- 28-85 years old
- Participants are from both political parties
Procedure:
This research is embedded within a larger study conducted by Katie
Lacasse under the supervision of Jim Laird, regarding the exploration of how
“going green” can influence people’s political opinions regarding climate change
as well as their future environmentally-related behaviors. It compares people who
started performing a new green behavior to a control group in order to measure
how “going green” impacts their political attitudes, climate-related self-perceptions,
and their behaviors. Participants were recruited from a multitude of
different groups and organizations in the general Worcester area. They were then
sent a survey which they completed and mailed back. The survey took roughly
15-20 minutes to complete, and was intended to measure political opinions,
personal values, and daily behaviors.
Measures:
Risk: Risk was broken into two categories. The first category was personal
risk. This was measured on the survey with one question, “How much of a
problem do you think climate change will be for you and your family?” The
participants were then given a scale of five answers they could choose from
ranging from “not a problem” to “a very large problem.” The next category was
species/nature risk. This was measured on the survey with one question, “How
much of a problem do you think climate change will be for other species of plants
and animals?” The participants were given the same range of five answers.
Responsibility: Responsibility was also broken down into two categories.
The first category was responsibility to act. This looked at the amount of
responsibility the participant feels he or she has to carry out green behaviors. It
was measured by questions such as, “It is important for me to do my part, and
change my personal behaviors to help slow climate change.” The participants
were given a scale of seven answers they could choose from, ranging from
“strongly disagree” to “strongly agree.” The second category was responsibility
for the problem. This looked at the amount of responsibility the participant feels
he or she has for the actual problems regarding climate change. It was measured
by questions such as, “I feel jointly responsible for climate change,” and was
given the same scale of seven answers.
Green Behaviors: Lastly, types of green behaviors were measured. The
survey looked at how likely one was to do certain things regarding climate change.
Behaviors were split up into two categories. Small behaviors include things such
as carpooling or recycling, while large behaviors include things such as purchasing
a hybrid vehicle or purchasing a product aimed to reduce water usage, such as a
low-flush toilet. The last measure – policy support – looked at whether or not the
participants would support the government instituting changes to prevent climate
change. One example policy was “Provide tax rebates for people who purchase
energy-efficient vehicles.” Answers were recorded on a 1-5 scale ranging from
“strongly oppose” to “strongly support.”
Research Hypotheses
Relationships Between Perceived Risk, Responsibility,
and Green Behaviors
Francesca Householder (Advisor: Jim Laird)
Climate change affects more than just a change in weather; it is linked to
many other things, such as vegetation, sea level changes, and levels of precipitation.
Over the years, it has become a major concern. It is a great risk, seeing as how it
has serious impacts both locally and globally. Some of its effects may be
irreversible, causing difficulty for both the human population and all other living
species. The risks associated with climate change are often researched and debated
upon. Many people wonder why climate change is occurring and how action can be
taken to make it stop.
Research conducted by Ferguson and Branscombe (2009) studied how guilt
influences green behaviors. This is similar to the ways in which responsibility
influence green behaviors. The study manipulated causes and effects of global
warming, and then measured collective guilt of the participants. The amount of
guilt felt by the participants proved to be a reliable factor for determining how
likely they were to perform green behaviors.
As presented through research conducted by O’Connor, Richard, and Fisher
(1999), risk is also an influential factor in leading people to be willing to act and
support policy. The study shows that risk perceptions and knowledge pertaining to
climate change are significant in predicting pro-environmental behaviors. Similar
to this study, one of the measures we will also be focusing on is risk. However, we
will be splitting it into two categories – personal risk and species/nature risk – to
determine which is a better predictor of responsibility. To feel at risk, one must
have an understanding of what is going on. Personal risk may lead to heightened
responsibility because of the fear or concern that something will happen to you.
Species/nature risk may do the same in result of a fear that you have for the
environment. Again, feeling any sort of risk means that there is an understanding of
a potential threat (climate change). In turn, it may drive others to then feel
responsible for the problem.
Discussion
References
There were significant results with most, but not all, of the measures we
tested. We ran two regressions to see how risk affects responsibility. The first
regression tested the effects personal risk and species risk had on responsibility
to act, F = 18.43, p < .001, R2 = .406. The second regression tested the effects
personal risk and species risk had on responsibility for the problem, F = 20.152,
p < .001, R2 = .43. Both models were significant.
We ran three regressions to see how responsibility affects behavior. The
first regression we ran tested the effects responsibility to act and responsibility
for the problem had on small actions or behaviors, F=10.6, p < .001, R2 = .27.
The second regression we ran tested the effects responsibility to act and
responsibility for the problem had on large actions or behaviors, F = 16.6, p < .
001, R2 = .39. The third and final regression we ran tested the effects
responsibility to act and responsibility for the problem had on policy support, F =
37.29, p < .001, R2 = .57. All three models were also significant.
The overall models shows that risks are leading to responsibilities and
these responsibilities are leading to these behaviors. Although the overall
models were statistically significant, some of the individual measures within the
models were not. Some measures were better predictors of green behaviors than
others. For example, when looking at the relationships between responsibilities
and behavior, responsibility to act and responsibility for the problem do not
significantly account for all of the measures. When looking at small green
behaviors, responsibility to act does not have a significant impact, β = .257,
while responsibility for the problem does, β = .305. When looking at large
green behaviors, however, the results are the opposite. Responsibility for the
problem does not have a significant impact, β = .156, while responsibility to act
does, β = .503. Both measures of responsibility significantly predict for policy
support. Nevertheless, the overall model was statistically significant.
Ferguson, M., & Branscombe, N. (2009). Collective guilt mediates the effect of
beliefs about global warming on willingness to engage in mitigation
behavior. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 30, 135-142.
O’Connor, R., Bord, R., & Fisher, A. (1999). Risk perceptions, general
environmental beliefs, and willingness to address climate change. Risk
Analysis, 19(3), 461-471.
Abstract
The present research examines the relationships between risk, responsibility, and
green behaviors. We studied the different types of risk (personal vs. species/
nature) and the effects that they had on different types of responsibility
(responsibility to act vs. responsibility for the problem). Furthermore, we then
studied the effects that these responsibilities had on three different types of green
behavior – small, large, and policy support. Regressions were used to test our
hypotheses. Our findings show that risk leads to responsibility, and the feeling of
responsibility then leads to actions. They also show that responsibility to act was
a better predictor for some actions than responsibility for the problem was, and
vice versa. This research was drawn from a larger study regarding attitudes and
climate change.
The results show that the perception of risk and responsibility are both a
determining factor of green behaviors. Both personal risk and species/
nature risk were equal predictors of responsibility to act and responsibility
for the problem. The reason they were so statistically similar in their ability
to affect responsibility may be because people responded to these questions
in the same way. There was a positive correlation between participants who
believed climate change was a very large problem for themselves and
participants who believed it was very large problem for other species. The
two types of responsibilities, however, had very different results.
Responsibility for the problem was a stronger predictor of small behaviors
than was responsibility to act; in contrast, responsibility to act was a
stronger predictor of large behaviors than was responsibility for the
problem. This may be because personal risk has more of an impact on
responsibility to act than does species/nature risk; this being said, those who
feel a responsibility to act may complete larger green behaviors in order to
get rid of the personal risk that is being felt. Similarly, those who feel a
responsibility for the problem may believe or understand that humans are
contributing to climate change, however, may not feel that they themselves
are at as great of a risk. Because less of a personal risk is associated with
responsibility for the problem, people may not feel as driven to do large
green behaviors because they feel no personal threat.
There were certain limitations that may have influenced our results. One
was the types of questions on the survey. A majority of the questions used
to measure green behaviors were hypothetical. For example, there was a
section measuring large green behaviors where the participant was
instructed to indicate how likely they would be to perform the given
behaviors in the future. This being said, the results are reflective of how risk
and responsibility lead to the likelihood of green behaviors. Another factor
that may have influenced our results was the number of participants. With
any experiment, the more participants you have, the stronger your results
are. In this case, we had 59 participants. The results may have changed if
we had more. To eliminate these limitations, future research could focus on
questions that were all associated with completed behaviors or actions,
rather than measuring hypothetical behaviors. This way, responsibility and
risk will be better indicators of when people perform certain green
behaviors.
Climate change has become a major concern over the years, as it is a
great risk to the environment. This being said, it is important to have
knowledge about why it is occurring, and how action can be taken to reduce
it. Our results showed that both personal and species/nature risk have
almost an equal impact on both types of responsibility. In addition, both
types of responsibility have different impacts on green behaviors.
Responsibility to act is a better predictor of large behaviors than is
responsibility for the problem; contrarily, responsibility for the problem is a
better predictor of small behaviors than is responsibility to act. As
previously mentioned, the understood threat of climate change may be what
leads people to feel responsible for the problem in some way. The
responsibilities are then what drive people to their actions. Knowing what
factors influence people’s willingness to act can potentially help determine
what needs to be done to get people to do pro-environmental behaviors.