To reduce and not to reduce resource consumption? That is two questionsRichetin, J., Perugini, M., Connor, M., Adjali, I., Hurling , R., Sengupta, A. and Greetham, D. (2012) To reduce and not to reduce resource consumption? That is two questions. Journal for Environmental Psychology, 33 (2). pp. 112-122. ISSN 0272-4944 Full text not archived in this repository. It is advisable to refer to the publisher's version if you intend to cite from this work. See Guidance on citing. To link to this item DOI: 10.1016/j.jenvp.2012.01.003 Abstract/SummaryRecent research shows that because they rely on separate goals, cognitions about not performing a behaviour are not simple opposites of cognitions about performing the same behaviour. Using this perspective, two studies (N = 758 & N = 104) examined the psycho-social determinants of reduction in resource consumption. Results showed that goals associated with reducing versus not reducing resource consumption were not simple opposites (Study 1). Additionally, the discriminant validity of the Theory of Planned Behaviour constructs associated with reducing versus not reducing resource consumption was demonstrated (Study 1 & 2). Moreover, results revealed the incremental validity of both Intentions (to reduce and to not reduce resource consumption) for predicting a series of behaviours (Study 1 & 2). Finally, results indicated a mediation role for the importance of ecological dimensions on the effect of both Intentions on a mock TV choice and a mediation role for the importance of non ecological dimensions on the effect of Intention of not reducing on the same TV choice. Discussion is organized around the consequences, at both theoretical and applied levels, of considering separate motivational systems for reducing and not reducing resource consumption.
Altmetric Deposit Details University Staff: Request a correction | Centaur Editors: Update this record |
Lists
Lists
