Regret about environmental destruction: Examining the relative strengths of affective regret and cognitive regret in promoting pro-environmental behaviors

IF 6.1 1区 心理学 Q1 ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES
Sarah Hian May Chan , Angela K.-y. Leung , Shu Tian Ng
{"title":"Regret about environmental destruction: Examining the relative strengths of affective regret and cognitive regret in promoting pro-environmental behaviors","authors":"Sarah Hian May Chan ,&nbsp;Angela K.-y. Leung ,&nbsp;Shu Tian Ng","doi":"10.1016/j.jenvp.2024.102487","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Regret is experienced when one imagines “what might have been”. Although a familiar emotion to many, it has seldom been examined in the context of environmental destruction. We conducted three studies to examine the affective (negative affect in response to destruction) and cognitive (counterfactual thoughts of how things could be different) experiences of regret, and their roles in promoting pro-environmental behavior. Study 1 (<em>N</em> = 235) was a cross-sectional study and it showed that participants reported higher cognitive regret than affective regret when reflecting upon human-caused environmental destruction. However, affective regret was the stronger predictor of pro-environmental behaviors. Study 2 (<em>N</em> = 257) was a between-subjects experiment where we manipulated information exposure by presenting information about the loss of mangroves due to human causes or natural causes or presenting neutral information on mangrove species. Participants showed higher levels of both cognitive and affective regret in response to mangrove destruction (vs. neutral mangrove information), particularly when it was attributed to human actions rather than forces of nature. Both types of regret were found to mediate the effects of condition (human-caused vs. control) on pro-environmental behaviors, but affective regret was the more consistent mediator. Study 3 (<em>N</em> = 393) was a between-subjects experiment which manipulated regret focus through a writing task to elicit affective, cognitive, or no regret. Results showed that pro-environmental behavioral tendencies were highest in the affective regret condition, followed by cognitive regret condition, and lowest in the control condition, although these differences were not statistically significant. In summary, this research found that although people tend to show stronger cognitive regret than affective regret about environmental destruction, it is affective regret that more strongly predicts pro-environmental behaviors. Our findings highlight the promising impact of the feeling of regret in motivating sustainable actions.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":48439,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Environmental Psychology","volume":"100 ","pages":"Article 102487"},"PeriodicalIF":6.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Environmental Psychology","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0272494424002603","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Regret is experienced when one imagines “what might have been”. Although a familiar emotion to many, it has seldom been examined in the context of environmental destruction. We conducted three studies to examine the affective (negative affect in response to destruction) and cognitive (counterfactual thoughts of how things could be different) experiences of regret, and their roles in promoting pro-environmental behavior. Study 1 (N = 235) was a cross-sectional study and it showed that participants reported higher cognitive regret than affective regret when reflecting upon human-caused environmental destruction. However, affective regret was the stronger predictor of pro-environmental behaviors. Study 2 (N = 257) was a between-subjects experiment where we manipulated information exposure by presenting information about the loss of mangroves due to human causes or natural causes or presenting neutral information on mangrove species. Participants showed higher levels of both cognitive and affective regret in response to mangrove destruction (vs. neutral mangrove information), particularly when it was attributed to human actions rather than forces of nature. Both types of regret were found to mediate the effects of condition (human-caused vs. control) on pro-environmental behaviors, but affective regret was the more consistent mediator. Study 3 (N = 393) was a between-subjects experiment which manipulated regret focus through a writing task to elicit affective, cognitive, or no regret. Results showed that pro-environmental behavioral tendencies were highest in the affective regret condition, followed by cognitive regret condition, and lowest in the control condition, although these differences were not statistically significant. In summary, this research found that although people tend to show stronger cognitive regret than affective regret about environmental destruction, it is affective regret that more strongly predicts pro-environmental behaviors. Our findings highlight the promising impact of the feeling of regret in motivating sustainable actions.
对环境破坏的遗憾:研究情感上的遗憾和认知上的遗憾在促进亲环境行为方面的相对优势
当人们想象 "可能发生的事情 "时,就会产生后悔的情绪。尽管对许多人来说这是一种熟悉的情绪,但很少有人在环境破坏的背景下研究这种情绪。我们进行了三项研究,以考察后悔的情感体验(对破坏行为的负面反应)和认知体验(对事情如何可能不同的反事实想法),以及它们在促进亲环境行为中的作用。研究 1(N = 235)是一项横断面研究,结果显示,参与者在反思人类造成的环境破坏时,认知上的遗憾高于情感上的遗憾。然而,情感遗憾更能预测亲环境行为。研究 2(N = 257)是一项主体间实验,我们通过提供有关人为或自然原因造成的红树林损失的信息,或提供有关红树林物种的中性信息来操纵信息暴露。参与者对红树林遭到破坏(与中性红树林信息相比)表现出更高程度的认知和情感上的遗憾,尤其是当其归因于人类行为而非自然力量时。研究发现,两种类型的遗憾都能调节条件(人为因素与控制因素)对亲环境行为的影响,但情感上的遗憾是更一致的调节因素。研究 3(N = 393)是一项主体间实验,它通过一项写作任务来操纵后悔焦点,以引起情感、认知或无后悔。结果显示,在情感遗憾条件下,亲环境行为倾向最高,其次是认知遗憾条件,而在控制条件下,亲环境行为倾向最低,尽管这些差异在统计学上并不显著。总之,本研究发现,虽然人们对环境破坏表现出的认知遗憾往往比情感遗憾更强烈,但情感遗憾却能更有力地预测亲环境行为。我们的研究结果凸显了 "后悔感 "在激励可持续行动方面的积极影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
10.60
自引率
8.70%
发文量
140
审稿时长
62 days
期刊介绍: The Journal of Environmental Psychology is the premier journal in the field, serving individuals in a wide range of disciplines who have an interest in the scientific study of the transactions and interrelationships between people and their surroundings (including built, social, natural and virtual environments, the use and abuse of nature and natural resources, and sustainability-related behavior). The journal publishes internationally contributed empirical studies and reviews of research on these topics that advance new insights. As an important forum for the field, the journal publishes some of the most influential papers in the discipline that reflect the scientific development of environmental psychology. Contributions on theoretical, methodological, and practical aspects of all human-environment interactions are welcome, along with innovative or interdisciplinary approaches that have a psychological emphasis. Research areas include: •Psychological and behavioral aspects of people and nature •Cognitive mapping, spatial cognition and wayfinding •Ecological consequences of human actions •Theories of place, place attachment, and place identity •Environmental risks and hazards: perception, behavior, and management •Perception and evaluation of buildings and natural landscapes •Effects of physical and natural settings on human cognition and health •Theories of proenvironmental behavior, norms, attitudes, and personality •Psychology of sustainability and climate change •Psychological aspects of resource management and crises •Social use of space: crowding, privacy, territoriality, personal space •Design of, and experiences related to, the physical aspects of workplaces, schools, residences, public buildings and public space
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信