Explore the vast range of titles available.

Prospective, longitudinal analyses revealed that over a 12-year period from ages 6 to 18, individuals who grew up with mothers with more proenvironmental attitudes engaged in more proenvironmental behavior as young adults. A similar marginal association was uncovered between mothers’ proenvironmental behaviors and the proenvironmental behavior of their young adult offspring. Maternal educational attainment, but not political ideology, was also associated with more proenvironmental behavior as children matured. Moreover, childhood time spent outdoors was positively associated with increased environmentally responsible behavior in young adulthood. Interestingly, one’s own childhood proenvironmental behavior and attitude, at least as assessed at age 6, bear little on one’s eventual proenvironmental behavior as a young adult. Finally, among this set of childhood factors, maternal education and childhood time spent outdoors were independent predictors of positive changes in environmental behavior from early childhood to young adulthood.

Environmental education programs neglect the aspect of prosocial behavior as a correlate of pro-environmental behavior. This article examines the possible benefits of increasing the emphasis on prosocial behavior as a way to reinforce environmental education. In our study, prosocial behavior was positively related to pro-environmental behavior (r = 0.34, p < 0.001), and even a combined scale consisting of prosocial and pro-environmental behavior items showed an acceptable reliability (separation reliability = 0.82, at the level of the separated scales), which implies that prosocial and pro-environmental behaviors are a similar class of behavior. We can assume that the two underlying propensities (prosocial behavior and pro-environmentalism) are probably only two facets of an overarching common propensity that supports both kinds of behavior. Therefore, promoting one facet will, through its relationship with the other facet, also foster the respective other facet. Even more so, it might be most effective to relate to both propensities equally.

The behavioral sciences, including most of psychology, seek to explain and predict behavior with the help of theories and models that involve concepts (e.g., attitudes) that are subsequently translated into measures. Currently, some subdisciplines such as social psychology focus almost exclusively on measures that demand reflection or even introspection when administered to persons. We argue that such a focus hinders progress in explaining behavior. One major reason is that such an exclusive focus on reflections results in common method bias, which then produces spurious relations, or in other words, low discriminant validity. Without the valid measurement of theoretical concepts, theoretical assumptions cannot be tested, and hence, theory development will be hampered. We argue that the use of a greater variety of methods would reduce these problems and would in turn foster theory building. Using a representative sample of N = 472 participants (age: M = 51.0, SD = 17.7; 54% female), we compared the validity of a classical introspective attitude measure (i.e., the New Ecological Paradigm) with that of an alternative attitude measure (i.e., the General Ecological Behavior scale). The latter measure, which was based on self-reported behavior, showed substantially better validity that we argue could aid theory development.

Emphasizing the co-benefits of climate policy can motivate action across ideological, age and gender divides regardless of existing levels of concern about climate change, as global survey data shows. Personal and political action on climate change is traditionally thought to be motivated by people accepting its reality and importance. However, convincing the public that climate change is real faces powerful ideological obstacles 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , and climate change is slipping in public importance in many countries 5 , 6 . Here we investigate a different approach, identifying whether potential co-benefits of addressing climate change 7 could motivate pro-environmental behaviour around the world for both those convinced and unconvinced that climate change is real. We describe an integrated framework for assessing beliefs about co-benefits 8 , distinguishing social conditions (for example, economic development, reduced pollution or disease) and community character (for example, benevolence, competence). Data from all inhabited continents (24 countries; 6,196 participants) showed that two co-benefit types, Development (economic and scientific advancement) and Benevolence (a more moral and caring community), motivated public, private and financial actions to address climate change to a similar degree as believing climate change is important. Critically, relationships were similar for both convinced and unconvinced participants, showing that co-benefits can motivate action across ideological divides. These relationships were also independent of perceived climate change importance, and could not be explained by political ideology, age, or gender. Communicating co-benefits could motivate action on climate change where traditional approaches have stalled.

A shift towards a bioeconomy is not sustainable per se. In order to contribute to sustainable development, a bioeconomy must meet certain conditions. These conditions have been discussed with respect to technology and also to the importance of ethical aspects. Consumers’ behavior has also been acknowledged. However, consumers still have to choose sustainable consumption options, and this choice depends on their psychological makeup, which can be related to two factors: behavioral costs and individual sustainability motivation. Behavioral costs determine how difficult the consumption of a bio-based product is, relative to other less sustainable consumption options. Sustainability motivation determines how much effort a person is willing to expend for a more sustainable consumption option, for the sustainable use and recycling of a product, or even to refrain from engaging in consumption. In addition, in a complex bioeconomic system, the sustainability of a bio-based consumption option is not always clear cut. After providing an introduction to the systemic and technological background of bio-based products, we present how consumers’ sustainability motivation is an essential and decisive pull factor for a circular sustainable bioeconomy. We also present the drivers of consumers’ sustainability motivation as necessary components of a sustainable bioeconomic system.

An effective program of environmental education requires the identification of the knowledge that must be imparted. This paper compares the effects of human-environment system knowledge (i.e., knowledge related to environmental problems caused by humans) and environmental action knowledge (i.e., knowledge of possible courses of action to reduce human impact on the environment) on pro-environmental behavior. Environmental knowledge and pro-environmental behavior of 950 Chilean adults were assessed with a survey. Both types of knowledge were related to pro-environmental behavior (r = 0.25 and r = 0.22, respectively, p < 0.001). These results seem to contradict previous studies that found that system knowledge is not directly related to pro-environmental behavior. However, existing scales of environmental system knowledge are behavioral-distant due to their greater number of general geography knowledge items. In contrast, our human-environmental system knowledge scale focuses on understanding global environmental problems and, therefore, can be expected to relate more closely to pro-environmental behavior. To promote pro-environmental behavior, we suggest teaching more human-environment system knowledge and environmental action knowledge. Since different forms of environmental knowledge must work together in a convergent manner in order to foster pro-environmental behavior, the present study represents an important contribution by showing that greater human-environment system knowledge is correlated with pro-environmental behavior.

In software-engineering research, many empirical studies are conducted with open-source or industry developers. However, in contrast to other research communities like economics or psychology, only few experiments use financial incentives ( i.e ., paying money) as a strategy to motivate participants’ behavior and reward their performance. The most recent version of the SIGSOFT Empirical Standards mentions payouts only for increasing participation in surveys, but not for mimicking real-world motivations and behavior in experiments. Within this article, we report a controlled experiment in which we tackled this gap by studying how different financial incentivization schemes impact developers. For this purpose, we first conducted a survey on financial incentives used in the real-world, based on which we designed three incentivization schemes: (1) a performance-dependent scheme that employees prefer, (2) a scheme that is performance-independent, and (3) a scheme that mimics open-source development. Then, using a between-subject experimental design, we explored how these three schemes impact participants’ performance. Our findings indicate that the different schemes can impact participants’ performance in software-engineering experiments. Our results are not statistically significant, possibly due to small sample sizes and the consequent lack of statistical power, but with some notable trends that may inspire future hypothesis generation. Our contributions help understand the impact of financial incentives on participants in experiments as well as real-world scenarios, guiding researchers in designing experiments and organizations in compensating developers.

A better understanding of when and why nudges (e.g., defaults, visibility or accessibility alterations) and other structural behavior-change measures work or fail can help avoid subsequent surprises such as unexpected political opposition. In this paper, we challenge the unilateral focus on structural interventions—which seemingly control people's behavioral decisions—as such a focus ignores the flipside—namely, attitudes or, as they are called in economics, preferences. We argue for a conceptual understanding of individual behavior that views personal attitudes and behavioral costs as its two separate compensatorily effective determinants. This classical understanding was reintroduced into attitude research as the Campbell paradigm. In the logic of the Campbell paradigm, a person's attitude becomes obvious in the face of the behavioral costs the person surmounts. Technically, individual attitudes reveal themselves in a set of cost-dependent transitively ordered performances. Behavioral costs in turn reflect the structural boundary conditions that are relevant as obstructive and/or supportive environmental forces that generically affect a specific behavior. So far, our research on people’s attitudes toward environmental protection has demonstrated that the Campbell paradigm—and thus its conceptual account of individual behavior—holds true for approximately 95% of the people in a given society.

Increasingly autonomous robots become more and more prevalent in daily life and their proximity to humans may affect human well-being and comfort. Consequently, researchers have begun to study the effect of robotic presence on humans and to establish distance rules. However, studies on human-robot proxemics rely on various concepts (e.g. safety, comfort, perceived safety and expectation conformity) to measure the appropriateness of distances which can affect the outcomes. The impact of using diverging operationalization has not been studied explicitly, thus the first aim of our research was to fill this gap. In two experiments (combined N  = 80), placing participants in indirect hallway human-robot interactions, we found that the way appropriateness is operationalized has a significant impact on the results for lateral passing and frontal approaches. The second goal was to gain new insights into the influence of robot appearance on appropriate proximity. Using an ad-hoc created appropriateness scale we reveal that for robots displaying human faces on screens, closer distances are perceived to be appropriate. Our study provides valuable insights into the relationship between measurement methods, robot appearance, and appropriateness, and offers practical recommendations for future research and development in the field of social robotics.

Context: Empirical studies with human participants (e.g., controlled experiments) are established methods in Software Engineering (SE) research to understand developers’ activities or the pros and cons of a technique, tool, or practice. Various guidelines and recommendations on designing and conducting different types of empirical studies in SE exist. However, the use of financial incentives (i.e., paying participants to compensate for their effort and improve the validity of a study) is rarely mentioned Objective: In this article, we analyze and discuss the use of financial incentives for human-oriented SE experimentation to derive corresponding guidelines and recommendations for researchers. Specifically, we propose how to extend the current state-of-the-art and provide a better understanding of when and how to incentivize. Method: We captured the state-of-the-art in SE by performing a Systematic Literature Review (SLR) involving 105 publications from six conferences and five journals published in 2020 and 2021. Then, we conducted an interdisciplinary analysis based on guidelines from experimental economics and behavioral psychology, two disciplines that research and use financial incentives. Results: Our results show that financial incentives are sparsely used in SE experimentation, mostly as completion fees. Especially performance-based and task-related financial incentives (i.e., payoff functions) are not used, even though we identified studies for which the validity may benefit from tailored payoff functions. To tackle this issue, we contribute an overview of how experiments in SE may benefit from financial incentivisation, a guideline for deciding on their use, and 11 recommendations on how to design them. Conclusions: We hope that our contributions get incorporated into standards (e.g., the ACM SIGSOFT Empirical Standards), helping researchers understand whether the use of financial incentives is useful for their experiments and how to define a suitable incentivisation strategy.