Framing and Feeling Fuel Environmentally Responsible Behaviors of Black Residents in the United States

Abstract

Scholars have long investigated factors contributing to enactment of environmentally responsible behaviors (ERBs), largely among white populations. Although research has debunked the myth that black people express less environmental concern, few studies examine what influences their pro-environmental behavior. We focus on how the cognitively oriented cultural frames of environmentalism and environmental justice combine with overlooked emotions to shape ERBs reported by a nationally representative sample of 988 black residents in the United States. Results indicate that the environmentalism frame, indicated by environmental identity but not attitudes, enhances all the behaviors examined: general conservation, cost-saving conservation, recycling, and advocacy. Effects of environmental justice, however, are more limited. Passion for environmental protection likewise positively affects all pro-environmental actions, and moral outrage over the condition of the environment exerts strong positive effects on conservation and advocacy. In highlighting the role of emotions in conjunction with cultural frames on ERBs, new avenues for research emerge.

Keywords

emotions pro-environmental behaviors environmental identity environmental attitudes environmental injustice cultural frames African Americans

Nearly a century in the making, the contemporary environmental movement gained foothold in the 1960s with the publication of influential volumes, like Silent Spring (Carson 1962) and The Population Bomb (Ehrlich 1968), and the nationwide publication of the first photo of Earth from space (Henry and Taylor 2009). At that time, the United States passed legislation regarding water conservation (1964), clean air (1970), and clean water (1972), and established the Environmental Protection Agency (1970). The movement, along with such legislation, offered what could be termed a new cultural frame of environmentalism. Generally, cultural frames (e.g., Goffman 1974; Lamont and Small 2008) represent a shared cognitive scheme or lens through which to interpret social phenomena.¹ With the core of an environmentalist frame emphasizing pending ecological crisis, a collective of environmental activists cultivated the view of resources as limited and urged people to alter their behaviors in ways that, in the long run, would contribute to protecting the natural environment and ensuring the sustainability of its resources.

Environmentally responsible behaviors (ERBs, or pro-environmental behaviors) involve individual actions that alter the availability of environmental resources to ensure their sustainability (Stern 2000a). Such behaviors include conservation of energy, fuel, water, and produced materials (often through curtailment activities like recycling and reuse that reduce consumption), reduction of environmental harms, and advocacy or activism to engage others or alter policies. Behavioral changes at the individual (as well as political) level contribute to thwarting the ecological crisis wrought by pollution of air, water, soil, and the production of greenhouse gases that damage the ozone level and advance climate change (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 2018) and promoting sustainability (Dietz et al. 2009).

Given the importance of these ERB consequences, many studies have examined factors affecting the enactment of pro-environmental behaviors (see Schultz and Kaiser 2012). Yet, despite the various theoretical models and empirical findings offered by investigators (see Gifford and Nilsson 2014; Steg and Vlek 2009), the research to date hardly recognizes two fundamental issues that we tackle in our study.

First, we examine the relative impact of two cultural frames that may inspire pro-environmental behaviors. The cultural frame spurred by the mainstream environmental movement focuses largely on conservation and preservation and has been traced to the actions and advocacy of organizations largely resting in the hands of white, male activists like the Sierra Club, the Nature Conservancy, and Environmental Defense Fund (see Taylor 1997). By the 1970s, these organizations pushed for individuals to adopt ERBs (Maniates 2001) and included efforts to change environmentally related policy. Stereotypical images emerging from this history characterize the environmental movement and associated behaviors as oriented toward white people and concomitantly that Black people are less likely to be environmentally oriented or enact ERBs.

Yet, by the mid-1980s a different cultural frame pertaining to the environment began to emerge with the recognition that exposure to environmental harms disproportionately occurs in neighborhoods populated by African American residents (e.g., Bullard et al. 2007; United Church of Christ 1987). Such disproportionality raised issues of environmental justice (e.g., Agyeman et al. 2016; Bullard et al. 2007; Pellow and Brehm 2013). Ethnographic work (e.g., Ĉapek 1993) details how African Americans came together to fight environmental injustice (or environmental racism) and restore the environmental health of their communities. This environmental justice cultural lens shifts the focus from preservation and conservation to environmental toxins and public health. Such advocacy constitutes environmentally responsible behavior and demonstrates that individual-level environmental actions are not simply the domain of white people.

Research has invalidated the assumption that Black people care less about environmental issues and less frequently enact pro-environmental behaviors than white people (e.g., Kalof, Dietz, and Guagnano 2002; Parker and McDonough 1999). Indeed, Paul Mohai and Bunyan Bryant (1998) show that Black people care more than their white counterparts about neighborhood environmental issues. Yet, little work specifically examines factors affecting the ERBs of African Americans. E. Bun Lee (2008) offers a glimpse at the relationship between environmental attitudes and recycling and conservation behaviors among 292 African American college students in Houston but reports only statistically nonsignificant bivariate correlations between attitudes and each set of behaviors.

Our study assesses how beliefs consistent with environmentalism, as originally conceived, and beliefs about environmental justice—two different cultural frames—influence ERBs among a nationally representative sample of Black residents in the United States. Although many ERB studies include race as a demographic control, rarely do they examine whether the factors that enhance ERBs in largely white populations also affect their enactment in a population of color. Even though responses to environmental injustice require political action beyond individual activism, our study uniquely offers an opportunity to create a general picture of which factors affect Black people’s engagement in ERBs, regardless of whether they live in environmentally hazardous neighborhoods.

Second, we augment the cognitively oriented (e.g., Montada, Kals, and Becker 2007; Stern 2000b) and identity-based (Clayton 2003; Stets and Biga 2003) theoretical models of factors contributing to enactment of ERBs by emphasizing the role of emotions, which remains underdeveloped (Kals and Müller 2012). Scholars recognize (and debate) the role of cognition in emotion processes and while noting some distinct analytical components, brain regions, and consequences for interaction, they also recognize their interdependence (Fiske and Taylor 2017; Franks 2014). Cognitive appraisals contribute to emotional experience, yet emotions also involve physiological sensations and stimulate expressive gestures.² As such, they go beyond what individuals know or believe about a situation to capture their own experiences and reactions as subjects, which in turn regulates the intensity or style of behavior that unfolds and ultimately may reside in cognitive stores (Fiske and Taylor 2017; Franks 2014). Also, to the extent that emotions surface in response to situations involving stakes greater than one’s own economic or social well-being, they may connote moral concerns with the well-being of others (Cropanzano, Stein, and Nadisic 2011). Here we attempt to rectify this omission and specifically consider the role of a moral emotion—outrage over the condition of the environment—in propelling pro-environmental behaviors.

We first introduce theoretical ideas and empirical patterns from existing research that pertains to the environmentalism cultural frame. We turn next to the potential role of an environmental justice frame, which may resonate with concerns relevant to our sample of self-identified black people living in the United States. We then argue why affective considerations likewise, and potentially more profoundly, affect pro-environmental behaviors, drawing from cultural considerations of the role of moral emotions in motivating behaviors. Survey data provide the basis for the tests of our hypotheses.

Environmentalist Frame and ERBs

To represent the environmentalist frame, we focus on two cognitively oriented components among the many previously examined.³ The first regards individuals’ general attitudes about the state of the environment, long-conceived as a precursor to environmentally friendly behaviors (see meta-analyses by Bamberg and Möser 2007). The second component involves how people assess themselves in relation to the natural world, that is, their environmental identities (Clayton 2003, 2012).

Attitudes refer to favorable or unfavorable assessments of people, places, ideas, or things (Eagly and Chaiken 1993), typically reflecting beliefs that individuals hold. Researchers capture environmental attitudes in terms of the extent of people’s agreement with statements characterizing the fragility of the natural world. Presumably, attitudes predict behavior—at least under specific circumstances (see Ajzen and Cote 2008).

Two models of the attitude/behavior relationship dominate the linkage within the environmental realm. The theory of planned behavior (Ajzen 1991) suggests that attitudes, perceived social norms, and perceived behavioral control enhance the likelihood of specific behavioral intentions, which in turn affect actual ERBs. When all theoretical components are included, empirical patterns support the relationship between environmental attitudes and ERBs (e.g., Laudenslager, Holt, and Lofgren 2004; Valle et al. 2005). Other research draws upon the value–belief–norm model (Stern 2000b) that contends that ecocentric (or pro-environmental) values, in contrast to egocentric values, cultivate beliefs or attitudes that activate personal norms to which individuals feel compelled to conform. Tests of this model often measure attitudes in terms of the New Ecological Paradigm scale (Dunlap et al. 2000), which signals pro-environmental attitudes through agreement with statements focused on the role of humans in degrading the environment. Studies (e.g., Fornara et al. 2016; Lind et al. 2015; Steg, Dreijerink, and Abrahamse 2005) confirm the patterns expected by the value–belief–norm model, showing that people with pro-environmental attitudes engage more frequently in routine conservation and recycling behaviors (though not necessarily activism).

Despite wide support for these theoretically driven models linking environmental attitudes and behaviors, some research suggests limits on the effects of attitudes on ERBs (Gosling and Williams 2010). Measurement issues and situational factors (Gifford and Sussman 2012) plus the widespread acceptance of environmentally friendly attitudes in western culture (e.g., Derksen and Gartrell 1993; Oskamp et al. 1991) may account for diminished effects of attitudes on ERBs. And, no significant effects of attitudes on pro-environmental behaviors occasionally emerge (e.g., Lee 2008; Scott and Willits 1994).

Yet, in keeping with the theoretically driven models and much reasoning in social psychology, we propose that individuals are motivated to ensure consistency between their beliefs and behaviors. We note that such consistency is particularly likely when attitudes are connected to easily enacted behaviors (e.g., turning thermostat down rather than purchasing energy efficient appliances or solar panels; see O’Connor et al. 2002) and not impeded by contextual factors (Stern 2000a), so that conformity to personal norms may unfold (Stern 2000b). Thus, we hypothesize as follows:

Hypothesis 1: Pro-environmental attitudes are positively related to the reported frequency of ERBs.

A second cognitive feature tapping into an environmentalist cultural frame is environmental identity, which pertains to individuals’ assessments of themselves in relation to the natural environment and how they interact in it (Clayton 2003). Generally, as a set of meanings attached to the self that guides behavior in situations (Gecas and Burke 1995), an identity acts as a reference point. Peter J. Burke and Jan E. Stets (2009) argue that people seek consistency between how they see themselves and how they think others see them. Consequently, they engage in behaviors that they believe represent their identities. In effect, individuals act to self-verify their identities through their behaviors.

Following this logic, several studies show that environmental identity has a strong effect on ERB, often greater than environmentally friendly attitudes (Carfora et al. 2017; Clayton 2003; Stets and Biga 2003; Watson et al. 2015; Whitmarsh and O’Neill 2010).⁴ Such results contribute to Susan D. Clayton’s (2012:174) claim that “a strong environmental identity can motivate action to protect the environment.” Given these empirical patterns and presuming self-verification of environmental identities by enacting ERBs, we offer the following hypothesis:

Hypothesis 2: Environmental identity is positively related to the reported frequency of ERBs.

While both pro-environmental attitudes and environmental identity capture appraisals of different sorts, Clayton (2012) argues that attitudes reflect cold cognitions—unencumbered by emotions—whereas environmental identity, as self-referential, is more emotionally tinged. Even if the content of identities is cognitive, the verification process engenders emotions, which may color the affective meaning of the identity (Stets and Carter 2012). Environmental identity may also capture a more personal adherence to the cultural frame of environmentalism. That affective and personal relevance, coupled with issues regarding linking environmental attitudes and behaviors, leads us to predict the following hypothesis:

Hypothesis 3: The effects of environmental identity on the reported frequency of ERBs will be greater than those of pro-environmental attitudes.

Environmental Justice Frame and ERBs

Beyond understanding of the environment from attitudes and personal identities related to the natural world, an environmental justice cultural frame involves assessing “the principle that all people and communities are entitled to equal protection of environmental and public health laws and regulations” (Bullard 1996:493). When the distribution of environmental burdens or hazards disproportionately affects communities of people disadvantaged in terms of categorical or financial status, environmental injustice exists (e.g., Agyeman et al. 2016; Bullard et al. 2007; Pellow and Brehm 2013).

The activism spurred by the environmental justice movement (Bullard and Johnson 2000; Taylor 2000) is consistent with theoretical arguments about responses to injustice (Hegtvedt 2018). In effect, advocacy, especially in communities of color, to fight against the situating of environmental hazards and ward off environmental degradation in disadvantaged neighborhoods potentially redresses the unfair distribution of environmental burdens. Assessments of environmental injustice may raise general awareness of issues plaguing communities and the health of the environment, leading people to engage in pro-environmental behaviors to minimize harm to the natural world (Clayton 2000; Kals and Russell 2001). Geoffrey J. Syme et al. (2006) also note that environmental justice forms a moral basis for environmental behaviors and decision-making.

A structured review of empirical studies in Germany and Australia shows that evaluations of environmental problems as unjust are associated with enactment of ERBs (Syme et al. 2006). Gerhard Reese and Lisa Jacob (2015) also indicate that beliefs about environmental justice (regarding the use of nature by future generations, ensuring biodiversity, and avoiding exploitation of nature at the expense of humans in poorer countries) positively affect behavioral intentions to engage in different behaviors such as signing petitions to protect biodiversity, donating funds to a conservation group, and buying local produce.

To determine the effect of the environmental justice frame on ERBs, our justice assessment focuses on the distribution of environmental harms in communities of color and poor neighborhoods. While people may find it difficult to rectify the disproportionate distribution of such harms, their belief that such injustice exists may cultivate individual-level actions that ensure the health of the environment through minimization of waste, conservation, and advocacy for environmentally friendly policies. Thus, we expect as follows:

Hypothesis 4: Assessment of environmental (distributive) injustice is positively related to the reported frequency of ERBs.

Emotions and ERBs

The cultural frames of environmentalism and environmental justice are largely cognitive, based in beliefs, attitudes, and evaluation about the environment or oneself. As such, they involve elements in various models predicting ERBs (e.g., Montada et al. 2007; Stern 2000b). Elisabeth Kals and Markus M. Müller (2012), however, have urged scholars to bring emotions to the study of pro-environmental behavior. Here, in doing so, we tap into individuals’ personal, subjective experiences, not simply their knowledge or reasoned assessments. We examine the impact of two emotions from the vast array that people experience: the positive emotion of passion toward protecting the natural environment and the negative emotion of outrage about the condition of the environment.

Emotions involve the complex interplay among many components: bodily sensations or arousal, perception and appraisal of an object or event, socially constructed definition of target and contextual constraints, linguistic label of experience, and overt expression (e.g., Kals and Müller 2012; Thoits 1989; Turner and Stets 2005). More simply, emotions, felt or expressed, reflect a socially constructed evaluation (positive or negative) of some stimulus, often invoked by the experience of a physiological sensation. Jonathan H. Turner and Jan E. Stets (2005) note that “emotion” also signals phenomena denoted by sentiment, affect, and feelings. Individuals’ passion for environmental protection and outrage at the condition of the environment may connote more enduring evaluations than an assessment of a situationally based, specific environmental harm.

We presume, as sociological (and psychological) approaches to emotion propose, that emotions mobilize and guide behavior (Turner and Stets 2005). As Turner and Stets (2005:1) note, “increasingly, emotions are seen as a crucial link between micro and macro levels of social reality.” How individuals feel—immediately in response to enacting an ERB or witnessing an environmental harm or more generally (as in our study) when considering the state of the environment—may, as Turner and Stets argue, be the “glue” that binds people together to generate changes in their own behavior (and possibly creates commitments to group-level activities). Thus, understanding how emotions contribute to enactment of ERBs at the individual level constitutes a first step beyond cognitively oriented models in inspiring behaviors that shape environmental policies and social change more broadly.

Theoretical approaches suggest two mechanisms connecting emotions to actions (Turner and Stets 2005). First, sustaining consistency between their expectations and experiences motivates people to pursue certain lines of action. Second, individuals prefer positive to negative emotions and thus are likely to act in ways to ensure feeling good. Some research has begun to address the impact of emotions on ERBs.

Elisabeth Kals, Daniel Schumacher, and Leo Montada (1999) demonstrate that an emotional affinity toward nature (i.e., “love of nature”) and indignation about insufficient protection of nature positively impact willingness to participate in advocacy behaviors (e.g., to publicly commit to protecting nature), controlling for the cognitive notion of interest in nature. Complementing the affective affinity for nature, Amandine Junot, Yvan Paquet, and Charles Martin-Krumm (2017) illustrate that a passion for outdoor activities increases positive emotions that in turn positively affect affiliation with nature and ERBs related to conservation and reuse.

In examining emotional responses to behaviors as they unfold (i.e., experience sampling), Bissing-Olson, Fielding, and Iyer (2016) reinforce the relationship between positive emotions and ERBs. Student participants recorded their enactment of various environmental behaviors four times daily for three days. At each interval, they noted how much they experienced pride and guilt. Results show that felt pride (but not guilt), in conjunction with belief in pro-environmental descriptive norms, enhances enactment of subsequent ERBs. Accordingly, we expect that people who feel passionate about protecting the environment will do what is under their control to achieve that goal. (And, may feel good about doing so, per Bissing-Olson et al.’s, 2016, findings.) Thus, we hypothesize as follows:

Hypothesis 5: Feeling passionate about protecting the environment is positively related to the reported frequency of ERBs.

Less research addresses the impact of negative emotions on ERBs, but those studied involve moral emotions. Kals and Müller (2012) cast indignation, guilt, and outrage as moral emotions, related to the violation of norms like those regarding the protection of nature, which results in the creation of an ecological dilemma. Generally, moral emotions imply concern with the well-being of others beyond the self (Cropanzano et al. 2011) and their experience signals the existence of socially undesirable behavior, which must change to ensure moral conduct (Tangney 1995). The experience of negative moral emotion presumably leads to reparative behavior to make up for harm inflicted on others. In the context of the environment, such emotions lead to taking responsibility and acting in ways to mitigate the ecological dilemma, that is, enacting pro-environmental behaviors (Kals and Müller 2012).

Although the guilt experienced by participants in Bissing-Olson et al.’s (2016) study failed to drive subsequent behaviors, other research reveals its impact. Jonas H. Rees, Sabine Klug, and Sebastian Bamberg (2015) find that a “guilty conscience” (guilt and shame combined) about human-caused serious environmental damage enhances intentions to act to limit damage and to sign a petition about reducing environmental harms. A combination of other emotions (sadness, anger, lack of pride) likewise affects intended actions but not petition signing. Mark A. Ferguson and Nyla R. Branscombe (2010) focus on collective guilt (negative feelings when one’s group is perceived as responsible for harm-doing) for global warming. That collective moral emotion affects willingness to engage in mitigating behaviors (e.g., conserve energy, pay green taxes). Studies on responses to injustice similarly suggest that active, negative emotions like anger or outrage tend to drive responses to rectify harm or disadvantage more than a passive emotion like guilt, which impacts responses under limited conditions (see Hegtvedt and Parris 2014). Reported feelings of outrage over environmental harms may encourage ERBs that reduce waste and pollution, conserve energy, and facilitate changes to further ameliorate the harms. Thus, we propose the following hypothesis:

Hypothesis 6: Feeling outrage over the condition of the environment is positively related to the reported frequency of ERBs.

Method

Survey Data Collection and Respondents

Our data involve survey responses from a nationally representative sample of self-identified black or African Americans who have lived in the United States for 10 years or more (regardless of citizenship). The Kent State University Survey Research Lab (SRL) implemented our survey online during summer 2016 via Survey Samples. We compensated SRL $6.50 for each completed survey. The 20-minute survey included questions on environmental attitudes, environmental identity, emotional responses toward the environment, pro-environmental behaviors, and demographic information.

Of the 990 respondents, 41.1 percent male, 58.7 percent female, and 0.2 percent “other gender.”⁵ Ages ranged from 18 to 84 years, with a mean of 40.7 and a median of 39.0. Most respondents (89.5 percent) identified as “Black/African American (African descent),” with 7.7 percent as “Black/African American (Caribbean descent),” and 2.8 percent as Multiracial.⁶ The median category for level of education was 4 (on an 8-point ordinal scale) for our respondents, representing “some college or associate degree.” The median category for income of the eight provided was 2, indicating $25,000 to $50,000. (The appendix shows the percent of respondents in each category for education and income.) Respondents represented over 800 U.S. zip codes.

Measures

Multiple indicators capture many of the independent and dependent variables. Preliminary analyses using principal component factor analyses with Varimax rotation were the means to develop additive scales, standardized by the number of items.

Independent variables

We represent different cultural frames and emotions toward the environment by our independent variables. To indicate the environmentalist cultural frame, we measure pro-environmental attitudes with respondents’ responses to five statements about the harmful treatment of the ecosystem. Respondents indicated how much they strongly disagree (1) or strongly agree (7) with questions pertaining to environmental abuse by humans. Higher values represent stronger pro-environmental attitudes by indicating greater environmental fragility. Scale items include the following: (1) Humans are severely abusing the environment; (2) if things continue on their present course, we will soon experience an ecological catastrophe; (3) we are approaching the limits the Earth can support; (4) the greenhouse effect is dangerous to the environment; and (5) pesticides and chemicals are dangerous to the environment. The first three items are from the revised New Ecological Paradigm scale (Dunlap et al. 2000) and the rest from research by Barkan (2004). Cronbach’s alpha reliability for this scale is .87.

We augment attitudes as an indicator of the environmentalist frame with a six-item scale of environmental identity (Parris et al. 2014; Watson et al. 2015). Items, drawn from Susan D. Clayton (2003), tap into how people perceive their relationship with the natural environment. Respondents indicated “how true of me” each item was, ranging from not at all true of me (1) to completely true of me (7). The scale contains the following: (1) Engaging in environmental behaviors is important to me; (2) I think of myself as a part of nature, not separate from it; (3) Being a part of the ecosystem is an important part of who I am; (4) I feel that I have roots to a particular geographic location that had a significant impact on my development; (5) in general, being part of the natural world is an important part of my self-image; and (6) my own interests usually seem to coincide with the position advocated by environmentalists. Cronbach’s alpha reliability for this scale is .90.

To represent an environmental justice cultural frame, we focus on items regarding assessment of the distribution of environmental damage and toxic harms, signaling injustice. Environmental distributive injustice captures respondents’ assessments of the disproportionate distribution of toxins and environmental damage in neighborhoods with a high proportion of people of color and/or poverty. Higher response values on the 7-point scale ranging from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (7) indicate respondents’ beliefs that environmental harms are not proportionately distributed. Two items constitute the scale: (1) Neighborhoods of color are unfairly disadvantaged in terms of exposure to environmental hazards and (2) poor neighborhoods are unfairly disadvantaged in terms of exposure to environmental hazards. The bivariate correlation for this scale is .55.

Single items pertain to positive and negative affect toward the environment. We measure passion by asking “How intensely do you feel passionate about doing all you can to protect the environment?” We capture the moral negative emotion of outrage from the following question: “How intensely do you feel outraged about the condition of the environment?” The passion and outrage scales range from not at all intensely (1) to very intensely (7).

Dependent variables

We focus on different forms of pro-environmental behavior, drawing survey items from many sources (Harland, Staats, and Wilke 1999; Korfiatis, Hovardas, and Pantis 2004; Milfont and Duckitt 2004). Respondents noted “how often” they performed an array of specific behaviors in the last six months. The 7-point scale was from never (1) to sometimes (3) to often (5) to always (7).

We cast behaviors that protect the environment by conserving energy or eliminating waste, without explicit monetary savings to the individual as general conservation. Scale items include the following: (1) walk, ride a bike, or take public transportation instead of driving or riding in a car; (2) avoid using products harmful to the environment; (3) use your own bag or carry purchases without a bag instead of using paper or plastic bags at stores; (4) carpool to a destination; and (5) take the stairs instead of using the elevator. Cronbach’s alpha reliability for this scale is .71.

A second scale taps into conservation behaviors that potentially offer cost-savings, if performed, in the form of lower utility bills or shopping costs. Items comprising the cost-saving conservation scale are as follows: (1) turn off the faucet while brushing your teeth; (2) turn off lights when exiting a room; (3) purchase products in reusable or recyclable containers; (4) unplug “chargers” for phones, iPods, and so on when not in use; (5) reduce paper use (e.g., print double sided, rely on electronic documents); (6) reduce computer energy use (e.g., turn off monitor, use sleep mode); and (7) use a reusable water bottle. Cronbach’s alpha reliability for this scale is .77.

The third scale of ERBs pertains to the extent to which individuals eliminate waste through recycling. The four items in this scale are as follows: (1) recycle paper, (2) recycle containers, (3) encourage family members to recycle, and (4) encourage friends to recycle. Cronbach’s alpha reliability for this scale is .89.

The last scale, advocacy, encompasses behaviors that may be more episodic (than routine) and may require greater effort and commitment from people enacting them. Respondents indicated how often they (1) advocate for solutions to environmental problems (e.g., writing letters, protesting, signing petitions) and (2) attend a meeting or event sponsored by an environmental group. The bivariate r for these two items is .61.

Control variables

Our analyses control on several demographic characteristics, individual beliefs, and neighborhood context, all of which could potentially affect environmentally responsible behaviors. Among the demographic factors, we include respondent’s gender (0 = male, 1 = female), age in years, household income (1 = less than $25,000 to 8 = more than $250,000), and education level (ranging from 1 = some high school to 8 = doctorate degree). (The appendix provides coding of income and education.)

Individual beliefs focus on political orientation generally and concern for the environment specifically. To capture political orientation (from extremely conservative [1] to extremely liberal [7]), we asked “Where would you place yourself on a liberal/conservative scale of political ideology?” Respondents also indicated their concern about the state of the earth’s environment, ranging from not at all (1) to very concerned (7).

Finally, we depict the context in which respondents live by the environmental problems in their neighborhoods. We ask: “The following problems exist in some neighborhoods. To what extent do you think they are problems in your neighborhood? Pollution in the air, Pollution in the water, Pollution in the soil/ground.” Respondents noted whether each was (1) not at all a problem, (4) somewhat of a problem, and (7) a very big problem. Cronbach’s alpha reliability for the scale was .92.

Analyses

Missing data on some indicators reduced the number of respondents for our analyses. We employed interpolation to estimate values when they are missing on items thereby ensuring that our analyses involve the 988 male and female respondents.

We used seemingly unrelated regression (SUR) to examine the effects of the independent variables on the types of ERB. SUR is appropriate when analyses involve several dependent variables that, while theoretically distinct, are empirically not independent of each other (Timm 2002). Results for SUR are interpreted in the same way as ordinary least squares regression. For each ERB, we ran four models, including control factors, on the effects of (1) an environmentalism frame (attitudes on environmental fragility and environmental identity), (2) an environmental justice frame, (3) emotions toward the environment, and (4) both cultural frames and emotions.

Results

Descriptive Analyses

Table 1 shows means and bivariate correlations. In this sample, respondents were most likely to engage in cost-saving conservation behaviors (M = 4.83) and least likely to report participating in advocacy behaviors (M = 2.36). Recycling behaviors were relatively frequent (M = 4.23), whereas general conservation behaviors were less so (M = 3.75). The bivariate relationships among all the ERBs are significant at the .001 level and range from .428 (cost-saving and advocacy) to .667 (general conservation and advocacy).

Table 1.

Correlation Matrix with Means (and Standard Deviations) on the Diagonal (N = 988).

	1. General conservation	2. Cost-saving conservation	3. Recycle	4. Advocacy	5. Fragility attitudes	6. Environ identity	7. Environ injustice	8. Passion	9. Outrage	10. Gender	11. Age	12. Income	13. Education	14. Liberalism	15. Concern	16. Presence of pollution
1	3.75 (1.33)
2	.633***	4.83(1.23)
3	.558***	.584***	4.23(1.88)
4	.667***	.428***	.485***	2.36(1.66)
5	.215***	.263***	.224***	.106***	5.28(1.06)
6	.499***	.449***	.458***	.469***	.320***	4.60(1.56)
7	.159***	.194***	.157***	.054^†	.540***	.182***	5.41(1.34)
8	.491***	.442***	.445***	.457***	.271***	.766***	.133***	4.60(1.82)
9	.469***	.385***	.408***	.417***	.376***	.686***	.180***	.726***	4.76(1.83)
10	−.036	.032	−.026	−.109***	.036	−.103***	.063*	−.059^†	−.026	0.59(.049)
11	−.107***	−.001	.087**	−.105***	.062*	.108***	.099**	.058^†	.026	−.020	40.50(14.88)
12	.052	.068*	.178***	.112***	.082**	.055^†	.115***	.033	.013	−.148***	.019	2.54(1.42)
13	.080**	.115***	.146***	.064*	.111***	.050	.163***	.045	−.006	−.030	.047	.402***	3.98(1.28)
14	.027	.002	.030	−.008	.100**	.027	.065*	−.015	.010	−.006	−.006	.073*	.041	4.47(1.54)
15	.393***	.411***	.398***	.284***	.411***	.650***	.188***	.660***	.655***	−.012	.074*	.001	.010	.027	5.49(1.59)
16	.221***	.091**	.097**	.217***	.169***	.165***	.177***	.197***	.246***	−.035	−.094**	−.093**	−.086**	−.032	.117***	2.72(1.77)

†

p ≤ .10. *p ≤ .05. **p ≤ .01. ***p ≤ .001 (two-tailed).

To translate the means for each ERB into frequencies of enactment, we look at the percentage of our black residents who report performing the behaviors in each category based on the respective additive, standardized scales ranging from 1 to 7: “never/rarely” (scale values of 1.0-2.99), “sometimes” (scale values of 3.0-4.99), or at least “often, if not always” (scale values of 5.0-7.0). Consistent with the high mean for cost-saving conservation behaviors, 52.6 percent of respondents report that they “often/always” act in that way, 39.3 percent indicate “sometimes,” and only 8.1 percent “never/rarely.” Many people also report recycling: 42.5 percent recycle “often/always,” 31.4 percent do so “sometimes,” and 26.1 percent “never/rarely” recycle. For general conservation behaviors, only 20.5 percent indicate such behaviors “often” or more frequently, but 50.9 percent report that they “sometimes” perform the behaviors, and 28.7 percent indicate that they “never/rarely” engage in such actions. The low mean for advocacy behaviors reflects that only 13 percent claim to advocate “often/always,” 20.3 percent note that they “sometimes” do so, and a large majority (66.7 percent) of respondents “never/rarely” participate in advocacy activities.

Regarding the relationships between the independent factors of theoretical interest and the ERBs, strong bivariate relationships are evident. Holding attitudes suggesting the fragility of the environment is positively related to all ERBs (with r values ranging from .106 to .263, all significant at p < .001). Similarly, possessing a strong environmental identity positively impacts all ERBs (with r values ranging from .449 to .499, all significant at p < .001). Assessment of environmental distributive injustice is positively related to all pro-environmental behaviors, except advocacy (r values ranging from .157 to .194, all three significant at p < .001). Positive emotion toward protecting the environment and negative emotion regarding environmental harm are similarly positively associated with all ERBs (for passion, r values range from .442 to .491, and for outrage the values range from .385 to .469, all significant at p < .001).⁷

The impact of the demographic factors varies. Education is positively associated with all ERBs. Patterns for the effects of income and gender are similar. Income level is positively related to all pro-environmental behaviors, except for general conservation, and females are more likely to enact such behaviors than males. Age exerts negative effects on general conservation and advocacy, a positive effect on recycling, and no effect on cost-saving conservation.

The respondents are somewhat liberal (M = 4.47) and express a relatively strong concern for the environment (M = 5.49). The amount of reported environmental harms in their neighborhoods is relatively low (M = 2.72). No relationships between political orientation and ERBs appear. Environmental concern and living in a neighborhood with environmental issues, however, are both positively associated with all ERBs.

Hypotheses Tests

Table 2 presents results from SUR analyses for Model 1, focusing on the impact of adopting an environmentalist cultural frame, and then for Model 2, regarding the effects of using an environmental justice lens. Table 3 offers our findings regarding the independent impact of emotions, as represented in Model 3. Results for Model 4, which combines the two cultural frames and emotional responses to the environment, are found in Table 4. We report findings regarding the control factors based on Model 4.

Table 2.

Seemingly Unrelated Regression of Environmentalism and Environmental Justice Frames on ERBs, with Controls.

	Model 1				Model 2
	General conserve	Cost-saving conserve	Recycle	Advocacy	General conserve	Cost-saving conserve	Recycle	Advocacy
Environmentalism frame
Fragility attitudes	.016(.045)	.093* (.047)	.034(.061)	−.104* (.053)
Environmental identity	.354*** (.032)	.248*** (.032)	.384*** (.046)	.506*** (.038)
Environmental justice frame
Environmental distributive injustice					.059^† (.032)	.090** (.032)	.050(.045)	−.044(.038)
Controls
Gender	.043(.074)	.174** (.072)	.125(.105)	−.139(.094)	−.065(.079)	.097(.074)	.015(.111)	−.278** (.102)
Age	−.013*** (.002)	−.005* (.002)	.005(.004)	−.016*** (.003)	−.012*** (.003)	−.003(.002)	.007* (.004)	−.012*** (.003)
Income	.018(.026)	.022(.025)	.183*** (.039)	.111*** (.035)	.027(.029)	.028(.027)	.196*** (.040)	.129*** (.037)
Education	.071* (.030)	.083** (.029)	.107* (.44)	.039(.039)	.077* (.033)	.086** (.030)	.117** (.047)	.056(.042)
Liberalism	.011(.024)	−.018(.022)	.004(.034)	−.019(.033)	.012(.026)	−.015(.022)	.007(.035)	−.019(.035)
Concern	.095*** (.030)	.137*** (.032)	.204*** (.047)	−.006(.032)	.311*** (.024)	.303*** (.025)	.446*** (.035)	.286*** (.027)
Presence of pollution	.100*** (.021)	.008(.019)	.047(.031)	.139*** (.030)	.124*** (.023)	.025(.020)	.077* (.032)	.180*** (.033)
R ²	.306	.250	.262	.278	.214	.197	.206	.153
N	988	988	988	988	988	988	988	988

Note. Standard errors in parentheses. ERBs = environmentally responsible behaviors.

†

p ≤ .10. *p ≤ .05. **p ≤ .01. ***p ≤ .001 (two-tailed).

Table 3.

Seemingly Unrelated Regression of Emotions on ERBs, with Controls.

	Model 3
	General conserve	Cost-saving conserve	Recycle	Advocacy
Emotions
Passion	.211*** (.030)	.178*** (.032)	.247*** (.046)	.318*** (.038)
Outrage	.138*** (.028)	.044(.029)	.130** (.047)	.167*** (.034)
Controls
Gender	−.012(.075)	.149* (.072)	.069(.106)	−.233* (.095)
Age	−.012*** (.002)	−.003(.002)	.007* (.004)	−.013*** (.003)
Income	.020(.027)	.028(.026)	.187*** (.040)	.109** (.036)
Education	.076** (.030)	.090** (.029)	.112** (.044)	.035(.039)
Liberalism	.024(.024)	−.004(.022)	.020(.034)	−.007(.033)
Concern	.062* (.031)	.151*** (.033)	.175*** (.049)	−.076* (.036)
Presence of pollution	.081*** (.022)	.008(.021)	.029(.031)	.104*** (.030)
R ²	.305	.237	.261	.271
N	988	988	988	988

Note. Standard errors in parentheses. ERBs = environmentally responsible behaviors.

†

p ≤ .10. *p ≤ .05. **p ≤ .01. ***p ≤ .001 (two-tailed).

Table 4.

Seemingly Unrelated Regression of Environmentalism Frame, Environmental Justice Frame, and Emotions on ERBs, with Controls.

	Model 4
	General conserve	Cost-saving conserve	Recycle	Advocacy
Environmentalism frame
Fragility attitudes	−.026(.048)	.061(.049)	.011(.067)	−.092(.057)
Environmental identity	.221*** (.037)	.166*** (.038)	.239*** (.056)	.328*** (.045)
Environmental justice frame
Environmental distributive injustice	.057^† (.032)	.064* (.031)	.035(.048)	−.026(.039)
Emotions
Passion	.121*** (.032)	.119*** (.034)	.151** (.051)	.174*** (.042)
Outrage	.098*** (.029)	.002(.030)	.084^† (.047)	.123*** (.035)
Controls
Gender	.021(.073)	.159* (.072)	.106(.105)	−.151(.092)
Age	−.013*** (.002)	−.005* (.002)	.005(.004)	−.015*** (.003)
Income	.013(.026)	.018(.025)	.179*** (.039)	.109** (.035)
Education	.066* (.030)	.073** (.029)	.102* (.044)	.041(.039)
Liberalism	.017(.024)	−.014(.022)	.011(.034)	−.009(.033)
Concern	.020(.033)	.099** (.034)	.123* (.052)	−.113** (.037)
Presence of pollution	.074*** (.021)	−.006(.020)	.022(.031)	.113*** (.030)
R ²	.331	.264	.276	.307
N	988	988	988	988

Note. Standard errors in parentheses. ERBs = environmentally responsible behaviors.

†

p ≤ .10. *p ≤ .05. **p ≤ .01. ***p ≤ .001 (two-tailed).

The predicted effect of environmentalism frame on ERBs should be positive, as suggested by Hypothesis 1 regarding attitudes toward the fragility of the environment and by Hypothesis 2 pertaining to the impact of environmental identity. Results provide essentially no support for Hypothesis 1. In Model 1, fragility attitudes only positively affect enactment of cost-saving conservation behaviors (b = .093, p ≤ .05) (and surprisingly exert a negative effect on advocacy activities, b = −.104, p ≤ .05). But with inclusion of other factors in Model 4, attitudes fail to affect any ERBs. It appears that the impact of this component of an environmentalism cultural frame diminishes when the influence of more self-referent factors, like identity and emotions, are considered.

Indeed, results regarding the influence of environmental identity on ERBs are consistently strong, fully confirming Hypothesis 2. In both Model 1 and Model 4, environmental identity increases the likelihood of engaging in general conservation behavior (b = .354, p ≤ .001 and b = .221, p ≤ .001, respectively), cost-saving conservation behavior (b = .248, p ≤ .001 and b = .166, p ≤ .001, respectively), recycling (b = .384, p ≤ .001 and b = .239, p ≤ .001, respectively), and advocacy activities (b = .506, p ≤ .001 and b = .328, p ≤ .001, respectively). The strength of the patterns for the effects of environmental identity compared to the pattern for the influence of pro-environmental attitudes also lends support for Hypothesis 3, predicting a greater impact for the environmental identity factor. We note, however, that in analyses including the environmental justice frame and emotions (Model 4), the size (but not the significance) of the coefficients for the effects of environmental identity on ERBs decreases. Thus, while the impact of environmental identity cannot be denied, its original effect may have been partly due to its unmeasured association with the other influential factors, which reduces the coefficient size.

The patterns of effects regarding the cultural frame of environmental justice suggest weaker influence than of environmental identity. As indicated in Models 2 and 4, assessment of environmental injustice positively and significantly affects enactment of cost-saving conservation (b = .090, p ≤ .01 and b = .064, p ≤ .05, respectively). In both models, its effects on general conservation behaviors are in the expected direction with coefficients (b = .059 and b = .057, respectively) significant at p ≤ .10. There was, however, no impact of environmental justice framing on recycling or advocacy behaviors.⁸ The latter finding is puzzling given that the rise of the environmental justice frame stemmed from activities in communities to reduce the environmental hazards and toxin disproportionately placed in low income communities and those of color. Support for Hypothesis 4 is thus only partial, focused on types of conservation behaviors.

In contrast to the lack of effects of cold cognitions represented in attitudes and the mixed findings for assessments of environmental injustice, yet like the self-referent environmental identity, passion toward protecting the environment is of fundamental importance in fueling enactment of ERBs. Confirming Hypothesis 5, passion about the environment is positively related to all ERBs in both Models 3 and 4: general conservation behavior (b = .211, p ≤ .001 and b = .121, p ≤ .001, respectively), cost-saving conservation behavior (b = .178, p ≤ .001 and b = .119, p ≤ .001, respectively), recycling (b = .247, p ≤ .001 and b = .151, p ≤ .01, respectively), and advocacy activities (b = .318, p ≤ .001 and b = .174, p ≤ .001, respectively). Clearly, positive emotions engender ERBs, which once enacted may further enhance positive feelings (Bissing-Olson et al. 2016).

Outrage toward the condition of the environment likewise affects most of the ERBs, providing some support for Hypothesis 6. In Model 3, outrage increases enactment of general conservation behaviors (b = .138, p ≤ .001), recycling (b = .130, p ≤ .01), and advocacy (b = .167, p ≤ .001), but not for cost-saving conservation activities. With inclusion of indicators of cultural frames in Model 4, feelings of outrage continue to impact general conservation behaviors (b = .098, p ≤ .001) and advocacy behaviors (b = .123, p ≤ .001), though the effect on recycling activities weakens (b = .084, p ≤ .10). And, even though the coefficients for both passion and outrage emotions are generally smaller in Model 4 than in Model 3, their effects are undisputable.

The R² values are, not surprisingly, higher in Model 4, including the effects of all factors of interest on the pro-environmental behaviors. And, while such values are the lowest in Model 2, which examines the effects of the environmental justice frame, R² values are very similar in Model 1, emphasizing the environmentalism frame, and in Model 3, considering emotional responses to the environment.

Effects of Control Factors

Based on findings for Model 4 (Table 4), many control factors exert significant (though not always positive) effects on ERBs. Only political liberalism fails to affect significantly any ERB. Women are more likely to enact cost-saving conservation actions than men (b = .159, p ≤ .05), though gender does not impact other ERBs. Age is inversely related to ERBs; older respondents engage in less general or cost-saving conservation (b = −.013, p ≤ .001; b = −.005, p ≤ .05) and advocacy activities (b = −.015, p ≤ .001).

Results involving income indicate that those of higher income are significantly more likely to engage only in recycling (b = .179, p ≤ .001) and advocacy (b = .109, p ≤ .001). And, while education does not influence advocacy, it positively affects other behaviors signaling that those with higher education are more likely to enact general conservation (b = .066, p ≤ .05), cost-saving conservation (b = .073, p ≤ .01), and recycling (b = .102, p ≤ .05). Overall, results of the effects of demographic factors suggest that the young and those of higher socioeconomic status typically act in an array of environmentally friendly ways.

General concern for the environment is unrelated to general conservation but enhances cost-saving and recycling behaviors (b = .099, p ≤ .01 and b = .123, p ≤ .05, respectively). Such general concern, however, surprisingly decreases involvement in advocacy activities (b = −.113, p ≤ .01). Finally, whether respondents live in neighborhoods plagued by pollution increases general conservation (b = .074, p ≤ .001) and advocacy behaviors (b = .113, p ≤ .001) but has no effect on cost-saving conservation or recycling.

Discussion

Using unique data from a survey of black residents in the United States, we focused on the impact of cultural frames (environmentalism and environmental justice) and emotions regarding environmental protection and the condition of the environment on pro-environmental behaviors. Doing so allowed us to compare the two cultural frames arising from historical processes and to assess the relative influence of emotions compared to the more cognitively-oriented cultural frames. The hypothesized effects of all the factors stem from individuals’ tendency to be consistent, consciously or unconsciously, thereby matching their behaviors to their beliefs, identities, assessments, and feelings (as allowed by situational circumstances). Three observations emerge from our analyses.

Cultural Frames: Environmentalism Matters More Than Environmental Justice

First, among this sample of black people, the cultural frame represented by environmentalism more consistently influences their ERBs than does the environmental justice frame. The latter affects only forms of conservation behavior, whereas a lens consistent with mainstream environmentalism—albeit only as captured by an individual’s environmental identity (Hypothesis 2)—enhances all types of pro-environmental actions. This finding reinforces the invalidity of the assumption that black people care less about the environment and are less likely to act in ways that contribute to protecting scarce environmental resources (e.g., Parker and McDonough 1999). Support for Hypothesis 3 regarding the greater impact of environmental identity than attitudes on ERBs is consistent with previous research (e.g., Stets and Biga 2003; Watson et al. 2015; Whitmarsh and O’Neill 2010). Inclusion of environmental identity, moreover, may account for the nonsignificant effects of environmental attitudes (Hypothesis 1). One’s environmental identity may incorporate beliefs about the environment, but in a self-referential way more meaningful to individuals than cold cognitions of attitudes.

Although the impetus to act in a wide array of environmentally friendly ways seems to come from concern about the natural world—especially as reflected in one’s own identity—the environmental justice frame (Hypothesis 4) does influence conservation behaviors. Despite the origins of the environmental justice movement (Taylor 2000) in communities of color and of the poor fighting against their disproportionate share of environmental harms, conservation behaviors (e.g., reduction in fuel emissions by taking alternative means of transportation and avoidance of products that harm the environment) portend to limit harms and decrease hazards across locations. The same may not be true of recycling, as many may not see it as a means to reduce toxins. (And, recycling constitutes an individual-level action strongly associated with and advocated by mainstream environmental organizations; Maniates 2001).

The lack of relationship between the environmental justice frame and advocacy behaviors may have been trumped by the inclusion of having actual environmental problems in one’s neighborhood.⁹ That experiencing types of pollution directly increases advocacy behaviors is consistent with previous ethnographic work on environmental racism and community change (e.g., Ĉapek 1993). Often, poor women and women of color with no prior history of political activism come to engage in environmental justice advocacy owing to their concerns about how the presence of toxins create health risks to their children (Bell and Braun 2010; Di Chiro 1992). Thus, if personally affected by environmental harms, people clearly draw together collectively, regardless of whether they view the situation through an environmentalism or environmental justice frame.

As social movement researchers (e.g., McAdam 1982) have long noted, even with recognition of structural inequalities (like that represented by environmental injustice), people may not engage in advocacy owing to a whole host reasons (e.g., lack of knowledge of how to redress the problem, resources to tackle the problem, or a sense of ability to change things). When faced with an environmental hazard in one’s own community, those reasons may begin to dissipate as people come to believe that they do have the capacity and resources to make a change.

Our findings suggest that both frames matter for conservation behaviors, which may stave off further environmental degradation. The environmentalism frame appears to matter more generally for other behaviors, perhaps because it captures the individual-level sense of self more directly than the environmental justice frame. As such, environmentalism seems to translate more readily into individual-level behaviors. In contrast, environmental justice calls attention to what may plague others, making it a step or two removed from one’s self and yet relevant to actions linked to remedying problems with long-term consequences (e.g., limiting emissions and toxins contribute to reducing climate change). Our data, however, do not allow untangling when either cultural frame affects advocacy for an environmental issue or environmental justice concern. Future research might tackle the conditions under which each frame, singly or jointly, spurs actions beyond the individual level.

Emotions: Passion Matters More Than Outrage

Our second major observation regards the clear and strong influence of emotions on enactment of ERBs. How individuals feel about the environment—the need to protect it and its current condition—impacts pro-environmental behaviors, beyond environmentalism and environmental justice cultural frames. One’s passion about protecting the environment (Hypothesis 5) is strongly and positively related to conserving energy and materials (generally and to save money), recycling, and advocating for solutions to environmental problems. Such a positive affective evaluation drives actions that may induce other positive emotions, like pride (Bissing-Olson et al. 2016).

Likewise, feeling outraged over the condition of the environment (Hypothesis 6) certainly affects general conservation behaviors, recycling, and advocacy. That outrage is most strongly related to advocacy (even in view of other factors) reflects its role as a moral emotion, often associated with responses to injustice (Montada 1998) and representing concern with the well-being of others. What may be implicitly driving respondents’ reported outrage is what Reese and Jacob (2015) call ecological injustice pertaining to harms to nonhuman animals and fauna, which threaten a collective good (the environment). As James Jasper (1998) notes, a strong sense of outrage inclines individuals toward political action. In this way, emotions link micro-level experiences and macro-level (e.g., social movement) actions (Turner and Stets 2005).

Certainly, among ERBs, the nature of advocacy behaviors is distinct. They require more commitment and recognition of little immediate return on the actions themselves. As Kari Marie Norgaard (2011) finds, activism to address climate change diminishes even among individuals who understand the realities of global warming and have positive attitudes toward the environment. In our study, only those with strong environmental identities and strong emotions toward the environment appear willing to undertake such high cost, more difficult to enact behaviors. While future research will have to determine how emotions explicitly animate the meaning of environmental identity, it is likely that environmental identity carries some emotional content (Clayton 2012). As evidenced in our findings, what seems critical is augmentation of cognitive approaches to ERB models that examine how beliefs associated with cultural frames translate into self-relevant assessments and feelings that inspire enactment of ERBs.

Positive and negative emotions should be fundamental to future research, augmenting the heavily cognitive-based approaches. One possibility is to consider the extent to which sensing similar environmental emotions among family, friends, or neighbors might enhance (or discourage) pro-environmental behaviors. If emotions constitute “glue” that brings people together as Turner and Stets (2005) contend, then consideration of others’ positive affect may be critical to the success of ERBs, especially advocacy actions, in mitigating environmental harms.

Demographic Patterns

Third, given the limited information on black respondents in environmental studies, some patterns involving the control factors in our study are noteworthy. Like in previous research using samples largely entailing white people, our findings confirm that age is negatively related to enactment of pro-environmental behaviors; younger people are more likely to engage in ERBs (e.g., Kollmuss and Agyeman 2002; Theodori and Luloff 2002). (The lack of an effect for recycling may be due to how engrained, institutionalized, or even mandatory it is in many communities.) Similarly, that our more educated and financially well-off black respondents tend to report engaging in ERBs fits with previous results (e.g., Scott and Willits 1994; Theodori and Luloff 2002).

Our findings pertaining to gender and political orientation, however, diverge from what is typically demonstrated in studies involving white respondents. Although sometimes dependent upon the nature of the behavior (or its measurement), women—compared to men—have been shown to be more likely to engage in pro-environmental behavior (e.g., Kollumus and Agyeman 2002). In our sample, gender affected only cost-saving conservation behaviors. Black women are more likely than black men to engage in conservation actions that result in monetary savings. Perhaps insofar as black women, like white women, oversee households, this is not surprising. Why they are not more likely than men to engage in other pro-environmental behaviors requires further study.

Future research might more explicitly consider whether the environmental perspective of black women is distinct from that of white women. For example, while white women embrace all things organic and chemical-free in a consumerist approach to creating a safe home environment (Cairns, Johnston, and MacKendrick 2013), black women tend to organize and contest environmental toxins in their neighborhoods (Taylor 1997). Also, in view of a potential “ideological connection between social domination and environmental domination” (Bell and Ashwood 2016:239), a fruitful research pathway is an intersectional approach to gender and race that taps into the cultural frames evoked (environmentalism, environmental justice, or perhaps health), affect toward the environment, and the implications of both for pro-environmental behavior.

And, although studies typically show that liberal individuals take proactive positions on environmental issues that in turn cultivate pro-environmental behaviors (e.g., Scott and Willits 1994; Theodori and Luloff 2002), no such effects emerge in our study. Such a pattern may reflect the fact that our respondents appear to be slightly more liberal than conservative (M = 4.47 on 7-point scale). Whether the absence of an effect for political liberalism stems from lack of variation on that factor in our sample or something characterizing the black community more generally requires greater scrutiny.

Limitations and Moving Forward

We recognize that our study is not without limitations. While we provide evidence of some cognitive factors, we do not cover them all. Our data do not address respondents’ knowledge about environmental issues, self-efficacy, or evaluations of how their behaviors can help to thwart an environmental crisis. Thus, we cannot fully adjudicate the impact of all cognitive factors compared to all affective ones. Nor do we have data on respondents’ perceptions of the situational circumstances that might account for not engaging in ERBs. Plus, the cross-sectional nature of our data disallows what a longitudinal study might do: for example, help to sort out how people’s pro-environmental behaviors might influence their environmental identities or emotions.

Regardless of these limitations, our findings have implications for those interested in shaping cultural frames addressing environmental issues and emotions to spur pro-environmental behaviors. Previous research shows that how information on climate change is packaged influences how people respond to it (Norgaard 2011). Stating the realities of climate change too starkly may induce fear and avoidance rather than higher rates of ERBs, but cheery packaging of such information reduces the seriousness of the information, likewise deflating ERBs. Results from our study suggest that the success of appeals to an environmentalism or environmental justice frame depends on the nature of the desired behavior. Generally, however, cultivating visions of oneself in relation to the natural world might augment pro-environmental behaviors. The impact of emotions likewise depends on the behavior at issue. Thus, for example, a recycling campaign would be more successful drawing upon passion regarding environmental issues as opposed to outrage at existing levels of rubbish. Those wishing to encourage general conservation and advocacy behaviors, however, may be more successful appealing to both passion and outrage.

While most previous research, if it considers race at all, compares environmental concerns across racial categories, we focused on detecting heterogeneity among black people in the United States. As in previous studies of largely white populations, environmental identity exerts clear effects on our respondents’ behaviors. Even though our consideration of the environmental justice cultural frame and of emotions is somewhat distinctive in studies of ERBs, we suspect that the patterns discerned in our African American sample might also emerge in studies of other racial groups.

Our results debunk the general stereotype that black people care little about the environment, and demonstrate that use of an environmental justice frame, which might be assumed to be more common among African Americans residents of the United States, is a secondary factor stimulating their pro-environmental behaviors. For our study population, living in polluted areas also profoundly affects enactment of ERBs but solutions to such problems fall into the hands of those unaffected as well. Beyond delving further into the nuances of factors promoting ERBs in this population, additional studies might consider how the intersection of race and other demographic factors shape such behaviors. Doing so may reveal the complex interplay of cultural frames and emotions driving behaviors to protect environmental resources for future generations of a diverse society.

Footnotes

Appendix

Income (median = 2)

What is your household estimated annual income?

Education (median = 4)

What is the highest level of school that you have completed?

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Notes

Author Biographies

Karen A. Hegtvedt is a professor of sociology at Emory University. Her work focuses on perceptions of and responses (behavioral and emotional) to injustice. Collaborative work with Cathryn Johnson examines the antecedents to legitimacy gains by authorities in the workplace, with an emphasis on the roles of fair procedures, benevolent power use, and trust. Another project pertains to factors affecting perceptions of environmental justice and pro-environmental behaviors. She is a previous coeditor of Social Psychology Quarterly and coauthor of Social Psychology: Individuals, Interaction, and Inequality (2018).

Christie L. Parris is an assistant professor of sociology at Oberlin College. Her research focuses on environmental injustices, specifically regarding perceptions of injustice and activism. Her current research projects examine the day-to-day operations of environmental justice organizations, the tactical repertoires of environmental justice activists in Central Appalachia, racial identity and environmental injustice perceptions of black Americans, and LGBTQ organizations’ influence on the passage and enforcement of state-level hate crime policy. Her work has appeared in Research in Social Movements, Conflicts and Change, Social Justice Research, Law and Policy, and International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education.

Cathryn Johnson is a professor of sociology and senior associate dean of the Laney Graduate School at Emory University. Her work focuses on legitimacy processes within groups and organizations, identity processes, and emotions. Her collaborative National Science Foundation (NSF)–funded study with Karen Hegtvedt pertains to the effects of procedural justice, benevolent power, and trust on legitimacy gains of workplace authorities. Other work concerns perceptions of environmental justice, identities, and behaviors. She is a previous coeditor of Social Psychology Quarterly and coauthor of Social Psychology: Individuals, Interaction, and Inequality (2018).

References

Agyeman

Julian

Schlosberg

David

Craven

Luke

Matthews

Caitlin

. 2016. “Trends and Directions in Environmental Justice: From Inequity to Everyday Life, Community, and Just Sustainabilities.” Annual Review of Environmental Resources 41:321–40.

Ajzen

Icek

. 1991. “The Theory of Planned Behavior.” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 50(2):179–211.

Ajzen

Icek

Cote

Nicole G.

2008. “Attitudes and the Prediction of Behavior.” Pp. 289–312 in Attitudes and Attitude Change, edited by Crano

William D.

Prislin

Radmila

. New York: Psychology Press.

Bamberg

Sebastian

Möser

Guido

. 2007. “Twenty Years after Hines, Hungerford, and Tomera: A New Meta-analysis of Psycho-social Determinants of Pro-environmental Behavior.” Journal of Environmental Psychology 27:14–25.

Barkan

Steven E.

2004. “Explaining Public Support for the Environmental Movement: A Civic Voluntarism.” Social Science Quarterly 85(4):913–37.

Bateson

Gregory

. 1972. Steps to an Ecology of Mind. Philadelphia, PA: Intext.

Bell

Michael Mayerfeld

Ashwood

Loka L.

2016. “The Ideology of Environmental Concern.” Pp. 220–51 in An Invitation to Environmental Sociology, edited by Bell

Michael Mayerfeld

Ashwood

Loka L.

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Bell

Shannon Elizabeth

Yvonne

Braun

. 2010. “Coal, Identity, and the Gendering of Environmental Justice Activism in Central Appalachia.” Gender & Society 24(6):794–813.

Bissing-Olson

Megan J.

Fielding

Kelly S.

Iyer

Aarti

. 2016. “Experiences of Pride, Not Guilt, Predict Pro-environmental Behavior when Pro-environmental Descriptive Norms Are More Positive.” Journal of Environmental Psychology 45:145–53.

10.

Bullard

Robert D.

1996. “Environmental Justice: It’s More than Waste Facility Siting.” Social Science Quarterly 77(3):493–99.

11.

Bullard

Robert D.

Johnson

Glenn S.

2000. “Environmental Justice: Grassroots Activism and Its Impact on Public Policy Decision Making.” Journal of Social Issues 56:555–78.

12.

Bullard

Robert D.

Mohai

Paul

Saha

Robin

Wright

Beverly

. 2007. Toxic Wastes and Race at Twenty: 1987-2007. Cleveland, OH: Justice and Witness Ministries.

13.

Burke

Peter J.

Stets

Jan E.

2009. Identity Theory. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.

14.

Cairns

Kate

Johnston

Josée

MacKendrick

Norah

. 2013. “Feeding the ‘Organic Child:’ Mothering through Ethical Consumption.” Journal of Consumer Culture 13(2):97–118.

15.

Ĉapek

Stella

. 1993. “The Environmental Justice Frame.” Social Problems 40(1):5–24.

16.

Carfora

Valentina.

Caso

Daniela

Sparks

Paul

Conner

Mark T

. 2017. “Moderating Effects of Pro-environmental Self-identity on Pro-environmental Intensions and Behaviour: A Multi-behavior Study.” Journal of Environmental Psychology 53:92–99.

17.

Carson

Rachel

. 1962. Silent Spring. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.

18.

Clayton

Susan D.

2000. “New Ways of Thinking about Environmentalism: Models of Justice in the Environmental Debate.” Journal of Social Issues 56:459–74.

19.

Clayton

Susan D.

2003. “Environmental Identity: A Conceptual and an Operational Definition.” Pp. 45–65 in Identity and the Natural Environment: The Psychological Significance of Nature, edited by Clayton

Susan D.

Opotow

Susan

. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

20.

Clayton

Susan D.

2012. “Environment and Identity.” Pp. 164–80 in The Oxford Handbook of Environmental and Conservation Psychology, edited by Clayton

Susan D.

Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.

21.

Cropanzano

Russell

Stein

Jordan H.

Nadisic

Thierry

. 2011. Justice and the Experience of Emotion. New York: Routledge.

22.

Derksen

Linda

Gartrell

John

. 1993. “The Social Context of Recycling.” American Sociological Review 58:434–42.

23.

Di Chiro

Giovanna

. 1992. “Defining Environmental Justice: Women’s Voices and Grassroots Politics.” Socialist Review 22(4):93–130.

24.

Dietz

Thomas

Gardner

Gerald T.

Gilligan

Jonathan

Stern

Paul C.

Vandenbergh

Michael P.

2009. “Household Actions Can Provide a Behavioral Wedge to Rapidly Reduce US Carbon Emissions.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences in the USA 106:18452–56.

25.

Dunlap

Riley E.

Van Liere

Kent D.

Mertig

Angela G.

Jones

Robert Emmet

. 2000. “Measuring Endorsement of the New Ecological Paradigm: A Revised NEP Scale.” Journal of Social Issues 56:425–42.

26.

Eagly

Alice H.

Chaiken

Shelly

. 1993. The Psychology of Attitudes. Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.

27.

Ehrlich

Paul R.

1968. The Population Bomb. New York: Ballantine Books.

28.

Ferguson

Mark A.

Branscombe

Nyla R.

2010. “Collective Guilt Mediates the Effect of Beliefs about Global Warming on Willingness to Engage in Mitigation Behavior.” Journal of Environmental Psychology 30:135–42.

29.

Fiske

Susan T.

Taylor

Shelley E.

2017. Social Cognition: From Brains to Culture. 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

30.

Fornara

Ferdinando

Pattitoni

Piermario

Mura

Marina

Strazzera

Elisabetta

. 2016. “Predicting Intention to Improve Household Energy Efficiency: The Role of Value-belief-norm Theory, Normative and Informational Influence, and Specific Attitude.” Journal of Environmental Psychology 4:51–10.

31.

Franks

David D.

2014. “Emotions and Neurosociology.” Pp. 267–281 in Handbook of the Sociology of Emotions: Volume II, edited by Stets

Jan E.

Turner

Jonathan H.

Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.

32.

Gecas

Viktor

Burke

Peter J.

1995. “Self and Identity.” Pp. 41–67 in Sociological Perspectives on Social Psychology, edited by Cook

Karen S.

Fine

Gary Alan

House

James S.

Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

33.

Gifford

Robert

Nilsson

Andreas

. 2014. “Personal and Social Factors that Influence Pro-Environmental Concern and Behaviour: A Review.” International Journal of Psychology 49(3):141–57.

34.

Gifford

Robert

Sussman

Reuven

. 2012. “Environmental Attitudes.” Pp. 65–80 in The Oxford Handbook of Environmental and Conservation Psychology, edited by Clayton

Susan D.

Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.

35.

Goffman

Irving

. 1974. Frame Analysis: An Essay on the Organization of Experience. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

36.

Gosling

Elizabeth

Williams

Kathryn J. H.

2010. “Connectedness to Nature, Place Attachment and Conservation Behaviour: Testing Connectedness Theory among Farmers.” Journal of Environmental Psychology 30:298–304.

37.

Harland

Paul

Staats

Henk

Wilke

Henk A. M.

1999. “Explaining Pro-environmental Intention and Behavior by Personal Norms and the Theory of Planned Behavior.” Journal of Applied Social Psychology 29(12):2505–28.

38.

Hegtvedt

Karen A.

2018. “Justice Frameworks.” Pp. 54–80 in Contemporary Social Psychological Theories (2nd edition), edited by Peter J. Burke. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

39.

Hegtvedt

Karen A.

Parris

Christie

. 2014. “Emotions in Justice Processes.” Pp. 103–26 in Handbook of Sociology of Emotions, edited by Stets

Jan

Turner

Jonathan

. New York: Springer.

40.

Henry

Holly

Taylor

Amanda

. 2009. “Re-Thinking Apollo: Envisioning Environmentalism in Space.” The Socioloical Review 57(1):190–203.

41.

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 2018. Global Warming of 1.5 °C. Geneva, Switzerland: IPCC Press.

42.

Jasper

James

. 1998. “The Emotions of Protest: Affective and Reactive Emotions in and around Social Movements.” Sociological Forum 13:397–424.

43.

Junot

Amandine

Paquet

Yvan

Martin-Krumm

Charles

. 2017. “Passion for Outdoor Activities and Environmental Behaviors: A Look at Emotions Related to Passionate Activities.” Journal of Environmental Psychology 53:177–84.

44.

Kalof

Linda

Dietz

Thomas

Guagnano

Gregory

. 2002. “Race, Gender, and Environmentalism: The Atypical Values and Beliefs of White Men.” Race, Gender & Class 9:112–28.

45.

Kals

Elisabeth

Müller

Markus M.

2012. “Emotions and Environment.” Pp. 128–47 in The Oxford Handbook of Environmental and Conservation Psychology, edited by Clayton

Susan D.

Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.

46.

Kals

Elisabeth

Russell

Yvonne

. 2001. “Individual Conceptions of Justice and Their Potential for Explaining Proenvironmental Decision Making.” Social Justice Research 14:367–85.

47.

Kals

Elisabeth

Schumacher

Daniel

Montada

Leo

. 1999. “Emotional Affinity toward Nature as a Motivational Basis to Protect Nature.” Environment and Behavior 31:178–202.

48.

Kollmuss

Anja

Agyeman

Julian

. 2002. “Mind the Gap: Why People Act Environmentally and What Are the Barriers to Environmentally-Friendly Behavior.” Environmental Education Research 8(3):239–60.

49.

Korfiatis

Konstantinos J.

Hovardas

Tasos

Pantis

John D.

2004. “Determinants of Environmental Behavior in Societies in Transition: Evidence from Five European Countries.” Population & Environment 25(6):563–84.

50.

Lamont

Michèle

Small

Mario Luis

. 2008. “How Culture Matters: Enriching Our Understandings of Poverty.” Pp. 76–102 in The Colors of Poverty: Why Racial and Ethnic Disparities Persist, edited by Harris

David

Lin

Ann

. New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.

51.

Laudenslager

Mark S.

Holt

Daniel T.

Lofgren

Steven T.

2004. “Understanding Air Force Members’ Intentions to Participate in Pro-environmental Behaviors: An Application of the Theory of Planned Behavior.” Perceptual and Motor Skills 98:1162–70.

52.

Lee

E. Bun

. 2008. “Environmental Attitudes and Information Sources among African American College Students.” The Journal of Environmental Education 40:29–42.

53.

Lind

Hans Brende

Nordfjærn

Trond

Jørgensen

Stig Halvard

Rundmo

Torbjørn

. 2015. “The Value-belief-norm Theory, Personal Norms, and Sustainable Travel Mode Choice in Urban Areas.” Journal of Environmental Psychology 44:119–25.

54.

Maniates

Michael

. 2001. “Individualization: Plant a Tree, Buy a Bike, Save the World?” Global Environmental Politics 1(3):31–52.

55.

McAdam

Doug

. 1982. Political Process and Development of Black Insurgency, 1930-70. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

56.

Milfont

Taciano L.

Duckitt

John

. 2004. “The Structure of Environmental Attitudes: A First-and Second-order Confirmatory Factor Analysis.” Journal of Environmental Psychology 24(3):289–303.

57.

Mohai

Paul

Bryant

Bunyan

. 1998. “Is There a ‘Race’ Effect on Concern for Environmental Quality?” Public Opinion Quarterly 62:475–505.

58.

Montada

Leo

. 1998. “Justice: Just a Rational Choice?” Social Justice Research 12:81–101.

59.

Montada

Leo

Kals

Elisabeth

Becker

2007. “Willingness for Continued Social Commitment: A New Concept in Environmental Research.” Environment and Behavior 39:287–316.

60.

Norgaard

Kari Marie

. 2011. Living in Denial: Climate Change, Emotions, and Everyday Life. Boston, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press.

61.

O’Connor

Robert E.

Bord

Richard J.

Yarnal

Brent

Wiefek

Nancy

. 2004. “Who Wants to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions?” Social Science Quarterly 83:1–17.

62.

Oskamp

Stuart

Harrington

Maura J.

Edwards

Todd C.

Sherwood

Deborah L.

Okuda

Shawn M.

Swanson

Deborah C.

1991. “Factors Influencing Household Recycling Behavior.” Environment and Behavior 23(4):494–519.

63.

Parker

Julia Dawn

McDonough

Maureen H.

1999. “Environmentalism of African Americans: An Analysis of the Subculture and Barriers Theories.” Environment and Behavior 31:155–77.

64.

Parris

Christie

Hegtvedt

Karen A.

Johnson

Cathryn

Watson

Lesley

. 2014. “Justice for All? Factors Affecting Perceptions of Environmental and Ecological Injustice.” Social Justice Research 27:67–98.

65.

Pellow

David N.

Brehm

Hollie Nyseth

. 2013. “An Environmental Sociology for the Twenty–First Century.” Annual Review of Sociology 39:229–50.

66.

Rees

Jonas H.

Klug

Sabine

Bamberg

Sebastian

. 2015. “Guilty Conscience: Motivating Pro-environmental Behavior by Inducing Negative Moral Emotions.” Climate Change 130:439–52.

67.

Reese

Gerhard

Jacob

Lisa

. 2015. “Principles of Environmental Justice and Pro-environmental Action: A Two-step Process Model of Moral Anger and Responsibility to Act.” Environmental Science & Policy 51:88–94.

68.

Schultz

P. Wesley

Kaiser

Florian G.

2012. “Promoting Pro-environmental Behavior.” Pp. 556–80 in The Oxford Handbook of Environmental and Conservation Psychology, edited by Clayton

Susan D.

Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.

69.

Scott

David

Willits

Fern K.

1994. “Environmental Attitudes and Behavior: A Pennsylvania Survey.” Environment and Behavior 26:239–60.

70.

Steg

Linda

Dreijerink

Lieke

Abrahamse

Wokje

. 2005. “Factors Influencing the Acceptability of Energy Policies: A Test of VBN Theory.” Journal of Environmental Psychology 25:415–25.

71.

Steg

Linda

Vlek

Charles

. 2009. “Encouraging Pro-environmental Behavior: An Integrative Review and Research Agenda.” Journal of Environmental Psychology 29:309–17.

72.

Stern

Paul C.

2001a. “Psychology and the Science of Human-environment Interactions.” American Psychologist 55:523–30.

73.

Stern

Paul C.

2000b. “Toward a Coherent Theory of Environmentally Significant Behavior.” Journal of Social Issues 56(3):407–24.

74.

Stets

Jan E.

Biga

Chris F.

2003. “Bringing Identity Theory into Environmental Sociology.” Sociological Theory 21(4):398–423.

75.

Stets

Jan E.

Carter

Michael J.

2012. “A Theory of the Self for the Sociology of Morality.” American Sociological Review 77:120–40.

76.

Swim

Janet K.

Markowitz

Ezra M.

Bloodhart

Brittany

. 2012. “Psychology and Climate Change: Beliefs, Impacts, and Human Contributions.” Pp. 645–69 in The Oxford Handbook of Environmental and Conservation Psychology, edited by Clayton

Susan D.

Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.

77.

Syme

Geoffrey J.

Kals

Elisabeth

Nancarrow

Blair E.

Montada

Leo

. 2006. “Ecological Risks and Community Perceptions of Fairness and Justice: A Cross-cultural Model.” Human and Ecological Risk Assessment 12:102–19.

78.

Tangney

June Price

. 1995. “Recent Advances in the Empirical Study of Shame and Guilt.” American Behavioral Scientist 38:1132–45.

79.

Taylor

Dorceta E.

1997. “American Environmentalism: The Role of Race, Class and Gender in Shaping Activism 1820-1995.” Race, Gender & Class 5(1):16–62.

80.

Taylor

Dorceta E.

2000. “The Rise of the Environmental Justice Paradigm: Injustice Framing and the Social Construction of Environmental Discourses.” American Behavioral Scientist 43(4):508–80.

81.

Theodori

Gene L.

Luloff

A. E.

2002. “Position on Environmental Issues and Engagement in Pro-environmental Behaviors.” Society and Natural Resources 15:471–82.

82.

Thoits

Peggy A.

1989. “The Sociology of Emotions.” Annual Review of Sociology 15:317–42.

83.

Timm

Neil H.

2002. Applied Multivariate Analysis. New York: Springer.

84.

Turner

Jonathan H.

Stets

Jan E.

2005. The Sociology of Emotions. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

85.

United Church of Christ. 1987. Toxic Wastes and Race in the United States. New York: United Church of Christ Commission for Racial Justice.

86.

Valle

Oom Do

Patricia

Efigénio Rebelo

Reis

Elizabeth

Menezes

João

. 2005. “Combining Behavioral Theories to Predict Recycling Involvement.” Environment and Behavior 7(3):364–96.

87.

Vicari

Stefania

. 2010. “Measuring Collective Action Frames: A Linguistic Approach to Frame Analysis.” Poetics 38:504–25.

88.

Watson

Lesley

Johnson

Cathryn

Hegtvedt

Karen A.

Parris

Christie L.

. 2015. “Living Green: Examining Sustainable Dorms and Identities.” International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education 16(3):310–26.

89.

Whitmarsh

Lorraine

O’Neill

Saffron

. 2010. “Green Identity, Green Living? The Role of Pro-environmental Self-identity in Determining Consistency across Diverse Pro-environmental Behaviours.” Journal of Environmental Psychology 30(3):305–14.