Overestimating One’s ‘green’ Behavior: Better-than-average Bias May Function to Reduce Perceived Personal Threat from Climate Change

Leviston, Zoe, and Hannah V. Uren. 2019. “Overestimating One’s ‘green’ Behavior: Better-than-average Bias May Function to Reduce Perceived Personal Threat from Climate Change.” PsyArXiv. December 12. doi:10.1111/josi.12365

Abstract: The actions of others, and what others approve of, can be a powerful tool for promoting pro-environmental behaviour. A potential barrier to the utility of social norms however are cognitive biases in how we perceive others, including the better-than-average effect. This effect describes the tendency for people to think they are exceptional, especially when compared with their peers. In order to investigate the role of the better-than-average effect in the context of climate-relevant pro-environmental behaviour, we administered questions as part of a larger online survey of 5,219 nationally representative Australians. Participants were asked to report whether they engaged in a list of 21 pro-environmental behaviours, and then asked to estimate how their engagement compared with the average Australian. Over half of our participants ‘self-enhanced’; they overestimated their engagement in pro-environmental behaviours relative to others. ‘Self-enhancement’ was related to reduced perceptions of personal harm from climate change, more favourable assessments of coping ability, less guilt, and lower moral and ethical duty to take action to prevent climate change. These relationships held when participants sceptical about anthropogenic climate change were removed from analyses. We discuss the implications of the findings for the use of social norms in promoting pro-environmental behaviour.


Discussion
The majority of our participants evidenced better-than-average tendencies. Our findings are consistent with previous literature from other domains and provide good initial evidence that better-than-average effects operate in the domain of climate-relevant behaviour. The bias was not restricted to people who perform poorly, or to those holding certain beliefs about climate change, but was evident across a spectrum of behaviour and attitudes. Moreover, distorted perceptions about one’s own behaviour was related to factors such as moral and ethical duty to respond to climate change, climate-related guilt, coping appraisals, and descriptive and injunctive norms. In each case we found that a self-other comparison that flattered the respondent tended to be accompanied by attitudes that function to reduce threats posed by climate change and reduce personal culpability. Taken together, the results suggest better-than-average effects might serve a palliative function for the individual.

The tendency for ‘self-enhancers’ to downgrade personal perceived harm from climate change and bolster personal coping ability relative to other groups might also be understood as ‘optimism bias’ – the belief that negative events are more likely to happen to others than to oneself (Radcliffe & Klein, 2002). This form of bias is itself functional, as it aids in restoring feelings of efficacy and control. Coupled with findings that self-enhancers reported lower feelings of guilt and moral and ethical duty, it is arguable that better-than-average assessments are not necessarily causative but one of an interrelated set of motivated cognitions to reduce both internal and external threat (Hornsey et al., 2015).

Motivations to self-enhance may also have interpersonal underpinnings and benefits. For instance, Kurz and Prosser (this issue) argue that tightly defined behaviours, such as vegetarianism and cycling, implicitly signal moral judgements to those who do not partake in these behaviours. Our list of climate-relevant behaviours included both loosely and tightly specified behaviours. In order to restore moral worth, it is feasible that those whose inaction is made salient in specific behavioural areas become motivated to make downward social comparisons (‘I may not be perfect, but I’m better than most’). Self-enhancement may this have a moral licensing effect, allowing the assessor to concurrently admit to unstainable behaviours (driving a motor vehicle, regularly eating meat) while maintaining moral standing within the broader community. Further research might test whether better-than-average effects are heightened under conditions where indicating high behavioural engagement is made more difficult. Similarly, future research employing longitudinal or experimental designs might illuminate whether self-other assessments are dynamic or whether they reflect more general chronic predispositions toward bias.