The Hierarchical Action-Based Model of Inconsistency Compensation in the Environmental Domain: Exploring the Role of Individual Differences in Distal Motivation

Abstract

Using the action-based model of dissonance (Harmon-Jones, Amodio, & Harmon-Jones, 2009) and self-determination theory (Deci & Ryan, 2008) as theoretical frameworks, this thesis sought to explain the motivational processes underlying the environmental belief-action gap. The thesis examined why and how people resolve inconsistencies between their favourable attitudes toward environmental protection and their environmentally harmful behaviour. I hypothesized that accounting for individual differences in autonomous and controlled distal motives for effective and unconflicted action would clarify why attitude-behaviour inconsistencies are uncomfortable and explain how people compensate for them. I carried out 3 sets of studies to test the proposed hierarchical action-based model of inconsistency compensation in the environmental domain (HABICE). The objective of the first set of 3 studies was to test hypotheses about the role of individual differences in global and contextual motivation on dissonance arousal, in response to native attitude-behaviour inconsistencies encountered across and within important life domains. The second set of 3 studies tested hypotheses about the role of individual differences in contextual motivation toward the environment on the use and choice of strategies to compensate for a recent native inconsistency in the environmental domain. Finally, the goal of the final study was to test hypotheses about the moderating effect of social factors that direct attention to public (ego-invested) versus private (authentic) aspects of the self during the perception of inconsistencies on motivation and intentions to revise pro-global warming mitigation attitudes. The results of the 7 studies (total N = 2,209) supported the main predictions of the HABICE. The cumulative evidence supported the existence of two motivational orientations operating during inconsistency compensation processes. The autonomous motivational orientation, which embodies action tendencies to facilitate organismic integration via authentic regulation, motivated people to compensate for attitude-behaviour inconsistencies to restore the integrity of authentic self-structures. As a result, autonomous motivation toward the environment led people to reduce dissonance and to compensate for perceived inconsistencies by bringing their behaviour in line with self-relevant attitudes. The controlled motivational orientation, which embodies action tendencies to facilitate instrumental outcomes via contingent regulation, motivated people to compensate for attitude-behaviour inconsistencies to protect ego-invested self-structures by avoiding the aversive consequences of their counter-environmental actions. When inconsistencies aroused dissonance, controlled motivation predicted the use of overt behavioural strategies, for example enacting a compensatory pro-environmental action, to reduce dissonance. However, when inconsistencies did not arouse dissonance or there were barriers to behaviour change, controlled motivation predicted the use of cognitive strategies, for example revising or distorting pro-environmental attitudes, to minimize the inconsistency. Consequently, autonomous compensation processes predicted relatively infrequent attitude-behaviour inconsistencies in the environmental domain while controlled compensation processes predicted relatively frequent inconsistencies. The results imply that controlled motivation toward the environment may be driving the environmental belief-action gap, but that finding ways to promote autonomous motivation toward the environment in the general population has the potential to alleviate the gap.