Neuropsychology of Cognitive Functions Related to Pro-Environmental Behavior

Abstract

The daily habits and behaviors of modern society people harm the environment more than expected. It is well known that in order to protect the inherent values of the natural assets of the world we live in, and to sustain the mutual interaction of people with the environment in a productive manner, necessary precautions should be taken to establish and maintain pro-environmental behaviors. However, people act in different levels of pro-environmental behavior. Although most of the people state that they have a pro-environmental attitude, they cannot transform their attitudes into actual behaviors in their daily lives for various reasons. Examining the mechanisms underlying this phenomenon, known as the attitude-behavior gap, may contribute to the development of interventions that can help to understand how these behaviors differ among individuals and to eliminate this difference between the observed pro-environmental behaviors. At this point, neuroscience studies can provide a more comprehensive explanation of the reasons for the behavioral differences between these individuals, by comparing the performance of individuals with and without pro-environmental behaviors and those who have adopted and not adopting the environmentalist view, on behavioral tasks, and by simultaneously examining the physiological responses that may be related to sustainable behavior. This article will discuss how neuroscience and neuropsychological approach can provide an explanation for these questions through their unique methods.

Keywords

• Pro-environmental behavior
• sustainable behavior
• neuropsychology
• neuroscience

Çevre Yanlısı Davranışlarla İlişkili Bilişsel İşlevlerin Nöropsikolojisi

Öz

Modern toplum insanının yaşamındaki gündelik alışkanlıklarının ve davranışlarının tahmin edilenden fazla bir kısmı çevreye zarar vermektedir. Gerek içinde yaşadığımız dünyanın doğal varlıklarının kendiliğinden olan değerleri nedeniyle gerekse de insanların çevre ile olan karşılıklı etkileşimi nedeniyle çevre yanlısı davranışların yerleşmesi ve sürdürülebilmesi için gerekli önlemler alınması gerektiği bilinmektedir. Ancak insanların çevre yanlısı davranış düzeyleri farklılaşmaktadır. İnsanların büyük bir kısmı çevre yanlısı tutuma sahip olduklarını belirtmelerine rağmen, çeşitli nedenlerle tutumlarını gündelik hayatlarında davranışa dönüştürememektedirler. Tutum-davranış boşluğu olarak bilinen bu fenomenin altında yatan mekanizmaları incelemek bu davranışların bireyler arasında nasıl farklılaştığını anlamaya ve bu farklılığı ortadan kaldırmaya yardımcı olabilecek müdahalelerin geliştirilmesine katkı sağlayabilir. Nöropsikolojik yaklaşım bu noktada, çevre yanlısı davranışları olan ve olmayan bireyler ile çevreci görüşü̈ benimsemiş ve benimsememiş olan kişilerin davranışsal görevlerdeki performanslarını karşılaştırarak ve eşzamanlı olarak ilişkili olabilecek fizyolojik yanıtları inceleyerek, bu kişiler arasındaki davranış farklılıklarının nedenlerinin daha kapsamlı bir biçimde açıklanabilmesine ve böylece de, sürdürülebilir davranışın yerleşmesi için alınabilecek önlemlere katkı sağlayabilir. Burada, bu amaçla nöropsikolojinin ve nörobilimin kullanmış olduğu yöntemler aracılığıyla bu soruya nasıl bir açıklama getirilebileceği tartışılacaktır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• çevre yanlısı davranış
• sinirbilim
• nörobilim
• sürdürülebilir davranış

Kaynakça

1. Abrahamse W, Steg L (2013) Social influence approaches to encourage resource conservation: a meta-analysis. Glob Environ Change, 23:1773–1785.
2. Aitken C, Chapman R, McClure J (2011) Climate change, powerlessness and the commons dilemma: assessing New Zealanders’ preparedness to act. Glob Environ Change, 21:752–760.
3. Ajzen I (1991) The theory of planned behavior. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process, 50:179–211.
4. Anguera JA, Boccanfuso J, Rintoul JL, Al-Hashimi O, Faraji F, Janowich J et al. (2013) Video game training enhances cognitive control in older adults. Nature, 501:97-101.
5. Baumgartner T, Langenbach BP, Gianotti L, Müri RM, Knoch D (2019) Frequency of everyday pro-environmental behaviour is explained by baseline activation in lateral prefrontal cortex. Sci Rep, 9:9.
6. Bayes R, Druckman JN (2021) Motivated reasoning and climate change. Curr Opin Behav Sci, 42:27–35.
7. Beattie G, McGuire L (2015) Harnessing the unconscious mind of the consumer:how implicit attitudes predict pre-conscious visual attention to carbon footprint information on products. Semiotica, 204:253–290.
8. Berenguer J (2010) The effect of empathy in environmental moral reasoning. Environ Behav, 42:110–134.

9. Bergin C (2014) Handbook of prosocial education. J Moral Educ, 43:126-129.
10. Brevers D, Baeken C, Maurage P, Sescousse G, Vögele C et al. (2021) Brain mechanisms underlying prospective thinking of sustainable behaviours. Nat Sustain, 4:433–439.
11. Brosch T (2021) Affect and emotions as drivers of climate change perception and action: a review. Curr Opin Behav Sci, 42:15–21.
12. Carlson JM, Lehman BR, Thompson JL (2019). Climate change images produce an attentional bias associated with pro-environmental disposition. Cogn Process, 20:385–390.
13. Carlson JM, Kaull H, Steinhauer M, Zigarac A, Cammarata J (2020). Paying attention to climate change: positive images of climate change solutions capture attention. J Environ Psychol, 71:101477.
14. Corral-Verdugo V, Mireles-Acosta J, Tapia-Fonllem C, Fraijo-Sing B (2011) Happiness as correlate of sustainable behavior: a study of pro-ecological, frugal, equitable and altruistic actions that promote subjective wellbeing. Hum Ecol Rev, 18:95-104.
15. Davis MH (1983) Measuring individual differences in empathy: evidence for a multidimensional approach. J Pers Soc Psychol, 44:113–126.
16. Damasio AR (1994) Descartes' Error: Emotion, Reason, and the Human Brain. New York, G.P. Putnam.
17. Decety J, Cowell JM (2014) The complex relation between morality and empathy. Trends Cogn Sci, 18:337–339.
18. Diamond A (2013) Executive functions. Annu Rev Psychol, 64:135–168.
19. Eisenberg N, Mussen PH (1989) The Roots of Prosocial Behavior in Children. New York, Cambridge University Press.
20. Farrow K, Grolleau G, Ibanez L (2017) Social norms and pro-environmental behavior: a review of the evidence. Ecol Econ, 140:1–13. Fatima N, Li Y, Li X, Abbas W, Jabeen G, Zahra T et al. (2022) Households’ perception and environmentally friendly technology adoption: implications for energy efficiency. Front Energy Res, 10:830286.
21. Ferguson MA, Branscombe NR (2010) Collective guilt mediates the effect of beliefs about global warming on willingness to engage in mitigation behavior. J Environ Psychol, 30:135-142.
22. Frith CD, Frith U (2006) The neural basis of mentalizing. Neuron, 50:531-534.
23. Frith CD, Frith U (2021) Mapping Mentalising In the Brain. In: The Neural Basis of Mentalizing (Eds. M Gilead, KN Ochsner):17-45 New York, Springer International.
24. Gardner GT, Stern PC (1996) Environmental Problems and Human Behavior. Boston, Ally and Bacon.
25. Gifford R (2011) The dragons of inaction. Psychological barriers that limit climate change mitigation and adaptation. Am Psychol, 66:290-302.
26. Gómez-Olmedo AM, Carrero Bosch I, Martínez CV (2020) Volition to behave sustainably: an examination of the role of self-control. J Consum Behav, 20:776–790.
27. Goucher-Lambert K, Moss J, Cagan J (2017) Inside the mind: using neuroimaging to understand moral product preference judgments involving sustainability. ASME J Mech Des, 139:041103.
28. Guizar Rosales E, Baumgartner T, Knoch D (2022) Interindividual differences in intergenerational sustainable behavior are associated with cortical thickness of the dorsomedial and dorsolateral prefrontal cortex. NeuroImage, 264:119664,
29. Gummerum M, Keller M, Buchmann M, Malti T (2009) Children's moral motivation, sympathy, and prosocial behavior. Child Dev, 80:442–460.
30. Harth N, Leach C, Kessler T (2013) Guilt, anger, and pride about in-group environmental behaviour: different emotions predict distinct intentions. J Environ Psychol, 34:18–26.
31. Heatherton TF, Wagner DD (2011) Cognitive neuroscience of self-regulation failure. Trends Cogn Sci, 15:132–139.
32. Hornsey MJ, Harris EA, Bain PG, Fielding KS (2016) Meta-analyses of the determinants and outcomes of belief in climate change. Nat Clim Change, 6:622-626.
33. Jimura K, Chushak MS, Westbrook A, Braver TS (2017) Intertemporal decision-making involves prefrontal control mechanisms associated with working memory. Cereb Cortex, 28:1105-1116.
34. Kahn PH Jr, Lourenco O (2002) Water, air, fire, and earth:a developmental study in Portugal of environmental moral reasoning. Environ Behav, 34:405-430.
35. Karimi S, Liobikienė G, Saadi H, Sepahvand F (2021) The influence of media usage on Iranian students’ pro-envi-ronmental behaviors: an application of the extended theory of planned behavior. Sustainability, 13:8299.
36. Karpiak CP, Baril GL (2008) Moral reasoning and concern for the environment. J Environ Psychol, 28:203-208.
37. Kennedy EH, Beckley TM, McFarlane BL, Nadeau S (2009) Why we don’t “walk the talk”: understanding the environmental values/behavior gap in Canada. Hum Ecol Rev, 16:151–160.
38. Klingberg T (2010) Training and plasticity of working memory. Trends Cogn Sci, 14:317-24.
39. Kohlberg L (1973) Stages and aging in moral development-some speculations. Gerontologist, 13:497-502.
40. Kollmuss A, Agyeman J (2002) Mind the gap: why do people act environmentally and what are the barriers to pro-environmental behavior? Environ Educ Res, 8:239–260.
41. Kortenkamp KV, Moore CF (2001) Ecocentrism and anthropocentrism: moral reasoning about ecological commons dilemmas. J Environ Psychol, 21:261-272.
42. Lange F, Dewitte S (2019) Measuring pro-environmental behavior: review and recommendations. J Environ Psychol, 63:92-100.
43. Langenbach BP, Berger S, Baumgartner T, Knoch D (2019) Cognitive resources moderate the relationship between pro-environmental attitudes and green behavior. Environ Behav, 52:979–995.
44. Lee EJ, Kwon G, Shin HJ, Yang S, Lee S, Suh M (2014) The spell of green: can frontal EEG activations identify green consumers? J Bus Ethics, 122:511–521.
45. Lehman B, Thompson J, Davis S, Carlson JM (2019) Affective images of climate change. Front Psychol, 10:960.
46. Mohiuddin M, al Mamun A, Syed F, Mehedi Masud M, Su Z (2018) Environmental knowledge, awareness, and business school students’ intentions to purchase green vehicles in emerging countries. Sustainability, 10:1534.
47. Nielsen KS (2017 )From prediction to process: a self-regulation account of environmental behavior change. J Environ Psychol, 51:189–198.
48. Nordlund AM, Garvill J (2002) Value structures behind proenvironmental behavior. Environ Behav, 34:740–756.
49. Ockwell D, Whitmarsh L, O’Neill S (2009) Reorienting climate change communication for effective mitigation.Forcing people to be green or fostering grass-roots engagement? Sci Commun, 30:305-323.
50. Odou P, Schill M (2020) How anticipated emotions shape behavioral intentions to fight climate change. J Bus Res, 121:243-253.
51. Ramsey JM, Hungerford HR, Volk TL (2017) Environmental education in the K-12 cirriculum: finding a niche. J Environ Educ, 23:35-45.
52. Redondo I, Puelles M (2016) The connection between environmental attitude-behavior gap and other individual inconsistencies: a call for strengthening self-control. Int Res Geogr Environ Educ, 26:107–120.
53. Rees J, Klug S, Bamberg S (2014) Guilty conscience: motivating pro-environmental behavior by inducing negative moral emotions. Clim Change, 130:439-452.
54. Rezvani Z, Jansson J, Bengtsson M (2017) Cause i’ll feel good! an investigation into the effects of anticipated emotions and personal moral norms on consumer pro-environmental behavior. J Promot Manag, 23:163–183.
55. Krebs RM, Prével A, Hall JM, Hoofs V (2023) Think green: investing cognitive effort for a pro-environmental cause. J Environ Psychol, 85:101946.
56. Sawe N, Knutson B (2015) Neural valuation of environmental resources. NeuroImage, 122:87–95.
57. Schneider CR, Zaval L, Markowitz EM (2021) Positive emotions and climate change. Curr Opin Behav Sci, 42:114–120.
58. Schultz PW (2000) Empathizing with nature: the effects of perspective taking on concern for environmental issues. J Soc Issues, 56:391–406.
59. Shamay-Tsoory S (2015) The neuropsychology of empathy: evidence from lesion studies. Rev Neuropsychol, 7:237-243.
60. Summerfield C, Mangels JA (2005) Coherent theta-band EEG activity predicts item-context binding during encoding. Neuroimage, 24:692-70.
61. Steg L, Vlek C (2009). Encouraging pro-environmental behaviour:an integrative review and research agenda. J Environ Psychol, 29:309–317.
62. Steg L, Bolderdijk JW, Keizer K, Perlaviciute G (2014a) An integrated framework for encouraging pro-environmental behaviour: the role of values, situational factors and goals. J Environ Psychol, 38:104–115.
63. Steg L, Perlaviciute G, van der Werff E, Lurvink J (2014b) The significance of hedonic values for environmentally relevant attitudes, preferences, and actions. Environ Behav, 46:163–192.
64. Steinbeis N, Crone EA (2016) The link between cognitive control and decision-making across child and adolescent development. Curr Opin Behav Sci, 10:28-32.
65. Stern PC (1992). Psychological dimensions of global environmental change. Annu Rev Psychol, 43:269-302.
66. Stern PC, Dietz T, Kalof L (1993) Value orientations, gender, and environmental concern. Environ Behav, 25:322–348.
67. Stern PC (2000) Psychology and the science of human-environment interactions. Am Psychol, 55:523–530.
68. Swim JK, Clayton S, Howard GS (2011) Human behavioral contributions to climate change: psychological and contextual drivers. Am Psychol, 66:251-264.
69. Şandor S, Gürvit İH (2019). Development of somatic markers guiding decision-making along adolescence. Int J Psychophysiol, 137:82-91.
70. Tapia-Fonllem C, Corral-Verdugo V, Fraijo-Sing B, Durón-Ramos MF (2013) Assessing sustainable behavior and its correlates: a measure of pro-ecological, frugal, altruistic andequitable actions. Sustainability, 5:711-723.
71. Thompson SCG, Barton MA (1994) Ecocentric and anthropocentric attitudes toward the environment. J Environ Psychol, 14:149-157.
72. Tuncay-Yuksel B, Yılmaz-Tüzün Ö, Tuncer-Teksoz G (2011) The relationship between environmental moral reasoning and environmental attitudes of pre-service science teachers. Int Electron J Environ Edu, 1:167-178.
73. Verplanken B, Whitmarsh L (2021) Habit and climate change. Curr Opin Behav Sci, 42:42–46.
74. Wilson EO (1988) The current state of biological diversity. In Biodiversity (Eds EO Wilson, FM Peter):3-18. Washington, National Academy Press.
75. Wyss AM, Knoch D, Berger S (2022) When and how pro-environmental attitudes turn into behavior:the role of costs, benefits, and self-control. J Environ Psychol, 79:101748.