Environment and Behavior

 

Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Register here to gain access to SAGE's 500+ Journals Online

Click here to sign up for SAGE Journal Email Alerts today!

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Joireman, J. A.
Right arrow Articles by Van Vugt, M.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?
Environment and Behavior, Vol. 36, No. 2, 187-206 (2004)
DOI: 10.1177/0013916503251476

Who Cares about the Environmental Impact of Cars?

Those with an Eye toward the Future

Jeffrey A. Joireman

Washington State University

Paul A. M. Van Lange

Free University at Amsterdam; Kurt Lewin Institute.

Mark Van Vugt

University of Southampton, U.K.

This study examines preference for commuting towork by car or public transportation (PT) within an expanded social dilemma framework (i.e., one that recognizes the importance of both social and temporal concerns). Commuters completed scales assessing commuting preferences, beliefs regarding the environmental impact of cars, social value orientation (SVO), and the consideration of future consequences (CFC). Preference for PT was higher among commuters who believed that commuting by car harms the environment and among those scoring high in CFC. Most important, a significant two-way interaction revealed that preference for commuting by PT was positively related to beliefs regarding the harmful environmental consequences of commuting by car only among those high in CFC. SVO was unrelated to commuting preferences. In sum, a future orientation may be more important than a prosocial orientation in shaping commuting preferences.

Key Words: commuting preferences • social dilemmas • proenvironmental behavior • social value orientation • consideration of future consequences


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Pers Soc Psychol BullHome page
K. V. Kortenkamp and C. F. Moore
Time, Uncertainty, and Individual Differences in Decisions to Cooperate in Resource Dilemmas
Pers Soc Psychol Bull, May 1, 2006; 32(5): 603 - 615.
[Abstract] [PDF]