DOI: 10.3724/SP.J.1041.2017.00500

Acta Psychologica Sinica (心理学报) 2017/49:4 PP.500-512

Taking money and environment together: The role of relative values in composite risky decision-making

Risk is one of the core attributes of environmental decision-making. Most often, the alternatives of environmental risky decision-making would involve monetary outcomes as well as environmental outcomes, triggering the tradeoff between profit seeking and environmental protection. Expected-value theory, Prospect theory, Equate-to-differentiate theory, as well as models such as MAUT, DRIFT, ITCH, however, solely focus on the decision-making process of homogeneous outcomes. Thus, it's a novel topic in behavioral decision research to explore how individuals evaluate, integrate and make choices on composite outcomes. Given that the conflict between environmental and monetary values is one of the primary causes that leads to the antagonism of profit seeking and environment protection, the present research focused on the effect of relative values on risky decision-making of composite money-environment gains.
A total of 417 college students—specifically, 206 students participated in Experiment 1, 64 in Experiment 2, and 147 in Experiment 3 — participated in the study. In Experiment 1, New Ecological Paradigm Scale (NEP) and Money Ethics Scale (MES) were used to measure individual's environmental and monetary values respectively. We inspected the effect of relative values, which was represented by the d-value of MES and NEP, on individuals' preference in the composite risky choice task in which two options had the same expected values based on pilot study. Experiment 2 examined the role of outcome weights in the influence of relative values on composite risky decision-making. Implicit association test was used to identify relative money-oriented and environment-oriented individuals. Experiment 3 used a scrambled-words task to prime one's monetary or environmental value orientation and explored its effect on weights allocation and composite risk preference.
The results indicated that individuals with different relative values will differ in value evaluation and risk preference on the composite gains. The effect remained consistent whenever the relative values was measured by scale, implicit association test, or primed by scrambled-words task. Environment-oriented individuals tended to assign larger weights to the environmental gain in the composite than did money-oriented ones. In addition, compared to money-oriented individuals, environment-oriented individuals were more inclined to take risk in money for the sake of ensuring environmental benefits and more risk-seeking for an extra environmental improvement in the composite outcomes.
Overall, the results suggested that activating and shaping decision makers' relative values could change their risk preference in decision making of composite money-environment gains and thereby promote pro- environment choices. Furthermore, this research initiated a new decision frame in which the options expanded from homogeneous sequential outcomes to heterogeneous composite outcomes.

Key words:composite outcome,environmental decision-making,risky decision-making,monetary values,environmental values

ReleaseDate:2017-05-12 17:01:37

Aquino, K., Freeman, D., Reed, A., II., Lim, V. K. G., & Felps, W. (2009). Testing a social-cognitive model of moral behavior: The interactive influence of situations and moral identity centrality. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97(1), 123–141.

Baron, J., & Spranca, M. (1997). Protected values. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 70(1), 1–16.

Barr, S. (2007). Factors influencing environmental attitudes and behaviors: A U.K. case study of household waste management. Environment and Behavior, 39, 435–473.

Brown, K. W., & Kasser, T. (2005). Are psychological and ecological well–being compatible? The role of values, mindfulness, and lifestyle. Social Indicators Research, 74(2), 349–368.

Burroughs, J. E., & Rindfleisch, A. (2002). Materialism and well–being: A conflicting values perspective. Journal of Consumer Research, 29, 348–370.

Chan, R. Y. K., & Lau, L. B. Y. (2000). Antecedents of green purchases: A survey in china. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 17(4), 338–357.

De Groot, J. I. M., & Steg, L. (2007). Value orientations and environmental beliefs in five countries: Validity of an instrument to measure egoistic, altruistic and biospheric value orientations. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 38, 318–332.

Duan, J., Liu, Y. F., & He, Q. (2012). The effects of decision makers' roles and related variables on risk preferences. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 44(3), 369–376. [段婧, 刘永芳, 何琪. (2012). 决策者角色及相关变量对风险偏好的影响. 心理学报, 44(3), 369–376.]

Dunlap, R. E. (2008). The new environmental paradigm scale: From marginality to worldwide use. Journal of Environmental Education, 40(1), 3–18.

Dunlap, R. E., & van Liere, K. D. (1978). The 'new environmental paradigm'. Journal of Environmental Education, 9, 10–19.

Dunlap, R. E., van Liere, K. D., Mertig, A. G., & Jones, R. E. (2000). New trends in measuring environmental attitudes: Measuring endorsement of the new ecological paradigm: A revised NEP scale. Journal of Social Issues, 56(3), 425–442.

Eagly, A. H., & Kulesa, P. (1997). Attitudes, attitude structure, and resistance to change. In M. H. Bazerman, D. M. Messick, A. E. Tenbrunsel, & K. A. Wade-Benzoni (Eds.), Environment, ethics, and behavior (pp. 122–153). San Francisco, CA: New Lexington Press.

Ericson, K. M. M., White, J. M., Laibson, D., & Cohen, J. D. (2015). Money earlier or later? Simple heuristics explain intertemporal choices better than delay discounting does. Psychological Science, 26, 826–833.

Green, L., Myerson, J., & Ostaszewski, P. (1999). Amount of reward has opposite effects on the discounting of delayed and probabilistic outcomes. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 25(2), 418–427.

Grouzet, F. M. E., Kasser, T., Ahuvia, A., Dols, J. M. F., Kim, Y., Lau, S., … Sheldon, K. M. (2005). The structure of goal contents across 15 cultures. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89, 800–816.

Hardisty, D. J., & Weber, E. U. (2009). Discounting future green: Money versus the environment. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 138, 329–340.

Hendrickx, L., & Nicolaij, S. (2004). Temporal discounting and environmental risks: The role of ethical and loss–related concerns. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 24, 409–422.

Hendrickx, L., van den Berg, A., & Vlek, C. (1993). Concern about tomorrow? The factor 'time' in the evaluation of environmental risks. Milieu, Tijdschrift voor Milieukunde, 8, 148–152.

Hurst, M., Dittmar, H., Bond, R., & Kasser, T. (2013). The relationship between materialistic values and environmental attitudes and behaviors: A meta–analysis. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 36, 257–269.

Jiang, D. (2015). The strategies in intertemporal decision- making (Unpublished doctorial dissertation). Zhejiang University, Hangzhou. [蒋多. (2015). 跨期决策策略研究 (博士学位论文). 浙江大学, 杭州.]

Karpinski, A., & Steinman, R. B. (2006). The single category implicit association test as a measure of implicit social cognition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91(1), 16–32.

Kotchen, M. J., & Reiling, S. D. (2000). Environmental attitudes, motivations, and contingent valuation of nonuse values: A case study involving endangered species. Ecological Economics, 32, 93–107.

Li, S. (2004). A behavioral choice model when computational ability matters. Applied Intelligence, 20, 147–163.

Li, X. X., Liu, R. L., & Zhang, J. F. (2010). A review on western environmental attitude research. Psychological Science, 33(6), 1448–1450. [李新秀, 刘瑞利, 张进辅. (2010). 国外环境态度研究述评. 心理科学, 33(6), 1448–1450.]

Longoni, C., Gollwitzer, P. M., & Oettingen, G. (2014). A green paradox: Validating green choices has ironic effects on behavior, cognition, and perception. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 50, 158–165.

Loukopoulos, P., Jakobsson, C., Gärling, T., Schneider, C. M., & Fujii, S. (2004). Car-user responses to travel demand management measures: Goal setting and choice of adaptation alternatives. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 9, 263–280.

Maio, G. R., Pakizeh, A., Cheung, W. Y., & Rees, K. J. (2009).Changing, priming, and acting on values: Effects via motivational relations in a circular model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97, 699–715.

Mogilner, C. (2010). The pursuit of happiness: Time, money, and social connection. Psychological Science, 21(9), 1348–1354.

Nordlund, A. M., & Garvill, J. (2002). Value structures behind proenvironmental behavior. Environment and Behavior, 34, 740–756.

Nordlund, A. M., & Garvill, J. (2003). Effects of values, problem awareness, and personal norm on willingness to reduce personal car use. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 23, 339–347.

Payne, J. W., Bettman, J. R., & Johnson, E. J. (1993). The adaptive decision maker. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Prince, M. (1993). Self–concept, money beliefs and values. Journal of Economic Psychology, 14(1), 161–173.

Read, D., Frederick, S., & Scholten, M. (2013). DRIFT: An analysis of outcome framing in intertemporal choice. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 39, 573–588.

Schultz, P. W., Shriver, C., Tabanico, J. J., & Khazian, A. M. (2004). Implicit connections with nature. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 24, 31–42.

Schwartz, S. H. (1992). Universals in the content and structure of values: Theoretical advances and empirical tests in 20 countries. In M. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 25, pp. 1–65). New York: Academic Press.

Schwartz, S. H. (2006). Basic human values: Theory, measurement, and applications. Revue Française de Sociologie, 47, 929–968.

Slimak, M. W., & Dietz, T. (2006). Personal values, beliefs, and ecological risk perception. Risk Analysis, 26(6), 1689–1705.

Speth, J. G. (2008). The bridge at the edge of the world: Capitalism, the environment, and crossing from crisis to sustainability. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Stern, P. C. (1992). Psychological dimensions of global environmental change. Annual Review of Psychology, 43, 269–302.

Stern, P. C., & Dietz, T. (1994). The value basis of environmental concern. Journal of Social Issues, 50(3), 65–84.

Stern, P. C., Dietz, T., Abel, T. D., Guagnano, G. A., & Kalof, L. (1999). A value-belief-norm theory of support for social movements: The case of environmentalism. Human Ecology Review, 6(2), 81–97.

Svenson, O., & Karlsson, G. (1989). Decision-making, time horizons, and risk in the very long-term perspective. Risk Analysis, 9(3), 385–399.

Tang, T. L. P. (1995). The development of a short money ethic scale: Attitudes toward money and pay satisfaction revisited. Personality and Individual Differences, 19(6), 809–816.

Verplanken, B., & Holland, R. W. (2002). Motivated decision making: Effects of activation and self-centrality of values on choices and behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82, 434–447.

Verplanken, B., Trafimow, D., Khusid, I. K., Holland, R. W., & Steentjes, G. M. (2009). Different selves, different values: Effects of self-construals on value activation and use. European Journal of Social Psychology, 39(6), 909–919.

Vohs, K. D., Mead, N. L., & Goode, M. R. (2006). The psychological consequences of money. Science, 314, 1154–1156.

Whillans, A. V., & Dunn, E. W. (2015). Thinking about time as money decreases environmental behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 127, 44–52.

Yamauchi, K. T., & Templer, D. J. (1982). The development of a money attitude scale. Journal of Personality Assessment, 46, 522–528.

Zhao, Q. D. (2015). The effect of “money-environment” value orientation on environmental decision-making (Unpublished master's thesis). Zhejiang University, Hangzhou. [赵秋荻. (2015). “金钱-环境”价值取向对环境决策的影响(硕士学位论文). 浙江大学, 杭州.]