Guilt, anger, and pride about in group environmental behaviour different emotions predict distinct intentions

Therefore, in this study, we compared in-group focused guilt to anger and pride because we wished to explain intentions regarding three distinct intentions regarding the environment e re

Guilt, anger, and pride about in-group environmental behaviour:

Different emotions predict distinct intentions

a Department of Social Psychology, Friedrich-Schiller-Universität, Humboldtstr 26, 07743 Jena, Germany

b Department of Psychology, University of Connecticut, USA

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:

Available online 5 January 2013

Keywords:

Group-based emotion

Guilt

Anger

Pride

Responsibility

Environmental behaviour

a b s t r a c t

The present research compared the in-group-focused emotions of pride, guilt, and anger as predictors

of three environmental intentions In two scenario studies we manipulated the in-group’s responsibility for environmental damage or protection In-group responsibility for environmental damage increased participants’ guilt and anger, whereas in-group responsibility for environmental protection increased participants’ pride The three emotions mediated the links between in-group responsibility for envi-ronmental behaviour and three behavioural intentions In line with predictions, guilt predicted intentions to repair the damage and anger predicted intentions to punish wrongdoers Pride predicted intentions for in-group favouring environmental protection We discuss the role of group-based emotion

in promoting different environmental behaviours

Ó2013 Elsevier Ltd All rights reserved

1 Introduction

Climate change is one of the most pressing issues facing

hu-manity This makes it important to understand what people make of

damage to, and protection of, the environment Why do some people

get engaged in environmental protection, others ignore it, and

others think that technology will provide a solution? Certainly,

emotions play a major role here (Swim et al., 2009) For instance,

environmental NGOs tend to make people feel guilty, highlighting

humans’ responsibility for climate change; the media tend to fuel

anger about environmental disasters, whereas politicians often try

to invoke pride in the ecological and technological achievements

that suggest optimism about the future Which of these emotional

strategies works “best” in terms of promoting environmental

awareness and accordingly, which of these emotions leads to which

intention to act in ways that benefit the environment? We believe

that it is of particular importance to ask how emotional reactions to

climate change are associated with intentions for specific

environ-mental behaviours

Given that climate change results from collective behaviour and

events, it is especially important to examine how individuals

expe-rience the environmental behaviour of their groups e cities,

coun-tries, and international bodies such as the United Nations Although

individuals may have their own sense of personal responsibility for

the environment, they also respond to their in-group’s responsibility for environmental damage and protection (Thomas, McGarty,

& Mavor, 2009) This leads individuals to experience group-based emotions (seeIyer & Leach, 2008;Mackie & Smith, 2002;Parkinson, Fischer, & Manstead, 2005) In the present study, we investigate guilt, anger, and pride as emotional reactions to in-group damage

or protection of the environment We expect each emotion to best predict the specific environmental intentions of repair of damage, punishment of wrongdoers, and in-group favouring environmental protection

1.1 The value of group-based emotions For quite some time, rational-choice-based models, such as the theory of planned behaviour (e.g.,Ajzen, 1991) dominated ex-planations of environmental behaviour Perhaps as a result, little research has examined the role of emotions in environmental behaviour However, there is increasing attention to the role that emotions play in people’s responses to environmental issues (Kaiser, Schultz, Berenguer, Corral-Verdugo, & Tankha, 2008) So far, fear of environmental risks seems to attract the most attention (e.g.,

Böhm, 2003;Van Zomeren, Spears, & Leach, 2010) Apparently, fear about the consequences of climate change does not motivate people

to conserve energy (Ferguson & Branscombe, 2010) Instead, fearful individuals seem to cope with the threat of climate change by relying on their group to engage in collective action (Van Zomeren

et al., 2010) We suggest that, unlike fear, emotions focused on the

* Corresponding author Tel.: þ49 3641 945190; fax: þ49 3641 945252.

E-mail address: n.harth@uni-jena.de (N.S Harth).

Contents lists available atSciVerse ScienceDirect Journal of Environmental Psychology

j o u r n a l h o m e p a g e : w w w e l s e v i e r c o m / l o c a t e / j e p

0272-4944/$ e see front matter Ó 2013 Elsevier Ltd All rights reserved.

Journal of Environmental Psychology 34 (2013) 18e26

in-group’s active role in environmental outcomes may better

motivate environmental behaviour

Recent work has examined a wide variety of emotions that are

relevant to what individuals intend to do about in-group and

out-group behaviour (Mackie & Smith, 2002) Most of these studies

examined a single emotion and a single intention (for reviews, see

Iyer & Leach, 2008;Parkinson et al., 2005) For example, a good deal of

research has examined guilt about in-group wrongdoing and its

prediction of the intention to make restitution Guilt has rarely been

compared to other in-group directed emotions, such as anger or

pride In addition, asFerguson and Branscombe (2010)suggested,

more positive emotions such as pride should be examined in research

on the role of group-based emotion in group-level behaviour

Therefore, in this study, we compared in-group focused guilt to anger

and pride because we wished to explain intentions regarding three

distinct intentions regarding the environment e repair, punishment,

and in-group favouring environmental behaviour Each emotion

should have a special link to each behavioural intention

2 Three emotions and three environmental intentions

Responsibility appraisals determine how people feel about events

(Weiner, 1995) Thus, they influence what people are motivated to

do on issues such as climate change (e.g.,Kaiser & Shimoda, 1999;

Nerb & Spada, 2001) Alternate framings of responsibility for

envi-ronment outcomes should trigger different group-based emotions

For example, when one’s country is framed as responsible for causing

environmental damage, one should feel guilty and angry at the

in-group In contrast, in-group responsibility for environmental

pro-tection should evoke pride As responsibility is a key appraisal in

in-group-focused emotions (Leach, Snider, & Iyer, 2002), we

manip-ulated the degree to which participants’ in-group is responsible for

environmental outcomes to show its causal role in the three

emo-tions Whereas it is increasingly common to manipulate group-based

appraisals (seeIyer & Leach, 2008for an overview), few experiments

have investigated the effects of appraisal manipulations on multiple

emotions and subsequently, emotion specific effects on different

behavioural intentions Thus, the present studies were designed to

extend previous research on emotion about social and political issues

As we discuss in more detail below, guilt should motivate intentions

to repair environmental damage whereas anger at the in-group

should motivate intentions to punish environmental sinners Pride

should motivate intentions to engage in support of environmental

behaviour that favours the in-group exclusively

2.1 Guilt and damage repair

Guilt is a response to in-group responsibility for wrongdoing,

particularly in cases of a violation of social standards People who

experience guilt want to undo their actions, apologize, and be

for-given (seeParkinson et al., 2005) In the context of environmental

issues,Ferguson and Branscombe (2010)showed that guilt about

the in-group’s role in climate change facilitated mitigating

behav-iour Thus, in line with these authors, we expected that people

would feel more guilt when their group is framed as responsible for

climate change (Wohl, Branscombe, & Klar, 2006for a review on

guilt and responsibility) This guilt should be strongly linked to the

goal of repairing the environmental damage As shown in previous

work, group-based guilt is an emotional response to the in-group’s

wrongful behaviour, focussing more on one’s own misdeed than on

others’ suffering (for a review, seeIyer & Leach, 2008) As such, guilt

calls for repairing the damage done by one’s wrongdoing, instead of

eliciting pro-social reactions in general (Iyer, Schmader, & Lickel,

2007) Repairing the damage done seems to most directly provide

redemption from the unpleasant feeling of guilt Thus, guilt should

not mediate the links between responsibility and punishment of environmental sinners or in-group favouring environmental pro-tection Guilt about in-group environmental damage should be narrowly focused on repairing this damage (Iyer & Leach, 2008;

Leach et al., 2002)

2.2 Anger and in-group punishment Typically, anger is directed at an agent appraised as responsible for wrongdoing Hence, if the responsibility for the damage is ascribed to the in-group itself, anger will be in-group-directed (Iyer et al., 2007;

Leach, Iyer, & Pedersen, 2006) In this way, in-group-focused anger is similar to guilt However, anger is a state of agitation and thus has high

“action potential,” whereas guilt is a state of dejection and thus has low action potential (Leach et al., 2006) As a result, in-group-focused anger and guilt are tied to different behavioural intentions Anger at the in-group results in confrontation of the in-group; actions are directed at the punishment of those who are responsible for the damage (Harth, Hornsey, & Barlow, 2011; for a discussion, seeThomas

et al., 2009) This is consistent with the more general finding that group-based anger is linked to the impulse to move against the target

of anger (e.g.,Gordijn, Yzerbyt, Wigboldus, & Dumont, 2006;Kessler & Mummendey, 2001;Mackie & Smith, 2002) Along these lines, we expected that in-group responsibility for environmental damage will elicit anger at the in-group as well as guilt However, in contrast to guilt, anger directed at the in-group should predict the motivation to punish those in-group members most responsible for environmental damage Thus, anger should not predict intentions to repair envi-ronmental damage or in-group favouring envienvi-ronmental protection 2.3 Pride and in-group favouritism

Pride is a positive, in-group-focused emotion that arises from appraised responsibility for a legitimate achievement (Tracy & Robins, 2007) Group-based pride can be based in viewing the in-group as moral (e.g.,Leach, Ellemers, & Barreto, 2007), as having

a legitimate advantage over out-groups (e.g., Harth, Kessler, & Leach, 2008) or as succeeding in a competition (seeLeach et al.,

2002) Thus, in-group responsibility for environmental damage should lead to less pride, but greater guilt and anger However, in-group responsibility for environmental protection should lead to greater pride and lesser guilt and anger Pride in environmental achievement, such as through developing new technologies that benefit the environment, has rarely been studied Nevertheless, pride may have important implications for intentions regarding environmental behaviour

Consistent with the notion of pride as a rank-related emotion (Oveis, Horberg, & Keltner, 2010), recent work has found that individuals who are proud of their in-group’s achievements are not willing to share resources with dissimilar others (Harth et al., 2008;

Leach et al., 2007); on the contrary, they tend to favour their in-group over out-groups (Harth et al., 2008) For instance,Harth

et al (2008, Study 3) led university students to believe that they enjoyed a legitimate advantage in athletic facilities over immi-grants of the same age Pride in this advantage led students to be less willing to share their facilities with the relatively dis-advantaged immigrant out-group Extrapolating to the context of climate change, we expected that pride about the in-group’s environmental protection behaviour would motivate intentions for further protection of the in-group exclusively More specifically, we expected pride in the in-group’s achievement of environmental protection to predict in-group favouring intentions for further environmental protection of the in-group, such as investing in environmental technologies for the in-group exclusively or want-ing financial reward to the in-group Pride should not predict dowant-ing

N.S Harth et al / Journal of Environmental Psychology 34 (2013) 18e26

more for the environment if this behaviour benefits an out-group.

Thus, we predict that the positive emotion of environmental

pride will have the effect of motivating what may be seen as

self-serving effort to protect the in-group from the damage of climate

change As such, we do not expect pride to predict intentions to

repair environmental damage or punish environmental sinners

3 The present research

The main purpose of these studies was a systematic

inves-tigation of the specific effects of group-based guilt, anger, and pride

about the in-group’s environmental behaviour on three different

types of environmental behavioural intentions Based on the

the-orizing above, we hypothesized that the group-based appraisal of

perceived responsibility for environmental damage would trigger

group-based guilt and anger, whereas perceived responsibility for

environmental protection would trigger group-based pride Most

importantly, we expected specific effects of the three types of

emotion on three types of environmental behavioural intentions

Group-based guilt was expected to predict intentions to repair the

environmental damage, but not the punishment of environmental

sinners or in-group favouring environmental protection By

con-trast, anger at the in-group should predict the intention to punish

environmental sinners, but not other intentions Moreover, we

expected that pride in the in-group’s environmental

accomplish-ments would only predict the intention of in-group favouring

environmental protection

We conducted two scenario studies in order to test these

hy-potheses However, we first conducted a pre-test to clarify whether

scenarios were appropriate to manipulate responsibility for

envi-ronmental damage versus protection

4 Pre-test

A pre-test with a student sample from a German University

(N ¼ 28) was conducted to clarify whether the newspaper articles

that we fabricated were an appropriate manipulation of

re-sponsibility, whether participants consider the article trustworthy,

and if students view pro-environmental behaviour as normative for

their group Participants were randomly assigned to a responsibility

for environmental damage versus responsibility for environmental

protection conditions Participants were told that they were taking

part in an opinion poll on ecological issues They were asked to read

an ostensible newspaper article about climate change In both

con-ditions, the article described the global environmental situation with

the same text The first passage discussed climate change In the next

passage, responsibility for environmental outcomes was

manipu-lated In one condition we portrayed the in-group as responsible for

environmental damage, whereas in the other condition the in-group

was portrayed as responsible for environmental protection More

precisely, in the responsibility for damage condition it was stated that

“Germany is one of the main polluters” Examples were given that

highlighted the fact that Germans are among the main users of water

and energy In the responsibility for protection condition it was said

that “Germany provides a great contribution to environmental

pro-tection” Examples were given, like the amount of households

changing to alternative energy systems with financial support from

the German government

Two items assessed participants’ appraisal that Germans, as

a group, are responsible for climate change (“We Germans are

responsible for climate change”, “We Germans are responsible for

the fact that people have to suffer from climate change”, r ¼ 47,

p ¼ 01) Participants indicated their agreement with these

state-ments on 7-point scales (1 ¼ disagree, 7 ¼ agree) Participants in the

responsibility for environmental damage condition appraised

Germans’ responsibility for damage as higher (M ¼ 4.64, SD ¼ 1.40) than those in the responsibility for protection (M ¼ 3.29, SD ¼ 1.10), F(1,26) ¼ 8.06, p ¼ 009,h2¼.24

In addition, participants answered one item that stated “I trust the information in the article” (1 ¼ disagree, 7 ¼ fully agree) Ratings

of participants in the responsibility for damage condition (M ¼ 4.70,

SD ¼ 1.30) did not differ from those in the responsibility for pro-tection condition (M ¼ 5.00, SD ¼ 1.33), F(1, 26) < 1, p ¼ 39 Generally, participants trusted the information provided by the article, as mean trust was significantly above the scale midpoint (M ¼ 4.86, SD ¼ 1.30), t (27) ¼ 3.57, p ¼ 002 In addition, one item asked if participants attach importance to pro-environmental behaviour (1 ¼ not at all, 7 ¼ very much) The ratings did not dif-fer between the responsibility for damage (M ¼ 5.64, SD ¼ 1.64) and the responsibility for protection condition (M ¼ 5.50, SD ¼ 1.55), F(1, 26) < 1, p ¼ 82 Besides, the mean was significantly greater than the midpoint of the scale, t (27) ¼ 5.28, p < 001 That is, participants view pro-environmental behaviour as very important Given these results, the articles appeared to be appropriate ma-nipulations of in-group responsibility for environmental outcomes

5 Study 1 5.1 Method 5.1.1 Participants and procedure Seventy students in a German university volunteered to partic-ipate in the study Given that the in-group in the study is Germany, we only considered data from participants with German citizenship, resulting in a final sample of 67 participants (45% female, Mage

-¼21 yrs, range: 18e29 yrs) The students were recruited on campus and randomly assigned to one of two conditions of responsibility: environmental damage versus environmental protection

First, participants were asked to read the fake newspaper article

In order to increase the salience of the social category, we next focused participants’ attention on the role of their in-group by using a sentence completion task (Neumann, 2000) Participants were instructed to think about climate change as described in the article, especially about Germany’s contribution They were asked

to briefly summarize the content of the newspaper article by completing a sentence starting with “We Germans.” Next, par-ticipants completed the measures as detailed below Then, they were thanked, given a candy bar for compensation and debriefed 5.1.2 Measures

5.1.2.1 Emotions Participants were asked to indicate their momen-tary emotional state on a scale from 1 (not at all) to 9 (very intense) The instruction read: “After reading the newspaper article, how do you feel right now?” Based on previous research on group-based emotion (Ferguson & Branscombe, 2010;Harth et al., 2008,2011), two items measured guilt (I feel guilty, I am regretful about Germans’ environ-mental behaviour, r ¼ 61 p < 001), two items measured anger (I am angry at Germans, I resent Germans’ environmental behaviour,

r ¼ 28, p ¼ 03), and two items measured pride (I am proud of Ger-mans’ environmental behaviour, I feel good about GerGer-mans’ envi-ronmental behaviour, r ¼ 62, p < 001) As expected, guilt and anger were positively correlated (r ¼ 53, p < 001), guilt and pride were negatively correlated (r ¼ 25, p ¼ 04), and pride and anger were negatively correlated (r ¼ 22, p ¼ 08).Table 1shows the means, standard deviations, and bivariate correlations of all measured variables

5.1.2.2 Behavioural intentions Participants were presented with three different types of environmental behavioural intentions The item that measured peoples’ general goal to repair the damage

N.S Harth et al / Journal of Environmental Psychology 34 (2013) 18e26

stated “I would like to contribute to repairing the damage that we

Germans have caused” The item that captured in-group

punish-ment actions said “I think that within Germany, environpunish-mental

sinners should be punished more harshly; companies as well as

private persons”, and the item that measured support for in-group

favouring environmental protection stated “I would like to donate

money only to environmental organizations that focus on

envi-ronmental protection within Germany” (emphasis added)

Partici-pants indicated how much they agreed with each item on 7-point

scale (1 ¼ disagree, 7 ¼ fully agree) The three behavioural intention

items had small inter-correlations: Repair and punishment, r ¼ 28,

p ¼ 02; repair and in-group favouring environmental protection,

r ¼ 29, p ¼ 02; punishment and in-group favouring environmental

protection, r ¼ 15, p ¼ 23

5.2 Results

5.2.1 In-group-focused emotions

To examine the impact of the responsibility manipulation on the

emotions, we conducted a Multivariate Analysis of Variance

(MANOVA) with responsibility as a between-subject factor and the

three emotions as dependent measures SeeTable 1for the means

and standard deviations

As expected, a significant multivariate effect of the experimentally

manipulated in-group responsibility on participants’ emotions was

obtained, F(3,62) ¼ 4.95, p ¼ 004,h2¼.19 The between-subjects

analysis revealed that as intended participants assigned to the

re-sponsibility for environmental damage condition reported

sig-nificantly greater guilt (M ¼ 5.63) compared to those in the

responsibility for environmental protection condition (M ¼ 4.75),

F(1,64) ¼ 4.58, p ¼ 036,h2¼.07 Likewise, those in the responsibility

for environmental damage condition reported significantly greater

in-group directed anger (M ¼ 5.91) compared to those in the

re-sponsibility for environmental protection condition (M ¼ 4.98),

F(1,64) ¼ 6.23, p ¼ 015,h2¼.09 By contrast, participants who read

about their group’s responsibility for environmental protection

reported greater pride (M ¼ 5.30) than those in the responsibility for

damage condition (M ¼ 3.98), F(1,64) ¼ 10.36, p ¼ 002,h2¼.14

5.2.2 Behavioural intentions

As for the emotions, we examined the impact of the responsibility

for environmental damage versus environmental protection on the

three types of environmental behaviour using MANOVA As expected,

the analysis showed a significant multivariate effect of the

manipu-lation on the three types of behavioural intentions, F(3,62) ¼ 5.18,

p < 001, h2 ¼ 20 Between conditions, participants in the

re-sponsibility for protection condition were not more likely to repair

the damage (M ¼ 4.96) than those in the responsibility for protection

condition (M ¼ 4.60) F(1,64) ¼ 1.60, p ¼ 21,h2¼.03 However,

par-ticipants in the responsibility for damage condition were significantly

more willing to punish environmental sinners within their group

(M ¼ 6.38) than those in the responsibility for protection condition

(M ¼ 5.34), F(1,64) ¼ 13.04, p ¼ 001,h2¼.17 Participants in the re-sponsibility for protection condition did not report significantly more in-group favouring environmental protection (M ¼ 3.63) than those

in the responsibility for damage condition (M ¼ 3.21), F < 1 5.2.3 Analysis of indirect effects

In line with our prediction, in-group responsibility for environ-mental damage led to greater group-based guilt and anger (at the in-group), whereas responsibility for environmental protection led

to group-based pride Next, we usedPreacher and Hayes (2008)

multiple mediator macro (5000 bootstrap resamples) to analyse whether the responsibility manipulations had indirect effects on the environmental behavioural intentions through the emotions Specifically, we predicted that for each dependent variable there would be one main emotion predictor: when analysing the effects

of the emotions simultaneously, guilt should mediate the effect on repair, anger the effect on punishment, and pride the effect

on in-group favouring environmental protection According to

Preacher and Hayes (2008), indirect effects do not require direct effects between predictor and dependent variable Consistent with the results from the ANOVA above, the experimental condition had significant effects on guilt (b ¼ 26, p ¼ 04), anger (b ¼ 35,

p ¼ 004), and pride (b¼ 37, p ¼ 002) within the three mediator models The standardized regression coefficients, p-values, and confidence intervals for the multiple mediator analysis are pre-sented inTable 2

Repair of damage As expected, guilt had a significant effect on intentions to repair environmental damage, whereas anger and pride had no effect on repair The 95% bias corrected bootstrap in-terval indicated that the indirect effect of guilt on repair was sig-nificant, since the confidence interval does not contain cero Anger and pride had no indirect effect on the intention to repair the damage In addition, the direct effect of the responsibility manipu-lation on repair decreased when controlling for the three emotions Punishment tendencies When analysing all three emotions simultaneously, anger had the expected effect on punishment, whereas guilt and pride had no effect The 95% bias corrected bootstrap interval indicated that the indirect effect of anger on punishment was significant, whereas guilt and pride had no sig-nificant indirect effects on punishment tendencies In addition, the direct effect of the manipulation on punishment decreased In-group favouring protection As expected, pride significantly predicted intentions for in-group favouring environmental pro-tection, whereas guilt and anger did not The 95% bias corrected bootstrap interval indicated that the indirect effect of pride on in-group favouring tendencies was significant In addition, the direct effect of the manipulation on punishment decreased

5.3 Discussion The present study showed that the in-group-focused emotions

of guilt, anger, and pride were affected by a manipulation of the

Table 1

Overall means, standard deviations, and bivariate correlations of group-based emotions and environmental behavioural intentions in Study 1.

Means (SD) for the experimental conditions: 1 2 3 4 5 Responsibility for damage Responsibility for protection

1 Group-based guilt 5.63 (1.59) 4.75 (1.75) e

2 Group-based anger 5.91 (1.46) 4.98 (1.45) 53* e

3 Group-based pride 3.98 (1.78) 5.30 (1.48) 25* 22* e

4 Repair tendencies 4.96 (.91) 4.60 (1.30) 37* 19 04 e

5 Punishment tendencies 6.38 (.85) 5.34 (1.22) 36* 42* 23* 28* e

6 In-group favouring tendencies 3.21 (1.56) 3.63 (1.40) 17 049 35* 29* 15 Note: *indicates <.05.

N.S Harth et al / Journal of Environmental Psychology 34 (2013) 18e26

in-group’s responsibility for environmental damage versus

environ-mental protection More importantly, each emotion predicted a

dif-ferent type of environmental behavioural intention In line with prior

research (Leach et al., 2006), guilt and in-group-directed anger were

both affected by in-group responsibility for moral wrongdoing

However, it is important to note that these two negative emotions

predicted distinct behavioural intentions We found that guilt about

the in-group’s responsibility for environmental damage was uniquely

linked to the goal to repair the damage This confirms the view that

guilt is narrowly focused on intentions to repair (Iyer & Leach, 2008;

Leach et al., 2002) However, anger directed at the in-group predicted

wanting to punish environmental sinners Although other-focused

anger has been shown to motivate confrontation of others, this is

the first study of which we are aware that shows that anger at an

in-group motivates intentions to confront the offenders in the in-group

Thus, this study provides further evidence for the idea that anger at an

in-group is distinct from guilt mainly because it motivates more active

and direct confrontation and punishment of the in-group’s

wrong-doing (see alsoLeach et al., 2006)

As expected, pride was higher when the in-group was made

responsible for environmental protection rather than damage In fact,

pride about environmental damage was the lowest level of emotion

reported in the study More importantly, we showed that pride in the

in-group’s past environmental achievement promoted support for

future environmental achievement for the in-group exclusively Thus,

environmental pride appeared to be like pride in general: as an

approach-oriented emotion that motivated achievement-oriented

action (Tracy & Robins, 2007) This suggests that positive emotions

like pride may be especially useful in motivating positive

environ-mental behaviour (seeFerguson & Branscombe, 2010) However, the

apparent benefit of pride did come with a cost Individuals’ pride in

their in-group’s environmental achievement motivated intentions for

further effort designed to benefit the in-group exclusively Thus, Study

1 highlights that what is good for some, may not be good for others

Therefore, also in the case of positive emotions it seems important to

consider what is the source and who is the target of the emotion

Despite the general support for our theorizing, we acknowledge

three major limitations of this study First, the three behavioural

intention measures consisted of single items Thus, in order to

increase confidence in the results, more reliable measures are

needed Second, our manipulation had a weak effect on

partici-pants’ behavioural intentions Despite the fact thatPreacher and

Hayes (2008) show that a direct effect between predictor and

dependent variable is not required for mediation, observing a direct effect to be mediated is believed to be important Third, this study did not include a control condition where in-group environmental behaviour was not framed as damage or protection Thus, the rel-ative differences between conditions that we observed cannot be said to increase or decrease compared to a neutral baseline In other words, it is unclear if guilt and anger went up (and pride went down) when participants were confronted with the idea that their in-group caused serious environmental damage To address these three limitations of Study 1, we conducted a second experiment

6 Study 2 Study 2 was designed to replicate Study 1 and to improve upon

it in three main ways First, we created more reliable measures of the three environmental behaviours by adding more items to each scale With these measures, we should be able to better show the effect of our manipulation of in-group environmental damage versus protection on intentions of in-group favouring environ-mental behaviour Second, we also created more reliable measure

of the three group-based emotions by adding more items to each scale Third, we compared the effects of the two responsibility conditions to a control condition, in which climate change was salient, but nothing was said about the in-group’s responsibility for climate change By including a control condition, Study 2 could examine the direction of the relative effects observed in Study 1 That is, we could better assess whether emotions and intentions increased or decreased in response to information about in-group responsibility for environmental damage or protection

6.1 Method 6.1.1 Participants and procedure Eighty-eight students of a German university were recruited on campus and randomly assigned to one of three experimental con-ditions (environmental damage vs environmental protection vs control) The fake newspaper articles in the environmental damage and protection conditions were nearly identical to the ones used in Study 1 The layout of the control text looked the same, but con-tained relatively neutral information about climate change (partly taken fromWikipedia, 2012), without any reference to the group of Germans After three participants were excluded from the sample because they were not German citizens, the final sample included

57 women and 24 men, 3 participants did not indicate their gender (Mage¼24 yrs, range: 19e70 yrs)

The procedure was almost identical to that of Study 1 First, participants were asked to read one of the three fake newspaper articles and then to work on the sentence completion task and the subsequent items At the end, they were thanked, given a candy bar for compensation and debriefed

6.1.2 Measures 6.1.2.1 Manipulation check Two items measured perceived in-group responsibility for environmental damage (“We Germans are respon-sible for climate change”; r ¼ 69, p < 001), and another two items measured perceived in-group responsibility for environmental pro-tection (“We Germans are responsible for environmental propro-tection”;

r ¼ 36, p ¼ 002) on 7-point scales (1 ¼ disagree, 7 ¼ agree) 6.1.2.2 Emotions Participants indicate their emotional state on

a scale from 0 (not at all) to 6 (very intense) The instruction read:

“After reading the newspaper article, how do you feel right now when thinking about the role Germans play in climate change?” Based on previous research (e.g.,Ferguson & Branscombe, 2010;Harth et al.,

2008,2011;Leach et al., 2006) we put together the following scales:

Table 2

Standardized regression coefficients and bias corrected bootstrap intervals for the

multiple mediator analysis of Study 1.

Mediator on

DV (b path)

Direct effect (c and c 0 paths)

Bias corrected bootstrap interval 95%

DV: Repair of damage

Responsibility e b¼ 14, p ¼ 20/

b0

¼ 06, p ¼ 54

.10 to 34 Guilt b¼ 27, p ¼ 04 e 01e.37

Anger b¼ 04, p ¼ 68 e 19 to 15

Pride b¼ 03, p ¼ 74 e 12 to 17

DV: Punishment tendencies

Responsibility e b¼ 41, p < 01/

b0

¼ 25, p ¼ 04

.02e.51 Guilt b¼ 12, p ¼ 24 e 02 to 21

Anger b¼ 33, p ¼ 01 e 02e.38

Pride b¼ 04, p ¼ 77 e 09 to 18

DV: In-group favouring tendencies

Responsibility b¼ 12, p ¼ 33/

b0 ¼ 09, p ¼ 52

.40 to 19 Guilt b¼ 13, p ¼ 36 e 02 to 23

Anger b¼ 18, p ¼ 21 e 03 to 33

Pride b¼ 35, p < 01 e 48 to 03

N.S Harth et al / Journal of Environmental Psychology 34 (2013) 18e26

six items measured group-based guilt (I, as a German, feel guilty,

regretful, remorseful, sorry, complicity, ashamed regarding our

behaviour;a¼.90), four items measured anger (I, as a German, feel

angry, annoyed, irritated, enraged regarding our behaviour;

a¼.88), and six items measured pride (I, as a German, feel proud,

successful, superior, happy, satisfied, confident regarding our

behaviour;a¼.90) As in Study 1, guilt and anger were positively

correlated (r ¼ 60, p < 001), guilt and pride were negatively

cor-related (r ¼ 55, p < 001), and pride and anger were negatively

correlated (r ¼ 46, p < 001).Table 3shows the means, standard

deviations, and bivariate correlations of all measured variables

6.1.2.3 Behavioural intentions Three types of environmental

behavioural intentions were measured: repair of environmental

damage, punishment of environmental sinners, and in-group

favouring environmental protection We adapted items from

studies of other group-based intentions to the environmental

context Specifically, four items measured the intention to repair

the damage (based onDoosje, Branscombe, Spears, & Manstead,

1998;Harth et al., 2008): “I would like to contribute to repairing

the damage that we Germans have caused”, “We should make our

environmental technologies easily available for countries who need

it”, “It is our duty to take care of the environmental problems that

we caused”, “We should compensate those who have to suffer from

our environmental damage” (emphasis added,a¼.74) It may be

important to note that this intention to repair the in-group’s

environmental damage is broad, and not focused solely on

repair-ing the damage to the German in-group

The five items that measured in-group punishment intentions

(based onStellmacher & Petzel, 2005) read: “I think that within

Germany, environmental sinners should be punished more

severely; companies as well as private persons”, “We need more

severe legislation for those within our country who violate

envi-ronmental norms”, “Germany should pay extra costs for emissions

that go beyond what is allowed”, “Those who do not act according

to environmental norms should receive penalties”, and “Germany

must not benefit from selling its environmental technologies to

other countries” (emphasis added,a¼.77)

Five items measured in-group favouring environmental protection

(based onHarth et al., 2008), which is conceptualized as peoples’

willingness to do something for the environment, if this behaviour

benefits the in-group exclusively: “We should only invest in

com-panies that promote environmental technological progress within

Germany”, “We have already done enough for environmental

pro-tection The ball is in other countries’ court”, “We should not invest

more resources to help other countries with our technologies”,

“Ger-many should receive a financial reward for its environmental

behaviour”, “Germany alone cannot save the climate of the world;

therefore we should not take more costs” (emphasis added,a¼.63)

The three behavioural intention items were correlated: Repair

and punishment, r ¼ 51, p ¼ 001; repair and in-group favouring

environmental protection, r ¼ 27, p ¼ 04; punishment and

in-group favouring environmental protection, r ¼ 26, p ¼ 02

6.2 Results 6.2.1 Manipulation check

A Multivariate Analysis of Variance (MANOVA) with the re-sponsibility for damage and the rere-sponsibility for protection scales

as dependent variables revealed a multivariate effect on both measures, F(4,164) ¼ 6.66, p < 001,h2¼.14 There was a main effect

on participants’ evaluation of responsibility for environmental damage, F(2,82) ¼ 10.96, p < 001,h2¼.21 Pair-wise comparisons (LSD) revealed that compared to the control condition (M ¼ 4.40), participants in the responsibility for protection condition reported significantly lower levels of responsibility for damage (M ¼ 3.61,

p ¼ 01) Likewise, these participants also reported significantly less responsibility for damage than participants in the damage condi-tion (M ¼ 4.96, p < 001) The control and damage condicondi-tion did not significantly differ from each other, p ¼ 06

Participants’ evaluation of their in-group’s responsibility for protection also differed between conditions, F(2,82) ¼ 9.14, p < 001,

h2¼.18 Pair-wise comparisons (LSD) showed that compared to the control condition (M ¼ 4.82), participants in the responsibility for damage condition reported lower perceived in-group responsibility for protection (M ¼ 4.05, p ¼ 02) Again, these participants differed significantly from those in the responsibility for protection condition (M ¼ 5.40, p < 001) Regarding protection, the control and protec-tion condiprotec-tion did not significantly differ from each other, p ¼ 08 6.2.2 Emotions

To examine the impact of the responsibility manipulation on guilt, anger, and pride, we conducted a MANOVA with responsibility

as a between-subject factor and the three emotions as dependent measures The analysis showed a significant multivariate effect of the experimental condition on the emotions, F(6,162) ¼ 4.37,

p < 001,h2¼.14 SeeTable 3for means and standard deviations Guilt Participants differed between conditions in their reported guilt, F(2,82) ¼ 5.07, p ¼ 008, h2 ¼.11 As predicted, pair-wise comparisons (LSD) revealed that compared to the control condi-tion (M ¼ 2.24), guilt was significantly greater in the responsibility for environmental damage condition (M ¼ 3.05), p ¼ 04 Impor-tantly, guilt was significantly greater in the responsibility for environmental damage condition than in the responsibility for protection condition (M ¼ 1.86), p ¼ 002 The control and protec-tion condiprotec-tions did not differ, p ¼ 32

Anger Participants differed between conditions in their reported anger at the in-group, F(2,82) ¼ 10.84, p < 001, h2 ¼ 21 As expected, pair-wise comparisons (LSD) revealed that in-group directed anger was significantly greater in the environmental damage (M ¼ 3.36) than the environmental protection condition (M ¼ 1.82), p < 001 In addition, anger was significantly greater in the environmental damage than the control condition (M ¼ 2.20),

p ¼ 002 Anger in the environmental protection condition did not differ from anger in the control condition, p ¼ 27

Pride Participants differed between conditions in their reported pride, F(2,82) ¼ 8.22, p ¼ 001,h2 ¼.17 As predicted, pair-wise

Table 3

Means, standard deviations, and bivariate correlations of group-based emotions and environmental behavioural intentions in Study 2.

Means (SD) for the experimental conditions: 1 2 3 4 5 Responsibility for damage Responsibility for protection Control condition

1 Group-based guilt 3.05 a (1.53) 1.86 bc (1.51) 2.24 c (1.25) e

2 Group-based anger 3.36 a (1.36) 1.82 bc (1.21) 2.20 c (1.34) 60* e

3 Group-based pride 2.24 ac (1.41) 3.41 b (.99) 2.67 c (.98) 55* 46* e

4 Repair of damage 5.40 a (.96) 4.77 bc (1.07) 4.82 c (.95) 56* 24* 17 e

5 Punishment of wrongdoers 5.23 ac (1.10) 4.20 bc (1.70) 4.60 c (1.03) 40* 47* 23 51* e

6 In-group favouring protection 2.89 a (1.21) 4.07 bc (1.11) 3.87 c (.99) 21 10 34* 27* 26* Note: Means that do not share a subscript a reliably different (p < 05) and * indicates that the correlation coefficients are significant at p < 05.

N.S Harth et al / Journal of Environmental Psychology 34 (2013) 18e26

comparisons (LSD) revealed that pride was significantly greater in

the responsibility for environmental protection (M ¼ 3.41) than

damage (M ¼ 2.24), p < 001 condition In addition, pride in the

environmental protection condition was significantly greater than

in the control condition (M ¼ 2.67), p ¼ 02 Control and damage did

not significantly differ, p ¼ 16

In sum, participants seem to hold relatively positive in-group

attitudes (more pride and less guilt and anger) in the control

con-dition However, when the in-group is framed as responsible for

environmental damage, guilt and anger increase When the

in-group is framed as responsible for environmental protection, this

enhances the pride

6.2.3 Behavioural intentions

Another MANOVA with responsibility as a between-subject

factor and the three types of environmental behaviour intentions

as dependent measures revealed a significant multivariate effect

F(6,162) ¼ 4.12, p ¼ 001,h2¼.13

Repair of damage Between conditions, participants differed

significantly regarding their intention to repair the in-group’s

environmental damage, F(2,82) ¼ 3.70, p ¼ 03,h2¼.08 As

pre-dicted, pair-wise comparisons (LSD) showed that participants in

the environmental damage condition were more willing to repair

the damage (M ¼ 5.40) than those in the environmental protection

condition (M ¼ 4.77), p ¼ 02 In addition, the intention to repair the

damage was significantly greater in the damage condition than the

control (M ¼ 4.82), p ¼ 03 The protection and control conditions

did not differ significantly, p ¼ 85

Punishment tendencies Participants in the three conditions

dif-fered significantly in their intention to punish environmental

sin-ners in the in-group, F(2,82) ¼ 4.34, p ¼ 02,h2¼.10 As predicted,

pair-wise comparisons (LSD) revealed that those in the

environ-mental damage condition were significantly more likely to punish

(M ¼ 5.23) than those in the environmental protection condition

(M ¼ 4.20), p ¼ 004 Those in the environmental protection

con-dition also wanted to punish marginally more than those in the

control condition (M ¼ 4.60), p ¼ 08 The control and protection

conditions did not differ significantly, p ¼ 20

In-group favouring protection Participants’ in-group favouring

intentions of environmental protection differed significantly across

conditions, F(2,82) ¼ 9.14, p < 001,h2¼.19 As predicted, pair-wise

comparisons (LSD) revealed that those in the environmental

pro-tection condition favoured the in-group more (M ¼ 4.07) than those

in the damage condition (M ¼ 2.89), p < 001 In addition, compared

to the control condition (M ¼ 3.87) participants in the damage

condition showed less in-group favouring intentions of

environ-mental protection, p ¼ 001 However, the environenviron-mental

protec-tion condiprotec-tion did not differ from control, p ¼ 52

6.2.4 Analysis of indirect effects

In line with our prediction, the ANOVAs reported above showed

that in-group responsibility for environmental damage led to

group-based guilt and anger directed at the in-group as well as the intention

to punish in-group sinners and to repair the damage In contrast,

responsibility for environmental protection led to feelings of pride

and more in-group favouring intentions to protect the in-group

exclusively than responsibility for damage Thus, as in Study 1, we

used multiple mediator models (Preacher & Hayes, 2008) to test our

hypothesis that each emotion would uniquely predict a specific

behavioural intention In particular, guilt should mediate the effect on

repair of damage, anger should mediate the effect on punishment

tendencies, and pride should mediate the effect on in-group

favour-ing protection We used the contrast coded experimental condition

(1 ¼ protection, 1 ¼ damage) without the control condition as

predictor for the three separate mediation models In this way, we are

able to compare the two key conditions, which is more precise than

an omnibus test of all three conditions Consistent with the results for the full design, the contrast between the environmental damage and protection conditions had significant effects on guilt (b ¼ 38,

p ¼ 004), anger (b¼ 52, p < 001), and pride (b¼.44, p < 001) within the three models SeeTable 4for the standardized coefficient, p-values and bootstrap intervals of each multiple mediator model Repair of damage As predicted, guilt had a significant effect on repair of environmental damage, whereas pride and anger had no effect The bias corrected 95% confidence interval revealed the in-direct effect of guilt as significant In addition, the effect of the experimental manipulation on repair decreased when accounting for the emotions

Punishment tendencies As predicted, only anger at the in-group had a significant effect on punishment of environmental sinners Neither guilt nor pride had significant effects The bias corrected confidence interval revealed that the indirect effect of anger was significant at a 95% confidence level Consistent with full mediation, the effect of the experimental manipulation on punishment became non-significant, when controlling for the emotions In-group favouring protection As predicted, only pride predicted in-group favouring intentions of environmental protection Guilt and anger had no effect Moreover, the 95% bias corrected confident interval showed that the indirect effect of pride on in-group favouritism was significant The effect of the experimental manip-ulation on in-group favouritism decreased slightly when control-ling for the emotions

6.3 Discussion Replicating the results of Study 1, Study 2 showed that in-group responsibility for environmental damage elicited group-based guilt and anger, whereas responsibility for environmental protection triggered pride The inclusion of a control condition in Study 2 allowed us to infer that responsibility for environmental damage actually increased guilt and anger whereas responsibility for pro-tection increased pride This is an important extension of Study 1

In line with the mediation models of Study 1, in Study 2 guilt, anger at the in-group, and pride had specific effects on environ-mental behavioural intentions Although both guilt and anger increased in response to in-group responsibility for environmental damage, only guilt predicted intentions to repair this damage In

Table 4 Standardized regression coefficients, p-values and bias corrected bootstrap intervals for the multiple mediator analysis of Study 2.

Mediator on

DV (b path)

Direct effect (c and c 0

paths)

Bias corrected bootstrap interval 95% DV: Repair of damage

Responsibility e b¼ 31, p ¼ 02/

b0

¼ 28, p ¼ 03

.21 to 15 Guilt b¼ 68, p < 001 e 50 to 08 Anger b¼ 25, p ¼ 09 e 02 to 34 Pride b¼ 21, p ¼ 14 e 01 to 23 DV: Punishment tendencies

Responsibility e b¼ 34, p ¼ 008/

b0

¼ 14, p ¼ 33

.61 to 07 Guilt b¼ 28, p ¼ 07 e 47 to 04 Anger b¼ 36, p ¼ 02 e 61 to 05 Pride b¼ 19, p ¼ 23 e 06 to 40 DV: In-group favouring tendencies

Responsibility e b¼ 46, p < 001/

b0

¼ 42, p ¼ 003

.17 to 24 Guilt b¼ 07, p ¼ 64 e 10 to 24 Anger b¼ 26, p ¼ 09 e 40 to 02 Pride b¼ 32, p ¼ 04 e 03e.41 N.S Harth et al / Journal of Environmental Psychology 34 (2013) 18e26

addition, guilt was not predictive of the intention to punish

envi-ronmental sinners or to favour the in-group with exclusive efforts

at environmental protection of the in-group Anger, on the contrary,

uniquely predicted the intention to punish environmental sinners

within the group, but not the other two environmental

in-tentions Thus, once again, guilt and anger at the in-group had

dis-tinct associations with behavioural intentions despite their common

cause (i.e, responsibility for environmental damage) Guilt was

narrowly focused on repair of the damage caused whereas anger

was focused on the punishment of those responsible for the

envi-ronmental damage In contrast, the positively experienced emotion

of pride about the in-group’s responsibility for environmental

pro-tection triggered intentions to promote further environmental

protection through technological progress, but only insofar as it

would benefit the in-group Thus, the environmental success that

caused pride focused the emotion narrowly on furthering this

suc-cess in the seemingly self-serving way of keeping the means of

environmental protection for the in-group exclusively

7 General discussion

The present research consisted of two scenario studies that

examined the effects of guilt, anger at the in-group, and pride on three

types of environmental behaviour: repair of environmental damage,

punishment of environmental sinners, and in-group favouring

envi-ronmental protection Both studies showed that framing an in-group

as responsible for environmental damage increased guilt and anger,

whereas framing an in-group as responsible for environmental

pro-tection increased pride Taken together, our findings suggest that

these three emotions about the in-groups’ environmental behaviour

have very specific effects on environmental action intentions

Guilt motivated intentions to repair the damage, but not to punish

environmental sinners or to engage in environmental protection that

favours the in-group This confirms the view that guilt about in-group

wrongdoing motivates intentions narrowly focused on repair of the

damage done (e.g.,Leach et al., 2006) In the environmental context,

our results suggest that guilt about environmental damage does not

motivate general pro-environmental tendencies, but is closely linked

to environmental behaviour that aims at repairing environmental

damage (see alsoFerguson & Branscombe, 2010) Only a few previous

studies have examined the effects of anger at one’s in-group (see

Harth et al., 2011;Leach et al., 2006) Although guilt and anger at the

in-group both resulted from knowing that the in-group is responsible

for environmental damage, only anger at the group predicted

in-tentions to punish fellow in-group members for causing this damage

Thus, our results are consistent with other studies that suggest that

anger at the in-group is functional in that it motivates individuals to

bring about justice (e.g.,Harth et al., 2011;Leach et al., 2006) In the

present case, the justice sought was punitive in nature This is an

important behavioural intention that can be necessary in the

cor-rection of environmental damage However, the intention to punish

environmental sinners appears to have little to do with more positive

and progressive environmental efforts at environmental protection

As such, anger at the in-group seems unlikely to promote efforts at

environmental protection

Although previous work on basking in reflected glory interpreted

the “lavish displays” of in-group membership after a group success as

expressions of “gratitude and pride” in the group, the emotion of

pride was not assessed (Cialdini et al., 1976, p 374 on ‘basking in

reflected glory’) Thus, the present two studies provide further

sup-port for the notion that a group’s achievement can promote the

emotion of pride in its members (e.g.,Boezeman & Ellemers, 2008;

Harth et al., 2008; Leach et al., 2007) and that pride fosters the

commitment to this group (e.g.,Haslam, Powell, & Turner, 2000;

Smith & Tyler, 1997)

The present studies also go further in showing that such pride have the ironic effect of motivating environmental protection for the exclusive benefit of the in-group Thus, future work should be careful to distinguish the basis of group-based pride in examina-tions of its implicaexamina-tions for motivation and behaviour

More generally, the present studies add to a growing list of work showing that group-based emotion is important to environmental behaviour (e.g.,Böhm, 2003;Ferguson & Branscombe, 2010) We built on previous work by examining three different group-based emotions and their prediction of three different types of environ-mental behaviour Also these behaviours e repair, punishment, and in-group favouritism e have been examined in isolation, we are not aware of any study that has examined all three behaviours in the environmental context Because there are many strategies of dealing with climate change, it is important to understand how specific emotions motivate intentions for specific behaviours Those who wish to encourage punishment should rely on anger not guilt

or pride, whereas those who wish to encourage repair should relay

on anger, not guilt or pride

7.1 Limitations

We should acknowledge that the present studies were limited by

a singular focus on in-group responsibility Obviously, social and political issues like climate change are caused by many different factors and thus may be appraised in many different ways Accord-ing to appraisal theories of emotion, multiple appraisals contribute

to each emotional experience Although responsibility for positive versus negative deeds of the in-group is one of the more important appraisals (Weiner, 1995), it is only one Future work might examine multiple appraisal dimensions in a multi-factorial design A broader study design would also allow the examination of emotions such as fear, which should result from external responsibility for environ-mental damage or the appraisal that little can be done to address climate change The advantage of the present study’s examination of two negative emotions as well as a positive emotion can be built upon by examining a wider range of both positive and negative emotions Indeed, existing models of group-based emotion discuss many emotions that have yet to be examined in conjunction with the more frequently studied emotions of guilt and anger (seeIyer & Leach, 2008;Leach et al., 2002)

7.2 Conclusion

On a more general level we believe that these findings might be relevant in the context of the climate crisis So we return to the opening question of which of these emotions work best in terms of motivating environmental behaviour Our findings suggest that none of these emotions outperforms the other; rather, they tend to have different effects Hence, if one wishes to promote support for the repair of damage to the environment one should try to increase guilt by highlighting the in-group’s responsibility for the environ-mental damage On the other hand, if one wants to encourage in-dividuals to criticize and confront environmental sinners within the in-group, one should aim to increase anger about the in-group’s wrongdoing Pride offers a different route Highlighting the in-group’s environmentalism led to a pride that promoted support for further achievement in environmental protection Pride was the only one of the three emotions to predict this more positive, forward-looking, motivation But not without limitations Global enterprises, such as environmental protection, often lead to varia-tions in the contribuvaria-tions of the groups involved If some feel that they have achieved environmental success, in contrast to others, there is the risk that they focus on their own success and withdraw their more global efforts Although there is reason to worry that

N.S Harth et al / Journal of Environmental Psychology 34 (2013) 18e26

highlighting environmental progress may encourage people to

“rest on their laurels”, the active pleasure of pride may reinforce

effort in a way that negative emotions may not In the context of

a climate crisis that can appear daunting, perhaps pride in small

accomplishments is a much-needed spur to continue the

some-times difficult effort to improve environmental protection? This is

an important issue for future research on environmental efforts and

on other efforts in response to important social and political issues

affecting the globe

References

Ajzen, I (1991) The theory of planned behavior Organizational Behavior and Human

Decision Processes, 50,179e211, [Special issue: Theories of cognitive self-regulation].

Boezeman, E J., & Ellemers, N (2008) Pride and respect in volunteers’

organiza-tional commitment European Journal of Social Psychology, 38, 159e172.

Böhm, G (2003) Emotional reactions to environmental risks: Consequentialist

versus ethical evaluation Journal of Environmental Psychology, 23, 199e212,

[Special issue: Restorative environments].

Cialdini, R B., Borden, R J., Thorne, A., Walker, M R., Freeman, S., & Sloan, L R.

(1976) Basking in reflected glory: Three (football) field studies Journal of

Per-sonality and Social Psychology, 34, 366e375.

Doosje, B., Branscombe, N R., Spears, R., & Manstead, A S R (1998) Guilt by

as-sociation: When one’s group has a negative history Journal of Personality and

Social Psychology, 75, 872e886.

Ferguson, M A., & Branscombe, N R (2010) Collective guilt mediates the effect of

beliefs about climate change on willingness to engage in mitigation behavior.

Journal of Environmental Psychology, 30, 135e142.

Gordijn, E H., Yzerbyt, V., Wigboldus, D., & Dumont, M (2006) Emotional reactions

to harmful intergroup behavior European Journal of Social Psychology, 36, 15e30.

Harth, N S., Hornsey, M., & Barlow, F K (2011) Emotional responses to rejection of

gestures of intergroup reconciliation Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,

37, 815e829.

Harth, N S., Kessler, T., & Leach, C W (2008) Advantaged group’s emotional

re-actions to intergroup inequality: The dynamics of pride, guilt, and sympathy.

Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34, 115e129.

Haslam, S A., Powell, C., & Turner, J C (2000) Social identity, self-categorization,

and work motivation: Rethinking the contribution of the group to positive

and sustainable organisational outcomes Applied Psychology: An International

Review, 49, 319e339.

Iyer, A., & Leach, C W (2008) Emotion in inter-group relations European Review of

Social Psychology, 19, 86e124.

Iyer, A., Schmader, T., & Lickel, B (2007) Why individuals protest the perceived

transgressions of their country: The role of anger, shame, and guilt Personality

and Social Psychology Bulletin, 33, 572e587.

Kaiser, F G., Schultz, P W., Berenguer, J., Corral-Verdugo, V., & Tankha, G (2008).

Extending planned environmentalism: Anticipated guilt and embarrassment

across cultures European Psychologist, 13, 288e297.

Kaiser, F G., & Shimoda, T A (1999) Responsibility as a predictor of ecological behaviour Journal of Environmental Psychology, 19, 243e253.

Kessler, T., & Mummendey, A (2001) Is there any scapegoat around? Determinants

of intergroup conflict at different categorization levels Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 1090e1102.

Leach, C W., Ellemers, N., & Barreto, M (2007) Group virtue: The importance of morality (versus competence and sociability) in the positive evaluation of in-groups Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93, 234e249.

Leach, C W., Iyer, A., & Pedersen, A (2006) Anger and guilt about ingroup advantage explain the willingness for political action Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32, 1232e1245.

Leach, C W., Snider, N., & Iyer, A (2002) “Poisoning the consciences of the for-tunate”: The experience of relative advantage and support for social equality In

I Walker, & H J Smith (Eds.), Relative deprivation: Specification, development, & integration (pp 136e163) New York: Cambridge University.

Mackie, D M., & Smith, E R (Eds.), (2002) From prejudice to intergroup emotions: Differentiated reactions to social groups New York: Psychology Press Nerb, J., & Spada, H (2001) Evaluation of environmental problems: A coherence model of cognition and emotion Cognition and Emotion, 15, 521e551 Neumann, R (2000) The causal influences of attributions on emotions: A proce-dural priming approach Psychological Science, 11, 179e182.

Oveis, C., Horberg, E J., & Keltner, D (2010) Compassion, pride, and social intuitions

of self-other similarity Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 98, 618e630 Parkinson, B., Fischer, A H., & Manstead, A S R (2005) Emotion in social relations: Cultural, group, and interpersonal processes New York: Psychology Press Preacher, K J., & Hayes, A F (2008) Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models Behavior Research Methods, 40, 879e891.

Smith, H J., & Tyler, T R (1997) Choosing the right pond: The impact of group membership on self-esteem and group-oriented behavior Journal of Exper-imental Social Psychology, 33, 146e170.

Stellmacher, J., & Petzel, T (2005) Authoritarianism as a group phenomenon Po-litical Psychology, 26, 245e274, [Special issue: Authoritarianism].

Swim, J K., Stern, P C., Doherty, T J., Clayton, S., Joseph, P R., Weber, E U., et al (2009) Psychology’s contributions to understanding and addressing global climate change American Psychologist, 66, 241e250, [Special issue: Psychology and global climate change].

Thomas, E F., McGarty, G., & Mavor, K I (2009) Transforming “Apathy into movement”: The role of prosocial emotions in motivating action for social change Personality and Social Psychology Review, 13, 310e333.

Tracy, J L., & Robins, R W (2007) The psychological structure of pride: A tale of two facets Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92, 506e525.

Van Zomeren, M., Spears, R., & Leach, C W (2010) Experimental evidence for a dual pathway model analysis of coping with the climate crisis Journal of Environ-mental Psychology, 30, 339e346.

Weiner, B (1995) Judgments of responsibility: A foundation for a theory of social conduct New York, NY, US: Guilford Press.

Wikipedia (2012) Article retrieved in April 2012 from http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/

Wohl, M J A., Branscombe, N R., & Klar, Y (2006) Collective guilt: An emotional response to perceived ingroup misdeeds European Review of Social Psychology,

17, 1e37.

N.S Harth et al / Journal of Environmental Psychology 34 (2013) 18e26