428 Environmental Psychology
conservation (e.g., energy and water), littering, and recycling.
Environmental education, commitment, modeling, feedback,
rewards, and disincentives are on the whole effective only if
such behavior is reinforced and if opportunities are provided
that encourage environmentally friendly behavior.
Growing ecological concern in our societies is attributed to
a series of beliefs and attitudes favorable to the environment
originally conceptualized by Dunlap (1980) and Dunlap and
Van Liere (1984) as thenew environmental paradigmand
now superseded by the New Ecological Paradigm Scale (Dun-
lap, Van Liere, Mertig, & Jones, 2000). But it is clear from re-
search that proenvironmental attitudes do not necessarily lead
to proenvironmental behaviors. Environmental problems can
often be conceptualized ascommons dilemmaproblems (Van
Lange, Van Vugt, Meertens, & Ruiter, 1998; Vlek, Hendrickx,
& Steg, 1993). In psychology this is referred to as a social
dilemma. The defining characteristics of such dilemmas are
that (a) each participant receives more benefits and less costs
for a self-interest choice (e.g., going by car) than for a public
interest choice (e.g., cycling) and (b) all participants, as a
group, would benefit more if they all choose to act in the pub-
lic interest (e.g., cycling) than if they all choose to act in self-
interest (e.g., going by car; Gatersleben & Uzzell, in press).
The social dilemma paradigm can explain why many people
prefer to travel by car even though they are aware of the envi-
ronmental costs of car use and believe that more sustainable
transport options are necessary. It is in the self-interest of
every individual to use cars. Nevertheless, it is in the common
interest to use other modes of transport. However, single indi-
viduals do not cause the problems of car use; nor can they
solve them. They are typically collective problems. People
therefore feel neither personally responsible for the problems
nor in control of the solutions.
THEORETICAL PERSPECTIVES
ON KEY QUESTIONS IN
ENVIRONMENTAL PSYCHOLOGY
It was suggested at the beginning of this chapter that the
context—the environment—in which people act out their
lives is a critical factor in understanding human perceptions,
attitudes, and behavior. Psychologists have largely ignored
this context, assuming that most explanations for behavior
are largely person centered rather than person-in-environ-
ment centered. Because environmental psychologists are in a
position to understand person-in-environment questions, the
history of environmental psychology has been strongly
influenced by the need to answer questions posed by the
practical concerns of architects, planners, and other profes-
sions responsible for the planning, design, and management
of the environment (Uzzell, 2000a). These questions include
the following: How does the environment stimulate behavior,
and what happens with excessive stimulation? How does the
environment constrain and cause stress? How do we form
maps of the environment in our heads and use them to navi-
gate through the environment? What factors are important in
people’s evaluations of the built and natural environment,
and how satisfied are they with different environments and
environmental conditions? What is the influence of the envi-
ronment or behavior setting on people? What physical prop-
erties of the environment facilitate some behaviors and
discourage others? Do we have a sense of place? What effect
does this have on our identity? In this section we outline
some of the approaches that have been taken to answer these
questions.
Typically, within environmental psychology these ques-
tions have been addressed from one of three perspectives. The
first is a determinist and essentially behaviorist perspective
that argues that the environment has a direct impact on
people’s perceptions, attitudes, and behaviors. The second
approach has been referred to as interactionism: The environ-
ment has an impact on individuals and groups, who in turn
respond by having an impact on the environment. The third
perspective is transactional in that neither the person nor the
environment has priority and neither one be defined without
reference to the other. Bonnes and Secchiaroli (1995) sug-
gested that transactionalism has two primary features: the
continuous exchange and reciprocity between the individual
and the environment, and the primarily active and intentional
role of the individual to the environment.
It is impossible in a chapter of this length to discuss all the
theories that have driven environmental psychology research.
The varying scales at which environmental psychologists
work, as we have seen, assume different models of man, make
different assumptions about people-environment and envi-
ronment-behavior relations, require different methodologies,
and involve different interpretive frameworks. In this section
we discuss the three principal approaches that have been em-
ployed in environmental psychology to account for people’s
behavioral responses to their environmental settings.Determinist and Behaviorist ApproachesArousal theory, environmental load, and adaptation level
provide good illustrations of theories that are essentially
behaviorist in their assumptions and determinist in their
environment-behavior orientation.