MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2891712885 · doi:10.3390/su10093128

Stepping Outside the Self Promotes Pro-Environmental Behaviors

2018· article· en· W2891712885 on OpenAlexafffund
Chenxuan Hou, Emine Sarigöllü, Myung‐Soo Jo, Dapeng Liang

Bibliographic record

VenueSustainability · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicEnvironmental Education and Sustainability
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersChina Scholarship CouncilNational Natural Science Foundation of ChinaMcGill University
KeywordsPerspective (graphical)Perspective-takingPsychologySocial psychologyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Although different self-perspectives can prompt different mindsets, leading to different responses, little is known about how self-perspective impacts pro-environmental behaviors. This study explores the effect of self-perspective, i.e., either self-immersed or self-distanced perspective, on environmental attitudes and behavior. Based on an online survey of 409 respondents in the United States, we find that pro-environmental behaviors are perceived as more important and less costly from a self-distanced perspective, compared to a self-immersed one, which in turn facilitates more engagement in pro-environmental behaviors. Furthermore, a self-distanced perspective is more prevalent than a self-immersed perspective when individuals are less satisfied with and perceive less control over their pro-environmental behaviors. This study extends the self-perspective theory to research on pro-environmental behaviors, and offers useful implications for individuals to address conflicts between environmental and self-interested considerations, as well as for public policy makers and practitioners to promote more engagement in pro-environmental behaviors.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.006
GPT teacher head0.258
Teacher spread0.251 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSustainabilitySame topicEnvironmental Education and SustainabilityFrench-language works237,207