Pro-environmental Behaviours at Work: The Interactive Role of Norms and Attitudinal Ambivalence

The environmental costs arising from unsustainable production patterns have increased to the point that organisations are now expected to adopt more responsible practices. Pro-environmental behaviours (PEBs) in the workplace can significantly contribute to bettering companies’ environmental performance and sustainability transition. This research investigated the interactive role of norms and attitudes in predicting voluntary energy conservation behaviours, based on a correlational study of 189 Portuguese workers. The study examined whether perceived norm conflicts involving co-workers, closer colleagues and leaders’ behaviours promote or hinder workers’ own PEBs and whether attitudinal ambivalence towards their organisation’s pro-environmental initiatives is a moderator of this relationship. Controlling for the effect of the pro-environmental organisational climate, the ages of employees and organisation size, the results confirm that felt ambivalence moderates the relationship between norm conflict and reported energy conservation behaviours. The findings indicate that ambivalent workers are less likely to engage in PEBs if they perceive norm conflict, that is, if other staff members are not equally motivated to adopt those behaviours. Conversely, norm conflict had an energising effect on non-ambivalent workers. The results thus indicate that organisations could benefit from promoting their environmental policies more explicitly, encouraging their employees to discuss these initiatives and making voluntary PEBs more visible in the workplace.

Liberals Report Lower Levels of Attitudinal Ambivalence Than Conservatives

Political conservatism has been shown to be positively correlated with intolerance of ambiguity, need for closure, and dogmatism and negatively correlated with openness to new experiences and uncertainty tolerance. Those findings suggest that conservatism should also be negatively correlated with attitudinal ambivalence; by definition, ambivalent attitudes are more complex and more tinged with uncertainty than univalent attitudes. However, little published research addresses this issue. The results of five studies (total N = 1,049 participants) reveal instead that political liberalism is negatively associated with ambivalence. This finding held for both subjective and potential (i.e., formula-based) measures of ambivalence and for both politicized and nonpoliticized attitude objects. Conservatives may prefer uncomplicated and consistent ways of thinking and feeling, but that preference might not necessarily be reflected in the actual consistency of their mental representations. Possible accounts for these findings are discussed.

Ambivalence in Political Decision Making

Behavioral research largely treats attitudinal ambivalence as a component of attitude strength. Specifically, attitudinal ambivalence exists when someone simultaneously possesses positive and negative evaluations of a single attitude object. Ambivalent individuals do not have a single “true” attitude about political issues but rather a store of multiple and sometimes conflicting attitudes that they might draw upon at any given time when making a decision. Research has suggested that such ambivalence is quite common when it comes to political attitudes. Thus, understanding the measurement of ambivalence, the sources of ambivalence, and the consequences of ambivalence is critical to understanding political decision making. Ambivalence measures largely fall within one of two types: Meta-attitudinal measures where individuals assess their own ambivalence and operative measures where researchers construct indicators that assess ambivalence without individuals’ cognizance that it is being measured. Most research suggests that operative measures perform better. Research generally assumes that the causes of ambivalence are rooted in individual differences in attitude strength that may result from a host of individual or combined sources. The most common sources of ambivalence researchers focus on are value conflict, differences in political knowledge, Context/Political Environment, and Cross-Cutting Information/Conflicting Networks/Groups. Finally, some of the most prevalent consequences of ambivalence are an increase in susceptibility to influence, an effect on the rate of political participation, and increased variance in vote choice. It is here, in the consequences of ambivalence, where the most direct connection to political decision making is evident. In a democratic society, the decision centered on for whom one votes, is perhaps, the quintessential political decision.