Search

One of the most cost-effective, accurate, and cheap methods for radial velocity measurements is the usage of the gas absorption cell (e.g., Iodine cell) method. We present new open-access software for processing spectra obtained with gas cells, the python-based program Viper (Velocity and IP EstimatoR), and recent results obtained with it. It can be used for data obtained with gas cell from multiple instruments (e.g., OES, TCES, CRIRES+) and new can be easily added. When this method was tested on Ondřejov Echelle Spectrograph data, the achieved rms improved 6 times compared to a classic cross-correlation method. Viper is still under development. One of the new features we are currently working on is employing telluric lines that allow us to use Viper for the analysis without a gas cell.

This Pre-Registration is only pertaining to one part of the planned analysis and study, as we want to present preliminary results as a poster at a doctoral conference. We will publish a second complete pre-registration with more details at a later point. !! You brush your teeth, you decide to get a stylish gravel front yard, you buy a cheese sandwich for lunch, you order an e-reader on the internet, you decide that you want to have two children, you waterproof the new shoes you bought. What do these behaviours have in common? They have an impact on the natural environment and on climate change, just like virtually everything we do every day does. Due to the large cumulative emission reduction potential of individual behaviour (Dietz et al., 2009), much of environmental psychology has focused on interventions to promote individual PEB. Such interventions often draw from theories of behaviour change (e.g., Ajzen, 1991; Bamberg, 2013), and practical knowledge on the perceptions of particular behaviours (e.g., Stern et al., 2018; Truelove & Gillis, 2018). I propose that social and reputational risks that certain PEB can incur (e.g., Greenebaum et al., 2012; van de Grint et al., 2021) are an important perception dimension that has been overlooked so far in the literature on perception of PEB, while holding potential to inform interventions for behaviour change or improving relationships between societal groups. One size does not fit all: Why we need to know how people perceive different PEB Behaviour change interventions often tackle factors from established behaviour change theories that have been shown to influence behaviour. Such factors may be beliefs about consequences of a behaviour, one’s ability to perform a behaviour, personal and social norms, just to name a few (see for examples of theories Ajzen, 1991; Bamberg, 2013; Schwartz, 1992). Behaviour change interventions are also often based on the predominant perceptions of the behaviour in question among the public. For example, if a behaviour is perceived predominantly as expensive (e.g., buying an electric car), financial subsidies may be a promising intervention to promote that behaviour. If certain behaviours are mistakenly perceived as having low impact on the environment (e.g., air travel; Wynes et al., 2020), an intervention communicating the real impact of the behaviour is advisable. Investigating how people perceive specific PEB complements research on behaviour change theories in important ways. While some behaviours can be successfully predicted by general theories, which often include largely attitudinal factors (e.g., energy-saving; Abrahamse & Schuitema, 2020) others may depend much more on their own unique influencing factors, such as the context in which they are performed in (e.g., flying; Whitmarsh et al., 2020). Thus, researching the perceptions of different PEB is pivotal, to advance the behaviour change literature. Among these perceptions, the social and reputational risks that PEB may incur has received little attention in the literature so far, but may be an important predictor of some behaviours, as I will outline in the following section. Why should investigate the social risks different PEB may incur? Perception dimensions which PEB have been found to differ on are costs, difficulty, self-efficacy, and environmental benefit, just to name a few (see Truelove & Gillis, 2018, for an overview). However, recent research strongly suggests that individuals consider yet another dimension when deciding whether or not to engage in certain PEB: the social and reputational costs that may be associated with the behaviour (henceforth derogation potential). Some omnivores or vegetarians who had considered adopting a vegan diet, reported having decided against it because they expected negative reactions from their family and friends (Markowski & Roxburgh, 2019). Similarly, individuals strategically avoid engaging in specific PEB, based on whether they want to be seen as environmentalists or not, thus trying to avoid derogation for being an environmentalist (‘brown to keep down’ effect; Brick et al., 2017). Furthermore, when anticipating derogation for engaging in a particular PEB, individuals tend to hide the fact they perform the behaviour (e.g., Bolderdijk & Cornelissen, 2022; Greenebaum, 2012), or justify why they behave like they do in a way that is non-threatening to their conversation partner (Bolderdijk & Cornelissen, 2022; Bolderdijk et al., in press; Greenebaum, 2012). Derogation has been found for a range of PEB, such as zero-wasting, energy-saving, organic consumption (Bolderdijk et al., 2018; Sparkman & Attari, 2020; van de Grint et al., 2021), and activism (Steentjes et al., 2017). However, much of the literature has focused on vegetarians and/or vegans (henceforth veg*ans and veg*ism; e.g., Greenebaum, 2012; Minson & Monin, 2012; Bolderdijk & Cornelissen, 2022), although veg*ism is just one of many behaviours that are effective at mitigating climate change (Wynes & Nicholas, 2017). Hence, the question is whether the literature rightly reflects the particularly large social and reputational risks of veg*ism, or whether its dominance in the literature is grounded in other reasons, such as researcher interest, or pragmatism. This study aims to categorize a range of PEB according to the derogation potential associated with them. This new evidence can guide researchers, practitioners and interventionists on whether they need to consider derogation potential as a barrier to engaging in PEB. The study will investigate the following research questions: (RQ1) How are different PEB rated on dimensions related to their derogation potential, and which are the socially costliest PEB? (RQ2). How are the past behaviour, difficulty and the visibility of different PEB associated with their derogation potential?

Brief: Narrative Interview Study, using a semi-structured interview guideline, drawing from stage-models of behaviour change, developmental psychology, and narrative methodology. Interested in the narration of experiences of “do-gooder derogation”, social interactions and behaviour change by vegans and non-flyers. This study was approved by the Ethics Committee of the University of Vienna (No. 00888). Elaborate: Do-gooders are frequently evaluated negatively by others based on the fact that they behave morally laudable, a phenomenon known as do-gooder derogation (Minson & Monin, 2012). Environmentalists are no exception. They are perceived as annoying and self-righteous (Minson & Monin, 2012), egotistic (van de Grint et al., 2021), narcissistic (Richetin & Perugini, 2022), and cold and distant (Steentjes et al., 2017). Based on initial empirical evidence, I propose that individuals are aware of this derogation and try to avoid it by hiding their environment- and climate-friendly attitudes and their pro-environmental behaviour (PEB; e.g., Bolderdijk & Cornelissen, 2022), also referred to as self-silencing, or that they refrain from adopting PEB in the first place (e.g., Markowski & Roxburgh, 2019). This may slow down norm and behaviour change on a societal level. Hence, it is important to understand why do-gooder derogation occurs, how it can be avoided, but also, if it does happen, how individuals can overcome any potential negative consequences. This study is mainly concerned with the latter. How do individuals overcome do-gooder derogation? There is a considerable amount of work on how individuals experience and overcome discrimination based on gender (Greer, 2010), sexual orientation (Mara et al., 2020), or race (Seaton et al., 2014). Less work, however, has investigated the ways in which individuals experience and overcome discrimination based on their environmental activism. A literature review on sexual orientation discrimination suggests that coping strategies can cluster into personal versus collective empowerment strategies, as well as disclosure (of one’s sexual orientation) versus concealment strategies (Mara et al., 2020). But what does coping look like for discrimination related to environmentalism? Considering the literature on self-silencing among environmental activists (Bolderdijk & Cornelissen, 2022; Greenebaum, 2012; Markowski & Roxburgh, 2019), we can find concealment strategies, as well as collective empowerment strategies. For example, having a like-minded ally makes it less likely for do-gooders to self-silence (Bolderdijk & Cornelissen, 2022). Discussing derogatory experiences with like-minded others was also at least qualitatively associated with a better ability to cope with the experiences (Greenebaum, 2012). Nevertheless, literature on the coping of environmentalists with derogation remains scarce.

Cumulative research evidence shows that direct and indirect experience of climate change-related events can lead to negative emotions (Helferich et al., 2020; Ogunbode, Böhm, et al., 2019), which can, in turn, be associated with climate-friendly behaviors and intentions (Demski et al., 2017; Ogunbode, Böhm, et al., 2019; Smith & Leiserowitz, 2014, Reser et al., 2012). However, only a few studies have investigated the connection between indirect experiences of climate change-related events and climate anxiety, and the research that has been done was mostly correlational (e.g., Helferich et al., 2020). Additionally, various moderators are shown to modulate the pathway from the experience of a climate change-related event to negative emotions, but the role of motivated reasoning in this relationship has remained underinvestigated. To address these research gaps, we will conduct an online experiment using a between-subject design. Participants will be randomized to either the ‘indirect experience’ group, where they will see a short film and read a short text that depict and describe climate change-related events. The control group will see a video with neutral content. After viewing the videos, participants will be asked questions about climate change anxiety, compensatory beliefs, and climate change mitigation intentions. As a control variable, we will measure the degree participants subjectively attribute the events from the videos and texts to climate change (amongst others).

In this study we will test the psychological processes driving one specific procedure of norm activation (i.e. salience) used by Cialdini, Reno, and Kallgren (1990, study 2 and study 3). When developing the focus theory of normative conduct, Cialdini et al., (1990, Study 2 and 3) reported that fewer participants littered in an environment containing a single piece of litter than in both a clean environment and a fully littered environment. These results were explained by a process of increased norm activation, as the one single piece of litter activated the (injunctive) anti-litter norm more strongly than both the clean environment and a fully littered environment. In an online experiment using a mixed-design, participants will be randomized to view stimulus material (i.e. photos) depicting one of three states of the environment (state of the environment: clean vs. one piece of litter vs. fully littered) across four settings (setting: amusement park vs. student dormitory vs. parking garage vs. supermarket). Participants will be asked to indicate the extent to which each setting makes them think about the five social norms (not stealing, helping the elderly, not littering, not standing too close to others and not playing load music). Hence, norm activation will be operationalized as the extent to which each setting makes them think about the anti-littering norm, where a higher rating indicates higher norm activation norm. In addition, we will also explore if norm activation affect rated strengths of both perceived injunctive anti-littering norm and descriptive norm for littering. Based on focus theory of normative conduct, we will test the following hypotheses and research questions.

In this study we will test the psychological processes driving one specific procedure of norm activation (i.e. salience) used by Cialdini, Reno, and Kallgren (1990, study 2 and study 3). When developing the focus theory of normative conduct, Cialdini et al., (1990, Study 2 and 3) reported that fewer participants littered in an environment containing a single piece of litter than in both a clean environment and a fully littered environment. These results were explained by a process of increased norm activation, as the one single piece of litter activated the (injunctive) anti-litter norm more strongly than both the clean environment and a fully littered environment. In an online experiment using a mixed-design, participants will be randomized to view stimulus material (i.e. photos) depicting one of three states of the environment (state of the environment: clean vs. one piece of litter vs. fully littered) across four settings (setting: amusement park vs. student dormitory vs. parking garage vs. supermarket). Participants will be asked to indicate the extent to which each setting makes them think about the five social norms (not stealing, helping the elderly, not littering, not standing too close to others and not playing load music). Hence, norm activation will be operationalized as the extent to which each setting makes them think about the anti-littering norm, where a higher rating indicates higher norm activation norm. In addition, we will also explore if norm activation affect rated strengths of both perceived injunctive anti-littering norm and descriptive norm for littering. Based on focus theory of normative conduct, we will test the following hypotheses and research questions.