Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Social Psychological Dimensions of Bioenergy Development and Public Acceptance

  • Published:
BioEnergy Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The best technology does no good unless people use it. Thus, the future of biofuels depends not only on development of effective and efficient technologies but also on the social, economic, and political climate within which people decide to use or avoid these new fuel sources and technologies. On a social psychological level, individual behaviors are often guided by people’s attitudes toward the behavior or objects involved and by the norms established by others within the social setting. Therefore, understanding technology adoption requires an understanding of how public attitudes and beliefs are formed or changed, as well as the implications of these changes for social norms. We provide an overview of basic social psychology research connecting attitudes and norms to individual behavior, and we describe implications of these social factors for biofuel development and use.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Ajzen I, Fishbein M (1977) Attitude–behavior relations: a theoretical analysis and review of empirical research. Psychol Bull 84:888–918

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Ajzen I, Fishbein M (2005) The influence of attitudes on behavior. In: Albarracin D, Johnson BT, Zanna MP (eds) The handbook of attitudes. Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ, pp 173–221

    Google Scholar 

  3. Allport GW (1935) Attitudes. In: Murchison C (ed) Handbook of social psychology. Clark University Press, Worcester, MA, pp 798–884

    Google Scholar 

  4. Asch SE (1951) Effects of group pressure upon the modification and distortion of judgment. In: Guetzkow H (ed) Groups, leadership, and men. Carnegie University Press, Pittsburgh, PA, pp 177–190

    Google Scholar 

  5. Asch SE (1955) Studies of independence and conformity: a minority of one against a unanimous majority. Psychol Monogr 70:1–70

    Google Scholar 

  6. Baron RS, Vandello JA, Brunsman B (1996) The forgotten variable in conformity research: impact of task importance on social influence. J Pers Soc Psychol 71:915–927

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Braun R (2002) People’s concerns about biotechnology: some problems and some solutions. J Biotech, 98:3–8

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Cacioppo JT, Petty RE (1979) Effects of message repetition and position on cognitive responses, recall, and persuasion. J Pers Soc Psychol 37:97–109

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Cacioppo JT, Petty RE, Kao CF, Rodriguez R (1986) Central and peripheral routes to persuasion: an individual difference perspective. J Pers Soc Psychol 51:1032–1043

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Chaiken S (1980) Heuristic versus systematic information processing in the use of source versus message cues in persuasion. J Pers Soc Psychol 39:752–766

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Chaiken S, Liberman A, Eagly AH (1989) Heuristic and systematic processing within and beyond the persuasion context. In: Uleman JS, Bargh JA (eds) Unintended thought. Guilford, New York, pp 212–252

    Google Scholar 

  12. Chaiken S, Maheswaran D (1994) Heuristic processing can bias systematic processing: effects of source credibility, argument ambiguity, and task importance on attitude judgment. J Pers Soc Psychol 66:460–473

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Cialdini RB (2007) Written testimony to U.S. House of Representatives hearing on “Contributions of the Social Sciences to the Energy Challenge.” Subcommittee on Research and Science Education, Committee on Science and Technology. Available at: http://science.house.gov/publications/hearings_markups_details.aspx?NewsID=1956 (September)

  14. Cialdini RB, Reno RR, Kallgren CA (1990) A focus theory of normative conduct: recycling the concept of norms to reduce littering in public places. J Pers Soc Psychol 58:1015–1026

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Clark JK, Wegener DT, Fabrigar LR (2008) Attitude ambivalence and message-based persuasion: motivated processing of proattitudinal information and avoidance of counterattitudinal information. Pers Soc Psychol Bull 34:565–577

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Davidson AR, Yantis S, Norwood M, Montano DE (1985) Amount of information about the attitude object and attitude–behavior consistency. J Pers Soc Psychol 49:1184–1198

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Deutsch M, Gerard HB (1955) A study of normative and informational social influence upon individual judgment. J Abnormal Soc Psychol 51:629–636

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Edwards K, Smith EE (1996) A disconfirmation bias in the evaluation of arguments. J Pers Soc Psychol 71:5–24

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Eurobarameter (2000) Report of the European Commission. Released April 18, 2000, available at: http://europa.eu.int/comm/research/press_en.html

  20. Fabrigar LR, MacDonald T, Wegener DT (2005) The structure of attitudes. In: Albarracin D, Johnson BT, Zanna MP (eds) The handbook of attitudes. Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ, pp 79–124

    Google Scholar 

  21. Fazio RH (1995) Attitudes as object–evaluation associations: determinants, consequences, and correlates of attitude accessibility. In: Petty RE, Krosnick JA (eds) Attitude strength: antecedents and consequences. Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ, pp 247–282

    Google Scholar 

  22. Fazio RH, Zanna MP (1981) Direct experience and attitude behavior consistency. In: Berkowitz L (ed) Advances in experimental social psychology. vol. 14. Academic, New York, pp 161–202

    Google Scholar 

  23. Goy PA, Duesing JH (1996) Assessing the environmental impact of gene transfer to wild relatives. Bio/Technology 14:39–40

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Himmelfarb S, Youngblood J (1969) Effects of factual information on creating resistance to emotional appeals. Psychon Sci 14:267–270

    Google Scholar 

  25. Homer PM, Kahle LR (1988) A structural equation test of the value–attitude–behavior hierarchy. J Pers Soc Psychol 54:638–646

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Kallgren CA, Wood W (1985) Access to attitude-relevant information in memory as a determinant of attitude–behavior consistency. J Exp Soc Psychol 22:328–338

    Google Scholar 

  27. Krauss RM, Freedman JL, Whitcup M (1978) Field and laboratory studies of littering. J Exp Soc Psychol 14:109–122

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Levine JM, Russo EM (1987) Majority and minority influence. Rev Pers Soc Psychol 8:13–54

    Google Scholar 

  29. Lewan PC, Stotland E (1961) The effects of prior information on susceptibility to an emotional appeal. J Abnormal Soc Psychol 62:450–453

    Google Scholar 

  30. Maio GR, Bell DW, Esses VM (1996) Ambivalence and persuasion: the processing of messages about immigrant groups. J Exp Soc Psychol 32:513–536

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Maio GR, Olson JM (2000) (eds) Why we evaluate: functions of attitudes. Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ

    Google Scholar 

  32. Meilan R (2004) Molecular biology of forest trees. In: Burley J, Evans J, Youngquist J (eds) Encyclopedia of forest sciences. Academic, Oxford, UK, pp 229–236

    Google Scholar 

  33. Midden C, Meijnders A, Hübner G, van den Hoogen W (2003) Implementation barriers of energy from biomass: psychological factors. Technische Universiteit Eindhoven (TU/e), Eindhoven

    Google Scholar 

  34. Nolan JM, Schultz PW, Cialdini RB, Goldstein NJ, Griskevicius V (2008) Normative social influence is underdetected. Pers Soc Psychol Bull 34:913–923

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Petty RE, Cacioppo JT (1986) The Elaboration Likelihood Model of persuasion. In: Berkowitz L (ed) Advances in experimental social psychology. vol. 19. Academic, New York, pp 123–205

    Google Scholar 

  36. Petty RE, Cacioppo JT, Goldman R (1981) Personal involvement as a determinant of argument-based persuasion. J Pers Soc Psychol 41:847–855

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Petty RE, Cacioppo JT, Schumann DW (1983) Central and peripheral routes to advertising effectiveness: the moderating role of involvement. J Consum Res 10:135–146

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Petty RE Haugtvedt CP Smith SM (1995) Elaboration as a determinant of attitude strength: creating attitudes that are persistent, resistant, and predictive of behavior. In: Petty RE, Krosnick JA (eds) Attitude strength: antecedents and consequences. Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ, pp 93–130

    Google Scholar 

  39. Petty RE, Krosnick JA (1995) Attitude strength: antecedents and consequences. Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ

    Google Scholar 

  40. Petty RE, Wegener DT (1998) Attitude change: multiple roles for persuasion variables. In: Gilbert D, Fiske S, Lindzey G (eds) The handbook of social psychology. 4th edn. McGraw-Hill, New York, pp 323–390

    Google Scholar 

  41. Petty RE, Wegener DT (1999) The Elaboration Likelihood Model: current status and controversies. In: Chaiken S, Trope Y (eds) Dual process theories in social psychology. Guilford, New York, pp 41–72

    Google Scholar 

  42. Potrykus I (2001) Golden rice and beyond. Plant Phys 125:1157–1161

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  43. Pratkanis AR, Breckler SJ, Greenwald AG (eds) (1989) Attitude structure and function. Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ

    Google Scholar 

  44. Reno RR, Cialdini RB, Kallgren CA (1993) The transsituational influence of social norms. J Pers Soc Psychol 64:104–112

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Rohracher H, Bogner T, Späth P, Faber F (2004) Improving the public perception of bioenergy in the EU. Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/energy/res/sectors/bioenergy_publications_en.htm

  46. Rohrer JH, Baron SH, Hoffman EL et al (1954) The stability of autokinetic judgments. J Abnormal Soc Psychol 49:595–597

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  47. Schultz PW, Nolan JM, Cialdini RB, Goldstein NJ, Griskevicius V (2007) The constructive, destructive, and reconstructive power of social norms. Psychol Sci 18:429–434

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Sherif MA (1935) A study of some social factors in perception. Arch Psychol 187:60

    Google Scholar 

  49. Sherif MA (1937) An experimental approach to the study of attitudes. Sociometry 1:90–98

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Singer E (1990) Reference groups and social evaluations. In: Rosenberg M, Turner RH (eds) Social psychology: sociological perspectives. Transaction, New Brunswick, NJ

    Google Scholar 

  51. Trafimow D, Finlay KA (1996) The importance of subjective norms for a minority of people: between-subjects and within-subjects analyses. Pers Soc Psychol Bull 22:820–828

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Wegener DT, Downing J, Krosnick JA, Petty RE (1995) Strength-related properties of attitudes: measures, manipulations, and future directions. In: Petty RE, Krosnick JA (eds) Attitude strength: antecedents and consequences. Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ, pp 455–487

    Google Scholar 

  53. Wegener DT, Kelly JR, Parker GR, Parker S, Cooper HL, Widdows R, Feinberg RA, Goodman D, Bodner GM (2008) Knowledge, beliefs, and attitudes: foundations for research on the human dynamics of energy use. Raw data. Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN

    Google Scholar 

  54. Weigel RH Newman LS (1976) Increasing attitude–behavior correspondence by broadening the scope of the behavior measure. J Pers Soc Psychol 33:793–802

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Wood W (1982) Retrieval of attitude-relevant information from memory: effects on susceptibility to persuasion and on intrinsic motivation. J Pers Soc Psychol 42:798–810

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Wood W Kallgren CA Preisler RM (1985) Access to attitude-relevant information in memory as a determinant of persuasion: the role of message attributes. J Exp Soc Psychol 21:73–85

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Zanna MP, Olson JM, Fazio RH (1980) Attitude–behavior consistency: an individual difference perspective. J Pers Soc Psychol 38:432–440

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Psychological Sciences, Purdue University, 703 Third Street, West Lafayette, IN, 47907-2081, USA

    Duane T. Wegener & Janice R. Kelly

  2. Energy Center Discovery Park, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN, USA

    Duane T. Wegener & Janice R. Kelly

Authors
  1. Duane T. Wegener
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Janice R. Kelly
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Duane T. Wegener.

Additional information

This work was supported by a seed grant from the Purdue Energy Center at Discovery Park and by a grant from the National Science Foundation (Human Social Dynamics no. 0729348).

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Wegener, D.T., Kelly, J.R. Social Psychological Dimensions of Bioenergy Development and Public Acceptance. Bioenerg. Res. 1, 107–117 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12155-008-9012-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12155-008-9012-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation