How do I see myself? A systematic review of identities in pro‐environmental behaviour research

Encouraging pro‐environmental behaviour (PEB) is an environmental and societal concern. Encouraging PEB focussing on how consumers see themselves (their identity) has blossomed. However, a theoretical assessment of this research is missing. Three main identity theories seem to best explain the research, specifically, and two‐fold, identity, and social identity theory (SIT), collectively known as the unified identity theory (UIT), and place identity theory (PIT). As these theories overlap more than differ in their understanding of identity, we argue that combining these theories is needed to avoid redundancies in identity theorizing, provide a universal approach to identity in terms of the processes and outcomes, and explain the PEB research most succinctly. Therefore, we understand identity similarly between the theories and offer a universal identity theory approach based on the theoretical definitions and assumptions. Finally, we demonstrate how the theory can be used to explain the research. Next, research was identified by conducting a systematic review using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta‐Analyses guidelines, where 62 studies were relevant. Multiple identities relevant for a given PEB are assumed and evidenced: 99. Identities are assumed to be either individually‐, group‐, and/or place‐focused, drawing on the specific subsets of the universal theory: identity theory, social identity theory, and place identity theory, respectively. Identities are assumed to relate to behaviour, where identity increased PEB with medium effect sizes. Finally, to move the field forward, we provide a theoretical framework of how to test identities in relation to other psychological variables relevant for PEB research.     

Effects of Bilingual Language Use and Language Proficiency on 24-month-olds’ Cognitive Control

ABSTRACT

Although a bilingual advantage has been reported for various measures of cognitive control, most previous studies have looked at a limited range of cognitive control measures. Furthermore, they typically leave unaddressed whether positive effects of bilingualism hold for all bilinguals or whether these are modulated by differences in bilingual language use and proficiency of children and their parents. This study reports on tasks of selective attention and inhibitory control from 24-month-old bilinguals (n = 37) and monolinguals (n = 58). Their parents completed a Dutch vocabulary checklist assessing receptive and productive vocabulary as well as questionnaires on children’s attentional focusing, attention shifting and inhibitory control, and language background. Linear mixed-effect regressions showed no differences on cognitive control between the monolinguals and bilingual groups. However, analyses taking into account differences in children’s bilingual language use and proficiency and of their parents revealed a more nuanced picture. Specifically, children’s degree of balanced language usage predicted parent-rated cognitive control. Furthermore, bilingual toddlers who had parents were low proficient in one of the home languages showed significantly better performance on a selective attention task than toddlers whose parents were both proficient in both home languages. These findings suggest that both children’s active usage of two languages and their experience with switching depending on their interlocutor are related to cognitive control performance in young bilingual children. As such, they add to a growing body of evidence that the bilingual advantage in cognitive control is tied to specific conditions of bilingualism, already at a young age.