Hubungan antara Subjective Well-Being dengan Perilaku Pro-Lingkungan di Kota Bandung
Abstract
Abstract. West Java has a low level of citizen happiness (70.23) and is below the average of the Indonesian Happiness Index (71.49) (Indeks Kebahagiaan Badan Pusat Statistik, 2021) which is measured based on three dimensions of Subjective Well-Being by Diener. A person's involvement in pro-environmental behavior can contribute to Subjective Well-Being, and vice versa (Venhoeven, L., Steg, L., & Bolderdijk, J., 2017). The level of urban communities carrying out pro-environmental behavior is still relatively low (Arlinkasari, et al., 2017). The purpose of this study was to obtain empirical data regarding the relationship between Subjective Well-Being and pro-environmental behavior of Bandung city residents. The research design used was quantitative non-experimental with 220 respondents from Bandung city residents. The measurement tools used in this study are the Satisfactions With Life Scale (SWLS) and the Positive Affect and Negative Affect Scale (PANAS) to measure Subjective Well-Being and General Ecological Behavior (GEBS) to measure pro-environmental behavior. Based on the results of data processing, there were 55.9% of respondents who had a high level of Subjective Well-Being and 61.4% of respondents had a low level of pro-environmental behavior. The results of the Spearman correlation calculation test prove that the relationship between Subjective Well-Being and pro-environmental behavior is significant but the closeness is weak because the results obtained are Sig. (2-tailed) 0.002 <0.05, the relationship between Subjective Well-Being and pro-environmental behavior is significant. While the results of the correlation coefficient obtained were 0.204, which means that according to Guilford's correlation coefficient criteria (1956), 0.20 - <0.40 means that there is a significant but weak relationship.
Abstrak. Jawa Barat termasuk ke dalam tingkat kebahagiaan warga yang rendah (70,23) dan di bawah rata-rata Indeks Kebahagiaan Indonesia (71,49) (Indeks Kebahagiaan Badan Pusat Statistik, 2021) yang diukur berdasarkan tiga dimensi Subjective Well-Being oleh Diener. Keterlibatan seseorang dalam berperilaku pro-lingkungan dapat berkontribusi pada Subjective Well-Being, begitu pula sebaliknya (Venhoeven, L., Steg, L., & Bolderdijk, J., 2017). Tingkat masyarakat perkotaan melakukan perilaku pro-lingkungan masih terbilang rendah (Arlinkasari, et al., 2017). Tujuan penelitian ini adalah untuk memperoleh data empiris mengenai hubungan Subjective Well-Being dengan perilaku pro-lingkungan pada masyarakat kota Bandung. Desain penelitian yang digunakan adalah kuantitatif non eksperimental dengan 220 responden masyarakat kota Bandung. Alat ukur yang digunakan pada penelitian ini adalah Satisfactions With Life Scale (SWLS) dan Positive Affect and Negative Affect Scale (PANAS) untuk mengukur Subjective Well-Being dan General Ecological Behavior (GEBS) untuk mengukur perilaku pro-lingkungan. Berdasarkan hasil olah data, terdapat 55.9% responden yang memiliki tingkat Subjective Well-Being tinggi dan 61.4% responden memiliki tingkat rendah pada perilaku pro-lingkungan. Hasil uji perhitungan korelasi spearman membuktikan bahwa hubungan Subjective Well-Being dengan perilaku pro-lingkungan signifikan namun keeratannya lemah karena hasil yang didapatkan yaitu Sig. (2-tailed) 0.002 < 0.05 maka hubungan antara Subjective Well-Being dengan perilaku pro-lingkungan signifikan. Sedangkan hasil koefisien korelasi yang didapatkan adalah 0.204 yang berarti menurut kriteria koefisiensi korelasi Guilford (1956), 0.20 - < 0.40 artinya terdapat hubungan yang signifikan namun lemah.
References
Adiwena, B. Y., & Djuwita, R. (2022). Manusia dan lingkungan alam: Analisis faktor konfirmatori terhadap Nature Relatedness Scale Bahasa Indonesia. Jurnal Psikologi Sosial, 20(1), 57-71. https://doi.org/10.7454/jps.2022.08.
Arlinkasari, F., Caninsti, R., & Radyanti, P. U. (2017). Akankah masyarakat yang bahagia menjaga lingkungannya?. Ecopsy, 4(2), 64-70.
Badan Pusat Statistik. (2021). Indeks kebahagiaan 2021. Jakarta: Badan Pusat Statistik Republik Indonesia.
Binder, M., & Blankenberg, A. (2017). Green lifestyles and subjective well-being: More about self-image than actual behavior?. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 137, 304-323. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jebo.2017.03.009.
Binder, M., Blankenberg, A., & Guardiola, J. (2020). Does it have to be a sacrifice? Different notions of the good life, pro-environmental behavior and their heterogeneous impact on well-being. Ecological Economics, 167. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2019.106448.
Blanchflower, D. (2021). Is happiness U-shaped everywhere? Age and subjective well-being in 145 countries. Journal of Population Economics, 34, 575–624. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00148-020-00797-z.
Bronfman, N. C., Cisternas, P. C., López-Vázquez, E., Maza, C. d., & Oyanedel, J. C. (2015). Understanding Attitudes and Pro-Environmental Behaviors in a Chilean Community. Sustainability, 7, 14133-14152. https://doi.org/10.3390/su71014133.
Bryson, A., Forth, J., & Stokes, L. (2017). Does employees’ subjective well-being affect workplace performance? Human Relations, 70(8), 1017–1037. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726717693073.
Corral-Verdugo, V., & Fr ́ıas-Armenta, M. (2015). The sustainability of positive environments. Environment, Development, and Sustainability, 18, 965–984. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-015-9701-7.
Diener, E. (2013). The remarkable changes in the science of subjective well-being. Perspectives on Psychology Sciene, 8(6), 663-666. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691613507583.
Diener, E., Oishi, S., & Tay, L. (2018). Advances in subjective well-being research. Nature Human Behaviour, 2(4), 253–260.https://10.1038/s41562-018-0307-6.
Diener, E., Pressman, S. D., Hunter, J., & Delgadillo-Chase, D. (2017). If, why, and when subjective well-being influences health, and future needed research. Applied psychology: Health and well-being, 9(2), 133–167. https://doi.org/10.1111/aphw.12090.
Eid, M., & Larsen, R. J. (2008). The sciene of subjective well-being. London: The Guilford Press.
Febriyanti, C. (2016). Pengembangan skala pengukuran perilaku pro lingkungan: General ecological behavior (GEB) scale. JP31, 5(2), 153-181. https://journal.uinjkt.ac.id/index.php/jp3i/article/view/10791/pdf.
Gonzalez-Gomez, M. S.-V. (2014). Do pro-environemntal behaviors and awareness contribute to improve subjective well being?. Applied Research Quality Life.. Https://doi.org/10.1007/s11482-014-9372-9.
Guilford, J. P., & Benjamin, F. (1956). Fundamental Statistics in Psychology and Education, 5th ed. Tokyo: Mc-Graw-Hill.
Guillen-Royo, M. (2019). Sustainable consumption and wellbeing: Does on-line shopping matter?. Journal of Cleaner Production, 229, 1112-1124. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.05.061.
Ibanez-Rueda, N., Guillen-Royo, M., & Guardiola, J. (2020). Pro-Environmental Behavior, Connectedness to Nature, and Wellbeing Dimensions among Granada Students. Sustainability, 12(21), 9171. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12219171.
Jebb, A. T., Morrison, M., Tay, L., & Diener, E. (2020). Subjective well-being around the world: Trends and predictors across the life span. Psychological Science. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797619898826.
Kaida, N., & Kaida, K. (2015). Pro-environmental behavior correlates with present and future subjective well-being. Environ Dev Sustain, 18, 111-127. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-015-9629-y.
Kamaliya, N., Setyowibowo, H., & Cahyadi, S. (2021). Kesejahteraan Subjektif Mahasiswa di masa Pandemi Covid-19. Jurnal Ilmu Sosial dan Pendidikan, 5(2).
Mujamiasih, M., Prihastuty, R., & Hariyadi, S. (2013). Subjective well-being (SWB): Studi indigenous karyawan bersuku jawa. Journal of Social and Industrial Psychology, 2(2). https://10.15294/SIP.V2I2.2592.
Ouyang, X., Qi, W., Song, D., & Zhou, J. (2022). Does Subjective Well-Being Promote Pro-Environmental Behaviors? Evidence from Rural Residents in China. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 19(10), 5992. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19105992.
Salsabila, G., & Yanuvanti, M. (2021). Pengaruh place attachment terhadap pro-environmental behavior pada mahasiswa UNISBA. Prosiding Psikologi, 7(2). http://dx.doi.org/10.29313/.v0i0.28474.
Schultz, P. W., & Kaiser, F. G. (2012). Promoting pro-environmental behavior. The Oxford handbook of environmental and conservation psychology. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199733026.013.0029.
Steg, L., & Vlek, C. (2009). Encouraging pro-environmental behaviour: an integrative review and research agenda. J. Environ. Psychol. 29, 309–317. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2008.10.004.
Venhoeven, L., Steg, L., & Bolderdijk, J. W. (2017). Chapter 13: Can engagement in environmentally-friendly behavior increase well-being? In G. Fleury-Bahi, E. Pol, & O. Navarro, Handbook of environmental psychology and quality of life research. Switzerland: Springer.
N. S. Salsabila and A. Budiman, “Pengaruh Basic Need Satisfaction terhadap Work Engagement pada Pegawai Negeri Sipil Dinas X Kabupaten Bandung,” Jurnal Riset Psikologi, pp. 55–60, Jul. 2023, doi: 10.29313/jrp.v3i1.2058.
Z. F. Lutfiyah and D. Dwarawati, “Pengaruh Resilience at Work terhadap Subjective Well-Being pada Perawat Rumah Sakit Jiwa,” Jurnal Riset Psikologi, pp. 39–46, Jul. 2023, doi: 10.29313/jrp.v3i1.1982.
