constraints on environmental behaviour - Science Direct

Journal of Environmental Psychology (1999) 19, 145^157 # 1999 Academic Press Article No. jevp.1999.0121, available online at http://www.idealibrary.com on

0272 - 4944/99/020145+13 $30.00/0

CONSTRAINTS ON ENVIRONMENTAL BEHAVIOUR CARMEN TANNER University of Fribourg, Switzerland Abstract The purpose of this study was to examine crucial predictors of driving frequency. In contrast to traditional psychological environmental research emphasizing primarily personal variables in explaining environmental behavior, the perspective taken in this article is that behavior is generally prevented by a host of constraints. Therefore, this study was aimed at identifying prevalent constraints inhibiting individuals from reducing their driving frequency. By means of questionnaire data collected from a sample of Swiss adults two classes of constraints were examined: (a) Subjective factors that were assumed to a¡ect the preference for proenvironmental behavioral alternatives (sense of responsibility, perceived behavioral barriers); and (b) objective conditions that inhibit the performance of proenvironmental action (socio-demographic variables such as lack of automobile, place of residence, income). Multiple regression analyses indicated that subjective constraints explained a signi¢cant amount of variance in behavioral reports, but structural constraints also contributed to explaining variance. Theoretical and applied implications of examining constraints to which people are subjected to and implications for further research are discussed. # 1999 Academic Press

Introduction Although awareness of the threat to the earth has apparently increased over the last decades, environmental degradation still continues. There has been increasing interest in behavioral components of environmental problems in recent years, attesting growing awareness that human action is the critical element in environmental degradation. Politicians and natural scientists, as well as the general public, have therefore paid more attention to the behavioral sciences, expecting on the one hand advances in the understanding of the roots of human behavior contributing to environmental degradation and, on the other, signi¢cant suggestions as to how to intervene to change this behavior. In investigating these issues, previous psychological environmental research has concentrated primarily on environmental concern or attitudes as predictors of environmental behavior (Maloney & Ward, 1973; Van Liere & Dunlap, 1981; Schahn & Holzer, 1990; Grob, 1995). It has been assumed that changing people's attitudes and beliefs Ð by educating and providing them with information Ð is su¤cient to change their actual behavior. Speci¢-

cally, some studies pertaining to personal threat have found that this variable is useful in predicting environmental practices (Baldassare & Katz, 1992; Axelrod & Lehman, 1993; Grob, 1995). However, the majority of attitudinal studies have shown that environmental concern or attitudinal variables fail to correspond to behavior (Hines et al., 1986/87; Scott & Willis, 1994; Schultz et al. 1995). Past research has identi¢ed numerous variables that might moderate the attitude±behavior relationship. Factors which have been found to enhance attitude±behavior consistency are for example, direct experience with the corresponding attitudinal object (Fazio & Zanna, 1978), attitude accessibility (Fazio, 1990) or self-monitoring (Snyder & Swann, 1976). Furthermore, Ajzen and Fishbein (1980; Ajzen, 1988) pointed out that attitudes and behavior need to be measured at a comparable level of speci¢city, otherwise the correlations between them would be necessarily modest. Finally, it has also been demonstrated that speci¢c factors intervene between attitudes and behavior. Based on an expectancy-value approach, Ajen and Fishbein proposed an attitude± behavior theory, suggesting that attitudes have an indirect in£uence on behavior, mediated by the factor of

146

C. Tanner

intention. Bamberg et al. (1995) applied this theory of planned behavior (Ajzen, 1988; Ajzen & Madden, 1986) with partial success predicting the choice between using an automobile or using public transport. Likewise, Taylor and Todd (1995) tested this model to predict intentions to engage in recycling and composting. Meanwhile, a growing number of researchers have investigated with success the ability of Schwartz's normactivation model of altruism (Schwartz, 1968; Schwartz & Howard, 1981), assuming that environmental behavior is also a¡ected by social±altruistic values (Heberlein & Black, 1976; Stern et al. 1986, 1993; Hopper & Nielson, 1991; Stern & Dietz, 1994). The Schwartz model asserts that behavior depends directly on the activation of an altruistic moral norm rather than on the in£uence of general environmental concern.This theory holds that people will feel a sense of moral obligation (personal norm), if they expect serious negative outcomes for other people (awareness of consequences, AC) and if they feel responsible for ameliorating those consequences (ascription of responsibility, AR). For instance, Stern and Dietz (1994; Stern et al. 1993, 1986) have adapted the Schwartz theory for environmental issues and proposed that people will feel responsible for environmental action when they are aware of severe consequences (for themselves, other people or nonhuman species) (AC) and when they judge themselves to be responsible for the outcomes (AR). Overall, a broad array of terms and more or less successful models have been used to predict environmental behavior, and in particular to explain the attitude±behavior inconsistency. None the less, the general di¤culty in relying on these paradigms is that they consider behavior primarily as a function of personal factors (Tanner & Foppa, 1996; Guagnano et al. 1995). A major limitation of this research is the neglect of a behavior's embeddedness in cultural structures entailing a host of behavioral barriers and constraints. In particular, little attention has been paid to the factors that are necessary for an individual's ability to participate in a speci¢c action. Thus explanations of the `gap' between environmental concern and behavior have been reduced to a dispositional problem, while ignoring other signi¢cant factors of which behavior is also a function. As to behavior investigated in environmental research, previous studies have paid most attention to residential energy consumption, recycling, litter control or political actions to preserve the environment. Despite the fact that mobility is undoubtedly a substantial cause of numerous environmental problems Ð such as the greenhouse e¡ect, air pollution, noise, loss of natural landscape or loss of living space

in favour of the excessive expansion of tra¤c volume Ð its human antecedents have not been a major concern in psychological behavior research. The following study was designed to identify crucial predictors of driving behavior among Swiss people. According to the Statistical Yearbook of Switzerland (Bundesamt fÏr statistick, 1994), mobility is responsible for 33% of total Swiss energy consumption. Although road building has been fostered much more, Switzerland has a well-developed public transportation system, especially in urban areas. In fact, according to the Federal Transport O¤ce, the Swiss show the highest use of public transport of all Europeans. Nevertheless, in 1994 about 79 percent of the mobility consists of passenger-car tra¤c. Furthermore, 45 percent of the passenger-car tra¤c consists of leisure travelling and this trend is increasing. There is widespread agreement that measures favoring sustainable development must involve changing consumption trends and encouraging the use of alternative transportation facilities. The aim of the present paper is to examine the usefulness of the ipsative theory of behavior (Frey, 1988; Foppa, 1989), an approach mainly focusing on constraints and resources of ecological behavior. This perspective goes beyond personal variables in acknowledging, in particular, factors which intervene in the performance of human action. Its potential in explaining environmental behavior will be discussed. Subsequently, initial empirical results of a study will be presented. The ipsative theory of behavior The general theoretical perspective taken in this paper Ð the ipsative theory of behavior (Frey, 1988; Foppa, 1989) Ð holds that an individual's behavior may be constrained or hindered by a lack of real or imaginary opportunities, imposed by the individuals' internal as well as external conditions. In contrast to traditional psychological research, this perspective does not focus on the reasons for action, but instead points out the why of nonaction. In fact, nonaction might be a matter of lack of motivation. None the less, it is likely that people might not engage in a certain behavior due to lack of opportunity, even though they may maintain a positive attitude and intention to act. This is how constraints may keep proenvironmental attitudes from being expressed in behavior. Therefore, asking why people do not engage in a particular behavior forces one to take account of conditions necessary for performing an action and helps preclude the tendency to interpret behavior only as the result of dispositional variables.1

Constraints on Environmental Behaviour

147

TABLE 1 Types of constraints emphasized in ipsative theory of behavior Type Function

Ipsative constraints

Subjective constraints

Objective constraints

Preventing activation of particular behavioral alternative

Preventing preference for particular behavioral alternative

Preventing performance of particular behavioral alternative

In general, the ipsative theory of behavior assumes three presuppositions for human behavior (see Table 1). (1) The action must be objectively possible. Objective constraints are assumed to in£uence the performing of an act. Some of them emerge from natural and socio-cultural surroundings, o¡ering opportunities and tools as well as limitations Cole, 1990; Boesch, 1991). They may comprise structural factors such as limitations of time, income and price, legal and political institutions, the current state of scienti¢c knowledge, available technology, state of infrastructure, available food and clothing, available social interaction and information network and shared set of social rules and norms.They also include intrapersonal factors such as mental and physical disabilities (Frey & Foppa, 1986). These variables constitute the objective possibility set. They have in common the fact that they preclude or inhibit people's ability to participate in particular activities and that they exist independently of individual's perception. Therefore, they determine what someone can do, what someone should do or is allowed to do, or what someone can know in a particular society. But the existence of constraints is only one dimension which shapes human behavior. Of course, individuals act on the basis of their personal view of reality rather than on the basis of the objective possibilities (Lewin, 1951).This in fact entails two further presuppositions. (2) The behavioral option must be salient for the individual in the situation; in other words, it must be activated from memory in the current situation. This set of alternatives evoked in the actual situation constitute the ipsative possibility set. Hence, under certain circumstances, an individual's action is not constrained by the objective condition but rather by the fact that the particular alternative did not occur to him or her in the situation. We presume that individuals usually examine only a few options and consequences rather than considering all possible actions. This may lead to an overextension or underextension of the objective possibility set but which is however not due to such factors as limited information or intelligence (Frey, 1988). Correspondingly, factors that prevent the activation of the alternatives in question are conceptualized as ipsative constraints. ipsative

constraints.2 We presume that the ipsative possibility set takes shape during learning and socialization processes. Speci¢cally, the reduction of the ipsative possibility set also seems to be typical for routine actions or activities carried out under time pressure. (3) Finally, provided that there are at least two options within the evoked actual (ipsative) perceived set of options, a choice among a few alternatives has to be made. In other words, people must consider a behavioral alternative to be relevant for themselves.3 They act on the basis of their beliefs of what is possible, what is permissible or what is pleasurable. This entails the evaluation of alternatives, which results in the exclusion of particular options represented in the ipsative possibility set. Referring to evaluation of alternatives, subjective constraints are assumed to in£uence preferences directly rather than participation in a particular action. In other words, they a¡ect the willingness to act. Lack of a motivational presupposition prevents an individual from trying to participate in a particular action. Hence, subjective constraints are also conceived of as valid reasons for not engaging in a particular behavior: they prevent a desire to act. They are responsible for the exclusion of particular behavior alternatives among the ipsative possibility set. The emphasis on problems of di¡erential availability and access to environmental option is important to ecologically oriented psychologists (Lewin, 1951; Barker, 1968; Bronfenbrenner, 1979) but it has received astonishingly little attention in psychological ecological research. Fietkau and Kessel (1981) and Preuss (1991) have included the limitations of environmental behavior in their theoretical framework. Both claim availability of opportunities as one necessary presupposition of environmental action. In addition, Stern and Oskamp (1987) posit a causal model, suggesting that environmental behavior is an outcome of internal and external factors. Their model assumes barriers to ecological action within the individual, such as absence of knowledge or commitment, and outside the individual, such as socio-economic background, political institutions or inconveniences (Gardner & Stern, 1996). An interesting study by Black et al. (1985) revealed that distinct types of

148

C. Tanner

energy conservation are in£uenced by personal and contextual factors to di¡erent degrees. Attitudinal variables have less in£uence on more constrained actions such as capital investments in energy e¤ciency improvements, whereas less constrained actions such as temperature regulation and minor curtailment are more purely determined by personal factors.Therefore, Gardner and Stern (1996) infer that proenvironmental attitudes are likely to induce proenvironmental actions when the barriers to action are low. A number of researchers incorporate a notion of ef¢cacy or personal control in their model to point out that individuals' beliefs about what they can do, are also an important predictor of behavior in general (Rotter, 1966; Bandura, 1986). Speci¢cally, these models suggest that perception of a connection between one's actions and environmental degradation and the belief one can bring about a change are positively associated with environmental activities. Correspondingly, some studies have shown that individuals are more likely to engage in environmental behavior when they believe that they have the capability to help solve environmental problems through their behavior (Trigg et al. 1976; Huebner & Lipsey, 1981; Hines et al. 1986/87; Axelrod & Lenman, 1993; Grob, 1995). Unlike perceived control or e¤cacy which focus on behavior's relationship to environmental problems and their change, the notion of a barrier points out conditions that inhibit the performance of an action. with regard to recycling behavior, De Young (1988±89, 1990) identi¢ed perceived behavioral barriers such as lack of information about how to recycle and lack of opportunities as factors inhibiting appropriate recycling behavior. This variable is similar to Ajzen's notation of `perceived behavioral control'as one concept in the theory of planned behavior. It re£ects people's beliefs as to how easy performance of an action is likely to be (Ajzen & Madden, 1986; Ajen, 1988). However, Ajzen's concept incorporates not only the anticipation of resources or obstacles but also perceived capability of controlling the behavior. In contrast, perceived behavioral barriers re£ect ¢rst of all the perceived di¤culty with which the behavior may be performed. Knowledge about individual's perceived behavioral barriers also seems to be an important factor in understanding what prevents people from acting. Study questions and hypothesis With regard to ecological behavior research, therefore, a careful analysis of the di¡erent constraints to which a particular individual is subjected is essential to the understanding of environmental behavior. It is

assumed that the constraint approach will contribute additionally to the explanation of behavior. The present paper uses such an approach in order to build up a more comprehensive understanding of the factors that are associated with driving frequency. The independent variables included in the study have been identi¢ed in a previous exploratory study, using the repertory grid technique.4 A more extensive discussion of this study and its results is available in Tanner and Foppa (1996), Jaeggi et al. (1996) and Foppa et al. (1995). In terms of behavioral constraints, the focus is on both objective and subjective constraints. The former encompass factors which inhibit the performance of action or the participation in a particular action. The latter consist of conditions leading to proenvironmental behavioral preferences. As to the subjective constraints, the following study incorporates two variables. The ¢rst variable is sense of responsibility. It addresses a feeling of personal obligation or commitment to contribute to the preservation of the environment. The identi¢cation of this category supports those researchers who claim that concern with environmental problems is in part connected with moral thinking (Heberlein & Black, 1976; Stern et al., 1986). At the same time, the current study examines the usefulness of another critical dimension in predicting environmental behavior, namely the degree to which people perceive behavioral barriers in reducing automobile use. This dimension focuses on the anticipated costs in expressing a particular behavior. Sense of responsibility includes the belief a person has about what he or she ought to do, whereas perceived behavioral barriers encompasses the belief that the performance of an activity will inhibited by certain obstacles. Accordingly, we hypothesized that a high level of perceived obligation and a low level of perceived behavioral barriers would coincide with reduced driving frequency. In addition, the study examines the relative signi¢cance of di¡erent attitudinal scales, re£ecting a¡ective and cognitive responses to environmental issues, and a perceived e¤cacy component, re£ecting the perceived ability to cause a reduction of environmental degradation, in predicting driving frequency. Unlike constraint factors mentioned above, these variables have in common that they focus on the perception of environmental issues. Speci¢cally, the following categories are included. Personal problem awareness. This category re£ects the awareness of negative stressful feelings related to environmental problems, as well as the awareness that environmental problems threaten personal health and well-being. This component emphasizes

Constraints on Environmental Behaviour

beliefs of consequences referring to the self.Thus, it is related to the egoistic value orientation of environmental concern, identi¢ed by Stern et al. (1993; Stern & Dietz, 1994). General problem awareness. This category focuses on potential harmful outcomes for other people or nature. In contrast to the factor mentioned above, this one shows conceptual a¤nity to the social±altruistic and the biospheric value orientation, proposed by Stern et al. (1993; Stern & Dietz, 1994). According to previous research indicating that values and attitudes do not lead in a straightforward way to behavior, no direct linkage between personal and general problem awareness and behavior was expected. Perceived e¤cacy. This factor re£ects subjects' statements about the possibility of appropriate actions to ameliorate environmental problems. It expresses the belief that one's action can or cannot make a di¡erence. Apparently, the crucial di¡erence between perceived e¤cacy and perceived behavioral barrier is that the latter emphasizes the expected costs in behaving in a particular way whereas the former emphasizes the capability to in£uence the state of the natural environment. Nevertheless, in line with the ¢ndings reporting that people who believe that they can bring about change in environmental degradation through their behavior are more likely to engage in environmental activities (Trigg et al., 1976; Huebner & Lipsey, 1981; Hines et al., 1986/87; Axelrod & Lehman, 1993), we also expected that a high level of perceived e¤cacy would coincide with reduced driving frequency. In terms of objective constraints, the model examined here uses socio-demographic and contextual characteristics as indicators. With respect to leisure research Shaw et al. (1991) point out that people's lives are a¡ected by socio-structural relations, due to the fact that the individual's position in the social structure is related to access or nonaccess to speci¢c opportunities.This focus is taken for granted in social theory and sociological research. As Liska (1984) emphasizes, in psychology the individual's position in the social structure is traditionally treated as a background variable.The majority of studies assume an indirect e¡ect on behavior mediated by values, attitudes or beliefs (Van Liere & Dunlap, 1981). In fact, several socio-demographic dimensions correlate with environmental attitudes, but the empirical research does not always report consistent ¢ndings (Van Liere & Dunlap, 1980; Ru¡, 1990). For instance, a considerable number of previous studies pertains to di¡erences in gender and environmental attitudes. Accumulated results for gender show women to be signi¢cantly more

149

environmentally concerned than men (Schan & Holzer, 1990; Davidson & Freudenberg, 1996), while few studies show inconsistent ¢ndings (Hines et al. 1986/86; Stern et al., 1993). We also expect that socialstructural factors may a¡ect concern with environmental problems, but we also postulate a linkage between socio-demographic variables and behavior due to the availability of opportunities. Following Liska (1984) we suggest that social±structural factors a¡ect people's resources and opportunities for expressing their attitudes in behavior. According to Shaw et al. (1991), although demographic data are not direct measures of the opportunity structure, they are nevertheless useful referents of structural conditions. That is, demographic variables such as gender, education or income will be examined as factors, indicating differences in resource access and thus a¡ecting behavior. In terms of driving behavior, at least two further dimensions which determine the objective opportunity set have to be taken into account: availability of an automobile and place of residence. It is obvious that lack of a car has the characteristic of a constraint that cannot be overcome. That is, it has the characteristic of an `absolute' obstacle. In this case, a person cannot choose between the automobile and other transportation options, except if they have the opportunity of being given a lift or borrowing another person's automobile. Unlike in the United States for instance, in Switzerland it is not very unusual to encounter people who do not own a car. Furthermore, in Switzerland there is a well-developed public transportation system, although in urban areas the network is denser than in rural areas. Thus, it is reasonable to assume that town dwellers have better access to public transportation opportunities than rural residents. In general, in terms of the ipsative theory of action the study attempts to account for variables which are assumed to have an impact on preferences of behavioral alternatives represented in the ipsative possibility set as well as variables which are assessed to inhibit or limit the performance of an action. Unlike attitudinal scales which focus primarily on the perception of environmental issues rather than on behavioral questions, it was expected that subjective and objective constraints would be strong predictors of driving behavior. In addition, it was expected that the inclusion of objective constraints in the analysis would contribute considerably to the amount of explained variance. Such a result would support the usefulness of paying additional attention to variables which inhibit individuals' opportunities to participate in corresponding activities. Speci¢cally, the study examined the following expectations and hypotheses.

150

C. Tanner

(1) Obviously, we assumed a strong relationship between automobile ownership and driving frequency revealing that people who own an automobile are also apt to use it. Because lack of an automobile is a constraint which generally precludes the automobile option subsequent analyses excluded individuals without a car. Actually, those people who report a reduced driving frequency even though they have a car would be of special interest. (2) Given the fact that socio-demographic characteristics indicate di¡erences in availability of opportunities, this study assumed associations with demographic variables and driving. Speci¢cally, it was expected that town dwellers would reveal reduced driving frequency, due to privileged access to public transport opportunities. (3) Using multivariate analysis the relative signi¢cance of constraints and attitudes in predicting driving, we hypothesized a direct and negative e¡ect of sense of responsibility on behavior. Hence, respondents reporting a high level of responsibility should show a low level of driving frequency. (4) We assumed a positive relationship between perceived behavioral barriers to reduction of automobile use and behavior. That is, respondents reporting a lower level of perceived behavioral barriers should also show a lower rate of driving. (5) Unlike responsibility and perceived behavioral barriers, no direct linkage between personal/general problem awareness and behavior was predicted. (6) In contrast, we expected that perceived e¤cacy would have a direct negative e¡ect on behavior. That is, high perceived e¤cacy should coincide with a low rate of driving.

Method Respondents and procedures After two pre-tests, a ¢nal draft of a questionnaire was mailed to a random sample of German-speaking Swiss adults in 1993. Giving an overall response rate of 22 per cent, 153 questionnaires were returned. The sample comprised 102 males (67%) and 51 females (33%) with a mean age of 46. Furthermore, 65 per cent came from urban and 35 percent from rural settings. Eighteen per cent lived alone, 44 per cent in two-person households and 36 per cent lived in a household with more than two persons (three persons gave no information about household type). Sixty-eight per cent of the sample had children; 35 per cent had a higher education; 48 per cent lived in their own houses or

apartments and the remaining in rented £ats; and 19 persons (12%) did not own an automobile. Questionnnaire The ¢nal version of the questionnaire assessed two sections.The ¢rst section consisted of questions about personal and general problem awareness, perceived e¤cacy, sense of responsibility and perceived behavioral barriers. Personal and general problem awareness, sense of responsibility and perceived e¤cacy were ranked on a scale ranging from 1 (not true) to 5 (very true). The labelling of the scales was adopted from Rohrmann's (1978) analysis and recommendations of appropriate German labels which underpin interval distances.Those items of personal and general problem awareness tapping the aspect of perceived threat were measured on a 5 -point scale ranging from very threatening to not threatening. Seven items tapped personal problem awareness; for instance, `the possible consequences of a change in global climate or summer smog is (very threatening to not threatening) for me personally.' The reliability of the scale as assessed by Cronbach's alpha was 0
86. Four items assessed general problem awareness (alpha = 0
89), for example `the change in global climate is (very threatening to not threatening) for other people' or `the change in the global climate is (very threatening to not threatening) for animals and plants.' The variable sense of responsibility was tapped by means of three questions (alpha = 0
80) such as `everybody has a duty to contribute to a reduction of smog by reducing automobile use.'A measure of perceived e¤cacy was gauged by three items (alpha = 0
79); for example,`several ways of combatting the greenhouse e¡ect come to mind'or `I have no idea how to engage in activities that help to reduce smog concentration'. The second section contained questions on automobile ownership, on the extent of automobile use and on perceived behavioral barriers inhibiting people from reducing their driving frequency.This section applied only to automobile owners. Correspondingly, the respondents were ¢rst asked about automobile ownership (yes, no). Nonowners were requested to continue with the last questionnaire section. As to frequency of automobile use, we asked respondents which transportation they generally use on the following occasions: `reaching place of work', `shopping' and `leisure travel'. Participants could choose among several options, namely bicycle, motorcycle, automobile (respondent as driver or as passenger). The automobile (and motorcycle) options chosen were totalled across all responses revealing an index of driving frequency. To

151

Constraints on Environmental Behaviour

measure dimensions of perceived behavioral barriers we selected the following seven problems that could prevent people from reducing driving frequency: `need to transport material', `reduced time budget', `inconvenience', `low frequency of public transport', `transfers necessary with public transport', `cost' `colleagues' impression of me.' Respondents indicated whether the factors applied to them (1 = no, 2 = yes), both for reaching the work place and for shopping. The scores were combined in an index of number of perceived behavioral barriers. For subsequent statistical analyses all scales were standardized, producing variables with a mean of 0 and a standard deviation of 1. Questionnaire factor structure. A factor analysis was conducted to assess construct validity of the attitudinal scales, sense of responsibility and perceived e¤cacy. Principle components analysis with varimax rotation con¢rmed these four factors with eigen values greater than 1
0 and factor loadings from 0
59 to 0
84. they accounted for 67
2 per cent of the variance.

Results First, automobile ownership was shown to be signi¢cantly related to driving frequency (total automobile for getting to work, for shopping and for leisure travel)

by means of an F-test (F(1, 153) = 20
59, p50
001). Obviously, the nonautomobile owners who made up only a small part (19 persons) of the sample preferred cycle or walking as well as public transport. The very small number of people who reported using a car to go to work, shop or travel although they did not have an automobile of their own, must have been able to get a lift or to borrow another person's car. Because lack of an automobile is a constraint which tends to preclude the automobile option, the following statistical analyses will include only those individuals owning an automobile. Based on the argument that demographic information provides some useful indication of an individual's position in the social structure and the relative availability of opportunities, we also examined the relationship between socio-demographic variables and rate of driving. The ¢ndings of one-way analyses of variance are summarized in Table 2. Again, the sample included only car owners. As can be seen, only three demographic variables were signi¢cantly related to driving frequency, namely place of residence (F(1, 133) = 4
71, p50
05), income (F(2, 129) = 3
82, p50
05) and age (F(2, 134) = 4
57, p50
01). That is, automobile owners who live in urban areas, are less than 60 years of age and have higher incomes more often use their car than older people living in rural areas, with lower incomes. It is noteworthy that gender was not associated with driving frequency level.

TABLE 2 Relationship between demographic variables and driving frequency (N=134) Driving frequency{ M Residence Gender Household income Age Education Home ownership Children Household type

Rural areal Urban area Women Men Less than 4500 Sfr. Less than 7500 Sfr. More than 7500. Sfr. Less than 30 Less than 60 More than 60 Low education High education Owner Renter No Yes Single Two persons More than two

0
25 70
15 70
10 0
23 70
10 0
19 0
53 0
31 0
31 70
21 0
311 0
16 0
21 0
07 0
04 0
28 70
07 0
08 0
29

4
71* 3
33 3
82*** 4
57** 0
02 0
72 1
81 1
27

Note. {Only automobile owners were included in this analysis. Driving frequency has been standardized, producing a variable with a mean of 0 and a standard deviation of 1. *p50
05; **p50
01; ***p50
001.

152

C. Tanner

This is due to the fact that the sample used in this analysis was restricted to automobile owners. However, if nonowners as well as automobile owners were included signi¢cant gender di¡erences revealed. Given this condition, men chose the car more frequently than women (F(1, 134) = 6
90, p50
01). In fact, considering the association between gender and automobile ownership showed that 22 per cent of the female respondents have no car. In comparison to women, only 8 per cent of men reported having no car (w2(1, n = 134) = 5
89, p50
05). These results imply that gender di¡erences in behavior are related to di¡erent access to behavioral opportunities. To assess the association of the attitude concepts, perceived e¤cacy, responsibility and perceived behavioral barriers with the behavioral scale, simple bivariate correlations were ¢rst calculated. Table 3 displays the intercorrelation matrix between the scales. It can be seen that the variables are in general highly related. With the exception of perceived e¤cacy, all other scales were signi¢cantly correlated (p50
001) with driving frequency. However, sense of responsibility (r = 70
43) and perceived behavioral barriers (r = 0
53) showed the highest correlation with driving frequency. Multiple regression analyses were employed to examine the overall and combined strength of the subjective and structural constraints in predicting the criterion variable and to assess those predictors making an essential contribution to the variance explained. To assess the potential of the personal variables in predicting driving frequency, the attitudinal scales (personal problem awareness, general problem awareness) and perceived e¤cacy were included on the ¢rst step. On the second step sense of responsility and the perceived behavioral barriers to reduction of automobile use were included. The major results are displayed in Table 4. As expected, sense of

responsibility (b = 70
34) and perceived behavioral barriers (b = 0
42) were highly correlated with rate of driving, revealing a multiple correlation of 0
58 and accounting for approximately 33 per cent of explained variance. This suggests that driving frequency diminishes with increasing level of responsibility and with decreasing level of perceived behavioral barriers to reduce automobile facility. In contrast, neither personal problem awareness, general problem awareness nor perceived e¤cacy were predictive of the behavioral reports.5 The third step also included the socio-demographic predictors which had proved to be essential in the earlier analysis, namely place of residence, income and age. As might be expected (see Table 4), the regression coe¤cients of place of residence (b = 70
15) and income (b = 70
16) were signi¢cant. Conversely, age was not found to be a signi¢cant predictor. More importantly, introduction of these demographic variables on the third step improved prediction of behavior. The multiple correlation increased from 0
59 to 0
66. Simultaneously, the amount of explained variance increased from 34 to 43 per cent. Discussion Based on the argument that the measurement of attitudinal factors is not su¤cient to permit an accurate understanding of environmental behavior, the present study attempted to identify crucial constraints that render proenvironmental behavior less likely or even impossible. In general, we found strong evidence for the signi¢cance of subjective and objective constraints. The ¢ndings support the idea that attitudinal factors should not be conceived as direct predictors of environmental behavior. This clearly contradicts studies suggesting that people are more

TABLE 3 Correlation matrix of criterion and predictor variables. 1

2

3

4

5

6

7

0
64*** 0
59*** 0
22** 0
19* 0
34*** 0
48*** 70
31***

0
54*** 0
19* 0
19* 0
20* 0
47*** 7 0
35***

0
30*** 0
25** 0
44*** 0
46*** 70
43***

70
05 0
38*** 0
34*** 70
06***

0
20* 0
22** 0
53***

0
44*** 70
31***

70
33***

{

1. Personal problem awareness 2. General problem awareness{ 3. Sense of responsibility{ 4. Perceived control{ 5. Perceived behavioral barriers{ 6. Social Engagement{ 7. Political engagement{ 8. Driving frequency{ {

{

Note. n=153; n=134, only automobile owners were included. *p50
05; **p50
01; ***p50
001

153

Constraints on Environmental Behaviour TABLE 4 Multiple regression results using subjective and objective constraints to predict driving frequency (N=134) Predictors

b

Step 1 Personal problem awareness General problem awareness Perceived e¤cacy Step 2 Perceived behavioral barriers (to reduction of automobile use) Sense of responsibility Step 3 Household income Place of residence Age Final bs Perceived behavioral barriers Sense of responsibility Personal problem awareness General problem awareness Perceived control Household income Place of residence Age

t

R

R2


R2

0
01

70
01 70
09 70
01

70
01 70
9 70
2

0
59

0
34

0
42 70
34

5
3*** 74
3***

0
58

0
33

0
16 70
15 70
00

2
2* 72
2* 70
0

0
66

0
43

0
44 70
29 70
02 70
06 70
03 0
16 70
15 70
00

5
9*** 72
3*** 70
2 70
6 70
4 2
2* 72
2* 70
0

0
09

*p50
05; ***0
001.

likely to enact ecologically supportive behavior when they feel threatened by environmental problems (Baldassare & Katz, 1992; Axelrod & Lehman, 1993; Grob, 1995). Provided that environmental concern shows some a¤nity to general and personal problem awareness, our results are in agreement with numerous studies which demonstrated a gap between environmental awareness and behavior. In contrast to previous research, the present study showed no direct relationship between perceived e¤cacy and behavior. This is probably due to the fact to the perceived e¤cacy, as conceptualized in this study, is not really behavior oriented. Unlike perceived behavioral barriers it emphasizes personal belief about which activities are essential in ameliorating the environmental state. But it neglects the question of conditions which may facilitate or impede the performance of the action. Unsurprisingly, our ¢ndings revealed that the frequency of automobile use for di¡erent occasions is strongly related to automobile ownership. In short, people who own a car are also apt to use it. For automobile owners only, multiple regression analyses have yielded several essential factors inhibiting reduction of driving. As predicted, perceived obligation and perceived behavioral barriers were closely associated with driving behavior.The notion of sense of responsibility shows remarkable a¤nity to the concept of personal norm in Schwart's norm-activation model of altruism (Schwartz, 1968, Schwartz & Howard, 1981). In line with the Schwartz model we therefore posit

commitment as a self-imposed or socially mediated and internalized personal norm, indicating what a person `should'do. Our result that a high level of commitment coincides with proenvironmental behavior agrees therefore with numerous environmental studies adopting the Schwartz model (Heberlein & Black, 1976; Stern et al., 1986; Hopper & Nielson, 1991; Stern & Dietz, 1994). It also agrees with studies which have investigated the ability of commitment interventions to induce recycling (e.g. Pardini & Katzev, 1983±1984, Wang & Katzev, 1990). These studies have especially demonstrated that people's commitment to behave in a certain way has the potential for long-term e¡ects. It might be the case that commitment could also support enduring e¡ects in the domain of mobility. This suggests that the generation of a somewhat `intentional' state is often essential to encourage proenvironmental behavior. However, even acknowledgment of any intentional variables is clearly insu¤cient. Therefore, theories that focus on personal variables in general and neglect the investigation of constraints that inhibit people from performing the behavior in question are likely to be of limited use in explaining behavior. As our ¢ndings emphasize, environmental action is also related to the availability of performance opportunity.This is based on the argument that socio-demographic characteristic have an indirect impact on behavior due to their connection to opportunities structures. For example, the fact that gender di¡erences were only revealed when automobile ownership

154

C. Tanner

was not controlled calls into question the explanations pertaining to gender di¡erences in environmental concern (e.g. Davidson & Freudenberg, 1996). The ¢nding of this study supports the assumption that behavioral di¡erences are also due to gender-speci¢c access to opportunities. Diekmann (1995) and Flade (1990) also provide evidence for this conclusion. In fact, inclusion of the demographic variables as referents of structural opportunities made a substantial contribution to variance explained (from 34% to 43%), although their relative associations with the criterion were not as strong as those of responsibility and perceived behavioral barriers. In particular, place of residence, and income were associated with driving frequency. That is, among automobile owners, urban residents drove less frequently. This lends support to the assumption that town dwellers pro¢t from a denser public transportation and shopping network and may thus have a reduced desire for mobility. In addition, people with higher household incomes showed a higher frequency of car use than people with lower incomes. Overall, the investigation of subjective and objective constraint has the potential to make a signi¢cant contribution to knowledge about behavior. As this study suggests, not only variables that a¡ect people's evaluation of alternatives but also variables that inhibit individuals'ability to participate in particular activities must be taken into account to insure an appropriate understanding of human behavior. Limitations of the study and future research directions As to indicators of individual mobility level, the study focused on frequency of automobile use with references to several occasions. Driving distance could be another important aspect of mobility, for example. However, there is strong evidence from risk and decision research that people experience di¤culty in making accurate estimates (e.g. Lichtenstein et al. 1978). For this reason, the present study contained no question about estimated driving distances. But other major aspects suggest themselves for inclusion in future investigations, such as fuel-e¤ciency of the vehicle used, where the car is equipped with catalytic convertor and whether it is air-conditioned, for example. Of course, the behavioral aspect that is more or less signi¢cant and useful to emphasize depends on structural preconditions in each country. However, the inclusion of di¡erent behavioral aspects might yield inconsistent ¢ndings, demonstrating that people do not behave in a consistently proecological manner. Future investigations should examine the di¡erent constellations of constraints supporting these beha-

vioral di¡erences. A further limitation involves the selectivity of the sample, which a¡ects the generalizability of the results. It is possible that the sample is largely made up of people who are more likely to engage in environmental behavior. This bias is found in most environmental studies. Despite these limitations, we believe that the study has proved the usefulness of an approach which also considers behavioral constraints. Of great signi¢cance for subsequent research would be the extension of knowledge about prevalent constraints and their role in peoples' lives. Likewise, an appropriate understanding of constraints requires that behavior should be seen within the framework of an individual's life context. In particular, constraints that derive from external sources still tends to be neglected in psychological environmental research. The focus is on personal variables, whereas little attention is paid to the actual opportunity structure for performing the behavior, especially to factors associated with ¢nancial, time, material, contextual or power resources. This neglect of objective constraints may be due to the di¤culty of their adequate operationalization, and in fact, assessment of performance barriers by means of self-reports is limited. The study presented here used socio-demographic variables as referents for opportunity structure. Given the fact that other scienti¢c disciplines such as economics or sociology focus on constraints, subsequent environmental research should entail more interdisciplinary cooperation. Furthermore, future research should take subgroup di¡erences into consideration (Geller, 1989; Schultz et al., 1995). To date, research has generalized its results across a whole population. But it is likely that people di¡er both in their subjective and objective presuppositions. Acknowledgement of di¡erent preconditions has important implications for intervention strategies, aimed at fostering proenvironmental behavior. Interventions should be responsive to the subgroup's di¡erential constraints. Therefore, appropriate knowledge of common characteristics of di¡erent target groups might allow the optimization of e¡ects of intervention strategies. Furthermore, the complex interplay between the constraints and behavior requires empirical research. Individuals are not only in£uenced by constraints, but though their behavior they may also try to alter the inhibiting conditions. For instance, as ¢ndings in leisure research indicate, constraints may encourage the search for other behavioral alternatives or even attempt to overcome them (Kay & Jackson, 1991; Shaw et al., 1991). In this regard, we presume that much could be learned from longitudinal studies. Indeed, as is also stressed within the

155

Constraints on Environmental Behaviour

constraint framework, it is essential to acknowledge that individuals di¡er in their abilities and opportunities to restructure their circumstances. Such di¡erences are, for example due to their position in the social structure. Finally, taking into consideration that constraints and environmental behavior are touched by culture ultimately, extended knowledge about constraints is also pertinent to the understanding of cultural di¡erences in ecological behavior. In fact, cultures not only di¡er with respect to environmental concern, values, beliefs and morals, but also with respect to structural opportunities, facilitating or inhibiting proenvironmental behavior. In sum, we believe that the constraint approach presented in this paper is worthy of further investigation and should prove bene¢cial to researchers and practitioners alike.

Acknowledgements The data of this report stem from the project `Individual awareness and determinants of proenvironmental behavior'. This project was integrated in the Swiss Priority Programme `Environment'. The research was funded by the Swiss National Science Foundation (Project No. 5001-35277). The author thanks Roland Calmonte, Klaus Foppa, Alexander Grob for their helpful comments on manuscript.

rules using given information very selectively (e.g. Tversky & Kahneman, 1973; Payne, 1976; Kahnaman et al. 1982; Ford et al. 1989). (4) Taking a constructivist approach (Kelly, 1955), we presume that people may hold di¡erent salient concepts on the basis of which they judge environmental problems. Hence, it seems important to assess perception of environmental issues along people's prevalent qualitative dimensions rather than to impose the researcher's concepts. To identify and to explore people's prevalent construct dimensions in human±environment relations, we used the repertory grid technique. This study, carried out with a sample of 50 Swiss people, has revealed several salient personal categories. (5) Further regression analyses were conducted to examine whether general and personal problem awareness as well as perceived e¤cacy were predictive of responsibility and perceived behavioral barriers. While those predictors were not related to perceived behavioral barriers, personal and general problem awareness and perceived control were signi¢cantly associated with respondents' responsibility reports. Personal problem awareness showed the strongest link to the responsibility scores (b = 0
41), indicating that the more individuals are aware of negative feelings and personal threat connected with environmental problems, the more they believe that they ought to make a contribution to the preservation of the environment. General problem awareness was also positively related to the criterion (b = 0
20). Likewise, the more a person believes in his or her potential to in£uence environmental degradation (b = 0
26), the higher his or her level of commitment.

References Notes Reprint requests and correspondence should be addressed to: Carmen Tanner, Department of Psychology, University of Fribourg, Rue de Faucigny 2, 1700 Fribourg, Switzerland. E-mail: [email protected]. (1) It is noteworthy that a similar approach has produced interesting ¢ndings in leisure science. By asking why people do not participate in leisure activities, people with a latent demand have also been identi¢ed. These individuals do not participate in leisure activities not because they do not want to but because structural constraints prevent participation (Jackson, 1988, 1991). (2) The question of activation is not only applicable to ipsative alternatives but also to behavioral outcomes that people anticipate in the current situation. Likewise the perceived alternatives, the consequences which are salient at a given moment consist of the ipsative consequences set. Obviously, the ipsative consequences can diverge from real outcomes, equivalent to the ipsative possibility set (IPS), which may deviate from real alternatives. (3) The perspective presented here proposes that decision processes do not coincide with rational choice models or in particular with expectancy value approaches. Evidence from extended descriptive psychological research reveals that human decisions do not equate with rational choice assumptions. For example, respondents often use simpli¢ed

Ajzen, I. (1988). Attitudes, Personality and Behavior. Milton Keynes: Open University Press. Ajzen, I. & Fishbein, M. (1980). Understanding attitudes and predicting social behaviour. Englewood Cli¡s, NJ: Prentice Hall. Ajzen, I. & Madden, T. J. (1986). Prediction of goal-directed behavior: attitudes, intentions, and perceived behavioral control. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 22, 453±473. Axelrod, L. J. & Lehman, D. R. (1993). Responding to environmental concerns: what factors guide individual action? Journal of Environmental Psychology, 13, 149±159. Baldassare, M. & Katz, C. (1992). The personal threat of environmental problems as predictor of environmental practices. Environment and Behavior, 24, 602±616. Bamberg, S., Bien, W. & Schmidt, P. (1995). Wann steigen Autofather auf den Bus um? Oder: Lassen sich aus sozialpsychologischen Handlungstheorien praktische Massnahmen ableiten? [When do drives prefer to take the bus? Or: is it possible to infer practical steps from social psychological action theories?]. In A. Diekmann & A. Franzen, (Eds), Kooperatives Umwelthandeln. Modelle, Erfahrungen, Massnahmen (pp. 89±111). Chur: RÏegger. Bandura, A. (1986). Social Foundations of Thought and Action: A Social Cognitive Theory. Englewood Cli¡s, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

156

C. Tanner

Barker, R. G. (1968). Ecological Psychology. Concepts and Methods for Studying the Environment of Human Behavior. Stanford, CA, Stanford University Press. Black, J. S., Stern, P. C. & Elworth, J. T. (1985). Personal and Contextual in£uences on household energy adaptations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 70, 3±21. Boesch, E. E. (1991). Symbolic Action Theory for Cultural Psychology. Berlin: Springer. Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The Ecology of Human Development. Cambridge, MA: Harvad University Press. Bundesamt fÏr Statistik (1994). Statistisches Jahrbuch der Schweiz [Statistical yearbook of Switzerland]. Zurich: Verlag Neue ZÏrcher Zeitung. Cole, M. (1990). Cultural psychology: a once and a future discipline? In J. J. Berman (Ed.), Cross-cultural Perspectives Lincoln: University of Nebraska, pp. 279±335. Davidson, D. J. & Freudenberg, W. R. (1996). Gender and environment risk concerns. Environmental and Behavior, 28, 302±339 DeYoung, R. (1988±1989). Exploring the di¡erences between recyclers and non-recyclers: the role of information. Journal of Environment Systems. 18, 341±351. De Young, R. (1990). Recycling as appropriate behavior: a review of survey data from selected recycling education programs in Michigan. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 3, 253±266. Diekmann, A. (1995). Umweltbewusstsein oder Anreizstrukturen? Empirische Befunde zum Energiesparen, der Verkehrsmittelwahl und zum Konsumverhalten [Environmental concern or incentives? Empirical results about energy saving, mobility and consumer behaviour]. In A. Diekmann & A. Franzen, (Eds), Kooperatives Unwelthandeln, Modelle, Erfahrungen, Massnahmen Chur: RÏegger, pp. 39±68. Fazio, R. H. (1990). Multiple processes by which attitude guide behavior: The mode model as an integrative framework. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 23, 75±109. Fazio, R. H. & Zann, M. P. (1978). On the predictive validity of attitudes. The role of direct experince and con¢dnce. Journal of Personality, 46, 228±243. Fietkau, H.-J. & Kessel, H. (1981). Umweltlernen [Environmental Learning]. KÎnigstein/Ts.: Hain. Flade, A. (1990). Einstellungen zum Ρentlichen Verkehr und zur Verkehrsmittelnutzung von Frauen und MÌnnern [Attitudes to public transportation and about men's and Women's use of transport facilities]. Zeitschrift fÏr experimentelle and angewandte Psychologie, 2, 218±229. Foppa, K. (1989). Grundlagen einer ipsativen Theorie des Handelns [Fundamentals of the ipsative theory of action]. Unpublished manuscript Institute of Psychology. University of Berne. Foppa, K., Tanner, C., Jaeggi, Ch. & Arnold, St. (1995). Umweltverantwortliches Handeln: Was hindert uns daran zu tun, was wir tun mÏssten? [Proenvironmental behavior: what prevents us from doing what we should do?. Unipress, 85, 15±17. Ford, J. K., Schmitt, N., Schechtman, S. L., Hults, B. M. & Doherty, M. (1989). Process tracing methods: contributions, problems, and neglected research questions. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 43, 73±117.

Frey, B. S. (1989). Ipsative and objective limits to human behavior. Journal of Behavioral Economics, 17, 229±248. Frey, B. S. & Foppa, K. (1986). Human behavior: possibilities explain action. Journal of Economic Psychology, 7, 137±160. Gardner, G. T. & Stern, P. C. (1996). Environmental Problems and Human Behavior. Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Geller, E. S. (1989). Applied behavior analysis and social marketing: an integration to preserve the environment. Journal of Social Issues, 45, 17±36 Grob, A. (1995). A structural model of environmental attitudes and behavior. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 15, 209±220. Guagnano, G. A., Stern, P. C. & Dietz,T. (1995). In£uences on attitude±behavior relationships: a natural experiment with ourbside recycling. Environment and Behavior, 27, 699±718. Heberlein, T. A. & Black, J. S. (1976). Attitudinal speci¢city and the prediction of behavior in a ¢eld setting. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 33, 474±479. Hines, J. M., Hungerford, H. R. & Tomera, A. N. (1986±87). Analysis and synthesis of research on environmental behavior. A meta-analysis. Journal of Environment Education, 18, 1±8. Hopper, J. R. & Nielson, J. M. (1991). Recycling as altruistic behavior. Normative and behavior strategies to expand participation in a community recycling program. Environment and Behavior, 23, 195±220. Huebner, R. B. & Lipsey, M. W. (1981). The relationship of three measures of locus of control to environment activism. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 2, 45±58. Jackson, E. L. (1988). Leisure constraints: a survey of past research. Leisure Sciences 10, 203±215. Jackson, E. L. (1991). Leisure constraints/constrained leisure: special issue introduction. Journal of Leisure Research, 23, 279±285. Jaeggi, Ch., Tanner, C., Foppa, K. & Arnold, St. (1996). Was uns vom umweltverantwortlichen Handeln abhÌlt [what prevents us from proenvironmental behavior]. In R. Kaufmann-Hayoz & A. Di Giulio, (Eds), Umweltproblem Mensch. Humanwissenschaftliche ZugÌnge zu umweltverantworthlichem Handeln. Bern: Haupt, pp. 181±196. Kahneman, D., Slovic, P & Tversky, A. (1982). Judgement under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases. Cambridge. Cambridge University Press. Kay, T. & Jackson, G. (1991). Leisure despite constraint: the impact of leisure constraints on leisure participation. Journal of Leisure Research, 23, 301±313 Kelly, G. A. (1955).The Psychology of Personal constructs. New York: Norton. Lewin, K. (1951). Field theory in Social Sciences. New York: Harper & Row. Lichtenstein, S., Slovic, P., Fischo¡, B., Layman, M. & Combs, B. (1978). Judged frequency of lethal events. Journal of Exeperimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 4, 551±578. Liska, A. E. (1984). A critical examination of the causal structure of the Fishbein/Ajzen attitude±behavior model. Social Psychology Quarterly, 47, 61±74. Maloney, M. P. & Ward, M. P. (1973). Ecology: Let's hear from the people: an objective scale for the measurement of ecological attitudes and knowledge. American Psychologist, 28, 583±586.

Constraints on Environmental Behaviour Pardini, A. U. & Katzev, R. C. (1983±1984). The e¡ect of strength of commitment on newspaper recycling. Journal of Environmental Systems, 13, 245±254. Payne, J. W. (1976). Task complexity and contingent processing in decision making: an information search and protocol analysis. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 16, 366±387. Preuss, S. (1991). Umweltkatastrophe Mensch: Ûber unsere Grenzen and MÎglichkeiten, Îkologisch bewusst zu handeln [The Human Being as Environmental Catastrophe: On Constraints and Possibilities of Proenvironmental Behavior]. Heidelberg: Asamger. Rohrmann, B. (1978). Empirische Studien zur Entwicklung von Antwortskalen fÏr die sozialwissenschaftliche Forschung [Empirical studies on the development of responses scales for social scienti¢c research]. Zeitschrift fÏr Sozioalpsychologie, 9, 222±245. Rotter, J. B (1966). Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of reinforcement. Psychological Monographs, 80 (whole number, 609). Ru¡, F. M. (1990). Úkologische Krise und Risikobewusstsein: Zur psychischen Verarbeitung von Umweltbelastungen [Ecological Crisis and Risk awareness: The Psychological Processing of environmental Danger]. Wiesbaden: Deutscher UniversitÌts-Verlag. Schahn, J. & Holzer, E. (1990). Studies of individual environmental concern: the role of knowledge, gender, and background variables. Environment and Behavior, 22, 767±786. Schultz, P. W., Oskamp, St. & Mainieri, T. (1995). Who recycles and when? A review of personal and situational factors. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 15, 1±17. Schwartz, S. H. (1968).Words, deeds, and the perception of consequences and responsibility in action situations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 10, 232±242. Schwartz, S. H. & Howard, J. A. (1981). A normative decisionmaking model of altruism. In J. P. Rushton & R. M. Sorrentiono (Eds). Altruism and Helping Behavior. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erbaum, pp. 189±211. Scott, D. & Willis, F. K. (1994). Environmental attitudes and behavior. A Pennsylvania survey. Environment and Behavior, 26, 239±260. Shaw, S. M., Bonen, A. & McCabe, J. F. (1991). Do more constraints mean less leisure? Examining the relationship

157

between constraints and participation. Journal of Leisure Research, 23, 286±300. Snyder, M. & Swann, W. B. (1976). When actions re£ect attitudes: The politics of impression management. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 34, 165±183. Stern, P. C. & Dietz, T. (1994). The value basis of environmental concern. Journal of Social Issues, 50, 65±84. Stern, P. C. & Oskamp, St. (1987). Managing scarce environmental resources. In D. Stokols & I. Altman (Eds), Handbook of Environmental Psychology. New York: John Wiley, pp. 1043±1088. Stern, P. C., Dietz, T. & Black, J. S. (1986). Support for environmental protection: the role of morale norms. Population and Environment 8, 204±222. Stern, P. C., Dietz, T. & Kalof, L. (1993). Value orientations, gender, and environmental concern. Environment and Behavior 25, 322±348. Tanner, C. & Foppa, K. (1996). Umweltwahrnehmung, Umweltbewusstsein und Umweltverhalten [Environmental perception, environmental concern and environmental behavior]. In A. Diekmann & C. C. Jaeger (Eds). Umweltsoziologie. Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag, pp. 245±271. Taylor, S. & Todd, P. (1995). An integrated model of waste management behavior. A test of household recycling and composting intentions. Environment and Behavior, 27, 603±630. Trigg, L. J., Perlman, D., Perry, R. P. & Janisse, M. P. (1976). Anti-pollution behavior: a function of perceived outcome and locus of control. Environment and Behavior, 8, 307±313. Tversky, A. & Kahnaman, D. (1973). Availability: a heuristic for judging frequency and probability. Cognitive Psychology, 4, 207±232. Van Liere, K. D. & Dunlap, R. E. (1980). The social bases of environmental concern: a review of hypothesis, explanations and empirical evidence. Public Opinion Ouarterly, 44, 181±197. Van Liere, K. D. & Dunlap, E. R. (1981). Environmental concern: does it make a di¡erence how it's measured? Environment and Behavior, 13, 651±676. Wang, T. H. & Katzev, R. D. (1990). Group Commitment and resource conservation: Two ¢eld experiments on promoting recyling. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 20, 265±275.