How does environmental concern influence ... - Semantic Scholar

Journal of Environmental Psychology 23 (2003) 21–32

www.elsevier.com/locate/jep

How does environmental concern influence specific environmentally related behaviors? A new answer to an old question Sebastian Bamberg* Department of Psychology, Fachbereich 03, University of Giessen, Karl-Glockner-Strasse 21E, D-35394 Giessen, Germany .

Abstract The disappointment about the weak direct relationship between environmental concern and specific environmentally related behaviors is due to the incorrect assumption that general attitudes like environmental concern are direct determinants of specific behaviors. Because only situation-specific cognitions are direct determinants of specific behaviors, future research should no longer view environmental concern as a direct, but as an important indirect determinant of specific behavior. As a general orientation pattern it influences the definition of a specific situation that is the generation of situation-specific cognitions. Results of a study analysing high vs low environmentally concerned students’ decision to request an information brochure about green electricity products confirms this assumption. r 2003 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction In the 1970s the insight that environmental problems are the consequences of ‘maladaptive human behavior’ (Maloney & Ward, 1973) motivated social scientists to engage in the analysis of individual motives underlying this behavior. One central assumption of this research was that the degree of environmental concern has a direct strong impact on people’s behavior in specific environmentally related domains like recycling, energy saving, buying environmentally friendly products or travel mode choice. During the next few decades, this thesis was explicitly or implicitly the guiding assumption of a great amount of studies. Most of these studies center on one of the following issues: developing a more precise definition and operationalization of the concept environmental concern, understanding the factors influencing the genesis of environmental concern and providing empirical evidence for the assumed strong relationship between environmental concern and behaviors in specific, environmentally important domains. The necessity to develop a more precise definition and operationalization of environmental concern was caused *Corresponding author. Reprint requests and should be addressed to, Dr. Sebastian Bamberg, Psychology, Fachbereich 03, Universit.at Giessen, Strasse 21E, D-35394 Giessen, Germany; E-mail: [email protected].

correspondence Department of . Karl-Glocknersebastian.bam-

by the fact that environmental concerns are not a scientific term but one imported from the political discourse. People use this term to refer to the whole range of environmentally related perceptions, emotions, knowledge, attitudes, values and behaviors. The first operationalization approaches reflected this broad understanding of environmental concern. For example, the measurement instrument developed by Maloney and Ward (1973) consists of the five subscales affect, knowledge, verbal commitment and actual commitment. In the meantime, most researchers view the perception of environmental pollution, environmental knowledge, and values more as antecedence than genuine parts of environmental concern. To prevent circularity, also actual behavior itself is strictly excluded from the conceptual definition of environmental concern. Now, most researchers view environmental concern as a general attitude, which centers on the cognitive and affective evaluation of the object environmental protection (e.g. Dunlap & Van Liere, 1978; Weigel & Weigel, 1978). The question which factors influence the genesis of environmental concern also stimulated a considerable amount of research. One approach points to personal background factors such as age, income or education as predisposing individuals to environmental concern (for reviews, see Van Liere & Dunlap, 1980; Jones & Dunlap, 1992). A second one examines individuals’ environmental concern as a function of the risks they attach to

0272-4944/03/$ - see front matter r 2003 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved. PII: S 0 2 7 2 - 4 9 4 4 ( 0 2 ) 0 0 0 7 8 - 6

22

S. Bamberg / Journal of Environmental Psychology 23 (2003) 21–32

environmental problems (e.g. Slovic, 1987; Gould et al., 1988). A third approach perceives environmental concern as a developmental phenomenon, for instance, an expression of higher-order needs (e.g. Inglehart, 1992; Dunlap, Gallup Jr., Gallup, 1993; Brechin & Kempton, 1994). A fourth theoretical approach treats environmental concern as a subset of morally tinged human concerns, rooted in universal value (e.g. Stern, Dietz, & Kaloj, 1993; Stern, Dietz, Kaloj, & Guagnano, 1995). The research efforts undertaken in the last 30 years have clarified the theoretical status as the measurement of the concept environmental concern. But simultaneously the research results concerning the most important question, that of the impact of environmental concern on environmental behavior, are rather disappointing. Reviews of the many studies analysing the direct empirical relationship between environmental concern and behavior all agree in the conclusion that this relation is low to moderate (e.g. Weigel, 1983; Hines, Hungerford, & Tomera, 1986/87; Spada, 1990; Six, 1992; Schahn, 1993, Eckes & Six, 1994, Fuhrer, 1995). Hines et al. for example, report an average correlation of 0.35 in their meta-analysis of 128 studies; Eckes and Six (1994) found only an average correlation of 0.26 in their meta-analysis (17 studies). Taken together, the general attitude environmental concern seems to explain not more than 10 per cent variance of specific environmental behaviors. How does the scientific discussion react to these empirical results? One approach consists in giving up the claim that the general attitude environmental concern is a direct predictor of specific environmental behaviors. Instead the attitude toward a specific behavior itself is used as a predictor (e.g. Weigel, 1983). This position is in line with the correspondence principle developed by Ajzen and Fishbein (1977), which postulates that only when the attitudinal and behavioral measures correspond to each other concerning the facets target, action, context and time, should there be a substantial relationship between attitude and behavior. But using attitudes toward specific environmentally related behaviors instead of the general attitude environmental concern has its price. The attitude concept received so much attention in psychology because of its assumed function as situation invariant orientation pattern, which should allow the prediction of multiple behaviors simultaneously (e.g. Rokeach, 1980). Specific attitudes do not fulfill this function. Thus, another approach to tackle the discrepancy between environmental concern and behavior concentrates on variables and/or situational contexts which may moderate the impact of environmental concern on behavior. The ‘other variable’ which attracts most attention is the cost associated with performing a specific behavior. Proponents of this approach are Stern and colleagues (e.g. Stern & Aronson, 1984; Stern,

1992), who argue that attitudes supporting behaviors like energy conservation are most likely to be converted into action if the action involves little cost in terms of time, money or comfort (see also Tyler, Orwin, & Schurer, 1982; Derksen & Gartell, 1993; Schultz & . Oskamp, 1996; Diekmann & Preisendorfer, 1998). In their ‘A–B–C-model’, Guagnano, Stern, and Dietz (1995) specify the assumed relation between environmental concern and behavior as a inverse U-function: in situations with moderate behavioral costs the impact of environmental concern on behavior might be expected to be strong whereas in situations with low and high costs this effect was expected to be weak. In summary, in the last few years social scientific environmental research has become rather sceptical concerning the explanatory power of the concept environmental concern. Either the concept of environmental concern is completely substituted by behaviorspecific attitudes or environmental concern is now viewed more as an ideology, which influences only symbolic ‘low-cost’ environmentally related behaviors . like voting (e.g. Diekmann & Preisendorfer, 1998).

2. The present study The starting point of the present paper is the thesis that this disappointment about the concept environmental concern might be the consequence of a wrong assumption concerning the causal process through which environmental concern influences specific environmentally related behaviors. Explicitly or implicitly, all research reported above is guided by the assumption of a direct causal impact of environmental concern on specific behavior. But is this a tenable assumption? In the last decades, social psychological research, especially the work or Ajzen and Fishbein (1980) has provided strong theoretical and empirical evidence that only situation-specific cognition is a direct determinant of a specific behavior. Ajzen’s (1991) theory of planned behavior (TPB) is the most actual statement of this position. Very briefly, the TPB postulates that human action is guided by three kinds of situation-specific beliefs: beliefs about the likely consequences of the behavior (behavioral beliefs), beliefs about the normative expectations of others (normative beliefs), and beliefs about the presence of factors that may further or hinder performance of the behavior (control beliefs). In their respective aggregates, behavioral beliefs produce a favorable or unfavorable attitude toward the behavior in question; normative beliefs result in perceived social pressure or subjective norm to perform that specific behavior; and control beliefs give rise to perceived behavioral control (PBC), the perceived ease or difficulty of performing that specific behavior. In combination, attitude toward the behavior, subjective norm, and


perception of behavioral control lead to the formation of a behavioral intention. Intention is assumed to be the immediate antecedent of behavior. However, because many behaviors pose difficulties of execution that may limit volitional control, it is useful to consider PBC in addition to intention. To the extent that people are realistic in their judgments of a behavior’s difficulty, a measure of PBC can serve as a proxy for actual control and contribute to the prediction of the behavior in question (see Ajzen, 1991). The TPB has received good empirical support in applications to a wide variety of different domains (for recent reviews, see Sutton, 1998; Ajzen, 2000; Armitage & Conner, 2001). But what role do general attitudes like environmental concern play within this theoretical framework? Fishbein and Ajzen assume that general attitudes do not have a direct causal impact on specific behaviors, but an important indirect one: general attitudes should influence the perception and evaluation of the situation-specific behavioral, normative and control beliefs, which via their impact on attitude, subjective norm and behavioral control determine intention and behavior. Unfortunately, Fishbein and Ajzen provide no more detailed analysis of the psychological processes through which general attitudes might influence the perception and evaluation of situationspecific beliefs. But Fazio (1986, 1990) proposes some empirically confirmed hypotheses concerning these processes. Fazio conceptualizes general attitudes as an evaluative tag associated with the cognitive representation of its corresponding attitude object in memory. In the case, where the association between an attitude and the object representation is strong, the attitude is becoming active in the mere presence of the attitude object (i.e. without the need of intentional or control processing to active it). Once activated, a general attitude guides the perception of a situation in a way that is congruent with this attitude. Thus, the activation of different general attitudes may cause different ‘definitions of the situation’, with the result that different behavioral alternatives and different behavioral consequences are perceived as personally salient. In summary, this theoretical framework provides a new perspective how to conceptualize the causal role of environmental concern: environmental concern is an important indirect determinant of specific environmental behaviors which operates via its impact on the generation of situation-specific cognition. In many daily situations, where people have to made quick decisions, they may use general attitudes like environmental concern as an easy accessible heuristic, which guides the ‘definition of the situation’ that is how to frame the decisional problem, the relevant alternatives and the personally salient decision criterion.

23

For example, imagine two persons A and B, who are confronted with the same situation, let us say finding an advertisement in their letter box in which an electricity provider promotes a very cheap electricity product. For A, who is very concerned about the danger of nuclear waste, the company sign activates his strongly negative attitude toward this company, which is a well-known producer of nuclear energy. This automatically activated attitude toward the electricity provider may lead to a situational definition like ‘This is a strategy of the nuclear industry to gain more public acceptance’. Person A reasons what to do: writing an angry personal letter to the company or organizing the writing and distribution of a leaflet. Person B is not concerned about the danger of nuclear waste, but has a highly positive attitude toward using special offers. This attitude is activated by the bold printed low-price offer. This person may define the situation as an excellent opportunity to save money. Thus, Person B reasons about the two alternatives ‘Using the offered telephone hot-line or better the postcard for receiving more information’. The present study tests the hypothesis that environmental concern influences specific behavior indirectly via its impact on the generation and evaluation of situation-specific beliefs in the context of the decision to acquire information about green electricity products and the local providers of these products. The term ‘green electricity’ refers to electricity produced by renewable energy forms like wind- or waterpower, solar energy or bio-mass. From a substantive viewpoint, instead of analysing the decision to acquire information about green electricity products it would have been more interesting to use the actual buying decision for green electricity products as dependent variable. But analysing the buying behavior itself would need a more complex and time-consuming research design. Because of the theoretical focus of the present paper the more conveniently measurable information acquisition behavior was used to test the following hypotheses: 1. After controlling for the situation-specific cognition postulated by the TPB, the general attitude environmental concern has no significant direct impact on the intention to acquire information about green electricity products as the actual acquisition behavior. 2. But environmental concern has a strong direct impact on the situation-specific beliefs associated with the acquisition of information about green electricity products. 3. As a consequence there should be great differences in the perception and evaluation of these situationspecific beliefs as the actual behavior of highly environmentally concerned vs low environmentally concerned persons.

24


3. Method

were provided on 5-point bipolar scales with the endpoints interested and not interested.

3.1. Procedure and participants

3.2. Measures

3.2.3. Normative beliefs How much would the following persons /institutions support your decision to use the offered brochure about ‘green’ electricity products within the next few days? (1) Your friends; (2) Your parents/family; (3) Groups from the environmental movement; (4) A known professor; (5) Electricity providers. Responses were provided on 5point bipolar scales with the endpoints likely and unlikely.

The items measuring the situation-specific TPB constructs were constructed as recommended by Ajzen (1991). In a first step, a pilot study was conducted in which a free elicitation method was used to sample the salient behavioral, normative and control beliefs associated by 17 students with using the offered information brochure about ‘green’ electricity products. In the second step, the most frequently mentioned beliefs were used to construct the following standardized items measuring the behavioral, normative and control beliefs.

3.2.4. Control beliefs How much would the following factors prevent you from using the offered brochure about ‘green’ electricity products within the next few days? (1) Too many other things to do. (2) Because of the daily hassles I often forget such things. (3) The effort to fill out the card and put it into the letter box. (4) Low motivation. Responses were made on 5-point bipolar scales with the endpoints likely and unlikely.

A total of 380 university students participated in the study: only students from natural science departments participated. Because the questionnaire was completed at the beginning of a lecture, there was no systematic self-selection. The mean age was 22 years (range from 17–51), 64.5 per cent of the participants were male.

3.2.1. Perceived likelihood of behavioral beliefs How strongly do you associate the following consequences with using the offered brochure about ‘green’ electricity products within the next few days? (1) I would be better informed about a modern, future-oriented energy producing technology. (2) I could make a more reliable judgment, whether green electricity is a usable alternative for me personally. (3) I could make a better judgment whether nuclear power can be substituted by renewable energy forms. (4) I could do something about my ‘bad environmental conscience’ (5). I could make a more reliable judgment how the purchase of green electricity would affect my electricity bill. (6) I could make a better judgment how reliable and secure electricity from renewable energy sources is. (7) I would be better informed about governmental programs to promote the use of renewable energy forms. Responses were provided on 5-point scales bipolar with the endpoints likely and unlikely. 3.2.2. Evaluation of behavioral beliefs Which information about ‘green’ electricity products is of special interest for you personally? (1) Information about a modern, future-oriented energy producing technology. (2) Information where and how I can buy green electricity. (3) Information whether nuclear power can be substituted by renewable energy forms. (4) Information how the purchase of green electricity would affect my electricity bill. (5) Information how reliable and secure electricity form renewable energy sources is. (6) Information about governmental programs to promote the use of renewable energy forms. Responses

3.2.5. Attitude toward the behavior For me, to use the offered brochure about ‘green’ electricity products within the next few days would overall be (1) good–bad, (2) pleasant–unpleasant. Responses were made on a 5-point bipolar scale. 3.2.6. Subjective norm (1) Most people who are important to me would support my using the offered brochure about ‘green’ electricity products within the next few days. (2) Most people who are important to me think that I should use the offered brochure about ‘green’ electricity products within the next few days. Responses were made on a 5point bipolar scale with endpoints labeled likely and unlikely. 3.2.7. Perceived behavioral control (1) For me to use the offered brochure about ‘green’ electricity products within the next few days would be easy–difficult. (2) My freedom to use the offered brochure about ‘green’ electricity products within the next days is high–low. Responses were made on a 5point bipolar scale. 3.2.8. Intention My intention to use the offered brochure about ‘green’ electricity products within the next few days is strong–weak’’ and (2) ‘I intend to use the offered brochure about ‘green’ electricity products within the next few days: likely–unlikely’. Responses were made on a 5-point bipolar scale


3.2.9. Actual behavior The actual information acquisition behavior was measured via the two following unobtrusive measures. On the first and the last page of the questionnaire there was a bold-printed paragraph which informed the participants that they could request an information brochure about green electricity products by using the Table 1 Means and S.Ds of the TPB-constructs for the total sample (n=380) M Likelihood of behavioral beliefs (Cronbach’s alpha of all seven items = 0.69) Better informed about a modern energy producing technology. More reliable judgment, whether green electricity is a personal alternative. Better judgment whether green energy can substitute nuclear power. Doing something against my ‘‘bad environmental conscience’’. Better informed how the purchase of green electricity affects electricity bill. Better judgment how reliable and secure green electricity is. Better informed about governmental programs to promote green energy. Evaluation of Behavioral Beliefs (a ¼ 0:66) Information about a modern energy producing technology Information about green electricity as a personal alternative Information whether green energy can substitute nuclear power Information how purchasing green electricity affects my electricity bill Information about the security and reliability of green electricity Information about governmental programs to promote green energy Likelihood of normative beliefs (a ¼ 0:66) Friends Parents/family Groups from the environmental movement Personally known professors Energy providers Likelihood of control beliefs (a ¼ 0:49) Too many other things to do Because of the daily stress I often forget such things The effort to fill out the card and put it into the letter box Low motivation Attitude toward the behavior (2-Item-Index, r ¼ 0:60) Subjective norm (2-Item-Index, r ¼ 0:52) Perceived behavioral control (2-Item-Index, r ¼ 0:42) Intention (2-Item-Index, r ¼ 0:75)

S.D.

25

post-ready card attached on the last page of the questionnaire. The only thing they had to do was to separate the post card from the questionnaire, fill in their address and put it into the next letter box. After receiving the completed questionnaires we checked whether the post card had been separated from the questionnaire. Whether the post card has been torn off or not is used as the first behavioral indicator. Actually sending back the post card is the second behavioral indicator. All the participants who sent back the post card received the offered brochure about green electricity products and their local providers 3.2.10. Environmental concern This construct was measured with a eight item scale . . developed by Preisendorfer (1996). Preisendorfer conceptualizes environmental concern as an unidimensional general attitude. The scale is not only very economic but has the additional advantage that it has been used to measure the environmental concern of representative . German population samples (e.g. Preisendorfer, 1998). This provides the possibility to compare a student’s degree of environmental concern with those of a representative population sample. The formulations of the eight items are: (1) It is still the case that the major part of the population does not act in an environmentally conscious way. (2) There are limits to economic growth which our industrialized world has crossed or will reach very soon. (3) Environmental-protection measures should be carried out even if this reduces the number of jobs in the economy. (4) Thinking about the environmental conditions our children and grandchildren have to live under, worries me. (5) When I read newspaper articles about environmental problems or view such TV-reports, I am indignant and angry. (6) If we continue as before, we are approaching an environmental catastrophe. (7) It is still true that politicians do far too little for environmental protection. (8) For the benefit of the environment we should be prepared to restrict our momentary style of living. All responses were made on 5-point scales with the endpoints ‘completely agree’ and ‘completely disagree’.

1.05

0.81

0.78

0.96

0.40

1.10

0.43

1.19

0.56

1.03

0.67

0.95

0.65

0.96

1.18

0.97

0.77

1.07

0.55

1.27

0.97

0.99

0.93

0.92

0.50

1.10

0.15 0.26 0.96 0.04 0.18

1.01 1.05 1.15 1.01 1.24

1.21 0.58

1.00 1.16

4. Results

0.18

1.30

4.1. Descriptive results for the total sample

0.08

1.25

0.76

0.78

0.22 0.36

0.96 0.96

4.1.1. Information acquisition behavior Of the 380 participants, 199 separated the post card from the questionnaire. Of these 199 students, 41 actually sent back the card.

0.30

1.16

Note. For all items five step bipolar scales form +2 to –2 are used.

4.1.2. TPB constructs Table 1 presents the means and standard deviations (S.D.s) of the TPB constructs for the total sample

26


(n=380). As can be seen from Table 1, students associate the consequences ‘Getting information about a modern, future-oriented energy producing technology’ and ‘More reliable judgment, whether green electricity is a personal alternative’ most strongly with using the offered brochure about green electricity products. Students are also most interested in information about these two consequences. Students believe that groups from the environmental movement would support their using the brochure most. Lack of time and daily hassles making one forget to send the card back are viewed as the most likely barrier impeding the request for the brochure. Table 1 also shows the means and S.D.s of the TPB constructs attitude toward the behavior, subjective norm, PBC and intention. On average, the attitude toward using the brochure is positive and the behavioral control is quite high. But the perceived social pressure to use the brochure is low as the reported intention to use it. Table 2 presents the means and S.D.s of the eight items used to measure the construct environmental concern. Furthermore, Table 2 contains the percentage of persons from the student sample and a representative . German population sample (Preisendorfer, 1998; n=2.029), who used the answer categories ‘completely agree’ and ‘agree.’ In both samples the agreement with statements, which gives environmental protection a higher priority than economic interests, is significantly lower than the agreement with statements, which express a more general concern about the environmental conditions. Only in the two items ‘The major part of the population does not act in a environmentally conscious way’ and ‘Environmental protection measures should be carried out even if this reduces the number of jobs in the economy’ the answers given by the students differ significantly from those of the population sample. With a rate of 58 per cent, the average agreement of the students over the eight items is higher than that of the

normal population (50%) but this difference is not so serious. For the student sample, the internal consistency of the eight items is satisfying (Chronbach’s alpha=0.82). 4.2. Results of the total sample multivariate data analysis 4.2.1. Test of the measurement models For the multivariate data analysis, the structural equation approach was used (LISREL 8.30, covariances as input, ML-estimator). In the first step, the measurement models of the nine latent theoretical variables, used in the following structure model, were specified and tested by a confirmatory factor analysis. Table 3 presents the results of this confirmatory factor analysis. With one exception the results of the confirmatory factor analysis confirms the unidimensional structure of the environmental concern scale items. Because of its low factor loading (0.28), the item ‘The major part of the population does not act in an environmentally conscious way’ was removed. As indicated by the low internal consistencies reported in Table 1, the results of the confirmatory factor analysis do not confirm the assumption that the covariation of the items measuring the behavioral, normative and control beliefs can be explained by one underlying latent factor. Only four (see Table 3) of the six measured behavioral beliefs have factor loadings above 0.40 on the latent factor behavioral beliefs. For reasons of reliability, the following analyses uses only these four items as indicators of the latent construct. The other items were removed from the measurement model. The same holds true for the latent constructs normative beliefs (two of four items have factor loading above 0.40) and control beliefs (two of four items have factor loadings above 0.40). One of the two items used to measure the latent construct PBC also has a low factor loading on this construct (0.41). The measurement models for the latent constructs attitude, subjective norm, intention and behavior are satisfying. The

Table 2 Means and S.D. of the items measuring environmental concern for the total student sample (n ¼ 380) and the percentage of persons agreeing with the items for the student sample and a representative german population sample (1998, n ¼ 2:029Þ Item

M

S.D.

Students agree (%)

Population agree (%)

The major part of the population does not act in an environmentally conscious way Limits of economic growth have been crossed or will be reached very soon Environmental protection measures should be carried out even if this costs jobs Concerned about the environmental conditions our children have to live under Newspaper articles or TV-reports concerning environmental problems make me angry If we continue as before, we are approaching an environmental catastrophe It is still true that politicians do far too little for environmental protection. For the benefit of the environment we should be ready to restrict our momentary style of living Sum-index

1.06 0.65 0.14 0.72 0.45 0.59 0.59 0.27

0.93 1.11 1.19 1.14 1.11 1.18 1.12 1.18

78 63 43 63 55 58 57 46

49 50 19 65 55 56 60 44

58

50

Note. For all items five-step bipolar scales ranging from +2 to 2 are used.

0.56

S. Bamberg / Journal of Environmental Psychology 23 (2003) 21–32 Table 3 Measurement models for the nine latent variables (l=standardized factor-loadings) Measurement model

l

a

Behavioral beliefs Modern technologyb Personal alternative Substitution of nuclear power Security and reliability

0.42 0.56 0.57 0.47

Normative beliefs Friends Parents/Family

0.79 0.77

Control beliefs Effort Low motivation

0.43 0.72

Attitude toward the behavior Good–bad Pleasant–unpleasant

0.78 0.75

Subjective Norm Important persons support Important persons expect Measurement model

0.74 0.76

Behavioral control (PBC) easy—difficult My freedom is great–low

0.96 0.43

Intention My intention is great–low I intent likely–unlikely

0.83 0.88

Behavior Separating card Sending back card

0.66 0.50

Environmental concern Limits of growth Environment vs. jobs Concerned about children Angry when reading articles Approaching catastrophe Politicians do far too little Restricting style of living

0.56 0.52 0.66 0.63 0.74 0.67 0.70

a b

Latent construct, Indicator item.

statistical fit of the revised measurement models presented in Table 3 is acceptable (w2 ¼ 340:21; df=239; RMSEA=0.03; GFI=0.93; NNFI=0.95; CFI=0.96). Table 4 shows the bivariate correlations of the nine latent construct. As can be seen from Table 4, the bivariate correlation between the latent construct environmental concern and behavior is 0.28 that is both constructs share only a common variance of about 8 per cent. Thus our study replicates the above reported weak direct relationship between general environmental concern and a specific environmentally behavior.

27

4.2.2. Test of the structural model Fig. 1 depicts graphically the theoretically assumed model of the structural relationships between environmental concern, the TPB constructs and the actual information acquisition behavior. Fig. 1 also contains the estimated standardized path coefficients. To reduce the complexity of Fig. 1, the measurement models are not shown. The statistical fit-indices of the simultaneously estimated measurement models and structural model are acceptable (w2 ¼ 382:15; df=254; RMSEA=0.04; GFI=0.93; CFI=0.95; NNFI=0.95). As postulated by the TPB, intention has a strong direct effect on actual behavior. The effect of PBC is not statistically significant. The two predictors explain 60 per cent of the behavioral variance. Intention itself is determined by the three constructs attitude, subjective norm and PBC. Together, these three constructs explain 63 per cent of the intentional variance. Attitude has the strongest effect on intention, followed by subjective norm and PBC. As postulated by the TPB, the normative beliefs (respectively behavioral and control beliefs) are significant predictors on the direct measured subjective norm (respectively, attitude and PBC). But the normative beliefs have additional effects on attitude and PBC, not expected by the TPB, as the control beliefs on attitude and subjective norm. The negative sign of the path coefficients from the control beliefs on PBC, attitude and subjective norm reflects the formulation of the indicator items, which ask for factors impeding the performance of the behavior. In the present study, our main interest is directed toward the effect of environmental concern on the other model variables. As postulated above, after checking for the effects of the situation-specific TPB constructs, environmental concern has no significant direct effect on behavioral intention and behavior itself. But our study also supports the above-stated hypothesis that environmental concern has direct effects on the perception of the normative, behavioral and control beliefs. Environmental concern explains 40 per cent variance of the behavioral, 12 per cent variance of the control and 7 per cent variance of the normative beliefs. Furthermore, environmental concern has additional, direct effects on subjective norm and PBC. 4.3. Subgroup analyses 4.3.1. Descriptive results Because the analyses of the total sample data support our thesis that environmental concern is not a direct but an important indirect determinant of specific behavior, we want to analyse the differences in the situationspecific cognition between students with high and low environmental concern in more detail. For this purpose, we built a sum index of the eight items used to measure


28

Table 4 Bivariate correlations of the latent constructs (N ¼ 380Þ Latent construct

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7)

(8)

(9)

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9.

1.00 0.40 0.52 0.64 0.47 0.27 0.50 0.38 0.63

1.00 0.36 0.53 0.72 0.28 0.53 0.40 0.27

1.00 0.67 0.55 0.32 0.55 0.42 0.35

1.00 0.54 0.29 0.69 0.54 0.42

1.00 0.36 0.64 0.48 0.40

1.00 0.48 0.30 0.28

1.00 0.77 0.38

1.00 0.28

1.00

Behavioral beliefs Normative beliefs Control beliefs Attitude Subjective norm Behavioral control Intention Behavior Environ. concern

0.14 R2 = 0.63

R2 = 0.07 0.57

SN

NB 0.25

0.27 0.16 R2 = 0.40

Environ. Concern

0.63

BB

0.30 R2 = 0.62

0.33

Att

R2 = 0.63 0.46

I

R2 = 0.60 ,81

B

-0.29 2

R2 = 0.16

R = 0.12 -0.41

-0.35

CB

-0.21

-0.09* 0.24

PBC

0.16 Fig. 1. Structural model with standardized path coefficients and explained variances. NB=normative beliefs; BB=behavioral beliefs; CB=control beliefs; A=attitude toward the behavior; SN=subjective norm; PBC=perceived behavioral control; I=intention; B= behavior. Not significant.

environmental concern and divided the total sample by the median into the subgroup of high (n=201) and low environmentally concerned students (n=179). Table 5 presents the means of the TPB-variables separately for these two subgroups. As can be seen from Table 5, in all TPB constructs there are substantive mean differences between the two subgroups. Highly concerned students judge the likelihood of five positive consequences associated with using the offered brochure significantly higher than low concerned students. Highly concerned students report a significantly stronger interest in four of the six presented information aspects. Highly concerned students perceived a stronger support of using the brochure by four of the five presented important reference persons/ institutions than low concerned students. Compared with low concerned students, highly concerned students also perceive two of the presented four behavioral barriers as less impeding. The different perception and evaluation of consequences associated with using the brochure, are reflected in the attitude, subjective norm,

PBC, intention, but also the actual behavior of low vs highly concerned students. Highly concerned students not only report a significantly more positive attitude, higher subjective norm and behavioral control, but also a stronger intention to use the brochure. Whereas 58 per cent of the highly concerned students separate the card from the questionnaire and 16 per cent sent this card back, 48 per cent of the low concerned students separated the card and only 8 per cent sent it back. 4.3.2. Subgroup-specific multivariate analyses The significant mean differences provide a first impression how the general attitude environmental concern influences the generation of different situation-specific cognition within the same situation. But do differences in environmental concern also affect the relative weight of situation-specific cognition on the decision process of high vs low environmentally concerned students? If such interactions between the degree of environmental concern and the relative impact of situation-specific cognition exist, they should cause


29

Table 5 Means of the TPB-constructs for the two subgroups ‘‘high-’’ (n=201) vs. ‘‘low-environmentally concerned students (n ¼ 179) High

Low

M

M

p

Likelihood of behavioral beliefs Better informed about a modern energy producing technology Better judgment of green electricity as a personal alternative Better judgment whether green energy substitutes nuclear power Doing something against my ‘‘bad environmental conscience’’ Better informed how buying electricity affects electricity bill Better judgment how reliable and secure green electricity is Better informed about programs to promote green energy

1.20 1.00 0.67 0.29 0.60 0.84 0.69

0.89 0.54 0.09 0.59 0.52 0.49 0.61

*** *** *** *

Evaluation of behavioral beliefs Information about a modern energy producing technology Information about green electricity as a personal alternative Information whether green energy can substitute nuclear power Information how buying green electricity affects electricity bill Information about the security of green electricity Information about programs to promote green energy.

1.36 1.01 1.00 1.04 1.16 0.60

0.97 0.49 0.06 0.90 0.68 0.40

*** *** ***

Likelihood of normative beliefs (a ¼ 0:66) Friends Parents/family Groups from the environmental movement Personally known professors Energy providers

0.27 0.46 1.14 0.08 0.24

0.03 0.05 0.74 0.17 0.10

* *** *** *

Likelihood of control beliefs Too many other things to do. Because of the daily stress I often forget such things The effort to fill out the card and put it into the letter box Low motivation Attitude toward the behavior Subjective norm Perceived behavioral control Intention Behavior ‘‘Separating card’’ Behavior ‘‘Sending back card’’

1.23 0.47 0.29 0.19 0.93 0.04 0.50 0.05 0.58 0.16

1.18 0.71 0.07 0.38 0.57 0.50 0.20 0.58 0.46 0.08

***

***

* *** *** *** ** *** * *

Note. For all items five-step bipolar scales from +2 to 2 are used; *po0.05; **po0.01, ***po0.001.

statistically significant differences in the empirical relationship (path coefficient) of the same two model variables within the subgroup of high vs low environmentally concerned students. Within the structural equation approach, interaction effects can be tested via multiple group analysis (see e.g. Bollen, 1989). Fig. 2 depicts the results of such a multiple group analysis for the present data set. The analysis concentrates on the interaction between environmental concern and the relationship of the TPB core-model (see Fig. 2). For this analysis, the covariance matrix of the TPB indicators was calculated separately for the two subgroups ‘high’ vs ‘low environmentally concerned students.’ Then, a model was estimated which assumes for both subgroups equal path coefficients between the TPB core-model constructs (w2 ¼ 113:46; df=60; RMSEA=0.05; GFI=0.96; CFI=0.95; NNFI=0.92).

In the next steps, a model without the constraint of equal path coefficients for both subgroups was estimated (w2 ¼ 89:83; df=56; RMSEA=0.04; GFI=0.97; CFI=0.97; NNFI=0.95). Thus, giving up the constraint of equal path coefficients results in a significant better model fit (w2d ¼ 23:63; po0.001). This result confirms that the degree of environmental concern interacts with the structural relationships of the situation-specific TPB-constructs. The unstandardized path coefficients depicted in Fig. 2 separately for both subgroups provide a more detailed insight how the degree of environmental concern moderates the relationship between the variables of the TPB core model. Whereas the impact of attitude on intention is relatively equal in both subgroups, the impact of subjective norm and PBC varies considerably between the two subgroups. Whereas for the highly environmental


30

A1

Highly Environmentally Concerned n = 201

5. Discussion

1.00

The starting point of the present study was the thesis that the disappointment about the weak direct relationship between general environmental concern and specific environmental behaviors is due to an inadequate understanding of how general attitudes influence specific behaviors. As situation invariant ‘orientation patterns’ general attitude like environmental concern cannot influence specific behaviors directly. Only the situation-specific cognitions concerning the salient consequences associated with a specific behavior are direct determinants of a specific behavior. But via their impact on the ‘definition of the situation’ that is how to frame the decisional problem, the relevant behavioral alternatives and the personally salient consequences associated with these alternatives, general attitudes are important indirect determinants of specific behaviors. The results of the present study confirms this thesis empirically. The situation-specific cognitions, conceptualized via Ajzen’s TPB behavior, are strong determinants of actually requesting the offered brochure about green electricity products. After taking into account this situation-specific cognition, general environmental concern no longer has any direct effect on intention or behavior. But as expected, environmental concern has a substantive direct effect on the perception and evaluation of the situation-specific cognition, especially the personally salient behavioral consequences. Highly environmentally concerned students show not only a greater interest in obtaining information about green electricity products, they are also more likely to associate this information with using the offered brochure. Furthermore, they perceived a stronger support from important reference persons concerning this behavior and judged their behavioral control over this behavior as higher than low environmentally concerned students. As a consequence, their intention to use the offered brochure as their actual request of that brochure is stronger than that of the low concerned students. Obviously, students’ degree of environmental concern causes substantive differences in the perception and evaluation of the same decision situation. But even more interesting than these mean differences is the impact of environmental concern on the relative weight of the different situation-specific cognition on intention. Whereas the intention of highly concerned students is mainly determined by control-related cognitions, the intention of low concerned students is mainly determined by social-norm-related cognitions. Whether an intention is mainly determined by control- or socialnorm-related cognitions seems to have an effect on the intention–behavior relationship itself. In the case of the highly concerned students, this relation is significantly stronger than that of the low concerned students. This

Att A2

0.86

S1

0.21 0.26 1.00

SN S2

0.23 I1

I2

0.24

B1

1.20

1.00

,67

I

B2 1.00

0.92

B

1.08 R 2 = 0.66

0.12 P1

1.00

P2

0.90

R 2 = 0.65

0.63

PBC

Low Environmentally Concerned n = 179 A1

1.00

Att A2

0.79

S1

0.36 0.17 1.00

SN S2

0.33 I1

I2 1.00

0.68

I

B1

0.96 ,44

B2 1.00

0.70

B

1.00 R 2 = 0.67

0.26 P1

1.00

P2

0.42

R 2 = 0.38

0.10*

PBC Fig. 2. The TPB core model with unstandardized path coefficients and explained variances for the two subgroups separately. A=attitude toward the behavior; SN=subjective norm; PBC=perceived behavioral control; I=intention; B=behavior. *Not significant.

concerned students, PBC has the strongest effect on intention, and the effect of subjective norm is only moderate, for the low concerned students the opposite holds true. Here, the subjective norm has the strongest effect on intention whereas the effect of PBC is statistically insignificant. Thus, for the highly concerned students intention is mainly determined by controlrelated cognitions whereas for low concerned students intention is mainly determined by social-norm-related cognitions. In both subgroups, the situation-specific cognitions explain the same amount of variance of the reported intention. But interestingly, the relationship between the self-reported intention and the actual behavior differs significantly between the two subgroups. For the subgroup of highly concerned students, the relation between the reported intention and the actual behavior is much stronger (65 per cent explained variance) than for the low concerned students (only 38 per cent explained variance).


result indicates that the enactment of one’s intentions benefits from taking into account potential behavioral barriers during the intention formation process. The more intensive reasoning about potential behavioral barriers may not only stimulate a more detailed planning where, when and how to enact the intention [see Gollwitzer’s 1993, concept of implementation intention], but may also motivate people to increase their effort to overcome these barriers, when they are actually encountered (Ajzen, 1991). On the other hand, an intention which reflects mainly the perceived situational social pressure is less likely to be enacted outside that situation, especially when confronted with unexpected barriers. Despite its stimulating results, the present study also has limitations. As in all correlational studies the causality of the found relationships remains open. Thus, one can argue that the correlations between environmental concern and the perception and evaluation of the situation-specific cognition reflect more the tendency for consistent answers than causality. Experimental studies are needed, which provide stronger empirical evidence that general environmental concern can be activated automatically by situation features and that it guides the generation of situation-specific cognition. Another unsatisfactory point is the low internal consistencies of the items used to measure the TPB-constructs behavioral, normative and control beliefs. One reason for these low internal consistencies might be that at the time point of conducting the study, the issue ‘green electricity products’ was rather unknown for most people. As a consequence, when asked to write down personally important consequences associated with requesting a brochure about green electricity products students may have spontaneously generated quite idiosyncratic beliefs, which cannot be generalized to other students. In general, the use of preselected, ‘modal salient’ beliefs might prevent a more detailed insight how the general attitudes like environmental concern influence the generation of different situation-specific cognition. The cognitive response approach (Petty, Ostrom, & Brock, 1981) as it is used in persuasion research would probably be a more suitable methodology to analyse how different degrees of environmental concern affect the generation of situation-specific beliefs.

References Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50, 179–211. Ajzen, I. (2000). Nature and operation of attitudes. Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 27–58. Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1977). Attitude–behavior relations: A theoretical analysis and review of empirical research. Psychological Bulletin, 84, 888–918.

31

Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1980). Understanding attitudes and predicting social behavior. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Armitage, C. J., & Conner, M. (2001). Efficacy of the theory of planned behaviour: A meta-analytic review. British Journal of Social Psychology, 40, 471–499. Bollen, K. A. (1989). Structural equations with latent variables. New York: Wiley. Brechin, S. R., & Kempton, W. (1994). Global environmentalism: A challenge to the postmaterialism thesis? Social Science Quarterly, 75, 245–269. Derksen, L., & Gartrell, J. (1993). The social context of recycling. American Sociological Review, 58, 434–442. Diekmann, A., & Preisend.orfer, P. (1998). Environmental behavior— discrepancies between aspirations and reality. Rationality and Society, 10, 79–102. Dunlap, R. E., Gallup, G. H., Jr., & Gallup, A. M. (1993). Of global concern: Results of the health of the planet survey. Environment, 35, 7–15. Dunlap, R. E., & Van Liere, K. D. (1978). The ‘‘New Environmental Paradigm’’: A proposed measuring instrument and preliminary results. Journal of Environmental Education, 9, 10–19. Eckes, T., & Six, B. (1994). Fakten und Fiktionen in der EinstellungsVerhaltens-Forschung: Eine meta-analyse. Zeitschrift fur . Sozialpsychologie, 25, 253–271. Fazio, R. H. (1986). How do attitudes guide behavior? In R. M. Sorrentino, & E. T. Higgins (Eds.), Handbook of Motivation and Cognition: Foundations of Social Behavior (pp. 204–243). New York: Guilford Press. Fazio, R. H. (1990). Multiple processes by which attitudes guide behavior: The mode model as an integrative frame-work. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in Experimental Social psychology, Vol. 23. (pp. 75–109). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Fuhrer, U. (1995). Sozialpsychologisch fundierter Theorierahmen fur . eine Umweltbewusstseinsforschung. Psychologische Rundschau, 46, 93–103. Gould, L. C., Gardner, G. T., DeLuca, D. R., Tiemann, A., Doob, L. W., & Stolwijk, J. A. J. (1988). Perceptions of technological risks and benefits. New York: Russell Sage Foundation. Guagnano, G. A., Stern, P. C., & Dietz, T. (1995). Influences on attitude-behavior relationships, A natural experiment with curbside recycling. Environment and Behavior, 27, 699–718. Hines, J. M., Hungerford, H. R., & Tomera, A. N. (1986/87). Analysis and synthesis of research on environmental behavior: A metaanalysis. Journal of Environmental Education, 18, 1–8. Inglehart, R. (1992). Public support for environmental protection: objective problems and subjective values. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, Chicago, IL. Jones, R. E., & Dunlap, R. E. (1992). The social bases of environmental concern: Have they changed over time? Rural Sociology, 57, 28–47. 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. Petty, R. E., Ostrom, T. M., & Brock, T. C. (1981). Cognitive responses in persuasion. Hillsdale NJ: Erlbaum. . Preisendorfer, P. (1996). Umweltbewusstsein in Deutschland. Ergeb. nisse einer repr.asentativen Bevolkerungsumfrage 1996. Bonn: Bundesministerium fur . Umwelt, Naturschutz und Reaktorsicherheit. . Preisendorfer, P. (1998). Umweltbewusstsein in Deutschland. Ergeb. nisse einer repr.asentativen Bevolkerungsumfrage 1998. Bonn: Bundesministerium fur . Umwelt, Naturschutz und Reaktorsicherheit. Rokeach, M. (1980). Some unresolved issues in theories of beliefs, attitudes and values. In Howe, H. E. Jr ., Page, M. M. (Eds.),

32


Nebraska Symposium on Motivation. (pp. 261–304). Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press. Schahn, J. (1993). Die Kluftrwischen Eruntellung und Verhalten beim individuellen Umweltschutz. In J. Schahn, T. Griesinger (Eds.), Psychologie fur . dem Umweltschutz. (pp. 29–49). Weinheim: Psychologie Verlags Union. Schultz, P. W., & Oskamp, S. (1996). Effort as a moderator of the attitude–behavior relationship: General envirormental concern and recycling. Social Psychology Quarterly, 59, 375–383. Six, B. (1992). Neuere Entwicklungen und Trends in der EinstellungsVerhaltens-Forschung. In E. H. Witte (Ed.), Einstellung und Verhalten. Beitrage . des 7. Hamburger Symposiums zur Methodologie der Sozialpsychologie (pp. 13–33). Braunschweig: Braunschweiger Studien zur Erziehungs-und Sozialarbeitswissenschaft. Slovic, P. (1987). Perception of risk. Science, 236, 280–285. Spada, H. (1990). Umweltbewusstsein: Einstellung und verhalten. In L. . C. Kruse, F. Graumann, & E. D. Lantermann (Eds.), Okologische Psychologie (pp. 623–631). Munchen: . Psychologie Verlags Union. Stern, P. C. (1992). What Psychology knows about energy conservation. American Psychologist, 1992, 1224–1232. Stern, P. C., & Aronson, E. (1984). Energy use. The Human Dimension. New York: Freeman.

Stern, P. C., Dietz, T., & Kalof, L. (1993). Value orientations, and environmental concern. Environment and Behavior, 25, 322–348. Stern, P. C., Dietz, T., Kalof, L., & Guagnano, G. A. (1995). Values, beliefs, and proenvironmental action: Attitude formation toward emergent attitude objects. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 25, 1611–1636. Sutton, S. (1998). Predicting and explaining intentions and behavior: How well are we doing? Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 28, 1317–1338. Tyler, T. R., Orwin, R., & Schurer, L. (1982). Defensive denial and high cost prosocial behavior. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 3, 267–281. Van Liere, K. D., & Dunlap, R. E. (1980). The social bases of environmental concern: A review of hypotheses, explanations, and empirical evidence. Public Opinion Quarterly, 44, 181–197. Weigel, R. H. (1983). Environmental attitudes and the prediction of behavior. In N. R. Feimer, & E. S. Geller (Eds.), Environmental Psychology (pp. 257–287). New York: Praeger. Weigel, R. H., & Weigel, J. (1978). Environmental concern— the development of a measure. Environment and Behavior, 10, 3–15.