VALUE STRUCTURES BEHIND PROENVIRONMENTAL BEHAVIOR

ENVIRONMENT 10.1177/001391602237244 Nordlund, Garvill /AND VALUES BEHAVIOR AND PROENVIRONMENTALISM / November 2002

VALUE STRUCTURES BEHIND PROENVIRONMENTAL BEHAVIOR

ANNIKA M. NORDLUND is a Ph.D. candidate in psychology at Umeå University, Sweden. Her dissertation focuses on the effects of different attitudinal factors on general and specific proenvironmental behavior, including travel mode choice. JÖRGEN GARVILL received a Ph.D. in psychology from Umeå University, Sweden. He is now an associate professor of psychology and the director of the Transportation Research Unit at Umeå University. His main fields of expertise are social, environmental, and transport psychology. His current research interests include environmentally significant behavior and behavioral change in different contexts, including travel behavior.

ABSTRACT: The purpose of the study was to test a hierarchical model of the effects of general values, environmental values, problem awareness, and personal norms on general proenvironmental behavior. The model starts with the effects of the relatively stable structures of general values and moves toward effects of more specific environmental values, environmental problem awareness, and personal norms. A personal norm was expected to mediate the effects of values and problem awareness on proenvironmental behavior. Survey data from a Swedish sample of 1,400 individuals were used in a path analysis to test the model, which was supported, and the results showed that the personal norm could be seen as derived from self-transcendent and ecocentric values and activated by problem awareness. The personal norm mediated the effects from general values, environmental values, and problem awareness on proenvironmental behavior.

Many of today’s environmental problems are, at least to some extent, direct or indirect consequences of people’s everyday behaviors. Travel, consumption, waste disposal, and the use of energy in the household are all environmentally significant behaviors that need to be changed in an environAUTHORS’ NOTE: This research was financially supported by Grant No. AL90-A 98:6969 from the Swedish National Road Authority and was conducted within the research project “Changing to Eco-Friendly Travel: Possibilities and Problems for ENVIRONMENT AND BEHAVIOR, Vol. 34 No. 6, November 2002 740-756 DOI: 10.1177/001391602237244 © 2002 Sage Publications

740

Nordlund, Garvill / VALUES AND PROENVIRONMENTALISM

741

mentally friendly direction. Although many people view themselves as “environmentalists” (Pieters, Bijmolt, van Raaij, & de Kruijk, 1998), they do not translate their attitudes into proenvironmental behavior. One reason may be that the choice between acting in a proenvironmental way and not doing so often involves a conflict between immediate individual and long-term collective interests. The individual benefits obtained from traveling by car, buying food and other products without consideration of negative environmental impacts, not recycling, and not conserving energy in the household are immediate, whereas the negative environmental effects of such behaviors are often uncertain consequences in the future. Traveling by car saves time and is flexible and comfortable but has substantial negative environmental consequences, such as air pollution, noise, and a high consumption of nonrenewable energy. In several studies, car owners have been shown to perceive the car as superior to alternative modes of transport (e.g., bus or bicycle) with regard to individual consequences, but worse with regard to environmental consequences. They also perceive individual outcomes as more important than collective outcomes (e.g., Garvill, Laitila, & Brydsten, 1994; Nordlund & Garvill, 1999; Vlek & Michon, 1992). Recycling household waste is an important form of solid waste management but one often considered as messy and time consuming and therefore avoided (Ebreo, Hershey, & Vining, 1999; McCarty & Shrum, 1994; Vining & Ebreo, 1990; Werner & Makela, 1998). Recycling requires a certain amount of individual effort in sorting the household waste and transporting it to some recycling facility. Recycling also includes reusing and repairing materials, such as clothes and furniture, instead of discarding them. Households are spared the extra effort if all household waste is thrown in the same bin. Recycling, however, has positive long-term societal and environmental consequences such as a conservation of resources and a reduction in general waste management (McCarty & Shrum, 1994; Vining & Ebreo, 1990). It has been shown that nonrecyclers rate reasons against recycling, such as nuisance and household inconveniences, as more important than recyclers do (Vining & Ebreo, 1990). Environmentally responsible consumption is another form of environmentally significant behavior (Ebreo et al., 1999; Homer & Kahle, 1988). The consumer may choose to buy at secondhand stores or to buy ecologically Households” at the Transportation Research Unit, Umeå University, Sweden. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Annika M. Nordlund, Department of Psychology, Umeå University, SE-90187 Umeå, Sweden; phone: + 46 90 786 7830; fax: +46 90 786 6695; e-mail: [email protected].

742

ENVIRONMENT AND BEHAVIOR / November 2002

produced products. Some products may be avoided because they are considered harmful to the environment. Environmentally responsible consumption can further reduce the amount of household waste. Being a responsible consumer may, however, involve individual costs because the products are often more expensive and not always available at regular stores. Modern society is dependent on the use of energy. We consume energy to heat our houses and our water and for the electrical appliances in a modern household. Evidence of overconsumption of nonrenewable energy indicates a need to reduce the amount of energy consumed (Stern & Gardner, 1981). However, a reduction of the use of energy might result in what many individuals consider a lower standard of living. Thus, in everyday life, individuals repeatedly face choices where their decisions have positive consequences for themselves and negative consequences for the environment, or negative consequences for themselves and positive consequences for the environment. To stimulate people’s proenvironmental behavior, a better understanding of psychological factors that influence their willingness to act in a proenvironmental manner is important. Earlier research has studied different psychological determinants of everyday proenvironmental behavior (for a general overview, see Gardner & Stern, 1996). Factors such as value orientation, environmental beliefs, and norms have been shown to influence specific proenvironmental behaviors, such as recycling (Hopper & McCarl-Nielsen, 1991; McCarty & Shrum, 1994; McKenzie-Mohr, Nemiroff, Beers, & Desmarais, 1995; Thøgersen, 1996), consumption (Homer & Kahle, 1988; Widegren, 1998), energy conservation (Stern & Gardner, 1981), choice of travel mode (Garvill, 1999; Garvill et al., 1994; Nordlund & Garvill, 2001), and general proenvironmental behavior (Grendstad & Wollebaek, 1998; Thompson & Barton, 1994). Some researchers have questioned the validity and usefulness of the construct of general proenvironmental behavior and have argued that it is better to describe proenvironmental behavior in terms of separate or distinct sectors of behaviors (e.g., Bratt, 1999). Other researchers (e.g., Kaiser, 1998; Kaiser & Biel, 2000) have shown that a general ecological behavior scale can have an acceptable internal consistency. When trying to predict or explain proenvironmental behavior, the focus has often been on predictors on one specific level of abstraction, such as general values, environmental values, attitudes, or norms. The purpose of this study was to test a hierarchical model of the effects of psychological factors on different levels of abstraction, such as general values, environmental values, problem awareness, and personal norms, on general proenvironmental behavior. The model starts with the effects of the relatively stable structures


743

of general values and moves toward effects of more specific environmental values, environmental problem awareness, and personal norm. In this study, personal norm was conceptualized as a feeling of moral obligation to protect the environment. The personal norm was expected to mediate the effects of values and problem awareness on proenvironmental behavior. The model was derived from previous research on general and environmental values and from Schwartz’s (1977) norm-activation theory. GENERAL VALUES

In this study, general value orientation was assessed using Schwartz’s (1992, 1994) Value Inventory Scale. The scale measures 10 distinct value types representing underlying motivational structures. The value types can be described in two dimensions: openness to change versus conservation and self-transcendence versus self-enhancement. In this study, the selftranscendence versus self-enhancement dimension was used. Selftranscendence combines the value types of universalism and benevolence, whereas self-enhancement combines the value types of power and achievement. Self-transcendence serves collective interests, as opposed to selfenhancement, which serves individual interests. Several studies have shown that people who give priority to collective, or self-transcendent, values are more willing to engage in different forms of altruistic, cooperative, or proenvironmental behavior than people who give priority to individual or self-enhancement values (Karp, 1996; Schwartz, 1992; Stern & Dietz, 1994; Stern, Dietz, & Black, 1985-1986; Stern, Dietz, & Guagnano, 1998; Stern, Dietz, Kalof, & Guagnano, 1995). Value orientation, measured as self-transcendence and self-enhancement, was expected to influence the rate of proenvironmental behavior. Selftranscendence should influence proenvironmental behavior positively, whereas the influence from self-enhancement on proenvironmental behavior should be negative. ENVIRONMENTAL VALUES

Several theories have categorized environmental values in similar ways, for example, shallow versus deep ecology (Naess & Rothenberg, 1989); homocentric, ecocentric, and egocentric values (Merchant, 1992); socialaltruistic, biospheric, and egoistic values (Stern & Dietz, 1994; Stern, Dietz, & Guagnano, 1995); and anthropocentric versus ecocentric values (Eckersley, 1992; Grendstad & Wollebaek, 1998; Thompson & Barton, 1994). Eckersley’s (1992) theory of green political thought proposed an

744


anthropocentric-ecocentric dimension, ranging from a pure concern for human welfare to a concern for all life forms as equally valuable and of intrinsic value. Grendstad and Wollebaek (1998) found that the ecocentric and anthropocentric orientations to the environment were better described as two separate factors. Thompson and Barton (1994) constructed a scale assessing anthropocentric and ecocentric motives for proenvironmental behavior. In this scale, ecocentrism represents the belief that the ecosystem has an intrinsic value and this alone is reason to protect it, whereas anthropocentrism represents the belief that environmental protection is important because of nature’s contribution to human welfare. Both these orientations seem to imply a positive attitude toward environmental protection but for different reasons. However, Thompson and Barton argued that the values underlying anthropocentrism were human centered and utilitarian and that the anthropocentric individual would be less likely to protect the environment if other human-centered values, such as material quality of life, interfered. Ecocentric individuals, on the other hand, would protect the environment even if these actions required the individual to sacrifice some material quality of life. In two studies, Thompson and Barton found a positive correlation between ecocentrism and proenvironmental behavior, whereas the correlation between anthropocentrism and proenvironmental behavior was negative in one study and nonsignificant in another. In line with the reasoning by Thompson and Barton, ecocentrism was expected to influence proenvironmental behavior positively, whereas the influence of anthropocentrism was expected to be negative because many of the everyday behaviors that were included in our measure of general proenvironmental behavior required the individual to sacrifice some individual benefits to reduce negative effects on the environment. Also, in line with the above reasoning, we expected positive relations between self-transcendence and ecocentrism and between self-enhancement and anthropocentrism, with negative relations between self-transcendence and anthropocentrism and between self-enhancement and ecocentrism. RELATIONS BETWEEN GENERAL VALUES AND PROENVIRONMENTAL BEHAVIOR

It would seem fairly reasonable that there is a relation between general values and proenvironmental behavior. However, values are abstract in the sense that they transcend situations, which could explain why relations between general attitudes or values and behavior are usually weak. One way to conceptualize the relation between values and behavior is in terms of a hierarchical model in which more specific factors mediate the effects of values on behavior (Eagly & Kulesa, 1997; Schultz & Zelezny, 1999). The


745

model tested in this study was a hierarchical model in which factors on a higher level would be expected to directly influence factors on the next lower level. Factors on a higher level could also have direct effects on factors further down in the hierarchy. A similar model has been suggested by Stern (2000). The model was an extension of Schwartz’s (1977) norm-activation theory, which originally was an explanation of altruistic behavior but has been extended to proenvironmental behavior (Guagnano, Stern, & Dietz, 1995; Schultz & Zelezny, 1999; Widegren, 1998). According to the normactivation theory, an important antecedent to proenvironmental behavior is the activation of a personal moral norm. This activation takes place when the individual perceives environmental conditions that threaten something the individual values (nature, other humans’ well-being, one’s own well-being); that is, the individual is aware of environmental problems. The personal norm, experienced as a moral obligation to act to protect whatever is threatened, is derived from the individual’s relevant general and environmental values. Thus, we expected the individual’s general and environmental value orientations to influence the personal norm. Self-transcendence and ecocentrism were expected to influence the personal norm positively, whereas self-enhancement and anthropocentrism were expected to influence the personal norm negatively. The individual’s value orientation should also influence the individual’s problem awareness. According to Stern and Dietz (1994), a certain value orientation may induce the individual to actively seek information about valued objects or function as an amplifier of available information. Several studies have found that the value placed on different targets (the person himself or herself, people in general, or the biosphere) elicits normative reasoning and willingness to support environmental protection (e.g., Stern & Dietz, 1994; Stern, Dietz, & Guagnano, 1995; Stern, Dietz, & Kalof, 1993; Stern, Dietz, Kalof, et al., 1995; Stern et al., 1985-1986). In the present study, self-transcendence and ecocentrism were expected to increase problem awareness, whereas the influence from self-enhancement and anthropocentrism was expected to be negative. The proposed model is similar to Stern’s value-belief-norm theory in making the personal moral norm the main basis for individuals’ general dispositions for proenvironmental actions. According to the proposed model (see Figure 1), general values should influence environmental values. General and environmental values together should influence problem awareness. Values and problem awareness should influence personal norm, and personal norm should influence behavior. As can be seen in Figure 1, the personal norm was expected to mediate the effects of values and problem awareness on proenvironmental behavior.

746


SelfTranscendence

Ecocentrism

Problem Awareness

SelfEnhancement

Personal Norm

ProEnvironmental Behavior

Anthropocentrism

Figure 1: Path Diagram Showing Proposed Model of the Influence From General and Environmental Value Orientations, Problem Awareness, and Personal Norm on Proenvironmental Behavior NOTE: Exogenous factors were general value orientation: self-transcendence and selfenhancement. Endogenous factors were environmental value orientation: ecocentrism and anthropocentrism, problem awareness, personal norm, and proenvironmental behavior.

METHOD SAMPLE AND PROCEDURE

The study was conducted as a mail-back survey of 2,500 randomly selected residents between 18 and 65 years of age in Umeå,1 Sweden. After two reminders, the response rate was 56% (N = 1,429). Respondents with a large amount of missing data were excluded, leaving 1,414 respondents in the following data analyses. The gender distribution in the sample was approximately even, with 53% women (50.1% in the general population of Umeå within the same age span), and the mean age was 41.03. The mean age in the general population of Umeå within the same age span was 36.85. Of the respondents, 41% of the women and 37% of the men had a higher education (43.4% and 39.1% in the general population in Umeå, respectively). Thus, with regard to general demographic variables, there were no large discrepancies between the respondents and the general population. QUESTIONNAIRE

The questionnaire consisted of seven parts. Because not all parts were included in this analysis, the description will focus on the four parts that did. In the first part, the respondents were asked for background information, such as age, education, marital status, if they had a driver’s license, and if they had access to a car in the household.


747

In the second part, a selection of values from a translated version of Schwartz’s (1992) Value Inventory Scale was used to assess the general value orientation. The respondents were asked to rate to what degree each of 24 values functioned as a guiding principle in their lives. The response was made on a 9-point scale (–1 = opposed to my values, 0 = not important, 1-2 [unlabeled], 3 = important, 4-5 [unlabeled], 6 = very important, 7 = of supreme importance). The values social power, wealth, social recognition, authority, self-respect, ambitious, influential, capable, and successful represented self-enhancement. The values equality, a world at peace, unity with nature, wisdom, a world of beauty, social justice, broad-minded, a protected environment, mature love, true friendship, loyalty, honesty, helpfulness, responsibility, and forgiving represented self-transcendence (Schwartz, 1992). The third part of the questionnaire consisted of 21 statements, assessing ecocentric and anthropocentric values (Thompson & Barton, 1994), problem awareness, and personal norm. Three statements each assessed ecocentrism (e.g., “it makes me sad to see natural environments destroyed”) and anthropocentrism (e.g., “the thing that concerns me most about deforestation is that there will not be enough lumber for future generations”). Twelve statements assessed awareness of negative consequences for people in general (social, e.g., “health effects from environmental pollution are more serious than we believe”), for the person himself or herself (egoistic, e.g., “laws for environmental protection decrease my freedom of choice”), for the biosphere (biospheric, e.g., “during the years to come, thousands of species will become extinct”), or general consequences (e.g., “I am worried about environmental problems”). Three statements assessed the personal norm regarding environmental protection (e.g., “I feel a moral obligation to relieve the environmental problems”). Respondents indicated, for each of the 21 statements, to what extent they agreed on a 7-point scale, ranging from 1 (not at all) to 7 (totally). In the fourth part, respondents indicated how often (regularly, sometimes, rarely, and never) they performed each of 25 different proenvironmental behaviors. The behaviors represented different domains of everyday behaviors such as recycling/reusing (13 items, e.g., “recycling of paper, plastic, and metal”), environmentally responsible consumption (7 items, e.g., “buying environmentally friendly products”), energy conservation (3 items, e.g., “saving hot water in the household”), and transportation behavior (2 items, e.g., “using other modes of transportation than automobile”).

748


RESULTS

From Schwartz’s Social Value Inventory Scale, two index variables were calculated, self-transcendence and self-enhancement. The mean rating for each individual was calculated for the 15 items measuring self-transcendence (α = .86). The mean rating for each individual was also calculated for the 9 items measuring self-enhancement (α = .78). Mean ratings were calculated for each individual for the 3 items measuring ecocentrism (α = .65) and the 3 items measuring anthropocentrism (α = .52). Because only 3 items each measured ecocentrism and anthropocentrism, the α values were judged acceptable. Twelve items assessed awareness of environmental consequences for one’s self, for people in general, and for the biosphere. The mean rating for these 12 items (α = .82) was calculated for each individual and was used as a measure of problem awareness. An index was computed for the 3 items assessing personal norm in the same way (α = .77). Proenvironmental behavior was assessed using ratings of 25 environmentally significant behaviors. The mean for these 25 behaviors was calculated for each individual and represented general proenvironmental behavior (α = .84). An inspection of the item to scale correlations revealed that the α value could not be improved by deleting any of the 25 items. Internal consistency is a necessary but not sufficient condition for unidimensionality, and therefore a factor analysis was performed. The factor analysis resulted in seven factors. The first nonrotated factor (eigenvalue = 5.53) explained 22% of the total variance, and the second factor (eigenvalue = 2.00) only contributed 8%. All 25 items loaded positively on the first factor. The high internal consistency and the results of the factor analysis suggest that the 25 items are reasonably unidimensional. Means, standard deviations, and Cronbach’s alphas for the index variables are given in Table 1. As can be seen in Table 1, the respondents’ mean ratings for selftranscendence and ecocentrism were higher than for self-enhancement and anthropocentrism, respectively. As a group, the respondents agreed to a fairly high degree that there are environmental problems, and they perceived a moral obligation to act to protect the environment. At the group level, general proenvironmental behavior was reported rather frequently. The product moment correlations between the variables are shown in Table 2. Most of the correlation coefficients were significant and had the expected sign but should be interpreted with some caution due to the large sample size. The correlation coefficients between the dependent variable of proenvironmental behavior and the independent variables of self-transcendence, ecocentrism, problem awareness, and personal norm were, as expected, positive. The expected negative relation between proenvironmental behavior and


749

TABLE 1 Mean Values, Standard Deviations, and Scale Reliability (Cronbach’s α) for General Values, Environmental Values, Problem Awareness, Personal Norm, and General Proenvironmental Behavior M 5.34a a 3.64 b 5.30 b 3.18 b 5.65 b 5.62 c 2.85

Self-transcendence Self-enhancement Ecocentrism Anthropocentrism Problem awareness Personal norm Proenvironmental behavior

α

SD 0.86 1.00 1.28 1.31 0.85 1.04 0.42

.86 .78 .65 .52 .82 .74 .84

a. Judgments were made on a 9-point scale, –1 to 7. b. Judgments were made on a 7-point scale, 1 to 7. c. Judgments were made on a 4-point scale, 1 to 4.

TABLE 2 Correlation Matrix for General Values (S-T, S-E), Environmental Values (ECO, ANT), Problem Awareness (PA), Personal Norm (PN), and General Proenvironmental Behavior (PEB)

S-E ECO ANT PA PN PEB

S-T

S-E

.36** .40** .06** .41** .47** .29**

.05* .17** –.06* .02 –.09**

ECO

.06* .43** .48** .33**

ANT

PA

–.14** –.01 .01

.61** .33**

PN

.47**

NOTE: S-T = self-transcendence; S-E = self-enhancement; ECO = ecocentrism; ANT = anthropocentrism. *p < .01. **p < .001.

self-enhancement was weak but significant. Self-transcendence was positively related to ecocentrism, problem awareness, and personal norm, whereas self-enhancement was positively related to anthropocentrism and negatively related to problem awareness. The environmental values, ecocentrism and anthropocentrism, were related to problem awareness, whereas only ecocentrism was related to personal norm. Problem awareness was positively related to personal norm. To test the proposed model in Figure 1, a path analysis was conducted using Amos 4.0 (Arbuckle, 1997). The predicted path from selftranscendence to anthropocentrism was not significant, and the same was true for the predicted path from anthropocentrism to personal norm. The

750


.44

S-T

ECO -.11 .36

.21 .31

PA

.36 -.17

S-E .17

-.15

.24 .42

PN

.46

PEB

-.06

ANT

Figure 2: Reestimated Path-Analytic Model of the Influence From Value, Problem Awareness, and Personal Norm on Proenvironmental Behavior 2

NOTE: χ (8, N = 1,414) = 72.43; goodness-of-fit index = .99; adjusted goodness-of-fit index = .95; root mean square error of approximation = .075. Exogenous factors were general value orientation: self-transcendence (S-T) and self-enhancement (S-E). Endogenous factors were environmental value orientation: ecocentrism (ECO) and anthropocentrism (ANT), problem awareness (PA), personal norm (PN), and proenvironmental behavior (PEB). Percentage explained variances for endogenous factors were ECO, 17%; ANT, 3%; PA, 31%; PN, 46%; and PEB, 22%.

nonsignificant paths were excluded, and the model was reestimated. The χ2 difference (3.20) with 2 degrees of freedom was nonsignificant. Standardized path coefficients, the amount of explained variance for the endogenous factors, and measures of goodness of fit for the reestimated model are shown in Figure 2. As can be seen in Figure 2, all expected paths, with the exception of the paths from self-transcendence to anthropocentrism and from anthropocentrism to personal norm, were significant and had the expected sign. Several different measurements have been suggested for assessing the overall fit of a model to data. One such measurement is the χ2 value, which for our reestimated model was significant, χ2 = 72.43, df = 8, p < .001. A significant χ2 value indicates that the model does not fit the data perfectly. However, because the χ2 test is sensitive to sample size, any model will be rejected if the sample size is large enough. A variety of alternative indexes for assessing model fit has been developed (Fan, Thompson, & Wang, 1999; Jöreskog & Sörbom, 1993). Alternative goodness-of-fit indexes (GFIs), such as the GFI and the adjusted goodness-of-fit index (AGFI), assess the degree to which the reproduced covariance matrix, based on the specified model, accounts for the original sample covariance matrix. These indexes can be conceptualized as the multivariate counterpart of the coefficient of determination (R2), as in regression analysis or analysis of variance (Fan et al., 1999; Hu & Bentler, 1995). GFIs indicate a close fit between data and proposed model with values larger than .90. The root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) is


751

another often-used measure. The minimum value of the fit function decreases when parameters are added to the model, and RMSEA is a measure of the discrepancy per degree of freedom. An RMSEA value less than .05 indicates a close fit, and a value less than .08 represents reasonable errors of approximation (Brown & Cudeck, 1993). For the model tested, GFI (.99) and AGFI (.95) indicated a close fit between the model and the data. The RMSEA value (.075) indicated that the model is a reasonable approximation of data. Finally, the residuals that resulted when the model was fitted to the data were inspected. The average of the absolute values of discrepancy between the observed correlations and the reproduced correlations was .015, which means that the model explains the correlations to within an average error of .015. The results support the overall pattern of relations between values and proenvironmental behavior in the proposed model. General values did influence environmental values, problem awareness, and personal norm. In addition, the predicted effects from environmental values and problem awareness on personal norm were confirmed. It is thus evident that general values influence proenvironmental behavior indirectly, through environmental values, problem awareness, and personal norm. Self-transcendence positively affected ecocentrism and problem awareness and had the expected positive effect on the personal norm. Self-enhancement had the expected negative effects on ecocentrism and problem awareness. Self-enhancement had a positive effect on anthropocentrism. Ecocentrism positively affected problem awareness and had the expected positive effect on personal norm. Anthropocentrism had a negative effect on problem awareness. Problem awareness influenced personal norm positively. The personal norm showed a strong positive effect on proenvironmental behavior. The results showed that the effects of general and environmental values and problem awareness on proenvironmental behavior are mediated by the personal norm and that the personal norm can be viewed as an important general predisposition to act in a proenvironmental manner.

CONCLUSIONS

In this study, a hierarchical model of the effects of general and environmental value orientation, problem awareness, and personal norm on proenvironmental behavior was tested. The model was derived from Schwartz’s norm-activation theory and earlier research on proenvironmental behavior. Proenvironmental behavior was seen as a behavior that involves a

752


conflict between acting in one’s own immediate interest or in the long-term interest of the collective or the environment. Self-transcendent values and an ecocentric orientation toward the environment were expected to have direct positive effects on the awareness of environmental problems and on the perceived moral obligation to act to protect the environment. On the other hand, self-enhancement values and an anthropocentric orientation to the environment were expected to have direct negative effects on problem awareness and the personal norm. The personal norm was expected to mediate the effects of values and problem awareness on proenvironmental behavior. The model was supported by the data, and the results clearly showed the importance of the personal norm for proenvironmental behavior. In accordance with the tested model, general values influenced environmental values, problem awareness, and the personal norm. The predicted effects of environmental values and problem awareness on the personal norm were also found. Lastly, the personal norm was found to influence behavior. Individuals who gave priority to self-transcendent values were more aware of the threats to the environment and perceived a stronger moral obligation to act to protect the environment than individuals who gave priority to self-enhancement values. These results are in accordance with findings in social dilemma research on social value orientation. Individuals with a cooperative value orientation have been found to give more weight to the collective consequences of their behavior and be more willing to make personal sacrifices for the common good than those with an individual value orientation (see, e.g., Komorita & Parks, 1994; van Lange, Liebrand, Messick, & Wilke, 1992). The environmental values assessed in this study were ecocentrism, representing the belief that the ecosystem has an intrinsic value and therefore should be protected, and anthropocentrism, representing the belief that the environment needs protection because of its contribution to human welfare. We found that self-transcendence positively influenced ecocentrism but had no effect on anthropocentrism, whereas self-enhancement had a negative effect on ecocentrism and a positive effect on anthropocentrism. Furthermore, we found that ecocentrism had a positive effect on problem awareness, whereas the effect from anthropocentrism was negative. Ecocentrism also had a positive effect on the personal norm, whereas the effect of anthropocentrism on the personal norm was nonsignificant. These results are in agreement with the results obtained by Grendstad and Wollebaek (1998) and Thompson and Barton (1994) and show that ecocentrism and anthropocentrism are two different orientations toward the environment and that ecocentrism is the more important motive for proenvironmental behavior. The results indicate that anthropocentrism with its utilitarian orientation


753

may be based on a mixture of altruistic and egoistic motives, which also have been suggested by Thompson and Barton as well as by Schultz and Zelezny (1999). If anthropocentrism is a heterogeneous concept, it might explain the lower internal consistency found in the study and why self-transcendence did not affect anthropocentrism. That self-transcendence and ecocentrism had positive effects on problem awareness and that self-enhancement and anthropocentrism had negative effects show that people with collective values and those who value the environment for its own sake are more concerned about environmental problems than people who give priority to individual values and value the environment mainly for its contribution to human welfare (Stern & Dietz, 1994). In this study, the personal norm can be seen as derived from self-transcendent and ecocentric values and activated by the problem awareness, which is in agreement with Schwartz (1977) and Stern and Dietz (1994). The activation of a personal norm is thus an important antecedent to proenvironmental behavior. Stern (2000) has described personal moral norms as the main basis for individuals’general predisposition to proenvironmental actions, and such a predisposition should influence all kinds of behavior taken with proenvironmental intent. Our results showed that the personal norm was the factor in the model that directly influenced proenvironmental behavior, mediating the effects from general values, environmental values, and problem awareness. Thus, the results in the present study indicate that for environmentally significant everyday behaviors, it is meaningful to talk about a general disposition to act to protect the environment and toward general proenvironmental behavior. However, as can be seen from the amount of explained variance in proenvironmental behavior (R2 = .21), there is still a large amount of unexplained variance. Stern has pointed out that there are four major types of causal factors that might influence proenvironmental behavior. The first type is attitudinal factors such as values, beliefs, and norms, as studied here. The second type of factor is contextual factors such as material costs and rewards and the availability of technology. The third type involves personal capabilities such as financial resources and behaviorspecific knowledge and skills. Finally, there are habits or routines that may need to be broken to change behavior in a proenvironmental direction. It is important to realize that these causal factors interact with each other. If, for instance, there are very strong contextual forces acting on the behavior or if the behavior is determined by a strong habit, one should not expect to find strong relations between attitudinal factors and behavior (Stern, 2000; Verplanken & Aarts, 1999). Another explanation of the rather low amount of explained variance could be that other attitudinal variables than the general attitudinal variables used in this study have an influence on behavior

754


performed with proenvironmental intent. Even if the behavior has an impact on the environment and the environmental motive is important, it might be performed for other reasons than to protect the environment, for example, conserving energy in the household to save money or using a bicycle instead of a car to get some exercise. Thus, to get a more thorough understanding of what influences environmentally significant behavior, the interaction between attitudinal factors and contextual factors, personal capabilities, and habits should be studied. It is also important to study what other motives, besides environmental concern, influence such behavior.

NOTE 1. Umeå, a city in the northern part of Sweden, has approximately 100,000 inhabitants.

REFERENCES Arbuckle, J. L. (1997). Amos user’s guide version 3.6. Chicago: Small Waters Corporation. Bratt, C. (1999). Consumers’ environmental behavior. Generalized, sector-based, or compensatory? Environment & Behavior, 31, 28-44. Brown, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In K. A. Bollen & J. S. Long (Eds.), Testing structural equation models (pp. 136-162). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Eagly, A. H., & Kulesa, P. (1997). Attitudes, attitude structure, and resistance to change. Implications for persuasion on environmental issues. In M. H. Bazerman, D. M. Messick, A. E. Tenbrunsel, & K. A. Wade-Benzoni (Eds.), Environment, ethics, and behavior. The psychology of environmental valuation and degradation (pp. 122-153). San Francisco: Lexington. Ebreo, A., Hershey, J., & Vining, J. (1999). Reducing solid waste. Linking recycling to environmentally responsible consumerism. Environment & Behavior, 31, 107-135. Eckersley, R. (1992). Environmentalism and political theory: Toward an ecocentric approach. London: UCL Press. Fan, X., Thompson, B., & Wang, L. (1999). Effects of sample size, estimation methods, and model specification on structural equation modelling fit indexes. Structural Equation Modelling, 6, 56-83. Gardner, G. T., & Stern, P. C. (1996). Environmental problems and human behavior. Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Garvill, J. (1999). Choice of transportation mode: Factors influencing drivers’ willingness to reduce personal car use and support car regulations. In M. Foddy, M. Smithson, S. Schneider, & M. Hogg (Eds.), Resolving social dilemmas: Dynamics, structural, and intergroup aspects (pp. 263-280). Philadelphia: Psychological Press.


755

Garvill, J., Laitila, T., & Brydsten, M. (1994). Livsvärden och val av färdmedel [Life values and choice of mode of transportation] (Tech. Rep.). Umeå, Sweden: Umeå University, Transportation Research Unit. Grendstad, G., & Wollebaek, D. (1998). Greener still? An empirical examination of Eckersley’s ecocentric approach. Environment & Behavior, 30, 653-675. Guagnano, G. A., Stern, P. C., & Dietz, T. (1995). Influences of attitude-behavior relationships: A natural experiment with curbside recycling. Environment & Behavior, 27, 699-718. Homer, P. M., & Kahle, L. R. (1988). A structural equation test of the value-attitude-behavior hierarchy. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 638-646. Hopper, J. R., & McCarl-Nielsen, J. (1991). Recycling as altruistic behavior. Normative and behavioral strategies to expand participation in a community recycling program. Environment & Behavior, 23, 195-220. Hu, L-T., & Bentler, P. M. (1995). Evaluating model fit. In R. H. Hoyle (Ed.), Structural equation modelling. Concepts, issues, and applications (pp. 76-99). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Jöreskog, K., & Sörbom, D. (1993). LISREL8: Structural equation modeling with the SIMPLIS command language. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Kaiser, F. G. (1998). A general measure of ecological behavior. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 28, 395-422. Kaiser, F. G., & Biel, A. (2000). Assessing general ecological behavior: A cross-cultural comparison between Switzerland and Sweden. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 16, 44-52. Karp, D. G. (1996). Values and their effect on pro-environmental behavior. Environment & Behavior, 28, 111-133. Komorita, S. S., & Parks, C. D. (1994). Social dilemmas. Dubuque, IA: Brown and Benchmark. McCarty, J. A., & Shrum, L. J. (1994). The recycling of solid wastes: Personal values, value orientations, and attitudes about recycling as antecedents of recycling behavior. Journal of Business Research, 30, 53-62. McKenzie-Mohr, D., Nemiroff, L. S., Beers, L., & Desmarais, S. (1995). Determinants of responsible environmental behavior. Journal of Social Issues, 51, 139-156. Merchant, C. (1992). Radical ecology: The search for a livable world. New York: Routledge. Naess, A., & Rothenberg, D. (1989). Ecology, community and lifestyle: Outline of an ecosophy. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Nordlund, A. M., & Garvill, J. (1999, June). Value structures behind pro-environmental behavior. Paper presented at the Conference Toward a Sustainable Society in the New Millennium, Umeå, Sweden. Nordlund, A. M., & Garvill, J. (2001). The effect of values, beliefs, and personal norms on willingness to reduce car-use. Manuscript submitted for publication. Pieters, R., Bijmolt, T., van Raaij, F., & de Kruijk, M. (1998). Consumers’ attributions of proenvironmental behavior, motivation and ability to self and others. Journal of Public Policy and Marketing, 17, 215-225. Schultz, P. W., & Zelezny, L. (1999). Values as predictors of environmental attitudes: Evidence for consistency across 14 countries. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 19, 255-265. Schwartz, S. H. (1977). Normative influences on altruism. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 10, 221-279. Schwartz, S. H. (1992). Universals in the content of and structure of values: Theoretical advances and empirical tests in 20 countries. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 25, 1-65. Schwartz, S. H. (1994). Are there universal aspects in the structure and contents of human values? Journal of Social Issues, 50, 19-45.

756


Stern, P. C. (2000). Toward a coherent theory of environmentally significant behavior. Journal of Social Issues, 56, 407-424. Stern, P. C., & Dietz, T. (1994). The value basis of environmental concern. Journal of Social Issues, 50, 65-84. Stern, P. C., Dietz, T., & Black, S. S. (1985-1986). Support for environmental protection: The role of moral norms. Population and Environment, 8, 204-222. Stern, P. C., Dietz, T., & Guagnano, G. A. (1995). The new ecological paradigm in socialpsychological context. Environment & Behavior, 27, 723-753. Stern, P. C., Dietz, T., & Guagnano, G. A. (1998). A brief inventory of values. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 58, 984-1001. Stern, P. C., Dietz, T., & Kalof, L. (1993). Value orientations, gender, and environmental concern. Environment & Behavior, 25, 322-348. Stern, P. C., Dietz, T., Kalof, L., & Guagnano, G. A. (1995). Values, beliefs, and proenvironmental action: Attitudes formation toward emergent attitude objects. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 25, 1611-1636. Stern, P. C., & Gardner, G. T. (1981). Psychological research and energy policy. American Psychologist, 36, 329-342. Thøgersen, J. (1996). Recycling and morality. A critical review of the literature. Environment & Behavior, 28, 536-558. Thompson, S. C. G., & Barton, M. A. (1994). Ecocentric and anthropocentric attitudes toward the environment. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 14, 149-157. van Lange, P. A. M., Liebrand, W. I. M., Messick, D. M., & Wilke, H. A. M. (1992). Introduction and literature review. In W. B. G. Liebrand, D. M. Messick, & H. A. M. Wilke (Eds.), Social dilemmas: Theoretical issues and research findings (pp. 3-27). Oxford, UK: Pergamon. Verplanken, B., & Aarts, H. (1999). Habit, attitude, and planned behavior: Is habit an empty construct or an interesting case of goal-directed automaticity? European Review of Social Psychology, 10, 101-134. Vining, J., & Ebreo, A. (1990). What makes a recycler? A comparison of recyclers and nonrecyclers. Environment & Behavior, 22, 55-73. Vlek, C., & Michon, J. A. (1992). Why we should and how we could decrease the use of motor vehicles in the near future. IATSS Research, 15, 82-93. Werner, C. M., & Makela, E. (1998). Motivations and behaviors that support recycling. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 18, 373-386. Widegren, Ö. (1998). The new environmental paradigm and personal norms. Environment & Behavior, 30, 75-100.