Professional Documents
Culture Documents
10.1177/001391602237244
Nordlund,
Garvill /AND
VALUES
BEHAVIOR
AND PROENVIRONMENTALISM
/ November 2002
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.
740
741
742
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 peoples
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; Thgersen,
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
744
745
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 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 drivers license, and if they
had access to a car in the household.
747
748
RESULTS
From Schwartzs 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
( = .86). The mean rating for each individual was also calculated for the 9
items measuring self-enhancement ( = .78). Mean ratings were calculated
for each individual for the 3 items measuring ecocentrism ( = .65) and the 3
items measuring anthropocentrism ( = .52). Because only 3 items each measured ecocentrism and anthropocentrism, the values were judged acceptable. Twelve items assessed awareness of environmental consequences for
ones self, for people in general, and for the biosphere. The mean rating for
these 12 items ( = .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 ( = .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 ( = .84). An inspection of the
item to scale correlations revealed that the 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 Cronbachs 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 (Cronbachs ) 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
SD
0.86
1.00
1.28
1.31
0.85
1.04
0.42
.86
.78
.65
.52
.82
.74
.84
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**
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
NOTE: (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 2
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 2 value, which for
our reestimated model was significant, 2 = 72.43, df = 8, p < .001. A significant 2 value indicates that the model does not fit the data perfectly. However,
because the 2 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; Jreskog &
Srbom, 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
Schwartzs norm-activation theory and earlier research on proenvironmental
behavior. Proenvironmental behavior was seen as a behavior that involves a
752
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 individualsgeneral 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
NOTE
1. Ume, a city in the northern part of Sweden, has approximately 100,000 inhabitants.
REFERENCES
Arbuckle, J. L. (1997). Amos users 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). Livsvrden och val av frdmedel [Life values and
choice of mode of transportation] (Tech. Rep.). Ume, Sweden: Ume University, Transportation Research Unit.
Grendstad, G., & Wollebaek, D. (1998). Greener still? An empirical examination of Eckersleys
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.
Jreskog, K., & Srbom, 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,
Ume, 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