ARTICLE IN PRESS

Journal of Environmental Psychology 24 (2004) 93–103

www.elsevier.com/locate/jep

A cognitive dissonance interpretation of consistencies and

inconsistencies in environmentally responsible behavior
John Th^gersen*
Department of Marketing, Aarhus School of Business, Haslegaardsvej 10, 8210 Aarhus V, Denmark
Received 4 September 2002; received in revised form 7 April 2003; accepted 17 June 2003

Abstract

The issue of consistency and inconsistency in environmentally responsible behavior (ERB), as reflected in the correlations between
different ERBs, is discussed in the light of social-psychological theories suggesting that most people desire to behave consistently. It
is argued that except in cases where different ERBs are substitutes or at least one of them is totally determined by idiosyncratic
conditions the desire to behave consistently should lead to ERBs being positively correlated. However, the correlation may be
attenuated by the influence of idiosyncratic conditions (considered ‘‘noise’’ in this context) and measurement error and it is
moderated by perceived dissimilarity between the behaviors and by the (moral) importance of behaving in a responsible way towards
the environment. These propositions are tested (and confirmed) by means of a mall-intercept survey of ordinary Danish shoppers.
Implications for the promotion of a generalized ERB pattern are discussed.
r 2003 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction instead made on an activity-to-activity basis’’ (Pickett

In the (relatively short) history of research into
environmentally responsible behavior (ERB) one of
the persistent, yet still not completely settled, questions
has been whether different ERBs are—or should be
expected to be—correlated (e.g. Gray, 1985; Stern &
Oskamp, 1987; Pickett, Kangun, & Grove, 1993; Berger,
1997; Diekmann & Preisendorfer, . 1998; Th^gersen,
1999b). The international literature contains studies
that report positive correlations between people’s
propensities to behave in an environmentally friendly
way across domains (e.g. Berger, 1997) as well as studies
that fail to find such correlations (e.g. Stern & Oskamp,
1987; De Kruijk & van Raaij, 1991). In particular, the
early studies found low correlations between ERBs.
Hence, in the mid-1980s a thorough reviewer of the
literature had to conclude that ‘‘there is very little
evidence of transfer of heightened pro-ecological beha-
vior from the target behavior to other behaviors’’ (Gray,
1985, p. 188). Based on the same evidence others
inferred that ‘‘environmentally beneficial choicesyare
not reflective of a general conservation stance, but are
*Corresponding author. Tel.: +45-8948-6440; fax: +45-8615-3988.
E-mail address: john.thogersen@asb.dk (J. Th^gersen).
et al., 1993).
The two latter references also illustrate the main
reasons why researchers have taken interest in the
correlation between different ERB. Positive correlations
between different ERBs should be expected if they share
motivational roots (‘‘a general conservation stance’’)
and a lack of correlation is taken to indicate that each
ERB is considered in isolation and that behavior is
completely determined by the specificities of each
behavior and situation. Which of these possibilities is
true has important implications for policy aimed at
promoting ERB, of course.
Positive correlations between different ERBs should
also be expected if ‘‘heightened pro-ecological behavior’’
is transferred from ‘‘the target behavior to other
behaviors’’ or, as others have expressed it, if there is a
tendency for ERB to ‘‘spill over’’ into other behavioral
domains (Frey, 1993; Th^gersen, 1999b). Spillover of
ERB would mean that the effects of interventions
promoting specific ERBs are multiplied for the benefit
of a more sustainable society overall. Hence, the
practical importance of this issue should not be under-
estimated either. The two reasons for expecting different
ERBs to be correlated are hardly independent. Most
likely, a tendency for ERB to spill over depends on ERB
in different areas having shared motivational roots.

0272-4944/$ - see front matter r 2003 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/S0272-4944(03)00039-2
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
94 J. Th^gersen / Journal of Environmental Psychology 24 (2004) 93–103
Even those most strongly convinced that, in general,
ERBs should be positively correlated will hardly claim
this to be universally true. An obvious exception is
ERBs that are substitutes,1 such as traveling by bicycle
and by public transportation. Neither can it be ignored
that ERB is determined by personal and contextual
constraints, in addition to the individual’s motivation to
perform the behavior (e.g. Guagnano, Stern, & Dietz,
.
1995; Olander & Th^gersen, 1995). Constraints are
typically behavior and sometimes even situation specific.
Hence, it is also obvious that the correlation between
any two ERBs will be attenuated to the degree that
either of them is influenced by idiosyncratic constraints.
In the context of the present discussion, attenuation due
to the influence of idiosyncratic constraints is best
considered noise, which may obscure possible common
sources of motivation or the propensity for ERB to spill
over into other behaviors.
Another common source of attenuation of correlations
between ERBs is the use of fallible measures (typically
self-reports). Correlations based on fallible measures
usually underestimate the ‘‘true’’ correlations due to
uncorrelated errors of measurement (Bagozzi, 1994;
Mackenzie, 2001). When attenuation due to measure-
ment error is combined with attenuation due to the
influence of idiosyncratic constraints, theoretically mean-
ingful correlations between behaviors may easily dis-
appear, especially when the sample size is small.
Hence, in order to achieve a satisfactory answer to the
question whether ERBs tend to be—and should be
expected to be—positively correlated it is necessary to
explicitly formulate the limiting conditions for this
proposition. Important limiting conditions have been
suggested above: the ERBs should not be substitutes, not
totally determined by idiosyncratic constraints, and
measurement error should be accounted for. In addition,
the motivational forces assumed to produce a positive
correlation between ERBs should be considered.
The expectation that different ERBs should be
positively correlated is based on (or receive theoretical
backing from) social-psychological theories proposing
that most people have a strong desire to be consistent in
their attitudes, beliefs, words, and behaviors (Feldman,
1966; Cialdini, 1989; Bator & Cialdini, 2000; for an
extensive review, see Eagly & Chaiken, 1993). One of the
most prominent among these theories is Festinger’s
(1957) theory of cognitive dissonance, which claims that
we have a need to avoid inconsistencies in our beliefs,
attitudes, and behaviors.
Backed by experimental evidence (e.g. Zanna &
Cooper, 1974; Zanna, Higgins, & Taves, 1976; Elliot &
Devine, 1994), cognitive dissonance theory suggests that
it is emotionally disturbing and, hence, unpleasant to
1 2
The opposite situation, that a pair of ERBs are complements, is of
course also possible, in which case the finding of a correlation is trivial.
hold inconsistent attitudes and/or perceptions or to
behave inconsistently (Festinger, 1957). Therefore, the
desire to avoid cognitive dissonance is assumed to create
a drive to behave consistently (and to hold consistent
beliefs about oneself in general). Experimental studies
have demonstrated that cognitive dissonance can
produce environment-friendly adjustments in behavior
(e.g. Kantola, Syme, & Campbell, 1984; Dickerson,
Thibodeau, & Aronson, 1992; Aitken, McMahon,
Wearing, & Finlayson, 1994). In these cases,
dissonance was produced by increasing the salience
of the discrepancy between a person’s behavior
and his or her norms for environmentally proper
behavior, i.e. by inducing a sense of ‘‘hypocrisy’’
(Dickerson et al., 1992). However, whether this
drive has the power to spontaneously align different
ERBs is a matter not yet investigated empirically, as far
as I know.
If two volitional behaviors are believed to lead to the
same super-ordinate goal, a desire to avoid cognitive
dissonance should create a drive to perform either both
or neither of them.2 Obviously, what matters is how the
actors themselves, not some outside observer, perceive
the two behaviors. If actors fail to see that the two
behaviors are linked to a common goal, they may not
experience the slightest inconsistency when performing
one and not the other.
In addition, the individual may perceive that the two
behaviors differ in the level of freedom to choose.
Experimental research documents that cognitive dis-
sonance is not produced if inconsistency can be
attributed to external forces (e.g. Festinger & Carlsmith,
1959; Collins & Hoyt, 1972). Specifically, environmen-
tally relevant behaviors may differ in many ways, for
instance with regard to the specific physical acts
performed, where and when they are performed, the
amount of effort and/or resources expended, and/or the
specific outcomes obtained. Whether or not these
differences translate into different degrees of external
determination and, hence, are legitimate reasons for
behaving differently (viewed from the perspective of a
super-ordinate goal) is to a high degree a subjective
question. Hence, the amount of dissonance produced by
acting inconsistently not only depends on the indivi-
dual’s perception of the behaviors’ relationship to the
super-ordinate goal, but also on the level of his/her
perceived volitional control over the behavior (i.e.
whether the reason for performing a behavior is
attributed to intrinsic motivation or external forces)
(cf. Festinger, 1957).
Hence, the following hypotheses about correlations
between ERBs can be derived from cognitive dissonance
Whether it will be both or neither probably depends on the
importance of the goal to the individual.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
J. Th^gersen / Journal of Environmental Psychology 24 (2004) 93–103
theory:
H1.1: Volitional ERBs are positively correlated because
people strive to be consistent in their performance or
nonperformance of behaviors that are connected by a
common association to a super-ordinate goal, such as
environmental protection.
However, due to lack of clarity of the connection
between behaviors and super-ordinate goals, as well as
different degrees of external determination, the indivi-
dual does not necessarily perceive it to be inconsistent to
behave in a way that furthers a super-ordinate goal in
one behavioral domain while behaving in a way that
does not, or perhaps even goes in the opposite direction,
in another domain. Hence:
H1.2: The correlation between ERBs depends on how
similar or dissimilar they are perceived to be in terms of
relationship to super-ordinate goal and external determi-
nation because individuals will strive harder to perform
two such activities consistently the more similar they
perceive them to be in these respects.
Not all inconsistencies are assumed to be equally
disturbing and, hence, equally likely to produce
cognitive dissonance. Festinger (1957) was not very
precise in specifying possible sources of variation in the
amount of dissonance produced by inconsistency, but
later research has attempted to strengthen the theory on
this point. The most influential of these attempts is
Aronson’s (1997; Aronson & Carlsmith, 1962)
suggestion that the feeling of cognitive dissonance
depends on whether important elements of ones self-
concept (i.e. being competent or possessing high
moral standards) are being threatened. Specifically, the
desire to perceive oneself as a moral person is regarded a
key concern in the self-concept explanation of
dissonance (Dickerson et al., 1992; Thibodeau &
Aronson, 1992).
It has repeatedly been demonstrated that moral
standards (or norms) play an important role in guiding
ERBs (e.g. Heberlein, 1972; Black, Stern, & Elworth,
1985; Stern, Dietz, & Black, 1986; Hopper & Nielsen,
1991; Th^gersen, 1999a). These empirical results in
combination with the self-concept revision of dissonance
theory suggest that the importance of consistency in the
environmental field, and, hence, the amount of dis-
sonance produced by behaving inconsistently, depends
on the person’s moral standards for ERBs. Behavioral
inconsistency threatens the individual’s self-perception
as a morally reliable person only if he or she holds moral
norms of some strength for this type of behavior. Hence,
for individuals who have no or only weak moral norms
for environmentally relevant behaviors it matters little if
they perceive their behavior in this domain to be
inconsistent. However, for individuals with strong moral
norms the desire to avoid cognitive dissonance creates a
drive to behave consistently. Specifically we may
hypothesize that:
95
H2: The influence of perceived similarity on the
correlation between ERBs (cf. H1.2) depends on how
morally important it is for the person to behave in an
environmentally friendly way because moral importance
influences the amount of dissonance produced by acting
inconsistently in the environmental field.
Notice that what is proposed here is an interaction
between moral norms and similarity perceptions in
determining the correlation between pairs of ERBs. The
effect of similarity perceptions on the correlation
between behaviors should be stronger among indivi-
duals with strong than among those with weak moral
norms, and the effect of moral norms on the correlation
should be stronger for behaviors that are perceived as
relatively similar. In fact, direct effects of the two
variables should only be expected if most people in the
analysed population share norms for the behaviors of
some importance (allowing for a direct effect of
similarity perceptions) and/or if most people perceive
at least some similarity between the behaviors (allowing
for a direct effect of moral norms).
2. Method
The hypotheses are tested by means of a survey of 309
ordinary consumers, contacted in two shopping malls in
Aarhus, Denmark, in June 1998. No log was made of
the number of individuals refuting to participate, but
since they refused without knowing the subject of the
study3 the nonresponse is not likely to cause biases in
the hypothesis tests. Of course, the sampling procedure
does not assure a sample, which is representative of a
well-defined population, but it did provide information
from a broad selection of ordinary consumers (see the
sample’s demographic profile in Table 1), which is
sufficient for the present purpose.
Among other things, the survey instrument contained
questions about the similarity or dissimilarity of pairs
that can be constructed from a set of 15 environmentally
relevant behaviors as well as about the performance and
moral norms regarding the 15 behaviors, in that order.
Behavior with respect to the 15 activities (see Table 2)
was measured by asking the respondent how often he/
she carried out the activity in question,4 using a scale
with five verbally defined steps: ‘‘never’’, ‘‘rarely’’, ‘‘half
the times’’, ‘‘often’’, and ‘‘always/every time.’’
3
Passers by in the shopping mall who seemed to be at least 18 years
old were asked to participate in ‘‘a survey about Danes’ consumption
habits.’’
4
The environmental significance of the analysed behaviors was
secured by using a study on the environmental impact of consumption,
commissioned by the Danish Environment and Consumer Agencies
(Forbrugerstyrelsen og Milj^styrelsen, 1996), as the basis for selecting
the behaviors.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
96 J. Th^gersen / Journal of Environmental Psychology 24 (2004) 93–103

Table 1 all activity pairs.5 Thus, the respondents were divided

Sample’s demographic profile, N ¼ 309 into three groups, which were given different versions of
Percenta the questionnaire; in each group, only 7 of the activities
were compared. Three activities were however common
Female 53
to all groups: (buying organic milk, source-separating
Male 47
Less than high school 27 glass and paper, and taking the bus to work and
High school 19 shopping), and for the pairwise similarity ratings of
Bachelor or equivalent 25 these, no significant differences were found between the
Post graduate degree 29 various groups. The three versions of the questionnaire
Single 60
also contained identical questions about the perfor-
Living with a partner 40
Have children 54 mance of the behaviors and about demographics. There
No children 46 are no differences in demographic characteristics or
Own car(s) 43 reported behavior among respondents filling out differ-
No car 57 ent versions of the questionnaire. Hence, in the analyses
Live in apartment 43
to be reported here, the ratings from all three
Live in a house 57
Mean age, years 35 respondent groups are pooled.
a
An index of the strength of personal moral norms for
Except for mean age.
behaving in a responsible way towards the environment
is constructed by summing the answers on 15 nine-point
semantic differential scales with the end points ‘‘right’’–
Table 2 shows that it is common in this sample of ‘‘wrong.’’ The scales referred to each of the behaviors
Danish consumers to behave in an environmentally that were assessed for similarity and respondents were
friendly way, at least according to themselves. However, only asked to evaluate the behaviors that they had
the various kinds of environmentally friendly behavior assessed for similarity.6 The scale reliability coefficient r
also differ greatly in popularity as indicated by means (Raykov, 2001) for the index is 0.89.7 In the following
varying from below 2 to over 4 on the five-point scale. analyses the index is dichotomized at its mean.
The measures of perceived similiarity were obtained by
asking the respondents to make pairwise comparisons of
the various activities and for each pair to report the
3. Data analysis
degree of similarity on a scale from 0 to 10, where 0 was
defined as ‘‘the two activities have absolutely nothing in
First, the hypotheses are tested by means of simple
common’’ and 10 as ‘‘the two activities have very much
regression analyses using SPSS10. Next, the hypothesis
in common.’’ It was not specified in which respect the
tests are repeated on a subset of the data by means of
activities might be perceived as similar, if at all. In this
multigroup confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) using
way we diminished the risk of producing demand effects.
.
Lisrel 8.53 (Joreskog, .
1993; Joreskog, .
Sorbom, Toit, &
We also judged that specifying dimensions for assessing
Toit, 1999; du Toit, du Toit, & Hawkins, 2001). The
similarity was not necessary for the present purpose.
main advantage of this procedure is that it allows one to
Remember that we assume that similarity judgments in
explicitly account for measurement error,8 which other-
cases like this have motivational properties. If this is
wise substantially attenuates the analysed correlations
true, it will show up in the data analysis whether or not
(Mackenzie, 2001). Measures of how well the implied
subjects used the type of criteria for assessing the
variance–covariance matrix from the parameter esti-
similarity between pairs of behaviors that we assumed
mates reflects the observed sample variance–covariance
they would. Further, there is strong evidence suggesting
that when making similarity judgments, people actively 5
If the similarity of each of the 15 activities with each of the other 14
search for the ways in which stimuli are similar (e.g. were to be evaluated, the respondents would have to evaluate 104
.
Sjoberg & Thorslund, 1979) and that perceptions pairs.
6
about consequences play a key role in their general- Notice that this means that most of the items used to construct the
izations about objects (e.g. Shepard, 1987). Hence, index differ between respondents that have filled out different versions
of the questionnaire. Analysis of variance was used to control whether
when the compared objects are all behaviors that the mean of the index differs between the three groups, which it does
have been associated with environmental consequences not (F ¼ 0:08; p ¼ 0:92). On this basis it is inferred that the index
(i.e. the avoidance of negative environmental impacts) in measures the same overall concern irrespective of the specific behaviors
the public debate it seems highly likely that this referred to in the items used to represent it.
7
Full Information Maximum Likelihood (see later) was used to
dimension will be prominent in subjects’ similarity
produce the input for the calculation of the scale reliability coefficient.
judgments. 8
Strictly spoken, what is accounted for is unique variance in the
As the total number of activities included in the study manifest variables, i.e. variance not reflecting the hypothesized latent
was 15, it was not possible to have every respondent rate category, but something else, including measurement error.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
J. Th^gersen / Journal of Environmental Psychology 24 (2004) 93–103 97

Table 2
Fifteen analysed behaviors, N ¼ 309

How often ya Mean s.d. # Missing

Is the milk you buy organic? 2.784 1.536 13

Are the frozen peas you buy organic? 1.945 1.139 38
Is the minced beef you buy organic? 1.911 1.053 18
Do you take the bus or train to work, shopping, and the like? 2.440 1.425 2
Do you bike to work, shopping, and the like? 3.154 1.515 4
Do you keep the temperature in the living room below 21 degree Celsius in the winter? 3.655 1.228 5
Do you turn off all light when you leave a room (as last person)? 4.314 0.795 0
Do you turn off the water when brushing your teeth? 3.929 1.324 1
Are the light bulbs you buy energy saving? 2.525 1.308 4
Is the paint you buy based on water or linen oil? 3.828 1.147 71
Is the shampoo you buy of an environmentally approved brand? 2.932 1.324 31
Do you deliver empty packaging glass and newspaper to recycling? 4.294 1.080 3
Is your green kitchen waste composted in the garden or at a municipal facility? 2.222 1.604 7
Do you deliver paint residues and similar waste to the ‘‘environment car’’ or a paint shop? 3.221 1.610 51
Do you wash your ‘‘boiling wash’’ at 60 C instead of 90 C? 3.904 1.386 16
a
At a five-point scale with the end points ‘‘never’’ (1) and ‘‘always/every time’’ (5).

matrix can be used to determine whether the hypothe- Correlation

sized model gives an acceptable representation of the 0.5
analysed data. Nonresponse (full as well as item) reduces
statistical power and may lead to biased parameter 0.4

estimates. Recent years’ extensive research into ways of 0.3

dealing with missing data strongly suggests that Full
Information Maximum Likelihood (FIML) currently is 0.2
the most efficient method (at least missingness due to
item-nonresponse), not only because it obviously mini- 0.1
mizes the loss of information and, hence, statistical
0
power, but also because it leads to the most unbiased
parameter estimates (Arbuckle, 1996), and this even in -0.1
the case of non-normal data (Enders, 2001). 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5 7 7.5
Similarity
C = -0.33 + 0.086 • S; r2 = 0.414

4. Results Fig. 1. Relationship between similarity assessment and pairwise

correlation between environmentally relevant behaviors, regression
4.1. Regressing correlations between behaviors on analysis, N ¼ 57:
similarity assessment

Hypothesis 1.1 states that, in general, voluntary ERBs
are positively correlated and Hypothesis 1.2 that the
correlation between ERBs depends on how similar or
dissimilar they are perceived to be. These propositions
can be tested by inspecting pairwise correlations
between the behaviors listed in Table 2 and by regressing
the pairwise correlations on the similarity ratings of the
same pairs of behavior. The regression plot is shown in
Fig. 1.
Notice first that the pairwise correlations vary from
below 0 to about 0.45. The mean correlation is only
0.123. At best, this can be interpreted as weak support
for Hypothesis 1.1. The low correlations may partly
have substantive reasons: due to different unique
constraints and other sources of ‘‘inconsistency’’ some
ERBs just do not go together. However, another
important reason is that there is no correction for
measurement error, which attenuates the true correla-
tions. The importance of this methodological short-
coming will become obvious from the CFA in the next
section. Considering the downward biased correla-
tions—and error in the measurement of similarity as
well—a remarkably strong relationship is found between
the similarity assessments and the pairwise correlations,
however, perceived similarity explaining 41.4% of the
variation in pairwise correlations. Hence, Hypothesis
1.2 is strongly supported by the data.
As mentioned above, the similarity measure is devoid
of directions as to the dimension(s) that respondents
might use to compare the behaviors. This procedure
assures that we measure respondents’ subjective percep-
tion of similarities and differences rather than how
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
98 J. Th^gersen / Journal of Environmental Psychology 24 (2004) 93–103
similarities and differences are assessed by some external
observer. On the other hand there is a risk that the
instrument does not really captures what we want to
measure, that is, does not capture perceptions about
similarities and differences that are relevant for judging
whether it is inconsistent to behave differently in the two
areas. The regression analysis strongly supports the
validity of the similarity measure.
In order to analyse whether the moral importance of
behaving in an environment-friendly way influences the
relationship between the similarity assessment and the
correlation between pairs of behavior, as suggested by
Hypothesis 2, pairwise correlations and average simi-
larity ratings have been calculated for two groups,
differentiated by moral norms for ERB (the sample split
at the mean of the moral norms index).9 As expected,
the mean correlation between pairs of behaviors is
higher in the high (0.139) than in the low (0.072) moral
norm group. Also, as predicted, perceived similarity
explains a higher proportion of the variation in the
pairwise correlation in the high (0.291)10 than in the low
(0.187) moral norm group, thus indicating that the effect
of perceived similarity on behavioral consistency de-
pends on the moral importance of the behaviors. The
fact that it has predictive validity also supports the
construct validity of the moral norm index as an
instrument to group respondents with regard to the
moral importance of ERBs.
4.2. Confirmatory factor analysis
As mentioned above, an important advantage of CFA
is that it allows the researcher to account for measure-
ment error when the data set contains more than one
indicator (manifest variables) for an analysed phenom-
enon (latent variable). For this to be the case here we
need to change focus from the level of specific behaviors
to broader behavior categories. I use the term behavior
category, as suggested by Verhallen and Pieters (1984),
to refer to a set of single acts that are similar in at least
one of the specification elements: action, target, context,
and time (Ajzen & Fishbein, 1977, 1980).
For the present analysis, at least two behavior
categories are needed and preferably some that are
neither too strongly determined by idiosyncratic condi-
tions nor so similar that finding correlations between
them would be trivial. When designing the study, some
of the behavior items were specifically selected so as to
reflect two behavior categories that fulfill these criteria.
9
In order to conserve space the regression output from these
calculations is not shown, but it can be obtained from the author.
10
The smaller sample sizes available for calculating the pairwise
correlations that serve as the dependent variable means larger
measurement error in the individual correlations, which is the most
likely reason why the explained variance is lower than when the total
sample is analysed, even in the high moral norm group.
Three behavior items concern the purchase of different
kinds of organic food products, assumed to reflect the
behavior category ‘‘buying organic food,’’ and three
items concern the performance of different kinds of
waste source-separation, assumed to reflect the behavior
category ‘‘recycling.’’ Since these behaviors are per-
formed in different settings (the shop and at home),
target different environmental problems (water pollu-
tion and the waste problem), and have different personal
consequences as well (organic buying costs more and
may produce health benefits, source-separation takes
time and effort, composting produce compost for the
garden) it is by no means trivial that they should be
correlated. In a North-American context, environment-
friendly purchasing has been classified as medium and
recycling as low in difficulty (i.e. low dependence on
external conditions) (Green-Demers, Pelletier, & Me-
nard, 1997). This is equally true in a Danish context. In
Denmark there is a fairly good supply of organic
products in ordinary super-markets and Danish munici-
palities run collection schemes for paper, glass, and for
hazardous waste. However, even if these behaviors are
in general highly volitional, individuals may perceive
that external restrictions differ quite substantively
between specific behaviors in each category. This means
that the same level of motivation to buy organic food or
to recycle may be reflected in different levels of
performance of specific behaviors in the category. With
regard to buying organic food, the most important
external restriction is the supply of the specific type of
food, which varies between products and super-markets.
With regard to recycling opportunities, Danish munici-
palities offer collection systems for recyclable glass and
paper and often also for hazardous waste, but the
service level provided by the system is not as high for
the latter as for the former. In the case of composting, the
kind of home the person inhabits also plays a role.
To test whether it is reasonable to assume that the
analysed consumers entertain behavior concepts for
buying organic food and recycling and, if it is, whether
there is a positive correlation between performing the
two behavior categories, a CFA is performed on the six
items assumed to reflect the two behavior categories (see
Fig. 2). A simple structure factor pattern is assumed, in
addition to the usual assumptions, for instance about
the unique (or error) variances of the individual items
being uncorrelated with the latent variables and
mutually uncorrelated.
When using the FIML approach, LISREL supplies
two test variables that can be used to assess the overall
adequacy of the statistical model. w2 is a measure of the
overall fit of the model to the data. It is a badness-of-fit
measure in the sense that a small w2 corresponds to a
good fit and a large w2 to a bad fit. Statistically, it is
based on the assumption that the model holds exactly in
the population, which is rarely realistic in the behavioral
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
J. Th^gersen / Journal of Environmental Psychology 24 (2004) 93–103
Organic milk
0.69 0.55
0.81
Organic peas Buying organic
0.35
0.79
Organic beef
0.38
0.64
Glass & paper
0.86 0.37
0.56
Compost Recycling
0.68
0.52
Hazardous
0.73
Fig. 2. CFA, buying organic food and recycling. Completely
standardized solution. N ¼ 309: Note: w2 (8 df.)=33.82, po0:001;
RMSEA=0.10, p ¼ 0:007:
sciences. A consequence of this assumption is that a
model which holds approximately in the population will
.
be rejected if the sample is large (Joreskog .
& Sorbom,
1996). As the name indicates, the Root Mean Square
Error of Approximation (RMSEA) take account of the
error of approximation in the population and the
precision of the fit measure itself. In order to correct
for the decrease in discrepancy when parameters are
added in the model, the RMSEA is a measure of
discrepancy per degree of freedom. A value of 0.05 of
RMSEA is generally assumed to indicate a close fit and
values up to 0.08 a reasonable fit (Browne & Cudeck,
1993).
The test statistics indicate that the proposed factor
structure produces a somewhat less than acceptable fit
to the data. This means that one or more of the
assumptions made—about a simple structure factor
pattern and about zero error covariances—does not
hold for this data set. The individual factor loadings
surpass conventionally accepted thresholds, although
some of them are clearly at the low end. Based on the
factor loadings and item error variances one can
calculate a composite reliability index, r; for each of
the latent variables. As indicated by the factor loadings,
the r of buying organic is a satisfactory 0.73, while that
of recycling is a rather low 0.49. Hence, the ‘‘construct
validity’’11 of the latter behavior category leaves a lot to
11
Put in quotation marks because the behavioral items reflect more
than conceptions, which means that r is not a measure of construct
validity in a strict sense.
99
be desired. The factor loadings are all significant,
reflecting the tendency of specific behaviors in a
behavior category to vary in concert, though. This also
means that the composite reliability index may be
interpreted as a summary measure of the degree to
which consumers behave consistently within these
behavior categories. Hence, the low composite reliability
for recycling is an indication that there are serious
idiosyncratic restrictions on (some of) the behaviors in
this behavior category. That this is an important part of
the explanation for the overall fit of the model not being
too good as well is illustrated by the fact that if the error
terms of the two recycling behaviors depending on a
collection service from the municipality (recyclable
materials and hazardous waste) are allowed to correlate,
RMSEA drops to a satisfactory 0.08 and w2 to 20.77
(7 df.).12 However, because this error correlation is of
neither theoretical nor substantive interest it is not
included in the following calculations.
Turning now again to the hypotheses tests, Hypoth-
esis 1.1 proposes that, in general, ERBs are positively
correlated. In the general introduction and in the
discussion of the simple pairwise correlations above it
was further proposed that measurement error might be
one of the reasons for not finding theoretically expected
correlations. The CFA reported in Fig. 2 confirms both,
showing that when using a method that corrects for
measurement error a strong positive correlation appears
between the analysed ERBs (f ¼ 0:64), much stronger
than anyone found when analysing the pairwise
correlations above. Specifically, buying organic food
and source-separating waste for the sake of recycling
and careful treatment seem to be strongly and positively
correlated activities in the analysed setting.13
If the sample is divided into groups according to
individuals’ similarity ratings, the hypothesis that the
correlation between ERBs depends on how similar or
dissimilar they are perceived to be can be tested by
means of multigroup CFA. The similarity rating of
‘‘buying organic milk’’ and ‘‘delivering empty packaging
glass and used newspapers to recycling’’ is used for this
purpose.14 Because of sample-size concerns the sample is
only divided in two groups, below and above the mean
of the similarity rating. The correlation between the two
behaviors in groups differentiated by similarity rating is
shown in Table 3, the rightmost column.
12
The LIREL output from the calculation can be obtained from the
author.
13
On the other hand, the correlation between latent constructs is
significantly different from 1, which is good measurement-wise,
because it shows that the proposed behavior categories possess
acceptable discriminant validity.
14
Hence, the split is based on the similarity rating of two more
specific behaviors, one from each of the two behavior categories. This
is the only pair of behaviors from the two categories that were rated for
similarity by all respondents.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
100 J. Th^gersen / Journal of Environmental Psychology 24 (2004) 93–103
Table 3
Correlations between the behavioral categories ‘‘buying organic’’ and
‘‘recycling’’ in groups differentiated by similarity ratings and the moral
importance of environmentally relevant behavior, N ¼ 309
Similarity Moral norm
High Low All
High 1.00 0.54 0.82
Low 0.38 0.50 0.43
All 0.75 0.47 0.64
As predicted in Hypothesis 1.2, the correlation
between behavioral categories is stronger in the high
(0.82) than in the low similarity group (0.43).15 The
difference is statistically significant as shown by a
significant increase in w2 (5.73, 1 df., po0:05) if the
two correlations are restricted to be equal.16
It was argued above that a direct effect of moral
norms on the correlation between the analysed behavior
categories should only be expected if respondents
perceive them as ‘‘sufficiently similar.’’ This prerequisite
seems to be fulfilled in the present case. Only 9.4% of
the sample express that ‘‘the two activities have
absolutely nothing in common.’’ Hence, most respon-
dents perceive at least some similarity between the
behaviors.17
Whether there is a direct effect of moral norms on the
correlation between behaviors can be tested in the same
way as the direct effect of similarity perceptions, by
using the moral norm index as the grouping variable.
Again, sample-size concerns dictate that the sample is
only divided in two groups, below and above the mean
of the index. The resulting correlations are shown in
Table 3, the last row. As expected, the correlation
between behavior categories is stronger in the high
(0.75) than in the low moral norm group (0.47). If the
two correlations are restricted to be equal it results in a
marginally significant increase in w2 (2.95, 1 df.,
po0:10).18
The interaction effect proposed by Hypothesis 2 can
be identified by means of multigroup CFA if both
variables are used as grouping variables simultaneously.
15
The full Lisrel output for this and the following calculations can
be acquired from the author.
16
This result also supports the construct validity of the similarity
measure.
17
As also mentioned above, the hypothesized direct effect of
similarity perceptions on the correlation between the analysed
behavior categories is likewise based on the implicit assumption that
most people in the sample share norms of some importance supporting
environmentally friendly behaviors, which indeed is true in this case.
On the moral norm index, where a low score reflects strong norms for
ERB, only 5.5% scored on the midpoint or above (indicating the
absence of norms supporting ERB).
18
This result also supports the construct validity of the moral norm
index as an instrument to group respondents with regard to the moral
importance of ERBs.
1.0
0.9
Strong norms
0.8
0.7
Correlation
0.6
0.5
Weak norms
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
High similarity Low similarity
Fig. 3. Effects of similarity rating and the personal moral importance
of environmentally relevant behavior on the correlation between the
behavior categories ‘‘buying organic food’’ and recycling, N ¼ 309:
The correlation between the two behaviors in groups
differentiated by similarity rating and by moral norms is
shown by the four values to the upper left of Table 3.
The now familiar pattern is repeated in the high moral
norm case, and the correlation reaches the ceiling value
1.00 among those high on both similarity rating and
moral norms. Hence, as predicted individuals that both
perceive the two behaviors as similar and hold strong
moral norms for this type of behavior report the most
consistent behavior. Further, the group of individuals
holding strong moral norms for this type of behavior,
but perceiving the two behaviors as dissimilar, reports
the least consistent behavior of all. If the correlation
between the two behavior categories is restricted to be
equal in these two groups, it results in a significant
(po0:05) increase in w2 (8.27, 1 df.). On the other hand,
for individuals holding weak moral norms for this type
of behavior, the degree of behavioral consistency (i.e.
the correlation) is independent of how similar the two
behavior categories are perceived to be. If the correla-
tion is restricted to be equal in these two groups, it
results in an insignificant increase in w2 (0.02, 1 df.).19
Hence, Hypothesis 2, that the influence of perceived
similarity on the correlation between ERBs depends on
how morally important it is for the person to behave in
an environmentally friendly way, is confirmed by the
analysis, as illustrated clearly by Fig. 3.
5. Summary and implications
This paper deals with the issue of consistency and
inconsistency in ERB as reflected in the correlations
between different ERBs. Social-psychological theories,
including cognitive dissonance theory, suggest that most
people desire to behave consistently. This desire should
19
It may seem surprising that these correlations are higher than in
the high moral norm-low similarity group. However, the latter is not
significantly different from any of the former, Dw2 ¼ 0:28 and 0.22,
respectively (1 df.).
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
J. Th^gersen / Journal of Environmental Psychology 24 (2004) 93–103
lead to ERBs being positively correlated, except in cases
where different ERBs are substitutes or at least one of
them is totally determined by idiosyncratic conditions.
However, it is argued here that correlations may be
attenuated due to the influence of idiosyncratic
conditions (considered ‘‘noise’’ in this context) and
measurement error and that the influence of the desire to
behave consistently depends on the perceived similarity
of the behaviors and on the perceived (moral) impor-
tance of behaving in a responsible way towards the
environment.
The hypotheses are tested by means of mall-intercept
survey data from the Danish town Aarhus. Hence, an
important limitation of the study is that behaviors are
registered by means of self-report. On the other hand,
the fact that the respondents are ordinary consumers
contacted, relatively briefly, in their ordinary shopping
environment strengthens the ecological validity of the
findings.
At the item level, the study finds rather low
correlations between pairs of ERBs. However, the
CFA indicates that item-level correlations are strongly
attenuated due to measurement error. Hence, this study
renders probable that the use of fallible measures is one
of the reasons why low correlations between ERBs are
often reported. When correcting for measurement error,
a significant correlation of substantial magnitude
appears (at least between recycling and buying organic
food). Further, the regression analyses and the multi-
group CFAs confirm that the correlation between ERBs
depends both on the perceived similarity of the two
behaviors and on the moral importance of acting in an
environmentally responsible way. Support for the
hypothesis that the influence of the former depends on
the latter is also obtained. All these results support the
social-psychological proposition that the desire to avoid
inconsistency is indeed an important factor shaping
behavioral patterns in the environmental field. The
interaction between moral norms and similarity percep-
tions in determining the level of behavioral consistency
strongly supports the proposition that the desire to
avoid cognitive dissonance is driving this process.
Hence, this analysis also points to important reasons
why people often do not act consistently across
behaviors, at least not in the eyes of an outside observer.
Most basically, seemingly inconsistent behavior patterns
may be caused by the actors failing to perceive the
relevant similarity between the behaviors warranting a
similar behavioral response. Hence, they themselves see
no inconsistency. In addition, inconsistency in a specific
behavioral domain, such as the domain of environment-
friendly behaviors, is less threatening to the self-concept
of individuals who do not find these behaviors morally
important. Because such people can more easily endure
this particular type of inconsistency they are more likely
to act inconsistently.
101
At the Earth Summit in Rio in 1992, governments of
most countries of the world agreed that ‘‘altering
consumption patterns is one of humanity’s greatest
challenges in the quest for environmentally sound and
sustainable development’’ (Sitarz, 1994, p. 39). How-
ever, perhaps based on the understanding that ‘‘envir-
onmentally beneficial choicesyareymade on an
activity-to-activity basis’’ (Pickett et al., 1993), most
research and most attempts to change consumer
behavior in an environmentally responsible direction
have focused on isolated habits or groups of habits (like
participation in a recycling program, lowering the
thermostat, or saving water) rather than on achieving
sweeping changes into lifestyles. This situation has
crippled the ability of the behavioral sciences to provide
appropriate recommendations for achieving such
changes and could be one of the reasons why the
evolution away from unsustainable patterns of con-
sumption and production is disturbingly slow.20
This study provides evidence to suggest that the
evolution towards a more (environmentally) sustainable
society may be facilitated by a tendency of ERB to
generalize, which is produced by an innate human desire
to be consistent. A number of prerequisites need to be in
place for this outcome to be achieved, however. First
and foremost, there have to be areas where the person
knowingly and willingly behaves in an environmentally
responsible way. Hence, this mechanism cannot func-
tion until a process leading to sustainability has already
started in some areas. For instance, the establishment of
ambitious recycling programs, in Denmark and many
other countries, may have the important derived effect
that it initiates an evolution towards sustainability (see
also Berger, 1997; Th^gersen, 1999b). Further, for
transfer or spillover of ERB to occur there has to be
other areas where there are obvious opportunities for
acting in an environmentally responsible way. Cognitive
dissonance may be unpleasant, but the unpleasantness
of the sacrifices needed in order to behave in an
environmentally responsible way may easily be worse,
in which case most people adopt other than behavioral
means to resolve the dissonance or simply choose to live
with their perceived behavioral inconsistency (Festinger,
1957; Abelson, 1968). Hence, in a sustainability per-
spective the most important policies are those that
.
facilitate the actual performance of ERBs (Olander &
Th^gersen, 1995; Th^gersen, 1997).
This study shows that a third prerequisite that needs
to be in place before the human desire to be consistent
leads to spillover of ERB is that individuals are aware
of relevant similarities between environmentally signifi-
cant behaviors. Basically, this means that consumers/
citizens needs to be educated about the environmental
20
For instance, the UN Secretary-General: Implementing Agenda 21
(December 19, 2001, section 5).
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
102 J. Th^gersen / Journal of Environmental Psychology 24 (2004) 93–103
significance of our everyday behaviors. To perform this
task it is not only or primarily the advertising sector that
is called for, but the whole education system as well as
relevant content in the general media (Olander . &
Th^gersen, 1995; Th^gersen, 2000).
Any promotion strategy should be based on a clear
understanding that what matters is the individual’s
subjective perception of similarities and differences,
rather than the objective reality. This means that a
defensive distortion of reality by subjectively emphasiz-
ing the differences and de-emphasizing the similarity
between environmentally relevant behaviors may be an
effective means to dampen the discomfort of cognitive
dissonance. In such cases, information containing the
opposite message will most likely be resisted, if it is not
accompanied by changes in reality to be more facilitat-
ing to ERB.
The study also shows that spillover of ERB is more
likely when behaving in an environmentally responsible
way is morally important. An important prerequisite of
the development of personal norms is awareness of the
consequences of one’s acts for other people and nature
(Schwartz, 1977; Th^gersen, 1999a). Hence, environ-
mental education will also facilitate appropriate norm
development. In addition, governments can send a
strong signal about social norms in the environment
field, and thus further facilitate norm development, by
demonstrating high commitment to solve environmental
problems in their choice of policy instruments and in
their communication with the citizenry (Th^gersen &
.
Olander, 1997; Frey, 1999).
Acknowledgements
This paper is the outcome of a collaborative research
.
project with Folke Olander, Aarhus School of Business,
in the framework of Center for Social Science Research
on the Environment (CeSaM), a multidisciplinary center
based on collaboration among scholars from a number
of Danish unversities and other research institutions. I
am grateful to Tommy G.arling, Berit T. M^ller, Folke
.
Olander, and Joachim Scholderer for helpful comments
on earlier drafts.
References
Abelson, R. P. (1968). Psychological implication. In R. P. Abelson, E.
Aronson, W. J. McGuire, T. M. Newcomb, M. J. Rosenberg, & P.
H. Tannenbaum (Eds.), Theories of cognitive consistency: A
sourcebook (pp. 112–139). Chicago: Rand McNally.
Aitken, C. K., McMahon, T. A., Wearing, A. J., & Finlayson, B. L.
(1994). Residential water use: Predicting and reducing consump-
tion. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 24, 136–158.
Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1977). Attitude-behavior relations: A
theoretical analysis and review of empirical research. Psychological
Bulletin, 84, 888–918.
Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1980). Understanding attitudes and predicting
social behavior. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Arbuckle, J. L. (1996). Full information estimation in the presence of
incomplete data. In G. A. Marcoulides, & R. E. Schumacker
(Eds.), Advanced structural equation modeling: Issues and techni-
ques. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Aronson, E. (1997). The theory of cognitive dissonance: The evolution
and vicissitudes of an idea. In C. McGarty, & A. Haslam (Eds.),
The message of social psychology (pp. 20–35). Oxford: Blackwell.
Aronson, E., & Carlsmith, J. M. (1962). Performance expectancy as a
determinant of actual performance. Journal of Abnormal and Social
Psychology, 65, 178–182.
Bagozzi, R. P. (1994). Structural equation models in marketing
research: Basic principles. In R. P. Bagozzi (Ed.), Principles of
marketing research (pp. 317–385). Cambridge: Blackwell Publishers.
Bator, R. J., & Cialdini, R. B. (2000). New ways to promote
proenvironmental behavior: The application of persuasion theory
to the development of effective proenvironmental public service
announcements. Journal of Social Issues, 56(3), 527–541.
Berger, I. E. (1997). The demographics of recycling and the structure
of environmental behavior. Environment and Behavior, 29,
515–531.
Black, J. S., Stern, P. C., & Elworth, J. T. (1985). Personal and
contextual influences on household energy adaptations. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 70, 3–21.
Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing
model fit. In J. S. Long (Ed.), Testing structural equation models
(pp. 445–455). Newbury Park: Sage.
Cialdini, R. B. (1989). Social motivation to comply: Norms, values and
principles. In J. A. Roth, & J. T. Scholz (Eds.), Taxpayer
compliance, Vol. 2 (pp. 200–227). Philadelphia: University of
Pennsylvania Press.
Collins, B., & Hoyt, M. (1972). Personal responsibility-for-conse-
quences: An integration and extension of the ‘forced compliance’
literature. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 8, 558–593.
De Kruijk, M.D., & van Raaij, W. F. (1991). Similarities and
frequencies of behaviors in an environmental context. Paper
presented at the IAREP/SASE Conference, Stockholm, Sweden,
June 16–19.
Dickerson, C., Thibodeau, R., & Aronson, E. (1992). Using cognitive
dissonance to encourage water conservation. Journal of Applied
Social Psychology, 22, 841–854.
Diekmann, A., & Preisend.orfer, P. (1998). Environmental behavior:
Discrepancies between aspirations and reality. Rationality and
Society, 10(1), 79–102.
Du Toit, M., du Toit, S., & Hawkins, D. (2001). Interactive LISREL:
User’s guide. Chicago: Scientific Software International.
Eagly, A. H., & Chaiken, S. (1993). The psychology of attitudes. Fort
Worth: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich College Publishers.
Elliot, A. J., & Devine, P. G. (1994). On the motivational nature of
cognitive dissonance: Dissonance as psychological discomfort.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 382–394.
Enders, C. K. (2001). The impact of nonnormality on full information
maximum-likelihood estimation for structural equation models
with missing data. Psychological Methods, 6(4), 352–370.
Feldman, S. (Ed.). (1966). Cognitive consistency motivational ante-
cedents and behavioral consequents. New York: Academic Press.
Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Evanston: Row
Peterson.
Festinger, L., & Carlsmith, J. M. (1959). Cognitive consequences of
forced compliance. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 58,
203–210.
Forbrugerstyrelsen og Milj^styrelsen (1996). Milj^belastningen ved
familiens aktiviteter (Environmental impacts of household activities).
Rapport No. 1996.1, Forbrugerstyrelsen og Milj^styrelsen,
Copenhagen.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
J. Th^gersen / Journal of Environmental Psychology 24 (2004) 93–103
Frey, B. S. (1993). Motivation as a limit to pricing. Journal of
Economic Psychology, 14, 635–664.
Frey, B. S. (1999). Morality and rationality in environmental policy.
Journal of Consumer Policy, 22, 395–417.
Gray, D. B. (1985). Ecological beliefs and behaviors: Assessment and
change. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.
Green-Demers, I., Pelletier, L. G., & Menard, S. (1997). The impact of
behavioural difficulty on the saliency of the association between
self-determined motivation and environmental behaviours.
Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science, 29, 157–166.
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.
Heberlein, T. A. (1972). The land ethic realized: Some social
psychological explanations for changing environmental attitudes.
Journal of Social Issues, 28(4), 79–87.
Hopper, J. R., & Nielsen, J. M. (1991). Recycling as altruistic
behavior. Normative and behavioral strategies to expand partici-
pation in a community recycling program. Environment and
Behavior, 23, 195–220.
.
Joreskog, K. G. (1993). Testing structural equation models. In K. A.
Bollen, & J. S. long (Eds.), Testing structural equation models
(pp. 294–316). Newbury Park: Sage.
.
Joreskog, .
K. G., & Sorbom, D. (1996). LISREL8: Structural equation
modelling with the SIMPLIS command language. Chicago: Scien-
tific Software International.
.
Joreskog, .
K. G., Sorbom, D., Toit, S. d., & Toit, M. d. (1999).
LISREL8: New statistical features. Chicago: Scientific Software
International.
Kantola, S. J., Syme, G. J., & Campbell, N. A. (1984). Cognitive
dissonance and energy conservation. Journal of Applied Psychol-
ogy, 69, 416–421.
Mackenzie, S. B. (2001). Opportunities for improving consumer
research through latent variable structural equation modeling.
Journal of Consumer Research, 28, 159–166.
.
Olander, F., & Th^gersen, J. (1995). Understanding of consumer
behaviour as a prerequisite for environmental protection. Journal
of Consumer Policy, 18, 317–357.
Pickett, G. M., Kangun, N., & Grove, S. J. (1993). Is there a general
conserving consumer? A public policy concern. Journal of Public
Policy & Marketing, 12, 234–243.
Raykov, T. (2001). Estimation of congeneric scale reliability using
covariance structure analysis with nonlinear constraints. British
Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 54, 315–323.
103
Schwartz, S. H. (1977). Normative influence on altruism. In L.
Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology,
Vol. 10 (pp. 221–279). New York: Academic Press.
Shepard, R. N. (1987). Toward a universal law of generalization for
psychological science. Science, 237, 1317–1323.
Sitarz, D. (Ed.). (1994). Agenda 21: The earth summit strategy to save
our planet. Boulder: EarthPress.
.
Sjoberg, L., & Thorslund, C. (1979). A classificatory theory of
similarity. Psychological Research, 40, 223–247.
Stern, P. C., Dietz, T., & Black, J. S. (1986). Support for
environmental protection: The role of moral norms. Population
and Environment, 8, 204–222.
Stern, P. C., & Oskamp, S. (1987). Managing scarce environmental
resources. In D. Stokols, & I. Altman (Eds.), Handbook of
environmental psychology, Vol. 2 (pp. 1043–1088). New York: Wiley.
Th^gersen, J. (1997). Facilitating recycling. Reverse-distribution
channel design for participation and support. Social Marketing
Quarterly, 4(1), 42–55.
Th^gersen, J. (1999a). The ethical consumer. Moral norms and
packaging choice. Journal of Consumer Policy, 22, 439–460.
Th^gersen, J. (1999b). Spillover processes in the development of a
sustainable consumption pattern. Journal of Economic Psychology,
20, 53–81.
Th^gersen, J. (2000). Knowledge barriers to sustainable consumption.
In P. F. Bone, K. R. France, & J. Wiener (Eds.), Marketing and
public policy conference proceedings 2000, Vol. 10 (pp. 29–39).
Chicago: American Marketing Association.
.
Th^gersen, J., & Olander, F. (1997). Kender ^konomerne vejen til et
b!credygtigt forbrugsm^nster (Do economists know the road to a
sustainable consumption pattern?) In Forbrugeren i centrum
(pp. 118–126). K^benhavn: Forbrugerr(adet.
Thibodeau, R., & Aronson, E. (1992). Taking a closer look:
Reasserting the role of the self-concept in dissonance theory.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 18, 591–602.
Verhallen, T. M. M., & Pieters, R. G. M. (1984). Attitude theory
and behavioral costs. Journal of Economic Psychology, 5,
223–249.
Zanna, M. P., & Cooper, J. (1974). Dissonance and the pill: An
attribution approach to studying the arousal properties of
dissonance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 29,
703–709.
Zanna, M. P., Higgins, E. T., & Taves, P. A. (1976). Is dissonance
phenomenologically aversive? Journal of Experimental Social
Psychology, 12, 530–538.