Energy Policy 128 (2019) 150–161

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Energy Policy
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/enpol

What affects individual energy conservation behavior: Personal habits, T

external conditions or values? An empirical study based on a survey of
college students☆
Dan Shia, Lei Wanga, , Zhenxia Wangb
⁎

a
Institute of Industrial Economics, CASS, No. 2 Yuetan Beixiaojie Street, Beijing 100836, China
b
National Academy of Economic Strategy, CASS, No. 28, Shuguangxili Chaoyang District, Beijing 100028, China

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

Keywords: It is important to encourage people to form energy conservation habits to increase energy efficiency. The ap-
Energy conservation behavior plication of social psychology research paradigm in studying energy conservation behavior sheds more light on
Values what conditions are necessary for sustained energy conservation behavior. Based on a survey of 234 college
SEM students in Beijing, this study was carried out using the VBN model as its analysis framework and a structural
equation model while focusing on whether egocentric values necessarily lead to non-energy conservation be-
havior and whether altruistic and biospheric values inevitably lead to energy conservation behavior among
college students. The following conclusions can be drawn. First, the study partially verified the basic conclusion
of the VBN model, that is, values have a significant effect on energy conservation beliefs, which in turn sig-
nificantly affect personal energy conservation norms. Second, energy conservation beliefs formed by altruistic
and biospheric values are translated into real energy conservation norms. However, egocentric values do not
significantly affect the attribution of energy conservation responsibility. Moreover, personal energy conservation
norms do not translate into energy conservation behavior. Third, individual behavioral habits and external
conditions do not promote the translation of personal norms into real energy conservation behavior.

1. Introduction consumption. Many studies have verified that human behavior is an

With the economic and social development of the times, the
household sector has gradually become an important source of energy
consumption. The household energy consumption percentage for
Europe and the US is over 20%, and it even approaches 40% in some
countries. The percentage of energy consumption in China's household
sector was about 11% in 2016. However, due to the current states of
energy consumption by product, widespread adoption of energy con-
servation technology, energy prices and other factors, the household
sector still has much room for improvement. It is different from the
industrial sector, which is more dependent on technological progress: in
many cases, people can achieve significant energy conservation results
by only slightly changing their energy consumption behavior. For ex-
ample, according to rough estimates, electrical appliances plugged
while not in use waste about 200 kWh of electricity per year per
household, which accounts for about 10% of total household energy
important factor in determining the effects of energy conservation and
environmental protection (Gardner and Stern, 2002; IPCC, 2007), so it
is necessary to start from human behavior to effectively solve serious
global environmental problems (DuNannWinter and Koger, 2004;
Gardner and Stern, 2002; Vlek and Steg, 2007). Therefore, the focus of
much research is on encouraging energy conservation behavior and
exploring factors which influence the formation of such behavior.
Based on economic research, energy conservation behavior has been
found to be people's choice after comparing the costs and benefits of
energy consumption, and price and income are the key variables that
affect the behavior. It is generally believed that household income is
positively related to household energy consumption: household energy
consumption increases with income, though the rate at which energy
consumption improves is lower than that of income. High-income fa-
milies tend to invest in energy conservation technology, that is, to buy
energy-efficient products, while low-income families rely more on

This study is part of the research results of “Industrial Economics Summit Strategy” program and the Sino-Dutch “Joint Scientific Thematic Research Programme:
☆

Beijing Groningen Smart Energy Cities (BIGS)” funded by the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences.
⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: casswanglei@cass.org.cn (L. Wang).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2018.12.061
Received 6 March 2018; Received in revised form 13 November 2018; Accepted 31 December 2018
0301-4215/ © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
D. Shi et al.
changing their behavior to save energy (Lenzen et al., 2006). The price
of energy determines the cost of (and thus significantly affects)
household energy consumption. However, the effects of pricing on
consumption for different groups and different types of energy are quite
different (Berkhout et al., 2004; Zhang and Cheng, 2011). In general,
raising energy prices is an effective way to encourage energy con-
servation.
Economic research paradigm poses clear implications for policy, but
there are limitations and deviations in interpreting real energy con-
servation behavior based on economic considerations alone. For ex-
ample, some people choose green travel not based on utility or income
but to practice their beliefs on environmental protection. This at least
indicates that some people's behavior may not be based on income or
cost but on their beliefs or habitual decisions, which means they rarely/
never collect information or evaluate other economic alternatives with
regard to energy consumption behavior. Studies have also found that
there is little effect even when a government has formulated various
energy policies, such as reducing the prices of energy-efficient products
and raising the prices of non-energy-efficient products to encourage
energy conservation and reduce energy consumption. Such energy po-
licies require the coordination of people's behavior in order to be ef-
fective (Steg et al., 2005). For example, the actual results of the tiered
electricity pricing policy in Hangzhou show that it has not been effec-
tive at promoting energy conservation or reducing energy consumption.
Therefore, economic research paradigm emphasizes the external factors
that influence people's behavior, assuming information, income and
cost as equally important in affecting human behavior, but it does not
take into account internal factors such as attitude and personality, in-
stead simply regarding people on the whole as rational consumers.
Just as external factors1 such as income and price affect energy
conservation behavior, internal factors such as attitudes, beliefs and
other psychological aspects also affect, sometimes decisively, people's
choices as to energy conservation. According to the attitude-behavior-
external conditions (ABC) model in social psychology, attitude and
external conditions are the main factors that affect people's low-carbon
behavior (Guagnano et al., 1995). A pro-environmental attitude is
beneficial to investments in energy conservation (Egmond et al., 2005)
and has a significant effect on the attitudes of green consumers
(Gadenne et al., 2011). In addition, the theory of planned behavior
states that behavioral intention is a necessary condition and the most
important determinant of behavior (Ajzen, 1991).
The conclusions of this study indicate that if the necessary psy-
chological conditions (for example, an energy conservation attitude and
green concept and values) do not exist, energy conservation behavior
stimulated by external policy incentives may not be lasting. Therefore,
it is not enough to focus only on external factors such as policy, in-
formation, price and income while studying the energy conservation
and environmental protection behavior of individuals. Researchers
need to go further into the human psychology. (Of course, social psy-
chology theory also emphasizes that psychological factors are require-
ments for a behavior but not the only requirements. In many cases,
psychological factors are influenced by many external factors that
hinder their conversion into real behavior.2) Therefore, applying social
1
In addition, communication theory, which also emphasizes external factors,
holds that continuous feedback of information can adjust human behavior. But
this model only emphasizes the information itself, equating information to
motivation, and ignores the formation process and content of the information.
In fact, knowing how to save energy (information-forming process) is different
from practicing real energy conservation behavior (incentive). For example,
extensive energy conservation publicity does not lead to extensive energy
conservation behavior in society at large.
2
In fact, due to objective conditions, the authors were unable to observe
people's long-term behavior. When one observes a person's general or habitual
behavior rather than a single act, the predictive effect of psychological factors
on behavior becomes clearer.
151
Energy Policy 128 (2019) 150–161
psychology research paradigm in studying energy conservation beha-
vior allows for a greater understanding of the necessary conditions for
the sustained practice of energy conservation behavior and how to
make better-targeted energy policies.
In order to identify the psychological factors influencing in-
dividuals’ choices as to energy conservation behavior and the path
from the human psychology to energy conservation behavior, this
study focuses on values and behavior choice based on the classic
value-belief-norm (VBN) model. On the basis of existing research, the
authors designed a questionnaire on energy conservation behavior and
conducted a network survey of 234 college students in Beijing using a
structural equation model (SEM). The main purpose was to study
whether egocentric values necessarily lead to non-energy conservation
behavior and whether altruistic and biospheric values inevitably lead
to energy conservation behavior among college students. In addition,
the study also looks at the effects of external conditions and personal
habits on the energy conservation behavior of college students when
they have different values. College students were chosen as the sub-
jects of research mainly based on the following considerations: com-
pared to other people, college students have a high level of homo-
geneity, the variables of cost, income and education can basically be
ignored and they are able to clearly express their values, which makes
the findings more reliable. This study is different from previous work
mainly in the following two aspects: first, it separates values from
other external factors and systematically examines how values influ-
ence energy conservation beliefs, personal norms and energy con-
servation behavior, thus preventing research bias caused by en-
dogenous problems. Furthermore, data from China was used in
verifying the latest theories of energy conservation behavior. Second,
the conclusions of the study are conducive to the formulation of en-
ergy conservation policies for public institutions such as colleges and
government institutions in China.
The remainder of this paper continues with Section 2, the literature
review and hypotheses. Section 3 describes the design of the study,
including the questionnaire structure, survey method and empirical
model. Section 4 is an analysis of the empirical results. Section five is
the summary and offers direction for further research.
2. Literature review and hypotheses
2.1. Literature review
According to social psychology paradigm, there are three models
that explore the relationship between the human psychology and en-
ergy conservation behavior: the attitude-behavior-external conditions
(ABC) model, the theory of planned behavior (TPB) model and the
value-belief-norm (VBN) model.
The ABC model holds attitude as a key variable in determining
behavior. Thus, it analyzes the comprehensive influence of attitude and
external conditions on promoting energy conservation behavior. Major
related findings come from a number of studies: Abrahamse and Steg,
(2009) tracked and monitored 189 families in the Netherlands and
found that psychological factors such as subjective norms, attitude and
control of cognitive behavior can effectively explain household energy
conservation behavior. Gadenne et al. (Gadenne et al., 2011) also
verified that environmental attitudes have a significant effect on green
consumers’ environmental behavior. The Chinese scholars Li and Zhan,
(2007) suggested that, compared with their attitudes towards universal
environmental problems, looking at people's attitudes towards specific
energy conservation behavior was more useful in predicting their en-
ergy conservation behavior. A study by Bai and Li (Bai and Li, 2012)
showed that people's attitudes towards energy and the environment can
affect energy conservation behavior. Wang et al. (2010) found that
there was a significantly positive correlation between environmental
attitudes and environmental behavior, that is, pro-environmental atti-
tudes enabled people to implement green behavior.
D. Shi et al.
Unlike the ABC model, the TPB model holds that attitude does not
directly affect behavior and, thus, changing people's attitudes may not
change their behavior. For example, Brandon and Lewis (1999) con-
ducted an empirical study on household energy consumption in Britain
and found that environmental attitudes did not significantly affect en-
ergy conservation behavior. As for behaviors which can be completely
controlled by personal willpower, behavioral intention (which is de-
termined by personal attitude), subjective norms and control of cog-
nitive behavior were found to be direct determinants of behavior
(Ajzen, 1991). Control of cognitive behavior refers to the control that
individuals feel when they practice specific behaviors according to their
experience or anticipation. But human behavior is not completely
controlled by sensibility and willpower; it also depends on external
conditions such as resources, opportunities and skills. Many scholars
have done empirical research on energy consumption behavior based
on the TPB model. Hines et al. (1986) verified that behavior intention
was the intermediary variable for attitude, responsibility as well as
other personal factors and external factors that affect energy con-
servation behavior. In studies by Kara (1998) and Michele et al. (2004),
a positive correlation between behavioral intention and energy con-
servation behavior was also verified.
Of course, there are studies that question the TPB model. For ex-
ample, the definition of the main variable in this model has been the
focus of unresolved debate, so the accuracy of related research results is
questionable. Studies have proven the execution of behavioral intention
may be the cognitive mechanism for transforming behavioral intention
into action, but this has not been fully verified and requires further
study (Duan and Jiang, 2008). In addition, the theory of planned be-
havior does not fully explain the reasons for the formation of human
subjective norms. In social psychology, the influence of subjective
norms on behavior is even more important than that of attitude.
Studies have shown that values are the key variable that affect
human psychology, attitude and behavior, and it is also values that
make these behaviors sustainable (Rokeach, 1973). Stern (1999, 2000)
proposed the value-belief-norm (VBN) model in a study and induction
of people's environmental behavior. Based on Schwartz's theory on
values,3 normative incentive theory and new biospheric paradigm
theory, through interaction with environmental values, beliefs and
norms explain the formation of environmental behavior, including en-
ergy conservation behavior. The VBN model provides a solid analytical
framework for the study of psychological variables that influence be-
havior.
Steg et al. (2014a, 2014b) established a research framework for the
relationship between the human psychology and energy conservation
behavior on the basis of traditional VBN theory. They stated that the
formation of energy conservation behavior depends on the synergy or
conflict between people's goals and behavior. People's goals can be
divided into three categories: hedonic goals (concern about their own
sense of pleasure), gain goals (sensitivity to changes in their own re-
sources such as money loss) and normative goals (sense of identity from
contributing to environmental protection) (Lindenberg and Steg, 2007).
Theoretically, energy conservation and environmental protection be-
havior use fewer energy resources and are more appreciated. Therefore,
practicing such behavior is enjoyable, more cost-effective and makes
winning approval easier, so the three goals form a synergy. But this is
not always so in reality. Energy conservation and environmental pro-
tection may be less convenient, inconvenient or uneconomic (Steg,
2003). Under such circumstances, how can people be encouraged to
adopt energy conservation and environmental protection behavior?
There are usually two ways. One is to change the results of energy
conservation behavior, such as by making it more economic and con-
venient through subsidies, improving the communication of
3
Schwartz's value theory asserts that different behaviors originate from dif-
ferent values.
152
Energy Policy 128 (2019) 150–161
information, formulating related policies, and making energy wasting
behavior more expensive (Bolderdijk et al., 2012; Geller, 2002; Steg
and Vlek, 2009). This way, the conflict between goals can be reduced.
This idea is relatively consistent with the basic findings from economic
research paradigm. The other way is to constantly amend hedonic and
gain goals, solidify normative goals and better justify energy con-
servation behavior and environmental protection.
However, the first path is more difficult to implement because, for
example, energy conservation products can be more expensive, and
public transport is usually more uncomfortable and less convenient.
Thus, people may only focus on subsidized and more economical forms
of energy conservation, resulting in unsustainable energy conservation
behavior (Evans et al., 2013). This can also explain why policy re-
commendations based on economic theory often fail to achieve desired
results.
The second path is to enhance people's normative goals and en-
courage people to do more meaningful things. For example, they can be
encouraged to focus on others, the next generation and environmental
protection. In fact, even if it costs more and the normative goals are in
conflict with hedonic goals (or gain goals), most people would still like
to behave in more environmentally friendly ways (Aquino et al., 2009;
Bolderdijk et al., 2012), such as by sorting and recycling their garbage,
buying organic food and donating to environmental protection projects
(Czajkowski et al., 2014).
That being the case, what are factors that enhance people's nor-
mative goals? Studies suggest that it depends on what values people
hold to. Values not only allow for stability and sustainability but also
serve as a realistic explanation for the formation of energy conservation
awareness and behavior (De Groot and Steg, 2007, 2008; Steg et al.,
2011). Moreover, the influence of values on energy conservation
awareness and behavior is consistent across Europe, Asia and the US
(Steg and De Groot, 2012), that is, values are the key factor in deciding
whether sustained energy conservation behavior will be practiced.
In China, many scholars have begun to study household energy
consumption behavior and have obtained numerous valuable findings.
The focus of these studies can be roughly divided into two categories.
One is a focus on daily household energy consumption such as home
lighting, transportation and other basic necessities related to energy
consumption and efficiency improvement (Feng et al., 2011; Zhang
et al., 2011; Qu et al., 2014; Wang and Ru, 2015; Lu et al., 2016). The
other is a focus on the characteristics and influencing factors of energy
conservation behavior such as characteristics of the individual, family
structure, income, energy prices and social norms (Wang and He, 2011;
Xie et al., 2013; Sun, 2013; Gao and Zhang, 2015; Shi, 2015; Mi et al.,
2016). The research method most often used has been questionnaires,
and empirical analysis has been conducted via a multivariate statistical
and SEM. Unfortunately, the existing research does not highlight the
importance of values on personal energy conservation behavior, instead
placing values and external factors in the same model and estimating
their effects together, which can lead to endogeneity and deviation.
Thus, the understanding gained on the effects of values has been in-
complete. Second, the existing research does not go further to answer
why “selfish” people sometimes practice energy conservation behavior
while those who are altruistic and hold to environmentally friendly
values do not always practice energy conservation behavior.
Currently, policies to promote energy conservation and environ-
mental protection in China are mainly based on economic research
paradigm. For example, it has been proved that excessive increases in
energy prices undermine the welfare of people, especially those with
low incomes, while an excessively slack pricing policy cannot achieve
the desired effect. The authors thus believe it necessary to adopt social
psychology research paradigm and focus on the influence of values and
other psychological factors on energy conservation behavior choices so
as to provide data useful for energy conservation policymakers.
D. Shi et al. Energy Policy 128 (2019) 150–161

2.2. Hypotheses

The VBN model was put forward in 1999 by P.C. Stern based on
Schwartz's value theory, the normative incentive theory and the new
biospheric paradigm theory. The VBN model discusses how biospheric,
altruistic and egocentric values4 affect people's beliefs (behavior con-
sequence awareness and attribution of environmental responsibility),
lead to the formation of personal norms (sense of environmental re-
sponsibility) and ultimately translate into real energy conservation
behavior. Consequence awareness refers to people's judgments on the
consequences of their actions. The attribution of environmental re-
sponsibility refers to who is viewed as responsible for environmental
problems. Personal norms refer to the mental state of people who
practice non-obligatory behavior out of a sense of responsibility. Nor-
mative incentive theory holds that individual norms are the key to in-
dividuals adopting altruistic behavior Fig. 1.
Based on Stern (1999, 2000) work, a number of studies system-
atically looked at the effects of values on energy conservation and en-
vironmental protection behavior. Thogersen and Olander (2002) ver- Fig. 1. Basic analysis framework of the VBN model.
ified the hypothesis on the effects of values by randomly sampling
Danish consumers and using a cross-lagged panel model and SEM. The protection behavior than altruistic values are (De Groot and Steg,
study found that a sustainable energy consumption mode is indeed 2007).
influenced by personal values. Clark et al. (2003) suggested that the Based on these findings, the analysis paradigm of the VBN model
internal factors of altruistic values and environmental values are as was used in this study to look at the internal factors of the energy
important as external factors (such as income and social statistics) in conservation behavior of Chinese people and verify the correlation
determining people's energy conservation and environmental protec- between variables so as to provide a reference for future energy con-
tion behavior. Garling and Fujii (2003) conducted a questionnaire of servation and environmental protection policies. In addition to ver-
524 people living in the downtown areas of Swedish cities. SEM esti- ifying several conclusions from the environmental VBN model, this
mates showed that those with pro-environment behavior and pro-so- study also looked into external environmental factors (such as policy
ciety concepts could influence individual self-regulation and practice guidance and other factors in the VBN model), integrating internal
low-carbon behavior to benefit society. Poortinga et al. (2004) devel- values to analyze their effects on energy conservation and environ-
oped a behavior value scale that consists of seven sub-factors for mental protection behavior.
household energy consumption, and it was found that the sub-factor of Several basic hypotheses are posed:
“openness to change” had a significant effect on household transpor-
tation energy use while the other sub-factors had relatively weak re- H1. Egocentric, altruistic and biospheric values all have significant
lationships to energy use. Steg et al. (2005) stated that although the effects on individual energy conservation beliefs.
international community and the Netherlands itself have encouraged H2. Egocentric values have a negative correlation to energy
energy conservation and reduced energy consumption by formulating conservation beliefs.
all kinds of energy policies such as reducing the prices of energy-effi-
cient products and raising the prices of non-energy-efficient products, H3. Altruistic and biospheric values have a positive correlation to
the effects were negligible. Their research suggested that energy policy energy conservation, and the correlation of biospheric values is more
could not be effective without the coordination of people's behavior. In significant.
this way, the study showed that the VBN model explains well the in- H4. Energy conservation beliefs significantly affect people's energy
fluence of values on energy conservation behavior; all variables on the conservation behavior norms.
chain showed significant causality. Groot and Steg (2010) conducted a
survey among students and found that the stronger the altruistic and H5. Energy conservation behavior norms eventually lead to energy
biospheric values are of individuals, the easier it is for them to make conservation behavior.
decisions to practice environmentally friendly behavior. Egocentric, H6. Personal habits and external conditions are also significantly
altruistic and biospheric values have different influences on energy related to ultimate energy conservation behavior.
conservation and environmental protection behavior. Research shows
that egocentric values are inversely related to energy conservation and
environmental protection behavior, while altruistic values and en- 3. Research design
vironmental values promote energy conservation and environmental
protection behavior. The reason is that energy conservation and en- 3.1. Description of questionnaire
vironmental protection behavior often require people to control their
egocentric values. In some cases, environmental values are more con- Based on theoretical logic, the questionnaire consists of four parts
ducive to the formation of energy conservation and environmental (Fig. 2 and Table 1). The first is on values. Schwartz Schwartz (1994,
2001) divided values into egocentric (Ego), altruistic (Alt) and bio-
spheric (Bio) orientations. According to the Schwartz value scale,
4 egocentric values consist of social power, wealth and authority, al-
Biospheric values, which are inherently centered on the natural environ-
truistic values consist of equality, world peace and social justice and
ment, hold that human beings should not destroy nature. Altruistic values,
which are centered on the interests or goals of humanity, are concerned with biospheric values consist of respect for the earth, consistency with
the effects of environmental issues on other people and long-term interests and nature, environmental protection and prevention of pollution (Schwartz
consequences. Egocentric values, which are centered on self-interests or self- and Bilsky, 1987; Schultz, 2001; Stern et al., 1993; Dietz and Kaldoff,
centered goals, are concerned with the effects of environmental issues on the 1993; Stern et al., 1998; De Groot and Steg L., 2008). Respondents rated
interests of the self. each value according to their personal standards. The scale for rating is

153
D. Shi et al.
Fig. 2. Theoretic hypothetic model of factors that influence energy conservation behavior. Note: EC represents external condition such as policy, while OC represents
personal habits.
Table 1
Questionnaire on measuring energy conservation behavior intention and in-
fluencing factors.
Egocentric Values(Ego) (α = 0.827)
Social Power: The wish to control others (Ego1)
Wealth: Material wealth, money (Ego2)
Authority: Power to lead and giver orders (Ego3)
Altruistic Values (Alt) (α = 0.756)
Equality: Equal opportunity for everyone (Alt1)
Social Justice: Correcting injustice, protecting disadvantaged groups (Alt2)
Helpfulness: Working for others’ welfare (Alt3)
Biospheric Values (Bio) (α = 0.879)
Respect for the Earth: Harmony with other species (Bio1)
Consistency with Nature: Being part of nature (Bio2)
Protection of the Environment: Protection of nature (Bio3)
Prevention of Pollution: Protection of natural resources (Bio4)
Attribution of Responsibility (AR) (α = 0.872)
I don’t care about environmental problems (AR1)
Everyone must take responsibility for environmental problems (AR2)
The government should take measures to combat environmental problems (AR3)
The mass media should create an energy conservation atmosphere (AR4)
Professionals and technical specialists should be more energy efficient than others
(AR5)
The environment is very important for everyone (AR6)
Personal Norms (PN) (α = 0.927)
I feel guilty if I do not save energy (PN1)
I feel obliged to save energy (PN2)
I feel proud when I save energy (PN3)
It is against my principles not to save energy (PN4)
It is my moral obligation to save energy (PN5)
Saving energy is consistent with my principles (PN6)
I feel responsible to reduce my energy use (PN7)
Note: Estimates of responsibility with Cronbach's α are given in parentheses.
as follows: −1 is for values that oppose the subject's principles; 0 is for
values that are not important at all and have nothing to do with the
subject's life; 3 is for values that are important; 6 is for values that are
very important; 7 is for values that are supremely important.
The second part is on the attribution of responsibility (AR), that is,
the view of who should be responsible for energy conservation beha-
vior. There are six items for this part: 1. I don't care about environ-
mental issues, 2. Everyone must take responsibility for environmental
problems, 3. The government should take measures to combat en-
vironmental problems, 4. The mass media should create an energy
conservation atmosphere, 5. Professionals and technical specialists
154
Energy Policy 128 (2019) 150–161
should be more energy efficient than others and 6. The environment is
very important for everyone. The respondents gave a score on their
degree of support for each item:1 represents strong disagreement and 7
represents strong agreement.
The third part is on personal norms (PN), and there are seven items:
1. I feel guilty if I do not save energy, 2. I feel morally obliged to save
energy, 3. I feel proud when I save energy, 4. It is against my principles
not to save energy, 5. I have a moral obligation to save energy, 6.
Saving energy is consistent with my actions and principles and 7. I think
I have a responsibility to reduce my energy use (Schwartz, 1977; Steg
et al., 2014a, 2014b).
The fourth part is on behavioral intention (BI). Household energy
conservation behavior is divided into three categories: investment in
energy efficiency, utility reduction and change of habits. Investment in
energy efficiency refers to the purchase of energy conservation pro-
ducts, the installation of energy conservation equipment and the pur-
chase of energy conservation services (Van Raaij and Verhallen, 1983;
Barr et al., 2005), which increase living expenses and are categorized as
active energy conservation behavior. Utility reduction refers to
achieving energy conservation goals by reducing energy consumption
through measures such as reducing the number of baths taken, cutting
back on car use, adjusting air conditioner temperature and lessening the
amount of time that the heater is turned on (Scott et al., 2000), which
lead to utility loss for people and may be categorized as active or
passive. Change of habits refers to achieving energy conservation by
changing the ways one uses energy, such as by reducing the amount of
time that electrical appliances are plugged while not in use and turning
off lights when they are not needed, which neither increase consump-
tion expenditure nor lead to the loss of utility. According to the char-
acteristics of the behavior of the respondents and based on existing
research, the energy conservation behavior on this questionnaire is
mainly concerned with change of habits and utility reduction.
In addition, the translation of the respondents’ personal norms into
energy conservation behavior is influenced by personal habits (OC) and
external conditions (EC) (Steg et al., 2014a, 2014b). The authors thus
added the moderating variables of personal habits and external condi-
tions into the basic model. The purpose of selecting external scenarios is
mainly to reflect the special policy environment faced by the Chinese
college students, such as restricting the number of motor vehicles on the
road, tiered pricing on electricity and gas. These policies are indeed
affecting people's energy use behavior. Controlling external situation
factors can ensure the robustness of the conclusion on the relationship
D. Shi et al.
between values and energy-saving behavior. The questions on personal
habits were: OC1) —It is easy for me to accept new things, OC2) It is
easy for me to accept new experiences, OC3) It is easy for me to accept
new developments and OC4) It is easy for me to accept new changes.
Questions on external conditions were: EC1) energy price levels, EC2)
public awareness of policies (whether energy-related policies were
understood) and EC3) the influence of policies (whether restricting the
number of motor vehicles on the road affects the choice of transport
used and whether tiered pricing on electricity and gas affects the use of
electricity and gas).
For example, On June 14, 2012, the National Development and
Reform Commission stated that residents' “tiered prices" will be im-
plemented nationwide on July 1 in the same year. About shared bikes, a
new type of environmental-friendly shared economy that has emerged
in China since 2015. It mainly provides bike sharing services on
campus, subway stations, bus stops, residential areas, commercial
areas, public service areas, etc. to provide low-carbon transportation for
all types of people.
3.2. Survey method and sample information
The survey was conducted from March to May 2017 via the internet.
The respondents were undergraduate and graduate students at uni-
versities in Beijing. The authors first chose teachers and researchers at
the universities with questionnaire experience, who then had the stu-
dents fill out the questionnaires. In order to ensure the authenticity and
sincerity of answers given on the questionnaires, participants were re-
warded with an economic incentive after filling out the questionnaire.
In the end, 280 questionnaires were collected, 234 of which (84% of the
total) were valid.5
The respondents were from Renmin University of China, Capital
Normal University, the graduate school at the Chinese Academy of
Social Sciences, and the University of International Relations. For the
valid surveys, the average age of the respondents was 21.4 years. 31.2%
were male and 68.8% were female; 34.62% students were graduate
students and 65.38% were undergraduate students (Table 2).
3.3. Research method
Based on the VBN theoretical analysis framework, the ques-
tionnaires were analyzed by establishing an SEM developed on the basis
of statistical theory from the 1970s. The model was applied to the study
with improved methods with regards to such aspects as exploratory
factor analysis, confirmatory factor analysis, path analysis, multiple
regression and variance analysis. According to the developmental tra-
jectories of two very important statistical analysis techniques (factor
analysis and path analysis) for social and behavioral sciences, Kaplan
(2000) points out that SEM originates from the two metrology dis-
ciplines of psychometrics and econometrics. SEM is widely applied in
psychology, sociology, economics and other fields and has become a
major linear modeling and analysis technology. It has been praised by
many scholars as “the second generation of multivariate statistics.” At
present, SEM is still a frontier research field in the area of multivariate
statistical analysis.
SEM generally uses the maximum likelihood (ML) estimation model
to analyze the path coefficient of the structural equation and other
estimates. At present, the most popular software for SEM analysis is
LISREL, AMOS, EQS and CALIS. AMOS 22.0 was used for this study.
5 influence the generation of energy conservation beliefs more than al-
Before the formal questionnaire was issued, a practice survey was carried
out, and the time needed to fill out one questionnaire was found to be about
7 min. Therefore, 26 questionnaires (which had been completed in 5 min ac-
cording to the time recorded by the network research software used) were
deemed invalid. Moreover, 11 samples, which had been filled out by non-stu-
dents, were invalidated, as were 9 other samples because of obvious errors.
155
Energy Policy 128 (2019) 150–161
Table 2
Gender and academic status of respondents.
Standard %
Gender Male 31.2%
Female 68.8%
Academic status Graduate 34.62%
Undergraduate 65.38%
4. Empirical analysis
4.1. Benchmark model estimation
4.1.1. Benchmark model
Based on the above theoretical hypotheses and how SEM defines the
interrelations between latent dependent variables and latent in-
dependent variables, an SEM benchmark figure for factors that influ-
ence energy conservation behavior was drawn with AMOS 22.0 soft-
ware (see Fig. 3).
4.1.2. Goodness of fit of the benchmark model
AMOS 22.0 was used to test the model. Data processing from the
234 valid samples was used to modify the SEM benchmark model in
order to evaluate the suitability of the model. On the foundation of the
modified value indicators, the residuals were increased to the relevant
latent variables as required, and the maximum likelihood estimation
method was selected to obtain the goodness of fit and other statistical
indicators. According to the main indicator of goodness of fit, the
normed chi-square (Chi2/DF) was 1.233 (between 1 and 3); the in-
cremental fit index (IFI) and comparative fit index (CFI) were 0.982
(greater than 0.9) and the RMSEA was 0.032 (less than 0.08), all of
which indicate that the hypothetical model is a good fit. The specific
SEM goodness of fit indicators are shown in Table 3.
4.1.3. Normalized path coefficient, CR value and AVE value
According to the empirical test results, the standardized factor
loading of the model was basically greater than 0.6 and the SMC value
was basically greater than 0.4, which means that the normalized path
coefficient was ideal. The composite reliability (CR) was greater than
0.7, indicating that the internal consistency of every structure was re-
latively high, latent variables explained the measured variables rela-
tively well and the questionnaire design was relatively reasonable (see
Table 4). The average variance extraction (AVE) was greater than 0.5,
which indicates a high level of convergence validity (see Table 5).
4.1.4. Analysis of paths of influence
Amos 22.0 produced the paths of influence for the structural
equation benchmark model (see Table 6). According to the results, the
normalized path coefficients for Ego→AR and PN→BI were negative,
failing to pass the test. The normalized path coefficients for Alt→AR,
Bio→AR and AR→PN were greater than 0.2, passing the test. From the
estimated results, the following conclusions have been drawn:
First, egocentric values have a negative but insignificant correlation
to the generation of energy conservation beliefs, whereas Steg and
Abrahamse (2010) concluded that egocentric values and energy con-
servation beliefs have a significantly negative correlation. Second, al-
truistic and biospheric values have a significantly positive correlation to
the generation of energy conservation beliefs, which coincides with the
conclusion by Steg and Abrahamse (2010). Third, biospheric values
truistic values do, which is also basically what Steg and Abrahamse
(2010) stated. Fourth, energy conservation beliefs affect the formation
of individual behavior paradigms. Fifth, the formation of individual
D. Shi et al. Energy Policy 128 (2019) 150–161

Fig. 3. SEM benchmark model of factors that influence energy conservation behavior.

Table 3
Goodness of fit of the benchmark model.

Indicators Statistics Indicators Statistics

Bollen-Stine Chi-square 362.455 DF of Default Model 294

Independence Model Chi-square 4025.792 Parameter of Estimation 57
Goodness of Fit (GFI) 0.910 DF of Independent Model 325
Adjust Goodness of Fit (AGFI) 0.888 sample sizes 234
Normed Fit Index (NFI) 0.910 Normed Chi-square (Chi2/DF) 1.233
Non-Normed Fit Index (NNFI) Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI) 0.980
Incremental Fit Index (IFI) 0.982 Akaike information criterion (AIC) 476.46
Related Fit index (RFI) 0.900 Bayes information criterion (BIC) 673.408
Comparative Fit Index (CFI) 0.982 Expected cross-validation index (ECVI) 2.036
RMSEA 0.032 Gamma hat 0.990
Hoelter's critical N 190.088 McDonald's NCI 0.863
p-ratio 0.905 PGFI 0.823
PCFI 0.886 PNFI 0.823

Note: Bollen-Stine bootstrap p correction is estimated.

Table 4 that they do not affect real energy conservation behavior. Other studies
AVE of benchmark model. using the VBN model to study the relationship between values and
energy conservation behavior have suggested that personal habits and
AVE Bio Alt Ego AR PN BI external environmental factors (policies, etc.) are also important factors
that affect energy conservation behavior. Even under certain condi-
Bio 0.645 0.803
Alt 0.515 0.827 0.718 tions, the influence of values on energy conservation behavior is de-
Ego 0.619 0.265 0.333 0.787 viant because of the effects of personal and external factors. Keizer et al.
AR 0.535 0.409 0.400 0.085 0.731 (Keizer et al., 2011) proposed that if the external environment does not
PN 0.644 0.298 0.292 0.062 0.730 0.802
contain policies or conditions for energy conservation and environ-
BI 0.560 −0.029 −0.028 −0.006 −0.070 −0.096 0.748
mental protection but only contains slogans or norms produced by
administrative bodies to influence people's behavior, then it is not
conducive to the generation of energy conservation and environmental
energy conservation paradigms does not significantly affect real energy protection behavior. Abrahamse and Steg (2009, 2011) believe that
conservation behavior. personal habits often affect the formation of personal norms. If energy
conservation behavior becomes less convenient, even altruistic and
4.2. Benchmark model extension: personal habits and external conditions environmentally friendly orientations will not translate into energy
conservation behavior. Therefore, the variables of individual behavioral
The study of the benchmark model confirms that values affect only habits were added to the model for further analysis. Specific estimate
the formation of energy conservation beliefs and individual norms and models are shown in Figs. 4 and 5.

156
D. Shi et al. Energy Policy 128 (2019) 150–161

Table 5
Structural normalized path coefficient, CR value and P value.

Sig. test of parameters Item reliability Composite reliability Convergence validity

Construct Indicator Unstd. S.E. z-value P Std. SMC CR AVE

Egocentrics value (Ego) Ego1 1.000 0.864 0.746 0.827 0.619

Ego2 0.892 0.080 11.162 *** 0.837 0.701
Ego3 0.614 0.064 9.578 *** 0.64 0.410
Altruistic values (Alt) Alt1 1.000 0.599 0.359 0.756 0.515
Alt2 1.272 0.183 6.956 *** 0.872 0.760
Alt3 0.951 0.126 7.516 *** 0.652 0.425
Biospheric values (Bio) Bio1 1.000 0.778 0.605 0.879 0.645
Bio2 0.972 0.085 11.415 *** 0.735 0.540
Bio3 0.960 0.071 13.483 *** 0.857 0.734
Bio4 1.010 0.077 13.199 *** 0.838 0.702
Attribution of responsibility (AR) AR1 1.000 0.715 0.511 0.872 0.535
AR2 1.146 0.095 12.125 *** 0.841 0.707
AR3 1.274 0.104 12.288 *** 0.854 0.729
AR4 1.020 0.099 10.253 *** 0.708 0.501
AR5 1.005 0.104 9.693 *** 0.669 0.448
AR6 0.893 0.110 8.147 *** 0.562 0.316
Personal norms (PN) PN1 1.000 0.728 0.530 0.927 0.644
PN2 0.997 0.082 12.207 *** 0.804 0.646
PN3 1.073 0.087 12.398 *** 0.816 0.666
PN4 1.103 0.094 11.699 *** 0.772 0.596
PN5 1.104 0.088 12.544 *** 0.825 0.681
PN6 1.010 0.082 12.341 *** 0.812 0.659
PN7 1.091 0.084 13.009 *** 0.854 0.729
Energy conservation behavior (BI) BI1 1.000 0.583 0.340 0.784 0.56
BI2 0.496 0.072 6.917 *** 0.967 0.935
BI3 0.445 0.056 8.003 *** 0.637 0.406

energy conservation behavior nor change the conclusion of the

Table 6 benchmark model.
Results from test of hypotheses.

Hypothesis Path Estimate Result

4.3. Further discussion
Benchmark model H2 Ego→AR −0.023 No
H3 Alt→AR 0.200 Yes The question then arises: why did the college students’ values affect
H3 Bio→AR 0.300 Yes their energy conservation beliefs and personal energy conservation
H4 AR→PN 0.700 Yes
norms but did not translate into actual energy conservation behavior?
H5 PN→BI −0.095 No
Extended Model 1 H2 Ego→AR −0.024 No There are a few possible reasons.
H3 Alt→AR 0.200 Yes The first has to do with sample selection. The students selected live
H3 Bio→AR 0.300 Yes a collective life, so those who hold non-energy conservation beliefs may
H4 AR→PN 0.700 Yes
be rejected by the group. Thus, individuals with egocentric values may
H6 OC→PN 0.200 Yes
H5 PN→BI −0.091 No
consciously hide their true feelings on awareness of responsibility, that
Extended Model 2 H2 Ego→AR −0.022 No is, the true influence of egocentric values on awareness of responsibility
H3 Alt→AR 0.151 Possibly is not revealed in their daily conversations or the questionnaires. In
H3 Bio→AR 0.328 Yes collective life, due to the lack of targeted measures (such as economic
H4 AR→PN 0.711 Yes
incentives and environmental pressure), people with different values
H6 EC→PN 0.043 No
H5 PN→BI −0.095 No influence each other, such that energy conservation behavior among
them becomes consistent, in turn causing awareness of responsibility
and behavior norms not to translate into different behaviors. It should
be noted that choosing college student groups as research subjects is of
According to the estimated results of the extended model (see significance for follow-up studies. After graduation, college students
Table 6), the following conclusions may be drawn: first, personal be- will change their behavior in certain degree because they would have
havioral habits affect the awareness of responsibility for individual more and stable income. Therefore, we believe that the conclusion of
energy conservation, but that does not translate into real energy con- this paper is not particularly important in itself, and it is important to be
servation behavior nor does it change the conclusion of the benchmark able to provide a good reference for subsequent follow-up studies.
model. Second, external conditions have no significant influence on Second, when energy conservation behavior is too costly or incon-
people's energy conservation beliefs and thus neither translate into real venient, or such behavior is not identified with by peers, individuals

157
D. Shi et al. Energy Policy 128 (2019) 150–161

Fig. 4. Extended Model 1: personal habits.

Fig. 5. Extended Model 2: external conditions.

will not continue to practice energy conservation behavior even if they
have altruistic and biospheric values (Abrahamse and Steg, 2009,
2011).
Third, people tend to prioritize when external conditions lead to
conflict among different goals, which is another reason why energy
conservation norms may not translate into behavior (Ünal et al., 2012)).
For example, when a driver has been ordered to arrive at a destination
on time, he may be concerned only with punctuality, rather than fuel
conservation or environmental protection.
Therefore, further research should focus on the following aspects:
first, studies should be carried out on the relationship between values
and energy conservation behavior while taking into account the

158
D. Shi et al.
demonstration effects of collective living. That is, studies should look at
the logical relationship between values, attribution of responsibility,
behavior norms and energy conservation behavior under the influence
of individuals with different values living together. The questionnaire
should include questions on whether energy conservation behavior is
affected by the people around us and other questions that reflect the
demonstration effects of collective life. Second, research should bring
the external conditions that affect collective life (such as the effects of
group evaluation on personal energy conservation beliefs and the in-
fluence of public institution energy conservation policies on energy
conservation behavior) into the analytic framework. Third, research
should extend the scope of the definition of “values.” More informative
and scientific conclusions can be arrived at by applying the concept of
dynamic values to study the logical relationship between the formation
and evolution of values and energy conservation beliefs, behavior
norms and real energy conservation behavior.
Of course, comparative analysis of foreign research and the simi-
larities and differences of the effects of values on energy conservation
beliefs, personal norms and energy conservation behavior among dif-
ferent regions, cultures and institutional backgrounds should be carried
out. The household sector, government agencies and public institutions
are also an important aspect of future research.
5. Conclusion and suggestions for policy
5.1. Conclusion
According to the empirical results, the following conclusions have
been drawn:
First, by choosing college students as the respondents, such vari-
ables as income, degree of education and age were controlled. On this
basis, this study partly verifies the basic conclusion of the VBN model,
that is, values have a significant effect on energy conservation beliefs,
which in turn significantly affect personal energy conservation norms.
Similar to the experimental results from studies abroad, this study also
basically proves that altruistic and biospheric values help to form the
attribution of responsibility, and that biospheric values are more con-
ducive to awareness of energy conservation responsibility. Thus, the
empirical results of this paper partially verify hypotheses one, two and
three.
Secondly, this study found that energy conservation beliefs formed
by altruistic and biospheric values translate into real energy con-
servation norms. However, egocentric values do not significantly affect
the awareness of energy conservation responsibility. Moreover, per-
sonal energy conservation norms do not translate into energy con-
servation behavior. Thus, the empirical results of this study partially
support hypothesis four. The most significant discovery of this study is
that energy conservation beliefs and personal norms do not translate
into real energy conservation behavior. This is a major contrast with the
basic conclusion of the VBN model and the conclusions from related
research abroad.
Finally, although personal behavioral habits affect energy con-
servation norms, neither personal behavioral habits nor external con-
ditions provide motivation for personal norms to be translated into real
energy conservation behavior. This shows that even when personal
behavioral habits and macro-level energy conservation policies are
taken into account, behavior patterns are still not changed due to the
interaction among different individual values in campus collective life.
Particularly noteworthy is that personal behavioral habits have a sig-
nificant effect on the formation of energy conservation beliefs. In
159
Energy Policy 128 (2019) 150–161
general, individual behavioral habits are formed by the individual's use
of energy at home. Therefore, the energy conservation policies targeted
at household use can indirectly influence the energy conservation be-
liefs of public agencies, but it does not affect energy use behavior.
5.2. Suggestions for policy
The conclusions of the study are useful for the formulation of energy
conservation policy. At present, the energy conservation measures at
colleges, universities and other public institutions are mainly based on
administrative effort and publicity. Individual energy conservation
behavior is mostly encouraged by means of publicity, and no real at-
mosphere of values has been formed. The mere use of slogans produced
by administrative bodies to influence people's behavior will not gen-
erate energy conservation or environmental protection behavior (Keizer
et al., 2011). The focus of energy conservation policies of public in-
stitutions such as colleges and universities should be gradually turned
toward converting energy conservation beliefs into real energy con-
servation behavior. The existing research shows that it is impossible to
achieve this goal by only publicity and education. In the future, energy
conservation management at public institutions should attach im-
portance to the formation of an energy conservation atmosphere so as
to make energy conservation a social norm and further internalize it
into a personal norm. It is worth noting that it is needed to make ap-
propriate incentives to overcome the impact of group effects on in-
dividual behavior.
(1) In public institutions, social norms on individual behavioral con-
straints should be emphasized. The form and content of energy-
saving publicity and education should be innovated. In making
energy-saving guidance policy, a comprehensive and reasonable
energy-saving publicity and education system should be formulated
from the top down. In the implementation of the policy, the types
and methods of energy-saving education and publicity should be
enriched, and the types of guidance policies with rich content and
various forms should be adopted, and residents' awareness and re-
cognition of energy conservation should be strengthened. In addi-
tion to the one-way publicity and education in the past, we should
improve group participation in energy conservation publicity and
education activities, organize energy conservation cultural activ-
ities through NGOs, such as green groups, encourage residents'
participation, experience and interaction, and shape the social en-
ergy conservation culture atmosphere.
(2) There are two approaches to follow when social norms and personal
norms are not enough to promote energy-saving behavior. The first
is to provide convenient energy-saving environment (like public
facilities). For example, improving public transportation and travel
infrastructure to provide more comfortable public transportation
services; combining big data technology with public transportation
to improve high-quality, intelligent traffic information systems. The
second is the intelligent and energy-saving transformation of public
places, in which energy is saved with more intelligent energy-
saving equipment.
(3) It needs to overcome the impact of group effects on individual be-
havior. In public institutions such as schools, different individuals
may make interactive influences. Therefore, it needs to develop
energy-saving incentive mechanisms based on groups. For example,
taking a department or a dormitory as a unit, encourage them to
participate in the evaluation of energy-saving models, or give en-
ergy-saving rewards.
D. Shi et al. Energy Policy 128 (2019) 150–161

Appendix: Covariance matrix of model

Rowtype_ varname_ Bio1 Bio2 Bio3 Bio4 Alt1 Alt2 Alt3 Ego1 Ego2 Ego3 BI3 AR6 PN7

N 234 234 234 234 234 234 234 234 234 234 234 234 234
COV Bio1 2.468
COV Bio2 1.611 2.619
COV Bio3 1.456 1.303 1.876
COV Bio4 1.408 1.492 1.488 2.176
COV Alt1 1.365 1.187 0.985 1.136 3.216
COV Alt2 1.202 1.288 1.105 1.155 1.472 2.451
COV Alt3 0.965 1.23 1.069 1.339 1.054 1.399 2.452
COV Ego1 0.456 0.497 0.441 0.513 0.498 0.301 0.694 4.732
COV Ego2 0.412 0.674 0.334 0.4 0.433 0.53 0.778 3.152 4.013
COV Ego3 0.721 1.021 0.768 0.955 0.865 1.027 1.239 2.174 1.934 3.255
COV BI3 0.001 −0.02 0.082 −0.004 −0.011 0.042 −0.014 0.069 0.17 0.142 0.893
COV AR6 0.135 0.172 0.083 0.351 0.536 0.481 0.608 0.57 0.375 0.656 −0.156 2.122
COV PN7 0.346 0.515 0.576 0.583 0.383 0.369 0.396 0.056 −0.024 0.184 −0.186 0.523 1.769
COV AR5 0.298 0.427 0.183 0.483 0.698 0.504 0.604 0.451 0.308 0.576 −0.148 1.55 0.634
COV BI1 −0.47 −0.551 −0.005 −0.293 −0.467 −0.254 −0.118 −0.211 −0.165 −0.258 0.792 −0.181 −0.051
COV BI2 −0.224 −0.145 0.003 −0.062 −0.2 −0.048 −0.069 0.009 −0.027 −0.01 0.405 −0.065 −0.014
COV PN6 0.333 0.3 0.507 0.43 0.369 0.217 0.199 0.48 0.047 0.089 −0.266 0.545 1.237
COV PN5 0.345 0.439 0.508 0.517 0.471 0.519 0.395 −0.042 −0.272 0.127 −0.237 0.388 1.387
COV PN4 0.469 0.479 0.526 0.534 0.547 0.548 0.604 0.359 0.202 0.387 −0.193 0.77 1.287
COV PN3 0.412 0.422 0.516 0.506 0.446 0.343 0.39 0.326 0.137 0.266 −0.188 0.636 1.27
COV PN2 0.218 0.258 0.406 0.27 0.333 0.259 0.29 0.071 − 0.141 0.132 − 0.152 0.432 1.187
COV PN1 0.398 0.48 0.448 0.442 0.641 0.538 0.633 0.474 0.338 0.42 − 0.148 0.884 1.086
COV AR1 0.801 0.579 0.755 0.691 0.604 0.496 0.456 −0.144 − 0.088 0.148 − 0.062 0.405 0.849
COV AR2 0.531 0.435 0.494 0.596 0.446 0.33 0.386 0.082 − 0.013 0.147 − 0.068 0.64 0.946
COV AR3 0.588 0.489 0.541 0.609 0.628 0.446 0.546 0.191 − 0.041 0.216 − 0.193 1.034 0.908
COV AR4 0.339 0.376 0.358 0.531 0.393 0.524 0.485 0.208 0.193 0.339 − 0.092 1.15 0.731

Rowtype_ AR5 BI1 BI2 PN6 PN5 PN4 PN3 PN2 PN1 AR1 AR2 AR3 AR4

N 234 234 234 234 234 234 234 234 234 234 234 234 234
COV
COV
COV
COV
COV
COV
COV
COV
COV
COV
COV
COV
COV
COV 1.911
COV −0.405 5.395
COV −0.067 0.912 0.483
COV 0.63 −0.204 −0.086 1.674
COV 0.642 −0.064 −0.07 1.189 1.938
COV 0.782 −0.075 −0.13 1.16 1.227 2.205
COV 0.712 − 0.019 − 0.036 1.235 1.236 1.307 1.871
COV 0.537 − 0.162 − 0.034 1.099 1.349 1.088 1.199 1.662
COV 0.877 0.037 − 0.13 1.095 1.115 1.571 1.118 0.986 2.035
COV 0.651 − 0.124 − 0.045 0.757 0.835 0.809 0.919 0.782 0.816 1.66
COV 0.827 0.087 − 0.031 0.829 0.95 1 0.94 0.81 1.007 1.137 1.589
COV 1.097 − 0.135 − 0.136 0.837 0.939 1.167 0.88 0.818 1.133 1.086 1.337 1.907
COV 1.248 0.018 − 0.038 0.663 0.663 0.871 0.766 0.571 0.88 0.846 0.941 1.027 1.761

References
Abrahamse, W., Steg, L., 2009. How do socio-demographic and psychological factors
relate to households' direct and indirect energy use and savings? J. Econ. Psychol. 30,
711–720.
Abrahamse, W., Steg, L., 2011. Factors related to household energy use and intention to
reduce it: the role of psychological and socio-demographic variables. Hum. Ecol. Rev.
18 (1), 30–40.
Ajzen, I., 1991. The theory of planned behavior. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 50,
179–211.
Aquino, K., Freeman, D., Reed II, A., Lim, V.K.G., Felps, W., 2009. Testing a social-cog-
nitive model of moral behavior: the interactive influence of situations and moral
identity centrality. J. Pers. Social. Psychol. 97, 123–141.
Bai, G.L., Li, G.H., 2012. Green consumption cognition, green consumption attitude,
green consumption behavior and interrelationship among them, Urban Problems,
No.9.
Barr, S., Gilg, A.W., Ford, N., 2005. The household energy gap: examining the divide
between habitual-and purchase-related conservation behaviours. Energy Policy 33
(11), 1425–1444.
Berkhout, Peter H.G., Ferrer-I-Carbonell, A., Muskens, J.C., 2004. The ex post impact of
an energy tax on household energy demand. Energy Econ. 26 (3), 297–317.

160
D. Shi et al.
Bolderdijk, J.W., Steg, L., Geller, E.S., Lehman, P.K., Postmes, T., 2012. Comparing the
effectiveness of monetary versus moral motives in environmental campaigning. Nat.
Clim. Change. https://doi.org/10.1038/NCLIMATE1767.
Bolderdijk, J.W., Lehman, P.K., Geller, E.S., 2012. Encouraging pro-environmental be-
havior with rewards and penalties. In: Steg, L., Berg, van den, A.E., De Groot, J.I.M.
(Eds.), Environmental psychology: An introduction. John Wiley & Sons, Oxford, UK,
pp. 233–242.
Brandon, G., Lewis, A., et al., 1999. Reducing household energy consumption: a quali-
tative and quantitative field study. J. Environ. Psychol. 19, 75–85.
Clark, C.F., Kotchen, M.J., Moore, M.R., 2003. Internal and external influences on pro-
environmental behavior: Participation in a green electricity program. J. Enviorn.
Psychol.
Czajkowski, M., Kądziela, T., Hanley, N., 2014. We want to sort! Assessing households’
preferences for sorting waste. Resour. Energy Econ. 36 (1), 290–306.
De Groot, J.I.M., Steg, L., 2007. Value orientations and environmental beliefs in five
countries: validity of an instrument to measure egoistic, altruistic and biospheric
value orientations. J. Cross-Cult. Psychol. 38, 318–332.
De Groot, J.I.M., Steg, L., 2008. Value orientations to explain beliefs related to en-
vironmental significant behavior: how to measure egoistic, altruistic, and biospheric
value orientations. Environ. Behav. 40, 330–354.
Duan, W.T., Jiang, G.R., 2008. Literature review of planned behavior. Adv. Psychol. Sci.
16 (2), 315–320.
DuNannWinter, D., Koger, S.M., 2004. The Psychology of Environmental Problems.
Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah.
Egmond, R., Jonkers, G., Kok, 2005. A strategy to encourage housing associations to
invest in energy conservation. Energy Policy 33, 2374–2384.
Evans, L., Maio, G.R., Corner, A., Hodgetts, C.J., Ahmed, S., Hahn, U., 2013. Self-interest
and pro-environmental behaviour. Nat. Clim. Change 3 (2), 122–125.
Feng, L., Lin, T., Zhao, Q.J., 2011. Analysis of the dynamic characteristics of urban
household energy use and carbon emissions in China. China Popul. Resour. Environ.
21 (5), 93–100.
Gadenne, D., Sharma, B., Kerr, D., 2011. Smith T. The influence of consumers' environ-
mental beliefs and attitudes on energy saving behaviours. Energy Policy 39,
7684–7694.
Gao, R., Zhang, Z., 2015. The lock-in effect of residential energy consumption:a case study
in Shanghai City. Resour. Sci. 37 (4), 733–743.
Gardner, G.T., Stern, P.C., 2002. Environmental Problems and Human Behavior, 2nd ed.
Pearson Custom Publishing, Boston, M A.
Garling, T., Fujii, S., et al., 2003. Moderating of social value orientation on determinants
of pro-environmental behavior intention. J. Environ. Psychol. 23, 1–9.
Geller, E.S., 2002. The Challenge of Increasing Proenvironmental Behaviour, R. B. Bechtel
& A. Churchman, Handbook of Environmental Psychology. Wiley, New York, pp.
525–540.
Groot, J.I.M., Steg, L., 2010. Relationships between value orientations, self-determined
otivational types and pro-environmental behavioural intentions. J. Environ. Psychol.
30, 368–378.
Guagnano, Gregory A., Stern, Paul C., Dietz, Thomas, 1995. Influences on attitude-be-
havior relationships-a natural experiment with curbside recycling. Environ. Behav.
27 (5).
Hines, J.M., Hungerford, H.R., Tomera, A.N., 1986. Analysis and synthesis of research on
responsible pro-environmental behavior: a meta-analysis. J. Environ. Educ. 18 (2).
IPCC, 2007. Climate Change: The Physical Science Basis.
Kaplan, S., 2000. Human nature and environmentally-responsible behavior. J. Soc. Issues
56, 491–508.
Kara, Chen, 1998. Mass Communication and Proenvironmental behavior: waste recycling
in Hong Kong. J. Environ. Manag. 52 (4), 317–325.
Keizer, K., Lindenberg, S., Steg, L., 2011. The reversal effect of prohibition signs. Group
Process. Inter. Relat. 14 (5), 681–688.
Lenzen, Manfred, Wier, Mette, Cohen, Claude, Hayami, Hitoshi, Pachauri, Shonali,
Schaeffer, Roberto, 2006. A comparative multivariate analysis of household energy
requirements in Australia, Brazil, Denmark, India and Japan. Energy 31, 181–207.
Li, J.X., Zhan, Z.F., 2007. Literature review and outlook of consumer green purchase,
Consumer Economics, No. 6.
Lindenberg, S., Steg, L., 2007. Normative, gain and hedonic goal-frames guiding en-
vironmental behavior. J. Soc. Issues 63 (1), 117–137.
Lu, Z.N., Feng, Y., He, M.W., 2016. Dynamic analysis and policy research in rebound
Effect of Chinese urban residents' energy consumption. Ecol. Econ. 7, 78–82.
Mi, L.Y., Gu, M., Yang, J., Yu, X.Y., Liu, Y., 2016. Empirical research on the psychological
motivation factors of urban residents’ low carbon oriented energy consumption be-
havior in Xuzhou City. Resour. Sci. 38 (4), 609–621.
Michele, T., Paul, S.P., Margaret, P.B., 2004. Determining pro-environmental behaviour:
161
Energy Policy 128 (2019) 150–161
waste minimisation the drivers for householder compared to recycling. Resour.,
Conserv. Recycl. 42, 27–48.
Poortinga, Wouter, Steg, L., Vlek, C., 2004. Environmental concern and environmental
behavior: a study into household energy use. Environ. Behav. 36 (1), 70–93.
Qu, J.S., Liu, L.N., Zeng, J.J., 2014. An analysis on driving factors of China's urban and
rural household carbon emissions. China Popul. Resour. Environ. 24 (8), 33–41.
Rokeach, Milton, 1973. The Nature of Human Values. The Free Press，New York，Collier
Macmillan Publishers London.
Schultz, P.W., 2001. The structure of environmental concern: concern for self, other
people, and the biosphere. J. Environ. Psychol. 21, 327–339.
Schwartz, S.H., 1977. Normative influences on altruism. In: Berkowitz, L. (Ed.), Advances
in Experimental Social Psychology 10. Academic Press, New York, pp. 221e279.
Schwartz, S.H., 1994. Are there universal aspects in the structure and content of human
value? J. Soc. Issues 50 (4), 19–45.
Schwartz, S.H., Bilsky, W., 1987. Towards a universal psychological structure of human
value. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 53 (3), 550–562.
Scott, D., Parker, P., Rowlands, I.H., 2000. Determinants of energy efficiency behaviours
in the home. Environments 28 (3), 73–96.
Shi, H.J., 2015. Factors affecting urban residents’ low- carbon consumption behavior in
Fuzhou. Resour. Sci. 37 (2), 308–317.
Steg, L., 2003. Can public transport compete with the private car? IATSS Res. 27 (2),
27–35.
Steg, L., Vlek, C., 2009. Encouraging pro-environmental behaviour: an integrative review
and research agenda. J. Environ. Psychol. 29 (3), 309–317.
Steg, L., De Groot, J.I.M., 2012. Environmental values. In: Clayton, S. (Ed.), The Oxford
Handbook of Environmental and Conservation Psychology. Oxford University Press.
Steg, L., Dreijerink, L., Abrahamse, W., 2005. Factors influencing the acceptability of
energy policies: a test of VBN theory. J. Environ. Psychol. 25, 415–425.
Dogan, E., Steg, L., Delhomme, P., 2011. The influence of multiple goals on driving be-
havior: the case of safety, time saving, and fuel saving. Accid. Anal. Prev. 43 (5),
1635–1643.
Steg, L., Bolderdijk, J.W., Keizer, K.E., Perlaviciute, G., 2014a. An integrated framework
for encouraging pro-environmental behaviour: the role of value, situational factors
and goals. J. Environ. Psychol. 38, 104–115. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2014.
01.002.
Steg, L., Bolderdijk, J.W., Keizer, K.E., Perlaviciute, G., 2014b. Environmental behaviour:
the role of value, situational factors and goals. J. Environ. Psychol. 38 (3), 104–115.
Stern, P.C., 1999. Information, incentives, and proenvironmental consumer behavior. J.
Consum. Policy 22, 461–478.
Stern, P.C., 2000. Toward a coherent theory of environmentally significant behavior. J.
Soc. Issues 56, 523–530.
Stern, P.C., Dietz, T., Kaldoff, L., 1993. Value orientations, gender and environmental
concern. Environ. Behav. 25, 322–348.
Stern, P.C., Dietz, T., Guagnano, G.A., 1998. A brief inventory of value. Educ. Psychol.
Meas. 58 (6), 984–1001.
Sun, Y., 2013. Study on the influence of household heterogeneity factors on the energy
use behavior of urban residents. J. Beijing Inst. Technol. Soc Sci. Ed. 15 (5), 23–27.
Thogersen, J., Olander, F., 2002. Human values and the emergence of a sustainable
consumption pattern: a panel study. J. Econ. Psychol. 23 (5), 605–630.
Ünal, A.B., Steg, L., Epstude, K., 2012. The influence of music on mental effort and driving
performance. Accid. Anal. Prev. 48 (9), 271–278.
Van Raaij, W.F., Verhallen, T.M.M., 1983. A behavioral model of residential energy use. J.
Econ. Psychol. 3, 39–63.
Vlek, C., Steg, L., 2007. Human behavior and environmental sustainability: problems,
driving forces and research topics. J. Soc. Issues 63 (1), 1–19.
Wang, G.M., Li, J.X., Liao, S.X., Wen, L., 2010. Environmental value and consumer green
purchase behavior—research on the intermediary role of environmental attitude. J.
Dalian Univ. Technol. (Social. Sci.)(12).
Wang, J.M., He, A.Z., 2011. Psychological attribution and policy paths of Consumer's low
carbon consumption behavior: an exploratory research based on grounded theory.
Nankai Bus. Rev. 14 (4), 80–89.
Wang, Z., Ru, X.J., 2015. CO2 emissions induced by household consumption and its
driving forces in China: an empirical analysis based on the LMDI model. Ecol. Econ.
31 (4), 51–55.
Xie, S.H., Chen, H.M., Wang, L.X., 2013. An analysis on influencing factors of urban
residents’ low-carbon consumption behavior. Urban Probl. 2, 53–58.
Zhang, H., Cheng, J.H., 2011. Dynamic effect of China's energy price fluctuations and
resident consumption levels: verification based on the var model and SVAR model.
Resour. Sci.(5).
Zhang, X., Niu, S.W., Zhao, C.S., 2011. The study on household energy consumption and
carbon emissions in China's urbanization. China Soft Sci. 9, 65–75.