See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/222252867

Environmental Concern: Conceptual Definitions, Measurement Methods, and

Research Findings

Article  in  Journal of Environmental Psychology · December 1999

DOI: 10.1006/jevp.1999.0141

CITATIONS READS

1,019 31,538

2 authors:

Niklas Fransson Tommy Gärling

University of Gothenburg University of Gothenburg
23 PUBLICATIONS   1,316 CITATIONS    391 PUBLICATIONS   21,724 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Where to shop? Understanding consumers´ choice of grocery store” View project

Mental accounting and intertemporal choice View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Niklas Fransson on 15 November 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Journal of Environmental Psychology (1999) 19, 369^382 0272 - 4944/99/040369+14 $30.00/0
# 1999 Academic Press
Article No. jevp.1999.0141, available online at http://www.idealibrary.com on

ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERN: CONCEPTUAL DEFINITIONS, MEASUREMENT

METHODS, AND RESEARCH FINDINGS

NIKLAS FRANSSON AND TOMMY GØRLING

GÎteborg University, Sweden

Abstract

A serious threat to human beings and their environment is the continuous and accelerating overuse and de-
struction of natural resources. Bearing this in mind, it is unfortunate that e¡orts to permanently change
people's environmentally destructive behaviour through interventions has typically not been met with success.
A necessary condition may be an increase in environmental concern and knowledge about the e¡ects and
consequences of the ongoing environmental deterioration for future generations. Studies are reviewed that
have attempted to show (1) correlations between determinants, such as socio-demographic and/or psychologi-
cal factors, and environmental concern, and (2) an impact of environmental concern on environmentally re-
sponsible behaviour. In general, correlations with background factors are weak. Factors a¡ecting behaviour
appear to be knowledge, internal locus of control (positive control beliefs), personal responsibility, and per-
ceived threats to personal health. The need for further research that attempts to specify the process leading
to environmentally responsible behaviour is highlighted. A new framework is presented which integrates
some of the previous research. # 1999 Academic Press

Introduction Our goal in this paper is to review and analyse

A serious threat to human environments is the con-
tinuous and accelerating overuse and destruction of
natural resources, such as air, forest, and water,
many of which are necessary for survival (Stern &
Oskamp, 1987; Pawlik, 1991; Stern, 1992). The on-
going trend has its origins in population growth in
conjunction with detrimental consumption habits
(Dawes, 1980; Hardin, 1986; Úlander & ThÖgersen,
1995). Some consumption habits directly a¡ect the
environment and some a¡ect it indirectly through
demands in£uencing the production process.
This assessment of the current situation stresses
the importance of in£uencing individual's behaviour
to become more environmentally friendly. However,
as concluded from a thorough review by Dwyer et al.
(1993), permanently changing behaviour through in-
terventions is frequently not very successful. A
strongly argued opinion is that a necessary condi-
tion for such interventions is an increase in envir-
onmental concern and knowledge about the e¡ects
and consequences of the ongoing environmental de-
terioration for future generations (Stern & Oskamp,
1987; Takala, 1991; Stern, 1992).
previous research to determine whether environ-
mental concern plays an important role for beha-
viour changes. In the ¢rst section, the question of
de¢ning and measuring environmental concern is
considered. Focusing on the possible mediating role
of environmental concern, research is then reviewed
that has attempted to show (1) correlations between
determinants of environmental concern such as
socio-demographic and/or psychological factors, and
(2) an impact of environmental concern on environ-
mentally responsible behaviour. We review in a ¢nal
section some attempts at theoretically specifying
the role of environmental concern in the process of
implementing environmentally responsible beha-
viours. In this section we propose a synthesis of
the process models which are reviewed.
Environmental concern
De¢nitions
In contemporary attitude theory (Bagozzi &
Warshaw, 1990; Netemeyer et al., 1991; Bagozzi, 1993;
370 N. Fransson and T. GÌrling
Eagly & Chaiken, 1993) a distinction is made
between attitude, intention, and behaviour. An
in£uential theory was o¡ered by Fishbein and Ajzen
(1975) as the theory of reasoned action (TRA) (Ajzen
& Fishbein, 1977), later revised and extended in the
theory of planned behaviour (TPB) (Ajzen, 1985,
1991). In TPB, intention strength is a proximal cause
of behaviour. A positive or negative attitude to-
wards the behaviour, a subjective norm to perform
the bahaviour, and perceived control over the beha-
viour are causes of intention. Attitude in turn is
jointly determined by strengths of beliefs about con-
sequences of the behaviour and evaluations of these
consequences. Value priorities play an important
role for these evaluations.
Environmental concern has been treated as an
evaluation of, or an attitude towards facts, one's
own behaviour, or others' behaviour with conse-
quences for the environment (Weigel, 1983; Ajzen,
1989; SjÎberg, 1989; Takala, 1991). It seems then as
if environmental concern may refer to both a speci-
¢c attitude directly determining intentions, or more
broadly to a general attitude or value orientation.
Stern (1992) identi¢ed four di¡erent such value or-
ientations. In the ¢rst of these, environmental con-
cern represents a new way of thinking called the
New Environmental Paradigm (NEP) (Dunlap &
Van Liere, 1978). In a second value orientation, en-
vironmental concern is tied to anthropocentric al-
truism; people care about environmental quality
mainly because they belief that a degraded environ-
ment poses a threat to people's health. Thus, it is not
the threat to the environment, but the threat to the
well-being of people that is of central concern (Van
Liere & Dunlap, 1978; Black et al., 1985; Hopper &
Nielsen, 1991). According to a third value orienta-
tion, environmental concern expresses self-interest.
For example, Baldassare and Katz (1992) found that
perceived personal threats caused by environmental
deterioration is an important factor underlying en-
vironmentally responsible behaviour. Finally, Stern
(1992) identi¢ed a view that assumes that environ-
mental concern is a function of some deeper cause,
such as underlying religious beliefs or post-materia-
listic values. More recently, in reviewing public opi-
nion data, Gardner and Stern (1996) noted a gradual
shift among people with the second and third value
orientations toward what they identify as an eco-
centric value orientation, which is similar to the
NEP worldview. Possessing an ecocentric value or-
ientation implies that one is concerned about the
ecosystem for its own sake. It should, however, also
be noted that in a general population sample Stern
and Dietz (1994) and Stern et al. (1995) failed to ¢nd
that the ecocentric value orientation di¡ered from
the anthropocentric altruism value orientation.
In the following review we maintain an inclusive
de¢nition of environmental concern, ranging from a
speci¢c attitude toward environmentally relevant
behaviour to a more encompassing value orienta-
tion. As will be clari¢ed in the subsequent section
on process models, both speci¢c attitudes towards
behaviours and general value orientations are likely
to play important roles as behavioural determi-
nants, although possibly at di¡erent stages in the
process of changing and implementing a behaviour.
Measuring methods
Starting from the association of environmental con-
cern with a general attitude towards the environ-
ment or value orientation, several measuring
instruments have been developed (Weigel, 1983).
However, only two of them are frequently used; the
Ecological Attitude Scale (Maloney & Ward, 1973)
and the Environmental Paradigm Scale (Dunlap &
Van Liere, 1978). To some extent the psychometric
characteristics of these scales have been assessed.
The Environmental Concern Scale developed by
Weigel and Weigel (1978) is an example of a measure
with documented validity and reliability that non-
theless has not been widely used.
The Ecological Attitude Scale (EAS) was devel-
oped by Maloney and Ward (1973). It has been used
both in its original form, or as a shorter version
(Maloney et al., 1975). The shorter version has 45
items and consists of several scales. Verbal Commit-
ment (VC) measures what a person states he is will-
ing to do to protect the environment. In contrast,
Actual Commitment (AC) measures what a person
actually does to protect the environment. A¡ect
(A) is a measure of the degree of emotionality
related to such issues. The scales are positively in-
tercorrelated (r ˆ 0
41^0
70) and have acceptable in-
ternal consistency (according to Scott's
Homogeneity Ratio and Cronbach's alpha). A fourth
scale called Knowledge (K), which measures speci¢c
factual knowledge related to ecological issues, does
not correlate with the three other scales (Maloney
et al., 1975).
The EAS was used by, for example, Borden and
Francis (1978). To construct a measure of environ-
mental concern they summed the scores on the AC,
VC, and A scales. Schahn and Holzer (1990) con-
structed an instrument that measures VC, AC
(termed SAC for self-reported actual commitment),
A, and K within speci¢ed domains, such as residen-
tial energy conservation, environmentally responsible
 Environmental Concern
purchasing, and water conservation. Like Maloney
et al. (1975), they found positive correlations be-
tween all scales with the exception of knowledge
(K). When they partitioned the knowledge scale into
abstract (AK) and concrete knowledge (CK), the lat-
ter moderated the relation between attitudes (VC)
and self-reported behaviour (SAC). For individuals
with high CK, the correlation between VC and SAC
was higher than for individuals with low CK. In
contrast, abstract knowledge (AK) had no such mod-
erating e¡ect.
Another frequently used instrument for measur-
ing environmental concern is the New Environmen-
tal Paradigm Scale developed by Dunlap and Van
Liere (1978). The scale consists of 12 items which
were designed to measure the pro-ecological world
view called the `new environmental paradigm'
(NEP). The respondents' task consists of indicating
the degree to which their attitudes and beliefs agree
with the 12 items. A factor analysis yielded high
loadings on one factor which explained between 63
and 69 per cent of the variance for di¡erent subject
groups. Moreover, Cronbach's alpha and another
measure of internal consistency, based on the fac-
tor-analysis results, were su¤ciently high (alpha ap-
proximately equal to 0
80). As stated by Dunlap and
Van Liere (1978), the scale has predictive, construct,
and content validity. Arcury and Christianson
(1990) reduced the NEP scale to 5 items in order to
measure the changes over time in what they call an
`environmental worldview'. For this shortened ver-
sion Cronbach's alpha decreased to 0
62.
With the purpose of comparing di¡erent measure-
ment methods, Van Liere and Dunlap (1981) devel-
oped six di¡erent scales. Three scales di¡ered with
respect to substantive issues re£ected in the items,
either population, pollution, or overuse of natural
resources. Three other scales varied in theoretical
conceptualizations of environmental concern. These
latter scales measured attitudes toward governmen-
tal actions, as well as the respondents' level of en-
gagement in pro-environmental behaviours. The
results showed that each scale has internal consis-
tency. The intercorrelations were moderate. The
scales that measured attitude towards population
and actual involvement, respectively, had lower cor-
relations with the other scales.
A conclusion to be drawn from this brief review is
that methods have been developed to measure a gen-
eral attitude re£ecting environmental concern, but
have then been used to measure speci¢c attitudes
toward speci¢c behaviours. In this way, the mea-
sures' predictive validity may be low. On the other
hand, they may have a higher construct validity. It
371
appears that research needs to be directed towards
bridging the gap between general attitudes and
value orientations and speci¢c pro-environmental
behaviours.
Research ¢ndings
Determinants of environmental concern
A number of studies have investigated the relation
between socio-demographic factors and di¡erences
in opinion about and attitudes toward the environ-
ment. In a previous review, Van Liere and Dunlap
(1980) proposed ¢ve hypotheses. Below, each hypoth-
esis is examined in relation to more recent empiri-
cal ¢ndings.
The age hypothesis. The age hypothesis states that
younger persons are more concerned about environ-
mental deterioration than older persons. Van Liere
and Dunlap (1980) proposed as a possible reason
for this, that younger persons are less integrated
in the existing social order. Since solutions to envir-
onmental problems often are viewed as threatening
to this order, it is logical to expect that younger
persons are in support of actions against environ-
mental deterioration more often than older persons.
The age hypothesis was supported in Van Liere and
Dunlap (1981). Four out of six attitude scales were
negatively correlated with age. Arcury and Chris-
tianson (1990) employed a modi¢ed NEP scale to in-
vestigate the e¡ects of a critical environmental
experience (drought) on environmental concern.
Age was one independent variable. The results of
this study also supported the age hypothesis.
In favour of the age hypothesis, Howell and Laska
(1992) found on three di¡erent occasions (in 1980,
1984, and 1988) in a sequential cross-sectional study,
that more younger than older persons belonged to
those who expressed concern about environmental
deterioration. They also observed that the propor-
tion of older persons was increasing. The explana-
tion they o¡ered is that in the past older persons
did not attend to information about environmental
issues. However, with such media focus in the late
1980s, the issues could hardly escape the notice of
anyone. As noted by Eagly and Kulesa (1997), in re-
cycling campaigns persuasive appeals through the
media have had an impact on people's attitudes
and behaviour. The di¡erences between younger and
older persons may have decreased but probably not
dissolved completely, since Nord et al. (1998)
372 N. Fransson and T. GÌrling
recently found a strong relationship between age
and environmental concern.
The social-class hypothesis. The social-class hypoth-
esis states that environmental concern is positively
associated with education and income. According to
an explanation resting on Maslow's theory of a need
hierarchy (Maslow, 1970), the upper and middle
classes have satis¢ed their basic material needs
and thus focus on satisfying other `higher' needs.
Support for a positive correlation between educa-
tion and environmental concern has been found in
several studies (Van Liere & Dunlap, 1980, 1981;
Black et al., 1985; Arcury & Christianson, 1990;
Howell & Laska, 1992; Nord et al., 1998). However,
the e¡ect of income has not been frequently investi-
gated. An exception is the study by Arcury and Cris-
tianson (1990), in which subjects were divided into
four income groups. In line with the social-class hy-
pothesis, the lowest income group di¡ered from the
other groups. Van Liere and Dunlap (1980) reported
a number of studies in which education and income
were only slightly associated with environmental
concern. In summary, support for the social-class hy-
pothesis is limited to the moderately strong associa-
tion between environmental concern and education.
The residence hypothesis. Urban residents are as-
sumed to be more environmentally concerned than
rural residents. A possible explanation for this dif-
ference is that urban residents are more exposed to
signs of environmental deterioration, such as air
pollution. The residence hypothesis received support
in the study by Arcury and Christianson (1990).
Those living in metropolitan areas were signi¢-
cantly more environmentally concerned than those
living in provincial towns or in the countryside.
Supporting results were also reported by Howell
and Laska (1992), who found that area of residence
became increasingly important in the 1980s as a
predictor of positive attitudes towards environmen-
tal protection.
The political-ideology hypothesis. In the U.S., it is
assumed that liberals are more environmentally
concerned than conservatives. Dunlap (1975) notes
three possible reasons for this. First, business and
industry which typically support conservative politi-
cal ideologies are opposed to environmental re-
forms. Second, environmental reforms entail an
extension of government activities and regulations
to which conservatives are opposed. Third, environ-
mental reforms often require innovative action op-
posed by conservatives.
Results in line with the hypothesis are reported
in Dunlap (1975), Van Liere and Dunlap (1981),
Samdahl and Robertson (1989), Hine and Gi¡ord
(1991), Howell and Laska (1992), Gamba and Oskamp
(1994), and Daneshvary et al. (1998). However, Howell
and Laska (1992) also showed that the relationship
decreased in the 1980s.
The gender hypothesis. Van Liere and Dunlap (1980)
note that previous research has yielded ambiguous
results supporting a consistent direction of the rela-
tionship between gender and environmental con-
cern. Also, gender di¡erences have seldom been
investigated (for a recent review and analysis see
Davidson & Freudenburg, 1996). In one study,
Arcury and Christianson (1990) found that men
were more environmentally concerned than women.
Later research by Stern et al. (1993) and Stern et al.
(1995) found, however, that women di¡ered from
men in that they expressed stronger intentions for
pro-environmental action and had stronger beliefs
about the detrimental consequences of environmen-
tal degradation. This was true for consequences to
self, to others, as well as to other species and the
biosphere. Stern et al. (1995) showed that these lat-
ter di¡erences were largely accounted for by value
di¡erences.
Summary. It has been suggested that younger,
more educated individuals with liberal political
ideologies living in urban areas are the most envir-
onmentally concerned. However, such a statement
must be made with great caution. The relationships
between socio-demographic factors and environmen-
tal concern are generally weak (Gardner & Stern,
1996). This was shown in a single study by Samdahl
and Robertson (1989). Furthermore, it has been
found that in the 1980s older people have changed
their attitudes and are showing more environmental
concern. It may be the case that environmental con-
cern is generally increasing (Baldassare & Katz,
1992; Howell & Laska, 1992), leading to attenuated
di¡erences due to socio-demographic factors.
The impact of environmental concern
An important research task is to establish that a
relationship exists between a positive environmen-
tal attitude and environmentally responsible beha-
viour. However, this has rarely been a direct aim
in previous research. Aims have instead typically
been to generally identify those factors that in£u-
ence environmentally responsible behaviour. In this
subsection the importance of attitudes, knowledge,
 Environmental Concern
and norms is ¢rst discussed, then other factors are
addressed.
Attitudes, knowledge, and norms. A meta-analysis
performed by Hines et al. (1987) revealed a stronger
relationship between protective action and attitudes
towards speci¢c protective actions (e.g. recycling,
energy conservation) than with a general positive
attitude towards environmental protection. Stern
and Oskamp (1987) and SjÎberg (1989) revealed the
same results. For instance, Oskamp et al. (1991)
found no general factor underlying either various
environmental attitudes or behaviours. The ¢ndings
even showed a negative relationship between speci-
¢c self-reported environmental behaviour (curb-side
recycling) and a general pro-ecological attitude.
These results are in line with Van Liere and Dun-
lap's (1980) recommendation that environmental
concern should be measured in relation to more spe-
ci¢c issues, such as recycling and energy conservation.
However, research has also shown that a general en-
vironmental concern (e.g. Dunlap & Van Liere, 1984;
Black et al., 1985) a¡ects more speci¢c attitudes and
personal norms concerning environmental issues.
Lack of knowledge is a factor that can explain the
weak relationship between environmental concern
and environmentally responsible behaviour. Hines
et al. (1987) found in their meta-analysis of 17 studies
that the mean correlation between knowledge and
environmental behaviour was 0
30. Knowledge of is-
sues and of behaviour strategies were important
moderators of whether or not attitudes predicted
behaviour. It was similarly found that when indivi-
duals who are more actively engaged in environmen-
tal issues were compared to less actively engaged
individuals, the single factor which most clearly dif-
ferentiated between the groups was knowledge
about the speci¢c problem and how to act in order
to most e¡ectively deal with it (Stern, 1992). Simi-
larly, Simmons and Widmar (1990) concluded that
lack of knowledge was a substantial barrier to recy-
cling amongst people with positive conservation at-
titudes. In a study of water conservation (Watson
et al., 1992), virtually no correlation was observed
between knowledge and attitude, or between knowl-
edge and intention. However, all three variables
were correlated with self-reported behaviour.
Another possible explanation for why environ-
mental concern shows low correlations with actual
behaviour is that social norms prevent individuals
from acting in accordance with their attitudes
(Newhouse, 1990). In some circumstances, it may
not be socially acceptable to behave in ways which
is environmentally responsible. A telling example is
373
provided by Newhouse (1990) of an individual with
negative feelings about wasting food, but is pre-
vented from acting on this by social norms, i.e. it
is unacceptable to him to stand up in a banquet
room and tell everyone to take only what they can
eat. A ¢nding demonstrating the impact of social
norms on behaviour is reported in Oskamp et al.
(1991), who found that the degree of recycling by
friends and/or neighbours predicted the degree of
one's own recycling. In other contexts, Ajzen and
Fisbein (1977) have demonstrated that attitudes pre-
dict behaviour better when no strong norms exist
dictating how to behave.
Hopper and Nielsen (1991) found that the degree
of recycling is in£uenced by social norms, personal
norms, and awareness of the consequences of recy-
cling. A norm is de¢ned as an expectation held by
an individual about how he or she ought to act in
a particular social situation (Schwartz, 1977). A so-
cial norm needs to be enforced by the threat of pun-
ishment or promise of reward; an internalized,
personal norm or guiding principle for how to act
does not need to be enforced in this way. Schwartz
assumed that personal norms articulate general
norms and values in concrete situations. For exam-
ple, `bystanders should swim to the aid of a drown-
ing child' implicates a general norm prescribing aid
to innocent victims, as well as the value humanitar-
ianism. In the study by Hopper and Nielsen (1991),
social norms had no independent e¡ect on beha-
viour, but was completely mediated through perso-
nal norms. Furthermore, behaviour was found to be
correlated with personal norms when there was a
high awareness of the consequences, but not when
there was a low awareness. The importance of perso-
nal norms was also substantiated in several studies
applying the altruism model by Schwartz to envir-
onmentally relevant behaviour (e.g. Van Liere &
Dunlap, 1978; Black et al., 1985; Stern et al., 1986;
Widegren, 1998). More recent research (Guagnano
et al., 1995) has found limitations in the predictive
power of Schwartz's model by considering the in£u-
ence of external conditions. Speci¢cally, in Guagna-
no et al.'s (1995) study, Schwartz's model predicted
recycling very e¡ectively for households that were
not provided with a recycling bin by the county,
whereas for households provided with a bin the pre-
dictive value was negligible.
A relationship has also been found between va-
lues and environmentally friendly behaviour
(ThÖgersen & Grunert-Beckman, 1997). This is ex-
pected if values are blueprints determining what
are perceived to be salient consequences, which in
turn a¡ect speci¢c attitudes and personal norms.
374 N. Fransson and T. GÌrling
Schwartz (1992) (Schwartz & Bilsky, 1990) de¢nes
values as beliefs pertaining to desirable end states
or modes of conduct that transcend speci¢c situa-
tions and guide choices of actions. Furthermore,
there exists a hierarchy of value priorities.
Schwartz's de¢nition is similar to the view ex-
pressed by Rokeach (1973) and Feather (1982), that
values are relatively stable across an individual's life
span and that they function as prescriptive stan-
dards of conduct. In contrast to previous research
attempting to empirically reveal the contents of va-
lues (e.g. Rokeach, 1973), Schwartz (1992) derived a
typology from the assumption that values refer to a
¢nite number of motivational concerns originating
from the requirement to cope with reality: indivi-
dual needs, social needs, and social institutional
needs. Through socialization individuals learn to
think of these motivational concerns and conscious
values, to use terms to communicate these values, and
to ascribe di¡erent degrees of importance to them.
Stern et al. (1995) suggested that values in£uence
the formation of attitudes, especially towards new
objects. When people form attitudes, they consider
a small sample of salient consequences of the atti-
tude object. These consequences are salient because
they relate to important values. In a similar vein,
ThÖgersen and Grunert-Beckman (1997) proposed
that values act like blueprints in£uencing knowl-
edge acquisition.
Research has fairly consistently shown that va-
lues are determinants of environmentally related
behaviour (Van Liere & Dunlap, 1978; Stern et al.,
1993, 1995; Kristiansen & Zanna, 1988; Cvetkovich
& Earle, 1994; Seligman et al., 1994). It has further-
more been demonstated that values are related to
willingness to take pro-environmental action as
well as to beliefs about environmental conse-
quences. Value orientations refer to clusters of prior-
itized values (Stern & Dietz, 1994). Stern and his
associates (1993, 1995) have proposed that people
with a social-altruistic value orientation prioritize
values such as `a world at peace' and `equality' judge
phenomena on the basis of costs and bene¢ts to a
human group or human beings in general. On the
other hand, people with an egoistic value orienta-
tion take into acount the costs and bene¢ts to them-
selves. People with a biospheric value orientation
take into account costs and bene¢ts to the ecosys-
tems or the biosphere. In a study by Stern et al.
(1993), each of three measures of awareness of envir-
onmental consequences were found to predict will-
ingness to take pro-environmental action. The
three measures assessed consequences to self, to
others, and to other species and the biosphere. In
this study the sample of respondents were students.
Later, Stern et al. (1995), in a general population
sample, replicated the results for awareness of con-
sequences to self and the biosphere, but awareness
of consequences for others was not signi¢cantly re-
lated to willingness to take pro-environmental ac-
tion. Using a somewhat di¡erent terminology,
Thompson and Barton (1994) developed multiple
item scales measuring di¡erent motives underlying
pro-environmentalist (ecocentric or anthropocentric
motives) and anti-environmentalist (apathy for en-
vironmental issues) attitudes. Both Clayton (1998)
and Thompson and Barton (1994) found the scales
and the distinction between ecocentric and anthro-
pocentric motives to be useful. Speci¢cally, the
scales appeared to predict when environmental atti-
tudes are implemented in pro-environmental action.
If environmental problems arise because people
act in self-interest and disregard the collective in-
terest of preserving resources for the bene¢ts of fu-
ture generations (Hardin, 1968; Dawes, 1980; Biel &
GÌrling, 1995), subscribing to values proritizing col-
lective interests may cause people to act in an envir-
onmentally responsible manner. Norms such as
commitment, fairness, and reciprocity (Kerr, 1995)
may enhance this e¡ect of collective values to re-
strain self-interest. Halford and Sheehan (1991) sug-
gested two strategies that social institutions can
use to motive people to act in the interest of the col-
lective. One strategy is to structure the environ-
ment in such a way that short-term self-interest
coincides with long-term collective interests. An-
other strategy is to enforce individuals through
group pressure (e.g. social identity theory, see
Taylor & Moghaddam, 1994) to accept collective va-
lues. Halford and Sheehan (1991) suggest that in the
latter strategy activating moral norms plays a deci-
sive role in making individuals act in an environ-
mentally responsible manner, for instance, it needs
to be seen as immoral to use cars making ine¤cient
use of fuel.
To conclude, recent research (Kaiser, 1997) has
found that the majority of people, at least those in
a¥uent industrial societies (ThÖgersen, 1996), view
ecological or environmentally friendly behaviour as
part of the `moral domain'. Thus, this indicates the
importance of values and suggests that they should
be included in models explaining why and when
people act in an environmentally responsible way.
Other factors. Oskamp et al. (1991) showed that two
socio-demographic factors, income and living in a
single-family house, predict recycling. Age, educa-
tion, and presence of children in the household did
 Environmental Concern
not discriminate between those who curbside re-
cycle and those who do not. In Baldassare and Katz
(1992), neither age, education, or income predicted
four environmentally responsible behaviours (recy-
cling, water conservation, buying environmentally
friendly products, and reduced car use). However,
Hines et al.'s (1987) meta-analysis yielded a weak po-
sitive relationship between both environmentally re-
sponsible behaviour and income and education. A
relationship with education was also observed by
Prester et al. (1987). In the same study, a week nega-
tive correlation with age was demonstrated.
A personality factor that has been found to con-
sistently correlate with environmentally responsible
behaviour is `locus of control' (Hines et al., 1987;
Newhouse, 1990; Stern, 1992). Researchers have dif-
ferentiated between individuals with an internal lo-
cus of control (individuals who perceive that their
own behaviour makes a di¡erence) and individuals
with an external locus of control (individuals who
perceive that changes are due to random events or
the behaviour of other more in£uential individuals).
In this regard, Hines et al.'s (1987) meta-analysis
showed that in 15 di¡erent studies individuals with
an internal locus of control more often behaved in
an environmentally responsible manner than did in-
dividuals with an external locus of control. Such
results suggest that campaigns to promote environ-
mentally responsible behaviour should convey the
message that people's actions makes a di¡erence.
Environmental responsibility is de¢ned as an in-
dividual's sense of obligation or duty to take mea-
sures against environmental deterioration in
general, or against speci¢c environmental problems.
Van Liere and Dunlap (1978) found a strong relation-
ship between environmental responsibility and be-
haviour that negatively a¡ects the quality of the
environment (yard burning). Hines et al.'s (1987)
meta-analysis indicated that those individuals who
assume some type of environmental responsibility
more often behave environmentally responsible than
those who do not assume such a responsibility.
Verbal commitment refers to an expressed inten-
tion to behave in a speci¢c way in the face of an en-
vironmental problem. Six studies that investigated
the relationship between such an intention and be-
haviour were included in Hines et al.'s (1987) meta-
analysis. The results showed that individuals who
expressed an intention more often reported being
engaged in the intended behaviours than those who
did not express an intention. However, the mean
correlation was only 0
49.
Another factor to consider is if environmental de-
terioration is perceived as a threat to one's own
375
health. Baldassare and Katz (1992) found that per-
ceived personal threats predicted environmentally
responsible behaviour better than socio-demo-
graphic factors. Whether one perceived a personal
threat was in turn correlated with socio-demo-
graphic factors. After analysing the results from
several studies of energy conservation, Olsen (1981)
reached the conclusion that a similar factor, antici-
pated personal consequences of environmental dete-
rioration, is related to environmentally responsible
behaviours.
Process models
It seems clear from the preceding review that when
environmental concern is de¢ned as a general atti-
tude or value orientation, the relationship is in
general weak to an speci¢c pro-environmental beha-
viour (Ajzen, 1991; Eagly & Kuhlesa, 1997). This rela-
tionship increases in strength when a number of
di¡erent pro-environmental behaviours are pre-
dicted (Eagly & Chaiken, 1993). In contrast, a less
inclusive de¢nition of environmental concern pre-
dicts speci¢c pro-environmental behaviours more
accurately. In this section, however, we are less con-
cerned with prediction than with the theoretical
understanding of how environmental concern is im-
plemented in behaviour. We start by reviewing three
attempts at specifying the process by which envir-
onmentally friendly behaviour is implemented.
Then, we propose a synthesis of the process models
which are reviewed.
Review
The Hines model. A model proposed by Hines
et al. (1987) is based on the results of a meta-analysis
of 128 studies reported since 1970. Intention is the
factor most closely related to actual behaviour. This
is also consistent with TPB and its forerunners
(Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975; Ajzen, 1991). Supported by
the meta-analysis, the authors further suggest that
intention is related to knowledge, skill, and person-
ality. Knowledge is partitioned into two compo-
nents, knowledge of the existence of the problem,
similar to environmental concern, and knowledge
of behavioural strategies and their e¡ectiveness.
Skill refers to the ability to apply such knowledge
to speci¢c problems. Skill is, however, not in itself
su¤cient for appropriate behaviour. The individual
must also desire to do the `right' thing. This desire
is assumed to be in£uenced by perceived locus of
control, attitude, and personal responsibility. If a
376 N. Fransson and T. GÌrling
person has the necessary skill, an internal locus of
control, a positive attitude towards the environ-
ment, and responsible environmental behaviours,
as well as a feeling of personal responsibility, he or
she is likely to engage in environmentally responsi-
ble behaviour. However, even if an individual has an
intention to behave in an environmentally responsi-
ble manner, such behaviour may not materialize. In
the proposed model it is assumed that situational
factors also a¡ect responsible environmental beha-
viours (see also Úlandar & ThÖgersen, 1995). Exam-
ples of situational factors are economic constraints,
social pressure, and opportunities to choose alter-
native behaviours.
The Stern and Oskamp model. A second process
model was proposed by Stern and Oskamp (1987).
The model is a straight-forward application of
Schwartz's norm-activation theory of altruistic beha-
viour (Schwartz, 1978, 1977), which will be brie£y de-
scribed next.
The norm-activation theory speci¢es the process
through which altruistic social norms are imple-
mented in behaviour. It is assumed that activated
social norms are sometimes accepted in a more spe-
ci¢c form as norms for one's own behaviour (perso-
nal norms). A violation of personal norms evokes
feelings of guilt, whereas compliance evokes feel-
ings of pride. It is the personal norm that is imple-
mented in actual behaviour. Two variables in£uence
this implementation: awareness of the consequences
of the action (AC), and the assumed responsibility
for these consequences (AR). When individuals are
high on AC and AR, personal norms guide behaviour.
The norm-activation theory has received empirical
support in studies of energy conservation (Black
et al., 1985), recycling (Hopper & Neilsen, 1991;
Oskamp et al., 1991), yard buring (Van Liere & Dun-
lap, 1978), and actions undertaken in support of en-
vironmental protection (Stern et al., 1986).
According to ThÖgersen (1996), people perceive mor-
al norms as an important determinant of environ-
mentally friendly behaviours in general, and
recycling in particular. This may make Schwartz's
(1977) theory a more appropriate framework for un-
derstanding environmentally friendly behaviours
than expectancy-value theories (e.g. the TRA, Fish-
bein & Ajzen, 1975, or the TPB, Ajzen, 1991), which
imply that people decide to act after weighing the
costs and bene¢ts of the consequences.
More recently, Stern and associates (Stern et al.,
1993; 1995; Stern & Dietz, 1994) integrated their no-
tion of value orientations with the norm-activation
theory. Thus, norms and values are more important
determinants for people with social-altruistic and
biospheric value orientations. Assessments of costs
and bene¢ts for oneself are more important for
those with an egoistic value orientation. In a simi-
lar way, Axelrod (1994) proposed a value taxonomy
partly building on the work by Schwartz (Schwartz
& Bilsky, 1987; Schwartz, 1992). People classi¢ed to
three motivational domains (i.e. economic, social,
and universal) were shown to di¡er systematically
in their response to hypothetical dilemmas invol-
ving ecological issues. In each of the three scenar-
ios, economic motives were pitted against
environmental preservation and protection motiva-
tions. In addition, the role of social factors was also
examined. The results revealed that most people
(varying between 63
3 and 81
6% across scenarios)
with a dominant universal value orientation ranked
environmental motives as most important when
reaching their decision in the dilemma. A smaller
percentage of these classi¢ed as socially-oriented,
and even fewer of the economically-oriented subjects,
ranked environmental motives as most important.
The Dahlstrand and Biel model. Many everyday be-
haviours with negative consequences for the envir-
onment are habitual (Ronis et al., 1989). Following
Lewin (1958), Dahlstrand and Bield (1997) proposed
a model specifying how a `frozen' behaviour (habit)
changes into another new, possibly environmentally
friendly behaviour, and how this new behaviour
then become habitual.
As Figure 1 shows, several phases are assumed.
Each phase consists of several stages. The ¢gure
also displays some of the factors that are assumed
to a¡ect the transitions from one phase to another.
It should be understood that it is not necessary to
go through each stage in order to establish a new
habit, although it is assumed that the number of
FIGURE 1. Phases, stages, and determining factors of the process
leading to the establishment of a new (environmentally friendly)
habit.
 Environmental Concern
stages and the likelihood of behavioural change are
positively correlated. In a ¢rst stage, environmental
concern or awareness develops. Environmental con-
cern is in a second stage linked to the old habit,
that is, attention is focused on the current beha-
viour. If such a link is not established, the indivi-
dual will most likely continue to automatically
execute the old habit. The primary determining fac-
tors in this phase are values, general attitudes, and
norms about the environment. These factors are as-
sumed to in£uence more speci¢c beliefs and atti-
tudes about alternative behaviours. The speci¢c
beliefs and attitudes, in turn, exert their primary in-
£uence in the second phase where alternative beha-
viours are deliberated. This in£uence leads to a
readiness to substitute the old habit with a new be-
haviour. Trying the new behaviour and evaluating
the consequences then follow. Either a new habit is
thus established or the old habit persists, depending
on the evaluation of the consequences. The results
in Dahlstrand and Biel (1997) supported the model
in that the di¡erent factors seemed to be e¡ective
at separate phases of the process. Thus, the results
showed that people in an early phase of the process
were more in£uenced by general environmental va-
lues, while people in a later phase were more in£u-
enced by speci¢c beliefs.
Synthesis
The process model proposed by Hines bears clear
resemblance to the TPB (Ajzen, 1991) and other ex-
pectancy-value theories. On the other hand, the
Stern and Oskamp, and Dahlstrand and Biel models
focus on factors other than attitude determinants,
which are not primarily important for volitional be-
haviour, namely personal norms (moral obligations)
and habits. The importance of these two variables
for pro-environment behaviour has been established
in previous research. As an example, Beck and
Ajzen (1991) showed that perceived moral obligation
predicted intentions and behaviour even when the
other determinants proposed in TPB had been taken
into account. The importance of habits has been
highlighted by, for instance, Ouellette and Wood
(1998).
Eagly and Chaiken (1993) outline a possible com-
posite model of the attitude^behaviour relation that
encompasses an extended set of variables. In the
model, behaviour originates in the activation of ha-
bits, attitudes towards targets (e.g. the environ-
ment), and three classes of anticipated outcomes of
the behaviour. These three classes are self-identity,
utilitarian, and normative. Self-identity outcomes
377
refer to the positive or negative e¡ects on the self-
concept that are anticipated to follow from the be-
haviour. Utilitarian outcomes are the rewards and
punishments that follow from the behaviour. Norma-
tive outcomes consist of how much signi¢cant
others are expected to approve or disapprove the be-
haviour and the self-administered rewards and pun-
ishments that follow from internalized moral rules.
All of these ¢ve factors have a direct impact on at-
titudes toward speci¢c behaviours, which in turn di-
rectly in£uence intention and behaviour. In addition
to their impact on attitudes towards behaviours,
normative and self-identity outcomes may have a di-
rect impact on attitudes toward targets and beha-
viours. Attitudes towards the speci¢c behaviour
may impinge directly on the behaviour without med-
iation by intention. As a summary of their view,
Eagly and Chaiken (1993) emphasize that attitudes
should be placed in the context of other psychologi-
cal factors also determining behaviour (e.g. habits,
norms) in order to improve the understanding of
the relation between attitudes and behaviour. In ef-
fect, they suggest an extended expectancy-value con-
ceptual framework. An important point is that it
incorporates general attitudes (e.g. environmental
concern) as a determinent of attitudes towards spe-
ci¢c behaviours (e.g. recycling). Furthermore,
although proponents for expectancy-value theories
have objected to or remained silent on the issue,
we see no reason why the model cannot be augmen-
ted with process assumptions.
We see a need for changing, as well as adding,
some assumptions to the Eagly and Chaiken model.
First, we introduce a time dimension. As illustrated
in Figure 2, consistent with the Biel and Dahlstrand
model, we assume that a positive attitude towards
the behaviour leads to the development of a habit.
In accordance with Triandis (1977), we assume a
complementary relation between habit and inten-
tion. When a habit increases in strength it becomes
a more important determinant than intention and
vice versa. Three components determine the attitude
towards the speci¢c behaviour: attitude towards the
target, evaluations of anticipated self-identity out-
comes, and evaluations of anticipated utilitarian
outcomes. As an example, an increased positive eva-
luation of or attitude towards the target (e.g. in-
creased environmental concern) causes a more
positive attitude towards a speci¢c pro-environmen-
tal behaviour. The relative weight of this attitude in
determining intention then increases, thus may led
to a behavioural change. We further assume that
the evaluation of the three components depend on
values or value orientations. In this way it will be
378 N. Fransson and T. GÌrling
FIGURE 2. Process model building on the attitude^behaviour model proposed by Eagly and Chaiker (1993)
possible to understand how di¡erences in values or
value orientations account for di¡erences in envir-
onmental concern and, to some lower degree, di¡er-
ences in intentions to perform pro-environmental
behaviours. Normative outcomes directly in£uence
intentions. If norms are salient, then their relative
weight increases. Thus, it is possible that a positive
general attitude towards the environment does not
lead to intentions to perform pro-environmental be-
haviours if social in£uences or internalized social
norms are opposed to such behaviours.
Although TPB goes some way in dealing with how
intentions are implemented in behaviour, later de-
velopments have focused more directly on the issue.
This is also the case in the process models pre-
viously reviewed. Thus, for instance, situational con-
straints (e.g. economic, lack of opportunities) are
also important and must be taken into account.
Gollwitzer (1993, 1996) identi¢es two reasons why in-
tentions are not implemented; either that the inten-
tion is weak so that it is overridden by competing
intentions or habits, or that the behaviour is insu¤-
ciently planned. In the latter case, situational
constraints may more easily prevent the implemen-
tation of the intention. Several recent empirical stu-
dies demonstrate the important role the formation
of plans play in the implementation of behaviours
(Gollwitzer & BrandstÌtter, 1997; Orbell et al.,
1997; Gillholm et al., in press). In Gollwitzer's theory,
planning is akin to mentally rehearsing a behaviour
and may therefore have similar e¡ects to forming a
habit. This is related to assumptions made in the
Dahlstrand and Biel process model about how alter-
native behaviours are searched and evaluated. Also,
ThÖgersen (1996) notes the importance of providing
opportunities for recycling. Of course, in this case
the need for mental rehearsal is minimized. In con-
trast, Orbell et al. (1997) found an e¡ect on a health-
related behaviour when instructions were given to
mentally rehearse the behaviour.
The synthesis proposed here integrates both en-
vironmental concern de¢ned in a general way (i.e.
attitudes towards targets) and de¢ned more nar-
rowly (i.e. attitudes towards speci¢c pro-environ-
mental behaviours). Furthermore, habit, norms, and
situational constraints are all factors in£uencing
behaviour, either directly or indirectly through in-
tention. Outcomes of the behaviour may both be re-
lated to self-identity and presumably more strongly
connected to values or utilitarian outcomes. Ob-
viously, there are many possible determinants of a
pro-environmental behaviour. Thus, the same beha-
viour may be performed for di¡erent reasons (e.g.
normative or attitudinal) by di¡erent individuals
or by the same individual at di¡erent times. Only
if all other factors are equal, increasing environ-
mental concern should increase the likelihood that
a pro-environmental behaviour is performed.
 Environmental Concern
Summary and conclusions
Environmental concern is often identi¢ed as a gen-
eral attitude (Dunlap & Van Liere, 1978; Arcury &
Christianson, 1990). Accordingly, attitude theories
(Ajzen & Fishbein, 1977) have shaped the research
focusing on factors in£uencing and in£uenced by
environmental concern. However, since methods of
measuring environmental concern was developed
early (Maloney et al., 1973, 1975; Dunlap & van Liere,
1978), they have not taken full advantage of later si-
milar developments in attitude research (Weigel,
1983; Ajzel, 1989, 1991). In more recent models for at-
titude measurement, it is assumed that knowledge
of a certain fact in£uences that attitude to it. For
instance, if people are not convinced that a speci¢c
factor contributes to environmental deterioration,
they will not have a negative attitude towards it.
Current measurement methods also pay attention
to the fact that the relationship between attitude
and behaviour is imperfect. If the attitude is not
measured closely in time and at the same level of
speci¢city as the behaviour, there is seldom a strong
relationship. It is also important that the behaviour
is not too strongly in£uenced by circumstances be-
yond the individual's control (Ajzen, 1989).
In research focusing on factors in£uencing envir-
onmental concern, some socio-demographic factors
have been found to consistently have in£uences.
These are education (Van Liere & Dunlap, 1980;
Howell & Laska, 1992), age (Van Liere &
Dunlap, 1981; Arcury & Christianson, 1990; Gamba
& Oskamp, 1994), residential area (Arcury &
Christianson, 1990; Howell & Laska, 1992), and poli-
tical ideology (Dunlap, 1975, Van Liere & Dunlap,
1981). However, the relationships seem to have wea-
kened in recent years. According to Van Liere and
Dunlap (1980), increasingly widespread environmen-
tal concern may account for this.
A few studies have examined the association be-
tween environmental concern and environmentally
responsible behaviour. According to the results from
attitude research, such an association can only be
expected under certain conditions. For example,
Stern and Oskamp (1987) drew the conclusion that
environmental concern correlates with environmen-
tally responsible behaviour only if the attitude and
behaviour are measured at the same level of speci¢-
city, and if the behaviour is easy to perform. Other
research has shown that environmentally responsi-
ble behaviour is in£uenced by various factors, of
which environmental concern is only one. Addi-
tional factors in£uencing behaviour are knowledge
(Stern, 1992), locus of control (Hines et al., 1987),
379
personal norm (Hopper & Nielsen, 1991), environ-
mental or personal responsibility (Van Liere &
Dunlap, 1978), verbal commitment (Hines et al.,
1987), and perceived health threats (Baldassare &
Katz, 1992). The results concerning relationships
with socio-demographic factors are generally weak
and partly contradictory (Hines et al., 1987; Prester
et al., 1987; Oskamp et al., 1991; Baldassare & Katz,
1992).
Environmentally responsible behaviour obviously
has several determinants. These determinants may
be di¡erent for di¡erent individuals, but also for
the same individual at di¡erent points in time. In
this light, the most promising approach should be
to specify the process leading to environmentally
responsible behaviours (Schwartz, 1977; Hines et al.,
1987; Dahlstrand & Biel, 1997). With adequate data
such models can be empirically tested with the use
of currently available methods of regression analy-
sis. Hopefully future studies will be more geared to-
wards process analysis. In this article a synthesis of
the reviewed process models has been proposed
which may be used to guide future research. Both
narrowly de¢ned and more generally de¢ned envir-
onmental concerns are important determinants of
pro-environmental behaviour.
One remaining important question is how people
become environmentally concerned and, accord-
ingly, motivated to behave in an environmentally re-
sponsible manner. In Hines et al.'s (1987) review of
experimental studies that have investigated di¡er-
ent strategies to increase environmentally responsi-
ble behaviour, it was shown that the most e¡ective
strategies combined the following factors; knowl-
edge about environmental problems, discussion
about alternative solutions to such problems, devel-
opment of problem analysis and problem-solving
ability, value discussions, and skill training. One
possible interpretation of these results is that heigh-
tened environmental concern results in behavioural
change. A meta-analysis was conducted of studies
that used di¡erent types of behaviour-modifying
strategies to increase a speci¢c behaviour. All four
strategies, appeal, incentive, information, and feed-
back, increased the frequency of the desired beha-
viour. In Hine and Gi¡ord (1991), exposing people
to a fear appeal related to an environmental pro-
blem increased their intention to behave in an en-
vironmentally responsible manner, as well as their
actual behaviour. This clear-cut e¡ect of a simple
and cheap information intervention highlights the
possible importance of environmental concern. In
general, however, the relationship is unlikely to be
that direct.
380 N. Fransson and T. GÌrling
Notes
Reprint requests and correspondence should be addressed
to: Tommy GÌrling, Department of Psychology, University
of GÎteborg, P.O. Box 500, SE-40530, GÎteborg, Sweden.
Tel (voice): +46 (0) 31 773 1881. Fax +46 (0) 31 773 4628.
E-mail: Tommy.Garling@psy.gu.se
This research was ¢nancially supported in part by
grant #93 -315 -22 from the Swedish Transport and Com-
munications Research Board, in part by a grant from the
Center of Environmental Research at UmeÔ University.
The authors thank John ThÖgersen and an anonymous re-
viewer for valuable comments.
References
Ajzen, I. (1985). From intentions to actions: A theory of
planned behaviour. In J. Kuhl & J. Beckmann, (Eds),
Action-control: From cognition to behaviour. Heidelberg:
Springier, pp. 11^39.
Ajzen, I. (1989). Attitude structure and behaviour. In
A. R. Pratkanis, S. J. Breckler & A. G. Greenwald,
(Eds), Attitude structure and function. Hillsdale, N.J.:
Erlbaum, pp. 241^274.
Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behaviour. Organiza-
tional Behavior and Human Decision Process, 50,
179^211.
Ajzen I. & Fishbein, M. (1977). Attitude-behaviour rela-
tions: A theoretical analysis and review of empirical
research. Psychological Bulletin, 84, 888^918.
Arcury, T. A. & Christianson, E. H. (1990). Environmental
worldview in response to environmental problems:
Kentucky 1984 and 1988 compared. Environment
Behavior, 22, 387^407.
Axelrod, L. J. (1994). Balancing personal needs with envir-
onmental preservation: Identifying the values that
guide decisions in ecological dilemmas. Journal of
Social Issues, 50, 85^104.
Bagozzi, R. P. (1993). On the neglect of volition in consu-
mer research: A critique and proposal. Psychology and
Marketing, 10, 215^237.
Bagozzi, R. P. & Warshaw, P. R. (1990). Trying to consume.
Journal of Consumer Research, 17, 127^140.
Baldassare, M. & Katz, C. (1992). The personal threat of
environmental problems as predictor of environmen-
tal practices. Environment and Behavior, 24, 602^616.
Beck, L. & Ajzen, I. (1991). Predicting dishonest action
using the theory of planned behavior. Journal of Re-
search in Personality, 25, 285^301.
Biel, A. & GÌrling, T. (1995). The role of uncertainty in re-
source dilemmas. Journal of Environmental Psychology,
15, 221^233.
Black, J. S., Stern, P. C. & Elworth, J. T. (1985). Personal
and contextual in£uences on household energy adap-
tations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 70, 3^21.
Borden, R. J. & Francis, J. L. (1978). Who cares about ecol-
ogy? Personality and sex di¡erences in environmental
concern. Journal of Personality, 46, 190^203.
Clayton, S. (1998). Preference for macrojustice versus mi-
crojustice in environmental decisions. Environment
and Behavior, 30, 162^183.
Cvetkovich, G. & Earle, T. C. (1994). The construction of
justice: A case study of public participation in land
management. Journal of Social Issues, 50, 161^178.
Dahlstrand, U. & Biel, A. (1997). Pro-environmental ha-
bits: Propensity levels in behavioural change. Journal
of Applied Social Psychology, 27, 588^601.
Daneshvary, N., Daneshvary, R. & Schwer, R. K. (1998). So-
lid-waste recycling behavior and support for curbside
textile recycling. Environment and Behavior, 30,
144^161.
Davidson, D. J. & Freudenburg, W. R. (1996). Gender and
environmental risk concerns: A review and analysis
of available research. Environment and Behavior, 28,
302^339.
Dawes, R. M. (1980). Social dilemmas. Annual Review of
Psychology, 46, 190^203.
Dunlap, R. E. (1975). The impact of political orientation on
environmental attitudes and actions. Environment and
Behaviour, 7, 428^454.
Dunlap, R. E. & Van Liere, K. D. (1978). The `new environ-
mental paradigm'. Journal of Environmental Education,
9, 10^19.
Dunlap, R. E. & Van Liere, K. D. (1984). Commitment to
the dominant social paradigm and concern for envir-
onmental quality. Social Science Quarterly, 64, 1013^
1028.
Dwyer, W. O., Leeming, F. C., Cobern, M. K., Porter, B. E.
& Jackson, J. M. (1993). Critical review of behavioral
interventions to preserve the environment: Research
since 1980. Environment and Behavior, 25, 275^321.
Eagly, A. H. & Chaiken, S. (1993). The psychology of attitudes.
Forth Worth: Harcourt Brace College Publishers.
Eagly, A. H. & Kulesa, P. (1997). Attitudes, attitude struc-
ture, and resistance to change: Implications for
persuasion on environmental issues. In M. H.
Bazerman, D. M. Messick, A. E. Tenbrunsel &
K. A. Wade-Benzoni, (Eds), Environment, ethics, and be-
havior: The psychology of environmental valuation and
degradation. San Fransisco: New Lexington Press.
Feather, N. T. (1982). Human values and the prediction
of action: An expectancy-valence analysis. In
N. T. Feather, (Ed.), Expectation and actions: Expec-
tancy-value models in psychology. Hillsdale, NJ:
Erlbaum, pp. 263^289.
Fishbein, M. & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention,
and behaviour: An introduction to theory and research.
Reading MA: Addision-Wesley.
Gamba, R. J. & Oskamp, S. (1994). Factors in£uencing
community residents' participation in commingled
curbside recycling programs. Environment and Beha-
vior, 26, 587^612.
Gardner, G. T. & Stern, P. C. (1996). Environmental problems
and human behavior. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn &
Bacon.
Gillholm, R., Ettema, D., Selarf, M. & GÌrling, T. (in
press). The role of planning for intention^behavior
consistency. Scandinavion Journal of Psychology.
Gollwitzer, P. M. (1993). Goal achievement: The role of in-
tentions. European Review of Social Psychology, 4,
141^185.
Gollwitzer, P. M. (1996). The volitional bene¢ts of plan-
ning. In P. M. Gollwitzer & J. A. Bargh, (Eds), The
psychology of action: Linking cognition and motivation
to behavior. New York: Guilford Press, pp. 287^312.
 Environmental Concern
Gollwitzer, P. M. & BrandstÌtter, V. (1997). Implementation
intentions and e¡ective goal pursuit. Journal of Per-
sonality and Social Psychology, 73, 186^199.
Guagnano, G. A., Stern, P. C. & Dietz, T. (1995). In£uences
on attitude^behavior relationships: A natural experi-
ment with curbside recycling. Environment and Beha-
vior, 27, 699^718.
Halford, G. S. & Sheehan, P. W. (1991). Human response to
environmental changes. International Journal of Psy-
chology, 26, 599^611.
Hardin, G. (1968). The tragedy of the commons. Science,
162, 1243^1248.
Hine, D. W. & Gi¡ord, R. (1991). Fear appeals, individual
di¡erences, and environmental concern. Journal of
Environmental Education, 23, 36^41.
Hines, J. M., Hungerford, H. R. & Tomera, A. N. (1987).
Analysis and synthesis of research on responsible en-
vironmental behavior: A meta-analysis. Journal of En-
vironmental Education, 18, 1^18.
Hopper, J. R. & Nielsen, J. M. (1991). Recycling as altruis-
tic behavior: Normative and behavioral strategies to
expand participation in a community recycling pro-
gram. Environment and Behavior, 23, 195^220.
Howell, S. E. & Laska, S. B. (1992).. The changing face of
the environmental coalition: A research note. Envir-
onment and Behavior, 24, 134^144.
Kaiser, F. G. (1997). Motivational aspects of morality: Re-
sponsibility as a predictor of ecological behavior. Unpub-
lished manuscript.
Kerr, N. L. (1995). Norms in social dilemmas. In D. A.
Schroeder, (Ed.), Social dilemmas: Perspectives on indi-
viduals and groups. Westport, CT: Praeger, pp. 31^47.
Kristiansen, C. M. & Zanna, M. P. (1988). Justifying atti-
tudes by appealing to values: A functional perspec-
tive. British Journal of Social Psychology, 15, 570^581.
Lewin, K. (1958). Group decision and social change. In E.
E. Maccoby, T. M. Newcombe & E. L. Hartley, (Eds),
Reading in social psychology. New York: Holt, Rine-
hart, and Winston, pp. 459^473.
Maloney, M. P. & Ward, M. P. (1973). Ecology: Let's hear
from the people. An objective scale for the measure-
ment of ecological attitudes and knowledge. American
Psychologist, 28, 583^586.
Maloney, M. P., Waard, M. P. & Braucht, G. N. (1975). Psy-
chology in action: A revised scale for the measure-
ment of ecological attitudes and knowledge.
American Psychologist, 30, 787^790.
Maslow, A. H. (1970). Motivation and personality. New York:
V|king Press.
Netemeyer, R. G., Burton, S. & Johnston, M. (1991). A com-
parison of two models for the prediction of volitional
and goal-directed behaviors: A conformatory analysis
approach. Social Psychology Quarterly, 54, 87^100.
Newhouse, N. (1990). Implications of attitude and behavior
research for environmental conservation. Journal of
Environmental Education, 22, 26^32.
Nord, M., Lulo¡, A. E. & Bridger, J. C. (1988). The associa-
tion of forest recreation with environmentalism. En-
vironment and Behavior, 30, 235^246.
Úlander, F. & ThÖgersen, J. (1995). Understanding consu-
mer behavior as a prerequisite for environmental pro-
tection. Journal of Consumer Policy, 18, 345^385.
Olsen, M. E. (1981). Consumers' attitudes toward energy
conservation. Journal of Social Issues, 37, 108^131.
381
Orbell, S., Hodgkins, S. & Sheeran, P. (1997). Implementa-
tion intentions and the theory of planned behavior.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23, 945^954.
Oskamp, S., Harrington, M. J., Edwards, T. C., Sherwood,
D. L., Okuda, S. M. & Swanson, D. C. (1991). Factors
in£uencing household recycling behavior. Environment
and Behavior, 23, 494^519.
Ouellete, J. E. & Wood, W. (1998). Habit and intention in
everyday life: The multiple processes by which past
behavior predicts future behavior. Psychological Bulle-
tin, 124, 54^74.
Pawlik, K. (1991). The psychology of global environmental
change: Some basic data and an agenda for coopera-
tive international research. International Journal of
Psychology, 26, 547^563.
Prester, G., Rohrmann, B. & Schellhammer, E. (1987). En-
vironmental evaluations and participation activities:
A social psychological ¢eld study. Journal of Applied
Social Psychology, 17, 751^787.
Rokeach, M. (1973). The nature of human values. New York:
Free Press.
Ronis, D. L., Yates, J. F. & Kirscht, J. P. (1989). Attitudes,
decisions, and habits as determinants of repeated be-
havior. In A. R. Pratkanis, S. J. Breckler & A. G.
Greenwald, (Eds), Attitude structure and function.
Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, pp. 213^239.
Samdahl, D. M. & Robertson, R. (1989). Social determi-
nants of environmental concern: Speci¢cation and
test of the model. Environment and Behaviour, 21, 57^
81.
Schahn, J. & Holzer, E. (1990). Studies of individual envir-
onmental concern: The role of knowledge, gender, and
background variables. Environment and Behavior, 22,
767^786.
Schwartz, S. H. (1968). Words, deeds, and the perception of
consequences and responsibility in action situations.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 10, 232^
242.
Schwartz, S. H. (1977). Normative in£uences on altruism.
In L. Berkowitz, (Ed.), Advances in experimental social
psychology, Vol. 10. New York: Academic Press, pp. 221^
279.
Schwartz, S. (1992) Universals in the content and struc-
tures of values: Theoretical advances and empirical
tests in 20 countries. In M. Zanna, (Ed.), Advances in
Experimental Social Psychology, Vol. 25. Orlando, FL:
Academic Press, pp. 1^65.
Schwartz, S. H. & Bilsky, W. (1987). Toward a universal psy-
chological structure of human values. Journal of Per-
sonality and Social Psychology, 53, 550^562.
Schwartz, S. H. & Bilsky, W. (1990). Toward a theory of the
universal content and structure of values: Extension
and cross-cultural replications. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 58, 878^891.
Seligman, C., Syme, G. J. & Gilchrist, R. (1994). The role of
values and ethical principles in judgements on envir-
onmental dilemmas. Journal of Social Issues, 50, 105^
119.
Simmons, D. & Widmar, R. (1990). Motivations and bar-
riers to recycling: Toward a strategy for public educa-
tion. Journal of Environmental Education, 22, 13^18.
SjÎberg, L. (1989). Global change and human action: Psy-
chological perspectives. International Social Science
Journal, 121, 414^432.
 382 N. Fransson and T. GÌrling
Stern, P. C. (1992). Psychological dimensions of global en-
vironmental change. Annual Review of Psychology, 43,
269^302.
Stern, P. & Dietz, T. (1994). The value basis of environmen-
tal concern. Journal of Social Issues, 50, 65^84.
Stern, P. C., Dietz, T. & Black, J. S. (1986). Support for en-
vironmental protection: The role of moral norms.
Population and Environment, 8, 204^222.
Stern, P. C., Dietz, T. & Kalof, L. (1993). Value orientations,
gender, and environmental concern. Environment and
Behavior, 25, 322^348.
Stern, P. C., Dietz, T., Kalof, L. & Guagnano, G. A. (1995).
Values, beliefs and pro-environmental action: Attitude
formation toward emergent attitude objects. Journal
of Applied Social Psychology, 25, 1611^1636.
Stern, P. C. & Oskamp, S. (1987). Managing scarce envir-
onmental resources. In D. Stokols & I. Altman, (Eds),
Handbook of environmental psychology,Vol. 2. New York:
Wiley, pp. 1043^1088.
Takala, M. (1991). Environmental awareness and human
activity. International Journal of Psychology, 26,
585^597.
Taylor, D. M. & Moghaddam, F. M. (1994). Theories of inter-
group relations: International social psychological per-
spectives (2nd edn). Westport, CT: Praeger.
Thompson, S. C. G. & Barton, M. A. (1994). Ecocentric and
anthropocentric attitudes toward the environment.
Journal of Environmental Psychology, 14, 149^157.
ThÖgersen, J. (1996). Recycling and morality: A critical re-
view of the literature. Environment and Behavior, 28,
536^558.
ThÖgersen, J. & Grunert-Beckman, S. C. (1997). Values and
attitude formation towards emerging attitude objects:
View publication stats
From recycling to general, waste minimizing beha-
vior. In D. MacInnis & M. Brucks, (Eds), Advances in
consumer research, Vol. XXIV. Provo: Association for
Consumer Research, pp. 182^189.
Triandis, H. C. (1977). Interpersonal behaviour. Monterey,
CA: Brooks/Cole.
Van Liere, K. D. & Dunlap, R. E. (1978). Moral norms and
environmental behavior: An application of Schwartz's
norm-activation model to yard burning. Journal of
Applied Social Psychology, 8, 174^188.
Van Liere, K. D. & Dunlap, R. E. (1980). The social bases of
environmental concern: A review of hypotheses, ex-
planations and empirical evidence. Public Opinion
Quarterly, 44, 181^197.
Van Liere, K. D. & Dunlap, R. E. (1981). Environmental
concern: Does it make a di¡erence how it's measured?
Environment and Behavior, 13, 651^676.
Watson, R. K., Murphy, M. & Moore, S. (1992). Developmen-
tal and social contextual variables in water usage beha-
viour. Poster presented at XXV international congress
of psychology, Brussels, Belgium.
Weigel, R. H. (1983). Environmental attitudes and the pre-
diction of behavior. In N. R. Feimer & E. S. Geller,
(Eds), Environmental psychology: Directions and per-
spectives. New York: Preager, pp. 257^287.
Weigel, R. & Weigel, J. (1978). Environmental concern: The
development of a measure. Environment and Behavior,
10, 3^15.
Widegren, Ú. (1998). The new environmental paradigm
and personal norms. Environment and Behaviour, 30,
75^100.