Journal of Environmental Psychology 44 (2015) 119e125

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Environmental Psychology

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jep

The value-belief-norm theory, personal norms and sustainable travel

mode choice in urban areas
Hans Brende Lind a, Trond Nordfjærn b, Stig Halvard Jørgensen c, Torbjørn Rundmo a, *
a
Department of Psychology, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, 7491 Trondheim, Norway
b
NTNU Social Research Studio Apertura, 7491 Trondheim, Norway
c
Department of Geography, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, 7491 Trondheim, Norway

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: To examine determinants of environmentally significant transport behaviour could contribute to the
Received 25 August 2014 development of efforts aimed to influence people's travel mode choice in a sustainable manner. Travel
Received in revised form mode choices are especially interesting in urban areas where sustainable public transportation is
26 May 2015
available. The aim of this study is to investigate whether the value-belief-norm theory can explain re-
Accepted 2 June 2015
Available online 30 July 2015
ported travel mode change in the Norwegian urban population. The results are based on a self-
completion questionnaire survey carried out among representative samples in six urban areas in Nor-
way (n ¼ 1043). Using structural equation modelling, values and beliefs explained 58 per cent of the
Keywords:
Travel mode choice
variance in personal norms. Three groups of transport mode users were identified: Frequent users of
Urban areas public transportation, frequent users of a car, and a group of people frequently walking or using bicycle.
Value-belief-norm theory Both personal norms and situational factors were found to be significant predictors of reported travel
Situational factors mode choice.
© 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction significant behaviour due to its potential impact on the environ-

A reduction in the number of journeys made by car and other
motorised private travel modes are important for reducing traffic
accidents, air pollution and other negative environmental effects in
urban areas. Globally, emissions from motor vehicles contribute
substantially to the release of greenhouse gas and other pollutants.
Within the European Union, road transport generates approxi-
mately twenty per cent of the total CO2 emissions (Commission of
the European Communities, 2007). Increases in motor vehicle
density have resulted in a total increase of 25 per cent in CO2
emissions between 1990 and 2004. Motor vehicle density is espe-
cially a problem in urban areas and the population density is
currently increasing. Transport accidents and injuries occur
frequently in urban areas and they are partly related to population
density and expanding mobility needs. If the current level of pri-
ority given to countermeasures remains stable, the relative number
of environmentally negative effects may be expected to increase in
the near future.
Travel mode choices can be conceived as an environmentally
* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: torbjorn.rundmo@svt.ntnu.no (T. Rundmo).
ment (Stern, 2000). However, there is no clear-cut definition of
what constitutes environmentally friendly travel mode choice.
Virtually all travel modes involve the use of some amount of energy,
materials and land use. The current study assumes that the choice
of public transportation and active transportation (walking and
cycling) can be defined as sustainable compared to car use in terms
of environmental impact. In urban areas the public more often has
the option to choose between public transportation and private
travel modes compared to the public in rural areas. Consequently,
values and normative factors may to a larger extent influence on
travel mode choice in urban areas and therefore it is especially
relevant to examine the associations between such factors and
travel choices use in the urban public.
1.1. Value-belief-norm theory of environmentalism
According to (Stern and Dietz, 1994; Stern, Dietz, Abel,
Guagnano, & Kalof, 1999, 2000) choosing environmentally
friendly modes of transportation can be based on a sense of moral
obligation to act in a sustainable fashion. Stern's value-belief-norm
theory of environmentalism (VBN theory; Stern, 2000; Stern, et. al.,
1999) provides a framework for investigating normative factors

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2015.06.001
0272-4944/© 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
120 H.B. Lind et al. / Journal of Environmental Psychology 44 (2015) 119e125
that promote sustainable attitudes and behaviour. The theory in-
tegrates value theory (Schwartz, 1992), the new environmental
paradigm perspective (NEP; Dunlap, Van Liere, Mertig, & Jones,
2000), and norm-activation theory (NAM; Schwartz, 1977). It sug-
gests a chain of variables, from values and general environmental
concern to specific beliefs about the negative consequences of
certain actions and the individuals' ability and responsibility to
avert these negative consequences, which in turn activates sus-
tainable personal norms for behaviour.
Schwartz (1992, p. 21) has defined a value as “a desirable
transsituational goal varying in importance, which serves as a
guiding principle in the life of a person or other social entity”.
Values are thought to influence behaviour indirectly, through
directing attention towards value congruent information and
influencing the perception of this information. Based on Schwartz
(1992) value survey, De Groot and Steg (2007, 2008) have devel-
oped an instrument that measures value types believed to be
particularly important precursors of environmental beliefs and
behaviours. The instrument includes biospheric, egoistic and
altruistic value orientations. It has later been expanded to also
include hedonistic values (Steg, Perlaviciute, van der Werff, &
Lurvink, 2014). The new environmental paradigm (NEP) empha-
sises beliefs in the limits of growth, the necessity of balancing
economic growth with environmental protection, and the need to
preserve the balance of nature (Dunlap & Van Liere, 1978; Dunlap
et al., 2000; Dunlap, 2008). The paradigm encompasses general
beliefs about the environment, awareness of environmental prob-
lems and acknowledgement of the need for sustainable develop-
ment. Condoning such beliefs has been found to be associated with
environmental beliefs and attitudes (Pierce, Dalton, & Zaitsev, 1999;
Stern, Dietz, & Guagnano, 1995). Several studies carried out during
two decades have given evidence for the applicability of the NEP
scale (see Dunlap et al., 2000). According to norm-activation theory
(Schwartz, 1977), pro-social behaviour, e.g. the choice of environ-
mentally friendly travel modes, should occur as a response to
personal norms about such behaviour. The theory argues that be-
liefs about the environment influences the individuals' awareness
of the consequences (AC) related to specific behaviours and beliefs
about the ability to avert the noxious consequences of these be-
haviours (ascription of responsibility, AR). Several studies have
given support to the idea that norm-activation may be important
for a variety of sustainable behaviours (Stern, Dietz, & Kalof, 1993;
Guagnano, 1995; see also Stern et al., 1999). Beliefs focussing on
general environmental conditions and specific sustainable behav-
iours have to be distinguished (Black, Stern, & Elworth, 1985; Stern
et al., 1999; Nordlund & Garvill, 2003). According to Steg,
Dreijerink, and Abrahamse (2005) the predictive power of Value-
Belief-Norm models enhance when AC and AR predict specific
behaviour. These specific beliefs lead to activation of personal
norms and personal norms may influence various types of sus-
tainable behaviours (Stern, 2000; see also Stern et al., 1999). It also
determines whether the individual feels morally obliged to act in
environmentally friendly ways (Steg, 2005).
1.2. VBN-theory and pro-envionmental behaviour e empirical
studies
Several studies have given support to the applicability of the
value-belief-norm theory to predict various types of specific
sustainable behaviours (Steg & Vlek, 2009). A study conducted
among 112 residents of the Dutch city of Groeningen showed that
the model explained acceptability of energy policies to reduce the
emission of CO2 by households (Steg et al., 2005). According to De
Groot and Steg (2008), the fit of the VBN theory based model to
the data was acceptable. VBN theory has been applied to predict
attitudes and behaviour related to transport mode choice. De
Groot and Steg (2009) found that awareness of the environ-
mental consequences of car choice and feelings of responsibility
for these consequences were related to a sense of moral obligation
to reduce car use, which in turn was associated with acceptance of
transport policies increasing the cost associated with car use.
Eriksson, Garvill and Nordlund (2006, 2008) found that accept-
ability of different transport policy measures was related to sus-
tainable orientation, problem awareness and personal norms.
Results based on data from five European countries showed that
the VBN theory predicted an acceptable percentage of the
acceptability of road pricing, as well as the intention to reduce
own car use when such a policy are implemented (De Groot &
Steg, 2008). Comparing variables from the theory of planned
behaviour (Ajzen, 1985) and norm activation theory, Abrahmse
et al. (2009) showed that car choice for commuting was chiefly
explained by perceived behavioural control and attitudes, while
the intention to reduce car use was explained by personal norms.
The VBN theory was also found to be suitable in Argentina, thus
indicating that the theory is not culture specific (Jakovcevic &
Steg, 2013). In addition to testing the model in a Norwegian
context, it is also interesting to investigate the associations be-
tween personal norms and travel mode choice controlling for
situational factors.
1.3. Situational and contextual factors
Certain situational or contextual factors can constrain or
promote sustainable behaviour (e.g. Black et al., 1985; Tanner,
1999). Relevant when considering choice of transport among
commuters are costs and availability of different travel modes.
Previous work has also included such situational factors when
examining the VBN-model. The costs associated with car
ownership could constitute a strong constrain on the choice of
transport mode, especially for individuals with low income. In
addition, large distances from home to work or to the nearest
point of public transportation can make the choice of public
transportation difficult. Limtanakool, Dijst, and Schwanen (2006)
showed that among medium- and longer-distance commuters,
demographic characteristics and availability of transport modes
were important factors in determining transport mode choice.
They found that males relied more on private car than females,
higher education was associated with the choice of public
transportation, and that car availability had a strong negative
influence on the likelihood of using public transportation. In one
of the studies which adjusted for situational factors, Collin and
Chambers (2005) investigated the relative contribution of
values, beliefs and situational factors on commuter-transport
mode choice. They found that egoistic beliefs, costs and avail-
ability were related to transport mode choice. Neither biospheric
nor altruistic values were found to be significantly associated
with transport mode choice when controlling for other variables.
External constraints may therefore play a role in determining
travel mode choice in addition to values, beliefs and personal
norms.
The main aim of the current study was to investigate the VBN-
model applying structural equation modelling and to examine the
relative importance of situational and psychological factors in
explaining travel mode choice among a sample of the Norwegian
urban public. The specific aims were: (1) to analyse predictors of
personal norms, and (2) to examine the association between per-
sonal norms and travel mode choice, controlling for situational
factors.
 H.B. Lind et al. / Journal of Environmental Psychology 44 (2015) 119e125
2. Method
2.1. Procedure
The results of the current study are based on a self-completion
questionnaire survey carried out in year 2013 in a random repre-
sentative sample of the urban Norwegian population. The sample
was obtained electronically by a firm with access to the Norwegian
population registry. The six largest and most urbanised regions of
Norway were selected. Respondents living in these six regions were
randomly selected. The sample was restricted to individuals who
were 18 years or above. The urban regions included residents of the
central Oslo region in the urbanized south-eastern area of Norway,
of the municipalities of Skien and Porsgrunn area, of the central
Trondheim region in the mid-Norway, of the central Stavanger area,
of the central Bergen region in the south western part of the
country, and the municipality of Tromsø in northern Norway (see
Nordfjærn, Lind, Şimşekog
lu, Jørgensen, & Rundmo, 2014 for
details).
2.2. Sample
A total of 1043 individuals participated in the study (18%
response rate). The sample consisted of 463 males (44%) and 579
females (56%). The average age was 41.4 years (SD ¼ 12.1) and
ranged from 18 to 74 years. About 4% of the respondents had
completed basic education, 19% had completed vocational sec-
ondary education, 13% had completed general secondary education,
22% had achieved a bachelor degree or equivalent, and 43% had
achieved a masters' degree or equivalent. In general, there were no
significant differences in demographic characteristics between the
six subsamples. According to Nordfjærn et al. (2014) relatively low
response rates are common in transport population studies (see
also Castanier, Paran, & Delhomme, 2012; Moan, 2013). In a random
sample the research topic is salient only for a small part of the
public.
2.3. Measures
Value orientation was assessed using a measure developed by
De Groot and Steg (2007, 2008) (see also Steg et al., 2014). The scale
includes four items measuring biospheric values, four items
measuring altruistic values, three items measuring hedonic values
and five items measuring egoistic values. In the same manner as
described by Schwartz (1992), the respondents were asked to rate
the importance of each value item as “a guiding principle” in their
lives on a 9-point scale ranging from “extremely important” (7) to
“opposed to my principles” (1).
General environmental beliefs were measured using 13 selected
items from the revised new environmental paradigm scale (NEP)
(Dunlap, 2008; Dunlap et al., 2000). Responses were recorded on a
5-point scale ranging from “highly disagree” (1) to “highly agree”
(5). Items measuring awareness of consequences (AC), ascription of
responsibility (AR) and personal norms (PN) were partly adapted
from previous studies (De Groot & Steg, 2007; Abrahmse et al.,
2009) and partly developed for this study in order to be relevant
for Norwegian transport users. AR and PN were measured using
five items each, while AC was measured using six items. The re-
spondents were asked to indicate their agreement with each
statement on a 7-point Likert-type scale, ranging from “totally
disagree” (1) to “totally agree” (7). Table 1 shows the associations
between the indices of value orientation, The New Environmental
Paradigm, dimensions of norm activation, and personal norms.
To measure transport use, respondents were asked to indicate
which modes of transport they used for work travels in an ordinary
121
week, and how often they used each mode of transport, on a 6-
point scale from zero to five or more days per week. Transport
modes included in the study were train, tram, underground, bus,
automobile, bicycle and walking. The respondents were also asked
about the distance from place of residence to workplace (in kilo-
metres) and the walking distance from place of residence to the
nearest point of public transportation. The questionnaire also
contained information about demographic characteristics of the
respondents.
2.4. Statistical analysis
Expectation maximisation was used to deal with missing data.
Cronbach's a were calculated to examine scale reliability and in-
ternal consistency. To analyse associations between the scales,
Pearson's r correlation coefficients were estimated. Confirmatory
factor analysis (CFA) was used to assess the fit of the dimensional
structure of value orientation, NEP and specific beliefs and norms.
Structural equation modelling (SEM) using the covariance matrix
with maximum likelihood (ML) estimation was used to examine
the structural relationship between the variables as proposed by
VBN theory. In the prediction model presented in the results' sec-
tion only the results of the structural model are shown. The fit
between the model and data is assessed with the c2/df-ratio, Root
Means Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA), as well tests of
adaptability, i.e. Comparative Fit Index (CFI), and standardised root
mean squared residual (SRMR). Hierarchical and k-means cluster
analyses were applied to identify travel mode use cluster groups.
Hierarchical cluster analysis was carried out to identify the ideal
number of clusters. When the number of clusters was identified by
hierarchical cluster analysis, a k-means iterative partitioning
method was used. This made it possible to find the best cluster
solution. Logistic block regression was used to predict travel mode
group belongingness on the basis of contextual and demographic
factors, values and beliefs and personal norms. Two models were
tested and investigated. The first aimed to predict choice of public
versus private travel modes and the second model tested use of
active transportation (walking and cycling) versus private car.
3. Results
3.1. Reliability and fit-indices of measures
Descriptive statistics, reliability and internal consistency for the
value dimensions, NEP, AC, AR and PN are shown in Table 1. All
scales showed initially satisfactory reliability and internal consis-
tency, with exception of the NEP-scale where one item was initially
removed due to low inter-item reliability.
The value measure initially showed unsatisfactory fit-indices (c2/
df ¼ 7.29, CFI ¼ 0.92, RMSEA ¼ 0.078, SRMR ¼ 0.048). Inspecting the
residual covariances suggested that the ‘wealth’-item cross-loaded
on several dimensions, and was thus removed. The revised model
showed acceptable fit-indices (c2/df ¼ 4.87, CFI ¼ 0.95,
RMSEA ¼ 0.061, SRMR ¼ 0.048), and was used in further analyses.
The 12 remaining items of the NEP-scale showed acceptable fit (c2/
df ¼ 4.28, CFI ¼ 0.94, RMSEA ¼ 0.056, SRMR ¼ 0.040). Finally,
modelling AC, AR and PN as three latent factors showed satisfactory
fit for all included indices (c2/df ¼ 3.83, CFI ¼ 0.95, RMSEA ¼ 0.052,
SRMR ¼ 0.047).
3.2. Predictors of personal norms (the value-belief-norm theory)
In accordance with previous studies, the initial model was
specified with the hedonic (HED), biospheric (BIO), egoistic (EGO)
and altruistic (ALT) value orientations predicting the NEP, which in
122 H.B. Lind et al. / Journal of Environmental Psychology 44 (2015) 119e125

Table 1
Means, standard deviations (SD) Cronbach' alphas and pariwise correlation coefficients.

Mean SD Cronbach's a PN AC AR NEP EGO BIO

Personal norms (PN) 2.95 1.08 0.70

Awareness of consequences (AC) 3.23 1.19 0.80 0.74
Ascription of responsibility (AR) 5.16 1.14 0.79 0.69 0.51
New environmental paradigm (NEP) 3.57 0.49 0.77 0.69 0.66 0.73
Egoistic values (EGO) 2.51 1.37 0.77 ¡0.21 ¡0.22 ¡0.23 ¡0.34
Altruistic values (ALT) 5.06 1.39 0.81 0.47 0.32 0.47 0.44 0.12
Biospheric values (BIO) 4.55 1.51 0.88 0.62 0.43 0.52 0.66 ¡0.07 0.78
Hedonic values (HED) 4.28 1.36 0.78 ¡0.19 0.07 ¡0.09 0.10 0.46 0.21 0.12

Significant coefficients in bold (p < .05).

turn was allowed to predict AC and AR. AC was allowed to predict

AR and PN, while AR was allowed to predict PN. The initial model
showed acceptable fit indices (c2 ¼ 2806.26, df ¼ 873, c2/df ¼ 3.26,
CFI ¼ 0.90, RMSEA ¼ 0.046, SRMR ¼ 0.062). However, modification
indices suggested adding paths from BIO to PN, from HED to PN,
and from ALT to AR. The paths from ALT to NEP and from HED to
NEP were removed, as they were insignificant at the 95 per cent-
level. Additionally, when ALT and BIO were regressed on by the
same variable, it caused instability in the estimates, probably due to
multicollinearity. The final model can be seen in Fig. 1. Overall, the
fit indices of the model were within acceptable limits
(c2 ¼ 2609.32, df ¼ 871, c2/df ¼ 3.00, CFI ¼ 0.90, RMSEA ¼ 0.044,
SRMR ¼ 0.054). BIO (b ¼ 0.59) and EGO (b ¼ 0.25) was related to
NEP, explaining a total of 42 per cent of the variance. AC was pre-
dicted by NEP (b ¼ 0.55), with an explained variance of 30%. NEP
(b ¼ 0.45) and AC (b ¼ .21) explained 45 percent of the variance in
AR. Finally, 58 per cent of the variance in PN was explained by AC
(b ¼ 0.37), BIO (b ¼ 0.30), AR (b ¼ 0.28) and HED (b ¼ 0.15). All
regression estimates in the final model were significant at the 95
per cent-level. Fig. 2. Travel mode cluster groups (z-scores).

3.4. Predictors of transport group membership

3.3. Travel mode cluster groups
Applying these clusters as dependent variables, hierarchical
Cluster analysis was carried out to construct groups of re-
logistic regression was used to predict group membership (see
spondents based on the items in the questionnaire on z-scores
Table 2). In two separate analyses the car using-group was con-
regarding how often they used various modes of urban transport
trasted with the public transport-using group and active
(bus, train, tram, underground, car, walking, and bicycle) to and
transportation-group. The predictors were added in three blocks.
from place work or education. Using the Ward method, the hier-
Socio-demographic variables, walking distance to nearest public
archical cluster analysis indicated a discontinuity in the change of
transport and the distance between home and workplace or place
the coefficient between the third and fourth cluster, thus three
of education were entered in the first block. Distance to nearest
clusters were used in the subsequent k-means cluster analysis. As
public transport was not included in the model predicting mem-
can be seen in Fig. 2, the first cluster was characterised by using
bership to the cycling/walking-group as it was not relevant for
public modes of transportation, the second cluster by mainly using
these groups. PN was added in the second block, while AC, AR,
active transportation (walking or cycling), and the third cluster by
egoistic, altruistic, biospheric and hedonic values were added in the
using private car.
final block.
Due to the high observed correlations between values, beliefs
and personal norms, some degree of multicollinearity was ex-
pected. Though none of the variables showed variance inflation
factors above the usual recommended limit of 5e10, instability in
the estimates of the coefficients, inflated standard errors and high
average value inflation factors (VIF) were observed. NEP was found
to have a VIF of 4.4, and seemed to be responsible for the high
average VIF. It was therefore deemed necessary to exclude this
variable from the analysis.

3.4.1. Car use versus public transportation

The first block in the model predicting membership to either the
car use-group or the public transport use-group significantly pre-
dicted group membership (c2 ¼ 70.98, p < .001). Age (OR ¼ 0.97,
Fig. 1. Predictors of personal norms (results of SEM-analysis). p < .01), income (OR ¼ 0.69, p < .001), and distance from home to
 H.B. Lind et al. / Journal of Environmental Psychology 44 (2015) 119e125 123

Table 2
Predictors of travel mode cluster group belongingness.

Car group vs.public transport group Car group vs. active transport group

B SEB eB B SEB eB

Block 1:
Intercept 1.12 0.50 0.71 0.43
Age 0.03** 0.01 0.97 0.01 0.01 0.99
Gender (ref. female) 0.49** 0.23 1.62 0.21 0.18 0.81
Education 0.13 0.09 1.14 0.28*** 0.08 1.32
Income 0.38*** 0.11 0.69 0.21 0.10 0.81
Distance home-work (min.) 0.00 0.01 1.00 0.13*** 0.02 0.88
Distance home-public transport (min.) 0.07*** 0.02 0.93
Model c2 70.89*** 117.30***
Cox & Snell's R2 0.12 0.16
Negelkerke's R2 0.17 0.21
Block 2:
Intercept 1.51 0.053 1.03
Age 0.03** 0.01 0.97 0.01 0.45 0.99
Gender (ref. female) 0.32 0.23 1.38 0.36 0.01 0.70
Education 0.07 0.09 1.07 0.21** 0.19 0.23
Income 0.35** 0.12 1.42 0.14 0.08 1.15
Distance home-work (min.) 0.00 0.01 1.00 0.11** 0.02 1.12
Distance home-public transport (min.) 0.07*** 0.02 1.07
Personal norms 0.68*** 0.13 1.97 0.61*** 0.10 1.84
Model x2 104.90*** 146.30***
Block x2 33.95*** 39.05***
Cox & Snell's R2 0.17 0.21
Negelkerke's R2 0.24 0.28
Block 3:
Intercept 1.14 0.58 1.10 0.49
Age 0.03* 0.01 0.97 0.02 0.01 0.99
Gender (ref. female) 0.41 0.25 1.51 0.26 0.21 0.77
Education 0.12 0.19 1.12 0.19 0.09 1.21
Income 0.41** 0.13 0.67 0.13 0.11 0.88
Distance home-work (min.) 0.00 0.01 1.00 0.11*** 0.12 0.90
Distance home-public transport (min.) 0.07*** 0.02 0.93 e e
Personal norms 1.29*** 0.24 3.65 0.60** 0.21 1.81
Awareness of consequences 0.12 0.24 0.89 0.60** 0.22 1.83
Ascription of responsibility 0.59* 0.29 0.55 0.53*** 0.26 0.59
Egoistic values 0.13 0.14 0.88 0.13 0.11 0.88
Altruistic values 0.09 0.16 0.91 0.03 0.15 1.03
Biospheric values 0.28 0.16 0.76 0.18 0.15 0.84
Hedonic values 0.27 0.13 1.32 0.05 0.11 1.05
Model X2 120.50*** 177.80***
Block x2 15.56* 21.49***
Cox & Snell's R2 0.20 0.23
Negelkerke's R2 0.28 0.31

nearest point of public transport were negatively related to being in
the public transport-using group (OR ¼ 0.93, p < .001). Females
were more likely to be in the public transport-using group than
males (OR ¼ 1.63, p < .01). Education and distance from home to
work were not significant predictors (see Table 2). Adding PN
significantly improved the model (Model c2 ¼ 104.93, p < .001,
Block c2 ¼ 33.95, p < .001), and PN significantly predicted group
membership (OR ¼ 1.97, p < .001). Adding the remaining variables
further added to the explained variance, however only to a small
extent (Model c2 ¼ 120.49, p < .001, Block c2 ¼ 15.56, p < .05).
Contrary to predictions, AR was a significant negative predictor
(OR ¼ 0.55, p < .05) and hedonic value orientation was a significant
positive predictor (OR ¼ 1.32, p < .05) of membership in the public
transport-using group. The remaining variables failed to reach
significance.
kilometre increase in distance between home and workplace
decreased the chance of being in the active transport group by an
odds ratio of 0.89 (p < .001). Age, gender and income were not
found to be significant. The model was significantly improved by
adding PN (Model c2 ¼ 156.31, p < .001, Block c2 ¼ 39.05, p < .001).
A standard deviation difference in personal norms increased the
chance of being in the group using active transportation with an
odds ratio of 1.84 (p < .001). The block with the remaining variables
from VBN theory added to the explained variance (Model
c2 ¼ 177.80, p < .001, Block c2 ¼ 21.49, p < .001). AC was positively
associated, (OR ¼ 1.83, p < .01) and AR was negatively associated
(OR ¼ 0.59, p < .01) with being in the walking/cycling group. None
of the value dimensions showed significant direct effects on group
membership.

3.4.2. Car use versus walking and cycling
Similar results were attained when predicting membership
either in the car-using group or in the group walking or cycling. The
first block significantly predicted group membership (c2 ¼ 117.26,
p < .001). Higher level of education was positively associated with
being in the walking/cycling group (OR ¼ 1.32, p < .001). A one
4. Discussion
The current results suggest that the value-belief-norm (VBN)
theory (Stern, 2000; Stern et al., 1999) is successful in explaining
travel mode choice in a Norwegian urban public when controlling
for situational factors. This is in accordance with Steg, Dreijerink
and Abrahamse (2006). When personal norms were added to the
124 H.B. Lind et al. / Journal of Environmental Psychology 44 (2015) 119e125
model the percentage of explained variance significantly increased.
However, the increase in percentage of explained variance was
modest. The results also showed that contextual factors were
important.
4.1. Factors associated with personal norms
The first model aimed to examine whether or not values pre-
dicted general environmental beliefs and specific beliefs about the
consequences of car choice and how these factors were related to
personal norms. As shown the model fitted to the data. Almost 60
per cent of the variance in personal norms was explained by the
variables in the model. As expected, values (Schwartz, 1992)
significantly predicted environmental beliefs as measured by the
new environmental paradigm (NEP) (Dunlap & Van Liere, 1978;
Dunlap et al., 2000; Dunlap, 2008). The most important predictor
of NEP was biospheric values. The higher the score on such values,
the more positive was the respondents' score on NEP. In addition,
egoistic values were negatively associated with the NEP-score.
Thus, it can be concluded that such values are associated with be-
liefs of limits to growth, the need of balancing economic growth
with environmental protection and the necessity to preserve the
balance of nature. In addition, biospheric and hedonistic values
were significant predictors of personal norms.
Somewhat unexpectedly hedonic and altruistic values were not
associated with NEP beliefs. Steg et al. (2005) also found that
biospheric values were more important for sustainable behaviour
than altruistic values. Therefore, they argue that it is relevant to
make a distinction between these two types of values. The current
study's results also show similar results. When controlling for
biospheric values, altruistic values did not predict NEP. This could
be because altruistic values are less important in determining
environmental beliefs. This result may be due to strong multi-
collinearity between altruistic and biospheric values. The results
showed that biosperic values are important for environmental
beliefs, which are strongly associated with ascription of conse-
quences and awareness of consequences. Together, these factors
may be important for forming sustainable personal norms.
As shown the VBN model significantly predicted personal
norms. All the associations shown in Fig. 1 were significant at the
0.95 per cent-level. As can be seen by the size of the b-values an
acceptable percentage of variance was explained by the predictor
variables in the SEM model. Two of the dimensions of personal
norms were found to be indirectly associated with personal norms
mediated by the NEP. This is not quite in accordance with the VBN
model. Direct effects that are not hypothesised in the original VBN
model could be considered as minor deviations from the theoretical
model and do not indicate that it is something wrong with the
theoretical model. The reasons for these differences in the results
compared to the model's hypothesised associations may difficult to
identify. The observed differences between the model and the re-
sults of the current study may be due to the fact that the core aim
was to identify specific factors associated with travel mode choices
and not sustainable reported behaviour in general. Accordingly, the
results of the logistic regression analysis also showed that other
factors than hypothesised by the VBN model may be relevant for
travel mode choices. However, these results do not challenge the
important basic assumption of the VBN model.
4.2. Personal norms, situational factors and travel mode choice
An aim of the study was to examine the relative importance of
situational factors and personal norms in predicting travel mode
choice. The results also showed that personal norms predicted
sustainable travel mode choice. In the first analysis behaviour-
specific factors reflecting strong feelings of moral obligation to
sustainable travel mode choices and high ascription of re-
sponsibility contributed to the choice of public transportation,
while low scores on these factors were more frequent among re-
spondents belonging to the group who most often choose private
motorised travel modes, and especially their own car for all sorts of
travels. Somewhat unexpected, however, ascription of re-
sponsibility was negatively associated with using public trans-
portation, i.e. car users felt more responsible for averting the
negative consequences of car use on the environment. It may be
that those who most frequently choose public transportation did
not feel the responsibility of negative consequences of car use
because they have already taken the responsibility through
behavioural action. However, frequent car users may feel respon-
sible for these negative consequences, but not act on these beliefs.
Car users also scored lower on hedonic values compared to those
who most frequently choose public transportation. It is harder to
explain this association and it may be that this result is spurious.
The same results emerged in the second analysis when those
who frequently were walking and cycling were compared to the
group of frequent users of private motorised travel modes. How-
ever, distance from place of residence to place of work and annual
income were also significant predictors in the second analysis.
When the distance is too large, walking and cycling becomes an
unavailable option. Those who most frequently walked and used a
bicycle also had a higher annual income when compared to
frequent users of private motorised travel modes. This may be
caused by more knowledge and a higher priority of their own
health than frequent car users, and consequently, they more often
choose health promoting travel modes. Another possible explana-
tion is that property is more expensive in and near the city centres,
and the majority of workplaces are localised in such areas. There-
fore, individuals with high income may have the option to settle
near their workplace.
When the groups of frequent users of private and public trans-
portation were compared, income and gender were also significant
predictors of transport group belongingness. The annual income
was less in the group of frequent private travel mode users and
males were in majority in this group, whereas females more often
used public transportation. This is in accordance with studies car-
ried out previously where frequent users of their own car were
more likely to be males, elderly and to hold low education, while
frequent users of public transportation most often were females,
young people and well-educated individuals (Rundmo, Sigurdson,
& Roche-Cerasi, 2011; Rundmo, Nordfjærn, Iversen, Oltedal, &
Jørgensen, 2011). Campaigns aimed to promote public transport
mode choice may benefit by targeting people with high income and
male gender.
4.3. Methodological issues
The results of the present research were based on self-reports.
This includes psychological measures as well as behavioural mea-
sures. This dependence only on self-reports be regarded as a
weakness of the study. Kormos and Gifford (2014) showed in a
meta-analysis aimed at examining the association between self-
reported and objective measures of sustainable behaviour that 79
per cent of the variance remained unexplained despite effect sizes
indicating moderate to strong associations between the two types
of measures. However, it may be argued that sustainable behaviour
and travel mode behaviour are quite different. Self reports on
sustainable behaviours may to a larger extent be associated with
values and norms and, therefore, be more influenced by social
desirability compared to asking people about their transport mode
choice. More research is needed to draw more decisive conclusions
 H.B. Lind et al. / Journal of Environmental Psychology 44 (2015) 119e125
about this. Psychological measures used in the questionnaire of the
current study were based on previously validated measurement
instruments. Additional reliability tests and fit statistics from SEM-
analysis also showed to be at a satisfactory level.
This study has shown that sustainable behaviour in use of
environmentally friendly travel modes may be enhanced by
focussing on biospheric values, increasing sustainable beliefs and
general awareness of the responsibility for environmental prob-
lems caused by the use of private motorised travel modes in urban
areas, and strengthening personal norms for the choice of envi-
ronmentally friendly travel modes. These results may indicate that
countermeasures to reduce the use of private motorised travel
modes should focus on these values and norms.
The results of the model tests have shown that norms, values
and believes were associated with travel mode choice, and prob-
ably also mode use. However, it is no by necessity the same vari-
ables that are significantly associated in a prediction model that are
most suited at explaining how behavioural change most efficient
could be reached. Consequently, future research should also look
into the role of other aspects that could be relevant, e.g. resistance
to change and habits. How an attitude campaigns is carried out has
been found to be important for how to avoid resistance to change
(Iversen, Klempe, & Rundmo, 2005).
References
Abrahmse, W., Steg, L., Gifford, R., & Vlek, C. (2009). Factors influencing car use for
commuting and the intention to reduce it: a question of self-interest or mo-
rality? Transportation Research Part F, 12, 317e324.
Ajzen, I. (1985). From intention to action: a theory of planned behavior. In J. Kuhl, &
J. Beckmann (Eds.), Action control: from cognition to behaviour (pp. 11e39).
Berlin: Springer.
Black, J. S., Stern, P. C., & Elworth, J. T. (1985). Personal and contextual influences on
household energy adaptations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 70, 3e21.
Castanier, C., Paran, F., & Delhomme, P. (2012). Risk of crashing with a tram: per-
ceptions of pedestrians, cyclists, and motorists. Transportation Research Part F:
Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 15, 387e394.
Collin, C. M., & Chambers, S. M. (2005). Psychological and situational influences on
commuter-transport mode Choice. Environment and Behavior, 37, 640e661.
Commission of the European Communities. (2007). Results of the review of the
community strategy to reduce CO2 emissions from passenger cars and light-
commercial vehicles. COM, 19 Final, 7 February 2007, Brussels.
De Groot, J. I. M., & Steg, L. (2007). Value orientation and environmental beliefs in
five countries: validity of an instrument to measure egoistic, altruistic and
biospheric value orientations. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 38, 318e332.
De Groot, J. I. M., & Steg, L. (2008). Value orientation to explain environmental
attitudes and beliefs: how to measure egoistic, altruistic and biospheric value
orientation. Environment and Behavior, 40, 330e354.
De Groot, J. I. M., & Steg, L. (2009). Morality and prosocial behaviour: the role of
awareness, responsibility, and norms in the norm activation model. The Journal
of Social Psychology, 149, 425e449.
Dunlap, R. E. (2008). The new environmental paradigm scale: from marginality to
worldwide use. The Journal of Environmental Education, 40, 3e18.
Dunlap, R. E., & Van Liere, K. D. (1978). The ‘new environmental paradigm.’ A
proposed measuring instrument and preliminary results. Journal of Environ-
mental Education, 9, 10e19.
Dunlap, R. E., Van Liere, K. D., Mertig, A. G., & Jones, R. E. (2000). Measuring
endorsement of the new ecological paradigm: a revised NEP scale. Journal of
Social Issues, 56, 425e442.
Eriksson, L., Garvill, J., & Nordlun, A. M. (2006). Acceptability of travel demand
125
management measures: The importance of problem awareness, personal norm,
freedom, and fairness. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 26, 15e26.
Eriksson, L., Garvill, J., & Nordlund, A. M. (2008). Acceptability of single and com-
bined transport policy measures: the importance of environmental policy
specific beliefs. Transportation Research Part A, 42, 1117e1128.
Guagnano, G. A. (1995). Locus of control. Altruism and agentic disposition. Popu-
lation and Environment, 17, 63e77.
Iversen, H. H., Rundmo, T., & Klempe, H. (2005). A comparison of the effects of a
behaviour modification program and a traffic safety campaign on risk attitudes
and behaviour amongst Norwegian adolescents. European Psychologist, 10,
25e38.
Jakovcevic, A., & Steg, L. (2013). Sustainable transportation in Argentina: values,
beliefs, norms and car use reduction. Transportation Research Part F. Traffic
Psychology and Behavior, 20, 70e79.
Kormos, C., & Gifford, R. (2014). The validity of self-report measures of pro-
environmental behavior: a meta-analytic review. Journal of Environmental Psy-
chology, 40, 359e371.
Limtanakool, N., Dijst, M., & Schwanen, T. (2006). The influence of socioeconomic
characteristics, land use and travel time considerations on mode choice for
medium- and longer-distance trips. Journal of Transport Geography, 14, 327e341.
Moan, I. S. (2013). Whether or not to ride with an intoxicated driver: predicting
intentions using an extended version of the theory of planned behaviour.
Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 20, 193e205.
€ Jørgensen, S. H., & Rundmo, T. (2014).

lu, O.,
Nordfjærn, T., Lind, H. B., Şimşekog
Perceived thresholds for transport mode change and tolerance of push measures in
an urban Norwegian public. Trondheim, Norway: Norwegian University of Sci-
ence and Technology, Department of Psychology.
Nordlund, A. M., & Garvill, J. (2003). Effects of values, problem awareness, and
personal norm on willingness to reduce personal car use. Journal of Environ-
mental Psychology, 23, 339e347.
Pierce, J. C., Dalton, R. J., & Zaitsev, A. (1999). Public perceptions of environmental
conditions. In R. J. Dalton, P. Garb, N. P. Lovrich, J. C. Pierce, & J. M. Whitley (Eds.),
Critical masses: citizens, nuclear weapons production, and environmental
destruction in the United States and Russia (pp. 97e129). Cambridge, MA: MIT
Press.
Rundmo, T., Foss Sigurdson, J., & Roche-Cerasi, I. (2011a). Travel mode use, trans-
portation priorities and risk. In T. Rundmo (Ed.), Perception of transport risk and
urban travel mode use. Trondheim: Rotunde Publ. no. 92.
Rundmo, T., Nordfjærn, T., Iversen, H. H., Oltedal, S., & Jørgensen, S. H. (2011b). The
role of risk perception in transportation mode use. Safety Science, 49, 226e235.
Schwartz, S. H. (1977). Normative influences and altruism. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.),
Advances in experimental social psychology, 10 pp. 221e279). N.Y: Academic
Press.
Schwartz, S. H. (1992). Universals in the content and structure of values: theoretical
advances and empirical tests in 20 countries. Advances in Experimental Social
Psychology, 25, 1e65.
Steg, L. (2005). Car use: lust and must. Instrumental, symbolic and affective motives
for car use. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 39, 147e162.
Steg, L., Dreijerink, L., & Abrahamse, W. (2005). Factors influencing the acceptability
of energy policies: a test of VBN theory. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 25,
415e425.
Steg, L., Perlaviciute, G., van der Werff, E., & Lurvink, J. (2014). The significance of
hedonic values for environmentally relevant attitudes, preferences, and actions.
Environment and Behavior, 46, 163e192.
Stern, P. C. (2000). Towards a coherent theory of environmentally significant
behavior. Journal of Social Issues, 56, 407e424.
Stern, P. C., & Dietz, T. (1994). The value basis of environmental concern. Journal of
Social Issues, 50, 65e84.
Stern, P. C., Dietz, T., Abel, T., Guagnano, G. A., & Kalof, L. (1999). A value-belief-norm
theory of support for social movements: the case of environmentalism.
Research in Human Ecology, 6, 81e97.
Stern, P. C., Dietz, T., & Guagnano, G. A. (1995). The new ecological paradigm in
social-psychological context. Environment and Behavior, 27, 723e743.
Stern, P. C., Dietz, T., & Kalof, L. (1993). Value orientation, gender, and environmental
concern. Environment and Behavior, 25, 322e348.
Tanner, C. (1999). Constraints on environmental behaviour. Journal of Environmental
Psychology, 19, 145e215.