Past research has shown that as proenvironmental behaviors (PEBs) become more difficult, the level of self-determined motivation becomes a more powerful predictor of behavior participation. The purpose of this study was to (1) examine the perceived difficulty of transportation PEB in two contexts using self-determination theory and (2) examine the mediation effect of autonomous and controlled motivation toward the environment. Results indicate that when the transportation behavior was perceived as difficult to perform, autonomous motivation was associated with more frequent participation. When the transportation behavior was perceived to be easy, motivation type had no influence on behavior frequency. Mediation analysis indicated a significant total indirect effect of perceived environmental competence on frequency of easy PEB via both types of motivation, but for difficult behaviors only autonomous motivation was a significant mediator. This study suggests that increasing individuals' autonomous motivation toward the environment and sense of environmental competence supports participation in difficult PEBs, potentially leading to a larger environmental benefit. Key Words: Self-determination theory—Autonomous and controlled motivation—Proenvironmental behaviors—Public transportation—Perceived difficulty.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
ArkesH. R. (1978). Competence and the maintenance of behavior. Motivation and Emotion, 2, 201–211.
2.
BambergS., & MöserG. (2007). Twenty years after Hines, Hungerford and Tomera: A new meta-analysis of psycho-social determinants of pro-environmental behavior. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 27, 14–25.
3.
de GrootJ. I. M., & StegL. (2010). Relationships between value orientations, self-determined motivational types and pro-environmental behavioural intentions. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 30, 368–378.
4.
DeciE. L., KoestnerR., & RyanR. M. (1999). A meta-analytic review of experiments examining the effects of extrinsic rewards on intrinsic motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 125, 627–668.
5.
DeciE. L., & RyanR. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior. New York: Plenum.
6.
DeciE. L., & RyanR. M. (2000). The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11, 227–268.
7.
DeciE. L., & RyanR. M. (2008). Facilitating optimal motivation and psychological well-being across life's domains. Canadian Psychology, 49, 14–23.
8.
DwyerW. O., LeemingF. C., CobernM. K., PorterB. E., & JacksonJ. M. (1993). Critical review of behavioral interventions to preserve the environment: Research since 1980. Environment and Behavior, 25, 485–505.
9.
GardnerG. T., & SternP. C. (2008). The short list: The most effective actions U.S. households can take to curb climate change. Environment, 50, 13–24.
10.
GiffordR. (2007). Environmental psychology: Principles and practice (4th ed.). Colville, WA: Optimal Books.
11.
GiffordR. (2011). The dragons of inaction: Psychological barriers that limit climate change mitigation and adaptation. American Psychologist, 66, 290–302.
12.
Green-DemersI., PelletierL. G., & MenardS. (1997). The impact of behavioural difficulty on the saliency of the association between self-determined motivation and environmental behaviours. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science/Revue canadienne des sciences du comportement, 29, 157–166.
13.
Government of Canada. (2007). Canadian environmental sustainability indicators 2007 (Catalogue no. 16-251-XIE). Ottawa, ON: Government of Canada.
14.
HayesA. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression based approach. New York: The Guilford Press.
15.
HinesJ. M., HungerfordH. R., & TomeraA. N. (1987). Analysis and synthesis of research on responsible environmental behaviour: A meta analysis. Journal of Environmental Education, 18, 1–8.
16.
KayA. C., GaucherD., NapierJ. L., CallanM. J., & LaurinK. (2008). God and the government: Testing a compensatory control mechanism for the support of external systems. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95, 18–35.
17.
KlineR. B. (2013). Beyond significance testing: Statistics reform in the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
18.
KormosC., & GiffordR. (2014). The validity of self-report measures of proenvironmental behavior: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 40, 359–371.
19.
LehmanP. K., & GellerE. S. (2004). Behavior analysis and environmental protection: Accomplishments and potential for more. Behavior and Social Issues, 13, 13–32.
20.
NgJ. Y. Y., NtoumanisN., Thøgersen-NtoumaniC., DeciE. L., RyanR. M., DudaJ. L., & WilliamsG. C. (2012). Self-determination theory applied to health contexts: A meta-analysis. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7, 325–340.
21.
OsbaldistonR., & SchottJ. P. (2012). Environmental sustainability and behavioral science meta-analysis of proenvironmental behavior experiments. Environment and Behavior, 44, 257–299.
22.
OsbaldistonR., & SheldonK. M. (2003). Promoting internalized motivation for environmentally responsible behavior: A prospective study of environmental goals. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 23, 349–357.
23.
OskampS. (1995). Resource conservation and recycling: Behavior and policy. Journal of Social Issues, 51, 157–177.
24.
PelletierL. G. (2002). A motivational analysis of self-determination for pro-environmental behaviors. In DeciE. L. & RyanR. M. (Eds.), The handbook of self-determination research (pp. 205–232). Rochester, NY: University of Rochester Press.
25.
PelletierL. G., TusonK. M., Green-DemersI., NoelsK., & BeatonA. M. (1998). Why are you doing things for the environment? The motivation toward the environment scale (MTES). Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 28, 437–468.
26.
PreacherK. J., & HayesA. F. (2008). Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior Research Methods, 40, 879–891.
27.
RatelleC. F., GuayF., VallerandR. J., LaroseS., & SenécalC. (2007). Autonomous, controlled, and amotivated types of academic motivation: A person-oriented analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99, 734–746.
28.
RyanR. M., & DeciE. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55, 68–78.
29.
StegL., & VlekC. (2009). Encouraging pro-environmental behaviour: An integrative review and research agenda. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 29, 309–317.
30.
SternP. (2000). Toward a coherent theory of environmentally significant behavior. Journal of Social Issues, 56, 407–424.
31.
SintovN. D., & PrescottC. A. (2011). The influence of social desirability and item priming effects on reports of proenvironmental behavior. Ecopsychology, 3, 257–267.
32.
VallerandR. J., & RatelleC. F. (2002). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation: A hierarchical model. In DeciE. L. and RyanR. M. (Eds.), The motivation and self-determination of behavior: Theoretical and applied issues. Rochester, NY: University of Rochester Press
33.
VansteenkisteM., SierensE., SoenensB., LuyckxK., & LensW. (2009). Motivational profiles from a self-determination perspective: The quality of motivation matters. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101, 671–688.
34.
VillacortaM., KoestnerR., & LekesN. (2003). Further validation of the motivation toward the environment scales. Environment and Behavior, 35, 486–506.
