Strategies to promote environmentally friendly behavior among consumers require an understanding of how such behaviors are interrelated. We examined 29 different environmentally significant behaviors, using data from surveys in Germany (n = 967) and in Norway (n = 880). A priori models derived from previous research assuming either environmental behavior as a single factor or as organized by behavioral sectors, degrees of constraint, or frequencies of occurrence did not fit the data. In contrast, a model developed via a bottom-up approach with the German data was supported by the independent, Norwegian sample. This model can integrate several theoretical perspectives and suggests three distinct behavioral fields, with little or no correlation: home-based actions, car use, and air travel for vacation. The factor home-based actions encompasses several behaviors and correlates with the New Ecological Paradigm scale but also with a measure of impression management. Implications for understanding and influencing environmentally significant behaviors are discussed.
AartsH.VerplankenB.van KnippenbergA. (1998). Predicting behavior from actions in the past: Repeated decision making or a matter of habit?Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 28, 1355-1374.
2.
AjzenI. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50, 179-211.
3.
AmburgeyJ. W.ThomanD. B. (2012). Dimensionality of the new ecological paradigm issues of factor structure and measurement. Environment and Behavior, 44, 235-256.
4.
ArbuckleJ. L. (1996). Full information estimation in the presence of incomplete data. In MarcoulidesG. A.SchumackerR. E. (Eds.), Advanced structural equation modeling: Issues and techniques (pp. 243-277). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
5.
ArbuckleJ. L. (2007). Amos 16.0 user’s guide. Chicago, IL: SPSS.
6.
BambergS.MöserG. (2007). Twenty years after Hines, Hungerford, and Tomera: A new meta-analysis of psycho-social determinants of pro-environmental behaviour. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 27, 14-25.
7.
BarkerK.FongL.GrossmanS.QuinC.ReidR. (1994). Comparison of self-reported recycling attitudes and behaviors with actual behavior. Psychological Reports, 75, 571-577.
8.
BarrS.ShawG.ColesT. E. (2011a). Sustainable lifestyles: Sites, practices, and policy. Environment and Planning A, 43, 3011-3029.
9.
BarrS.ShawG.ColesT. E. (2011b). Times for (un)sustainability? Challenges and opportunities for developing behavior change policy. A case-study of consumers at home and away. Global Environmental Change, 21, 1234-1244.
10.
BlackJ. S.SternP. C.ElworthJ. T. (1985). Personal and contextual influences on household energy adaptations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 70, 3-21.
11.
BrattC. (1999a). Consumers’ environmental behavior: Generalized, sector-based, or compensatory?Environment and Behavior, 31, 28-44.
12.
BrattC. (1999b). The impact of norms and assumed consequences on recycling behavior. Environment and Behavior, 31, 630-656.
13.
BrowneM. W.CudeckR. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In BollenK. A.LongJ. S. (Eds.), Testing structural equation models (pp. 136-162). Newbury Park, CA: SAGE.
14.
ChenF.-Y.HsuP.-Y.LinT.-W. (2011). Air travelers’ environmental consciousness: A preliminary investigation in Taiwan. International Journal of Business and Management, 6(12), 78-86.
15.
Corral-VerdugoV.FigueredoA. J. (1999). Convergent and divergent validity of three measures of conservation behavior: The multitrait-multimethod approach. Environment and Behavior, 31, 805-820.
16.
DahlstrandU.BielA. (1997). Pro-environmental habits: Propensity levels in behavioral change. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 27, 588-601.
17.
DiekmannA.PreisendörferP. (1998). Environmental behavior: Discrepancies between aspirations and reality. Rationality and Society, 10, 79-102.
18.
DiekmannA.PreisendörferP. (2003). Green and greenback: The behavioral effects of environmental attitudes in low-cost and high-cost situations. Rationality and Society, 15, 441-472.
19.
DietzT.SternP. C.GuagnanoG. (1998). Social structural and social psychological determinants of environmental concern. Environment and Behavior, 30, 450-471.
20.
DunlapR. E.Van LiereK. D. (1978). The new environmental paradigm: A proposed measuring instrument and preliminary results. Journal of Environmental Education, 9, 10-19.
21.
DunlapR. E.Van LiereK. D.MertigA. G.JonesR. E. (2000). Measuring endorsement of the new ecological paradigm: A revised NEP scale. Journal of Social Issues, 56, 425-442.
22.
European Commission. (2008). On the sustainable consumption and production and sustainable industrial policy action plan (Communication from the commission to the European parliament, the council, the European economic and social committee and the committee of the regions). Retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/environment/eussd/pdf/com_2008_397.pdf
23.
GardnerG. T.SternP. C. (2002). Environmental problems and human behavior (2nd ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson Custom.
24.
GarvillJ.ErikssonL.NordlundA. (2006, September11-16). Effects of environmental concern, problem awareness, and norms on environmentally significant behaviours. IAPS Conference “Environment, Health and Sustainable Development” (The International Association of People-Environment Studies) Conference Proceedings, Rome, Italy.
25.
GaterslebenB.StegL.VlekC. (2002). Measurement and determinants of environmentally significant consumer behavior. Environment and Behavior, 34, 335-362.
GuagnanoG.SternP. C.DietzT. (1995). Influences on attitude-behavior relationships: A natural experiment with curbside recycling. Environment and Behavior, 27, 699-718.
28.
HarlandP.StaatsH.WilkeH. A. M. (1999). Explaining proenvironmental intention and behavior by personal norms and the theory of planned behavior. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 29, 2505-2528.
29.
HawcroftL. J.MilfrontT. (2010). The use (and abuse) of the new environmental paradigm scale over the last 30 years: A meta-analysis. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 30, 135-266.
30.
HøyerK.-G.HoldenE. (2003). Household consumption and ecological footprints in Norway—Does urban form matter?Journal of Consumer Policy, 3, 327-349.
31.
HuL.-T.BentlerP. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6, 1-55.
32.
JacksonT. (2004). Motivating sustainable consumption: A review of evidence on consumer behaviour and behavioural change (Report to the Sustainable Development Research Network). London, England: Policy research institute.
33.
KaiserF. G. (1998). A general measure of ecological behavior. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 28, 395-422.
34.
KaiserF. G.KellerC. (2001). Disclosing situational constraints to ecological behavior: A confirmatory application of the mixed Rasch model. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 17, 212-221.
35.
KaiserF. G.OerkeB.BognerF. X. (2007). Behavior-based environmental attitude: Development of an instrument for adolescents. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 3, 242-251.
36.
KaiserF. G.SchultzP. W. (2009). The attitude–behavior relationship: A test of three models of the moderating role of behavioral difficulty. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 39, 186-207.
37.
KaiserF. G.WilsonM. (2000). Assessing people’s general ecological behavior: A cross-cultural measure. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 30, 952-978.
38.
KaiserF. G.WilsonM. (2004). Goal-directed conservation behavior: The specific composition of a general performance. Personality and Individual Differences, 36, 1531-1544.
39.
KlöcknerC. A.MatthiesE. (2004). How habits interfere with norm directed behavior—A normative decision-making model for travel mode choice. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 24, 319-327.
40.
KlöcknerC. A.MatthiesE.HuneckeM. (2003). Problems of operationalizing habits and integrating habits in normative decision-making models. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 33, 396-417.
41.
KolenikovS.BollenK. A. (2012). Testing Negative Error Variances: Is a Heywood Case a Symptom of Misspecification?. Sociological Methods & Research, 4, 124-167.
42.
KronerD. G.WeekesJ. R. (1996). Balanced inventory of desirable responding: Factor structure, reliability, and validity with an offender sample. Personality and Individual Differences, 21, 323-333.
43.
LittleT. D.LindenbergerU.MaierH. (2000). Selectivity and generalizability in longitudinal research: On the effects of continuers and dropouts. In LittleT. D.SchnabelK. U.BaumertJ. (Eds.), Modeling longitudinal and multilevel data (pp. 187-200). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
44.
LoehlinJ. C. (1998). Latent variable models: An introduction to factor, path, and structural analysis (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
45.
MarshH. W.HauK.-T.WenZ. (2004). In search of golden rules: Comment on hypothesis-testing approaches to setting cutoff values for fit indexes and dangers in overgeneralizing Hu and Bentler’s (1999) findings. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 11, 320-341.
46.
MatthiesE.BlöbaumA. (2007). Ecological norm orientation and private car use. In GärlingT.StegL. (Eds.), Threats to the quality of urban life from car traffic: Problems, causes, and solutions (pp. 252-272). London, England: Elsevier.
47.
McCloskeyM. (1991). Networks and theories: The place of connectionism in cognitive science. Psychological Science, 2, 387-395.
48.
McCraeR. R.CostaP. T. (1983). Social desirability scales: More substance than style. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 51, 882-888.
49.
McKenzie-MohrD.NemiroffL. S.BeersL.DesmaraisS. (1995). Determinants of responsible environmental behavior. Journal of Social Issues, 51, 139-156.
50.
MillhamJ.JacobsonL. I. (1978). The need for approval. In LondonH.ExnerJ. E. (Eds.), Dimensions of personality (pp. 365-390). New York, NY: Wiley.
51.
MuthénL. K.MuthénB. O. (1998-2012). Mplus user’s guide (7th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Author.
52.
NordlundA. M.GarvillJ. (2003). Effects of values, problem awareness, and personal norm on willingness to reduce personal car use. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 23, 339-347.
53.
NunnallyJ. C.BernsteinI. H. (1994). Psychometric theory (3rd ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
54.
OsbaldistonR.SchottJ. P. (2011). Environmental sustainability and behavioral science: Meta-analysis of proenvironmental behavior experiments. Environment and Behavior, 44, 257-299.
55.
OuelletteJ. A.WoodW. (1998). Habit and intention in everyday life: The multiple processes by which past behavior predicts future behavior. Psychological Bulletin, 124, 54-74.
56.
PaulhusD. L. (1991). Measurement and control of response bias. In RobinsonJ. P.ShaverP. R.WrightsmanL. S. (Eds.), Measures of personality and social psychological attitudes (pp. 17-59). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
57.
PickettG. M.KangunN.GroveS. J. (1993). Is there a general conserving consumer: A public-policy concern. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 12, 234-243.
58.
PiedmontR. L.McCraeR. R.RiemannR.AngleitnerA. (2000). On the invalidity of validity scales: Evidence from self-reports and observer ratings in volunteer samples. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 582-593.
59.
PoortingaW.StegL.VlekC.WiersmaG. (2003). Household preferences for energy-saving measures: A conjoint analysis. Journal of Economic Psychology, 24, 49-64.
60.
PreacherK. J.ZhangG.KimC.MelsG. (2013). Choosing the optimal number of factors in exploratory factor analysis: A model selection perspective. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 48, 28-56.
61.
PrillwitzJ.BarrS. (2009). Motivations and barriers to adopting sustainable travel behaviour (Working Paper 2). Devon, UK: ProST, University of Exeter, Department of Geography.
62.
SchahnJ.HolzerE. (1990). Studies of individual environmental concern: The role of knowledge, gender, and background variables. Environment and Behavior, 22, 767-786.
63.
SchahnJ.MöllersD. (2005). Neue Befunde zur Low-Cost-Hypothese – Verhaltensaufwand, Umwelteinstellung und Umweltverhalten [Recent findings regarding the low-cost hypothesis: Behavioral costs, environmental attitudes, and conservation behavior]. Umweltpsychologie, 9, 82-104.
64.
StegL.DreijerinkL.AbrahamseW. (2005). Factors influencing the acceptability of energy policies: A test of VBN theory. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 25, 415-425.
65.
SternP. C. (2008). Environmentally significant behavior in the home. In LewisA. (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of psychology and economic behaviour (pp. 363-382), Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
66.
SternP.C.AronsonE. (1984). Energy Use: The Human Dimension. Report of the National Research Council Committee on the Behavioral and Social Aspects of Energy Consumption and Production. New York, NY: Freeman.
67.
SternP. C.BlackJ. S.ElworthJ. T. (1983). Responses to changing energy conditions among Massachusetts households. Energy: The International Journal, 8, 515-523.
68.
SternP. C.DietzT.AbelT.GuagnanoG. A.KalofL. (1999). A value-belief-norm theory of support for social movements: The case of environmentalism. Human Ecology Review, 6, 81-97.
69.
SternP. C.DietzT.GuagnanoG. A. (1995). The new ecological paradigm in social-psychological context. Environment and Behavior, 27, 723-743.
StragierJ.HauttekeeteL.De MarezL.BrondeelR. (2012). Measuring energy-efficient behavior in households: The development of a Standardized Scale. Ecopsychology, 4, 64-71.
72.
ThøgersenJ.ÖlanderC. F. (2003). Spillover of environment-friendly consumer behaviour. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 23, 225-236.
73.
WeigelR. H.NewmanL. S. (1976). Increasing attitude-behavior correspondence by broadening the scope of the behavioral measure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 33, 793-802.
74.
WothkeW. (1993). Nonpositive definite matrices in structural modeling. In BollenK. A.LongJ. S. (Eds.), Testing structural equation models (pp. 256-292). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
