Understanding the factors that drive pro-environmental behaviors (PEB) is critical for both research and practice. While the Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB) provides a robust framework for predicting PEBs, its findings related to PEBs remain incomplete. First, PEB diversity is still overlooked and differentiating their nature and characteristics warrants further investigation. Second, TPB does not fully account for the emotional nature of the ecological transition. This study addresses these two limitations by implementing a psychometric network study among 2,100 participants testing an improved version of the TPB incorporating climate-related emotions and applied to five distinct types of PEBs: conservation, environmental citizenship, food consumption, transportation, and waste management. Our results identified perceived behavioral control as a particularly central variable in our networks. This paper also highlights the importance of considering different types of PEBs and contributes to the development of more effective strategies for fostering sustainable behaviors and facilitating ecological transition
AbricJ. C. (1994). Pratiques sociales et représentations [Social representations and practices]. Presses Universitaires de France.
2.
AdamsI.HurstK.SintovN. D. (2020). Experienced guilt, but not pride, mediates the effect of feedback on pro-environmental behavior. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 71, 101476. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2020.101476
3.
AguinisH.BradleyK. J. (2014). Best practice recommendations for designing and implementing experimental vignette methodology studies. Organizational Research Methods, 17(4), 351–371. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428114547952
AteşH. (2020). Merging theory of planned behavior and value identity personal norm model to explain pro-environmental behaviors. Sustainable Production and Consumption, 24, 169–180. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spc.2020.07.006
6.
BambergS.HuneckeM.BlöbaumA. (2007). Social context, personal norms and the use of public transportation: Two field studies. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 27(3), 190–203. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2007.04.001
7.
BaumgartnerH.PietersR.BagozziR. P. (2008). Future-oriented emotions: Conceptualization and behavioral effects. European Journal of Social Psychology, 38(4), 685–696. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.467
8.
Bieniek-TobascoA.McCormickS.RimalR. N.HarringtonC. B.ShaferM.ShaikhH. (2019). Communicating climate change through documentary film: Imagery, emotion, and efficacy. Climatic Change, 154, 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-019-02408-7
9.
BonchiF.HajianS.MishraB.RamazzottiD. (2017). Exposing the probabilistic causal structure of discrimination. International Journal of Data Science and Analytics, 3(1), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41060-016-0040-z
10.
BorsboomD.CramerA. O. J. (2013). Network Analysis: An Integrative Approach to the structure of Psychopathology. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 9(1), 91–121. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-clinpsy-050212-185608
11.
BroschT. (2021). Affect and emotions as drivers of climate change perception and action: A review. Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences, 42, 15–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cobeha.2021.02.001
12.
CarmiN.ArnonS.OrionN. (2015). Transforming environmental knowledge into behavior: The mediating role of environmental emotions. Journal of Environmental Education, 46(3), 183–201. https://doi.org/10.1080/00958964.2015.1028517
13.
CurranP. J.WestS. G.FinchJ. F. (1996). The robustness of test statistics to nonnormality and specification error in confirmatory factor analysis. Psychological Methods, 1(1), 16–29. https://doi.org/10.1037//1082-989x.1.1.16
14.
de GrootJ. I. M.BondyK.SchuitemaG. (2021). Listen to others or yourself? The role of personal norms on the effectiveness of social norm interventions to change pro-environmental behavior. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 78, 101688. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2021.101688
15.
de LeeuwA.ValoisP.AjzenI.SchmidtP. (2015). Using the theory of planned behavior to identify key beliefs underlying pro-environmental behavior in high-school students: Implications for educational interventions. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 42, 128–138. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2015.03.005
16.
de RonJ.RobinaughD. J.FriedE. I.PedrelliP.JainF. A.MischoulonD.EpskampS. (2022). Quantifying and addressing the impact of measurement error in network models. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 157, 104163. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brat.2022.104163
17.
EpskampS. (Réalisateur) (2021, février4). Directed Acyclic Graphs (3)—DAG discovery & when to use DAGs vs undirected networks? [Vidéo]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cCw8uErK4BM
18.
EpskampS.CramerA. O. J.WaldorpL. J.SchmittmannV. D.BorsboomD. (2012). Qgraph: Network visualizations of relationships in psychometric data. Journal of Statistical Software, 48(4), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v048.i04
19.
EpskampS.WaldorpL. J.MõttusR.BorsboomD. (2018). The Gaussian Graphical Model in Cross-Sectional and Time-Series Data. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 53(4), 453–480. https://doi.org/10.1080/00273171.2018.1454823
20.
FruchtermanT. M. J.ReingoldE. M. (1991). Graph drawing by force-directed placement. Software Practice and Experience, 21(11), 1129–1164. https://doi.org/10.1002/spe.4380211102
21.
GkargkavouziA.HalkosG.MatsioriS. (2019). Environmental behavior in a private-sphere context: Integrating theories of planned behavior and value belief norm, self-identity and habit. Resources Conservation and Recycling, 148, 145–156. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2019.01.039
HaslbeckJ. M. B.FriedE. I. (2017). How predictable are symptoms in psychopathological networks? A reanalysis of 18 published datasets. Psychological Medicine, 47(16), 2767–2776. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0033291717001258
24.
HeerenA.HanseeuwB.CougnonL.-A.LitsG. (2021). Excessive worrying as a central feature of anxiety during the first COVID-19 lockdown-phase in Belgium: Insights from a network approach. Psychologica Belgica, 61(1), 401–418. https://doi.org/10.5334/pb.1069
25.
HeerenA.Mouguiama-DaoudaC.ContrerasA. (2022). On climate anxiety and the threat it may pose to daily life functioning and adaptation: A study among European and African French-speaking participants. Climatic Change, 173(1-2), 15. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-022-03402-2
26.
HurstK. F.SintovN. D. (2022). Guilt consistently motivates pro-environmental outcomes while pride depends on context. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 80, 101776. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2022.101776
27.
IPCC. (2022). Climate change 2022: impacts, adaptation and vulnerability. In: Contribution of Working Group II to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK and New York, NY, USA, pp 3056. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009325844
28.
JainS.SinghalS.JainN. K.BhaskarK. (2020). Construction and demolition waste recycling: Investigating the role of theory of planned behavior, institutional pressures and environmental consciousness. Journal of Cleaner Production, 263, 121405. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.121405
29.
JiaL.van der LindenS. (2020). Green but not altruistic warm-glow predicts conservation behavior. Conservation Science and Practice, 2(7), e211. https://doi.org/10.1111/csp2.211
30.
KlöcknerC. A. (2013). A comprehensive model of the psychology of environmental behaviour—A meta-analysis. Global Environmental Change, 23(5), 1028–1038. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2013.05.014
31.
KovácsJ.MedvésD.PántyaJ. (2020). To shine or not to shine? – The relationship between environmental knowledge of preteens and their choice among plastic and non-plastic materials for a manual task. Environmental Education Research, 26(6), 849–863. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2020.1752363
32.
LangeF.DewitteS. (2019). Measuring pro-environmental behavior: Review and recommendations. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 63, 92–100. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2019.04.009
33.
LarsonL. R.StedmanR. C.CooperC. B.DeckerD. J. (2015). Understanding the multi-dimensional structure of pro-environmental behavior. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 43, 112–124. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2015.06.004
LizinS.Van DaelM.Van PasselS. (2017). Battery pack recycling: Behaviour change interventions derived from an integrative theory of planned behaviour study. Resources Conservation and Recycling, 122, 66–82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2017.02.003
36.
LucarelliC.MazzoliC.SeveriniS. (2020). Applying the theory of planned behavior to examine pro-environmental behavior: The moderating effect of COVID-19 beliefs. Sustainability, 12(24), 10556. https://doi.org/10.3390/su122410556
37.
MacuraB.RanY.PerssonU. M.Abu HatabA.JonellM.LindahlT.RöösE. (2022). What evidence exists on the effects of public policy interventions for achieving environmentally sustainable food consumption? A systematic map protocol. Environmental Evidence, 11(1), 17. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13750-022-00271-1
38.
MarkleG. L. (2013). Pro-environmental behavior: Does it matter how it’s measured? Development and validation of the pro-environmental behavior scale (PEBS). Human Ecology, 41, 905–914. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10745-013-9614-8
39.
McNallyR. J. (2023). Points of contact between network psychometrics and experimental psychopathology. Journal of Experimental Psychopathology, 14(1), 20438087231151505. https://doi.org/10.1177/20438087231151505
40.
McNallyR. J.HeerenA.RobinaughD. J. (2017). A Bayesian network analysis of posttraumatic stress disorder symptoms in adults reporting childhood sexual abuse. European Journal of Psychotraumatology, 8(sup3), 1341276. https://doi.org/10.1080/20008198.2017.1341276
41.
MenardoE.BrondinoM.PasiniM. (2020). Adaptation and psychometric properties of the Italian version of the pro-environmental behaviours scale (PEBS). Environment Development and Sustainability, 22(7), 6907–6930. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-019-00520-3
42.
MorrenM.GrinsteinA. (2021). The cross-cultural challenges of integrating personal norms into the theory of planned behavior: A meta-analytic structural equation modeling (MASEM) approach. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 75, 101593. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2021.101593
43.
MoussaouiL. S.DesrichardO.MilfontT. L. (2020). Do environmental prompts work the same for everyone? A test of environmental attitudes as a moderator. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 2019. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.03057
44.
OdouP.SchillM. (2020). How anticipated emotions shape behavioral intentions to fight climate change. Journal of Business Research, 121, 243–253. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2020.08.047
45.
OgunbodeC. A.DoranR.HanssD.OjalaM.Salmela-AroK.van Den BroekK. L.BhullarN.AquinoS. D.MarotT.SchermerJ. A.WlodarczykA.LuS.JiangF.MaranD. A.YadavR.ArdiR.ChegeniR.GhanbarianE.ZandS., & . . . KarasuM. (2022). Climate anxiety, wellbeing and pro-environmental action: Correlates of negative emotional responses to climate change in 32 countries. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 84, 101887. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2022.101887
46.
OinonenI.PaloniemiR. (2023). Understanding and measuring young people’s sustainability actions. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 91, 102124. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2023.102124
47.
OrtonyA. (2022). Are all “basic emotions” emotions? A problem for the (basic) emotions construct. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 17, 41–61. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691620985415
48.
ParmentierM. (2021). Emotional anticipation of future vocational transitions: A person-centered approach. Université catholique de Louvain.
R Core Team. (2021). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. (4.1.2). R Foundation for Statistical Computing. https://www.R-project.org/
51.
RivisA.SheeranP.ArmitageC. J. (2009). Expanding the affective and normative components of the theory of planned behavior: A meta-analysis of anticipated affect and moral norms. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 39(12), 2985–3019. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2009.00558.x
52.
RobinaughD. J.MillnerA. J.McNallyR. J. (2016). Identifying highly influential nodes in the complicated grief network. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 125(6), 747–757. https://doi.org/10.1037/abn0000181
53.
RohrerJ. M. (2018). Thinking clearly about correlations and causation: Graphical causal models for observational data. Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science, 1(1), 27–42. https://doi.org/10.1177/2515245917745629
54.
SchneiderC. R.ZavalL.WeberE. U.MarkowitzE. M. (2017). The influence of anticipated pride and guilt on pro-environmental decision making. PLoS One, 12(11), e0188781. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0188781
55.
ScutariM.NagarajanR. (2013). Identifying significant edges in graphical models of molecular networks. Artificial Intelligence in Medicine, 57(3), 207–217. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.artmed.2012.12.006
56.
SheeranP.TrafimowD.ArmitageC. J. (2003). Predicting behaviour from perceived behavioural control: Tests of the accuracy assumption of the theory of planned behaviour. British Journal of Social Psychology, 42(Pt 3), 393–410. https://doi.org/10.1348/014466603322438224
SongK.QuS.TaiebatM.LiangS.XuM. (2019). Scale, distribution and variations of global greenhouse gas emissions driven by U.S. Households. Environment International, 133, 105137. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2019.105137
59.
StanleyS. K.HoggT. L.LevistonZ.WalkerI. (2021). From anger to action: Differential impacts of eco-anxiety, eco-depression, and eco-anger on climate action and wellbeing. The Journal of Climate Change and Health, 1, 100003. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joclim.2021.100003
60.
SteinhorstJ.BeyerlK. (2021). First reduce and reuse, then recycle! Enabling consumers to tackle the plastic crisis – Qualitative expert interviews in Germany. Journal of Cleaner Production, 313, 127782. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.127782
61.
SternP.C. (2000). New environmental theories: Toward a coherent theory of environmentally significant behavior. Journal of Social Issues, 56, 407-424. https://doi.org/10.1111/0022-4537.00175
62.
ThøgersenJ. (2006). Norms for environmentally responsible behaviour: An extended taxonomy. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 26(4), 247–261. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2006.09.004
63.
VerlieB.FlynnA. (2022). School strike for climate: A reckoning for education. Australian Journal of Environmental Education, 38(1), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1017/aee.2022.5
64.
VermeirI.WeijtersB.De HouwerJ.GeuensM.SlabbinckH.SpruytA.Van KerckhoveA.Van LippeveldeW.De SteurH.VerbekeW. (2020). Environmentally sustainable food consumption: A review and research agenda from a goal-directed perspective. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 1–24. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.01603
65.
WilliamsD. R.RastP. (2020). Back to the basics: Rethinking partial correlation network methodology. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 73(2), 187–212. https://doi.org/10.1111/bmsp.12173
66.
XuZ.GuoH. (2019). Advantages of anticipated emotions over anticipatory emotions and cognitions in health decisions: A meta-analysis. Health Communication, 34(7), 774–781. https://doi.org/10.1080/10410236.2018.1434738
67.
YurievA.DahmenM.PailléP.BoiralO.GuillaumieL. (2020). Pro-environmental behaviors through the lens of the theory of planned behavior: A scoping review. Resources Conservation and Recycling, 155, 104660. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2019.104660
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.
