Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Background

Climate change poses significant risks to student well-being, yet sustainability education remains limited in higher education curricula. University program directors play a key role in providing sustainability education. This research examined program directors’ beliefs about having a mandatory sustainability course and identified key drivers and barriers to inform intervention strategies aimed at increasing their intention to have such a course.

Focus of the Article

This research used the Reasoned Action Approach to understand what motivates program directors to have a mandatory sustainability course in their programs.

Research Question

What beliefs underlie the intention of university program directors to have a mandatory course on sustainability in their program, and which beliefs are most influential in shaping this intention?

Importance to the Social Marketing Field

This research contributes to social marketing by applying the Reasoned Action Approach to inform the development of interventions to promote sustainability education. The findings provide actionable insights into belief-based strategies that can be linked to social marketing principles for motivating university program directors to have a mandatory sustainability course.

Methods

The research used a mixed-methods approach with two studies. Study 1 used a semi-structured belief elicitation procedure with open-ended questions to identify program directors’ beliefs. In Study 2, the most salient beliefs were transformed into closed-ended questions to quantitatively assess their strength and valuation to determine which beliefs drive program directors’ intention to have such a course.

Results

The results revealed several behavioral beliefs (e.g., “With a sustainability course I can encourage students to think independently and critically”), key referent groups (e.g., advisory boards, teachers, students), and control beliefs (e.g., “Knowing how to ensure program alignment”) as key candidates to target in interventions aimed at increasing program directors’ intention. Such interventions are needed to increase the supply of sustainability education in higher education, as program directors sampled in our research reported a weak intention to have a mandatory sustainability course.

Recommendations for Research or Practice

The findings allow for the development of various social marketing-based intervention initiatives aimed at strengthening the intention of university program directors to have a mandatory sustainability course. Interventions should, for example, target key behavioral beliefs, reinforce normative pressure from advisory boards, teachers, and students, and address control beliefs by, for example, demonstrating how to ensure that a sustainability course fits the program end-terms.

Keywords

belief elicitation reasoned action approach theory of planned behavior sustainability education climate change education

Introduction

While climate change poses significant risks to university student’s prospects, their limited ability to influence its course leaves them vulnerable to a range of emotional and psychological impacts, including anxiety, distress, and uncertainty about their future (Pihkala, 2020). A comprehensive global survey found that 59% of young people aged 16–25 are very or extremely worried about climate change, with 84% reporting at least moderate concern (Hickman et al., 2021). From a perspective of market demand, it is crucial for universities to provide education on the climate crisis and equip students with the knowledge and skills needed to understand, confront, and adapt to these complex challenges (Gitsham & Clark, 2014). A recent survey shows that while a majority (53%) of students express a desire to learn about sustainability in their curriculum, only a small percentage (20%) have actually encountered it in their education (Student Minds, 2023). In a context where higher education institutions are often required to gain competitive advantage (Liu et al., 2025; Mahdi et al., 2019; Raposo Junior et al., 2025), offering sustainability courses in their programs can help meet the expectations of stakeholders, particularly prospective students.

Universities typically aspire to provide responsible education and often endorse the UN Sustainable Development Goals (Leal Filho et al., 2019), which include calls to improve education on climate change and sustainability (United Nations, n.d.). Climate change and sustainability issues can be embedded within existing education by introducing the theme into current courses and programs by broadening or deepening the content. Additionally, new elective or mandatory courses can be developed, reaching all students within a program. In line with the latter option, scientists in the Netherlands wrote an open letter calling on higher education institutions “to include mandatory climate education in all curricula in order to familiarize students with the systematic nature of the climate and ecological crisis and empower them to take action” (Alenda et al., 2023). This course should be “tailor-made for each study program, including at least the basic science on global heating and its consequences, and discussing feasible mitigation pathways, and questions of global equity and justice” (Alenda et al., 2023). Including such a mandatory sustainability course in all programs of Dutch Higher Education Institutions would align with the universities’ ambition to provide responsible education. Equipping students with climate change and sustainability knowledge not only raises their awareness but also provides knowledge and skills to participate in and contribute to the development of solutions.

In the Netherlands, university program directors are responsible for the content and structure of their programs and thus can decide whether to include a mandatory sustainability course. In terms of looking at higher education as a service (Quinn et al., 2009), program directors act as product managers, their programs being the offered service. As such, they can play an influential role in increasing the number of programs that include a mandatory sustainability course.

To understand how this demand from stakeholders can be adopted, the present research aims to investigate what motivates program directors to adopt a sustainability course in their programs. We aim to inform future intervention initiatives that seek to strengthen the intention of university program directors to have a mandatory sustainability course. Ultimately, this would result in more students at Dutch universities being prepared to face the challenges of the climate and ecological crisis while facilitating higher education institutions’ competitive advantage as well as societal impact. To do this, we used the Reasoned Action Approach to predicting and changing behavior (Fishbein & Ajzen, 2010), a proven approach to explaining behavior and informing intervention development.

The Reasoned Action Approach (RAA; Fishbein & Ajzen, 2010) is the most recent version of a model from a family of sequentially improved models of behavioral prediction whose predecessors include the Theory of Reasoned Action (Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975), the Theory of Planned Behavior (Ajzen, 1985), and the Integrative Model of Behavioral Prediction (Fishbein, 2000). According to the RAA, intention (how likely program directors think it is that they will have a mandatory sustainability course) is the most proximal and best predictor of the target behavior, given that program directors have the skills and there are no environmental barriers to performing the behavior. Intention, in turn, is predicted by attitude, perceived normative pressure, and perceived behavioral control regarding having a mandatory sustainability course. These determinants each have two components. Attitude includes an instrumental attitude (an evaluation of positive or negative attributes regarding performing the behavior, such as bad or good) and an experiential attitude (an evaluation of positive or negative affective experiences, such as boring or interesting). Perceived norm includes an injunctive norm (perceptions of whether important others think the program director should perform the behavior) and a descriptive norm (the extent to which a program director thinks important others have a sustainability course in their program). Perceived behavioral control includes perceived autonomy (the extent to which a program director believes the decision is up to them) and capacity (the extent to which a program director feels capable of having a mandatory sustainability course).

Attitude, perceived norm, and perceived behavioral control are “cognitive summaries of the full set of highly specific behavioral, normative, and control beliefs” (Yzer & Zhu, 2025, p. 14) of program directors about performing the behavior of having a mandatory sustainability course in their programs (Fishbein & Ajzen, 2010). Attitude is shaped by behavioral beliefs, and these reflect thoughts and feelings about the likelihood and desirability of the consequences or outcomes of having a mandatory sustainability course. Perceived norm is shaped by normative beliefs, that is, thoughts about what important others think and do regarding a sustainability course (and the extent to which program directors want to conform to and be like those important others). Finally, perceived behavioral control is shaped by control beliefs, which are thoughts about the likelihood and power of facilitating or hindering factors for having a sustainability course. What is crucial is that it is these specific beliefs that ultimately guide the intentions and behaviors of people.

According to the RAA (Fishbein & Ajzen, 2010), in order to change intentions and behaviors, the underlying beliefs must be changed. Interventions can serve this purpose by introducing, confirming or reinforcing, or changing relevant beliefs. Importantly, in order to inform the design of such interventions, one must first identify the beliefs that program directors hold about this behavior, and then determine which of these beliefs are most important and thus might be good candidates to target in interventions (Fishbein & Ajzen, 2010; Hornik & Woolf, 1999; Yzer & Zhu, 2025). This is the purpose of the present research.

The Present Research

As recommended by Fishbein and Ajzen (2010), we first conducted a belief elicitation study to identify the salient beliefs (Study 1), followed by a quantitative survey to determine which of these beliefs actually guide intention (Study 2). The target population was defined as university program directors, and we conducted our research with a sample of program directors from the Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam in the Netherlands. The target behavior was defined as “having a mandatory course addressing sustainability in the program(s) in 2026/2027”. Based on the open letter from Dutch scientists (Alenda et al., 2023), we explained to our participants that by a mandatory course, we meant a mandatory course that is made for and fits their study program, including at least the basic science on global heating and its consequences, and discussing feasible mitigation pathways, and questions of global equity and justice. We also informed participants that the course should prepare students to face the challenges posed by the climate and ecological crisis and equip them to lead and effect change. We used “have” in our definition so that both program directors who did not yet have a course like the one described and those who did could answer the questions. In addition, the time element of 2026/2027 was chosen to provide a realistic timeline for implementing a new course (if needed). By specifying the time element we ensured that all program directors were thinking about the same timeline, as time frame has been shown to influence the type of beliefs that become salient (Lutchyn & Yzer, 2011).

Studies 1 (Belief Elicitation Survey) and 2 (Quantitative Survey)

The research was approved by the Research Ethics Review Committee of the Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam. We preregistered the sampling plan and surveys of both studies on the Open Science Framework (OSF). Materials and data can be found at the OSF (https://osf.io/y5mr2/overview). The instructions and survey questions of both studies followed established procedures (i.e., based on the appendix “Constructing a reasoned action questionnaire” in Fishbein & Ajzen, 2010; materials of Hagger et al., 2019). Data were analyzed using Jamovi (2022) and JASP (2024).

Study 1: Belief Elicitation Survey

Methods

Design and Aim

Study 1 employed a semi-structured belief elicitation procedure that used open-ended questions to identify the behavioral, normative, and control beliefs of program directors about having a mandatory course addressing sustainability in their program(s) in 2026/2027.

Participants

In April 2024, we targeted 25 program directors (from a list of 109 program directors taken from an internal Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam website), so that faculties were represented in terms of number of program directors, and, where possible, balancing for bachelor and master programs. We aimed for a sample size of 25 participants (cf. recommendations of Fishbein & Ajzen, 2010) and to finish data collection in mid-May 2024, so that we could start collecting data for Study 2 in June 2024. We anticipated that this might be difficult given our timeline, and therefore decided prior to data collection that a sample of 20 participants would also be acceptable. Participation was voluntary, but participants were offered a €10 gift voucher to thank them for their input. Twenty-one participants completed the survey (see Table 1 for sample characteristics).

Table 1.

Summary Background Variables and Sample Demographics for Studies 1 and 2

	Study 1	Study 2
	M or %	M or %
Gender
Male	67% (n = 14)	64% (n = 29)
Female	33% (n = 7)	36% (n = 16)
Non-binary / third gender	0% (n = 0)	0% (n = 0)
Prefer not to say	0% (n = 0)	0% (n = 0)
Age	50.52 (SD = 7.38, Range 38–63)	49.87 (SD = 7.78, Range 36–61)
Faculty or school
Faculty of Dentistry	0% (n = 0)	2% (n = 1)
Faculty of Science	29% (n = 6)	27% (n = 12)
Faculty of Behavioural and Movement Sciences	5% (n = 1)	11% (n = 5)
Faculty of Humanities	10% (n = 2)	9% (n = 4)
Faculty of Medicine	5% (n = 1)	7% (n = 3)
Faculty of Law	10% (n = 2)	4% (n = 2)
Faculty of Social Sciences	10% (n = 2)	16% (n = 7)
Faculty of Religion and Theology	0% (n = 0)	2% (n = 1)
School of Business and Economics	29% (n = 6)	22% (n = 10)
Other^a	5% (n = 1)	0% (n = 0)
I am not a program director of a program at the Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam	0% (n = 0)	0% (n = 0)
Bachelor or Master
Bachelor program(s)	43% (n = 9)	20% (n = 9)
(Research) Master program(s)	43% (n = 9)	62% (n = 28)
Bachelor and (research) Master program(s)	10% (n = 2)	16% (n = 7)
Other^b	5% (n = 1)	2% (n = 1)
Experience as program director
Less than 1 year	14% (n = 3)	13% (n = 6)
Between 1 and 3 years	43% (n = 9)	38% (n = 17)
More than 3 years	43% (n = 9)	49% (n = 22)

^aOne participant selected ‘other’, did not indicate a faculty of school, but identified as a program coordinator. We decided to include this participant because program coordinators and directors often work closely together, and the participant’s responses were comparable to the nature of the other participants’ responses, and therefore were considered valuable input to retain.

^bOne participant indicated to be coordinator of a bachelor program in Study 1 and in Study 2 one participant indicated to be MBA-program director.

Procedure

Participants were given information about the study and, after providing consent, answered demographic and background questions that were used to describe the sample. Next, the target behavior was described. Participants were told that the questions were about their views on having a mandatory course addressing sustainability in their program(s) in 2026/2027. We explained what we meant with this mandatory course (see section 1.1) and asked participants to list thoughts that immediately came to mind in response to the questions. After answering the open-ended questions, participants were thanked for their participation and directed to a separate survey regarding the gift voucher.

Measures

Behavioral Beliefs

To elicit behavioral beliefs, we asked “What do you see as the advantages of having a mandatory course addressing sustainability in your program(s) in 2026/2027?”, “What do you see as the disadvantages of having a mandatory course addressing sustainability in your program(s) in 2026/2027?”, and “What else comes to mind when you think about having a mandatory course addressing sustainability in your program(s) in 2026/2027?”

Injunctive Normative Beliefs

We told participants “When it comes to having a mandatory course addressing sustainability in your program(s) in 2026/2027, there might be individuals or groups who would think you should or should not have this in your program” and then asked “Please list the individuals or groups who would approve or think you should have a mandatory course addressing sustainability in your program(s) in 2026/2027” and “Please list the individuals or groups who would disapprove or think you should not have a mandatory course addressing sustainability in your program(s) in 2026/2027.”

Descriptive Normative Beliefs

We told participants “Sometimes, when we are not sure what to do, we look to see what others are doing” and then asked “Please list the individuals or groups that you know, and are important to you, that are most likely to have a mandatory course addressing sustainability in their program(s) in 2026/2027” and “Please list the individuals or groups that you know, and are important to you, that are least likely to have a mandatory course addressing sustainability in their program(s) in 2026/2027.”

Control Beliefs

We asked “Please list any factors or circumstances that would make it easy or enable you to have a mandatory course addressing sustainability in your program(s) in 2026/2027” and “Please list any factors or circumstances that would make it difficult or prevent you from having a mandatory course addressing sustainability in your program(s) in 2026/2027.”

Results

Participants provided a total of 281 responses. First, one rater determined whether the responses reflected behavioral, normative, or control beliefs, or no belief (69 responses). This was verified by a second rater. Next, the two raters together categorized the responses within each belief category into a smaller number of distinct beliefs and found 16 additional responses that did not reflect a belief. A total of 196 beliefs were revealed, representing 18 behavioral beliefs, 9 injunctive normative beliefs, 6 descriptive normative beliefs, and 9 control beliefs. In selecting beliefs for Study 2, we selected as many of the most frequently mentioned beliefs as possible, accounting for at least 75% of the beliefs identified within each category (cf. recommendations of Fishbein & Ajzen, 2010). Table 2 presents the description and frequency of the identified beliefs, indicating which of the beliefs were selected for the quantitative survey of Study 2.

Table 2.

Description and Frequency of the Identified Beliefs

Behavioral beliefs (Outcomes of behavioral performance)		Frequency	Injunctive normative beliefs (Referents)		Frequency	Descriptive normative beliefs (Referents)		Frequency	Control beliefs (Factors that facilitate or hinder behavioral performance)		Frequency
+	Requires me to remove a topic from my current program(s)	10	+	Teachers in my program(s)	12	+	Programs that have a natural relationship with sustainability	5	+	Budget available	15
+	Address a significant (important, current, and real-world) topic	9	+	Students in my program(s)	10	+	Programs similar to mine at other universities (national or international)	5	+	Am able to ensure a good fit with my program and end-terms	11
+	Address a topic that students find appealing	6	+	Interest groups outside the Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam (e.g., NGOs, climate activists)	4	+	Other program directors	4	+	A top-down decision to make it obligatory	10
+	Increase student awareness of sustainability and its consequences, including the relationship with the discipline	6	+	Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam advisory boards (e.g., program committee, student council, works council)	3	+	Other universities	2	+	Space in the curriculum	9
+	Create overlap with other courses or programs	5	+	Interest groups within the Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam (e.g., green office, sustainability committees)	3		Academic staff	2	+	Knowledge about sustainability among my staff	7
+	Impart values or opinions to my students	5	+	My faculty board	2		Colleagues at the AUMC	1	+	Meet resistance	7
+	Prepare students for their professional life	5	*	The rector magnificus of the Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam	0				+	Experience demand from students	6
+	Address a topic irrelevant to their field of study	4		Climate scientists	1				+	Experience demand from the professional field	1
+	Encourage independent and critical thinking in my students	4		Professional field	1				+	Having good examples to follow	1
+	Address an emotionally charged topic	3		Researchers in my program	1
+	Link discipline-specific topics to sustainability	3
+	Reduce the coherence of my program(s)	3
	Cannot pay attention to other important societal topics	2
	Increase student workload	2
	Increase teacher workload	2
	Make me feel pressured to include another mandatory topic in my program(s)	2
	Address a topic that employers find appealing	1
	Have difficulties in determining what this course should be about	1

Note. + Selected for the quantitative survey of Study 2. * Included in Study 2 but added by the researchers.

Discussion

Study 1 identified many different beliefs that represent how participating program directors think about having a mandatory course addressing sustainability in their program(s) in 2026/2027. Behavioral beliefs revealed thoughts about the topic of sustainability and its place in the program. Teachers and students in the program were mentioned as the main groups of injunctive referents, while other programs and program directors were mentioned as the main groups of descriptive referents. Beliefs about facilitating or hindering control factors were related to budget, space and alignment in the program, and top-down decision making. Study 2 investigated which of the identified beliefs actually guide program directors’ intention to have a mandatory sustainability course.

Study 2: Quantitative Survey

Methods

Design and Aim

Study 2 included a survey with close-ended questions to examine which beliefs drive program directors’ intention to have a mandatory sustainability course.

Participants

In late May 2024, we emailed a link to the survey to all program directors. According to a Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam website (visited on March 28, 2024), there were 109 program directors at that moment. We spread out the survey by mailing flyers, emailing a reminder (early June), and contacting by phone (late June). Participation was voluntary and participants were offered a €10 gift voucher. We decided to allow future program directors to participate as well to increase the response rate. The survey closed on July 30. A total of 61 participants started the survey, of which 45 answered all questions and thus made up our final sample (see Table 1 for sample characteristics).

Procedure

Similar to Study 1, participants were given information about the study and, after giving consent, answered demographic and background questions that were used to describe the sample. Next, the target behavior was described as in Study 1. After answering the survey questions, participants could leave a comment if they wished, were thanked for their participation, and then directed to a separate survey where they could leave their email address if they wished to receive the gift voucher.

Measures

Intention

Intention was measured with three items: “It is likely that I will have a mandatory course addressing sustainability in my program(s) in 2026/2027”, “I expect I will have a mandatory course addressing sustainability in my program(s) in 2026/2027”, and “I want to have a mandatory course addressing sustainability in my program(s) in 2026/2027” (1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree). Scores were averaged to form an intention scale (α = .90).

Behavioral Beliefs

The 12 beliefs selected from Study 1 were translated into survey questions that measured both outcome strength and outcome evaluation for each belief. To measure outcome strength, we used the stem “If I have a mandatory course addressing sustainability in my program(s) in 2026/2027, I would …” (e.g., need to remove a topic from my current program(s), address a topic that students find appealing, impart values or opinions to my students) and the response scale of 1 = very unlikely to 7 = very likely. To measure outcome evaluation, we used the stem “When it comes to having a mandatory course addressing sustainability in my program(s) in 2026/2027, …” (e.g., my needing to remove a topic from my current program(s) is, my addressing a topic that students find appealing is, my imparting values or opinions to my students is) and the response scale of 1 = bad to 7 = good. We computed the product of outcome strength and evaluation for each belief and calculated a behavioral beliefs composite score by summing the belief-specific product scores (cf. Fishbein & Ajzen, 2010).

Instrumental and Experiential Attitude

Four seven-point semantic differential items measured attitude. We used the stem “My having a mandatory course addressing sustainability in my program(s) in 2026/2027 would be:” followed by the items bad-good and unimportant-important (for instrumental attitude), and unsatisfying-satisfying and boring-interesting (for experiential attitude). Scores were averaged to form an instrumental attitude (τ_b = .678, 95% CI [.492, .834], p < .001; note that we used Kendall’s tau-b correlation, see data analysis plan below) and an experiential attitude scale (τ_b = .771, 95% CI [.603, .906], p < .001).

Injunctive Normative Beliefs

The seven beliefs selected from Study 1 were translated into survey questions that measured both injunctive belief strength and motivation to comply for each belief. To measure injunctive belief strength, we used the stem “The following people or groups are likely to think I should have a mandatory course addressing sustainability in my program(s) in 2026/2027 …” (e.g., teachers in my program(s), students in my program(s), my faculty board) and the response scale of 1 = very unlikely to 7 = very likely. To measure motivation to comply, we used the stem “When it comes to matters of sustainability education, …” (e.g., I want to do what teachers in my program(s) think I should do, I want to do what students in my program(s) think I should do, I want to do what my faculty board thinks I should do) and the response scale of 1 = strongly disagree to 7 = strongly agree. We computed the product of injunctive belief strength and motivation to comply for each belief and calculated an injunctive normative beliefs composite score by summing the belief-specific product scores (cf. Fishbein & Ajzen, 2010).

Descriptive Normative Beliefs

The four beliefs selected from Study 1 were translated into survey questions that measured both descriptive belief strength and identification with referents for each belief. To measure descriptive belief strength, we used the stem “The following entities are likely to have a mandatory course addressing sustainability in their program(s) in 2026/2027 …” (e.g., programs that have a natural relationship with sustainability, programs similar to mine at other universities (national or international), other program directors) and the response scale of 1 = very unlikely to 7 = very likely. To measure identification with referents, we used the stem “When it comes to matters of sustainability education, …” (e.g., I want my program to be like programs that have a natural relationship with sustainability, I want my program to be like similar programs at other universities (national of international), I want to be like other program directors) and the response scale of 1 = strongly disagree to 7 = strongly agree. We computed the product of descriptive belief strength and identification with referents for each belief and calculated a descriptive normative beliefs composite score by summing the belief-specific product scores (cf. Fishbein & Ajzen, 2010).

Perceived Injunctive and Descriptive Norm

Two items measured perceived injunctive norm: “Most people whose opinions I value would approve of my having a mandatory course addressing sustainability in my program(s) in 2026/2027” and “Most people who are important to me think that I should have a mandatory course addressing sustainability in my program(s) in 2026/2027”. Two other items measured perceived descriptive norm: “Most people I respect and admire will have a mandatory course addressing sustainability in their program(s) in 2026/2027” and “Most people like me will have a mandatory course addressing sustainability in their program(s) in 2026/2027”. All items used a response scale of 1 = strongly disagree to 7 = strongly agree. Scores were averaged to form a perceived injunctive norm (τ_b = .697, 95% CI [.539, .834], p < .001) and a perceived descriptive norm scale (τ_b = .834, 95% CI [.685, .946], p < .001).

Control Beliefs

The nine beliefs selected from Study 1 were translated into survey questions that measured both control belief strength and power of control factors for each belief. We first measured power of control factors, using the stem “Do you agree that …?” (e.g., Having available budget would enable me to have a mandatory course addressing sustainability in my program(s) in 2026/2027, Being able to ensure a good fit with my program and end-terms would enable me to have a mandatory course addressing sustainability in my program(s) in 2026/2027, A top-down decision to make as sustainability course obligatory would enable me to have a mandatory course addressing sustainability in my program(s) in 2026/2027) and the response scale of 1 = strongly disagree to 7 = strongly agree. To measure control belief strength, we used the stem “When it comes to matters of sustainability education, …” (e.g., I will have budget available, I will be able to ensure a good fit with my program and end-terms, I will experience a top-down decision to make a sustainability course obligatory) and the response scale of 1 = very unlikely to 7 = very likely. We computed the product of control belief strength and power of control factors for each belief and calculated a control beliefs composite score by summing the belief-specific product scores (cf. Fishbein & Ajzen, 2010).

Perceived Behavioral Control (Autonomy and Capacity)

Two items measured perceived autonomy: “It is mostly up to me whether I have a mandatory course addressing sustainability in my program(s) in 2026/2027” and “I have complete control over whether I have a mandatory course addressing sustainability in my program(s) in 2026/2027”. Two other items measured perceived capacity: “I am confident I can have a mandatory course addressing sustainability in my program(s) in 2026/2027” and “It would be easy for me to have a mandatory course addressing sustainability in my program(s) in 2026/2027”. All items used a response scale of 1 = strongly disagree to 7 = strongly agree. Scores were averaged to form a perceived autonomy (τ_b = .744, 95% CI [.626, .838], p < .001) and a perceived capacity scale (τ_b = .651, 95% CI [.457, .803], p < .001).

Data Analysis Plan

Following the recommended approach (Crutzen & Peters, 2023; Fishbein & Ajzen, 2010), we focused on examining bivariate associations and univariate distributions. We first examined descriptive statistics of the variables and then moved to analyses at the level of the individual beliefs, which is the level most informative for providing input for the development of an intervention to motivate program directors to have a sustainability course in their program. Given the relatively small sample size, we used Kendall’s tau-b as a measure of correlation rather than Pearson’s correlation. Kendall’s tau-b is a non-parametric statistic based on ranked data and is less sensitive to extreme values and potential violations of assumptions (Field, 2013), ensuring robustness, also reporting the associated confidence intervals based on 1,000 bootstraps. The strength of the correlation coefficients was interpreted as follows: around .00 as negligible, around .06 as weak, around .26 as moderate, around .49 as strong, and around .71 as very strong (Wicklin, 2023).

Results

Table 3 shows that participants overall had a weak intention to have a mandatory sustainability course in their program (M = 3.73), but at the same time reported a neutral to somewhat positive attitude toward having such a course (M_instrumental = 4.53; M_experiential = 4.92). Participants did not feel any real normative pressure to have a sustainability course from people or groups important to them (M_{injunctive norm} = 3.73), nor did they think that relevant entities would have a mandatory sustainability course themselves (M_{descriptive norm} = 3.59). Similarly, they did not feel very autonomous (M = 3.69) or capable (M = 3.49) of having a mandatory sustainability course in their program. Consistent with the RAA, all variables, except perceived autonomy, correlated with intention.

Table 3.

Descriptive Statistics of Reflective Variables: Means, Standard Deviations, and Kendall’s tau-b Correlations (With Confidence Intervals Based on 1,000 Bootstrap Replicates in Brackets)

Variables	M	SD	Correlations
Variables	M	SD	Intention	Instrumental attitude	Experiential attitude	Injunctive norm	Descriptive norm	Perceived autonomy	Perceived capacity
Intention	3.73	1.92	—
Instrumental attitude	4.53	1.76	0.500***	—
Instrumental attitude	4.53	1.76	[0.295, 0.685]	—
Experiential attitude	4.92	1.69	0.443***	0.822***	—
Experiential attitude	4.92	1.69	[0.240, 0.617]	[0.724, 0.900]	—
Injunctive norm	3.73	1.65	0.344**	0.602***	0.621***	—
Injunctive norm	3.73	1.65	[0.142, 0.519]	[0.449, 0.737]	[0.466, 0.755]	—
Descriptive norm	3.59	1.59	0.419***	0.449***	0.454***	0.574***	—
Descriptive norm	3.59	1.59	[0.215, 0.603]	[0.225, 0.639]	[0.228, 0.656]	[0.340, 0.761]	—
Perceived autonomy	3.69	1.87	0.056	0.149	0.111	0.110	−0.046	—
Perceived autonomy	3.69	1.87	[−0.183, 0.300]	[−0.086, 0.373]	[−0.149, 0.358]	[−0.142, 0.349]	[−0.295, 0.202]	—
Perceived capacity	3.49	1.86	0.550***	0.417***	0.369***	0.501***	0.498***	0.167	—
Perceived capacity	3.49	1.86	[0.330, 0.754]	[0.208, 0.613]	[0.153, 0.581]	[0.274, 0.694]	[0.280, 0.714]	[−0.112, 0.439]	—

Note. Means are relative to scales ranging from 1 to 7 with higher scores reflecting more positive or stronger reflective variables. * p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001.

We also correlated the variables with their respective beliefs composite scores. A moderate to high correlation suggests that the measured beliefs underlie the RAA variables (cf. the theoretical assumption); a low or no correlation could indicate that the measured beliefs do not underlie the corresponding RAA variables (Fishbein & Ajzen, 2010). The behavioral beliefs composite score correlated strongly with both the instrumental (τ_b = .584, 95% CI [.412, .735], p < .001) and experiential attitude (τ_b = .597, 95% CI [.406, .747], p < .001). The injunctive normative beliefs composite score showed a moderate correlation with the injunctive norm (τ_b = .484, 95% CI [.294, .651], p < .001), and the descriptive normative beliefs composite score was moderately correlated with the descriptive norm (τ_b = .302, 95% CI [.064, .525], p = .006). Finally, the control beliefs composite score was moderately correlated with perceived capacity (τ_b = .418, 95% CI [.214, .612], p < .001) but unrelated to perceived autonomy (τ_b = .027, 95% CI [-.231, .289], p = .807). The results suggest that the beliefs measured in the current study do indeed underlie their corresponding RAA variables, with the exception that control beliefs appear to reflect only capacity-related, but not autonomy-related, perceived behavioral control. This may be because the questions used in Study 1 to identify control beliefs primarily triggered capacity-related beliefs.

Next, we examined individual beliefs. Tables 4 –7 show the distributions (means and standard deviations) of the strength of all types of beliefs, their evaluations (or motivation to comply, identification with referents, or power of control factors), the corresponding product scores (e.g., outcome strength x outcome evaluation for the behavioral beliefs), and the correlations between each product score and intention. A higher product score reflects that the belief has a greater impact on the corresponding RAA variable (attitude, perceived norm, perceived behavioral control). The stronger the correlation, the more likely it is that an intervention that successfully changes that belief will also change the intention (Fishbein & Ajzen, 2010).

Table 4.

Behavioral Beliefs About Having a Mandatory Sustainability Course: Means and Standard Deviations of Outcome Strength, Outcome Evaluation, Belief-Specific Product Scores, and Kendall’s tau-b Correlations (With p-Value, Confidence Intervals Based on 1,000 Bootstrap Replicates, and Classification) Between the Product Score and the Intention to Have Mandatory Course Addressing Sustainability

Behavioral belief	Outcome strength		Outcome evaluation		Product score		Correlation with intention	p value	Lower 95% CI	Upper 95% CI	Classification
Behavioral belief	M	SD	M	SD	M	SD	Correlation with intention	p value	Lower 95% CI	Upper 95% CI	Classification
Requires me to remove a topic from my current program(s)	5.07	2.35	2.58	1.50	12.20	9.27	−0.065	0.552	−0.271	0.166
Address a significant (important, current, and real-world) topic	5.93	1.10	5.80	1.47	35.09	11.66	0.173	0.122	−0.063	0.395
Address a topic that students find appealing	5.29	1.32	5.76	1.21	30.96	11.16	0.337	0.002**	0.126	0.516	Moderate
Increase student awareness of sustainability and its consequences, including the relationship with the discipline	5.64	1.49	5.93	1.23	34.84	12.94	0.284	0.011*	0.065	0.494	Moderate
Create overlap with other courses or programs	4.69	2.05	3.36	1.90	15.62	12.95	0.204	0.061	−0.009	0.416
Impart values or opinions to my students	4.40	1.50	4.24	1.49	19.31	11.04	0.149	0.175	−0.080	0.371
Prepare students for their professional life	5.22	1.55	6.13	0.92	32.87	11.78	0.327	0.004**	0.089	0.545	Moderate
Address a topic irrelevant to their field of study	2.64	1.65	2.84	1.78	7.20	6.15	−0.108	0.327	−0.332	0.108
Encourage independent and critical thinking in my students	5.36	1.55	6.27	1.01	33.93	11.75	0.410	< 0.001***	0.216	0.597	Moderate
Address an emotionally charged topic	4.67	1.52	4.84	1.28	23.07	11.25	−0.054	0.621	−0.254	0.160
Link discipline-specific topics to sustainability	5.73	1.56	6.09	1.08	35.91	12.89	0.511	< 0.001***	0.288	0.696	Strong
Reduce the coherence of my program(s)	3.38	2.01	2.13	1.46	6.49	4.36	−0.177	0.107	−0.357	0.023

Note. The means of outcome strength and evaluation are relative to scales ranging from 1 (very unlikely; bad) to 7 (very likely; good). The mean of the product score is relative to a scale from 1 to 49 with higher scores reflecting a higher impact of the belief on the overall attitude. * p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001.

Table 5.

Injunctive Normative Beliefs About Having a Mandatory Sustainability Course: Means and Standard Deviations of Injunctive Beliefs Strength, Motivation to Comply, Belief-Specific Product Scores, and Kendall’s tau-b Correlations (With p-Value, Confidence Intervals Based on 1,000 Bootstrap Replicates, and Classification)

Injunctive normative belief	Injunctive belief strength		Motivation to comply		Product score		Correlation with intention	p value	Lower 95% CI	Upper 95% CI	Classification
Injunctive normative belief	M	SD	M	SD	M	SD	Correlation with intention	p value	Lower 95% CI	Upper 95% CI	Classification
Teachers in my program(s)	3.62	1.93	4.78	1.26	17.73	11.35	0.475	< .001***	0.313	0.597	Moderate
Students in my program(s)	4.11	1.75	4.69	1.38	19.82	10.69	0.415	< .001***	0.205	0.589	Moderate
Interest groups outside the Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam (e.g., NGOs, climate activists)	5.76	1.46	3.18	1.28	18.22	8.72	0.296	0.007**	0.093	0.496	Moderate
Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam advisory boards (e.g., Program committee, student council, works council)	4.42	1.98	5.09	1.04	22.69	11.62	0.517	< .001***	0.363	0.654	Strong
Interest groups within the Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam (e.g., Green office, sustainability committees)	5.89	1.39	3.51	1.39	21.22	10.67	0.286	0.009**	0.042	0.494	Moderate
My faculty board	4.51	1.66	4.31	1.36	19.64	9.84	0.388	< .001***	0.213	0.545	Moderate
The rector magnificus of the Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam	4.89	1.48	3.73	1.56	18.73	10.21	0.339	0.002**	0.138	0.509	Moderate

Note. The means of injunctive belief strength and motivation to comply are relative to scales ranging from 1 (very unlikely; strongly disagree) to 7 (very likely; strongly agree). The mean of the product score is relative to a scale from 1 to 49 with higher scores reflecting a higher impact of the belief on the overall injunctive norm. * p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001.

Table 6.

Descriptive Normative Beliefs About Having a Mandatory Sustainability Course: Means and Standard Deviations of Descriptive Beliefs Strength, Identification With Referents, Belief-Specific Product Scores, and Kendall’s tau-b Correlations (With p-Value, Confidence Intervals Based on 1,000 Bootstrap Replicates, and Classification)

Descriptive normative belief	Descriptive belief strength		Identification with referents		Product score		Correlation with intention	p value	Lower 95% CI	Upper 95% CI	Classification
Descriptive normative belief	M	SD	M	SD	M	SD	Correlation with intention	p value	Lower 95% CI	Upper 95% CI	Classification
Programs that have a natural relationship with sustainability	6.11	1.27	4.27	1.83	25.84	12.55	0.301	0.006**	0.058	0.541	Moderate
Programs similar to mine at other universities (national or international)	3.87	1.82	4.11	1.25	15.80	9.21	0.414	< .001***	0.227	0.594	Moderate
Other program directors	4.53	1.08	3.18	1.23	14.49	7.02	0.130	0.240	−0.129	0.376
Other universities	4.69	1.29	3.22	1.40	14.98	7.35	0.127	0.244	−0.117	0.354

Note. The means of descriptive belief strength and identification with referents are relative to scales ranging from 1 (very unlikely; strongly disagree) to 7 (very likely; strongly agree). The mean of the product score is relative to a scale from 1 to 49 with higher scores reflecting a higher impact of the belief on the overall descriptive norm. * p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001.

Table 7.

Control Beliefs About Having a Mandatory Sustainability Course: Means and Standard Deviations of Control Belief Strength, Power of Control Factors, Belief-Specific Product Scores, and Kendall’s tau-b Correlations (With p-Value, Confidence Intervals Based on 1,000 Bootstrap Replicates, and Classification)

Control belief	Control belief strength		Power of control factors		Product score		Correlation with intention	p value	Lower 95% CI	Upper 95% CI	Classification
Control belief	M	SD	M	SD	M	SD	Correlation with intention	p value	Lower 95% CI	Upper 95% CI	Classification
Budget available	3.13	1.77	4.09	1.88	13.33	10.25	0.171	0.118	−0.106	0.411
Am able to ensure a good fit with my program and end-terms	4.82	1.86	4.96	1.74	25.07	13.88	0.450	< .001***	0.245	0.630	Moderate
A top-down decision to make it obligatory	3.42	1.66	3.36	1.93	11.27	8.54	0.035	0.745	−0.154	0.231
Space in the curriculum	3.40	2.04	4.96	1.80	17.80	13.15	0.474	< .001***	0.235	0.676	Moderate
Knowledge about sustainability among my staff	4.84	1.82	4.24	1.73	20.78	12.04	0.358	< .001***	0.114	0.544	Moderate
Meet resistance	4.33	1.71	4.47	1.59	20.51	12.39	−0.176	0.111	−0.381	0.067
Experience demand from students	4.38	1.32	4.76	1.30	21.24	8.75	0.291	0.008**	0.083	0.467	Moderate
Experience demand from the professional field	4.24	1.60	4.89	1.35	21.47	10.24	0.271	0.013*	0.036	0.486	Moderate
Having good examples to follow	4.59	1.44	4.49	1.62	20.98	10.20	0.246	0.028*	0.003	0.461	Weak

Note. The means of control belief strength and power of control factors are relative to scales ranging from 1 (very unlikely; strongly disagree) to 7 (very likely; strongly agree). The mean of the product score is relative to a scale from 1 to 49 with higher scores reflecting a higher impact of the belief on the overall perceived behavioral control. * p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001.

Five of the 12 behavioral beliefs showed a moderate to strong relationship with intention (Table 4). The beliefs that having a sustainability course makes it possible to link discipline-specific topics to sustainability (τ_b = .511) and encourages independent and critical thinking in students (τ_b = .410) were related to a stronger intention to have such a course. The beliefs that a sustainability course would provide an appealing topic for students (τ_b = .337), prepare them for their professional life (τ_b = .327), and make them more aware of sustainability (τ_b = .284) were also related to a stronger intention, although to a lesser extent. Furthermore, perceived normative pressure from all injunctive referents was associated with intention (Table 5), especially perceived normative pressure from advisory boards (τ_b = .517; e.g., program committee, student council, works council) and teachers (τ_b = .475) and students (τ_b = .415) within the program. Beliefs about what similar programs at other universities (τ_b = .414) and programs that have a natural relationship with sustainability do (τ_b = .301), and the extent to which participants want to be like them, were also associated with intentions to have a sustainability course in the program (Table 6). Finally, six of the nine control beliefs showed a relationship with intention (Table 7). Specifically, beliefs about having space in the curriculum (τ_b = .474), being able to ensure a good fit with the program and the end-terms (τ_b = .450), and having staff knowledgeable about sustainability (τ_b = .358) shaped program directors’ intentions to have a sustainability course in their program.

Discussion

Study 2 showed that program directors had a weak intention to have a mandatory sustainability course in their program in 2026/2027. Thus, it makes sense for an intervention to focus on changing intentions to try to increase the number of programs with a sustainability course. According to the RAA (Fishbein & Ajzen, 2010), this could be achieved by changing program directors’ attitude, perceived norm, or perceived behavioral control. Consistent with this reasoning, the results showed that all variables (except the perceived autonomy component of perceived behavioral control) were related to intention, and all scores were mostly around the neutral midpoint of the scales, indicating that there is sufficient room for change and that, on average, program directors are not too averse to the possibility of having a mandatory sustainability course. Beliefs provide the foundation for these variables, and the specific behavioral, normative, or control beliefs that are most strongly related to the intention are those that should be targeted in an intervention to make it most likely to change intentions (Fishbein & Ajzen, 2010). Study 2 provided this information by pinpointing which of the specific beliefs from Study 1 guided program directors’ intentions to have a mandatory sustainability course.

General Discussion

We used the RAA to investigate what motivates university program directors to have a mandatory sustainability course in their program in 2026/2027. Study 1 identified the beliefs held by program directors about having a mandatory sustainability course. Study 2 showed that program directors had a weak intention to have a mandatory sustainability course, highlighting that interventions are needed to increase the supply of sustainability education in higher education. Study 2 identified the specific beliefs from Study 1 that most strongly guided program directors’ intention, providing key targets for interventions aimed at increasing these intentions.

To identify key beliefs, we followed three guidelines established in the literature (Crutzen et al., 2017; Crutzen & Peters, 2023; Fishbein & Ajzen, 2010; Fishbein & Yzer, 2003; Hornik & Woolf, 1999; Yzer & Zhu, 2025). First, the belief should be strongly related to intention. A stronger relationship increases the likelihood that changing the belief will result in a change in intention. Second, there should be room for changing the belief (i.e., potential ceiling or floor effects should be considered). If a belief is associated with intention, but most program directors already strongly (or weakly) hold or value that belief, there may not be much to gain by further strengthening (or weakening) that belief through an intervention. Instead of trying to change these beliefs, an intervention might focus on reinforcing them to strengthen the association between belief and intention (Fishbein & Yzer, 2003). Third, it should be possible to change or influence the belief through an intervention.

Several behavioral beliefs from our study may be good target candidates for interventions. The beliefs that a sustainability course facilitates linking discipline-specific topics to sustainability and encourages students to think independently and critically were most strongly related to the intention of having a sustainability course. Beliefs that a sustainability course addresses a topic that students find appealing, prepares students for their professional life, and increases student awareness of sustainability and its consequences, including links to the discipline were also associated with a stronger intention. While these beliefs show positive associations with intention, there may not be much room for change. This is because most program directors already seem to agree that these are likely and positive outcomes of having a sustainability course. However, if an intervention targets program directors who are not yet convinced, these beliefs may be highly relevant. Furthermore, an intervention to confirm and reinforce these five beliefs could increase program directors’ intention to have a sustainability course in their program. Among these beliefs, the idea that sustainability is an appealing topic for students is especially significant. Students are particularly drawn to sustainability education that equips them with actionable perspectives to navigate the planetary crisis. This shows a demand Dutch higher education institutions are not yet meeting. Students value courses that are current, applied, and solution-oriented, empowering them to address real-world challenges and contribute meaningfully within their disciplines (Youngworks, 2023). Such courses resonate with students’ interests and align with their goals for professional preparation. Program directors can design courses that meet both academic and career-oriented expectations by emphasizing how sustainability education enhances readiness for professional life, equipping students with relevant skills and insights and increasing awareness of sustainability’s consequences and its intersections with the fields of study. Recognizing and integrating these preferences into course design could strengthen the appeal of sustainability courses. This would, in turn, reinforce program directors’ intentions to include them. Previous research also shows that there is a demand for professionals to be knowledgeable in sustainability-related topics (e.g., Gitsham & Clark, 2014), making this study also relevant for understanding how higher education institutions respond to (internal and external) stakeholder pressure (Christou et al., 2024).

Perceived normative pressure from all groups (injunctive referents) in this research was associated with intention and could therefore be used in interventions. However, normative pressure from advisory boards (e.g., program committee, student and works council), teachers and students within their own program appear to have the most influence. Program directors are also most likely to listen to these three groups, as indicated by their reported levels of motivation to comply with these groups. Interventions that successfully get advisory boards, teachers, and students to communicate to program directors that they want a sustainability course in the program (e.g., by reinforcing the relevant behavioral beliefs identified in this research) may increase directors’ intention to have such a course. Descriptive normative beliefs (about similar programs at other universities and programs with a natural connection to sustainability) were related to intention but to a lesser extent than injunctive normative beliefs. Unsurprisingly, program directors believed that programs with a natural connection to sustainability were more likely to offer a mandatory sustainability course. It is possible, then, that an intervention increasing program directors’ identification with such programs may boost their intention to have a course. Interventions that make program directors aware of similar programs at other universities that offer a mandatory sustainability course may positively influence intention by strengthening this descriptive belief. Moreover, product and service developments often follow the path of their competitors, and the higher education sector is not immune to this sort of market logic (Marginson, 2006).

Several control beliefs may be good candidates for interventions. Specifically, beliefs about space in the curriculum, fit with the program and the end-terms and staff knowledge about sustainability showed the strongest correlations with intention and thus appear to be the most influential. In addition, the scores were around the scales’ midpoint, suggesting that there is room for change. Naturally, to be a candidate for intervention, beliefs should be amenable to change. While a typical intervention may not be able to create space in the curriculum (unless a top-down decision is made to enforce it), it could teach program directors how to incorporate the topics of the proposed mandatory sustainability course (e.g., the basic science on global heating and its consequences) into the current curriculum. Interventions might also demonstrate how to ensure a good fit with the program and its end-terms, and how to increase sustainability knowledge among staff. More indirectly, interventions focusing on educating teachers about sustainability could both address this control belief and perhaps fuel the normative pressure that teachers have on their program directors to have a sustainability course.

In conclusion, the current findings allow for the development of interventions aimed at strengthening the intention of university program directors to implement a mandatory sustainability course. Ultimately this could increase the number of programs with a sustainability course, help universities achieve their green ambitions, and equip more students with sustainability literacy. This provides students with the necessary awareness, knowledge and skills to participate in and contribute to the development of solutions. These are assets needed in this time of widespread, rapid, and intensifying climate change (Budihardjo et al., 2021; Gitsham & Clark, 2014). To further assist interventionists, Figure 1 visually summarizes our key findings, highlighting the desired focus (labeled “Activity” in Figure 1) and the most relevant beliefs to target (labeled “Thoughts of the program director” in Figure 1). Inspired by Avram (2025), Table 8 provides examples of how the identified beliefs translate into concrete social marketing strategies.

Figure 1.

Visual summary of the results

Table 8.

Examples of How to Translate Identified Beliefs Into Concrete Social Marketing Strategies That Align With the 4 Ps of Social Marketing

Belief identified as intervention target	Example social marketing strategy	Example channel, agent of change, message	Alignment with the 4 Ps of social marketing
A sustainability course makes it possible to link discipline-specific topics to sustainability (behavioral belief).	Provide practical, discipline-specific examples and tools demonstrating seamless curriculum integration to confirm and reinforce this belief.	A development workshop (channel) led by a trusted curriculum expert from a similar field who has successfully integrated sustainability (agent of change), emphasizing efficiency and relevance, demonstrating how to embed sustainability in the context of the discipline (message).	Using a trusted messenger (promotion) to make the implementation seem simple and show the path to change (product), which in turn helps minimize the perceived loss of curriculum space (price).
A sustainability course encourages students to think independently and critically (behavioral belief).	Present the course as an opportunity to develop highly valued, in-demand skills, such as critical thinking and solution orientation, which will enhance the program’s reputation.	Testimonials (channel) featuring alumni and potential employers (agent of change) who praise graduates for their critical sustainability literacy, presenting the course as a competitive edge that delivers the critical thinkers the market demands (message).	Connecting the individual actions of implementing the course to the larger societal outcome of delivering better graduates (product), thereby promoting a positive self-concept among program directors of being innovative and responsive (promotion).
A sustainability course addresses a topic that students find appealing (behavioral belief).	Publicize data demonstrating unmet student demand for actionable, solution-oriented sustainability education addressing the planetary crisis.	Present compelling, institution-specific data (e.g., student council reports or high enrollment in related courses) in a visual format (message) at a meeting for program directors or deans of education (channel), showing that a sustainability course is both an enrollment driver and a way of meeting the high demand for applied sustainability literacy (message).	Positioning the course as popular by demonstrating the demand and ensuring that the perceived benefit is relevant to what the student audience already wants (promotion), with the message timing maximized to reflect current student interest (place).
A sustainability course prepares students for their professional life (behavioral belief).	Demonstrate how the course equips students with relevant professional skills and insights and connect it to quantifiable career benefits.	Provide program directors with a briefing (channel), detailing industry requirements, and demonstrating how the course content addresses the demand for professionals knowledgeable in sustainability-related topics (message).	Make implementing the course personal and relevant by aligning it with program director’s motivation of responding to stakeholder pressure and market logic (product), which in turn reinforces positive outcomes, boosting engagement and positive emotions (promotion).
A sustainability course increases student awareness of sustainability and its consequences, including the relationship with the discipline (behavioral belief).	Emphasize the importance of this awareness by presenting it as a core competency or ethical standard necessary for professional practice within a specific discipline.	A keynote address or official statement (channel) from a respected body or accreditor (agent of change) outlining sustainability awareness as a required core competency, emphasizing that program directors herewith ensure graduates meet the knowledge standards of their profession (message).	Using the right messenger (a trusted professional body) to lend authority (promotion) and defining awareness as a necessary core product or basic requirement (product).
Injunctive normative pressure from internal groups (advisory boards, teachers, and students) that support a sustainability course (injunctive normative beliefs).	Coordinate and amplify the voice of these internal groups to show their strong support for a sustainability course, which will encourage program directors to comply with the groups’ requests.	Representatives of internal groups (agent of change) present formal recommendations to the program director (channel), emphasizing consensus and ethical obligation. For instance, they might state that sustainability education is an expectation set by stakeholders (message).	Using the right messenger (those for whom the program director has a high level of motivation to comply) and using formal recommendations as a commitment nudge (promotion), thereby leveraging the desire to avoid the social risk of noncompliance (price).
Descriptive normative pressure from similar programs at other universities (descriptive normative beliefs).	Monitor and publicize data on competitors and similar programs that have already adopted mandatory sustainability courses, thereby leveraging market logic.	A visually appealing market briefing (channel) distributed by a professional organization or university support office (agent of change) emphasizing the importance of staying competitive in the light of peer institutions that are already equipping students with this mandatory core skill set (message).	Positioning the desired behavior as commonplace and encouraging the idea of following the crowd (promotion) to tap into the motivations of following competitors and the perceived loss of market share (price).
Descriptive normative pressure from programs with a natural connection to sustainability (descriptive normative beliefs).	Showcase successful, high-identification programs and provide practical guidelines demonstrating how the methods used to implement a sustainability course can be transferred to the program director’s discipline. This will increase identification.	A knowledge exchange forum (channel) featuring program directors from naturally connected programs (agent of change), communicating the possibilities and ease of making education future-proof (message).	Showing the path to change by defining the sustainability course as an achievable and adaptable product (product), through an exchange forum to reduce friction in accessing best practices and making change seem easy (place), thereby inducing positive emotions such as inspiration and capability to motivate change (promotion).
Having space in the curriculum (control belief).	Provide ready-made, detailed, templates and toolkits that demonstrate how to create space for a sustainability course by making the current curriculum leaner without sacrificing core topics.	A digital curriculum scan toolkit (channel) promoted via teaching and learning centers (agent of change) emphasizing that integrating a sustainability course is possible without losing crucial content of core courses (message).	A digital toolkit that makes the implementation seem simple and shows the path to change (product), that is highly accessible and user-friendly to reduce friction (place). This reduces the perceived costs, such as the loss of curriculum space or effort needed to restructure (price).
Being able to ensure a good fit with the program and end-terms (control belief).	Develop and distribute case studies showing successful alignment of sustainability courses with discipline-specific program and end-terms.	A webinar (channel) led by a university accreditation liaison or recognized body (agent of change), emphasizing the possibility of guaranteed alignment between sustainability education and the official end-terms of programs (message).	Ensuring the offering is personal and relevant by addressing the professional challenge of accreditation (product) and reducing friction (place) by using a relevant and trusted channel and agent (promotion).
Having staff knowledgeable about sustainability (control belief).	Provide easily accessible (online or hybrid), high-quality professional development that focuses on foundational sustainability concepts relevant to the staff’s discipline.	Short, certified professional development courses (channel) led by educational experts (agent of change), emphasizing achieving confidence in the classroom to teach sustainability concepts (message).	Focusing on making it simple and easy (product) and maximizing timing with convenient scheduling or online access to reduce barriers (place). Promoting a positive self-concept among staff of being competent and up to date (promotion), that may also indirectly fuel normative pressure teachers have on program directors.

Moreover, besides what is mentioned in Table 8, there are other intervention approaches that have proved to be successful. First, following the example of Arizona State University (Wiek et al., 2014), program directors can incorporate problem-based learning modules that address real-world sustainability challenges into existing courses. This approach covers attributes that program directors deem important, such as fostering critical thinking, linking disciplinary content to sustainability, and preparing students for professional practice (behavioral beliefs). Second, since advisory boards, teachers, and students are influential referents (normative beliefs), co-creation mechanisms can reinforce social norms that support sustainability integration. The University of Exeter’s Green Futures initiative and Utrecht University’s Sustainability Education & Engagement community demonstrate how participatory networks encourage shared ownership of sustainability education (University of Exeter, n.d; Utrecht University, n.d.). Finally, to address constraints such as limited curriculum space and staff expertise (control beliefs), universities can support faculty through professional development programs, curriculum mapping initiatives, and shared modular courses. For example, the 4TU Responsible Sustainability Challenge is a collaborative, challenge-based honors program offered by Dutch technical universities (Fuentes Bongenaar et al., 2024). Together, these practices demonstrate that belief-based interventions can be translated into real courses through collaboration, resource sharing, and institutional support.

Strengths and Limitations

Most research using the RAA to inform interventions assesses the predictive strength of attitude, perceived norm, and perceived behavioral control on intentions. However, these studies typically do not investigate specific beliefs underlying these determinants (Fishbein & Ajzen, 2010; Yzer, 2023). While such research can provide information about which determinant an intervention might best target (e.g., attitude because it was the strongest predictor of intention), it does not specify the content of that intervention (e.g., which belief to change or reinforce). Thus, the current research, which included a belief elicitation study and belief-based measures in the quantitative survey, provides a detailed understanding of program directors’ beliefs about mandatory sustainability education and thus direct guidance that interventionists can use in developing their interventions. In addition, studies that assess beliefs often assess only one aspect, such as belief strength, whereas the current study–consistent with the RAA (Fishbein & Ajzen, 2010)–also assessed their evaluations (or motivation to comply, identification with referents, or power of control factors). This provides useful information for interventionists.

A limitation of the present research is that we cannot generalize the findings to populations of program directors other than those from the Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam. Dutch universities generally operate similarly, with program directors primarily responsible for designing and developing their programs. Thus, they are key decision-makers in the curriculum. However, broader organizational and contextual factors also influence implementation. According to Weiss and colleagues (2021), institutional leadership, staff development, cross-campus integration, and stakeholder engagement are main drivers, while limited resources, coordination, and incentives are major barriers. These factors shape the organizational climate and decision-making autonomy of program directors, which may then influence the relative importance of the beliefs identified in this study. Similarly, UNESCO (2018) emphasizes that national policies and institutional commitment are decisive for embedding sustainability education. Therefore, these contextual differences may affect how program directors in other settings form and prioritize their beliefs about implementing a mandatory sustainability course. To test the robustness of the identified belief set, we recommend replicating our belief elicitation and quantitative approach in other countries and institution types.

In addition, the findings are specific to the concrete behavior examined in our research: having a mandatory course addressing sustainability in the program(s) in 2026/2027. While these aspects are limitations to generalizability, they also reflect a key aspect of the RAA, which argues that behaviors have unique underlying belief systems that may differ between populations and types of behaviors. That is, changing one of the elements in the definition of the behavior of interest (target, action, context, or time) changes the behavior, which may affect the nature or importance of the beliefs that underlie the behavior (Fishbein & Ajzen, 2010). Thus, it may well be that the beliefs identified in the current research are also relevant for other populations of program directors or for related target behaviors (e.g., a non-mandatory sustainability course or sustainability education in general), but we cannot be sure without conducting a new belief elicitation study and quantitative survey. However, the current research demonstrates how this can be done relatively easily, providing high-quality input for intervention development. It is advisable though to pilot test the questionnaires to improve clarity and accessibility, as our participants mentioned that the survey questions were sometimes difficult to answer.

Conclusion

We employed the RAA to provide belief-based guidance for developing interventions to increase sustainability education at the Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam. Consistent with prior views (e.g., Yzer & Zhu, 2025) and empirical evidence (e.g., Hornik et al., 2019), developing interventions using the beliefs identified in the current research will be far superior to developing interventions based on intuition. Ultimately, we hope this will equip more students with essential knowledge about climate change and sustainability, raising their awareness and providing them with the knowledge and skills to participate in and contribute to developing solutions. Furthermore, this research can inspire other higher education institutions to identify and appeal to the beliefs that motivate their program directors to incorporate sustainability education into their programs.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

We thank Sanchayan Banerjee, Nicky Bosman, Simone Burger, Jessica Hill, Clemens Kaupa, Meike Morren, and Karen Verduijn for their feedback during this research project. We also thank Lucia de Rosa-Hansen for her help with the data collection.

Guido M. van Koningsbruggen

Ana Isabel Lopes

Jolien Arendsen

Jorim J. Tielbeek

Ethical Considerations

The research was approved by the Research Ethics Review Committee of the Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam (approval numbers 2024-3-1-310/2024-3-27-960 (Study 1) and 2024-4-24-375/2024-4-24-615 (Study 2)).

Consent to Participate

Participants provided consent to participate by selecting this option in the online surveys (i.e., written consent). Informed consent was required by Research Ethics Review Committee of the Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam.

Consent for Publication

Informed consent for publication of the findings was provided by the participants (i.e., written consent).

Author Contributions

GK: Conceptualization, data curation, formal analysis, funding acquisition, methodology, writing – original draft, writing – review & editing.

AL: Conceptualization, funding acquisition, methodology, writing – review & editing.

JA: Formal analysis, methodology, writing – review & editing.

JT: Funding acquisition, writing – review & editing.

Funding

The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This work was supported by the Amsterdam Sustainability Institute Seed Money Program 2024 of the Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Data Availability Statement

The data that support the findings of this research are openly available at the Open Science Framework at .

Declaration of Generative AI and AI-Assisted Technologies in The Writing Process

During the preparation of this work, the authors used DeepL Write to improve the readability and language, as well as NotebookLM to create an initial draft of Table 8. After using these tools/services, the authors reviewed and edited the content as needed and take full responsibility for the content of the publication.

Author Biographies

Guido M. van Koningsbruggen is an Associate Professor in the Department of Communication Science at the Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam. His research focuses on understanding the motivations behind people’s behavior, particularly with regard to health and sustainability. His goal is to inform the design of behavior change interventions and communication campaigns.

Ana Isabel Lopes is an Assistant Professor in Corporate Communication at the Department of Communication Science, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam. Ana's research interests cover several areas within marketing communications and public relations, with most recent work being on the social responsibility of organizations and how it can benefit society and lead to sustainable consumption.

Jolien Arendsen is a Ph.D. candidate in the Department of Communication Science at the Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam. Her research interests are aligned with societal challenges, with recent work using the Reasoned Action Approach to help design interventions for positive social change.

Jorim J. Tielbeek is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Psychiatry at Amsterdam University Medical Center and serves as Project Lead for Sustainability Education at the Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam. His academic interest is on the interplay between human behavior and planetary health. In addition, his work focuses on the co-creation of global citizenship education.

References

Ajzen

(1985). From intentions to actions: A theory of planned behavior. In Kuhl

Beckmann

(Eds.), Action control: From cognition to behavior (pp. 11–39). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-69746-3_2

Alenda

Bouwmans

Buijtendijk

Dablander

Dix

Dóci

Kreemers

Lemaire

Scachisthal

Tielbeek

(2023). Addressing the elephant in the lecture hall: Climate education now. https://openletter.earth/addressing-the-elephant-in-the-lecture-hall-climate-education-now-12014c0c

Avram

(2025). Social marketing & behavioral science: An unnecessary divide. Social Marketing Quarterly, 31(4), 15245004251381815. https://doi.org/10.1177/15245004251381815

Budihardjo

M. A.

Ramadan

B. S.

Putri

S. A.

Wahyuningrum

I. F. S.

Muhammad

F. I.

(2021). Towards sustainability in higher-education institutions: Analysis of contributing factors and appropriate strategies. Sustainability, 13(12), 6562. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13126562

Christou

Manou

D. B.

Armenia

Franco

Blouchoutzi

Papathanasiou

(2024). Fostering a whole-institution approach to sustainability through systems thinking: An analysis of the state-of-the-art in sustainability integration in higher education institutions. Sustainability, 16(6), 2508. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16062508

Crutzen

Peters

G.-J. Y.

(2023). The regression trap: Why regression analyses are not suitable for selecting determinants to target in behavior change interventions. Health Psychology and Behavioral Medicine, 11(1), 2268684. https://doi.org/10.1080/21642850.2023.2268684

Crutzen

Peters

G.-J. Y.

Noijen

(2017). Using confidence interval-based estimation of relevance to select social-cognitive determinants for behavior change interventions. Frontiers in Public Health, 5, 165. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2017.00165

Field

(2013). Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS statistics (4th ed.). Sage.

Fishbein

(2000). The role of theory in HIV prevention.AIDS impact: 4th international conference on the biopsychosocial aspects of HIV infection, 15-18 July, 1999, Ottawa, Canada. AIDS Care, 12(3), 273–278. https://doi.org/10.1080/09540120050042918

10.

Fishbein

Ajzen

(1975). Belief, attitude, intention, and behavior: An introduction to theory and research. Addison-Wesley.

11.

Fishbein

Ajzen

(2010). Predicting and changing behavior: The reasoned action approach. Routledge.

12.

Fishbein

Yzer

M. C.

(2003). Using theory to design effective health behavior interventions. Communication Theory, 13(2), 164–183. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2885.2003.tb00287.x

13.

Fuentes Bongenaar

M. S.

Karageorgiou

Sha

(2024). 4TU responsible sustainability challenge: Developing and running an inter-university challenge-based master honours programme. In SEFI annual conference. https://www.4tu.nl/htm/education/4tu-responsible-sustainability-challenge/

14.

Gitsham

Clark

T. S.

(2014). Market demand for sustainability in management education. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 15(3), 291–303. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJSHE-12-2011-0082

15.

Hagger

M. S.

Hamilton

Ajzen

Bosnjak

Schmidt

(2019). Testing the replicability of the theory of planned behavior: A large-scale multi-sample registered replication study. https://www.psycharchives.org/en/item/c8502fff-3500-47b3-b1e3-a8be69d688b2

16.

Hickman

Marks

Pihkala

Clayton

Lewandowski

R. E.

Mayall

E. E.

Wray

Mellor

Susteren

L. van.

(2021). Climate anxiety in children and young people and their beliefs about government responses to climate change: A global survey. The Lancet Planetary Health, 5(12), e863–e873. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2542-5196(21)00278-3

17.

Hornik

R. C.

Volinsky

A. C.

Mannis

Gibson

L. A.

Brennan

Lee

S. J.

Tan

A. S. L.

(2019). Validating the hornik & woolf approach to choosing media campaign themes: Do promising beliefs predict behavior change in a longitudinal study? Communication Methods and Measures, 13(1), 60–68. https://doi.org/10.1080/19312458.2018.1515902

18.

Hornik

R. C.

Woolf

K. D.

(1999). Using cross-sectional surveys to plan message strategies. Social Marketing Quarterly, 5(2), 34–41. https://doi.org/10.1080/15245004.1999.9961044

19.

JASP Team . (2024). JASP. [Computer software], Version 0.18.3. https://jasp-stats.org

20.

Leal Filho

Shiel

Paço

Mifsud

Ávila

L. V.

Brandli

L. L.

Molthan-Hill

Pace

Azeiteiro

U. M.

Vargas

V. R.

Caeiro

(2019). Sustainable development goals and sustainability teaching at universities: Falling behind or getting ahead of the pack? Journal of Cleaner Production, 232, 285–294. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.05.309

21.

Liu

E. C. X.

Cham

T. H.

(2025). Driving brand advocacy in higher education marketing: An integrative perspective on China students studying overseas. Asia Pacific Business Review, 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1080/13602381.2025.2452857

22.

Lutchyn

Yzer

M. C.

(2011). Construal level theory and theory of planned behavior: Time frame effects on salient belief generation. Journal of Health Communication, 16(6), 595–606. https://doi.org/10.1080/10810730.2011.551991

23.

Mahdi

O. R.

Nassar

I. A.

Almsafir

M. K.

(2019). Knowledge management processes and sustainable competitive advantage: An empirical examination in private universities. Journal of Business Research, 94, 320–334. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2018.02.013

24.

Marginson

(2006). Dynamics of national and global competition in higher education. Higher Education, 52(1), 1–39. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-004-7649-x

25.

Pihkala

(2020). Anxiety and the ecological crisis: An analysis of eco-anxiety and climate anxiety. Sustainability, 12(19), 19. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12197836

26.

Quinn

Lemay

Larsen

Johnson

D. M.

(2009). Service quality in higher education. Total Quality Management and Business Excellence, 20(2), 139–152. https://doi.org/10.1080/14783360802622805

27.

Raposo Junior

A. E.

Mainardes

E. W.

Alves

H. M. B.

(2025). How to constrain value co-destruction and enhance competitive advantage in higher education: The role of value orientation. International Review on Public and Nonprofit Marketing, 22(2), 413–437. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12208-025-00428-x

28.

Student Minds . (2023). Climate change and student mental health. https://www.studentminds.org.uk/uploads/3/7/8/4/3784584/climate_change_and_student_mental_health.pdf

29.

The jamovi project . (2022). Jamovi, (Version Version 2.3) [Computer Software]. https://www.jamovi.org

30.

UNESCO . (2018). Issues and trends in education for sustainable development. UNESCO Publishing. https://doi.org/10.54675/YELO2332

31.

United Nations . (n.d.). United nations sustainable development—goal 13: Climate action. United Nations Sustainable Development - Goal 13: Climate Action. https://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/climate-change/

32.

University of Exeter . (n.d.). GreenFutures, GreenFutures. https://greenfutures.exeter.ac.uk/

33.

Utrecht University . (n.d.). Education—sustainability at the university. https://www.uu.nl/en/organisation/sustainability-at-the-university/education

34.

Weiss

Barth

Wiek

Vohn Wehrden

(2021). Drivers and barriers of implementing sustainability curricula in higher education: Assumptions and evidence. Higher Education Studies, 11(2), 42–64. https://doi.org/10.5539/hes.v11n2p42

35.

Wicklin

(2023). Weak or strong? How to interpret a spearman or Kendall correlation. The DO Loop. https://blogs.sas.com/content/iml/2023/04/05/interpret-spearman-kendall-corr.html

36.

Wiek

Xiong

Brundiers

Van der Leeuw

(2014). Integrating problem- and project-based learning into sustainability programs: A case study on the school of sustainability at Arizona State University. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 15(4), 431–449. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJSHE-02-2013-0013

37.

Youngworks . (2023). Research report: The role of sustainability in study choice, Faculty of Science, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam (Commissioned by Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam; March–June 2023). Youngworks.

38.

Yzer

M. C.

(2023). Theories of reasoned action and planned behavior. In Ho

Bylund

van Weert

Basnyat

Bol

Dean

(Eds.), The international encyclopedia of health communication. Wiley.

39.

Yzer

M. C.

Zhu

(2025). A research protocol for determining depression help-seeking message content. In Yzer

M. C.

Siegel

J. T.

(Eds.), The handbook of mental health communication (1st ed., pp. 399–411). Wiley.

Program Directors’ Beliefs on Implementing a Mandatory Sustainability Course: A University-Wide Study

Abstract

Background

Focus of the Article

Research Question

Importance to the Social Marketing Field

Methods

Results

Recommendations for Research or Practice

Keywords

Introduction

The Present Research

Studies 1 (Belief Elicitation Survey) and 2 (Quantitative Survey)

Study 1: Belief Elicitation Survey

Methods

Design and Aim

Participants

Procedure

Measures

Behavioral Beliefs

Injunctive Normative Beliefs

Descriptive Normative Beliefs

Control Beliefs

Results

Discussion

Study 2: Quantitative Survey

Methods

Design and Aim

Participants

Procedure

Measures

Intention

Behavioral Beliefs

Instrumental and Experiential Attitude

Injunctive Normative Beliefs

Descriptive Normative Beliefs

Perceived Injunctive and Descriptive Norm

Control Beliefs

Perceived Behavioral Control (Autonomy and Capacity)

Data Analysis Plan

Results

Discussion

General Discussion

Strengths and Limitations

Conclusion

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

Ethical Considerations

Consent to Participate

Consent for Publication

Author Contributions

Funding

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

Data Availability Statement

Declaration of Generative AI and AI-Assisted Technologies in The Writing Process

Author Biographies

References