responding to environmental concerns: what factors guide individual action?

journal of Environmental Psychology (1993) 13, 149-159 0272-4944/93/020149+11508.00/0 © 1993 Academic Press Ltd

ENVIRONMSTAL rsYCnOLO Y

RESPONDING TO ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS: WHAT FACTORS GUIDE INDIVIDUAL ACTION?

LAWRENCE J. AXELROD 1 AND DARRIN R. LEHMAN

Department of Psychology, University of British Columbia, Canada

Abstract

The utility of beliefs regarding the motivational role played hy three classes of outcomes in predicting environmentally-concerned behavior was examined with survey data collected from two samples--undergraduate students and community residents. The three classes of outcome desires were those related to obtaining tangible rewards, those pertaining to social acceptance, and outcomes derived from acting in accordance with one's deeply held principles. General attitudes toward the natural environment and environmental protection, issue importance, level of perceived threat, and efficacy beliefs were also measured. Multiple regression analyses indicated that desires regarding principled and social outcomes explained a significant amount of variance in behavioral reports for the student sample, whereas desires related to tangible outcomes did so with the community sample. In support of a multivariate approach to the study of environmentally-concerned behavior, threat perception, issue importance, and efficacy constructs also accounted for a significant portion of variance in behavioral reports. Theoretical and applied implications are discussed.

I n t r o d u c t i o n

Since the early 1960s a number of problems stemming from modern society's impact on our natural environment (e.g. ozone depletion, excess waste, acid rain, air and water pollution, deforesta- tion) have been recognized. As the magnitude of these problems is brought to public attention, a growing concern for ecological issues is developing. Though the impact that one individual has on the environment is relatively small, collectively ,the effect of individuals on the natural environment is monumental . Therefore, investigating the psychological antecedents of individuals' reactions to environmental concerns is vital, as we at tempt to better unders tand the factors that guide individual choice regarding environmentally-responsible behavior.

Recent opinion polls (e.g. Gallup & Newport, 1990; Angus Reid Group, 1992) reveal a public that is highly concerned about environmental problems, but none the less is primarily inactive. Over 90% of those surveyed claim they worry at least a fair amount about environmental problems, and many feel tha t immediate and drastic actions are necessary if we are to avoid major environmental disaster. While people say they are willing to act in Ways to help solve environmental problems, the only

activity most individuals report engaging in is recycling. Individual protective action, then, does not correspond with the level of reported concern. Psychological research (e.g. Olsen, 1981; Tracy & Oskamp, 1984, Costanzo et al., 1986) has supported such a position.

If concern, in and of itself, is not a strong guide to action, what are the factors associated with environmentally-responsible behavior? Pas t research has identified a number of psychological constructs that seem likely to be implicated in such behavior. In addition, broad-based theories have been postulated which employ different combinations of these factors in an at tempt to explain the process of behavioral decision-making in a variety of situations, not merely with respect to environmental issues. A review of this research suggests that these factors can be divided into three domains represented by the following statements: (a) I believe, therefore I act; (b) I can, therefore I act; and (c) I desire, therefore I act. The first refers to the concept of atti tudes as guides to behavior. (We suggest the term 'I believe, therefore I act' is a reasonable representation of the concept of at t i tudes because studies examining general at t i tudinal phenomena often infer an individual's at t i tude from responses given to a series of belief statements.) The second reflects the notion of efficacy or personal control as an influence upon

149

150 L . J . A x e l r o d a n d D. R. L e h m a n

behavior. The third identifies the motivational force provided by the desire to attain certain outcomes from one's actions. Next, we describe each of these domains in more detail.

Attitudinal factors

Attitudes are viewed as a combination of cognitive and affective responses to objects and are thought to function partly as guides to behavior (Pratkanis & Greenwald, 1989). In simpler terms, it is assumed that an individual's beliefs and feelings with respect to an issue, object, or behavior will guide how they choose to act. Therefore, one's attitude toward the environment should guide their actions which impact upon the environment. It has been noted, however, that attitudes are often incongruent with behavior (McGuire, 1969; Wicker, 1969; Ajzen & Fishbein, 1977). This inconsistency is reduced, though, when the attitude being measured is more directly related to the action in question. Ajzen and Fishbein's (1980) Theory of Reasoned Action suggests that one's attitude, when linked with the appropriate action, is a reliable predictor of corresponding behavior. Congruent with an expectancy- value approach, Ajzen and Fishbein posit that attitudes are a function of relevant beliefs regarding the consequences of performing a behavior and one's evaluation of those outcomes. While the predictive utility of Ajzen and Fishbein's attitude construct has received significant empirical support (Ajzen & Fishbein, 1977; Sheppard et al., 1988), some researchers have noted that it diminishes the strength of the overall attitude concept (Schwartz & Tessler, 1972; Rokeach, 1980). With specific reference to environmental issues, one's general attitudes regarding environmental protection may be associated with

, one's pattern of related behaviors. One aim of the present study, therefore, was an examination of the utility of general evaluative reactions to environmental protection in predicting behavior.

Other research on the attitude-behavior link has focused on mediating factors as sources which may explain possible incongruence. One such factor is the strength or importance of the attitude. It is widely accepted that stronger attitudes are more predictive of corresponding patterns of behavior than are weaker attitudes (e.g. Fazio & Zanna, 1978; Fazio & Williams, 1986). Kallgren and Wood (1986), for example, discovered that attitude strength, measured in terms of attitude accessibility (Fazio & Williams, 1986; Krosnick, 1989), mediated attitude- behavior consistency in the domain of environmental activism. Specifically, Kallgren and Wood found

that subjects with relatively high levels of access to their attitudes regarding environmental preserva. tion were more likely to act consistent with their attitudes than were those with less access to their attitudes. Attitude strength, measured in terms of importance of the attitude to the individual, has also been found to influence the ability of attitudes to predict relevant behaviors. Research has shown that people are more likely to act on issues that are personally important or relevant to them than they are to act on issues that are not (Sherif, 1980; Sivacek & Crano, 1982; Krosnick, 1989, 1990).

Not only is it prudent to account for the strength of one's attitude, it is also important to identify and measure beliefs toward an appropriate attitude object. In the domain of social issue behavior, specifically activism aimed at preventing a threatening event from occurring (e.g. nuclear war, AIDS), beliefs pertaining to 'the threat' as the attitude object have been found to be particularly useful in predicting corresponding behavior. Specifically, two factors associated with threat perception--the likelihood of the threat occurring and the severity of the threat-- appear to be directly related to engaging in protective behavior (Rogers, 1975; Wolf et al., 1986; Axelrod & Newton, 1991). The importance of a third threat perception factor, the immediate nature of the threat, has also been proposed (Paterson & Neufeld, 1987).

Efficacy factors

While individuals may hold strong attitudes on an issue of personal importance, possibly associated with levels of perceived threat, they may not possess (or believe they possess) the knowledge or abilities necessary to act in line with their attitudes. In fact, corresponding actions may not even be viewed by individuals as possible. In this domain, individuals' beliefs about what they can do are seen as important determinants of what they will do. Constructs such as response efficacy and self-efficacy represent individuals' perceptions of the 'ability' to achieve a goal through engaging in a particular behavior. Bandura's (1977, 1982) Self-efficacy Theory places particular emphasis on this psychological determinant of behavior. In fact, most current theories of social behavior (e.g. Protection Motivation Theory, Maddux & Rogers, 1983; Theory of Planned Behavior, Ajzen, 1985) include some notion of efficacy in their models. Work by Ajzen (Ajzen & Madden, 1986; Ajzen & Timko, 1986), Bandura (1986), and Madd~ (Maddux et al., 1986) has clearly established that changes in self-efficacy beliefs are linked with

Predictors of Environmenta l ly -concerned Behavior 151

changes in behavior. A sense of efficacy has been found to differentiate between those who are environmentally active and those who are not (Hines et al., 1986; Sia et al., 1986; Manzo & Weinstein, 1987).

Specifically, response efficacy refers to one's belief that actions relevant to obtaining a certain outcome, in general, are possible to carry out. Response efficacy, however, is not sufficient to give one a sense of self-efficacy, which is the belief that one, personally, is capable of carrying out such actions.

Possibly affecting beliefs about efficacy, but con- ceptualized as a distinct construct, is the notion that aspects of the situation can significantly influence the individual's decision to engage in a specific behavior. Kurt Lewin was the first to acknowledge the importance of seemingly minor but actually important aspects of the situation, which he termed 'channel factors' (see Ross & Nisbett, 1991 for a review). Lewin recognized that behavior is often produced by the opening up of some channel and sometimes closed by the blocking of a channel. While efficacy beliefs tap internal perceptions, channel factors represent external mechanisms which affect the ease or difficulty with which individuals can carry out particular behaviors. Leventhal et al. (1965), for example, found that embracing a positive at t i tude toward a course of action (a health center visit to receive an inoculation for tetanus) did not sufficiently motivate individuals to engage in the behavior. When the researchers provided the university s tudent subjects with a ready channel, however, in the form of a campus map with the Health Center circled and an urging to decide on a particular time and route to get them there, attitude- behavior consistency increased. In the environmental protection domain, the opening of a channel (i.e. more convenient collection of recyclables) has been found to increase recycling behavior (Luyben & Bailey, 1979). While the influence of channel factors is usually explored by measuring the effects observed after altering aspects of the situation, this procedure was not possible in our study. Not wanting to ignore this important factor, we posited that 'beliefs' pertaining to the difficulty in carrying out relevant behaviors would serve as a cognitive proxy for channel accessibility. We labeled this construct 'channel efficacy', and explored its influence independently of response efficacy and self-efficacy.

Outcome desires

Most models that a t tempt to explain social behavior include the notion that behavior is determined, in part, by the extent to which positive outcomes to be

accrued from the behavior are desired and expected. The desire to obtain certain outcomes (whose influence is often operationalized in terms of outcome expectancies and/or outcome values) is thought to motivate the individual to engage in those behaviors tha t will produce those outcomes. The Theory of Reasoned Action (Ajzen & Fishbein, 1980), Self- efficacy Theory (Bandura, 1977, 1982), and Triandis's Theory of Social Behavior (1980), for example, can all be viewed as belonging to the category of theories commonly referred to as expectance-value theories. These theories suggest that behavioral decision- making is motivated substantial ly by the expectation that a certain outcome will be realized from a specific behavior as well as the value placed upon that outcome. According to these theories, what an individual wants or desires will direct his or her behavior. Much of the explanatory utility realized by these models can be at t r ibuted to the motivational notions central to each theory, though often only one evaluation measure (e.g. valence of outcome) is used to represent an individual's beliefs about the outcomes.

In an a t tempt to measure these concepts independently, Maddux et al. (1986) tested the effect of outcome expectancies and values (along with self- efficacy expectancy) and found that each had a significant, independent association with behavioral intentions. They found that the higher the expectancy of a positive outcome and the more the individual valued that outcome the more the individual intended to engage in the corresponding behavior.

Fur ther support for the role of outcome desires can be seen in a recent examination of the motivational role of cognitive dissonance. Scher and Cooper (1989) found that the experience of dissonance can prompt at t i tude-behavior consistency, but that the arousal of dissonance arises from the perceived consequences of one's behavior (aversive vs non- aversive) and not a t t i tude-behavior inconsistency per se. Their results point to the power of outcome expectancies as a motivator of behavior. Due to the nature of the present study, we assessed motivation in terms of 'outcome desires' ra ther than the tradi- tional constructs of outcome expectancies and/or values. Our interest was to determine what outcomes, in general, appear to motivate environmentally- concerned behavior, not to ascertain the extent to which these outcomes may be expected.

Research questions

While the empirical work reviewed thus far provides support for the utility of at t i tudinal and efficacy

152 L . J . A x e l r o d and D. R. L e h m a n

factors and outcome desires as guides to behavior, three significant issues have yet to be investigated fully. First, the relative importance of each of the proposed determinants of behavior is unclear. One

• pr imary objective of the present s tudy is to employ multivariate assessment and analysis techniques in an a t tempt to distinguish between predictors of behavior, and build a more comprehensive understanding of the factors that are associated with environmentally-concerned behavior.

Second, do the influences of these factors generalize across populations? Might there be life stage differences in the extent to which behavior is influenced by these factors? The vast majority of work up till now has employed only one sample--ei ther undergraduate s tudents or community adults. Thus, we do not know how generalizable previous findings are across sample populations. Even when similar variables appear to predict behavior across studies, the constructs have never been assessed in the same manner. The second goal of the present study, then, is to compare the utility of various predictors across both a student and a community-based sample using the same assessment instrument.

Third, and most central to the goals of this study, the complex nature of outcome desires as behavioral motivators has yet to be fully explored. Outcome desires have generally been analyzed in simplistic, uni-dimensional terms of positive/beneficial vs negative/harmful consequences of one's actions (e.g. Maddux et al., 1986). In addition, previous examination of this issue has usually concentrated on only one type of potential outcome. For example, studies pertaining to environmental concerns would rely on 'consequences to the environment' as the salient outcome domain of choice. Although this assessment of outcome desires has been fruitful, it is limited in tha t it does not account for possible differences in types or classes of outcomes. In the rare cases when numerous outcome beliefs have been included, no systematic approach to understanding the underlying motivational themes provided by these outcomes was offered (e.g. Boyd & Wandersman, 1991).

In our at tempt to investigate more extensively the role of outcome desires as guides to environmentally- concerned behavior, as well as their importance to social psychology more generally, determining a typology wthin which to classify different types of outcomes was a necessary first step. Drawing upon previous research and theory, we identified three broad domains of outcome desires. First, in accordance with a central tenet of equity theory (Walster et al., 1973) and economic utility theory

(Simon, 1957), people are believed to be motivated to maximize their own economic or material gaiu from personal action. This class of outcomes can be thought of as tangible in nature, primarily referriag to outcomes such as economic or material rewards and/or avoidance of economic, material, or time costs.

The second class of outcome desires derives froa~ theories of social influence (e.g. see Aronson, 1991 for a review) and is consistent with Ajzen and Fishbein's (1973) notion of subjective norms. This class of outcomes holds that people are motivated to act by 'social' factors, such as earning respect and/or acceptance by others. We suggest it is reasonable to investigate social influence in this manner in that outcomes from one's behavior, such as avoiding embarrassment , enhancing one's image, or gaining respect from others, are at the root of social influence.

The third class of outcomes identifies consequences that are derived from adherence to one's deeply held values. We have termed this class 'principled' outcomes, in that the individual is motivated to act in order to comply with certain closely held principles, and is not necessarily concerned with accruing any tangible or social gains (see Darley & Batson, 1973 for an example with respect to religiosity). This class of outcomes can be observed in the internal rewards individuals obtain from knowing that they acted in line with their values. For example, buying environmentally-responsible products may be more costly and have no perceived social consequences, but people may do it because helping the environment is consistent with certain deeply held values.

Support for the predictive utility of each of the three classes of outcome desires has been found in recent research: (a) tangible, in terms of economic rewards (Margolin & Misch, 1978; Luyben & Bailey, 1979; Jacobs & Bailey, 1982); (b) social, in terms of social pressure to conform one's behavior toward that of others (Van Houten et al., 1980; Aronson & O'Leary, 1983; Vining & Ebreo, 1988), and (c) principled, in terms of environmental protection regardless of tangible gain (Dunlap et al., 1983; De Young, 1986).

While these three classes of outcomes may not exhaust all possible behavioral consequences, past theorizing and research suggest tha t this typologY represents a valid grouping of outcomes. One, two, or all three classes of outcomes may be perceived as products derived from any single behavior. More- over, people are likely to be motivated to at least some extent by each of the outcome classes.

We sought to advance our understanding of the motivational effects of outcome desires by examining

Predictors of Environmenta l ly -concerned Behavior 153

the relative contribution of the three classes independently as predictors of environmentally- concerned behavior (actions which contribute towards environmental preservation and/or conservation). The domain of environmental action seems especially well suited for this endeavor due to the conflict that may be perceived between economic gain, social harmony, and environmental preservation. Whether the issue is forest protection or one's food purchasing behavior, it is often the case that a benefit with regard to one outcome class (e.g. principled) involves a perceived disadvantage regarding another class (e.g. tangible). Distinguishing between these three outcomes classes seems necessary in order to develop a comprehensive understanding of the roles that different sources of motivation have on environmentally-concerned behavior.

Hypotheses

Consistent with previous research, we expect numerous factors to be predictive of environmentally- concerned behavior at the univariate level. These include three at t i tude factors--general at t i tude toward the natural environment and environmental protection, perceived importance of the issue, and perceived threat; three efficacy factors--self-efficacy, response efficacy, and what we term channel efficacy; and the motivational influence stemming from each outcome class. In line with the notion that social behavior is guided by a complex array of influences, we anticipated that when the independent predictive utility is partialed out for each predictor, the most parsimonious model will include factors from each domain (attitudinal, efficacy, outcome desires). Presently, we lack a basis upon which to predict which factors may be more or less significant in accounting for variance in environmentally-concerned behavior.

We are also interested in discovering whether there are any significant differences across the two sample populations. Considering stereotypical characteristics such as the idealistic nature of university life and the relative lack of tangible responsibilities encountered by students, we antici- pate students ' environmentally-concerned behavior to be more highly associated with desires pertaining to principled outcomes and less highly associated with tangible outcome desires. In contrast, variance in the self-reported behavior of community residents is expected to be most highly linked with tangible motives, due to presumed stronger levels of concern and responsibility along these lines. We are not hypothesizing that either population will value one

outcome more than the other. The prediction is that students' expressions regarding principled outcomes will account for more variance in their environmentally-concerned behavioral reports than their beliefs regarding tangible outcomes. For the community sample, this pat tern is predicted to be reversed. Other comparisons between the two samples were treated as exploratory.

M e t h o d

Respondents

Respondents were 259 undergraduate students at the University of British Columbia and 105 community adults, most of them staff workers at the university. All respondents participated in the study voluntarily.

Measures

A survey design procedure was employed to measure the various predictor variables, as well as collecting reports of a wide range of behaviors. In all, a total of nine independent variables were assessed, all measured using 6-point Likert scales.

Desires regarding the three outcome classes as they related to environmentally-concerned behavior were defined as follows:

(1) Tangible outcome desires (TOD)--two items identifying the importance of the at ta inment of personal gain such as economic savings with respect to environmentally-responsible action. These two items correlated at r (348) = 0.39, p < 0.001.

(2) Social outcome desires (SOD)--inferred from one item which assessed the extent to which family, friends, and the community served as a guide to one's behavior with respect to the environment.

(3) Principled outcome desires (POD)--two items which measured the extent to which respondents act in accordance with deeply held values for the environment. These two items correlated at r (348) = 0.24, p < 0.001.

The three att i tudinal constructs included:

(1) General at t i tude (GA)--a scale of six items which assessed respondents ' general beliefs regarding the environment and their evalua- tions regarding the need for environmental protection. This construct represents an attempt to respond to the limitations expressed regarding Ajzen and Fishbein's att i tude-toward-act

154 L .J . Axelrod and D. R. L e h m a n

measure. GA is a general att i tude measure based on individual's beliefs regarding the overall issue, and not linked with any one specific behavior (Cronbach's a (308) = 0-80).

(2) Threat perception (TP)--a three-item scale measuring perceived likelihood, severity, and immediacy of environmental problems (Cron- bach's a (308) = 0-77).

(3) Issue importance (II)--two items that measured the absolute importance of the environment to the individual as well as its relative importance as compared with other social concerns, such as AIDS and poverty. These two items correlated at r (348) = 0.43, p < 0.001.

The last three variables of interest assessed different aspects of efficacy:

(1) Response efficacy (RE)--one item which assessed whether or not respondents believe that effective, environmentally-concerned actions exist.

(2) Self-efficacy (SE)--three items which measured respondents ' beliefs that they, personally, have the capability to engage in actions that can help solve environmental problems (Cronbach's a (308) = 0.76).

(3) Channel efficacy (CE)---one item that measured the perceived difficulty the individual expected to encounter, when attempting to act in environmentally-protective ways. (Our methodology did not enable us to manipulate channel factors. Rather, we tapped respondents' beliefs regarding channel availability.)

The criterion variable was an index of environmentally-protective behaviors. It tapped the frequency with which respondents engaged in 24 specific activities related to environmental protection on 5-point scales (from 0 to 4). Examples include recycling, donating money to pro-environmental organizations, attending pro-environmental marches, buying environmentally safe products, campaigning for pro-environmental candidates, and promoting environmental protection in conversation with friends and relatives. For 14 of the 24 behavioral items, such as donating money to pro-environmental organizations and campaigning for pro-environmental candidates, respondents were asked how often they performed each activity during the last two years. The scale points were 'never, no times', 'one time', 'two times', ' three times', and 'four or more times'. For the remaining ten items, such as recycling and buying environmentally safe products, respondents were asked how frequently they engage in each

behavior. The scale points were 'never', 'rarely,, 'sometimes', 'frequently', and 'almost always,, Measuring behavior in this self-reported fashion, while not without its limitations, allowed for the inclusion of many types of behaviors that are difficult to detect using other methods. In addition, this composite index of behavior is comparable with the predictor factors in terms of generality and breadth a necessary requirement in order to have a reasonable opportunity to obtain significant associations (e.g. Weigel & Newman, 1976). A total behavior score (TBEH), ranging from 0 to 96, was computed by summing the scores across all 24 actions.

Procedure

Data collection took place during a two-month period in the spring of 1990. The administration of the questionnaires to the two sample populations went as follows:

Undergraduate students: 259 respondents, over 90% of those asked, completed their questionnaires either during class or outside of class time.

Community adults: initially, questionnaires were personally delivered to 40 houses in a local Vancouver neighborhood. Residents were asked to complete the questionnaire as part of a research program assessing environmental atti tudes and behavior. Twelve questionnaires (30%) were completed and returned. Due to the relatively low response rate, a second procedure was employed to collect data from a community sample. Questionnaires were delivered to 341 employees in five depar tment at the University of British Columbia. The five departments were selected on the basis of employing a range of secretarial, administrative, and technical personnel (faculty members were not included). Ninety-three completed questionnaires were returned for a response rate of 31%, unfortunately not any higher than the initial administration strategy. Altogether, 105 (31%) of 381 questionnaires distributed to the community sample were received. Although this low response rate comprises our ability to generalize descriptive results to the public at large, the validity of the internal analyses central to this research was not threatened.

R e s u l t s

Simple correlations between each independent variable and the total behavioral score (TBEH), for the combined sample (student and community groupS), were calculated. Each of the predictor variables was

P r e d i c t o r s o f E n v i r o n m e n t a l l y - c o n c e r n e d B e h a v i o r 155

TABLE 1 Correlation matrix of criterion and predictor variables

TBEH GA TP II SE RE CE TOD SOD POD

TBt~H - - 0.45* 0-36* 0.55* 0-39* 0-30* 0-39* -0.23* -0.20* 0.45* GA -- 0.41" 0.47* 0.38* 0.23* 0.28* -0-14"* -0.88 0.25* TP - - 0.44* 0.17"* 0.20* 0.12 0.01 0.06 0.27* II - - 0.29* 0.26* 0.30* -0.12 -0.05 0.36* SE -- 0.60* 0.24* -0.99 -0.01 0.10 RE -- 0-11 0.02 0.07 0.08 CE - - -0.15"* -0.13"* 0.23* TOD - - 0.46* -0.01 SOD -- 0.02 pOD

,p < 0.001; **p < 0.01. TBEH, Index of total behavior; GA, general attitude; TP, threat perception; II, issue importance; SE, self efficacy; RE, response efficacy; CE, channel efficacy; TOD, tangible outcome desires; SOD, special outcome desires; POD, principled outcome desires.

significantly associated with the TBEH (see Table 1). More favorable attitudes, higher perceived threat, more importance placed on the issue, higher senses of response efficacy, self-efficacy, and channel efficacy, less desire to obtain tangible or social outcomes, and a greater desire placed on the principled outcome of environmental preservation were all significantly associated with a higher behavioral report score.

Numerous significant inter-predictor correlations were also observed. As might be expected, the three attitudinal scales were significantly correlated as was the self-efficacy scale with the other two efficacy items. Interestingly, beliefs about response efficacy did not correlate with beliefs about channel efficacy. This suggests that beliefs regarding the 'availability' of actions is independent of beliefs regarding the 'ease' with which those actions can be carried out. Although the principled outcome desire (POD) scale might have been expected to correlate negatively with both the social outcome desire (SOD) and the tangible outcome desire (TOD) scales, in fact, it did not (POD with SOD, r (348) = -0.01; POD with TOD, r (348) = 0-02). However, the tangible outcome

desire scale was positively associated with the social outcome desire scale (r (348) = 0.46, p < 0.001).

Multivariate analyses

A simultaneous multiple regression procedure was employed to assess the unique variance explained in behavioral reports by each predictor for the pooled Sample. Although all predictors were significantly Correlated with behavioral reports at the univariate level, only six of the nine factors remained significant in the reduced multivariate model (see Table 2). The

most parsimonious model, accounting for approxi- mately 50% of explained variance (r = 0.72;/[306), p < 0-001), included two of the outcome desire measures (social and principled), with desires regarding principled outcomes accounting for the highest amount of explained variance. This result suggests that distinguishing between beliefs regarding classes of outcomes in predicting behavior is a profitable venture. In addition, beliefs regarding self-efficacy, channel efficacy, issue importance, and perceptions regarding the threat posed by environmental problems all accounted for significant portions of explained variance. Interestingly, while the measure of general at t i tude toward environmental preservation was highly associated with behavior at the univariate level (r(334) = 0.45), when analyzed within the

TABLE 2 Simultaneous multiple regression and partial correlation coefficients for the full 9-factor model as compared with a

reduced 6-factor model

Predictor Full model Reduced model r = 0.72 r = 0.70

POD 0.32* II 0.26* CE 0.19" SOD -0.17" SE 0.15" TP 0.12" GA 0.11 TOD -0.11 RE O.09

0.32* 0.30* 0.20*

-0.23* 0.28* 0-15"

*p < 0.05. See Table I for abbreviations.

156 L .J . A x e l r o d and D. R. L e h m a n

multivariate procedure, its utility as a predictor was mediated to the point of becoming non- significant.

Comparison of sample populations

The responses of the two sample populations for each predictor variable and the TBEH score were compared. With regard to atti tudes and efficacy, the only predictor variable that differed significantly between the samples was the importance of the environmental issue (II). The community sample (M = 4.6) perceived the issue to be more important than the s tudent sample (M = 4-3), although the magnitude of difference was small (t(355) = -2.21, p < 0.05). The samples did differ significantly on two of the three outcome desire scales. The students perceived both tangible (t(348) = 2-96, p < 0-01) and social (t(358) = 4.18, p < 0.01) outcome desires as more salient regarding environmental action than did the community sample. On the TBEH scale, the community sample (M = 37-5) reported higher levels of activity than did the student sample (M = 31.2, t(360) = -4.21, p < 0,001).

We explored the possibility that different predictive models would explain the students' and community residents' behavioral reports. Multiple regression analyses revealed that, in fact, certain variables tha t were predictive of students' behavioral reports were not predictive of the actions reported by the community sample. Specifically, while the best

TABLE 3 Multiple regression analyses comparing the full and

reduced predictor models for the student and community

Predictor Student Community

Full Reduced Full Reduced

r = 0.74 r = 0.74 r = 0.66 r = 0.61

POD 0.34* 0.34* 0.17 - - II 0.25* 0.27* 0.22* 0.35* CE 0.20* 0.21" 0.18" 0-26* SOD 0.18" 0.23* 0.01 -- SE 0.16" 0-27* 0.11 -- TP -0.16" -0.18" -0.08 -- GA 0.08 -- 0.13 -- TOD 0.06 -- 0.08 -- RE -0.03 -- -0.26* -0.37*

Tabled values are partial correlation coefficients. *p < 0-05. See Table 1 for abbreviations.

predictive model for the student sample paralleled that of the full sample (which is not surprising given the difference in sample sizes), the model that best predicted the behavioral reports of the community respondents included only three factors--tangible outcome desires, issue importance, and channel efficacy. Consistent with our hypothesis, variance in students' behavioral reports was most strongly explained by their desires regarding principled outcomes (fi(222) = 0.29, p < 0.001) and not at all explained by their tangible outcome desires (fi(222) = -0.02, NS). This pat tern was reversed for the sample of community residents in that desires regarding tangible outcomes was the best predictor (fi(84) = 0.26, p < 0.001) and desires regarding principled outcomes was not a significant predictor (~(84) = 0.14,p = 0.13).

D i s c u s s i o n

The main goal of the study was to identify the array of psychological factors that guide behaviors regarding environmental concerns. Of particular interest was the role played by desires regarding different outcome classes as motivators of environmentally- concerned behavior. These relations were considered in comparison to those of at t i tudinal and efficacy predictors in an at tempt to determine the most parsimonious predictive model. We also examined whether different predictors were more or less useful in explaining variance in behavioral reports within two different sample populations--students and community residents.

In general, the findings support our hypothesis that a multivariate approach to the study of environmentally-concerned behavior is necessary in order to account fully for differences in environmenta action. For the full sample, at least two of each of th~ attitudinal, efficacy, and outcome desire factors were significant predictors of reports of environmentally- concerned behavior. With respect to outcom~ desires, environmentally-concerned behavior doe~ not appear to be motivated solely by the ideal o helping save the environment. Rather, both tangibl~ and social outcome desires seem to impact upot one's motivation to act as well. Our results suggcs ' that research examining social action should differ entiate beliefs regarding different classes of outcom~ possibilities when assessing people's outcome desire~ and/or expectations.

While evidence for the general utili ty of varioal predictors was observed, different models resultec depending on the same population. As predicted

Predictors o f Env ironmenta l ly -concerned Behavior 157

desires regarding tangible outcomes were strongly associated with behavioral reports for the community sample, but not for the student sample. Thus, even though community respondents placed a lower overall value on the tangible scale than did students, their movement along this scale accounted for change in behavioral reports. In addition, variance in behavioral reports for the community sample was partly explained by channel efficacy and issue importance, two factors also predictive of students' behavioral reports. Desires regarding principled outcomes (e.g. environmental protection) were most highly predictive of students' behavioral reports, and not at all predictive for the community sample. In addition, threat perception, self-efficacy, and desires regarding social outcomes were all predictive of behavioral reports by students.

The results have a number of applied implications. First, interventions aimed at producing increased levels of environmentally-concerned behavior should be responsive to potential differences in the factors that may promote behavioral change. Interventions aimed at altering students' behavior with regard to the environment, for example, might do well by addressing their desire to obtain principled outcomes. In addition, interventions that address students' feelings of self-efficacy, the perceived threat posed by environmental concerns, the importance of environmental issues, and the ease with which they can engage in the desired behavior might all help promote more environmentally-concerned behavior. Interventions aimed at changing community adults' environmental behavior should address the impact that tangible desires have on promoting action, and make the pro-environmental behaviors more acces- sible by opening up channels of action. For example, home energy conservation programs may enjoy their success because they open up channels of actions for individuals, thus making conservation less difficult. As well, interventions that include economic incentives, such as deposits, may prove necessary especially if relatively inactive individuals perceive few tangible outcomes tied to environmentally-concerned behaviors. The motivational influence that tangible and social needs and desires have on behavior, even when they appear to be only marginally related to the issue of concern, should aot be neglected.

This study also presents some important theoretical implications. Primarily, the utility of theories that Concentrate on one aspect of behavioral influence are likely to be severely limited in their general application. Additionally, more clarification is required in order to distinguish among various related, but

conceptually distinct, factors. For example, what are the deterministic roles played by general attitudes (towards issues) vs specific attitudes regarding specific behaviors (attitude-toward-act)? We suggest that theory used to explain people's reactions to pending environmental problems must link the various guides to behavior in a more comprehensive manner, while also defining each factor in terms of its unique meaning and its role in determining behavior.

Limitations of the study and future directions

Two limitations of the present study deserve comment. Our measure of behavior was self-reported and assessed levels of past behavior. Though past behavior has been found to be a good indicator of future behavior under certain conditions (see Triandis, 1980), different results may arise when assessing behavioral intentions or actual behavior. The self-report measure was chosen in part due to practicalities but also because it allowed for a more expansive assessment of behaviors as well as a more comparable level of measurement to that of the predictor factors.

A second limitation involves the measures of the non-manipulated independent variables. A number of these variables were assessed using only two or three items. Some concern regarding the reliability of these constructs is warranted, although the reliability coefficiens were respectable. Regarding the assessment of outcome desires, while the assessment seemed to differentiate successfully the outcome classes, an experimental approach to exploring these issues would allow tests of the deterministic character of these seemingly important behavioral predictors. For example, in future research experimenters could manipulate the expectation of different outcomes in a manner that parallels the three outcome classes and examine the causal impact each one exerts upon a course of action. In addition, attitudinal and efficacy factors could also be assessed and/or manipulated in order to search for interaction effects among the various motivational factors.

These limitations notwithstanding, the present study increases our optimism that the assessment and refinement of the constructs considered here may advance our understanding of the complex relation between human action and the natural environment and its preservation. The specific importance of outcome desires seems substantial with regard to such behavior, and consequently we hope that future research will broaden our knowledge of how these sources of motivation influence environmentally-concerned behavior.

158 L.J. Axelrod and D. R. Lehman

A c k n o w l e d g e m e n t s

T h i s r e s e a r c h w a s s u p p o r t e d b y g r a n t s 4 1 0 - 9 0 - 1 5 1 9 a n d 4 1 0 - 9 3 - 1 2 9 5 f r o m t h e S o c i a l S c i e n c e s a n d H u m a n i t i e s R e s e a r c h C o u n c i l of C a n a d a a n d g r a n t 87 -1715 f r o m t h e N a t u r a l S c i e n c e s a n d E n g i n e e r i n g R e s e a r c h C o u n c i l o f C a n a d a to D a r r i n R. L e h m a n . L a w r e n c e J . A x e l r o d w a s s u p p o r t e d b y a U B C U n i v e r s i t y G r a d u a t e F e l l o w s h i p . W e t h a n k D a v i d M a n d e l , P e t e r S u e d f e l d , a n d t h r e e a n o n y m o u s r e v i e w e r s for t h e i r c o m m e n t s on a n e a r l y d r a f t o f t h e m a n u s c r i p t .

N o t e s

(1) Address correspondence to: Lawrence J. Axelrod or Dar r in R. Lehman, D e p a r t m e n t of Psychology, 2136 West Mall, Univers i ty of Br i t i sh Columbia, Vancouver, B.C., Canada V6T 1Z4.

R e f e r e n c e s

Ajzen, I. (1985). From intentions to action: a theory of planned behavior. In J. Kuhl & J. Beckman, Eds., Action-control: From Cognition to Behavior. Heidelberg: Springer, pp. 11-39.

Ajzen, I. & Fishbein, M. (1973). Attitudinal and normative variables as predictors of specific behaviors. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 27, 41-57.

Ajzen, I. & Fishbein, M. (1977). Attitude-behavior relations: a theoretical analysis and review of empirical research. Psycho- logical Bulletin, 84, 888-918.

Ajzen, I. & Fishbein, M. (1980). Understanding Attitudes and Predicting Social Behavior. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Ajzen, I. & Madden, T. J. (1986). Prediction of goal-directed behavior: the role of intention, perceived control, and prior behavior. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 22, 453-474.

Ajzen, I. & Timko, C. (1986). Correspondence between health attitudes and behavior. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 7, 259-276.

Angus Reid Group. (1992). Canadians and the Environment, 1992. Vancouver, B.C.: Angus Reid Group.

Aronson, E. (1991). The Social Animal. New York, NY: W. H. Freeman and Company.

Aronson, E. & O'Leary, M. (1983). The relative effects of models and prompts on energy conservation. Journal of Environmental Systems, 12,-219-224.

Axelrod, L. J. & Newton, J. W. (1991). Preventing nuclear war: Beliefs and attitudes as predictors of disarmist and deterrentist behavior. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 21, 29-40.

Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84, 191-215.

Bandura, A. (1982). Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency. American Psychologist, 37, 122-147.

Bandura, A. (1986). Social Foundations of Thought and Action: A Social Cognitive Theory. New York, NY: Prentice-Hall.

Boyd, B. & Wandersman, A, (1991). Predicting undergraduate condom use with the Fishbein and Ajzen and the Triandis attitude-behavior models: implications for public health interventions. Journal of Aplied Social Psychology, 21, 1810-1830.

Costanzo, M., Archer, D., Aronson, E. & Pettigrew, T. (1986). Energy conservation behavior: the difficult path from inforraa. tion to action. American Psychologist, 41, 521-528.

Darley, J. M. & Batson, C. D. (1973). 'From Jerusalem to Jerichff: a study of situational and dispositional variables in helping behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 27, 100-108.

De Young, R. (1986). Encouraging environmentally appropriate behavior: the role of intrinsic motivation. Journal of Environ. mental Systems, 15, 281-292.

Dunlap, R. E., Grienecks, J. K. & Rokeach, M. (1983). Human values and pro-environmental behavior. In W. D. Conn, Ed., Energy and Material Resources: Attitudes, Values, and Public Policy. Boulder, CO: Westview Press, pp. 145-168.

Fazio, R. H. & Williams, C. J. (1986). Attitude accessibility as a moderator of the attitude-perception and attitude-behavior relations: an investigation of the 1984 presidential election. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51,505-514.

Fazio, R. H. & Zanna, M. P. (1978). Attitudinal qualities relating to strength of the attitude-behavior relationship. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 14, 398-408.

Fishbein, M. & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, Attitude, Intention and Behavior: An Introduction to Theory and Research. Reading, MA: Addison Wesley.

Gallup, G. Jr. & Newport, F. (1990). Americans strongly in tune with the purpose of Earth Day 1990. Gallup Poll, 54, 1-5.

Hines, J. M:, Hungerford, H. R. & Tomera, A. N. (1987). Analysis and synthesis of research on responsible environmental behavior: a meta-anatysis. Journal of Environmental Education, 18, 1-8.

Jacobs, H. E. & Bailey, J. S. (1982). Evaluating participation in a residential recycling program. Journal of Environmental Systems, 12, 141-152.

Kallgren, C. A. & Wood, W. (1986). Access to attitude-relevant information in memory as a determinant of attitude-behavior consistency. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 22, 328-338.

Krosnick, J. A. (1989). Attitude importance and attitude accessibility. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 15, 297-308.

Leventhal, H., Singer, R. P. & Jones, S. H. (1965). The effects of fear and specificity of recommendation. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 64, 385-388.

Luyben, P. D. & Bailey, J. S. (1979). Newspaper recycling: the effects of rewards and proximity of containers. Environment and Behavior, 11,539-557.

McGuire, W. J. (1969). The nature of attitudes and attitude change. In G. Lindzey & E. Aronson, Eds., The Handbook of Social Psychology. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, vol. 3, 135-314.

Maddux, J. E., Norton, L. W. & Stoltenberg, C. D. (1986). Self- efficacy expectancy, outcome expectancy, and outcome value: relative effects on behavioral intentions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51,783-789.

Maddux, J. E. & Rogers, R. W. (1983). Protection motivation and self-efficacy: a revised theory of fear appeals and attitude

change. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 19, 469-479.

Manzo, L. C. & Weinstein, N. D. (1987). Behavioral commitment to environmental protection: a study of active and nonactive members of the Sierra Club. Environment and Behavior, 19, 673-694.

Margolin, J. B. & Misch, M. R. (1978). Incentives and Disincentives for Ridesharing: A Behavioral Study. Washington, D.C.: U,S. Government Printing Office.

Olsen, M. E. (1981). Consumer attitudes toward energy conserva" tion. Journal of Soeial Issues, 37, 108-131.

P r e d i c t o r s o f E n v i r o n m e n t a l l y - c o n c e r n e d B e h a v i o r 159

paterson, R. J. & Neufeld, R. W. J. (1987). Clear danger: situational determinants of the appraisal of threat. Psychological Bulletin, 101,404-416.

Rokeach, M. (1980). Some unresolved issues in theories of beliefs, attitudes, and values. In M. M. Page, Ed., 1979 Nebraska Symposium on Motivation. Lincoln, NB: University of Nebraska

press. Rogers, R. W. (1975). A protection motivation theory of fear

appeals and attitude change. The Journal of Psychology, 91, 93-114.

Ross, L. & Nisbett, R. E. (1991). The Person and the Situation: perspectives of Social Psychology. New York: McGraw-Hill,

Inc. Pratkanis, A. R. & Greenwald, A. G. (1989). A sociocognitive

model of attitude structure and function. In L. Berkowitz, Ed., Advances in Experimental Social Psychology. New York: Academic Press, Vol. 22, 245-285.

Scher, S. J. & Cooper, J. (1989). Motivational basis of dissonance: the singular role of behavioral consequences. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56, 899-906.

Schwartz, S. H. & Tessler, R. C. (1972). A test of a model for reducing measured attitude-behavior discrepancies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 24, 225-236.

Sherif, C. W. (1980). Social values, attitudes and involvement of the self. In M. M. Page, Ed., 1979 Nebraska Symposium on Motivation. Lincoln, NB: University of Nebraska Press.

Sheppard, B. H., Hartwick, J. & Warshaw, P. R. (1988). A theory of reasoned action: a meta-analysis of past research with recommendations for modifications and future research. Journal of Consumer Research, 15, 325-343.

Sia, A. P., Hungerford, H. R. & Tomera, A. N. (1986). Selected predictors of resonsible environmental behavior: an analysis. Journal of Environmental Education, 17, 31-40.

Simon, H. A. (1957). Models of Man: Social and Rational. New York, NY: Wiley.

Sivacek, J. & Crano, W. D. (1982). Vested interest as a moderator of attltude-behavior consistency. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 43, 210-221.

Tracy, A. P. & Oskamp, S. (1984). Relationships among eco- logically responsible behaviors. Journal of Environmental Systems, 13, 115-126.

Triandis, H. C. (1980). Values, attitudes, and interpersonal behavior. In M. M. Page, Ed., 1979 Nebraska Symposium on Motivation. Lincoln, NB: University of Nebraska Press.

Van Houten, R., Nau, P. & Marini, Z. (1980). An analysis of public posting in reducing speeding behaviour on an urban highway. Journal of Applied Behavioral Analysis, 13, 383-396.

Vining, J. & Ebreo, A. (1988). A survey of residents' responses to a citywide curbside recycling program before and after expansion. Report to the City of Champaign, Illinois.

Walster, E., Berscheid, E. & Walster, G. W. (1973). New directions in equity research. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 25, 151-176.

Weigel, R. H. & Newman, L. S. (1976). Increasing attitude- behavior correspondence by broadening the scope of the behavioral measure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 33, 793-802.

Wicker, A. W. (1969). Attitudes versus actions: the relationship of verbal and overt behavioral responses to attitude objects. Journal of Social Isues, 25, 41-78.

Wolf, S., Gregory, W. L. & Stephan, W. G. (1986). Protection motivation theory: predictions of intentions to engage in anti- nuclear war behaviors. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 16, 310-321.

Manuscript received 28 September 1992 Revised manuscript received 4 May 1993

responding to environmental concerns: what factors guide individual action?

Documents