A comprehensive model of the psychology of environmental behaviour—A meta-analysis

TLDR: In this article, a comprehensive model of determinants of individual environmentally relevant behavior based on a combination of the most common theories in environmental psychology is proposed, which is tested using a meta-analytical structural equation modeling approach based on 56 different data sets with a variety of target behaviours.

Abstract: To address global environmental challenges it is crucial to understand how humans make decisions about environmentally relevant behaviour, since a shift to alternative behaviours can make a relevant difference. This paper proposes a comprehensive model of determinants of individual environmentally relevant behaviour based on a combination of the most common theories in environmental psychology. The model is tested using a meta-analytical structural equation modelling approach based on a pool of 56 different data sets with a variety of target behaviours. The model is supported by the data. Intentions to act, perceived behavioural control and habits were identified as direct predictors of behaviour. Intentions are predicted by attitudes, personal and social norms, and perceived behavioural control. Personal norms are predicted by social norms, perceived behavioural control, awareness of consequences, ascription of responsibility, an ecological world view and self-transcendence values. Self-enhancement values have a negative impact on personal norms. Based on the model, interventions to change behaviour need not only to include attitude campaigns but also a focus on de-habitualizing behaviour, strengthening the social support and increasing self-efficacy by concrete information about how to act. Value based interventions have only an indirect effect.

Figures

Table 1: Fisher’s Z-back-transformed pooled correlation matrix under the random-effects assumption

Figure 1: The theory of planned behaviour (Ajzen, 1991, page 182)

Full text

1
Published in
Global Environmental Change
, 23 (5), 1028-1038.
A Comprehensive Model of the Psychology of Environmental Behaviour – a Meta-
Analysis
Christian A. Klöckner
Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim, Norway
Corresponding author:
Christian A. Klöckner, PhD, Professor
NTNU – Norwegian University of Science and Technology
Psychological Institute
NO-7491 Trondheim, NORWAY
Tel.: +47/735 91977; Fax: +47/735 91920
E-Mail: Christian.Klockner@svt.ntnu.no
Acknowledgements:
Bertha M. Sopha conducted the literature research for this meta-analysis as part of the
research project “Indicators of determinants of household energy behaviours” financed by the
Norwegian Energy Efficiency Agency, Enova SF. Cara Petrovitsch supported this study by
entering the correlation tables from the primary articles into a data file.

2
A Comprehensive Model of the Psychology of Environmental Behaviour – a Meta-
Analysis
Abstract
To address global environmental challenges it is crucial to understand how humans make
decisions about environmentally relevant behaviour, since a shift to alternative behaviours can
make a relevant difference. This paper proposes a comprehensive model of determinants of
individual environmentally relevant behaviour based on a combination of the most common
theories in environmental psychology. The model is tested using a meta-analytical structural
equation modelling approach based on a pool of 56 different data sets with a variety of target
behaviours. The model is supported by the data. Intentions to act, perceived behavioural
control and habits were identified as direct predictors of behaviour. Intentions are predicted
by attitudes, personal and social norms, and perceived behavioural control. Personal norms
are predicted by social norms, perceived behavioural control, awareness of consequences,
ascription of responsibility, an ecological world view and self-transcendence values. Self-
enhancement values have a negative impact on personal norms. Based on the model,
interventions to change behaviour need not only to include attitude campaigns but also a focus
on de-habitualizing behaviour, strengthening the social support and increasing self-efficacy by
concrete information about how to act. Value based interventions have only an indirect effect.
Keywords: Meta-analysis, meta-analytic structural equation model (MASEM), environmental
psychology, theory of planned behaviour, norm-activation-theory, value-belief-norm-theory

3
Graphical abstract

4
Research highlights
 The most common environmental psychological action-theories can be combined.
 Intentions, habits and perceived control are direct predictors of behaviour.
 Personal norms add to explained variation in intentions.
 Personal norms have a mediated influence on behaviour.
 The linear norm-activation chain from value-belief-norm theory is not supported.

5
A Comprehensive Model of the Psychology of Environmental Behaviour – a Meta-
Analysis
1. Introduction
Humankind is facing a number of global environmental challenges, such as climate change,
resource depletion, or biodiversity loss. To counter these challenges both international and
interdisciplinary efforts have to be made. Undertakings such as trying to understand the key
drivers and processes behind behaviour causing these challenges, predicting their
development over time and eventually changing the system enough to mitigate negative
outcomes are essential. Notwithstanding the important role of technological development and
international and national policy making, the contribution of individual behaviour should not
be underestimated. Hertwich (2005) argues that household behaviour is the strongest
contributor to total energy use and carbon dioxide emissions in most developed countries,
when direct energy consumption and indirect energy consumption embedded in consumed
goods and services are taken into account. In an analysis of the carbon footprint of 73 nations
Hertwich and Peters (2009) conclude that 72% of all carbon dioxide emissions worldwide are
connected to household consumption with food, shelter and mobility as the most important
subcategories. Tucker and Jansen (2006) confirm this conclusion and calculate that
approximately 70% of all life-cycle impacts of products and services consumed by
households fall into the categories of food, housing and transport.
Although individuals in households have varying degrees of freedom, Jungbluth, Tietje and
Scholz (2000) argue that they can have an important impact by changing their behaviour, in
particular their food choices. The degree to which individual behavioural change can reduce
the environmental impact depends on several aspects (Dietz, Gardner, Gilligan, Stern &
Vandenbergh, 2009): (a) the impact the behaviour has, (b) the number of people who perform

Frequently asked questions

Q1. How many independent data sets were used for this analysis?

In these articles sufficient correlation tables that covered correlations between at least two model variables as well as the number of participants were provided for 56 independent data sets, which were subsequently used for this analysis. 

Q2. What is the role of the new environmental paradigm in the VBN theory?

Although the new environmental paradigm (NEP) is often used as a measure for general environmental attitudes, its function in the VBN theory is not that of an attitude but rather that of a link between value orientations and personal norms, an understanding that the author of this study follows. 

Q3. What method was used for pooling the correlations reported in the primary studies?

For pooling the correlations reported in the primary studies the method suggested by Hedges and Olkin (1985) was used: Firstly, the primary correlations were converted into standard normal metric by a Fisher r-to-Z-transformation. 

Q4. What is the problem of how the N for the structural equation modelling should be determined?

Since the number of participants varies considerably between studies, the problem of how the N for the structural equation modelling should be determined arises. 

Q5. How long after the intervention was finished?

Klöckner and Preißner (2006) could show that norm-centred interventions like personal commitment had an effect even five months after the intervention was finished, especially when combined with habit-breaking interventions. 

Q6. What is the main reason why the CADM is useful for the practical design of interventions?

A more comprehensive model of environmental behaviour benefits the practical design of intervention strategies for the reasons that it both identifies potential entry points for interventions and explains why some strategies alone will most likely fail and how strategies need to be combined. 

Q7. What is the effect of intentions on behaviours performed only annually?

In a meta-analysis Ouellette and Wood (1998) found the predicted effect: for behaviours performed only annually or biannually intentions had a strong influence and past behaviour, which was used as a proxy for habit strength, had a weak influence. 

Q8. What is the relationship between intentions and personal norms?

if intentions, behavioural control and personal norms did not change, they would remain correlated to habit strength because they determined behaviour at a previous point in time. 

Q9. What is the standardized regression weight of perceived behavioural control on behaviour?

While the relatively strong effects of intentions and habit strength were expected, the standardized regression weight of perceived behavioural control on behaviour is unexpectedly low, even if it was anticipated that the majority of the impact of perceived control would be mediated by intentions and personal norms. 

Q10. How was the general model of environmental behaviour tested?

The general model of environmental behaviour as derived from theory in the previous section was tested by means of a meta-analytical structural equation model (MASEM). 

Q11. What is the impact of the larger estimated coefficients?

This has an impact particularly on the smaller estimated coefficients, given that the estimated standard errors become smaller with larger N. 

Q12. How much variation in behaviour was explained by the three variables?

36% of variation in behaviour was explained by the three variables, which is relatively low compared to models tested on a specific behaviour.