Global Environmental Change 23 (2013) 70–80
Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect
Global Environmental Change
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/gloenvcha
Developing sustainability-oriented values: Insights from households in a trial of
plug-in hybrid electric vehicles
Jonn Axsen a,*, Kenneth S. Kurani b
a
b
School of Resource and Environmental Management, Simon Fraser University, 8888 University Drive, Burnaby, BC, Canada V5A 1S6
Institute of Transportation Studies, University of California at Davis, 2028 Academic Surge, One Shields Avenue, Davis, CA 95616, USA
A R T I C L E I N F O
A B S T R A C T
Article history:
Received 23 August 2011
Received in revised form 29 August 2012
Accepted 30 August 2012
Available online 29 September 2012
This paper explores the possibilities of consumer transitions to sustainability-oriented values. We draw
from sociological and psychological literature to develop a conceptual framework that reflexively links
an individual’s values and self-concept to their behaviors. We inductively explore the consideration, and
in some cases development, of sustainability-oriented values in a small number of narrative accounts of
peoples’ encounter with a plug-in hybrid electric vehicle during a multi-week trial. Because a plug-in
hybrid vehicle substitutes electricity for gasoline, it is a technology that potentially symbolizes
sustainability-oriented values. We classify participating households according to Schwartz’s 10
motivation types, where households associate sustainability with different motivations, namely
benevolence, universalism or self-direction. We categorize households into three groups: those that
demonstrate no interests in sustainability-oriented values, those that demonstrate interest in
developing such values during their plug-in hybrid vehicle demonstration experience, and those that
were already committed to sustainability-oriented values and behaviors. We observe that households
open to change are more likely to develop sustainability-oriented values if: (i) their self-concept is open
to change (liminal), either as a temporary transitional state or sustained as a value, (ii) they associate
sustainability with broader motivational values that are already central to their self-concept, in this case
benevolence, universalism or self-direction, and (iii) they experience positive social support for new,
sustainability-oriented values within their social networks. Our exploratory findings imply that
sustainability-oriented values can be developed in households who did not previously express them.
Value change opens new possibilities for sustainable consumer behavior, practices, and policy.
ß 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords:
Sustainability
Values
Consumer behavior
Plug-in hybrid vehicle
Narrative
1. Introduction
This paper explores the potential for consumer transitions to
sustainability-oriented values and behaviors. Following the lead of
values researchers in psychology (Schwartz, 1994; Schwartz and
Bilsky, 1987), we take values to be stable, though not immutable,
personally held beliefs that guide behavior and perceptions across
a variety of situations. By behavior, we mean conscious actions as
well as routinized practices. Thus, ‘‘sustainability-oriented values’’
refers to any durable motivations that guide a person to enact
behaviors that are perceived as supporting sustainability goals. The
framing of these values and goals will differ across individuals,
social groups and cultures.
A widespread transition to sustainability-oriented values
could accelerate and broaden the uptake of sustainable behaviors.
Values and values change also relate to environmental policy;
* Corresponding author. Present address: 904 Britton Drive, Port Moody, BC,
Canada V3H 3S5. Tel.: +1 778 782 9365; fax: +1 778 782 4683.
E-mail address: jaxsen@sfu.ca (J. Axsen).
0959-3780/$ – see front matter ß 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2012.08.002
sustainability-oriented values could help garner support for (or
avoid resistance to) policy enactment (Huijts et al., 2012), and
values may shift as a result of the enactment of new policy (Axsen
et al., 2009; Bardi and Goodwin, 2011). Context-shaping policies
are needed to facilitate transitions to low-carbon societies, e.g.,
regulating vehicle manufacturers or mandating urban density,
which will inevitably change individual behaviors and perceptions,
e.g., using new vehicle technologies or taking up cycling and
walking. Such shifts in behaviors, and enactment of the policy
itself, can shape the values held by individuals. If the values people
hold can change, policy makers must understand the dynamics of
consumer (and voter) values in order to design policy that is
feasible and effective in the long run (Norton et al., 1998)—
particularly for policies that directly affect consumers.
We focus this paper on values because they are by definition more
durable and consistent than attitudes or norms—and thus more
likely linked to durable and consistent shifts in consumer behavior.
However, the role of values and other antecedents of behavior are
variously conceived; we provide several selected definitions in
Table 1. Economists model aggregated consumer utility functions for
different products, e.g., Train (1980), but do not comment on the
J. Axsen, K.S. Kurani / Global Environmental Change 23 (2013) 70–80
Table 1
Selected definitions of several potential antecedents to behavior.
Concept
Selected definition
Source
Preference
Consumer tastes for products (or their
attributes) given their budget level
Evaluation of an object, event or
behavior
An individual’s perception of self and
how they fit into the modern world,
which is socially negotiated over time
and across social contexts
Perceptions of what behavior is
common (descriptive norms) or socially
expected or desirable (injunctive
norms)
Personally held concepts that transcend
specific situations or objects and guide
behavior and perceptions
Jackson (2005)
Attitude
Self-concept
(identity)
Norm
Value
Ajzen (1991)
Giddens (1991)
Cialdini (2003)
Schwartz (1994)
origins and dynamics of preferences that underlie utility functions
and have had little to say about values (Jackson, 2005). Models from
social psychology represent consumer attitudes as behavioral
precursors. Multiple iterative elaborations of attitude-behavior
models have inserted the concept of intentions between attitude
and behavior, and added ‘‘beliefs’’ and ‘‘evaluations’’ as antecedents
to attitudes, norms as antecedents to intentions (Ajzen and Fishbein,
1980; Fishbein and Ajzen, 1975), and ‘‘perceived behavioral control’’
as a precursor to norms, intentions, and behavior (Ajzen, 1991).
However, consistent findings of attitude-behavior gaps suggest that
other factors and processes need be addressed (Gill et al., 1986;
Oskamp et al., 1991; Scott and Willits, 1994). Other behavioral
models have integrated values as behavioral antecedents (Schwartz,
1994; Stern et al., 1995), but use of terminology varies. Values are
regularly conflated with other concepts (Hitlin and Piliavin, 2004),
perhaps because values both influence and are influenced by
behavior (Jackson, 2005). Although research suggests a strong link
between sustainability-oriented behaviors and values, little is
known about the processes of value change (Dietz et al., 2005).
In this study we seek to understand how consumers’ relate their
values to their behaviors and assessments of a technology potentially
perceived as being sustainability-oriented. A methodological contribution is our use of in-depth, semi-structured interviews as part of a
‘‘behavioral trial,’’ whereas previous value research has relied
primarily on surveys or experiments (Dietz et al., 2005). We draw
from narrative accounts constructed from repeated interviews with
participants in a plug-in hybrid vehicle demonstration project in
northern California. Participating households drove a plug-in hybrid
vehicle as part of their household fleet of cars for four weeks.
Previously, we utilized these data to explore processes of interpersonal influence in car buyers’ assessments of the vehicle (Axsen and
Kurani, 2011, 2012a). Here we draw from over 70 h of interviews to
inductively learn about participant framing of sustainabilityoriented values in the context of a hypothetical purchase of a
plug-in hybrid vehicle and how such values may develop.
Next, we briefly survey relevant literature to build a conceptual
framework then apply it to the participant narratives. We note that
the limited sample size and particular context of this exploratory
study may limit the generalizability of our specific findings.
However, our results can be used to reconsider conceptualizations
of values and value change, and generate hypotheses for future
research.
2. Values and dynamics
2.1. Insights from psychology: categorizing values
Two thorough review papers outline the complexity and
confusion surrounding values. Dietz et al. (2005) start with a
71
New Shorter Oxford English Dictionary definitions of values: the
worth of a thing; liking for a thing; or, ‘‘principles of moral
standards of a person or social groups, the generally accepted or
personally held judgment of what is valuable and important in life’’
(p. 339). They go on to add that values are different than
preferences, beliefs (understandings of the world), or roles
(patterns of behavior across social situations). Hitlin and Piliavin
(2004) also attempt to explain values by what they are not; values
are more abstract than attitudes, more controllable than personality traits, less context-dependent than norms, and less biological
than needs. We apply a definition similar to that provided by
Schwartz and Bilsky’s (1987): values are personally-held concepts
that transcend specific situations or objects and guide behavior
and perceptions.
Schwartz (1994) provides one of the most widely cited value
frameworks. At the broadest level, values can be categorized by
two dimensions: self-enhancement versus self-transcendence and
conservation (or tradition) versus openness to change. Schwartz
maps ten ‘‘motivational types’’ (Table 2) onto these two dimensions. Finally, 56 values are mapped onto the ten motivational
types using empirical data from 44 countries. For example, the
value of ‘‘wealth’’ is associated with the motivational type ‘‘power’’
which is aligned with high ‘‘self-enhancement.’’
Schwartz (1994) did not explicitly include sustainabilityoriented values; the value of environmental protection (a related
but more specific value) was found to fit within the ‘‘universalism’’
motivational type, which corresponds with high self-transcendence and openness to change. Urien and Kilbourne (2011) have
linked sustainability-oriented behaviors to a lack of self-enhancement values such as achievement and power. However, we suspect
that sustainability-oriented values and behaviors could possibly
align with a wider variety of motivation types; we speculate on
such alignment using Schwartz’s ten motivation types in the third
column of Table 2. For example, sustainability could be associated
with benevolence (wanting to reduce environmental impacts on
the local community) and universalism (avoiding global impacts
on people and ecosystems). Engaging in sustainable behaviors
could also be framed as a challenge and thus be linked to values of
achievement and self-direction. In other words, two different
individuals may have very different motivations for taking on
sustainability-oriented values and behaviors, and one person may
be driven by multiple motives. However, because some of these
values may conflict with one another, one person would not likely
subscribe to all the motivations in Table 2.
Other researchers have developed various schemas to relate
value types to pro-environmental and pro-sustainability behaviors. Schultz (2000, 2001) and Stern and Dietz (1994) identify
three broad value classes for environmental concern: self-interest
or egoistic (concern for self and kin), humanistic altruism (concern
for other humans), and biospheric altruism (concern for other
species). A fourth, suggested by Kempton et al.’s (1995) in-depth
exploration of American environmental values, is religion and
spirituality—though this has received less attention in the
literature. Such models of pro-environmental behavior typically
portray the effect of values as mediated by other antecedents of
behavior. For example, Stern et al.’s (1999) value-belief-norms
model depicts how an individual’s ascription to egoistic, altruistic
or biospheric values influences their beliefs about the environment, which in turn influences their awareness of consequences
and feelings of responsibility. These beliefs are represented to in
turn influence their personal norms and finally their behavior.
Most psychology-based models represent an individual’s values
as static (Bardi et al., 2009). The few psychology-based insights
offered into value change are largely speculative. For example,
Rokeach (1968) suggested that values would change when an
individual realized that their existing values were inconsistent.
J. Axsen, K.S. Kurani / Global Environmental Change 23 (2013) 70–80
72
Table 2
Schwartz’s ten motivational types of values and possible links to sustainability.
Type
Definition (Schwartz, 1994)
Possible motives to adopt or support ‘‘sustainable’’ behaviors
1. Power
‘‘Social status and prestige, control or dominance over people and
resources.’’
‘‘Personal success through demonstrating competence according to
social standard.’’
‘‘Pleasure and sensuous gratification for oneself.’’
‘‘Excitement, novelty and challenge in life.’’
‘‘Independent thought and action—choosing, creating and exploring.’’
‘‘Understanding, appreciation, tolerance, and protection for the welfare
of all people and for nature.’’
‘‘Preservation and enhancement of the welfare of people with whom one
is in frequent personal contact.’’
‘‘Respect, commitment, and acceptance of the customs and ideas that
traditional culture or religion provide.’’
‘‘Restraint of actions, inclinations, and impulses likely to upset or harm
others and violate social expectations or norms.’’
‘‘Safety, harmony, and stability of society, of relationships, and of self.’’
Controlling others’ resource use
2. Achievement
3.
4.
5.
6.
Hedonism
Stimulation
Self-direction
Universalism
7. Benevolence
8. Tradition
9. Conformity
10. Security
Hitlin and Piliavin (2004) draw from attitude change research
(e.g., Petty and Cacipoppo, 1986) to hypothesize that because
values are inherently relevant to the individual, value change is
likely to occur through active processing and reflection (central
route) rather than more automated peripheral routes observed for
non-relevant attitudes. Bardi et al. (2009) use Schwartz’s 10
motivation, two-dimensional framework to explore value change
across repeated surveys of the same samples. They find that value
change, defined as changes in importance or ranking of a given
value, is more likely to occur among respondents that experience
significant life changes in the inter-survey period. Values are also
thought to be changeable through engagement with new social
groups, through changes in behavior, e.g., following a new law,
social norm, or employment role, or through direct persuasion
(Bardi and Goodwin, 2011).
2.2. Insights from social theory: reflexivity, self-concept and values
With that background from more ‘‘individualist’’ perspectives,
we look for further insights on value change from social theory. We
are motivated by prior findings of the importance of interpersonal
interactions in shaping attitudes toward pro-environmental
technologies and in consideration of sustainability-oriented
behaviors more broadly (Axsen and Kurani, 2012a,b). And as
noted in the previous summary of literature from psychology,
changes in values have been linked to processes of social influence
and changes in social expectations (Bardi and Goodwin, 2011).
To contextualize social processes of value change, we first
orient values as a component of an individual’s self-concept or
identity—their perceptions of who they are. Following Brewer and
Roccas (2001) and Hitlin (2003), we conceptualize values as the
core or ‘‘cohesive force’’ within personal self-concept. Although
research linking values and self-concept is limited (Hitlin and
Piliavin, 2004), preliminary research suggests that identity can
play a stronger role in sustainable behavior than attitudes (Stets
and Biga, 2003), that environmental values are linked to natureoriented identity (Schultz et al., 2004), and that only values central
to self-concept will influence sustainable behavior (Verplanken
and Holland, 2002). Thus, we expect there to be some correspondence between sustainability-oriented identities, values, and
behaviors.
Framing values within self-concept is also useful because there
has been relatively more discussion on the dynamics and social
negotiation of self-concept or identity (Burke, 2006; Deaux and
Martin, 2003; Giddens, 1991). In particular, Giddens (1991)
explains how individuals must actively create their self-concept,
taking on an ongoing, dynamic ‘‘reflexive project’’ to define and
Setting and accomplishing energy efficiency goals
Enjoying sustainable behaviors in themselves
Trying novel behaviors and technologies
Becoming independent of a ‘‘polluting’’ system
Preserving the biosphere for all humans and animals
Preserving environment for family and others in social
network, community or nation
Adhering to cultural values by preserving ecosystems
Following sustainable behaviors demonstrated by others
Minimizing personal risk of environmental collapse
express oneself. If an individual’s behavior is shaped by their
efforts to establish and develop a self-concept, particular behaviors
are grouped into lifestyle: packages of behaviors (conscious and
routinized) that the individual (and their reference group)
associates with their self-concept. A given individual may
subscribe to several lifestyles across different reference groups,
e.g., family, co-workers and recreational friends. This characterization of identity and lifestyle has been applied to sustainable
consumption behaviors (Spaargaren, 2003; Spaargaren and Van
Vliet, 2000), and environmentalists’ negotiation of behavior amidst
conflicting agendas (Evans and Abrahamse, 2009). We note that in
addition to our present use of self-concept, there are various
alternative conceptualizations of identity including definitions
based on social roles such as gender, race, and nationality (Burke
and Tully, 1977; Stryker, 1980, 1987)—we presently do not follow
role-based definitions, but acknowledge the potential importance
of roles among other social factors.
In the context of Giddens’ (1991) approach, we conceptualize
values as the ‘‘cohesive force within’’ self-concept (Hitlin, 2003);
that is, an individual’s self-concept builds around multiple highpriority or core values (or motivations). As noted in the previous
section, an individual is not likely to subscribe to all of Schwartz’s
(1994) ten motivation categories or 56 values. Thus, an individual’s
self-concept is likely to be more firmly based on only a subset of
such values that are of high priority to the individual. Further,
Giddens’ (1991) notion of reflexivity is based on the dynamics of
expression and negotiation of one’s self-concept, implying that the
core values that make up this self-concept can be developed or
changed. Here, by value change we mean changing the importance
or prioritization of values as they relate to self-concept.
To further aid this discussion, we consider the concept of
liminality—how open an individual’s self-concept and values are to
change. Liminality is related to Schwartz’s ‘‘openness to change’’
dimension of values, but is a broader concept. According to Turner
(1969), liminality is a state characterized by ‘‘ambiguous and
indeterminate attributes’’ either through a temporary transition or
sustained conditions. Thus liminality could be sustained through
the embodiment of values Schwartz identifies with openness to
change. But there are many other possible sources of liminality. At
a societal level, new behaviors and norms can emerge during a
liminal period (Swidler, 1986). Though less research has been
conducted on understanding liminality at the individual level, we
speculate that liminality is heightened at transitional points in
one’s life, such as changing relationship status, changing jobs, or
moving residence. As noted in the previous section, the importance
of life changes to value change is already being discovered in
studies of social psychology (Bardi et al., 2009). Liminality may also
J. Axsen, K.S. Kurani / Global Environmental Change 23 (2013) 70–80
73
change in response to experimenting with that behavior.
Therefore, we sought to identify participants from across a
spectrum of prior values, i.e., some do not ascribe to sustainability-oriented values, some are committed to such values, and of
primary interest, some are considering making a transition toward
sustainability-oriented values.
To structure our exploration, we presume that values can
change and that values change can occur, in part, through changes
in behavior. Drawing from the above discussion of value change
and identity, we utilize the following conceptual framework
linking sustainability-oriented values to sustainable practices:
be supported by a household having more access to resources such
as time and money (or income) to afford experimentation in
lifestyle behaviors.
Giddens’ framework implies that not only can values (and selfconcept) serve to guide behavior, but behavior can also be means of
trialing and socially learning about one’s values. For example,
engagement in a sustainable behavior, e.g., driving a plug-in hybrid
vehicle, could be a trial of a more fundamental shift toward
sustainability-oriented values and self-concept. Experimentation
with a new behavior associated with a new value may cause the
individual to solidify, modify, or reverse their commitment to the
value and related lifestyle.
We distinguish Giddens’ perspective on lifestyle and our
present focus on values from practice theory. Practice theory also
views sustainable consumption as practices, but defines practices
as the routinization of related bodily and mental activities that are
socially constructed and reflexively refined (Reckwitz, 2002;
Ropke, 2009). Practices, such as driving automobiles, are constructed and sustained by the individual practitioners (Shove,
2010)—by engaging in the practice, the individual normalizes and
sustains it. For example, Shove (2004) uses practice theory to
explain the co-evolution of air-conditioning and food refrigeration
with increasing cultural standards and expectations of comfort.
Practice theory is useful for the description of society becoming
locked-in to particular patterns of consumption, and emphasizes
the challenges of overcoming such normative behaviors to increase
the uptake of more sustainable practices. The approach we take
looks at processes of behavioral lock-in versus change and
development at the household level through the examination of
values expressed by household members. We use the term
‘‘practice’’ to refer to any ongoing behavior, rather than in the
more formal definitions provided by practice theory.
Regarding the fourth and fifth points, sustainability-oriented
values might be manifest by driving an electric-drive vehicle, e.g., a
plug-in hybrid vehicle. Driving an electric-drive vehicle can be
both an expression of sustainability-oriented value and a trial that
informs, reinforces or negates the individual’s commitment to that
value.
2.3. Conceptual framework of value change
3. Methodology
The concept of ‘‘sustainability-oriented’’ values is an intentionally broad concept that may include a variety of proenvironmental and pro-societal motivations. We have reviewed
several models of and perspectives on value categories that could
have guided the statement of specific hypotheses and experimental designs. However, we use an inductive, semi-structured
interview methodology to learn whether and how participants
discuss and express sustainability-oriented values. In this sense,
having convened conversations with our participants, we listened
for whether their narratives convey values that are attached to a
particular sustainability-oriented behavior and processes of value
3.1. Sample and context
1. An individual constructs their self-concept around one or more
core value(s).
2. An individual’s self-concept is developed and maintained in a
social context.
3. Sustainability-oriented values are more open to development or
change if the individual is in a liminal state, which can be
transitional or sustained.
4. Core values and self-concept are manifest as lifestyle: packages
of behaviors that are shaped by, and are expressions of, a
particular value or set of values.
5. Values, self-concept and construction of and engagement in
lifestyle behaviors are reflexively related—influence iteratively
flows in multiple directions.
To explore understandings of sustainability-oriented values
and processes of value change, we draw from 10 households (18
individuals) who participated in a plug-in hybrid vehicle
demonstration project conducted at the University of California,
Davis (full methodology detailed in Axsen (2010)). Participating
households resided in the Sacramento, California area, and did not
receive any incentives other than the opportunity to drive a plug-in
hybrid vehicle. The vehicle is a Toyota Prius converted to be
powered in part from an additional 5 kWh battery recharged using
Table 3
Characteristics of 10 participating households (18 participants).
Surname
First name
Dominant lifestyle(s)
Household income
Age
Earhart
Fort
Betty
Brett
Julie
Craig
Siobhan
Rupert
Amy
Adam
Katrina
Ethel
Ed
Silvia
Larry
Cheryl
Darren
Pat
Melissa
Billy
Career
Social, recreation
Education, recreation
Environment, technology, social
Environment, technology, social
Social (family)
Social (family)
Social (family), technology
Education, social (family)
Social (family)
Social (family), career, technology
Social (family), career
Social (family), environment, technology
Social (family), environment, technology
Career, social (family)
Career, social (family)
Student, social
Recreation, social
$50–59k
$100–124k
30s
40s
20s
40s
40s
40s
40s
60s
30s
50s
30s
30s
40s
30s
50s
50s
20s
40s
McAdam
Noel
Petrov
Potter
Ranchero
Rhode
Stashe
Woods
>$150k
$80–89k
$40–49k
>$150k
$100–124k
>$150k
$100–124k
$100–124k
74
J. Axsen, K.S. Kurani / Global Environmental Change 23 (2013) 70–80
any 110-V outlet. Each household’s trial lasted four to six weeks.
We expected the use of this vehicle to stimulate household
consideration of sustainability-oriented values for at least two
reasons. First, electric-drive vehicles, and in particular the Toyota
Prius, are typically perceived as being pro-environmental symbols
in California (Heffner et al., 2007). Second, automobiles in general
can by highly symbolic objects (Steg, 2005), and automobile use is
typically considered to be a conspicuous act with strong relations
to personal identity (Shove and Warde, 2002).
Table 3 details the sample by age and income; all names are
pseudonyms. Although households were drawn from one region in
northern California, the range of socio-economic, demographic and
attitudinal attributes among participants approximate those of a
representative, U.S.-wide sample of new vehicle buyers (Axsen and
Kurani, 2009). We intentionally selected this sub-sample from a
broader pool of households in an attempt to include households
with different social and demographic characteristics. Table 3 also
classifies each individual by one or more lifestyle types they
demonstrated to researchers during the four to five interviews that
took place. We categorize each household according six lifestyle
types derived from a survey of households and pro-environmental
behavior (Axsen et al., 2012).
3.2. Semi-structured interviews
Our interview methodology is ethnographic in the sense
outlined by Atkinson and Hammersley (1994). We explore
research questions rather than testing specific hypotheses, work
with uncoded data, investigate a limited number of cases, and
interpret participants’ verbal description in effort to understand
their behavior. However, our approach is better described as semistructured because we included structured exercises in the
interviews, which can serve to create a more efficient method
overall (McCracken, 1988). In open-ended components we
developed a natural dialog with participants, and sought to
establish trust and rapport. Though a prepared list of topics
provided some structure to the interviews, the researcher was free
to pursue and explore new insights that arose during the interview,
even if it required temporary departure from that list. Each
interview lasted from 1 to 2 h, with each household participating in
four to five interviews over their four to six-week trial of the plugin hybrid vehicle. Each interview was conducted in the respondents’ home in effort to create as comfortable and neutral a social
encounter as possible for the household.
Prior to their trial of the plug-in hybrid vehicle, the households’
first interview elicited their vehicle purchase histories, future
vehicle purchase intentions (if any) and expectations of the plug-in
hybrid vehicle (if any)—this information helped to construct the
beginning of the households’ narratives as well as providing initial
context for demonstrating values and motivations. Researchers
also collected information about the household’s social network
using a method described by Hogan et al. (2007). This social
network information informed a related project on social
influence, summarized by Axsen and Kurani (2012a), though this
information is also entirely relevant for the present analysis of
value change given the socially constructed nature of values in our
conceptual framework (Section 2.3). During their vehicle trial, each
household completed several tasks. Bi-weekly interviews elicited
information about the household’s ongoing experiences with the
vehicle. Participants completed a two-part web-based survey that
had been previously completed by a large, representative U.S.
sample (Axsen and Kurani, 2009). Participants also completed a
social episode diary, reporting verbal or non-verbal interactions
with other people relating to the plug-in hybrid vehicle; the
instrument and results are summarized by Axsen and Kurani
(2011). The final interview elicited the household’s narrative of
their overall experience with the plug-in hybrid vehicle, including
use of the vehicle and learning and assessment of the vehicle.
Participants also completed an ‘‘influence’’ ranking exercise to
communicate which experiences (with the vehicle, social, or
otherwise) had more influence on their perceptions of plug-in
hybrid vehicle technology.
3.3. Narrative construction
Eliciting data in narrative form can be a highly effective way to
understand subjective experience, challenge research preconceptions and cultivate new perspectives on social phenomena
(Burnett, 1991). Narratives can be a form of ‘‘thick’’ description
that illuminate behavioral patterns that might be missed by more
tightly focused, deductive research approaches (Geertz, 1973).
Further, a narrative approach is consistent with Giddens’ (1991)
reflexivity perspective (summarized in Section 2.2), where
individuals come to understand themselves by linking their past,
present and future into a cohesive storyline. Thus, the constructing
and telling of narratives may help discover how an individual
reflexively relates their plug-in hybrid vehicle experience to their
values and potentially how the individual may consider and
develop new values.
A well-formed narrative includes: a goal-state; goal-related,
chronological events; a logical, causal flow of events; and,
demarcation signs such as ‘‘at first’’ and ‘‘by the end’’ (Burnett,
1991; Gergen and Gergen, 1987). Of course, eliciting meaningful,
coherent narratives can be challenging. This is one reason we also
employed structured exercises to provide context for the
participant’s story—researchers utilized relevant results from
these exercises to inform the constructed narratives. Further,
the order and wording of the final interview questionnaire
intentionally guided a narrative response: it was structured
around the goal-state of their plug-in hybrid vehicle assessment,
prompts were ordered chronologically (beginning with the
participant’s initial expectations, moving to their vehicle trial
experiences, then concluding with their assessment), and an
influence ranking exercise elicited their perceptions of causality
between their experiences and assessment.
By constructing narratives for each household, the researchers
serve as instruments themselves (McCracken, 1988). Researchers
reviewed interview recordings and complete transcripts of each
interview and produced a summary relating to value change, then
integrated these summaries with information from their online
survey responses and structured exercises. We analyzed narratives
from all 10 households, and looked for patterns relating to the
dynamics of values, self-concept and behavior. In particular, we
look for their understanding of and commitment to sustainabilityoriented values and behavior and how these values may develop or
change in some cases. We summarize several illustrative
narratives in the next section.
4. Results
4.1. Framing of sustainability-oriented values
Our conceptual framework (Section 2.3) and semi-structured
method allowed participants to frame their perceptions of
sustainability-oriented behaviors and values in their own terminology (if they had anything to say about sustainability at all). That
is, we did not impose analytic categories at the time of the
interviews. However, we do impose such a structure to frame the
results (and summaries of narratives) using what we have learned.
To start, we found that participants’ engagement with sustainability-oriented values did not correspond with the altruistic,
biospheric and spiritual distinctions promulgated by prior
J. Axsen, K.S. Kurani / Global Environmental Change 23 (2013) 70–80
researchers (Schultz, 2001; Stern et al., 1999), or Schwartz’s (1994)
mapping of environmental protection onto universalist motivations. Rather, we found Schwartz’s broader framework of 10
motivational types a useful starting point for describing participants’ ‘‘core’’ values (which form their self-concepts). Through our
methodology of narrative construction, participants connected
commitment to a future plug-in hybrid vehicle purchase to
sustainability through three different core values. As we will
discuss, in addition to universalism, participants also linked
sustainability-oriented values with the core values of benevolence,
i.e., benefitting socially closer individuals such as friends and
family, and self-direction, i.e., providing a challenge that involved
individualistic learning and development. Sustainability did not
form its own core value, but rather fit in with other, higher level
motivations, i.e., Schwartz’s ten motivational types.
We differentiate the ten households into three categories
according to their commitment or openness to sustainabilityoriented values in Table 4. First are households that are not
presently motivated by sustainability-oriented values and demonstrate no interest in developing such values. Second are those
open to exploring sustainability-oriented values. Third are those
previously committed to sustainability-oriented values. Each
household differed in terms of which core values were demonstrated via their narrative of experience and social interactions
pertaining to the plug-in hybrid vehicle trial.
Looking across these households, we identify three conditions
associated with those in the second group, i.e., those open to the
development of new, sustainability-oriented values. These households were found to develop or strengthen their commitment to
sustainability-oriented values by the end of their plug-in hybrid
vehicle trial when they start with a moderately to highly liminal
self-concept, come to associate sustainability with one of their
existing core values, and experience positive social support for the
new lifestyle practice and values.
Next we utilize household narratives to illustrate these
conditions. We summarize illustrative narratives from the
participant groups that did not demonstrate interest in value
change, and then elaborate on all four households exploring
sustainability-oriented values. By focusing on these households we
garner more understanding of how sustainability-oriented values
can be developed.
4.2. Households committed to private or sustainability-oriented
values
Households in the first and third groups maintained their initial
values over the course of their plug-in hybrid vehicle trial—they
75
either demonstrated no interest in developing sustainabilityoriented values or were already committed to such values.
First, the Noels, the Petrovs, Betty Earhart and the Stashes each
began and ended their plug-in hybrid vehicle trial with no interest
in sustainability-oriented values. They framed the practice of
driving the vehicle according to self-enhancement values such
financial savings, safety and status. Consider Adam Petrov as an
example. He is a retired maintenance supervisor in his sixties who
spends most of his time doing handy-man ‘‘small jobs’’ for friends
and acquaintances. He primarily assessed the vehicle based on the
performance of the engine and battery as he would assess one of
his power tools. He demonstrated strong commitment to the
traditions of his family, church and career, and benevolence in
sharing his skills with those socially close to him. However, Adam
demonstrated no interest in or understanding of sustainabilityoriented values and did not interpret the plug-in hybrid vehicle
according to sustainability or benevolence. Further, the Petrovs
were surprised to find the plug-in hybrid vehicle stimulated little
interest in their social network, which itself consists of likeminded individuals who also emphasize traditional values. Any
vehicle-related conversations that did occur only addressed
technical aspects of the vehicle such as fuel costs and handling.
By the end of their trial the Petrovs lacked interest, openness and
social support to consider a transition to sustainability-oriented
values.
In contrast, the McAdams and the Rhodes began and ended
their plug-in hybrid vehicle trial with strong commitments to
sustainability-oriented values. For example, Larry and Cheryl
Rhode consider themselves to be ‘‘tree huggers’’ that have been
dedicated to sustainability-oriented practices for many years—
such values are well integrated into their lifestyle and social
network. They are eager to explain that they practice organic
gardening, use only compact fluorescent light bulbs, and send their
son to a preschool that espouses environmental values and
includes special classes on environmentally friendly technologies.
Larry in particular is highly competitive in his career as well as his
efforts to achieve high fuel economy in his own hybrid vehicle and
in the plug-in hybrid vehicle trial he was happy to ‘‘beat the fleet’’
of other plug-in hybrid vehicle drivers’ fuel economy. His
commitment to sustainability-oriented practices is motivated by
strong values of achievement and self-direction. The Rhodes also
have many sustainability-oriented friends and acquaintances, and
Larry frequently goes out of his way to tell others about his hybrid
car and the plug-in hybrid vehicle during his trial as part of ‘‘getting
the word out.’’ In short, the Rhodes were already engaged in a
sustainability-oriented lifestyle, supported by like-minded friends
and acquaintances. The practice of driving the plug-in hybrid
Table 4
Three patterns of value orientation.
Household (by interest in
sustainability-oriented values
1. No interest:
Betty Earhart
The Noels
The Petrovs
The Stashes
Melissa Stashe
2. Exploring:
The Forts
Ethel Potter
The Rancheros
Billy Woods
3. Committed:
The McAdams
The Rhodes
Demonstrated core values
(Schwartz’s motivation type)
Sustainability
associated with:
Liminality
Sustainable-oriented values
Social network support
Acceptance of value
Achievement
Tradition, conformity
Tradition, benevolence
Security
Conformity
Universalism
–
–
–
–
Mod
Low
Mod
Low
High
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Hedonism, security, benevolence,
self-direction
Self-direction, stimulation
Security, benevolence
Stimulation, conformity
Benevolence
High
Yes
Yes
Universalism, self-direction
Benevolence
Benevolence
High
Mod
High
Yes
No
No
Yes
No
No
Benevolence
Achievement, self-direction
Benevolence
Self-direction
Low
Low
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
76
J. Axsen, K.S. Kurani / Global Environmental Change 23 (2013) 70–80
vehicle fit their existing core values and their existing commitment
to sustainability-oriented values in particular.
4.3. Households open to sustainability-oriented values
Billy Woods, the Rancheros, Ethel Potter, and the Fortes each
exhibited liminality—openness to shifting their self-concepts and
develop new, sustainability-oriented core values. However, in only
two of these four households did this openness to value change at
the time of their plug-in hybrid vehicle trial end with the
development of new sustainability-oriented values. The following
narrative summaries illustrate why, following the three conditions
identified above.
4.3.1. Why did Billy Woods reject sustainability-oriented values?
Billy began his vehicle trial in a liminal state. He was recently
divorced and had a new girlfriend. He tries and takes part in many
different recreational activities. He has friends and casual
acquaintances from a variety of social groups, including coworkers,
golfing friends, and friends from bars and nightclubs. He earns a
relatively high income and has the flexibility to work from home or
his office. Billy was not committed to a particular routine, set of
activities, or social group—he was dabbling in a variety of practices
across different social groups.
Billy is highly motivated by stimulation values—seeking novel
experiences—as well as conformity, where he is constantly seeking
to understand the norms of his social networks so that he can align
with them. Billy’s stimulation and conformity-based values are in
part what guide him to consider sustainability-oriented values in the
first place. He quickly understands how an electric-drive vehicle is
seen as an environmental symbol, and he wants to learn if this
symbol (that is novel to him) might fit with his self-concept and
social reference groups. Prior to the vehicle trial, Billy had few
thoughts of sustainability; he did not consider sustainabilityoriented values when engaging in activities, and he did not devote
any significant time or resources to sustainable practices. His
conceptualization of sustainability is linked to vague ideas such as
‘‘overall cleaner, livable cities’’ and framed more by benevolence
rather than universalism (‘‘I focus on my own country. . .let [others]
worry about their own’’). However, during his trial he briefly
engaged with the sustainability aspects of the plug-in hybrid vehicle.
Billy’s ultimate rejection of sustainability-oriented values
results from social feedback. Billy was disappointed to find mixed
responses to the plug-in hybrid vehicle across his social groups.
Many of his relatives and acquaintances seemed disinterested in
the vehicle altogether or were unable to grasp what it is. Of the
friends and acquaintances that were interested, most focused on
technical functions or performance. Billy intentionally mentions
sustainability concerns with one particularly influential group of
coworkers, asking them: ‘‘Why would you buy a hybrid. . .mainly to
protect the environment or from a consumer standpoint?’’ When
his coworkers declare a lack of support for the environment, Billy
concurs and drops further consideration, saying: ‘‘To buy it just to
protect the environment is probably not something I’d do at this
time.’’ Thus, while Billy’s liminality makes him receptive to
experimenting with the car, exploring the values associated with it,
and the question of a transition to sustainability-oriented values,
he abandons this consideration when he sees an apparent lack of
support and interest in his social network. While he associated his
vague concepts of sustainability with the motivation of benevolence, the motivation to conform to others’ perspectives proved
more important the end.
4.3.2. Why did the Rancheros reject sustainability-oriented values?
Ed and Silvia Ranchero’s self-concepts were liminal in a
transitional sense—they were moving through a phase of opening
some new lifestyles and closing off others. Their recent marriage
and new child were shifting their priorities. Ed had had to change
from his powerful pickup truck to buying a family sedan: ‘‘I need a
four-door to get in and out easily. . .to put my kid in something
that’s safe. . .reliable.’’ They also became more interested in
sustainability issues through the motive of benevolence, in
particular relating to their child’s future. Ed explains:
‘‘I want to do my part in reducing global warming. . .to be more
environmentally friendly. I wanted my daughter to have
something. . .an environment that is free of pollution when
she grows up. . .that definitely became more important when
she was born. [After having a child] your focus totally changes
from being on yourself to being on somebody else.’’
Further, Ed repeatedly spoke with his wife and coworkers about
his concerns of the environmental impacts and unsustainability of
energy use.
At the same time, other aspects of the Rancheros’ self-concept
were becoming less liminal as their family patterns increasingly
centralize around their baby daughter. They emphasize security
values relating to their household; for example, the Rancheros are
too cautious (worried about leaving the car plugged in overnight)
and resource-constrained (in time and effort) to integrate regular
plug-in hybrid vehicle recharging into their daily schedule. They
state that they perceive the immediate needs and safety of their
daughter as more important than indirectly benefitting her
through long-term environmental benefits or cost savings. Silvia
becomes ‘‘paranoid’’ that the vehicle charger could start a fire, and
Ed points out that his ‘‘main concern is [his] daughter’’ although he
admits, ‘‘maybe my concern [about recharging] is without
founding.’’ Thus, the Rancheros only plug-in their plug-in hybrid
vehicle on a few occasions, and end up using much less electricity
and thus much more gasoline than they would have had they
regularly charged the vehicle.
By the end of their plug-in hybrid vehicle trial, Ed and Silvia
were surprised and ‘‘sort of disappointed’’ with how little interest
the vehicle generated among their friends and coworkers. They
expected friends and coworkers to be ‘‘hyped’’ about the vehicle,
yet most demonstrated only casual interest or none at all. Ed
notes: ‘‘I was probably expecting more people to be more open
minded about it. . .to be excited about it. . .but not everybody
thinks the same way.’’ The Rancheros explain that electric-drive
vehicles are beyond the realm of typical discussions, even about
vehicles, within their groups, and their social contacts were not
openly committed to sustainability-oriented values or behaviors.
Ed imagines that ‘‘if people were [more] excited about it. . .the
[plug-in hybrid vehicle trial] would have been a little bit
different.’’
In summary, the Rancheros volunteered for the vehicle study
during a window of time when their marriage and new child had
opened their lives to many changes. The Rancheros’ interest and
understanding could have supported a shift to sustainabilityoriented values. However, the conflict between increasing familyoriented values (particularly the security of their daughter) with
the new perceived risk posed by the vehicle, plus a lack of
countervailing social support quashed any serious commitment to
value change.
4.3.3. Why did Ethel develop sustainability-oriented values?
Ethel’s self-concept became increasingly liminal as each of her
eight children grew up and moved out, and as her household
income and financial stability improved. For much of her life she
has been interested in new scientific breakthroughs and technologies, and recently became more concerned about energy issues
such as oil dependence and emissions: ‘‘We’re such pigs with
J. Axsen, K.S. Kurani / Global Environmental Change 23 (2013) 70–80
energy.’’ She associates her sustainability concerns with a
universal perspective: ‘‘When you look at the rest of the
world. . .there [are] some simple things you can do. We’re just
living the way we live, gobbling up energy. . .it just doesn’t seem
right.’’ Prior to her plug-in hybrid vehicle trial, Ethel’s interest in
sustainability issues prompted her to consider similar technologies and talk to others about their effectiveness. She had heard
about waiting lists for hybrid vehicles, and one coworker had
warned her about battery toxicity and electricity generation
impacts for electric-powered vehicles. Ethel’s core values include
self-direction and stimulation—she feels she is now better able to
realize the latter value because her increasing disposable income
gives her the ‘‘luxury’’ to more actively consider and try out new
behaviors such as adopting solar panels and electric-drive
vehicles.
During her trial, Ethel is disappointed by the lack of broad
support across her social network—‘‘it’s amazing how little people
notice [the vehicle]. . .especially the fact that it’s a plug in.’’
However, she felt inspired by the ‘‘interest, enthusiasm and
encouragement’’ offered by several key friends and acquaintances,
such as two of her favorite daughters, and a repairman that visits
her home. Ethel likes how the vehicle brought her into a contact
with a new friend from her craft class, where the technology served
as a ‘‘way to talk to her more. . .we’re getting to know each
other. . .we have a lot in common.’’ By trying the plug-in hybrid
vehicle, Ethel became better able to articulate her own values and
contrast them with the motives of others—such as her boss’s
purchase of a sports car:
‘‘For the first time I saw her car today. . .it just to me is so typical.
I was looking at that car thinking, do I feel jealous? No, at this
time in my life, I’d rather be making an impact in some way, a
positive impact rather than driving some gas guzzling [sports
car]. Maybe 10 years ago I would have thought, ‘Oh, I want that
car.’ [Now] I just want a car that makes sense. . .and actually
may make a difference.’’
Such support and reflection helped Ethel to solidify her initial
interests in sustainability-oriented values, empowering her to take
additional actions and make commitments. For example, during
her vehicle trial she committed to install solar panels on her roof
and she was excited about one day being able to use the generated
electricity to power a plug-in vehicle. In addition to being an act
motivated by universalism, the development of sustainabilityoriented values was consistent with Ethel’s motives of selfdirection.
4.3.4. Why do the Forts develop sustainability-oriented values?
The Forts sustain a state of lifestyle liminality. Brett, Selena, and
their two children form a tight family unit; their social circles
closely overlap, and they typically consult only one another
regarding vehicle purchases and other issues—potentially resulting
from a lack of proximate extended family. This insular social
arrangement seems to buffer the Forts from external social
pressures.
Self-direction forms one of the Forts’ core values; they
experiment with several alternative and perhaps conflicting
motivations, including hedonism, security and benevolence. The
Forts embody hedonistic values in their ‘‘bigger is better’’ living
and recreational activities; they own and operate three large lightduty trucks and initially dreamt of an even larger one, and
regularly haul and drive dirt bikes and all-terrain vehicles for
recreation. At the same time, the Forts were increasingly shifting
toward sustainability-oriented household behaviors, such as
reducing water use and buying efficient appliances—driven by
benevolent concerns about avoiding local impacts from ‘‘smog’’
77
and ‘‘ozone depleting’’ substances. Selena has recently led their
household to become more environmentally aware in general:
‘‘We use environmentally friendly dish washing soap and laundry
soap. . .turn the shower off halfway. . .we recycle everything. . .[Selena’s] become very green over the years.’’ The Fort’s
perspective on vehicles is also heavily influenced by security
motives. After Selena twice experienced automotive accidents
where she was in a smaller car hit by a larger truck, the Forts
resolved to buy only large vehicles: ‘‘mass always wins.’’ When the
daughter, Julie, received her driver’s license the Forts bought her a
new, powerful pickup truck solely for the purpose of safety.
As a tightly knit household, the Forts explain that their most
influential social experiences occur with close family, and they
typically don’t look beyond each other when considering vehicle
purchases. Indeed, most of their conversations about the plug-in
hybrid vehicle took place with one another. Despite their
generally inward focus, Selena explains they were initially
worried about the Prius being viewed as a ‘‘weenie car’’ in other
social groups. They were surprised to find mostly positive
reinforcement by acquaintances and strangers—in particular a
hybrid-driving family that enthusiastically waved to the Forts on
the highway. The Forts were at first baffled by the experience
(which they rated as being highly influential), and tried to
understand the significance of the event:
Brett: ‘‘the wave on the freeway. . .was actually pretty cool.’’
Julie: ‘‘we don’t get waved at. . .frequently by strangers.’’
Brett: ‘‘you know, [when] you’re driving a truck. . .someone in a
[hybrid car] doesn’t normally wave at you. . .they may flip
something at you. . .but it won’t be a wave.’’
Julie: ‘‘[it was like] we would be part of the family if we had [a
hybrid vehicle].’’
Brett: ‘‘I think [this type of experience] makes you feel good
about doing something good. . .one of those feel good
moments.’’
Similarly, Julie contrasted the positive social support she
received for the plug-in hybrid vehicle, with the ‘‘dirty looks’’
she would get when driving her large pickup truck—like the ‘‘dirty
looks from vegans when you’re wearing leather.’’ When Brett and
Julie drove the plug-in hybrid vehicle, they saw the world from this
other perspective: ‘‘I have found myself looking at trucks, saying,
‘Wow, he’s taking a lot of gas.’’’
By the end of their plug-in hybrid vehicle trial, the Forts made
commitments to purchase a hybrid vehicle to strengthen their
commitment to sustainability-oriented value. The excitement of
this new commitment diminished the importance of motivations
that seemed to be of higher priority in their first interview,
including concerns about security and hedonistic goals of owning
even bigger trucks. Experiences of social support (and lack of
ridicule) served to further legitimize the Forts growing environmental interests and commitment to sustainability-oriented
values. In this validation, the Forts were not so much conforming
to the values of others, but instead finding a lack of the social
resistance they expected.
5. Discussion and conclusions
This paper set out to better understand sustainability-oriented
values and how such values can be developed. We reviewed
literature from psychology and sociology to construct a conceptual
framework to guide our empirical analysis using narratives of
participants in a plug-in hybrid vehicle (plug-in hybrid vehicle)
demonstration project. We frame values as the cohesive force of an
individual’s self-concept, and describe identity and values are
78
J. Axsen, K.S. Kurani / Global Environmental Change 23 (2013) 70–80
reflexively linked to behavior. These core values (and self-concept)
are socially negotiated and defined, and more prone to change
when the individual is in a liminal (transitional or open) state.
Through semi-structured data collection and narrative
analysis, we hear processes (or the lack thereof) of the formation
of sustainability-oriented values, in distinction from the formation of attitudes or preferences. Participants do express attitudes
and preferences relating to the plug-in hybrid vehicle; these
attitudes are stated in relation to the specific object, i.e., a
vehicle, and are relatively fluid as participants gain experience
with the technology over periods of four to six weeks. In contrast,
when participants talk about their concepts of sustainability,
they engage broader, relatively stable beliefs and feelings that
guide behavior across a range of situations. Participants tended
to link their concepts of sustainability with a variety of behaviors
beyond the use of the plug-in hybrid vehicle itself, such as
recycling, installing solar panels, and reducing household energy
use. These observations confirm that values are a useful
construct for observing how perceptions of sustainability relate
to behavior.
We find that participants’ expression of sustainability-oriented
values do not align with the egoistic, humanistic altruism and
biospheric altruism categories utilized by many values researchers
(Schultz, 2001; Stern and Dietz, 1994; Stern et al., 1999). Instead,
we find that sustainability-oriented values can be aligned with a
variety of core values. Schwartz’s (1994) ten general motivational
types proves useful for categorizing participant’s core values, and
how they frame sustainability-oriented values (if at all). Although
Table 2 hypothesized potential links to sustainability for each of
the ten motivation types, in this study we only observed links to
three: universalism, benevolence and self-direction. This is a more
diverse set than Schwartz’s (1994) mapping of environmental
concern solely onto universalism and more values were engaged
by our respondents who were open to values change, including
stimulation, conformity, and security. Our finding suggests other
motivational links to sustainability may be possible in other
samples and contexts, and for other sustainability-oriented
behaviors.
These narratives also yield insights into value change. We
highlight three broad conditions that facilitate the development of
sustainability-oriented values among plug-in hybrid vehicle trial
participants. Each condition relates to the reflexive relationship
between values and behavior outlined in our conceptual framework. Here we summarize these conditions with examples
observed in the vehicle demonstration study (Table 5).
First, if the household is not already committed to
sustainability-oriented values, their self-concept must be in a
liminal state to facilitate consideration of new values. Liminality
can be a temporary state of transition: Billy Woods was recently
divorced and seeking new ways to structure his life, and Ed and
Silvia Ranchero were newly married and working to understand
their priorities with a growing family. In time, an individual’s
self-concept may return to a more stable state. In other cases,
liminality can be sustained: Ethel Potter increases liminality
over a period of years as her children move out and her
disposable household income rises, freeing up time and money
to consider sustainability-oriented actions and investments. The
Forts’ sustained liminality results in part from their social
network structure: as a family unit they are tightly connected
through mutual activities and communication while at the same
time having access to a variety of social networks and lifestyles.
The Forts’ maintain a tight central family that facilitates
sustained experimentation with ideas from these diverse
reference points. In this sense, liminality may be sustained as
a core motivation for some individuals, similar to Schwartz’s
(1994) motivations of self-direction and stimulation which both
Table 5
Sub-components of conditions for sustainability-oriented value change.
Conditions for change
Examples observed in this study
1) Lifestyle liminality
2) Alignment with
core values
Sustainability as helping family and friends
(benevolence)
Sustainability as saving the world (universalism)
Sustainability as personal development
(self-direction)
3) Social network
support
Observing similar practices, e.g., HEV ownership
Interpersonal support from influential social
groups
Demonstrated support from strangers
Absence of ridicule from non-sustainabilityoriented social groups
Transition in life, e.g., divorce, new child
Sustained life stage, e.g., retirement
Diverse social network, variety of social groups
Access to resources, e.g., income and time
Lack of routine in daily behavior
score highly on the dimension of openness to change. Although
liminality facilitates the consideration of sustainability-oriented
values, it is not required once sustainability-oriented values are
established. For example, the Rhodes and McAdams have
solidified their self-concepts and behaviors around sustainabilityoriented values.
Second, households need to be able to align the ideas of
sustainability-oriented values and behaviors with their existing
core values. Relating back to Schwartz’s (1994) ten motivations,
households’ framing of motives for sustainable behavior varies
widely, including the potential for benefits to family and friends
(benevolence), the world (universalism), or personal development (self-direction). Several households demonstrated no
interest or sophistication in understanding of sustainability to
start with. Those that were interested in such values faced a
conflict in some cases. The Rancheros decided to emphasize
motivations for their baby daughter’s short term security (due to
safety fears of recharging at home) rather than longer term
benevolence in the sense of preserving her future environment.
Bill Woods’ conformity to others’ self-enhancement based
values (financial savings) quashed his temporary interest in
reducing his environmental impact. In contrast, Ethel Potter and
the Forts discovered that sustainability-oriented values could
align quite well with their core values of self-direction and
benevolence, respectively, without conflicting with other core
values.
Third is a perception of support for sustainability within the
social network. Among the four sustainability ‘‘explorer’’ households, the presence or absence of such support is associated with
their final acceptance or rejection of sustainability-oriented values.
The two households that eventually rejected sustainabilityoriented values described a lack of social support (or opposition)
for such a transition: Billy Woods conformed to the selfenhancement financial motivations of an influential group of
coworkers, and Ed Ranchero was disappointed by the lack of
environmental interest among his friends and coworkers. In
contrast, the two households concluding with sustainabilityoriented values perceived social support: Ethel Potter described
sustainability-oriented interest among her ‘‘favorite’’ daughters
and a new friend, while the Forts were pleasantly surprised to see
hybrid owners welcome them to ‘‘the family.’’
Within the context of this study, each of these conditions
appears to be necessary but not sufficient to facilitate a transition
to sustainability-oriented values and behaviors. Of course, it is
difficult to infer causality from a limited number of observations
and narratives. We thus consider our exploratory findings to be
J. Axsen, K.S. Kurani / Global Environmental Change 23 (2013) 70–80
insights that can inform future research with additional samples in
different regions and contexts of sustainability-oriented behavior.
We further acknowledge that the present focus on a highly
conspicuous, high-identity, environmental symbol (a plug-in
hybrid vehicle version of a Toyota Prius) may not be indicative
of consumer experience with less overt, less-visible pro-environmental technologies, such as programmable thermostats, home
insulation, or energy efficient appliances.
Future research should explore specific processes and subcomponents of each condition identified here. Research could
assess whether the likeliness and strength of liminality effects
differ by types of liminal self-concept, e.g., transitional versus
sustained, financial, temporal, or social contexts, and across
sustainability-oriented behaviors. Further effort could explore
how consumers think about and frame sustainability-oriented
values according to different motivations, e.g., benevolence,
universalism, self-direction, and perhaps others. Potentially,
some people may cast other new or existing values into
a sustainability-orientation under conditions that differ from
the present research. Other studies could also assess what
types of social support are most important in different networks
and possibly for different sustainability practices, e.g., from
closer friends and family, from coworkers, or from technical
experts.
Our exploratory findings do support the notion that widespread
sustainability-oriented values and behaviors can develop over
time, subject to particular conditions. Policymakers seeking to
achieve ambitious sustainability goals, such as achieving deep
reductions in CO2 emissions, will want to better understand and
utilize these levers and dynamics to attain support (or lack of
resistance) to sustainability-oriented policy, and to facilitate the
widespread adoption of sustainable behaviors and technologies
across a variety of contexts.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank the California Air Resources
Board, the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of
Canada, and the 18 individuals that took part in this study.
References
Ajzen, I., 1991. The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human
Decision Processes 50, 179–211.
Ajzen, I., Fishbein, M., 1980. Understanding Attitudes and Predicting Social Behaviour. Prentice-Hall Inc., Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Atkinson, P., Hammersley, M., 1994. Ethnography and participant observation. In:
Denzin, N., Lincoln, Y. (Eds.), Handbook of Qualitative Research. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks.
Axsen, J., 2010. Interpersonal Influence within Car Buyers’ Social Networks: Observing Consumer Assessment of Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicles (PHEVs) and
the Spread of Pro-Societal Values. Institute of Transportation Studies, University
of California, Davis, UCD-ITS-RR-10-15.
Axsen, J., Kurani, K.S., 2009. Early U.S. market for plug-In hybrid electric vehicles:
anticipating consumer recharge potential and design priorities. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board 2139,
64–72.
Axsen, J., Kurani, K.S., 2011. Interpersonal influence in the early plug-in hybrid
market: observing social interactions with an exploratory multi-method
approach. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment 16,
150–159.
Axsen, J., Kurani, K.S., 2012a. Interpersonal influence within car buyers’ social
networks: applying five perspectives to plug-in hybrid vehicle drivers. Environment and Planning A 44, 1057–1065.
Axsen, J., Kurani, K.S., 2012b. Social influence, consumer behavior, and low-carbon
energy transitions. Annual Review of Environment and Resources 37.
Axsen, J., Mountain, D.C., Jaccard, M., 2009. Combining stated and revealed choice
research to simulate the neighbor effect: the case of hybrid-electric vehicles.
Resource and Energy Economics 31, 221–238.
Axsen, J., TyreeHageman, J., Lentz, A., 2012. Lifestyle practices and pro-environmental
technology. Ecological Economics 82, 64–74.
Bardi, A., Goodwin, R., 2011. The dual route to value change: individual processes
and cultural moderators. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology 42, 271–287.
79
Bardi, A., Lee, J., Hofmann-Towfigh, N., Soutar, G., 2009. The structure of intraindividual value change. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 97, 913–929.
Brewer, M.B., Roccas, S., 2001. Individual values, social identity, and optimal
distinctiveness. In: Sedikides, C., Brewer, M.B. (Eds.), Individual Self, Relational
Self, Collective Self. Taylor & Francis, Anne Arbor, MI, pp. 219–237.
Burke, P.J., 2006. Identity change. Social Psychology Quarterly 69, 81–96.
Burke, P.J., Tully, J., 1977. The measurement of role idenity. Social Forces 55,
881–897.
Burnett, R., 1991. Accounts and narratives. In: Montgomery, B., Duck, S. (Eds.),
Studying Interpersonal Interaction. The Guildford Press, New York, pp.
121–140.
Cialdini, R.B., 2003. Crafting normative messages to protect the environment.
Current Directions in Psychological Science 12, 105–109.
Deaux, K., Martin, D., 2003. Interpersonal networks and social categories: specifying
levels of context in identity processes. Social Psychology Quarterly 66, 101–117.
Dietz, T., Fitzgerald, A., Shwom, R., 2005. Environmental values. Annual Review of
Environment and Resources 30, 335–372.
Evans, D., Abrahamse, W., 2009. Beyond rhetoric: the possibilities of and for
‘sustainable lifestyles’. Environmental Politics 18, 486–502.
Fishbein, M., Ajzen, I., 1975. Belief, Attitude, Intention and Behavior. AddisonWesley, Reading, MA.
Geertz, C., 1973. The Interpretation of Cultures. Basic Books, Inc., New York.
Gergen, K., Gergen, J., 1987. Narratives of relationships. In: Burnett, R., McGhee,
P., Clarke, D. (Eds.), Accounting for Relationships: Explanation, Representation and Knowledge. Methuen, London, pp. 269–288.
Giddens, A., 1991. Modernity and Self-Identity: Self and Society in the Late Modern
Age. Stanford University Press, Stanford, CA.
Gill, J., Crosby, L., Taylor, J., 1986. Ecological concern, attitudes, and social norms in
voting behavior. Public Opintion Quarterly 50, 537–554.
Heffner, R.R., Kurani, K.S., Turrentine, T.S., 2007. Symbolism in California’s early
market for hybrid electric vehicles. Transportation Research Part D-Transport
and Environment 12, 396–413.
Hitlin, S., 2003. Values as the core of personal identity: drawing links between two
theories of self. Social Psychology Quarterly 66, 118–137.
Hitlin, S., Piliavin, J., 2004. Values: reviving a dormant concept. Annual Review of
Sociology 30, 359–393.
Hogan, B., Carrasco, J.A., Wellman, B., 2007. Visualizing personal networks: working
with participant-aided sociograms. Field Methods 19, 116–144.
Huijts, N., Molin, E., Steg, L., 2012. Psychological factors influencing sustainable
energy technology acceptance: a review-based comprehensive framework.
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 16, 525–531.
Jackson, T., January 2005. Motivating Sustainable Consumption: A Review of Evidence on Consumer Behaviour and Behavioural Change. Sustainable Development Research Network, University of Surrey, Guildford, Surrey, UK.
Kempton, W., Boster, J.S., Hartley, J.A., 1995. Environmental Values in American
Culture. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
McCracken, G., 1988. The Long Interview. Sage Publications, Newbury Park, CA.
Norton, B., Costanza, R., Bishop, R., 1998. The evolution of preferences: why
‘sovereign’ preferences may not lead to sustainable policies and what to do
about it. Ecological Economics 24, 193–211.
Oskamp, S., Harrington, M., Edwards, T., Sherwood, D., Okuda, S., Swanson, D., 1991.
Factors influencing household recycling behavior. Environment and Behavior
23, 494–519.
Petty, R., Cacipoppo, J., 1986. Communication and Persuasion: Central and Peripheral Routes to Attitude Change. Springer-Verlag, New York, NY.
Reckwitz, A., 2002. Toward a theory of social practices: a development of culturalist
theorizing. European Journal of Social Theory 5, 243–263.
Rokeach, M., 1968. Beliefs, Attitudes and Values. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.
Ropke, I., 2009. Theories of practice: new inspiration for ecological economic studies
of consumption. Ecological Economics 68, 2490–2497.
Schultz, P., 2000. Empathizing with nature: the effects of perspective taking on
concern for environmental issues. Journal of Social Issues 56, 391–406.
Schultz, P., 2001. The structure of environmental concern: concern for self, other
people and the biosphere. Journal of Environmental Psychology 21, 327–339.
Schultz, P., Shriver, C., Tabanico, J., Khazian, A., 2004. Implicit connections with
nature. Journal of Environmental Psychology 24 .
Schwartz, S.H., 1994. Are there universal aspects in the structure and content of
human values? Journal of Social Issues 50, 19–45.
Schwartz, S.H., Bilsky, W., 1987. Toward a universal psychological structure of
human values. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 53, 550–562.
Scott, D., Willits, F., 1994. Environmental attitudes and behavior: a Pennsylvania
survey. Environment and Behavior 26, 239–260.
Shove, E., 2004. Efficiency and consumption: technology and practice. Energy and
Environment 15, 1053–1065.
Shove, E., 2010. Beyond the ABC: climate change policy and theories of social
change. Environment and Planning A 42, 1273–1285.
Shove, E., Warde, A., 2002. Inconspicious consumption: the sociology of consumption, lifestyles and the environment. In: Dunlap, R., Buttel, F., Dickens, P.,
Gijswijt, A. (Eds.), Sociological Theory and the Environment: Classical
Foundations, Contemporary Insights. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Lanham, Maryland.
Spaargaren, G., 2003. Sustainable consumption: a theoretical and environmental
policy perspective. Society and Natural Resources 16, 687–701.
Spaargaren, G., Van Vliet, B., 2000. Lifestyles, consumption and the environment:
the ecological modernization of domestic consumption. Environmental Politics
9, 50–76.
80
J. Axsen, K.S. Kurani / Global Environmental Change 23 (2013) 70–80
Steg, L., 2005. Car use: lust and must. Instrumental, symbolic and affective
motives for car use. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice
39, 147–162.
Stern, P., Dietz, T., 1994. The value basis of environmental concern. Journal of Social
Issues 50, 65–84.
Stern, P., Dietz, T., Abel, T., Guagnano, G., Kalof, L., 1999. A value-belief norm theory
of support for social movements: the case of environmental concern. Human
Ecology Review 6, 81–97.
Stern, P., Dietz, T., Kalof, L., Guagnano, G., 1995. Values, beliefs, and proenvironmental action: attitude formation toward emergent attitude objects. Journal of
Applied Social Psychology 25, 1611–1636.
Stets, J., Biga, C., 2003. Bringing identity theory into environmental sociology.
Sociological Theory 21, 398–423.
Stryker, S., 1980. Symbolic Interactionism: A Social Structural Version. Benjamin
Cummins, Menlo Park, CA.
Stryker, S., 1987. Identity theory: development and extensions. In: Yardley, K.,
Honess, R. (Eds.), Self and Identity: Psychosocial Perspectives. John Wiley
and Sons, Oxford, UK, pp. 89–103.
Swidler, A., 1986. Culture in action: symbols and strategies. American Sociological
Review 51, 273–286.
Train, K., 1980. The potential market for non-gasoline-powered automobiles.
Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice 14A, 405–414.
Turner, V., 1969. The Ritual Process: Structure and Anti-Structure. Aldine Publishing, Chicago, IL.
Urien, B., Kilbourne, W., 2011. Generativity and self-enhancement values in ecofriendly behavioral intentions and environmentally responsible consumption
behavior. Psychology and Marketing 28, 69–90.
Verplanken, B., Holland, R., 2002. Motivated decision making: effects of activation
and self-centrality of values on choices and behavior. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology 82, 434–447.