CHAPTER II
THEORIES ON ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERN: UNDERSTANDING
INFLUENTIAL FACTORS OF PRO-ENVIRONMENTAL BEHAVIOR
Understanding The Value of Historical Frameworks
Awareness Versus Behavior
Researchers have discovered high levels of environmental awareness and concern
worldwide (Blake, 1999), yet pro-environmental behavior is far from the norm
(Berenguer, 2007). Throughout the history of psychology, researchers have developed
multiple theoretical frameworks that attempt to clarify the gap between possessing
environmental knowledge and actually behaving in a pro-environmental manner.
Hundreds of studies have been carried out, yet no decisive explanations for this
phenomenon have been uncovered (Kollmuss & Agyeman, 2002). In order to understand
current options for encouraging pro-environmental behavior it is important to recognize
the strengths and shortcomings of past frameworks. The following discussion of the most
influential and commonly used analytic models also helps present the possibility that
what actually determines environmental behavior may be so complex that it cannot be
demonstrated through one framework (Kollmuss & Agyeman).
Theoretical Models To Be Discussed
Environmental psychology is a relatively new field of study, which was
developed in 1960 in order to examine a range of complex interactions between humans
and the environment (Kollmuss & Agyeman, 2002). The theoretical models that this
study will explore include early United States linear models (Kollmuss & Agyeman),
Schwartz’s 1977 moral norm-activation model of altruism (Oom Do Valle, Efigenio,
9
Reis, & Menenez, 2005), Ajzen and Fishbein’s 1980 theory of planned behavior
(Fransson & Garling, 1999), Hines, Hungerford, and Tomera’s 1986 model of
responsible environmental behavior (Kollmuss & Agyeman), and lastly, Stern, Dietz and
Kalof’s 1993 model of environmental concern (Stern, Dietz, & Kalof, 1993). It is crucial
to recognize that each of these frameworks have some validity in particular
circumstances, yet none fully elucidate why worldwide concern for environmental issues
is not paralleled by pro-environmental behavior (Kollmuss & Agyeman).
The Value of Historical Frameworks
The challenge of understanding the influence of individual factors is that these
factors are often “broadly and vaguely defined, interrelated, and often do not have clear
boundaries” (Kollmuss & Agyeman, 2002, p. 248). Therefore past research will be most
helpful in establishing specific factors that undoubtedly shape environmental behavior.
To conclude this discussion, a summary of these influential factors will provide a starting
point for recommendations of practical measures. Ideally, the government or large
organizations can utilize these measures to guide whole societies to increased levels of
pro-environmental behavior.
The Most Influential Frameworks In Understanding Behavior
Early United States Linear Models
The early models examining the connection between knowledge and action
focused on humans as rational. These frameworks utilized a linear progression, in which
environmental knowledge led to environmental awareness and concern, which, in turn,
led to pro-environmental behavior. Therefore, these theories assumed that education
10
would result in increased pro-environmental behavior. The early linear frameworks have
been termed ‘information deficit’ models of public understanding and action (Kollmuss
& Agyeman, 2002).
Strengths and shortcomings. Not long after their development the information
deficit models were proven inadequate as increased knowledge and awareness did not
lead to pro-environmental behavior (Kollmuss & Agyeman, 2002). Simply stated,
eco-friendly behavior cannot be explained sufficiently using a purely rational approach.
Empirical study has revealed that pro-environmental behavior is not purely based on
rational decisions, and instead involves emotion and multiple external factors (Kals,
Schumacher, & Montada, 1999).
Unfortunately, many organizations still rely on these linear models in the
development of communication campaigns and strategies (Kollmuss & Agyeman, 2002).
Even governments have recently based environmental campaigns off of these theories.
For example, the UK’s 1996 Going For Green initiative was described by Blake (1999)
as a national awareness campaign that attempted to increase public awareness and, in
turn, pro-environmental behavior. These programs incorrectly offer people information
in the expectation that awareness will inspire action. It would appear from research that
it might be more helpful to beyond these outdated frameworks that utilize the
information-deficit model of participation in order to truly close the value-action gap
(Blake).
11
Schwartz’s 1977 Moral Norm-Activation Model of Altruism
In 1977 Schwartz developed a model of altruism which assumed that altruistic
behavior will increase when a person becomes aware of another’s suffering and, at the
same time, feels responsibility for this suffering (Kollmuss & Agyeman, 2002).
Schwartz explained behavior in terms of an interrelationship between four major
constructs: awareness of consequences, ascription of responsibility, social norms and
personal norms (Oom Do Valle et al., 2005). This model predicted that the activation of
moral norms results in altruistic behavior. This moral norm-activation occurs “when an
individual becomes aware that his or her behavior has possible negative consequences for
others and is willing to take personal responsibility for the others’ well-being” (Allen &
Ferrand, 1999, p. 340). Therefore, the central idea in this model is the indirect influence
of social norms on an individual’s behavior (Oom Do Valle et al.). Awareness of
consequences and assumed responsibility are variables that influence the implementation
of norms on actual behavior. If an individual experiences high levels of awareness of
responsibility, and high levels of assumed responsibility, norms will guide behavior
(Fransson & Garling, 1999).
Social and personal norms. A norm is an expectation held by an individual
regarding how he or she ought to act in a particular situation (Fransson & Garling, 1999).
Social norms are mediated by personal norms of altruistic behavior, thus having an
indirect influence on behavior. Social norms are comprised of values and beliefs, which
are, in part, dictated by specific people groups (such as family members or friends) in
relationship to how one ought to behave (Oom Do Valle et al., 2005). Social norms must
12
be enforced by a threat of punishment or a promise of reward (Fransson & Garling).
Conversely, personal norms reflect what an individual feels he or she should do because
it is the right thing to do (Oom Do Valle et al.). Personal norms are internalized
principles that guide action without reinforcement. However, to violate personal norms
will evoke feelings of guilt while compliance with personal norms will evoke feelings of
pride (Fransson & Garling). To put this into action terms, one who feels morally
obligated to recycle might only do so if he or she believes in the positive consequences of
recycling and feels personally responsible for these consequences (Oom Do Valle et al.).
Strengths and shortcomings. Research has demonstrated that personal norms do
have a strong influence on the propensity to behave in pro-environmental ways. This
evidence supports the norm-activation theory of altruism as a more appropriate
framework for understanding pro-environmental behaviors than previous rationalistic
models (Thogersen & Olander, 2003). However, recent research also proves that this
model does not sufficiently take into account the influence of external conditions
(Fransson & Garling, 1999). Although an improvement on previous frameworks,
Schwartz’s norm-activation model cannot completely close the gap between attitudes and
action.
Ajzen & Fishbein’s 1980 Theory of Planned Behavior
The theory of planned behavior is based off of Ajzen & Fishbein’s 1975 theory of
reasoned action (Oom Do Valle et al., 2005). The theory of planned behavior implies
that people act based on consideration of costs and benefits of the consequences
(Fransson & Garling, 1999). This theory has two basic premises (Oom Do Valle et al.).
13
The initial premise is similar to that of previous rationalistic models in that individuals
act rationally and utilize available information before acting. The second premise posits
that attitude toward specific behaviors and subjective norms determine intentions. This
concept brought a new standpoint to the value-action gap, as it recognized that attitudes
do not directly determine behavior. Rather, this model posited that attitudes influence
behavioral intentions, which then proceed to shape actions (Kollmuss & Agyeman,
2002). Therefore, Ajzen and Fishbein stated, “The ultimate determinants of any behavior
are the behavioral beliefs concerning its consequences and normative beliefs concerning
the prescriptions of others” (as cited in Kollmuss & Agyeman, p. 242). The theory of
planned behavior was also developed in conjunction with a mathematical equation
allowing for empirical studies and, in turn, making this theory the most influential
attitude-behavior model (Kollmuss & Agyeman).
Strengths and shortcomings. Ajzen and Fishbein’s theory of planned behavior
has been very helpful in explaining variance in specific pro-environmental behavior
(Stern, 2000). However, this model only holds true in regards to very specific actions,
such as recycling paper products when a nearby facility exists, as opposed to recycling on
the whole (Kollmuss & Agyeman, 2002). Additionally, empirical data has demonstrated
that the factors of the planned behavior theory (attitude, subjective norm and perceived
behavioral control) do influence behavioral intention (Mosler, Tamas, Tobias, Rodriguez,
& Miranda, 2008). Overall, the theory is credited for its clarity and simplicity.
Nonetheless, it has been proven to be limited in terms of explaining the value-action gap
14
of environmental behavior, especially in its assumption that humans generally act
rationally (Kollmuss & Agyeman).
Hines, Hungerford, and Tomera’s 1986 Model of Responsible Environmental Behavior
Hines, Hungerford and Tomera created the model of responsible environmental
behavior in 1986. This theory was based on Ajzen and Fishbein’s theory of planned
behavior (Kollmuss & Agyeman, 2002). Hines et al.’s model utilized the results of a
meta-analysis of 128 studies, reported from 1970 to 1986, which suggested that intention
is related to knowledge, skills, and personality (Fransson & Garling, 1999). Hines et al.
further divided knowledge into two components, knowledge of issues (environmental
problems and their causes) and knowledge of action strategies. Action strategies are
defined as how one can act to lower one’s impact on the environmental problem
(Kollmuss & Agyeman). Skill refers to the ability to apply this knowledge to specific
problems. However, Hines et al. posited that skill alone is not sufficient for appropriate
behavior, and this is where personality comes into play. Personality (as comprised of
locus of control, attitude and personal responsibility) ultimately determines whether the
action is completed. Therefore, if a person is knowledgeable on a specific environmental
issue, has the necessary skills to complete a related behavior, utilizes an internal locus of
control, maintains a positive attitude towards the environment, and has feelings of
personal responsibility to the environment, then he or she will likely engage in a related
pro-environmental behavior (Fransson & Garling).
Strengths and shortcomings. It should be recognized that Hines et al.’s model is
an improvement on Ajzen and Fishbein’s theory of planned behavior. However, despite
15
their seemingly all-encompassing theory, Hines, et al. did not identify factors that
sufficiently explain pro-environmental behavior. Further research has shown that the
relationship between “knowledge and attitudes, attitudes and intentions, and intentions
and actual responsible behavior, are weak at best” (Kollmuss & Agyeman, 2002,
p. 243-244). Additionally, this theory is lacking in one major realm, that of situational
factors, which includes economic constraints, social pressures, and the opportunities to
choose different behaviors (Fransson & Garling, 1999).
Stern, Dietz and Kalof’s 1993 Model of Environmental Concern
In 1993 Stern et al. began integrating their concept of value orientations with
Schwartz’s norm-activation theory (Fransson & Garling, 1999). These researchers
posited that past theories had a restrictive focus on socioeconomic determinants of
pro-environmental concern and the relationship between specific attitudes and
pro-environment behaviors. Therefore, their model was the first to incorporate the
relationship between specific attitudes and environmental behavior into broader
pro-environmental attitudes, values, and social structure (Oom Do Volle et al., 2005).
The Stern et al. model expanded on Shwartzian thoughts by offering an integrative
theoretical framework of environmental concern (Stern et al., 1993). Additionally, Stern
et al.’s research focused on how individuals who were concerned with the environment
viewed it as fundamentally differently than less concerned individuals (Kollmuss &
Agyeman, 2002).
Value orientations. Stern et al. (1993) recognized that the value orientation
towards human welfare was only one of three major influences that underlie
16
environmental attitudes and behavior. This theory expanded upon Schwartz’s model by
dividing altruism into a tripartite classification of values (Dutcher et al., 2007). The three
orientations (social-altruistic, egoistic, and biospheric) each involve unique concerns.
Kollmuss and Agyeman (2002) deftly summarize these orientations: “The social
orientation is concerned with the removal of suffering of other people, the egoistic
orientation is concerned with the removal of suffering and harm from oneself, and the
biospheric orientation is concerned with the removal of destruction and suffering in the
non-human world” (p. 245).
When considering Stern et al.’s theory (1993), it is important to recognize that
every individual has all three orientations, but to different degrees. For example, while
an environmentalist might be very developed in terms of his or her biospheric orientation,
a doctor might have a stronger social orientation (Kollmuss & Agyeman, 2002).
Therefore, someone with a social-altruistic value orientation might prioritize values
including world peace and equality, and may consider consequences in terms of costs and
benefits to humanity as a whole. Conversely, someone with a dominant egoistic value
orientation would be more likely to value personal happiness, and to consider costs and
benefits to him or herself. Lastly, someone with a primarily biospheric value orientation
might value protection of the rainforest highly, while considering costs and benefits to the
ecosystem in decisions (Fransson & Garling, 1999). In totality, environmental concern is
created through a combination of all three orientations in each individual (Kollmuss &
Agyeman). Additionally, all three orientations have withstood investigation and have
been found to predict willingness to take pro-environmental action (Fransson & Garling).
17
Research by Stern and his associates has proven the egoistic orientation to be the
strongest orientation, followed by social, and finally, biospheric orientation (Stern et al.,
1993). Although contrary to first consideration, it is important to recognize that egoistic
orientation can result in pro-environmental behavior, so long as the pro-environmental
action serves the person’s wants and needs. For example, when one decides to utilize
public transit, rather than drive his or her personal car, because it allows one to relax
(Kollmuss & Agyeman, 2002). Therefore, all three value orientations can provide
distinct basis for pro-environmental behavior. Overall, however, social-altruistic and
biospheric orientations are more positively correlated to pro-environmental beliefs,
intentions, and behavior than the egoistic orientation (DeGroot & Steg, 2008).
Strengths and shortcomings. As with the other frameworks, the model of
environmental concern developed by Stern et al. (1993) has provided some insight into
factors that influence environmental attitudes and behaviors. Yet, as other models, this
theory falls short of full explanation of pro-environmental behavior. Later research by
Stern, Dietz, Kalof and Guagnano (1995) was successful in replicating results of egoistic
and biospheric values, but failed to demonstrate the relationship of social-altruistic
awareness and willingness to take pro-environmental action. Additionally, many studies
demonstrate that biospheric orientation cannot be distinguished from the altruistic
orientation (DeGroot & Steg, 2008).
Summary of the Current State of Research
In time, researchers have come to recognize that there are many complex
variables that influence behavior. These influential factors are thought to fall into three
18
main categories: demographic, external, and internal (Kollmuss & Agyeman, 2002).
Upon recognizing that the issue is far too complex for one framework, Kollmuss and
Agyeman examine positive and negative factors that have been established as influencing
environmental behavior. External factors include institutional, economic, social and
cultural factors. Internal factors include motivation, environmental knowledge,
awareness, values, attitudes, emotion, locus of control, responsibilities, and priorities
(Kollmuss & Agyeman).