78528 EAB

Article
Environment and Behavior

A Cross-Cultural 43(5) 634­–657

© The Author(s) 2011
Reprints and permission: http://www.
Assessment of sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0013916510378528
Three Theories of http://eab.sagepub.com

Pro-Environmental
Behavior:  A Comparison
Between Business Students
of Chile and the United
States

Mark Cordano1, Stephanie Welcomer2,

Robert F. Scherer3, Lorena Pradenas4,
and Víctor Parada5

Abstract
We surveyed business students in the United States (n = 256) and Chile
(n = 310) to compare three theories of pro-environmental behavior.We
examined Ajzen and Fishbein’s theory of reasoned action, Schawartz’s norm
activation theory, and the values-beliefs-norms theory created by Stern,
Dietz, Abel, Guagnano, and Kalof. We produced reliable measures for both
samples. Each theory explained a significant amount of the variance in be-
havioral intention, although no theory clearly dominated for either the United
States or Chile. However, among the variables included among these theories,

1
Ithaca College, NY
2
University of Maine, Orono
3
Cleveland State University, OH
4
Universidad de Concepción, Chile
5
Universidad de Santiago, Chile

Corresponding Author:
Stephanie Welcomer, University of Maine, Maine Business School,
DP Corbett, Orono, ME 04469
Email: Stephanie.welcomer@umit.maine.edu

Downloaded from eab.sagepub.com at East Tennessee State University on June 8, 2015

Cordano et al. 635

the norms variable consistently produced the strongest relationship with

behavioral intention. We discuss avenues of future research focusing on
norms and more parsimonious combinations of the variables across these
three theories.

Keywords
pro-environmental behavior, cross-culture, norm activation, values-beliefs-
norms, reasoned action

The warning signs of a general decline in the earth’s ecological health have
become more evident to an increasing number of people around the world
with the advent of global warming (IPCC, 2007), the acceleration of species
extinction, the depletion of the world’s fisheries, and the mass destruction of
critical habitats. Central to addressing these ecological problems is the need
to increase our understanding of the relationship between individuals’ envi-
ronmental views and pro-environmental behavior. Researchers in the United
States have extensively examined environmental views and relevant behav-
iors since the early 1970s (Dunlap, 2002), and recently, researchers in other
countries have been progressively applying this U.S.-based research to new
cultures (Fransson & Garling, 1999). Many theoretical models have been
employed to gauge pro-environmental behavior (Wall, Devine-Wright, &
Mill, 2007); however, there has been little comparative study of the different
perspectives that are used to examine pro-environmental behavior (Stern,
2000). In addition, few studies assess the applicability and performance of
these different approaches in different cultures (though see Oreg & Katz-
Gerro, 2006). As the scope of environmental problems expands to include
transnational issues such as climate change and habitat loss, researchers around
the world will need to be able to examine antecedents of pro-environmental
behavior across national boundaries using parsimonious tools demonstrated
to be useful across cultures.
Many investigations into the antecedents of pro-environmental behaviors
have relied on theoretical systems grounded in a combination of attitudes,
values, or norms. Perspectives grounded in these three constructs conceptu-
alize relationships between individual level variables and individual pro-
environmental behavior. Each perspective has proven to be helpful in
under­standing this relationship, but none has demonstrated superiority in
explaining individual variance in pro-environmental behavior. In an effort to
establish sound models and measures for cross-cultural research, we have

Downloaded from eab.sagepub.com at East Tennessee State University on June 8, 2015

636 Environment and Behavior 43(5)

developed measures that enable us to compare three models that incorporate

different combinations of attitudes, values, and norms variables (norm acti-
vation, values-beliefs-norms, and theory of reasoned action). We examined
the explanatory power of each model by comparing the ability of each model
to explain the variance in a measure of behavioral intention to engage in pro-
environmental behavior.
This study has three objectives: (a) to develop sound measures for all the
variables among these three theories of pro-environmental behavior, (b) to
examine and compare the amount of explained variance for each theory, and
(c) to compare the results across the two cultures for each theory. As such, we
suggest that this comparative examination of three empirically supported
theories predicting pro-environmental behavior advances research of synthetic
models (Stern, 2000) and instruments that measure these models.

Research on the Antecedents

of Pro-Environmental Behavior
We selected three related approaches to examine the antecedents of pro-
environmental behavior because of their utility in previous studies and rele-
vance to our interest in understanding the antecedents of future managers’
environmental management decisions. We included Schwartz’s norm activa-
tion theory because of its successful application in multicountry analyses of
pro-environmental behavior (e.g., Schultz & Zelezny, 1998). We selected the
theory of reasoned action based on the studies by management researchers that
have successfully included attitude and norm components in their analyses
of environmental management practices in corporate settings (e.g., Cordano
& Frieze, 2000; Flannery & May, 2000). The third research perspective that
we selected was a values-beliefs-norms model (Stern, Dietz, Abel, Guagnano,
& Kalof, 1999) that successfully integrates multiple streams of research such
as the studies that use the New Environmental Paradigm Scale (Dunlap &
Van Liere, 1978) and the values research examining pro-environmental behav-
ior (e.g., McCarty & Shrum, 1994).

Theory of Reasoned Action

We selected the theory of reasoned action (Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975) for this
study because of its success in examining a variety of environmentally related
behaviors and its adaptability to new studies (Eagly & Chaiken, 1993).
Research in social psychology has extensively employed Fishbein and Ajzen’s
(1975) theory of reasoned action to predict and investigate the motivational

Downloaded from eab.sagepub.com at East Tennessee State University on June 8, 2015

Cordano et al. 637

influences on a wide variety of behaviors (Madden, Ellen, & Ajzen, 1992;

Netemeyer, Burton, & Johnston, 1991). The theory of reasoned action has
demonstrated both power and versatility by successfully predicting a variety
of behaviors, even some that violate the theory’s conditions for use (Sheppard,
Hartwick, & Warshaw, 1988). Because of its successful application in many
studies, the theory of reasoned action has become a fundamental model for
explaining social action (Bagozzi, 1992).
The theory of reasoned action contains two variables, attitudes, and sub-
jective norms that determine behavioral intention, which leads to behavior.
Attitudes toward a behavior measure a person’s evaluation of a specific
behavior. These attitudes are determined by a person’s beliefs about the con-
sequences resulting from the performance of a behavior and the person’s
affective response to those consequences. The theory of reasoned action pro-
poses that a person’s intention to perform a behavior will increase as his or
her attitudes toward a behavior become more favorable. The subjective norms
variable adds a social component to the theory of planned behavior. It mea-
sures the perceived social pressure to perform or not to perform a behavior.
Subjective norms are a function of a person’s perception of important refer-
ents’ evaluation of a behavior and a person’s motivation to conform to those
evaluations. According to the theory of reasoned action, a person’s intention
to perform a behavior will increase as subjective norms toward a behavior
become more favorable.
Some researchers have successfully applied the enhanced version of the
theory of reasoned action that Ajzen (1991) labeled the theory of planned
behavior to single culture pro-environmental behavior (Boldero, 1995; Oom
Do Valle, Rebelo, Reis, & Menezes, 2005; Taylor & Todd, 1995, 1997) and
to cross-cultural pro-environmental behavior (Oreg & Katz-Gerro, 2006).
The theory of reasoned action preceded the theory of planned behavior and is
different from the theory of planned behavior only by the addition of the
perceived behavioral control variable. Because we were not examining the
performance of a single target behavior within a specific set of circumstances,
we decided that the perceived behavioral control variable was not appropriate
for this study.

Norm Activation
Schwartz originally outlined the norm activation model in the late 1960s
(1968a, 1968b) and then made some refinements to this model in a series of
articles in the 1970s (1970, 1973, 1977). In an earlier article about changing
attitudes toward environmental issues, Heberlein (1972) suggested that

Downloaded from eab.sagepub.com at East Tennessee State University on June 8, 2015

638 Environment and Behavior 43(5)

Schwartz’s norm activation model would provide a good foundation for

investigating pro-environmental behaviors such as recycling and conserv-
ing energy because Schwartz’s model was intended to investigate prosocial
behaviors.
Schwartz poses three antecedents of prosocial behavior. These three ante-
cedents are awareness of consequences, ascription of responsibility, and per-
sonal norms. The model is labeled norm activation because it argues that an
awareness of potentially harmful consequences and ascription of personal
responsibility activate personal norms that determine whether a person should
act to intervene to prevent harmful outcomes. The model is a theory of inter-
vention behaviors. It only applies when processes or events are already in
place that someone believes will lead to harmful consequences for others or
others and oneself collectively. Schwartz originally called his model a theory
of altruism because it focuses on behaviors in which the motivation is not
apparent self-interest.
The logic of Schwartz’s theory revolves around the intensity of the aware-
ness of consequences and acceptance of responsibility components and the
content of an individual’s norms. The theory contends that as the salience or
intensity of awareness of consequences and acceptance of responsibility
increases, the likelihood that personal norms will be evoked increases. If the
content of a person’s norms prescribes action, then a person will act to pre-
vent the expected harmful consequences. Schwartz noted that this process
need not be a deliberate calculus but might be quite spontaneous if the situa-
tion is of high enough intensity, and the individual’s norms are strong and
prescribe behavior.
Although some earlier research examining pro-environmental behaviors
such as recycling did apply elements of Schwartz’s norm activation model
(e.g., Heberlein & Black, 1976), it was not until the mid-1980s that the model
began to be successfully applied more extensively in a series of studies
that examined pro-environmental behavior (Black, Stern, & Elworth,1985;
Guagnano, Stern, & Dietz, 1995; Hopper & Nielson, 1991; Stern, Dietz, &
Guagnano, 1995; Vining & Ebreo, 1992). Recent studies have underlined the
utility of the norm activation model in predicting pro-environmental behav-
iors such as recycling (Oom Do Valle et al., 2005) and travel-mode choice
(Wall et al., 2007).

Values-Based Approaches
Approaches focusing on values are premised on the assumption that individu-
als’ values influence their behavior, either directly or through attitudes and

Downloaded from eab.sagepub.com at East Tennessee State University on June 8, 2015

Cordano et al. 639

beliefs. Values are defined as “desirable trans-situational goals, varying in

importance, that serve as guiding principles in the life of a person or other
social entity” (Schwartz, 1994, p. 21). Schwartz’s (1992) scale of values is
commonly used for studies of pro-environmental behavior. Schwartz’s val-
ues scale draws from Rokeach’s (1973) values survey instrument and the
Kahle’s list of values (1983). Some values have consistently been found to
be related to pro-environmental behaviors such as recycling (Seligman, Syme,
& Gilchrist, 1994; Thogersen, & Grunert-Beckmann, 1997).
Rokeach postulated that, once formed, values are stable throughout life.
He created a widely used value survey instrument to measure a comprehen-
sive list of individual values. Rokeach’s value survey did not explicitly
include environmental values but did include the terminal values labeled “a
world of beauty” and “a comfortable life.” Simmons, Binney, and Dodd (1992)
added “a clean environment” to Rokeach’s scale and found that “a clean
environment” was part of other values and was not an independent value.
Other studies using Rokeach’s scale found links to particular value clusters
and pro-environmental behavior. For instance, Dunlap, Grieneeks, and
Rokeach (1983) organized Rokeach’s values by Maslow’s hierarchy of needs
and found that those who recycle tended to seek higher order needs than those
who did not recycle. Schwartz’s (1992) model builds on Rokeach’s scale.
Schwartz’s scale of values includes two dimensions, with one continuum
spanning “self-enhancement” and “self-transcendence.” This dimension

. . . arrays values in terms of the extent to which they motivate people

to enhance their own personal interests (even at the expense of others)
versus the extent to which they motivate people to transcend selfish
concerns and promote the welfare of others, close and distant, and of
nature. (Schwartz, 1992, p. 43)

The second dimension spans “openness to change” through “conservative

approach to change.” “Openness to change” is associated with “self-direction”
and “stimulation.” Both value dimensions and types are hypothesized to influ-
ence specific pro-environmental behaviors.
Schwartz’s model has offered mixed results. Using a subset of Schwartz’s
scale, Stern and Dietz (1994) found a positive relationship between self-
transcendence and willingness to engage in environmental political action.
Karp (1996) tested Schwartz’s complete scale and found that individuals
valuing “self-transcendence” and “openness to change” were positively related
to pro-environmental behavior and that those who valued “self-enhancement”

Downloaded from eab.sagepub.com at East Tennessee State University on June 8, 2015

640 Environment and Behavior 43(5)

and “conservatism” were negatively related to pro-environmental behavior.

Stern, Dietz, Kalof, and Guagnano (1995) also found a relationship between
high “self-transcendence” and pro-environmental behavior. Egri and Herman
(2000) found that nonprofit environmental leaders more highly valued “open-
ness to change” and “self-transcendence” than those leading firms in other
economic sectors. Thogersen and Grunert-Beckmann (1997) also examined
the relationship between Schwartz’s value scale and environmental behavior,
finding support for the association.

Values-Beliefs-Norms Theory
of Pro-Environmental Behavior
Typically, research on pro-environmental behavior that uses values-based
approaches proposes that an individual’s values influence behavior, either
directly or through attitudes and beliefs (Schwartz, 1994). Stern et al. (1999)
tested a theory of support for social movements that incorporated values and
beliefs together into a norm activation framework. This work was built on
some of their earlier work (Stern, Dietz, Kalof, et al., 1995) that integrated
values measures with the research on the New Environmental Paradigm Scale
(Dunlap & Van Liere, 1978). The 12-item New Environmental Paradigm
Scale was designed by Dunlap and Van Liere to measure the environmental
views of the general public. The New Environmental Paradigm Scale is the
most widely used measure of general environmental concern (Dunlap, Van
Liere, Mertig, & Jones, 2000).
The values-beliefs-norms theory contends that prosocial behavior is stim-
ulated by activating norms of helping. These norms stem from three factors:
(a) personal values, (b) beliefs that these values are under threat, and (c) beliefs
that the individual can take action to reduce the threat and restore those val-
ues. The primary differences between the values-beliefs-norms theory and the
norm activation theory are that the norm activation theory focuses solely on
altruistic values or motives whereas the values-beliefs-norms theory includes
other values as well, and the values-beliefs-norms theory directly assesses
individuals’ relevant beliefs.
The values-beliefs-norms framework has been supported in cross-cultural
environmental behavior research. For instance, in Oreg and Katz-Gerro’s
(2006) study of 27 countries, they found that country-level postmaterialism
values significantly predicted attitudes and that these attitudes were signifi-
cantly related to behavioral intention and ultimately to behaviors of recy-
cling, refraining from driving, and environmental citizenship.

Downloaded from eab.sagepub.com at East Tennessee State University on June 8, 2015

Cordano et al. 641

Cross-Cultural Research Assessing

Environmental Concern
Around the world, researchers sensing an increase in environmental aware-
ness arising from environmental deterioration have begun to assess environ-
mental concern using a wide variety of approaches (Vining & Ebreo, 2002).
Some of these studies have focused on a single culture in which environmen-
tal issues are increasing in importance such as Portugal (Kahn & Lourenco,
2002), Thailand (Pornpitakpan, 2001), and Turkey (Furman, 1998), whereas
other researchers are starting to compare differences in environmental con-
cern across cultures such as studies examining Brazil and Norway (Vikan,
Camino, Biaggio, & Nordvik, 2007), U.S.-Japan-Mexico-Peru (Bechtel,
Corral-Verdugo, Asai, & Riesle, 2006), Domincan Republic-Trinidad-United
States (Rauwald & Moore, 2002), China and Japan (Branzei, Vertinsky,
Takahashi, & Zhang, 2001), Costa Rica-Mexico-Venezuela-Brazil (Christen
et al., 1998), Brazil-Mexico-United States (Bechtel, Corral-Verdugo, &
Pinheiro, 1999), and Switzerland and Sweden (Kaiser & Biel, 2000). Some
research has incorporated a larger sample of countries: studies of 14 countries
(Schultz & Zelezny, 1999), 22 countries (Kemmelmeier, Krol, & Young,
2002), 27 countries (Oreg & Katz-Gerro, 2006), and 43 countries (Inglehart,
1995). Although there are exceptions (e.g., Bechtel et al., 1999), most of
these studies do not include surveys that have been translated into the native
language of all of the study participants, and even fewer have compared
measures drawn from multiple perspectives of pro-environmental behavior.
These studies often rely on a single well-known theory or scale to compare
cultures or test the applicability of a theory or measures to a new population.
We wanted to compare different theories across different cultures, so that we
could examine the differences in explanatory power of each theory. The
results should facilitate cross-cultural research and inform behavioral change
and education efforts.

Method
We limited our study to two countries, the United States and Chile, to make
the translation and data collection processes of our study more manage-
able. Moreover, we selected these two countries as they have been shown
to differ in values and behavior in past research. In a large global study,
Hofstede (2001) found that Chileans had higher uncertainty avoidance,
greater power distance, and were less individualistic than their counterparts
in the United States. Thus, these two countries offer a unique opportunity

Downloaded from eab.sagepub.com at East Tennessee State University on June 8, 2015

642 Environment and Behavior 43(5)

to understand how the three models of pro-environmental behavior differ

between two cultures.
Because of the large number of participants necessary to adequately test
the numerous scales included in this study, we focused solely on collecting
data from business students at the undergraduate and MBA levels in both
countries. In Chile, surveys were distributed to and collected from six classes
of business students at the undergraduate level and three classes of master’s
level students at the Universidad de Concepción and the Universidad de
Santiago for a total of 301 participants. A total of 10 classes of business
students at the undergraduate and master’s levels at Central Michigan
University (four classes), University of Maine (three classes), and Wright
State University (three classes) were surveyed to create the U.S. sample
(n = 256). The Chilean sample has a mean age of 26.9 years and the compo-
sition of the Chilean sample reflects the typical business program of study in
Chile. The majority of the Chilean study participants are men (n = 241;
women, n = 69). The U.S. sample has an average age of 26.3 years and is
more evenly distributed among women and men but men (n = 155) still out-
numbered the women (n = 101).

Measures
We reviewed previous studies of pro-environmental behavior that used the
theory of reasoned action (or its successor, the theory of planned behavior),
Schwartz’s norm activation theory, and the values-beliefs-norms model to
identify appropriate measures and items for this study. Some of the measures
in our study, such as the values scales, are the same measures published in
previous studies. Other measures, in which the content did not meet the
needs of our study, were modified or created anew for our study. Scales were
selected based on their content validity and evidence of sufficient reliability
in previous studies. Modified or newly developed measures were modeled on
the structure of previous useful scales.
Except for the values and awareness of consequences scales, respondents
answered items according to a Likert-type scale ranging from 1 = strongly
disagree to 7 = strongly agree. The behavioral intention, attitudes, norms,
acceptance of responsibility, and beliefs scales were all scored, so that higher
scores reflected stronger levels of pro-environmental concern. These scales
had a total of 59 items. Twenty-three of these were values items taken directly
from the values-beliefs-norms research by Stern et al. (1999). Among the
remaining 36 items, 9 were reverse-scored. Examples of items for each mea-
sure, along with the reliability coefficient alphas for each scale are listed by

Downloaded from eab.sagepub.com at East Tennessee State University on June 8, 2015

Cordano et al. 643

Table 1. Example Items for All Measures

α (Chile) α (United States)
Behavioral intention .86 .91
 I would participate in protests against current environmental conditions.
Attitudes .70 .70
 Property owners have the right to abuse their land even if it becomes unfit for use by
  future generations.
Norms .84 .93
  People who are important to me think that I should support stricter environmental laws.
Awareness of .79 .84
 consequences
  How serious a threat do you think air pollution by industry is to your health and well-being?
Acceptance of .89 .91
 responsibility
  I feel a personal obligation to support stronger environmental laws.
Environmental beliefs .71 .83
(Abbreviated new environmental paradigm)
  The balance of nature is very delicate and easily upset.
Values—altruism .86 .83
  Preventing pollution, conserving natural resources
Values—openness to .70 .76
 change
  Curious, interested in everything, exploring
Values—self-interest .73 .76
  Wealth, material possessions, money
Values—traditional .85 .86
  Obedient, dutiful, meeting obligations

sample in Table 1 (the complete scales in English and Spanish are available
from the first author).
Behavioral intention. The behavioral intention scale was an amalgam of
items from scales by Séguin, Pelletier, and Hunsley (1998), Stern, Dietz, and
Kalof (1993), and Cordano and Frieze (2002).
Attitudes. The attitude items focus on an individual’s willingness to bal-
ance property rights against the need for environmental protection. This scale
is based on items developed by Dunlap and Van Liere (1984). Our four-item
version of this scale contains two items from the original scale along with
additional items from Van Liere and Dunlap (1981) and Cordano (1994).
Norms. The norms scale was created for this study according to a format
commonly used in applications of the theory of planned behavior and its

Downloaded from eab.sagepub.com at East Tennessee State University on June 8, 2015

644 Environment and Behavior 43(5)

precursor, the theory of reasoned action. Phrases from the acceptance of

responsibility items were abbreviated and put into the norms format, so that
the content of these two scales would be similar even though the subject and
actions differed.
Awareness of consequences. Cordano and Frieze (2002) developed this
scale by modifying a scale created by Dietz, Stern, and Guagnano (1998).
Participants responded to the items using a 4-point scale where the number 1
corresponded to an answer of very serious and 4 corresponded to not serious
at all.
Acceptance of responsibility. This scale is based on items developed by Stern
et al. (1999) for an analysis of their values-beliefs-norms model. We used
three of their items and created four new ones.
Environmental beliefs. The values-beliefs-norms study by Stern et al. (1999)
used a five-item abbreviated version of Dunlap and Van Liere’s New Envi-
ronmental Paradigm Scale for the values-beliefs-norms analysis. We also
used an abbreviated version of the new environmental paradigm. Our version
contained nine items drawn from both the original and revised versions of the
new environmental paradigm.
Values. The values-beliefs-norms study by Stern et al. (1999) used an
abbreviated version of Schwartz’s list of values for the values-beliefs-norms
analysis. We used the same abbreviated list for our study. The values items
formed four scales. Participants responded to the values items using a 4-point
scale ranging from 1 = very important to 4 = not important at all.
All the measures were translated to Chilean Spanish for the data collection
in Chile. The commonly employed translation/back translation method (Guthrey
& Lowe, 1992; Hwang, Yan, & Scherer, 1996) was used to complete the
translation. The first step was to have a bilingual (English–Spanish) member
of the research team to translate the survey into Chilean Spanish. A second
bilingual member of the research team reviewed the translation. These two
individuals then reviewed the translated instrument to identify any discrepan-
cies. In the next step, another bilingual member of the research team translated
the instrument back from Chilean Spanish to English to assure equivalency.
All three research associates reviewed discrepancies in back translation.

Results
All of the scales produced reliable measures (see Table 1). Variables were
created by combining all of the items in a scale and dividing by the number
of items combined. Multiple regression analyses were run for each theory
with behavioral intention as the dependent variable. Separate analyses were

Downloaded from eab.sagepub.com at East Tennessee State University on June 8, 2015

Cordano et al. 645

Table 2. Three Regression Analyses—Chile Sample

No. of Items β t F p R2
Theory of reasoned action 72.7 .000*** .50
 Attitudes 4 .06 1.33 .185  
 Norms 6 .70 16.85 .000***  
 Age 1 −.05 −1.27 .000***  
 Sex 1 −.06 −1.49 .137  
Norm activation 65.3 .000*** .53
 Norms 6 .58 12.24 .000***  
  Awareness of consequences 4 −.10 −2.39 .017*  
  Acceptance of responsibility 7 .19 4.02 .000***  
 Age 1 −.09 −2.13 .033*  
 Sex 1 −.04 −1.04 .299  
Values-beliefs-norms 41.8 .000*** .55
 Beliefs 9 .13 3.01 .000***  
 Norms 7 .60 13.57 .000***  
 Altruism 7 −.21 −3.50 .000***  
 Change 3 −.00 −0.07 .943  
 Self 4 −.04 −1.0 .317  
 Traditional 9 .15 2.76 .006**  
 Age 1  
 Sex 1  
*p < .05. **p < .01.***p < .001.

performed for each sample. The results for Chile are listed in Table 2, and
the results for the United States are listed in Table 3. Age and sex variables
were included in all the regression analyses for both samples because some
previous research has found that they can significantly affect levels of envi-
ronmental concern (Fransson & Garling, 1999; Kemmelmeier et al., 2002).
We included these two demographic variables to also address any concerns
about the different ratios of men-to-women in the two samples.
Attesting to the strength of these theories as demonstrated in their contin-
ued application in previous research, all the regression analyses in both sam-
ples produced F values that were significant at p < .01 level. Given this result,
we examined the significance of the individual components of each model
and compared the R2 statistic for each regression analysis.
In the Chilean sample, all three models produced significant F statistics
with comparable levels of explained variance with R2 values ranging from
.50 to .55. All the variables in the norm activation model were significant.

Downloaded from eab.sagepub.com at East Tennessee State University on June 8, 2015

646 Environment and Behavior 43(5)

Table 3. Three Regression Analyses—U.S. Sample

No. of Items β t F p R2
Theory of reasoned action 58.2 .000*** .49
 Attitudes 4 .10 2.07 .039*  
 Norms 6 .62 12.75 .000***  
 Age 1 .06 1.42 .156  
 Sex 1 −.14 −3.07 .002**  
Norm activation 66.4 .000*** .58
 Norms 6 .43 8.33 .000***  
  Awareness of consequences 4 −.13 −2.71 .007**  
  Acceptance of responsibility 7 .33 6.34 .000***  
 Age 1 .05 1.08 .281  
 Sex 1 −.11 −2.59 .010**  
Values-beliefs-norms 33.0 .000*** .54
 Beliefs 9 .25 4.73 .000***  
 Norms 7 .47 8.67 .000***  
 Altruism 7 −.18 −3.20 .002**  
 Change 3 .10 1.95 .051  
 Self 4 −.05 −1.05 .294  
 Traditional 9 −.01 −0.16 .873  
 Age 1 .08 1.68 .095  
 Sex 1 −.11 2.43 .015*  
*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

Not all variables were significant in the theory of reasoned action or the values-
beliefs-norms models. The attitudes variable (t = 1.33, p = .185) in the theory
of reasoned action model was not significant. For the values-belief-norms
regression analysis, the beliefs (t = 3.01, p < .01) and the norms (t = 13.57,
p < .01) were both significant, as were the altruism (t = −3.50, p < .01) and
traditional (t = 2.76, p < .01) values variables. The norms variable was sub-
stantially a more powerful predictor of behavioral intention than any other
variables among the three models. The next most powerful variables were the
acceptance of responsibility variable from the norm activation model and the
altruism variable from the values-beliefs-norms model.
In the U.S. sample, all three models were significant producing R2 values
ranging from .49 to .58. This result is similar to the range for the Chilean
sample. All the variables for the theory of reasoned action and the theory of
norm activation were significant. In the values-beliefs-norms regression
analysis, the norms (t = 8.67, p < .01) and beliefs (t = 4.74, p < .01) variables

Downloaded from eab.sagepub.com at East Tennessee State University on June 8, 2015

Cordano et al. 647

were significant, but only one of the four values variables, altruism (t = −3.20,
p < .01), was significant. As was the case for the Chilean sample, the norms
variable explained the greatest amount of variance in each model; however,
the norms variable was not dramatically more powerful than the other vari-
ables. For the United States, sample norms were much more powerful than
attitudes in the theory of reasoned action model. For the norm activation
model, the difference between the norms variable and the next most powerful
variable, acceptance of responsibility, was not as dramatic.
The pattern of the magnitude of effect for the individual variables differed
in the size of the effect but not dramatically in the ordering of the variables.
In both samples, norms was the most powerful influence on behavioral inten-
tion followed in order by acceptance of responsibility, beliefs, and altruism
for the United States and altruism, acceptance of responsibility, and tradi-
tional for Chile. Tables 2 and 3 also report the number of scale items used to
create each variable. The theory of reasoned action and the theory of norm
activation were the most parsimonious, each requiring less than half the num-
ber of survey items needed to assess the values-beliefs-norms model.

Discussion
The fact that all the scales produced reliable measures and all three models
were significant in both samples attests to the utility of all three theories
and demonstrates why none of the theories has dominated research on pro-
environmental behavior in the United States. The model based on the theory
of norm activation is the only model in which all its components were sig-
nificant in the regression analysis for each sample. The theory of norm acti-
vation model also had a higher R2 statistic than the results from both samples
for the theory of reasoned action and contained far fewer survey items required
for the values-beliefs-norms theory.
Our objectives included developing and testing measures for all of the
variables in these theories. We successfully achieved that objective, but the
measures varied in reliability, parsimony, and magnitude of effect on behav-
ioral intention. The pattern of results can serve future research in two ways.
First, those researchers focusing on behaviors of interest can review the theo-
ries or individual measures to either provide a foundation for their analysis or
select elements to integrate with their application. Such decisions might be
based on the qualities of the measures; recognizing our results produced mea-
sures of varying reliability and also identified significant variables measured
using few items. A researcher may also use a particular theory based on the
circumstances of the study knowing that there is not a dramatic difference

Downloaded from eab.sagepub.com at East Tennessee State University on June 8, 2015

648 Environment and Behavior 43(5)

among the three we examined. Second, researchers focusing on theory build-

ing might take the pattern of our results to consider a new synthesis of a
combination of the variables in these theories or may focus on the signifi-
cantly greater effect of norms for the behavioral intentions we examined.
Future research might demonstrate that an abbreviated values-beliefs-norms
theory that relies solely on the altruism values variable might be the most
appropriate adaptation for analyses of pro-environmental behavior. Such a
modified model would have produced more consistent results in a more par-
simonious manner for our two samples. Although there is an intuitive logic to
altruism being the most relevant value to pro-environmental behavior, more
research is needed to isolate the most important values when used in con-
junction with other variables such as norms, beliefs, and the acceptance of
responsibility.
One of our objectives was to compare the amount of explained variance
among these three theories. Although significant, none of these approaches
was superior to the others by a great magnitude. So a researcher may select
among these three based on other factors. For example, the theory of norm
activation provides a powerful analytical tool that is more parsimonious as
measured by the total number of survey items that we used to test each
theory.
Another objective was to compare the two countries on the variables in
these models. The amount of explained variance for each theory compared
across the samples did not reveal strong differences. The differences across
the samples were in the hundredths. The country-specific patterns were more
evident in the magnitude of the results for the different variables in each
model. The Chilean results had weaker magnitudes for those variables whose
content focused on the self, such as attitudes and beliefs, and stronger magni-
tudes for variables associated with social connections such as altruism and
norms. This pattern is in line with previous research noting the stronger value
of individualism in the United States compared with Chile.
Our result of a nonsignificant attitudes variable in Chile is not out of line
from previous research applying the theory of reasoned action and the theory
of planned behavior. Oom Do Valle et al. (2005) also found mixed results for
the theory of planned behavior. They found support for the relationship
between an individual’s subjective norm and behavior as well as the relation-
ship between an individual’s perceived behavioral control and behavior.
However, the relationship between the individual’s attitude toward recycling
and recycling behavior was not supported.
Ajzen (1985, 1991) argues that the relative importance of the components
of the theory of planned behavior varies with each behavior being examined.

Downloaded from eab.sagepub.com at East Tennessee State University on June 8, 2015

Cordano et al. 649

In some instances, one of the theory’s components may be significant or all

may be significant in predicting intention or behavior. The contribution of
each of the variables will depend on the behavior being considered, the cir-
cumstances being examined, and the method of measuring the variables.
These qualities could present some difficulties for researchers interested in
adapting the theory of reasoned action to cross-cultural studies. Researchers
interested in studying a great variety of samples from different countries and
different backgrounds would likely find this inconsistency disconcerting.
Although our results do not produce a theory that strongly dominates the
others, we were impressed by the consistency of high effect of the norms
variable in each of the regression analyses for each of the samples. It would
seem that Heberlein’s (1972) rationale for applying the theory of norm acti-
vation to pro-environmental behavior because such behaviors are prosocial,
altruistic, and do not arise from isolated self-interest is still sound more than
35 years later and across national boundaries.
Previous research on pro-environmental behavior that applied the theory
of norm activation found norms to be important among the original and some-
times augmented components of norm activation-based models. In tests of
such a model, Widegren (1998) found that measures of personal norms had a
stronger relationship than awareness of consequences to pro-environmental
behavior. Hopper and Nielson (1991) found that high awareness of conse-
quences increased the effect of personal norms on behavior. Other studies
found support for the influence of norms on more specific behaviors such as
energy use (Black et al., 1985), recycling (Oom Do Valle et al., 2005), and
travel-mode choice (Wall et al., 2007).
Our analysis and results provide researchers with some useful tools for
examining pro-environmental behavior in many cultures, forwarding the
development of synthetic models (Stern, 2000) and attendant parsimonious
instruments. This study offers a variety of reliable scales grounded in some
well-tested models of pro-environmental behavior. These scales could be
useful for any analysis of the antecedents of pro-environmental behavior. In
addition, our analysis suggests a means for future researchers to incorporate
a small number of survey items to possibly explain a considerable amount of
variance in pro-environmental behavior. These insights should facilitate the
inclusion of these measures into broader studies of pro-environmental behav-
iors and forward research addressing the comparative utility of multiple theo-
retical approaches in different cultures.
Given the wide variety of existing models of pro-environmental behavior
available to researchers and the possibility of new applications of emerging
theories of prosocial behavior, our study is incomplete, offering a small piece

Downloaded from eab.sagepub.com at East Tennessee State University on June 8, 2015

650 Environment and Behavior 43(5)

of the research needed. Additional research is needed that examines addi-

tional perspectives of environmental concern and pro-environmental behav-
ior. Although we broadened the number of perspectives used in a single study
and selected models that incorporated a wide range of perspectives, Vining
and Ebreo (2002) catalogued many other perspectives that could be easily
adapted to cross-cultural research and compared with the results we found.
For instance, future studies could also incorporate research on descriptive
norms (Goldstein, Cialdini, & Griskevicius, 2008; Nolan, Schultz, Cialdini,
Goldstein, & Griskevicius, 2008). Researchers should investigate the effect
of descriptive norms on conservation behavior. These norms are hypothe-
sized to motivate individuals through making them aware of adaptive behav-
ior in particular situations (Cialdini, Kallgren, & Reno, 1991). Descriptive
norms were found to explain conservation behavior such as hotel towel use
(Goldstein et al., 2008) and energy conservation behavior (Nolan et al., 2008).
In addition, Cialdini (2003) found that descriptive norms combined with
injunctive norms—behaviors that others commonly approve or disapprove
of—affected individuals’ recycling intentions. Descriptive and injunctive
norms, therefore, could hold promise for explaining pro-environmental effect
when incorporated into, for instance, the norm activation model.
We also believe that it is important to give more attention to studying
managers using these models in both of the countries we examined and else-
where. Understanding the antecedents of pro-environmental behavior is impor-
tant to management researchers who investigate the actions of environmental
stakeholders (Egri & Herman, 2000) and the decisions of managers with
responsibilities affecting the environmental performance of their organizations
(Bansal & Roth, 2000). Insights into the motivations of pro-environmental
behaviors should also be useful to managers who must develop corporate
environmental management systems for multinational corporations (Branzei
et al., 2001) and management educators who are developing the curricula for
students who will assume managerial roles in their future positions (Roome,
1998). Also important is measuring behavior itself, in addition to the intent to
behave. Thus, a limitation of our study is that we only measured behavioral
intention. Although the measure we used in this study for behavioral inten-
tion has been found to strongly predict actual behavior (Boldero, 1995;
Taylor & Todd, 1997), future work measuring actual behaviors would pro-
vide enhanced understanding of pro-environmental behavior. In addition, results
from our study require replication with practitioners at all levels of the orga-
nization. Although the results from our current research are promising, the full
generalizability from our sample of students to managers will provide insight
on the stability of the phenomena observed in our study (Hult et al., 2008;

Downloaded from eab.sagepub.com at East Tennessee State University on June 8, 2015

Cordano et al. 651

Peterson, 2001). However, because students studying management and man-

agers may be similar, future research would do well to compare business
students and practicing managers with students in other professional fields
and their professional counterparts.
Today, the scope and scale of environmental problems necessitate multi-
country investigations of environmental concern and behavior. As we noted
earlier, an important result for us was the consistent effect of the norms vari-
able in each model. Such a finding could only result from examining combi-
nations of variables and recognizing a pattern among the results. It should not
be surprising that norms are so important given the amount of social interac-
tion necessary to address environmental problems, but such a finding can
only result from research that compares models across multiple populations.
Researchers wishing to do such research need tools to examine environmen-
tal views from multiple perspectives. These tools, reliable measures grounded
in well-researched models and theories of behavior, facilitate our understand-
ing of the antecedents of pro-environmental behavior and enable research
that can intervene to change behavior to ameliorate and eliminate negative
environmental effects.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

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

Funding
The authors received no financial support for the research and/or authorship of this
article.

References
Ajzen, I. (1985). From intentions to actions: A theory of planned behavior. In J. Kuhl
& J. Beckmann (Eds.), Action control: From cognition to behavior (pp. 11-39).
New York, NY: Springer-Verlag.
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
behavior. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Bagozzi, R. P. (1992). The self-regulation of attitudes, intentions, and behavior.
Social Psychology Quarterly, 55, 178-204.
Bansal, P., & Roth, K. (2000). Why companies go green: A model of ecological
responsiveness. Academy of Management Journal, 43, 717-736.

Downloaded from eab.sagepub.com at East Tennessee State University on June 8, 2015

652 Environment and Behavior 43(5)

Bechtel, R. B., Corral-Verdugo, V., Asai, M., & Riesle, A. G. (2006). A cross-cultural
study of environmental belief structures in USA, Japan, Mexico, and Peru. Inter-
national Journal of Psychology, 41, 145-151.
Bechtel, R. B., Corral-Verdugo, V., & Pinheiro, J. Q. (1999). Environmental belief
systems: United States, Brazil, and Mexico. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychol-
ogy, 30, 122-128.
Black, J. S., Stern, P. C., & Elworth, J. T. (1985). Personal and contextual influences
on household energy adaptations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 70, 3-21.
Boldero, J. (1995). The prediction of household recycling of newspapers: The role of
attitudes, intentions, and situational factors. Journal of Applied Social Psychol-
ogy, 25, 440-462.
Branzei, O., Vertinsky, I., Takahashi, T., & Zhang, W. (2001). Corporate environ-
mentalism across cultures: A comparative field study of Chinese and Japanese
executives. International Journal of Cross Cultural Management, 1, 287-312.
Christen, C., Herculano, S., Hochstetler, K., Prell, R., Price, M., & Roberts, J. T. (1998).
Latin American environmentalism: Comparative views. Studies in Comparative
International Development, 33, 58-87.
Cialdini, R. B. (2003). Crafting normative messages to protect the environment. Cur-
rent Directions in Psychological Science, 12, 105-109.
Cialdini, R. B., Kallgren, C. A., & Reno, R. R. (1991). A focus theory of normative
conduct. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology
(Vol. 24, ed., pp. 201-234). Leonard Berkowitz, San Diego, CA: Academic Press,.
Cordano, M. (1994). Environmental attitudes and behavioral correspondence: Prelimi-
nary construction of a manager-specific environmental attitude scale. In S. Wartick
& D. Collins (Eds.), Proceedings of the fifth annual conference of the international
association for business and society (pp. 454-459). Hilton Head, SC: International
Association for Business and Society.
Cordano, M., & Frieze, I. H. (2000). Pollution reduction preferences of U.S. envi-
ronmental managers: Applying Ajzen’s theory of planned behavior. Academy of
Management Journal, 43, 627-641.
Cordano, M., & Frieze, I. H. (2002). Enhancing environmental management teaching
through applications of toxic release information. In S. Sharma & M. Starik (Eds.),
Research in corporate sustainability: The evolving theory and practice of organiza-
tions in the natural environment (pp. 295-318). Northhampton, MA: E. Elgar.
Dietz, T., Stern, P. C., & Guagnano, G. A. (1998). Social structural and social
psychological bases of environmental concern. Environment and Behavior, 30,
450-471.
Dunlap, R. E. (2002). Environmental sociology: A personal perspective on its first
quarter century. Organization and Environment, 15, 10-29.

Downloaded from eab.sagepub.com at East Tennessee State University on June 8, 2015

Cordano et al. 653

Dunlap, R. E., Grieneeks, J. K., & Rokeach, M. (1983). Human values and pro envi-
ronmental behavior. In W. D. Conn (Ed.), Energy and material resources: Atti-
tudes, values, and public policy (pp. 145-169). Boulder, CO: Westview.
Dunlap, R. E., & Van Liere, K. D. (1978). The new environmental paradigm: A pro-
posed measuring instrument and preliminary results. Journal of Environmental
Education, 9, 10-19.
Dunlap, R. E., & Van Liere, K. D. (1984). Commitment to the dominant social paradigm
and concern for environmental quality. Social Science Quarterly, 65, 1013-1028.
Dunlap, R. E., Van Liere, K. D., Mertig, A. G., & Jones, R. E. (2000). Measuring
endorsement of the new ecological paradigm: A revised NEP scale. Journal of
Social Issues, 56, 425-442.
Eagly, A. H., & Chaiken, S. (1993). The psychology of attitudes. New York, NY:
Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
Egri, C. P., & Herman, S. (2000). Leadership in the North American environmental
sector: Values, leadership styles, and contexts of environmental leaders and their
organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 43, 573-604.
Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention, and behavior. Reading,
MA: Addison-Wesley.
Flannery, B. L., & May, D. R. (2000). An empirical study of the effect of moral inten-
sity on environmental ethical decision making. Academy of Management Journal,
43, 642-662.
Fransson, N., & Garling, T. (1999). Environmental concern: Conceptual definitions,
measurement methods, and research findings. Journal of Environmental Psychol-
ogy, 19, 369-382.
Furman, A. (1998). A note on environmental concern in a developing country: Results
from an Istanbul survey. Environment and Behavior, 30, 520-534.
Goldstein, N. J., Cialdini, R. B., Griskevicius, V. (2008) A room with a viewpoint:
Using social norms to motivate environmental conservation in hotels. Journal of
Consumer Research, 35, 472-482.
Guagnano, G. A., Stern, P. C., & Dietz, T. (1995). Influences on attitude-behavior
relationships: A natural experiment with curbside recycling. Environment and
Behavior, 27, 699-718.
Guthrey, D., & Lowe, B. A. (1992). Translation problems in international marketing
research. Journal of Language for International Business, 4, 1-14.
Heberlein, T. A. (1972). The land ethic realized: Some social psychological explana-
tions for changing environmental attitudes. Journal of Social Issues, 28, 79-87.
Heberlein, T. A., & Black, J. S. (1976). Attitudinal specificity and the prediction of behav-
ior in a field setting. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 33, 474-479.
Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture’s consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institu-
tions, and organizations across nations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Downloaded from eab.sagepub.com at East Tennessee State University on June 8, 2015

654 Environment and Behavior 43(5)

Hopper, J., & Nielson, J. M. (1991). Recycling as altruistic behavior: Normative and
behavioral strategies to expand participation in a community recycling program.
Environment and Behavior, 23, 195-220.
Hult, G. T. M., Ketchen, D. J., Griffith, D. A., Finnegan, C. A., Gonzalez-Pardon, T.,
Harmancioglu, N., . . . Cavusgil, S.T. (2008). Data equivalence in cross-cultural
international business research: Assessment and guidelines. Journal of Interna-
tional Business Studies, 39, 1027-1044.
Hwang, C., Yan, W., & Scherer, R. F. (1996). Understanding managerial behavior in
different cultures: A review of instrument translation methodology. International
Journal of Management, 13, 332-339.
Inglehart, R. (1995). Public support for environmental protection: Objective prob-
lems and subjective values in 43 countries. Political Science and Politics, 28,
57-71.
IPCC. (2007). Summary for policymakers. In S. Solomon, D. Qin, M. Manning, Z.
Chen, M. Marquis, K. B. Averyt, M. Tignor, & H. L. Miller (Eds.), Climate change
2007: The physical science basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth
Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (pp. 1-18).
Cambridge, UK and New York, NY, USA, Cambridge University Press.
Kahle, L. R. (1983). Social values and social change: Adaptation to life in America.
New York, NY: Praeger.
Kahn, P. H., & Lourenco, O. (2002). Water, air, fire, and earth: A developmental
study in Portugal of environmental moral reasoning. Environment and Behavior,
34, 405-430.
Kaiser, F. G., & Biel, A. (2000). Assessing general ecological behavior: A cross-
cultural comparison between Switzerland and Sweden. European Journal of Psy-
chological Assessment, 16, 44-52.
Karp, D. G. (1996). Values and their effect on pro-environmental behavior. Environ-
ment and Behavior, 28, 111-133.
Kemmelmeier, M., Krol, G., & Young, H. K. (2002). Values, economics, and pro-
environmental attitudes in 22 societies. Cross-Cultural Research: Journal of
Comparative Social Science, 36, 256-285.
Madden, T. J., Ellen, P. S., & Ajzen, I. (1992). A comparison of the theory of planned
behavior and the theory of reasoned action. Personality and Social Psychology
Bulletin, 18, 3-9.
McCarty, J. A., & Shrum, L. J. (1994). The recycling of solid wastes: Personal val-
ues, value orientations, and attitudes about recycling as antecedents of recycling
behavior. Journal of Business Research, 30, 53-62.
Netemeyer, R. G., Burton, S., & Johnston, M. (1991). A comparison of two models
for the prediction of volitional and goal-directed behaviors: A confirmatory analy-
sis approach. Social Psychology Quarterly, 54, 87-100.

Downloaded from eab.sagepub.com at East Tennessee State University on June 8, 2015

Cordano et al. 655

Nolan, J. M., Schultz, P. W., Cialdini, R. B., Goldstein, N. J., & Griskevicius, V.
(2008). Normative social influence is underdetected. Personality and Social Psy-
chology Bulletin, 34, 913-923.
Oom Do Valle, P., Rebelo, E., Reis, E., & Menezes, J. (2005). Combining behavioral
theories to predict recycling involvement. Environment and Behavior, 37, 364-396.
Oreg, S., & Katz-Gerro, T. (2006). Predicting pro-environmental behavior cross-
nationally: Values, the theory of planned behavior, and vlue-belief norm theory.
Environment and Behavior, 38, 462-483.
Peterson, R. A. (2001). On the use of college students in social science research: Insights
from a Second-Order Meta-analysis. Journal of Consumer Research, 28, 450-461.
Pornpitakpan, C. (2001). The environmental concern in Thailand: Managerial impli-
cations. Journal of International Consumer Marketing, 14, 123-136.
Rauwald, K. S., & Moore, C. F. (2002). Environmental attitudes as predictors of
policy support across three countries. Environment and Behavior, 34, 709-739.
Rokeach, M. (1973). The nature of human values. New York, NY: Free Press.
Roome, N. J. (1998). Conclusion: Implications for management practice, education,
and research. In N. J. Roome (Ed.), Sustainability strategies for industry: The
future of corporate practice (pp. 259-276). Washington, DC: Island Press.
Schultz, P. W., & Zelezny, L. C. (1998). Values and pro-environmental behavior: A
five-country survey. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 29, 540-558.
Schultz, P. W., & Zelezney, L. C. (1999). Values as predictors of environmental atti-
tudes: Evidence for consistency across 14 countries. Journal of Environmental
Psychology, 19, 255-265.
Schwartz, S. H. (1968a). Awareness of consequences and the influence of moral
norms on interpersonal behavior. Sociometry, 31, 355-369.
Schwartz, S. H. (1968b). Words, deeds, and the perception of consequences and
responsibility in action situations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
10, 232-242.
Schwartz, S. H. (1970). Moral decision making and behavior. In J. Macauley &
L. Berkowitz (Eds.), Altruism and helping behavior (pp. 127-141). New York,
NY: Academic Press.
Schwartz, S. H. (1973). Normative explanations of helping behavior: A critique, pro-
posal, and empirical test. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 9, 349-364.
Schwartz, S. H. (1977). Normative influences on altruism. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.),
Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 10, pp. 271-279). New York,
NY: Academic Press.
Schwartz, S. H. (1992). Universals in the content and structure of values: Theorecti-
cal advances and empirical tests in 20 countries. Advances in Experimental Social
Psychology, 25, 1-65.

Downloaded from eab.sagepub.com at East Tennessee State University on June 8, 2015

656 Environment and Behavior 43(5)

Schwartz, S. H. (1994). Are there universal aspects in the structure and contents of
human values? Journal of Social Issues, 50, 19-45.
Séguin, C., Pelletier, L. G., & Hunsley, J. (1998). Toward a model of environmental
activism. Environment and Behavior, 30, 628-652.
Seligman, C., Syme, G. J., & Gilchrist, R. (1994). The role of values and ethical
principles in judgments on environmental dilemmas. Journal of Social Issues,
50, 105-119.
Sheppard, B. H., Hartwick, J., & Warshaw, P. R. (1988). The theory of reasoned
action: A meta-analysis of past research with recommendations for modifications
and future research. Journal of Consumer Research, 15, 325-343.
Simmons, D. D., Binney, S. E., & Dodd, B. (1992). Valuing “a clean environment.”
Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 7, 649-658.
Stern, P. C. (2000). Toward a coherent theory of environmentally-significant behav-
iour. Journal of Social Issues, 56, 407-424.
Stern, P. C., & Dietz, T. (1994). The value basis of environmental concern. Journal
of Social Issues, 50, 65-84.
Stern, P. C., Dietz, T., Abel, T., Guagnano, G. A. & Kalof, L. (1999). A value-belief-
norm theory of support for social movements: The case of environmentalism.
Human Ecology Review, 6, 81-97.
Stern, P. C., Dietz, T., & Guagnano, G. A. (1995). The new ecological paradigm in
social-psychological context. Environment and Behavior, 27, 723-743.
Stern, P. C., Dietz, T., & Kalof, L. (1993). Value orientations, gender, and environ-
mental concern. Environment and Behavior, 25, 322-348.
Stern, P. C., Dietz, T., Kalof, L., & Guagnano, G. A. (1995). Values, beliefs and pro-
environment action: Attitude formation toward emergent attitude objects. Journal
of Applied Social Psychology, 25, 1611-1636.
Taylor, S., & Todd, P. (1995). An integrated model of waste management behav-
ior: A test of household recycling and composting intentions. Environment and
Behavior, 27, 603-630.
Taylor, S., & Todd, P. (1997). Understanding the determinants of consumer compost-
ing behavior. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 27, 602-628.
Thogersen, J., & Grunert-Beckmann, S. C. (1997). Values and attitude formation
towards emerging attitude objects: From recycling to general waste minimizing
behavior. Advances in Consumer Research, 24, 182-189.
Van Liere, K. D., & Dunlap, R. E. (1981). Environmental concern: Does it make a
difference how it is measured? Environment and Behavior, 13, 651-676.
Vikan, A., Camino, C., Biaggio, A., & Nordvik, H. (2007). Endorsement of the new
ecological paradigm: A comparison of two Brazilian samples and one Norwegian
sample. Environment and Behavior, 39, 217-228.

Downloaded from eab.sagepub.com at East Tennessee State University on June 8, 2015

Cordano et al. 657

Vining, J., & Ebreo, A. (1992). Predicting recycling behavior from global and specific
environmental attitudes. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 22, 1580-1607.
Vining, J., & Ebreo, A. (2002). Emerging theoretical and methodological perspectives
on conservation behavior. In R. B. Bechtel & A. Churchman (Eds.), Handbook of
environmental psychology (pp. 541-558). New York, NY: John Wiley.
Wall, R., Devine-Wright, P., & Mill, G. A. (2007). Comparing and combining theo-
ries to explain pro-environmental intentions: The case of commuting-mode choice.
Environment and Behavior, 39, 731-753.
Widegren, O. (1998). The new environmental paradigm and personal norms. Environ-
ment and Behavior, 30, 75-100.

Bios
Mark Cordano teaches management and has served as interim dean and as chair of
the management department at Ithaca College School of Business. His research
focuses on environmental concern and its influence on decision making, stakeholder
conflict, and business education.

Stephanie Welcomer is an associate professor of management at the University of

Maine’s Business School. Her research explores stakeholder narratives, sustainable
food systems, environmental behavior, and workplace civility.

Robert F. Scherer serves as dean and professor of management at the Nance College
of Business, Cleveland State University. His research interests include the field of
international management.

Lorena Pradenas is academic director of the Master Program in Industrial Engineering

and professor of Operations Research at the University of Concepcion, Chile. Her
primary research interest is in operations management.

Víctor Parada is professor of Information Systems at the University of Santiago,

Chile. His research interests are in optimization and management.

Downloaded from eab.sagepub.com at East Tennessee State University on June 8, 2015