See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/222679311

Encouraging pro-environmental behavior: An integrative review and research

agenda

Article in Journal of Environmental Psychology · September 2009

DOI: 10.1016/j.jenvp.2008.10.004

CITATIONS READS

2,834 29,698

2 authors:

Linda Steg Charles Vlek

University of Groningen University of Groningen
316 PUBLICATIONS 29,713 CITATIONS 111 PUBLICATIONS 11,704 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

LOCAW (Low-Carbon at Work: Modelling agents and organisations to achieve transition to a low-carbon Europe View project

‘Developing socially responsible innovations: The role of values and moral emotions' View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Charles Vlek on 30 October 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Journal of Environmental Psychology 29 (2009) 309–317

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Environmental Psychology

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jep

Encouraging pro-environmental behaviour: An integrative review and research

agenda
Linda Steg*, Charles Vlek
University of Groningen, Faculty of Behavioural and Social Sciences, The Netherlands

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Environmental quality strongly depends on human behaviour patterns. We review the contribution and
Available online 19 November 2008 the potential of environmental psychology for understanding and promoting pro-environmental
behaviour. A general framework is proposed, comprising: (1) identification of the behaviour to be
Keywords: changed, (2) examination of the main factors underlying this behaviour, (3) design and application of
Environmental behaviour interventions to change behaviour to reduce environmental impact, and (4) evaluation of the effects of
Values
interventions. We discuss how environmental psychologists empirically studied these four topics,
Attitudes
identify apparent shortcomings so far, and indicate major issues for future research.
Norms
Behaviour change Ó 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Interventions
Quality of life

1. A systematic approach to encourage pro-environmental that harms the environment as little as possible, or even benefits
behaviour the environment.
Following Geller (2002), we argue that promoting behaviour
Various environmental problems pose a threat to environ- change is more effective when one (1) carefully selects the
mental sustainability, among which global warming, urban air behaviours to be changed to improve environmental quality, (2)
pollution, water shortages, environmental noise, and loss of examines which factors cause those behaviours, (3) applies well-
biodiversity. Many of these problems are rooted in human behav- tuned interventions to change relevant behaviours and their
iour (DuNann Winter & Koger, 2004; Gardner & Stern, 2002; Vlek & antecedents, and (4) systematically evaluates the effects of these
Steg, 2007), and can thus be managed by changing the relevant interventions on the behaviours themselves, their antecedents, on
behaviour so as to reduce its environmental impacts. Changes in environmental quality and human quality of life. Table 1 provides
human behaviour are believed to be needed because technical an overview of the four key issues. We review how environmental
efficiency gains resulting from, for example, energy-efficient psychologists so far have studied these issues, identify shortcom-
appliances, home insulation, and water-saving devices tend to be ings, and indicate important topics for future research.
overtaken by consumption growth (Midden, Kaiser, & McCalley,
2007). Moreover, physical and technical innovations imply behav- 2. Selection and assessment of environmental behaviour
iour changes as well because individuals need to accept and
understand them, buy them, and use them in proper ways. This section first discusses criteria for selecting behaviours that
This paper discusses environmental psychology’s merits and its could best be targeted in behaviour change programs. Next, we
potential to help promote environmental sustainability via behav- briefly elaborate on the measurement of environmental behaviour.
ioural changes. We provide a systematic perspective on assessing,
understanding, and changing environmental behaviour. We define 2.1. Which behaviours should be changed?
environmental behaviour broadly as all types of behaviour that
change the availability of materials or energy from the environment First, from a practical point of view, environmental psychologists
or alter the structure and dynamics of ecosystems or the biosphere should study behaviours that significantly affect environmental
(cf. Stern, 2000). Pro-environmental behaviour refers to behaviour quality. For example, changing purchasing behaviour generally has
greater environmental benefit than reusing or recycling available
* Correspondence to: Linda Steg, Faculty of Behavioural and Social Sciences,
Department of Psychology, University of Groningen, Grote Kruisstraat 2/I, 9712 TS
products (cf. Gardner & Stern, 2002). Also, lowering thermostat
Groningen, The Netherlands. Tel.: þ31 50 3636482; fax: þ31 50 3636304. settings or reducing car use would reduce environmental impact far
E-mail address: e.m.steg@rug.nl (L. Steg). more than refusing plastic bags in stores. Environmental scientists

0272-4944/$ – see front matter Ó 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.jenvp.2008.10.004
310 L. Steg, C. Vlek / Journal of Environmental Psychology 29 (2009) 309–317

Table 1 feasible, ways to collect valid and reliable measures of self-reported

Four key issues for encouraging pro-environmental behaviour. behaviour should be studied in more detail (see also Vining &
I. Which behaviours should be changed to improve environmental Ebreo, 2002).
quality? Besides studying specific types of behaviour, such as recycling or
1. Select behaviours having significant negative environmental impacts car use, environmental psychologists have tried to identify
2. Assess the feasibility of behaviour changes coherent patterns of environmental behaviour, and to examine
3. Assess baseline levels of target behaviours common antecedents of such behaviour patterns. By targeting
4. Identify groups to be targeted common antecedents, such as a generalised pro-environmental
attitude or contextual factors, various behaviours may change
II. Which factors determine the relevant behaviour? simultaneously, with beneficial environmental effects. Different
methods have been used to examine whether coherent behavioural
1. Perceived costs and benefits patterns exist. First, behaviours have been aggregated on the basis
2. Moral and normative concerns of self-reported (frequencies of) engagement. The resulting
3. Affect behavioural (pattern) measures are based on empirical relation-
4. Contextual factors ships between behaviours. Factor analyses (e.g., Green-Demers,
5. Habits
Pelletier, & Menard, 1997) as well as Rasch analyses (e.g., Kaiser,
1998) have been employed to examine the dimensionality of
III. Which interventions could best be applied to encourage pro-
environmental behaviour. Scholars that used factor analyses
environmental behaviour?
included different behaviours in their scales, which makes it diffi-
1. Informational strategies (information, persuasion, social support
cult to compare results across studies. However, in general, factor
and role models, public participation)
analyses revealed that individuals are fairly inconsistent in their
2. Structural strategies (availability of products and services,
legal regulation, financial strategies)
environmental behaviour. That is, one may behave environment-
friendly in waste recycling, while behaving in an environment-
IV. What are the effects of interventions? burdening manner in the transport domain (e.g., Gatersleben, Steg,
& Vlek, 2002; Green-Demers et al., 1997). This indicates that besides
1. Changes in behavioural determinants environmental considerations, many other factors steer behaviour,
2. Changes in behaviours such as status, comfort, effort, and behavioural opportunities.
3. Changes in environmental quality In a Rasch analysis subjects and behaviours are scaled simulta-
4. Changes in individuals’ quality of life neously. Behaviour scaling is based on the likelihood that any
person within the sample engages in the behaviour, while subject
scaling is based on the specific behaviours individuals do and do
not perform. Rasch analyses typically yield a unidimensional
measure of environmental behaviour that reflects the frequency
have developed sophisticated tools for environmental impact with which people engage in those behaviours: the less frequent
assessment, such as life-cycle analysis or input–output analysis (e.g., people engage in a specific behaviour, the more difficult the
Kok, Benders, & Moll, 2006; Pennington et al., 2004). For example, behaviour is believed to be (e.g., Kaiser, 1998; Kaiser, Wolfing, &
based on an input–output analysis to assess total household energy Fuhrer, 1999). Rasch analyses reveal which behaviours are more or
use, Kok et al. (2006) conclude that in the Netherlands, about half of less popular, but not why they are so.
total household energy use may be referred to as direct energy use Second, some aggregate measures are focused on the environ-
(that is, the use of gas, electricity, and motor fuels), while the other mental outcomes of particular behaviours. For example, meter
half reflects indirect energy use (that is, energy use for the readings reflect how much electricity, gas, fuel or water has been
production, distribution, and disposal of products). Such work by used by a particular household. Meter readings, however, do not
environmental scientists highlights the importance of interdisci- reveal which specific behaviours contributed most to total elec-
plinary collaboration for prioritising behaviours that should be tricity, gas, fuel or water use. From an educational point of view this
targeted (see Geller, 1995; Schoot Uiterkamp & Vlek, 2007). is problematic, for people generally do not know which and whose
Second, it is necessary to consider the feasibility of various behaviours significantly affect resource use, and people cannot
behaviour changes and the acceptability of its consequences. receive specific feedback on the results of their behavioural changes
Feasibility and acceptability of changes depend on factors inhibit- (see also Gatersleben et al., 2002).
ing or promoting change (see Section 3). Of course, changes can be Therefore, composite behavioural measures of energy use have
facilitated via various interventions strategies (see Section 5). been proposed based on a well-defined set of specific behaviours
(see Abrahamse, Steg, Vlek, & Rothengatter, 2007; Gatersleben
2.2. Measurement of behaviour et al., 2002). This approach implies that respondents first indicate
which goods they possess (e.g., TV sets, cars) and how often they
After its identification, environmental behaviour needs to be use these. Then the direct as well as indirect ‘energy contents’ of
properly assessed. Valid behavioural measures are needed to these behaviours are assessed, using data provided by environ-
decide which (groups of) individuals should be targeted, and mental scientists (see Section 2.1). Next, the energy contents of
whether target group-specific interventions may be worthwhile. various behaviours are summed, yielding a measure of total energy
Moreover, by monitoring environmental behaviour over time, one use involved in a given household behaviour pattern.
can assess whether interventions have been successful. Based on this approach, households can be provided with
Most studies in environmental psychology rely on self-reports tailored information on possible ways to reduce their energy use.
in response to questionnaire items. Although some studies Also, feedback may be provided on which behaviour changes have
revealed that self-reports are adequate indicators of actual been most effective in realising energy savings, and which have not
behaviour (e.g., Fujii, Hennesy, & Mak, 1985; Warriner, McDougall, (see Abrahamse et al., 2007). This measure obviously requires
& Claxton, 1984), others reported low correlations between self- interdisciplinary collaboration between environmental scientists
reported and observed behaviour (e.g., Corral-Verdugo, 1997). As and psychologists: environmental scientists need to assess the
the measurement of people’s actual behaviour may not always be energy use associated with particular behaviours, while
 L. Steg, C. Vlek / Journal of Environmental Psychology 29 (2009) 309–317 311

environmental psychologists should develop valid tools to assess VBN theory appeared to be successful in explaining low-cost envi-
behaviour and promote energy savings. ronmental behaviour and ‘‘good intentions’’ such as willingness to
change behaviour (e.g., Nordlund & Garvill, 2003; Stern et al., 1999),
3. Factors influencing environmental behaviour political behaviour (e.g., Gärling, Fujii, Gärling, & Jakobsson, 2003),
environmental citizenship (e.g., Stern et al., 1999), or policy
The effectiveness of behavioural interventions generally acceptability (e.g., De Groot & Steg, in press; Steg, Dreijerink, &
increases when they are aimed at important antecedents of the Abrahamse, 2005), but they appear to have far less explanatory
relevant behaviour and at removing barriers for change. Therefore, power in situations characterised by high behavioural costs or
it is important to understand which factors promote or inhibit strong constraints on behaviour, such as reducing car use (e.g.,
environmental behaviour. Factors underlying environmental Bamberg & Schmidt, 2003; Guagnano, Stern, & Dietz, 1995;
behaviour have been studied from different theoretical perspec- Hunecke, Blöbaum, Matthies, & Höger, 2001). In such settings, the
tives (see, e.g., Vining & Ebreo, 2002). In Section 3.1, we first elab- TPB appears to be more powerful in explaining environmental
orate on three lines of research that focus on individual motivations behaviour (Bamberg & Schmidt, 2003), probably because the TPB
to engage in environmental behaviour, respectively: perceived cost considers a wider range of factors, notably non-environmental
and benefits, moral and normative concerns, and affect. We indi- motivations and perceived behavioural control.
cate how these different perspectives may be integrated into A fourth line of research focused on the influence of social
a coherent framework. Next, we identify two shortcomings of these norms on behaviour. The theory of normative conduct (Cialdini,
research lines. First, they do not pay due attention to contextual Kallgren, & Reno, 1991; Cialdini, Reno, & Kallgren, 1990) distin-
factors. We propose ways to consider such factors more systemat- guishes two types of social norms. Injunctive norms refer to the
ically in Section 3.2. Second, they imply the assumption that people extent to which behaviour is supposed to be commonly approved
make reasoned choices. In Section 3.3, we discuss recent studies or disapproved of. Descriptive norms reflect the extent to which
that indicate that in many cases people act habitually. behaviour is perceived as common. The extent to which injunctive
and descriptive norms influence behaviour depends on the saliency
3.1. Motivational factors: three lines of research of a particular norm. This theory has been validated in a series of
experimental studies about littering in public places (Cialdini et al.,
3.1.1. Weighing costs and benefits 1990, 1991).
Various studies on environmental behaviour started from the
assumption that individuals make reasoned choices and choose 3.1.3. Affect
alternatives with highest benefits against lowest costs (e.g., in Some studies have explicitly examined the role of affect in
terms of money, effort and/or social approval). One influential explaining environmental behaviour, mostly in relation to car use
framework is the Theory of Planned Behaviour (Ajzen, 1991). The (see Gatersleben, 2007, for a review). It appeared that car use is
TPB has proven to be successful in explaining various types of significantly related to affective and symbolic factors. Most studies
environmental behaviour, including travel mode choice (Bamberg on the role of affective and symbolic motives were exploratory and
& Schmidt, 2003; Harland, Staats, & Wilke, 1999; Heath & Gifford, not theory-based. Steg (2005) demonstrated that Dittmar’s (1992)
2002; Verplanken, Aarts, Van Knippenberg, & Moonen, 1998), theory on the meaning of material possessions provides a prom-
household recycling (Kaiser & Gutscher, 2003), waste composting ising perspective. This theory proposes that the use of material
(Mannetti, Pierro, & Livi, 2004; Taylor & Todd, 1995), the purchasing goods fulfils three functions: instrumental, symbolic, and affective.
of energy-saving light bulbs, use of unbleached paper, water use, Steg (2005) showed that car use is most strongly related to
meat consumption (Harland et al., 1999), and general pro-envi- symbolic and affective motives, while instrumental motives are less
ronmental behaviour (Kaiser et al., 1999). important. Dittmar’s theory offers a promising perspective on
individual motives to buy and use material goods. An obvious
3.1.2. Moral and normative concerns question for further research concerns the role of symbolic and
A wide range of studies focused on the role of moral and normative affective motives in other domains than car use.
concerns underlying environmental behaviour from different theo-
retical perspectives. First, scholars have examined the value-basis of 3.1.4. An integrative perspective on environmental motivation
environmental beliefs and behaviour (De Groot & Steg, 2007, 2008; The three general lines of research just described involve rather
Nordlund & Garvill, 2002; Schultz & Zelezny, 1999; Stern & Dietz, different antecedents of environmental behaviour. All three
1994; Stern, Dietz, & Kalof, 1993; Stern, Dietz, Kalof, & Guagnano, perspectives proved to be predictive of at least some types of
1995). These studies revealed that the more strongly individuals environmental behaviour. However, as yet it is not clear which
subscribe to values beyond their immediate own interests, that is, perspective is most useful in which situation. Although moral and
self-transcendent, prosocial, altruistic or biospheric values, the more normal frameworks appear to be more successful to explain low-
likely they are to engage in pro-environmental behaviour. cost behaviour and actions with environmental intent (cf. Stern,
Second, studies focused on the role of environmental concern. 2000, see Section 3.1.2), systematic research on the range of
Different conceptualisations of environmental concern have been application of each theoretical perspective is lacking.
used, but environmental concern has mostly been measured by the The three theoretical perspectives are not mutually exclusive.
New Environmental Paradigm scale (Dunlap & Van Liere, 1978; Various scholars have integrated concepts and variables from
Dunlap, Van Liere, Mertig, & Jones, 2000). These studies revealed different theoretical frameworks, showing that behaviour results
that higher environmental concern is associated with acting more from multiple motivations (e.g., Guagnano et al., 1995; Harland
pro-environmentally, although relationships are generally not et al., 1999; Heath & Gifford, 2002; Stern et al., 1993, 1995). Goal-
strong (e.g., Poortinga, Steg, & Vlek, 2004; Schultz & Zelezny, 1998; framing theory (Lindenberg, 2001a, 2001b, 2006) explicitly
Vining & Ebreo, 1992). acknowledges that behaviour results from multiple motivations.
A third line of research focuses on moral obligations to act pro- This theory postulates that goals govern or ‘‘frame’’ the way people
environmentally. These studies are based on the norm-activation process information and act upon it. When a goal is activated (that
model (NAM; Schwartz, 1977; Schwartz & Howard, 1981) or the is, when it is the ‘‘focal’’ goal or ‘‘goal-frame’’), it influences what
value-belief-norm theory of environmentalism (VBN theory; Stern, a person thinks of at the moment, what information (s)he is
2000; Stern, Dietz, Abel, Guagnano, & Kalof, 1999). The NAM and sensitive to, what alternatives (s)he perceive, and how (s)he will
312 L. Steg, C. Vlek / Journal of Environmental Psychology 29 (2009) 309–317

act. Three general goal-frames are distinguished: a hedonic goal- introduction of recycling facilities may result in more positive
frame ‘‘to feel better right now’’, a gain goal-frame ‘‘to guard and attitudes towards recycling (e.g., because it is more convenient),
improve one’s resources’’, and a normative goal-frame ‘‘to act and positive attitudes may in turn result in higher recycling levels.
appropriately’’. The hedonic goal-frame is a priori strongest, while Third, contextual factors may moderate the relationship between
especially the normative goal-frame is in need of external social motivational factors and behaviour, and the effects of contextual
and institutional support in order to become focal. factors on behaviour may depend on personal factors (Geller, 1995).
Goal-framing theory proposes that motivations rarely are For example, environmental concern may only result in reductions
homogeneous. One goal is focal and influences information pro- in car use when feasible alternatives are available, and recycling
cessing the most (that is, it is a goal-frame), while other goals are in facilities may promote recycling only among those high in envi-
the background and increase or decrease the strength of the focal ronmental concern. Fourth, and related to the third point, following
goal. Thus, multiple goals are active at any given time. When goal-framing theory, it may well be that contextual factors deter-
background goals are compatible with the goal-frame, they mine which type of motivations (and thus which goal-frame) most
strengthen it. But when the goal-frame and background goals are in strongly affects behaviour. For example, normative goals may be
conflict, the latter weaken the strength of the goal-frame. strongly related to frequency of recycling when facilities are
Lindenberg and Steg (2007) reviewed the literature in envi- available (cf. Guagnano et al., 1995), while gain or hedonic goals
ronmental psychology in light of goal-framing theory. The three may be prominent if recycling facilities are poor.
goal-frames remarkably coincide with the three theoretical Given the significance of contextual factors for environmental
frameworks commonly used in environmental psychology, as dis- behaviour, studies are needed about the role of contextual factors
cussed above. That is, theories and models on affect focus on vis-à-vis motivational factors, following our suggestions above. This
hedonic goal-frames, the TPB is focused on gain goal-frames, while should preferably be done in collaboration with such experts as
the NAM, VBN theory and research on values and environmental architects, urban planners, industrial designers and technologists
concern focus on normative goal-frames. Thus, goal-framing theory who do explicitly consider the effects of contextual factors. Multiple
seems to be suitable as an integrative framework for understanding levels of analyses in measurement and statistical models (e.g.,
environmental behaviour. However, as yet goal-framing theory has Snijders & Bosker, 1999) may be very useful to examine to what
not been tested in the environmental domain, and little is known extent behaviour depends on contextual factors, motivational
about the way in which multiple motivations may affect environ- factors, and the interaction between them. Such research may lead
mental behaviour. Lindenberg and Steg (2007) list various topics to intervention programmes aimed at behaviour changes for which
that should be addressed. external barriers have to be eliminated while feasible alternatives
are put in place.
3.2. Contextual factors
3.3. Habitual behaviour
The theories and perspectives discussed above focus on indi-
vidual motivations influencing environmental behaviour. Obvi- The theoretical frameworks discussed in Section 3.1 largely
ously, human behaviour does not depend on motivations alone. imply that individuals make reasoned choices. However, in many
Many contextual factors may facilitate or constrain environmental cases, behaviour is habitual and guided by automated cognitive
behaviour and influence individual motivations (Ölander & Thø- processes, rather than being preceded by elaborate reasoning.
gersen, 1995; Stern, 1999; Thøgersen, 2005; Van Raaij, 2002). For Aarts, Verplanken, and Van Knippenberg (1998) defined three
example, the availability of recycling facilities, the quality of public important characteristics of habits. First, habits require a goal to be
transport, the market supply of goods, or pricing regimes can achieved. Second, the same course of action is likely to be repeated
strongly affect people’s engagement in pro-environmental behav- when outcomes are generally satisfactory. Third, habitual
iour (e.g., Santos, 2008; Van Diepen & Voogd, 2001; Vining & Ebreo, responses are mediated by mental processes. When people
1992). In some cases, constraints may even be so severe that frequently act in the same way in a particular situation, that situ-
behaviour change is very costly and motivations make little ation will be mentally associated with the relevant goal-directed
difference in the environmental outcome (see, e.g., Corraliza & behaviour. The more frequently this occurs, the stronger and more
Berenguer, 2000; Guagnano et al., 1995; Lüdemann, 1998). So, it is accessible the association becomes, and the more likely it is that an
not only important to consider intra-personal factors such as atti- individual acts accordingly. Thus, habitual behaviour is triggered by
tudes, norms and habits, but also contextual factors such as phys- a cognitive structure that is learned, stored in, and retrieved from
ical infrastructure, technical facilities, the availability of products, memory when individuals perceive a particular situation.
and product characteristics. Habits refer to the way behavioural choices are made, and not to
In environmental psychology so far, except for a few studies the frequency of behaviour. Aarts and Dijksterhuis (2000) devel-
(Black, Stern, & Elworth, 1985; Guagnano et al., 1995; Hunecke et al., oped a so-called response-frequency measure of general habit
2001), contextual factors have not been examined systematically, strength, relying on the assumption that goals automatically acti-
nor are contextual factors included in the theoretical approaches vate mental representations of habitual choices. This measure is far
discussed above. The TPB only considers individuals’ perceptions of more accurate than simply asking people how frequently they
contextual factors, as expressed in perceived behavioural control. engage in a particular behaviour, as it focuses on how choices are
This is remarkable, given that environmental psychology aims to made. The measure has been successfully employed in various
study transactions between humans and their environment, and studies on environmental behaviour (e.g., Aarts & Dijksterhuis,
thus should be particularly interested in examining the effects of 2000; Aarts et al., 1998; Klockner, Matthies, & Hunecke, 2003).
contextual factors on behaviour. Habitual behaviour may involve misperceptions and selective
Contextual factors may operate in four different ways. First, they attention: people tend to focus on information that confirms their
may directly affect behaviour. For example, one cannot travel by bus choices, and neglect information that is not in line with their
when no bus service is available, while a free bus ticket may result habitual behaviour. In general, habits are reconsidered only when
in an increase in bus ridership (e.g., Bamberg & Schmidt, 1999; Fujii the context changes significantly. For example, Fujii and Gärling
& Kitamura, 2004). Second, the relationship between contextual (2003) and Fujii, Gärling, and Kitamura (2001) found that tempo-
factors and behaviour may be mediated by motivational factors rarily forcing car drivers to use alternative travel modes induced
such as attitudes, affect, or personal norms. For example, the long-term reductions in car use. The impacts of such temporary
 L. Steg, C. Vlek / Journal of Environmental Psychology 29 (2009) 309–317 313

changes were particularly strong for habitual car drivers. This Commitment strategies appeared to be successful in encouraging
suggests that habitual drivers have inaccurate, and modifiable pro-environmental behaviour (see Abrahamse et al., 2005; Lehman
perceptions of the pros and cons of alternative transport modes. & Geller, 2004; Schultz et al., 1995). Also, eliciting implementation
In order to design effective interventions to modify habitual intentions appears to be effective (e.g., Bamberg, 2002; Jakobsson,
environmental behaviour, it is important to consider how habits are Fujii, & Gärling, 2002; see also Gärling & Schuitema, 2007). Here,
formed, reinforced and sustained. Computer simulation is an people are not only asked whether they intend to change their
interesting methodology to study the formation and reinforcement behaviour, but also to indicate how they plan to do so, that is, to
of habits, for example, by formalising behavioural determinants furnish an implementation intention. Furthermore, promising
and processes in simulated agents (see Jager & Mosler, 2007, for an results have been found with individualised social marketing
overview). approaches, in which information is tailored to the needs, wants and
perceived barriers of individual segments of the population
4. Interventions (e.g., Abrahamse et al., 2007; Daamen, Staats, Wilke, & Engelen,
2001; Thøgersen, 2007).
When the environmental behaviour has been selected and its Third, social support and role models can be provided to
causal factors identified, intervention strategies can be targeted on strengthen social norms, and to inform actors about the percep-
the relevant factors. For example, when behaviour is strongly tions, efficacy and behaviour of others. Modelling and providing
related to attitudes, one can try to promote attitude changes information about the behaviour of others appeared to be successful
towards particular pro-environmental behaviour. When contextual in supporting pro-environmental behaviour (Schultz, Nolan, Cial-
factors inhibit particular behaviours, one can try to remove those dini, Goldstein, & Griskevicius, 2007; see also Abrahamse et al.,
barriers. 2005; Lehman & Geller, 2004). These strategies involve providing
Various strategies for behaviour change have been identified, information on descriptive norms, in writing or via role models.
each focusing on a different set of behavioural determinants (e.g., Informational strategies in themselves are especially effective
De Young, 1993; Gardner & Stern, 2002; Geller, 2002; Geller, when pro-environmental behaviour is relatively convenient and
Winett, & Everett, 1982; Messick & Brewer, 1983; Vlek, 2000). A not very costly (in terms of money, time, effort and/or social
distinction has been made between antecedent and consequence disapproval), and when individuals do not face severe external
strategies (e.g., Geller et al., 1982). Antecedent strategies are aimed constraints on behaviour. Besides, informational strategies may be
at changing factors that precede behaviour. They may raise problem an important element in the implementation of structural strate-
awareness, inform about choice options, and announce the likeli- gies that force individuals to change their behaviour (Gärling &
hood of positive or negative consequences. Examples are infor- Schuitema, 2007). For example, public support for structural
mation and education, prompting, modelling, behavioural strategies may be increased by informing individuals about the
commitments, and environmental design. Consequence strategies need for and the possible consequences of such strategies.
are aimed at changing the consequences following behaviour. Besides providing people with information, it is important to
Examples are feedback, rewards, and penalties. listen to the public when designing and implementing environ-
Another, related, distinction is that between informational mental policies, e.g., by organising public participation. Participa-
strategies – aimed at changing prevalent motivations, perceptions, tory approaches are useful to understand the actor’s perspective, to
cognitions and norms – and structural strategies, aimed at attract people’s attention and gain their commitment, to design
changing the circumstances under which behavioural choices are interventions that are within people’s limits of tolerance, to build
made (see Messick & Brewer, 1983). Below, we briefly discuss support for such interventions, and to increase public involvement
informational and structural strategies. We will not discuss their in environmental policy making (Gardner & Stern, 2002). Partici-
effectiveness in promoting different types of environmental patory approaches are used in the UN Agenda 21 program, but
behaviour in detail, because this has been extensively reviewed unfortunately, to the authors’ knowledge, the effects of these
elsewhere (see Abrahamse, Steg, Vlek, & Rothengatter, 2005; Cook approaches have not been reported in the scientific literature yet.
& Berrenberg, 1981; De Young, 1993; Dwyer, Leeming, Coburn,
Porter, & Jackson, 1993; Lehman & Geller, 2004; Porter, Leeming, & 4.2. Structural strategies
Dwyer, 1995; Schultz, Oskamp, & Mainieri, 1995).
When acting pro-environmentally is rather costly or difficult
4.1. Informational strategies because of external barriers to pro-environmental actions, changes
in the circumstances under which behavioural choices are made
We define informational strategies as being aimed at changing may be needed so as to increase individual opportunities to act pro-
perceptions, motivations, knowledge, and norms, without actually environmentally and to make pro-environmental behaviour
changing the external context in which choices are made. Infor- choices relatively more attractive (cf. Ölander & Thøgersen, 1995;
mational strategies target the motivational factors discussed in Rothschild, 1999; Stern, 1999; Thøgersen, 2005; Van Raaij, 2002).
Section 3.1. Structural strategies are aimed at changing contextual factors such
First, informational strategies can be aimed to increase actors’ as the availability and the actual costs and benefits of behavioural
knowledge so as to heighten their awareness of environmental alternatives. They may indirectly affect perceptions and motiva-
problems and of the environmental impacts of their behaviour, tional factors as well (e.g., attitudes towards organic food may
and/or to increase their knowledge of behavioural alternatives and become more favourable when prices decrease).
their pros and cons. It is assumed that new knowledge results in The costs and benefits of behavioural alternatives may be
changes in attitudes, which in turn will affect behaviour. Generally, changed in various ways. First, the availability and quality of
information campaigns hardly result in behaviour changes. products and services may be altered via changes in physical,
However, prompts appeared to be effective in changing behaviour technical, and/or organisational systems. Environmentally harmful
(see Abrahamse et al., 2005; Lehman & Geller, 2004; Schultz et al., behavioural options can be made less feasible or even impossible
1995, for reviews). (e.g., closing off town centres for motorised traffic), or new and/or
Second, persuasion may be aimed at, for example, influencing better-quality (pro-environmental) behaviour options may be
actors’ attitudes, strengthening their altruistic and ecological values, provided (e.g., recycling bins, organic products, environment-
and/or strengthening their commitment to act pro-environmentally. friendly technology). Second, legal regulations can be implemented
314 L. Steg, C. Vlek / Journal of Environmental Psychology 29 (2009) 309–317

(e.g., prohibiting the use of harmful propellants in spray cans). Legal most studies (see Steg & Gifford, 2005, for a review) examined
measures of course require that the relevant laws and regulations expected changes in quality of life, while actual changes resulting
are enforced, and that violations are met with some type of from environmental policies or conditions have hardly been
punishment. Third, pricing policies are aimed at decreasing prices monitored over time. Expected changes may differ from actual
of pro-environmental behaviour and/or increasing prices of less changes in perceived quality of life. One hypothesis here is that
environment-friendly alternatives. environmental policies may not significantly reduce people’s
Structural strategies either aim to reward ‘‘good’’ behaviour, or quality of life much, at least not in the long run. Individuals seem to
punish ‘‘bad’’ behaviour. According to Geller (2002) (see also Geller adapt to positive as well as to negative changes in their lives, by
et al., 1982), rewards are more effective in encouraging pro-envi- changing their standards, goals and expectations (e.g., Diener,
ronmental actions than are sanctions, because rewards are associ- 2000; Ormel, Lindenberg, Steverink, & Vonkorff, 1997; Suh, Diener,
ated with positive affect and attitudes that support behavioural & Fujita, 1996). Thus, although environmental policies may change
changes. However, when rewards are strong, people can attribute quality of life perceptions initially, individuals may adapt soon.
their behaviour change to the reward and not to their personal Evaluation studies following experimental designs are generally
convictions. As a result, rewards tend to have short-term effects costly and time-consuming. This may not always be possible.
only, for as long as the reward is in place. Moreover, rewards will be However, systematic evaluations not only reveal to what extent an
effective only if they are successful in making pro-environmental intervention has been successful in changing behaviour and
behaviour more attractive than environmentally harmful options, reducing environmental impact, but also why it was (un)successful,
in activating goals to change behaviour, and in facilitating the and how an intervention might be adapted to increase its effec-
implementation of such goals. Rewards in themselves may not be tiveness. Such evaluations are highly valuable from a practical point
successful in doing so (Gärling & Loukopoulos, 2007; Gärling & of view. They may inform change agents about the need to refine or
Schuitema, 2007). Future research should explore under which replace a particular behaviour change intervention. Moreover, they
conditions rewards and/or penalties are effective, or when enable change agents to provide feedback to the target population
a combination of rewards and penalties is warranted. so as to inform them about the effectiveness of their efforts to
Obviously, which strategy will be most effective in encouraging improve environmental quality. This may strengthen subjects’
pro-environmental behaviour depends on the specific barriers that commitment to change their behaviour, and to maintain the
inhibit individuals to act pro-environmentally. In some cases changes already implemented.
infrastructural measures may be needed (e.g., developing a railway Next to studying actual effects of interventions, environmental
line to reduce car use), while in other cases financial measures (e.g., psychologists have studied the perceived effectiveness and
subsidies on home insulation) or legal measures (e.g., fines for acceptability of environmental policies before policies have been
speed offenders) may be more effective. In general, a combination implemented, particularly in the travel domain (e.g., Bamberg &
of strategies for behaviour change will be most successful, as there Rölle, 2003, Jakobsson, Fujii, & Gärling, 2000; Loukopoulos,
are often more than one barrier to any pro-environmental behav- Jakobsson, Gärling, Schneider, & Fujii, 2004; Schade & Schlag,
iour, informational as well as contextual ones (Gardner & Stern, 2003a, 2003b; see Steg & Schuitema, 2007, for a review), but also
2002). Indeed, in practice, many interventions include multiple regarding energy use (Steg et al., 2005). Most studies examined
strategies for behaviour change. In addition, as different groups individual factors related to perceived effectiveness or acceptability
may have different reasons for their behaviour, interventions may judgements. These studies revealed, among other things, that
best be tailored to the motivations, capacities and circumstances of policies are more acceptable when they are believed to be more fair,
different target groups. and when they do not seriously affect individual freedom. More-
over, policies are more acceptable to people who are highly aware
5. Evaluating the effectiveness of interventions of the problem, and who feel a strong moral obligation to reduce
the problems. A few studies examined the extent to which
For researchers and policy-makers alike, it is important to perceived effectiveness and acceptability depends on specific
systematically evaluate the effects of interventions. So far, most policy features, such as rewards versus penalties, or the type of
evaluation studies were focused on informational strategies, while behaviour being targeted (e.g., Poortinga, Steg, Vlek, & Wiersma,
the workings and effectiveness of structural strategies have been 2003; Steg, Dreijerink, & Abrahamse, 2006). It appeared that poli-
studied far less (see Abrahamse et al., 2005; Dwyer et al., 1993; cies that increase the attractiveness of pro-environmental behav-
Schultz et al., 1995, for reviews). This is regrettable, because to the iour are evaluated as more effective and acceptable than policies
extent that society’s organisational and incentive structures aimed at decreasing the attractiveness of environmentally harmful
strongly influence environmental behaviour, structural strategies behaviour (Steg et al., 2006). Moreover, people prefer policies
are probably more effective in promoting pro-environmental aimed at promoting the adoption of energy-efficient equipment
behaviour than are informational strategies. above policies aimed at reducing the use of existing equipment
Studies aimed at evaluating an intervention’s effectiveness (Poortinga et al., 2003; Steg et al., 2006).
should follow solid experimental research designs that reveal the Perceived effectiveness and acceptability may differ from actual
effectiveness of single as well as combinations of interventions for effects and acceptance (i.e., after policies have been implemented).
one or more ‘treatment’ groups and a comparable control group. As For example, a study by Tretvik (2003) revealed that policy
an intervention may have only short-lived effects (see Abrahamse acceptance increased after the policy (that is, a toll ring) had been
et al., 2005), it is important to also study its long-term effects as implemented. This suggests that initial resistance does not neces-
well. Effects measurements should not only focus on (changes in) sarily indicate that a policy should not be implemented.
environmental behaviours. First, it is important to monitor
(changes in) behavioural determinants as this increases our 6. Conclusions
understanding of why intervention programs were successful or
not. Second, it is important to monitor (changes in) environmental Environmental psychologists have an important role to play in
impact, since this is the ultimate goal of behavioural interventions the management of environmental problems by the promotion of
in the environmental domain. Third, one would need to know behavioural changes. Behavioural interventions are generally more
changes in people’s quality of life, which is an important compo- effective when they are systematically planned, implemented and
nent of the more general notion of sustainable development. As yet, evaluated. Four key issues to be addressed are: (1) identification of
 L. Steg, C. Vlek / Journal of Environmental Psychology 29 (2009) 309–317 315

the behaviour to be changed, (2) examination of the main factors Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human
Decision Processes, 50, 179–211.
underlying this behaviour, (3) application of interventions to
Bamberg, S. (2002). Effects of implementation intentions on the actual performance
change the relevant behaviours and their determinants, and (4) of new environmentally friendly behaviours – results of two field experiments.
evaluation of intervention effects on the behaviour itself, its main Journal of Environmental Psychology, 22, 399–411.
determinants, environmental quality, and human quality of life. Bamberg, S., & Rölle, D. (2003). Determinants of people’s acceptability of pricing
measures – replication and extension of a causal model. In J. Schade, & B. Schlag
Interdisciplinary collaboration is needed to effectively address (Eds.), Acceptability of transport pricing strategies (pp. 235–248). Oxford: Elsevier
these issues, because environmental problems are not just Science.
psychological problems; they are also ecological, technological, and Bamberg, S., & Schmidt, S. (1999). Regulating transport: behavioral changes in the
field. Journal of Consumer Policy, 22, 479–509.
socio-cultural problems. For a detailed discussion on the added Bamberg, S., & Schmidt, S. (2003). Incentives, morality or habit? Predicting
value, conditions, and pitfalls of interdisciplinary research, see students’ car use for university routes with the models of Ajzen, Schwartz and
Schoot Uiterkamp and Vlek (2007). We have illustrated how these Triandis. Environment and Behavior, 35, 264–285.
Black, J. S., Stern, P. C., & Elworth, J. T. (1985). Personal and contextual influences on
four issues have been studied so far, and indicated various topics for household energy adaptations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 70, 3–21.
future research. These can be summarised as follows: Cialdini, R. B., Kallgren, C. A., & Reno, R. R. (1991). A focus theory of normative
conduct: a theoretical refinement and reevaluation of the role of norms in
human behavior. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 24, 201–234.
 It is advisable to measure actual behaviour whenever possible, Cialdini, R. B., Reno, R. R., & Kallgren, C. A. (1990). A focus theory of normative
and to pay attention to the validity and reliability of self- conduct: recycling the concept of norms to reduce littering in public places.
reported behaviour measures. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58, 1015–1026.
Cook, S. W., & Berrenberg, J. L. (1981). Approaches to encouraging conservation
 The conditions under which a particular theory is most
behavior: a review and conceptual framework. Journal of Social Issues, 37(2),
successful in explaining environmental behaviour need more 73–107.
attention, and the merits of various theories should be studied Corral-Verdugo, V. (1997). Dual ‘realities’ of conservation behavior: self-reports vs
more systematically. A theory-driven approach towards the observations of re-use and recycling behavior. Journal of Environmental
Psychology, 17, 135–145.
behavioural components of environmental problems will Corraliza, J. A., & Berenguer, J. (2000). Environmental values, beliefs and actions.
provide a strong basis for understanding and managing these Environment and Behavior, 32, 832–848.
problems (following Kurt Lewin, 1951, p. 169): ‘‘Nothing is as Daamen, D. L., Staats, H., Wilke, H., & Engelen, M. (2001). Improving environmental
behavior in companies: the effectiveness of tailored versus nontailored inter-
practical as a good theory’’. ventions. Environment and Behavior, 33, 229–248.
 The effects of contextual factors on environmental behaviour De Groot, J. I. M., & Steg, L. (2007). Value orientations and environmental beliefs in
need to be examined in more detail, as well as how these five countries: validity of an instrument to measure egoistic, altruistic and
biospheric value orientations. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 38, 318–332.
factors affect various environmental behaviours vis-à-vis De Groot, J. I. M., & Steg, L. Morality and prosocial behavior: the role of awareness,
motivational factors. This may lead to extensions of existing responsibility and norms in the norm activation model. Journal of Social
theoretical models. Psychology, in press.
De Groot, J., & Steg, L. (2008). Value orientations to explain beliefs related to
 It is important to study for which types of behaviour and under environmental significant behavior: how to measure egoistic, altruistic, and
which conditions which intervention strategy is most effective biospheric value orientations. Environment and Behavior, 40, 330–354.
for encouraging pro-environmental behaviour. In particular, De Young, R. (1993). Changing behavior and making it stick. The conceptualization
and management of conservation behavior. Environment and Behavior, 25,
the role of various types of rewards and punishments needs
485–505.
further scrutiny. Diener, E. (2000). Subjective well-being. The science of happiness and a proposal for
 Interventions need to be evaluated following experimental a national index. American Psychologist, 55, 34–43.
research designs. Changes in the relevant behaviour, behav- Dittmar, H. (1992). The social psychology of material possessions: To have is to be.
Hemel Hempstead, UK/New York: Harvester Wheatsheaf/St. Martin’s Press.
ioural antecedents, environmental quality, and individual DuNann Winter, D., & Koger, S. M. (2004). The psychology of environmental problems.
quality of life should be assessed before and after the imple- Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
mentation of an intervention, and ‘treatment’ effects should be Dunlap, R. E., & Van Liere, K. D. (1978). The ‘new environmental paradigm’:
a proposed measuring instrument and preliminary results. Journal of Environ-
compared to those in a control group not exposed to the mental Education, 9, 10–19.
intervention. Dunlap, R. E., Van Liere, K. D., Mertig, A. G., & Jones, R. E. (2000). Measuring
 The way subjects adapt to (the effects of) environmental poli- endorsement of the new ecological paradigm: a revised NEP scale. Journal of
Social Issues, 56(3), 425–442.
cies and why policy preferences change over time, e.g., before Dwyer, W. O., Leeming, F. C., Cobern, M. K., Porter, B. E., & Jackson, J. M. (1993).
and after policy implementation, need to be clarified. Critical review of behavioral interventions to preserve the environment.
Research since 1980. Environment and Behavior, 25, 275–321.
Fujii, E. T., Hennesy, M., & Mak, J. (1985). An evaluation of the validity and reliability
Individuals can contribute significantly to achieving long-term of survey response data on household electricity conservation. Evaluation
environmental sustainability by adopting pro-environmental Review, 9, 93–104.
behaviour patterns. The challenge for environmental psychologists Fujii, S., & Gärling, T. (2003). Development of script-based travel mode choice after
forced change. Transportation Research F, 6, 117–124.
is to understand the cognitive, motivational and structural factors
Fujii, S., Gärling, T., & Kitamura, R. (2001). Changes in drivers’ perceptions and use of
and processes that threaten environmental sustainability, so that public transport during a freeway closure: effects of temporary structural change on
pro-environmental behaviours could be facilitated and emerge cooperation in a real-life social dilemma. Environment and Behavior, 33, 796–808.
worldwide. Fujii, S., & Kitamura, R. (2004). What does a one-month free bus ticket do to
habitual drivers? An experimental analysis of habit and attitude change.
Transportation, 30, 81–95.
Gardner, G. T., & Stern, P. C. (2002). Environmental problems and human behavior
References (2nd ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson Custom Publishing.
Gärling, T., Fujii, S., Gärling, A., & Jakobsson, C. (2003). Moderating effects of social
Aarts, H., & Dijksterhuis, A. P. (2000). The automatic activation of goal-directed value orientation on determinants of proevenvironmental intention. Journal of
behaviour: the case of travel habit. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 20, 75–82. Environmental Psychology, 23, 1–9.
Aarts, H., Verplanken, B., & Van Knippenberg, A. (1998). Predicting behaviour from Gärling, T., & Loukopoulos, P. (2007). Effectiveness, public acceptance, and political
actions in the past: repeated decision making or a matter of habit? Journal of feasibility of coercive measures for reducing car traffic. In T. Gärling, & L. Steg
Applied Social Psychology, 28, 1355–1374. (Eds.), Threats to the quality of urban life from car traffic: Problems, causes, and
Abrahamse, W., Steg, L., Vlek, C., & Rothengatter, J. A. (2005). A review of inter- solutions (pp. 313–324). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
vention studies aimed at household energy conservation. Journal of Environ- Gärling, T., & Schuitema, G. (2007). Travel demand management targeting reduced
mental Psychology, 25, 273–291. private car use: effectiveness, public acceptability and political feasibility.
Abrahamse, W., Steg, L., Vlek, C., & Rothengatter, J. A. (2007). The effect of tailored Journal of Social Issues, 63(1), 139–153.
information, goal setting and feedback on household energy use, energy- Gatersleben, B. (2007). Affective and symbolic aspects of car use. In T. Gärling, &
related behaviors and behavioral determinants. Journal of Environmental L. Steg (Eds.), Threats to the quality of urban life from car traffic: Problems, causes,
Psychology, 27, 265–276. and solutions (pp. 219–233). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
316 L. Steg, C. Vlek / Journal of Environmental Psychology 29 (2009) 309–317

Gatersleben, B., Steg, L., & Vlek, C. (2002). Measurement and determinants of Poortinga, W., Steg, L., & Vlek, C. (2004). Values, environmental concern and
environmentally significant consumer behaviour. Environment and Behavior, 34, environmental behavior: a study into household energy use. Environment and
335–362. Behavior, 36, 70–93.
Geller, E. S. (1995). Actively caring for the environment: an integration of behav- Poortinga, W., Steg, L., Vlek, C., & Wiersma, G. (2003). Household preferences for
iourism and humanism. Environment and Behavior, 27, 184–195. energy-saving measures. A conjoint analysis. Journal of Economic Psychology, 24,
Geller, E. S. (2002). The challenge of increasing proenvironmental behavior. In 49–64.
R. B. Bechtel, & A. Churchman (Eds.), Handbook of environmental psychology (pp. Porter, B. E., Leeming, F. C., & Dwyer, W. O. (1995). Solid waste recovery: a review of
525–540). New York: Wiley. behavioral programs to increase recycling. Environment and Behavior, 27, 122–152.
Geller, E. S., Winett, R. A., & Everett, P. B. (1982). Preserving the environment: New Rothschild, M. L. (1999). Carrots, sticks and promises: a conceptual framework for
strategies for behavior change. Elmsford, NY: Pergamon. the management of public health and social issue behaviors. Journal of
Green-Demers, I., Pelletier, L. G., & Menard, S. (1997). The impact of behavioral diffi- Marketing, 63(4), 24–37.
culty on the salience of the association between self-determined motivation and Santos, G. (2008). The London experience. In E. Verhoef, B. Van Wee, L. Steg, &
environmental behaviors. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Sciences, 29, 157–166. M. Bliemer (Eds.), Pricing in road transport: A multi-disciplinary perspective
Guagnano, G. A., Stern, P. C., & Dietz, T. (1995). Influences on attitude-behavior (pp. 273–292). Cheltenham: Edgar Elgar.
relationships: a natural experiment with curbside recycling. Environment and Schade, J., & Schlag, B. (Eds.). (2003a). Acceptability of transport pricing strategies.
Behavior, 27, 699–718. Oxford: Elsevier Science.
Harland, P., Staats, H., & Wilke, H. (1999). Explaining pro environmental behavior by Schade, J., & Schlag, B. (2003b). Acceptability of urban transport pricing strategies.
personal norms and the theory of planned behavior. Journal of Applied Social Transportation Research F, 6, 45–61.
Psychology, 29, 2505–2528. Schoot Uiterkamp, A., & Vlek, C. (2007). Practice and outcomes of multidisciplinary
Heath, Y., & Gifford, R. (2002). Extending the theory of planned behaviour: pre- research for environmental sustainability. Journal of Social Issues, 63(1),
dicting the use of public transportation. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 32, 175–197.
2154–2185. Schultz, P. W., Nolan, J., Cialdini, R., Goldstein, N., & Griskevicius, V. (2007). The
Hunecke, M., Blöbaum, A., Matthies, E., & Höger, R. (2001). Responsibility and constructive, destructive, and reconstructive power of social norms. Psycho-
environment: ecological norm orientation and external factors in the domain of logical Science, 18, 429–434.
travel mode choice behavior. Environment and Behavior, 33, 830–852. Schultz, P. W., Oskamp, S., & Mainieri, T. (1995). Who recycles and when? A review
Jager, W., & Mosler, H. J. (2007). Simulating human behavior for understanding and of personal and situational factors. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 15,
managing environmental resource use. Journal of Social Issues, 63(1), 97–116. 105–121.
Jakobsson, C., Fujii, S., & Gärling, T. (2000). Determinants of private car users’ Schultz, P. W., & Zelezny, L. C. (1998). Values and proenvironmental behaviour. A
acceptance of road pricing. Transport Policy, 7, 153–158. five-country study. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 29, 540–558.
Jakobsson, C., Fujii, S., & Gärling, T. (2002). Effects of economic disincentives on Schultz, P. W., & Zelezny, L. C. (1999). Values as predictors of environmental atti-
private car use. Transportation, 29, 349–370. tudes: evidence for consistency across 14 countries. Journal of Environmental
Kaiser, F. G. (1998). A general measure of ecological behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 19, 255–265.
Social Psychology, 28, 395–422. Schwartz, S. H. (1977). Normative influences on altruism. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.),
Kaiser, F. G., & Gutscher, H. (2003). The proposition of a general version of the Advances in experimental social psychology, Vol. 10 (pp. 221–279). New York:
theory of planned behaviour (TPB): predicting ecological behaviour. Journal of Academic Press.
Applied Social Psychology, 33, 586–603. Schwartz, S. H., & Howard, J. A. (1981). A normative decision-making model of
Kaiser, F. G., Wolfing, S., & Fuhrer, U. (1999). Environmental attitude and ecological altruism. In J. P. Rushton (Ed.), Altruism and helping behaviour: Social, personality
behaviour. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 19, 1–19. and developmental perspectives (pp. 189–211). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Klockner, C. A., Matthies, E., & Hunecke, M. (2003). Problems of operationalising Snijders, T., & Bosker, R. (1999). Multilevel analysis: An introduction to basic and
habits and integrating habits in normative decision-making models. Journal of advanced multilevel modeling. London: Sage.
Applied Social Psychology, 33, 396–417. Steg, L. (2005). Car use: lust and must. Instrumental, symbolic and affective motives
Kok, R., Benders, R., & Moll, H. (2006). Measuring the environmental load of for car use. Transportation Research A, 39, 147–162.
household consumption using some methods based on input–output energy Steg, L., Dreijerink, L., & Abrahamse, W. (2005). Factors influencing the acceptability
analysis: a comparison of methods and a discussion of results. Energy Policy, 34, of energy policies: testing VBN theory. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 25,
2744–2761. 415–425.
Lehman, P. K., & Geller, E. S. (2004). Behavioral analysis and environmental Steg, L., Dreijerink, L., & Abrahamse, W. (2006). Why are energy policies acceptable
protection: accomplishments and potential for more. Behavior and Social Issues, and effective? Environment and Behavior, 38, 92–111.
13(1), 13–32. Steg, L., & Gifford, R. (2005). Sustainable transport and quality of life. Journal of
Lewin, K. (1951). Field theory in social science: Selected theoretical papers. New York, Transport Geography, 13, 59–69.
NY: Harper & Row. Steg, L., & Schuitema, G. (2007). Behavioural responses to transport pricing:
Lindenberg, S. (2001a). Social rationality versus rational egoism. In J. Turner (Ed.), a theoretical analysis. In T. Gärling, & L. Steg (Eds.), Threats to the quality of urban
Handbook of sociological theory (pp. 635–668). New York: Kluwer Academic/ life from car traffic: Problems, causes, and solutions (pp. 347–366). Amsterdam:
Plenum. Elsevier.
Lindenberg, S. (2001b). Intrinsic motivation in a new light. Kyklos, 54, 317–342. Stern, P. C. (1999). Information, incentives, and proenvironmental consumer
Lindenberg, S. (2006). Prosocial behavior, solidarity and goal-framing processes. In behavior. Journal of Consumer Policy, 22, 461–478.
D. Fetchenhauer, A. Flache, B. Buunk, & S. Lindenberg (Eds.), Solidarity and Stern, P. C. (2000). Toward a coherent theory of environmentally significant
prosocial behavior. An integration of sociological and psychological perspectives. behavior. Journal of Social Issues, 56(3), 407–424.
Amsterdam: Kluwer. Stern, P. C., & Dietz, T. (1994). The value basis of environmental concern. Journal of
Lindenberg, S., & Steg, L. (2007). Normative, gain and hedonic goal-frames guiding Social Issues, 50(3), 65–84.
environmental behavior. Journal of Social Issues, 63(1), 117–137. Stern, P. C., Dietz, T., Abel, T., Guagnano, G. A., & Kalof, L. (1999). A value-belief-norm
Loukopoulos, P., Jakobsson, C., Gärling, T., Schneider, C. M., & Fujii, S. (2004). Car- theory of support for social movements: the case of environmentalism. Human
user responses to travel demand management measures: goal setting and Ecology Review, 6, 81–97.
choice of adaptation alternatives. Transportation Research D, 9, 263–280. Stern, P. C., Dietz, T., & Kalof, L. (1993). Value orientations, gender, and environ-
Lüdemann, C. (1998). Framing and choice of transportation mode: testing the mental concern. Environment and Behavior, 25, 322–348.
discrimination model vs SEU theory. Rationality and Society, 10, 253–270. Stern, P. C., Dietz, T., Kalof, L., & Guagnano, G. A. (1995). Values, beliefs, and pro-
Mannetti, L., Pierro, A., & Livi, S. (2004). Recycling: planned and self-expressive environmental action: attitude formation toward emergent attitude objects.
behaviour. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 24, 227–236. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 25, 1611–1636.
Messick, D. M., & Brewer, M. B. (1983). Solving social dilemmas: a review. In Suh, E., Diener, E., & Fujita, F. (1996). Events and subjective well-being: only recent
L. Wheeler, & O. Shaver (Eds.), Review of personality and social psychology, Vol. 4 events matter. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 1091–1102.
(pp. 11–44). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Taylor, S., & Todd, P. (1995). An integrated model of waste management behavior. A
Midden, C., Kaiser, F., & McCalley, T. (2007). Technology’s four roles in under- test of household recycling and composting intentions. Environment and
standing individuals’ conservation of natural resources. Journal of Social Issues, Behavior, 27, 603–630.
63(1), 155–174. Thøgersen, J. (2005). How may consumer policy empower consumers for sustain-
Nordlund, A. M., & Garvill, J. (2002). Value structures behind pro-environmental able lifestyles? Journal of Consumer Policy, 28, 143–178.
behavior. Environment and Behavior, 34, 740–756. Thøgersen, J. (2007). Social marketing of alternative transportation modes. In
Nordlund, A. M., & Garvill, J. (2003). Effects of values, problem awareness, and T. Gärling, & L. Steg (Eds.), Threats to the quality of urban life from car traffic:
personal norm on willingness to reduce personal car use. Journal of Environ- Problems, causes, and solutions (pp. 367–381). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
mental Psychology, 23, 339–347. Tretvik, T. (2003). Urban road pricing in Norway: public acceptability and travel
Ölander, F., & Thøgersen, J. (1995). Understanding of consumer behaviour as a prereq- behaviour. In J. Schade, & B. Schlag (Eds.), Acceptability of transport pricing
uisite for environmental protection. Journal of Consumer Policy, 18, 345–385. strategies (pp. 77–92). Oxford: Elsevier Science.
Ormel, J., Lindenberg, S., Steverink, N., & Vonkorff, M. (1997). Quality of life and Van Diepen, A., & Voogd, H. (2001). Sustainability and planning: does urban form
social production functions: a framework for understanding health effects. matter? International Journal of Sustainable Development, 4, 59–74.
Social Science and Medicine, 45, 1051–1063. Van Raaij, W. F. (2002). Stages of behavioural change: motivation, ability and
Pennington, D. W., Potting, J., Finnveden, G., Lindeijer, E., Jolliet, O., Rydberg, T., et al. opportunity. In G. Bartels, & W. Nelissen (Eds.), Marketing for sustainability;
(2004). Life cycle assessment, part 2: current impact assessment practice. Towards transactional policy-making (pp. 321–333). Amsterdam, The Nether-
Environment International, 30, 721–739. lands: IOS Press.
 L. Steg, C. Vlek / Journal of Environmental Psychology 29 (2009) 309–317 317

Verplanken, B., Aarts, H., Van Knippenberg, A., & Moonen, A. (1998). Habit versus planned Vlek, C. (2000). Essential psychology for environmental policy making. International
behaviour: a field experiment. British Journal of Social Psychology, 37, 111–128. Journal of Psychology, 35(2), 153–167.
Vining, J., & Ebreo, A. (1992). Predicting recycling behavior form global and specific Vlek, C., & Steg, L. (2007). Human behavior and environmental sustainability:
environmental attitudes and changes in recycling opportunities. Journal of problems, driving forces and research topics. Journal of Social Issues, 63(1),
Applied Social Psychology, 22, 1580–1607. 1–19.
Vining, J., & Ebreo, A. (2002). Emerging theoretical and methodological perspectives Warriner, G. K., McDougall, G. H., & Claxton, J. D. (1984). Any data or none at all?
on conservation behavior. In R. B. Bechtel, & A. Churchman (Eds.), Handbook of Living with inaccuracies in self-reports of residential energy consumption.
environmental psychology (pp. 551–558). New York: Wiley. Environment and Behavior, 16, 503–526.

View publication stats