Closing the gap between proenvironmental attitudes and proenvironmental consumer behavior
Creators: name: Bleidorn, Wiebke
name: Lenhausen, Madeline
name: Hopwood, Christopher
Publisher: name: Open Science Framework
Year: 2022
Subjects: subject: Personality and Social Contexts
subject: Social and Behavioral Sciences
subject: Psychology
subject: FOS: Psychology
subject: Environmental Psychology
subject: Longitudinal
subject: Perceived COntrol
subject: Personality
subject: Sustainability

description: Climate change is an encroaching threat to humanity. Mitigating this threat will require widespread behavioral change at the levels of societies, organizations, and individuals (Hornsey et al., 2016; Nielsen et al., 2020; Stern, 2011). Many types of proenvironmental behavior, such as taking the time to recycle, using alternative and potentially less convenient modes of transportation, or purchasing more expensive goods with a smaller carbon footprint are influenced by a variety of factors including personal resources, preferences, and sacrifices. People differ in their willingness to engage in these behaviors in order to protect the environment. Thus, considerable potential lies in a greater understanding of the psychological factors that impact proenvironmental behaviors (Nielsen et al., 2020). Theory and research have emphasized the role of proenvironmental attitudes as antecedents of proenvironmental behavior (Leeuw, Valois, Ajzen, &amp; Schmidt, 2015; Hall et al., 2018; Stern, 2010). Proenvironmental attitudes involve a tendency to evaluate the natural environment with some degree of favor (Milfont &amp; Duckitt, 2010), for example by expressing environmental awareness, identifying as environmentalist, or supporting proenvironmental policies. Proenvironmental behavior involves actions intended to minimize negative effects or enhance positive effects on the environment (Kollmuss &amp; Agyeman, 2002). Here, we focus specifically on proenvironmental consumer choice behavior, referring to the purchase of ecologically friendly and sustainable goods and products. There is some evidence to suggest that proenvironmental attitudes are positively associated with proenvironmental behaviors including proenvironmental consumption (for reviews, see Hornsey et al., 2016; Stern, 2011; Nielsen et al., 2020). However, the link between proenvironmental attitudes and behavior is far from fully understood. The majority of existing studies have used cross-sectional designs to examine the links between proenvironmental attitudes and proenvironmental behavior at one particular point in time (for an exception, see Hall et al., 2018). These studies have been useful in determining that people with stronger proenvironmental attitudes tend to be more likely to engage in proenvironmental behaviors. However, the cross-sectional approach precluded an examination of the processes underlying attitudes and behavior. To test whether changes in proenvironmental attitudes predict changes in people’s behavior, longitudinal or experimental data are needed. Here, we propose to use three waves of longitudinal data to examine the links between both stable levels of and changes in proenvironmental attitudes and proenvironmental consumer behavior over time. Moreover, previous studies yielded effect sizes that were smaller and less consistent than theoretically expected, highlighting important gaps in our understanding of the relationship between proenvironmental attitudes and proenvironmental behavior (Barber et al., 2014; Hall et al., 2018; Hornsey et al., 2016). One explanation for the mixed body of evidence is that the degree to which proenvironmental attitudes may predict proenvironmental consumer behaviors may be different for different individuals (Ajzen et al., 1991; Glasman &amp; Albarracin, 2006; Stern, 2011). For example, it is well established that people with stronger proenvironmental attitudes are more likely to engage in proenvironmental consumer behavior if they have the requisite financial resources. In addition, several other demographic and psychological factors may influence the strength of the connection between proenvironmental attitudes and behavior. Here, we focus on the effects of two potential moderators: life stage and perceived control. In summary, the goal of the present study is to advance our understanding of the association between proenvironmental attitudes and proenvironmental consumer behavior. Using longitudinal panel data from a nationally representative sample of the Swiss population, we will first examine stability and change in people’s proenvironmental attitude and proenvironmental consumer behaviors over 6 years. We will then test three sets of hypotheses about the links between proenvironmental attitudes and proenvironmental consumer behavior. First, we will replicate past findings that people with stronger proenvironmental attitude are generally more likely to engage in proenvironmental consumer behavior. Second, we will test whether changes in people’s proenvironmental attitude are related to changes in their proenvironmental consumer behavior. Third, we will test whether the association between (change in) proenvironmental attitude and (change in) proenvironmental consumer behavior is moderated by people’s life stage and perceived control. Through these analyses, we aim to shed more light on the ways in which proenvironmental attitudes translate into proenvironmental behavior over time and across individuals. Stability and change in proenvironmental attitudes and behaviors Proenvironmental attitudes and behaviors are dynamic constructs that can change over time. Prior to testing the core hypotheses of this project, we will examine the rank-order stability, mean-level change, and individual differences in change in proenvironmental attitudes and proenvironmental behaviors using three waves of longitudinal data collected over 6 years in a nationally representative sample of the Swiss population. Rank-order stability reflects the degree to which the relative ordering of individuals on a variable is stable over time and can be expressed as test-retest correlation across two assessment waves. Previous research indicates that the rank-order stability of political attitudes (e.g., Alwin &amp; Krosnik, 1991; Rekker et al., 2015) and aggregate behaviors (Epstein, 1980) tends to be moderate to high depending on the reliability and time interval between assessments. We thus expect the rank-order stability of proenvironmental attitudes and behaviors to be modest across 3- to 6-year intervals (H0a). Mean-level change reflects absolute increases or decreases (gains or losses) in a variable over a certain period of time. It can be used to examine whether people’s proenvironmental attitudes and behaviors have changed on average over time, e.g. in response to campaigns or interventions. The past two decades have seen an increase in interventions and campaigns designed to raise awareness for environmental concerns and promote proenvironmental behaviors including proenvironmental consumption (Galvāo et al., 2016; Kanger et al., 2020; O’Flaherty &amp; Liddy, 2018). The overarching goal of these campaigns is to strengthen people’s proenvironmental attitudes and increase people’s motivation to engage in proenvironmental behaviors. We thus expect a slight increase in proenvironmental attitudes and proenvironmental consumer behaviors in the general population (H0b) in response to an overall increase in proenvironmental education and campaigns. Individual differences in change describe the degree to which individuals’ trajectories conform to versus deviate from the overall population trends of mean-level change (Schwaba &amp; Bleidorn, 2018). Not everyone changes in the same direction or to the same degree; some people change less while others change more than the norm. A reliable assessment of individual differences in change is a necessary condition for studying the correlates of developmental trajectories. The question of why proenvironmental attitudes and behaviors change could thus be expressed as a question of the existence and correlates of individual differences in change. We expect to find significant individual differences in change in both proenvironmental attitudes and behavior (H0c). Cross-sectional and longitudinal links between proenvironmental attitude and behavior As mentioned above, there is some evidence that proenvironmental attitudes are positively associated with proenvironmental behavior (for reviews, see Hornsey et al., 2016; Stern, 2011; Nielsen et al., 2020). However, most of these studies used cross-sectional designs, precluding an examination of the ways in which changes in proenvironmental attitudes may translate into changes in proenvironmental behavior. Here, we propose to use three waves of longitudinal data to examine the links between both stable levels of and changes in proenvironmental attitudes and proenvironmental consumer behaviors over time. We predict that stable levels of a proenvironmental attitude will be significantly positively correlated with stable levels of proenvironmental consumer behaviors (H1a). Conditioned on the finding of significant individual differences in change (see H0c), we further expect attitude changes to be positively correlated with changes in proenvironmental consumer behaviors (H1b), indicating that those who increase more in their proenvironmental attitude will also increase more in proenvironmental consumer behaviors. Life stage moderates the links between proenvironmental attitude and behavior The strength of the connection between proenvironmental attitudes and proenvironmental consumer behavior may be different for people at different stages in their lives. Major theories of aging have emphasized that people go through different life stages that are characterized by specific themes and developmental tasks (Freund &amp; Baltes, 2002; Erikson, 1959; Heckhausen, 1997; Hutteman et al., 2014). Such age-graded trends may strengthen or weaken the link between proenvironmental attitudes and behaviors. In Western societies, middle adulthood (~35-65 years) is characterized by a growing sense of generativity, agency, and a sense of mastery (Hutteman et al., 2014). These themes may generally strengthen the association between attitudes and behaviors. Middle-aged adults may thus be more likely to act according to their proenvironmental attitude and purchase sustainable goods. In contrast, younger adults (18-35 years) tend to be less concerned with themes of generativity. While old adulthood (&gt;65 years) is also characterized by themes of generativity, it is also a time of decreases in control and mastery (Heckhausen, 1997), complicating predictions about the strength with which proenvironmental attitudes are linked to proenvironmental behaviors. In summary, the link between proenvironmental attitude and behavior may vary over the life course. We predict that the association between stable levels of a proenvironmental attitude and proenvironmental consumer behavior is stronger for middle-aged adults compared to younger adults (H2a) and explore differences with older adults. Conditioned on the finding of individual differences in change in proenvironmental attitudes and behavior, (see H0c) we will explore whether the correlation between change in proenvironmental attitudes and change in proenvironmental consumer behaviors is also stronger for middle-aged adults compared to younger and older adults (H2b). Perceived control moderates the links between proenvironmental attitude and behavior Theory and research suggest that perceived control plays a role in linking proenvironmental attitudes and behavior (Ajzen, 1991; Hines et al., 1987; Stern, 2000). Perceived control has been studied in various forms under varying names including self-efficacy, sense of control, or control beliefs (Skinner, 2011; Lachman &amp; Weaver, 1998). While there are subtle differences, these terms all refer to an individual’s beliefs about the degree to which their actions can bring about desired outcomes (Robinson &amp; Lachman, 2017). There is a large body of evidence documenting the power of perceived control as a robust predictor of the effort people exert to solve problems and persist at tasks, especially when faced with challenges and obstacles (Skinner, 2011). People who believe that that their behavior can bring about change should thus be also more likely to express their proenvironmental attitudes by engaging in proenvironmental behaviors. In contrast, those who believe their environment is unpredictable and outside of their personal control should be less likely to engage in proenvironmental behavior, even if they endorse proenvironmental attitudes. In other words, the degree to which people engage in proenvironmental behaviors is likely shaped by beliefs about the degree to which their behavior can bring about desired outcomes (Stern, 2000; 2011). Existing research has documented links between different measures of perceived control and proenvironmental behavior (Hall et al., 2018; Masud et al., 2016). However, these studies have typically focused on main effects of control beliefs on behaviors in relatively small samples. Here, we propose to examine the moderating effect of perceived control on the links between proenvironmental attitudes and proenvironmental consumer behavior in a large and nationally representative sample across three assessment waves. Specifically, we predict that that the association between levels of proenvironmental attitudes and behaviors is stronger for individuals with high levels compared to low levels of perceived control (H3a). Conditioned on the finding of individual differences in change in proenvironmental attitudes and behavior (see H0c), we further examine whether the correlation between changes in proenvironmental attitudes and changes in proenvironmental behaviors is stronger for individuals who are high compared to low in perceived control (H9). Overview of hypotheses H0a The rank-order stability of proenvironmental attitude and behaviors is modest across 3-6 years. H0b The mean-levels of proenvironmental attitude and behaviors increase across the study period. H0c There is significant individual-level change in proenvironmental attitude and behaviors. H1a Stable levels of proenvironmental attitude and behaviors are positively correlated. H1b* Changes in proenvironmental attitude and behaviors are positively correlated. H2a The correlation between levels of proenvironmental attitude and behaviors is stronger for middle-aged adults compared to younger adults (we will explore differences with older adults). H2b* The correlation between changes in proenvironmental attitude and behaviors is stronger for middle-aged adults compared to younger adults (we will explore differences with older adults). H3a The correlation between levels of proenvironmental attitude and behaviors is stronger for individuals who are high versus low in perceived control. H3b* The correlation between changes in proenvironmental attitude and behaviors is stronger for individuals who are high versus low in perceived control. *Hypotheses and related analyses are conditioned on the finding of significant individual differences in change in proenvironmental attitudes and behaviors. Sample We will use nationally representative data from the Swiss Household Panel (SHP, which is based at the Swiss Centre of Expertise in the Social Sciences and funded by the Swiss National Science Foundation). For more information, see https://forscenter.ch/projects/swiss-household-panel/ The panel is an annual panel study based on a random sample of private households in Switzerland, interviewing all household members mainly by telephone. Data collection started in 1999 with a sample of 5’074 households containing 12’931 household members. In 2004 a second sample of 2’538 households with a total of 6’569 household members was added; and since 2013 the SHP contains a third sample of 4’093 households with 9’945 individuals. Response rates have remained high in all three samples. Here we use data collected in waves 2011, 2012, 2014, 2015, 2017 and 2018. Specifically, we will use data from all participants who provided responses to the proenvironmental attitudes and behavior questions at one or more assessment wave. Measures We will use the item “How important is the protection of the environment for you?” administered in 2011, 2014, and 2017 to assess participants’ proenvironmental attitude. Participants responded to this item on a 11-point Likert scale ranging from 0 "not important at all " to 10 "very important". We will use two items to assess participants’ proenvironmental consumer behavior: “How often do you buy organic or ecological products, even though it is a bit more expensive?” (0 "never" to 10 "always") and “When you buy fruits and vegetables, do you pay attention to the fact that it is a seasonal product?” (0 "never" to 10 "always"). These items were also administered in 2011, 2014, and 2017. We will use 4 items to assess perceived control. Two of these items were derived from Pearlin and Schooler (1978), “Whether or not I am able to get what I want is in my own hands”; “What happens to me in the future mostly depends on me”; and two were derived from Lachman and Weaver (1998): “I can do just about anything I really set my mind to”; “When I really want to do something, I usually find a way to succeed at it”. These items were administered in 2012, 2015, and 2018 and rated on an 11-point scale from 0 “completely disagree” to 10 “completely agree”. We examined the correlations among these items and internal consistencies (Cronbach’s alpha .76 -.77) at each assessment wave prior to completing this preregistration. We will compute an overall perceived control score to be used as time-invariant moderator variable. We will use participants’ age to assign them to different life stages (see below) and include income (personal annual net income across time) as time-variant and gender as time-invariant covariates. Analysis Prior exposure to data The first and last authors of this preregistration have had no previous access to the SHP dataset. The second author downloaded the data and computed descriptives and intercorrelations for the main study variables. None of the analyses outlined below were performed prior preregistration. General information Analyses for this study will be conducted in R (R core team, 2017), with structural equation models estimated using the lavaan package (Rosseel, 2012). We will use Full Information Maximum Likelihood estimation to handle missing data. We will use chi-square difference tests to compare fits of nested models. We will use p &lt; .05 to determine statistical significance. Analysis scripts and a covariance matrix of study data will be posted on OSF. Preliminary analyses First, we will examine the rank-order stabilities (H0a) in proenvironmental attitudes and behaviors across assessment waves. Next, we will parameterize the mean-level change (H0b) and individual differences in change (H0c) in these variables by fitting univariate linear growth curve models for these variables. Of particular interest will be significant variance in the slope terms (i.e., H0c), which is a precondition for testing several of the main study hypotheses described below. We will run these models with and without gender and income as covariates. Main analyses We will examine the co-development between the proenvironmental attitude measure and each of the two proenvironmental behaviors across assessment waves by estimating two bivariate latent growth curve models with linear slopes. These models will be used to test whether the intercepts (H1a) and slopes (H1b) of proenvironmental attitudes and behaviors are correlated (conditioned on significant slope variances). We will use a multiple-group structural equation modeling (SEM) framework to test the effects of the moderator variables – life stage and perceived control – on the links between both intercepts and slopes (conditioned on significant slope variances) of proenvironmental attitudes and behaviors. Specifically, we will split the sample into three age groups at baseline (young adults [18-35], middle-aged adults [36-64], and old adults [65+]) and constrain all model parameters to be equal across groups. We will then test whether the model fit improves when the intercept-intercept correlations (H2a) and slope-slope correlations (H2b) are freed across age groups using chi-square difference tests. We will run these models with and without gender and income as covariates. Similarly, we will split the sample into three control groups (lower, middle, higher terciles) and constrain all model parameters to be equal across groups. We will again test whether the model fit improves when intercept-intercept correlations (H3a) and slope-slope correlations (H3b) are freed across age groups. All analyses involving slope-slope correlations are conditioned on significant slope variance. We will run these models with and without gender and income as covariates. References Alwin, D. F., &amp; Krosnick, J. A. (1991). The reliability of survey attitude measurement: The influence of question and respondent attributes. Sociological Methods &amp; Research, 20, 139-181. Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational behavior and human decision processes, 50, 179-211. Barber, N. A., Bishop, M., &amp; Gruen, T. (2014). Who pays more (or less) for pro-environmental consumer goods? Using the auction method to assess actual willingness-to-pay. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 40, 218-227. Erikson, E. H. (1959). Identity and the life cycle: Selected papers. New York. Freund, A., &amp; Baltes, P. (2002). Life-Management Strategies of Selection, Optimization, and Compensation: Measurement by Self-Report and Construct Validity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82, 642-662. Galvão, L. A., Haby, M. M., Chapman, E., Clark, R., Câmara, V. M., Luiz, R. R., &amp; Becerra-Posada, F. (2016). The new United Nations approach to sustainable development post-2015: findings from four overviews of systematic reviews on interventions for sustainable development and health. Revista Panamericana de Salud Pública, 39, 157-165. Glasman, L., &amp; Albarracín, D. (2006). Forming Attitudes That Predict Future Behavior: A Meta-Analysis of the Attitude–Behavior Relation. Psychological Bulletin, 132, 778-822. Hall, M. P., Lewis Jr, N. A., &amp; Ellsworth, P. C. (2018). Believing in climate change, but not behaving sustainably: Evidence from a one-year longitudinal study. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 56, 55-62. Heckhausen, J. (1997). Developmental regulation across adulthood: primary and secondary control of age-related challenges. Developmental Psychology, 33, 176-187. Hildebrandt, A., Lüdtke, O., Robitzsch, A., Sommer, C., &amp; Wilhelm, O. (2016). Exploring factor model parameters across continuous variables with local structural equation models. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 51, 257-258. Hines, J. M., Hungerford, H. R., &amp; Tomera, A. N. (1987). Analysis and synthesis of research on responsible environmental behavior: A meta-analysis. The Journal of environmental education, 18, 1-8. Hornsey, M. J., Harris, E. A., Bain, P. G., &amp; Fielding, K. S. (2016). Meta-analyses of the determinants and outcomes of belief in climate change. Nature Climate Change, 6, 622-626. Hutteman, R., Hennecke, M., Orth, U., Reitz, A. K., &amp; Specht, J. (2014). Developmental tasks as a framework to study personality development in adulthood and old age. European Journal of Personality, 28, 267-278. Kanger, L., Sovacool, B. K., &amp; Noorkõiv, M. (2020). Six policy intervention points for sustainability transitions: A conceptual framework and a systematic literature review. Research Policy, 49, 104072. Kollmuss, A. &amp; Agyeman (2002). Mind the gap: Why do people act environmentally and what are the barriers to pro-environmental behaviour? Environmental Education Research, 8, 239-260. Lachman, M. E., &amp; Weaver, S. L. (1998). The sense of control as a moderator of social class differences in health and well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 763-773. De Leeuw, A., Valois, P., Ajzen, I., &amp; Schmidt, P. (2015). Using the theory of planned behavior to identify key beliefs underlying pro-environmental behavior in high-school students: Implications for educational interventions. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 42, 128-138. Masud, M. M., Al-Amin, A. Q., Junsheng, H., Ahmed, F., Yahaya, S. R., Akhtar, R., &amp; Banna, H. (2016). Climate change issue and theory of planned behaviour: relationship by empirical evidence. Journal of Cleaner Production, 113, 613-623. Milfont, T. L., &amp; Duckitt, J. (2010). The environmental attitudes inventory: A valid and reliable measure to assess the structure of environmental attitudes. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 30, 80-94. Nielsen, Kristian S, Clayton, Susan, Stern, Paul C, Dietz, Thomas, Capstick, Stuart and Whitmarsh, Lorraine (2020). How psychology can help limit climate change. American Psychologist. O’Flaherty, J., &amp; Liddy, M. (2018). The impact of development education and education for sustainable development interventions: a synthesis of the research. Environmental Education Research, 24, 1031-1049. Pearlin, L. I., and Schooler, C. (1978). The structure of coping. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 19, 2-21. R Core Team (2017). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Found. Stat. Comput. Vienna, Austria. Rekker, R., Keijsers, L., Branje, S., &amp; Meeus, W. (2015). Political attitudes in adolescence and emerging adulthood: Developmental changes in mean level, polarization, rank-order stability, and correlates. Journal of Adolescence, 41, 136-147. Robinson, S. A., &amp; Lachman, M. E. (2017). Perceived control and aging: A mini-review and directions for future research. Gerontology, 63, 435-442. Rosseel, Y. (2012). Lavaan: An R package for structural equation modeling and more. Version 0.5–12 (BETA). Journal of Statistical Software, 48, 1-36. Schwaba, T., &amp; Bleidorn, W. (2018). Individual differences in personality change across the adult life span. Journal of Personality, 86, 450-464. Skinner, E. A. (2017). Seven guideposts to the study of perceived control across the lifespan. In R. John &amp; J. I. Frank (Eds.), Perceived control: theory, research, and practice in the first 50 years (pp. 309–339). Oxford: Oxford University Press Stern, P. C. (2000). New environmental theories: toward a coherent theory of environmentally significant behavior. Journal of Social Issues, 56, 407-424. Stern, P. C. (2011). Contributions of psychology to limiting climate change. American Psychologist, 66, 303-314.