Cultural antecedents of green behavioral intent: An environmental theory of planned behavior

Journal of Environmental Psychology 43 (2015) 145e154

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Environmental Psychology journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jep

Cultural antecedents of green behavioral intent: An environmental theory of planned behavior* Ruben M. Mancha a, *, Carol Y. Yoder b a b

Technology, Operations and Information Management Division, Babson College, USA Department of Psychology, Trinity University, USA

a r t i c l e i n f o

a b s t r a c t

Article history: Received 11 September 2014 Received in revised form 11 June 2015 Accepted 15 June 2015 Available online 17 June 2015

While ecological awareness and behaviors are slowly improving, we need worldwide action to ameliorate and counteract humanity's aversive impact on nature. Our study develops, validates, and evaluates an environmental theory of planned behavior model aimed at predicting green (i.e., environmentally-friendly) behavioral intentions using a bi-national sample (n ¼ 162). Then, a second, primarily bi-national sample (n ¼ 144) is used to expand the theory and examine the effects of identity, operationalized as independent and interdependent self-construal, on green behavioral intentions. The results indicate that how we define our self has a substantial impact on our intents to protect the environment. Our findings add to previous work on the role of self-identity and provide a new theoretical perspective to guide green policy and changes aimed at increasing sustainability. © 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Theory of planned behavior Self-construal Preservation Environment

1. Introduction There is little controversy about climate change and environmental damage among those with environmental expertise (IPCC, 2014; McMichael, Woodruff, & Hales, 2006; Pew Research Center, 2007, 2013). To counteract human contributions to environmental degradation (De Groot & Steg, 2007; Oskamp, 2000, 2010; IPCC, 2007; IPCC, 2014; Smith, 2013; Swim, Markowitz, & Bloodhart, 2012), a concerted commitment to change is necessary to combat the broad scope and complexity of environmental problems (IPCC, 2014). To facilitate that kind of change, studies need to further refine methods and variables that support environmentally sustainable choices and behaviors. Across the world's landscape, there are few identified differences in pro-environment intent between humans living in different geographic areas. Much research has identified affluence, education, gender, and local-global conditions as key cultural factors in predicting environmental intent and behavior (Gifford & Sussman, 2014; Milfont, 2012; Zelezny, Chua, & Aldrich, 2000). The purpose of this study is to develop, validate and evaluate an

* The authors wish to thank the editor, Robert Gifford, and three anonymous reviewers for their thoughtful comments and guidance during the review process. * Corresponding author. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (R.M. Mancha), [email protected] (C.Y. Yoder).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2015.06.005 0272-4944/© 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

environmental theory of planned behavior that can explain sustainable behavioral intent in multicultural settings and inform policy. 1.1. Environmental theory of planned behavior Although not without detractors (e.g., Sniehottaa, Presseaua, & Araújo-Soares, 2014), one of the most utilized models explaining how behavioral intentions are formed is the theory of planned behavior (Heath & Gifford, 2002; Rivis & Sheeran, 2003; SanchezMedina, Romero-Quintero, & Sosa-Cabrera, 2014). According to the theory of planned behavior (TPB), intent or readiness to act is the most proximal determinant of behavior. In this model an individual's behavioral intention is influenced by behavioral, normative, and control beliefs (Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975; Ajzen, 1991; Ajzen & Fishbein, 2005). Behavioral beliefs refer to attitudes about the targeted topic regarding likelihood that specific behaviors would occur. Normative beliefs involve the extent to which it is perceived that others expect a certain behavior, coupled with one's personal motivation to comply. Perceived behavioral control refers to one's assessed ability to overcome obstacles and accomplish the behavior. Ajzen tested these three beliefs by using questionnaires addressing individuals' attitude towards the behavior at hand, the importance placed on subjective norms, and their perception of behavioral control. The relative influence of these factors depends on the particular issue under study and the sample (Sanchez-

146

R.M. Mancha, C.Y. Yoder / Journal of Environmental Psychology 43 (2015) 145e154

Medina et al., 2014) but the TPB model is robust and effective (Armitage & Conner, 2001; Chao, 2012). Although TPB can explain a broad range of human behaviors, substantial research has focused on environmental choices and policy (Heath & Gifford, 2002; Mannetti, Pierro, & Livi, 2004; Nigbur, Lyons, & Uzzell, 2010; Oreg & Katz-Gerro, 2006). Prototypical research targets local community concerns like transportation use (De Groot & Steg, 2007; Heath & Gifford, 2002), workplace behaviors (Greaves, Zibarras, & Stride, 2013) or recycling (Chan, 1998; Nigbur et al., 2010) in locations around the world (Chao, 2012; Oreg & Katz-Gerro, 2006). Niaura (2013) used a young adult sample to study core TPB variables and conservation behavior. He found that the relationship between environmental intent and actual behavior was twice as strong as the relationship between behavior and attitudes, supporting the notion that intent is the proximal behavior predictor. He also found that perceived behavioral control strongly predicted intent, and to a lesser degree, behavior. Social pressure was less effective in predicting intent, and did not predict behavior (Niara, 2013). Using meta-analysis, Armitage and Conner (2001) TPB research predicted 39% of the variance in behavioral intention, 21% of the variance in selfreported behavior and 30% of the variance in observed behavior. Kaiser, Wolfing, and Fuhrer (1999) also evaluated environmental attitudes and their effect on environmental behaviors, explaining 40% of the variance behavioral intentions and 38% of the variance of ecological behavior. Perhaps the best predictions of the theory of planned behavior accounted for 76% of the variance in conservation intent and 95% in sustainability behaviors (Kaiser, Hübner, & Bogner, 2005). Demonstrating the utility of TPB in explaining environmental intentions and behaviors, Armitage and Conner's (2001) metaanalysis concluded that subjective norms were sharply influenced by idiosyncrasies of evaluators (Nigbur et al., 2010) or moderated by group and self-identification (Schultz, Nolan, Cialdini, Foldstein, & Griskevicius, 2007). Apart from these issues, the TPB has been criticized for being too focused on the individual's behavior with insufficient attention to respondent identity. 1.1.1. The role of self From TPB research, a growing number of studies suggest that it is important to incorporate self-identity to improve prediction (e.g., Conner & Armitage, 1998; Fielding, McDonald, & Louis, 2008; Mannetti et al., 2004; Park & Levine, 1999; Sparks & Guthrie, 1998). When one's representation of self is highly attuned to others, it is readily evident that more concern about subjective others is highly probable. On the other hand, self-efficacy is also recognized as being predictive of TPB perceived control, and beliefs about self-efficacy are crucial to behavior change in general. However, taking self-efficacy into account is not sufficient, so some scholars have proposed an explicit self-identity component to the TPB. For example, Conner and Armitage (1998) review self-identity as a possible extension of TPB and conclude it consistently adds a small amount of variance to the model, after belief variables are fully included. Stryker's identity theory (Stryker & Burke, 2000) provides a theoretical basis for self-representation (Conner & Armitage, 1998; Mannetti et al., 2004; Terry, Hogg, & White, 1999). Stryker (1968; Stryker & Burke, 2000) focuses on the links between social structures and identities in the meanings drawn from the multiple roles people play. Self-identity incorporates all the roles owned by an individual that affect action and behavior, which may precede and contribute to expectations and norms. The choices we make may also be determined by the degree to which a given intention or behavior is consistent with or important to one's sense of self (Stryker, 1968). Further, identity can encompass a wider social context for the

individual, linking intent and action to some personal characteristic (Charng, Piliavin, & Callero, 1988). Charng et al. (1988) studied intent to donate blood and found that repeated behaviors increased identity as a blood donor. At least in this context, intentions were based in part on important aspects of the self. Hyde and White (2013) found that self-identity was a significant predictor of intent to donate bone marrow, which improved the standard TPB model. Knowles, Hyde, and White (2012) also found another type of personal sense of moral obligation predicted charitable giving, evoking more idiosyncratic self-involvement. While morality may seem to diverge from environmental sustainability, Thogersen's (1996) analysis suggests, for many, environmental concerns are a function of beliefs about right and wrong and as such are an issue of morality. Other research has explicitly focused on environmental intentions and behavior. In a survey assessing pro-environment behaviors, Whitmarsh and O'Neill (2010) also found that personal identity regarding carbon offset, substantially improved the TPB model. In their data, only attitudes (not norms or control) predicted behavior with the original model. Addressing another environmental concern Mannetti et al. (2004) investigated intent to recycle and found that identity was the strongest predictor of behavioral intentions, improving the standard TPB model. Mannetti et al. entered identity at the same level as attitude, control beliefs, and norms. Even though the identity measure had relatively low reliability, the model suggested the latent variable was quite powerful. Using a different approach, Sonenshein, DeCelles and Dutton's (2014) mixed methods design convincingly demonstrated that even for environmental supporters, personal evaluations of their self-assets and self-doubts weighed heavily in environmental interpretations and behavioral efficacy. In short, a range of studies with different environmental foci extend the TPB model by using a variety of ways to define self identity. One aspect of identity that may be particularly relevant is selfconstrual. Initially described as how people feel and think about themselves, Markus and Kitayama (1991) suggested that selfconstrual is an individual difference in people's perception of the world and their role in it. As an aspect of self-concept, self-construal captures differential focus on a variable, flexible self who values connectedness with others versus an autonomous, invariant self who values independence (Singelis, 1994). Often applied to culture, self-construal has been used in hundreds of studies to characterize the way information is represented, interpreted and acted upon (Cross, Hardin, & Gercek-Swing, 2011). While individuals may or may not adhere to their cultural values, the basic idea is that people from collectivist countries highly value interdependence, because of their interest and reliance on others. Interdependence is also aligned with fitting harmoniously into the social environment. In contrast, people from individualist countries often prioritize independence and self-advancement relative to group achievement. Of course, there may be substantial individual differences in the extent to which people embrace these values and some individuals embrace both interdependent and independent values (Singelis, 1994; Sinha & Tripathi, 1994; Triandis & Suh, 2002). Self-construal has been linked to socially responsible behavior, where people with a higher level of interdependence deliberated more on collective outcomes when making decisions (Arnocky, Stroink, & deCicco, 2007; McCarty & Shrum, 2001), while independence predicted egoistic environmental concern (Arnocky et al., 2007). As one's sense of self is continually evolving, one's schema of self provides a framework for determining attitudes and expectations, and especially behavior. Self-schema guide how we process information, particularly that related to the self (Markus, 1977). Markus found that one's self-schema also predicted behavior on schema-related dimensions, and made individuals resistant to

R.M. Mancha, C.Y. Yoder / Journal of Environmental Psychology 43 (2015) 145e154

information contrary to sense of self, perhaps due to desire for cross-situational consistency. Hagger and Chatzisarantis (2006) also found that for a subset of their European participants, sense of self was a stronger predictor of intentions than TPB variables and accounted for significantly more incremental variance in intention across a range of behaviors. Their work suggests that individual differences in self can affect intentions as well as attitudes and beliefs. Manipulating interdependent and independent self-focus has also been shown to impact cognitive function more generally, influencing perceptual task speed and memory (Kühnen & Oyserman, 2002). 1.1.2. The role of culture While how one thinks about the self is shaped by experience and culture (Markus & Kitayama, 1991), Ignatow (2006) suggests that public concerns about the environment may be better conceptualized by culture rather than ecological concern. Oreg and Katz-Gerro (2006) used a 27-country sample to predict proenvironment behaviors. Culture was a key predictor in shaping environmental behaviors, along with a variety of sociopsychological variables. Milfont, Duckitt, and Cameron (2006) reported that ecologically minded participants from individualistic countries expressed biospheric concerns. In contrast, respondents from traditionally collectivist countries who conveyed more egocentric environmental concerns negatively predicted proenvironment behaviors. These distinct but complementary findings point to the importance of considering cultural dimensions. Extrapolating from Markus and Kitayama (1991) collectivists might be more influenced by normative beliefs because of their attention to others, while individualists might prioritize personal goals, and perhaps be more influenced by individual attitudes and perceived control. While the TPB is broadly predictive of behavioral intent within (e.g., Conner & Armitage, 1998) and across culture (Santamaria, de la Mata, Hansen & Ruiz, 2010; Van Hooft, Born, Taris, & Van Der Flier, 2006), distinguishing cultural aspects in this model have been elusive. Milfont, Sibley, and Duckitt (2010) assessed the role of norms on values and environmental behavior and found it was a function of the seriousness of the problem, perceived responsibility and individual-level altruism. Recognizing that cultural influences are complex, self-construal offers one method of operationalizing some of cultures' distinguishing characteristics. In our research, we explored whether sense of self influenced beliefs. To capture the role of self-identity on environmental behavioral intentions, we incorporated self-view in the model by evaluating the role of self-construal as antecedent to green SN, green attitudes (i.e., preservation), and green PBC. 2. Theory and hypotheses Our culturally grounded environmental theory of planned behavior incorporates independent self-construal and interdependent self-construal into an adaptation of the theory of planned behavior to predict green behavioral intent. Drawing from the original formulation of the theory of planned behavior (Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975; Ajzen, 1991), multiple evaluations of the theory (e.g., Niaura, 2013; Cordano & Frieze, 2000), Kaiser, Wolfing and Fuhrer's (1999) findings supporting the precedence of environmental attitudes over environmental behavioral intention, and Armitage and Conner's (2001) meta-analysis, we postulate that the three antecedents of green behavioral intention will positively relate to intended green behavior. The following three directional hypotheses capture these relationships: Hypothesis 1. Green Subjective Norm is positively related to Green

147

Behavioral Intention Hypothesis 2. Preservation Attitude is positively related to Green Behavioral Intention Hypothesis 3. Green Perceived Behavioral Control is positively related to Green Behavioral Intention Without clear guidance in the literature to predict the effect of self-construal on green subjective norm, preservation attitude, and green perceived behavioral control, we decided to evaluate the full set of non-directional interactions. Previous research has evaluated the existence of correlations between some of these constructs; e.g., independent and interdependent self-construal, attitude and subjective norm (Park & Levine, 1999), yet not in relation to sustainability, and the causal structure we present in this manuscript is yet to be confirmed. The theoretical model is presented in Fig. 1. The role of interdependent self-construal, how one relies and cares about the social environment, is captured in hypotheses 4 through 6. Interdependent self-construal is expected to strongly relate to green subjective norm, or others' green behaviors and expectations about one's green behaviors. Overall, interdependent self-construal should also relate to preservation attitudes, reflecting an overall concern for the impact of environmental problems on society. Finally, caring about others should relate to one's beliefs about the capacity to carry out green behaviors. Hypothesis 4. Interdependent Self-Construal is related to Green Subjective Norm Hypothesis 5. Interdependent Self-Construal is related to Preservation Attitude Hypothesis 6. Interdependent Self-Construal is related to Green Perceived Behavioral Control The role of independent self-construal, the degree to which an individual defines one's self in terms of internal attributes, on green subjective norm, preservation attitudes, and perceived behavioral control is captured in hypotheses 7 through 9. Hypothesis 7. Independent Self-Construal is related to Green Subjective Norm Hypothesis 8. Independent Self-Construal is related to Preservation Attitude Hypothesis 9. Independent Self-Construal is related to Green Perceived Behavioral Control

3. Method 3.1. Participants The sample used to validate the core environmental TPB model (H1eH3) consists of 162 participants from two regions of the world. The American sample was composed of 77 undergraduate students from a small liberal arts university in the southwestern United States who were recruited to voluntarily participate in the study in exchange for course credit. The rest of the sample, a total of 85 participants, were recruited from comparable higher education programs in India. In addition, a second sample (n ¼ 144) was collected to evaluate the full theoretical model (H1eH9). To maximize generalizability, this sample consisted of largely bi-national subjects recruited on Amazon's Mechanical Turk (n ¼ 116) and personally invited subjects (n ¼ 28) contacted via email. The characteristics of both groups were similar. All of them completed the same survey online. Descriptive statistics for both samples are presented in the following section.

148

R.M. Mancha, C.Y. Yoder / Journal of Environmental Psychology 43 (2015) 145e154

Fig. 1. Theoretical ETPB model incorporating self-construal.

Paolacci, Chandler, and Ipeirotis (2010) demonstrated that data collected via Mechanical Turk was comparable to laboratory-based data collection. Further, Mason and Suri (2012) found high levels of internal consistency in respondents and provided a description of best practices to optimize performance for samples collected using this method. Out of the 215 complete observations collected, 71 participants were rejected due to insufficient time spent on the survey or lack of attention (verified using attention checks placed throughout the instrument). Participants recruited through Amazon's Mechanical Turk received an average compensation of $0.70 for completing the survey. 3.2. Descriptive statistics Participants in the bi-national sample (n ¼ 162) were between 18 and 24 years of age and had some college education (all of them were college students). The first group consisted of 77 undergraduate students (36 male, 41 female) from a small liberal arts university in the United States, and the second group of 85 Indian college students (50 male, 35 female). Overall, the gender split is 53% males, 47% females. Their average level of pro-environment preservation attitude is 4.42 on a seven-point Likert scale (SD ¼ .49). Participants in the second sample (n ¼ 144) reported an average age of 37.31 years (SD ¼ 12.29, median ¼ 35). The sample consisted of 81 males and 63 females (gender split of 56.25% males, 43.75% females). Respondents from 13 different countries participated in the survey, although a few countries accounted for a large number of the participants. The top five countries in terms of number of participants were: India (66), United States (62), Canada (4), Macedonia (2), and Romania (2). Participants had an average education of 4.8 (SD ¼ 1.14) and a median education of 5 (scale: 1 ¼ Less than High School; 2 ¼ High School/GED; 3 ¼ Some College; 4 ¼ 2year College Degree; 5 ¼ 4-year College Degree; 6 ¼ Masters Degree; 7 ¼ Doctoral or Professional Degree), indicating that most have college-level education. Their average level of propreservation attitude was 5.3 on a seven-point Likert scale (SD ¼ .99). For both samples, the number of observations was at least 10 times the number of indicators in each construct in the model (Barclay, Higgins, & Thompson, 1995; Chin, 1998), ensuring enough statistical power.

3.3. Measures Attitudes towards environmentalism were evaluated using the preservation items of the brief 24-item version of Milfont and Duckitt's (2010) 120-item Environmental Attitudes Inventory (EAI). This questionnaire measures an individual's attitude towards a range of environmental beliefs and activities, with factor analyses identifying the broad dimensions of preservation and utilization. Preservation items assess attitudes toward protecting and conserving the environment (Milfont & Duckitt, 2010). All the preservation items were answered on a 7-point Likert-type scale (ranging from 1: strongly disagree to 7: strongly agree). Normative beliefs were measured through an environmentally focused subjective norms (green SN) questionnaire consisting of 8 items measured with Likert scales (ranging from 1: strongly disagree to 7: strongly agree). The individual's control beliefs over environmental behaviors were evaluated through the green perceived behavioral control (green PBC) questionnaire, consisting of 10 items measured with Likert scales (ranging from 1: not at all true to 4: exactly true). Finally, the intention to complete the green behavior (i.e., green behavioral intention) was evaluated by 3 items using a Likert-type scale (ranging from 1: extremely unlikely to 7: extremely likely). Higher scores indicated more of the specific construct for each of these measures. All the items are presented in Appendix A. Culture was measured using Singelis' (1994) 24-item measure using a 7-point Likert-type response format. The scale yields two independent subscales, independent self-construal and interdependent self-construal, with higher numbers indicating more of the two concepts. Factor analysis was used to determine the twofactor structure of this scale, which was replicated in a separate sample. Apart from face validity, Singelis demonstrated that this scale had both construct and predictive validity. The two identified factors were unrelated and accounted for 25.1% of the total variance. Cronbach's alpha reliabilities were .69 for independence and .73 for interdependence. We retained those items with loads greater than .35. 3.4. Procedure After choosing to respond to our survey, participants provided demographic information. Respondents then answered questions

R.M. Mancha, C.Y. Yoder / Journal of Environmental Psychology 43 (2015) 145e154

aimed to capture their levels of independent and interdependent self-construal (Singelis, 1994). Participants then responded to items from the environmental attitudes scale (EAI), subjective norm (SN), perceived behavioral control (PBC), and finally, behavioral intention (BI). We used time spent on task and five reading checks throughout the instrument as methods to verify that respondents were reading the items. Reading checks simply asked the participants to select a particular option on a question. Participants who missed attention checks were deleted from the sample. Also, those participants not spending at least 12 min on the survey were evaluated for exclusion on the survey and those spending less than 10 min were excluded. Most of these deleted observations were online survey participants who accessed the survey and did not answer questions beyond the first page, or left the survey after a few minutes. 4. Results 4.1. Statistical analyses We conducted multiple analyses. First, we validated the core model of the environmental theory of planned behavior (ETPB) using a bi-national sample (n ¼ 162). Then, we validated the full theoretical model incorporating self-construals (Fig. 1). Finally, we evaluated the full theoretical model (H1eH9) using the second largely bi-national sample (n ¼ 144). Structural equation modeling partial least squares was used to validate the core model and explore the relationships between the four constructs: green environmental attitude, green SN, green PBC, and green BI. These analyses were performed on SmartPLS (Ringle, Wende, & Will, 2005), capturing the reflective nature of the four latent variables. The parameters to execute the PLS algorithm were chosen following directions provided in Hair, Sarstedt, Ringle, and Mena (2012). Then, the full model, including self-construals, was evaluated using the partial least squares path modeling (PLS-PM) R package (Sanchez, Trinchera, & Russolillo, 2013). In both analyses, the number of cases was set to equal the number of observations, and the number of bootstrapping resamples to estimate significance levels was set to 2000 (Hair et al., 2012). Individual sign changes were not allowed, this being the most conservative approach. Calculation of Cohen's d confirmed large effect sizes (with Cohen's d values above 1.6). 4.2. Measurement models Several tests of the measurement model were conducted to ensure that the data conformed to parameters for internal consistency, discriminant validity, and convergent validity following the procedures outlined by Fornell and Larcker (1981) and Hair et al. (2012). While some items presented cross-loading and/or poor loading problems for preservation and independent self-construal, items representing the “core” characteristics of those scales (e.g., “humans are severely abusing the environment” or “my personal identity independent of others, is very important to me”) were preserved within scales of acceptable levels of fit. More details of these analyses are available upon request from the corresponding author. The goodness-of-fit metric (GoF) of the model was calculated using the approach described in Tenenhaus, Vinzi, Chatelin, and Lauro (2005). GoF is the geometric mean of the average communality and the average R2 (R2 of Green Behavioral Intention in our model with a single endogenous variable). Attending to the categorizations of small (.10), medium (.25) and large (.36) offered by Schepers, Wetzels, and de Ruyter (2005), the overall fit of the model is identified as large (.51).

149

4.3. Preliminary evaluation of the core model (H1eH3) The core theoretical model (i.e., the adapted environmental theory of planned behavior) was evaluated using the first binational student sample described above (n ¼ 162). Bootstrapping was used to assess the significance of path parameters in the model. Overall, the model explained 53% of the variability for green BI. The three path coefficients in the model were found to be significant. The path between preservation attitude and green behavioral intention was .39 and highly significant (t ¼ 4.36, p < .0001), followed by a significant path coefficient of .30 between green PBC and green BI (t ¼ 3.83, p < .001), and significant path coefficient of .17 between green SN and green BI (t ¼ 2.28, p < .05). While attitudes towards the environment were most predictive of what environmental actions people intended, having a sense about one's competency to complete pro-environment actions was almost as important. How others, in particular those who matter to us, perceived the pro-environment behaviors also contributed to one's green behavioral intentions, yet this proved to be the weakest predictor, in agreement with previous findings reported in the literature (Armitage & Conner, 2001). Although this sample contained observations for two different world regions, self-construal (i.e., culture) was not evaluated as a possible variable. Cultural differences can have an impact on how attitudes towards the behavior are viewed, the importance an individual places on subjective norms, and one's perceived personal competency upon completion of the behavior. The following section expands the model to account for cultural factors and evaluates it with a second bi-national sample. 4.4. Evaluation of hypotheses All the path coefficients for the model are significant, confirming the 9 hypotheses and the presence of sufficient statistical power. Fig. 2 summarizes the results obtained for the second sample using the PLS-PM method. Both high levels of interdependent self-construal and high levels of independent self-construal are positively related to green SN (R2 ¼ .41, s.e. ¼ .053), preservation attitude (R2 ¼ .43, s.e. ¼ .065) and green PBC (R2 ¼ .40, s.e. ¼ .07). Evaluation of the antecedents of green behavioral intention confirms the significant and positive links between green SN, preservation attitude, green PBC and green BI (R2 ¼ .62, s.e. ¼ .045). Details of these results are presented in Table 1. 5. Discussion The role of self-identity on green intent is evident. Those individuals with high levels of interdependent self-construal and high levels of independent self-construal consistently exhibit higher levels of green behavioral intention. This occurs through the significant mediations of preservation attitude, green PBC and green SN. Two different mechanisms explaining the formation of behavioral intent are worth evaluating. First, the sample exhibits a prime explanatory path on the mediation of green subjective norms. Understandably, both high interdependent self-construal and high independent self-construal are associated with a stronger interest in others' expectations for appropriate environment behavior (green SN), yet interdependent self-construal has a greater impact on green SN. Those who include others in their sense of self are concerned about maintaining their social connectedness, attending to others' opinions and preferences. Those who characterize themselves through internal attributes will align themselves to others’ preferences, manifesting green subjective norms, to serve

150

R.M. Mancha, C.Y. Yoder / Journal of Environmental Psychology 43 (2015) 145e154

Fig. 2. Summary of the results.

their ego-focused emotions, validate self-defining qualities, or as a declaration of uniqueness, a means for social comparison and status signaling. Given that pro-environment behaviors can reflect both self-preservation and concern for others, this dual approach readily accommodates different reasoning. Second, preservation attitudes strongly mediate the relationship between independent self-construal and behavioral intention. This indicates that attitude change can have a powerful effect on intent to engage in environmentally sustainable behaviors. To a lesser extent, greater independence also predicted stronger green PBC, which also positively impacted green intent. Those who saw themselves as part of a group may have garnered a strong sense of control from their interdependent identity, which in turn empowered more environmentally friendly intention. A stronger sense of identity with others may have increased their sense of efficacy to affect positive environmental change. However, as Cross et al. (2011) point out, this influence is likely to be due to perceived support from valued others. Our data suggests that people's intended behaviors are strongly influenced by perceived social pressures. If people understand that those close to them expect them to behave in ecologically conscious ways, this is likely to result in significant change in intentions toward the environment. Strategies aimed at increasing awareness of green social norms could be employed to shape behavior in more

environmentally responsible ways. Providing examples of appropriate behavior by community leaders and especially valued peers can strongly facilitate improved environmental intentions. Social media could be used to encourage environmental sustainability demonstrated by respected locals. As Steg and Vlek (2009) opine, efforts need to systematically target relevant behaviors and their particular antecedents (e.g., self-view, information, modeling). Additionally, they suggest a number of related information and structural strategies that can be used to effectively change environmental behaviors. 5.1. Recommendations Our results provide useful information for further unpacking the complex relationship between beliefs and intentions, and offer some directions to create more ecologically minded thinking and behavior. First, data from our study corroborates the environmental theory of planned behavior prediction that when humans intend to engage in pro-environment behaviors, their preservation attitudes, their peers' actions and opinions, and their own perceived competency to engage in sustainable behavior matter. Second, the evaluation of the extended cultural-environmental theory of planned behavior confirms the role that self-identity plays in the formation of green intent.

Table 1 Results for the second bi-national sample (n ¼ 144). Hypothesis

Path coefficient

s.e.

t-Value

H1: Green SN increases Green Behavioral Intention H2: Preservation Attitude increases Green Behavioral Intention H3: Green PBC increases Green Behavioral Intention H4: Interdependent S-C on Green SN H5: Interdependent S-C on Preservation Attitude H6: Interdependent S-C on Green PBC H7: Independent S-C on Green SN H8: Independent S-C on Preservation Attitude H9: Independent S-C on Green PBC Behavioral Intentional R2

.310a .312a .312a .485 .310 .484 .292 .486 .290 .623

.094 .082 .079 .063 .073 .082 .065 .061 .074 .045

4.41 4.71 4.61 7.11 4.62 7.08 4.28 7.23 4.25

All the paths are significant at the .001 level of below. a Result for one-tailed test. All the other results are for two-tailed tests.

R.M. Mancha, C.Y. Yoder / Journal of Environmental Psychology 43 (2015) 145e154

Together, these relationships suggest that enacting environmental policies and procedures may be influenced by how individuals view themselves. Even though issues surrounding environmental degradation are complex, this data indicates personal self-representation may be a substantial element in trying to affect change. When trying to exact change in a fairly broad representation of young adults, the ETPB identifies several relevant dimensions and elements that explain behavioral intentions, implying a variety of avenues can be used to create more environmentally friendly attitudes, intentions, and ultimately, behaviors. Additionally, people with a stronger sense of identity, either to their personal achievement or their commitment to others, may become part of the vanguard that can create improved environmental awareness and action. Strategically manipulating subjective norms and identifying those with either a commitment to individual achievement, or to the groups to which they identify, are both reasonably straightforward methods which may usher in community grass roots environmental change. When individuals prioritize environmental protection, priming independent-type characteristics of self-construal could become part of the environmental policy. For some, underscoring personal responsibility may facilitate improved intent and behavior. A second avenue to heighten environmentally appropriate intention would be to increase at least the perception of control to affect environmental change using social media. Partitioning or monitoring resource or environmental use could provide markers for comparison and heighten the perception of individual control. Of course, providing stronger opportunities, incentives and acknowledgements for people to control individual and community ecological behavior are likely to be even more effective. This study has implications for policy creation and practice. While governments and policy makers may effectively use social pro-environment activities to increase environmentally protective beliefs and attitudes, the selected approach should carefully consider the cultural makeup of those who are expected to change their behaviors. Campaigns for promoting green behaviors that prime the independent self, should particularly aim to bolster preservation attitude. Additionally, campaigns that focus on interdependence should work to specifically enhance green subjective norms and perceived behavioral control. Once these selfevaluations have been achieved, calling attention to dissonances between the enhanced attitudes and beliefs should result in the adoption of greener intentions and behavior. 5.2. Limitations First, our study is limited by the use of non-experimental, largely bi-national data. Although a controlled experiment would be ideal to evaluate the varying effect of green attitudes, social norms and perceived behavioral control on behavioral intention, these relationships have already been widely studied and confirmed in the literature (Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975; Ajzen, 1991; Conner & Armitage, 1998; Ajzen & Fishbein, 2005; SanchezMedina et al., 2014). The second sample includes 16 subjects from countries other than the United States and India, which increase measurement error. The role of self-identity and the effects that the levels of interdependent and dependent self-construal have on attitudes, social norms and perceived behavioral controls should be further evaluated looking beyond the temporal stability of self-identity to confirm causality in these relationships. In the end, we have found strong correlations between the constructs which support the causal structure evaluated, and highlight the salience of selfidentity.

151

While our data did successfully predict behavioral intentions, Gifford (2011) discusses a number of barriers that exist to converting attitudes into action. Among others, these include information uncertainty and insufficient behavioral control; both of these obstacles carry substantial weight with regards to environmental issues. Attitudes have their greatest impact on behavior under favorable conditions (Ajzen & Fishbein, 2005), when personal assessments toward the intent or behavior are positive. Under demanding situations where people recognize conflicting goals and behaviors regarding the environment, the link between attitudes and behaviors will likely weaken. As things stand, environmental conditions will force change. However, before harsh environmental realities require behavioral adjustments, research should observe and monitor change in actual green behaviors, since that is ultimately where progress must occur. Assessing a range of ecological behaviors in globally representative locations while highlighting issues tied to self-representation might speed this process. Although self-construal is an established individual-level measure which assesses individual approach to conceptualizing information and decision-making, it does not capture environmental values or many of the salient individual or cultural differences between people. Self-construal, in particular, has been presented as problematic, as it may represent different things to different people; additionally, regardless of culture independent self-construal has been found to be high for many (Park & Levine, 1999). Including or developing additional measures of self that more directly assess environmental values might further elucidate this relationship. 5.3. Future research Expansion of the theoretical model could incorporate richer operationalizations of self-identity. Delving further into selfevaluations, concerning knowledge, responsibility, and competence to affect change, might identify other predictive influences (Sonenshein, DeCelles, & Dutton, 2014). An alternative theoretical formulation such as the Value-Belief-Norm Theory supporting social movements (e.g., environmentalism; Stern, Dietz, Abel, Guagnano, & Kalof, 1999) may improve our theoretical model by introducing personal values and providing a fuller account for antecedents of pro-environment behavior. Given the scope and gravity of environmental threat, marshaling all available resources is critical to dealing with this serious problem. Understanding and then strategically managing identified psychologically oriented factors to enhance environmental stewardship and create broader public change in environmental behavior will be an important part of any effective solution. Part of this implementation will require identifying environmentally significant behaviors that directly contribute to better environmental outcomes. Our use of a bi-national samples, which adds to confidence in the generalizability of these results, could be extended by separately collecting a broader distribution of international participants and decision makers, including behavioral measures and directly contrasting the results. 6. Conclusion Today we are experiencing the impact of climate change and the progressive degradation of the environment. The severity of climate change events is expected to increase considerably over the next few decades. To respond to this threat, governments must dynamically adjust to these evolving conditions, and policy must rapidly incorporate new practices to manage increasing

152

R.M. Mancha, C.Y. Yoder / Journal of Environmental Psychology 43 (2015) 145e154

uncertainty concerning disruptions in food production and supply and response to environmental risks. Communities that thoroughly adopt green philosophies and practices will not only mitigate their contributions to escalating environmental problems, but increase their resilience to the looming challenges of climate change. Similarly, governments that design appropriate policies will observe higher levels of social welfare and enjoy stronger support from citizens, community groups, and organizational entities. One of the challenges for individuals and the groups to which they belong is to change their behaviors to reduce, if not reverse, their impact on the environment. To better understand the factors leading to the formation of green behavioral intent, we evaluated and validated an environmental theory of planned behavior, adapted from Ajzen's theory of planned behavior (Ajzen, 1991). In a second sample, we evaluated the role of self-identity (i.e., culture, as independent self-construal and interdependent self-construal) on green intent. There are few identified differences in pro-environment intent between humans living in different geographic areas. Milfont (2012) summarizes this literature, concluding cultural affluence and perhaps certain value orientations (e.g., post-materialism) are important. Our results suggest that different mechanisms would be effective at achieving green behavioral intentions. Our data demonstrates that optimally informed green policy would incorporate self-identity factors geared toward the target audience.

Green Subjective Norms (SN) Responses on a 7-point Likert scale, ranging from 1: strongly disagree to 7: strongly agree. 1. Most people who are important to me think I should protect the environment. 2. Most people who are important to me want me to be environmentally friendly. 3. Most people whose opinion I value think that it is important to reduce waste. 4. Most people who I respect and admire engage in environmentally friendly behaviors. 5. Most people who are important to me protect the environment. 6. It is expected of me to be environmentally friendly. 7. I feel under social pressure to preserve the environment. 8. Most people who I admire engage in the protection of the environment.

Green Perceived Behavioral Control (PBC) Responses on a 4-point Likert scale, ranging from 1: not at all true to 4: exactly true. 1. 2. 3. 4.

Appendix A

5. 6.

Green Attitude e Preservation (Milfont & Duckitt, 2006) Responses on a 7-point Likert scale, ranging from 1: strongly disagree to 7: strongly agree. 1. I really like going on trips to the countryside, for example to forests or fields. (P) 2. Governments should control the rate at which raw materials are used to ensure that they last as long as possible. (P) 3. I would like to join and actively participate in an environmentalist group. (P) 4. Families should be encouraged to limit themselves to two children or less. (P) 5. I would NOT get involved in an environmentalist organization. (R) (P) 6. A married couple should have as many children as they wish, as long as they can adequately provide for them. (R) (P) 7. Humans are severely abusing the environment. (P) 8. Protecting the environment is more important than protecting peoples' jobs. (R) 9. It makes me sad to see forests cleared for agriculture. (P) 10. I am NOT the kind of person who makes efforts to conserve natural resources. (R) (P) 11. It does NOT make me sad to see natural environments destroyed. (R) (P) 12. I do not believe that the environment has been severely abused by humans. (R) (P) 13. Whenever possible, I try to save natural resources. (P) 14. I think spending time in nature is boring. (R) (P) 15. I am opposed to governments controlling and regulating the way raw materials are used in order to try and make them last longer. (R) (P) (P) Preservation item

7. 8. 9. 10.

I find it easy to be friendly with the environment. I find it difficult to preserve resources and recycle. (R) I am confident that I can protect the environment. I can control my involvement in environmental preservation initiatives. I am fully capable of protecting the environment. Thanks to my resourcefulness, I always find a way to be friendly with the environment. I am in full control of my actions to protect the environment. I am good at leading a green lifestyle. It is not easy for me to stick to my sustainability goals and preserve the environment. (R) Being friendly with the environment is out of my hands. (R)

Green Behavioral Intention Responses on a 7-point Likert scale, ranging from 1: extremely unlikely to 7: extremely likely. 1. I will try to reduce my carbon footprint in the forthcoming month. 2. I intend to engage in environmentally friendly behavior in the forthcoming month. 3. I plan to stop wasting natural resources in the forthcoming month. (R) Reverse coded items. References Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 179e211. Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (2005). The influence of attitudes on behavior. In D. Albarracín, B. T. Johnson, & M. P. Zanna (Eds.), The handbook of attitudes (pp. 173e221). Armitage, C. J., & Conner, M. (2001). Efficacy of the theory of planned behaviour: a meta-analytic review. British Journal of Social Psychology, 40, 471e499. Arnocky, S., Stroink, M., & deCicco, T. (2007). Self-construal predicts environmental concern, cooperation, and conservation. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 27(4), 255e264. Barclay, D. W., Higgins, C. A., & Thompson, R. (1995). The partial least squares approach to causal modeling: personal computer adoption and use as illustration. Technology Studies, 2(2), 285e309.

R.M. Mancha, C.Y. Yoder / Journal of Environmental Psychology 43 (2015) 145e154 Chan, K. (1998). Mass communication and pro-environmental behavior: waste recycling in Hong Kong. Journal of Environmental Management, 52(4), 317e325. Chao, Y. (2012). Predicting people's environmental behaviour: theory of planned behavior and model of responsible environmental behavior. Environmental Education Research, 18(4), 437e461. Charng, H.-W., Piliavin, J. A., & Callero, P. L. (1988). Role identity and reasoned action in the prediction of repeated behavior. Social Psychology Quarterly, 51, 303e317. Chin, W. (1998). The partial least squares approach to structural equation modeling. Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Conner, M., & Armitage, C. J. (1998). Extending the theory of planned behavior: a review and avenues for further research. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 28, 1429e1464. Cordano, M., & Frieze, I. (2000). Pollution reduction preferences of U.S. environmental managers: applying Ajzen's theory of planned behavior. Academy of Management Journal, 43(4), 627e641. Cross, S., Hardin, E., & Gercek-Swing, B. (2011). The what, how, why, and where of self-construal. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 15(2), 142e179. De Groot, J., & Steg, L. (2007). General beliefs and the theory of planned behavior: the role of environmental concerns in the TPB. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 37(8), 1817e1836. Fielding, K., McDonald, R., & Louis, W. (2008). Theory of planned behavior, identity and intentions to engage in environmental activism. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 28, 318e326. Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention, and behavior: An introduction to theory and research. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39e50. Gifford, R. (2011). The dragons of inaction: psychological barriers that limit climate change mitigation and adaptation. American Psychologist, 66, 290e302. Gifford, R., & Sussman, R. (2014). Environmental attitudes. In S. D. Clayton (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of environmental and conservation psychology (pp. 65e80). New York: Oxford University Press. Greaves, M., Zibarras, L. D., & Stride, C. (2013). Using the theory of planned behavior to explore environmental behavioral intentions in the workplace. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 34, 109e120. Hagger, M. S., & Chatzisarantis, N. (2006). Self-identity and the theory of planned behaviour: between- and within-participants analyses. British Journal of Social Psychology, 45, 731e757. Hair, J. F., Sarstedt, M., Ringle, C. M., & Mena, J. A. (2012). An assessment of the use of partial least squares structural equation modeling in marketing research. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 40(3), 414e433. Heath, Y., & Gifford, R. (2002). Extending the theory of planned behavior: predicting the use of public transportation. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 32(10), 2154e2189. Hyde, M. K., & White, K. M. (2013). Testing an extended theory of planned behavior to predict young people's intention to join a bone marrow donor registry. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 43, 2462e2467. Ignatow, G. (2006). Cultural models of nature and society reconsidering environmental attitudes and concern. Environment and Behavior, 38(4), 441e461. IPCC.. (2007). Climate change 2007: Synthesis report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II, and III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Geneva, Switzerland: IPCC. IPCC.. (2014). Summary for policymakers. In O. Edenhofer, R. Pichs-Madruga, Y. Sokona, E. Farahani, S. Kadner, K. Seyboth, et al. (Eds.), Climate change 2014, Mitigation of climate change. Contribution of working group III to the Fifth assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA: Cambridge University Press. Available at: https://www.ipcc.report.mitigation2014.org/spm/ipcc_wg3_ar5_summary_ for_policymakers_approved.pdf. Kaiser, F. G., Hübner, G., & Bogner, F. X. (2005). Contrasting the theory of planned behavior with the value-belief-norm model in explaining conservation behavior. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 35, 2150e2170. Kaiser, F., Wolfing, S., & Fuhrer, U. (1999). Environmental attitude and ecological behaviour. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 19, 1e19. Knowles, S., Hyde, M., & White, K. (2012). Predictors of young people's charitable intentions to donate money: an extended theory of planned behavior perspective. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 42(9), 2096e2110. Kühnen, U., & Oyserman, D. (2002). Thinking about the self influences thinking in general: cognitive consequences of salient self-concept. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 38, 492e499. Mannetti, L., Pierro, A., & Livi, S. (2004). Recycling: planned and self-expressive behavior. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 24(2), 227e236. Markus, H. (1977). Self-schemata and processing information about the self. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35(2), 63e78. Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the self: implications for cognition, emotion, and motivation. Psychological Review, 98, 224e253. Mason, W., & Suri, S. (2012). Conducting behavioral research on Amazon's mechanical turk. Behavioral Research Methods, 44(1), 1e23. McCarty, J., & Shrum, L. (2001). The influence of individualism, collectivism, and locus of control on environmental beliefs and behavior. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 20(1), 93e104. McMichael, A. J., Woodruff, R. E., & Hales, S. (2006). Climate change and human health: present and future risks. Lancet, 367, 859e869. Milfont, T. (2012). Cultural differences in environmental engagement. In S. Clayton

153

(Ed.), The Oxford handbook of environmental psychology (pp. 181e200). New York: Oxford University Press. Milfont, T. L., & Duckitt, J. (2010). The environmental attitudes inventory: a valid and reliable measure to assess the structure of environmental attitudes. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 30(1), 80e94. Milfont, T. L., Duckitt, J., & Cameron, L. D. (2006). A cross-cultural study of environmental motive concerns and their implications for proenvironmental behaviour. Environment and Behavior, 38, 745e767. Milfont, T., Sibley, C., & Duckitt, J. (2010). Testing the moderating role of the components of norm activation on the relationship between values and environmental behavior. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 41, 124e131. Niaura, A. (2013). Using the theory of planned behavior to investigate the determinants of environmental behavior among youth. Environmental Research, Engineering and Management, 63(1), 74e81. Nigbur, D., Lyons, E., & Uzzell, D. (2010). Attitudes, norms, identity and environmental behavior: using an expanded theory of planned behavior to predict participation in a kerbside recycling programme. British Journal of Social Psychology, 489(2), 259e284. Oreg, S., & Katz-Gerro, T. (2006). Predicting proenvironmental behavior crossnationally: values, the theory of planned behavior, and value-belief-norm theory. Environment and Behavior, 38(4), 462e483. Oskamp, S. (2000). A sustainable future for humanity? How can psychology help? American Psychologist, 55(5), 496e508. Oskamp, S. (2010). Applying social psychology to avoid ecological disaster. Journal of Social Issues, 51(4), 217e239. Paolacci, G., Chandler, J., & Ipeirotis, P. G. (2010). Running experiments on Amazon Mechanical Turk. Judgment and Decision Making, 5, 411e419. Park, H., & Levine, T. (1999). The theory of reasoned action and self-construal: evidence from three cultures. Communication Monographs, 66(3), 199e218. Pew Research Center. (2007). Rising environmental concern in 47-nation survey: Global uneasiness with major world powers. Retrieved from: http://www. pewglobal.org/files/pdf/2007. Pew Research Center. (2013). Environmental concerns on the Rise in China. Retrieved from: http://www.pewglobal.org/2013/09/19/environmental-concerns-on-therise-in-china/. February 9, 2014. Ringle, C., Wende, S., & Will, S. (2005). Smartpls 2.0 (beta). Hamburg: Germany. http://www.smartpls.de. Rivis, A., & Sheeran, P. (2003). Descriptive norms as an additional predictor in the theory of planned behavior: a meta-analysis. Current Psychology: Developmental, Learning, Personality, Social, 22, 218e233. Sanchez-Medina, A., Romero-Quintero, L., & Sosa-Cabrera, S. (2014). Environmental management in small and medium-sized companies: an analysis from the perspective of the theory of planned behavior. PLOS One, 9(2), 1e12. Sanchez, G., Trinchera, L., & Russolillo, G. (2013). Package PLSPM: Tools for partial least squares path modeling. R package version 0.4-1. Retrieved from: http:// CRAN.R-project.org/package¼plspm. Santamaria, A., de la Mata, M., Hansen, T., & Ruiz, L. (2010). Cultural self-construals of Mexican, Spanish and Danish college students: beyond independent and interdependent self. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 41(3), 471e477. Schepers, J., Wetzels, M., & de Ruyter, K. (2005). Leadership styles in technology acceptance: do followers practice what leaders preach? Managing Service Quality, 15(6), 496e508. Schultz, P. W., Nolan, J., Cialdini, R., Foldstein, N., & Griskevicius, V. (2007). The constructive, destructive, and reconstructive power of social norms. Psychological Science, 18(5), 429e434. Singelis, T. M. (1994). The measurement of independent and interdependent selfconstruals. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 20(5), 580e591. Sinha, D., & Tripathi, R. C. (1994). Individualism in a collectivist culture: a case of coexistence of opposites. In U. Kim, H. C. Triandis, Ç. Kagitçibasi, S.-C. Choi, & G. Yoon (Eds.), Individualism and collectivism: Theory, method, and applications (pp. 123e136). Thousand Oaks, CA US: Sage Publications, Inc. Smith, K. (2013). Environmental hazards. Assessing risk and reducing disaster (6th ed.). New York: Routledge. Sniehottaa, F., Presseaua, J., & Araújo-Soares, V. (2014). Time to retire the theory of planned behavior. Health Psychology Review, 8(1), 1e7. Sonenshein, S., DeCelles, K., & Dutton, J. (2014). It's not easy being green: the role of self-evaluations in explaining support of environmental issues. Academy of Management Journal, 57, 7e37. Sparks, P., & Guthrie, C. A. (1998). Self-identity and the theory of planned behaviour: a useful addition or an unhelpful artifice. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 27, 1393e1410. Steg, L., & Vlek, C. (2009). Encouraging pro-environmental behavior: an integrative review and research agenda. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 29, 309e317. Stern, P. C., Dietz, T., Abel, T., Guagnano, G. A., & Kalof, L. (1999). A value-belief-norm theory of support for social movements: the case of environmentalism. Human Ecology Review, 6(2), 81e98. Stryker, S. (1968). Identity salience and role performance: the relevance of symbolic interaction theory for family research. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 30, 558e564. Stryker, S., & Burke, P. J. (2000). The past, present, and future of an identity theory. Social Psychology Quarterly, 63(4), 284e297. Swim, J., Markowitz, E., & Bloodhart, B. (2012). Psychology and climate change: beliefs, impacts, and human contributions. In S. Clayton (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of environmental and conservation psychology (pp. 645e669). New York: Oxford University Press.

154

R.M. Mancha, C.Y. Yoder / Journal of Environmental Psychology 43 (2015) 145e154

Tenenhaus, M., Vinzi, V. E., Chatelin, Y. M., & Lauro, C. (2005). PLS path modeling. Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, 48(1), 159e205. Terry, D. J., Hogg, M. A., & White, K. M. (1999). The theory of planned behavior: selfidentity, social identity and group norms. British Journal of Social Psychology, 38(3), 225e244. Thogersen, J. (1996). Recycling and morality. A critical review of the literature. Environment and Behavior, 28, 536e558. Triandis, H., & Suh, E. (2002). Cultural influences on personality. Annual Review of Psychology, 53(1), 133e160.

Van Hooft, E. A. J., Born, M., Taris, T., & Van Der Flier, H. (2006). The cross-cultural generalizability of the theory of planned behavior: a study on job seeking in the Netherlands. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 37, 127e136. Whitmarsh, L., & O'Neill, S. (2010). Green identity, green living? The role of proenvironmental self-identity in determining consistency across diverse proenvironmental behaviours. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 30(3), 305e314. Zelezny, I. C., Chua, P., & Aldrich, C. (2000). Elaborating on gender differences in environmentalism. Journal of Social Issues, 56, 443e457.