Like father, like son? Intergenerational transmission of values, attitudes, and behaviours in the environmental domain

Journal of Environmental Psychology 29 (2009) 414–421

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

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

Like father, like son? Intergenerational transmission of values, attitudes, and behaviours in the environmental domain Alice Grønhøj*, John Thøgersen Department of Marketing and Statistics, Aarhus School of Business, Aarhus University, Haslegaardsvej 10, DK-8210, Aarhus V, Denmark

a r t i c l e i n f o

a b s t r a c t

Article history: Available online 18 May 2009

How is young people’s pro-environmental orientation related to their parents’ pro-environmental values, attitudes, and behaviours? To answer this question, we examine parent–child similarities of general values as well as specific attitudes and behaviours related to three common household practices: purchasing environmentally friendly products, curtailing electricity use, and handling waste responsibly in a sample of 601 Danish families. Significant and positive, but weak correlations between parents’ and children’s values are found across all of Schwartz’s ten value domains. The parent–child correlations are stronger for specific pro-environmental attitudes and behaviours. The positive correlations suggest that family socialization exert a significant influence on young consumers’ pro-environmental orientation. Still, the young generation is, on average, significantly less environmentally concerned than their parents’ generation. Implications of these findings are discussed. Ó 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Intergenerational transmission Consumer socialization Environment Adolescents

1. Introduction Are young people more or less pro-environmental in their everyday practices than their parents? There is evidence suggesting that young people hold more positive attitudes towards environmental issues than older generations do, but are less inclined to follow up with behaviour. According to recent Eurobarometer surveys, although more concerned than adults about climate change (Special Eurobarometer 300, 2008), young Europeans engage in a considerably smaller number of pro-environmental actions than older European citizens do (Special Eurobarometer 295, 2008). In a different cultural context (US), Johnson, Bowker, and Cordell (2004) found the same: older people were significantly more inclined to engage in pro-environmental household behaviours than young people, although young people scored higher on environmental attitudes, measured by the New Ecological Paradigm. In general, studies most often find a negative relationship between age and environmental attitudes, whereas it is more common to find a positive relationship between age and proenvironmental behaviour (Diamantopoulos, Schlegelmilch, Sinkovics, & Bohlen, 2003). Hence, the relationship between age, environmental concern and pro-environmental behaviour is complex. Therefore, there is a need for research that not only

* Corresponding author. Tel.: þ45 8948 6471. E-mail address: [email protected] (A. Grønhøj). 0272-4944/$ – see front matter Ó 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.jenvp.2009.05.002

describes the environmental commitment of different generations, but that also suggests testable explanations for the observed relationships – and tests them. This study is a response to this need. Our point of departure is in a tradition in environmental psychology that analyses environmentally responsible behaviour within a holistic theoretical framework, considering the person’s motivation as well as abilities and opportunities for action (e.g., ¨ lander Gatersleben & Vlek, 1998; Guagnano, Stern, & Dietz, 1995; O & Thøgersen, 1995). Hence, although our main interest concerns pro-environmental motivation, we also consider possible differences and similarities between generations with regard to abilities and opportunities for action. The close social interaction within families and, in particular, parents’ role as primary socialization agents for their children are bound to lead to some level of synchronization of environmental values, concerns and behaviours between generations. Hence, a socialization perspective should form the ‘backbone’ of any attempt to interpret similarities and differences in pro-environmental motivation between young people and their parents. We elaborate on this perspective in the next section. 2. Socialization and the IG transfer of values, attitudes, and behaviours When studying variations in pro-environmental commitment between generations, a natural starting point is the socialization processes of children. Socialization processes within families can account for continuity and consistency between generations,

A. Grønhøj, J. Thøgersen / Journal of Environmental Psychology 29 (2009) 414–421

whereas the influence of external socialization agents (e.g., media, peers) may account for discontinuities and inconsistencies. Differences may also be explained by age-related factors, such as different resources (i.e., abilities) and roles (opportunities). ‘Socialization’ refers to the processes by which young people are taught the necessary skills, values, and behavioural patterns to become well-functioning members of their social group(s) and the culture in which they live (e.g., Brim, 1966; Maccoby, 2007). Socialization research is mostly concerned with children’s learning processes and outcomes, although socialization is a life-long process without a predetermined end-point (Brim, 1966; Maccoby, 2007; Moschis, 1987). Socialization usually implies that children learn ‘good habits’ (Maccoby, 2007), that is, standards of behaviour set by socialization agents. For any socialization attempt to have lasting effect, it is necessary that the child internalises its content (values, attitudes, norms, behaviour). However, parents cannot always expect their values and standards to be adopted without contest, and parental socialization attempts may sometimes be ignored or met with rejection or outright opposition (Kuczynski & Parkin, 2007). This is common, for instance, during the process of late adolescents’ quest for independence. Many socialization agents exert an influence through childhood and the years of adolescence. However, parents are generally considered the primary socialization agents and have the largest impact on youngsters’ socialization outcomes (e.g., John, 1999; Maccoby, 2007; Whitbeck & Gecas, 1988). On the other hand, the transmission of values and standards from parents to their children is not mechanical. To some extent, each generation constructs its own standards of acceptable behaviour (Grusec & Davidov, 2007). In addition, socialization processes are not unidirectional, but bidirectional interactive processes (Ekstro¨m, 1995; Kuczynski & Parkin, 2007). Children often attempt to influence their parents to obtain valued goals and this may sometimes lead to a ‘reverse’ socialization process (Foxman, Tansuhaj, & Ekstro¨m, 1989). When socialization results in parent–child similarity in values, attitudes, and/or behaviours, intergenerational (IG) transfer is said to occur (Heckler, Childers, & Arunachalam, 1989; Moore, Wilkie, & Lutz, 2002). IG similarities are particularly found for conspicuous and high-involvement areas such as religious orientation (e.g., Hoge, Petrillo, & Smith, 1982), whereas low correlations between youngsters’ and parents’ values have generally been reported for areas that are abstract and less visible in everyday practice (e.g., Whitbeck & Gecas, 1988). Socialization research suggests that IG influence is broad in scope and that it extends to consumption values and attitudes. In this study, we examine the degree of parent–child similarity of environmental values and of specific environmental attitudes and behaviours. We assume that parent–child similarity is the result of IG transfer of values, attitudes, and behaviour patterns in families; primarily caused by the ongoing and accumulated parental influence on their children, but also by reverse influences from children to parents and by bidirectional, social interaction processes between parents and children (e.g., Kuczynski & Parkin, 2007; Maccoby, 2007). There is strong empirical evidence linking pro-environmental behaviour to consumers’ value priorities (e.g., Stern & Dietz, 1994; ¨ lander, 2002, 2006; Verplanken & Holland, 2002). Thøgersen & O Many of these studies are based on the comprehensive and crossculturally validated instruments for measuring values developed by Shalom Schwartz et al. (e.g., Schwartz, 1992, 1994, 2005; Schwartz et al., 2001). Theoretically, it is expected that environmentally responsible behaviour is related to the motivational value domain that Schwartz calls ‘Universalism’ and which includes environmental values. This has been confirmed by a large number of empirical studies (e.g., Karp, 1996; Stern, Dietz,

415

¨ lander, 2002, 2006). Kalof, & Guagnano, 1995; Thøgersen & O Extant research contains an even larger number of studies relating individuals’ propensity to engage in pro-environmental behaviours to their specific attitudes towards these behaviours (see the meta-analysis by Bamberg & Mo¨ser, 2007). Because the relationships between environmental values, attitudes towards pro-environmental behaviours and these behaviours are already well documented, they are not the focus of this article. Instead, we focus on the degree of IG transfer of pro-environmental behaviour and some of its most well-documented psychological antecedents.

2.1. Hypotheses It is generally assumed that our basic values are acquired through childhood socialization (e.g., Schwartz, 1994). Specifically, based on socialization theory and research we expect that parents (implicitly or explicitly) attempt to transfer their values to their children which leads to a positive correlation between children’s and their parents’ value priorities, including environmental values. Still, differences in value priorities between age groups can evolve due to, for example, the different experiences from growing up in different historical contexts and the different constraints and challenges of different life stages (e.g., Gundelach, 2002; Gundelach & Riis, 1992). However, it is not altogether clear whether and in which direction we should expect a difference in the priority given to environmental values between the current generation of adolescents and their parents. Environmental issues have had a remarkable ‘staying power’ on the public agenda for four decades now (Dunlap, 2002, p. 14), which means that the historical context has been relatively stable in terms of the salience of environmental values. In this context, it actually seems most likely that adolescents will hold weaker, rather than stronger, environmental values than their parents. First, if environmental values are primarily transferred from parents to their children, it is difficult to see how adolescents should acquire stronger environmental values than their parents. Second, adolescents’ environmental value socialization may fail or the intended socialization outcomes may be suppressed by the constraints and challenges of adolescence and youth. Hence, we hypothesize the following about the value priorities of adolescents and their parents: H1(a). Adolescents’ and their parents’ environmental value priorities are positively correlated. H1(b). Adolescents give lower priority to environmental values than their parents. Not only values, but also specific behaviours and attitudes towards behaving in a specific way are learned in the family, through observational learning and direct influence. Hence, as with values, we expect positive parent–child correlations with regard to attitudes towards and the performance of common everyday proenvironmental behaviours in the domestic domain, such as sourceseparating household waste, making an effort to save electricity, and buying organic and environmentally friendly products. When it comes to performing these behaviours, socialization theory and research suggest that parents typically lead the way. This is also consistent with the way that skills, knowledge and other relevant resources for performing everyday pro-environmental behaviours are related to age. Parents’ greater experience and superior understanding of the reasons for performing pro-environmental behaviours also make it likely that they, in general, hold more positive attitudes towards performing them than their adolescent children do. Hence, we hypothesize the following:

416

A. Grønhøj, J. Thøgersen / Journal of Environmental Psychology 29 (2009) 414–421

H2(a). Adolescents’ and their parents’ attitudes towards engaging in everyday pro-environmental activities, such as source-separating household waste, making an effort to save electricity, and buying organic and environment-friendly products, are positively correlated. H2(b). Adolescents’ attitudes towards engaging in the everyday pro-environmental activities mentioned before are less positive than their parents’ attitudes towards the same activities. H3(a). Adolescents’ and their parents’ performance of the everyday pro-environmental behaviours mentioned before are positively correlated. H3(b). Adolescents engage in the everyday pro-environmental behaviours mentioned before to a lower extent than their parents do. 3. Method 3.1. Participants Two representatives from each family, one parent and one adolescent, completed Internet based questionnaires in a nationwide survey of a total of 601 Danish families in the spring of 2006. A professional market research institute, TNS Gallup, carried out the study among members of its Internet panel. This panel is representative of the part of the Danish population, who has Internet access at home, which is 75% of the population above the age of 15 (GallupForum, 2008). Members of the panel who had a child between the age of 16 and 18 were asked to participate and to recruit a son/daughter, who was living at home, for participation as well. The respondents were not paid, but participated in a lottery arranged by the research company. Parental influence registered at this age is the accumulated effect of all explicit and implicit socialization attempts during childhood. At the same time, parental influence has started to wane, whereas other influences, including the young persons’ own independently chosen life experiences, gradually substitute parents’ socialization attempts (Arnett, 2007). According to developmental theories, adolescents of this age have reached a mature level of social and psychological functioning (e.g., John, 1999). This also has the more practical advantage that they are able to complete the same questionnaires as their parents, which means that parent and child responses are readily comparable. Besides still living at home, an additional requirement was for the young participants to be living with both parents (as did 86.5%) or with a parent and a step-parent (13.5%). The age of parents ranged from 31 to 68 with an average age of 47 years. The parent group was composed of 59% mothers with an average age of 46 years, and 41% fathers with an average age of 49 years. The adolescent group had 51% girls and 49% boys participating with the average age of 17 years. The sample consisted of 132 (22%) fatherson dyads, 111 (19%) father-daughter dyads, 161 (26%) mother-son dyads, and 197 (32%) mother-daughter dyads. The response rate was 28%, which reflects the difficulty of recruiting two persons from the same household for an interview. Since families and not individuals were recruited for the present purpose, the selected sample cannot be said to be representative of the Danish population. However, the sample contains a sufficiently broad and varied selection of ordinary people for the present purpose. 3.2. Procedures To measure parents’ and adolescents’ values, we used a reduced version of Schwartz’s Portrait Value Questionnaire (PVQ). The PVQ

instrument was specifically developed to permit studying populations for whom the value items in the original Schwartz Value Survey may appear too abstract (Schwartz, 2005). Therefore, this instrument is particularly useful when interviewing adolescents. Although we focus specifically on environmental values, we included 22 items covering Schwartz’s ten motivational value domains. This allows us to obtain a broader picture of the IG transfer of values and thereby to better assess the transfer of environmental values. Most value domains were covered by 2–3 items. Some examples of the wording of the items are given in the following. Universalism value items were divided into two groups because a factor analysis revealed that one of the three items loaded on a different factor than the other two items. As suggested by Stern et al. (Stern, Dietz, & Kalof, 1993; Stern et al., 1995), it seems that the three items reflect two different value orientations: a ‘social-altruistic’ and a ‘biospheric’ value orientation (see also de Groot & Steg, 2007). The biospheric value orientation is equivalent to what we call ‘environmental values.’ The wording of the two environmental items (named Universalism 1 (environmental) in Table 1) was: ‘‘He strongly believes that people should care for nature. Looking after the environment is important to him,’’ and ‘‘It is important to him to adapt to nature and to fit into it. He believes that people should not change nature.’’ The wording of the socialaltruistic item (named Universalism 2 (social-altruistic) in Table 1) was: ‘‘It is important to him to listen to people who are different from him. Even when he disagrees with them, he still wants to understand them.’’ Similarly, responses to the two Tradition items differed too much to make it meaningful to combine them into a single construct. Hence, they were kept as two separate constructs. The wording of the first Tradition item (named Tradition 1 (religious) in Table 1) was: ‘‘Religious belief is important to him. He tries hard to do what his religion requires.’’ The second item (named Tradition 2 (respect older) in Table 1) was: ‘‘He believes he should always show respect to his parents and to older people. It is important to him to be obedient.’’ As a final example, Security was represented by only one item in the questionnaire: ‘‘He tries hard to avoid getting sick. Staying healthy is very important to him.’’ All items were adapted in their wording to fit the gender of the respondent by describing the persons portrayed as either males or females. With reference to the value portraits, the respondents were asked: ‘‘How much like you is this person,’’ and they were requested to respond on a 6-point scale: 1 ¼ ’’very much like me’’ to 6 ¼ ’’not like me at all.’’ Cronbach’s alphas for the multi-item value types are reported in Table 1. When choosing which behaviours to measure, we wanted to include environmentally relevant every day household consumption activities in which both parents and children had the opportunity and ability to be regularly involved. The behaviours also needed to be unequivocally important from the perspective of environmental impact (OECD, 2002; Stern, 2000). Finally, we wanted to include behaviours which differ with respect to the specific motivation, opportunity, and ability required to engage in them. This is to avoid the fallacy of generating observations that are only valid under the special circumstances characterizing a specific behaviour (McKenzie-Mohr, Nemiroff, Beers, & Desmarais, 1995). Based on these criteria, we chose buying organic and environmentally friendly products, source-separating household waste, and making an effort to save electricity. Qualitative studies conducted prior to the survey showed that these behaviours were perceived by the younger age group as relevant ‘green behaviours’ (Grønhøj, 2007). Further, at least the two last behaviours are not very demanding and clearly within the range of what can be expected from adolescents of the studied age. With regard to the first behaviour, adolescents have less personal control, however. Adolescents shop less than their parents. Also, when they do shop

A. Grønhøj, J. Thøgersen / Journal of Environmental Psychology 29 (2009) 414–421

417

Table 1 Value similarity: parents – adolescents (n ¼ 1202). Value

Means parents/ adolescents

Standard deviations parents/adolescents

Conformity

4.68 4.64 2.19 2.02 3.62 3.47 4.87 5.04 4.24 3.69 4.54 4.35 4.67 4.97 3.21 3.99 4.11 4.92 3.61 4.35 3.54 3.93 4.14 4.08

0.88 0.97 1.29 1.15 1.23 1.34 0.80 0.81 0.99 1.24 1.04 1.11 0.96 0.89 1.07 1.17 0.91 0.87 1.14 1.15 1.05 1.24 1.20 1.33

Tradition 1 (religious) Tradition 2 (respect older) Benevolence Universalism 1 (environmental) Universalism 2 (social-altruistic) Self-direction Stimulation Hedonism Achievement Power Security

Partial h2

r

Cronbach’s alpha parents/adolescents

0.50

.00

.18

9.98**

.02

.42

.49 .52 –

4.19*

.01

.17

–

16.97***

.03

.25

88.06***

.13

.18

11.05**

.02

.12

.79 .80 .77 .81 –

40.13***

.06

.20

179.01***

.23

.19

337.52***

.36

.26

159.97***

.21

.22

48.85***

.08

.29

.00

.17

F (univ.)

0.76

.72 .67 .74 .78 .74 .74 .77 .73 .49 .54 –

Note: 6-point scale where a higher number means a stronger endorsement of the value. Multivariate test of parent–child differences: F(12,589) ¼ 50.11, p < 0.001, Partial h2 ¼ .51. Univariate tests: *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001. All correlations are significant p < .05.

they have often been requested to buy specific items, and they generally do not pay the bill. These structural characteristics imply that we should expect a smaller difference between adolescents and their parents for the purchasing activity than for the other two activities. The three chosen behaviours were measured by the following items: Item 1: ‘‘When you shop for the family, how often are the goods that you buy organic or environmentally friendly?,’’ item 2: ‘‘How often do you make an effort to save electricity at home?’’ and item 3: ‘‘How often do you sort your waste according to the rules?’’ Responses were given on a 5-point frequency scale: 1 ¼ ‘‘always’’ to 5 ¼ ‘‘never.’’ Not unexpectedly, the answers revealed that not all adolescents are involved in common shopping activities. Twenty-seven percent of the adolescents claimed not to take part in shopping for the family and they were therefore excluded from analyses regarding shopping. Attitudes towards each of the three analysed behaviours were measured on three 7-point semantic differential scales with the anchor points good/bad, beneficial/detrimental and wise/unwise (Ajzen & Fishbein, 1980). The wording of the attitudinal items was: ‘‘To buy organic and environmentally friendly products is .,’’ ‘‘To handle waste correctly is .,’’ and ‘‘To save electricity is ..’’ Cronbach’s alphas for the combined attitude scales are in the .89–.93 range (see Table 2). 4. Results For the following analyses, all multi-item constructs are represented by the average of the individual items. Further, answers were recorded so that a higher number means a stronger endorsement of the value, a more frequent performance of the behaviour, and a more favourable attitude.

parent–child pair is the ‘subject,’ revealed a value-gap between the two generations in the sample, F(12, 589) ¼ 50.11, p < 0.001. The univariate tests show that the parent and adolescent generations hold significantly different priorities for all value types except for two values (Security and Conformity,1 see Table 1). Consistent with hypothesis H1(b), on average adolescents rate environmental values lower than their parents. In general, the parent generation subscribes more to Tradition and Universalism values than the young generation, and the opposite is true for Hedonism, Stimulation, Achievement, and Self-direction. Hence, it seems that, relatively speaking, the value structure of adolescents is more directed towards openness to change and self-enhancement, whereas their parents’ value structure is more directed towards conservation of the existing order and self-transcendence. This overall pattern of value differences seems consistent with key age and role related characteristics. 4.1.2. Consistency within families Consistent with hypothesis H1(a), Table 1 further reveals a significant positive correlation between parents’ and adolescents’ environmental values. This finding is confirmed across all other value domains as well, although most of the correlations are rather weak. Perhaps not surprisingly, value correlations within families are strongest for religious orientation. However, only a small proportion of the respondents subscribe to religious values, reflecting that Denmark is a relatively secular society (e.g., Norris & Inglehart, 2004). 4.2. Attitudes

4.1. Values

4.2.1. Consistency between generations In general, both generations display favourable attitudes towards engaging in the analysed pro-environmental activities, according to Table 2. However, a doubly multivariate GLM analysis

4.1.1. Consistency between generations A GLM analysis of differences in the means reported in Table 1, using a doubly multivariate repeated measures design where the

1 Due to its low reliability, calculations involving the Conformity construct should be interpreted with caution.

418

A. Grønhøj, J. Thøgersen / Journal of Environmental Psychology 29 (2009) 414–421

Table 2 Attitude similarity: parents – adolescents (n ¼ 1202)

Organics Electricity Waste

Means parents/ adolescents

Standard deviations parents/ adolescents

5.69 5.69 6.83 6.62 6.54 6.23

1.26 1.37 0.46 0.70 0.88 1.15

F (univ.)

Table 3 Behaviour similarity: parents – adolescents (n ¼ 1202). Partial

r

h2

0.01

.00

.47

39.08***

.06

.08

36.39***

.06

.25

Cronbach’s alpha parents/ adolescents .95 .92 .91 .83 .96 .93

Scale: 7-point scale where a higher number means a more favourable attitude. Multivariate test of parent–child differences: F(3, 598) ¼ 21.34, p < 0.001, Partial h2 ¼ .10. Univariate tests: ***p < .001. All correlations are significant p < .05.

of differences in the means reported in Table 2 shows that there is a gap in attitudes towards these behaviours between the two generations in the sample, F(3, 598) ¼ 21.34, p < 0.001. The two generations hold more similar attitudes towards some (i.e., buying organic and environment-friendly products) than towards other pro-environmental activities (i.e., the correct source-separation of household waste and (especially) making an effort to save electricity). The univariate tests reveal that the parent generation on average holds significantly more favourable attitudes towards the source-separation of waste and making an effort to save electricity than the young generation, whereas the two generations hold identical attitudes towards buying organic and environmentfriendly products. Hence, consistent with hypothesis H2(b) and with the value differences between generations reported above, the young generation holds less positive attitudes towards at least some specific pro-environmental actions than their parents. 4.2.2. Consistency within families Consistent with hypothesis H2(a) and with what we found with respect to values, we find significant positive correlations between parents’ and adolescents’ attitudes towards each of the three everyday pro-environmental behaviours. However, the strength of these correlations varies more than at the values level. The correlation between parent and child attitudes is strong for buying organic and environment-friendly products, weak for saving electricity, and medium for the source-separation of waste.

4.3. Behaviour 4.3.1. Consistency between generations Consistent with hypothesis H3(b) and with the values and attitudes analyses, a doubly multivariate GLM analysis of the behaviour data shows that there is an IG gap with regard to the performance of the three pro-environmental behaviours, F(3, 434) ¼ 132.96, p < 0.001. The univariate tests in Table 3 show that the young generation performs all three environmentally responsible behaviours significantly less than their parents’ generation. 4.3.2. Consistency within families Consistent with hypothesis H3(a) and with what we found with regard to values and attitudes, within-family correlations regarding the performance of the three specific pro-environmental behaviours are significant and positive. The correlations are stronger for behaviours than for attitudes towards the same behaviours. As with attitudes, behaviours are less consistent between parent and child for making an effort to save electricity than for the source-separation of household waste and, even more, for the buying organic and environment-friendly products.

Organicsa Electricity Waste

Means parents/ adolescents

Standard deviations parents/ adolescents

3.16 2.69 3.91 2.96 4.09 3.07

0.87 1.18 0.77 1.03 0.77 1.47

F (univ.)

Partial

r

h2

t (Paired samples)

9.19***

84.53***

.16

.49

220.06***

.34

.13

19.4***

206.02***

.32

.41

17.21***

Scale: 5-point scale where a higher number means more frequent behaviour. Multivariate test of parent–child differences: F(3.434) ¼ 132.96. p < 0.001. Partial h2 ¼ .48. Univariate tests: ***p < .001. All correlations are significant p < .05. a n ¼ 874. A total of 27% of the adolescents (35% of the boys. 19% of the girls) claimed never to do shopping for the family. The multivariate test excludes these. But they are included in the correlation analysis and in the paired samples t-tests for saving electricity and handling waste correctly.

5. Discussion We have compared the environmental values, attitudes, and behaviours of two generations, the current generation of adolescents and their parents, to investigate how much parents influence their children with respect to a pro-environmental orientation. The overall pattern of value differences between generations is consistent with key age and role related characteristics. This gives these results high face validity. As expected, adolescents rate environmental values lower than their parents do. Since this result fits into an overall pattern of values that reflects a natural development through life stages there is no need to refer to external factors, such as different societal emphases in different historical periods, to explain the difference in environmental commitment between generations. In other words, the observed value differences between generations are not necessarily reflective of an overall change in value priorities away from environmental emphasis. Also as expected, we found a significant positive correlation between parents’ and adolescents’ environmental values. This is true across all other value domains as well, although most of the correlations are rather weak. An important reason for the weak correlations is measurement error. Measurement error is inevitable when measuring mental constructs, and since basic values are presumably held at a low level of consciousness (Alwin & Krosnick, 1985; Schwartz, 1994), measurement error of a substantial magnitude should be expected ¨ lander, 2002). We have attempted to for basic values (Thøgersen & O reduce the problem of measurement error by focusing on value aggregates, that is, Schwartz’s motivational value domains, rather than on individual values, but in some cases a value type is represented by only one item and even with two or three items for each value type, measurement error is still bound to be substantial. Since measurement error tends to attenuate correlations between constructs (Cohen, Cohen, West, & Aiken, 2003), it is likely that the calculated correlations are attenuated estimates of the true correlations. A related issue is the matter of the practical significance of the results, as opposed to statistical significance. With a sufficiently large sample size, statistical significance is almost a given. According to Cohen (1988), the fallible measures that are used in the social sciences mean that the following guidelines should be used for assessing effect sizes: small effect size, r ¼ 0.1; medium, r ¼ 0.3; large, r ¼ 0.5. According to this guideline, the typical effect sizes for value transfer are small to medium whereas effect sizes regarding the IG transfer of specific attitudes and behaviours are medium to large. We also included partial eta squares in the tables

A. Grønhøj, J. Thøgersen / Journal of Environmental Psychology 29 (2009) 414–421

419

as measures of the ANOVA effect sizes. According to the same guideline, two out of three behavioural differences have strong effect sizes whereas the effect sizes for differences in attitudes are small to medium and the effect size for the difference in environmental values is medium. The two types of Universalism values, including environmental values, belong to the weaker end with regard to within-family correlations. Possibly, the relatively abstract concerns reflected in Universalism values are to a lesser extent salient in everyday communication in the family or in parents’ everyday behaviour than values such as benevolence (i.e., concern for the welfare of close others) or hedonism (i.e., seeking pleasure in life), not to speak of religious values. In general, both generations display favourable attitudes towards engaging in the specific pro-environmental activities. The parent generation on average holds more favourable attitudes towards the source-separation of waste and making an effort to save electricity than the young generation, whereas the two generations’ attitudes towards buying organic and environmentfriendly products are not significantly different. This reflects the fact that the three analysed behaviours differ in terms of the cost of performing these behaviours. The source-separation of waste and making an effort to save electricity entail behavioural costs for both adults and adolescents in a family. However, the purchase of organic and environment-friendly products usually entails only monetary costs and only for the parents, who usually pay for the family’s shopping. Hence, the pattern of results suggests that the difference in attitudes towards pro-environmental actions between the two groups is due to adolescents being more sensitive to the behavioural costs than their parents. Like with values, parents’ and adolescents’ attitudes towards each of the behaviours are positive correlated. The correlation between parent and child attitudes is strong for buying organic and environment-friendly products, weak for saving electricity, and medium for the source-separation of waste. This may be explained by the fact that when adolescents experience behavioural costs, they are less likely to accept their parents’ attitudes about environmentally responsible behaviours without resistance. With regard to saving electricity parental demands may conflict with the adolescent’s desire for an auditory and visually stimulating environment. Such a conflict may lead to excessive pressure from parents followed by psychological reactance (Brehm, 1966). The study also revealed an IG gap with regard to the performance of the three pro-environmental behaviours. The young generation performs all three environmentally responsible behaviours significantly less often than their parents do. Hence, it seems that adolescents not only worry less about the environment than their parents, they also seem to live a more unworried life. Still, within-family correlations regarding the performance of the three specific pro-environmental behaviours are significant and positive. The correlations are stronger for behaviours than for attitudes towards the same behaviours. One reasonable explanation for this finding is that it is easier for parents control their children’s behaviour than it is to control their attitudes. Other contributing factors could be shared structural conditions within a family and/or broader social norms that influence parents and adolescents alike. However, these are just speculations. Future research should investigate the causes of differences in intergenerational transfer between attitudes and behaviour and between specific behaviours in a more systematic way.

infer IG transfer from correspondence measures based on parents’ and adolescents’ responses to questions in a questionnaire. While this assumption has been made in several other studies of IG influence (e.g., Moore et al., 2002), it is obvious that the direction of influence cannot be determined from correlation measures alone. In principle, within-family similarity could also be caused by childto-parent transfer of values, attitudes, and behaviours, in what could be termed a reverse socialization process. In fact, research suggests that children do influence their parents, at least indirectly, causing them to become responsible caregivers (Kuczynski & Parkin, 2007; Stern et al., 1993). Further, children have been found to influence a range of specific purchases within the household, and a few instances of such processes have also been reported in the environmental domain (Ekstro¨m, 1995; Grønhøj, 2007). Hence, we do not ignore the possibility that children can act as pro-environmental change agents within families (Easterling, Miller, & Wein¨ lander, 2007). berger, 1995; Grønhøj & O However, we consider it highly unlikely that child-to-parent influence processes are the major cause of the identified correlations between parents’ and children’s values, attitudes, and behaviours. Not only would it contradict most socialization research. It is also incompatible with the evidence in this and other studies suggesting that the young generation is significantly less pro-environmentally oriented than are their parents. This means that, if the within-family correlations were produced by child-toparent influence processes, children in our study influence their parents to become less environmentally committed. It is difficult to see where the drive for an anti-environmental child-to-parent influence should come from. Hence, it seems more plausible that the within-family correlations imply that many parents, as the primary agents of children’s socialization (e.g., Maccoby, 2007) attempt to influence their children in a pro-environmental direction. It is argued in this article that a relatively lower environmental commitment among adolescents was to be expected, simply due to ‘life-stage barriers.’ If life-stage barriers are the only reason for this finding, there is no reason to expect that the present young generation will retain a lower commitment than older generations in later life stages. However, based on cross-sectional data we cannot be certain that life-stage factors are sufficient to explain the differences between adolescents and their parents. Reservations are also in order with respect to the measurement of the analysed constructs. Values are measured by means of a reduced instrument with few items (sometimes only a single item) for each construct, and each behaviour is measured by only a single item. Hence, a large amount of random error is inevitable and the reported correlations are likely to be attenuated. In addition, self-reported behaviours are sensitive to the usual psychological biases. It is not clear in which direction such biases could have drawn the results. However, we do not see any reason for adolescents to be less prone to self-serving biases than their parents. Hence, it seems highly unlikely that reporting biases could account for the key results of this study. Still, the mentioned reservations call for replication of the study, preferably using more reliable multi-item instruments. There is also a need for replicating the study in different cultural contexts in order to uncover the extent to which IG transfers of pro-environmental orientations are universal processes.

5.1. Limitations

Consistent with some recent studies, we find that adolescents are less environmentally committed than their parents. This ‘generation gap’ appears in measures at all levels of abstraction: from environmental values to attitudes towards the performance of specific

Conclusions about IG transfer of values, attitudes, and behaviours from this study rest on the assumption that it is reasonable to

6. Conclusions and implications

420

A. Grønhøj, J. Thøgersen / Journal of Environmental Psychology 29 (2009) 414–421

pro-environmental behaviours, and to the performance of specific environment-friendly behaviours. With respect to specific attitudes, differences between the generations are relatively small – both generations are positive towards engaging in pro-environmental consumption activities – whereas the generation gap seems larger with respect to both abstract value priorities and the performance of specific behaviours. Further, we find significant and positive correlations between adolescents’ and their parents’ pro-environmental commitment at all the analysed levels of abstraction: environmental (and other) values, attitudes towards pro-environmental behaviours, and the performance of specific pro-environmental behaviours. The correlations are stronger at the level of specific environmental attitudes and behaviours than at the level of general and abstract values. To the extent that parents influence their children more than vice versa, as claimed by socialization research, these positive parent– child correlations can be taken as evidence that there is an intergenerational transfer of pro-environmental orientation, from environmental values to specific pro-environmental behaviours. In the limitations section above, we have discussed important caveats to this conclusion and its supporting evidence. Besides having relevance for any change agent who wants to promote sustainable consumption practices, our results are important for anyone interested in the influence of interaction processes in families and in particular in the role of parenting in relation to this specific domain. The study suggests that the young generation, adolescents, are not the most likely initiators of pro-environmental changes in consumption patterns. Parents seem more ready for this quest. The good news, which is no big surprise, but not documented empirically before, is that environmental concern and commitment is – to some extent – transferred from parents to their children. Hence, pro-environmental parents influence the future societal development not only directly through their own acts, but also indirectly through their children. Our results also suggest that the likely reason behind the lower environmental concern among the current adolescents is ‘life-stage barriers.’ If this is true, there is no reason to fear that a low environmental commitment will be an enduring characteristic of this particular generation. Of course, on this point the evidence presented here is inferential only. Future research should test the ‘lifestage barriers’ hypothesis, for instance by following a cohort of adolescents and conducting follow-up interviews when they have entered more mature life stages. Irrespective of the reasons for the apparent gap between the young and the older generation, the differences between their value profiles suggest that, when attempting to involve adolescents in pro-environmental activity here and now, appeals should not be based on information about the average value profile, which primarily reflects the value priorities of their parents’ generation. Instead, these should be aligned with the young generation’s own value priorities. For instance, it appears that young people subscribe less to Universalism values and more to Self-enhancement and Benevolence values than their parents. This suggests that, when targeting the promotion of pro-environmental practices to adolescents, messages should, to a higher extent, emphasise the personal relevance of the issue for their own situation or, in general, personalise the issue (the specific victim in harm’s way – an animal hit by oil spill or a starving child).

Acknowledgements This research was financed by the Danish National Research Agency (FSE - 24-02-0305), whose support is gratefully

¨ lander and three anonymous acknowledged. We also thank Folke O reviewers for their helpful and constructive comments.

References Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1980). Understanding attitudes and predicting social behavior. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall. Alwin, D. F., & Krosnick, J. A. (1985). The measurement of values in surveys: a comparison of ratings and rankings. Public Opinion Quarterly, 49, 535–552. Arnett, J. J. (2007). Socialization in emerging adulthood: from the family to the wider world, from socialization to self-socialization. In J. E. Grusec, & P. D. Hastings (Eds.), Handbook of socialization (pp. 208–231). NY: Guildford. Bamberg, S., & Mo¨ser, G. (2007). Twenty years after Hines, Hungerford, and Tomera: a new meta-analysis of psycho-social determinants of pro-environmental behaviour. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 27, 14–25. Brehm, J. W. (1966). A theory of psychological reactance. NY: Academic Press. Brim, O. (1966). Socialization through the life cycle. In O. Brim, & S. Wheeler (Eds.), Socialization after childhood. NY: Wiley. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Cohen, J., Cohen, P., West, S. G., & Aiken, L. S. (2003). Applied multiple regression/ correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences (3rd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Diamantopoulos, A., Schlegelmilch, B. B., Sinkovics, R. R., & Bohlen, G. M. (2003). Can socio-demographics still play a role in profiling green consumers? A review of the evidence and an empirical investigation. Journal of Business Research, 56(6), 465–480. Dunlap, R. E. (2002). An enduring concern. Public Perspective, September/October, 10–14. Easterling, D., Miller, S., & Weinberger, N. (1995). Environmental consumerism: a process of children’s socialization and families’ resocialization. Psychology and Marketing, 12, 531–550. Ekstro¨m, K. M. (1995). Children’s influence in family decision making. Doctoral Thesis. Go¨teborg: Go¨teborg University. Foxman, E. R., Tansuhaj, P. S., & Ekstro¨m, K. M. (1989). Family members’ perceptions of adolescents’ influence in family decision making. Journal of Consumer Research, 15, 482–491. GallupForum. (2008). Available from. http://www2.tns-gallup.dk/vores-ekspertise/ kilder-til-viden/kvantitativ-analyse/panel–online/gallupforum.aspx. Gatersleben, B., & Vlek, C. (1998). Household consumption, quality of life and environmental impacts. In K. J. Noorman, & T. S. Uiterkamp (Eds.), Green households? Domestic consumers, environment and sustainability (pp. 141–183). London: Earthscan. 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, 1817–1836. Grønhøj, A. (2007). Green girls and bored boys? Adolescents’ environmental consumer socialization. In K. Ekstro¨m, & B. Tufte (Eds.), Children, media and consumption. On the front edge (pp. 319–333). Go¨teborg: Nordicom. ¨ lander, F. (2007). A gender perspective on environmentally related Grønhøj, A., & O family consumption. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 4, 218–235. Guagnano, G. A., Stern, P. C., & Dietz, T. (1995). Influences on attitude-behavior relationships. A natural experiment with curbside recycling. Environment and Behavior, 27, 699–718. Grusec, J. E., & Davidov, M. (2007). Socialization in the family. In J. E. Grusec, & P. D. Hastings (Eds.), Handbook of socialization: Theory and research (pp. 284– 308). NY: Guilford. Gundelach, P. (2002). Danskernes værdier 1981–1999. [The values of the Danes 1981– 1999]. København: Hans Reitzel. Gundelach, P., & Riis, O. (1992). Danskernes værdier. [The values of the Danes]. København: Forlaget Sociologi. Heckler, S. E., Childers, T. L., & Arunachalam, R. (1989). Intergenerational influences in adult buying behaviors: an examination of moderating factors. Advances in Consumer Research, 16, 276–284. Hoge, D. R., Petrillo, G. H., & Smith, E. I. (1982). Transmission of religious and social values from parents to teenage children. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 44, 569–580. John, D. R. (1999). Consumer socialization of children: a retrospective look at twenty-five years of research. Journal of Consumer Research, 26, 183–213. Johnson, C. Y., Bowker, J. M., & Cordell, H. K. (2004). Ethnic variation in environmental belief and behavior: an examination of the new ecological paradigm in a social psychological context. Environment and Behavior, 36, 157–186. Karp, D. G. (1996). Values and their effect on pro-environmental behavior. Environment and Behavior, 28, 111–133. Kuczynski, L., & Parkin, M. C. (2007). Agency and bidirectionality in socialization. In J. E. Grusec, & P. D. Hastings (Eds.), Handbook of socialization: Theory and research (pp. 259–283). NY: Guilford. Maccoby, E. E. (2007). Historical overview of socialization research and theory. In J. E. Grusec, & P. D. Hastings (Eds.), Handbook of socialization: Theory and research (pp. 13–41). NY: Guilford. McKenzie-Mohr, D., Nemiroff, L. S., Beers, L., & Desmarais, S. (1995). Determinants of responsible environmental behavior. Journal of Social Issues, 51(4), 139–156.

A. Grønhøj, J. Thøgersen / Journal of Environmental Psychology 29 (2009) 414–421 Moore, E. S., Wilkie, W. L., & Lutz, R. J. (2002). Passing the torch: intergenerational influences as a source of brand equity. Journal of Marketing, 66, 17–37. Moschis, G. P. (1987). Consumer socialization – A life-cycle perspective. MA: Lexington. Norris, P., & Inglehart, R. (2004). Sacred and secular: Religion and politics worldwide. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. OECD. (2002). Towards sustainable household consumption? Paris: Trends and Policies in OECD Countries, OECD. ¨ lander, F., & Thøgersen, J. (1995). Understanding of consumer behaviour as a prereqO uisite for environmental protection. Journal of Consumer Policy, 18, 345–385. Schwartz, S. H. (1992). Universals in the content and structure of values: theoretical advances and empirical tests in 20 countries. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology, 25 (pp. 1–65). San Diego: Academic Press. Schwartz, S. H. (1994). Are there universal aspects in the structure and content of human values? Journal of Social Issues, 50, 19–45. Schwartz, S. H. (2005). Robustness and fruitfulness of a theory of universals in individual human values. In A. Tamayo, & J. Porto (Eds.), Valores e trabalho. [values and work] (pp. 56–95). Brasilia: Editora Universidade de Brasilia. Schwartz, S. H., Melech, G., Lehmann, A., Burgess, S., Harris, M., & Owens, V. (2001). Extending the cross-cultural validity of the theory of basic human values with a different method of measurement. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 32, 519–542. Special Eurobarometer 295. (2008). Attitudes of European citizens towards the environment. Wave 68.2 – TS Opinion & Social. European Commission. Available from. http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_295_en.pdf.

421

Special Eurobarometer 300. (2008). Europeans’ attitudes towards climate change. Wave 69.2 – TNS Opinion & Social. European Commission. Available from. http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_300_full_en.pdf. Stern, P. (2000). Toward a coherent theory of environmentally significant behavior. Journal of Social Issues, 56, 407–424. Stern, P. C., & Dietz, T. (1994). The value basis of environmental concern. Journal of Social Issues, 50, 65–84. Stern, P., Dietz, T., & Kalof, L. (1993). Value orientations, gender, and environmental concern. Environment and Behavior, 25, 322–348. Stern, P. C., Dietz, T., Kalof, L., & Guagnano, G. (1995). Values, beliefs, and proenvironmental action: attitude formation toward emergent attitude objects. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 25, 1611–1636. ¨ lander, F. (2002). Human values and the emergence of a sustainThøgersen, J., & O able consumption pattern: a panel study. Journal of Economic Psychology, 23, 605–630. ¨ lander, F. (2006). To what degree are environmentally beneficial Thøgersen, J., & O choices reflective of a general conservation stance? Environment and Behavior, 38, 550–569. Verplanken, B., & Holland, R. W. (2002). Motivated decision making: effects of activation and self-centrality of values on choices and behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82, 434–447. Whitbeck, L. B., & Gecas, V. (1988). Value attributions and value transmission between parents and children. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 50, 829–840.