Motivating and Sustaining Pro-environmental Behaviors:
A review of the literature
A search of the literature about what motivates people to engage in proenvironmental behaviors results in a wide variety of studies that demonstrate some common, encouraging findings and also some limitations of the research conducted to date. As one looks into this literature, it is interesting to note that the issue of behavior change with regard to conservation or proenvironmental behaviors is, as one author put it, "qualitatively different from other problems managers face" (De Young, 1993). These kinds of behaviors are "a less visible part of everyday life and their effects are spread thinly through time and space reducing the sense of immediate accomplishment" (De Young, 1993). It is also notable that factors underlying one’s behavior with regard to the environment are extremely complex and interact with one another to make most behavior change study results difficult to generalize. In an effort to understand what factors can determine that a person will change and maintain a targeted environmental behavior, researchers have studied both methods of formal education and methods using various intervention techniques. Methods of formal education are geared toward the development of behaviors and personalities that are pro-environmental, whereas intervention methods seek to determine how to make people change their behaviors to ones that are pro-environmental and how these changes can be sustained without further intervention and even lead to the adoption of non-targeted pro-environmental behaviors. To best address the scope of our project, studies exploring primarily intervention techniques will be emphasized. It should also be noted that much of the literature discussed here describes interventions regarding recycling and source reduction behaviors, from which we can extrapolate to better understand other pro-environmental behaviors which may be of more interest to our project.
To provide a "base map" with which to investigate the literature and make sense out of its findings and shortcomings, it is useful to use a model offered by Hines, Hungerford and Tomera (1986/87) (Appendix 1). From this example of how responsible environmental behavior can be predicted, we can see that interventions can take place at all levels and steps in the model, helping us to further understand where authors in the field have suggested that further research is needed. Using this model as a guide, we will walk through the 3 major factors that may predict behavior, i.e., psychosocial, cognitive, and situational factors, discussing the various related interventions that have been tested, their results, and the implications for intervention.
Psycho-social Factors or Personality:
The first column in this diagram might be loosely described as intrinsic, or psychosocial factors that affect how a person will behave. These factors, along with others, make up what we call someone’s personality.
1. Attitude-behavior Relationship:
Attitudes, for the purpose of a meta-analysis done by Hines, et al, is described as an "individual’s feelings, pro or con, favorable or unfavorable, with regard to particular aspects of the environment or objects related to the environment" (Hines, et al, 1986). In their meta-analysis of 51 attitude – behavior studies, Hines, et al (1986) found that there were essentially two types of attitudes studied by researchers: attitudes toward ecology and the environment as a whole, and attitudes toward taking environmental action (e.g., attitudes toward recycling, writing letters to officials, conserving energy, etc.). The findings suggest that there is a relationship between attitude and behavior in that individuals with more positive attitudes were more likely to have reported engaging in responsible environmental behaviors than individuals with less positive attitudes toward the environment in general. There was a slightly stronger positive relationship detected between attitude toward the importance of taking action and reported environmental behavior. While some studies have discovered a positive relationship between environmental attitudes and environmental behaviors (De Young, 1990; Kallgren & Wood, 1986; Kinnear, Taylor & Ahmed, 1974; Schwepkar & Cornwell, 1991), others have agreed with Hines, et al and found the correlation to be quite weak (McGinness, J. et al, 1977; Oskamp, S. et al, 1991; Scott, D. et al, 1994 ). In other research, it has been further noted that there is a weak link between general attitudes and specific behaviors (Stern & Oskamp, 1987). This finding helps us to understand that a general concern for the environment is not a good predictor of a specific behavior like recycling, composting, or changing lawn care practices, etc. This will be discussed in further detail in the section about the importance of cognition and action skills.
In another study (Taylor, S. and Todd, P.; 1997), it has been suggested that further research include the investigation of mediators of the attitude-behavior relationship that might better explain the relationship. In this study, Taylor and Todd’s results suggested that behavioral intention or the reasoned action theory of planned behavior (Ajzen & Fishbein, 1980) was a good predictor and offered insight into the factors that influence composting behaviors. Dahlstrand & Biel (1997) have found some interesting impacts that the moderator "habit" has on the attitude-behavior relationship. Their work suggests that there is a "trade-off between attitude and habit: When habit is strong, the attitude-behavior relationship is weak; whereas when habit is weak, the attitude-behavior link is strong. Thus, people may have well established habits that are not easily overcome simply by information aimed at changing attitudes."
Interventions that have been tested to change attitudes have historically focussed on providing information to groups or individuals with the hope that information and subsequent knowledge will cure negative attitudes toward the environment and thus, lead to behavior change. However, studies show that simply providing information, whether it be through sending a pamphlet to households or providing an educational brown-bag lunch to workers, does not alone effectively or predictably affect changes in environmental behaviors (Dahlstrand, U. & Biel, A., 1997).
Locus of control can be defined as one’s perception of his/her ability to affect change through his/her own behavior. A person with an internal locus of control believes that his/her actions can make a difference. Conversely, a person with an external locus of control believes that his/her actions cannot affect change and that power to make a difference resides with others or with God, etc. The meta-analysis done by Hines, et al looked at 15 studies of the locus of control-behavior relationship. They found that in general, those individuals who have an internal locus of control were more likely to have reported engaging in responsible environmental behaviors than were individuals exhibiting a more external locus of control. Intervention possibilities have not been a subject directly related to locus of control factor, but relates well to the "personal responsibility" factor discussed below.
3. Commitment-behavior Relationship:
Commitment refers to an expressed intention to act upon a specific matter, in this case, an environmental problem. Interventions have included methods such as obtaining verbal and written commitments from groups and individuals which expresses an intention of that person or group to perform the behavior for some finite or infinite period of time. These interventions have proven to be rather reliable and able to cause quick behavior change (De Young, 1993; Hines, 1986). In one study, (Pardini & Katzev, 1983-1984), it was suggested that a verbal or written commitment intervention produced more durable change than a stronger, more material incentive, such as money. Pardini and Katzev attribute this durability to the suggestion that "because of their pledge to adopt the behavior for a specified period of time, (the participants) may have been led to find their own reasons for recycling, to begin to even like doing so, and as a result, to continue to perform these behaviors on their own".
In his overview of the research, De Young also emphasizes (De Young, 1993) that an important aspect of this intervention technique is not just the foot-in-the-door effectiveness of this intervention, but the personal commitment that one makes to one’s self in terms of changing a behavior for the long term. De Young calls this commitment-making an intrinsic motivator, or an incentive source that comes only from within one’s self, not from outside in the environment or from other people. In his review of the literature, De Young found that many of the studied interventions include only external or extrinsic motivators (motivators that are derived from outside of the individual being asked to change). These studies have suggested that upon the removal of that external motivator, i.e. the lack of monetary or social reward to prompt the behavior, the behavior change tends to lack durability and the behavior reverts to the original. De Young suggests that an answer to this problem of durability could be the promotion of intrinsic motivators such as the person’s participation in his/her own behavior change, the importance of competence motivation (discussed in more detail in the section on cognition), intrinsic satisfaction, and the importance of being needed. As Kaplan (1990) has suggested, when people perceive a role for themselves, have a sense that their contribution is not optional but a necessity, then a powerful behavior change force is available. These intrinsic motivators are, at the very least, cost-effective and should be further researched in terms of their impact on the durability of environmental behavior change. De Young (1993) suggests that if we look at the behavior change problem from the angle of intrinsic motivation, "the issue becomes, then, not one focussed solely on devising compensation techniques but one that broadly examines what sorts of intrinsic benefits might be gained from conservation behavior in general and (other behaviors) in particular".
This psycho-social variable is framed in the Hines, et al meta-analysis as an individual’s feelings of duty or obligation toward the environment. Hines’ analysis of six studies finds that those individuals who felt some degree of personal responsibility toward the environment were more likely to have engaged in responsible environmental behaviors that were individuals who held no such feelings of responsibility. The findings in one study (Dahlstrand, 1986) suggest that the responsibility factor is most influential in the initial stages of a behavior change and could be an important first step in initiating change.
De Young (1993) places intervention techniques that address personal responsibility factors into three distinct categories for examination: 1) information techniques, 2) positive motivational techniques (such as monetary or social reinforcement), and 3) coercive motivational techniques (such as social or monetary disincentives). Unfortunately, people’s effort to encourage a sense of personal responsibility toward the environment and promote environmentally responsible behavior on a broad scale has usually resorted to methods of coercion. This is usually done either implicitly in the use of propaganda and prompts, or explicitly in the form of local ordinances with related fines and punishments for noncompliance. Coercive interventions have included use of guilt or fear in prompting methods (literature and logos that say "use your head, you live in a watershed", "drains aren’t garbage cans" and "if you don’t recycle, you’re throwing it all away"). In general, environmental messages are becoming more positive in nature to create a sense of good will versus the gloom and doom imagery that turns many people away from environmental issues.
Another studied coercion technique is imposing local ordinances like mandatory recycling ordinances or Portland, Oregon’s ban on polystyrene containers at restaurants. These techniques can be strong and forceful in initiating and tracking behavior change, but they can also cause the reverse effect. In De Young (1993), he describes the "creative cheating" that goes on in a city that has mandated recycling. This suggests that coercion will not guarantee that people understand the importance or the benefit of their behavior change and certainly cannot ensure compliance.
A more positive intervention technique that relates to the information and positive motivational techniques is the use of block leaders to instill a sense of social support and personal responsibility to the group or to someone the person knows. The positive affect of using block leaders as the senders of environmental messages is documented in a study by Burns (1991). In this study, one group of non-recyclers were given recycling bags and written information about how to participate at their door, one group was approached by a block leader distributing the same bags and information, and the last group served as the control with neither of the intervention strategies. Results indicated that the recycling of the two experimental groups differed significantly from one another with the block leader group recycling more, and both differed significantly from the control group receiving no intervention. As described by Burns, although the effectiveness of the block leader intervention seems to be clear, it remains unclear exactly which social psychological principle is responsible for its success. "The block leader approach may work due to the influence of modeling or the suggestion that one’s action is more likely to make a difference since others are doing it; it may operate as a social incentive by providing social recognition for the behavior; or it may work because the block leader is likely to get a verbal commitment form his or her neighbors. In any case, the block leader approach seems to be an intervention deserving of future research.
In De Young’s (1993) discussion of the use of intrinsic motivators, he points out that if satisfaction is derived from actively pursuing a behavior, the challenge then becomes the difficulty of getting people to adopt a behavior at which they are not currently experienced. I define the risk factor as the sum of the factors that create discomfort in attempting or considering to attempt a new behavior that one is not experienced with. This factor looks at the risk involved in trying the behavior and the consequences of failure. Although risk was not a factor explored in the meta-analysis that serves as our framework, I have found this to be a factor that can either hinder or encourage the initiation and the duration of a behavior change in the literature. As a part of considering a behavior change, it is normal for people to ask questions such as: Has anyone tried this behavior before? What are the risks involved? How much will the change cost? Is this totally new to me or have I done something like this before so I am confident I can succeed? Will I enjoy it and how comfortable will I be if I fail? What will happen if I fail?
Interventions include techniques reducing these uncertainties and risks. Specific techniques as suggested by De Young (1993) include providing procedural information to increase competence, giving feedback to reinforce behavior and improve competence, and reducing risk by creating a supportive situation in which the cost of failure is kept extremely low. He suggests that in a situation in which failure is tolerated, people might be more willing to try a new behavior. Other risk and uncertainty-reducing interventions have included demonstrations, such as the healthy lawn and garden tour in the Rouge River watershed and the block leader approach, such as that mentioned above. The purpose of the demonstration technique is to show people how something is done and allow them to evaluate the action and the risks on their own terms before trying the action themselves. The latter technique uses a type of opinion leader through which information is delivered. The hope here is that if information is given by a person the receiver knows, trusts, and shares some common interests with, that the information will be given more attention or more consideration than if just received through an organization in the mail, etc.
Cognitive Factors:
Cognitive variables, for the purpose of the meta-analysis of Hines, et al, is described as those factors pertaining to knowledge of the environment or to some aspect of an environmental issue. It is important to note that this definition entails not only knowledge of problems and their consequences, but also to knowledge of how to take action on a particular environmental problem.
1. Knowledge of Issues – behavior Relationship:
Before people can act responsibly, or even make choices as to which responsible behaviors are important to them, they need to be informed or possess knowledge about the issue that relates to the proposed behavior. Interventions to increase knowledge have been one of the most popular ways to create environmental behavior change within a large audience. Although, from the standpoint of those wanting to communicate the need for the behavior change, this is one of the easiest interventions to implement, it is not the most effective method of initiating or sustaining behavior change, even if it does initiate an attitude change. However, if used with a number of complementary interventions, the distribution of information toward the goal of an educated audience is well worth some careful thought.
The Hines, et al meta-analysis results show that those individuals with greater knowledge of environmental issues and/or knowledge of how to take action on those issues were more likely to have reported engaging in responsible environmental behaviors than those who did not possess this knowledge. Additionally, a study by Kearney (1995) suggests that not only does information increase people’s willingness to engage in carpooling, but how the information is presented is important in determining the level of perceived knowledge, and the participants’ confidence and comfort with new knowledge. The study compared the effect of the distribution of written information with the use of storytelling as the method of distributing information. Those participants who received any information were more likely to engage in carpooling than the untreated control group, but there was significantly more perceived knowledge, comfort and confidence in the knowledge in those participants who received the storytelling intervention then those that just received a fact sheet. This is attributed in part, to "the compatibility of narrative forms of information with human information processing biases" (Kearney, 1995).
Once one knows what the issues are and wants to make a behavior change, a barrier to making that change could still stand in the way: the lack of action skills. People who possess adequate knowledge and positive intentions to behave in an environmentally responsible manner can be paralyzed by questions such as: Can I do this? Do I have the skills? How much of an effort will it take for me to learn the skills and to complete the behavior? Skills-related doubts can also lead to issues of self-efficacy, or one’s belief that one’s behavior can affect change. If one does not know how to get to the action step of behavior change, the likelihood of making the change decreases.
In his paper on psychological aspects of reduced consumption behavior, De Young (1996) emphasizes the importance of a person’s knowledge of action skills. De Young explains that the "effect of misunderstanding the importance of competence" is a common mistake in behavior change strategies. Although providing information about an environmental problem is one of the first steps in advancing behavior change, the study of human behavior suggests that the initial confusion, fumbling, and lack of confidence that goes hand in hand with a new action or behavior should not be underrated (Kaplan & Kaplan, 1982). Therefore, it is crucial that if the goal of information is to promote behavior change, that the information include both the "why and what" and the "how" of the promoted behavior. De Young states that "ignoring that competence plays in behavior change may only create feelings of helplessness" which is a feeling that humans find upsetting and normally choose to avoid, no mater how strongly they are motivated to change a behavior (De Young, 1996).
Interventions have included many types of information strategies including workshops, demonstrations at public events, and other more participatory forums. The study of competence motivation by De Young (1996) suggests that those strategies that involve the person directly and allow them to creatively problem solve are the most valued methods in gaining new skills. De Young suggests that this finding is consistent with a view of humans as creatures trying to successfully manage the tasks, uncertainties, and distractions of life. The research suggests that if we are conscious that people are far more willing to engage in behaviors that they have tried before and have had a positive experience with, we can direct our attention to helping people participate and succeed in their own behavior-change experiments.
Situational Factors:
Situational factors are those factors that may pose a threat to someone’s participation in an environmentally responsible behavior even if all of the other previously discussed barriers have been removed. There are many factors that play into human decision-making and all of these can, at some point, deter us from changing behaviors. All situations for all people vary at different times, making it impossible to design an intervention that takes into consideration all of these factors for everyone. In addition, certain situational factors deter one’s ability or willingness to participate in a behavior while other situational factors enhance a person’s ability or willingness to participate. In any case, it is important to be aware of all of the situational factors that the behavior-change audience might be experiencing as they are introduced to a behavior change. The intervention can then be designed to anticipate these factors and incorporate various methods to eliminate barriers to participation. A few of these situational factors are listed below.
In the meta-analysis by Hines, et al, the existence of a strong relationship between an individual’s economic orientation and responsible environmental behavior was not obtained. However, a study by Heberlein and Black (1976) suggested that if an individual believes that a cost reduction is involved in an environmental behavior, they will be more likely to do that behavior than if they are not aware of a cost savings. If one has economic constraints that prevent one from participating in a certain behavior, however, economics becomes an important limiting factor that will prevent even the most motivated person from participating. Interventions that include monetary incentives as well as other incentives would be useful to employ where economics is a limiting factor impeding participation. For example, if a city wishes to promote a new composting program, having a sale or a give-a-way of composter bins on the day of a workshop about how to compost would serve as an intervention with this in mind.
In a study by Schultz (1996), the moderator "effort" was explored in the attitude-behavior relationship. It was found that effort is a strong moderator of the attitude-behavior relationship and people with a more positive attitude toward the environment were more likely to participate in a behavior that required more effort that those individuals that demonstrated less positive attitudes toward the environment.
2. Perceived Urgency or Proximity of the Problem:
One of the issues that confounds the environmentally responsible behavior change movement is, as mentioned in the introduction, that environmental solutions to which we all contribute are not always so obvious or seemingly immediate. This factor can act, for some people, to remove any sense of urgency or personal responsibility to make a change that will benefit a solution for the long term and in a larger context.
A study of why people were involved in an issue of wetland preservation examined an ongoing environmental problem in an urban area to investigate this factor. The author states that "these issues are typical of many non-personally threatening environmental problems, which, nevertheless, do have the potential to noticeably affect the quality of life in urban areas" (Syme, 1993). The author explains that there is little research on environmentally motivated behavior when the issue goes outside of the NIMBY (not in my back yard) arena. The study, using photographs of local wetlands, lakes, found that knowledge of wetland issues did lead to both increased problem assessment and arousal and these variables, in turn, proved to influence reported behaviors. "Thus, both cognitive and emotive components deemed to be important in coping with and reacting to hazard situations are also pertinent to motivation of activation on local non-personally-threatening environmental issues"(Syme, 1993). The author states that even though this study showed that people exhibited comparable reactions to the wetland issue as to issues of environmental hazards, the role of arousal in motivating environmentally conservative behavior for wider environmental problems may be problematic. The wetland issues were salient to local residents because they were in the neighborhood and they could be presented in a visual format, where as other issues may not be so salient or visible. Other studies mentioned in this study include Wandersman et al (1987), that found that at local levels there are a number of factors that will affect activism, such as behavioral cost and local neighborhood community structure. Also, attention theory (Forester, 1985) would also suggest that only some issues will arouse interest and action and that citizens will tend to specialize in their activism. "One only has time for high-priority items in a busy schedule" (Syme, 1993). Suggested interventions based on these findings was that it is desirable for information about local issues be focused on the severity of some problems and the long-term nature of others, thereby increasing knowledge, assessment, and arousal and increasing activism.
This is an area of study that seems to be sparse in the literature, yet it is a very important factor in many behavior changes for people, especially when that behavior is noticeable to outsiders, to the public, to one’s neighbors. Social and cultural norms that are not in line with the new behavior or even look negatively upon that behavior for carious reasons, the power to deter the behavior change in individuals is very strong. It is a human desire to be accepted by society and to conform to its norms. Therefore, if an environmentally responsible behavior is not accepted by the public, the challenge becomes not just getting the individual to change, but getting the society at large to understand, accept and even promote the behavior change as the socially-desirable behavior.
In investigating this phenomenon and possible barrier to behavior change, it is important to look at the literature on human perception and aesthetics covered in separate section. Often people have designed cultural or social norms on concepts of environmental psychology wherein environmental and sometimes behavioral choices mesh with those that make sense for humans and their preferences. For example, even though one might be aware of the increased stormwater runoff their lawn contributes do to their neatly mowed lawn, they will not change their lawn into one that traps water because the taller grasses would look more messy and different from that of their neighbors. It is out of "courtesy" to the neighborhood that the environmentally responsible behavior is not attempted.
Interventions could include techniques used in advertising where a new idea is promoted as one that is not outside of the culture, but is merely a cultural adaptation based on a reformed definition of aesthetics. Demonstrations again, are helpful – a respected community opinion leader can advertise his/her behavior change to make it more "socially acceptable".
If there are options available other than the environmentally responsible behavior and if this other behavior has already been practiced or has developed into a habit, that behavior is going to be particularly difficult to change. Dahlstrand (1997) has done an interesting study on habit as a barrier to behavior change. He suggests that the advantage to having a habit is that you do not have to think and consider different alternatives each time you act in a certain situation. Unfortunately for promoters of behavior change, studies have shown that when a habit is well established, they are not easily overcome simply by information aimed at changing attitudes. Svenson (1992) has categorized different kinds of environmental decisions in every day life into four categories: from very habitual decisions with no reference to values, to decisions where the decision maker thoroughly considers various lines of actions, including newly created alternatives. Dahlstrand describes a habit as a behavior that is eventually performed without deliberation as to which goals are promoted or obstructed; they are "frozen" behaviors. The job of the behavior change intervention, therefore, is to "unfreeze" that behavior, complete certain "substeps" involved in starting a new behavior, and "freezing" the new desired behavior so that it then becomes the new habit. Seven substeps are described in Appendix 2 and Dahlstrand argues that not all of these steps are necessary, but the likelihood of a transition is assumed to increase with the number of substeps completed.
Suggested interventions based on this study include a few options. Information campaigns are discussed, but it is emphasized that they tend to devote too little effort to positive feedback to support behavior repetition and habit establishment. If used, information campaigns should include feedback about successful results as well as about the willingness of others to try the behavior. This emphasizes that social norms may not only be influential in an early phase of behavioral change, as suggested by this study, but that they may also be important in terms of proceeding with new behaviors.
Conclusion:
Common observations throughout the studies included the following. Further research is needed to define what factors relate to durable behavior change, and what interventions are the most cost-effective, broad-reaching, and need the least repetition. In the literature review by Dwyer, et al (1993), he suggests some common ideas found in the literature that may help to spur the research forward in a positive direction from here: