Changing for the environment?
The influence of values and environmental concern
on people’s willingness to participate in community
energy and the moderating effect of goal framing.
Master Thesis MSc Business Administration
Change Management
Merinde van de Ven
S2363135
Houtrijkstraat 223
1013 VB, Amsterdam
Email: m.e.van.de.ven@student.rug.nl
University of Groningen
Faculty of Economics and Business
January 2019
First supervisor: dr. B.C. (Björn) Mitzinneck
Co-assessor: dr. O.P. (Oskar) Roemeling
1
ABSTRACT
It is clear that the unsustainable behaviour patterns of humans contribute to environmental degradation and challenges such as climate change. Community energy initiatives have the potential to change the current energy system and contribute to a low-carbon economy. But first, citizens need to join community energy initiatives to enable a system-wide transition. Research has not yet been able to identify which factors lead people to join these initiatives and how this participation can be encouraged. Therefore, this paper analyses how the willingness to participate in community energy is influenced by environmental concern, altruistic values and egoistic values. In addition, the influence of goal-framing is researched. The quantitative data for this study was collected by a questionnaire. The results show that environmental concern and altruistic values increase, while egoistic values decrease the willingness to participate in community. Moreover, the negative goal frame strengthens the direct relationship of environmental concern. This research contributes to the knowledge on community energy by identifying specific factors that influence the participation in community energy. Change agents should use this knowledge to increase citizen’s willingness to participate in community energy. For people with high environmental concern this willingness can even be further strengthened through the use of (negatively) framed messages.
2
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABSTRACT 1
1. INTRODUCTION 3
2. THEORETICAL BACKGROUND 6
2.1 Willingness to participate in community energy 6
2.2 VBN theory 7 2.3 Goal framing 9 3. HYPOTHESES 11 3.1 Environmental concern 11 3.2 Altruistic values 12 3.3 Egoistic values 13 3.4 Goal framing 14 4. METHODOLODY 17 4.1 Data collection 17 4.2 Measurement 18 4.3 Data analysis 19
5. DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS AND RELIABILITY ANALYSIS 20
5.1. Demographics 20
5.2 Reliability analysis 20
5.3 Control variables 21
5.4 Correlations 22
6. RESULTS HYPOTHESES TESTING 24 6.1 Hypotheses testing 24
6.2 Robustness checks 28
7. DISCUSSION 29
7.1 Main findings 29
7.2 Contributions and implications 30 7.3 Limitations and future research 31
8. CONCLUSION 32
9. REFERNCES 33
3
1.INTRODUCTION
It is becoming increasingly clear that unsustainable behaviour patterns of humans contribute to environmental degradation and challenges such as climate change (Steg & Vlek, 2009). Citizens are key in initiating and facilitating a system-wide transition of the current energy systems in order to address climate change and achieve a low-carbon economy (Foxon et al., 2009; Kallis & Norgaard, 2010). Moreover, humans need to collectively change their unstainable habits because consumption growth is outrunning technical efficiency gains (Midden, Kaiser, & McCalley, 2007). Kalkbrenner and Roosen (2016, p.60) state that “in order to successfully manage energy transitions, the acceptance and support of citizens is essential.”
Prior research has highlighted the importance of studying pro-environmental behaviour, the underlying factors of these behaviours, and how to effectively communicate environmental issues and their solutions (Gifford & Comeau, 2011; Pelletier & Sharp, 2008; Steg & Vlek, 2009; Van der Werff et al., 2013). However, the promotion and adoption of pro-environmental behaviour still remains challenging. A relatively new type of behaviour and collective action is called “community energy”. This initiative focusses on the participation of citizen’s within the energy transition from a local perspective. These community energy initiatives are slowly transforming the current energy system towards a more bottom-up, decentralized low-carbon system (Bouffard & Kirschen, 2008). However, little is known about citizens’ willingness to participate in local community energy projects and the underlying motivations to join such initiatives (Kalkbrenner & Roosen, 2016). Hence, more research and clarity is needed about the factors that influence and drive people to participate in community energy. In addition, multiple theoretical frameworks have failed to explain the gap between the possession of environmental knowledge and performing pro-environmental behaviour (Kollmuss & Agyeman, 2002). Accordingly, a theoretical gap exists between the understanding of attitudes and pro-environmental behaviour, especially concerning the participation in community energy.
pro-4
environmental choices can lead to a conflict of the different values people hold. This is because there are two different types of values, stimulating different types of behaviours.People with strong self-transcendence (i.e., altruistic or biospheric) values are more likely to have pro-environmental beliefs and norms and act pro-pro-environmentally while the opposite is true for people who strongly endorse self-enhancement values (i.e., egoistic) (Nordlund & Garvill, 2002, 2003; Schultz et al., 2005; Stern, 2000; Thøgersen & Ölander, 2002). Hence, values are essential in analysing pro-environmental behaviour because they explain why particular behaviours cause friction between immediate individual gains and long-term collective interests (Steg et al., 2014). To understand the conflict of multiple motivations, values should be taken into account when studying the willingness to participate in community energy.
In addition, the VBN theory proposes that behaviour is also influenced by ‘environmental concern’ (Van der Werff & Steg, 2016). Various studies found that environmental concern has a positive effect on pro-environmental behaviour in general (Fraj & Martinez, 2006). More specifically, it also has a positive effect on the willingness to participate in community-based renewable energy projects (Kalkbrenner & Roosen, 2016). In comparison to values, environmental concern is known to be less stable and less general (Stern, 2000). In order to measure environmental concern the revised New Environmental Paradigm is used (Dunlap et al., 2000). This is a unidimensional measure of ecological worldviews and positively related to environmental beliefs, norms and behaviours (Dunlap et al., 2000). Overall, it is important to investigate the influence of environmental concern because it can explain why people are willing to act pro-environmentally. Additionally, environmental concern provides an extra dimension and broader perspective to this research in addition to values.
5
and the influence of motivational and contextual factors need to be examined in more detail (Steg & Vlek, 2009).
Based on the goals of this research and the identified literature gap, the following research question has been formulated: What is the influence of environmental concern, altruistic values and egoistic values on the willingness to participate in community energy initiatives ? And the following sub-question: How is this relationship influenced by goal framing? This study will contribute to the current theory, because previous research has not yet studied the joint analysis of these different factors. This joint analysis is important, because it increases the knowledge of the relationship between these factors and the willingness to participate in community energy. This has not yet been investigated and could increase our knowledge of this type of pro-environmental behaviour. In addition, it helps to address and understand the attitude-behaviour gap that exists between pro-environmental attitudes and behaviour. Moreover, this research is of great social relevance, because with this information the change agent can decide which factors best to target in environmental campaigns to facilitate the energy transition and especially the promotion of community energy initiatives.
6
2. THEORETICAL BACKGROUND
2.1 Willingness to participate in community energy
At this moment, many people like social scientists, policy makers, businesses, and non-governmental organizations are struggling to answer the question how to increase the engagement of citizens in climate change issues (Scannell & Gifford, 2013). Engagement is not just being aware of the problem, but also includes caring, motivation, willingness to act, and the action itself in order to solve the problem (Lorenzoni et al., 2007). There are many pro-environmental behaviours to perform, but scholars often assume pro-environmental behaviour is an undifferentiated class of behaviours depending on similar factors (Stern, 2000). This results in many studies being conducted without a clear definition of environmental behaviour. In addition, causal relations may be generalized for all pro-environmental behaviours without concrete evidence.
To prevent this mistake, this study focuses specifically on the participation in community energy initiatives. Community energy plays an important role in the energy transition, because household energy is directly related to the exploitation of natural resources (Dürr, 1994). In addition, energy is also a major cause of air pollution and global warming. Solving these problems can be accelerated by local energy systems like community energy. Due to a more efficient way of renewable energy production and distribution, these systems have the potential to turnaround the energy consumption and emissions trends (Koirala et al., 2016). Community energy projects can be defined as organisations initiated and managed by actors from civil society with that aim to educate people on or facilitate them with efficient energy use (Boon & Dieperink, 2014). In addition, these initiatives enable the collective procurement of renewable energy, technologies or distribution of energy from renewable resources for the consumption of inhabitants, participants or members (Boon and Dieperink, 2014).
7
factors. These environmental factors include environmental concern, climate change as well as community related socio-institutional factors like community trust and energy independence.
In addition, Sloot et al. (2018) found that people’s personal pro-environmental motivation increases the likelihood of participation in community energy initiatives. Pro-environmental motivation was measured by initiative membership and identification. These factors are positively related to self-reported sustainable energy behaviours, and household and communal sustainable energy intentions. Furthermore, Bauwens (2016) found that there is much heterogeneity in terms of motivations and level of engagement among members of community-based renewable energy initiatives. This heterogeneity is caused by differences in pro-environmental orientation, identification with the cooperative, attached value to renewable energy production and material incentives. However, this study did not further investigate how these differences can be used to increase motivation. Despite the growing number of papers on community energy initiatives, these studies include a wide range of potential factors based on a variety of theories. Hence, it is not yet clear which factors and how they influence the willingness to participate in community energy initiatives.
Since the actual participation within community energy is difficult to measure, the willingness to participate is used. A meta-analysis of 128 pro-environmental behaviour research studies performed by Hines, Hungerford and Tomera (1987) indicate that a verbal commitment is correlated with pro-environmental behaviour. Also other studies indicate that the communicated willingness to take action is a good indicator of a person’s actual willingness to engage in pro-environmental behaviour (Kollmuss and Agyeman, 2010). Moreover, studies on pro-environmental behaviour and community energy have frequently used the willingness to participate as a self-reported measure of behaviour (Kalkbrenner & Roosen, 2016; Koirala et al., 2018).
2.2 VBN theory
8
and environmental concern, but also through other behaviour specific variables like problem awareness, outcome efficacy and personal norms. Although values can directly as well as indirectly influence behaviour, it is still important to investigate these direct relationships. This can explain why changes in values and environmental concern may result in changes in intensions and behaviour, despite the possible mediation of beliefs and norms (Steg et al., 2011). In addition, these direct effects have been insufficiently studied within the area of community energy.
The VBN theory is based on the norm-activation theory of Schwartz (1977) and his more recent work on the theory of values (Schwartz, 1992, 1994). Values can be conceptually defined based on five items: “A value is a (1) belief (2) pertaining to desirable end states or modes of conduct, that (3) transcends specific situations, (4) guides selection or evaluation of behaviour, people, and events, and (5) is ordered by importance relative to other values to form a system of value priorities” (Schwartz, 1994, p.21). Within his research, Swartz (1992) identified 56 values, which he was able to narrow down to ten motivationally distinct value types. In addition, these value types can be placed along the self-transcendent (including altruistic and biospheric values) versus self-enhancement dimension (including egoistic values).
Although all values are of equal importance, they are ordered in a system of value priorities (Swartz, 1992). When different values are competing, the choice will be made based on the values that are considered to be the most important to act upon in that specific situation (De Groot & Steg, 2009). The VBN Theory recognizes that individual behaviour is rooted in values and that the mechanism of norm activation can bypass rationality (Stern, 1999). This recognition is important, because it helps to explain why people would engage in pro-environmental behaviour when it does not bring them tangible personal benefits. Furthermore, the reason why people want to act in line with their values and personal norms is because it creates a pleasant feeling. More precisely, acting in line with personal norms evokes positive moral emotions like pride, while not acting upon personal norms evokes negative emotions like guilt (Steg et al., 2014).
9
both environmental concern and biospheric values are concerned with nature and other species and the environmental conditions that threaten those valued objects (Stern, 2000). Therefore, evidence shows that biospheric values are positively related to environmental concern (NEP) (Schultz, 2001; Van der Werff & Steg, 2016). Hence, to overcome correlations and biased results biospheric values are excluded from this research. As for the other values, the NEP is not significantly related to egoistic or altruistic values (De Groot & Steg, 2008; Steg et al., 2011).
2.3 Goal framing Theory
Within the framing literature, a frame presents information with the focus on a positive or negative formulation. This can be defined as valence framing effects. According to Levin et al. (1998) there are three different types of valence framing effects, namely risky choice, attribute and goal framing. Previous studies propose that both positive and negative frames enhance the evaluation of the subject compared to neutrally presented information (Levin et al. 1998). For example, the salience of negatively framed messages often proved to be very influential due to the negativity bias (Martin, 1995). However, the question remains which type of goal framing is more powerful within community energy. To address this question, goal framing is included to investigate which frame most effectively promotes the participation in community energy in combination with environmental concern, altruistic, and egoist values.
Although the goal framing theory emerged from different research areas, iy has its main foundations within the cognitive social psychology and focuses on the influence of goals on cognitive processes (Lindenberg & Steg, 2007). This theory assumes that goals guide or ‘‘frame’’ the way people process information and subsequently perform behavioural actions (Steg & Vlek, 2009). At core of the goal framing theory, an issue can be viewed from a variety of perspectives and can be defined as having implications for multiple values or considerations (Chong & Druckman, 2007). In other words, motivations are heterogeneous and in any situation the individual’s attention is selective. Therefore multiple goals can be active at the same time. Furthermore, when this occurs an individual becomes more perceptive to adjustments in certain situational clues and less receptive to others. Nevertheless, the focal goal has the greatest influence on information processing while other goals are in the background positively or negatively influencing the focal goal (Lindenberg 2006; Steg and Vlek, 2009).
10
connected (Kruglanski et al., 2002). The cognitive processes are linked to motivation by the fact that they are guided by the overriding focal goals (Lindenberg, 2006). Which goal becomes focal depends on the values and other underlying factors that have the strongest influence in that specific situation (Steg et al., 2014). Hence, this is one of the main reasons why the influence of environmental concern and values on the willingness to participate in community energy can’t be studied without incorporating the influence of goal framing.
11
3. HYPOTHESES 3.1 Environmental concern
Based on the VBN theory, environmental concern is one of the important factors affecting behaviour specific variables and influencing behaviour (Van der Werff & Steg, 2016). Environmental concern refers to the feelings consumers have about various green issues (Zimmer et al., 1994). Moreover, it can be defined as “the evaluation of the seriousness of environmental problems and focuses on environmental issues only” (Steg et al. 2011, p.351). Previous studies have found that environmental concern has a positive effect on pro-environmental behaviour (Fraj & Martinez, 2006; Kilbourne & Picket, 2008). In addition, research supports that environmental concern motivates people to care for the environment and encourage the production of renewable energy (Kalkbrenner & Roosen, 2016). Therefore, environmental concern positively affects the willingness to participate in community renewable energy projects (Kalkbrenner & Roosen, 2016).
Although environmental concern has already been studied in relation to pro-environmental behaviour, the attitude-behaviour gap has not been fully understood. This gap exists because environmentally concerned individuals do not always show consistent behaviour. For example, research by Ishaswinni and Datta (2011) suggests that consumers with a high level of environmental concern are willing to buy eco-friendly products, but unwilling to pay a premium. In addition, although environmental concern is known to play a crucial role in behavioural change it is often used inconsistently with different definitions or measurements within the literature.
12
to participate in community renewable energy projects. Moreover, it motivates people to care for the environment and act upon it. Therefore, environmental concern will positively affect the willingness to participate in community energy. This results in the following hypothesis:
Hypothesis 1: Environmental concern has a positive influence on the willingness to
participate in community energy.
3.1 Altruistic values
Altruistic values are part of the self-transcendent values. According to Van der Werff and Steg (2016) altruistic values reflect the extent to which people care about others. Moreover, they are positively related to the VBN variables, but this is to a lesser extent than biospheric values. In the past, altruistic and biospheric values have been seen as two similar values predicting pro-environmental behaviour (De Groot and Steg, 2007; 2009). However, the most important difference between these two types of values is that altruistic values are mainly concerned with the welfare of other humans while for biospheric this concern is with nature and the environment for its own sake (De Groot & Steg, 2007, 2008; Steg et al., 2005; Steg et al., 2014).
Theories of altruistic values have been frequently used to explain environmental behaviour (Stern, 2000) and strongly activate pro-environmental personal norms and therefore pro-environmental behaviour (Stern et al., 1999). From an altruistic perspective, environmental quality is a public good and altruistic motives are necessary for an individual to contribute to the environment (Heberlein, 1972). Moreover, the theory of Schwartz (1973,1977) holds that altruistic behaviour (including pro-environmental) occurs in response to personal moral norms that are activated when individuals believe that particular situations pose threats to other people. As a result, people will act pro-environmentally when they believe that pro-environmental actions could prevent those negative consequences.
13
people perceive the benefits of participating in community energy higher than the costs. Altruistic values are therefore hypothesized to have a positive effect on the willingness to participate.
Hypothesis 2: Altruistic values have a positive influence on the willingness to participate in
community energy.
3.2 Egoistic values
Individuals with egoistic values focus on the self and have self-oriented goals like money, power, health, quality of life, prosperity and convenience (Schultz & Zelezny, 2003). Because of these different self-oriented goals it is difficult to explain how egoistic values will affect pro-environmental behaviour. This understanding is important and can be a significant reason why some individuals are principally opposing to the environmental movement and refusing to act more pro-environmentally (Stern, 2000). Individuals who have strong egoistic values are particularly concerned with the costs and benefits of the pro-environmental behaviour for them personally (De Groot & Steg, 2008). Therefore, the intention to act pro-environmentally depends on the benefits exceeding the perceived costs of the behaviour. In general, pro-environmental behaviour requires sacrifices resulting in egoistic values being negatively related to the interest in the environment and pro-environmental actions (Van der Werff & Steg, 2016).
Interestingly, Van der Werff and Steg (2016) found contradictory results to this general assumption. They claim that egoistic values significantly relate to participation in SES (Smart Energy Systems). More precisely, the stronger one’s egoistic values, the more likely an individual is to participate in the smart energy system project. Although no explanation was provided, it is assumed that the installation of smart meters and the two-year feedback on the total household electricity increased people’s resources due to monetary savings (De Groot & Steg, 2010). Another possibility is that people acted pro-environmentally to enhance their own status Steg et al. (2014), because this shows other people they have sufficient resources to make these sacrifices. This is also supported by Griskevicius et al. (2010), stating this behaviour occurs more frequently when the pro-environmental option was slightly more expensive and when the choice was made in public.
14
associated with pro-environmental norms and action. In addition, egoistic values make individuals focus on protecting or increasing his or her own resources (Steg et al., 2014). However, with pro-environmental behaviour investing resources is often a direct cost while the benefits for the individual as for the environment will be experienced later. More specifically, within the area of nuclear and renewable energy sources Steg et al. (2014) found that the stronger an individual’s egoistic values, the higher the importance of egoistic consequences of the energy sources (e.g. prices and comfort).
Based on this, the majority of evidence suggests that egoistic values are negatively related to pro-environmental behaviour. More specifically, it is hypothesized that the costs of the participation in community energy are carefully scrutinized and perceived as higher than the benefits. This is because the participation in community energy requires direct effort and resources (investments) while the benefits are difficult to quantify or become visible in the long-term. Hence, the following hypothesis is proposed:
Hypothesis 3: Egoistic values have a negative influence on the willingness to participate in
community energy.
3.4 Goal framing
From an energy conservation perspective, Katzev and Johnson (1987) found that one of the three ways to motivate people to change their behaviour is antecedent communications. This means that messages, including information, prompts, and persuasion strategies, are sent to people before they make energy conservation decisions. Moreover, they also demonstrate that pro-environmental behaviour can be affected by personal commitment and the perceived personal costs and benefits of actions (Katzev & Johnson, 1987). Changing the actual costs and benefits can be done in various ways, but two of the behavioural options are information or persuasion strategies (Katzev and Johnson, 1987; Steg and Vlek, 2009). To find out if this also holds in relation with the participation in community energy a positive or negative goal frame will be tested as a moderator.
15
impacts will worsen”) (Morton et al., 2011; Spence and Pidgeon, 2010). This is also supported by Levin et al. (1998) who state that positively framed messages are more persuasive than negatively framed messages, conceivably because the number of generated positive associations is higher.
Contrastingly, the meta-analysis of Levin and Gaeth (1998) indicated that the negative (loss) frame generally has a stronger impact on responses than the positive (gain) frame (in 14 out of the 24 researches). In addition, negative information is found to be more attention-grabbing and persuasive because equally sized losses are experienced more strongly than gains (Maheswaran & Meyers-Levy, 1990). Moreover, negatively framed messages can emotionally activate people and put them into a cooperative modus (Mayer et al. 1992) and are more likely to violate people’s expectations (Buda & Zhang 2000). Interestingly, this violation makes negatively framed messages more persusive than positively framed ones because more detailed and systematic processing will take place (Levin et al. 1998). In sum, the findings about negative frames are better founded and found to be more persuasive than positive frames. Therefore, negatively framed messages are expected to be more persuasive than positively framed messages.
Companies need to increase the persuasiveness of messages by highlighting the importance of environmental issues (Chang et al.,2015). People are more likely to systematically process a message when they feel a message is personally relevant or addresses issues that they care about (Maheswaran & Chaiken). Since negatively framed messages are proposed to create higher urgency for environmental issues, this frame will be more effective. In combination with environmental concern the negatively framed message should therefore increase the processing of information and stressing the importance to take action (Chang et al., 2015). Based on this, it is hypothesized that for environmental concern negatively framed messages will strengthen the relationship with the willingness to participate in community energy.
Hypothesis 4.1a: A negative goal frame compared to a positive goal frame strengthens the
effect of environmental concern on the willingness to participate in community energy.
16
will be most beneficial for their strong(est) values. Environmental messages that include references like “saving,” “helping,” or “protecting,” will therefore be most effective for people with altruistic values (Schultz & Zelezny. 2003). Since the positive frame focusses on what you can do instead of what you should not do, the positive frame will be most effective when altruistic values are the focal. Therefore, it is hypothesized that altruistic values will be weakened by the negatively framed message frame.
Hypothesis 4.2a: A negative goal frame compared to positive goal frame weakens the effect of
altruistic values on the willingness to participate in community energy.
Schultz and Zelezny (2003) state many environmental behaviours (e.g., energy conservation, using public transportation, green buying) are framed as “doing with less,” Therefore, the negative consequences are highlighted for people with egoistic values reducing the will to perform these behaviours. In addition, losses of equal magnitude are experienced more strongly than gains (Maheswaran & Meyers-Levy 1990). Since people with high egotistic values focus on the self, the benefits (e.g. including supporting a more sustainable future and receiving some monetary refunds) will not outweigh the costs of participating in community energy (e.g. applying, switching supplier and investing money). This is further reinforced by the Construal Level theory (Chang et al., 2015), which entails that events or objects that are perceived as more distant are more likely to be represented in terms of abstract features. Choosing community energy then becomes difficult since the costs are perceived as immediate and certain while the benefits are often delayed and potential. The negative frame will therefore strengthen the direct effect of egoistic values. In other words, it will increase the focus on self-oriented goals and refrain from participation in community energy.
Hypothesis 4.3a: A negative goal frame compared to a positive goal frame strengthens the
17
Figure 1: Conceptual model
4. METHODOLOGY
For this study a quantitative research method was applied. Quantitative research is an adequate method of testing theory when the literature streams are already elaborated on but still a literature gap exists (Van Aken et al., 2012). First, the data collection methods will be explained. This is followed by the measurements, including how the constructs are measured and which scales are used to construct the questionnaire. Last, the data analysis is elaborated on and which method of analysis was used to test the hypotheses.
4.1 Data collection
For the data collection a questionnaire was used. The questionnaire was distributed online through an anonymous link and a QR-code. The choice for the online questionnaire was made to ensure a completely random distribution of the positive as well as the negative frame. This was done by a randomizer equally assigning the different messages throughout the sample. Prior to sending out the questionnaire it was pre-tested by a small sample to erase possible mistakes and optimize the comprehensibility in Dutch and user friendliness. Before starting the questionnaire and participating in this research, people were informed about their privacy by means of an informed consent. The informed consent is there to insure the data will solely be
18
used for this research. Moreover, anonymity is guaranteed and no personal information will be asked within the questionnaire or will appear within the dataset. The respondents were approached using the network of the researcher. In addition, at two different locations (a dental practice and office of a social housing association) a flyer was distributed including a short description of the researcher, explanation and purpose of the research (e.g. master thesis) and the anonymous link and QR-code. Due to the research topic focussing on community energy initiatives only individuals older than 18 years could participate. This is based on the fact that only from 18 years and older a person in the Netherlands is legally allowed to individually make decisions about their energy consumption.
4.2 Measurement
To measure the constructs existing measures have been chosen when possible. These measures are based on existing scales from literature an validated by other scholars. For the control variables there has been chosen for: gender, age, education, income and household size. In appendix A the questionnaire can be found.
Willingness to participate in community energy. Since community energy is a specific
and upcoming area within pro-environmental behaviour it has been chosen to use a question especially designed for this research. The questions is: “Based on the message you just read, would you join Powerpeers?” This question is measured using a 5-point Likert scale, ranging from “Very unlikely” to “Very likely”.
Altruistic and egoistic values. Research by De Groot and Steg (2007) validates the
distinction between the different value orientations and concludes that it is useful for examining environmentally relevant behaviour (De Groot and Steg, 2007). The altruistic and egoistic scale are both 9-point Likert scales consisting of four statements per value. For each statements the respondent fills in to which extend the statement is in line with their own principles. Values have been chosen to be questioned first since they should be stable over time (Stern, 2000). Therefore, it does not matter if they are asked in the beginning or at the end of the questionnaire as long as they are the basis of the decision-making process.
Environmental concern. The New Environmental Paradigm (NEP) is designed by
19
ranging from “Strongly disagree” to “Strongly agree”. As with values, also environmental concern has been questioned before the message since the NEP items tap into “primitive beliefs” about the nature of the earth and humanity’s relationship with it (Dunlap et al., 2000). Assuming that these primitive beliefs are hard to change, people will evaluate the message based on these beliefs irrespective of the order of questioning.
Goal framing. For goal framing a positive and negative framed message was created.
To increase the truthfulness an advertisement of Powerpeers was used as inspiration. Powerpeers is an online platform for renewable, self-generated energy which links the owner of the renewable energy source directly to the energy consumer. Powerpeers has been chosen because it is a community initiative but not bounded to a specific location. This makes it possible for everyone in the Netherlands to answer the questionnaire. Moreover, the messages was pre-tested and has been adjusted in such a way that the difference between the positive and negative frame is clear without exaggeration.
4.3 Data analysis
20
5. DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS AND RELIABILITY ANALYSIS
The original dataset consisted of 132 respondents. From this original dataset 29 respondents were excluded since they did not finish the complete questionnaire. This was done because answering all the questions is necessary to link the independent to the dependent variables. Moreover, including the unanswered questions could influence the reliability and give a false representation of the sample. Of the respondents 52 respondents received the positively frames message and 51 respondents received the negatively framed message.
5.1 Demographics
The sample consisted of 60 female (58.3%) and 43 male (41,7%) respondents. The average age of the respondents was 36 years (M= 36.19, SD= 17.33), with the youngest being 18 years old and the oldest having an age of 89 years. The majority of the respondents completed an education at the university, making no distinction between a bachelor-, master- or Phd-degree. This results in 53 respondents (51.5%) obtaining a university degree, 30 people (29.1%) obtaining a hbo degree (higher professional education), 9 people a mbo degree (8.7%), 3 people a vwo degree (2.9%), 5 people a havo degree (4.9%) and 2 people a mavo/vmbo degree (1.9%). One person (1.0%) declared to have followed a self-study. Based on these numbers it can be concluded that the majority of the respondents are highly educated.
Regarding the number of people within one household the largest group (40.8%) lives in a household consisting of 2 people (M=2.44, SD= 1.27). The other respondents live in a household consisting of respectively 1 person (24.3%), 4 people (19.4%), 3 people (9.7%), 5 people (4.9%) and 7-people (1.0%). Last, the largest group of respondents has an income lower than €1000 per month, consisting of 29 people (28.2%). The second largest group has an average income of €3000 - €4000 (19.4%), followed by €2000 - €3000 (16.5%), €1000 - €2000 (14.6%), €4000 - €5000 (9.7%), €6000 or more (7.8%), €5000 - €6000 (3.9%) per month.
5.2 Reliability analysis
21
Table 1: Reliability analysis
Cronbach’s alpha New Cronbach’s alpha Mean* Std. Deviation* Egoistic value 0.724 - 2.058 1.277 Altruistic value 0.823 - 4.942 1.360 Environmental concern 0.385 0.651 3.682 0.475 Willingness to participate 0.718 - 3.212 1.011
The Cronbach’s alpha for the NEP scale including all items is 0.385. This is far below the minimum of 0.6 and therefore questions need to be deleted until this minimum is reached. This process starts with the question resulting in the highest Cronbach’s value. Eventually, in the following statements were deleted: “The so-called ‘ecological crisis’ facing humankind has been greatly exaggerated (10), The balance of nature is strong enough to cope with the impacts of modern industrial nations (8), Humans were meant to rule over the rest of nature (12), Humans will eventually learn enough about how nature works to be able to control it (14), Human ingenuity will insure that we do NOT make the earth unliveable (4).” Hereby a α= 0.651 is reached with a minimum loss of information and continuing with 10 out of the 15 questions. For the altruistic value the Cronbach’s alpha is 0.823. Deleting the item “A world at peace: free of war and conflict” would result in a higher α= 0.832. However, since the Cronbach’s alpha already exceeds the minimum alpha of .6 this is not necessary. The egoistic value has a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.724. Deleting the second statement (“Wealth: material possessions, money”) would result in a higher alpha of 0.745. But as with the other value, optimization is not necessary and deleting items will only result in a loss of data. Therefore, all four of the items were used to aggregate the egoistic and altruistic value.
5.3 Control variables
22
conducted, which was insignificant t(101) = -2.22, p = 0.979. Moreover, for education the One-Way ANOVA also showed an insignificant effect of p= 0.343, F(6, 96)= 1.50. The same applies for income, where the One-Way ANOVA showed an insignificant effect of p= 0.519, F(6, 96)= 0.87. For age the Ordinary Least Square regression on the willingness to participate was not significant, R2=0.078, F(1,101) = .613, p = 0.441. The age of the respondents therefore does not influence the willingness to participate .The same accounts for household size, which has no significant influence on the willingness to participate, R2=0.029, F(1,100) =0.086, p = 0.770. To sum up, no control variables will be included.
5.4 Correlations
24
6. RESULTS HYPOTHESES TESTING
In the following section the relationship between the independent variables and the willingness to participate in community energy will be analysed. Subsequently, the hypothesized moderator goal framing will be taken into account. Due to the relatively small sample size the hypotheses will be tested separately. This approach is useful when the sample size is not large enough compared to the number of variables and when there may be collinearity (Mason & Perreault, 1991).
Hypothesis 1 – Environmental concern
To find out if there is a direct effect of environmental concern on the willingness to participate in community energy an OLS regression was performed. The goal is to see whether a higher environmental concern leads to a higher willingness to participate in community energy. The results of the regression show that R= 0.310, B = 0.704, t(102) = 2.950, p = .004. This indicates that there is a significant, positive result between environmental concern and the willingness to participate. In other words, it can be confirmed that a higher environmental concerns leads to a significant higher willingness to participate in community energy (Figure 2).
Figure 2: Environmental concern and willingness to participate
Hypothesis 2 – Altruistic values
Regarding the direct effect of altruistic values (H2) it is predicted that they have a positive effect on the willingness to participate in community energy. To test this relationship a OLS
0 0,5 1 1,5 2 2,5 3 3,5 4 4,5
Low environmental concern High environmental concern
25
regression was performed. The results of the regression show R= 0.275, B = 0,219, t(102) =6.694, p =0.011. This indicates that there is a significant positive relationship between altruistic values and the willingness to participate. This results in that higher altruistic values indeed lead to a higher willingness to participate in community energy (Figure 3). However, compared to environmental concern this influence is less strong.
Figure 3: Altruistic values and willingness to participate
Hypothesis 3 – Egoistic values
Last, for egoistic values (H3) a negative effect on the willingness to participate is predicted. With a R=0.131 the variables explain 13.1% of the variance within the model. Moreover, the p-value of 0.236 (p > 5%) indicates the model is insignificant and therefore is unappropriated to use. Since regression and ANOVA use the information but presented in a different way (effect coded versus dummy coded) an One-Way ANOVA will be performed as an alternative analysis. The One-way ANOVA is significant, F(20, 82) = 2.159, p =0,008. This means that the egoistic value of the respondents influences the willingness to participate in community energy. To see whether this effect is positive or negative the table below provides some insights. The results show the willingness to participate in community energy is lower with high egoistic values (Figure 4). Therefore, it is confirming the hypothesis that egoistic values have a negative influence. 0 0,5 1 1,5 2 2,5 3 3,5 4 4,5
Low altruistic values High altruistic values
26
Figure 4: Egoistic values and willingness to participate
Hypothesis 4 – Goal framing
For H4.1 it is predicted that the negative goal frame compared to the positive goal frame strengthens the effect of environmental concern on the willingness to participate in community energy. With a R of .414 and an adjusted R2 of .171 the model predicts 41.4% of the variance. Moreover, the model is significant with p=0.000. The model shows a significant relationship for de moderating effect of framing (p=0.009, β= 2.678) (Table 3). However, this effect is only significant for the negative goal frame (p= 0.000) and not for the positive goal frame (p=0.4243). In addition, the positive Beta indicates that the effect of the negative goal frame is positive (Figure 5). In other words, it can be confirmed that the negative goal frame strengthens the effect of environmental concern on the willingness to participate in community energy. Interestingly, the direct effect of environmental concern turned insignificant while the framing as well as the moderating effect did become significant. However, using the Z-scores environmental concern maintains to be significant, therefore there is no mediation.
Table 3: OLS regression moderation environmental concern
Variable Beta t-stat P-value
(Constant) 2.571 0.012 Environmental concern -.392 -1.372 0.173 Framing -1.922 -2.659 0.009*** Framing * Environmental concern 1.998 2.678 0.009*** R = 0.414, Adjusted R2 = 171, p=0.000, n = 103. Note: *p < 0.10; ** p < 0.05; *** p< 0.01. 0 0,5 1 1,5 2 2,5 3 3,5 4 4,5
Low egoistic values High egoistic values
27
Figure 5: Moderation effect environmental concern
For H4.2 a negative goal frame compared to positive goal frame is hypothesized to weaken the effect of altruistic values on the willingness to participate in community energy. The OLS regression shows a R of 0.307 and an adjusted R2 of 0.060. The model therefore predicts 30.7% of the variance and is significant with p=.047, meaning it is appropriate to use for this analysis. However, the model shows no significant relationship for de moderating effect of framing (p=0.238, β= -0.648) (Table 4). This means that the negative or the positive goal frame has no significant influence on the effect of altruistic values on the willingness to participate in community energy. The positive direct effect maintained (marginally) significant (p= 0.054).
Table 4: OLS regression moderation altruistic values
Variable Beta t-stat P-value
(Constant) 0.391 0.697
Altruistic values -0.660 1.959 0.054*
Framing 0.416 1.018 0.312
Framing * Altruistic values -0.648 -1.188 0.238
R = 0.307, Adjusted R2 = 0.060, p=0.047, n = 103. Note: *p < 0.10; ** p < 0.05; *** p< 0.01.
Last, as for H4.3 the negative goal frame is hypothesized to strengthen the (negative) effect of egoistic values on the willingness to participate in community energy. The OLS regression is insignificant (p= 0.666) with a R of 0.139 and an adjusted R2 of -0.017 and is therefore inappropriate to use. As an alternative analysis a Two-Way ANOVA will be used. First, a
0 0,5 1 1,5 2 2,5 3 3,5 4 Low environmental concern High environmental concern W il li ng ne ss t o pa rtic ipate
28
median split is performed and a new moderation effect is created. This model shows no significant moderating effect of framing (p= 0.219). Meaning that framing does not influence the effect of egoistic values on the willingness to participate in community energy . However, in line with previous finding there is a marginally significant effect of egoistic values on the willingness to participate (p =0.069, F= 3.390).
Table 5: OLS regression moderation egoistic values
Variable Df F-stat P-value
(Constant) 3 1.431 0.314
Intercept 1 708,192 0.000
Egoistic values 1 3,839 0.076*
Framing 1 0,001 0.974
Framing * Egoistic values 1 0,418 0.555
R = 0.139, Adjusted R2 =-0.017, p=0.666, n = 103Note: *p < 0.10; ** p < 0.05; *** p< 0.01.
Robustness Checks
29
7. DISCUSSION 7.1 Main findings
In this study, the main aim was to improve the understanding of the underlying factors of the willingness to participate in community energy. This was done by examining the influence of environmental concern and altruistic and egoistic values on the willingness to participate in community energy. In addition, goal framing and especially the negative goal frame was proposed to moderate this effect. The findings show that there is indeed a significant direct effect of environmental concern, altruistic and egoistic values on the willingness to participate in community energy. Regarding environmental concern, this finding is similar to that of Fraj and Martinez (2006) and Kilbourne and Picket (2008), who found a positive effect of environmental concern on pro-environmental behaviour. In addition, this study acknowledges that these findings hold within the context of community energy. Moreover, the NEP was used to measure environmental concern and proved to be in line with expectations (Dunlap et al., 2000). This confirms that environmental concern is among the motivations for community energy (Schoor & Scholtens, 2015).
Furthermore, for altruistic values the results show that the higher a person’s altruistic values the more willing that person is to participate in community energy. These results provides support that altruistic values can activate pro-environmental behaviour (Stern et al., 1999; Stern, 2000; Heberlein, 1972). Moreover, these findings indicate that altruistic values do not only influence general pro-environmental behaviour, but also have the potential to influence the participation in community energy. As for egoistic values, the results found a negative influence on the willingness to participate in community energy. This is consistent with prior studies indicating that egoistic values are negatively associated with pro- environmental norms and behaviour (Stern, 2000; Steg et al., 2014). For both altruistic and egoistic values their influence can be extended beyond general pro-environmental behaviour to community energy as well.
30
et al., 2015). This because it highlights the condition that for community energy this effect is only present for the negative goal frame. As for altruistic values and egoistic values no significant moderating effect of goal framing was found. Therefore, the direct effect of these values on the willingness to participate in community energy was not strengthened or weakened by the negative compared to the positive goal frame within this research.
7.2 Contributions and implications
Primarily, the findings of this research contribute to the understanding of the underlying factors that influence pro-environmental behaviour. Within this research area, the VBN theory is a frequently used conceptual framework for explaining environmentally significant behaviour (Schwartz, 1977; Steg et al., 2014). However, scholars often assume without any evidence that environmental behaviour is an undifferentiated class of behaviours and influenced in the same way (Stern, 2000). Because community energy is still an underexposed research area within the environmental domain, it is important to identify those factors that can explain the existing attitude-behaviour gap. This study confirms that environmental concern, altruistic values and egoistic values influence the willingness to participate in community energy. This relation has not been frequently studied in combination with community energy and provides a basis for further exploration. Moreover, these relations are consistent with prior studies and the VBN theory. In addition, this study found a positive relationship for environmental concern as well as altruistic values with the willingness to participate. In line with expectations the opposite was found for egoistic values, namely a negative influence on the willingness to participate. Therefore, this paper emphasized the relevance of studying direct relationships in relation to pro-environmental behaviour.
31
messages were found to increase the willingness to participate for people with high environmental concern. Targeting these people with negatively designed messages can increase their willingness to act pro-environmental. For people with high egoistic values, the participation in community energy should highlight the personal benefits in order to reduce the negative effects of egoistic values. As for people with altruistic values, research should identify the effectiveness of communication community energy as a valuable and necessary solution to guarantee a sustainable future for humans.
7.3 Limitations and future research
There are some limitations inherent to this study which present opportunities for future research. These limitations can be classified into three areas. First, a major limitation of this study is the sample size and representation of the population. In total the sample consisted of 103 valuable responses, which can be classified as relatively small (Mason & Perreault, 1991). Moreover, the sample was highly educated, with the majority of the respondents attending university (52%). In addition, the average age was 36 years with an average household size of two. Together these factors can give an inaccurate overview of the average inhabitant of the Netherlands. Therefore, a supplementary study should be executed to confirm the validity of these results by replicating it with a larger and more representative sample of the Dutch population.
Secondly, the results can be biased by the way the information was presented and previous behaviour. Although the positive frame was identified as significantly different form the negative frame, other factors could have influenced the decision making process. For example, factors like prior knowledge about community energy, previous investments in energy saving measures, the Powerpeers initiative itself or language use could affect the effectiveness of the message. Therefore, future research should test different ways of framing community energy initiatives to find out if this leads to different results. In addition, future research should also explore other influencing factors and framing tactics besides goal framing. For example, a message can be framed as ‘help others’ (altruistic value) or ‘help self’ (egoistic value) (Brunel & Nelson 2000).
32
community energy). This will increase the internal consistency and reliability of the willingness to participate in community energy and can enhance the results of future research on this topic.
8. CONCLUSION
33
REFERENCES
Ajzen, I. (1988). Attitudes, personality, and behavior. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.Baron.
Aken, J. E., Berends, J. J., & Bij, J. D. (2012). Problem solving in organizations: A methodological handbook for business and management students. Cambridge University Press.
Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator–mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of personality and social psychology, 51(6), 1173.
Bauwens, T. (2016). Explaining the diversity of motivations behind community renewable energy. Energy Policy, 93, 278–290.
Berger, I. E., & Corbin, R. M. (1992). Perceived consumer effectiveness and faith in others as moderators of environmentally responsible behaviors. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 79-89.
Boon, F.P. & Dieperink, C. (2014). Local civil society based renewable energy organisations in the Netherlands: exploring the factors that stimulate their emergence and
development. Energy Policy, 69, 297–307.
Bouffard, F. & Kirschen D.S. (2008). Centralised and distributed electricity systems. Energy Policy, 4504–4508.
Chang, C.T. & Lee, Y.K. (2010). Effects of message framing, vividness congruency and statistical framing on responses to charity advertising. International Journal of Advertising, 29(2), 195–220.
Chong, D. & Druckman, J.N. (2007). Framing Theory. Annual Review of Political Science, 10(1),103–126.
Dawes, R. M. (1980). Social dilemmas. Annual Review of Psychology, 31, 169–193. De Groot, J.I.M. & Steg, L. (2007). Value orientations and environmental beliefs in five
countries: Validity of an instrument to measure egoistic, altruistic and biospheric value orientations. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 38(3), 318–332.
De Groot, J. I., & Steg, L. (2009). Mean or green: which values can promote stable pro‐ environmental behavior? Conservation Letters, 2(2), 61-66.
De Young, R. (2000). Expanding and evaluating motives for environmentally responsible behavior. Journal of Social Issues, 56, 509–526.
Dietz, T., Stern, P. C., & Guagnano, G. A. (1998). Social structural and social psychological bases of environmental concern. Environment and Behavior, 30, 450–471
Dunlap, R. E., Van Liere, K. D., Mertig, A. G., & Jones, R. E. (2000). New trends in measuring environmental attitudes: measuring endorsement of the new ecological paradigm: a revised NEP scale. Journal of social issues, 56(3), 425-442.
34
Foxon, T. J., Reed, M. S. and Stringer, L. C. (2009) Governing long-term social- ecological change: what can the adaptive management and transition management approaches learn from each other? Environmental Policy and Governance, 19, 3-20
Fraj, E., Martinez, E. (2006). Environmental values and lifestyles as determining factors of ecological consumer behaviour: an empirical analysis. Journal of Consumer
Marketing, 23 (3), 133-144
Gifford, R. (2008). Psychology’s essential role in climate change. Canadian Psychology,49, 273-280.
Gifford, R., & Comeau, L. A. (2011). Message framing influences perceived climate change competence, engagement, and behavioural intentions. Global Environmental Change, 21(4), 1301-1307.
Griskevicius, V., Tybur, J. & Bergh, B. Van den (2010). Going green to be seen: Status, reputation, and conspicuous conservation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 98, 392-404.
Hines, J. M., Hungerford, H. R., & Tomera, A. N. (1987). Analysis and synthesis of research on responsible environmental behavior: A meta-analysis. The Journal of
environmental education, 18(2), 1-8.
Ishaswini, N., & Datta, S.K. (2011). Pro-environmental concern influencing green buying: A study on Indian consumers. International Journal of Business and Management, 6 (6), 124-133.
Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1984). Choices, values, and frames. American Psychologist, 39, 341–350
Kalkbrenner, B.J. & Roosen, J. (2016). Citizens’ willingness to participate in local renewable energy projects: The role of community and trust in Germany. Energy Research and Social Science, 13, 60–70.
Kallis, G. & Noorgard, R. (2010) Co-evolutionary ecological economics. Ecological Economics, 69, 690-699
Kaplan, S. (2000). Human nature and environmentally responsible behavior. Journal of Social Issues, 56, 491-508.
Katzev, R. D., & Johnson, T. R. (1983). A social psychological analysis of residential electricity consumption: The impact of minimal justification techniques. Journal of Economic Psychology, 3, 267–284.
Kilbourne, W. & Pickett, G. (2008). How materialism affects environmental beliefs, concern, and environmentally responsible behavior. J. Bus. Res. 61, 885–893.
35
Kollmuss, A. & Agyeman, J. (2002). Mind the Gap: Why Do People Behave Environmentally and What are the Barriers to Pro-Environmental Behaviour. Environmental Education Research, 8(3), 239–260.
Kruglanski, A. W. et al. (2002). A theory of goal systems. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 34, 331–378.
Kruglanski, A. W. & Kopetz, C. (2009). What is so special (and non-special) about goals? A view from the cognitive perspective. The psychology of goals, 27–55.
Levin, I.P., (1987). Associative effects of information framing. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society 25, 85–86.
Levin, I.P., Gaeth, G.J. & Levin, I.P. (1998). All Frames Are Not Created Equal: A Typology and Critical Analysis of Framing Effects, Organizational behavior and human
decision processes, 76(2), 149-188.
Lindenberg, S. (2006). Prosocial Behavior, Solidarity, and Framing Processes. Solidarity and Prosocial Behavior, 23–44.
Lindenberg, S. & Foss, N.J. (2011). Managing joint production motivation: The role of goal framing and governance mechanisms. Academy of Management Review, 36(3), 500– 525.
Lindenberg, S. & Steg, L., (2007). Normative, gain and hedonic goal frames guiding environmental behavior. Journal of Social Issues, 63(1),117–137.
Lindenberg, S. & Steg, L. (2013). Goal-framing theory and norm guided environmental behavior. Encouraging Sustainable Behavior, 37–54.
Lorenzoni, I., Nicholson-Cole, S., & Whitmarsh, L. (2007). Barriers perceived to engaging with climate change among the UK public and their policy implications. Global Environmental Change, 17, 445-459.
Loroz, P.S. (2007). The interaction of message frames and reference points in prosocial persuasive appeals. Psychology and Marketing, 24, 1001–1023.
Lu, X., & White, H. (2014). Robustness checks and robustness tests in applied economics. Journal of Econometrics, 178, 194-206.
Maheswaran, D. & Meyers-Levy, J. (1990) The influence of message framing and issue involvement. Journal of Marketing Research, 27(4), 361–367.
Mason, C. H., & Perreault Jr, W. D. (1991). Collinearity, power, and interpretation of multiple regression analysis. Journal of marketing research, 268-280.
Massa, F., Helms, W., Voronov, M. and Wang, L. (2016). ‘Emotions uncorked: Inspiring evangelism for the emerging practice of cool climate winemaking in Ontario’. Academy of Management Journal, 60, 461–99.
36
Meyerowitz, B. E., & Chaiken, S. (1987). The effect of message framing on breast self-examination attitudes, intentions, and behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 500–510.
Midden, C., Kaiser, F., & McCalley, T. (2007). Technology’s four roles in under- standing individuals’ conservation of natural resources. Journal of Social Issues, 63(1), 155– 174.
Morton, T. A., Rabinovich, A., Marshall, D., & Bretschneider, P. (2011). The future that may (or may not) come: How framing changes responses to uncertainty in climate change communications. Global Environmental Change, 21, 103-109.
Nordlund, A. M., & Garvill, J. (2002). Value structures behind pro-environmental behavior. Environment and Behavior, 34, 740-756.
Nordlund, A. M., & Garvill, J. (2003). Effects of values, problem awareness and personal norm on willingness to reduce personal car use. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 23, 339-347.
Oreg, S. & Katz-Gerro, T. (2006). Predicting pro-environmental behavior cross-nationally: Values, the theory of planned behavior, and value-belief-norm theory. Environment and Behavior, 38(4), 462–483.
Pelletier, L.G. & Sharp, E. (2008). Persuasive communication and pro-environmental
behaviours: How message tailoring and message framing can improve the integration of behaviours through self-determined motivation. Canadian Psychology, 49(3), 210– 217.
Perlaviciute, G., & Steg, L. (2015). The influence of values on evaluations of energy alternatives. Renewable Energy, 77, 259-267.
Poortinga, W., Steg, L., & Vlek, C. (2004). Values, environmental concern, and environmental behavior: A study into household energy use. Environment and behavior, 36(1), 70-93.
Posner, M. I., & Petersen, S. E. (1990). The attention system of the human brain. Annual Review of Neuroscience, 13, 25–42.
Rothman, A. J. & Salovey, P. (1997) Shaping perceptions to motivate healthy behavior: the role of message framing. Psychological Bulletin, 121(1), 3—19
Rothman, A. J., Kelly, K. M., Hertel, A. W., & Salovey, P. (2003). Message framing and illness representations: Implications for interventions to promote and sustain health behavior. The self-regulation of health and illness behaviour, 278–296.
Scannell, L. & Gifford, R. (2013). Personally Relevant Climate Change: The Role of Place Attachment and Local Versus Global Message Framing in Engagement. Environment and Behavior, 45(1), 60–85.
37
Schultz, P. W. et al. (2005). Values and their relationship to environmental concern and conservation behavior. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 36, 457–475. Schultz, P.W. & Zelezny, L.C. (1998). Values and pro-environmental behaviour. A
five-country study. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 29 (4), 540-558.
Schwartz, S. H. (1992). Universals in the content and structures of values: Theoretical advances and empirical tests in 20 countries. Advances in experimental psychology, 25, 1-65.
Schwartz, S. H. (1994). Are there universal aspects in the structure and contents of human values? Journal of Social Issues, 50, 19-45.
Sloot, D., Jans, L. & Steg, L. (2018). Can community energy initiatives motivate sustainable energy behaviours? The role of initiative involvement and personal pro-environmental motivation. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 57, 99–106.
Spence, A., & Pidgeon, N. (2010). Framing and communicating climate change: The effects of distance and outcome frame manipulations. Global Environmental Change, 20, 656-667.
Steel, B. S. (1996). Thinking globally and acting locally?: environmental attitudes, behaviour and activism. Journal of environmental management, 47(1), 27-36.
Steg, L. & Vlek, C. (2009). Encouraging pro-environmental behaviour: An integrative review and research agenda. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 29(3), 309–317.
Steg, L. et al. (2014). An Integrated Framework for Encouraging Pro-environmental
Behaviour: The role of values, situational factors and goals. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 38, 104–115.
Stern, P.C. (1999). Information, incentives, and proenvironmental consumer behavior. Journal of Consumer Policy. Consumer Issues in Law, Economics and Behavioural Sciences, 22(4), 461-478.
Stern, P.C. (2000). New Environmental Theories: Toward a Coherent Theory of
Environmentally Significant Behavior. Journal of Social Issues, 56(3), 407–424. Thøgersen, J., & Ölander, F. (2002). Human values and the emergence of a sustainable
consumption pattern: A panel study. Journal of Economic Psychology, 23, 605-630. Van de Velde, L., Verbeke, W., Popp, M., & Van Huylenbroeck, G. (2010). The importance
of message framing for providing information about sustainability and environmental aspects of energy. Energy Policy, 38(10), 5541-5549.
Van der Werff, E., Steg, L., & Keizer, K. (2013). The value of environmental self-identity: The relationship between biospheric values, environmental self-identity and
environmental preferences, intentions and behaviour. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 34, 55-63.
38
