Comparing and Combining Theories To Explain Proenvironmental

Environment and Behavior
http://eab.sagepub.com
Comparing and Combining Theories to Explain Proenvironmental

Intentions: The Case of Commuting-Mode Choice
Rob Wall, Patrick Devine-Wright and Greig A. Mill
Environment and Behavior 2007; 39; 731 originally published online Jul 17,
2007;
DOI: 10.1177/0013916506294594
The online version of this article can be found at:

http://eab.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/39/6/731
Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com
On behalf of:
Environmental Design Research Association
Additional services and information for Environment and Behavior can be found at:
Email Alerts: http://eab.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts
Subscriptions: http://eab.sagepub.com/subscriptions
Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav
Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
Citations http://eab.sagepub.com/cgi/content/refs/39/6/731
Downloaded from http://eab.sagepub.com by Juan Martell Muoz on February 16, 2009

Environment and Behavior
Volume 39 Number 6
November 2007 731-753
2007 Sage Publications
Comparing and Combining 10.1177/0013916506294594
http://eab.sagepub.com
Theories to Explain hosted at
http://online.sagepub.com
Proenvironmental
Intentions
The Case of Commuting-Mode Choice
Rob Wall
De Montfort University, Leicester, UK
Patrick Devine-Wright
University of Manchester, UK
Greig A. Mill
De Montfort University, Leicester, UK
This article addresses the need for systematic theory comparison and devel-
opment in environmentally significant behavior (ESB) research. Using logis-
tic regression (N = 398), models based on Schwartzs norm-activation
theory (NAT) and Ajzens theory of planned behavior (TPB) were compared
as explanations of drivers intentions to reduce or maintain their car use for
commuting. NAT explained more variance (McFadden R2 = .342). A model
using NAT and TPB constructs was also tested. This explained more variance
than either individual theory (McFadden R2 = .379). A personal-normative
variable (NAT) and perceived behavioral control (TPB) were the only statisti-
cally-significant predictors of intentions in the model derived from both theo-
ries. It is argued that combining NAT and TPB constructs accounts for a range
of influences on car-use intentions that neither individual theory fully cap-
tures. A combined model may also apply to other ESBs, especially those per-
ceived as reducing personal utility (i.e., entailing sacrifice).
Keywords: travel; commuting; norm-activation theory; theory of planned

behavior
G iven that many theories have been applied to environmentally signifi-

cant behavior (ESB), it is useful to compare some of these alternative
explanations. This is one aspect of the systematic approach called for by
731

732 Environment and Behavior
Stern (2000), who argued that ESB research often pays little attention to
theory comparison and synthesis of different theoretical approaches. This
article attempts to address these concerns.
Collins and Chambers (2005) noted that selection of travel modes is
among the most environmentally-significant decisions faced by individuals
(p. 640), and such decisions are our focus here. Emissions from fossil-fueled
vehicles affect local air quality and global climate change (Bristow et al.,
2004), so there could be environmental benefits if drivers switched modes, or
simply traveled less (Department for Transport [DfT], 2004). Although some
journeys might be avoidable for some people, commuting is perhaps one type
of travel that is largely nonnegotiable. Commuting-mode decisions have been
the subject of several recent studies (e.g., Bamberg & Schmidt, 2003; Collins
& Chambers, 2005; Steg, 2005), and the current research adds to this work.
Travel research often combines variables from different theories into
new models (e.g., Harland, Staats, & Wilke, 1999; Hunecke, Blbaum,
Matthies, & Hger, 2001); however, literature searching revealed only one
recent study that used one sample to compare different theories ability to
explain modal choicearguably the only method of genuine comparison.
Bamberg and Schmidt (2003) used German students data (N = 254) to
compare Schwartzs (1977) norm-activation theory (NAT), Ajzens (1991)
theory of planned behavior (TPB), and Triandis (1977) theory of interper-
sonal behavior (TIB) as explanations of travel mode for getting to a uni-
versity. Although the TIB is not common in ESB research, NAT and the
TPB have been described as the two classic psychological models in the
field (Matthies, 2003, p. 104).
NAT and the TPB were the theoretical bases of the current study.
Accepting that the goal of science is a consensus of rational opinion
(Ziman, 1991, p. 3), it seems sensible to build consensus by applying estab-
lished theories in new settings. A balance must be struck between endlessly
testing identical models and testing models that are so different as to be
incomparable but if we are to achieve Sterns (2000) coherent theory of
ESB, a focus on proven theories seems reasonable. In this way, research
brings cumulative understanding, strengthening the case for particular
claims through successive additions to the literature. The argument is not
that theories are immutable but that coherent theory develops via small steps
that build on earlier work. This article attempts such a developmentand
responds to Sterns call for synthetic theory buildingby testing a model
containing variables from NAT and the TPB, and comparing separate
models. The rationale for combining variables from the two theories is set
out below, after a brief description of each.

Wall et al. / Commuting-Mode Choice 733
Figure 1
Ajzens (1991) Theory of Planned Behavior
ATT
SN BI Behavior
2 1
PBC
Note: ATT = attitude toward the behavior; SN = subjective norm; BI = behavioral intention;
PBC = perceived behavioral control.
Ajzens (1991) TPB has been applied to many ESBs and other behaviors
(Armitage & Conner, 2001). It proposes behavioral intention (BI) as behav-
iors immediate psychological antecedent. BI is determined by a persons
overall evaluation of a behavior (attitude toward it, or ATT), perceived
social pressure surrounding it (subjective norm, or SN) and perceived con-
trol over factors that may facilitate or inhibit performance (perceived behav-
ioral control, or PBC). These constructs are based on underlying beliefs.
For example, SN rests on beliefs about the wishes of others and the indi-
viduals motivation to comply with them. Arrow 1 in Figure 1 indicates that
where PBC accurately reflects influences on control, it may directly affect
behavior (Ajzen, 1991). Arrow 2 indicates that PBC may moderate the BI
behavior relationship (i.e., this relationship should be strongest for people
with high PBC; Ajzen, 1991, 2002). PBC differentiates the TPB from its
predecessor, the theory of reasoned action (Ajzen & Fishbein, 1980).
Schwartz (1977) developed NAT to explain altruistic behavior: behavior
performed for others benefit rather than for social and material reinforce-
ments (p. 222). Whereas Schwartz emphasized the value placed on other
people, ESB research often assumes that valued objects can include non-
humans (e.g., Stern, 2000). Normative self-expectations experienced as feel-
ings of obligation (personal norms, or PN) are the immediate antecedent of

Figure 2
Schwartzs (1977) Norm-Activation Theory
AC
PN Behavior
Responsibility
beliefs
Note: AC = awareness of a behaviors consequences; PN = personal norm.
altruistic acts. PN is activated by awareness of a behaviors consequences

(AC) and beliefs about personal responsibility. Schwartz spoke of a ten-
dency for responsibility denial (RD); however, ESB studies tend to use the
behavior-specific ascription of responsibility (AR) construct (e.g., Bamberg
& Schmidt, 2003). Schwartz also argued that AC and responsibility moder-
ate PNs influence on behavior (see Figure 2).
Differences between NAT and the TPB include, first, the formers
emphasis on altruism. Benefits to others are prioritized over self-interest.
The TPB, however, stresses personal utility. Although ATT may capture
beliefs that a behavior is positive because it benefits others, these are not
assumed to be necessary for action. Second, NAT focuses on internal norms
(PN), whereas the TPB focuses on external ones (SN). Third, the TPB cap-
tures perceived control over behavior (and, by implication, perceived con-
text); however, NAT does not. Fourth, the TPB includes intentions (BI),
whereas NAT does not.
Oom Do Valle, Rebelo, Reis, and Menezes (2005) have recently com-
bined NAT and the TPB (to explain recycling) on the premise that the the-
ories use of comparable concepts suggests that they can be integrated to
better predict ESB (p. 370). However, it may be more appropriate to com-
bine them because of their differences rather than their similarities. As
Bamberg and Schmidt (2003) pointed out, the theories were developed in
different research contexts and focus on different aspects of social behav-
ior (p. 280). This was the rationale for Harland et al.s (1999) addition of
PN to the TPB in regressions to explain five proenvironmental intentions
(including using noncar travel modes). In all five analyses there were sig-
nificant (p < .05) R2 increases after PNs addition. This, Harland et al.

argued, suggests that none of the TPB constructs entirely captures the
influence of moral considerations (p. 2523). Ajzen (1991) presented simi-
lar findings from outside the ESB domain, again suggesting that addition of
PN increases the TPBs explanatory power when people see a moral aspect
to the intention or behavior under investigation.
Many people apparently do see a moral aspect to travel (e.g., Harland
et al., 1999; Hunecke et al., 2001; Klckner & Matthies, 2004); however,
such concerns were relatively unimportant in Bamberg and Schmidts
(2003) study. NAT explained only 14% of the variance in self-reported
modal choice, whereas the TPB explained 45%. SNs effect on intentions
was especially pronounced ( = .40, p < .05), with this construct explain-
ing more variance than either ATT or PBC in the TPB analysis. This is atyp-
ical. Armitage and Conners (2001) meta-analysis across behavioral
domains shows that SN generally has less effect on BI than ATT or PBC.
Bamberg and Schmidt (2003) proposed that their findings reflect young
peoples particular sensitivity to peer pressure and a view that travel is not
moral behavior, which may not pertain in older groups. The current study
offered a chance to test these notions. Although carried out in a university,
participants included members of staff and students, providing a more
diverse sample (see Table 1).
Like many ESB studies applying the TPB (e.g., Harland et al., 1999), the
outcome variable in the current research was intention (BI). It is less common
to see BI as an outcome variable in NAT studies because Schwartzs (1977)
theory does not include this construct. However, PN has been shown to pre-
dict BI (e.g., Harland et al., 1999). In the current studycomparing differ-
ent modelscomparisons had to be made based on the same outcome.
Because of the difficulty of gathering behavioral data, commuting-mode
intention was chosen. We also stress that we tested a model based on NAT
rather than using Schwartzs (1977) exact formulation. Recent travel-mode
research shows the utility of a personal-normative variable capturing feel-
ings of obligation and responsibility, as opposed to a separate measure of
beliefs about personal responsibility (AR) alongside PN (Hunecke et al.,
2001; Matthies, Kuhn, & Klckner, 2002). In the interests of parsimony we
adopted this approach and refer to this combined feelings-of-responsibility-
and-obligation variable as PN.
To summarize, the current study compared the explanatory power of
models based on NAT and the TPB for commuting caruse intentions. It
also tested a model comprising NAT and TPB constructs, reflecting the
assumption that a person may have altruistic and nonaltruistic motives for
the same intention. Neither NAT nor the TPB explicitly accounts for this

Table 1
Sociodemographic Comparison of Full Sample and Drivers
Full sample (N = 1,014) Drivers (n = 539)
n % n %
Gender
Female 616 60.7 344 63.8
Male 343 33.8 170 31.5
Missing 55 5.4 25 4.6
Age
Younger than 20 years 47 4.6 6 1.1
20-29 years 258 25.4 68 12.6
30-39 years 199 19.6 119 22.1
40-49 years 231 22.8 158 29.3
50-59 years 193 19.0 139 25.8
60 years or older 36 3.6 27 5.0
Missing 50 4.9 22 4.1
Job type
Academic staff 265 26.1 166 30.8
Administrative staff 325 32.1 207 38.4
Nonadministrative support 148 14.6 97 18.0
staff
Undergraduate 199 19.6 43 8.0
Postgraduate 32 3.2 8 1.5
Missing 45 4.4 18 3.3
Full- or part-time
Full-time 805 79.4 404 75.0
Part-time 156 15.4 110 20.4
Missing 53 5.2 25 4.6
Income
Less than 10,000 270 26.6 94 17.4
10,000-19,999 291 28.7 165 30.6
20,000-29,999 163 16.1 98 18.2
30,000-39,999 133 13.1 90 16.7
40,000 or over 62 6.1 44 8.2
Missing 95 9.4 48 8.9
possibility. More broadly, the current study responded to Sterns (2000)

call for systematic theory comparison and the development of synthetic
theory based on some of the many approaches that have been taken to
ESB. It also developed Bamberg and Schmidts (2003) work on travel-
mode choice, in which NAT performed surprisingly poorly, by testing sim-
ilar hypotheses using a more diverse sample.

Hypotheses
Hypothesis 1: Congruent with NAT, variance in drivers car-use intentions
will be explained by AC and PN.
Hypothesis 2: Congruent with the TPB, variance in drivers car-use intentions
will be explained by ATT, PBC, and SN.
Hypothesis 3: A model using NAT and TPB variables will explain more vari-
ance in drivers car-use intentions than either individual model.
Hypothesis 4: Students will express weaker antidriving subjective norms and
personal norms than nonstudents.1
Method
Respondents and Data Collection

The current study was conducted at De Montfort University (DMU). At
the time, DMU had seven campuses, all in Englands midlands region, with
18,515 students and 3,380 staff. Data were collected in April and May
2003. Staff with DMU e-mail accounts (N = 3,180) were sent a message
stating that a travel survey was online and requesting its completion. A
reminder was sent 6 weeks later. Two hundred cleaning and maintenance
staff without e-mail accounts were sent paper surveys and covering letters.
Paper surveys were also used to convenience sample 800 students across
campuses. Entry into a 100 ( U.S. $180) prize draw was offered for
returning a completed survey. One thousand and fourteen usable surveys
were returned (4.6% of DMUs population and 24.3% of those approached).
Sociodemographic details of the sample are shown in Table 1, as are
details of respondents who commuted by car. Data from this group were
used in analyses reported here. The majority of the drivers were female.
Twenty to 29 years was the most represented age group. Administrative
staff was the most represented job type, and there were relatively few
students, although numbers were sufficient for some analysis for Hypothesis 4.
Most drivers were full-time, and incomes tended toward the low end of the
range.
Measures
Items tapping NAT and TPB constructs are shown the appendix. In the
survey, these were interspersed with items asking about contextual influences
on respondents commuting behavior and about noncommuting journeys.

These data were not used in analyses reported here. NAT and TPB items
were based on previous ESB studies (e.g., Bamberg & Schmidt, 2003;
Hunecke et al., 2001; Matthies et al., 2002) and on Schwartz (1977) and
Ajzens (1991, 2002) suggested operational definitions. However, neither
wording nor number of items tapping each construct was entirely under the
researchers control. The study was undertaken with DMUs Green Travel
Groupresponsible for University travel policyand items were negoti-
ated with a Group representative.
The survey was piloted using Robsons (2002) pretesting process. Drafts
were provided to members of each respondent group (four administrative
staff, four nonadministrative support staff, six academics, three undergrad-
uates, and four postgraduates), drawn from all campuses. They were cho-
sen by snowball sampling, where the researcher chooses the first person,
who suggests another, and so on. Sampling continues until volunteers pro-
vide no new information. Each volunteer completed the survey in the first
authors presence, verbalizing all responses. The first author identified
items that were consistently regarded as ambiguous, intrusive, repetitive, or
otherwise difficult, and these were revised accordingly.
Data Analysis
As the focus was on drivers motivations for switching (or not switch-
ing) travel modes, only people who reported commuting by car at least 4
days per week and stated intentions to maintain or reduce their car use for
commuting during the year following the survey were included in analyses
(N = 539).2 Of these people, 82% stated intentions to maintain their car use
(n = 441), and 18% stated intentions to reduce it (n = 98). There was no sig-
nificant gender difference between drivers, and the full sample (2 = 1.069,
df = 1, p = .301); however, there were significant differences in job type (2 =
43.745, df = 4, p < .001), full- or part-time status (2 = 6.050, df = 1, p =
.014), income (z = 4.084, p < .001) and age (z = 6.546, p < .001; z scores
refer to Mann-Whitney tests). Drivers were significantly more likely to be
older, staff, part-time, and higher earners.
Principal components analysis (PCA) was used to check that items
designed for use in multi-item scales were sufficiently correlated. Oblique
rotation was used because factors were expected to correlate, and direct
oblimin rotation was specified because this has been identified as the most
reliable oblique rotation method (Kline, 1994). As expected, the PCA gave
a five-factor solution with factors representing two NAT constructs and
three TPB constructs. Table 2 shows the rotated PCA structure matrix and

Table 2
Rotated Structure Matrix from Principal Components Analysis
Factor Loadings
Item Construct 1 2 3 4 5
Avoiding car use will help to solve AC .817

wider environmental problems
like global warming
My transport choices can have an AC .745
impact on the environment
I can help to solve my town/citys AC .737 .311
traffic problems by avoiding car use
I dont believe that environmental AC .731
problems like global warming are
caused by car use
I contribute to pollution AC .656
My usual form of transport ATT .880
[car] is flexible
[car] is convenient
My usual form of transport [car] is safe ATT .863
[car] is uncomfortable
[car] is pleasant
I am able to use forms of PBC .899
transport other than the car
to get to university
Other means of traveling to the PBC .893
university are available to me
It would be difficult for me to reduce PBC .783
my car use when getting to
the university
My friends at DMU think that I SN .727
shouldnt drive to get to university
Most people I know at university SN .644
dont care how I travel to DMU
I feel personal responsibility for PN .425 .786
helping to solve my town/citys
traffic problems
I feel morally obliged to avoid using PN .753
the car to get to university
I dont feel any personal responsibility PN .481 .693
for causing my town/citys
traffic problems
Note: AC = awareness of a behaviors consequences; ATT = attitude toward the behavior; PBC =
perceived behavioral control; SN = subjective norm; PN = personal norm.

includes all loadings > .500 (or < .500). Factors were identified as repre-
senting AC, ATT, PBC, SN, and PN.
Cronbachs was computed for each set of items used in identifying a
factor. In line with what seems to be the most stringent threshold applied in
ESB studies (e.g., Hunecke et al., 2001), .70 was taken to indicate
acceptable reliability. Values for all scales except SN were .70 (AC =
.86, PN = .70, ATT = .78, PBC = .82, SN = .42). Despite the mod-
est correlation between the SN items, it remained possible that one or both
could have individual effects on car-use intentions. They were, therefore,
used as separate predictors in the analyses reported below.
Participants scores on reliable scales were computed by taking their
mean score on items constituting each scale, so that all scores ranged from
1 to 5. Higher scores on AC, PBC, and PN indicated beliefs that, theoreti-
cally, should raise the odds of intending to reduce car use. A high AC score,
for example, indicated expression of awareness of negative consequences
of car use. The same convention was used for the SN items. Conversely, low
ATT scores were congruent with increased odds of intending to reduce car
use, representing negative evaluations of ones own driving.
PBC exhibited most variance (1.126), while ATT exhibited least vari-
ance (.319). Mean ATT score of 4.257 indicated that stated attitudes toward
commuting by car were generally very positive. MannWhitney tests were
used to examine differences between those who expressed intentions to
maintain and reduce their car use (hereafter maintainers and reducers,
respectively) on each variable. There was no significant difference (at .05
level) on the SN item referring people I know; however, there were sig-
nificant differences on all other variables. Congruent with NAT and the
TPB, reducers had significantly higher scores on AC, PBC, and PN,
expressed significantly greater (although still low) pressure against driving
from friends at DMU, and stated significantly less positive (although still
very favorable) attitudes toward their own driving.
Spearmans rho () correlations among scales were calculated.3 The
strongest was = .688 (p < .001), between AC and PN. This indicated that
multicollinearity would not be a problem in regressions using these vari-
ables as predictors (Field, 2000).
Results
Results for each hypothesis are presented individually before a compari-

son of results for each regression model is provided at the end of this section.

Table 3
Regression of BI on NAT Variables
Regression McFadden Adjusted Schwarz
Predictor Coefficient SE z p R2 R2 Criterion
PN 2.314 .301 8.8126 < .001 .342 .328 .525

AC .679 .341 4.9116 .030
Note: BI = behavioral intention; NAT = norm-activation theory; PN = personal norm; AC =

awareness of a behaviors consequences.
Hypothesis 1: Congruent with NAT, Variance

in Drivers Car-Use Intentions Will Be
Explained by AC and PN
A logistic regression was performed with BI (maintain or reduce car use)
as the outcome variable and AC and PN as predictors (N = 398). Direct
comparison of regression models required that the same respondents were
used to test each hypothesis. Only 398 drivers provided sufficient data to be
included in all tests. Forced entry of predictors was used, as this analysis
tested an established theory (Bryman & Cramer, 2001). Table 3 shows
regression output for Hypothesis 1.
PN and AC were significantly (p < .05) positively associated with inten-
tions to reduce car use. PNs higher regression coefficient indicates that its
influence was stronger than ACs. (Unstandardized regression coefficients
are reported; however, predictors effects are directly comparable because
each was measured on the same 1 to 5 scale.) The NAT-based model
explained 34.2% of the variance in BI (based on McFadden R2).
The Schwarz criterion (SC) indicates how well a logistic regression
model balances parsimony and goodness-of-fit (Enders, 2004). It is calcu-
lated using the equation
SC = 2LL / n + k logn / n
where n is number of cases, k is number of predictors (including the con-

stant) and 2LL is the log likelihood statistic (LL) multiplied by 2. 2LL
indicates how much unexplained information remains in the data after the
model has been fitted. The larger 2LLs value, the more unexplained infor-
mation and thus the poorer the fit. LL is multiplied by 2 because 2LL
has an approximately chi-square distribution and so makes it possible
to compare values against what we might expect by chance (Field, 2000,

Table 4
Regression of BI on TPB Variables
ATT .620 .229 4.545 .017 .259 .233 .559

PBC 1.518 .213 7.2945 < .001
SN1 .689 .190 3.0195 < .001
SN2 .158 .329 1.8217 .185
Note: BI = behavioral intention; TPB = theory of planned behavior; ATT = attitude toward the
behavior; PBC = perceived behavioral control; SN1 = subjective norm 1; SN2 = subjective
norm 2.
p. 178). Although absolute SC values tell us little, relative values are useful
for model comparison (see Table 6). The lower the SC value, the better the
models balance between parsimony and goodness-of-fit. The NAT models
SC = .525.
The model correctly predicted BI for 84.5% of participants, but only
38.9% of reducers (and 91.1% of maintainers). This, however, improved on
the model including only the constant, which correctly classified just 12.7%
of reducers.
Hypothesis 2: Congruent with the TPB, Variance

in Drivers Car-Use Intentions Will Be Explained
by ATT, PBC, and SN
A logistic regression with forced entry was performed with BI as the
outcome variable and ATT, PBC, and the two SN items as predictors (N =
398). Results are shown in Table 4.
ATT, PBC, and the friends SN item had significant (p < .05) regres-
sion coefficients; however, the people I know SN item did not. ATTs
negative coefficient shows that positive evaluations of ones own car use
were associated with lower odds of expressing intentions to reduce it. Of
the significant predictors, PBC had the strongest influence on BI (coeffi-
cient = 1.518, p < .001). McFadden R2 (.259) and adjusted R2 (.233) were
lower than for the NAT model.
SC = .559, showing that the TPB model achieved a poorer balance
between parsimony and goodness-of-fit than the NAT model. In the TPB
regression 30.2% of reducers were classified correctly, along with 91.1% of
maintainers, giving 84.3% accuracy overall. These figures are to be con-
trasted with 11.3%, 88.7%, and 79.8%, respectively, for the model including

Table 5
Regression of BI on NAT and TPB Variables
PN 2.323 .268 9.5475 < .001 .379 .368 .502

PBC .899 .175 5.1486 < .001
Note: BI = behavioral intention; NAT = norm-activation theory; TPB = theory of planned

behavior; PN = personal norm; PBC = perceived behavioral control.
only the constant. Prediction of BI by the TPB was, therefore, less accurate
than prediction by the NAT constructs, although the TPB offered more
accurate prediction than the constant-only model in this regression.
Hypothesis 3: A Model Using NAT and TPB Variables

Will Explain More Variance in Drivers Car-Use
Intentions than Either Individual Model
A stepwise logistic regression was performed with BI as the outcome
variable (N = 398). All NAT and TPB variables were entered initially. On
each step the predictor with the highest p value was removed until all
remaining predictors had p < .05. Results after the final (fifth) step are
shown in Table 5. Only PN and PBC remained in the equation at this
stage. PN had the stronger association with BI (regression coefficient =
2.323, p < .001).
McFadden R2 (.379) indicates that this model explained more variance
in BI than either theorys constructs alone. PNs coefficient (2.323, p <
.001) was higher than this predictors coefficient in the NAT regression.
PBCs coefficient (.899, p < .001) was lower than in the TPB regression.
When these predictors were included in the same model rather than in
their original theories, PNs influence on BI increased while PBCs
decreased.
This model correctly classified 42.1% of reducers and 91.4% of main-
tainers, providing 85.1% correct overall. The constant-only model correctly
classified 12.9%, 87.1%, and 77.5%, respectively. The model using NAT
and TPB variables offered more accurate classification of participants and
explained more variance in BI than either individual model. Alongside its
lower SC value (.502), this shows that the model drawing on both theories
was the best of the three, explaining more variance with few predictors.

Hypothesis 4: Students Will Express Weaker

Antidriving SNs and PNs Than Nonstudents
Of 398 people included in the regressions, 41 were students, 335 were
staff, and 13 did not state their job type. The SN and PN scales were coded
so that scores close to 1 were congruent with intentions to maintain car use,
while scores close to 5 were congruent with intentions to reduce it. Students
mean on the friends SN item = 1.643 (SD = .617) and staff mean = 1.886
(SD = .791). On the people I know at university SN item, students mean
score = 1.930 (SD = .799) and staff mean = 2.050 (SD = .772). Thus, neither
group expressed strong beliefs that friends thought they should not commute
by car, or that people they knew at DMU cared about how they commuted.
MannWhitney tests showed that neither difference was significant. For the
friends item, z = 1.792 (p = .073) and for the people I know item z =
1.214 (p = .225). There was, however, a trend whereby staff reported
slightly more antidriving pressure from friends and slightly more interest in
their commuting mode from people they knew at DMU.
Similar findings were obtained from a comparison of staff and students
PN scores. Staff mean = 2.707 (SD = .732) and student mean = 2.534 (SD =
.845); however, this difference was nonsignificant (z = 1.779, p = .075).
There was, however, a trend for staff to report slightly more personal-
normative motivation to avoid car use for commuting.
Results Summary
To aid comparison of the regression models, results are summarized in
Table 6. For each model, McFadden R2, adjusted R2 and SC are shown,
along with percentages of reducers and maintainers correctly classified and
the overall percentage correct. These figures show that the model using
variables from NAT and the TPB was superior to the individual theory
models. It classified participants more accurately (overall and for each
intention) and had a higher adjusted R2 (.368). It is important to note that
its SC (.502) was lower than the other models, indicating the best balance
between parsimony and goodness-of-fit.
Discussion
Using logistic regression, the current study tested two theories ability to
explain drivers intentions to reduce or maintain their car use for commuting.

Table 6
Comparison of Regression Models
Regression McFadden Adjusted % Reducers % Maintainers % Correct
Model R2 R2 SC Correct Correct Overall
NAT constructs .342 .328 .525 38.9 91.1 84.5

TPB .259 .233 .559 30.2 91.1 84.3
PN and PBC .379 .368 .502 42.1 91.4 85.1
Note: SC = Schwartz criterion; NAT = norm-activation theory; TPB = theory of planned

behavior; PN = personal norm; PBC = perceived behavioral control.
Rather than applying Schwartzs (1977) original formulation of NAT (con-

taining separate constructs reflecting beliefs about personal responsibility
and feelings of personal obligation), we followed recent travel-mode research
by using a single personal-normative variable capturing feelings of respon-
sibility alongside obligation (Hunecke et al., 2001; Matthies et al., 2002).
Matthies et al. (2002) reported no PCA or scale reliability statistics for their
ecological norm variable; however, Hunecke et al. (2001) found that all
responsibility and obligation items loaded highly on one factor, and the
scale had = .83. Like the current data, this indicates that people may not
distinguish between responsibility and obligation when items refer to feel-
ings, although some NAT studies support AR and PNs separation when AR
items tap beliefs (e.g., Bamberg & Schmidt, 2003; Stern, 2000).4
In the NAT regression, PN and AC had significant influences on com-
muting car-use intentions; however, PNs effect was stronger. This is con-
sistent with Schwartzs (1977) proposal that PN is the immediate antecedent
of altruistic acts and with more recent work by Stern and colleagues (Stern,
Dietz, Abel, Guagnano, & Kalof, 1999), who explicated the causal chain
leading to proenvironmental behavior in their value-belief-norm model.
Our findings are also reasonably consistent with other NAT travel-mode
studies. For example, Bamberg and Schmidt (2003) reported significant
(p < .05) ARPN and PN-behavior (self-reported modal choice) paths;
however, their ACPN path was nonsignificant. In other words, AC was the
least influential of the NAT variables.
The same was true in Hunecke et al.s (2001) study, where ecological
norm had a direct effect on self-reported modal choice and was itself influ-
enced by AC. PN did not, however, mediate the ACbehavior relationship,
which proved to be nonsignificant irrespective of other variables. To provide
some comparison with this finding, we conducted an additional regression

with AC as the only predictor of BI (N = 398). AC had a coefficient of 2.064

(p < .001, SE = .035). The SC for the model = .650 and adjusted R2 = .199.
These figures should be compared with Table 3, which shows results of the
NAT regression. Here, with PN also included as a predictor, ACs coeffi-
cient = .679 (p = .030). Thus, ACs effect on BI was seemingly mediated by
PN (because ACs regression coefficient was lower when PN was included
in the model), as expected based on Schwartzs (1977) theory.
Based on the NAT regression results, Hypothesis 1 is not rejected.
Although the accuracy with which drivers were classified by the NAT-based
model was far from perfect, addition of PN and AC considerably improved
on the constant-only model.
There is also some support for the TPBs ability to explain car-use inten-
tions, although as with NAT, classification of reducers was less satisfactory
than of maintainers. Again, however, there was a marked improvement on
the constant-only model.
The fact that the TPB explained less variance in car-use intentions than the
NAT-based model suggests that although self-interest and altruism can influ-
ence such intentions, reducers were predominantly motivated by altruism.
This contrasts with Bamberg and Schmidts (2003) results. Their samples
sensitivity to SN may account for some of the difference in findings, and it
does seem that our more diverse sample was less concerned with the per-
ceived wishes of others and more inclined to see a moral aspect to commut-
ing. Although there was no statistically significant difference between staff
and students reports of social pressure or feelings of responsibility and oblig-
ation regarding commuting (perhaps partly because of the small number of
students), students were generally less inclined to report that their friends at
DMU disapproved of driving or that they felt morally obliged to avoid car
use. This is at least congruent with Bamberg and Schmidts argument that
their students responded to a prodriving social norm, although saying that
ones friends do not disapprove of driving is not necessarily the same as say-
ing that they actively support it. Nonetheless, differences in staff and
students SN and PN scores are enough to suggest that these issues warrant
investigation with larger comparison groups and that younger people may
perceive less antidriving pressure and fewer moral reasons for not driving.
In considering NATs superior explanation of BI, we note that rather
than asking which travel mode would be chosen from several alternatives,
the current study investigated intentions to change behavior by reducing car
use. Such change might be seen as a sacrifice. Steg (2003, p. 31), for
example, found that drivers saw car use as more attractive than public trans-
port because of its convenience, independence, flexibility, comfort, speed,

reliability, and that driving is perceived to be more pleasurable. The car also
offers more status than public transport.
These perceptions are echoed by drivers attitudes in the current study.
Mean ATT score = 4.257 (SD = .565), with 1 being very negative and 5 very
positive in terms of convenience, flexibility, pleasantness, safety, and com-
fort. The SD was the lowest of any variable, suggesting general agreement
that driving brought instrumental benefits. Although drivers were not asked
to compare car use with alternatives, it seems unlikely that other modes
could match such positive evaluations. Because the TPB assumes that
people act to maximize personal utility, it is logical that NAT should more
readily capture motives for intending to reduce car use if this is seen as
something that will reduce utility.
It is acknowledged, however, that operational definition of ATT may
have lessened the TPBs explanatory power. ATT items referred to driving
but not reducing driving, whereas the outcome variable referred to both
possibilities. To an extent, this conflicts with Ajzens (1991) assertion that
TPB items should refer specifically to the target behavior. In designing
items, it was assumed that positive attitudes toward driving would be held
contemporaneously with negative attitudes to reducing car use (Steg &
Gifford, 2003). However, this denied people the opportunity to express the
subjective expected utility, or disutility, of reducing their car use. ATT items
such as reducing my car use would save me time/money/effort may have
captured more salient beliefs.
Measurement of SN also posed problems. SN items were used sepa-
rately in regressions because they did not form a reliable scale; however, it
was assumed that they could have individual effects. Steg (2005) also
reported that SN items citing different referents failed to form a reliable
scale, and this may explain the finding here. Given the items wording, it is
not surprising that perceptions of friends beliefs influenced intentions (at
least in the TPB analysis), whereas perceptions of people I know were
nonsignificant. Ajzen (1991, p. 195) suggested that SN items should refer
to people who are important to participants. Friends are more likely to be
among these people than the more general people I know. That the study
did not use Ajzens suggested measure is acknowledged as a possible short-
coming. It was thought useful to assess the influence of perceived pressure
from different groups, although recent research suggests that it may have
been better to use multiple items tapping injunctive and descriptive norms
relating to the same referents (e.g., Steg, 2005).
SNs nonsignificance when NAT and TPB variables were used in the same
model may be explained by PN capturing the perceived wishes of others.

Indeed, Schwartz (1977, p. 271) argued that SN is built into PN, and
Harland et al. (1999) provided evidence of this for five ESBs, including
modal choice. They also found that adding PN to the TPB reduced ATTs
effect on intentions to reduce car use. Like the current findings, this sug-
gests that personal-normative considerations can override nonmoral atti-
tudes when the behavior (or intention) is perceived as: (a) having a moral
aspect and (b) reducing personal utility.
The model comprising PN and PBC classified participants more accu-
rately than the NAT model or the TPB. It also explained more variance in
BI and achieved a better fit-parsimony balance, illustrated by its SC value.
Thus, Hypothesis 3 is not rejected. We are reminded of Harland et al.s
(1999) suggestion that none of the TPB constructs entirely captures the
influence of moral considerations on intentions to perform environmentally
relevant behaviors (p. 2523). Equally, we propose that NAT does not cap-
ture salient issues of behavioral control. Given plentiful evidence of people
claiming to use their cars as little as possible already (e.g., Grling, Grling,
& Johansson, 2000; Steg, 2005; Steg & Vlek, 1997), the idea that explana-
tions of intentions to reduce or maintain car use should take account of PBC
is reinforced by findings from beyond the research reported here.
Before closing the discussion, we acknowledge that although NAT and
the TPB capture several potential influences on modal choice, others are
beyond these theories purview. For example, affect (e.g., Anable &
Gatersleben, 2005), habit (e.g., Klckner & Matthies, 2004), status (e.g.,
Steg, Vlek, & Slotegraaf, 2001), physical context (e.g., Nankervis, 1999),
and sociodemographics (e.g., Grling et al., 2000) have all been linked to
travel-mode decisions. The current study could be criticized for ignoring
these factors; however, we reiterate that its aim was to systematically
develop a particular stream of travel research by comparing the altruism-
based NAT and the self-interestbased TPB as explanations of car-use
intentions and to combine these two common approaches to ESB in accor-
dance with Sterns (2000) call for empirically founded theory development.
Conclusions
The current study shows that intentions to reduce commuter car use
among staff and students at a U.K. university were associated more with
altruism than self-interest. Generalizability may be limited, however,
because the sample is unlikely to represent the wider U.K. population.
Despite the inclusion of nonacademic staff, education levels are probably

higher than average, and there may be greater awareness of and/or concern
over environmental issues. Nonetheless, in this research setting, we can say
that intentions to reduce or maintain car use for commuting were most
closely associated with personal-normative motivations. This contrasts with
Bamberg and Schmidts (2003) results and suggests the extent to which
findings are contingent on sample composition and research context. This,
in turn, reminds us that any behavior-change policy implemented in a par-
ticular setting should ideally be based on research carried out in that (or a
very similar) setting.
Indeed, findings from the current study have informed DMU travel
policy. The Universitys Travel Plan (De Montfort University [DMU], 2005)
now includes several measures designed to make it easier for drivers to use
noncar modes, potentially increasing perceived control over modal choice
(e.g., improved bicycle storage and free security marking, new showers for
cyclists, improved pedestrian access and street lighting, priority parking for
multiple-occupant cars, and expansion of the car-share scheme to include a
nearby hospital and council offices). In light of the potential for reactance
against normative messages as people try to reduce cognitive dissonance
(Schwartz, 1977; see Tertoolen, Van Kreveld, & Verstraten, 1998 for dis-
cussion specific to travel-mode choice), a focus on increasing perceived
commuting-mode choice may be the best strategy, despite the influence of
altruistic motives in the analyses reported here.
Theoretically, it is logical that NAT should better explain intentions to
reduce car use than the TPB when driving is very positively evaluated in
terms of its personal benefits. For many drivers, switching modes may
decrease convenience and flexibility (or at least be perceived as doing
so). Similar observations may apply to other ESBs that might be per-
ceived as decreasing personal utility, such as lowering home thermostat
settings, buying relatively costly organic or fair trade products, recycling
(especially in the absence of curbside collection), and so on. Given that
behaviors that reduce personal utility (e.g., by decreasing convenience)
may also be perceived as difficult, there are good groundsas the cur-
rent study suggestsfor including personal-normative motives and per-
ceptions of control in a synthetic theory of ESB. It should also be borne
in mind that there may be distinct subgroups within even a relatively
small population like that of a university. Examination of such differ-
ences in the current study was hindered by the small number of student
respondents; however, this is an area on which future research could
shed more light by comparing alternative models for different population
subgroups.

Appendix
Survey Items
All items except the behavioral intention (BI) measurewhich had response
options increase, stay the same, reduceused scales with response options disagree
strongly, disagree, neither agree nor disagree, agree, agree strongly. Disagree
strongly was coded as 1 and agree strongly as 5. An unsure option was also pro-
vided, which was coded as a missing response. Items marked * were reverse coded
for analysis.
Item tapping behavioral intention (BI):
1. Do you plan to change the amount that you use the car to travel to De
Montfort University (DMU) during the next 12 months?
Items tapping awareness of consequences (AC):

1. *I dont believe that environmental problems like global warming are
caused by car use.
2. Avoiding car use will help to solve wider environmental problems like
global warming.
3. My transport choices can have an impact on the environment.
4. I can help to solve my town/citys transport problems by avoiding car
use.
5. I contribute to pollution [when traveling by car to DMU].
Items tapping personal-normative motives for travel-mode choice (PN):

1. I feel personal responsibility for helping to solve my town/citys trans-
port problems.
2. *I dont feel any personal responsibility for causing my town/citys
transport problems.
3. I feel morally obliged to avoid using the car to get to university.
Items tapping attitude toward own car use for commuting (ATT):
1. My usual form of transport [car] is pleasant.
2. *My usual form of transport [car] is uncomfortable.
3. My usual form of transport [car] is convenient.
4. My usual form of transport [car] is flexible.
5. My usual form of transport [car] is safe.
Items tapping perceived behavioral control over commuting mode (PBC):

1. *It would be difficult for me to reduce my car use when getting to
university.
2. Other means of traveling to the university are available to me.
3. I am able to use forms of transport other than the car to get to university.

Items tapping subjective norms (SN):

1. My friends at DMU think that I shouldnt drive to get to university.
2. *Most people I know at university dont care how I travel to DMU.
Notes
1. It was suggested by an anonymous reviewer that rather than simply comparing students
and nonstudents reports of subjective and personal norms surrounding car use for commuting,
we should compare the importance of altruistic and nonaltruistic motives for each group by
running separate regressions. We did explore this possibility; however, the small number of
students (n = 41) resulted in high standard errors and, in fact, none of the norm-activation
theory (NAT) or theory of planned behavior (TPB) variables were significant predictors of
students car-use intentions (at .05 level). Indeed, Peduzzi, Concato, Kemper, Holford, and
Feinstein (1996) suggested that the smaller of the classes of the dependent variable (in this
instance, intentions to reduce car use) should have at least 10 cases per predictor variable in
logistic regression. Only 7 of the 41 students expressed intentions to reduce their car use,
meaning that there was only just over one case predictor. Based on this, we include only the
simpler but less error-prone comparison of staff and students means on subjective norm (SN)
and personal norm (PN). We acknowledge, however, that a comparative regression analysis
with sufficient numbers in staff and student groups would be more powerful and would better
serve to build on Bamberg and Schmidts (2003) findings concerning students nonaltruistic
motives for travel-mode choice.
2. Only 13 drivers expressed intentions to increase car use; too few for intention to increase
car use to be used as a regression outcome variable, so these people were excluded from fur-
ther analyses.
3. The nonparametric Spearman coefficient was calculated because data for all NAT and
TPB variables were nonnormally distributed.
4. We acknowledge the helpful comments of an anonymous reviewer in clarifying the dis-
tinction between measures tapping feelings of personal responsibility (as used here) and
beliefs about personal responsibility (e.g., people like me do not contribute enough to air pol-
lution to make any real difference). The latter conceptualization is more faithful to Schwartzs
(1977) ascription responsibility (AR) construct. We are also grateful to the same reviewer for
comments on other aspects of the original manuscript.
References
Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human
Decision Processes, 50, 179-221.
Ajzen, I. (2002). Perceived behavioral control, self-efficacy, locus of control, and the theory
of planned behavior. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 32(4), 665-683.
Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1980). Understanding attitudes and predicting social behavior.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Anable, J., & Gatersleben, B. (2005). All work and no play? The role of instrumental and
affective factors in work and leisure journeys by different travel modes. Transportation
Research Part A, 39(2/3), 163-181.
Armitage, C., & Conner, M. (2001). Efficacy of the theory of planned behaviour: A meta-
analytic review. British Journal of Social Psychology, 40, 471-499.
Bamberg, S., & Schmidt, P. (2003). Incentives, morality, or habit? Predicting students car use
for university routes with the models of Ajzen, Schwartz and Triandis. Environment and
Behavior, 35(2), 264-285.
Bristow, A., Pridmore, A., Tight, M., May, T., Berkhout, F., & Harris, M. (2004). How can we
reduce carbon emissions from transport? Tyndall Centre Technical Report, 15. Retrieved
April 4, 2005, from www.tyndall.ac.uk/research/theme2/final_reports/it1_7.pdf
Bryman, A., & Cramer, D. (2001). Quantitative data analysis with SPSS Release 10 for
Windows: A guide for social scientists. Hove, UK: Routledge.
Collins, C., & Chambers, S. (2005). Psychological and situational influences on commuter-
transport-mode choice. Environment and Behavior, 37(5), 640-661.
De Montfort University. (2005). Travel plan progress report: Leicester City Campus. Retrieved
July 27, 2006, from www.dmu.ac.uk/aboutdmu/services/estates/transport/TP_Index.jsp
Department for Transport. (2004). The future of transport: A network for 2030 (UK
Government transport White Paper). Retrieved June 2, 2005, from www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/
groups/dft_about/documents/page/dft_about_031286.pdf
Enders, W. (2004). Applied econometric time series. New York: John Wiley.
Field, A. (2000). Discovering statistics: Using SPSS for Windows. London: Sage.
Grling, T., Grling, A., & Johansson, A. (2000). Household choices of car-use reduction mea-
sures. Transportation Research Part A, 34, 309-320.
Harland, P., Staats, H., & Wilke, H. (1999). Explaining proenvironmental intention and behav-
ior by personal norms and the theory of planned behavior. Journal of Applied Social
Psychology, 29(12), 2505-2528.
Hunecke, M., Blbaum, A., Matthies, E., & Hger, R. (2001). Responsibility and environ-
ment: Ecological norm orientation and external factors in the domain of travel mode
choice behavior. Environment and Behavior, 33(6), 830-852.
Kline, P. (1994). An easy guide to factor analysis. London: Routledge.
Klckner, C., & Matthies, E. (2004). How habits interfere with norm-directed behaviour: A
normative decision-making model for travel mode choice, Journal of Environmental
Psychology, 24, 319-327.
Matthies, E. (2003). One to bind them all: How the modified moral decision making model
can be used for the integration of measures to promote pro-environmental travel mode
choices. In T. Craig (Ed.), Proceedings of the 3rd Conference of the EPUK Network
(pp. 103-109). Aberdeen, Scotland: Robert Gordon University.
Matthies, E., Kuhn, S., & Klckner, C. (2002). Travel mode choice of women: The result of
limitation, ecological norm, or weak habit? Environment and Behavior, 34(2), 163-177.
Nankervis, M. (1999). The effect of weather and climate on bicycle commuting. Transportation
Research Part A, 33, 417-431.
Oom Do Valle, P., Rebelo, E., Reis, E., & Menezes, J. (2005). Combining behavioral theories
to predict recycling involvement. Environment and Behavior, 37(3), 364-396.
Peduzzi, P., Concato, J., Kemper, E., Holford, T., & Feinstein, A. (1996). A simulation of the
number of events per variable in logistic regression analysis. Journal of Clinical
Epidemiology, 99, 1373-1379.
Robson, C. (2002). Real world research. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.

Schwartz, S. (1977). Normative influences on altruism. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in

experimental social psychology (Vol. 10, pp. 222-279). New York: Academic Press.
Steg, L. (2003). Can public transport compete with the private car? IATSS Research, 27(2), 27-35.
Steg, L. (2005). Car use: Lust and must. Instrumental, symbolic and affective motives for car
use. Transportation Research Part A, 39(2-3), 147-162.
Steg, L., & Gifford, R. (2003, May). Sustainable transportation and quality of life, Sustainable
Transport in Europe and Links and Liaisons with America (STELLA) project focus group.
Retrieved December 3, 2003, from www.feweb.vu.nl/re/STELLA/FocusGroup4/Quebec/
papers/Steg-gifford.doc
Steg, L., & Vlek, C. (1997). The role of problem awareness in willingness-to-change car use
and in evaluating relevant policy measures. In T. Rothengatter & E. Carbonell Vaya (Eds.),
Traffic and transport psychology (pp. 465-475). Oxford, UK: Pergamon.
Steg, L., Vlek, C., & Slotegraaf, G. (2001). Instrumental-reasoned and symbolic-affective
motives for using a motor car. Transportation Research Part F, 4, 151-169.
Stern, P. (2000). Toward a coherent theory of environmentally-significant behaviour. Journal
of Social Issues, 56(3), 407-424.
Stern, P., Dietz, T., Abel, T., Guagnano, G., & Kalof, L. (1999). A value-belief-norm theory of
support for social movements: The case of environmentalism. Human Ecology Review,
6(2), 81-97.
Tertoolen, G., Van Kreveld, D., & Verstraten, B. (1998). Psychological resistance against
attempts to reduce private car use. Transportation Research Part A, 32(3), 171-181.
Triandis, H. (1977). Interpersonal behavior. Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.
Ziman, J. (1991). Reliable knowledge: An exploration of the grounds for belief in science.
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Rob Wall is a research fellow at De Montfort Universitys Institute of Energy & Sustainable
Development (IESD), from where he received the PhD on which this article is based. As well
as influences on travel behavior, his research interests include psycho-social benefits of urban
green space and mixed-methods approaches in environmental psychology.
Patrick Devine-Wright is a senior lecturer at the University of Manchester Architecture

Research Centre. With a background in environmental and social psychology, his research
interests include social acceptance of sustainable energy technologies, motivation for proenvi-
ronmental behavior and place theory. He is involved in several major research projects funded
by U.K. government. He is a member of the International Science Panel on Renewable Energy,
the National Advisory Group steering the Community Renewables Initiative, and is a board
member for the journal Local Environment. He has a PhD from the University of Surrey and
is a chartered psychologist.
Greig A. Mill is a senior lecturer at De Montfort Universitys Institute of Energy &

Sustainable Development. He has degrees in environmental economics from the University of
York and University of Birmingham, U.K. His research focuses on sustainability-relevant
areas where economic models and data analysis techniques can benefit from and be of bene-
fit to related disciplines such as environmental psychology.

Comparing and Combining Theories To Explain Proenvironmental

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Comparing and Combining Theories To Explain Proenvironmental

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Environment and Behavior

Comparing and Combining Theories to Explain Proenvironmental

The online version of this article can be found at:

Email Alerts: http://eab.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts

Downloaded from http://eab.sagepub.com by Juan Martell Muoz on February 16, 2009

Keywords: travel; commuting; norm-activation theory; theory of planned

G iven that many theories have been applied to environmentally signifi-

Downloaded from http://eab.sagepub.com by Juan Martell Muoz on February 16, 2009

Downloaded from http://eab.sagepub.com by Juan Martell Muoz on February 16, 2009

Downloaded from http://eab.sagepub.com by Juan Martell Muoz on February 16, 2009

Note: AC = awareness of a behaviors consequences; PN = personal norm.

altruistic acts. PN is activated by awareness of a behaviors consequences

Downloaded from http://eab.sagepub.com by Juan Martell Muoz on February 16, 2009

Downloaded from http://eab.sagepub.com by Juan Martell Muoz on February 16, 2009

possibility. More broadly, the current study responded to Sterns (2000)

Downloaded from http://eab.sagepub.com by Juan Martell Muoz on February 16, 2009

Respondents and Data Collection

Downloaded from http://eab.sagepub.com by Juan Martell Muoz on February 16, 2009

Downloaded from http://eab.sagepub.com by Juan Martell Muoz on February 16, 2009

Avoiding car use will help to solve AC .817

Downloaded from http://eab.sagepub.com by Juan Martell Muoz on February 16, 2009

Results for each hypothesis are presented individually before a compari-

Downloaded from http://eab.sagepub.com by Juan Martell Muoz on February 16, 2009

PN 2.314 .301 8.8126 < .001 .342 .328 .525

Note: BI = behavioral intention; NAT = norm-activation theory; PN = personal norm; AC =

Hypothesis 1: Congruent with NAT, Variance

where n is number of cases, k is number of predictors (including the con-

Downloaded from http://eab.sagepub.com by Juan Martell Muoz on February 16, 2009

ATT .620 .229 4.545 .017 .259 .233 .559

Hypothesis 2: Congruent with the TPB, Variance

Downloaded from http://eab.sagepub.com by Juan Martell Muoz on February 16, 2009

PN 2.323 .268 9.5475 < .001 .379 .368 .502

Note: BI = behavioral intention; NAT = norm-activation theory; TPB = theory of planned

Hypothesis 3: A Model Using NAT and TPB Variables

Downloaded from http://eab.sagepub.com by Juan Martell Muoz on February 16, 2009

Hypothesis 4: Students Will Express Weaker

Downloaded from http://eab.sagepub.com by Juan Martell Muoz on February 16, 2009

NAT constructs .342 .328 .525 38.9 91.1 84.5

Note: SC = Schwartz criterion; NAT = norm-activation theory; TPB = theory of planned

Rather than applying Schwartzs (1977) original formulation of NAT (con-

Downloaded from http://eab.sagepub.com by Juan Martell Muoz on February 16, 2009

with AC as the only predictor of BI (N = 398). AC had a coefficient of 2.064

Downloaded from http://eab.sagepub.com by Juan Martell Muoz on February 16, 2009

Downloaded from http://eab.sagepub.com by Juan Martell Muoz on February 16, 2009

Downloaded from http://eab.sagepub.com by Juan Martell Muoz on February 16, 2009

Downloaded from http://eab.sagepub.com by Juan Martell Muoz on February 16, 2009

Items tapping awareness of consequences (AC):

Items tapping personal-normative motives for travel-mode choice (PN):

Items tapping perceived behavioral control over commuting mode (PBC):

Downloaded from http://eab.sagepub.com by Juan Martell Muoz on February 16, 2009

Items tapping subjective norms (SN):

Downloaded from http://eab.sagepub.com by Juan Martell Muoz on February 16, 2009

Downloaded from http://eab.sagepub.com by Juan Martell Muoz on February 16, 2009

Schwartz, S. (1977). Normative influences on altruism. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in

Patrick Devine-Wright is a senior lecturer at the University of Manchester Architecture

Greig A. Mill is a senior lecturer at De Montfort Universitys Institute of Energy &

Downloaded from http://eab.sagepub.com by Juan Martell Muoz on February 16, 2009

You might also like