Altruism, Self-Interest, and the Reasonable Person Model of Environmentally Responsible Behavior

22 Pages·2005·0.11 MB·English

1SC0Co.rI1bE1eN7tt7C //1 EE0 NC75OV5MI4R7MO0N0U5MN2I7EC5NA4T2TA5IOLLNY RESPONSIBLE BEHAVIOR
Altruism, Self-Interest, and
the Reasonable Person Model of
Environmentally Responsible Behavior
JULIA B. CORBETT
University of Utah
Thisstudyoperationalizedanewmodelofenvironmentalbehaviortotestitsutilityinpredicting
therelativelydifficultbehaviorofgettingpeopleoutoftheircars.TheReasonablePersonModel
ofenvironmentallyresponsiblebehaviorhypothesizesthatamixofself-interest,altruism,per-
sonalnorms,desirablechoices,andparticipatoryproblemsolvingarethebestpredictorsof
behavior.Inarandomsampletelephonesurveyofdrivers(N=344)alongtheWasatchFront,all
independentvariablesweresignificantlycorrelatedtobehaviorwiththeexceptionofoneper-
sonalcontrolmeasure.Amultipleregressionmodelfoundthat52percentofthevarianceinenvi-
ronmentallyresponsiblebehaviorwaspredictedbytheindependentvariables(R2=.52,p<
.001).However,noneofthemeasuresofpersonalcontrolcontributedsignificantlytothemodel.
Keywords: Reasonable Person Model; environment; behavior change; theory of planned
behavior; environmental attitude; personal norm
Of all the types of environmentally responsible behaviors (ERBs) that
researchersandcampaignplannersworktoencourage,reducingautomobile
usemaybethemostdifficult.Useofapersonalvehicleisstronglyassociated
withconvenience,ease,speed,freedom,choice,status,personalidentity,and
Author’sNote:Aversionofthisarticlewaspresentedin2004attheannualconferenceofthe
AssociationforEducationinJournalismandMassCommunicationinToronto,whereitreceived
theBestFacultyPaperAwardfromtheScienceCommunicationInterestGroup.Thisresearch
was supported by the Utah Division of Air Quality, the Environmental Protection Agency
Science Communication, Vol. XX No. X, Month 2003 1-
DOI:10.1177/1075547005275425
© 2003 Sage Publications
1
2 SCIENCE COMMUNICATION
otherfactors,eventhoughthosefactorsoftencomewithtrafficcongestion,
vehicle expenses, lengthy commutes, and environmental consequences.
Alternativestovehicleuseexistinmostmajorcities,butasmasstransitplan-
nersknow,avarietyofbarriers(perceivedorotherwise)neverthelessprevent
drivers from getting out of their cars. As Americans drive more and more
vehiclemileseveryyear—milesthatincludeagreatmanyveryshorttrips—
tapping into what factors are associated with driving behavior is very
important.
Duringthepastseveraldecades,researchershaveendeavoredtoidentify
which attitudes,beliefs,demographics, constraints, and practicesaremost
associated with ERBs and to develop models and theories that effectively
predictsuchbehaviors.Whilegreatstridesinourunderstandinghavebeen
made, the mix of factors continue to be tested and refined.
Thisstudyrepresentsonesuchattempttotestandrefinethemix.Because
reducingautouseisnotconsideredan“easy”behaviorchange,theoriessuch
asthetheoryofplannedbehavior(TPB)andnorm-activationtheorymaybe
oflessutility.Forthisreason,thisstudyattemptedtooperationalizeafairly
newmodel—theReasonablePersonModel—totestitsabilitytopredictthe
environmentally responsible behavior of getting drivers out of their cars.
Literature
Someoftheearlyattemptstounderstandbehaviorstowardtheenviron-
mentinvolvedthesearchtodiscoverthecomponentsofenvironmentalcon-
cern.Thatis,whatarethecorrelatesofenvironmentalconcernandcanthose,
in turn, help identify the correlates of ERB? In this endeavor, researchers
haveconsistentlyturnedtodemographicvariablessuchasage,sex,educa-
tion,race,income,politicalandreligiousaffiliations,andplaceofresidence
as indicators of environmental concern, and possibly of ERB as well.
Sincethe1980s,thedemographicfactormoststronglyandconsistently
associated with environmental concern has been age, with younger adults
more concerned than their counterparts (Arcury and Christianson 1990;
Howell and Laska 1992; Mertig and Dunlap 2001). A recent review of
(MobileSourceOutreachAssistanceCompetition),andtheLowellBennionCommunitySer-
viceCenterattheUniversityofUtah.ThanksinparticulartoRenetteAnderson,RickSprott,and
CherylHeyingattheDivisionofAirQualityfortheirsupportandtothestudentsofcommunica-
tionresearch,spring2004,fortheirvaluablehelpinthisservice-learningresearchproject.Please
addresscorrespondencetoJuliaB.Corbett,AssociateProfessor,DepartmentofCommunica-
tion,UniversityofUtah,255S.CentralCampusDr.,Rm2400,SaltLakeCity,UT84112;phone:
801–581–4557; fax: [phone]; e-mail: [email protected].
Corbett / ENVIRONMENTALLY RESPONSIBLE BEHAVIOR 3
research from 1988 to 1998 found that a clear picture also had emerged
regardingsexandenvironmentalconcern:“womenreportedstrongerenvi-
ronmental attitudes and behaviors than men. . . . As a single variable, the
effect of gender on proenvironmental behavior was consistently stronger
than on environmental attitudes”(Zelezny, Chua, and Aldrich 2000, 443).
Theresearchersreasonedthatfemaleshavehigherlevelsofsocializationto
be other oriented and socially responsible. Other studies have also found
strongerintentionsforenvironmentalactionandstrongerbeliefsinwomen
(Stern,Dietz,andKalof1993),butotherstudieshavefailedtofindagender
connection.
Therelationshipsbetweenallotherdemographicfactorsandenvironmen-
talconcernareweakoratleastinconclusive(FranssonandGarling1999).In
termsofeducation,thewelleducatedtendtohavemoderatelyhigherlevels
ofenvironmentalconcernthantheircounterparts(MertigandDunlap2001).
Overall, concern for the environment is much more broad based among
Americansthanpreviouslythoughtandisnotstronglytiedtowhatsociolo-
gists call “social elites” (Morrison and Dunlap 1986).
Attitudinalfactors also have been testedas indicators of environmental
concernandaction.Thegeneralconclusionfromdecadesofpsychological
researchisthatattitudesareonlymoderatelygoodpredictorsofhowpeople
willact(EaglyandChaiken1993;ScottandWillits1994)anddependtoa
greatdegreeonawholehostoffactors.Individualfactors(suchasresources,
knowledge, experience, values, and skills) and social factors (such as the
politicalandculturalenvironment,barriersandobstacles,dominantenviron-
mental values, and public and legal policy) all come into play.
In a meta-analysisof previous studies, Hines, Hungerford, and Tomera
(1986)foundasignificantpositivecorrelationbetweenmeasuresofenviron-
mentalconcernandERB.Therelationshipwasstrongerforspecificprotec-
tiveactionsthanforgeneralones.However,otherresearchershavefoundlit-
tle relationship between concern and behavior (Gill, Crosby, and Taylor
1986; Van Liere and Dunlap 1981).
Inthelate1970s,tworelatedtheoriesweredevelopedtotesttheabilityof
certainvariablestopredictbehavior.TheTPBwasbasedonthetheoryofrea-
sonedaction,aparsimoniousmodelthatheldthataperson’sintenttobehave
inacertainwaywaslargelyafunctionoftheperson’sattitudetowardtheact
(hisorherpositiveornegativeevaluationofperformingthebehavior)and
socialnorms(theperson’sperceptionofsocialpressurestoperformorcon-
formtothebehavior;Fishbein1993;FishbeinandAjzen1975).Thetheory
alsosuggestedthataperson’sintentiontoperformabehaviorwasstrongly
relatedtothebehavioritself,ifbotharemeasuredatthesamelevelofspeci-
ficityandwithinashorttimeframe.Hines,Hungerford,andTomera(1986),
4 SCIENCE COMMUNICATION
inameta-analysisof128studiesconductedsince1970,foundthatintention
was the factor most closely related to actual behavior.
TheTPBextendedthetheoryofreasonedactionbyincorporatingathird
independent variable, perceived behavioral control, or the extent to which
performingthebehaviorwasconsideredtobeeasyordifficult.Bothinternal
and external control factors can be relevant; internal factors may include
inadequateknowledgeofhowtoconservewaterorwheretotakerecycling,
andexternalfactorsmaybebarriersorconstraintstoperformingthebehavior
thatlieoutsidethecontroloftheindividual,suchasthecostofhomeinsula-
tionorthepresenceofwalkableneighborhoods.TheTPBmaintainsthatthe
greater the perceived control one has over a behavior, the stronger the
person’s intention to perform that behavior.
Scholarshavesuggestednumerousadditionalindependentvariablesfor
inclusionintheTPB:pastbehavior,self-efficacy(feelingcapabletoperform
abehaviororabeliefthatindividualactionsmadeadifference;Trumboand
O’Keefe 2000); moral norms, personal norms, information processing or
seeking(Griffin,Dunwoody,andNeuwirth1999);andfinancialcapability
(Corbett 2002; Lynne et al. 1995).
AlthoughtheTPBhasbeenusefulinpredictingavarietyofhealth-related
and environmental behaviors (Armitage and Conner 1999; Chan 1998;
Cheung, Chan, and Wong 1999; Conner, Warren, and Close 1999; Fox-
Cardamone,Hinkle,andHogue2000;Lam1999;SheeranandOrbell2000;
SmithandStasson2000),somescholarshaveconcludedthatthetheoryhas
mostutilityforbehaviorsthatarerelativelyeasyandundervolitionalcontrol.
Theexperienceoftransportationplannersandairqualityexpertsacrossthe
countryleadonetobelievethat“drivingless”isperceivedasafairlydifficult
behavior; the TPB, therefore, may have limited utility.
Environmentalactionsandissuesofteninvolvecollectiveorcommunity
goods,suchasairandwater.Therefore,individualsmayfeelamoralobliga-
tiontotakeintoconsiderationbothotherhumansandthenonhumanworldin
evaluatingenvironmentalbehaviors.Schwartz’snorm-activationtheory(1977)
originallywasanexplanationofaltruisticbehaviorbutalsohasbeenapplied
to a wide variety of ERB (Guagnano, Stern, and Dietz 1995; Schultz and
Zelezny 1999).
Accordingtothistheory,animportantantecedenttoERBistheactivation
ofapersonalmoralnorm.Thistakesplacewhenanindividualhasanaware-
ness of environmental problems (and their adverse consequences) and
believesthatenvironmentalconditionsarecreatingathreattothingstheindi-
vidualvalues:threatstoself(includinghealththreats),otherhumans,andthe
biosphere.
Corbett / ENVIRONMENTALLY RESPONSIBLE BEHAVIOR 5
AsGuagnano,Stern,andDietz(1995)interprettheSchwartzmodel,fora
person to act altruistically, the person must be aware of negative conse-
quencesandalsomustascribesomeresponsibilitytotakeappropriateaction
topersonslikehimselforherself.Whenpeopleholdboththesebeliefs,they
experienceasenseofobligationtoacttopreventharm(altruisticpersonal
norm). However,when behaviors aredifficult,expensive,or inconvenient,
behaviorchangewillbemorerare.Inaddition,theseresearchersfoundthat
external conditions help determine the efficacy of altruism; in their study,
providingrecyclingbinsremovedamajorbarrierinkeepingactionconsis-
tentwithpreexistingattitudes.Withoutthebins,peopledidnotundertakethe
behavior change.
Theimportanceofapersonalmoralnorminbehaviorchangeraisesthe
question:onwhatisthisnormbased?NordlundandGarvillmaintainedthat
“thepersonalnorm,experiencedasamoralobligationtoacttoprotectwhat-
everisthreatened,isderivedfromtheindividual’srelevantgeneralandenvi-
ronmentalvalues”(2002,745).Ifthisisthecase,measuringanindividual’s
personal moral norm in a sense also taps an individual’s value orientation
toward the environment.
AccordingtoRokeach(1968),valuesarecriteriaforguidingactionand
developingattitudestowardrelevantobjectsandsituations.Fromtheearly
1970s,adebateensuedonthesocialpsychologicalbasisofenvironmental-
ism—that is, whether proenvironmental attitudes came from a valuing of
other people (i.e., the golden rule) or of the nonhuman world (i.e., a land
ethic;SternandDietz1994).Theliteratureinenvironmentalethicshascon-
nected environmental concern (as did the environmental applications of
norm-activationtheory) tothree classesof valued objects:theself,others,
andthebiosphere.Merchant(1992)formedasimilarclassificationwhenshe
identifiedthreeethics:egocentric,homocentric,andecocentric.Stern,Dietz,
andKalof(1993) labeledtheirspheresofvaluesegoistic,social-altruistic,
andbiospheric.
Researchers maintain that such value objects or orientations come into
playwhenanindividualisconsideringactionandestimatingtheeffectitwill
haveonthethingsthatheorshevalues.Althoughsocialcontextandsocial
influence agents may affect this process and influence actions, the values
placedondifferenttargets(theself,otherpeople,orthebiosphere)elicitnor-
mative reasoning and a willingness to support proenvironmental attitudes
and behaviors (Stern and Dietz 1994; Stern, Dietz, and Kalof 1993; Stern
et al. 1995).
In a study of the value structures behind ERB, Nordlund and Garvill
(2002)discoveredthatapersonalnorm(conceptualizedasthemoralobliga-
tion to protect the environment) was derived from self-transcendent and
6 SCIENCE COMMUNICATION
ecocentricvaluesandactivatedbyproblemawareness.Theyfoundthataper-
sonalnormmediatedtheeffectsfromgeneralvalues,environmentalvalues,
and problem awareness on ERB. The researchers said their model was an
extensionofSchwartz’snorm-activationtheoryandsimilartoStern’svalue-
belief-norm theory in making the personal moral norm the main basis for
individuals’generaldispositionsforERB.Stern,Dietz,andBlack(1985–86)
agreed about the important role of moral norms in ERB, concluding that
“support for environmental protection has a moral dimension” (p. 218).
Inanarticleoutliningthetheory developedbyhisresearchteam,Stern
(2000) said the goal of value-belief-norm theory was to link value theory,
norm-activationtheory,anda“newenvironmentalparadigm”scaleofenvi-
ronmentalattitudesandbeliefs.Accordingtothistheory,fourmajortypesof
causalfactorspotentiallyinfluenceERB:attitudinalfactors,contextualfac-
tors, personal capabilities, and habits or routines.
Researchershaveattimesconsideredpersonalhealththreatsfromenvi-
ronmentalconditionsasthreatstovaluedobjects,eithertoself(whichcould
becalledself-interest)ortoothers(whichcouldbecalledaltruism).Although
thisworkfallsbeyondthetypical“riskcommunication”research,Sternand
Dietzsaid,“Perceivedriskscanbeseenasperceivednegativeconsequences
tothingspeoplevalue,includingpersonalhealthandsafety,thehealthand
safetyofotherhumanbeings,andthewelfareofotherspeciesandthebio-
sphere”(1994,79).InaSouthernCaliforniastudy,residentswhobelieved
thatenvironmentalproblemsposedaveryseriousthreattotheirhealthwere
morelikelytoengageinERB,includinglimitingtheirdriving(Baldassare
andKatz1992).Thescholarsconcluded,“Personalenvironmentalthreatisa
better predictor of overall environmental practices than are demographic
variablesandpoliticalfactors”(p.602). Fransson andGarling(1999) also
found a connection between behavior and a perceived threat to personal
health.
Ifweacceptthesethreerealmsofvaluedobjects—self,others,andbio-
sphere—asvalidpotentialmotivatorsofmoralresponsibilityandERB,does
thisimplythatonerealmisviewedasa“better”ormorecorrectsourceof
behavioralmotivation?Afterall,apresumptionthatwascentraltomuchof
theearlyresearchonERBwasthatself-interestwasamajorsourceofenvi-
ronmental problems (Mansbridge 1990). Self-interest often is conceptual-
izedasfocusingsolelyonshort-termindividualorfamilialgaintotheexclu-
sionoflong-termsocietalorenvironmentalbenefits(LowandHeinen1993).
Likewise,isfeelingoractingonbehalfofthewelfareofothers—thatis,
altruism—adesirablemotivatorofERB?Afterall,mostconceptualizations
ofaltruismentailsacrificeonthepartoftheself,whichcreatesaseriousmoti-
vational issue and which essentially goes against the self-interest. The
Corbett / ENVIRONMENTALLY RESPONSIBLE BEHAVIOR 7
reasoningcouldbethataltruisticbehaviortowardtheenvironmentleadstoa
reductioninqualityoflifeandmakespeoplequestionwhattheyarewilling
togiveupandsacrifice.Itshouldnotbesurprisingthatpeopleresistmaking
changesthattheyperceiveasreducingtheirqualityoflife.Thisreasoning
certainly seems plausible when promoting driving less.
However,“insharpcontrast,researchreportedthispastdecadesuggests
thepossibilitythatself-interestisapotentialsolutiontoenvironmentalprob-
lems”(DeYoung2000,514)andmayevenworkinconcertwithaltruismto
promote ERB (Stern, Dietz, and Kalof 1993).
Inarecentessay,Kaplan(2000)investigatedtherolesofself-interestand
altruism in what he called the Reasonable Person Model of ERB. Kaplan
maintainedthatalthoughthealtruism-centeredapproachiscurrentlypopular
intheacademicliterature,ithashadtheinadvertentconsequenceofcontrib-
uting to helplessness and focusing on sacrifice rather than quality-of-life-
enhancingsolutions.“Acentralfailingofthealtruisticposition,”according
toKaplan,“isthatitattemptstoputasidetheissueofgain,ofself-interest,in
human behavior” (p. 496). “The requirement of receiving no benefit from
one’sactionandtheinclinationtoenshrinesacrificeasaparadigmaticenvi-
ronmentalvirtuecommunicateapowerful,ifunintendedmessage,namely
that ERB inherently leads to a reduction in the quality of life” (p. 494).
A decade prior, Mansbridge (1990) cameto asimilarconclusion about
thismotivationalreality:“wenormallyseeself-interestandaltruismasbeing
atoppositepoles.Indeed,conceptuallyweknowwhatwemeanbyaltruism
onlybycontrastingitwithself-interest.Inpractice,however,altruismmust
coincidewithself-interestsufficientlytopreventtheextinctionofeitherthe
altruistic motivation or the altruist” (p. 133).
Kaplan’sgoalwiththeReasonablePersonModelwastoreconceptualize
humannatureinsuchawayastomakealtruismandself-interestcoincide.In
additiontothesetwofactors,Kaplanexploredthenatureofhelplessnessand
personalcontrolandwhathecalledparticipatoryproblemsolving.Regard-
inghelplessness,Kaplanciteda1993studythatdiscoveredthattheincreas-
ingquantityofinformationavailableaboutenvironmentalproblemshasled
notonlytogreaterconcernbutalsotoagreatersenseofhelplessness(Levin
1993).Itisthennotamatterofapathybutratherasenseoffutility,offeeling
helpless:“peoplewhofeelhelpless,whofeelthattheirbehaviorwouldnot
make a difference, are less likely to participate in ERB” (p. 499).
Personalcontrol—whatKaplancalled“theoppositeofhelplessness”—is
notanewvariableinattitude-behaviorresearch.TheTPB’smajorcontribu-
tion was the addition of perceived behavioral control, defined as the per-
ceivedeaseordifficultyofthebehaviorandwhichincludedbothinternaland
externalfactors.ButtheReasonablePerson Modelattemptstodistinguish
8 SCIENCE COMMUNICATION
itselfbylinkingpersonalcontroltomotivation,participation,andtheneed
for“desirablechoices.”AsKaplan’searlierworkfound(KaplanandKaplan
1989), people are motivated to understand, to learn, to answer their own
questions,andtoplayaroleinwhatisgoingonaroundthem—theopposite
offeelingconfused,incompetent,orhelpless.Peoplegainintrinsicsatisfac-
tion(whichDeYoung[2000]callsaformofself-interest)throughbehavioral
competence—that is, being able to solve problems and complete tasks.
AtypicalpersuasiveapproachregardingERBis“tellingpeoplewhatto
do.” The goal of participatory problem solving, said Kaplan (2000), is to
movebeyond“telling”andbeyond“askingpeoplewhattheywanttodo”to
actually“helpingpeopleunderstandtheissuesandinvitingthemtoexplore
possible solutions.” The goal of this process, then, is “multiply desirable
choices”(p.500).Inthisway,peopleareabletomakechoicesthatdonotrun
countertotheirperceivedself-interest,choicesthatultimatelyshouldprove
more sustainable and satisfying.
ThoughKaplan(2000)identifieskeyvariablesintheReasonablePerson
Model,hestopsshortoffullyoperationalizingortestingit.Thatisonegoal
of this research.
Background of Research Setting
Increasingly,airqualityintheSaltLakevalleyisasummertimeproblem
andnotjustaphenomenonofwinterairinversionssettlingbetweenthetwo
mountainrangesthatrimthevalleys.Inthesummerof2003,theDepartment
ofEnvironmentalQualityissuedseventeenvoluntary“no-drivedays”because
of dangerous levels of ozone.
The department’s Division of Air Quality (DAQ) received an Environ-
mental Protection Agency grant to improve summer air quality through a
campaigntoreducethecontributionof“mobilesources”(i.e.,vehicles)toair
pollution.ThecampaignwouldbegearedtowarddriversalongtheWasatch
Front,ametropolitanandsuburbanareaspanningfourcountiesfromProvo
southofSaltLakeCityandnorthtoOgden.BecauseDAQofficialsknowthe
difficultyofbehaviorchangethatinvolvesdriving,theywantedtoinvestigate
thefeasibilityofencouragingwalkinginsteadofdrivingforshorttripsand
promoting “smart driving.” The greatest amount of harmful pollutants are
emittedduringthefirstfewminutesofdriving,thereforemakingshortauto
trips a worthwhile target. The campaign chose not to attempt to convince
peopletotakethebustoworkortoreplacetheirpersonalvehiclewithmass
transitorcarpools.Themostrealistictargetwasdeemedshorttripsand,for
some of these short trips, to see whether people considered walking as a
realistic alternative.
Corbett / ENVIRONMENTALLY RESPONSIBLE BEHAVIOR 9
Hypothesis
This research setting provided a good test of the Reasonable Person
Model.TheDAQrecognizedthatanychangeindrivingbehaviorneededto
be“doable,”notconsideredtoomuchofasacrifice(intimeorconvenience)
andinlinewithself-interest.TheDAQalsoknewthatitmightbepossibleto
framewalking(insteadofdriving)ascontributingtoself-interestbyimprov-
inganindividual’sfitnessandhealth.Bothwalkingandsmartdrivingcon-
tributetoaltruismaswell.Finally,avarietyof“desirablechoices”forboth
smart driving and walking could be identified.
Hypothesis1:TheelementsoftheReasonablePersonModel(self-interest,altru-
ism, personal control, and desirable choices) will predict the intention to
behave environmentally responsibly.
Here,thetargetERBwasconceptualizedasbothanintenttoparticipatein
theupcomingcampaign,aswellasamoregeneralintentiontotakestepsto
reduceone’scontributiontoairpollution.Self-interestwasconceptualized
both as the environmental health threat posed by air pollution and as the
degreetowhichwalkingwasperceivedasagoodandrealisticfitnessoption
foranindividual.Thecaseforincludingpersonalmoralnormisbasedonthe
researchthatfounditstronglyrelatedtovaluesplacedontheattitudeobjects
of self, others, and biosphere and, therefore, related to self-interest and
altruism.
Method
This research was conducted as part of a senior-level communication
researchcoursethatwastaughtas“servicelearning,”apedagogydesignedto
linkclassroomlearningwiththeresearchneedsofnonprofitorganizations
and agencies (Corbett and Kendall 1999). As a class, appropriate theories
wereidentified,surveyquestionsformulated,surveysadministered,anddata
gathered, coded, and entered.
Thetargetpopulationwasconsideredthe“WasatchFrontdrivingpublic,”
oradultdriversresidinginthefourcountiesthatmakeuptheurbanareasur-
rounding Salt Lake City.
Operationalization
Thesurveyinstrumentconsistedoffifty-onequestionsdesignedtotestfor
thetargetindependentanddependentvariables,tocollectpertinentdemographic
10 SCIENCE COMMUNICATION
data,andtoillicitinformationvaluabletoDAQ’scampaign,suchascredible
sourcesofinformationaboutairqualityandknowledgeaboutthesourceand
natureofsummerairpollution.Thesurveywaspretestedforlengthandclar-
ity on an independent sample of five adults.
Table 1 lists the variables of the Reasonable Person Model and their
operationalization.
Self-interestwasmeasuredinrelationbothtopersonalhealththreatand
walking.Twoquestionswereaskedregardingtheeffectofpollutiononaper-
son’shealth.Personalhealththreatsfromenvironmentalconditionsconsti-
tutethreatstovaluedobjects,particularlytheself.Athirdquestionregarding
generalconcern aboutairqualityalsowasincluded;becausethisquestion
leavesopenthevaluedobjectitharmsmost,theconcerncouldbeinrelation
toselfortovaluedothers(whichtapsaltruisminadditiontoself-interest).
These three measures did not sufficiently scale (alpha = .42) and were
analyzed independently.
Twoquestionstappedtheconnectionbetweenwalkingandself-interest.
Onequestionconcernedwhetherwalkingwaspartofanindividual’sfitness
plan. The other question asked if walking would be a likely alternative to
driving for short trips.
Onequestionmeasuredapersonalmoralnorm,orasenseofobligationto
acttopreventharmorprotectwhateveristhreatened,calledanaltruisticper-
sonal normby some scholars.
Theconceptofpersonalcontrolwasmeasuredinseveralways.Kaplan
(2000)definedpersonalcontrolastheoppositeofhelplessness,includingthe
notionofknowledgecompetence.Others(includingthosewhohavetested
theTPB)havedefinedpersonalcontroltoincludetheperceptionofdifficulty
ofbehaviorchangeandthebeliefthatbehaviorchangewouldmakeadiffer-
ence.Thefourpersonalcontrolitemsdidnotsufficientlyscale;evenwiththe
information item removed, the alpha was only .41.
“Desirablechoices”wereoperationalizedfrominformationprovidedby
theDAQregardingpossiblechoicestowalkinsteadofdriveforveryshort
trips and to engage in “smart driving” practices. Respondents were asked
whethertheywerenotwilling,somewhatwilling,orverywillingtoconsider
thesepractices.Eightsmartdrivingpracticesincludedchoicessuchasnot
usingdrive-throughwindows,fuelingintheevening,keepingtiresinflated,
commuting during nonpeak hours, and accelerating slowly. Six walking
practicesincluded itemssuch asparking and walking, walking toerrands,
andwalkingtolunchorpackingalunch.Allfourteenitemswerecombined
into one scale of desirable choices (alpha = .69).
Two questions formed the dependent variable of ERB, in this case a
behavioral intention rather than a concrete behavior. This was necessary