| Literature DB >> 32235472 |
Xiaodong Yang1, Liang Chen2, Lai Wei1, Qi Su1.
Abstract
This study extends the theory of planned behavior by taking communication factors into account to examine the determinants of pro-environmental behavioral intention in haze mitigation. Unlike other theory of planned behavior (TPB) extension studies, we shift the focus of inquiry from examining the mediating role of TPB variables to investigating the moderating role in promoting pro-environmental behavior. Using an online survey in China, the results indicated that attitude, subjective norms, perceived behavioral control, and attention to haze-related efficacy messages were positively associated with pro-environmental behavioral intention. Notably, attention to haze-related threat messages had no significant relationship with behavioral intention. Moreover, moderation analyses revealed that the interaction effects between attention to efficacy messages and attention to threat messages on behavioral intention vary among people with different attitude, subjective norms, and perceived behavioral control. Theoretically, this study contributes to the literature of the TPB by analyzing its moderating role in promoting behavior change. Findings from this study suggest the importance of disseminating distinctive media messages to audiences with different personality traits, which is beneficial for practitioners to tailor specific messages in environmental campaigns.Entities:
Keywords: efficacy messages; pro-environmental behavior; theory of planned behavior; threat messages
Year: 2020 PMID: 32235472 PMCID: PMC7178080 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph17072314
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 3.390
Figure 1Conceptual model.
Bivariate correlation of all variables.
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Age | ---- | ||||||||
| 2. Gender | −0.07 | ||||||||
| 3. Education | −0.19 ** | −0.08 | |||||||
| 4. Income | 0.12 * | −0.17 ** | 0.18 *** | ||||||
| 5. Attitude | 0.17 ** | 0.14 ** | −0.03 | −0.003 | |||||
| 6. Social norms | 0.16 ** | −0.04 | 0.01 | 0.06 | 0.47 *** | ||||
| 7. Perceived behavioral control | 0.15 ** | 0.04 | 0.03 | 0.05 | 0.61 *** | 0.68 *** | |||
| 8. Attention to efficacy messages | 0.08 | −0.01 | −0.02 | 0.05 | 0.29 *** | −0.28 *** | 0.27 *** | ||
| 9. Attention to threat messages | 0.03 | 0.01 | −0.07 | 0.12 * | 0.34 *** | 0.37 *** | 0.40 *** | 0.70 *** | |
| 10. Pro-environmental behavioral intention | 0.16 ** | 0.07 | 0.001 | −0.002 | 0.60 *** | 0.54 *** | 0.59 *** | 0.32 *** | 0.32 *** |
Note: * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001.
Hierarchical regression analysis predicting pro-environmental behavioral intention.
| Zero-order | Model 1 | Model 2 | Model 3 | Model 4 | Model 5 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Block 1: Demographic variables | ||||||
| Age | 0.16 ** | 0.18 *** | 0.04 | 0.05 | 0.05 | 0.04 |
| Gender | 0.07 | 0.08 | 0.02 | 0.03 | 0.04 | 0.04 |
| Education | 0.001 | 0.05 | 0.02 | 0.02 | 0.01 | 0.01 |
| Income | −0.002 | −0.03 | −0.03 | −0.03 | −0.03 | −0.03 |
| Incremental R (%) |
| |||||
| Block 2: TPB variables | ||||||
| Attitude | 0.60 *** | 0.36 *** | 0.34 *** | 0.29 *** | 0.27 *** | |
| Social norms | 0.54 *** | 0.22 *** | 0.21 *** | 0.22 *** | 0.19 ** | |
| Perceived behavioral control | 0.60 *** | 0.22 *** | 0.22 *** | 0.25 *** | 0.32 *** | |
| Incremental R (%) |
| |||||
| Block 3: Communication variables | ||||||
| Attention to efficacy messages | 0.32 *** | 0.15 ** | 0.15 ** | 0.16 ** | ||
| Attention to threat messages | 0.32 *** | −0.07 | −0.03 | −0.03 | ||
| Incremental R (%) |
| |||||
| Block 4: Two-way interactions | ||||||
| Efficacy messages *threat messages attention | 0.07 | 0.05 | ||||
| Efficacy messages attention* ATT | −0.15 * | −0.19 * | ||||
| Threat messages attention* ATT | 0.04 | 0.09 | ||||
| Efficacy messages attention* SN | 0.00 | 0.09 | ||||
| Threat messages attention* SN | 0.03 | 0.06 | ||||
| Efficacy messages attention* PBC | 0.08 | 0.02 | ||||
| Threat messages attention* PBC | 0.07 | −0.001 | ||||
| ATT * SN | −0.07 | −0.13 | ||||
| ATT * PBC | 0.004 | 0.04 | ||||
| PBC * SN | 0.04 | 0.09 | ||||
| Incremental R (%) |
| |||||
| Block 5: Three-way interactions | ||||||
| Efficacy messages * Threat messages * ATT | 0.06 | |||||
| Efficacy messages * Threat messages * SN | 0.16 * | |||||
| Efficacy messages * Threat messages * PBC | −0.23 ** | |||||
| Incremental R (%) |
| |||||
| Total R (%) |
|
Note: * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001.
Figure 2Pro-environmental behavior intention by attitude and attention to efficacy messages.
Figure 3(a) Pro-environmental behavior intention by attention to efficacy messages and threat messages, when social norms are low. (b) Pro-environmental behavior intention by attention to efficacy messages and threat messages, when social norms are high.
Figure 4(a) Pro-environmental behavior intention by attention to efficacy messages and threat messages, when perceived behavioral control is low. (b) Pro-environmental behavior intention by attention to efficacy messages and threat messages, when perceived behavioral control is high.