| Literature DB >> 35282182 |
Saeid Karimi1, Genovaitė Liobikienė2, Fatemeh Alitavakoli1.
Abstract
Religiosity is one of the most prominent and extensive social factors influencing one's behavior; however, there is a lack of research analyzing the religiosity impact on pro-environmental behavior, particularly for women in rural areas. To narrow the research gap, this study established a theoretical research model by incorporating religiosity into the Theory of Planned Behavior to explore factors affecting rural female facilitators' pro-environmental behavior. The extended Theory of Planned Behavior model was consequently tested by empirical data collected from 110 rural female facilitators in Qom Province in the center of Iran. The results of structural equation modeling indicated that subjective norms and environmental attitude were positively and significantly related to pro-environmental intentions. In addition, pro-environmental intentions and perceived behavioral control were found to be significantly associated with pro-environmental behaviors. The results revealed that there was a direct and indirect relationship between religiosity and pro-environmental behaviors via perceived behavioral control. In addition, there was an indirect relationship between religiosity and pro-environmental intentions via subjective norms and environmental attitudes. Therefore, this study revealed that religiosity as social pressure plays an important role in determining pro-environmental intentions and behaviors among rural female facilitators in Iran. Thus, in order to promote pro-environmental behavior, the religiosity aspects should be considered and people should be stimulated to act in a more environmentally friendly mode via religious prism.Entities:
Keywords: Iran; pro-environmental behaviors; religiosity; rural female facilitators; theory of planned behavior
Year: 2022 PMID: 35282182 PMCID: PMC8913539 DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.745019
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Psychol ISSN: 1664-1078
FIGURE 1Theoretical research framework.
Demographic information of respondents.
| Details of respondents ( | Category | Frequency (s) | Percentage (%) |
| Age group | 30< | 30 | 27.3 |
| 30–40 | 35 | 31.8 | |
| 40–50 | 33 | 30 | |
| >50 | 12 | 10.9 | |
| Educational qualifications | Illiteracy | 5 | 4.5 |
| Primary school | 30 | 27.3 | |
| High school | 45 | 40.9 | |
| University | 30 | 27.3 | |
| Family size | 3< | 27 | 24.5 |
| 3–5 | 46 | 41.8 | |
| 5–7 | 29 | 26.4 | |
| >7 | 8 | 7.3 | |
| Marital status | Single | 87 | 79.1 |
| Married | 23 | 21.9 |
Correlations, means, and standard deviation of variables in the study.
| Variable | SD | M | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
| 1-Religiosity | 3.58 | 0.67 | - | ||||
| 2-Environmental attitude | 4.30 | 0.65 | 0.26 | ||||
| 3-Subjective norms | 4.05 | 0.71 | 0.33 | 0.19 | |||
| 4-Perceived behavioral control | 4.19 | 0.54 | 0.40 | 0.36 | 0.35 | ||
| 5-Intention | 4.10 | 0.63 | 0.40 | 0.45 | 0.55 | 0.33 | |
| 6-Pro-environmental behaviors | 4.12 | 0.55 | 0.48 | 0.33 | 0.41 | 0.49 | 0.52 |
*p ≤ 0.05, **p ≤ 0.01.
Cronbach’s alpha, CR, average variance extracted (AVE), R2, Q2 values.
| Variable | α | CR | AVE | R2 | Q2 |
| 1-Religiosity | 0.70 | 0.76 | 0.46 | – | – |
| 2-Environmental attitude | 0.77 | 0.85 | 0.59 | 0.07 | 0.03 |
| 3-Subjective norms | 0.76 | 0.85 | 0.59 | 0.11 | 0.06 |
| 4-Perceived behavioral control | 0.72 | 0.79 | 0.5 | 0.16 | 0.07 |
| 5-Intention | 0.82 | 0.88 | 0.52 | 0.47 | 0.21 |
| 6-Pro-environmental behaviors | 0.83 | 0.85 | 0.46 | 0.47 | 0.16 |
Discriminant validity analysis.
| Variable | HTMT | ||||
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | |
| 1-Religiosity | - | ||||
| 2-Environmental attitude | 0.36 | ||||
| 3-Subjective norms | 0.47 | 0.23 | |||
| 4-Perceived behavioral control | 0.61 | 0.46 | 0.47 | ||
| 5-Intention | 0.56 | 0.56 | 0.68 | 0.41 | |
| 6-Pro-environmental behaviors | 0.65 | 0.38 | 0.41 | 0.58 | 0.72 |
Direct, indirect, and total effects for the sample.
| Hypotheses | β | Supported | |||
|
| |||||
| Environmental attitude | → | Intention | 0.35 | 2.57 | Yes |
| Subjective norms | → | Intention | 0.43 | 4.39 | Yes |
| PBC | → | Intention | –0.01 | 0.13 | No |
| PBC | → | PEBs | 0.36 | 3.58 | Yes |
| Intention | → | PEBs | 0.32 | 3.90 | Yes |
| Religiosity | → | Environmental attitude | 0.26 | 2.46 | Yes |
| Religiosity | → | Subjective norms | 0.33 | 3.09 | Yes |
| Religiosity | → | PBC | 0.40 | 3.82 | Yes |
| Religiosity | → | Intention | 0.17 | 1.33 | No |
| Religiosity | → | PEBs | 0.21 | 2.12 | Yes |
|
| |||||
| Environmental attitude Intention | → | PEBs | 0.11 | 2.13 | |
| Subjective norms Intention | → | PEBs | 0.14 | 3.03 | |
| PBC Intention | → | PEBs | 0.003 | 0.12 | |
| Religiosity → Environmental attitude | → | Intention | 0.09 | 2.01 | |
| Religiosity → Subjective norms | → | Intention | 0.14 | 2.59 | |
| Religiosity → PBC | → | Intention | 0.004 | 0.13 | |
| Religiosity → PBC | → | PEBs | 0.15 | 2.11 | |
| Religiosity → Environmental attitude Intention | → | PEBs | 0.03 | 1.69 | |
| Religiosity → Subjective norms → Intention | PEBs | 0.14 | 1.99 | ||
| Religiosity → PBC Intention | → | PEBs | –0.001 | 0.12 | |
|
| |||||
| Religiosity | → | Intention | 0.40 | 3.54 | |
| Religiosity | → | PEBs | 0.48 | 5.84 | |
| PBC | → | PEBs | 0.36 | 3.69 |
*p ≤ 0.05, **p ≤ 0.01; PBC, Perceived behavioral control; PEBs, Pro-environmental behaviors.