bs_bs_banner Asian Journal of Social Psychology

Asian Journal of Social Psychology (2015), 18, 145–151 DOI: 10.1111/ajsp.12096

An examination of the value-belief-norm theory model in predicting

pro-environmental behaviour in Taiwan
Mei-Fang Chen
Department of Business Management, Tatung University, Taiwan

Stern’s value-belief-norm (VBN) theory of environmentalism suggests that perceiving adverse effects from
global warming could promote mitigation behaviour. The VBN theory of environmentalism postulates a causal
chain of five variables: values, the New Environmental (or Ecological) Paradigm (NEP), awareness of con-
sequences (AC), ascription of responsibility (AR) to self-beliefs, and personal norms (PN). Given a limited
number of studies with East Asian participants, this study examines the applicability of the VBN theory model
in predicting pro-environmental behaviour in Taiwan to enhance the intercultural validation. A questionnaire
study was conducted among 757 Taiwanese respondents. The results of structural equation modelling analysis
and Sobel tests confirm the direct and mediatory effects of the causal sequence of the variables in the VBN
theory of pro-environmental behaviour, with NEP, AC beliefs, AR beliefs, and PN all bearing a mediating
relationship between their antecedent and outcome variables in the causal chain. We elucidate the research
results of the intercultural validation of the VBN theory model in this empirical study to clarify pro-
environmental behaviour.

Key words: climate change, pro-environmental behaviour, the New Environmental (or Ecological) Paradigm
(NEP), value-belief-norm (VBN) theory.

Introduction Mertig & Jones, 2000) and moral norm-activation theory

Unprecedented climate change, which has occurred since
the 1950s, is unequivocal proof of global warming. Ample
scientific evidence points to a substantial human contribu-
tion toward such change (Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change IPCC, 2013). Because climate change is
fundamentally linked to energy consumption, a paradigm
shift that calls for radical change in values, behaviour, and
institutions is essential. Pro-environmental behaviour is
immediately conspicuous in making the change because it
is consciously intended to minimize the negative effect of
actions on the natural and built world through minimizing
resource and energy consumption, using non-toxic sub-
stances, and reducing waste production (Kollmuss &
Agyeman, 2002), and can further be operationalized as
‘everyday environmental behaviour’ (Tindall, Davies &
Mauboules, 2003).
The value-belief-norm model (VBN; Stern, 2000)
extends Schwartz’s (1977) moral norm-activation theory of
altruistic behaviour and the Dunlap and Van Liere (1978)
New Environmental Paradigm (NEP) used to predict envi-
ronmental activism. Both the NEP (Dunlap, Van Liere,
Correspondence: Mei-Fang Chen, Department of Business Man-
agement, Tatung University, 40 Chung-Shan North Road, Section
3, Taipei, Taiwan. Email: mfchen@ttu.edu.tw
Received 8 August 2013; revision 25 July 2014; accepted 28 July
2014.
(Schwartz, 1977) have been widely applied to examine
environmentally critical behaviour (Black, Stern &
Elworth, 1985; Stern, Dietz, Abel, Guagnano & Kalof,
1999; Stern, Dietz, Kalof & Guagnano, 1995; Van Liere &
Dunlap, 1978), and have proven to be useful in the envi-
ronmental context.
Stern’s VBN theory of environmentalism postulates a
causal chain of five variables that influence the types of
action taken (Stern, 2000; Stern et al., 1995): values, NEP,
awareness of consequences (AC), ascription of responsi-
bility (AR) to self-beliefs, and personal norms (PN). Value
orientation is defined as a guiding principle regarding
states desirable or appropriate states or outcomes
(Schwartz, 1992; Stern et al., 1999) and is hypothesized to
influence directly how people formulate and structure
environmental beliefs (Stern, 2000). The VBN theory
model identifies three types of value orientation: egoistic,
altruistic, and biospheric. A widely used research measure
on ecological worldviews is the NEP (Dunlap & Van
Liere, 1978; Dunlap et al., 2000), which reflects people’s
beliefs regarding humanity’s ability to upset the balance of
nature, the existence of limits to growth for human socie-
ties, and humanity’s right to rule over the rest of nature.
AC refers to whether someone is aware of the negative
consequences for others or for other things that he or she
values when not acting pro-socially; AR refers to a per-
son’s feeling of responsibility for the negative conse-
quences of not acting pro-socially; and PN refers to a

© 2014 Wiley Publishing Asia Pty Ltd with the Asian Association of Social Psychology and the Japanese Group Dynamics Association
146
Values Beliefs
Egoisc Ecological Awareness of Ascripon of
worldview consequences responsibility obligaon to take
(NEP) (AC) (AR) proenvironmental
Altruisc
Biospheric
person’s feeling of ‘moral obligation to perform or refrain
from specific actions’ (Schwartz & Howard, 1981, p. 191).
The VBN theory model (Stern, 2000) has become one of
the most popular and dominant paradigm models in envi-
ronmental psychology to explain various environmental
behaviours successfully (De Groot & Steg, 2008; Kaiser,
Hübner & Bogner, 2005; Steg, Dreijerink & Abrahamse,
2005).
According to the International Institute for Management
Development (IMD), Taiwan ranked eighth in the World
Competitiveness Yearbook 2010 among 58 countries, but it
was placed 47th in the Climate Change Performance Index
Results 2010 (CCPI, 2010), after dropping from 32nd the
previous year. Taiwan ranks 22nd worldwide in greenhouse
gas emissions, whereas the average per capita emission of
carbon dioxide (CO2) in Taiwan is approximately 11.1 t,
which far exceeds the global per capita emission of 3.96 t.
According to the Taiwanese Bureau of Energy (2011),
direct energy use by households accounted for approxi-
mately 27 million metric tons of carbon in 2000 and 32
million in 2010. Because green energy is an international
trend and because a close relationship exists between
climate change and energy consumption, it is time for
people to make an effort to save energy as well as reduce
carbon emissions, thereby reducing the effects of climate
change.
Because only a limited number of studies have been
conducted in this area with East Asian people as subjects,
and because VBN theory was primarily developed in
Western countries, this study was intended to test the
assumption that the VBN theory model (Stern, 2000) can
also be applied to public pro-environmental behaviour in
Taiwan. Following Stern and his colleagues (Stern, 2000;
Stern et al., 1999), four types of environmentally signifi-
cant behaviour are investigated to gain a full under-
standing of pro-environmental behaviour in Taiwan:
environmental activist behaviour, non-activist behaviour in
the public sphere, private-sphere environmentalism, and
organizational actions. The main contributions of this paper
are twofold: (a) enhancing intercultural validation by exam-
ining the VBN theoretical model to clarify cross-cultural
© 2014 Wiley Publishing Asia Pty Ltd with the Asian Association of Social Psychology and the Japanese Group Dynamics Association
Mei-Fang Chen
Personal norms Behaviour
Sense of Acvism
acon Nonacvist
behaviour in
the public
sphere
Private-sphere
behaviour Figure 1 A research framework of
Organizaonal pro-environmental behaviour based
behaviours on the VBN model.
differences in pro-environmental behaviour, and (b)
advancing methodological prediction power by adopting
structural equation modelling (SEM) analysis and Sobel
tests to test for the direct and mediatory effects of the
postulated causal chain of the VBN theory model rather
than adopting experimental research designs (Steg & De
Groot, 2010).
The variables involved in the VBN theory model are
schematically shown in Figure 1. Stern’s (2000) VBN
model is extended to beliefs regarding potential future
world states and assumes that egoistic, social-altruistic, and
biospheric value orientations influence how people
cognitively structure beliefs regarding adverse environmen-
tal consequences. Awareness of consequences (AC) com-
bined with acceptance of responsibility (AR) increases the
probability that a person will feel morally obliged to act
(i.e. PN). A series of previous studies have presented the
rationale and empirical support for this causal ordering
(Black et al., 1985; Gardner & Stern, 1996; Stern et al.,
1995). To examine the complete VBN theory model, this
study postulates that each variable in the chain immediately
affects the next (i.e. direct effect) and that each might
also indirectly affect variables farther down the chain (i.e.
indirect effect).
Method
Data collection and sample
The data for this study were collected through a national
self-administered questionnaire survey in May 2011.
People over 20 years of age in Taiwan were the target
population. A stratified sampling was conducted based on
the population quota of the standard statistical area classi-
fication (Taiwan consists of four regions and 22 counties/
cities) by the Ministry of the Interior (2010). Of a total of
2000 questionnaires distributed, 931 were returned and 757
were determined useful for this empirical analysis after
excluding incomplete responses, with a successful response
rate of 37.85%.
The value-belief-norm (VBN) theory model in predicting pro-environmental behaviour 147

The chi-square test was performed to compare socio- Table 1 Standardized loadings of indicators and con-
demographic variables with Taiwan census data. The vergent validity
results reveal that, aside from marital status, the test sub-
Cronbach’s Standardized
jects were not statistically representative. However, this Construct Indicators α Loadings t value
sample included respondents with a wide variety of socio-
demographic backgrounds. The raw survey data collected VA 0.85
in this empirical study can still carry theoretical and prac- Egoistic Values 0.79 0.13 3.51
tical implications for this research area. A high ratio of Altruistic Values 0.83 0.77 23.06
Biospheric 0.89 0.89 27.50
respondents lived in Northern Taiwan (37.78%), a large Values
portion of whom were women (56.14%), with a predomi- NEP NEP 1 0.77 0.43 11.72
nance of married respondents (65.39%) with children NEP 2 – –
(65.13%). Subjects aged 60 years and over constituted the NEP 3 0.57 15.79
minority (12.42%), whereas those in the 30-to-49-year age NEP 4 – –
range comprised the majority (42.14%). Across the overall NEP 5 0.56 15.44
sample, most people had completed senior high school NEP 6 – –
NEP 7 0.60 16.97
education (84.14%) and earned a monthly income of less NEP 8 0.09 2.26
than NT$50 000 (90.89%). NEP 9 0.48 12.97
NEP 10 0.18 4.77
NEP 11 0.50 13.55
Measures NEP 12 0.19 5.03
Following Schwartz (1992), the subjects were asked to rate NEP 13 0.50 13.61
the importance of 12 values as a guiding principle in their NEP 14 – –
NEP 15 0.72 21.49
lives, ranging from 0 ‘not at all important’ to 7 ‘of supreme AC AC 1 0.79 0.66 19.35
importance’. The participants were also given the option of AC 2 0.77 23.32
indicating that they were opposed to the value (–1), and AC 3 0.79 24.39
were requested to complete the revised NEP scale (Dunlap AC 4 0.74 21.97
et al., 2000), AC, AR, and PN (Steg et al., 2005) on a AC 5 0.67 18.91
seven-point scale ranging from 1 ‘fully disagree’ to 7 ‘fully AC 6 0.11 2.97
agree.’ Finally, respondents were asked to rate all of the AR AR 1 0.76 0.81 24.82
AR 2 0.83 25.67
five-point Likert scale items to describe the frequency with AR 3 0.77 23.50
which they practiced four different pro-environmental AR 4 0.16 4.32
behaviours with 1 indicating ‘never’ and 5 indicating AR 5 0.68 19.64
‘always.’ There were six items for environmental activist AR 6 0.13 3.63
behaviour (e.g. active involvement in environmental PN PN 1 0.87 0.76 23.43
organizations or demonstrations), 2 for non-activist behav- PN 2 0.72 22.14
iour in the public sphere (e.g. environmental citizenship, PN 3 0.65 19.11
PN 4 0.68 20.10
support, or acceptance of public policies), 6 in the private PN 5 0.72 21.91
sphere (e.g. the purchase, use, and disposal of personal and PN 6 0.66 19.51
household products that have environmental impacts), and PN 7 0.09 2.38
5 in the organizational sphere (e.g. the design of environ- PN 8 0.75 23.22
mentally benign products). PN 9 0.65 19.24
BAV 0.85
ACT 0.86 0.43 11.05
PACT 0.64 0.62 15.66
Results OACT 0.79 0.34 8.78
WACT 0.67 0.80 19.57
The reliability of the subscales of values and pro-
environmental behaviour was first examined. The reliability Note: AC, Awareness of Consequences; ACT, Environmental
of each subscale of values and pro-environmental behav- Activism; AR, Ascription of Responsibility to Self; BAV, Pro-
iour in this study achieved an acceptable Cronbach’s alpha environmental Behaviour; NEP, the New Ecological Paradigm;
OACT, Non-activist Public-sphere Behaviour; PACT, Private-
that exceeded over 0.6 (Nunnally, 1978), except for the
sphere Environmentalism; PN, Personal Norm; VA, Values;
‘private-sphere’ subscale of the pro-environmental behav-
WACT, Organizational Behaviour (Direct and Indirect Environ-
iour scale (α = 0.40). After deleting two items, the reliabil- mental Behaviour in the Workplace).
ity of this subscale achieved the recommended level of 0.6
(α = 0.64), as shown in Table 1. Thus, the indicators used to

© 2014 Wiley Publishing Asia Pty Ltd with the Asian Association of Social Psychology and the Japanese Group Dynamics Association
148
measure a common underlying subdimension of values and
pro-environmental behaviour were summed and divided by
the number of items. The results were later used for the data
input in confirmatory factor analysis (CFA).
Confirmatory factor analysis of the
measurement scales
Following the suggestion of Anderson and Gerbing (1988),
we first performed CFA to assess construct convergent
validity and discriminant validity to ensure the effective-
ness of the measurement model before conducting SEM
analysis. Through repeated filtering, a total of four indica-
tors included in the NEP scale were deleted because of
the low factor loadings of the results from a series of
CFA tests, as shown in Table 1. The purification results
of CFA reveal that the overall fit statistics of the mea-
surement model were as follows: the model’s fit function
was lower than 3.0 (chi-square/d.f. = 1341.52/626 = 2.14),
GFI = 0.92, AGFI = 0.90, CFI = 0.95, NFI = 0.91, NNI =
0.94, and RMSEA = 0.04. Based on Marcoulides and
Schumacker (1996), the goodness-of-fit model and the
overall statistics for this study both achieved the model
fitting standards. In addition, the coefficient alpha higher
than the recommended level of 0.6 (Nunnally, 1978) also
confirmed the reliability of the scales in the measurement
model. Hence, the internal consistency of each studied
measurement construct was confirmed.
Table 1 reveals that the t- values of the complete stand-
ardized loadings for the items measuring the same construct
were statistically significant at the α = 0.01 or α = 0.05
level. Based on Anderson and Gerbing (1988), the indicator
variables of this study exhibited convergent validity. In
addition, all chi-square difference statistics for every two
constructs were statistically significant; therefore, the dis-
criminant validity among the constructs studied was
achieved in this study. The descriptive statistics and corre-
lation matrix of each component variable in the VBN
theory are summarized in Table 2. The pair-wise Pearson
Table 2 Descriptive statistics and correlation matrix
Constructs Mean S.D. F1
VA (F1) 5.28 0.87 1.00
NEP (F2) 5.51 0.74 0.30
AC (F3) 5.92 0.69 0.35
AR (F4) 5.45 0.85 0.20
PN (F5) 5.78 0.69 0.30
BAV (F6) 2.87 0.58 0.11
Note: AC, Awareness of Consequences; AR, Ascription of Responsibility to Self; BAV, Pro-environmental Behaviour; NEP, the New
Ecological Paradigm; PN, Personal Norm; VA, Values.
© 2014 Wiley Publishing Asia Pty Ltd with the Asian Association of Social Psychology and the Japanese Group Dynamics Association
Mei-Fang Chen
correlation coefficients of the studied constructs are all
statistically significant at the α = 0.01 level.
Path analysis of the VBN model
We used the raw data of the observed variables retained
from the CFA as the database for the analysis, and
employed the maximum likelihood (ML) method. The
overall model showed satisfactory fit: χ2(636) = 1462.79
(p < 0.0001), the chi-square/d.f. = 2.30, GFI = 0.91,
AGFI = 0.89, CFI = 0.94, NNI = 0.93, NFI = 0.90, and
RMSEA = 0.04. The chi-square/d.f. was lower than 3.0,
and GFI, CFI, NFI, and NNI were greater than the sug-
gested criteria of 0.9 except for AGFI, which was greater
than 0.8 for the model. An overall satisfactory fit between
the proposed model and the data existed (Marcoulides &
Schumacker, 1996).
The results of SEM analysis are reported in Figure 2,
with a number attached to each arrow to indicate the effect
of one variable in predicting another. All of the standard-
ized path coefficients from the antecedent variable to the
outcome variables, which form the causal paths in the VBN
theory and predict pro-environmental behaviour, were sta-
tistically significant in a positive direction at p < 0.001.
This confirms that the causal links proposed by the VBN
theory of pro-environmental behaviour exist. Of the five
causal paths, the antecedent variables (a person’s values,
NEP, AC, AR, and PN) each explained approximately
63%, 72%, 67%, 72%, and 31% of the variance (the
square multiple correlation, SMC) in their respective
outcome variables (NEP, AC, AR, PN, and his/her pro-
environmental behaviour). In this study, all the explained
variances in the dependent variables exceeded 60%,
except for that of BAV. Therefore, the direct effects of the
postulated causal chain of the VBN theory model were
supported.
The results of SEM analysis shown in Figure 2 indicate
that among the three subscales measuring ‘values,’ a per-
son’s biospheric values had the highest connection,
whereas egoistic values had the lowest connection with his
F2 F3 F4 F5 F6
1.00
0.58 1.00
0.57 0.54 1.00
0.47 0.59 0.54 1.00
0.11 0.15 0.22 0.41 1.00
The value-belief-norm (VBN) theory model in predicting pro-environmental behaviour 149

0.91

BAV 1
0.99
0.42
VA 1 0.79
0.14 0.62 BAV 2
0.79 0.85 0.82 0.85 0.56
0.63
VA 2 0.77 SMC=0.31
VA NEP AC AR PN BAV
0.94
0.46 0.34 BAV 3
0.89 SMC=0.63 SMC=0.72 SMC=0.67 SMC=0.72
VA 3
0.60
0.80
BAV 4

Figure 2 The estimates of the research framework of pro-environmental behaviour based on the VBN model.
Note:
AC, awareness of consequences; AR, ascription of responsibility to self; BAV, pro-environmental behaviour; NEP, the
new ecological paradigm; PN, personal norm; VA, Values.
BAV 1, Activism; BAV 2, Non-activist public behaviour; BAV 3, Private-sphere behaviour; BAV 4, Organizational
behaviours; VA 1, Egoistic values; VA 2, Altruistic values; VA 3, Biospheric values.

or her values. Among the four subscales measuring ‘pro-
environmental behaviour’, a person’s organizational pro-
environmental actions had the highest connection, whereas
private-sphere actions had the lowest connection with his or
her pro-environmental behaviours.
Mediation effects analysis
To examine the mediation effects of the postulated causal
chain of the VBN theory to predict pro-environmental
behaviour, we conducted a series of OLS linear regression
models. Based on Baron and Kenny (1986), the conditions
for a mediating effect are as follows: (1) the independent
variable(s) predict the dependent variable (c); (2) the inde-
pendent variable(s) predict the mediator variable (a); and
(3) the independent variable(s) have a smaller effect(s) on
the dependent variable than in (1) (c′ ), whereas the media-
tor variables have a significant effect (b; see Fig. 3). The
results shown in Figure 3 meet the conditions for mediation
effect proposed by Baron and Kenny (1986). The first three
mediators, NEP, AC, and AR, exert ‘partial’ mediation
effects and PN exerts ‘full’ mediation effects. In addition,
the Sobel (1982) test of z values was also statistically sig-
nificant. Therefore, the mediation effects of the postulated
causal chain of the VBN theory model were also supported.
Discussion
The findings of this empirical study confirm that both the
direct effects of the postulated causal chain of the VBN
theory on pro-environmental behaviour and the mediation
effects of NEP, AC, AR, and PN exist. The results obtained
from the present study are consistent with previous studies
(e.g. Stern, 2000; Stern et al., 1999), thus confirming that
this VBN theory model is robust in predicting pro-
environmental behaviour and implying that PN, or the
sense of moral obligation to take action, is the ultimate
predictor of conservation behaviour. Such a personal norm
is seen as a function of a chain of three beliefs: AR, AC, and
ecological worldview (NEP), which is determined by
environment-relevant values. In addition, this study verifies
that each intervening variable in the causal chain of the
VBN theory of pro-environmental behaviour mediates the
relationship between the distal variable and the outcome
variable. In the Taiwan case, NEP, AC beliefs, and AR
beliefs have a partial mediating relationship between their
antecedents and outcome variables in the causal chain, but
PN exhibits a full mediating relationship.
Although the VBN theoretical model was primarily
developed in Western countries, the findings from this
empirical study reveal that direct and mediation effects of
the postulated causal chain of the VBN theory model
were validated using SEM analysis and Sobel tests. The
findings also prove the linkage of the chain effects,
including the direct and indirect effects of individual NEP,
AC, AR, and PN on pro-environmental behaviour. The
applicability of the VBN theoretical model in this Taiwan
case is confirmed, enhancing the intercultural validation
of this model.
Despite the positive outcomes of this study, it suffers
from certain limitations, which should be considered when
generalizing its findings. The main limitation of this study
is that the questionnaires relied on subjective self-reporting

© 2014 Wiley Publishing Asia Pty Ltd with the Asian Association of Social Psychology and the Japanese Group Dynamics Association
150 Mei-Fang Chen

(a) (b)
Mediator NEP AC

Coefficient a =0.26*** b =0.49*** a =0.54*** b =0.39***

Coefficient
a (0.03) (0.03) (0.03) (0.04)
b

Independent Dependent VA AC NEP AR

Variable Variable

Coefficient Coefficient c =0.27*** c' =0.15*** c =0.66*** c' =0.45***

c c' (0.03) (0.02) (0.03) (0.04)

Sobel Z=7.66 *** (0.02), p < 0.01 Sobel Z=8.57 *** (0.02), p < 0.01

(c) (d)
AR PN

a =0.67*** b =0.26*** a =0.44*** b =0.36***

(0.04) (0.03) (0.02) (0.03)

AC PN AR BAV

c =0.58*** c' =0.41*** c =0.15*** c' = -0.01

(0.03) (0.03) (0.02) (0.03)

Sobel Z=7.70 *** (0.02), p < 0.01 Sobel Z=5.73 *** (0.04), p < 0.01

Figure 3 Path coefficients of mediation effect. (a) The mediation effect of NEP. (b) The mediation effect of AC. (c) The
mediation effect of AR. (d) The mediation effect of PN.
Note:
1. * p < 0.10; ** p < 0.05; *** p < 0.01.
2. AC, awareness of consequences; AR, ascription of responsibility to self; BAV, pro-environmental behaviour; NEP,
the new ecological paradigm; PN, personal norm; VA, values.
3. The unstandardized path coefficients are attached to each arrow, with the values of standard errors of those path
coefficients shown in parentheses.

on pro-environmental behaviour without objectively
assessing pro-environmental behaviour activities in real
settings. The second limitation of this study is that because
of its cross-sectional data, it failed to track changes in
people’s perceptions of the components in the VBN theory
model over time. In the likely event that a person changes
his or her perception of any aspect of the VBN theory
model, future studies should use a longitudinal design. The
third limitation of this study is that it relied on cross-
sectional data. Similar to all cross-sectional studies, evi-
dence of an association should be interpreted with caution
before real causality is confirmed. Future studies on envi-
ronmental behaviour can use longitudinal or experimental
designs to explore the real causality of the VBN theory
model. Based on the research findings of this study, people
in Taiwan and worldwide will hopefully contribute to the
good of the global village by taking pro-environmental
actions.
Acknowledgement
This study was supported by a grant from the National
Science Council, Republic of China (NSC 100-2410-H-
036-001-MY3).

References and recommended two-step approach. social psychological research: Conceptual,

Psychological Bulletin, 103, 411–423. strategic, and statistical considerations.
Anderson, J. C. & Gerbing, D. W. (1988). Struc- Baron, R. M. & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The Journal of Personality and Social Psychol-
tural equation modeling in practice: A review moderator–mediator variable distinction in ogy, 51, 1173–1182.

© 2014 Wiley Publishing Asia Pty Ltd with the Asian Association of Social Psychology and the Japanese Group Dynamics Association
The value-belief-norm (VBN) theory model in predicting pro-environmental behaviour 151

Black, J. S., Stern, P. C. & Elworth, J. T.
(1985). Personal and contextual influences
on household energy adaptations. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 70, 3–21.
Climate Change Performance Index Results
(CCPI) (2010). [Cited 31 Oct 2011.]
Available from URL: http://www
.climateactionnetwork.ca/e/publications/
ccpi-2010.pdf
De Groot, J. I. M. & Steg, L. (2008). Value
orientations to explain beliefs related to
environmental significant behavior: How to
measure egoistic, altruistic and biospheric
value orientations. Environment and
Behavior, 40, 330–354.
Dunlap, R. E. & Van Liere, K. D. (1978). The
‘New Environmental Paradigm’: A proposed
measuring instrument and preliminary
results. Journal of Environmental Educa-
tion, 9, 10–19.
Dunlap, R. E., van Liere, K. D., Mertig, A. G.
& Jones, R. E. (2000). Measuring endorse-
ment of the new ecological paradigm: A
revised NEP scale. Journal of Social Issues,
56, 425–442.
Gardner, G. T. & Stern, P. C. (1996). Environ-
mental problems and human behavior.
Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
(2013). The physical science basis:
Summary for policymakers. Contribu-
tion of Working Group I to the Fifth
Assessment Report of the IPCC. [Cited
17 Jan 2014.] Available from URL:
http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/
uploads/WGI_AR5_SPM_brochure.pdf
Kaiser, F. G., Hübner, G. & Bogner, F. X.
(2005). Contrasting the theory of planned
behavior with the value-belief-norm model
in explaining conservation behavior. Journal
of Applied Social Psychology, 35, 2150–
2170.
Kollmuss, A. & Agyeman, J. (2002). Mind the
gap: Why do people act environmentally and
what are the barriers to pro-environmental
behavior? Environmental Education
Research, 8, 239–260.
Marcoulides, G. A. & Schumacker, R. E.
(1996). Advanced structural equation
modeling. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Ministry of the Interior, Republic of China
(Taiwan), Department of Statistics (2010).
Statistical Yearbook of Interior: Population
by Age. http://sowf.moi.gov.tw/stat/year/
elist.htm.
Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory
(2nd ed.), New York: McGraw-Hill.
Schwartz, S. H. (1977). Normative influences
on altruism. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances
in experimental social psychology (Vol. 10,
pp. 221–279). New York: Academic
Press.
Schwartz, S. H. (1992). Universals in the
content and structure of values: Theoretical,
advances and empirical tests in 20 countries.
In M. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimen-
tal social psychology (Vol. 25, pp. 1–65).
New York: Academic Press.
Schwartz, S. H. & Howard, J. A. (1981). A
normative decision-making model of altru-
ism. In J. Rushton & R. M. Sorrentino
(Eds.), Altruism and helping behavior
(pp. 89–211). Erlbaum: Hillsdale.
Sobel, M. E. (1982). Asymptotic confidence
intervals for indirect effects in structural
equation models. In S. Leinhardt (Ed.),
Sociological methodology (pp. 290–312).
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Steg, L. & De Groot, J. I. M. (2010). Explain-
ing prosocial intentions: Testing causal rela-
tionships in the norm activation model.
British Journal of Social Psychology, 49,
725–743.
Steg, L., Dreijerink, L. & Abrahamse, W.
(2005). Factors influencing the acceptability
of energy policies: A test of VBN theory.
Journal of Environmental Psychology, 25,
415–425.
Stern, P. C. (2000). Toward a coherent theory
of environmentally significant behavior.
Journal of Social Issues, 56, 407–424.
Stern, P. C., Dietz, T., Abel, T., Guagnano, G.
A. & Kalof, L. (1999). A value-belief-norm
theory of support for social movements: The
case of environmentalism. Human Ecology,
6, 81–97.
Stern, P. C., Dietz, T., Kalof, L. & Guagnano,
G. A. (1995). Values, beliefs, and pro-
environmental action: Attitude formation
toward emergent attitude objects. Journal
of Applied Social Psychology, 25, 1611–
1636.
Taiwanese Bureau of Energy (2011). Our
nation’s CO2 emissions statistics and
analysis (in Mandarin). Bureau of Energy,
Ministry of Economic Affairs, Taiwan.
Tindall, D. B., Davies, S. & Mauboules,
C. (2003). Activism and conservation
behavior in an environmental move-
ment: The contradictory effects of gender.
Society and Natural Resources, 16, 909–
932.
Van Liere, K. D. & Dunlap, R. E. (1978).
Moral norms and environmental behavior:
An application of Schwarz’s norm activation
model to yard burning. Journal of Applied
Social Psychology, 8, 174–188.

© 2014 Wiley Publishing Asia Pty Ltd with the Asian Association of Social Psychology and the Japanese Group Dynamics Association