Journal of Environmental Psychology 33 (2013) 68e75

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Journal of Environmental Psychology

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jep

Applying the stage model of self-regulated behavioral change in a car use

reduction intervention
Sebastian Bamberg
Department of Social Work, University of Applied Science Bielefeld, Kurt-Schumacher-Str. 6, 33615 Bielefeld, Germany

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: The stage model of behavioral change (SSCB, Bamberg, 2011, submitted for publication) conceptualizes
Available online 15 November 2012 behavioral change as a transition through the time-ordered sequence of four stages: predecision, pre-
action, action, and postaction. This study uses a phone-based social marketing campaign aiming to
Keywords: promote motor car use reduction to demonstrate how SSCB can be used to develop intervention modules
Motor car use targeting the proposed stages. It further reports on a randomized control trial evaluating the effective-
Intervention
ness of the SSBC-based intervention and testing hypotheses derived from the SSBC on the mechanisms
Behavioral change
that mediate the intervention effects. Results showed that the stage-based intervention significantly
Stage model
reduced motor car use (d ¼ 0.51). They also confirmed the hypothesis that the intervention triggers
participants’ transition to later, more action-oriented stages of behavioral change, and that this stage
progression mediates the intervention effect on behavioral change. Limitations to the study’s evaluation
design are discussed along with implications for future research.
Ó 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

The development of effective intervention strategies that will same time, it stresses its self-regulative nature: Behavioral
motivate people to voluntarily change environmentally damaging change is viewed as a process in which people actively invest
lifestyles is a central applied research field in environmental effort in setting/activating goals, developing and enacting
psychology. However, it requires detailed insights into the factors strategies to achieve these goals, appraising progress, and
or processes underlying behavioral change. Recently, Bamberg revising goals and strategies accordingly (Baumeister, 2005; De
(submitted for publication) has questioned whether the theoret- Ridder & De Wit, 2006).
ical frameworks currently prevailing in environmental psychology
provide a sufficient basis for effective intervention development.
1. The present research
These frameworks not only struggle to bridge the intentione
behavior gap but also neglect the time-related and self-regulatory
The present article aims to demonstrate how the stage model of
aspects of behavioral change. These deficits may well explain the
self-regulated behavioral change proposed by Bamberg (submitted
inconsistencies in the available evidence on whether interventions
for publication) could be used as a theoretical framework for
based explicitly on these frameworks are more effective than ones
systematic intervention development. After presenting the SSBC
that are not explicitly theory-based (e.g., Hardeman, Johnston,
within the context of a phone-based social marketing campaign
Bonetti, Wareham, & Kinmonth, 2002; Michie, Abraham,
aiming to motivate citizens of Berlin to reduce their motor-car use
Whittington, & McAteer, 2009).
for everyday trips, it reports the development of dialog modules
As a consequence, Bamberg (2011, submitted for publication)
explicitly targeting the four stages proposed by this model. Because
has proposed the stage model of self-regulated behavioral
Berlin offers a high-quality public transportation (PT) system and
change (SSBC) as a new theoretical framework for systematic
a growing number of cycling and walking trails, PT use, cycling, or
intervention development. By assuming that behavioral change
walking are objectively acceptable motor-car-use alternatives.
is best conceptualized as a transition through a temporally
Therefore, a social marketing campaign was expected to be an
ordered sequence of qualitatively different stages, the SSBC
effective intervention approach. Two meta-analyses (Fujii,
explicitly takes the time-related dimension into account. At the
Bamberg, Friedman, & Gärling, 2009; Möser & Bamberg, 2008) of
quasi-experimental studies evaluating this type of intervention on
motor-car use in urban areas indicate that it has a significant but
E-mail address: sebastian.bamberg@fh-bielefeld.de. small behavioral effect (Cohen’s h ¼ 0.15, Cohen’s d ¼ 0.17).

0272-4944/$ e see front matter Ó 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2012.10.001
 S. Bamberg / Journal of Environmental Psychology 33 (2013) 68e75
The empirical part reports results from an experimental field
study evaluating the behavioral effects of the newly developed
stage-tailored intervention. Comparing the effect of this interven-
tion with the reported small effects of traditional, non-stage-
tailored interventions could provide first information on the
effectiveness of this new approach.
Because it includes information about preintervention stage
membership and travel behavior, the intervention study also allows
a test of the theoretical assumptions underlying the SSBC, in
particular, the assumption that it is the intervention effect on stage
transition that is the cause of observable behavioral change. The
last section discusses the consequences of these results for future
research.
2. The stage model of self-regulated behavioral change
Core of the SSBC is the idea that behavioral change is best
viewed as a person’s transition through a temporally ordered
sequence of qualitatively different stages. Drawing on the model of
action phases (e.g., Gollwitzer, 1990; Heckhausen & Gollwitzer,
1987), the SSBC assumes that the temporal path of behavioral
change can be broken down into four independent, qualitatively
different stages. In each of these four stages, a person is confronted
with solving a specific task in order to successfully change her or his
behavior. In the first (predecisional) stage, this task is to reflect
deliberately on competing wishes and turn some of these into
binding goals. Self-commitment to a specific behavioral goal is then
reflected in a respective goal intention. The formation of this goal
intention simultaneously marks the person’s transition to the
second (preactional) stage. Because several actions could normally
be used as a means to achieve the intended goal, the task in this
second stage is to select the most suitable behavioral strategy.
Weighing up the pros and cons of different alternative behavioral
strategies results in a behavioral intention reflecting an individual’s
self-commitment to one strategy. The formation of an explicit
behavioral intention marks the individual’s transition into the third
(actional) stage. In this stage, the task is to actually implement the
chosen behavioral strategy that will initiate the necessary actions.
Gollwitzer (1999) assumes that the initiation of a new behavioral
strategy is facilitated by forming an implementation intention. The
formation of an implementation intention marks the transition to
the fourth (postactional) stage. In this stage, an individual’s task is
to evaluate what she or he has achieved and to decide whether
further action is necessary. This is done by comparing desired with
actually achieved outcomes. A second task in the postactional stage
is to struggle with temptation, that is, to prevent a relapse into the
old behavior. Fig. 1 presents the proposed four different stages of
behavioral change.
Fig. 1. The stage model of self-regulated behavioral change.
69
Fig. 1 also includes sets of stage-specific affective and social-
cognitive constructs assumed by the SSBC to influence the forma-
tion of the critical three intention types: goal intention, behavioral
intention, and implementation intention. In the first, predecisional
stage, constructs derived from the norm-activation model
(Schwartz & Howard, 1981) are used to explain the formation of
a goal intention. More precisely, the SSBC assumes that when an
individual becomes aware that her or his current behavior has
harmful consequences and accepts personal responsibility for
causing this harm, a state of self-awareness arises. Self-awareness
automatically activates a tendency to compare current behavior
with important personal standards (e.g., “My frequent motor-car
use contributes to climate change” vs. “I am a person who cares
about the environment”). The perceived idealeactual self-
discrepancy elicits bad feelings such as anxiety or guilt (e.g.,
Higgins, 1989) that raise the felt obligation to behave more in line
with the standard (personal norm). Simultaneously, the internal
attribution of responsibility may give rise to concerns about what
important reference persons might expect her or him to do
(perceived social norms). Fear of social disapproval may addition-
ally contribute to the activation of the personal norm. The felt
obligation to fulfill a personal norm leads to the anticipation of
positive feelings (pride, satisfaction) associated with its fulfillment.
The strength of the activated personal norm and the anticipated
positive feelings provide the incentive to form a goal intention.
However, whether a person actually commits to a behavioral
change goal depends on its perceived feasibility.
In the second, preactional stage, the SSBC predicts that goal
intention is joined by two additional factors influencing the
formation of a behavioral intention. These are the constructs atti-
tudes toward behavioral alternatives and perceived behavioral
control over performing these alternatives derived from the theory
of planned behavior (Ajzen, 1991).
In the third, actional stage the SSBC views a strong behavioral
intention as one important prerequisite for forming an imple-
mentation intention (Gollwitzer, 1999). Therefore, the SSBC inte-
grates additional factors promoting the formation of an
implementation intention. These are the constructs coping plan-
ning, action planning, and coping self-efficacy proposed by
Schwarzer (2008). Coping planning refers to the ability to imagine
scenarios that may hinder the performance of an intended behavior
and to develop one or more plans to cope with such a challenging
situation. Action planning refers to the specific situation parame-
ters and the sequence of actions necessary to implement the
intended new behavior. Coping self-efficacy refers to a person’s
confidence in being capable of maintaining a difficult behavior.
In the fourth, postactional stage, the SSBC views a well-formed
implementation intention as one prerequisite for successfully
70 S. Bamberg / Journal of Environmental Psychology 33 (2013) 68e75
maintaining the implemented new behavior. Schwarzer (2008)
proposes a person’s confidence in being capable of resuming
a difficult behavior after a relapse (so-called recovery self-efficacy)
as an additional factor promoting the maintenance of the new
behavior.
3. Development of the four stage-based intervention modules
The following sections describe the stage-tailored intervention
designed to promote motor car use reduction and the theoretical
assumptions derived from the SSBC underlying its development.
3.1. The general intervention approach
As well as tailoring the intervention to a person’s current stage
of behavioral change, the general features of the intervention were
to combine personal contact with supportive print materials and to
repeat the intervention twice. More precisely, the intervention
consisted of the following three elements: (a) The first was
a contact letter describing the purpose of the campaign and inviting
citizens to participate in it. This letter was accompanied by an
answer postcard that participants could send back, giving their
consent to participate and a contact phone number. The postcard
also contained questions on mobility behavior (see below) and
asked participants to complete a newly developed stage diagnosis
tool (also see below). (b) The main intervention element consisted
of four standardized stage-tailored dialog modules that were used
during phone contact with participants in the predecisional, pre-
actional, actional, and postactional stages. The development of
these stage-tailored phone dialog modules was based on the SSBC
assumptions about the specific tasks a person has to solve at each of
the four stages. (c) The third intervention element consisted of four
stage-specific sets of supportive information materials. Participants
could select from one set the materials that interested them most.
3.2. The dialog module targeting participants in the predecisional
stage
The SSBC assumes that in the first predecisional stage, people
are performing the problem behavior on a regular, habitual basis.
They are not fully aware of the negative consequences associated
with this behavior, and thus see no reasons for behavioral change. It
further assumes that confronting people in this stage with a direct
request to change their behavior runs the risk of triggering reac-
tance. People who are psychologically not ready for behavioral
change may perceive such a request as an attempt to limit their
freedom of choice by social pressure. Furthermore, in this stage,
people may be convinced that behavioral change is not feasible for
them personally. As a consequence, the main intervention task in
this stage is not to request behavioral change directly, but to give
the individual a push toward thinking about the negative conse-
quences of her or his current behavior, thereby raising the aware-
ness for the discrepancy between this behavior and important
personal standards and increasing her or his insight that a change
of her or his current behavior is both necessary and possible
(formation of a goal intention).
On the promotion side, the SSBC provides clear guidelines
regarding which intervention strategies the predecisional stage
dialog module should focus on: (a) enhancing problem awareness;
(b) increasing acceptance of personal responsibility; (c) making
social norms salient; (d) strengthening perceived ability to change
current behavior; and (e) promoting the formation of a clear and
challenging, but not excessive personal change goal. However,
because of the aforementioned risk of eliciting reactance, the dialog
module should include not only arguments promoting behavioral
change but also elements designed to reduce reactance. Research
(e.g., Knowles & Riner, 2007) has indicated that one of the most
effective ways to reduce reactance is to merely acknowledge the
fact that the person might feel some resistance. A second strategy
for reducing reactance is to minimize the request; that is, instead of
requesting complete behavioral change, ask for only a small change
(“even a penny will help”). A third technique to prevent reactance is
the “power of yes”; that is, asking people whether they agree with
an assumption/conclusion. Providing choice between multiple
behavioral alternatives is another way to prevent reactance. The
predecisional module developed for this study is documented in
Appendix A.
3.3. The dialog module targeting participants in the preactional
stage
The SSBC assumes that in the preactional stage of behavioral
change, people already have the general goal of changing their
current behavior (high goal intention). However, because several
actions could normally be used as a means to achieve this goal, the
task confronting them is to select the personally most suitable
behavioral strategy. Consequently, the main intervention goal in
this stage is to provide more knowledge about the pros and cons as
well as the personal feasibility of behavioral alternatives, and then
help people to select the one they find personally most suitable. In
the present context, this can be done by analyzing mobility needs
and preferences together with a participant.
Besides promoting arguments, the preactional stage dialog
module should also include arguments targeting potential sources
of reactance/resistance: According to Knowles and Riner (2007),
one effective strategy to deal with concerns about an offer consists
in giving guarantees. In the mobility case, for example, participants
could be offered the opportunity to test whether PT services fit
their purposes with a free one-week travel pass. The preactional
module formulated for this is documented in Appendix B.
3.4. The dialog module targeting participants in the actional stage
The SSBC assumes that in the actional stage, people not only
possess a strong goal intention but also have formed a strong
behavioral intention; that is, they have made a decision on which
new behavioral strategy they want to test instead of the old one.
The main task confronting them in this stage is to actually initiate
the actions necessary to implement this new behavioral strategy.
Consequently, the focus of the dialog module targeting participants
in this stage is to help them plan the initiation of these actions as
concretely as possible. In this stage, people may also benefit from
recalling the perceived positive consequences associated with the
new behavior strategy as well as receiving information that would
help them to overcome potential barriers. This actional module is
documented in Appendix C.
3.5. The dialog module targeting participants in the postactional
stage
The SSBC assumes that in the postactional stage, persons actu-
ally have been engaging in the selected new behavior strategy for
some time. Thus, people in this stage are reflecting on the experi-
ences they have gained with the new behavior and are comparing it
critically with the old behavior. As a result, the main intervention
task in this stage is twofold: to provide feedback on how success-
fully they have achieved their personal change goal and to help
them to cope with the temptation to relapse into the old behavior.
As a consequence, besides repeating and strengthening the positive
consequences associated with the new behavior and helping them
 S. Bamberg / Journal of Environmental Psychology 33 (2013) 68e75
to overcome barriers, the focus of this dialog module is on
providing support. For this reason, it starts by explicitly thanking
and praising people for their good decision and offering them
a small gift in recognition (a free one-day regional family ticket).
Besides asking them whether they need additional information,
another intervention element for this stage group consists in
motivating them to think about buying a permanent monthly or
annual PT pass. The idea behind this intervention element is to
increase participants’ commitment to their current behavior and to
strengthen its habitual nature. At the end of each dialog module,
participants are offered the respective list of stage-specific infor-
mation materials. The selected materials are then sent to them via
mail. The postactional module is documented in Appendix D.
3.6. Intervention delivery
As reported above, the postcard presented questions on partic-
ipants’ current travel mode choice as well as a short stage diagnosis
instrument. This information provided the input for a statistical
diagnosis (latent class cluster analysis) of participants’ current
stage of behavioral change. In the next step, participants with the
same stage diagnosis were assigned to the respective stage-specific
intervention modules. The phone numbers posted in by partici-
pants were then used to call them personally. Calls were conducted
by agents working for a professional marketing company. To
guarantee that all clients received a similar intervention, agents
were trained intensively in how to use the standardized dialog
protocol provided on a computer screen during the talks. The whole
process was steered and controlled by a CATI system.
Two weeks later, participants with the preintervention diag-
nosis “predecisional,” “preactional,” and “actional stage” were
contacted for a second time. The purpose of this second call was to
support participants in these stages who were showing stage
progression following the first intervention in their further tran-
sition through the stage sequence. Participants showing a stage
progression received the dialog module matched to the respective
stage. At the end, they were once again offered the respective stage-
specific information material.
4. The evaluation study
Six weeks after the second call, the effect of the two dialog
marketing campaigns was evaluated with a randomized control
trial design. Before the start of the intervention, participants within
each of the four stage groups were randomly assigned to one of the
following experimental conditions: (a) a control group without any
treatment participating only in the postintervention evaluation
interview; (b) an experimental group participating in the phone-
based dialog marketing campaign; and (c) a second experimental
group receiving only a standardized information package without
a personal talk. The information package consisted of professionally
designed small brochures/leaflets used by federal institutions,
consumer agencies, and companies in campaigns to promote the
use of non-motor-car transportation means. The brochures/leaflets
contained information about PT use (route map, pocket time tables
of nearby PT lines, tariffs), bike and walking trails, and motor-car-
sharing services in Berlin. Participants assigned to the standard-
ized information campaign received the information package only
once via mail.
4.1. Hypotheses
The aim of the evaluation study was to test the following
hypotheses empirically:
71
1. The stage-tailored intervention based on the SSBC will cause
a significant reduction in participants’ postintervention motor-
car use.
2. This effect of the stage-tailored intervention will be signifi-
cantly stronger than the effect of the pure information
intervention.
3. With the help of the information obtained through the newly
developed stage measure, it will be possible to identify four
homogeneous subgroups in the total sample representing the
four stage groups of behavioral change proposed by the SSBC.
4. The stronger effect of the stage-tailored intervention will be
reflected in a significantly higher proportion of participants in
this experimental condition who progress from earlier to later
stages of behavioral change.
5. Stage progression will be the mediator of the intervention
effect on postintervention travel behavior. In other words, after
controlling for the intervention effect on stage progression, the
direct effect of the stage-tailored intervention condition on
travel behavior will no longer be significant.
5. Method
5.1. Participants and procedure
Based on statistical power analyses and estimated dropout rates,
the plan was to start with four equal-sized stage groups (n ¼ 180)
that is, a total sample of N ¼ 720 participants. Participants were
recruited from a random sample of 12,000 addresses of Berlin
citizens of German nationality obtained from the city administra-
tion. These prospective participants were contacted through
a letter inviting them to participate in a climate protection
campaign carried out under the patronage of the Berlin Senate on
Environment, Health, and Consumer Protection. Of the 12,000
contacted addresses, 877 persons (7.3%) sent back the answer
postcard. However, 252 persons had to be excluded because they
were captive PT users; that is, they did not own or have access to
a car. Of the remaining 625 participants, 317 (50.1%) were diag-
nosed as in the postactional stage; 72 (11.5%), in the actional stage;
150 (24%), in the preactional stage; and 86 (13.8%), in the pre-
decisional stage. In a second step, participants within each stage
group were randomly assigned to either the control group
(n ¼ 209) or one of the two experimental groups (n ¼ 208 each). Of
the 208 persons assigned to the stage-tailored phone intervention,
148 could be reached by phone and received at least one dialog
intervention. Of the 565 persons (209 control group, 208 infor-
mation intervention, 148 stage-tailored intervention group) who
participated in the study as planned, 291 also participated in the
evaluation study. Table 1 presents the distribution of these 291
persons study across (preintervention) stages and experimental
conditions. Information from the evaluation study about the
socioeconomic background of these 291 participants indicated that
they represented the better educated, more affluent part of the
Table 1
Distribution of participants contacted after the intervention across (Preintervention)
stages and experimental conditions.
Stage Experimental condition
Control Standardized Stage-based dialog
group information campaign
Predecisional 18 15 5 38
Preactional 28 26 14 68
Actional 9 12 8 29
Postactional 63 52 41 156
118 105 68 291
72 S. Bamberg / Journal of Environmental Psychology 33 (2013) 68e75
Berlin population: 72.0% were female, the mean age was 36.2 years,
the mean household size was 2.7 persons, and 43.6% had an
academic degree. Two-thirds (67%) were full or part-time
employed. The average household net income was V 2500e3000
per month.
Because of the high rate of participants who did not participate
in the evaluation (n ¼ 274, 48.5% of 565), it was tested whether this
dropout rate reflected a systematic self-selection process. A logistic
regression taking “participation in the evaluation” as binary
dependent variable and the information on preintervention
behavior from the postcard as predictor did not indicate any
significant relation between preintervention behavior and study
dropout. A MANOVA was also calculated with preintervention
transportation means use as dependent variable and assignment to
the three experimental conditions as an independent variable.
Results did not indicate any significant difference between exper-
imental conditions in preintervention behavior. These results
provided no evidence that the high dropout rate was due to
a systematic self-selection process.
5.2. Measurement instruments
When trying to empirically test assumptions of stage models,
one methodological challenge is to develop a reliable and valid
measure for assessing an individual’s current stage membership.
Bamberg (submitted for publication) has presented a first stage
diagnosis measure and provided some evidence that it works.
However, he strongly recommended developing alternative
measurement approaches in order to check the construct validity
of the latent stage construct. Therefore, the present study applied
a newly developed alternative measure for assessing pre-
(answer postcard) and postintervention stage membership
(evaluation study) that is based explicitly on the SSBC. The
measure consisted of the introductory sentence “Which of the
following statements best describes how you feel about your
current motor-car use?” It was followed by five statements, and
the participant had to select the one that best fitted her or his
personal situation. For example, the statement “At the moment, I
use the motor car for most of my trips. I am happy with my
current level of motor-car use and see no reason why I should
reduce it” is assumed to reflect the mind-set of participants in
the predecisional stage (see Appendix E for the other stage-
related statements). One additional statement was included to
identify captive non-motor-car users. As recommended by
Bamberg (submitted for publication), the new measure also
included information about participants’ current travel behavior
preferences by asking how frequently they had used a motor car,
PT, and bicycle or walking for everyday trips in Berlin within the
last month. All four items used 5-point rating scales ranging from
0 (never) to 4 (very often).
Besides the assessment of postintervention stage diagnosis, the
main focus of the evaluation study was on a reliable measurement
of participants’ postintervention travel behavior. One approach to
measure this behavior consisted in asking the following two self-
rating items at the beginning and end of the first phone contact
during the evaluation study: (a) How frequently have you used the
motor car (PT, cycling, walking) for everyday trips in Berlin within
the last month (5-point rating scale ranging from never [0] to very
often [4]); (b) How many days have you used the motor car (PT,
cycling, walking) within the last week for everyday trips in Berlin
(7-point rating scale ranging from never [0] to every day [7]). The
second approach to measure travel behavior consisted of
a detailed mobility diary for the day of the first phone contact (all
interviews were conducted in the evening) as well as the two
following days. Thus with the help of a standardized interview
protocol, participants were asked by phone how many trips they
had taken and with which travel modes on three consecutive days.
Across all reported trips, the proportion of trips taken by motor
car, PT, cycling, and walking was then calculated (so-called modal
split). Data analysis indicate a satisfactory internal consistency of
the calculated modal split variable and the answers provided to
the two self-rating scales (motor-car use a ¼ 0.86, PT use a ¼ 0.85,
walking a ¼ 0.79; cycling a ¼ 0.91). Hence, the behavioral effects
of the intervention were assessed by four sum indices combining
the information obtained from the three measures. Each of the
four transportation specific indices could theoretically range from
0 to 12.
6. Results
6.1. Behavioral effect of the intervention
It was assumed (Hypothesis 1) that the dialog marketing
intervention would not just have a significant effect on post-
intervention travel behavior, but that this effect would be stronger
than that of the standardized information package (Hypothesis 2).
Table 2 presents the postintervention means and standard devia-
tions of the four travel behavior indices. For an overall test of
intervention effects, a MANCOVA was calculated with post-
intervention motor-car use, PT use, walking, and cycling as
dependent variables and experimental condition as independent
variable. To increase statistical power, preintervention use of these
transportation means reported on the consensus postcard was
entered as covariates. Using Pillai’s trace, the MANCOVA revealed
significant differences between experimental conditions, V ¼ 0.09,
F(14, 454) ¼ 2.68, p < 0.01.
Because a MANCOVA provides only an overall test of interven-
tion effects, the second step was to calculate linear regression
analyses for postintervention motor-car use, PT use, walking, and
cycling separately. Linear regression was used because SPSS 18
provides a bootstrap option that allows correcting for the poten-
tially biasing effect of the dependent variables’ nonnormal distri-
butions on the estimated standard errors of the regression
coefficients. In the regression analyses, the independent effects of
the two interventions (standardized information package and
dialog campaign) were represented by two dummy variables with
control group as reference category. In each analysis, the respective
preintervention behavior was used as an additional predictor. The
regression analyses revealed a significant negative effect of the
dialog marketing intervention on motor-car use and a significant
positive effect on PT use (see Table 3). Compared with controls, the
standardized effect size of the dialog intervention on motor-car use
was d ¼ 0.51, and on PT use d ¼ 0.39. The standardized infor-
mation package did not have a significant effect on either motor-car
or PT use. Neither the dialog marketing intervention nor the
information package had a significant effect on postintervention
cycling and walking.
Table 2
Postintervention means (Theoretical value range 0e12) and standard deviations in
the four travel behavior indices (N ¼ 291).
Postintervention behavior Control Info. package Dialog
group n ¼ 105 marketing
n ¼ 118 n ¼ 68
M SD M SD M SD
Motor-car use 7.13 2.70 6.71 2.31 5.80 1.98
Cycling 4.75 2.91 4.52 2.86 4.85 3.06
Walking 8.40 2.14 8.51 1.94 8.31 2.10
PT use 5.37 2.66 5.53 2.70 6.46 2.72
 S. Bamberg / Journal of Environmental Psychology 33 (2013) 68e75 73

Table 3
Results of regression analyses on the effects of the two intervention types on postintervention travel behavior.

Mode 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4

postintervention motor-car use postintervention PT use postintervention cycling postintervention walking
R2 ¼ 0.54 R2 ¼ 0.57 R2 ¼ 0.54 R2 ¼ 0.44

b SEa p b b SEa p b b SEa p b b SEa p b

Constant 2.29 0.36 *** 0.77 0.30 * 1.20 0.27 *** 3.33 0.48 ***
Information package 0.14 0.25 0.03 0.07 0.26 0.01 0.07 0.28 0.01 0.07 0.23 0.00
Dialog 0.80 0.26 ** 0.14 0.00 0.30 ** 0.16 0.26 0.38 0.04 0.19 0.25 0.04
Past motor-car use 1.39 0.09 *** 0.71
Past PT use 1.51 0.09 *** 0.74
Past cycling 1.53 0.09 *** 0.73
Past walking 1.29 0.11 *** 0.66

Note. PT ¼ public transport, b ¼ unstandardized regression coefficient, b ¼ standardized regression coefficient.

***p < 0.001, **p < 0.01, *p < 0.05.
a
SE ¼ bootstrapped standard error.

6.2. Identification of stage groups
It was assumed (Hypothesis 3) that the information obtained
from the stage measure in the total sample could be used to identify
four homogeneous subgroups representing the predecisional, pre-
actional, actional, and postactional stages of behavioral change.
Although cluster analysis is widely used for such analyses, latent
class cluster analysis (LCCA, Vermunt & Magidson, 2002) provides
a methodologically more advanced analysis tool. An important
difference between standard cluster analysis techniques and LCCA is
that the latter is a model-based clustering approach. This means that
a statistical model is postulated for the population from which the
sample under study is drawn. More precisely, it is assumed that the
data is generated by a mixture of underlying probability distribu-
tions. One advantage of LCCA is that formal statistical tests could be
used to decide which model (number of clusters) fits the data best.
In the LCCA, the following nine variables served as indicators of
the latent ordered categorical stage variable: the five statements on
the stage measure and the four rating scales assessing travel
behavior. Table 4 presents the fit statistics of the one to five LCCA
cluster solutions estimated for the preintervention (consensus
postcard) as well as postintervention (evaluation interview) stage
data. Because it takes model parsimony into account, the BIC
statistic was used as the criterion for deciding which cluster solu-
tion fitted the data best. It showed that the theoretically expected
four-cluster solution provided the best fit to the data (lowest BIC
value) in both datasets (see Table 4). Further inspection of the four-
cluster LCCA solution indicated that the classification was deter-
mined mainly by the chosen stage statement. Using only these five
statements as stage indicators resulted in a quasiidentical classifi-
cation (rs ¼ 0.98, respectively rs ¼ 0.97).
6.3. Intervention effect on stage transition
Hypothesis 4 predicted that the dialog marketing intervention
would have a significant effect on postintervention stage
Table 4
Model fit of LCCA solutions for the pre- and postintervention stage measure
(N ¼ 291).291.
Cluster Preintervention LCCA Postintervention LCCA
results results
membership. In the dialog intervention group, the number of
participants changing from the preintervention predecisional and
preactional to the postintervention actional and postactional stages
should be significantly higher than that in the other two experi-
mental conditions.
To gain an overall impression on how frequently stage
progression and stage regression occurred, participants’ pre- and
postintervention stage diagnoses were cross-tabulated (see
Table 5). There were high levels of both stage progression and stage
regression. For example, 22.2% of the participants with the pre-
intervention diagnosis “preactional stage” progressed to the later
actional/postactional stages, whereas 15.9% regressed to the earlier
predecisional stage. The predecisional and the postactional stage
seemed to be quite stable, whereas the actional stage seemed to be
unstable: After the intervention, only 17.6% of participants with
a preintervention actional stage diagnosis remained in this stage,
whereas just as many participants progressed to a later or regressed
to an earlier stage.
But did the interventions influence stage progression? To test
this question formally, a KruskaleWallis H test was conducted with
pre- and postintervention stage membership as dependent variable
and experimental conditions as independent variable. Because
assignment was random, it was assumed that preintervention stage
membership would not be associated significantly with the
experimental conditions. Results supported this assumption,
H(2) ¼ 2.11, p ¼ 0.38. However, postintervention stage membership
was associated significantly with the experimental conditions,
H(2) ¼ 7.42, p < 0.05. Jockheere’s test revealed a significant trend in
the data: The proportion of participants in higher stages increased
from the control, over the standardized information, to the dialog
intervention group, J ¼ 10,586.5, z ¼ 2.56, p < 0.01. ManneWhitney
tests were used to determine which of the two intervention forms
contributed to these findings. Results showed that compared to
controls, the standardized information intervention had no signif-
icant effect on postintervention stage membership, U ¼ 6478.5,
z ¼ 0.50, p ¼ 0.62, whereas the dialog campaign had a significant
positive effect, U ¼ 4008, z ¼ 2.62, p < 0.01.
Table 5
Percentage pre- and postintervention stage progression and regression (N ¼ 291).
Postintervention Preintervention stage

LL BIC (LL) LL BIC (LL) Predecisional Preactional Actional Postactional Total post
1 1157.34 2374.92 1191.29 244,336 Predecisional 43.2 15.9 23.5 3.5 15.5
2 967.92 2045.37 978.89 2068.28 Preactional 29.5 61.9 17.6 6.1 26.1
3 908.51 1975.84 919.11 1998-49 Actional 13.6 6.3 17.6 4.4 7.6
4 871.74 1951.58 881.69 1973.34 Postactional 13.6 15.9 41.2 86.0 50.8
5 866.87 1991.13 876.88 2013.46 Total pre 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100-0
74 S. Bamberg / Journal of Environmental Psychology 33 (2013) 68e75
6.4. Stage progression as mediator of the intervention effect
Hypothesis 5 predicted that the stage progression elicited by the
intervention should be the mechanism mediating the intervention
effect on behavior. Table 6 presents the results of linear regression
analyses testing this hypothesis. These analyses used the pre- and
postintervention stage diagnoses based only on the five statements
as predictors. The behavioral indicators were excluded from the
stage diagnosis to prevent a confounding of stage diagnosis and
postintervention behavior. As expected, the analyses (Table 6,
Model 2) indicated that after controlling for the effect of post-
intervention stage diagnosis, the effect of the dummy variable
“dialog intervention” on behavior was no longer significant for
either motor-car or PT use.
7. Discussion
One goal of the present paper was to demonstrate how the
stage model of self-regulated behavioral change (SSBC) could be
used as a theoretical framework for systematic intervention
developmentdin this case, a social marketing campaign aiming to
motivate participants to reduce their motor-car use for daily trips in
Berlin. A second goal was to test empirically the effectiveness of this
intervention as well as hypotheses on the mechanisms underlying
the intervention effect derived from SSBC.
In summary, the evaluation results provided support for all
hypotheses: Whereas the delivery of a standardized information
package had no significant effect on participants’ postintervention
travel behavior, participation in the stage-based dialog intervention
resulted in a significant motor-car use reduction. The likewise
significantly higher PT use in this group indicated that car trips
were mostly substituted by PT use, whereas cycling and walking
remained unchanged. Compared with the small motor-car use
reduction effect (0.15e0.17) indicated by two meta-analyses for
traditional social marketing, the medium motor car use reduction
effect (0.51) found in the present study provides some evidence
that this approach may be more effective. The analyses also provide
support for the construct validity of the new stage measure: Using
another theory-based approach to measure this construct also
resulted in the identification of four subgroups corresponding to
the four postulated stages. The theoretically most relevant finding
is that the stage-based dialog intervention had a significant effect
not only on behavior but also on postintervention stage member-
ship. Furthermore, when controlling the intervention effect on
stage membership, the direct effect of the intervention on behavior
was no longer significant, indicating that stage transition seems to
be the mechanism mediating between the intervention and
behavioral change as assumed by the SSBS.
However, the present study also has limitations that will need to
be targeted by future research. One limitation consists in the fact
Table 6
Results of regression analyses testing whether stage progression mediates the intervention effect on behavior (N ¼ 291).
Variable Motor-car use as dependent variable
Model 1
(R2 ¼ 0.04)
b SEa
Constant 6.87*** 0.18
Dialogue intervention 1.11** 0.32
Postintervention stage diagnosis e e
*p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001.
a
Bootstrapped SEs.
that it makes no reference to the social-cognitive constructs
underlying stage transition proposed by the SSBS. The reason for
this was that in the context of an evaluation study with “normal”
citizens, there was a danger that asking them the huge number of
items necessary for a reliable measurement of these constructs
would further increase the dropout rate. Thus one task of future,
more laboratory-oriented studies would be to test whether the
effects of stage-specific interventions on stage transition are indeed
mediated by the social-cognitive variables postulated by the model.
If the model is correct, the stage transition elicited by the inter-
vention should be reflected in the formation of the three intention
types viewed as the critical transition points between the four
stages. The formation of the intention types themselves should be
associated with respective changes in the stage-specific sets of
social-cognitive variables. Although Bamberg (submitted for
publication) provides some correlational support for these model
assumptions, stronger experimental evidence is needed. Future
studies should also test whether the SSBC provides a general
framework for understanding the processes underlying change in
environmentally relevant behaviors. If this claim holds, model-
based stage-specific social marketing campaigns should also be
effective in other important environmentally related consumption
fields such as household energy use or food consumption. In this
context, future intervention studies should also think about
switching to other forms of intervention delivery. The low response
rate (7% of the 12,000) as well as the huge dropout rate indicates
that the acceptance of mail and phone-based interventions is
decreasing. Whereas the low response rate questions the practical
effectiveness of these delivery channels, the huge dropout rate
threatens the validity of the results. Although analyses revealed no
evidence for a systematic self-selection process, they could not
completely rule out the possibility that the dropout caused some
bias. Web-based interventions should be considered as an attrac-
tive alternative delivery channel. For participants, Web-based
interventions would offer the advantage that they could use them
24 h a day. For researchers and practitioners, Web-based inter-
ventions have the advantage of automatizing intervention delivery
and data collection. Perhaps Web-based interventions are even
a better delivery channel from a theoretical viewpoint, because
they make it possible to combine the attributes of interpersonal
and mass communication (e.g., Cassell, Jackson, & Cheuvront, 1998).
Furthermore, future intervention studies should use a different
research design than the present one, which compares the effects of
the stage-matched intervention to those of a traditional non-stage-
based information package. The reason for choosing a standardized
information package as second experimental condition was the
intervention partner’s interest in comparing the effectiveness of
the more expensive phone-based dialog marketing campaign with
that of a cheaper information package without personal contact.
Thus, the significant behavioral effect of the dialog marketing
PT use as dependent variable
Model 2 Model 1 Model 2
(R2 ¼ 0.55) (R2 ¼ 0.03) (R2 ¼ 0.21)
DR2 ¼ 0.51 DR2 ¼ 0.19
F(1, 290) ¼ 280.9, F(1, 290) ¼ 55.8,
p < 0.001 p < 0.001
b SEa b SEa b SEa
11.15*** 0.28 5.52*** 0.20 2.70*** 0.42
0.36 0.25 1.03* 0.40 0.53 0.37
1.52*** 0.09 e e 1.00*** 0.13
 S. Bamberg / Journal of Environmental Psychology 33 (2013) 68e75
campaign per se does not demonstrate the superiority of the stage-
matched intervention approach. It only indicates that combining
a personal talk with information delivery is a more effective way to
trigger behavioral change than the delivery of information alone. In
the literature (e.g., Weinstein, Rothman, & Sutton, 1998), a design
comparing the effectiveness of the same-stage specific intervention
modules delivered one time in a stage-matched way and the other
time randomly is discussed as a more convincing way to test the
assumed higher effectiveness of stage-based interventions. Future
studies should also apply such a design.
Acknowledgments
This study was supported by a grant from the German Ministry
of Research and Education (No 01UVO0809B) to Sebastian Bam-
berg. The intervention was developed and conducted in collabo-
ration with Martina Schäfer and Melanie Jäger-Erben (TU-Berlin)
and Omniphon (Leipzig). I thank Christian Glöckner for his helpful
comments on an earlier version of this paper.
Appendix A. Supplementary data
Supplementary data related to this article can be found at
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2012.10.001.
References
Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human
Decision Processes, 50, 179e211.
Bamberg, S. (2011). Processes of change. In L. Steg, A. E. van den Berg, & J. I. M. de
Groot (Eds.), Environmental psychology: An introduction (pp. 267e280). Chi-
chester, UK: Wiley.
Bamberg, S. When and how do people change environmentally harmful behaviors?
A stage model of self-regulated behavioral change, Manuscript submitted for
publication.
75
Baumeister, R. F. (2005). The cultural animal: Human nature, meaning, and social life.
New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Cassell, M. M., Jackson, C., & Cheuvront, B. (1998). Health communication on the
Internet: An effective channel for health behavior change? Journal of Health
Communication, 3, 71e79.
De Ridder, D. T. D., & de Wit, J. B. F. (Eds.), (2006). Self-regulation in health behavior.
London, England: Wiley.
Fujii, S., Bamberg, S., Friman, M., & Gärling, T. (2009). Are effects of travel feedback
programs correctly assessed? Transportmetrica, 5, 43e57.
Gollwitzer, P. M. (1990). Action phases and mind-sets. In E. T. Higgins, &
R. M. Sorrentino (Eds.). Handbook of motivation and cognition: Foundations of
social behavior, Vol. 2 (pp. 53e92). New York, NY: Guilford.
Gollwitzer, P. M. (1999). Implementation intentions: Strong effects of simple plans.
American Psychologist, 54, 493e503.
Hardeman, W., Johnston, D., Bonetti, D., Wareham, N. J., & Kinmonth, A. L. (2002).
Application of the theory of planned behavior in behavior-change interven-
tions: A systematic review. Psychology and Health, 17, 123e158.
Heckhausen, H., & Gollwitzer, P. M. (1987). Thought contents and cognitive func-
tioning in motivational versus volitional states of mind. Motivation and Emotion,
11, 101e120.
Higgins, E. T. (1989). Self-discrepancy: A theory relating self and affect. Psychological
Review, 94, 319e340.
Knowles, E. S., & Riner, D. D. (2007). Omega approaches to persuasion: Overcoming
resistance. In A. R. Pratkanis (Ed.), The science of social influence (pp. 83e114).
New York, NY: Psychology Press.
Michie, S., Whittington, C., Abraham, C., & McAteer, J. (2009). Effective Techniques in
Healthy Eating and Physical Activity Interventions: A Meta-Regression. Health
Psychology, 28, 690e701.
Möser, G., & Bamberg, S. (2008). The effectiveness of soft transport policy measures:
A critical assessment and meta-analysis of empirical evidence. Journal of Envi-
ronmental Psychology, 28, 10e26.
Schwartz, S. H., & Howard, J. A. (1981). A normative decision-making model of
altruism. In J. P. Rushton, & R. M. Sorrentino (Eds.), Altruism and helping behavior
(pp. 189e211). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Schwarzer, R. (2008). Modeling health behavior change: How to predict and modify
the adoption and maintenance of health behaviors. Applied Psychology: An
International Review, 57, 1e29.
Vermunt, J. K., & Magidson, J. (2002). Latent class cluster analysis. In J. Hagenaars, &
A. McCutcheon (Eds.), Applied latent class analysis (pp. 89e106). Cambridge,
England: Cambridge University Press.
Weinstein, N. D., Rothman, A. J., & Sutton, S. R. (1998). Stage theories of
health behavior: Conceptual and methodological issues. Health Psychology, 17,
290e299.