Explaining prosocial intentions: Testing causal relationships in the norm activation model

Abstract

This paper examines factors influencing prosocial intentions. On the basis of the norm activation model (NAM), we propose that four variables influence prosocial intentions or behaviours: (1) personal norms (PN), reflecting feelings of moral obligation to engage in prosocial behaviour, (2) awareness of adverse consequences of not acting prosocially, (3) ascription of responsibility for the negative consequences of not acting prosocially, and (4) perceived control over the problems. We conducted a series of experimental studies to examine how the NAM variables are causally related. As hypothesized, problem awareness, responsibility, and outcome efficacy played an important role in the development of PN and various types of prosocial intentions in the social as well as environmental domain.

Engaging in Pro-Environment Travel Behaviour Research from a Psycho-Social Perspective: A Review of Behavioural Variables and Theories

“…The first interpretation refers to a moderator model, while the other two interpretations imply a causal or mediation model. In a series of studies, De Groot and Steg [95,96] compared all three models and found most consistent support for the second one, which is represented in Figure 2. Moreover, they adopted an experimental design that supports a causal relationship between the variables.…”

ocial Well-Being and Pro-Environmental Behavior: A Cross-Lagged Panel Design

“…Based on the idea that pro-environmental behavior is a form of pro-social behavior (Steg & de Groot, 2010;Turaga et al, 2010;Venhoeven et al, 2013), we hypothesized and found that social well-being predicts conservation behavior. This idea overturns the common perspective from which the relationship between conservation behavior and well-being is usually considered (i.e., conservation behavior is a predictor of social well-being).…”

“…Pro-social behavior is supposed to have an enduring effect on well-being through different processes, such as giving meaning to life, contributing to a positive self, or providing a social identity (Son & Wilson, 2012). Pro-environmental behavior is viewed as a form of pro-social behavior (Steg & de Groot, 2010;Turaga et al, 2010;Venhoeven et al, 2013). Since engaging in pro-social behavior increases well-being if it provides meaning in life (e.g., "doing the right thing"), in their review, Venhoeven et al (2013) hypothesized that pro-environmental behavior can enhance eudaemonic well-being if such behavior is perceived as a source of meaning in life.…”

Motivations matter: Behavioural determinants of preferences for remote and unfamiliar environmental goods

“…This has resulted in different specifications of the model being applied in different situations (Steg and de Groot 2010). Nevertheless, it has been used in a number of environmental settings, focusing on beliefs about general environmental conditions (e.g.…”

“…Stern et al 1999) as well as specific environment-related behaviours. Specific environmental behaviour studies include yard burning behaviour (van Liere and Dunlap 1978); reducing car use (Eriksson et al 2006;Nordlund and Garvill 2003); reducing emissions from diesel cars (Steg and de Groot 2010); recycling (Bratt 1999;Hopper and Nielsen 1991); and general pro-environmental behaviour (Schultz et al 2005, Nordlund andGarvill 2002). It has also been applied in relation to WTP for environmental goods , Liebe et al 2011, Guagnano et al 1994, Guagnano, 2001, Blamey 1998, but only in the context of contingent valuation.…”