Pro-environmental behavior plays a pivotal role in advancing sustainable practices, particularly in areas such as energy conservation and waste segregation. The public’s perception of climate change and intention to perform eco-friendly behavior are increasingly attuned to the significance of environmental stewardship. After the 2020 Chinese energy conservation policy, Chinese citizens are encouraged to cultivate energy-efficient behaviors, simply starting from garbage sorting. Moreover, with the implementation of comprehensive waste management systems, Chinese people are actively engaged in separating recyclables, hazardous materials, and organic waste. These actions demonstrate an evolving environmental awareness that corresponds with China’s larger sustainability initiatives.
To explore how Chinese people develop pro-environmental behaviors, we use the Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB), which has been applied to climate change research in other countries (Ateş, 2020; Domingues & Gonçalves, 2020; Tian et al., 2020). While previous research delving into climate change has emphasized the role of personal values on pro-environmental behavior (Bergquist et al., 2022), few studies have combined TPB with values in explaining pro-environmental behaviors. Thus, this study aims to fill this gap by including Schultz’s (2000) three types of values (egoistic, altruistic, and biospheric) to propose a new theoretical framework. By using these values as antecedent factors of TPB, this study seeks to provide deeper insights into pro-environmental behaviors, offering a novel approach to understanding and promoting ecological actions through targeted communication strategies.
Theoretical Framework
Theory of Planned Behavior
The Theory of Planned Behavior (Ajzen, 1991) identifies three main predictors of behavioral intention: attitude, subjective norms, and perceived behavioral control (PBC). Attitude refers to the beliefs about the benefits or costs of performing a particular behavior. Subjective norms are the influence of others on one’s behavior, and PBC, often referred to as self-efficacy, explains how much an individual believes they can perform a behavior. TPB has been widely used in pro-environmental behavior studies and shown to be effective (Çoker & van der Linden, 2020).
Pro-Environmental Attitude
Attitude refers to the evaluation of a specific behavior (Ajzen, 1991; Fishbein, 2000). Kim and Hunter’s (1993) meta-analysis showed a strong relationship between attitude and behavior: a more positive evaluation increases the likelihood of performing the behavior. In this study, pro-environmental attitude means an individual’s concerns toward natural environment conditions (Tian et al., 2020). Individuals with higher environmental concern are more likely to engage in pro-environmental behaviors. Previous studies confirmed that pro-environmental attitude contributes to pro-environmental behavior (Casaló & Escario, 2018; Domingues & Gonçalves, 2020; Kumar, 2021; Tian et al., 2020; Tikir & Lehmann, 2011). Thus, we expect that individuals who believe strongly in protecting the environment will engage in pro-environmental behavior.
H1: Pro-environmental attitude is positively related to people’s intention to perform pro-environmental behavior.
Subjective Norms
Subjective norms reflect an individual’s perception of whether peers and significant others endorse a particular behavior. In the context of climate change, it signifies the belief that others support pro-environmental actions, which positively influences behavior. Subjective norms are essential in understanding people’s pro-environmental behavior. Several studies underscored the significant impact of subjective norms on environmentally conscious behaviors, such as voluntary action on climate change Bolsen et al., 2014; Masud et al., 2016, green buying behavior (Kumar, 2021; Xu et al., 2020), and pro-environmental intentions (Poškus, 2020).
H2: Subjective norms are positively related to people’s intention to perform pro-environmental behavior.
Perceived Behavioral Control
Perceived behavioral control (PBC) is defined as the extent to which an individual believes they could perform a behavior. An individual is more motivated to pursue a behavior when they believe that the behavior is feasible. Previous research shows that pro-environmental behavior heavily depends on individuals’ self-efficacy evaluation (S. Kim et al., 2013; Verma & Chandra, 2018) suggesting that perceived behavior control regarding climate change prevention was a significant predictor of people’s intentions to engage in pro-environmental behaviors.
H3: Perceived behavioral control is positively related to people’s intention to perform pro-environmental behavior.
Pro-environmental behavior
Pro-environmental behavior generally refers to an action that intentionally reduces harmful effects on the environment. Encouraging pro-environmental behavior is crucial for making progress on potential environmental problems, because the purpose of performing the behavior is to reduce the adverse effect of humans’ activities on the environment by minimizing energy consumption and resource use, encouraging non-toxic substance use, and reducing waste (Kollmuss & Agyeman, 2002).
H4: Pro-environmental intention is positively related to pro-environmental behavior.
Values as Antecedent Factors of TPB
Value, defined as the evaluation of a specific event or behavior (Schwartz & Bilsky, 1990), serves as a fundamental antecedent factor in Fishbein’s (2000) Extended TPB, influencing attitudes, subjective norms, and PBC (Ateş, 2020; Ye et al., 2017). In the environmental context, Schultz (2000) distinguishes three types of environmental concerns: egoistic, altruistic, and biospheric values. Egoistic values prioritize self-interest, whereas altruistic values encompass concern for others. Lastly, biospheric values emphasize environmental and ecosystem consequences (Stern et al., 1993). Each value orientation inspires people to be more concerned about certain outcomes of a given behavior. When people are more concerned about themselves, they might be less interested in others or the benefits to the ecosystem. By considering these value orientations within the TPB framework, researchers can gain deeper insights into individuals’ environmental attitudes and behavior. We used three types of values as antecedent factors to predict people’s pro-environmental behavior (see Figure 1).
H5a: Egoistic values are negatively related to individuals’ 1) pro-environmental attitude, 2) subjective norms, and 3) perceived behavioral control,
H5b: Altruistic values are positively related to individuals’ 1) pro-environmental attitude, 2) subjective norms, and 3) perceived behavioral control
H5c: Biospheric values are positively related to individuals’ 1) pro-environmental attitude, 2) subjective norms, and 3) perceived behavioral control
In various environmental psychology theories, egoistic values are often portrayed as being opposed to pro-environmental behavior (Steg & De Groot, 2012). Egoistic values negatively influence pro-environmental behavior, whereas altruistic and biospheric values have positive associations (De Groot & Steg, 2008). Individuals with strong egoistic values may be less inclined to engage in pro-environmental behavior if costs outweigh benefits, whereas those with altruistic or biospheric values prioritize benefits to others or the ecosystem and would prefer to conduct pro-environmental behavior (Choi et al., 2015).
Research conducted by López-Mosquera and Sánchez (2012) showed that egoistic values had no significant impact on environmental behavior, while altruistic and biospheric values had a positive impact on individual environmental attitudes and behaviors. A study of sustainable traveling mode (Lind et al., 2015) also demonstrated that values were important factors affecting environmental beliefs, the most predictive of which are biospheric values, while egoistic values are irrelevant to environmental beliefs. Also, the value-belief-norm theory of pro-environmental behavior compares egoistic values with biospheric and altruistic values, demonstrating that egoistic values are negatively associated with pro-environmental beliefs, personal norms, and behaviors (Stern et al., 1999). Furthermore, although there is a direct relationship between values and pro-environmental intention, the relationship is stronger when mediated by TPB variables, including a specific belief, personal norms, or personal efficacy (Choi et al., 2015). Ye et al.‘s (2017) work also found that personal values impact young adults’ tourism intentions through attitudes, subjective norms, and PBC. Similarly, Tikir and Lehmann (2011) found that the effects of different value types on climate-friendly behavioral intentions were mediated by TPB factors.
H6a: Egoistic values are negatively related to individuals’ pro-environmental intention.
H6b: Altruistic values are positively related to individuals’ pro-environmental intention.
H6c: Biospheric values are positively related to individuals’ pro-environmental intention.
H7a: Egoistic values indirectly affect people’s pro-environmental intention, mediated by 1) pro-environmental attitude, 2) subjective norms, and 3) perceived behavioral control.
H7b: Altruistic values indirectly affect people’s pro-environmental intention, mediated by 1) pro-environmental attitude, 2) subjective norms, and 3) perceived behavioral control.
H7c: Biospheric values indirectly affect people’s pro-environmental intention, mediated by 1) pro-environmental attitude, 2) subjective norms, and 3) perceived behavioral control.
Methods
Participants and Data Collection
Data collection was conducted through an online survey panel service, WJX (www.wjx.cn), on June 7, 2022. We initially purchased 250 responses, but WJX provided 278 completed responses. The WJX panel service typically distributes the questionnaire to a larger pool of potential respondents from its database of over 6.2 million registered members and stops collecting data once the target number of complete responses is reached. In our case, it stopped collecting data when 278 complete responses were obtained. Even though online surveys can introduce selection bias and carry the risk of social desirability bias, such limitations are not unique to this study but are inherent challenges in survey research, as highlighted by Babbie (2021). These factors, while recognized, do not undermine the study’s contributions to understanding pro-environmental behavior, and we have taken steps to mitigate their effects through robust data collection and analysis techniques.
Among 278 participants, 11 participants failed to correctly answer the screening questions “To show that you are paying attention, please select ‘none of the above’ option as your answer,”. After we excluded invalid participants, 267 responses remained for the analysis, including 96 males (36%) and 171 females (64%). The average age is 30.5 years (SD = 7.6 years), with a range of 18 to 72 years, and more than 80% of respondents are full-time employees. Finally, the average time that participants spent on the survey was around 10 minutes.
Measures
Values
De Groot and Steg (2008) developed a rating scale that includes thirteen items to measure values. The current study adopted this measurement, and all of the items were measured from 1 = not important at all to 5 = extremely important on a 5-point Likert scale. Participants were asked to indicate to what extent the following items are important “as a guiding principle in your life,” including “social power,” “wealth,” “authority,” “influential,” and “ambition” (these five items measure egoistic values) (M = 3.5, SD = 0.6, α = .58), “equality,” “world of peace,” “social justice,” and “helpfulness” (these four items measure altruistic values) (M = 4.3, SD = 0.5, α = .46), “preventing pollution,” “respecting the earth,” “unity with nature,” and “protecting the environment” (these four items measure biospheric values) (M = 4.1, SD = 0.6, α = .68).
Attitude
Three items were adopted from Leiserowitz (2006). These items included “How concerned are you about climate change?” “How serious of a threat do you believe climate change is to non-human nature?” and “How serious are the current impacts of climate change around the world?” (M = 4.0, SD = 0.7, α = .69).
Subjective norms
Six items were modified to measure perceived norms (Hiranrat et al., 2021; López-Mosquera & Sánchez, 2012), including “My family members support my decision to take actions towards climate change,” “I get encouragement from my friends for taking actions towards climate change,” “I was influenced by an important person I know as a role model for my decision to take actions towards climate change,” “Most of the people who are important to me think that I should do something to preserve and protect environment,” “Most of the people who are important to me expect me to preserve and protect environment,” and “People whose opinion I respect would preserve and protect the environment” (M = 4.0, SD = 0.6, α = .73).
Perceived Behavioral Control
This concept was measured with two items which were adopted from Masud et al. (2016) and measured. The items included “I can personally help to reduce climate change by changing my behavior,” and “I personally feel that I can make a difference with regard to climate change” (M = 4.1, SD = 0.7, r = .29, p < .001).
Pro-Environmental Intention
To measure pro-environmental intention, the participants were asked to answer, “How likely are you to take each of the following actions to reduce your own greenhouse gas emissions to protect the environment?” Seven items were drawn from Stern (2000) and Hart (2011) and included “Switch household appliances off at the wall socket to reduce energy consumption,” “Take steps to reduce my carbon footprint,” “Use alternative forms of transport such as walking, cycling, or public transport,” “Choose energy-efficient appliances and electronic equipment,” “Buy compact fluorescent bulbs,” “Use less air conditioning in the summer,” and “Turn down your thermostat in the winter” (M = 4.2, SD = 0.5, α = .62).
Pro-Environmental Behavior
Pro-environmental behavior regarding climate change was measured with six items adopted from Hart (2011). Participants were asked to indicate “To what extent you have already taken the following actions before?” “Change to a more fuel-efficient car,” “I use public transport,” “I try to recycle as much as possible,” “I reduce the amount of waste I produce,” “I install low energy light bulbs,” and “I turn off lights/fans/electrical appliance when not in use” (M = 4.3 SD = 0.4, α = .52).
Results
H1, H2, and H3 predicted that attitudes, subjective norms, and PBC were positively related to pro-environmental intention. To test the three hypotheses, we conducted a hierarchical regression analysis, as shown in Table 1. Gender, age, and income were treated as control variables. The results showed that age (β = .16; p = .004) and income (β = -.16; p = .004), are significantly related to pro-environmental intention while gender (β = -.06; p = .213) had no relationship with pro-environmental intention. This suggests that as people get older and as their income increases, they may become more willing to engage in behaviors that are beneficial to the environment. On the other hand, the findings show gender does not play a significant role in influencing pro-environmental intention. This lack of gender difference in the context of climate change is understandable, as environmental concerns and actions are universal issues that transcend gender boundaries.
Among the three TPB factors, PBC is proved to be the most effective factor to predict pro-environmental intention (β = .32; p < .001), followed by subjective norms (β = .30; p < .001) and attitudes (β = .14; p = .033). H1, H2, H3 are all supported. Furthermore, the control variables explained a small portion of the variance in pro-environmental intention, with an adjusted R2 of .02. However, after adding the three independent variables (attitudes, subjective norms, and PBC), the incremental adjusted R2 increased significantly to 31.3%.
Confirming H4, pro-environmental intention directly affected pro-environmental behavior positively (β = .63; p < .001). Rejecting H5a, there was no relationship between egoistic values and attitude (β = -.07; p = .330), subjective norms (β = .02; p = .871), and PBC (β = .04; p = .763). However, altruistic values were positively related to attitude (β = .23; p < .001), subjective norms (β = .39; p < .001), and PBC (β = .40; p < .001), supporting H5b. Similarly, there was a significant relationship between biospheric values and attitude (β = .35; p < .001), subjective norms (β = .44; p < .001), and PBC (β = .40; p < .001), confirming H5c.
There was no relationship between egoistic values and pro-environmental intention (β = -.00; p = .983), rejecting H6a. Altruistic values showed a positive relationship with pro-environmental intention (β = .23; p < .001). Biospheric values also positively affected pro-environmental intention (β = .33; p < .001), supporting H6b and H6c.
To explore the mediating role of TPB constructs, PROCESS macro Model 4 (Hayes, 2013) was adopted. Because egoistic, altruistic, and biospheric values are independent of each other, we conducted the mediation analysis separately. AMOS 26 was used to check the model fit indices and the results indicated that when using egoistic values as antecedent factor, the model fit was acceptable (χ2 = 305.26, df = 214, p < .001, CFI = .91, TLI = .90, RMSEA = .040). Then PROCESS macro Model 4 (Hayes, 2013) was adopted to test the mediating effects of TPB constructs on egoistic values and pro-environmental intention. The bootstrapping procedure was used with bootstrapped 95% level of confidence with 5,000 bootstrap samples. The findings showed that when using pro-environmental attitude as a mediator, the indirect effect was insignificant because the confidence interval (CI) included zero (-0.053-0.011), and β = -.01, SE = 0.02, p = .617. Similarly, when subjective norms were used as the mediator, the result was also insignificant (CI = -0.042 - 0.057 β = .01, SE = 0.03, p = .739). Also, PBC proved to be not a significant mediator (CI = -0.024-0.060, β = .01, SE = 0.02, p = .492). The results are summarized in Table 2.
An additional Sobel (1982) test was conducted to provide another test of the mediation relationship. The results showed that the mediation path through attitude has a z-score of -.1.12 (p = .263), the z-score for the path through subjective norms is 0.38 (p = .704), and the path through PBC has a z-score of .64 (p = .522). Therefore, the evidence generated also suggested that the proposed model that TPB constructs were insignificant mediators in the relationship between egoistic values and pro-environmental intention.
Next, we used altruistic values as the antecedent factor. The result showed that the model fit was acceptable (χ2 = 293.12, df = 193, p < .001, CFI = .90, TLI = .90, RMSEA = .04). Then we adopted both PROCESS macro Model 4 (Hayes, 2013) and Sobel test to examine the mediating effects of TPB constructs on altruistic values and pro-environmental intention. The findings of PROCESS macro showed that when using pro-environmental attitude as a mediator, the indirect effect between altruistic value and pro-environmental intention was significant because the confidence interval (CI) did not include zero (0.006-0.109), and β = .05, SE = 0.03, p < .001. Similarly, when subjective norms were used as the mediator, the result was also significant (CI = 0.077 - 0.197, β = .13, SE = 0.03, p < .001). Also, PBC was shown to be a significant mediator (CI = 0.065-.232, β = .14, SE = 0.04, p < .001). The results are summarized in Table 3.
An additional Sobel (1982) test confirmed the above result. The results showed that the mediation path through attitude has a z-score of 2.70 (p = .007) the z-score for the path through subjective norms is 4.68 (p < .001), and the path through PBC has a z-score of 5.51 (p < .001). Therefore, the evidence generated also supported the proposed model that TPB constructs were significant mediators in the relationship between altruistic values and pro-environmental intention.
The model fit was acceptable when using biospheric values as antecedent factor, (χ2 = 269.86, df = 193, p < .001, CFI = .93, TLI = .92, RMSEA = .039). After running PROCESS macro Model 4, the findings showed that pro-environmental attitude (CI = 0.002 - 0.109, β = .04, SE = 0.03, p < .001), subjective norms (CI = 0.063 - 0.178, β = .11, SE = 0.03, p < .001), and PBC (CI = 0.047- .182, β = .11, SE = 0.04, p < .001) were significant mediators for biospheric values and pro-environmental intention. The results are summarized in Table 4.
A Sobel (1982) test was conducted to provide evidence in support of the above findings. The results showed that the mediation path through attitude has a z-score of 4.51 (p < .001), the z-score for the path through subjective norms is 4.71 (p < .001), and the path through PBC has a z-score of 4.64(p < .001). Therefore, it confirmed that the mediation effects we reported with the bootstrapping procedure were accurate.
Based on these results, altruistic values and biospheric values are positively related to pro-environmental intention, mediated by TPB constructs, supporting H7b and H7c. However, there is no indirect relationship between egoistic values and pro-environmental intention, mediated by TPB factors, not supporting H7a.
Discussion
The study investigated how values and the three core factors of TPB could affect an individual’s pro-environmental intention and further affect pro-environmental behavior in China. The results are consistent with previous studies (Elias et al., 2019; Hiranrat et al., 2021; Verswijvel et al., 2019), showing that there is a positive relationship between attitudes, subjective norms, PBC, and pro-environmental intention. The results also confirmed that Chinese people’s behavioral intention is heavily influenced by social norms. Such findings are consistent with China’s classification as a collectivist country (Steele & Lynch, 2013), as the extent to which others think that environmental issue is urgent significantly influenced individuals’ pro-environmental behavior. Findings showed that PBC was the most effective predictor of people’s intention among all the three TPB factors (i.e., pro-environmental attitudes, subjective norms, and PBC). The results suggested that if people had more confidence in themselves to engage in climate change issues, they would be more likely to take meaningful actions. Furthermore, intention is positively related to pro-environmental behavior regarding climate change.
This study contributes to theoretical development as it incorporated a new variable, values, into the TPB model. The results showed that altruistic values and biospheric values are positively related to attitude, subjective norms, and PBC, while egoistic values are not related to the three factors, which is consistent with previous findings. Similar results were found by Raghu and Rodrigues (2022), in that altruistic and biospheric values showed a positive relationship with belief and moral norms, while egoistic value did not have any relationship with TPB factors. This result was unexpected, but it may be because individuals with strong egoistic values prioritize personal benefits and convenience. However, this does not necessarily lead to negative attitudes, subjective norms, or perceived behavioral control regarding pro-environmental behaviors. Instead, they may remain indifferent rather than actively engaging in environmental actions. In contrast, those who are willing to benefit others although it might incur costs to themselves and the people who seemed to be concerned about climate change issues would perform pro-environmental behavior. One possible reason for the lack of a significant relationship between egoistic values and pro-environmental behavior might be that egoistic values, which prioritize self-interest and personal gain, do not align well with the collective and altruistic nature of pro-environmental behavior; as Stern (2000) explained, self-transcendent (collective) values could lead to behaviors that benefit the larger community, while self-enhancing (individualistic) values align more with behaviors that benefit the individual. Psychological distance might be another reason why egoistic individuals are relucent to perform pro-environmental behaviors. Egoistic individuals may experience psychological distance from environmental issues, viewing them as abstract, distant, or irrelevant to their immediate lives. Markowitz and Shariff (2012) showed that egoistic individuals may not feel personally connected to the issue, which reduced their intentions to act. Lou et al. (2024) also found that the relationship between egoistic values and pro-environmental behavior is moderated by psychological distance, and the association became more positive when individuals’ psychological distance got closer.
Furthermore, the results showed that TPB constructs mediated the relationship between altruistic/biospheric values and pro-environmental intention, which means values do not exert influence on people’s pro-environmental intention directly, but through affecting people’s climate change attitudes, subjective norms, and PBC. Awareness of environmental consequences, namely, environmental values, are significantly related to a person’s attitude, subjective norms, and PBC towards climate change issues, while these factors in turn have a positive impact on behavioral intention (Gkargkavouzi et al., 2019). A study on sustainable entrepreneurship showed that egoistic, altruistic, and biospheric values all had an indirect effect on sustainability-driven entrepreneurial intentions through TPB factors (Yasir et al., 2021). Thus, when creating messages based on values to affect pro-environmental behaviors, we need to consider how to use values to change people’s pro-environmental attitudes, norms, and PBC first.
The results confirmed that values are an important factor that influences people’s pro-environmental intention. According to Warner and Kinslow (2013), local value predispositions could shape people’s environmental risk perception and their efforts to control them. Therefore, it is important to recognize the significance of values in the public understanding of environmental issues (Vainio & Paloniemi, 2013). Based on the findings, when communicating climate change to the public through media coverage or public service announcements (PSA), altruistic values and biospheric values should be emphasized. On the other hand, highlighting one’s own benefit by performing pro-environmental behavior might be effective to stimulate changes given that egoistic individuals may feel motivated to engage in behaviors that primarily benefit themselves.
The current research also has great practical implications in China. The Chinese government started to enforce garbage sorting in May 2020, but citizens are not actively following the policy even though they might face serious consequences (Ren & Zuo, 2024). This shows that science communication has not been effective in engaging the public in environment protection efforts in China (Jia, 2022), possibly because sudden law enforcement cannot shape people’s environmental values. Fostering pro-environmental behaviors requires time, cost, and effort, which sometimes may conflict with one’s own interests. If a person holds strong egocentric values, one will be less likely to spend time and money to perform eco-friendly tasks. However, if pro-environmental messages can shape individuals’ altruistic and biospheric values, they might be prone to conduct pro-environmental behaviors.
Limitations and Future Research
This study provides a fresh perspective in the field of climate change communication by introducing values as an antecedent factor in the TPB model. We investigated how values affect people’s pro-environmental intention and identified what types of values were positively related to individuals’ pro-environmental behavior. By shaping people’s values through media coverage and public service announcements, their behavior could be changed as well.
However, there are still some limitations in this research. First, this research used an online survey, which might have led to selection bias, as it is likely to include participants who are comfortable with technology and have Internet access, potentially excluding those who are less familiar with digital tools. Second, the current study relied on self-reported data to measure participants’ pro-environmental intention and behaviors, which could have introduced social desirability bias, where participants might have exaggerated their pro-environmental behaviors to match social expectations. Finally, the findings may have limited generalizability due to the homogeneous sample, as most of participants were highly educated individuals from mainland China, which does not represent the public education level of China’s population as a whole. Thus, the findings should be interpreted with caution, and it is hard to apply them to other cultural or socio-economic contexts.
Future research should use more diverse samples to improve the generalizability of findings across different cultural and socio-economic contexts. Alternative methods, such as field experiments or content analysis, could help reduce selection and social desirability biases. Incorporating objective behavioral measures would also enhance the reliability of the results. Additionally, future studies could explore how media campaigns and interventions shape values and influence pro-environmental behaviors within the TPB framework.