Journal of Environmental Psychology 42 (2015) 66e75
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Journal of Environmental Psychology
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jep
Self-efficacy or collective efficacy within the cognitive theory of stress
model: Which more effectively explains people's self-reported
proenvironmental behavior?
Mei-Fang Chen*
Department of Business Management, Tatung University, 40 Chung-Shan North Road, Section 3, Taipei, Taiwan
a r t i c l e i n f o
a b s t r a c t
Article history:
Received 17 February 2014
Received in revised form
9 February 2015
Accepted 21 February 2015
Available online 4 March 2015
This study ascertained whether self-efficacy and collective efficacy in the cognitive theory of stress model
explains people's self-reported proenvironmental behavior more effectively separately or in combination. A questionnaire study was conducted among 707 Taiwanese respondents. The results of structural
equation modeling analysis corroborated previous findings that the cognitive theory of stress model can
be applied to environmental problems to effectively explain people's self-reported proenvironmental
behavior. Moreover, compared with self-efficacy, collective efficacy is a stronger predictor of people's
problem-focused coping and self-reported proenvironmental behavior for respondents in this collectivist
cultures; failing to include collective efficacy in the cognitive theory of stress model can reduce the
power of the model to explain such behavior. The research results regarding the external validation and
internal validation of the cognitive theory of stress model were elaborated in this study to more effectively understand people's self-reported proenvironmental behavior.
© 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords:
Self-efficacy
Collective efficacy
Cognitive theory of stress model
Proenvironmental behaviors
Problem-focused coping
The occurrence of phenomena related to global environmental
change, such as global warming, species extinction, deforestation,
and desertification, can be treated as indicators of an unsustainable
lifestyle (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 2001;
United Nations Environment Programme, 2002). The remediation
and control of climate change problems is a huge challenge.
Contentious discussions in the political, social, and economic fields
have been held to determine how to manage such problems,
resulting in the signing of the Kyoto Declaration. According to
Ehrlich and Holdren (1971), the impact of human activity on the
environment can be expressed as: I (Human Impact) ¼ P
(Population) A (Affluence) T (Technology). This describes how a
growing population, affluence, and technology contribute to the
environmental impact. Scientific evidence now points to humans as
a significant contributor to global climate change; humans' failure
to engage in mitigation and adaptation will have an impact on
humans and nature that results in severe and potentially irreparable damage in the future (IPCC, 2007; Stern, 2007). Human lifestyles and behaviors must be transformed to achieve the goal of
environmental sustainability for the earth (Oskamp, 2002).
* Tel.: þ886 2 25925252x2435 #23; fax: þ886 2 25925252x3494.
E-mail address: [email protected].
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2015.02.002
0272-4944/© 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
According to Kollmuss and Agyeman (2002), proenvironmental
behavior can be defined as “an act intentionally reducing the
negative impact that an action can have on the environment.”
People often relate to climate change through personal experience,
knowledge, balancing benefits and costs, and trust in other societal
actors (Lorenzoni & Pidgeon, 2006).
The cognitive theory of stress proposed by Lazarus and Folkman
(1984) indicates that the relationship between the environment
and people is dynamic, mutually reciprocal, and bidirectional.
People monitor their environments and go through the appraisal
process to interpret situations (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984). When a
person identifies an environmental event as harmful or threatening
and does not have enough or adequate resources to adapt to such
an event, he or she will perceive such an event as an environmental
stressor. Environmental stressors can be defined as “physical and
social environmental conditions that the average person would
perceive as actually or potentially threatening, damaging, harmful,
or depriving” (Lepore & Evans, 1996 p. 350). Several previous
studies have revealed that global environmental problems such as
climate change, environmental pollution, or accidents and disasters
can be conceived as actually or potentially threatening (Dunlap,
Gallup, & Gallup, 1993) and can act as stressors (e.g., Baum, 1991;
Baum, Singer, & Baum, 1981).
M.-F. Chen / Journal of Environmental Psychology 42 (2015) 66e75
Cognitive appraisal is a dynamic process that consists of demand appraisal and resource appraisal. Demand appraisal refers to
a person's monitoring of events with regard to his or her wellbeing (Lazarus, 1991). Resource appraisal (Homburg & Stolberg,
2006) pertains to perceived self-efficacy and reflects an individual's beliefs in his/her own capabilities to pursue a course of
action to meet given situational demands (Bandura, 1997). According to Bandura (1995; 1997), when people perceive a problem
as being of a personal nature, their individual actions are most
effectively predicted by their self-efficacy beliefs. Applying the
cognitive theory of stress (Lazarus, 1966; 1991), Homburg and
Stolberg (2006) indicated that when people perceive environmental stress, they engage in both demand appraisal and resource
appraisal; this activates proenvironmental behaviors, which are
mediated by problem-focused coping (Fig. 1). By investigating
various types of environmental stressor (e.g., pollution in domestic
and work contexts or global environmental problems), Homburg
and Stolberg (2006) varied the critical components of their
model for four samples (including employees and students) to
maximize the generalizability of their proposed model. Their
study adopted various indicators of proenvironmental behavior
including nonactivist public-sphere behavior, private-sphere
environmentalism, and proenvironmental behavior in the workplace to include various types of environmental stressor and
samples. In contrast to Homburg and Stolberg's (2006) expectations, self-efficacy (Bandura, 1997) was not found to be a significant determinant of proenvironmental behavior regarding the
environmental stressor of global environmental problems. This
finding differed from previous findings that maintained that in
coping with areas other than environmental problems self-efficacy
is commonly positively related to coping attempts and behavior
(e.g., Floyd, Prentice-Dunn, & Rogers, 2000). One possible explanation for this finding is that managing large-scale environmental
problems far exceeds the capacities of individuals. As far as environmental problems are concerned, it might thus be more
appropriate to assess people's beliefs in terms of collective efficacy
(Bandura, 1997) as opposed to individual efficacy.
The main aim of this study was to ensure the maximum
explanatory power of the cognitive theory of stress model to
explain people's self-reported proenvironmental behavior. Rival
theoretical models were compared with Model 1, a baseline model
that included self-efficacy as the major predictor of proenvironmental behavior that was proposed by Homburg and
Stolberg (2006). As pointed out above, collective efficacy is also a
crucial positive contributor to people's proenvironmental behavior
(Homburg & Stolberg, 2006; Bandura, 1995, 1997, 2000); thus,
Model 2 included collective efficacy in place of self-efficacy in
Model 1. Model 3 included both self-efficacy and collective efficacy.
Both self-efficacy and collective efficacy were expected to instigate
67
problem-focused coping, which stimulates people to engage in
proenvironmental activities. These competing research models
(Models 1e3) are depicted in Figs. 1e3, respectively.
Based on Hofstede's (1989) cultural dimensions, German culture
is more individualistic and oriented toward the short-term. In
contrast to a more individualistic, Western cultural context (Germany) in which Homburg and Stolberg undertook their study
(2006), this empirical study investigated Taiwan, which is characterized by a more collective Chinese cultural social setting oriented
toward the long-term. According to Bandura (2002), people from
collectivistic cultures can judge themselves to be more efficacious
than they actually are. Earley's (1994) cross-cultural research on
organizational efficacy and productivity in the United States, Hong
Kong, and mainland China indicated that those from collectivistic
cultures judge themselves as the most efficacious and achieve the
highest organizational productivity in group-oriented systems.
Consequently, collective efficacy is estimated to have greater predictive power than self-efficacy in such a collective cultural setting.
The main contributions of this paper are twofold: (a) enhancing
external validation by reexamining the cognitive theory of stress
model to understand people's self-reported proenvironmental
behavior in a collective cultural setting and (b) advancing the
knowledge of new directions regarding internal validation by
verifying that collective efficacy is a stronger predictor of people's
problem-focused coping and self-reported proenvironmental
behavior than is self-efficacy in a more collective cultural setting. In
the following section, the cognitive theory of stress model and
some essential studies concerning the issue of coping with global
environmental change are discussed. The subsequent sections are
devoted to empirical tests of the competing models proposed in
this study.
1. The cognitive theory of stress model and Proenvironmental behavior
Three relevant elementsddemand appraisal, resource appraisal,
and copingd are included in the cognitive theory of stress model
for predicting proenvironmental behavior (Homburg & Stolberg,
2006).
1.1. Demand appraisal and resource appraisal
An appraisal is “an evaluation, often elemental and without
awareness, of the significance of what is happening for our personal
well-being” (Lazarus, 1991, p. 193). Demand appraisal refers to an
individual's monitoring of events with regards to his or her wellbeing, (Lazarus, 1991), which can be in the form of threat and
harm appraisal. Previous studies have indicated that environmental
problems are frequently appraised as threatening or damaging to
Fig. 1. The results of the replication of the cognitive theory of stress model (Homburg & Stolberg, 2006) in this study (Model 1).
68
M.-F. Chen / Journal of Environmental Psychology 42 (2015) 66e75
Fig. 2. The results of the rival cognitive theory of stress model in this study (Model 2).
Fig. 3. The results of the rival cognitive theory of stress model in this study (Model 3).
personal well-being and especially to personal health (Dunlap
et al., 1993; Lai, Brennan, Chan, & Tao, 2003). Personal threat and
harm appraisal has long been discussed as a motive for (proenvironmental) behavior in environmental psychology (Gardner &
Stern, 1996).
Resource appraisal concerns coping optionsdthat is, whether
any action can prevent harm, ameliorate it, or produce additional
harm or benefit (Lazarus, 1991). Homburg and Stolberg (2006)
indicated that resource appraisal and self-efficacy (Bandura, 1997)
motivate problem-focused coping. Self-efficacy perceptions, introduced by Bandura (1977, p. 3), are “beliefs in one's capacity to
organize and execute the courses of action required to produce
given attainments.” Perceived self-efficacy plays a pivotal role in
the causal structure of social cognitive theory because such efficacy
beliefs affect adaptation and change not only in their own right but
through their impact on other determinants (Bandura, 1997;
Maddux, 1995; Schwarzer, 1992). A person who has a strong
sense of coping efficacy can exhibit decreased vulnerability to
stress and depression in taxing situations and strengthened resiliency to adversity. This means that when people perceive a problem
as being of a personal nature, their individual actions are most
effectively predicted by their self-efficacy beliefs (Bandura, 1995;
1997). Previous environmental studies have found that people
with high levels of self-efficacy beliefs (Bandura, 1986, 1995, 1997)
in relation to environmentally responsible behavior are more inclined to behave in an environmentally responsible manner (e.g.,
Axelrod & Lehman, 1993; Manzo & Weinstein, 1987; Taylor & Todd,
1995).
1.2. Coping
Coping refers to a person's cognitive and behavioral efforts to
manage (reduce, minimize, master, or tolerate) the internal and
external demands of personeenvironment transactions that are
appraised as taxing or exceeding that person's resources (Lazarus &
Folkman, 1984, p. 141). “Once a person has appraised a transaction
as stressful, coping processes are brought into play to manage the
troubled person-environment relationship” (Lazarus, 1990, p. 3).
Coping can be understood as a process-oriented phenomenon by
which stressful situations are managed. Such efforts to manage are
made to minimize, avoid, tolerate, change, or accept stressful
situations in the course of a person's attempts to master or
handle his or her environment. Such efforts differ from learned and
automatic adaptive behavior. Thus, coping consists of efforts to
manage specific external or internal demands that are appraised as
taxing or exceeding the resources of a person (Lazarus, 1991). It is
assumed that coping mediates between the unspecific motivation
to protect the environment (and oneself) and proenvironmental
behavior (Homburg & Stolberg, 2006).
Problem-focused coping refers to managing problems that
cause distress; it includes aggressive interpersonal efforts to alter
situations as well as calm, rational, deliberate efforts to solve
problems. According to Lazarus and Folkman (1984), emotionfocused coping is a mechanism to alleviate distress by minimizing, reducing, or preventing the emotional components of a
stressor. Emotion-focused coping regulates emotion and includes
distancing, escaping or avoiding, self-controlling, seeking social
M.-F. Chen / Journal of Environmental Psychology 42 (2015) 66e75
support, accepting responsibility, and positively reappraising
(Lazarus & Folkman, 1984). Previous studies have indicated that
when people encounter a threat to their well-being they adopt
several forms of problem-focused coping and emotion-focused
coping strategies to manage stressful factors (e.g., Aldwin,
Folkman, Schaefer, Coyne, & Lazarus, 1980; Folkman, Lazarus,
Dunkel-Schetter, DeLongis, & Gruen, 1986). Because people's
methods of coping with global environmental problems can inhibit
or foster behavioral changes, coping has been discussed as an
essential predictor of proenvironmental behavior (e.g., Gardner &
Stern, 1996; Homburg & Stolberg, 2006; Iwata, 2002). Homburg,
Stolberg, and Wagner (2007), as well as other previous studies
(e.g., Bachrach & Zautra, 1985; Iwata, 2002), have indicated that
problem-focused coping is a determinant of proenvironmental
behavior. People with higher scores on problem-focused-coping
scales report more information about environmental problems
than do people with lower scores. Therefore, problem-focused
coping was adopted in this study as the mediating mechanism in
the cognitive theory of stress model for predicting proenvironmental behavior.
On the theoretical basis of Lazarus' coping approach, Homburg
et al. (2007) developed a set of scales that measure coping with
global environmental problems. A total of eight scales were
developed: problem-solving, expressive coping, denial of guilt,
relativization, wishful thinking, self-protection, pleasure, and
resignation. According to Homburg and Stolberg (2006), there are
three relevant problem-focused coping dimensions for explaining
proenvironmental behavior: (a) problem-solving strategies, (b)
expressive coping strategies, and (c) self-protection strategies.
Homburg and Stolberg (2006) and Homburg et al. (2007) showed
that problem-solving strategies are cognitions and actions focused
on the problem to be solved and include the acquisition of
knowledge and social support and exclude problem avoidance. The
expression of emotions such as grief or anger is a way of coping.
Regarding proenvironmental behavior, the expression of emotion
might facilitate the organization of information and social support.
Self-protection strategies are a form of behavioral coping focused
on activities for the protection of oneself and/or one's own health.
2. Collective efficacy
Previous environmental behavior studies have revealed that
many people express proenvironmental attitudes but that such
attitudes do not translate into environmentally responsible behaviors (e.g., Smythe & Brook, 1980; Dunlap, 1991; Scott & Willits,
1994). One reason that has been offered for this discrepancy between attitudes and behavior is that although people's self-efficacy
beliefs are key to individual actions undertaken to solve individual
problems (e.g., changing health-related behavior), such beliefs are
less relevant for collective actions to solve problems perceived as
collective (e.g., the climate crisis; Homburg & Stolberg, 2006). The
concept of collective efficacy is an essential addition to the study of
environmental behaviors because people are social beings and rely
upon each other to find solutions to problems relevant to
improving their quality of life (Bandura, 1986).
Bandura defined perceived collective efficacy as (1997, p. 477) “a
group's shared belief in its conjoint capabilities to organize and
execute the courses of action required to produce given levels of
attainments.” People's shared belief in their collective power to
produce desired results is crucial to solving collective problems
such as climate change. Collective attainments are the product of a
social system that involves not only the shared intentions, knowledge, and skills of its members but also the interactive, coordinated,
and synergistic dynamics of their transactions. Perceived collective
efficacy is an emergent group-level property and not simply the
69
sum of the efficacy beliefs of individual members. Group-based
coping requires people to focus on their collective rather than
their individual-level resources (Tajfel & Turner, 1979; van
Zomeren, Postmes, & Spears, 2008). The findings of Homburg and
Stolberg's study (2006) also disclosed that when an environmental problem is treated as a stressor, collective efficacy, rather
than self-efficacy, determines coping attempts and proenvironmental behavior. This means that people must perceive the
value of a collective effort to enhance proenvironmental behavior
and to benefit sustainability. Although the theory of collective efficacy provides a useful framework for investigating how people
view their ability and the effectiveness of their actions to solve
environmental problems, it has been largely overlooked.
3. Method
3.1. Data collection and sample
In contrast to Homburg and Stolberg's (2006) study, in which
research questionnaires were distributed to the volunteering acquaintances (incidental sample) of research assistants and to undergraduate students who were required to participate in their
study in partial fulfillment of a course requirement, the present
study collected data through a nationwide self-administered
questionnaire survey administered in July 2012. People over 20
years of age in Taiwan were the target population. Stratified sampling was performed based on population quotas for standard
statistical areas (Taiwan comprises four regions and 22 counties)
determined by the Ministry of the Interior (2011). A total of 65
village leaders were chosen to conduct sample distribution. These
village leaders were contacted by phone and asked to help send
questionnaires to approximately 20e38 residents based on the
sociodemographic characteristics of the population quota in the
region where they were in charge. A total of 2000 questionnaires
were sent with return paid envelopes in July 2012 for data collection. To minimize possible response bias, the cover letter containing
the instructions stated that there were no right or wrong answers
and that only respondents' personal opinions mattered. By
completing the questionnaire anonymously, the participants were
assured that all responses would be kept confidential. Out of the
2000 questionnaires, 937 were returned. After excluding incomplete responses with missing data, 707 were included in the
empirical analysis; the questionnaire had a moderate response rate
of 35.35%.
Comparison with Taiwan's census data revealed that, apart from
gender, the respondents were not strictly statistically representative. However, the sample included respondents from a wide variety of sociodemographic backgrounds and the raw survey data
collected in this empirical study still retained theoretical and
practical implications for this type of research. A high ratio of respondents lived in Northern Taiwan (44.90%); respondents were
predominantly married (65.39%) with children (75.40%). The majority of respondents were aged 40e59 years (46.00%). In the
overall sample, most people had a senior high school education
(77.50%) and earned a monthly income of less than NT$50,000
(87.30%). In Taiwan, the national average monthly income in 2013
was NT$45,664.
3.2. Measures
Measurement scales and indicators were adopted for the present study with a view to measuring all the studied construct
variables; all measurement scales and indicators were validated by
previous studies, particularly that by Homburg and Stolberg (2006).
The questionnaire was translated into Chinese and checked by a
70
M.-F. Chen / Journal of Environmental Psychology 42 (2015) 66e75
translator who was proficient in English. Meticulous attention was
paid to ensure clarity and accuracy in the course of preparing the
Chinese version of the questionnaire. Details regarding each measurement scale are provided as follows.
The demand appraisal scale included two subscales (threat
appraisal and harm appraisal). It was used to investigate the process of demand appraisal among respondents regarding climate
change. The subscales each consisted of 3 items adapted from
Schwarzer (1993). Both self-reported measures were scored on a 7point Likert scale (1 ¼ strongly disagree, 7 ¼ strongly agree). The selfefficacy scale was adapted from Schwarzer and Jerusalem (1999)
and was used to investigate respondents' beliefs in their capacity
and actions to solve the climate change problem. This 9-item selfreported measure was scored on a 7-point rating scale
(1 ¼ strongly disagree, 7 ¼ strongly agree). The problem-focused
coping scale was adopted from Homburg and Stolberg (2004) and
was used to investigate respondents' beliefs in their direct
constructive action and behavioral strategies in response to climate
change. The problem-focused coping scale included three subscales: problem-solving (8 items), expression of emotions (7 items),
and self-protection (3 items). This 18-item self-reported measure
was scored on a 7-point Likert scale (1 ¼ strongly disagree,
7 ¼ strongly agree). Stern, Dietz, Abel, Guagnano, and Kalof (1999)
and Stern (2000) divided proenvironmental behaviors into four
categories: environmental activism (e.g., active involvement in
environmental organizations), nonactivist behaviors in the public
sphere (e.g., petitioning on environmental issues), private-sphere
environmentalism (e.g., saving energy, purchasing recycled
goods), and organizational actions (e.g., product design). Two types
of proenvironmental behavior adapted from Schahn, Damian,
Schurig, and Füchsle (2000) and Homburg and Stolberg (2006)
were used in this study to investigate respondents' privatesphere environmentalism (3 items) and nonactivist public-sphere
behavior (2 items). The private-sphere environmentalism subscale focused on private-sphere environmentalism regarding
mobility and energy behavior and the nonactivist public-sphere
behavior focused on specific social commitments, namely, participation in environmental protection actions such as planting trees
and picking up litter at the beach. This 5-item self-reported measure was scored on a 5-point rating scale (1 ¼ very rarely or never,
5 ¼ very frequently). The collective efficacy scale was adapted from
Schwarzer and Schmitz (1999) and was used to investigate respondents' beliefs in collective actions that can solve perceived
collective problems, such as climate change. This 3-item selfreported measure was scored on a 7-point rating scale
(1 ¼ strongly disagree, 7 ¼ strongly agree). All scales adopted for this
study are described in the Appendix.
Reliability reflects the internal consistency of the indicators that
measure a given construct. Prior to data analysis, the reliability of
the subscales of demand appraisal, problem-focused coping strategies, and proenvironmental behavior were checked. The reliability of the problem-focused coping and proenvironmental
behavior subscales achieved acceptable Cronbach alpha values of
over 0.6 (Nunnally, 1978); however, the “threat” and “harm” subscales of the demand appraisal scale did not achieve acceptable
Cronbach alpha values. After omitting 2 reverse-scored items, “I am
not worried about the consequences of climate change” and “So far,
climate change in everyday life has not harmed me,” the reliability
of both subscales achieved the recommended level of 0.6 (Table 1).
Hence, the measurement constructs studied exhibited internal
consistency. The indicators used to measure the common underlying subdimensions of demand appraisal, problem-focused
coping, and proenvironmental behavior were summed and
divided by the number of items. The results were used in later
statistical analyses. The descriptive statistics and correlation matrix
of demand appraisal, self-efficacy, problem-focused coping strategies, proenvironmental behavior, and collective efficacy are summarized in Table 1.
4. Data analysis
To achieve the main objective of this study, ensuring the
maximum explanatory power of the cognitive theory of stress
model to explain people's proenvironmental behavior, structural
equation modeling (SEM) procedures were used to test the three
competing cognitive stress research models with the maximum
likelihood algorithm by using the SAS program (Statistical Analysis
Systems Institute Inc., 1999). Following Anderson and Gerbing
(1988), confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was conducted before
the structural model specifying the causal relationships among the
latent constructs was examined. The typical measurement model
assessment process was executed to determine both the convergent and discriminant validity of the multiple item measures.
4.1. Measurement model analysis
Following common practice, CFA was adopted to test the coded
data collected to assess the convergent validity and discriminant
validity of the survey instruments employed. Because the chisquare statistic is overly sensitive to sample size, the adequacy of
the measurement model was evaluated using various other
goodness-of-fit criteria (Joreskog & Sorbom, 1996). All goodness-offit criteria results pertaining to Model 1 (the original cognitive
theory of stress model), Model 2 (the first revised cognitive theory
of stress model, in which collective efficacy was substituted for selfefficacy), and Model 3 (the second revised cognitive theory of stress
model, which included both self-efficacy and collective efficacy) are
shown in Table 2. According to Marcoulides and Schumacker's
(1996) standards for model fit, the CFA results for the three
models indicated a satisfactory fit for each measurement model.
Anderson and Gerbing (1988) suggested that the convergent
validity of a measurement model can be assessed by determining
whether each observed variable's estimated maximum likelihood
factor loading on its latent construct is significant. Table 3 reveals
that all factor loadings were significant (t value > 1.96; p < .001);
therefore, the indicator variables of this study had convergent
validity.
According to Anderson and Gerbing (1988), the chi-square difference test can be applied to evaluate the discriminant validity of
two constructs by calculating the difference between the chisquare statistics for the constrained and unconstrained measurement models. Discriminant validity is demonstrated when the chisquare difference (1 d.f.) is significant, meaning that the model in
which the two constructs are viewed as distinct (but correlated)
factors is superior. Given the control of the experimentewise error
rate (the overall significance level), the chi-square difference statistics for every two constructs were all statistically significant in
this study. Therefore, discriminant validity was successfully
achieved.
4.2. Structural model analysis
Once the adequacy of the measurement model was confirmed,
the raw data of the survey variables retained from the CFAs were
used for structural path analyses. According to Marcoulides and
Schumacker's (1996) standards for model fit, the results of the
structural paths of these three competing cognitive theory of stress
research models indicated a satisfactory fit for each structural
model (Table 4). With the satisfactory results of the model evaluations obtained, these three competing cognitive theory of stress
M.-F. Chen / Journal of Environmental Psychology 42 (2015) 66e75
71
Table 1
The descriptive statistics and correlation matrix of studied constructs.
Demand Appraisal
Threat
Harm
Self-efficacy
Problem-focused Coping
Problem Solving
Expression of Emotions
Self-protection
Pro-environmental Behavior
Private-sphere
Public-sphere
Collective efficacy
Mean
S.D.
4.79
5.17
4.40
4.22
4.86
4.72
4.57
5.64
3.28
3.64
2.74
5.21
1.05
1.20
1.30
1.04
0.82
0.92
1.23
1.10
0.71
0.81
1.04
1.13
(0.71)
0.82
0.85
0.24
0.53
0.39
0.50
0.25
0.28
0.21
0.23
0.23
(0.68)
0.40
0.19
0.47
0.42
0.33
0.32
0.17
0.17
0.10
0.31
(0.66)
0.21
0.43
0.24
0.51
0.11
0.29
0.18
0.28
0.09
(0.88)
0.34
0.48
0.17
0.06
0.33
0.14
0.39
0.38
(0.90)
0.80
0.80
0.63
0.45
0.38
0.31
0.60
(0.84)
0.38
0.44
0.43
0.33
0.35
0.61
(0.92)
0.25
0.31
0.23
0.26
0.28
(0.90)
0.26
0.36
0.03
0.55
(0.66)
0.82
0.74
0.33
(0.70)
0.23
0.27
(0.64)
0.24
(0.87)
Note: Cronbach's a values are shown in parentheses.
Table 4
Structural results of model fit.
Table 2
Confirmatory factor analysis results model fit.
Model 1
Goodness of Fit Index (GFI)
GFI Adjusted for Degrees of Freedom (AGFI)
Root Mean Square Residual (RMR)
Chi-Square
Chi-Square DF
RMSEA Estimate
Bentler's (1990) Comparative Fit Index
Bentler and Bonett's (1980) Non-normed Index
Bentler and Bonett's (1980) NFI
0.94
0.89
0.11
372.37
78
0.07
0.94
0.91
0.93
Model 2
0.98
0.95
0.05
65.96
22
0.05
0.98
0.97
0.98
Model 1 Model 2 Model 3
Model 3
0.94
0.90
0.11
419.95
108
0.06
0.95
0.93
0.94
research models were compared in terms of path coefficients and
explanatory power.
The standardized path coefficients of these three competing
cognitive theory of stress research models and their significance are
shown in Table 5, which demonstrates that all of the causal relationships of each competing model were supported. The results of
Model 1 indicated that people's demand appraisal and self-efficacy
had positive impacts on their problem-focused coping, which in
turn influenced their proenvironmental behavior. The results of
Goodness of Fit Index (GFI)
0.94
GFI Adjusted for Degrees of Freedom (AGFI)
0.89
Root Mean Square Residual (RMR)
0.11
Chi-Square
379.48
Chi-Square DF
80
RMSEA Estimate
0.07
Bentler's (1990) Comparative Fit Index
0.94
Bentler and Bonett's (1980) Non-normed Index
0.91
Bentler and Bonett's (1980) NFI
0.93
James, Mulaik, and Brett (1982) Parsimonious NFI
0.62
0.97
0.93
0.06
112.32
24
0.07
0.97
0.94
0.96
0.51
0.93
0.89
0.11
470.29
113
0.07
0.95
0.92
0.93
0.62
Model 2 showed that people's demand appraisal and collective
efficacy had positive impacts on their problem-focused coping,
which in turn influenced their proenvironmental behavior. The
results of Model 3 revealed that people's demand appraisal
together with self-efficacy and collective efficacy had positive impacts on their problem-focused coping, which in turn influenced
their proenvironmental behavior.
Table 3
Standardized loadings of indicators and convergent validity.
Construct
Sub-dimension/Indicators
Demand Appraisal
Self-efficacy
Model 1
Model 2
Loading
0.81
0.50
T-value
13.67
10.64
0.76
0.83
0.75
0.77
0.75
0.62
0.46
0.35
0.31
22.41
25.33
22.27
22.87
22.24
16.98
12.25
9.22
7.96
Problem Solving
Expression of Emotions
Self-protection
0.99
0.38
0.44
22.97
9.91
11.29
0.70
0.46
0.63
Private-sphere
Public-sphere
3 items
0.48
0.57
10.20
11.42
Threat (2 items)
Harm (2 items)
9 items
Loading
0.88
0.43
Model 3
T-value
13.22
9.37
Loading
0.81
0.50
T-value
13.68
10.74
0.70
0.81
0.73
0.81
0.79
0.71
0.48
0.38
0.35
20.14
24.64
21.38
24.90
24.49
19.58
12.89
9.98
9.16
20.01
12.38
17.69
0.98
0.40
0.45
22.96
10.24
11.37
0.50
0.50
10.89
10.24
0.46
0.53
9.54
10.43
0.89
0.77
0.73
27.41
22.77
20.93
0.85
0.81
0.78
25.13
23.49
21.87
Problem-focused Coping
Pro-environmental Behavior
Collective efficacy
72
M.-F. Chen / Journal of Environmental Psychology 42 (2015) 66e75
Table 5
The results of structural equation modeling analysis.
Model 1
Demand Appraisal/Problem-focused Coping
Self-efficacy/ Problem-focused Coping
Collective efficacy/ Problem-focused Coping
Problem-focused Coping/Pro-environmental Behavior
Problem-focused Coping (SMC)
Pro-environmental Behavior (SMC)
Model 2
Model 3
b
T-value
b
0.33
0.49
5.61
11.19
0.27
4.82
0.73
47.52%
52.57%
8.55
0.79
0.77
85.67%
58.57%
15.95
10.20
The explanatory power (squared multiple correlation;
SMC ¼ R2) of these three competing cognitive theory of stress
research models disclosed that the antecedent variables can each
explain approximately 48%, 86%, and 71% of the variance in their
respective problem-focused coping, which in turn can explain
approximately 53%, 59%, and 57% of the variance in their respective
proenvironmental behavior. The results revealed that the explanatory power of the original cognitive theory of stress model (Model
1) ranked the lowest for both problem-focused coping and proenvironmental behavior. In addition, the explanatory power of
Model 2, in which collective efficacy was substituted for selfefficacy, ranked the highest for both problem-focused coping and
proenvironmental behavior. Surprisingly, Model 3, which included
both self-efficacy and collective efficacy, did not have the highest
explanatory power regarding problem-focused coping and proenvironmental behavior.
A further examination of the path coefficients of the antecedent
variables included in these three competing cognitive theory of
stress research models indicated that the path coefficients of
problem-focused coping regarding proenvironmental behavior
were 0.73, 0.77, and 0.76, respectively, which correspondingly
explained approximately 53%, 59%, and 57% of the variance in their
respective proenvironmental behavior. In addition, the path coefficients of self-efficacy regarding their corresponding problemfocused coping decreased from 0.49 in Model 1 to 0.17 in Model
3. This means that after collective efficacy was introduced to the
cognitive theory of the stress research model, the impact of selfefficacy on problem-focused coping was decreased. Moreover, the
path coefficient of collective efficacy on problem-focused coping in
Model 2 was as high as 0.79, implying that collective efficacy has a
strong impact on problem-focused coping. The results were in line
with the findings of Homburg and Stolberg's study (2006), which
showed that rather than self-efficacy, it is collective efficacy that
determines coping attempts and proenvironmental behavior when
an environmental problem is treated as a stressor. Because of the
collective nature of sustainable development and the fact that
many problems relating to sustainability are cumulative, it is only
when many people cooperate to perform sustainable behaviors
that an individual's sustainable behaviors can contribute to sus€ hm, 2010).
tainable development (Hanss & Bo
The covariate coefficients of the antecedent variables (i.e., demand appraisal, self-efficacy, and/or collective efficacy) included in
these three competing cognitive theory of stress research models
indicated that the independent variables operated interdependently. As shown in Figs. 1e3, the size effects of all covariate coefficients for the antecedent variables were moderate, from 0.34 to
0.52, and in the positive direction in this study. In Model 1, the
covariate coefficient between demand appraisal and self-efficacy
was 0.40; in Model 2, that between demand appraisal and collective efficacy was 0.39; in Model 3, that between demand appraisal
and self-efficacy was 0.39, that between self-efficacy and collective
efficacy was 0.52, and that between demand appraisal and
T-value
b
0.35
0.17
0.53
0.76
70.71%
57.02%
T-value
6.02
4.22
12.22
8.97
collective efficacy was 0.34. These numbers imply that as a person's
degree of threat appraisal increases, he or she will perceive that
more coping resources (including self-efficacy and/or collective
efficacy) should be called for to overcome environmental difficulties. In addition, there was a relatively high covariate coefficient
between self-efficacy and collective efficacy (0.52) in Model 3. This
means that when a person has a shared belief in his or her group's
collective power to produce desired results through joint capabilities to conceive and execute a required course of action, his or her
own self-efficacy will increase.
In summary, all three models exhibited a favorable fit with the
data and the path coefficients for each model were significant and
supported. The explanatory power of the original cognitive theory
of stress model (Model 1) ranked the lowest for both problemfocused coping (approximately 48%) and proenvironmental
behavior (approximately 53%). Although the explanatory power of
proenvironmental behavior in Model 2 (approximately 59%)
seemed only slightly higher than that of Model 3 (approximately
57%), the explanatory power of problem-focused coping in Model
2 (approximately 86%) was much higher than that of Model 3
(approximately 71%). The chi square difference tests revealed
statistically significant differences in the explanatory power
among these three models: Model 2 versus Model 1
(Dc2 ¼ 267.16, d.f. ¼ 56, p < .0001); Model 3 versus Model 1
(Dc2 ¼ 90.81, d.f. ¼ 33, p < .0001); and Model 2 versus Model 3
(Dc2 ¼ 357.97, d.f. ¼ 89, p < .0001). When combining both
problem-focused coping and proenvironmental behavior, Model 2
(i.e., the first rival model) outperformed its competitors in
explanatory power.
5. Discussion and conclusion
The results of the structural analysis of this empirical study
conducted in Taiwan corroborates previous findings suggesting
that the cognitive theory of stress model applied to environmental
problems can effectively explain people's self-reported proenvironmental behavior. The explanatory power of the three
competing cognitive theory of stress models each explained more
than 50% of the variance in terms of self-reported proenvironmental behavior. In addition, collective efficacy was a
stronger predictor of people's problem-focused coping and selfreported proenvironmental behavior for respondents in Taiwan.
The findings obtained from this study are in line with those of
Homburg and Stolberg's study (2006). Failing to include collective
efficacy in the cognitive theory of stress model can lead to a lower
explanatory power regarding people's problem-focused coping
and self-reported proenvironmental behavior. Notably, when a
person's collective efficacy is included in the cognitive theory of
stress model, the explanatory power regarding problem-focused
coping can be increased from approximately 23%e38%. Because
people are social beings and rely on each other to find solutions to
problems for improving their quality of life, collective efficacy is a
M.-F. Chen / Journal of Environmental Psychology 42 (2015) 66e75
crucial factor in the study of environmental behaviors (Bandura,
1986).
Based on the findings of this empirical study, compared with
self-efficacy beliefs, collective efficacy beliefs contribute more to
activating people's problem-focused coping, which in turn makes
people engage in proenvironmental behavior. Therefore, knowing
how people's collective efficacy beliefs are activated constitutes
essential information that the government can use to encourage
citizens to engage in proenvironmental behavior in collectivist
cultures such as those in Taiwan and China. If people perceive a
strong sense of personal efficacy in the management of life circumstances and perceive that they can effect social change, personal efficacy can contribute substantially to perceived collective
efficacy in shaping the future of society (Fernandez-Ballesteros,
Diez-Nicolas, Caprara, Barbaranelli, & Bandura, 2002). Blake
(1999) identified three barriers to action: individuality, responsibility, and practicality. Individual barriers are barriers lying
within people that are related to attitude and temperament. Responsibility barriers include, in particular, a lack of trust in institutions often stops people from acting proenvironmentally;
because they are suspicious of local and national governments, they
are less willing to follow prescribed actions. Blake (1999) defined
social and institutional constraints that prevent people from acting
proenvironmentally, regardless of their attitudes or intentions, as
practicality barriers. Such barriers include a lack of time, money,
and information.
When environmental problems such as climate change are
treated as an environmental stressor, people's appraisal process
(including demand appraisal and resource appraisal) induces
action problem-focused coping, which in turn leads to proenvironmental behavior. Aside from personal threat or harm
appraisal (i.e., demand appraisal), whether an action can prevent
harm, be of benefit, or produce additional harm or benefit (i.e.,
resource appraisal) has long been discussed as a motive for
problem-focused coping. Moreover, because climate change is
a global environmental problem, people who perceive such a
problem are likely to be devoted to collective efforts.
Therefore, collective efficacy rather than self-efficacy constitutes
a greater contribution to solving environmental problems arising
from climate change. People's individual ability and the effectiveness of their actions to deal with this global problem are
limited.
Solutions to environmental problems are multifaceted;
private-sphere proenvironmental behavior refers to the purchase,
use, and disposal of personal and household products that have
environmental impacts, whereas public-sphere proenvironmental
behavior refers to environmental citizenship as well as the support and acceptance of public policies (Stern, 2000). Private actions are limited in addressing environmental problems unless
combined in joint efforts for collective public change. According
to Bandura (1997), self-efficacy is strengthened when people
master the specific skills required to engage in proenvironmental
behavior and are verbally persuaded of their ability to perform
such behavior. These sources of self-efficacy can be effective when
people judge the effectiveness of proenvironmental behavior of
their own groups. Therefore, if a group successfully masters a
particular task and receives positive feedback about its proenvironmental performance, group members might be stronger
in their belief that they can produce the desired results. A
commitment to collective efforts is required to instill the belief in
people that their actions can influence their surroundings; thus,
people can become more willing to engage in proenvironmental
behavior.
The Taiwanese government and environmental protection
groups have devoted efforts to initiating sustainable energy and
73
resource conservation policies to encourage people to engage in
proenvironmental behavior to mitigate climate change related
problems. Vivid descriptions and portrayals of the potential impacts of climate change on polar bears have been common. Concrete practices to save energy and reduce carbon emissions through
collective efforts such as driving less, replacing old appliances with
new energy-efficient appliances, replacing conventional light bulbs
with compact fluorescent bulbs, and choosing fuel-efficient models
when buying new vehicles, can minimize the potential risks of
climate change.
The findings from this research conducted in Taiwan are not
only consistent with those of Homburg and Stolberg's study (2006)
but also further verify that the rival cognitive theory of stress
model, which includes collective efficacy in predicting people's
self-reported proenvironmental behavior, indeed exhibits more
explanatory power than does the traditional model. This study not
only enhanced external validation by reexamining the cognitive
theory of stress model to understand people's self-reported proenvironmental behavior in various cultural social settings but also
advanced internal validation by verifying that in a more collective
cultural setting collective efficacy is a stronger predictor of people's
problem-focused coping and self-reported proenvironmental
behavior than is self-efficacy in explaining people's self-reported
proenvironmental behavior.
This study had several limitations that should be considered
when generalizing the findings of this study. The main limitation
is that the questionnaires adopted for this investigation relied on
the subjective self-reporting of proenvironmental behavior
without objectively assessing proenvironmental behavior activities in real settings. Self-reported behavior is not the same as
actual behavior; the correspondence between self-reported
behavior and observed behavior is not perfect (Huffman, Van
Der Werff, Henning, & Watrous-Rodriguez, 2014; Yu-Long &
San-Pui, 2011). In addition, this study included only five selfreported proenvironmental behaviors, three private-sphere actions and two public-sphere actions, more energy-efficiency and
energy-curtailment private-sphere proenvironmental behaviors
should be included in future research to provide more comprehensive policy-relevance findings. The second limitation is that
this study relied on cross-sectional data. Longitudinal research can
be used in future studies to track changes in people's appraisal
processes, problem-focused coping, and proenvironmental actions. Third, although substantial environmental psychological
research has employed local and/or convenience samples, this
study used a nationwide sample. Although the sample included
respondents from a wide variety of sociodemographic backgrounds, this study had only a moderate 35.35% response rate and
was not strictly statistically representative. Finally, cultural differences can be measured in a variety of ways and the most
commonly used dimension to explain cross-cultural differences in
behavior is that of individualism-collectivism (Hofstede, 1989).
This empirical study was conducted in Taiwan, which is characterized as having a more collective Chinese cultural social setting;
no variables were manipulated by the researcher. People from
collectivistic cultures can judge themselves to be more efficacious
in achieving group goals under group-oriented systems (Bandura,
2002; Earley, 1994). Natural quasi-experiments such as the one
involved in this study lack random assignment and are thus subject to concerns regarding internal validity, because the treatment
and control groups might not have been comparable at the
baseline. Readers should be cautious when interpreting these
findings and generalizing the research results of this study to
other, more individualistic cultural settings.
A set of psychological factors can be used to help describe and
explain human causes, consequences, and responses to climate
74
M.-F. Chen / Journal of Environmental Psychology 42 (2015) 66e75
change. A more effective understanding of how people think and
feel about climate change can facilitate crucial contributions toward understanding their motivations and behavioral responses in
trying to mitigate and/or adapt to climate change, although their
responses are influenced by both individual and contextual factors.
Relevant psychosocial determinants of proenvironmental behavior
should be considered and the existing theoretical model should be
extended in future research. In addition, future studies should
consider people's perceptions of existing regulatory and incentivebased policies because they can facilitate people's engagement in
proenvironmental behaviors in attempting to mitigate global
climate change. It is hoped that people worldwide hold the firm
Constructs
Demand Appraisal 1
Threat adapted from Schwarzer (1993)
Demand Appraisal 2
Harm adapted from Schwarzer (1993)
Self-efficacy adapted from (Homburg & Stolberg, 2006;
Schwarzer & Jerusalem 1999)
Problem Focused Coping 1
Problem solving (Homburg & Stolberg, 2004)
Problem Focused Coping 2
Expression of emotions (Homburg & Stolberg, 2004)
Problem Focused Coping 3
Self-protection
(Homburg & Stolberg, 2004)
Pro-environmental Behavior 1
Private-sphere environmentalism
(Homburg & Stolberg, 2006; Schahn et al. 2000)
belief that collective efficacy can enable making improvements, and
that engaging in proenvironmental behavior can sustain human life
in this planet.
Acknowledgment
This work was supported by a grant from the National Science
Council, Republic of China (NSC 100- 2410 e H e 036 e 001 e MY3).
Appendix
Measuring Indicators
(1) *I am not worried about the consequences of climate change. (Deleted)
(2) I feel that I am threatened by climate change in everyday life.
(3) The thought of this climate change makes me uneasy.
(1)
(2)
(3)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
(9)
* So far, climate change in everyday life has not harmed me. (Deleted)
My life has become worse by climate change in everyday life.
I have lost hope, because climate change has just got worse and worse.
I know how to take precautions against climate change in everyday life.
When faced with climate change of this kind, I find ways to deal with it.
When I hear about climate change of this kind, I usually have various ideas of how to deal with it.
I know how to deal with new types of climate change.
I am able to find ways to deal with this kind of climate change in everyday life.
I can handle environmental problems of this kind, if I make an effort.
I believe I can even manage unexpected environmental problems.
Whatever happens in terms of the environment, I will be able to handle it.
I don't worry much about difficulties, which may arise as a result of global environmental problems
because I trust in my ability to cope with them.
(1) I try to obtain a more exact picture of the climate change.
(2) It is important for me to talk to others about climate change like this in everyday life, and to look for
solutions.
(3) I try to be informed about how this climate change can be reduced.
(4) I make sure I obtain more exact information about the climate change.
(5) I take the opportunity to talk to others about climate change.
(6) *I rarely think much about this climate change.
(7) I am learning more about pollutants in food and building materials as well as about drinking water and
air pollution.
(8) It is important for me to talk with others about this climate change.
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
When I look at what is happening, I get angry.
When I talk about this climate change I can get very annoyed.
When I think about how much climate change there is in everyday life, it makes me angry.
When I talk about climate change I feel depressed.
When I consider how much climate change there is in everyday life, I feel depressed.
It makes me annoyed that nothing is done about it, even though everyone knows about these problems.
It is important for me to be able to show my anger about these problems.
(1) Because of air pollution, I avoid staying long on roads with a lot of traffic.
(2) When there is smog, I cut down my activities out of doors.
(3) I avoid physical activity outdoors when the ozone concentration in the air is high.
(1) When possible, I use public transport instead of going by car.
(2) For short distances (up to 2 km) I leave the car at home and walk or go by bike.
(3) When cooking, I use a lid to cover the pot or pan to avoid wasting energy.
Pro-environmental Behavior 2
Nonactivist public-sphere behaviour (Homburg & Stolberg, (1) I take part in events run by environmental organizations such as planting trees, picking up litter in the
2006; Schahn et al. 2000)
beach, etc.
(2) I participate in protest campaigns or demonstrations for environmental protection.
Collective Efficacy (adapted from Schwarzer and Schmitz
(1) I am sure that we can achieve progress, because we are all pulling in the same direction.
(1999)
(2) I am confident that together we can solve the problem of climate change.
(3) We can come up with creative ideas to solve environmental problems effectively, even if the external
conditions are unfavorable.
Note: * denotes items requiring reverse scoring.
M.-F. Chen / Journal of Environmental Psychology 42 (2015) 66e75
References
Aldwin, C., Folkman, S., Schaefer, C., Coyne, J. C., & Lazarus, R. S. (1980). Ways of
coping: A process measure. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the
American Psychological Association, Montreal.
Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. (1988). Structural equation modeling in practice: a
review and recommended two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103, 411e423.
Axelrod, L. J., & Lehman, D. R. (1993). Responding to environmental concerns: what
factors guide individual action? Journal of Environmental Psychology, 13,
149e159.
Bachrach, K. M., & Zautra, A. J. (1985). Coping with a community stressor: the threat
of a hazardous waste facility. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 26, 127e141.
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: toward a unifying theory of behavioral change.
Psychological Review, 84, 191e215.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: PrenticeHall.
Bandura, A. (1995). Exercise of personal and collective efficacy in changing societies.
In A. Bandura (Ed.), Self-efficacy in changing societies (pp. 1e45). Cambridge,
England: Cambridge University Press.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: WH Freeman and
Company.
Bandura, A. (2000). Exercise of human agency through collective efficacy. Current
Directions in Psychological Science, 9, 75e78.
Bandura, A. (2002). Social cognitive theory in cultural context. Applied Psychology,
51, 269e290.
Baum, A. (1991). Toxins, technology, and natural disasters. In A. Monat & R Lazarus
(Ed.), Stress and coping: An anthology (3rd ed.). (pp. 97e139). New York:
Columbia University Press.
Baum, A., Singer, J. E., & Baum, C. S. (1981). Stress and the environment. Journal of
Social Issues, 37, 4e35.
Bentler, P. M. (1990). Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psychological
Bulletin, 107, 238e246.
Bentler, P.M. & Bonnet, D.C. (1980). Significance tests and goodness of fit in the
analysis of covariance structures.
Blake, J. (1999). Overcoming the ‘valueeaction gap’ in environmental policy: tensions
between national policy and local experience. Local Environment, 4, 257e278.
Dunlap, R. E. (1991). Public opinion in the 1980s: clear consensus, ambiguous
commitment. Environment, 33, 10e15.
Dunlap, R. E., Gallup, G. H., Jr., & Gallup, A. M. (1993). Health of the planet: a George
H. Gallup memorial survey. In Results of a 1992 international environmental
opinion survey of citizens in 24 Nations. Princeton, NJ: George H. Gallup International Institute.
Earley, P. C. (1994). Self or group? Cultural effects of training on self-efficacy and
performance. Administrative Science Quarterly, 39, 89e117.
Ehrlich, P. R., & Holdren, J. P. (1971). Impact of population growth. Science (American
Association for the Advancement of Science), 171(3977), 1212e1217.
Fernandez-Ballesteros, R., Diez-Nicolas, J., Caprara, G. V., Barbaranelli, C., &
Bandura, A. (2002). Determinants and structural relation of perceived personal
efficacy to perceived collective efficacy. Applied Psychology: An International
Review, 51, 107e125.
Floyd, D. L., Prentice-Dunn, S., & Rogers, R. W. (2000). A meta-analysis of research
on protection motivation theory. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 30,
407e429.
Folkman, S., Lazarus, R. S., Dunkel-Schetter, C., DeLongis, A., & Gruen, R. (1986). The
dynamics of a stressful encounter cognitive appraisal, coping, and encounter
outcomes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 992e1003.
Gardner, G. T., & Stern, P. C. (1996). Environmental problems and human behaviour.
Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
€hm, G. (2010). Can I make a difference? the role of general and
Hanss, D., & Bo
domain-specific self-efficacy in sustainable consumption decisions. Umweltpsychologie, 14, 46e74.
Hofstede, G. (1989). Culture's consequences: International differences in work-related
values. New York, NY: Sage Publications.
Homburg, A., & Stolberg, A. (2004). Entwicklung und erste Validierung der Skalen
zur Erfassung von Bew€
altigungsversuchen im Zusammenhang mit dem
Umweltstressor “Schadstoffbelastungen” [Measurement scales of coping with
the environmental stressor “pollution”ddevelopment and validation]. Zeitschrift für Diagnostische und Differentielle Psychologie, 4, 199e211.
Homburg, A., & Stolberg, A. (2006). Explaining pro-environmental behavior with a
cognitive theory of stress. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 26, 1e14.
Homburg, A., Stolberg, A., & Wagner, U. (2007). Coping with global environmental
problems: development and first validation of scales. Environment and Behavior,
39, 754e778.
Huffman, A. H., Van Der Werff, B. R., Henning, J. B., & Watrous-Rodriguez, K. (2014).
When do recycling attitudes predict recycling? An investigation of self-reported
versus observed behavior. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 38, 262e270.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. (2001). Climate change 2001: Synthesis
report. Retrieved August 26, 2013, from http://ipcc.ch/meetings/session18/
doc3b.pdf.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. (2007). Climate change 2007: impacts,
adaptation and vulnerability. In M. Parry, O. F. Canziani, J. P. Palutikof, P. J. van
der Linden, & C. E. Handson (Eds.), Contribution of working group II to the fourth
assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. Cambridge,
U.K: Cambridge University Press.
75
Iwata, O. (2002). Coping style and three psychological measures associated with
environmentally responsible behavior. Social Behavior and Personality, 30,
661e670.
James, L. R., Mulaik, S. A., & Brett, J. M. (1982). Causal analysis: Assumptions, models,
and data. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Joreskog, K., & Sorbom, D. (1996). LISREL 8: User's reference guide. Chicago, IL: Scientific Software International.
Kollmuss, A., & Agyeman, J. (2002). Mind the gap: why do people act environmentally and what are the barriers to pro-environmental behaviour? Environmental Education Research, 8, 239e260.
Lai, J. C. L., Brennan, A., Chan, H.-M., & Tao, J. (2003). Disposition toward environmental hazards in Hong Kong Chinese: validation of a Chinese version of the
environmental appraisal inventory (EAI-C). Journal of Environmental Psychology,
23, 366e381.
Lazarus, R. S. (1966). Psychological stress and the coping process. New York: McGrawHill.
Lazarus, R. S. (1990). Theory-based stress measurement. Psychological Inquiry, 1, 3e13.
Lazarus, R. S. (1991). Emotion and adaption. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
Lazarus, R. S., & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, appraisal, and coping. New York: Springer.
Lepore, S., & Evans, G. (1996). Coping with multiple stressors in the environment. In
M. Zeidner, & N. S. Endler (Eds.), Handbook of coping: Theory, research, applications (pp. 350e377). New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Lorenzoni, I., & Pidgeon, N. F. (2006). Public views on climate change: European and
USA perspectives. Climate Change, 77, 73e95.
Maddux, J. E. (1995). Self-efficacy, adaptation, and adjustment: Theory, research, and
application. New York: Plenum.
Manzo, L. C., & Weinstein, N. D. (1987). Behavioral commitment to environmental
protection: a study of active and nonactive members of the Sierra Club. Environment and Behavior, 19, 673e694.
Marcoulides, G. A., & Schumacker, R. E. (1996). Advanced structural equation
modeling. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Oskamp, S. (2002). Environmentally responsible behavior: teaching and promoting
it effectively. Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy, 1, 173e182.
Schahn, J., Damian, M., Schurig, U., & Füchsle, C. (2000). Konstruktion und Evaluation der dritten Version des Skalensystems zur Erfassung des Umweltbewusstseins (SEU-3) [Construction and evaluation of the third version of scale
system for assessing environmental awareness (SEU-3)]. Diagnostica, 6, 84e92.
Schwarzer, R. (1992). Self-Efficacy: Thought control of action. Washington, DC:
Hemisphere.
Schwarzer, R. (1993). Measurement of perceived self-efficacy. Psychometric scales for
cross-cultural research. Berlin, Germany: Freie Universitat Berlin.
Schwarzer, R., & Jerusalem, M. (Eds.). (1999). Scales for the assessment of students'
personal and environmental characteristics. Berlin: Freie Universitat Berlin.
Schwarzer, R., & Schmitz, G. S. (1999). Kollektive Selbstwirksamkeitserwartung von
€ngsschnittstudie in zehn Bundesla
€ndern [Collective efficacy of
Lehrern. Eine La
teachers: A longitudinal study in 10 German states]. Zeitschrift fur Sozialpsychologie, 30, 262e274.
Scott, D., & Willits, F. K. (1994). Environmental attitudes and behavior: a Pennsylvania survey. Environment and Behavior, 26, 239e260.
Smythe, P. C., & Brook, R. C. (1980). Environmental concerns and actions: a socialpsychological investigation. Canadian Journal of Behavioral Science, 12, 175e186.
Stern, P. C. (2000). Toward a coherent theory of environmentally significant
behaviour. Journal of Social Issues, 56, 407e424.
Stern, N. (2007). The economics of climate change: The Stern review. Cambridge, UK:
Cambridge University Press.
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 Review, 6, 81e97.
Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In
W. G. Austin, & S. Worchel (Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup relations.
Monterey: Brooks/Cole.
Taylor, S., & Todd, P. (1995). An integrated model of waste management behavior: a
test of household recycling and composting intentions. Environment and
Behavior, 27, 603e630.
United Nations Environment Programme. (2002). Synthesis global environment
outlook 3. Retrieved August, 26, 2013, from http://www.grida.no/geo/geo3/
english/pdfs/synthesis.pdf.
Yu-Long, C., & San-Pui, L. (2011). Measuring responsible environmental behavior:
self-reported and other-reported measures and their differences in testing a
behavioral model. Environment and Behavior, 43, 53e71.
van Zomeren, M., Postmes, T., & Spears, R. (2008). Toward an integrative social
identity model of collective action: a quantitative research synthesis of three
socio-psychological perspectives. Psychological Bulletin, 134, 504e535.
Mei-Fang Chen is a Professor in Department of Business Management, Tatung University, Taiwan. She received a Doctoral Degree from the Institute of Business &
Management at National Chiao Tung University, Taiwan in 2004. Her teaching and
research interests include consumer behavior research and decision sciences. She had
published her academic research works in Risk Analysis, Health, Risk, & Society, Journal
of Applied Social Psychology, Journal of Business Ethics, Environment and Behavior, Ethics
& Behavior, Food Quality & Preference, British Food Journal, The Service Industries Journal,
Technovation etc. Her email address is <[email protected]>