129
There are good reasons for this as, for example, explanations of the type ‘I go by
bike to work today, because I did so yesterday’ do indeed seem tautological and
empty and in terms of the conclusions to be derived from predictive models for
behavioural change and environmental education. Still, the accumulation of past
actions can lead to habits, and habitual behaviour may, to some extent, take place
rather automatically without extensive, conscious behavioural decision-making.
2
This led to the development of specific behaviour modification approaches when
confronting habitual behaviour, namely, raising awareness for the need to change
behaviour and providing help and incentives for trying out new behaviours and
refreezing new behaviours as environmentally friendly habits (Dahlstrand and Biel
1997; Lewin 1951). Furthermore, behavioural determinants for future behaviour
will always be altered by the performance of a certain behaviour, as learning effects
based on performance processes and outcome evaluations take place. So, there are
also various arguments speaking in favour of past behaviour and/or habits as explanatory factors for future behaviour as advocated by Stern (2000). Still, the amount of
variance explained by models including past behaviour may not be easily compared
to the variance explained by models without reference to past behaviour, since stability of behaviour over time gives the former models a great statistical advantage in
many behavioural domains, which does not always correspond to an increased
understanding of the deeper determinants or causes of the behaviour.
Based on Stern’s requirements for encompassing behavioural models, Hansmann
and Steimer (2015, 2017) developed an integrative Model of Justified Behaviour
(MJB). Accordingly, it considers personal motivational factors such as attitudes,
values and personal norms, personal knowledge and skills, social factors and processes (social norms, roles, pressures, group dynamics), facilitating or inhibiting
contextual factors (restrictions and options) and the formation of habits as explanatory variables for environmental behaviours (Fig. 8.10).
In addition, processes of justification have been included as crucial aspects of
behavioural decision-making. According to Sykes and Matza’s (1957) Neutralization
Theory of Delinquency, justifications can enable people to deviate from personally
accepted social norms by protecting them from self-blame and being blamed by
others. Justifications can, therefore, deactivate existing personal norms and thus
prevent them from being behaviourally effective. Justifications can also help to
explain negative environmental behaviours of people who have internalised positive
environmental behaviour norms and can contribute to our understanding of the
reported discrepancies between attitudes and behaviours (e.g. Hansmann and
Steimer 2015, 2017; Schahn and Bertsch 2003; Schahn et al. 1995; Diekmann and
Preisendörfer 1992). Sykes and Matza (1957) distinguish post-behavioural justifications for norm-violating behaviours in the past, which they call rationalisations,
from justifications that precede norm-violating behaviours, which they call neutrali2 The importance of habits and automatic behaviour is stressed also by the theory of social practices. In relation to environmentally significant behaviour, social practice theory questions the idea
that attitudes or values are drivers of behaviours and highlights the importance of habits and contextual factors [see, e.g. Shove 2010].
8 Education for Environmental Citizenship and Responsible Environmental Behaviour
There are good reasons for this as, for example, explanations of the type ‘I go by
bike to work today, because I did so yesterday’ do indeed seem tautological and
empty and in terms of the conclusions to be derived from predictive models for
behavioural change and environmental education. Still, the accumulation of past
actions can lead to habits, and habitual behaviour may, to some extent, take place
rather automatically without extensive, conscious behavioural decision-making.
2
This led to the development of specific behaviour modification approaches when
confronting habitual behaviour, namely, raising awareness for the need to change
behaviour and providing help and incentives for trying out new behaviours and
refreezing new behaviours as environmentally friendly habits (Dahlstrand and Biel
1997; Lewin 1951). Furthermore, behavioural determinants for future behaviour
will always be altered by the performance of a certain behaviour, as learning effects
based on performance processes and outcome evaluations take place. So, there are
also various arguments speaking in favour of past behaviour and/or habits as explanatory factors for future behaviour as advocated by Stern (2000). Still, the amount of
variance explained by models including past behaviour may not be easily compared
to the variance explained by models without reference to past behaviour, since stability of behaviour over time gives the former models a great statistical advantage in
many behavioural domains, which does not always correspond to an increased
understanding of the deeper determinants or causes of the behaviour.
Based on Stern’s requirements for encompassing behavioural models, Hansmann
and Steimer (2015, 2017) developed an integrative Model of Justified Behaviour
(MJB). Accordingly, it considers personal motivational factors such as attitudes,
values and personal norms, personal knowledge and skills, social factors and processes (social norms, roles, pressures, group dynamics), facilitating or inhibiting
contextual factors (restrictions and options) and the formation of habits as explanatory variables for environmental behaviours (Fig. 8.10).
In addition, processes of justification have been included as crucial aspects of
behavioural decision-making. According to Sykes and Matza’s (1957) Neutralization
Theory of Delinquency, justifications can enable people to deviate from personally
accepted social norms by protecting them from self-blame and being blamed by
others. Justifications can, therefore, deactivate existing personal norms and thus
prevent them from being behaviourally effective. Justifications can also help to
explain negative environmental behaviours of people who have internalised positive
environmental behaviour norms and can contribute to our understanding of the
reported discrepancies between attitudes and behaviours (e.g. Hansmann and
Steimer 2015, 2017; Schahn and Bertsch 2003; Schahn et al. 1995; Diekmann and
Preisendörfer 1992). Sykes and Matza (1957) distinguish post-behavioural justifications for norm-violating behaviours in the past, which they call rationalisations,
from justifications that precede norm-violating behaviours, which they call neutrali2 The importance of habits and automatic behaviour is stressed also by the theory of social practices. In relation to environmentally significant behaviour, social practice theory questions the idea
that attitudes or values are drivers of behaviours and highlights the importance of habits and contextual factors [see, e.g. Shove 2010].
8 Education for Environmental Citizenship and Responsible Environmental Behaviour