Personality and Individual Differences 36 (2004) 1531–1544

www.elsevier.com/locate/paid

Goal-directed conservation behavior: the specific

composition of a general performance
a,* b
Florian G. Kaiser , Mark Wilson
a
Technology Management (IPO 1.22), Eindhoven University of Technology, P.O. Box 513,
Eindhoven 5600 MB, The Netherlands
b
Graduate School of Education, University of California, Berkeley, CA 94720, USA
Received 31 October 2002; received in revised form 4 April 2003; accepted 8 June 2003

Abstract

The focus in conservation psychology normally is on specific actions, such as paper recycling, rather than
on general tendencies. This narrow focus is required because the behaviors of interest fall into different,
seemingly unrelated, categories. Based on a theory of goal-directed performance, we provide a framework
that essentially requires measuring behavior more generally. Using data from two panel surveys of 895
Swiss residents, we tested a set of 50 behaviors by simultaneously applying a one and a six-dimensional
Rasch-type model. We found that the multidimensional behavior measure fits the data better than the
general one. Yet, despite its statistical significance, its practical significance proved negligible as the uni-
dimensional model was only marginally less able to predict the data compared to the six-dimensional one.
Moreover, because the specific behaviors were highly correlated, a general measure is a reasonable alter-
native.
Ó 2003 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Behavioral assessment; Measurement; Item response theory; Conservation (ecological behavior)

1. Introduction

The environmental impact of individuals on the natural environment has led to ecological,
economic, and social transformations of yet unknown gravity. Inevitably, the more evident
humanityÕs predicament is, the more dramatic are the pleas for widespread behavioral changes
(Oskamp, 2000). In order to more effectively promote changes, psychologists have studied the

*
Corresponding author. Tel.: +31-40-247-4751; fax: +31-40-244-9875.
E-mail address: f.g.kaiser@tm.tue.nl (F.G. Kaiser).

0191-8869/$ - see front matter Ó 2003 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.paid.2003.06.003
1532 F.G. Kaiser, M. Wilson / Personality and Individual Differences 36 (2004) 1531–1544

factors associated with conservation behavior. The focus of this research has traditionally been on
distinct types of actions, such as environmental activism, consumerism, or energy conservation
(e.g., Dunlap & Jones, 2002; Stern, 2000a). Focusing on specific actions allows specific models of
behavior to be developed without fostering an integrated theory of conservation behavior (e.g.,
McKenzie-Mohr, Nemiroff, Beers, & Desmarais, 1995). As a result, conservation psychology has
become a segregated and, ultimately, an inefficient and inconsequential field of research (cf.
Thøgersen, 1999). Above all, the specific focus has also led to the wrong conclusions with respect
to substantive research questions. The most significant of these is the perpetuated claim of an
existing attitude––behavior gap (e.g., Stern, 2000b), which, given an explained variance of at least
50% (cf. Kaiser & Gutscher, 2003; Kaiser, W€ olfing, & Fuhrer, 1999), is a gross overstatement.
In this paper, we argue that the normally found uncorrelated conservation behaviors––based on
factor analyses and varimax rotations––of behaviors like glass, paper, and battery recycling (e.g.,
Guagnano, Stern, & Dietz, 1995), are very likely grounded in a statistical artifact that is caused by
extremely varied behavior difficulties (Ferguson, 1941; see also Embretson & Reise, 2000). Based
on a theory of goal-directed performance (see also Scheuthle, Carabias-H€ utter, & Kaiser, sub-
mitted for publication), we provide a theoretical framework for a behavior measurement ap-
proach, which overcomes the problem of uncorrelated conservation behaviors. Although
successfully employed previously (e.g., Kaiser, 1998), this new approach has never been com-
paratively tested against a multidimensional alternative. The present paper aims to challenge the
unidimensional approach with a multidimensional model of conservation behavior.

2. Conservation behavior as a goal-directed behavior

Conservation behavior, like any other human behavior, has a two-sided nature (Stern, 2000a).
On the one hand, it clearly has an objective reality, which is evident in its face value and also in its
consequences. For example, driving to the grocery store, the kindergarten, or to work entails car
use, which in turn pollutes the air. Logically, car use is seen as a non-conservational act. On the
other hand, from a user perspective this air pollution is of minor importance. By taking the car to
the grocery store, the kindergarten, or to work, a person intentionally increases his or her comfort
level or decreases transit time, while ignoring the objective, environmental consequences of his or
her action. In other words, conservation behavior––like other psychologically relevant behaviors
(Greve, 2001)––is something a person does for a subjective reason. Accordingly, conservation
behavior also has a subjective reality as a means by which people try to achieve the conservational
goal (cf. Stern, 2000a). If, however, it is neither the intent to pollute the air nor the wish to protect
the environment but rather a personÕs motivation to give his or her children a safe ride home that
determines car use, then we cannot expect a personÕs environmental attitude to be a powerful
predictor of individual car use. Consequently, psychologists underestimate the significance of
concepts such as attitudes and values, because it is not a behaviorÕs apparent face value that
matters, but rather the reason (i.e., the intention) behind an act.
Since there is a logical connection between a personÕs intention and his or her performance,
some believe that intentional, goal-directed behavior cannot be identified by means of observation
(Greve, 2001). For example, P.Õs bike riding can look the same whether P. rides a bike to (a)
commute to work, (b) to save money, or (c) to act conservationally by refraining from using a car.
 F.G. Kaiser, M. Wilson / Personality and Individual Differences 36 (2004) 1531–1544 1533

As a consequence––regardless of the purpose of the research––, psychologyÕs ultimate criterion

has to be goal-directed (i.e., intentional) behavior rather than behavior defined by its face value or
its consequences (Greve, 2001). In the next section, we introduce a model by which we believe
goal-directed behavior can be assessed without inquiring about a personÕs intentions.

3. Measurement of goal-directed behavior

Although goal-directed behavior cannot be identified by a straightforward inspection of single

acts (Greve, 2001), it can be measured when the observation becomes systematic. Fortunately,
striving for goals, such as, for example, running a marathon, usually implies that several different
actions have to be carried out before the goal is attained.

3.1. A series of behavioral steps to be taken

If a person intends to achieve a goal, a series of behavioral steps have to be taken, such as
buying equipment, choosing the target contest, and participating in preparatory races. A personÕs
dedication to achieve a certain goal, in turn, is most obvious in the face of his or her willingness to
address increasingly demanding hurdles or accept progressively intolerable sacrifices. Logically,
the more obstacles someone overcomes and the more effort a person expends along the way to the
goal, the more evident a personÕs commitment is to the particular cause. Why should someone
continue to suffer past kilometer 41, after changing a whole way of life, when he or she does not
intend to finish the marathon? Likewise, when the tiniest difficulty is enough to stop a person from
taking the necessary behavioral steps, the devotion to achieve this goal must be rather low. When
a person, for instance, owns a pair of running shoes, but neither searches for events nor practices,
he or she does not seriously intend to run the marathon. Technically speaking, the more
demanding the behavioral task a person takes on, the more likely it is that she or he aims to
achieve the goal implied by the performances and vice versa.
In this model, each behavior can be characterized by the personal effort (i.e. oneÕs commitment)
and the behavioral costs involved in its realization. Buying a pair of running shoes costs time and
money, while running the last 5 km in a marathon requires stamina (and many practice hours to
get there in the first place). Commitment and behavioral costs, which represent the difficulty
people face in the realization of an act, jointly result in a probability that a given person will
behave in a certain way. The difficulty of a behavior is determined by the socio-cultural conditions
in which an act takes place (e.g., Scheuthle et al., submitted for publication). Obviously, influences
like subsidies, terrain, and climate create circumstances that instantaneously (with or without a
personÕs recognition) constrain or facilitate peopleÕs actions regardless of their motivation to act.
As a consequence, a behaviorÕs difficulty affects everyone who realizes the particular performance.
The Rasch model is consistent with this theoretical perspective. It can be depicted as follows:
expðh
dÞ
pðx ¼ 1jh; dÞ ¼
1 þ expðh
dÞ
In this model, the probability ðpÞ of an engagement in a certain behavior ðx ¼ 1Þ is determined by
two parameters: a personÕs commitment expressed by the overall performance level ðhÞ and the
1534 F.G. Kaiser, M. Wilson / Personality and Individual Differences 36 (2004) 1531–1544

difficulty of the specific behavior ðdÞ. ‘‘Exp’’ refers to the antilog of the natural constant e (2.7183),
which is raised to the power of h
d, which is the difference between a personÕs commitment ðhÞ
and a behaviorÕs difficulty ðdÞ. The formula implies that the person measure (and its underlying
presumed dimension) for which the Rasch model holds true is explicitly defined by the behavioral
tasks and their unambiguous order. Note that the Rasch model distinguishes all tasks solely on
the basis of difficulty and assumes identical discriminations. As a result, a measure of goal-
directed conservation behavior essentially takes on the format of a performance test (cf. Kaiser,
1998). That is, all behaviors under consideration are (a) expected to fall on one (and only one)
dimension and (b) can be distinguished quantitatively on the basis of their difficulties. People,
conversely, differ with respect to the behaviors and, correspondingly, to the difficulties they sur-
mount when they strive for a goal. In other words, the actually endorsed behavioral steps that
have to be taken to reach a particular goal can, thus, be used to differentiate persons.

3.2. Goal-directed conservation behavior

According to the proposed model, a personÕs overall performance––assessed by employing the

Rasch model––becomes an indicator of the dedication to achieve a conservational goal. It has
been successfully applied in the unidimensional measurement of conservation behavior with
different sets of acts (see Table 1 for an exemplary list of behaviors). Expectedly, we found a
personÕs intention to act in a conservational manner to be well reflected in his or her overall
performance (e.g., Kaiser et al., 1999).
The so-called general ecological behavior (GEB) scale includes 30–65 different performances
(see e.g., Kaiser, 1998; Kaiser & Biel, 2000; Kaiser & Gutscher, 2003; Kaiser & Wilson, 2000). As
a matter of fact, the GEB scale not only is (a) a reasonably reliable but also (b) a valid mea-
surement instrument.
(a) Separation reliability coefficients range from r ¼ 0:71 (Kaiser, 1998), to r ¼ 0:80 (Kaiser &
Gutscher, 2003), and r ¼ 0:88 (Scheuthle et al., submitted for publication). The separation reli-
ability ðrÞ was proposed by Wright and Masters (1982, see also Bond & Fox, 2001). It is calculated
with the following formula:
r2h
MSEh
r¼
r2h
In line with classical test theory, the separation reliability represents the ratio between the variance
of the true person performance––which is the difference of the variance of the observed behavior
estimates ðr2h Þ minus the averaged mean square errors of these estimates ðMSEh Þ––and the var-
iance of the observed behavior scores ðr2h Þ. Classical internal consistency indicators range from
a ¼ 0:72 (Kaiser & Wilson, 2000) to a ¼ 0:88 (Scheuthle et al., submitted for publication). Test–
retest reliability coefficients vary between rtt ¼ 0:76 (Kaiser & Wilson, 2000) and rtt ¼ 0:83
(Kaiser, Frick, & Stoll-Kleemann, 2001).
(b) Evidence for the GEB measureÕs construct validity is reported in Kaiser (1998). We also
found self-reported behaviors––from the current version of the GEB scale––to be reasonably
accurate indicators of peopleÕs overt performances ðj ¼ 0:78Þ. This is particularly true when self-
reported behaviors represent dichotomized practices––I do or I do not––or circumstances––I
 F.G. Kaiser, M. Wilson / Personality and Individual Differences 36 (2004) 1531–1544 1535

Table 1
50 conservation behaviors grouped into six performance domains
Behavior duni MSuni dmult MSmult
Energy conservation
11. I own energy efficient household devices )1.40 0.99 )1.40 0.99
12. I wait until I have a full load before doing my )2.54 0.99 )2.53 0.99
laundry
13. I wash dirty clothes without prewashing )1.07 1.05 )1.07 1.01
14. In hotels, I have the towels changed daily )2.52 1.03 )2.50 1.00
15. I use a clothes dryer )0.79 1.00 )0.79 0.97
16. I bought solar panels to produce energy 3.99 0.98 3.95 0.98
17. I use renewable energy sources 2.34 0.99 2.31 0.99
18. In the winter, I keep the heat on so that I do not )0.61 1.06 )0.61 0.99
have to wear a sweater
19. In the winter, I leave the windows open for long )0.83 1.02 )0.83 1.00
periods of time to let in fresh air
10. In winter, I turn down the heat when I leave my 0.96 1.02 0.95 1.01
apartment for more than 4 h
11. I prefer to shower rather than to take a bath )2.13 1.08 )2.11 1.04
Mobility and transportation
12. I drive my car in or into the city )0.32 0.95 )0.37 0.90
13. I drive on freeways at speeds under 100 kph 1.38 0.93 1.43 0.95
( ¼ 62.5 mph)
14. I keep the engine running while waiting in front of a )1.79 0.98 )1.97 0.96
railroad crossing or in a traffic jam
15. At red traffic lights, I keep the engine running )0.33 0.99 )0.41 1.03
16. I drive to where I want to start my hikes )0.28 0.94 )0.32 0.95
17. I refrain from owning a car 1.35 0.97 1.45 0.96
18. I am a member of a carpool 3.36 0.98 3.57 1.01
19. I drive in such a way as to keep my fuel )1.84 1.01 )2.02 1.05
consumption as low as possible
20. I own a fuel-efficient automobile (less than 7 l per 1.34 1.12 1.44 1.28
100 km; i.e., less than 3 gallons per 100 miles)
21. For longer journeys (more than 6 h), I take an 0.14 1.04 0.15 1.10
airplane
22. In nearby areas (around 30 km; around 20 miles), 0.42 0.92 0.44 0.86
I use public transportation or ride a bike
23. I ride a bicycle or take public transportation to )0.38 0.97 )0.41 0.95
work or school
Waste avoidance
24. I buy milk in returnable bottles 1.50 1.10 1.62 1.04
25. If I am offered a plastic bag in a store, I take it 1.09 0.99 1.19 0.98
26. I reuse my shopping bags )4.64 0.98 )4.92 0.99
27. I buy beverages in cans )2.52 0.98 )2.71 0.99
28. I buy products in refillable packages )1.57 0.97 )1.70 1.00
Consumerism
29. I use fabric softener with my laundry )0.66 1.00 )0.69 1.00
(continued on next page)
1536 F.G. Kaiser, M. Wilson / Personality and Individual Differences 36 (2004) 1531–1544

Table 1 (continued)
Behavior duni MSuni dmult MSmult
30. I use an oven cleaning spray to clean my oven )1.20 1.02 )1.26 1.04
31. I kill insects with a chemical insecticide )1.00 0.98 )1.06 0.99
32. I use a chemical air freshener in my bathroom )1.01 1.03 )1.06 1.03
33. I buy convenience foods )1.37 1.01 )1.44 1.03
34. I buy seasonal produce )2.77 0.98 )2.87 0.96
35. I buy bleached and colored toilet paper )0.49 1.02 )0.53 1.02
36. I buy meat and produce with eco-labels 0.39 0.98 0.39 0.97
37. I buy domestically grown wooden furniture )0.26 0.99 )0.28 0.98
Recycling
38. I collect and recycle used paper )4.55 1.00 )4.80 1.01
39. I bring empty bottles to a recycling bin )4.47 0.98 )4.72 0.98
40. I put dead batteries in the garbage )4.19 0.97 )4.42 1.00
41. After meals, I dispose of leftovers in the toilet )1.26 1.04 )1.35 1.06
Vicarious, social behaviors toward conservation
42. After a picnic, I leave the place as clean as it )3.40 1.03 )3.69 1.09
was originally
43. I am a member of an environmental 1.22 0.94 1.35 0.97
organization
44. I read about environmental issues 2.17 0.93 2.39 0.88
45. I contribute financially to environmental 1.75 0.92 1.93 0.94
organizations
46. I talk with friends about problems related to 0.98 0.96 1.08 0.94
the environment
47. I have pointed out unecological behavior to 1.80 1.05 1.98 1.09
someone
48. I boycott companies with an unecological )0.25 1.01 )0.27 0.99
background
49. I have already looked into the pros and cons 0.82 1.05 0.90 1.05
of having a private source of solar power
50. I requested an estimate on having solar 2.54 1.00 2.78 1.01
power installed
Note: The estimates in Table 1 are based on the 1998 data ðN ¼ 895Þ. Items in italics indicate negatively formulated
behaviors; they are recoded and should be read as ‘‘I refrain from. . .’’. Bold figures highlight the MS of poorly fitting
behaviors. These MS correspond with either more than a 10% lack ðMS < 0:90Þ or with more than a 10% excess
ðMS > 1:10Þ of variation in the model prediction compared to what is in the data. Behavior difficulties ðdÞ are expressed
in logits; the more negative a logit value the easier and the more positive the more difficult the particular behavior is.
Logits stand for the natural logarithm of the performance/non-performance ratio or the natural log odds. The subscript
uni indicates findings from the unidimensional calibration of the behaviors, while mult refers to those from the six-
dimensional calibration.

possess or I do not possess (Kaiser et al., 2001). Ecological validity information––estimating the
environmental consequences of the performances used in the GEB measure––is presented in
Kaiser, Doka, Hofstetter, and Ranney (2003).
Despite the fact that the unidimensional model of conservation behavior seems to work rea-
sonably well, we were not able to comparatively test a unidimensional against a multidimensional
 F.G. Kaiser, M. Wilson / Personality and Individual Differences 36 (2004) 1531–1544 1537

model so far. This is because the multidimensional extension of the Rasch-family models is a fairly
new development (see Adams, Wilson, & Wang, 1997). Note that with this extension, the mul-
tidimensional structure must be specified a priori. Consequently, we have to endorse a confir-
matory approach in our research and cannot search for the optimal model in an exploratory way.

4. Research goals

By applying a novel framework to the understanding and measurement of conservation

behavior, we are able to circumvent some of the technical problems of the traditionally aggregated
measures, which are based on factor and principal component analyses. Because these traditional
approaches bear multidimensional solutions artificially when they deal with extremely different
behavior difficulties (Ferguson, 1941), they cannot succeed in establishing unidimensional, com-
posite behavior measures (Kaiser, 1998). Unfortunately, a quite remarkable variability in their
endorsement probabilities is rather typical among different types of conservation behavior.
Buying solar panels, for example, is a rather unlikely behavior, whereas paper recycling is very
likely in Switzerland (cf. Kaiser et al., 2001). The present research aims to understand the specific
composition of conservation behavior. Our goal is to explore the dimensional structure of con-
servation behavior in more detail by applying a Rasch-type modeling methodology.

5. Method

5.1. Participants and procedures

The present sample was drawn from the 1998 resident registers of six Swiss communities. Out of
8177 randomly selected German-speaking Swiss who were asked to volunteer for a survey, 943
returned written consent (response rate: 11.5%). Of these, 896 (95.0%) returned completed
questionnaires. One record was omitted because of missing values, which left 895 participants in
the final sample. The participantsÕ median age was 46.5 (M ¼ 46:4; range: 18–79 years); 44.8% of
the participants were male. As we used a convenience approach to select communities and because
our response rate was quite low, our participants cannot be regarded as representative for all
German-speaking Swiss. For the purpose of this study (i.e., exploration of relationships), a broad
range of diversity among our participants but not representativity is required. In a follow-up
study in 1999, about 50 weeks after the original survey, the behavior of 823 participants was
reassessed (response rate: 92.0%).

5.2. Measures

The current version of the GEB scale is a composite of 50 performances (see Table 1). Since all
of them passed several reliability and validity checks, we see this assembly as a parsimonious and
valid selection of behaviors. As suggested by Kaiser et al. (2003), these behaviors can be grouped
into six domains; energy conservation, mobility and transportation, waste avoidance, consum-
erism, recycling, and vicarious social behaviors toward conservation.
1538 F.G. Kaiser, M. Wilson / Personality and Individual Differences 36 (2004) 1531–1544

A yes/no format was used for 21 GEB items (e.g., for one-time decisions like purchasing solar
panels; see item #6 in Table 1). By contrast, some behaviors, such as commuting (item #23),
cannot easily be split dichotomously. Contrary to common expectations though, a more diverse
response format makes participantsÕ answers more arbitrary and less reliable (Kaiser & Wilson,
2000). Thus, we decided to recode the 29 behaviors that originally had a five-point polytomous
response format to a dichotomous response format by categorizing ‘‘never’’, ‘‘seldom’’, and
‘‘occasionally’’ as negative and ‘‘often’’ and ‘‘always’’ as positive responses. Of the 50 items, 19
were negatively formulated (see Table 1). Responses to these items are reversed in coding. For 42
items, ‘‘I donÕt know’’ is a response alternative when an answer is, for whatever reason, not
possible: Such responses are coded as missing values. Of all behavior statements, 5.2% were found
to be missing in 1998, and 5.5% in 1999.

5.3. Statistical analysis

By applying the multidimensional random coefficients multinomial logit (MRCML) model, a

multidimensional extension to the Rasch-type models introduced by Adams et al. (1997), we
postulated and tested a six-dimensional model and compared it to a one-dimensional solution.
Similar to a confirmatory factor analysis, the MRCML model allows us to test a specific, pre-
dicted item-factor network. In our case, multidimensionality solely exists––analogous to a simple
structure in factor analysis––on the concept level and not on the item level. In other words, each
item is assigned to only one dimension (cf. Wang, Wilson, & Adams, 1997).
In the MRCML model, the probability ðpÞ to respond affirmatively ðxik ¼ 1Þ or negatively
ðxik ¼ 0Þ in category k ðk ¼ 1; . . . ; Ki Þ of behavior i ði ¼ 1; . . . ; IÞ is––as in the original Rasch
model––a function of a personÕs overall performance level ðhÞ and the task difficulty ðdÞ. In
contrast to the original, one-dimensional Rasch model, in the MRCML model each personÕs
overall performance level is located in a D-dimensional space rather than on one single dimension.
In other words, the person performance ðhÞ is now a vector h ¼ ðh1 ; h2 ; . . . ; hD Þ of length D, which
represents the number of a priori defined behavior dimensions. In the present application of the
model, we expect six dimensions each of which represents a different type of conservation per-
formance. In order to link a concrete answer xik with dimension D, each category k of behavior i
has to have a weight as regards each of the D dimensions ðbik Þ. With maximally two response
possibilities per behavior (i.e., ‘‘I do not’’ or ‘‘I do’’ as in the original Rasch model) the weights are
0 and 1. The weights of all the response possibilities across all D dimensions are combined in a
vector bik ¼ ðbik1 ; bik2 ; . . . ; bikD Þ0 . The weight vectors of each behavior i are collected in a submatrix
Bi ¼ ðbi1 ; bi2 ; . . . ; biD Þ0 . All the submatrices of the behaviors are bundled in the so-called scoring
matrix B ¼ ðB01 ; B02 ; . . . ; B0I Þ0 .
The item difficulty ðdÞ is also conceptualized as a vector d ¼ ðd1 ; d2 ; . . . ; dZ Þ within the MRCML
model. In principle, this vector can be composed of Z difficulty parameters, which thus makes the
behavior or task difficulty a linear combination of different difficulty parameters. In the so-called
design vector ða0ik Þ each response k in behavior i is weighted with respect to the presumed difficulty
parameters. Depending on these weights, different measurement models can be specified. In this
study, we employed either a one or a six-dimensional Rasch-type model. This means, every
behavior is expected to have only one difficulty parameter (and, at the same time, it is linked to
only one dimension). The design vectors ða0ik Þ of the difficulties of all behaviors are also bundled in
 F.G. Kaiser, M. Wilson / Personality and Individual Differences 36 (2004) 1531–1544 1539

a matrix, the so-called design matrix A ¼ ða11 ; . . . ; a1K1 ; a21 ; . . . ; a2K2 ; aI1 ; . . . ; aIKi Þ0 . The MRCML
model can be summarized as follows:
expðbik h
a0ik dÞ
pðxik ¼ 1; A; B; djhÞ ¼ PKi 0
k¼1 expðbik h
aik dÞ

Model fit can be assessed based on the G2 statistic, which is a log-likelihood statistic that is
approximately v2 -distributed (cf. Adams et al., 1997). The relative goodness-of-fit of models was
tested using the G2 difference of the models ðDG2 Þ. In this paper we use a coefficient proposed by
Mislevy, Beaton, Kaplan, and Sheehan (1992) as our reliability indicator (see Table 3). It consists
of the ratio between sample variance (i.e., the variance of the person estimates: r2h ) and the esti-
mate of the population variance ðr2P Þ, which is assessed by applying marginal maximum likelihood
estimation.

6. Results

The present findings are reported in two sections. First, we compare the calibrations of the two
models, the traditional Rasch (i.e., the one-dimensional) and the MRCML (i.e., the six-dimen-
sional) measurement model. Second, fit statistics, reliability, and internal consistency information
are given for the six specific behavior measures and for a one-dimensional solution.

6.1. One or six dimensions?

Since the main emphasis of our research is placed on the behavior items, we centered the person
parameters at zero for the following analyses. Centering either itemsÕ ðdi Þ or personsÕ ðhn Þ
parameters is necessary to identify the model. The influence of this centering procedure for the
scale development and the final interpretation of our research is trivial (cf. Embretson & Reise,
2000).
The data-model prediction fit of the six-dimensional structure (G2 ð71Þ ¼ 38,302.5) was signif-
icantly better (DG2 ð20Þ ¼ 316:4, p < 0:001) than the comparable fit for the one-dimensional model
(G2 ð51Þ ¼ 38,618.9) performed with the 1998 data. The same holds true for the 1999 data. Again,
the six-dimensional model prediction (G2 ð71Þ ¼ 34,879.8) fitted the data significantly better
(DG2 ð20Þ ¼ 266:1, p < 0:001) than the one-dimensional model prediction (G2 ð51Þ ¼ 35,145.9).
Evidently, the distinction of six dimensions results in a marked increase in model fit.
However, despite its statistical significance, the distinction of six behavioral dimensions could
still be of only marginal practical relevance. This notion is fueled by the fact that the multidi-
mensional behavior space is highly oblique, which can be seen in the intercorrelation matrix of the
six specific conservation behaviors. Generally, we found the correlations corrected for measure-
ment error attenuation to be high (see Table 2). Note that a generic correction commonly adjusts
correlations for the unreliabilities of the two measures involved by taking the ratio between an
observed correlation and the square root of the product of the two reliabilities (for its realization
in the MRCML framework see Wang, 1999). In both of the two years investigated, all bivariate
correlations are above r ¼ 0:50 (except for three instances). Recycling and waste avoidance
1540 F.G. Kaiser, M. Wilson / Personality and Individual Differences 36 (2004) 1531–1544

Table 2
Correlation matrix of six specific conservation behavior measures
Energy Mobility Waste Consumer- Recycling Vicarious
avoidance ism behavior
Energy – 0.63 0.73 0.87 0.67 0.70
Mobility 0.62 – 0.42 0.64 0.50 0.51
Waste avoidance 0.69 0.48 – 0.71 0.64 0.55
Consumerism 0.77 0.64 0.59 – 0.70 0.72
Recycling 0.61 0.41 0.62 0.51 – 0.41
Vicarious behavior 0.65 0.54 0.43 0.69 0.57 –
Note: The lower off-diagonal figures represent the Pearson correlation coefficients, corrected for measurement error
attenuation, calculated with the data from 1998 ðN ¼ 895Þ. The upper off-diagonal figures represent the Pearson
correlation coefficients, corrected for measurement error attenuation, calculated with the 1999 data ðN ¼ 823Þ. Coef-
ficients smaller than or equal to r ¼ 0:50 are in shaded cells.

appear to be slightly less strongly linked with mobility and vicarious conservation behavior than
with the other types of behavior.
To come up with a more conclusive picture regarding practical relevance, we, finally, compared
the average residuals of the six and the one-dimensional model, which represents the two modelsÕ
concrete ability to predict the behavioral responses of the participants. Technically, we averaged
the absolute (i.e., ignoring the sign) difference of the model-implied, expected response values and
the observed person responses (i.e., 0 or 1) of the two models and directly contrasted the two
numbers with each other (for a similar approach see Wilson & Case, 2000). For 1998, the six-
dimensional model turned out to have an average residual value of Mres ¼ 0:266, whereas the
unidimensional model shows a mean residual of Mres ¼ 0:285. For 1999, the numbers look
strikingly similar: six-dimensional Mres ¼ 0:264; unidimensional Mres ¼ 0:281. In sum, the accu-
racies of the model predictions look very much alike. The six-dimensional model was on average
0.02 score units closer to the data (i.e., average residual differences of 0.019 and 0.017, respec-
tively). In other words, if the actual number was a 1 (i.e., acting accordingly) and the one-
dimensional model would have predicted an expected value of p ¼ 0:72 then, on average, the
six-dimensional model would have anticipated a value of p ¼ 0:74. Evidently, it seems of negli-
gible practical relevance that the different behaviors are categorized into different dimensions. A
unidimensional, general scale is almost equally suited to predict the data well, which is addi-
tionally supported by the fit statistics of the two models.

6.2. Fit statistics and reliability information

When the 50 conservation behaviors are calibrated using the traditional Rasch model, then the
conservation behavior measure has a reliability of r ¼ 0:79 for 1998, and a classical internal
consistency of a ¼ 0:76 ðN1998 ¼ 895Þ. For 1999, the reliability again turned out to be r ¼ 0:79 and
a was once more a ¼ 0:76 ðN1999 ¼ 823Þ. Due to the relatively large sample sizes, we rely on the
mean square (MS) statistics––weighted by the item variance––in the assessment of model fit (Bond
& Fox, 2001; Wright & Masters, 1982). This fit measure is independent of sample size and
indicates the relative discrepancy in variation between model prediction and actual data. For
 F.G. Kaiser, M. Wilson / Personality and Individual Differences 36 (2004) 1531–1544 1541

Table 3
Reliability information of seven conservation behavior measures
Reliability
i 1998 1999
General 50 0.79 0.79
Energy 11 0.63 0.69
Mobility 12 0.70 0.70
Waste avoidance 5 0.52 0.56
Consumerism 9 0.67 0.71
Recycling 4 0.41 0.46
Vicarious behavior 9 0.65 0.65
Note: i indicates the number of items in a particular scale. 1998: N ¼ 895; 1999: N ¼ 823.

example, the averaged MS of 0.90 corresponds to a 10% lack and a MS of 1.10 signifies a 10%
excess of variation in the model prediction compared to what is in the data. Only one behavior
(i.e., 2.0% of the items) did not fit the 1998 50-item scale with MS-values above 1.10 or below 0.90,
namely, MS#20 ¼ 1:12 (see Table 1, column MSuni , which refers to the findings from the unidi-
mensional calibration of the behaviors). All behaviors fit the 1999 50-item measure according to
the same criterion. In sum, the MS fit statistics for the 50 behaviors of this scale assessed in 1998
and in 1999 are very reasonable. Thus, assessing conservation behavior based on a unidimensional
model would be possible.
When the 50 conservation behaviors are calibrated as a six-dimensional measure using the
MRCML model, then the fit statistics of the behavior items are as follows. This time, three
behaviors (6.0%) had 1998 MS-values above 1.10 or below 0.90, namely, MS#20 ¼ 1:28,
MS#22 ¼ 0:86, and MS#44 ¼ 0:88 (see Table 1, column MSmult ); and two behaviors (4.0%) did not
fit the 1999 50-item measure using the same criterion, namely, MS#20 ¼ 1:22 and MS#21 ¼ 1:14.
Generally, the fit statistics as well as the estimated behavior difficulties for both solutions seem
fairly comparable, for the one and the six-dimensional measure. Certainly the fit statistics are not
worse for the unidimensional measure (see Table 1). In other words, a multidimensional assess-
ment of peopleÕs conservation behavior––despite being statistically preferable––can be collapsed
into a unidimensional measure without a noteworthy loss of fit.
Due to the reduction in the number of behaviors, the six more specific measures turned out to
be less accurate in reliably discriminating persons. The reliability coefficients indicate that for
some of the specific measures to be fully operational, they need to be enriched with behaviors. As
a rule of thumb, nine or more performances are necessary for a specific scale to produce an
acceptably reliable person measure (see Table 3).

7. Discussion

In two surveys of a panel of more than 800 participants, we found a six-dimensional Rasch-
type model––based on the MRCML model––fits the conservation behavior data better than a
unidimensional one––based on the traditional Rasch model. In a statistical significance sense,
1542 F.G. Kaiser, M. Wilson / Personality and Individual Differences 36 (2004) 1531–1544

our research seems to falsify the claim that different conservational acts from a wide variety of
domains can be collapsed into a single scale (cf. Kaiser, 1998). Consequently,
performances––as they form a multidimensional space––apparently have to be assessed spe-
cifically rather than generally. According to our data, performances from domains, such as
mobility and transportation, energy conservation, waste avoidance, consumerism, recycling,
and vicarious social acts toward conservation, nevertheless form a highly oblique multidi-
mensional space. That is, the six specific measuresÕ variances overlap––with only three
exceptions––to the amounts of 25% to 75% (see Table 2). This contradicts the traditional
claim that conservation behavior consists of distinct, more or less unrelated, types of per-
formances quite remarkably (e.g., Stern, 2000a). Moreover, by examining the total absolute
residuals from each of the two models, the one and the six-dimensional one, we encountered a
reduction of about 2% in the residual values. This shows the relative supremacy of the
multidimensional over the unidimensional measurement model is rather small and practically
insignificant. In other words, although six specific measures are statistically more appropriate
than one general scale, these six specific dimensions can be projected on a single dimension
without a noteworthy loss of fit.
Note that both measurement models result in behavior measures with excellent scale qualities
with respect to item fit statistics (see Table 1). The reliabilities of these measures also are very
reasonable, if the number of behavior items does not become too small (see Table 3). As a general
rule, nine or more behaviors are necessary for a reliable person measure in a specific domain.
Although our research provides further evidence for the claim that conservation behavior consists
of a set of interrelated performances, it also indicates that different more specific behavioral
domains can be distinguished meaningfully, if a research question requires it. However, regardless
of whether we measure generally or specifically, we––as psychologists––have to understand
behavior in its subjective reality, as a means to achieve a certain goal (cf. Stern, 2000a). Such goal-
directed behavior can only be assessed as a composite measure of several acts, because a single act
does not reveal a personÕs intention or the reason behind it (cf. Greve, 2001). Technically, such a
measure has to contain the behavioral steps that have to be endorsed when people strive for a
particular goal, be it conservation in general or, for example, environmental consumerism in
particular. Inevitably, such a measure is essentially cumulative (which does not necessarily imply a
distinct temporal order of the behaviors incorporated). Mathematically, the Rasch model is
consistent with this theoretical perspective. In other words, regardless of what kind of conser-
vation performance we intend to measure, such a measure has to consist of several––preferably
nine or more––acts (cf. Table 3).
If we start to disentangle human behaviorÕs two-sided nature, being its subjective and its
objective reality (cf. Stern, 2000a), new interdisciplinary research questions will ultimately arise
and affect our theoretical models. For instance, does a behavior that people endorse as a means
for a conservational goal also result in favorable environmental consequences (for an exem-
plary study in this direction see Kaiser et al., 2003)? And predictably, conservation psychology
will become more cumulative and consequential in its endeavor to understand a behaviorÕs
mental preconditions and effectively promote behavioral changes to the better, if performance
is understood as a means by which people strive for a conservation goal rather than an act
with objectively given environmental consequences. This, however, means that we have to take
on the proposed new approach in the assessment of goal-directed behavior.
 F.G. Kaiser, M. Wilson / Personality and Individual Differences 36 (2004) 1531–1544 1543

Acknowledgements

The present research was supported by grant #11-52410 from the Swiss National Science
Foundation, by a fellowship to Florian G. Kaiser from the Huber–Kudlich Foundation
(administered by the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology at Z€ urich, Switzerland), by the Hu-
man-Technology Interaction Division at the Eindhoven University of Technology, and by the
Berkeley Evaluation Assessment Research (BEAR) Center at the University of California,
Berkeley.
We wish to thank Steven Ralston for his language support and Machteld Hoskens for her
statistical and computational assistance. We are grateful to P. Wesley Schultz, Sybille B.G. Ey-
senck, and two anonymous reviewers for their comments on earlier drafts of this paper.

References

Adams, R. J., Wilson, M., & Wang, W.-C. (1997). The multidimensional random coefficients multinomial logit model.
Applied Psychological Measurement, 21, 1–23.
Bond, T. G., & Fox, C. M. (2001). Applying the Rasch model: Fundamental measurement in the human sciences.
Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Dunlap, R. E., & Jones, R. E. (2002). Environmental concern: Conceptual and measurement issues. In R. E. Dunlap &
W. Michelson (Eds.), Handbook of environmental sociology (pp. 482–524). Westport, CT: Greenwood.
Embretson, S. E., & Reise, S. P. (2000). Item response theory for psychologists. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Ferguson, G. A. (1941). The factorial interpretation of test difficulty. Psychometrika, 6, 323–329.
Greve, W. (2001). Traps and gaps in action explanation: Theoretical problems of a psychology of human action.
Psychological Review, 108, 435–451.
Guagnano, G. A., Stern, P. C., & Dietz, T. (1995). Influences on attitude–behavior relationships: A natural experiment
with curbside recycling. Environment and Behavior, 27, 699–718.
Kaiser, F. G. (1998). A general measure of ecological behavior. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 28, 395–422.
Kaiser, F. G., & Biel, A. (2000). Assessing general ecological behavior: A cross-cultural comparison between
Switzerland and Sweden. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 16, 44–52.
Kaiser, F. G., Doka, G., Hofstetter, P., & Ranney, M. A. (2003). Ecological behavior and its environmental
consequences: A life cycle assessment of a self-report measure. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 23, 11–20.
Kaiser, F. G., Frick, J., & Stoll-Kleemann, S. (2001). Zur Angemessenheit selbstberichteten Verhaltens: Eine
€
Validit€atsuntersuchung der Skala Allgemeinen Okologischen Verhaltens [Accuracy of self-reports: Validating the
general ecological behavior scale]. Diagnostica, 47, 88–95.
Kaiser, F. G., & Gutscher, H. (2003). The proposition of a general version of the theory of planned behavior: Predicting
ecological behavior. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 33, 586–603.
Kaiser, F. G., & Wilson, M. (2000). Assessing peopleÕs general ecological behavior: A cross-cultural measure. Journal of
Applied Social Psychology, 30, 952–978.
Kaiser, F. G., W€ olfing, S., & Fuhrer, U. (1999). Environmental attitude and ecological behaviour. Journal of
Environmental Psychology, 19, 1–19.
McKenzie-Mohr, D., Nemiroff, L. S., Beers, L., & Desmarais, S. (1995). Determinants of responsible environmental
behavior. Journal of Social Issues, 51(4), 139–156.
Mislevy, R. J., Beaton, A. E., Kaplan, B., & Sheehan, K. M. (1992). Estimating population characteristics from sparse
matrix samples of item responses. Journal of Educational Measurement, 29, 133–161.
Oskamp, S. (2000). A sustainable future for humanity? How can psychology help? American Psychologist, 55, 496–508.
Scheuthle, H., Carabias-H€ utter, V., & Kaiser, F. G. (submitted for publication). Contexts’ motivational and
instantaneous behavior effects: Steps towards a theory of goal-directed behavior.
1544 F.G. Kaiser, M. Wilson / Personality and Individual Differences 36 (2004) 1531–1544

Stern, P. C. (2000a). Toward a coherent theory of environmentally significant behavior. Journal of Social Issues, 56,
407–424.
Stern, P. C. (2000b). Psychology and the science of human–environment interactions. American Psychologist, 55, 523–
530.
Thøgersen, J. (1999). Spillover processes in the development of a sustainable consumption pattern. Journal of Economic
Psychology, 20, 53–81.
Wang, W.-C. (1999). Direct estimation of correlations among latent traits within IRT framework. Methods of
Psychological Research, 4(2), 47–68.
Wang, W.-C., Wilson, M., & Adams, R. J. (1997). Rasch models for multidimensionality between items and within
items. In M. Wilson, G. Jr., Engelhard, & K. Draney (Eds.), Objective measurement: Theory into practice (Vol. 4, pp.
139–155). Greenwich, CT: Ablex.
Wilson, M., & Case, H. (2000). An examination of variation in rater severity over time: A study in rater drift. In M.
Wilson, & G. Engelhard (Eds.), Objective measurement: Theory into practice (Vol. 5, pp. 113–133). Stamford, CT:
Ablex.
Wright, B., & Masters, G. N. (1982). Rating scale analysis: Rasch measurement. Chicago: MESA.