RV UNIVERSITY

BALE ROBE CAMPUS

DEPARTEMENT: BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION

ASSIGNMENT: ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOR AND
DEVELOPMENT
Article Review on The Attitude–Behavior Relationship
and Their Implications
NAME ID
FIROMSA ABDULAZIZ 0094/2019
Article Review on The Attitude–Behavior Relationship and Their Implications
Article objective and analysis:

This paper discusses the relationship between attitudes and behavior. This article reports a
meta-analysis of 88 attitude-behavior studies that reveals that attitudes significantly and
substantially predict future behavior (mean r ¼ .38; combined p <. 000000000001). Relatively
large and significant moderating effects were found for the attitudinal variables of attitude
certainty, stability, accessibility, affective-cognitive consistency, and direct experience (mean
q ¼ .39). A smaller but significant moderating effect was found for self-monitoring (mean q ¼
.29).

purposes of this paper are to refocus attention on this ‘blindspot’ by: (1) summarizing results
presented in wider reviews of A–B research; (2) exploring arguments and concerns raised in/by
these reviews; and (3) begin to explore the implications of these reviews, including for how they
might inform future practices and studies of EE designed to address such relationships. Before
undertaking this though, it is equally appropriate to identify what is not possible here, because
numerous topics pertaining to A–B relationships lie beyond the paper’s purpose and scope.

Important features mentioned in this article:

While studies of A–B relationships in EE may be compared against such findings and
considerations, for our purposes here, we now highlight a range of points that emerge from these
studies, metanalyses, focusing on matters of how research is designed, reported and interpreted
in EE. These points are crystallized as follows:

1. The strength that can be attributed to research claims matters, as do the limitations of such
claims. A key finding apparent in the meta-analyses by Kraus (1995) and Wallace et al. (2005) is
that while an A-B relationship may be statistically significant, it is often of relatively moderate
strength only (Cohen, 1988). Their findings are consistent with results of meta-analyses of EE
studies that analyzed A-B relationships reported by Hines et al. (1987), and Bamberg and Moser
(2007). The noteworthy exception to this were the findings reported by Kim and Hunter (1993a),
who found a stronger A-B relationship, but only after controlling for several of the
methodological factors that influence the strength of this relationship (see also point #2 on
relevance, below).
2. The valency and relevance of referents can’t be ignored for findings to matter to researchers
and others. A key finding in the meta-analysis by Wallace et al. (2005) is that the relative
strength of an A–B relationship varies with different attitudinal objects or referents, such as
attitudes towards various social groups, issues, and future behaviors. This matter of situatedness
resurfaces in dis cession of moderator variables and dynamics too, such as in
relation to #4. But it is especially relevant to thinking and commentary on the goals and
expectations of maintaining or developing diverse traditions and approaches to environmental
education in light of the evidence base, as in parsing the differences between, interactions, and
immediate- to longer-term effects of pursuing education about/through/for the environment (see
also Rickinson 2006).

3. The degrees of generality and specificity of measures supporting evidence-based

claims matter too. A third key point concerning the relative strength of an A–B relationship
is the influence of a number of methodological factors, and this should also be acknowledged
when scoping or claiming transferability, including as to any positive and/or negative spillover
effects (Nilsson et al. 2017). The theory and research literature pertaining to this reflects an
awareness of the influence of certain methodological factors on the A-B relationship that date
back more than half a century (e.g. Ajzen and Fishbein 1977; Wicker 1969); for example:
Conceptual and methodological analysis has focused on two principles: the principle of
aggregation, founded on the psychometric fact that single items on any test are unreliable; and
the principle of compatibility, which holds that substantial correlations between attitudinal and
behavioral measures will only be found if these constructs are assessed at the same level of
generality (or specificity). (Manstead 2001, p. 909; emphases added

4. Moderators always matter. A fourth point is that the relative strength of an A-B relationship
can be moderated by a number of factors that may be operating in or beyond the research setting,
particularly among study participants. For environmental educators and researchers, we find
points by Kraus (1990) worth reiterating: that these factors often include the existence or effects
of whether ’the attitude is formed by direct experience, the attitude is held with certainty, the
subject is a low-self-monitor, or the situation increases self-focused attention’ (p.1). Similarly,
Wallace et al. (2005) highlight the significance of personal moderators (e.g. perceived difficulty)
and situational moderators (e.g. social pressures experienced and expressed through the
interaction of subjective and social norms or expectations).

Others have noted the role of affect (e.g. the emotions we feel before, during or after we have
engaged in a behavior—e.g. Fazio 1986), perceived behavioral control, and the normative
expectations of important others, such as peers, parents, and educators (Ajzen 2012)

My analysis of the Article:

In conclusion, the findings of these studies, meta-analyses and reflections encourage us to move
beyond the A–B (or K–A–B) designs of the past. They invite us, as a field, to better report the
factors in our study designs and procedures (be they ‘confounding’ ‘moderating’, ‘mediating’ or
‘methodological’). And last but not least, they invite us to reflect on the role of such factors in
determining or/and undermining the practices and outcomes of the work of this field, particularly
if we are to ensure quality uses of research about A–B relationships and develop critical accounts
and practices of environmental education—its uses, limitations and prospects.
Notes
1. These have included that early environmental education programs were ‘guided primarily by
unfounded beliefs and emotionally derived truths in need of documentation’ (Hendel 1972, p.
20), and the plea in the conclusion to that article: ‘Let’s do the job right by establishing a high-
quality program of research commensurate with the importance of environmental education’ (p.
22). Further examples can be found in the entries to Part 5 of Environmental Education (Reid
and Dillon 2016c), on Currents and correctives in environmental education.
2. Hendel (1972, pp. 21-22) also noted the need for environmental educators and researchers to
identify and assess possible correlates, such as educational level, achievement, outdoors
participation, cultural beliefs, life stability and other factors.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
Notes on Contributors
Tom Marcinkowski has interest in the organization, review, synthesis, and uses of research in
environmental education, with particular attention to assessment, evaluation, and research studies
in the areas of environmental literacy, responsible environmental behavior, and environmental
quality. He has been involved in the development of assessment tools in these areas and, more
generally, in program evaluation studies.
Alan Reid edits the international research journal, Environmental Education Research, and
publishes regularly on environmental and sustainability education (ESE) and their research.
Alan's interests in research and service focus on growing traditions, capacities and the impact of
ESE research. A key vehicle for this is his work with the Global Environmental Education
Partnership, and via NAAEE's PRO Research and Evaluation.
 RESEARCH ON THE ATTITUDE–BEHAVIOR RELATIONSHIP AND THEIR
IMPLICATIONS
ABSTRACT
Since the early days of the field, attitude–behavior (A–B) relationships have received sustained
attention in the evaluation and researching of environmental education (EE). This level of
interest extends beyond the field’s scope though, in part due to a certain reliance on theoretical
and empirical assertions which claim that attitudes serve as a strong precursor and/or predictor of
behavior. In this paper, we consider reviews of studies on the A–B relationship in EE and other
fields that routinely challenge such assumptions, leading to the questioning of corresponding foci
and commitments for research, evaluation, practice, and development. With key findings from
these studies in hand, we highlight several insights that may be useful for dispelling some of the
folklore about what matters in, and what can be argued with, A–B studies, if we are to develop
the design, conduct, reporting, and critique of studies and practices of EE reliant on such
relationships.
KEYWORDS
Attitudes and behavior; research design principles; research findings; research claims; quality
use of evidence.
Introduction
Two of the more persistent questions within the field of environmental education (EE) and its
research pertain to: (a) the relationship between attitudes (A) and behaviors (B), and (b) the value
of educators and researchers focusing their efforts on understanding this relationship (Reid and
Dillon 2016a).
On the one hand, many of the goals of the field frequently cite the need to change both attitudes
and behaviors, argued from a range of perspectives and positions on what EE is (really) for. On
the other, there are questions about what EE is (actually) able to achieve, through ideal,
innovative, current, or past forms of its provision.
Put starkly, on both sides, EE is understood as a tool that variously enables others to become
something other than they were, are or might become, which in this case, usually means using
theory and evidence to argue for deepening or reworking the relationship between particular
attitudes and behaviors, and/or adopting or promoting more environmentally responsible ones
and patterning’s than those in existence before.
Unsurprisingly, hundreds of assessment, evaluation, and research studies in EE have explored
and assessed the status and significance of A-B relationships in theory and practice, including
some of the most cited and discussed papers and reviews in this field (Iozzi 1981, 1984;
Rickinson 2001; Volk and McBeth 1997). Yet often overlooked in readings and critiques of
reviews of such programs and studies, is the attention authors give to the nature and strength of
an attitude–behavior (A–B) relationship. Some insights into such relationships and their features
have been presented in meta-analyses, literature reviews and syntheses of research relevant to EE
(Bamberg and Moser 2007; Hines, Hungerford and Tomera 1987; Zelezny 1999; Zint 2012).
First, the views expressed herein are not based on our own large-scale review of assessment,
research, and evaluation studies in the field that investigated A–B relationships; rather,
significant results pertinent to A–B relationships in prior reviews such as those cited above will
be noted and discussed.
Second, although arguments, concerns, and implications will be introduced, we do not provide
an in-depth analysis of these for research, theory, policy, and/or practice in this field, noting too
that various analyses of these are already available in the literature (Kollmuss and Agyeman
2002; Simmons 1991, 1995; Wals and Dillon 2012; Zint 2012).

Third, this paper is not written to review the wide range of theories of behavior and behavior
change, as that too has been done elsewhere (Darnton 2008; Heimlich and Ardoin 2008; Jackson
2005). Consequently, it is beyond the scope of this paper to analyze the implications of these
results of reviews of research for those theories.
Fourth, although we do comment on A–B relationships largely within the context of the
Knowledge–Attitude–Behavior (K–A–B) model, there is no attempt here to review and
Critiquing K–A relationship either, for example, articulating or critiquing key assumptions,
presenting results from reviews of research on K–A relationships, or discussing implications (we
invite others to do that).
Fifth, we do not use this paper to analyze the relationship of attitude to other psychological
constructs that have some documented relationship to behavior, for example, environmental
sensitivity, place attachment, and associated significant life experiences; self-efficacy and locus
of control; personal and social norms; and intention; but of these, intention will be discussed,
given its demonstrable import for A–B relationships. Again, we invite others to consider these
other relationships.
Finally, and more positively, our hope is that in light of these delimitations, readers will find
ample opportunity, and therefore are encouraged, to review pertinent literature and explore the
implications of the research results presented in this paper to the depth that they deserve,
including for their own studies of EE, and its relation to the wider arguments, key findings and
possible implications noted below.
Definition of key terms
To continue, for the key terms at work here, a brief accounting is needed of attitude and
behavior. Historically, much of the scholarly work studying both terms and their relations has
sprung from ideas that can be traced to psychology (e.g. social, applied, and educational).
Positions therein, such as those typified by Allport (1935), characterize attitude as a ‘mental and
neural state of readiness’ and argue that it is ‘the most distinctive and indispensable concept
[construct] in contemporary social psychology’ (p. 798). Indeed, over the last 50 years, many
theorists and researchers both within and beyond the field of EE have come to view attitudes
largely in such terms, where it is primarily evidenced in relation to a person’s evaluative
dispositions and judgments about an ‘object’ (e.g. a being, thing, event, idea, issue, or action)
that are derived, at least in part, from their experience or situation.
A further commonplace is that attitudes have cognitive components (e.g. beliefs or knowledge),
affective components (e.g. feelings or emotions), and behavioral components (e.g. a
predisposition that may influence whether and how to act). The behavioral component is central
to our concerns here, given such arguments as: ‘The ability of attitudes to predict behavioral
intentions or overt behavior continues to be a major focus of theory and research’ (Ajzen 2001,
p. 42). Thus, for Ajzen (2001), the extent to which attitudes predict or influence behavior
depends on a number of factors, including the nature and strength of underlying beliefs and
emotions, the coexistence of positive and negative dispositions, and situational factors.
Equally, for the purposes of this paper, Stern’s (2000) two-part definition of environmentally
significant behavior is worth recalling when we try to tease out the role(s) of, and possible
interactional effects of senses of ambivalence, hedonism, impulsivity/self-control/delayed
gratification, social norms, educational processes, immediacy of horizons and timelines of
anticipatory behavior, opportunities for sustained sense of connectedness to nature, and so forth.
First, environmentally significant behavior may be defined ‘from the actor’s standpoint as
behavior that is undertaken with the intention to change (normally, to benefit) the environment’,
thereby highlighting ‘intent as an independent cause of behavior’ (p. 408). However, as Stern
indicates, this is insufficient because ‘intent may fail to result in an environmental impact’ (p.
408). Thus, Stern differentiates between a person’s intent to act and behaviors based on their
intent. For this reason, Stern also differentiates a pro-environmental behavior as that which ‘may
be defined by its impact’ or consequences (p. 408), including direct and broader influences on
biodiversity, natural resources, and pollution and waste (e.g. direct: household waste disposal;
broader: national and international policies on development, pricing, and taxation). Furthermore,
we must also note behaviors fostered or shaped through EE may still have a positive impact on
the environment, despite the absence of any direct intention by an individual (or feature of the
EE programming) to do so immediately (Gould et al. 2019; Heimlich et al. 2012).
Why this focus in EE and its research?
It is relatively easy to trace the first flourishing of interest in attitudes, behavior, and their
relationship, in the EE literature (Disinger 1983; Hart 1981; Harvey 1977; Schmeider, 1977;
Stapp 1974).
An early paper, influential in both the U.S.A. and emerging international literature, identified
‘attitudes of concern for the quality of the biophysical environment’ as one of major objectives
of EE: ‘it implies a combination of factual knowledge and motivating emotional concern which
result in a tendency to act’ (Stapp et al. 1969, p. 31).
Later, both Attitudes and Participation were presented as categories of objectives at the
international Belgrade Workshop on EE (UNESCO 1977), and then revised and endorsed at the
subsequent Tbilisi Intergovernmental Conference (UNESCO 1978). The Tbilisi
Recommendations have been reaffirmed at subsequent UN-sponsored EE meetings and
conferences, as well as adopted and adapted by countries around the world (see Reid and Dillon
2016b, for key examples). Within the U.S.A., many national and state EE frameworks also gave
prominent attention to attitudes and behavior (Simmons 1995), as have environmental literacy
frameworks (Hungerford and Volk 1990; Hellweg et al. 2011; McBride et al. 2013; Roth 1992;
Wilke 1995). These and other sources are indicative of the broad and enduring level of attention
that has been given to both attitudes and behavior in EE. Nonetheless, some have been skeptical,
even critical, of the focus on and use of attitudes as a meaningful objective and outcome in EE.
An early paper in The Journal of Environmental Education, illustrates such concerns. Hendel
(1972, p. 20) suggested that ‘[e]environmental educators should cease their preoccupation with
attitudes as a criterion to evaluate their efforts, ‘because there are significant problems both with
‘the validity and feasibility’ of tests to measure them, and then using these tests for evaluating
the effects of an educational program.
Furthermore, Hendel opined, ‘[a]attitudes respectful of nature are needed but must accrue as a
result of relevant and complete information’ (ibid.), that is, arise from efforts that give
precedence to providing personally relevant experiences and developing personally relevant
knowledge to various groups of people. Yet despite such cautions and appeals to address what
have been regarded as aspects of the wishful thinking, myths and folklore of the field1 ,
uncritical attention to attitudes has persisted.
In a review of experimental studies 25 years later, Volk and McBeth (1997) found that ‘the most
frequently measured variables were attitudinal in nature, with 76% of the studies’ (p. 42). Again,
careful reading and reflection were invited by the authors; while they found that ‘positive
changes in attitude were observed in 48% of the studies which measured that variable’ (p. 43),
they also invited colleagues to be mindful of the tallies of non-significant, mixed or questionable
results for any variable included in their review (table 19, p. 42, and commentary thereon).Lucas
(1981) raised similar concerns about what might be found in, and interpreted from, the evidence
base at that time. Referencing large-scale surveys of secondary students in Australia, England,
and the U.S.A., he concluded that ‘[I]n all three countries the pupils’ environmental attitudes
tended to be positive, except when the object of concern impinges on their own lives’ (p. 35).
Lucas interpreted these data as showing: ’the difficulty of reconciling different attitudes (toward
full employment, environmental conservation, and personal freedoms, for example), [which]
make it very difficult to rely on measures of environmental attitudes as an indicator of the
success of environmental education programs … It is possible that well developed environmental
attitudes may produce the opposite effect to the one desired, even in knowledgeable people’. (p.
35)
For Lucas, such survey findings spoke trouble to ‘the belief that education for the environment
entails focusing on the development of attitudes as the major goal [which] is probably the most
pervasive position in the literature’ (1981, p. 35). They cast doubt on, for example, such
positions as those noted by Ramsey and Rickson (1976, p. 10) who had suggested that
‘[I]increased knowledge leads to favorable attitudes … which in turn lead to action promoting
better environmental quality,’ and went unheeded in related projects, such as that of Birch and
Schwab (1983), who had offered a similar viewpoint: the assumption must be made that
informed attitudes will lead to subsequent water conservation behavior … Further research
should attempt to offer empirical evidence that knowledge and attitude gains resulting from the
water conservation unit will influence a student’s behavior regarding efficient water use. (p. 30)
Such quotations also serve to illustrate what was, at that time, a prevalent (if not problematical)
line of thinking that associated the provision of educational experiences of particular kinds with
generating or imbuing certain knowledge and attitudes, and attitudes with corresponding
behaviors (see Colwell, 1976). In the 1990s, this often became known as the Knowledge-
Attitude- Behavior or K-A-B Model (Hungerford and Volk 1990; Kollmuss and Agyeman 2002;
Simmons 1991). Yet rather than assume this model has become ‘old hat,’ it is important to
recognize that aspects of it echo through to the field’s most recent work, even to ‘new hats’ that
have been recommended since then. For example, key elements of this model are apparent in
particular programs in EE that are designed to influence knowledge, attitudes and behaviors, as
well as surveys designed to assess knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors, from a wide variety
range of educational and environmental perspectives. Whether it is to foster contemporary forms
of environmental consciousness, social justice or climate action of particular kinds through EE—
be that from a positivist to post-positivist, constructivist to post-constructivist, or humanistic to
post-humanistic perspective—researchers and educators continue to advocate particular
experiences to change and link knowledge, attitudes and/or behaviors, consciously and
unconsciously (Wals and Dillon 2012). With this in mind, and our brief sketch of the support for
and concerns about role of attitudes and the A-B relationship in EE complete, we now turn to
what meta-analyses and the wider research literature might have to say about such relationships.
Evidence on the A-B relationship in reviews of EE research Unfortunately, evidence
overwhelmingly indicates that practices based on a K–A–B model are not as well founded on
research evidence as some of the quotations above might imply. For example, one of the first
meta-analyses of EE research on factors associated with behavior found only a moderate
relationship of knowledge to behavior (r ¼ .299), and of A-B (r ¼ .347) (Hines et al. 1987, p. 3).
They also found that other psychological constructs, notably verbal commitment (intention) and
locus of control, had stronger relationships to behavior than did attitude. Later, Bamberg and
Moser (2007, p. 20) drew similar conclusions, stating that: for the association between these four
psych-social variables [attitudes, moral norms or personal responsibility, self-efficacy/locus of
control, and intention] and pro-environmental behavior our meta-analysis results in pooled mean
correlations very similar to those reported by the Hines et al. meta-analysis 20 years ago. These
meta-analyses, along with other sources of evidence and critique, have led some in EE to
question the value and use of any K–A–B model, including its implications for theory, research,
policy and practice in EE (see a range of positions on this, in Hungerford and Volk 1990;
Kollmuss and Agyeman 2002; Karnowski 2004). The studies also serve to highlight the
importance of continuing to negotiate the value and status of any positing of an A–B relationship
since then, whether that be in the context of advocating broader theoretical models in general, or
in relation to the varieties, qualities and quality uses of evidence (Rickinson et al. 2017) for
specific educational frameworks, engagements or experiences in EE. But before we consider
aspects of that, we must consider wider perspectives on this relationship. Additional evidence on
the A–B relationship For quite some time, developing a critical perspective to assess the
evidence base on any purported relationship—direct to indirect, strong or weak, simple to
complex—between an attitude and behavior has been of interest in many academic fields,
including on a wide range of issues well beyond those of interest to EE (Ajzen and Fishbein
1977; Fishbein and Ajzen 1975; Wicker 1969, 1971).
In 2015, Marcinkowski conducted a literature search in the English language archives to locate
significant meta-analyses of research on A–B relationships presented and/or published since the
early 1990s (i.e. those analyses that have been positively cited, checked, replicated or extended).
Consistent with the purposes for this paper, we summarize key features of each one below, to
illuminate some of the methodological and substantive findings about A–B relationships, and the
degrees of optimism and pessimism that might be had, in relation to the evidence base and
claims concerning magnitude, mediation and predictive power.
To begin, we note the work of Harvard University’s Stephen Kraus (1990). Kraus presented a
meta-analysis at the 1990 Annual Convention of the American Psychological Association,
stating in his abstract that: The relationship between attitudes and behavior has been a topic of
considerable debate. Accordingly, this paper reports a meta-analysis of 83 attitude-behavior
studies. The analysis suggests that attitudes significantly predict future behavior (combined p < .
000000000001). The average attitude-behavior correlation (ABC) is r ¼ .38. Methodologically,
ABCs are higher for studies using (a) self-reported measures of behavior, (b) primarily non-
students as subjects, or (c) attitude and behavior measures of corresponding levels of specificity.
Substantively, ABCs tend to be higher when (a) the attitude is formed by direct experience, (b)
the attitude is held with certainty, (c) the subject is a low self-monitor, or (d) the situation
increases self-focused attention. (p.1, emphases added) Several years later, Kraus (1995)
polished and published his well-received review.
Methodological factors associated with high attitude-behavior correlations included self-report
measures of behavior (q ¼. 22), the use of nonstudents as subjects (q ¼. 17), and corresponding
levels of specificity in the attitude and behavior measures (mean q ¼ .47). The practical
magnitude of attitude-behavior correlations is considered, as are the future directions of attitude-
behavior research. (p. 58, emphases added) In the interval between Kraus’ conference
presentation (1990) and publication (1995), Kim and Hunter (1993a, 1993b) also conducted
meta-analyses of studies on the A–B relationship. They controlled for some of the
methodological factors identified by Kraus, including factors linked to behavioral intention, self-
report and overt behavior, that may confound, moderate or mediate the outcomes. Their abstract
(Kim and Hunter 1993a) notes:
The difficulty of finding a relationship between attitudes and behavior is one of the greatest
controversies in recent social science research. The purpose of this study was to determine
whether attitudinal relevance substantially affects the magnitude of the correlation between
attitudes and behavior, and whether the effects are content free. Using meta-analysis, we
integrated findings from 138 attitude-behavior correlations with a total sample size of 90,908.
The behaviors we studied ranged over 19 different categories and a variety of miscellaneous
topics. Our results showed a strong overall attitude–behavior relationship (r ¼ .79) when
methodological artifacts were eliminated. As predicted, the higher the attitudinal relevance, the
stronger the relationship between attitudes and behavior. This effect held true across diverse
content domains. (p. 101, emphases added) However, Kim and Hunter did not stop there. Rather,
they extended their work (Kim and Hunter 1993b), arguing in a follow-up analysis that:
The trend in A–B research, however, is to conceive of behavioral intentions (BI) as a mediator
between attitudes (A) and behaviors (B). In this study, it is hypothesized that (a) A–BI
correlation would be higher than A–B correlation, (b) BI–B correlation would be higher than A–
B correlation, (c) A–BI correlation would be higher than BI-B correlation, (d) the variation in
BI-B correlations would be greater than that of A–BI, and (e) attitudinal relevance would affect
the magnitude of the A–BI correlation. A series of meta-analyses, integrating the findings of 92
A–BI correlations (N ¼ 16,785) and 47 B–BI correlations (N ¼ 10,203) that deal with 19
specified categories and a variety of miscellaneous topics was performed. The results were
consistent with all five hypotheses. (p. 331, emphases added) A third meta-analysis of the A-B
research literature was reported by Wallace et al. (2005), based on a very large collection of
psychological studies. Among other things, they flagged the significance of motivation (sources,
forms, and effects) as a factor, while in summary, their abstract noted:
A meta-analysis of 797 studies and 1001 effect sizes tested a theoretical hypothesis that
situational constraints, such as perceived social pressure and perceived difficulty, weaken the
relationship between attitudes and behavior. This hypothesis was confirmed for attitudes toward
performing behaviors and for attitudes toward issues and social groups. Meta-analytic estimates
of attitude–behavior correlations served to quantify these moderating effects. The present results
indicated that the mean attitude–behavior correlation was .41 when people experienced a mean
level of social pressure to perform a behavior of mean difficulty. The mean correlation was .30
when people experienced social pressure 1 standard deviation above the mean to perform a
behavior that was 1 standard deviation more difficult than the mean. The results suggest a need
for increased attention to the ‘behavior’ side of the attitude behavior equation. Attitudes predict
some behaviors better than others. (p. 214, emphases added) To end our brief tour of some of the
most significant meta-analyses of studies in the A-B research literature, we note the findings
reported by Glassman and Albarracin (2006). These further underscores the significance of
methodological factors and their possible interplay with substantive findings: A meta-analysis (k
of conditions ¼ 128; N ¼ 4598) examined the influence of factors present at the time an attitude
is formed on the degree to which this attitude guides future behavior. The findings indicated that
attitudes correlated with a future behavior more strongly when they were easy to recall
(accessible) and stable over time. Because of increased accessibility, attitudes more strongly
predicted future behavior when participants had direct experience with the attitude object and
reported their attitudes frequently.
Because of the resulting attitude stability, the attitude-behavior association was strongest when\
attitudes were confident, when participants formed their attitude on the basis of behavior-
relevant information, and when they received or were induced to think about one- rather than
two-sided information about the attitude object. (p. 778, emphases added) From ‘so what’ to
‘now what’?
In light of these considerations, as Steg and Vick (2009) argue, researchers should be prepared to
document statistically the relative influence of personal moderators on an A–B relationship if
they are to safely attribute any influence to the power of such moderators on the A and B and
their relation (e.g. peer group effects, age, gender, or ethnicity; see also Muth en 2002).
Similarly, in terms of ‘event-based’ situational moderators (such as those arising from
participation in educational interventions or one-off programs), researchers may also need to
recognize that attitudes may only change over considerable time, don’t always coincide with
behavioral changes, and that the speed, scale or directionality in which either change are unlikely
to be stable or permanent, including because of these or other ‘moderators’ and ‘mediators’
It matters that we continue to recognize that human conduct—and education—are not solely
amenable to indexes of attitudes that predict a future behavior. The preceding points give rise to
our fifth: the importance of placing an A-B relationship in the context of a wider set of
theoretical relationships and dynamics that are thought or considered to serve as precursors or
predictors of behavior, and as of constraints, on it.
A key consideration here is the role of intention explored in the second study by Kim and Hunter
(1993b), and the influence of other potentially significant mediating variables, such as locus of
control, self-determination, and self-efficacy (e.g. Cooke et al. 2016; Darner 2012; Prati et al.
2017), on the A-B relationship which have also been apparent in the literature for many years
(Fishbein and Ajzen 1975; Wicker 1971). Manstead (2001, p. 909) offers a prime ‘take away,’
illustrating the implications of the findings of these meta-analyses for several prominent theories:
The location of the attitude–behavior relationship within a more general theoretical framework
has been most successfully achieved by the theory of reasoned action and the theory of planned
behavior.
As well as considering the role of attitudes in determining intentions, and thereby behavior, these
models give recognition to the role played by the perceived expectations of others (i.e. subjective
norms). (emphasis added) By extension, this point can have a number of implications for EE. For
example, on a direct basis, to what extent has the design of our EE programming been informed
(or modified) by theories consistent with or departing from findings and observations such as
these? Further, rotating this point to raise other questions, we might ask, in the context of
developing climate change education, outdoor education or environmental citizenship education
for these times: what might be learned from analysis of environmentally ‘insignificant’ or even
‘irresponsible’ attitudes and behaviors? How might these come to matter, especially to
whose educational expectations are enacted, the evidence mobilized (or ignored), and to
what these are expected to be, as ‘determiners’, working with or against the grain of learner
intentions? Finally, what of ways to address these matters through education and educational
research (Reid 2019), particularly if we were to more fully account for the various ‘lacks’ in
statistical strength of some of the correlations noted above, or how these are theorized by
researchers within or out with this field?
Implications for EE theory, research, and practice
Many of our points are not actually that new. For example, Kraus (1995, p.71) summarized
several implications for theory and research nearly 25 years ago: … since Allport’s time, there
has been a definite shift in general approaches to thinking about the attitude behavior
relationship. The ‘crisis’ was in large part predicated on the conception of behavior as a criterion
variable against which the validity of the attitude concept could be tested; a lack of extremely
strong and consistent attitude–behavior correlations was thought to invalidate the concept. An
increasing number of analytic studies were conducted, and these indeed contributed to the
refinement and preservation of the concept. Clearly, attitudes are not synonymous with behavior;
attitudes should not be used as easily measured substitutes for behavior measures, nor does
attitude theory suggest that attitudes will be the sole determinant of behavior.
In fact, well before the first of these meta-analyses, Hendel (1972, p. 22) highlighted a wide
range of implications for research and practice in EE, including that: We are too willing to
believe that favorable environmental attitudes are a result of specific environmental education
efforts. It may be that other socializing influences are more important to the development of
favorable attitudes. Studies are needed that compare the effects on attitudes of exposure to
specific environmental education programs with parental and home influences, personal
attributes, extracurricular activities such as Boy Scouts or 4-H, and other factors that may
individually or collectively account for environmental attitude differences. Again, such research
is not to deprecate the merits of environmental education but to measure its relative impact on
attitudes and values compared to other factors. It will help us determine who needs
environmental education; who doesn’t? On whom does it have the greatest and least impact?
Only with the answers to these questions can we design optimum environmental education
strategies to achieve social environmental objectives. Nearly five decades later, we trust our
summary of and reflections on meta-analyses of
research on A–B relationships offer more recent but equally challenging insights for
contemporary theory and research in EE.
First, that there is reasonably clear, consistent, and substantial evidence, both within and beyond
EE research, regarding the relatively moderate strength to many A-B relationships.
Second, that there may be sound, even compelling, reasons for further studies of A-B
relationships, in general and in specific contexts and settings, addressing contemporary
expectations and theories for EE. In these instances, researchers may benefit from what has been
learned in these meta-analyses as to what matters, and might be reasonably expected as, say, a
‘benchmark’. For example, those who choose to study attitudes and behavior can design and
conduct studies that better account for measurement and other methodological factors that appear
to influence this relationship, but also reflect on the compatibility and comparability of their
findings to different theoretical frameworks and associated studies that include the A–B
relationship.
Third, that researchers responsible for these meta-analyses have found that several factors
serve as moderators in an A-B relationship (Kraus 1990, 1995; Wallace et al. 2005), while
others, such as behavioral intention, serve as mediators (Kim and Hunter 1993b). Thus, EE
researchers who further investigate an A-B relationship should be in a better position to design
studies that provide stronger or more sophisticated accounts of moderating and mediating factors
that may influence this relationship in their research setting (Baron and Kenny 1986).
Fourth, one way to account for possible mediating and moderating factors is to ensure an A–B
relationship is located and tested within the context of a larger theoretical framework. For
example, Kim and Hunter (1993b) found behavioral intention serves as a mediating factor in A–
B relationships. Manstead’s (2001) suggestion was that researchers consider Fishbein and
Ajzen’s Theory of Reasoned Action (1975) or Ajzen’s more recent Theory of Planned Behavior
(Ajzen 2012; Madden, Ellen and Ajzen 1992). Such suggestions are consistent with Kim and
Hunter’s work, because both of these theories can serve as frameworks for testing the influence
of behavioral intention as a mediator in the A–B relationship. But our more general point is, that
those who further investigate the A–B relationship would do well to select a credible theory and
model to serve as a broader framework in which to examine this relationship, and consider how
it might relate to or differ from other credible theories an findings (e.g. see reviews of theories
and models by Jackson 2005, Darnton 2008, Heimlich and Ardoin 2008, and Gatersleben et al.,
2014 and their commentaries, such as on which serve to narrow or broaden the field, and whether
they are based on reasonable evidence or argument).
In conclusion, we suspect that interpretations of what matters outlined earlier will be as relevant
to assessment and evaluation studies designed to explore EE practices and associated learning
outcomes as they are to empirically- and theory-driven research and practice development,
particularly if the former seek to make a contribution to the field too (Zint 2012). Simply put, it
is highly likely that measurement and other methodological factors, as well as moderating and
mediating factors, operate in studies of EE practice, and that rigorous accounting of these is
needed if we are to gain better insights from these studies of practice, and arguments to adopt
and develop them further as quality uses of evidence (see Rickinson 2001; Rickinson et al. 2017;
Zelezny 1999).
As Kollmuss and Agyeman (2002) noted, any stasis, spillover, or interactional effect has to be
demonstrated not assumed, while in summarizing the internal (psychological) and external
(social) factors that influence any relationship, we do well to remember ‘the question of what
shapes pro environmental behavior is such a complex one that it cannot be visualized through
one single framework or diagram’ (p. 248). At stake, they observe, is the hoary conundrum of
comprehensiveness vs. value: ‘Such a single diagram with all the factors that shape and influence
behavior would be so complicated that it would lose its practicality and probably even its
meaning’ (p. 248).
 References
Allport, G. 1935. “Attitudes.” In A Handbook of Social Psychology, edited by C. Murchinson,
789–844. Worcester, MA: Clark University Press.
Ajzen, I. 1991. “The Theory of Planned Behavior.” Organizational Behavior and Human
Decision Processes 72(2): 322–332. doi:10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-T.
Ajzen, I. 2001. “Nature and Operation of Attitudes.” Annual Review of Psychology 52:27–58.
doi:10.1146/annurev. psych.52.1.27.
Ajzen, I. 2012. “The Theory of Planned Behavior.” In Handbook of Theories of Social
Psychology, edited by P. A. Van Lange, A. W. Kruglanski & E. T. Higgins, 438–459. London:
SAGE Publications Ltd.
Ajzen, I., and M. Fishbein. 1977. “Attitude - Behavior Relationships: A Theoretical Analysis and
Review of the Empirical Literature.”
Psychological Bulletin 84(5):888–918. doi:10.1037//0033-2909.84.5.888. Bamberg, S., and G.
Moser. 2007. “Twenty Years after Hines, Hungerford and Tomera: A New Meta-Analysis of
Psycho-Social Determinants of Pro-Environmental Behavior.” Journal of Environmental
Psychology 27(1):14–25. doi:10.1016/j.jenvp.2006.12.002.
Baron, R., and D. Kenny. 1986. “The Moderator-Mediator Variable Distinction in Social
Psychological Research: Conceptual, Strategic, and Statistical Considerations.” Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology 51(6): 1173–1182. doi:10.1037//0022-3514.51.6.1173.
Birch, S., and K. Schwaab. 1983. “The Effects of Water Conservation Instruction on Seventh-
Grade Students.” The Journal of Environmental Education 14(4):26–31.
doi:10.1080/00958964.1983.9943478.
Cohen, J. 1988. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ:
Lawrence Earlbaum Associates.
Colwell, T. B. 19 Colwell, T. B. 1976. “A Critique of Behavior Objectives Methodology in
Environmental Education.” The Journal of Environmental Education 7(3):66–71.
doi:10.1080/00958964.1976.9941538.
Cooke, A. N., K. S. Fielding, and W. R. Louis. 2016. “Environmentally Active People: The Role
of Autonomy, Relatedness, Competence and Self-Determined Motivation.” Environmental
Education Research 22(5):631–657. doi: 10.1080/13504622.2015.1054262.
Darner, R. 2012. “An Empirical Test of Self-Determination Theory as a Guide to Fostering
Environmental Motivation.” Environmental Education Research 18(4):463–472.
doi:10.1080/13504622.2011.638739.
Darnton, A. 2008. Reference Report: An Overview of Behavior Change Models and Their Uses.
(A GSR [Government Social Research] Behavior Change Knowledge Review. London, UK:
University of Westminster.
Disinger, J. 1983. Environmental Education’s Definitional Problem. (ERIC Information Bulletin
#2. Columbus, OH: ERIC Science, Mathematics, and Environmental Education Clearinghouse.
Fazio, R. H. 1986. “How do Attitudes Guide Behavior?” In Handbook of Motivation and
Cognition: Foundations of Social Behavior, edited by R. M. Sorrentino & E. T. Higgins, 204–
243. New York, NY, US: Guilford Press.
Fishbein, M., and I. Ajzen. 1975. Belief, Attitude, Intention, and Behavior: An Introduction to
Theory and Research. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Gatersleben, B., N. Murtagh, and W. Abrahamse. 2014. “Values, Identity and Pro-Environmental
Behavior.” Contemporary Social Science 9(4):374–392. doi:10.1080/21582041.2012.682086.
Glassman, L. R., and D. Albarracin. 2006. “Forming Attitudes That Predict Future Behavior: A
Meta-Analysis of the Attitude-Behavior Relation.” Psychological Bulletin 132(5):778–822.
Gould, R. K., N. M. Ardoin, J. M.
Thomsen, and N. Wyman Roth. 2019. “Exploring Connections between Environmental Learning
and Behavior through Four Everyday-Life Case Studies.” Environmental Education Research
25(3):314–340. doi:10.1080/13504622.2018.1510903.
Hart, E. 1981. “Identification of Key Characteristics of Environmental Education.” The Journal
of Environmental Education 13(1):12–16. doi:10.1080/00958964.1981.9943018.
Harvey, G. D. 1977. “Environmental Education: A Delineation of Substantive Structure.
(Doctoral Dissertation, Southern Illinois University, 1976).” Dissertation Abstracts International
38(2):611A.

Heimlich, J. E., and N. M. Ardoin. 2008. “Understanding Behavior to Understand Behavior

Change: A Literature Review.” Environmental Education Research 14(3):215–237.
doi:10.1080/13504620802148881.
Heimlich, J. E., P. Mony, and V. Yocco. 2012. “Belief to Behavior: A Vital Link.” In
International Handbook of Research on Environmental Education, edited by R. B. Stevenson, M.
Brody, J. Dillon & A. E. J. Wals. Abingdon: Routledge, pp. 262-274. Accessed 05 Feb 2019,
Routledge Handbooks Online: 10.4324/9780203813331.ch27 Hendee, J. 1972. “Challenging the
Folklore of Environmental Education.” The Journal of Environmental Education 3(3):19–23.
doi:10.1080/00958964.1972.10801653.
Hines, J., H. Hungerford, and A. Tomera. 1987. “Analysis and Synthesis of Research on
Responsible Environmental Behavior: A Meta-Analysis.” The Journal of Environmental
Education 18(2):1–8. doi:10.1080/00958964.1987. 9943482.
Hollweg, K., J. Taylor, R. Bybee, T. Marcinkowski, W. McBeth, and P. Zoido. 2011.
Developing a Framework for Assessing Environmental Literacy. (Report to the National Science
Foundation under Grant No. 1033934).
Hungerford, H., and T. Volk. 1990. “Changing Learner Behavior through Environmental
Education.” The Journal of Environmental Education 21(3):8–22.
doi:10.1080/00958964.1990.10753743.
Iozzi, L., ed. 1981. Research in Environmental Education, 1971-1980. Columbus, OH:
ERIC/SMEAC.
Iozzi, L., ed. 1984. A Summary of Research in Environmental Education, 1971-1982. The
second report of the National Commission on Environmental Education Research. (Monographs
in Environmental Education and Environmental Studies, Vol. #2). Columbus, OH:
ERIC/SMEAC.
Jackson, T. 2005. Motivating Sustainable Consumption: A Review of Evidence on Consumer
Behaviour and Behavioural Change. (Report to the Sustainable Development Research
Network). Guildford. Surrey, UK: Center for Environmental Strategy, University of Surrey.
Kim, M. S., and J. E. Hunter. 1993a. “Attitude-Behavior Relations: A Meta-Analysis of
Attitudinal Relevance and Topic.” Journal of Communication 43(1):101–142.
doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.1993.tb01251.x.
Kim, M. S., and J. E. Hunter. 1993b. “Relationships among Attitude, Behavioral Intentions, and
Behavior: A Metanalysis of past.” Research, Part 2. Communication Research 20(3):331–364.
doi:10.1177/009365093020003001.
Kollmuss, A., and J. Agyeman. 2002. “Mind the Gap: Why Do People Act Environmentally and
What Are the Barriers to Pro-Environmenta Behavior?.” Environmental Education Research
8(3):239–259. doi:10.1080/ 13504620220145401.
Kraus, S. 1990. “Attitudes and the Prediction of Behavior: A Meta-analysis.” Paper presented at
the annual convention of the American Psychological Association, Boston, MA, August 10–14,
1990. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ ED327751.pdf
Kraus, S. 1995. “Attitudes and the Prediction of Behavior: A Meta-Analysis of the Empirical
Literature.” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 21(1):58–75.
doi:10.1177/0146167295211007.
Lucas, A. 1981. “The Role of Science Education in Educating for the Environment.” The Journal
of Environmental Education 12(2):31–37.
Madden, T., P. Ellen, and I. Ajzen. 1992. “A Comparison of the Theory of Planned Behavior and
the Theory of Reasoned Action.” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 18(1):3–9.
Manstead, A. S. R. 2001. “Attitudes and Behaviour.” In International Encyclopedia of the Social
and Behavioral Sciences, edited by N.J. Smelser & P.B. Baltes, 909–913. Amsterdam, The
Netherlands: Elsevier.
Marcinkowski, T. 2004. “Using a Logic Model to Review and Analyze an Environmental
Education Program. In
NAAEE Monograph Series, Volume 1, edited by T. Volk. Washington, DC: NAAEE.
McBride, B.,. C. Brewer, A. Berkowitz, and W. Borrie. 2013. “Environmental Literacy,
Ecological Literacy, and Eco literacy: What Do we Mean and How Did we Get Here?”
Ecosphere 4(5):67–20. doi:10.1890/ES13-00075.1.
Muth
en, B. O. 2002. “Beyond SEM: General Latent Variable Modeling.” Behaviormetrika 29(1):81–
117. doi:10.2333/
bhmk.29.81.
Nilsson, A., M. Bergquist, and W. P. Schultz. 2017. “Spillover Effects in Environmental
Behaviors, across Time and
Context: A Review and Research Agenda.” Environmental Education Research 23(4):573–589.
doi:10.1080/
13504622.2016.1250148.
Prati, G., C. Albanesi, and L. Pietrantoni. 2017. “The Interplay among Environmental Attitudes,
Pro-Environmental
Behavior, Social Identity, and Pro-Environmental Institutional Climate. A Longitudinal Study.”
Environmental
Education Research 23(2):176–191. doi:10.1080/13504622.2015.1118752.
Ramsey, C., and R. Rickson. 1976. “Environmental Knowledge and Attitudes.” The Journal of
Environmental Education
8(1):10–18. doi:10.1080/00958964.1976.9941552.
Reid, A. 2019. “Blank, Blind, Bald and Bright Spots in Environmental Education Research.”
Environmental Education
Research 25(2):157–171. doi:10.1080/13504622.2019.1615735.
Reid, A., and J. Dillon. 2016a. “Environmental Education: The Major Work of Ensuring Quality
and Outcomes in
Connecting Environment and Education.” In Environmental Education (Critical Concepts in the
Environment, edited
by A. Reid and J. Dillon, 23–47. London, UK: Routledge.
Reid, A., and J. Dillon. 2016b. “Environmental Education – Shapes and Shapings” Part 2,
Volume I. In Environmental
Education (Critical Concepts in the Environment, edited by A. Reid & J. Dillon, 247–490.
London, UK: Routledge.
Reid, A., and J. Dillon. 2016c. “Experience from and through Environmental Education” Part 6,
Volume III. In
Environmental Education (Critical Concepts in the Environment, edited by A. Reid & J. Dillon,
319–527. London, UK:
Routledge.
Reid, A., and J. Dillon. 2016d. “Currents and Correctives in Environmental Education.” Part 5,
Volume III. In
Environmental Education (Critical Concepts in the Environment, edited by A. Reid and J. Dillon,
1–318. London, UK:
Routledge.
Rickinson, M. 2001. “Special Issue: Learners and Learning in Environmental Education: A
Critical Review of the
Evidence.” Environmental Education Research 7(3):207–320. doi:10.1080/13504620120065230.
Rickinson, M. 2006. “Researching and Understanding Environmental Learning: Hopes for the
Next 10 Years.”
Environmental Education Research 12(3–4):445–457. doi:10.1080/13504620600799182.
Rickinson, M., K. de Bruin, L. Walsh, and M. Hall. 2017. “What Can Evidence-Use in Practice
Learn from Evidence-Use
in Policy?.” Educational Research 59(2):173–189. doi:10.1080/00131881.2017.1304306.
Roth, C. 1992. Environmental Literacy: Its Roots, Evolution, and Directions in the 1990s.
Columbus, OH: ERIC/SMEAC.
Schmeider, A. A. 1977. “The Nature and Philosophy of Environmental Education: Goals and
Objectives.” In UNESCO,
Trends in Environmental Education, 23–34. Paris: UNESCO.