Abstract:

Pro-environmental behavior refers to an action that can minimize negative influences on the natural world and enhance the environment. A large number of pro-environmental behavior measurement tools have been developed, involving scales, individual behavior paradigms, and games. Self-administered scales are the most common measures of pro-environmental behavior, and most of the existing scales built the dimensions based on the behavioral domain, i.e., the scenario in which the behavior occurs, with different scales consisting of different dimensions. The five most frequently cited domains are conservation, transportation, waste disposal, consumption, and social citizenship behaviors.

When using the established scales, a number of studies selected items from the full scales for cultural appropriateness or time-saving. The selected items varied between researchers, reflecting the low standardization of pro-environmental behavior measures. Compared to the established scales, contextual questionnaires are more suitable for experimental research because the pro-environmental behaviors they measure are more amenable to change. However, contextual questionnaires are even less standardized than scales, which often vary depending on the research purpose and cultural adaption.

Behavior paradigms of individual level included laboratory paradigms and field experiments. The indicators of pro-environmental behaviors in field experiments need to be site-specific; researchers could directly observe the pro-environmental behaviors or the behavioral results. The key to designing laboratory behavioral paradigms of pro-environmental behavior is to extract the core behavioral components that reflect individuals’ environmental tendencies and then simulate these core components in the laboratory setting. The existing behavioral paradigms vary widely across behavioral domains; even within the same domain, there is a lack of universally accepted behavioral paradigms. The main issue with individual behavioral paradigms is that the pro-environmental behaviors measured are domain-specific. Consequently, whether results obtained in one domain can be generalized to other domains remains open to discussion. Additionally, even when measuring pro-environmental behavior within the same domain, the behavioral costs associated with different measurement methods vary, reducing the comparability of the results.

The above measures mostly assess individual pro-environmental behavior, while games can measure group pro-environmental behaviors. Resource dilemmas and public goods games are the two most commonly used types of games to measure environment-relevant behaviors. However, the measurement results of the game paradigm can only reflect the pro-environmental tendency when confronted with the conflict between environmental protection and short-term economic interests.

To sum up, the current pro-environmental behavior measurement suffers from low standardization and limited generalizability of measurement results. On the one hand, different tools may measure distinctly different pro-environmental behaviors. The pro-environmental behaviors measured by different tools are not homogeneous or comparable. However, researchers often treat the measurement results from these tools as interchangeable, which hinders the replicability and comparability of study findings. On the other hand, most existing measurements are confined to specific behavioral domains, thereby limiting the generalizability of findings across other domains and restricting practical applications.

The core reason for the aforementioned issues lies in the current high reliance of pro-environmental behavior measurement methods on behavioral domains, coupled with a lack of focus on behavioral attributes, which are defining and distinguishing characteristics of behaviors. This tendency can easily lead to non-equivalence among different measurement tools in terms of fundamental behavioral characteristics. Moreover, differences across domains may not just involve changes in behavioral scenarios but also variations in behavioral attributes themselves.

Therefore, the selection of measurement tools should be based on behavioral attributes. When measuring pro-environmental behavior holistically, researchers should first identify the intended behavioral attributes. It is crucial to follow a “from general to specific” logic, starting with an assessment of the general tendencies of pro-environmental behavior under these attributes, and subsequently measuring specific behaviors within the same attribute. And then “from general to specific”, initially assessing the general tendencies of pro-environmental behavior under these attributes before measuring specific behaviors within the same attribute. When intending to measure specific domain pro-environmental behaviors, researchers must ensure that the measurement tools produce results that align in behavioral attributes with actual behaviors in that domain. In defining variables, results at the overall level can be defined as “pro-environmental behavior,” but it is crucial to specify the behavioral attributes measured, such as pro-environmental behaviors conflicting with economic interests. Studies focusing solely on specific domain pro-environmental behaviors should not directly define variables as “pro-environmental behavior,”" but rather concentrate on the domain and define variables in conjunction with the study’s objectives.

To fundamentally address the standardization of pro-environmental behavior measurement and enhance the generalizability of results, it is imperative to promptly develop standardized scales and behavioral paradigms for pro-environmental behavior. Rigorous reliability and validity testing across diverse samples is essential, with corresponding domain-specific authentic behaviors serving as criterion variables.

Key words: pro-environmental behavior, behavioral domains, behavioral attributes, measurement