Predicting PM2.5 reduction behavior among college students: The role of beliefs and descriptive norms

Figures & data

Figure 1. Proposed research model

Figure 2. Research process

Table 1. Demographics of study participants (N = 250)

Measure	Items	N	%
Gender	male	141	56.4%
	female	109	43.6%
Grade	1^st	54	21.6%
	2^nd	53	21.2%
	3^rd	49	19.6%
	4^th	65	26.0%
	Over the 4^th	29	11.6%
Having seen a public bike	Yes	228	91.2%
	No	22	8.8%
Having ridden a public bike	Season ticket*	26	10.4%
	One-time ticket	79	31.6%
	None	145	58.0%
Message treatment	No Message	60	24.0%
	Message 1	60	24.0%
	Message 2	71	28.4%
	Message 3	59	23.6%
Total		250	100.0%

Note: * Season ticket: 7-day, 30-day, 180-day, 365-day pass

Table 2. Descriptive statistics of and correlations among IMBP constructs

Construct	M (SD)	INT	PBC	ATT	DN	PB	SB
INT	4.52(1.43)	1
PBC	5.88(1.08)	.393**	1
ATT	5.35(1.06)	.521**	.362**	1
DN	4.30(1.14)	.658**	.238**	.435**	1
PB	5.27(0.96)	.486**	.239**	.408**	.501**	1
SB	4.90(1.33)	.254**	0.026	.188**	.299**	.387**	1

Note: ** p <.01; * p < .05; N = 250. Abbreviations: INT (behavioral intention), PBC (perceived behavioral control), ATT (attitude), DN (descriptive norms), PB (strength of personal belief), SB (strength of social belief)

Table 3. The result of internal consistency reliability, convergent validity, and discriminant validity (max. iteration 300)

Construct	Composite reliability	AVE	HTMT
			ATT	DN	INT	PBC	PB	SB
ATT	0.922	0.747
DN	0.857	0.669	0.522
INT	0.956	0.878	0.577	0.764
PBC	0.848	0.739	0.461	0.32	0.489
PB	0.832	0.626	0.43	0.487	0.41	0.318
SB	0.919	0.79	0.214	0.367	0.28	0.087	0.416

Note: Abbreviations: INT (behavioral intention), PBC (perceived behavioral control), ATT (attitude), DN (descriptive norms), PB (strength of personal belief), SB (strength of social belief)

Table 4. The result of inner model (structural model) analysis (bootstrapping 5,000 in sample)

Constructs	R-Squared (R^2)	Adj. R^2	Effect size (f^2)	Q^2 predictivevalidity	VIF
ATT	0.17	0.163	0.062	0.123	1.397
DN	0.26	0.254	0.546	0.163	1.28
INT	0.58	0.575		0.498
PBC			0.103		1.206
PB			0.162 (on ATT)		1.183
			0.231 (on DN)
SB			0.001 (on ATT)		1.183
			0.017 (on DN)

Note: Abbreviations: INT (behavioral intention), PBC (perceived behavioral control), ATT (attitude), DN (descriptive norms), PB (strength of personal belief), SB (strength of social belief)

Table 5. Path model results of direct effects (significance)

Relationship (seven hypotheses)	Original sample (O)	Standard error (STDEV)	t statistics (|O/STDEV|)	p-value	Confidence interval
					2.50%	97.50%
ATT → INT (H1)	0.191	0.188	3.184	.001	0.067	0.3
DN → INT (H3)	0.542	0.544	11.039	.000	0.447	0.638
PBC → INT (H5)	0.228	0.23	4.367	.000	0.125	0.333
PB → ATT (H2a)	0.399	0.404	4.613	.000	0.218	0.564
SB → ATT (H2b)	0.031	0.033	0.439	.661	−0.102	0.178
PB → DN (H4a)	0.45	0.453	7.251	.000	0.323	0.567
SB → DN (H4b)	0.121	0.122	1.758	.079	−0.015	0.253
Note: Significant relationships bolded. Abbreviations: INT (behavioral intention), PBC (perceived behavioral control), ATT (attitude), DN (descriptive norms), PB (strength of personal belief), SB (strength of social belief)

Figure 3. Results of bootstrapping the model (R square = 58) (Bootstrapping 5,000 in sample)

Note: black line: significant, gray line: insignificant

Table 6. Path model results of indirect effects (significance)

Relationship	Original sample (O)	Standard error (STDEV)	t statistics (|O/STDEV|)	p-value	Confidence interval
					2.50%	97.50%
PB → DN → INT	0.244	0.041	6.009	.000	0.166	0.328
PB → ATT → INT	0.076	0.028	2.681	.007	0.025	0.134
SB → DN → INT	0.066	0.038	1.703	.089	−0.008	0.144
SB → ATT → INT	0.006	0.014	0.415	.678	−0.019	0.039

Note: Significant relationships bolded. Abbreviations: INT (behavioral intention), ATT (attitude), DN (descriptive norms), PB (strength of personal belief), SB (strength of social belief)

Data Availability Statement

Data for this article can be accessed https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.19103180