500 M.J. Bissing-Olson et al.

An Intraindividual Perspectiveon Pro-Environmental Behaviorsat Work

MEGAN J. BISSING-OLSON, HANNES ZACHER, KELLY S. FIELDING, AND AARTI IYERThe University of Queensland

Ones and Dilchert (2012) highlight theimportance of examining workplaceenvironmental sustainability at the interindi-vidual (or between-person) and organiza-tional levels. In this commentary, we aim toextend these authors’ framework by focus-ing on pro-environmental behaviors andtheir potential predictors at the intrain-dividual, or within-person, level. To thisend, we will first describe the intraindi-vidual perspective, its benefits, and thediary study methodology often used tooperationalize this perspective. Secondly,we will share how the intraindividualperspective was useful in an empiricalstudy we conducted on multilevel relation-ships among employees’ pro-environmentalattitude, daily affect, and daily pro-environmental behaviors. Finally, we willdiscuss a number of possible limitationsof the diary study methodology, ways to

Correspondence concerning this article should beaddressed to Megan J. Bissing-Olson.E-mail: m.bissing-olson@uq.edu.au

Address: School of Psychology, The University ofQueensland, Brisbane, Queensland 4072, Australia

overcome them, and directions for futureresearch.

The Intraindividual Perspectiveand Its Benefits

The intraindividual perspective involvesconceptualizing the within-person dynam-ics of employees’ pro-environmentalbehaviors and measuring these behaviorsas well as their potential antecedents andconsequences repeatedly over time. Thus,central to this perspective are intraindi-vidual as compared to interindividual dif-ferences in pro-environmental behavior.We believe that there are three impor-tant benefits of this perspective: First, itallows researchers to estimate the amountof variance in pro-environmental behav-iors that resides within persons, in additionto the variance that resides between per-sons. Research taking an intraindividualperspective on other workplace behaviorshas shown that as much as 68% of thetotal variance in task performance residedwithin persons (Binnewies, Sonnentag,& Mojza, 2009).

An intraindividual perspective 501

Second, the intraindividual perspectiveoffers researchers the opportunity to investi-gate predictors of pro-environmental behav-iors that also fluctuate within persons overtime. For example, although Ones andDilchert emphasized the potential role oftraditional between-person determinants ofjob performance (i.e., knowledge, skills,and abilities) for pro-environmental behav-iors, they focused less attention on the roleof affective factors. This is a significantissue, however, as industrial and organi-zational (I–O) psychologists have arguedthat affective experiences not only fluctuatewithin employees over time but also exertan important influence on job performanceand other work behaviors (Beal, Weiss,Barros, & MacDermid, 2005; Weiss &Cropanzano, 1996). Thus, affect mayalso help predict intraindividual differ-ences in pro-environmental behaviors inwork settings. In addition to affect, otherpotential intraindividual predictors of pro-environmental behavior include daily work-place events, attitudes such as daily jobsatisfaction, and daily self-efficacy. Includ-ing an intraindividual perspective mayalso benefit research on pro-environmentalbehavior at work because intraindividualrelationships may differ in direction andmagnitude from established interindividualrelationships (cf. Vancouver, Thompson, &Williams, 2001).

A final advantage of the intraindi-vidual perspective is that it permitsresearchers to examine cross-level interac-tion effects of within- and between-personpredictors on pro-environmental behav-iors. For example, sustainability-relatedknowledge, skills, abilities, and attitudes(which constitute relatively stable interindi-vidual differences) may moderate relation-ships between daily workplace experiencesand daily pro-environmental behavior atwork. Specifically, the effects of dailyworkplace experiences may be weakerfor employees with high levels of thesebetween-person characteristics comparedto employees with low levels because theformer group should be more capable andmotivated to engage in pro-environmental

behaviors independently of their dailexperiences.

Diary Study Methodologyand a Recent Example

Diary studies (also referred to as event-or experience-sampling studies) are anincreasingly popular methodology in I–Opsychology to investigate intraindividualvariation in workplace behaviors (Beal,2012; Ohly, Sonnentag, Niessen, & Zapf,2010). The basic design involves an initialassessment, usually an online or paper-and-pencil questionnaire, in which demo-graphic variables and other relatively stablebetween-person characteristics such astraits and attitudes are measured. This initialassessment is followed by a series of briefmeasurements of psychological constructs(e.g., affect and pro-environmental behav-iors) at specific points in time (e.g., daily orweekly). Data are typically analyzed usingmultilevel regression or multilevel structuralequation models.

In a recent daily diary study of employ-ees working in small businesses, we gath-ered initial empirical evidence on thenature of relationships between employ-ees’ pro-environmental attitude as wellas their daily affect and daily task-related and proactive pro-environmentalbehaviors (Bissing-Olson, Iyer, Fielding,& Zacher, 2012). Pro-environmental atti-tude was assessed as a stable construct inan initial survey, whereas affective expe-riences and pro-environmental behaviorswere measured daily at noon and in theevenings, respectively, across 10 workingdays. The results of our study showedthat 29% and 34% of the total vari-ance in task-related and proactive dailypro-environmental behaviors resided withinparticipants. Consistent with our expecta-tions, intraindividual variation in thesebehaviors was in part explained by employ-ees’ pro-environmental attitude, daily affec-tive experiences, and a cross-level inter-action between pro-environmental attitudeand daily activated positive affect.

502 M.J. Bissing-Olson et al.

Potential Limitations of DiaryStudies and Future ResearchDirections

Although an intraindividual perspectiveoffers several advantages for gaining a betterunderstanding of pro-environmental behav-iors at work, there are potential limitationsof the diary study methods used to investi-gate intraindividual processes (Ohly et al.,2010). First, the diary measures must bevery brief to limit participation time andeffort, which may decrease their reliabilityand validity. Therefore, in order to assesspro-environmental behaviors successfullyin diary studies, researchers could use shortmulti-item scales adapted from existing,well-validated measures (cf. Bissing-Olsonet al., 2012). Second, due to the time-intensive nature of most diary studies, par-ticipant compliance and attrition may posea difficulty. Based on our experience, werecommend that researchers send regularreminders (e.g., by text message) and offerparticipants incentives (e.g., cash paymentsor feedback reports) to increase responserates. Finally, the results of diary studiesdo not allow definitive claims about thecausal nature of relationships. To partiallyaddress this shortcoming, researchers coulduse lagged diary study designs (i.e., control-ling for previous assessments of the depen-dent variable), control for relevant con-founding variables, or combine the diarystudy methodology with an experimentalapproach.

The intraindividual perspective on pro-environmental behaviors presented in thiscommentary extends Ones and Dilchert’sframework and suggests several possibili-ties for future research on environmentalsustainability in workplaces. For example,researchers in I–O psychology could theo-rize on the extent to which different typesof pro-environmental behaviors at work

vary over time. They could further adaptexisting or propose novel theoretical frame-works that explain how predictors on theorganizational, interindividual, and intrain-dividual levels, by themselves or in com-bination, predict within-person variation inpro-environmental behaviors. To this end,researchers need to develop and validateshort subjective and objective measuresfor assessing employees’ pro-environmentalbehaviors across several days, weeks, ormonths.

ReferencesBeal, D. J. (2012). Industrial/organizational psychol-

ogy. In M. R. Mehl, & T. S. Conner (Eds.), Hand-book of research methods for studying daily life(pp. 601–619). New York, NY: Guilford.

Beal, D. J., Weiss, H. M., Barros, E., & MacDer-mid, S. M. (2005). An episodic process model ofaffective influences on performance. Journal ofApplied Psychology, 90, 1054–1068.

Binnewies, C., Sonnentag, S., & Mojza, E. J. (2009).Daily performance at work: Feeling recoveredin the morning as a predictor of day-level jobperformance. Journal of Organizational Behavior,30, 67–93.

Bissing-Olson, M. J., Iyer, A., Fielding, K. S., & Zacher,H. (2012). Relationships between daily affect andpro-environmental behavior at work: The moder-ating role of pro-environmental attitude. Journal ofOrganizational Behavior. doi: 10.1002/job.1788

Ohly, S., Sonnentag, S., Niessen, C., & Zapf, D.(2010). Diary studies in organizational research: Anintroduction and some practical recommendations.Journal of Personnel Psychology, 9, 79–93.

Ones, D. S., & Dilchert, S. (2012). Environmentalsustainability at work: A call to action. Industrialand Organizational Psychology: Perspectives onScience and Practice, 5, 444–466.

Vancouver, J. B., Thompson, C. M., & Williams, A. A.(2001). The changing signs in the relationshipsamong self-efficacy, personal goals, and per-formance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86,605–620.

Weiss, H. M., & Cropanzano, R. (1996). Affectiveevents theory: A theoretical discussion of thestructure, causes and consequences of affec-tive experiences at work. In B. M. Staw, &L. L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in organizationalbehavior (pp. 1–74). Greenwich, CT: JAI.