The Influence of Environmental Awareness on Responsible Energy Consumption—The Case of Households in Poland

Abstract

The growing impact of consumption on the environment has been attracting much attention from academics for the last couple of decades and has caused inquiries into the antecedents of responsible consumption. Previous studies focused on analyzing different antecedents of responsible consumption in various areas and contexts. However, very few studies investigated the antecedents of responsible consumption in the energy sector, and only a few referred to emerging European countries. The aim of the paper is to examine the effect of environmental awareness on responsible energy consumption. Data for this study have been collected using the survey methodology. A total of 1407 households were selected as a sample for the CAWI methods of gathering data. The territory of the study population is Poland. The methodology of research involves several measurement scales of theoretical constructs. The constructs′ reliability coefficients, as well as discriminant and convergent validity indices, showed an adequate level of measurement quality. Based on reliable and valid latent variables, the comparative analysis of mediated path models with moderated mediation is estimated. Structural causal modeling with d-separation check and sensitivity analysis of indirect causal paths is applied to test the causal research hypothesis under study. The research results confirm the significant mediational role of mobilizing attitude and environmental awareness in explaining relationships between perceived consumer effectiveness and energy efficiency and curtailment behaviors.

1. Introduction

It is needless to question the fact that global warming leads to severe and unpredictable weather, shifting rainfall patterns, and droughts that limit crop yields [1]. Kihiko and Kinoti [2] also stressed that by the end of the 21st century, the temperature will rise between 1.4 and 5.8 °C. Koch [3] indicates that the growth rate in CO² concentration has been the highest for at least 20,000 years. According to the report “Renewable and non-renewable resources” [4], natural resources are being depleted at a faster rate than they are produced or renewed by nature. The rising consumer awareness of all these environmental issues, which result in the depletion of natural resources, global warming, an increase in the world’s population, etc., increases the importance of the responsible role every market player should have. This relates not only to companies, institutions, governments, or economies but to individuals as well [5]. People must rethink their consumption behavior patterns and understand the way they acquire and dispose of resources. The awareness of Earth’s limits renders individuals more vulnerable to volatility in the sphere of the natural environment, which requires the take–make–waste approach to be amended [6]. On the other hand, the rising prosperity in countries allows quality-of-life and environmental concerns to be more prioritized by consumers. As noted by Peterson [6], having more disposable income leads to valuing environmental aspects more. The data coming from Edelman’s report say that one in two people are currently belief-driven customers [7]. Individuals’ increasing awareness of environmental issues determines the change in their consumption behaviors. Consumers are becoming more competent, environmentally sensitive, and appreciative of sustainability values. More and more frequently they make informed decisions in the area of their ecological footprint and have an increasing propensity to influence others’ sustainable behaviors. However, as stressed by Sharma, Kaur, and Syan [8], this ecological thinking very often has an economical background—saving the world, by means of, for instance, switching off the light or buying eco-efficient household appliances saves on bills.

Responsible consumer behaviors gained researchers’ attention in the second half of the 1970s with the Fisk [9] research using the term “responsible consumption”. Since that time, different approaches to the conceptualization of the concept appeared. One stream of research associates that kind of behavior solely with preserving the environment. De Castro [10], for example, defined it as “actions undertaken by an individual in favour of the preserving natural resources and with the intension to obtain a better environmental quality”. Agrawal and Gupta [11] perceive it as behavior that helps in reducing the harmful effect of consumption on the environment. This approach had been criticized by some scholars for not including human welfare, ethics and social justice, or benefits of health. Thus, the conceptualization of the phenomenon is being extended in some research by these aspects [5]. According to the authors, responsible consumption refers to actions related to the use of natural resources in a way that ensures the welfare of individuals as well as ecological equilibrium. These may include energy and water savings or ecological building. A similar approach to the conceptualization of sustainable consumption behaviors was presented by Sharma, Kaur, and Syan [12], as well as Yan and She [13]. According to the authors, that kind of behavior refers to the reasons and ways in which consumers incorporate sustainability issues into their consumption behavior. They refer to the selection, usage, and disposition of products and services in a way that minimizes the impact on society, in general, and the environment. This means resources are used wisely, and consumption behaviors result in minimum waste or pollution. The authors also stress that in order to include the essence of sustainability into customers’ consumption behaviors, they need to amend their previous consumption habits or even adopt new ones.

Results of earlier studies demonstrate two categories of responsible consumer behaviors [5,11]. The first group includes non-consumption behaviors. These are related to resource reduction and include, among others, water conservation, reduction of energy use, or car use reduction. In the literature, they are called curtailment behaviors (CB) or habitual action behavior [14]. They do not cause extra costs; however, they do require regular efforts from individuals and thus may be a kind of inconvenience for them. They are made on an everyday basis and thus may have a substantial impact on the environment. These are behaviors that require a change in customers’ habits that they were used to. The second type of responsible behavior is associated with an increase in energy efficiency and is called high-involvement buying decisions or energy efficiency behavior (EEB). They can be performed by means of the use of new technologies, solutions, and innovations that are more efficient. They include investing in energy-efficient light bulbs or substituting old and expensive home appliances for new, more efficient ones. As stressed by Janson et al. [14], these behaviors usually involve one-time purchase decisions, so the individual has to make an initial financial expense for future savings.

Nowadays, it seems vital to understand the antecedents of responsible consumer behavior. Knowledge about the motives of sustainable consumption is a prerequisite for proposing activities that enable changing behaviors in the desired direction. According to Stern et al. [15], responsible consumer behavior is influenced by the individual values and beliefs of consumers, understood as “… guiding principles in life”. They may influence the way consumers assess the severity of environmental problems and whether they decide to take any action or not (e.g., [16,17]). Such guiding principles related to the general attitude towards the environmental consequences of human behavior are called environmental awareness. Starting from a typical definition of attitude, ecological awareness is a predisposition to respond to environmental issues in a specific way [18] (p. 132). It is an element of one′s own individual system of values and beliefs, and a part of social awareness.

A widely used measure in research on environmental awareness and its effects on consumer behavior is the New Ecological Paradigm (NEP) revised by Dunlap, Van Liere, Mertig, and Jones [19] on the basis of their New Environmental Paradigm [20]. The NEP measures the support for an ecological worldview.

Essentially, the NEP scale “focused on beliefs about humanity′s ability to upset the balance of nature, the existence of limits to growth for human societies, and humanity′s right to rule over the rest of nature” [19] (p. 427). The scale was used primarily by psychologists [15], but also by politicians [21], sociologists [22], and geographers [23], and has been revised several times. The latest version [19] consists of 15 positions and was designed to improve upon the original one in several respects: (1) It taps into a wider range of facets of an ecological worldview, (2) it offers a balanced set of pro and anti-NEP items, and (3) it avoids outmoded terminology.

Environmental awareness (NEP) can precede environmental behavior (CB, EEB). However, even if people are ecologically aware, they may not necessarily behave pro-ecologically. Environmental awareness is the first step to becoming a conscious consumer [24] (p. 46). We can say that environmental awareness is operationalized through an ecologically motivated form, i.e., pro-ecological behavior. There are basically two types of attitudes used to predict pro-environmental behavior, i.e., attitudes towards nature itself and towards pro-environmental behavior. If environmental awareness (attitude) is fostered through actual pro-ecological behavior, we can use the term environmental responsibility. In other words, environmental awareness consists of a positive attitude to the environment and appropriate pro-environmental behavior.

The literature on environmental awareness indicates that one of the most important factors determining it is perceived consumer efficiency (PCE). Perceived consumer efficiency is understood as “the extent to which the consumer believes that his/her personal efforts can contribute to the solution of a problem” [25] (p. 544). Researchers combined PCE with constructs such as a perceived change in consumption [26,27,28], concern [29,30,31], and responsibility [32]. Studies that examined PCE show that the construct is positively related to pro-environmental consumption intentions and behavior across a wide range of product categories, domestic markets, and consumer groups [33,34,35,36,37]. These results suggest that PCE plays an important role in sustainable consumption, and people who have a strong belief that their consumption choices influence reality are more likely to engage in sustainable consumption.

Another determiner of environmental awareness discussed in the literature is sensitivity mobilization or mobilization attitude (MA). Bomberg and McEwen [38] presented the original application of the theory of resource mobilization in the field of energy research. They pointed out that the recent mobilization study has expanded to explain not only protest movements but also citizen mobilization around a wide range of issues including climate change and energy consumption. Mobilization refers to activating “the community to support and actively participate in initiatives related to energy reduction or production of energy from renewable or low-carbon sources” [38] (p. 436). Lippman et al. [39] proposed seven dimensions of the mobilization scale: Concern, critical consciousness, networks, leadership, collective actions, social control, and social cohesion. Empirical studies provide strong evidence of the effect of the mobilization attitude on environmentally friendly practices. Macias and Williams [40] found that after accounting for environmental concern and background characteristics, individuals living in closely connected neighborhoods are more likely to purchase chemical-free produce, use less water and household energy, and drive less due to the exposure to a variety of perspectives.

From the point of view of promoting responsible energy consumption, it may be important to research whether, and to what extent, an individual is willing to exert social control and pressure on his/her social environment in terms of saving energy and reporting to the authorities events adversely affecting the environment and how it can influence ecological awareness and, as a consequence, responsible energy consumption.

Consumer behavior may also be influenced by legal regulations and public policy. Creating positive incentives, or the lack of these incentives on the part of the public regulator, e.g., in the form of subsidies and tax cuts, may moderate the effect of environmental awareness on behavior related to energy saving. The actual impact of public policy on energy-use activities has been discussed by many researchers in the context of businesses [41,42] or consumers [43,44]. So far, the impact of the stringency of environmental regulations perceived by households has not been taken into account, for example, in the form of assessing whether the current legal regulations favor the use of renewable energy sources in the opinion of consumers. Therefore, a question arises—will the perceived stringency of environmental regulations (PSER) moderate the impact of environmental awareness on the behavior of households?

The growing impact of consumption on the environment has been attracting much attention from academics for many years now and caused some inquiries into antecedents of responsible consumption. Previous studies have focused on analyzing different antecedents of responsible consumption in various areas and contexts, but scholars concentrated largely on developed countries [11,13], which call for more research in developing markets [45]. They prove the existence of a significant relation between consumers’ beliefs, attitudes, and responsible consumption behaviors [46,47]. Gatersleben et al. [48] also investigated the role of environmental awareness in the process of sustainable consumer behavior in developed markets. The findings showed the existence of a positive influence. What remains unclear, however, is to what degree there exists a relation between the two concepts in emerging markets. Very few studies investigated antecedents of responsible consumption in emerging European countries [49]. This is likely due to the fact that consumers in these markets show less environmental commitment. Moreover, very little research referred to the energy sector [50]. Changes in consumption patterns seem to be essential in the energy sector. Final energy consumption in Polish households in 2020 equaled 557 KGOE (kilogram of oil equivalent) per capita, and in 2019, it was 553 KGOE. In the European Union, both in 2019 and 2020, it reached the level of 555 KGOE per capita [51]. Furthermore, the dynamic development of BRICS countries, especially China and India, results in an increasing demand for energy. In addition, a crisis situation in Europe caused by the war in Ukraine in 2022 has also impacted the energy sector dramatically. As a consequence, the energy price is currently climbing higher. Therefore, in this paper, we aim to examine the effect of environmental awareness on responsible consumption in the energy sector. In the context of energy-responsible consumption behaviors, previous research did not include the two types of responsible consumption simultaneously, i.e., curtailment behaviors and energy efficiency behaviors [14]. Additionally, the impact of perceived consumer effectiveness and sensitivity mobilization, as the two key determiners of environmental awareness on responsible energy consumption, has not been studied so far. That poses another gap our paper fills.

Our article contributes to the existing literature in three aspects. First, it is the first examination of the relationship between environmental awareness and responsible consumption behaviors in the emerging European market. Second, this is one of the first studies that examines the relations between these two constructs in the energy sector. Finally, for the first time, the two determiners of environmental awareness, i.e., perceived consumer effectiveness and sensitivity mobilization, have been analyzed in our study.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Methodological Approach

The aim of the research is to examine the effect of environmental awareness on responsible energy consumption. The methodology used for the development of the work was divided into 6 stages: Desk research; the formulation of the research questions; the development of the conceptual model of the research framework; the formulation of research hypotheses; the preparation of research questions for the survey; and data collection and analysis.

The following research questions were asked:

• To what extent does environmental awareness (NEP) influence the two dimensions of responsible energy consumption—curtailment behavior (CB) and energy efficiency behavior (EEB)?
• Does the perceived stringency of environmental regulations (PSER) moderate the impact of environmental awareness on responsible energy consumption and to what extent?
• How does perceived consumer efficiency (PCE) affect environmental awareness (NEP) and sensitivity mobilization (MA)?
• How can sensitivity mobilization (MA) influence the environmental awareness (NEP) of households and responsible energy consumption (CB and EEB)?

Based on the literature review, the research model shown in Figure 1 is proposed.

The following research hypotheses were formulated:

H1. 

The greater the environmental awareness (NEP), the greater the tendency of curtailment behavior (CB).

H2. 

The greater the environmental awareness (NEP), the greater the tendency of energy efficiency behavior (EEB).

H3. 

The lower the level of perceived consumer (in)efficiency (PCE), the higher the level of environmental awareness (NEP).

H4. 

The lower the level of perceived (in)efficiency (PCE), the higher the level of mobilization (NEP).

H5. 

The higher the mobilization level (MA), the greater the tendency of curtailment behavior (CB).

H6. 

The higher the mobilization level (MA), the greater the tendency of energy efficiency behavior (EEB).

H7. 

The higher the mobilization level (MA), the greater the environmental awareness (NEP).

2.2. Questionnaire Development

Scale items to measure the constructs were created (

Table 1. Measuring scale items.

Measuring Scale Items
Environmental Awareness Scale (NEP)
We are approaching the limit of the number of people the Earth can support.
2. Humans have the right to modify the natural environment to suit their needs.
3. When humans interfere with nature it often produces disastrous consequences
4. Human ingenuity will insure that we do not make the Earth unlivable
5. Humans are seriously abusing the environment
6. The Earth has plenty of natural resources if we just learn how to develop them
7. Plants and animals have as much right as humans to exist
8. The balance of nature is strong enough to cope with the impacts of modern industrial nations
9. Despite our special abilities, humans are still subject to the laws of nature
10. The so-called “ecological crisis” facing humankind has been greatly exaggerated
11. The Earth is like a spaceship with very limited room and resources
12. Humans were meant to rule over the rest of nature
13. The balance of nature is very delicate and easily upset
14. Humans will eventually learn enough about how nature works to be able to control it
15. If things continue on their present course, we will soon experience a major ecological catastrophe
Curtailment Behavior Scale (CB)
In my household we keep electrical appliances on standby
2. We remove chargers for mobile devices (e.g., tablets, phones, laptops) from the socket when we are not using them
3. We turn off the light when we leave the room
4. In the winter, I leave the windows open for long periods of time to let in fresh air
5. I prefer to shower rather than to take a bath
6. I wait until I have a full load before doing my laundry
7. I wash dirty clothes without prewashing
8. In hotels, I have the towels changed daily
9. I use a clothes dryer
10. In winter, I turn down the heat when I leave my apartment for more than 4 hours
11. In the winter, I keep the heat on so that I do not have to wear a sweater
12. In the washing machine/dishwasher we use the ECO programs
13. We boil as much water in the kettle as we use at one time
14. We use lids while cooking
Energy Efficiency Behavior Scale (EEB)
When I buy new RTV/household appliances, I make sure that it is of the highest energy efficiency
2. I have purchased lights bulbs that were more expensive but saved energy
3. I own energy efficient household devices
Sensitivity Mobilization (Mobilizing Attitude) Scale (MA)
I have pointed out unecological behavior to someone
2. I talk with friends about too much use of the energy by them
3. I read a lot about responsible energy use
4. I report actions harmful to the environment to the relevant authorities
5. I have convinced members of my family and friends to care about the energy use in their homes
6. I explain to other household members how we can save energy at home
Perceived Stringency Scale (PSER)
We need more government regulations to force people to protect the environment
2. The regulations on installing and using renewable energy sources in Poland are very beneficial for households
Perceived Consumer Effectiveness Scale (PCE)
There is not much that any one individual can do about the environment
2. The conservation efforts of one person are useless as long as other people refuse to conserve

). The design of the questionnaires was based on the literature. The 14 items for measuring the construct “curtailment customer behavior” were partly adopted from Keiser and Wilson [52] and partly from exploratory research using empirical materials [53]. To measure the energy efficiency behavior, scales of Khare [45] and Keiser and Wilson [52] were used. A modified NEP scale [19] was used to measure environmental awareness. The questionnaire also included variables measuring revised sensitivity mobilization (mobilizing attitude) [38,45,52] and perceived consumer effectiveness [54].

In the study, structured questionnaires were used. A standardized Likert-type scale (a five-point scale, ranging from “Strongly disagree” (1) to “Strongly agree” (5), as well as a subjective scale of frequency ranging from “Never do that” (1) to “Always do that” (5) in the case of CB and EEB, were used to evaluate environmental awareness and energy consumption in Polish households. The questionnaire also included respondents’ characteristics, i.e., gender, age, education, number of household members, place of residence, and self-assessment of the material situation.

After performing the exploratory factor analysis, for further analyses of the CB variable, the indicators that contributed the most to the reliability of the analyzed constructs were included—items CB2, CB5, CB11, CB12, CB13.

2.3. Data Collections

The paper is based on the results of a questionnaire research study conducted with the CAWI method. The declaration of anonymity and confidentiality, along with the description of the focus and the aim of the study, were presented to the participants in the questionnaire’s introduction. The personal information and data of the participants were anonymous.

The initial questionnaire was subjected to preliminary research. Thirty households were selected for the pre-test. The respondents rated the questionnaire according to the content and relevance of the items, and their opinions required minor corrections to improve the readability and understandability of the questionnaire. This pre-testing process allowed for the development of a comprehensive and refined questionnaire. The sample size and survey instruments have been appropriately scaled up and improved. The survey was conducted between February and March 2022, presenting the latest environmental awareness and energy consumption of the household. The link to the questionnaire was distributed via email and reached 3334 purposefully selected households from all voivodeships (the response rate was 42.2%).

2.4. Sample

The research is focused on Polish households’ inhabitants aged 18 and older. The non-random selection method was used for the selection of respondents for the study. The selected sample consisted of 1407 households. The average age of the sample households was approximately 40 years, and the household size was 3.2 individuals per house. The social and demographic characteristics of the survey participants are presented in

Table 2. Sample characteristics (%).

Characteristics	Item	%
Gender	Female	43.0
	Male	57.0
Age (years)	18–24	24.9
	25–34	11.8
	35–44	22.3
	45–54	25.9
	55–64	9.7
	65 and more	5.3
Education	Primary	2.2
	Vocational	6.4
	Secondary	36.1
	Higher	54.9
Number of householdmembers	1 person	9.6
	2 persons	25.6
	3 persons	22.3
	4 persons	27.4
	5 persons	10.2
	6 persons and more	4.8
Place of residence	Rural areas	24.8
	Towns, up to 100,000 residents	26.7
	Towns, 101,000–500,000 residents	31.6
	Towns, over 501,000 residents	16.9
Self-assessment of the material situation	Very bad	1.1
	Bad	3.6
	Sufficient	28.8
	Good	53.2
	Very good	13.4

.

3. Results

3.1. Scales’ Dimensionality

The analysis of the scales’ dimensionality was performed using Horn′s parallel analysis for principal component (PCA). The parallel analysis enables us to extract unbiased eigenvalues of the correlation matrix and thus determine the number of dimensions based on the eigenvalues extracted from the actual data matrix and from the random (uncorrelated) data matrix with the same number of indicators [55]. This method allows for the correction of the eigenvalues by the effect of the collinearity of the variables (bias) resulting from the random error.

The parallel analysis of environmental awareness using the New Environmental Policy (NEP) scale indicated one dominant dimension. Because of the large number of items in the NEP scale, the item parceling of NEP was performed using second-order hierarchical factor analysis. It resulted in seven second-order items (parcels) for NEP scale analysis. The exploratory parallel principal component analysis identified two dimensions. The unbiased eigenvalue of the first dimension was 4.335, and the second was 1.599. The estimated bias of the first dimension was 0.176, and the second dimension was 0.148. Scree plot analysis and the eigenvalue ratio provided some insight into the acceptance of one general factor. Finally, the seven-item NEP scale was accepted for further analysis.

Parallel PCA analysis of the Mobilizing Attitude (MA) scale reflected one general dimension. The unbiased eigenvalue of the first dimension was 4.453 with an eigenvalue bias of 0.093. The MA scale appeared to be unidimensional.

The Energy Efficiency Behavior (EEB) scale was also unidimensional. The adjusted eigenvalue of the first dimension was 0.229 and the bias was 0.023.

Curtailment Behavior (CB) scale consisted of a variety of indicators of actual behavior that respondents reveal in everyday life. In the final scale, the following items were included that maximized the common variance of constructs: cb2, cb5, cb11, cb12, and cb13. The retained eigenvalues showed one common factor with an unbiased eigenvalue of the first dimension of 1.593 with an eigenvalue bias of 0.071.

The Perceived stringency (PS) scale and Perceived consumer effectiveness (PCE) scale was formed by only two items; therefore, no dimensionality analysis was performed.

3.2. Reliability and Validity Analysis

The reliability of constructs was measured using Cronbach′s Alpha, McDonald′s Omega coefficient (construct reliability CR), Dijkstra–Henseler′s rho, and the Larcker–Fornell average variance extracted (AVE). McDonald′s Omega is given as:

$$CR=\frac{{\left({{\displaystyle \sum }}^{}{l}_i\right)}^2}{{\left({{\displaystyle \sum }}^{}{l}_i\right)}^2+{{\displaystyle \sum }}^{}\left(1-l_i^2\right)}$$

The Larcker–Fornell average variance extracted (AVE) is given as:

$$AVE=\frac{{{\displaystyle \sum }}^{}{l}_i^2}{{{\displaystyle \sum }}^{}{l}_i^2+{{\displaystyle \sum }}^{}\left(1-l_i^2\right)}$$

where l is the standardized factor loading for the construct.

The convergent validity of all constructs was checked using the AVE > 0.5 rule. Discriminant validity assessment was evaluated on the basis of a comparison of AVE with squared correlations (SC) between the constructs. When AVE values ≥ SC values, there is no problem with discriminant validity.

Table 3. Reliability and validity of constructs.

Measure	NEP	MA	EEB	PCE	CB
Cronbach′s Alpha	0.742	0.852	0.751	0.718	0.457
McDonald′s Omega	0.739	0.841	0.751	0.732	0.471
Dijkstra-Henseler′s rho	0.767	0.883	0.751	0.756	0.500
Average Variance Extracted	0.331	0.504	0.602	0.582	0.160
Convergent validity	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	No
Discriminant validity	No	No	Yes	No	No

presents the reliability and validity measures of all constructs. The reliability of NEP, MA, EEB, and PCE scales are acceptable. All of these constructs have reliability measures above 0.7. However, the CB scale has too-low reliability and was converted into a composite in the SEM model. The convergent validity of MA, EEB, and PCE scales is acceptable, but discriminant validity is acceptable only for the EEB scale. On the other hand, the heterotrait–monotrait ratio of the correlations matrix (HTMT matrix) shown in

Table 4. HTMT matrix.

	NEP	MA	EEB	PCE	CB
NEP	1.00
MA	0.258	1.00
EEB	0.354	0.402	1.00
PCE	0.360	0.211	0.163	1.00
CB	0.373	0.650	0.770	0.270	1.00

proves that all of the correlations are below 0.9, which indicates the appropriate validity of constructs [56].

Additionally, due to the use of the self-explicated Likert scale and cross-sectional data, the common method variance and related bias were analyzed using the Unmeasured latent method factor (ULMF) in the CFA model with the restriction of factor loadings equality for the method factor [57]. The estimated common variance for the model (squared fixed loadings) was insignificant (the method variance is equal to 0.001).

3.3. SEM Model Parameters and Goodness-of Fit

The structural model was estimated using a reflective measurement model for PCE, NEP, EEB, CB, and MA scales. The structural parameters of the model are presented in Figure 2.

The model goodness of fit is moderate. The Chi square value is 3140.463 with 212 degrees of freedom. The relative Chi-square (Chi square/df) is 5.549. The geodesic distance is 0.300 (95% critical value = 0.081), Squared Euclidian distance is 1.266 (95% critical value = 0.271) and ML distance is 1.679 (95% critical value = 0.428). Estimated distances allow us to reject the H0 hypothesis that the model-implied indicator covariance matrix equals the population indicator covariance matrix [58].

The comparative fit indices CFI and NFI are too low and equal to 0.703 and 0.665, respectively (cut-off criteria of 0.9). The Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) is acceptable and equal to 0.072. Residual measures of RMS = 0.053 and SRMR = 0.072 show relatively small, standardized residuals.

The results show significant negative relationships between perceived consumer (in)effectiveness (PCE) and both mobilizing attitude (MA) and environmental awareness (NEP). The higher the perceived (in)effectiveness of individuals (due to reverse scaling of items), the lower the mobilizing attitudes and environmental awareness. On the other hand, the mobilizing attitude and environmental awareness have a positive impact on energy efficiency behavior, whereas curtailment behavior depends significantly on mobilizing attitude only. The mobilizing attitude also has a positive relation to environmental awareness.

3.4. Effects of Mediation and Moderated Mediation

The model depicted in Figure 2 indicates the mediation role of the NEP and MA construct in the explanation of the relationships between the perceived (in)effectiveness of consumers and the two behavioral constructs. In the mediation analysis, the single-step Zhao, Lynch, and Chen Monte Carlo approach was used to test the mediation effects [59]. The first tested effect is the PCE–NEP–CB path. The Monte Carlo test of the mediation effect is significant, and the direct path is insignificant (with B = −0.068 and p = 0.139), so there is full mediation. RIT (indirect effect/total effect) is 0.055/0.123 = 0.450, so 45% of the effect of PCE on CB is mediated by NEP. RID (Indirect effect/Direct effect) is 0.055/0.068 = 0.819, that is, the mediated effect is approximately 0.8 times as large as the direct effect of PCE on CB.

The second effect is the PCE–NEP–EEB path. The Monte Carlo test of the mediation effect is significant, and the direct path is insignificant (with B = −0.010 and p = 0.781), so there is full mediation. RIT (indirect effect/total effect) is 0.074/0.084 = 0.880, so 88% of the effect of PCE on EEB is mediated by NEP. RID (Indirect effect/Direct effect) is 0.074/0.010 = 7.343, that is, the mediated effect is approximately 7.3 times as large as the direct effect of PCE on EEB.

The third effect is the MA–NEP–CB path. The Monte Carlo test of the mediation effect is significant, and the direct path is significant (with B = 0.608 and p = 0.000), so there is complementary partial mediation. RIT (indirect effect/total effect) is 0.044/0.652 = 0.067, so nearly 7% of the effect of MA on CB is mediated by NEP. RID (Indirect effect/Direct effect) is 0.044/0.608 = 0.072, that is, the mediated effect is approximately 0.1 times as large as the direct effect of MA on CB.

The fourth effect is the MA–NEP–EEB path. The Monte Carlo test of the mediation effect is significant, and the direct path is significant (with B = 0.447 and p = 0.000), so there is complementary partial mediation. RIT (indirect effect/total effect) is 0.059/0.505 = 0.116, so nearly 12% of the effect of MA on EEB is mediated by NEP. RID (Indirect effect/Direct effect) is 0.059/0.447 = 0.131, that is, the mediated effect is approximately 0.1 times as large as the direct effect of MA on EEB.

The analysis confirmed the mediating role of NEP in explaining the relationship between PCE and EEB as well as PCE and CB. Based on the results of the analysis, it can be presumed that the perceived consumer efficiency is irrelevant to energy efficiency and curtailment behavior without considering the role of environmental awareness of the consumers.

Similarly, there is complementary partial mediation of the relationship between MA and behavioral variables EEB and CB. This indicates that MA, compared to PCE, has a stronger role in the conditioning of behavioral constructs. The mediating role of NEP is still present but appears to be relatively less important.

Having significant mediation effects, the model with a moderation role of perceived stringency was estimated. The perceived stringency of environmental regulations (PSER) was estimated as a composite with formative indicators. In the estimation of model parameters, a composite structural equation model (cSEM) with a path weighting scheme was used [60].

Table 5. Moderated mediation model.

Paths	Estimate	95% C.I.	Parameter Bias
NEP – CB	0.099	−0.025; 0.216	0.003
NEP – EEB	0.246 *	0.139; 0.347	0.003
PSER – CB	−0.075	−0.158; 0.004	0.001
PSER – EEB	0.042	−0.044; 0.126	0.001
PSER × NEP – CB	−0.015	−0.078; 0.043	0.002
PSER × NEP – EEB	0.051	−0.017; 0.126	−0.003

*—significant path parameters (p < 0.05).

presents the model parameters with bootstrapped 95% confidence intervals. For simplicity, parameters for moderated variables only are presented.

The result of the analysis shows that the moderator effect of PSER is not statistically significant. The parameter bias is relatively small and does not exceed 0.003 in magnitude.

4. Discussion

During our analysis, we were able to confirm six of the seven hypotheses tested. A full summary of the hypotheses along with the decision made is presented in

Table 6. Summary of research hypotheses.

Hypothesis	Decision
H1: The greater the environmental awareness, the greater the tendency to curtailment behavior	0.087 p > 0.05 not accepted
H2: The greater the environmental awareness, the greater the tendency to energy efficiency behavior	0.227 p < 0.05 accepted
H3: The lower the level of perceived consumer (in)efficiency, the higher the level of environmental awareness.	−0.301 p < 0.05 accepted
H4: The lower the level of perceived (in)efficiency, the higher the level of mobilization.	−0.213 p < 0.05 accepted
H5: The higher the mobilization level, the greater the tendency to curtailment behavior.	0.414 p < 0.05 accepted
H6: The higher the mobilization level, the greater the tendency to energy efficiency behavior.	0.440 p < 0.05 accepted
H7: The higher the mobilization level, the greater the environmental awareness.	0.225 p < 0.05 accepted

.

As expected, the effect of environmental awareness on energy efficiency behavior was confirmed, although the effect is small. The results of the study did not allow for confirmation of the impact of environmental awareness on curtailment behavior.

The actions that are quite obvious, and often used by households especially in conditions of rising energy prices, do not depend directly on environmental awareness but rather on price factors and likely on the desire to save money, as pointed out, e.g., by Kleinschafer et al. [61] and Sharma, Kaura, and Syan [12].

It has been confirmed, in line with the literature [33,34,35,36,37], that a weak negative effect of perceived consumer (in)efficiency on environmental awareness and mobilization exists. The lower the adherence to the attitude that the individual consumer has no influence on environmental-related changes, the higher the environmental awareness. In this study, the authors used an inverted scale, not so much measuring the level of perceived consumer efficiency as inefficiency—and therefore obtained a negative relationship between the variables. As expected and consistent with the literature [29,31], PCE has been shown to have a stronger effect on environmental awareness than on mobilization.

The propensity to mobilize oneself and others in the context of environmental protection has little effect on environmental awareness. However, sensitivity mobilization has a very significant effect directly on curtailment behavior and on energy efficiency behavior.

This may be due to the fact that the main motives behind households’ behavior are more likely to depend on everyday attitudes than on a value system that dichotomously puts either humans or nature first. The weak effect of mobilization on environmental awareness may therefore be derived from the NEP scale measure used.

5. Conclusions

The analysis confirms expected relationships between latent variables in the model. Mobilizing attitudes and environmental awareness play a crucial role in explaining relationships between perceived consumer effectiveness, curtailment behavior, and energy efficiency behavior. Mobilizing attitude has an equal impact on both behavioral constructs. On the other hand, environmental awareness has an impact on energy efficiency behavior only.

This research extends our knowledge of environmental awareness and energy consumption in Polish households.

In terms of management implications, the results can be useful for policymakers in developing strategies for the effective promotion of conscious energy consumption.

The authors concluded that the next stage of the study would be to divide the respondents by age (generation) and place of residence, and to indicate the relationship between their ecological attitudes and behaviors focused on conscious and ecological energy consumption.

The research was limited to Polish consumers, so an interesting direction for further research could be a comparative analysis of the impact of environmental awareness on consumer behavior towards green energy in various European countries.