The Effects of Environmental Concern on Environmentally Friendly Consumer Behavior: An Exploratory Study

The Effects of Environmental Concern on Environmentally Friendly Consumer Behavior: An Exploratory Study Ann P. Minton UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA

Randall L. Rose UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA

The purpose of this exploratory study was to investigate the relative effects of environmental concern (a general attitude) and social norms pertaining to concern for the environment on three consumer behaviors and six behavioral intentions. Our primary research question was ‘‘Which has the strongest effect on environmentally concerned behaviors and behavioral intentions: attitude, the injunctive norm, or the personal norm?’’ Answers to this basic research question have important implications for marketers and public policy makers. A mail survey was administered to a sample of consumers who were the primary shoppers in their household. Confirmatory factor analysis was used to determine unidimensionality of measures. Hypotheses were tested using multivariate and univariate analysis of variance (MANOVA/ANOVA). MANOVA analysis indicated significant main effects of environmental concern, the personal norm, and the injunctive norm on the behaviors and behavioral intentions. There were no significant interactions. ANOVA results indicated that the personal norm had the primary influence on the behaviors while the attitude had the primary influence on behavioral intentions. J BUSN RES 1997. 40.37–48  1997 Elsevier Science Inc.

A

lthough the environmental movement began in the 1960’s, the Roper Organization’s Green Gauge Study for 1993 indicated that environmentally friendly consumer behavior is still growing, especially in the areas of recycling and community activism (Stisser, 1994). Consumers are becoming more knowledgeable about and competent in buying environmentally sound products, and their attitudes are growing greener (Stisser, 1994). This is good news for public and private policymakers alike, but there is still a need to increase environmentally friendly behaviors. For example, the 1993 Green Gauge Study reported that their three environ-

Address correspondence to Ann P. Minton, College of Applied Professional Sciences, University of South Carolina, Columbia, South Carolina 29208. Journal of Business Research 40, 37–48 (1997)  1997 Elsevier Science Inc. All rights reserved. 655 Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY 10010

mentally active consumer groups grew from 48% to 55% of all adults in the U.S. between 1990 and 1993 (Schwartz and Miller, 1991; Stisser, 1994). That leaves another 45% of U.S. adults who are not environmentally active. Identifying who is concerned and who is not helps policymakers target their messages to inform, persuade, and remind people to be more environmentally friendly. According to the Roper studies, there are three environmentally active consumer groups and two inactive groups which differ in terms of demographics, attitudes, and behaviors. The ‘‘true-blue greens’’ are the most committed group of environmentally active consumers who have made considerable changes in their behavior patterns. The ‘‘green-back greens’’ are committed to the environmental movement financially and philosophically, but have not changed their behavior patterns as much as the true-blue greens. The ‘‘sprouts’’ are just beginning to change their behaviors to become more environmentally friendly. The ‘‘grousers’’ think that companies should solve environmental problems instead of consumers, and the ‘‘basic browns’’ are apathetic and don’t think that their individual efforts will help. The 1990 Roper study determined the groups by using a clustering technique based on 14 different environmental behaviors (Shwartz and Miller, 1991). Purchase behaviors included reading labels, using biodegradable garbage bags, using biodegradable soaps and detergents, avoiding aerosols, avoiding products from specific companies, buying products made from and/or packaged in recycled materials, buying products in refillable packaging, and avoiding restaurants that use Styrofoam containers. Post-purchase behaviors included returning bottles and cans, recycling newspapers, and sorting trash. Other behaviors included contributing money to an environmental group, cutting down on car use, and writing to politicians. After the researchers developed the clusters based on these behavioral measures, the clusters were also ISSN 0148-2963/97/$17.00 PII S0148-2963(96)00209-3

38

J Busn Res 1997:40:37–48

described demographically. The study reported that the three environmentally active groups had higher than average levels of income and education, and were more likely to be women and to have executive or professional jobs (Schwartz and Miller, 1991). While it is important to know the demographic characteristics of the different groups, those characteristics can’t be used to predict environmental concern. Marketing researchers have found that attempts to identify or predict environmentally friendly behavior or behavioral intentions from demographic variables were not consistent (Anderson and Cunningham, 1972; Kinnear, Taylor, and Ahmed, 1974; Balderjahn, 1988; Schwepker and Cornwell, 1991; Picket, Kangun, and Grove, 1993). Many published studies of environmental concern disagree as to what predicts environmentally friendly behaviors and behavioral intentions (Hines, Hungerford, and Tomera, 1987). Just what is environmental concern and how should it be studied? A review of the literature reveals little evidence of consistency in terms of conceptualization and measurement of important constructs, along with mixed results. However, there is support for the argument that environmental concern is an attitude separate from its subsequent intentions and behaviors. In a study of the Michigan container law Crosby, Gill, and Taylor (1981) tentatively defined environmental concern as a strong positive attitude toward preserving the environment. Later, they defined environmental concern as a general or global attitude with indirect effects on behaviors through behavioral intentions (Gill, Crosby, and Taylor, 1986), based on the work of Van Liere and Dunlap (1981). This definition was supported by Zimmer, Stafford, and Stafford (1994) who described environmental concern as ‘‘a general concept that can refer to feelings about many different green issues.’’ The notion of a general attitude which precedes more specific attitudes, intentions, and behaviors is important because previous research indicates that various environmentally friendly behaviors seem to have their own predictors (Balderjahn, 1988; Pickett, Kangun, and Grove, 1993). With respect to the intentions and behaviors, other researchers categorized environmentally friendly behaviors as a subset of altruistic or prosocial behavior (Schwartz, 1977; Granzin and Olsen, 1991; Hopper and Nielsen, 1991; McCarty and Shrum, 1994), thereby linking environmentally friendly behaviors with the attitude of environmental concern, values, and various types of social norms.

Purpose of the Study Previous environmental research examined attitude-behavior or attitude-behavioral intention relationships (cf. Balderjahn, 1988; Crosby, Gill, and Taylor, 1981; Kinnear, Taylor, and Ahmed, 1974; Schwepker and Cornwell, 1991) as well as norm-behavior relationships (Schwartz, 1977; Hopper and Nielsen, 1991). However, only one study examined the combined effects of norms and attitudes on behavior and behav-

A. P. Minton and R. L. Rose

ioral intentions (Gill, Crosby, and Taylor, 1986), in the domain of voting behavior. Using the definition of environmental concern as a general attitude toward preserving the environment, the purpose of the present study was to investigate the relationship between mundane environmentally friendly consumer behaviors and environmental concern as well as injunctive and personal norms for those behaviors. Although the methods are different, this study was a replication and extension of the work of Gill, Crosby, and Taylor (1986) in that it used attitudes and norms to predict environmentally friendly behavioral intentions and behaviors. It was also a replication and extension of the Hopper and Nielson (1991) study which examined the effects of the social (injunctive) and personal norm on behaviors and intentions. The effects of the attitude and norms were tested on some simple, pro-social consumer behaviors: search for information about environmentally friendly products, product choice based on an environmentally friendly attribute, and recycling solid waste; plus a group of prosocial behavioral intentions. These intentions included signing a petition for an environmental cause, joining an environmental group, paying more taxes to support greater government control of pollution, paying higher utility bills if it meant cleaner air, not buying products from companies that pollute, and making personal sacrifices to slow down pollution. On the practical side, the results of the study will provide insights for marketing managers and policymakers to help them develop more effective strategies and communications programs to help more people behave in environmentally friendly ways. On the theoretical side, the results of the study will provide additional empirical evidence to researchers as to the consequences of environmental concern.

Environmental Concern Attitudes Various attitude constructs have been related to environmentally friendly behaviors. Using stepwise regression, (Crosby, Gill, and Taylor, 1981) found that four different attitudes (toward preserving the environment, the seriousness of the littering problem, and unemployment and higher prices as consequences of environmental legislation) were significant predictors of voting behavior. Schwepker and Cornwell (1991) used linear discriminant analysis in their study which related intentions to purchase ecologically packaged products to attitudes toward litter and ecologically conscious living. Using multivariate analysis of variance, Ellen, Wiener, and Cobb-Wallgren (1991) found that a general attitude toward improving the environment was a significant predictor of purchasing environmentally safe products, recycling, contributing money to environmental groups, joining environmental groups, communicating with elected officials, and attending public hearings. Ellen (1994) found that a general attitude toward improving the environment was a significant predictor

Environmentally Friendly Consumer Behavior

of recycling, source reduction, and political action. Ellen (1994) also reported that more specific attitudes toward the loss of convenience, the effort to shop, and effort to recycle affected recycling and source reduction behaviors as covariates. McCarty and Shrum (1994) related recycling behavior to attitudes toward the inconvenience of recycling and the importance of recycling using path analysis. These studies were chosen as examples to illustrate the range of attitude-behavior and/or attitude-behavioral intention relationships which have already been established, and the variety of methods used to study them. The present study utilized a general attitude approach to study the effects of environmental concern on intentions and behaviors along with the effects of different types of norms.

Norms and Values While most scholarly research on environmental topics has examined ‘‘friendly’’ behaviors and intentions, an interesting theoretical contribution from the psychology literature pertained to littering behavior (Cialdini, Reno, and Kallgren, 1990; Cialdini, Kallgren, and Reno, 1990). There was a dispute between two schools of social psychologists regarding the usefulness of social norms to predict and explain behavior. One school of thought criticized social norms as having little explanatory or predictive value (Darley and Latane, 1970; Krebs, 1970; Marini, 1984; Krebs and Miller, 1985). They argued that if norms are in place not only when behavior is consistent with norms, but also when behavior is inconsistent with norms, then why should we believe that norms mediated either behavior pattern? The other school of thought viewed social norms as critical components for understanding human social behavior (e.g., Berkowitz, 1972; Fishbein and Ajzen, 1975; Triandis, 1977). In an attempt to settle this dispute, Cialdini et al. (1990, 1991) distinguished among several different types of social norms. Two of these types of norms were the injunctive norm and the personal norm. The injunctive norm is conceptually like the subjective norm of the theory of reasoned action (Fishbein and Ajzen, 1975). It refers to what ‘‘others think I should do’’ and motivates behavior by imposing informal social sanctions. The personal norm is tied to the self-concept and is experienced as a feeling of moral obligation (Schwartz, 1973, 1977). It refers to what ‘‘I feel morally obligated to do’’ and motivates behavior by the desire to act in ways that are consistent with one’s values. Compliance with the personal norm results in greater self-esteem while noncompliance results in feelings of guilt. Cialdini et al. (1990, 1991) noted that their definitions would help future researchers specify which norm would be operating in their respective studies. Gill, Crosby, and Taylor (1986) used causal modeling to test the effects of a general attitude of environmental concern in the theory of reasoned action (Fishbein and Ajzen, 1975). They found a direct effect (which was not expected) of environmental concern on the behavioral intention to vote for a container law as well as indirect effects through cognitive

J Busn Res 1997:40:37–48

39

and normative structures, attitude toward voting, and the subjective norm for voting. They also reported direct effects of the attitude toward voting and the subjective norm for voting on the behavioral intention to vote, as expected. Hopper and Nielsen (1991) found that the social (injunctive) norm influenced recycling behavior indirectly through the personal norm which is purported to shape prosocial or altruistic behaviors. They also found that awareness of the consequences of the behavior moderated the personal norm-behavior relationship. That is, the personal norm influenced recycling when awareness of consequences was high. Three studies related values and environmentally friendly behaviors. Granzin and Olsen (1991) found that helping (i.e., perceived benefits of helping, empathy for society, group identity, etc.), personal values (i.e., altruism, preserving the environment, etc.), knowledge, and interpersonal influence were good (but not uniform) discriminators of recycling newspapers, donating items for reuse, and walking to conserve energy. McCarty and Shrum (1994) studied values, value orientations, and attitudes as antecedents of recycling behavior. They found that attitudes about the inconvenience of recycling had a negative influence on attitudes about the importance of recycling, that values of collectivism (group orientation) had a negative relationship with attitudes about the inconvenience of recycling, and that the importance of recycling (an attitude) had no influence on recycling. Using regression analysis, Stern and Dietz (1994) found that value orientations affect political action behavioral intentions directly as well as indirectly through beliefs, which could be construed as attitudes. McCarty and Shrum (1994) and Stern and Dietz (1994) both found support for the Homer and Kahle (1988) values-attitudes-behavior hierarchy which models values as antecedents of attitudes. To summarize what we could say we have learned about what makes people more inclined to behave in environmentally friendly ways: They are aware of various environmental problems and the consequences of their behavior, they think their individual efforts help solve the problems, they care about solving the problems, and they are willing to reallocate their resources (time, money, attention) in order to make their behaviors more friendly. We know that some values, sociopsychological variables, and to some extent, demographic variables influence attitudes and norms for various ‘‘green’’ behaviors. But there are lots of things we don’t know, one of which is the possible effects of normative influences on environmentally friendly behaviors other than recycling and voting, and the possible combined effects of attitudes and norms on a variety of behaviors and behavioral intentions.

Method Data Collection A mail survey was administered to a sample of non-faculty staff members at a Southern university who were the primary shoppers in their households. While the study used a conve-

40

J Busn Res 1997:40:37–48

A. P. Minton and R. L. Rose

Table 1. Ranges, Means, Standard Deviations, and Correlations for Variables Variable

Minimum

Maximum

Mean

Std Dev

EC

SE

RE

PN

IN

EC SEARCH RECYC PN IN

6 0 0 2 0

64 21 8 96 35

43.4938 9.3742 2.8625 52.7117 19.7222

12.4824 5.0517 2.1675 18.3558 7.4511

— 0.52 0.39 0.60 0.31

— 0.43 0.65 0.48

— 0.52 0.33

— 0.52

—

nience sample, the constraint that they be non-student adults who were the primary shoppers in their households added credibility to the results in general and to the generalizability of results to similar shoppers (Bagozzi, Baumgartner, and Yi, 1992). Questionnaires were distributed through campus mail. Of the 500 questionnaires sent, 144 were sufficiently complete to allow analysis, yielding a response rate of 29%.

Measures Some of the variables were operationalized with previously developed scales which were adapted for this study. For example, the personal norm measure which is behavior-specific was based on a measure developed by Schwartz (1977), and the environmental concern scale was adapted from the Antil and Bennet (1979) socially responsible consumption scale. Other variables were operationalized with scales that were carefully developed for the study. All the scales were pretested by a panel of marketing experts as well as by a panel of consumers. Panel members completed the questionnaires, then provided feedback in personal interviews pertaining to measurement clarity or difficulty. Some of the scales were modified and therefore improved in terms of clarity and simplicity as a result of the feedback from the panels. The modified questionnaire was assessed by another panel of consumer experts which determined that the measures were ready for the study. All the measurement scales used in this study are included in the appendix. Various analyses indicated that all the measures were unidimensional as well as acceptably reliable and valid. Table 1 reports ranges, means, standard deviations, and correlations for the measures of variables developed for this study. Table 2 reports results of confirmatory factor analyses which provided evidence of unidimensionality and reliability as described by Gerbing and Anderson (1988) for the dependent and independent variables. Factor loadings (lambda x) were all significant at the .001 level and Joreskog’s reliability coefficients for the variables were all greater than .95. Table 3 summarizes evidence of convergent and discriminant validity as described by Fornell and Larcker (1981). Four measures (search for information, environmental concern, personal norm, and injunctive norm) were included in the assessment of discriminant validity. The average variance extracted for each measure is greater than .5, indicating that more of the variance in each measure is shared with the

construct than is due to error. Furthermore, for all six paired comparisons (four measures taken two at a time), the average variance extracted for each measure is greater than gamma squared, which is the shared variance in the structural model between the pair of constructs (Fornell and Larcker, 1981). DEPENDENT VARIABLE MEASURES. The dependent variables in this study included purchase based on an environmentally friendly attribute, search for information about environmentally friendly products, recycling behavior, and six behavioral intentions. The first group of questions in the questionnaire pertained to product choice by attribute type. Respondents were presented with 14 different product categories: dishwashing liquid, dishwasher detergent, all-purpose cleaner, tile floor cleaner, bath soap, bathtub and tile cleaner, toilet cleaner, laundry detergent, fabric softener, paper napkins, paper towels, toilet tissue, facial tissue, and garbage bags. These product categories were chosen because they represented a simple marketbasket of mundane, non-food, non-durable, consumer goods which could be purchased at any retail grocery store. Respondents were asked to write the name of the most frequently selected brand in each category. The purpose of asking the brand they used was not of interest for this study. However, that information was captured during data collection and is available on request from the author. They were also asked to report why they bought that brand by placing a checkmark by attributes from a list provided. The list of attributes for each of the 14 product categories included two attributes related to the environment: ‘‘This product or its package is made with recycled ingredients’’ and ‘‘its ingredients are safe for the environment.’’ If the attribute were checked, it received a value of 1; otherwise it received a value of zero. The points were summed across product categories to form two purchase measures: one product choice based on recycled ingredients, and one based on environmentally safe ingredients. Scores for both attributed-based purchase measures ranged from 0 to 14, with higher values indicating the number of product choices based on one of two reasons related to concern for the environment. The measure for the disposal of consumer waste was similar to the measures for the purchase based on an environmental attribute in that both indicate the number of product categories included in the behavior of interest. Respondents were asked to report what different types of items they recycled in

Environmentally Friendly Consumer Behavior

J Busn Res 1997:40:37–48

41

Table 2. Confirmatory Factor Analyses: Pattern Coefficients, Standard Errors, Reliabilities Variable Search for Information S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 S6 S7 Environmental Concern EC1 EC2 EC3 EC4 EC5 EC6 EC7 EC8 EC9 EC10 EC11 EC12 EC13 EC14 EC15 EC16 Personal Norm PN1 PN2 PN3 PN4 PN5 PN6 PN7 PN8 Injunctive Norm IN1 IN2 IN3 IN4 IN5 IN6 IN7 IN8 IN9

Lambda X

Std. Error

Item Reliability

0.77 0.63 0.66 0.92 0.99 1.0 0.89

0.07 0.07 0.07 0.06 0.06 0 0.06

0.53 0.37 0.40 0.72 0.82 0.83 0.68

0.85 0.92 0.95 0.79 0.99 0.77 0.96 0.80 0.82 0.70 0.77 0.86 0.94 0.82 1 0.84

0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 0 0.08

0.57 0.65 0.68 0.51 0.73 0.49 0.69 0.52 0.54 0.42 0.49 0.58 0.67 0.54 0.73 0.56

1 0.89 0.90 0.96 0.99 0.79 0.98 0.86

0 0.06 0.06 0.05 0.05 0.06 0.05 0.06

0.85 0.69 0.71 0.79 0.84 0.56 0.81 0.65

0.94 0.94 1 0.89 0.96 0.89 0.89 0.76 0.53

0.06 0.06 0 0.07 0.06 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.08

0.73 0.72 0.80 0.66 0.75 0.66 0.66 0.50 0.26

Joreskog’s coefficient 0.95

0.98

0.98

0.97

their household by placing a checkmark by the item category (such as glass containers, aluminum cans, etc.) or to fill in a blank if their recycled item did not appear on the list. The first item on the list was ‘‘My household does not recycle.’’ If this item was checked, a score of zero was assigned. For each different type of item checked, a score of one was assigned. The points were summed to indicate the actual number of different types of items the household recycled. This measure ranged from zero to eight. Because the measures for purchase and recycling simply refer to the number of items for which the respondent performed the behaviors, no psychometric properties are reported for these dependent variables.

With respect to information search, respondents were asked to report how often they searched for information about environmentally friendly products and activities. Seven items measured various ways to search for information included comparing package label information; noticing and paying attention to advertisements about environmentally friendly products; and talking to family, friends, neighbors, and coworkers about various environmentally friendly products and activities. The response format for this measure was labeled and coded ‘‘never’’ 5 0, ‘‘seldom’’ 5 1, ‘‘sometimes’’ 5 2, and ‘‘frequently’’ 5 3. Responses were summed to produce scores ranging from 0 to 21, with higher scores indicating greater

42

J Busn Res 1997:40:37–48

A. P. Minton and R. L. Rose

Table 3. Discriminant Validity Assessment Average Variance Extracted and Gamma Squared

Variable Pairs Search for Information Environmental Concern Search for Information Personal Norm Search for Information Injunctive Norm Environmental Concern Personal Norm Environmental Concern Injunctive Norm Personal Norm Injunctive Norm

Average Variance Extracted 0.63 0.59 0.63 0.74 0.63 0.65 0.59 0.74 0.59 0.65 0.74 0.65

Gamma Squared 0.44 0.29 0.47 0.35 0.63 0.42

search for information about environmentally friendly products and activities. Confirmatory factor analysis for search for information indicated that this measure was unidimensional. All the pattern coefficients were significant at p , .001. Given the interpretation of this variable as unidimensional, the reliability for search for information was measured in two ways: coefficient alpha 5 .90, and Joreskog’s coefficient 5 .95. Evidence of convergent validity was provided by Fornell and Larcker’s reliability coefficient 5 .92. Furthermore, average variance extracted 5 .63, indicating that more of the variance in the measure was shared with the search for information construct than was due to measurement error. Six different environmentally friendly behavioral intentions were measured with single items which were also taken from the Antil and Bennett scale (1979). These behavioral intentions represent the last group of dependent variables. These behavioral intentions were analyzed individually as single item measures, therefore no psychometric properties are reported. Environmental attitudes, as well as the personal and injunctive norms, had Likert-type response formats, using a five-point response anchored by ‘‘strongly disagree’’ to ‘‘strongly agree.’’ All were scored in the direction of agreement, meaning that higher scores indicated more favorable environmental attitudes or stronger norms. Respondents completed a 16-item measure of environmental concern (EC) which was adapted from the Antil and Bennett (1979) scale to measure socially responsible consumption behavior. This measure ranged from 6 to 64 with a mean of 43.49 and standard deviation of 12.48. The EC scale was deemed unidimensional as a result of confirmatory factor analysis with all pattern loadings significant at p , .001. The measure was acceptably reliable as assessed by coefficient alpha 5 .93 and Joreskog’s coefficient 5 .98. Fornell and Larcker’s coefficient of construct reliability (convergent validity) 5 .96, and average variance extracted 5 .59. INDEPENDENT VARIABLE MEASURES.

The personal norm (PN) measure (what I feel morally obligated to do) was developed for this study, but was patterned after similar measures reported by Cialdini et al. (1991) and Schwartz (1977). The response format for this measure was a nine-point scale anchored by ‘‘no personal obligation’’ and ‘‘very strong obligation’’ and was scored in the direction of obligation. In other words, higher scores indicated a stronger personal norm. This eight-item measure ranged from two to 96 with a mean of 52.71 and standard deviation of 8.36. Confirmatory factor analysis indicated unidimensionality with pattern loadings all significant at p , .001. The personal norm measure was assessed in terms of reliability by coefficient alpha 5 .95 and Joreskog’s coefficient 5 .98. Convergent validity of the personal norm measure was evaluated with Fornell and Larcker’s coefficient 5 .96 and average variance extracted 5 .74. The injunctive norm measure (what others think I should do) was also developed for the study. The response format for this measure was the five-point Likert type response anchored by ‘‘strongly disagree’’ and ‘‘strongly agree.’’ This nineitem measure ranged from 0 to 35 with a mean of 19.72 and standard deviation of 7.45. The injunctive norm measure was interpreted as unidimensional by confirmatory factor analysis. All pattern loadings were significant at p , .001 with standard errors , .08. Given the unidimensional evaluation, reliabilities were assessed to be adequate with coefficient alpha 5 .92 and Joreskog’s coefficient 5 .97. Furthermore, evidence of convergent validity was provided by Fornell and Larcker’s coefficient 5 .94 and average variance extracted 5 .65.

Results MANOVA and ANOVA analysis of variance techniques were used to test the hypotheses. The effects of environmental concern and the norms were tested on behaviors and behavioral intentions separately. Median splits were used to classify the independent variables into higher and lower levels. MANOVA and ANOVA results are reported in Table 3, while cell means are reported in Table 4. The effects of environmental concern and the norms were first tested on the behaviors, then on the behavioral intentions, using MANOVA in both cases. For the environmentally friendly behaviors, significant overall main effects were found for environmental concern, the personal norm, and the injunctive norm (F 5 3.92, p 5 .01; F 5 8.00, p , .01, and F 5 4.45, p , .01, respectively). Significant overall main effects were also found for the six behavioral intentions: environmentally concerned attitudes (F 5 15.59, p , .01), the personal norm (F 5 2.61, p , .05), and the injunctive norm (F 5 2.89, p , .01). In other words, the four behaviors (purchase based on recycling, purchase based on safe ingredients, search for information, and recycling) differed by the favorability of environmental attitudes and by the strength of the personal and injunctive norms. Furthermore, the six behavioral inten-

Environmentally Friendly Consumer Behavior

J Busn Res 1997:40:37–48

43

Table 4. Multivariate and Univariate Analysis of Variance Dependent Variables (Behaviors) Multivariate F ratio Wilks’ lambda Interactions EC 3 PN EC 3 IN IN 3 PN EC 3 IN 3 PN

EC

b

3.92a 0.89

8.00a 0.80

4.45a 0.88

— —

5.35b 1.62 7.77a 7.03a

5.41b 5.78a 19.95a 13.70a

1.33 0.60 12.21a 7.98a

0.15 0.11 0.41 0.33

EC 15.99a 0.61

P-N 2.61a 0.90

I-N 2.89a 0.89

R2 — —

59.87a

4.94b

2.36

0.49

26.20a

7.19a

10.12a

0.40

37.67a

0.27

9.29a

0.37

24.07a

4.85b

3.67b

0.33

46.26a

6.23a

2.29

0.46

52.64a

7.75a

4.54b

0.49

F ratio 0.55 0.92 0.34 0.55

Univariate F ratio Willingness to sign a petition for an environmental cause Willingness to join a group concerned with environmental issues Willingness to pay more taxes to support greater gov’t control Willingness to pay more for electricity if it means cleaner air Willingness to stop buying from companies that pollute even if it is inconvenient Willingness to make personal sacrifices to slow down pollution a

R2

F ratio 0.59 0.44 0.85 1.29

Univariate F ratio Purchase-recycling attribute Purchase-safe ingredients attribute Search for Information Recycling (Behavioral Intentions) Multivariate F ratio Wilks’ lambda Interactions EC 3 PN EC 3 IN IN 3 PN EC 3 IN 3 PN

Independent Variables P-N I-N

p , .01. p , .05.

tions differed by the favorability of environmental attitudes and by the strength of the personal and injunctive norms, as expected. The interactions were not significant, so the univariate main effects were interpreted directly. It was interesting to note slightly different relationships among the variables at the univariate level. For example, as in the multivariate analysis, the effect of the personal norm was significant for all four of the behaviors. In other words, the more strongly the person felt an obligation to perform the behavior, the more likely s/he was to do it. Given that the personal norm had the highest F ratio of the three main effects in the multivariate analysis, this result was not surprising. However, while the effect of environmental concern was significant for purchasing due to the recycling attribute, search for information, and recycling, it was not significant for purchasing due to the safe ingredients

attribute. This means that the more concerned the person is about the environment, the more likely s/he was to purchase a product because it can be recycled or is made with recycled ingredients, to search for information about environmentally friendly products, and to recycle. But we can’t say that about purchasing a product because its ingredients are safe for the environment. Apparently, consumers make a distinction between ‘‘recycled ingredients’’ and ‘‘ingredients that are safe for the environment.’’ This distinction makes sense if one considers that the benefits of the former stem from conservation while the latter promise pollution avoidance. Furthermore, the effect of the injunctive norm was significant for searching for information about environmentally friendly products and recycling, but not for purchasing a product for either environmental attribute. This means that the more strongly the person felt that others think s/he should

44

J Busn Res 1997:40:37–48

A. P. Minton and R. L. Rose

Table 5. Dependent Variable Means EC Dependent Variables Purchase-recycling attribute Purchase-safe ingredients attribute Search for Information Recycling Willingness to sign a petition for an environmental cause Willingness to join a group concerned with environmental issues Willingness to pay more taxes to support greater gov’t control of pollution Willingness to pay more for electricity if it means cleaner air Willingness to stop buying from companies that pollute even if it is inconvenient Willingness to make personal sacrifices to slow down pollution

Independent Variables* PN Higher Lower

Overall

Higher

Lower

1.05 1.20 9.37 2.86

1.65 1.71 11.47 3.61

0.52 0.78 7.32 2.19

1.71 1.92 12.04 3.89

2.52

3.33

1.75

1.91

2.53

1.63

IN Higher

Lower

0.36 0.48 6.35 1.75

1.47 1.64 11.62 3.68

0.60 0.76 6.74 1.96

3.05

1.99

2.93

2.10

1.31

2.44

1.35

2.39

1.39

2.32

0.95

1.98

1.27

2.08

1.14

1.99

2.64

1.38

2.51

1.47

2.40

1.57

2.59

3.29

1.94

3.10

2.09

2.97

2.20

2.56

3.19

1.95

3.02

2.08

2.93

2.17

* The means comparisons for all the independent variables were significant at p , .05 using the Scheffe test.

search for information about environmentally friendly products and recycle, the more likely s/he was to do it. This difference may be due to the more public nature of searching for information and recycling than for product choice. The univariate results indicate a hierarchical effect among the independent variables on the behaviors. That is, the personal norm (what I feel morally obligated to do) had a greater effect on the behaviors than the injunctive norm (what others think I should do), and the injunctive norm had a greater effect on the behaviors than the attitude toward the environment did. The univariate results for behavioral intentions also yielded some interesting differences compared to the multivariate analysis. Environmental concern had a significant effect on all six behavioral intentions at p , .01. It also had the highest multivariate F ratio of the four independent variables. This meant that the more concerned the person was about the environment, the more willing s/he was to perform these six behaviors. The personal norm had a significant main effect on all of the behavioral intentions except for willingness to pay more taxes in support of greater government control of pollution. This meant that the more strongly the person felt obligated to perform the behaviors, the more willing s/he was to do them. The injunctive norm had a significant effect on willingness to join a group, willingness to pay more taxes, willingness to pay more for electricity, and willingness to make personal sacrifices, but not for willingness to sign a petition, and willingness to stop buying from companies that pollute. The fact that the two behavioral intentions on which the injunctive norm had no significant effect would be more politically motivated behaviors than the other four may explain the difference. These results, when taken together, also indicate a hierarchical effect of the independent variables on the

behavioral intentions. That is, environmental concern had a greater effect on behavioral intentions than the injunctive norm, and the injunctive norm had a greater effect than the personal norm did.

Discussion and Implications There were several interesting findings that resulted from this study, the most important of which were the main effects of environmentally concerned attitudes and norms on product choice, search for information, recycling, and the various behavioral intentions. These results support the work of Schwartz (1977) and Hopper and Nielsen (1991) by showing that the personal norm has the primary influence on environmentally friendly behavior. Another interesting finding pertains to the different results for behaviors and behavioral intentions. That is, attitude toward the environment had the strongest effect of the three predictors on the behavioral intentions. However, the personal norm had the strongest effect of the three predictors on product choice, information search, and recycling. Consistently with the Schwartz model of altruistic behavior, personal norms appear to shape prosocial, or in this case, ecological behaviors (Schwartz, 1977; Hopper and Nielsen, 1991). Thus, while attitude is a good predictor of intentions to act in environmentally concerned ways, a sense of personal moral obligation is more likely to lead to action in the form of environmentally friendly product choices, search, and recycling. These results support the use of segmentation based on differences in attitudes and personal norms by public and private policymakers seeking to encourage environmentally friendly behaviors. Especially among groups of people who

Environmentally Friendly Consumer Behavior

are not environmentally active, such as the ‘‘grousers’’ and ‘‘basic browns’’ identified in the 1990 Roper Green Gauge study (Schwartz and Miller, 1991), an important objective would be to engineer a shift in environmental attitudes from less favorable to more favorable. Because these groups were found to be less likely to support government environmental regulations, don’t believe their individual efforts help much, and believe that companies should solve the problems with the environment (Stisser, 1994), this attitude shift might best be accomplished by attempting to change these crucial beliefs underlying their unfavorable or neutral attitudes. Any attempt to establish a sense of personal moral obligation among members of these groups would seem to be much more difficult in the short term than changing attitudes. Public efforts to enhance the perceived value of environmental concern have been used in the past to encourage appropriate attitudes and behaviors (e.g., the ‘‘Pitch In’’ campaign and ‘‘Don’t Mess with Texas’’). In addition, private resources should be applied to educate consumers as to the link between product choices and environmental protection. Corporate activities in many strategic areas such as product development, packaging, manufacturing, and public service should be linked through informative advertising to show consumers that their product choices do help solve problems in the environment. The benefits of greener strategies in terms of cost savings, increased market share, increased profits, and national recognition have been documented elsewhere (cf. Ottman, 1992; Coddington, 1993; Kelly, 1994; Stisser, 1994). In sum, as a result of these efforts from the private and public sectors, consumers’ attitudes toward the environment may become more favorable. The public efforts should be directed to enhancing consumers’ evaluation of environmentally favorable consequences of product choices. Private efforts, then, act on the belief component of attitude by encouraging instrumental beliefs regarding product choices. That is, commercial messages will tend to affect consumers’ perceptions of the likelihood that positive environmental consequences will be obtained when certain brands or product types are purchased (Fishbein and Ajzen, 1975). When, on the average, consumers’ attitudes toward the environment are more favorable, their intentions to stop buying from companies that pollute (or buy from companies that do not pollute as much) and to make personal sacrifices to slow down pollution will be stronger and lead to more environmentally friendly consumer behaviors. A second recommendation, in addition to efforts devoted to changing environmental attitude, is based on the finding that personal norms had the strongest effect on environmentally friendly behaviors. Thus, a second strategy would be to engineer a shift towards a sense of personal, moral obligation to take care of the environment. Given the assumption that the personal environmental norm is an internalized social norm which is tied to the self-concept, this suggestion poses a greater challenge for public and private policymakers from

J Busn Res 1997:40:37–48

45

a persuasion perspective. Rather than try to directly influence the personal norm, the more effective strategy might be to work indirectly through injunctive norms. Over time, a sense of personal moral obligation may develop from an internalization of the prevailing societal view of how consumers ought to behave in the marketplace (cf. Schwartz, 1977; Hopper and Nielsen, 1991). A more direct approach to influencing personal norms would be to encourage ‘‘doing the right thing’’ through public service messages and school- or church-based programs. Research around the globe has shown that environmental education programs have favorable effects on children’s knowledge and environmental attitudes (cf. Armstrong and Impara, 1991; Keen, 1991; Francis, Boyes, Qualter, and Stranisstret, 1993). Beginning environmental awareness training at an early age is also crucial if personal norms are to be encouraged that favor environmental concern upon reaching adulthood. Because personal norms are internalized social norms, policymakers should also consider using social influence strategies such as celebrity or opinion leader endorsement of environmentally friendly behaviors which appeal to feelings of guilt for noncompliance or enhanced self-esteem for environmental concern in a like manner. Both approaches work by associating affect with behaviors, negative in the case of noncompliance, positive for environmentally friendly actions. Previous research has suggested that affect is more important for attitude and behavior change when attitudes are weak (Smith, Haugtvedt, and Petty, 1994). Therefore, such affect-laden appeals from credible sources could be effective in achieving behavior changes among members of the less environmentally concerned groups. Robert Redford’s promotion of proenvironmental behavior is one example of this approach. Along the lines of opinion leaders, Hopper and Nielsen (1991) found that using volunteer block leaders who personally visited their neighbors to encourage participation in curbside recycling had a greater effect on increased recycling behavior than less personal prompting and information distribution. Furthermore, Lord (1994) found that negatively framed messages conveyed by a personal acquaintance were more effective than positively or negatively framed messages conveyed by advertising or publicity. While recruiting people to go out and talk to their neighbors might be impractical, public and private policymakers could encourage people who are concerned about the environment to talk to their peers about environmentally friendly behaviors.

Limitations and Future Research Generalization from this study to the consumer population as a whole should be made with caution. The sample, while fairly diverse, was relatively small and drawn from staff at a single Southern university. While respondents were restricted to those adults with primary shopping responsibility for their households, it would be prudent, given sample limitations, to consider this an exploratory study.

46

J Busn Res 1997:40:37–48

With respect to future research, there is a need to identify those factors that may moderate the impact of environmental concern and norms on environmentally friendly consumer behavior. Clearly, personal norms are important determinants of environmentally friendly behaviors in their own right. However, the degree to which such norms affect behavior may be dependent on their activation at the time a product decision is made. Cialdini et al. (1990) have suggested that individual differences may chronically focus consumers on one type or norm or another. In other words, some consumers may be more likely to act in a fashion consistent with personal or injunctive norms than others. In addition, other variables have been shown to affect behavior independently of the effects of behavioral intentions. For example, volitional control has been shown to moderate the effects of intentions on behavior as well. That is, consumers who believe that they control their behavior and are able to affect desired outcomes are more likely to act in a manner consistent with their intentions (Ajzen and Madden, 1986; Bagozzi et al., 1992). The relationships of individual differences in values and personality with antecedents of environmentally friendly attitudes, norms, and behaviors is still unclear. While this study has provided additional support for the notion of environmentally friendly behaviors as prosocial or altruistic, embedding the general attitude of environmental concern within this larger nomological network is a task that remains for future research.

References Ajzen, I., and Madden, T. J.: Prediction of Goal-Directed Behavior: Attitudes, Intentions, and Perceived Behavioral Control. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 22 (1986): 453–474. Anderson, W. T. Jr., and Cunningham, W. H.: The Socially Conscious Consumer. Journal of Marketing 36 (July 1972): 23–31. Antil, J. H., and Bennett, P. D.: Construction and Validation of a Scale to Measure Socially Responsible Consumption Behavior. In The Conserver Society. Karl E. Henion and Thomas C. Kinnera eds.: American Marketing Association, Chicago, 1979, pp. 51–68. Armstrong, J. B., and Impara, J. C.: The Impact of an Environmental Education Program on Knowledge and Attitude. Journal of Environmental Education 22 (1991): 36–40. Bagozzi, R. P., Baumgartner, H., and Yi, Y.: State Versus Action Orientation and the Theory of Reasoned Action: An Application to Coupon Usage. Journal of Consumer Research 14 (March 1992): 583–587. Balderjahn, I.: Personality Variables and Environmental Attitudes as Predictors of Ecologically Responsible Consumption Patterns. Journal of Business Research 17 (1988): 51–56. Berkowitz, L.: Social Norms, Feelings, and Other Factors Affecting Helping and Altruism. In Advances in Experimental Social Psychology. L. Berkowitz ed.: Academic Press, New York, 6 (1972). Cialdini, R. B., Reno, R. R., and Kallergren, C. A.: A Focus Theory of Normative Conduct: Recycling the Concept of Norms to Reduce Littering in Public Places. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 58 (1990): 1015–1026. Cialdini, R. B., Kallgren, C. A., and Reno, R. R.: A Focus Theory of Normative Conduct: A Theoretical Refinement and Reevaluation

A. P. Minton and R. L. Rose

of the Role of Norms in Human Behavior. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology 24 (1991): 201–234. Coddington, W.: Environmental Marketing: Positive Strategies of Reaching the Green Consumer. McGraw-Hill, New York, (1993). Colford, S. W.: Fade-out for Green? Advertising Age (December 5, 1994), 1. Crosby, L. A., Gill, J. D., and Taylor, J. R.: Consumer/Voter Behavior in the Passage of the Michigan Container Law. Journal of Marketing 45 (Spring 1981): 19–32. Darley, J. M., and Latane, B.: Norms and Normative Behavior: Field Studies of Social Interdependence. In Altruism and Helping Behavior, J. Macaulay and L. Berkowitz, eds.: Academic Press, New York. 1970, pp. 83–102. Davis, J. J.: Consumer Response to Corporate Environmental Advertising. Journal of Consumer Marketing 11 (1994a): 25–37. Davis, J. J.: Federal and State Regulation of Environmental Marketing: A Manager’s Guide. SAM Advanced Management Journal Summer (1994b): 36–44. Ellen, P. S.: Do We Know What We Need to Know? Objective and Subjective Knowledge Effects on Pro-Ecological Behaviors. Journal of Business Research 30 (1994): 43–52. Ellen, P. S., Wiener, J. L., and Cobb-Walgren, C.: The Role of Perceived Consumer Effectiveness in Motivating Environmentally Conscious Behaviors. Journal of Public Policy and Marketing 10 (1991): 102–117. Fishbein, M., and Ajzen, I.: Belief, Attitude, Intention and Behavior: An Introduction to Theory and Research. Addison-Wesley, Reading Mass. 1975. Fornell, C., and Larcker, D. G.: Evaluating Structural Equation Models with Unsolved Variables and Measurement Error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18 (1981): 39–50. Francis, C., Boyes, E., Qualter, A., and Stanisstreet, M.: Ideas of Elementary Students about Reducing the ‘Greenhouse Effect.’ Science Education 77 (1993): 375–392. Gerbing, D. W., and Anderson, J. C.: An Updated Paradigm for Scale Development Incorporating Unidimensionality and Its Assessment. Journal of Marketing Research, 25 (May 1988): 186–192. Gill, J. D., Crosby, L. A., and Taylor, J. R.: Ecological Concern, Attitudes, and Social Norms in Voting Behavior. Public Opinion Quarterly 50 (1986): 537–554. Granzin, K. L., and Olsen, J. E.: Characterization Participants in Activities Protecting the Environment: A Focus on Donating, Recycling, and Conservation Behaviors. Journal of Public Policy and Marketing 10 (1991): 1–27. Hines, J. M., Hungerford, H. R., and Tomera, A. N.: Analysis and Synthesis of Research on Responsible Environmental Behavior: A Meta-Analysis. Journal of Environmental Education 18 (1987): 1–9. Homer, P., and Kahle, L. R.: A Structural Equation Test of the ValuesAttitudes-Behavior Hierarchy. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 54 (April 1988): 638–646. Hopper, J. R., and Nielsen, J. M.: Recycling as Altruistic Behavior: Normative and Behavioral Strategies to Expand Participation in a Community Recycling Program. Environment and Behavior 23 (March 1991): 195–220. Joreskog, K. G.: Statistical Analysis of Sets of Congeneric Tests. Psychometrika 36 (June 1971): 108–133. Keen, M.: The Effect of the Sunship Earth Program on Knowledge

Environmentally Friendly Consumer Behavior

and Attitude Development. Journal of Environmental Education 22 (1991): 28–32. Kelly, K.: It Really Can Pay to Clean Up Your Act. Business Week (November 7, 1994): 141. Kinnear, T. C., Taylor, J. B., and Ahmed, S. A.: Ecologically Concerned Consumers: Who are They? Journal of Marketing 38 (April 1974): 20–24. Krebs, D. L.: Altruism—An Examination of the Concept and a Review of the Literature. Psychological Bulletin 73 (1970): 258–302. Krebs, D. L., and Miller, D. T.: Altruism and Aggression. In Handbook of Social Psychology. G. Lindzey and E. Aronson eds., Random House, New York. 3rd Edition. 1985. Lord, K. R.: Motivating Recycling Behavior: A Quasiexperimental Investigation of Message and Source Strategies. Psychology and Marketing 11 (1994): 341–358. Marini, M. M.: Age and Sequencing Norms in the Transition to Adulthood. Social Forces 63 (September 1984): 229–244. McCarty, J. A., and Shrum, L. J.: The Recycling of Solid Wastes: Personal Values, Value Orientations, and Attitudes about Recycling as Antecedents of Recycling Behavior. Journal of Business Research 30 (1994): pp. 53–62. Ottman, J.: Green Marketing. NTC Business Books. Lincolnwood, Illinois. 1992. Pickett, G. M., Kangun, N., and Grove S.: Is There a General Conserving Consumer? A Public Concern. Journal of Public Policy and Marketing 12 (1993): 234–243.

J Busn Res 1997:40:37–48

47

Schwartz, J., and Miller, T.: The Earth’s Best Friends. American Demographics (February 1991): 26–35. Schwartz, S.: Normative Explanations of Helping: A Critique, Proposal, and Empirical Test. Journal of Experimental Psychology 8 (1973): 349–364. Schwartz, S.: Normative Influences on Altruism, in Advances in Experimental Social Psychology. Leonard Berkowitz, ed., Academic Press, New York 19 (1977): 221–279. Schwepker, C. H., Jr., and Cornwell, T. B.: An Examination of Ecologically Concerned Consumers and Their Intention to Purchase Ecologically Packaged Products. Journal of Public Policy and Marketing 10 (1991): 77–101. Smith, S. M., Haugvedt, C. P., and Petty, R. E.: Attitudes and Recycling: Does the Measurement of Affect Enhance Behavioral Prediction? Psychology and Marketing 11 (1994): 359–374. Stern, P. C., and Dietz, T.: The Value Basis of Environmental Concern. Journal of Social Issues 50 (1994): 65–84. Stisser, P.: A Deeper Shade of Green. American Demographics (March 1994): 24–29. Triandis, H. C.: Interpersonal Behavior. Brooks/Cole, Monterey, CA. 1977. Van Liere, K. D., and Dunlap, R. E.: The Social Bases of Environmental Concern: A Review of Hypotheses, Explanations and Empirical Evidence. Public Opinion Quarterly 44 (Summer 1981): 181–197. Zimmer, M., Stafford, T. F., and Stafford, M. R.: Green Issues: Dimensions of Environmental Concern. Journal of Business Research 30 (1994): 63–74.

48

J Busn Res 1997:40:37–48

A. P. Minton and R. L. Rose

Appendix: Questionnaire Items Search for Information 1. How often do you compare package label information about the environmental safety of the product and/or package while you are in the grocery store? 2. How often do you notice advertisements about environmentally friendly products? 3. How often do you actually pay attention to advertisements about products which are safe for the environment? 4. How often do you talk to your neighbors about various environmentally friendly products or activities? 5. How often do you talk to your close personal friends about various environmentally friendly products or activities? 6. How often do you talk to your coworkers about various environmentally friendly products or activities? 7. How often do you talk to your family members about various environmentally friendly products or activities? Injunctive Environmental Norm Measure 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9.

Most of my Most of my Most of my Most of my Most of my Most of my Most of my Most of my The leaders

friends think I should use household products that are safe for the environment. friends think I should recycle household garbage. neighbors think I should use environmentally friendly household products. neighbors think I should recycle. coworkers think I should use environmentally friendly household products. coworkers think I should recycle. family members think I should use environmentally friendly products. family members think I should recycle. of my community encourage us all to be good to the environment.

Personal Environmental Norm Measure 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.

Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do

you you you you you you you you

feel a personal, moral obligation to feel a personal, moral obligation to feel a personal, moral obligation to feel a personal, moral obligation to feel a personal, moral obligation to feel a personal, moral obligation to feel a personal, moral obligation to feel a personal, moral obligation to

buy environmentally friendly products for your household? recycle household waste? pay attention to advertisements about products which are safe for the environment? read and compare package labels for environmentally safe ingredients when you shop? buy products made with recycled ingredients? buy larger size products in order to reduce waste? do whatever you can to help improve the environment? buy products made by companies known for being environmentally responsible?

Environmental Concern Measure 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16.

I think we are not doing enough to save scarce natural resources from being used up. Natural resources must be preserved even if people must do without some products. I feel sorry that the government does not do more to help control pollution of the environment. (Reversed) Much more fuss is being made about air and water pollution than is really justified. I feel angry and frustrated when I think about the harm being done to plant and animal life by pollution. I think the government should devote more money toward supporting conservation and environmental programs. Consumers should be interested in the environmental consequences of the products they purchase. Consumers should pay higher prices for products which pollute the environment. Non-recyclable containers should be taxed to reduce waste. The government should subsidize research on technology for recycling waste products. Manufacturers should be required to use recycled materials in their operations whenever possible. Commercial advertising should be required to mention the environmental disadvantages of products. Products which pollute the environment during manufacturing or consumption should be taxed. Public schools should require all students to take a course dealing with the environment and conservation problems. I feel angry and frustrated when I think of the ways industries are polluting the environment. (Reversed) Environmental issues are overrated and do not concern me.

Behavioral Intentions Measures 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

I would be willing to sign a petition to support an environmental cause. I would consider joining a group or club which is concerned with the environment. I would be willing to pay more taxes to support greater government control of pollution. I would be willing to pay more each month for electricity if it meant cleaner air. I would be willing to stop buying products from companies guilty of polluting the environment even though it might be inconvenient for me. 6. I would be willing to make personal sacrifices for the sake of slowing down pollution even though the immediate results may not seem significant.