This exploratory study investigated the relative effects mentally active consumer groups grew from 48% to 55% of all adults in the U.S. Between 1990 and 1993. The ''true-blue greens'' are the most committed group of environmentally active consumers.
This exploratory study investigated the relative effects mentally active consumer groups grew from 48% to 55% of all adults in the U.S. Between 1990 and 1993. The ''true-blue greens'' are the most committed group of environmentally active consumers.
This exploratory study investigated the relative effects mentally active consumer groups grew from 48% to 55% of all adults in the U.S. Between 1990 and 1993. The ''true-blue greens'' are the most committed group of environmentally active consumers.
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 mentally active consumer groups grew from 48% to 55% of all adults in the U.S. between 1990 and 1993 (Schwartz and of environmental concern (a general attitude) and social norms pertaining to concern for the environment on three consumer behaviors and six Miller, 1991; Stisser, 1994). That leaves another 45% of U.S. adults who are not environmentally active. Identifying who behavioral intentions. Our primary research question was Which has the strongest effect on environmentally concerned behaviors and behavioral is concerned and who is not helps policymakers target their messages to inform, persuade, and remind people to be more intentions: attitude, the injunctive norm, or the personal norm? Answers to this basic research question have important implications for marketers environmentally friendly. According to the Roper studies, there are three environ- and public policy makers. A mail survey was administered to a sample of consumers who were the primary shoppers in their household. Confirma- mentally active consumer groups and two inactive groups which differ in terms of demographics, attitudes, and behav- tory factor analysis was used to determine unidimensionality of measures. Hypotheses were tested using multivariate and univariate analysis of iors. The true-blue greens are the most committed group of environmentally active consumers who have made consider- variance (MANOVA/ANOVA). MANOVA analysis indicated significant main effects of environmental concern, the personal norm, and the injunc- able changes in their behavior patterns. The green-back greens are committed to the environmental movement finan- tive norm on the behaviors and behavioral intentions. There were no significant interactions. ANOVA results indicated that the personal norm cially andphilosophically, but have not changed their behavior patterns as much as the true-blue greens. The sprouts are had the primary influence on the behaviors while the attitude had the primary influence on behavioral intentions. J BUSN RES 1997. 40.3748 just beginning to change their behaviors to become more environmentally friendly. The grousers think that companies 1997 Elsevier Science Inc. should solve environmental problems instead of consumers, and the basic browns are apathetic and dont think that their individual efforts will help. A lthough the environmental movement began in the The 1990 Roper study determined the groups by using a clustering technique based on 14 different environmental 1960s, the Roper Organizations Green Gauge Study for 1993 indicated that environmentally friendly con- behaviors (Shwartz and Miller, 1991). Purchase behaviors included reading labels, using biodegradable garbage bags, sumer behavior is still growing, especially in the areas of recycling and community activism (Stisser, 1994). Consumers using biodegradable soaps and detergents, avoiding aerosols, are becoming more knowledgeable about and competent in avoiding products from specific companies, buying products buying environmentally sound products, and their attitudes made from and/or packaged in recycled materials, buying are growing greener (Stisser, 1994). This is good news for products in refillable packaging, and avoiding restaurants that public and private policymakers alike, but there is still a need use Styrofoam containers. Post-purchase behaviors included to increase environmentally friendly behaviors. For example, returning bottles and cans, recycling newspapers, and sorting the 1993 Green Gauge Study reported that their three environ- 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 Address correspondence to Ann P. Minton, College of Applied Professional Sciences, University of South Carolina, Columbia, South Carolina 29208. based on these behavioral measures, the clusters were also Journal of Business Research 40, 3748 (1997) 1997 Elsevier Science Inc. All rights reserved. ISSN 0148-2963/97/$17.00 655 Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY 10010 PII S0148-2963(96)00209-3 38 J Busn Res A. P. Minton and R. L. Rose 1997:40:3748 described demographically. The study reported that the three ioral intentions (Gill, Crosby, andTaylor, 1986), inthe domain of voting behavior. environmentally active groups had higher than average levels Using the definition of environmental concern as a general of income and education, and were more likely to be women attitude toward preserving the environment, the purpose of and to have executive or professional jobs (Schwartz and the present study was to investigate the relationship between Miller, 1991). mundane environmentally friendly consumer behaviors and While it is important to knowthe demographic characteris- environmental concern as well as injunctive and personal tics of the different groups, those characteristics cant be used norms for those behaviors. Although the methods are different, to predict environmental concern. Marketing researchers have this study was a replication and extension of the work of Gill, found that attempts to identify or predict environmentally Crosby, and Taylor (1986) in that it used attitudes and norms friendly behavior or behavioral intentions from demographic to predict environmentally friendly behavioral intentions and variables were not consistent (Anderson and Cunningham, behaviors. It was also a replication and extension of the Hop- 1972; Kinnear, Taylor, and Ahmed, 1974; Balderjahn, 1988; per and Nielson (1991) study which examined the effects of Schwepker and Cornwell, 1991; Picket, Kangun, and Grove, the social (injunctive) and personal norm on behaviors and 1993). Many published studies of environmental concern dis- intentions. agree as to what predicts environmentally friendly behaviors The effects of the attitude and norms were tested on some and behavioral intentions (Hines, Hungerford, and Tomera, simple, pro-social consumer behaviors: search for information 1987). Just what is environmental concern and how should about environmentally friendly products, product choice it be studied? A review of the literature reveals little evidence based on an environmentally friendly attribute, and recycling of consistency in terms of conceptualization andmeasurement solid waste; plus a group of prosocial behavioral intentions. of important constructs, along with mixed results. However, These intentions included signing a petition for an environ- there is support for the argument that environmental concern mental cause, joining an environmental group, paying more is an attitude separate from its subsequent intentions and taxes to support greater government control of pollution, pay- behaviors. ing higher utility bills if it meant cleaner air, not buying In a study of the Michigan container law Crosby, Gill, and products from companies that pollute, and making personal Taylor (1981) tentatively defined environmental concern as sacrifices to slow down pollution. On the practical side, the a strong positive attitude toward preserving the environment. results of the study will provide insights for marketing manag- Later, they defined environmental concern as a general or ers and policymakers to help them develop more effective global attitude with indirect effects on behaviors through be- strategies and communications programs to help more people havioral intentions (Gill, Crosby, and Taylor, 1986), based behave in environmentally friendly ways. On the theoretical on the work of Van Liere and Dunlap (1981). This definition side, the results of the study will provide additional empirical was supported by Zimmer, Stafford, and Stafford (1994) who evidence to researchers as to the consequences of environmen- described environmental concern as a general concept that tal concern. 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 pre- Environmental Concern vious research indicates that various environmentally friendly Attitudes behaviors seem to have their own predictors (Balderjahn, Various attitude constructs have been related to environmen- 1988; Pickett, Kangun, and Grove, 1993). With respect to tally friendly behaviors. Using stepwise regression, (Crosby, the intentions and behaviors, other researchers categorized Gill, and Taylor, 1981) found that four different attitudes environmentally friendly behaviors as a subset of altruistic or (toward preserving the environment, the seriousness of the prosocial behavior (Schwartz, 1977; Granzin andOlsen, 1991; littering problem, and unemployment and higher prices as Hopper and Nielsen, 1991; McCarty and Shrum, 1994), consequences of environmental legislation) were significant thereby linking environmentally friendly behaviors with the predictors of voting behavior. Schwepker and Cornwell attitude of environmental concern, values, and various types (1991) used linear discriminant analysis in their study which of social norms. related intentions to purchase ecologically packaged products to attitudes toward litter and ecologically conscious living. Purpose of the Study Using multivariate analysis of variance, Ellen, Wiener, and Previous environmental research examined attitude-behavior Cobb-Wallgren (1991) found that a general attitude toward or attitude-behavioral intention relationships (cf. Balderjahn, improving the environment was a significant predictor of pur- 1988; Crosby, Gill, and Taylor, 1981; Kinnear, Taylor, and chasing environmentally safe products, recycling, contributing Ahmed, 1974; Schwepker and Cornwell, 1991) as well as money to environmental groups, joining environmental norm-behavior relationships (Schwartz, 1977; Hopper and groups, communicating with elected officials, and attending Nielsen, 1991). However, only one study examined the com- public hearings. Ellen (1994) found that a general attitude toward improving the environment was a significant predictor bined effects of norms and attitudes on behavior and behav- 39 Environmentally Friendly Consumer Behavior J Busn Res 1997:40:3748 of recycling, source reduction, and political action. Ellen and normative structures, attitude toward voting, and the (1994) also reported that more specific attitudes toward the subjective norm for voting. They also reported direct effects loss of convenience, the effort to shop, and effort to recycle of the attitude toward voting and the subjective norm for affected recycling and source reduction behaviors as covari- voting on the behavioral intention to vote, as expected. Hopper ates. McCarty and Shrum (1994) related recycling behavior and Nielsen (1991) found that the social (injunctive) norm to attitudes toward the inconvenience of recycling and the influenced recycling behavior indirectly through the personal importance of recycling using path analysis. norm which is purported to shape prosocial or altruistic be- These studies were chosen as examples to illustrate the haviors. They also found that awareness of the consequences range of attitude-behavior and/or attitude-behavioral intention of the behavior moderated the personal norm-behavior rela- relationships which have already been established, and the tionship. That is, the personal norminfluencedrecycling when variety of methods used to study them. The present study awareness of consequences was high. utilized a general attitude approach to study the effects of Three studies related values and environmentally friendly environmental concern on intentions andbehaviors along with behaviors. Granzin and Olsen (1991) found that helping (i.e., the effects of different types of norms. perceived benefits of helping, empathyfor society, group iden- tity, etc.), personal values (i.e., altruism, preserving the envi- ronment, etc.), knowledge, and interpersonal influence were Norms and Values good (but not uniform) discriminators of recycling newspa- While most scholarly research on environmental topics has pers, donating items for reuse, andwalking to conserve energy. examined friendly behaviors and intentions, an interesting McCarty and Shrum(1994) studied values, value orientations, theoretical contribution from the psychology literature per- and attitudes as antecedents of recycling behavior. They found tained to littering behavior (Cialdini, Reno, and Kallgren, that attitudes about the inconvenience of recycling had a 1990; Cialdini, Kallgren, andReno, 1990). There was a dispute negative influence on attitudes about the importance of recy- between two schools of social psychologists regarding the cling, that values of collectivism (group orientation) had a usefulness of social norms to predict and explain behavior. negative relationship with attitudes about the inconvenience One school of thought criticized social norms as having little of recycling, and that the importance of recycling (an attitude) explanatory or predictive value (Darley and Latane, 1970; had no influence on recycling. Using regression analysis, Stern Krebs, 1970; Marini, 1984; Krebs and Miller, 1985). They and Dietz (1994) found that value orientations affect political argued that if norms are in place not only when behavior is action behavioral intentions directly as well as indirectly consistent with norms, but also when behavior is inconsistent through beliefs, which could be construed as attitudes. with norms, then why should we believe that norms mediated McCarty and Shrum (1994) and Stern and Dietz (1994) both either behavior pattern? The other school of thought viewed found support for the Homer and Kahle (1988) values-atti- social norms as critical components for understanding human tudes-behavior hierarchy which models values as antecedents social behavior (e.g., Berkowitz, 1972; Fishbein and Ajzen, of attitudes. 1975; Triandis, 1977). To summarize what we could say we have learned about In an attempt to settle this dispute, Cialdini et al. (1990, what makes people more inclined to behave in environmen- 1991) distinguished among several different types of social tally friendly ways: They are aware of various environmental norms. Two of these types of norms were the injunctive norm problems and the consequences of their behavior, they think and the personal norm. The injunctive norm is conceptually their individual efforts help solve the problems, they care like the subjective norm of the theory of reasoned action about solving the problems, and they are willing to reallocate (Fishbein and Ajzen, 1975). It refers to what others think I their resources (time, money, attention) in order to make should do and motivates behavior by imposing informal so- their behaviors more friendly. We know that some values, cial sanctions. The personal norm is tied to the self-concept sociopsychological variables, and to some extent, demo- and is experienced as a feeling of moral obligation (Schwartz, graphic variables influence attitudes and norms for various 1973, 1977). It refers to what I feel morally obligated to do green behaviors. But there are lots of things we dont know, and motivates behavior by the desire to act in ways that are one of which is the possible effects of normative influences consistent with ones values. Compliance with the personal on environmentally friendly behaviors other than recycling norm results in greater self-esteem while noncompliance re- and voting, and the possible combined effects of attitudes and sults in feelings of guilt. Cialdini et al. (1990, 1991) noted norms on a variety of behaviors and behavioral intentions. 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 Method test the effects of a general attitude of environmental concern Data Collection in the theory of reasoned action (Fishbein and Ajzen, 1975). A mail survey was administered to a sample of non-faculty They found a direct effect (which was not expected) of envi- staff members at a Southern university who were the primary ronmental concern on the behavioral intention to vote for a container law as well as indirect effects through cognitive shoppers in their households. While the study used a conve- 40 J Busn Res A. P. Minton and R. L. Rose 1997:40:3748 Table 1. Ranges, Means, Standard Deviations, and Correlations for Variables Variable Minimum Maximum Mean Std Dev EC SE RE PN IN EC 6 64 43.4938 12.4824 SEARCH 0 21 9.3742 5.0517 0.52 RECYC 0 8 2.8625 2.1675 0.39 0.43 PN 2 96 52.7117 18.3558 0.60 0.65 0.52 IN 0 35 19.7222 7.4511 0.31 0.48 0.33 0.52 nience sample, the constraint that they be non-student adults construct than is due to error. Furthermore, for all six paired who were the primary shoppers in their households added comparisons (four measures taken two at a time), the average credibility to the results in general and to the generalizability variance extracted for each measure is greater than gamma of results to similar shoppers (Bagozzi, Baumgartner, and Yi, squared, which is the shared variance in the structural model 1992). Questionnaires were distributed through campus mail. between the pair of constructs (Fornell and Larcker, 1981). Of the 500 questionnaires sent, 144 were sufficiently complete DEPENDENT VARIABLE MEASURES. The dependent variables to allow analysis, yielding a response rate of 29%. in this study included purchase based on an environmentally friendly attribute, search for information about environmen- Measures tally friendly products, recycling behavior, and six behavioral Some of the variables were operationalized with previously intentions. The first group of questions in the questionnaire developed scales which were adapted for this study. For exam- pertained to product choice by attribute type. Respondents ple, the personal norm measure which is behavior-specific were presented with 14 different product categories: dish- was based on a measure developed by Schwartz (1977), and washing liquid, dishwasher detergent, all-purpose cleaner, tile the environmental concern scale was adapted from the Antil floor cleaner, bath soap, bathtub and tile cleaner, toilet cleaner, and Bennet (1979) socially responsible consumption scale. laundry detergent, fabric softener, paper napkins, paper tow- Other variables were operationalized with scales that were els, toilet tissue, facial tissue, and garbage bags. These product carefully developed for the study. All the scales were pretested categories were chosen because they represented a simple by a panel of marketing experts as well as by a panel of marketbasket of mundane, non-food, non-durable, consumer consumers. Panel members completed the questionnaires, goods which could be purchased at any retail grocery store. then provided feedback in personal interviews pertaining to Respondents were asked to write the name of the most fre- measurement clarity or difficulty. Some of the scales were quently selectedbrand in each category. The purpose of asking modified and therefore improved in terms of clarity and sim- the brand they usedwas not of interest for this study. However, plicity as a result of the feedback fromthe panels. Themodified that information was captured during data collection and is questionnaire was assessed by another panel of consumer available on request from the author. They were also asked experts which determined that the measures were ready for to report why they bought that brand by placing a checkmark the study. by attributes from a list provided. The list of attributes for All the measurement scales used in this study are included each of the 14 product categories included two attributes in the appendix. Various analyses indicated that all the mea- related to the environment: This product or its package is sures were unidimensional as well as acceptably reliable and made with recycled ingredients and its ingredients are safe valid. Table 1 reports ranges, means, standard deviations, and for the environment. If the attribute were checked, it received correlations for the measures of variables developed for this a value of 1; otherwise it received a value of zero. The points study. Table 2 reports results of confirmatory factor analyses were summed across product categories to form two purchase which provided evidence of unidimensionality and reliability measures: one product choice based on recycled ingredients, as described by Gerbing and Anderson (1988) for the depen- and one based on environmentally safe ingredients. Scores for dent and independent variables. Factor loadings (lambda x) both attributed-based purchase measures ranged from 0 to were all significant at the .001 level and Joreskogs reliability 14, with higher values indicating the number of product coefficients for the variables were all greater than .95. choices based on one of two reasons related to concern for Table 3 summarizes evidence of convergent and discrimi- the environment. nant validity as described by Fornell and Larcker (1981). Four The measure for the disposal of consumer waste was similar measures (search for information, environmental concern, to the measures for the purchase based on an environmental personal norm, and injunctive norm) were included in the attribute in that both indicate the number of product catego- assessment of discriminant validity. The average variance ex- ries included in the behavior of interest. Respondents were tracted for each measure is greater than .5, indicating that more of the variance in each measure is shared with the asked to report what different types of items they recycled in 41 Environmentally Friendly Consumer Behavior J Busn Res 1997:40:3748 Table 2. Confirmatory Factor Analyses: Pattern Coefficients, Standard Errors, Reliabilities Variable Joreskogs Search for Information Lambda X Std. Error Item Reliability coefficient S1 0.77 0.07 0.53 0.95 S2 0.63 0.07 0.37 S3 0.66 0.07 0.40 S4 0.92 0.06 0.72 S5 0.99 0.06 0.82 S6 1.0 0 0.83 S7 0.89 0.06 0.68 Environmental Concern 0.98 EC1 0.85 0.08 0.57 EC2 0.92 0.08 0.65 EC3 0.95 0.08 0.68 EC4 0.79 0.08 0.51 EC5 0.99 0.08 0.73 EC6 0.77 0.08 0.49 EC7 0.96 0.08 0.69 EC8 0.80 0.08 0.52 EC9 0.82 0.08 0.54 EC10 0.70 0.08 0.42 EC11 0.77 0.08 0.49 EC12 0.86 0.08 0.58 EC13 0.94 0.08 0.67 EC14 0.82 0.08 0.54 EC15 1 0 0.73 EC16 0.84 0.08 0.56 Personal Norm 0.98 PN1 1 0 0.85 PN2 0.89 0.06 0.69 PN3 0.90 0.06 0.71 PN4 0.96 0.05 0.79 PN5 0.99 0.05 0.84 PN6 0.79 0.06 0.56 PN7 0.98 0.05 0.81 PN8 0.86 0.06 0.65 Injunctive Norm 0.97 IN1 0.94 0.06 0.73 IN2 0.94 0.06 0.72 IN3 1 0 0.80 IN4 0.89 0.07 0.66 IN5 0.96 0.06 0.75 IN6 0.89 0.07 0.66 IN7 0.89 0.07 0.66 IN8 0.76 0.07 0.50 IN9 0.53 0.08 0.26 their household by placing a checkmark by the item category With respect to information search, respondents were asked to report howoften they searched for information about (such as glass containers, aluminum cans, etc.) or to fill in a blank if their recycled item did not appear on the list. The environmentally friendly products and activities. Seven items measured various ways to search for information included first item on the list was My household does not recycle. If this item was checked, a score of zero was assigned. For each comparing package label information; noticing and paying attention to advertisements about environmentally friendly different type of item checked, a score of one was assigned. The points were summed to indicate the actual number of products; and talking to family, friends, neighbors, and co- workers about various environmentally friendly products and different types of items the household recycled. This measure ranged from zero to eight. Because the measures for purchase activities. The response format for this measure was labeled and coded never 0, seldom 1, sometimes 2, and and recycling simply refer to the number of items for which the respondent performed the behaviors, no psychometric frequently 3. Responses were summed to produce scores ranging from 0 to 21, with higher scores indicating greater properties are reported for these dependent variables. 42 J Busn Res A. P. Minton and R. L. Rose 1997:40:3748 Table 3. Discriminant Validity Assessment Average Variance Ex- The personal norm (PN) measure (what I feel morally tracted and Gamma Squared obligated to do) was developed for this study, but was pat- terned after similar measures reported by Cialdini et al. (1991) Average Variance and Schwartz (1977). The response format for this measure Variable Pairs Extracted Gamma Squared was a nine-point scale anchored by no personal obligation and very strong obligation and was scored in the direction of Search for Information 0.63 0.44 obligation. In other words, higher scores indicated a stronger Environmental Concern 0.59 personal norm. This eight-item measure ranged from two to Search for Information 0.63 0.29 Personal Norm 0.74 96 with a mean of 52.71 and standard deviation of 8.36. Search for Information 0.63 0.47 Confirmatory factor analysis indicated unidimensionality with Injunctive Norm 0.65 pattern loadings all significant at p .001. The personal norm Environmental Concern 0.59 0.35 measure was assessed in terms of reliability by coefficient Personal Norm 0.74 alpha .95 and Joreskogs coefficient .98. Convergent Environmental Concern 0.59 0.63 Injunctive Norm 0.65 validity of the personal norm measure was evaluated with Personal Norm 0.74 0.42 Fornell and Larckers coefficient .96 and average variance Injunctive Norm 0.65 extracted .74. The injunctive norm measure (what others think I should do) was also developed for the study. The response format search for information about environmentally friendly prod- for this measure was the five-point Likert type response an- ucts and activities. chored by strongly disagree and strongly agree. This nine- Confirmatory factor analysis for search for information in- item measure ranged from 0 to 35 with a mean of 19.72 and dicated that this measure was unidimensional. All the pattern standard deviation of 7.45. The injunctive norm measure was coefficients were significant at p .001. Given the interpreta- interpreted as unidimensional by confirmatory factor analysis. tion of this variable as unidimensional, the reliability for search All pattern loadings were significant at p .001 with standard for information was measured in two ways: coefficient alpha errors .08. Giventhe unidimensional evaluation, reliabilities .90, and Joreskogs coefficient .95. Evidence of convergent were assessed to be adequate with coefficient alpha .92 validity was provided by Fornell and Larckers reliability coef- and Joreskogs coefficient .97. Furthermore, evidence of ficient .92. Furthermore, average variance extracted .63, convergent validity was provided by Fornell and Larckers indicating that more of the variance in the measure was shared coefficient .94 and average variance extracted .65. with the search for information construct than was due to measurement error. Results Six different environmentally friendly behavioral intentions were measured with single items which were also taken from MANOVA and ANOVA analysis of variance techniques were the Antil andBennett scale (1979). These behavioral intentions used to test the hypotheses. The effects of environmental represent the last group of dependent variables. These behav- concern and the norms were tested on behaviors and behav- ioral intentions were analyzed individually as single item mea- ioral intentions separately. Median splits were used to classify sures, therefore no psychometric properties are reported. the independent variables into higher and lower levels. MA- NOVA and ANOVA results are reported in Table 3, while cell INDEPENDENT VARIABLE MEASURES. Environmental attitudes, means are reported in Table 4. as well as the personal and injunctive norms, had Likert-type The effects of environmental concern and the norms were response formats, using a five-point response anchored by first tested on the behaviors, then on the behavioral intentions, strongly disagree to strongly agree. All were scored in the using MANOVA in both cases. For the environmentally direction of agreement, meaning that higher scores indicated friendly behaviors, significant overall main effects were found more favorable environmental attitudes or stronger norms. for environmental concern, the personal norm, andthe injunc- Respondents completed a 16-item measure of environmental tive norm (F 3.92, p .01; F 8.00, p .01, and F concern (EC) which was adapted from the Antil and Bennett 4.45, p .01, respectively). Significant overall main effects (1979) scale to measure socially responsible consumption be- were also found for the six behavioral intentions: environmen- havior. This measure ranged from 6 to 64 with a mean of tally concerned attitudes (F 15.59, p .01), the personal 43.49 and standard deviation of 12.48. The EC scale was norm (F 2.61, p .05), and the injunctive norm (F deemed unidimensional as a result of confirmatory factor anal- 2.89, p .01). In other words, the four behaviors (purchase ysis with all pattern loadings significant at p .001. The based on recycling, purchase based on safe ingredients, search measure was acceptably reliable as assessed by coefficient for information, and recycling) differed by the favorability of alpha .93 and Joreskogs coefficient .98. Fornell and environmental attitudes and by the strength of the personal Larckers coefficient of construct reliability (convergent valid- ity) .96, and average variance extracted .59. and injunctive norms. Furthermore, the six behavioral inten- 43 Environmentally Friendly Consumer Behavior J Busn Res 1997:40:3748 Table 4. Multivariate and Univariate Analysis of Variance Independent Variables Dependent Variables EC P-N I-N R 2 (Behaviors) Multivariate F ratio 3.92 a 8.00 a 4.45 a
Wilks lambda 0.89 0.80 0.88
Interactions F ratio EC PN 0.59 EC IN 0.44 IN PN 0.85 EC IN PN 1.29 Univariate F ratio Purchase-recycling attribute 5.35 b 5.41 b 1.33 0.15 Purchase-safe ingredients attribute 1.62 5.78 a 0.60 0.11 Search for Information 7.77 a 19.95 a 12.21 a 0.41 Recycling 7.03 a 13.70 a 7.98 a 0.33 (Behavioral Intentions) EC P-N I-N R 2 Multivariate F ratio 15.99 a 2.61 a 2.89 a
Wilks lambda 0.61 0.90 0.89
Interactions F ratio EC PN 0.55 EC IN 0.92 IN PN 0.34 EC IN PN 0.55 Univariate F ratio Willingness to sign a petition for an environmental cause 59.87 a 4.94 b 2.36 0.49 Willingness to join a group concerned with environmental issues 26.20 a 7.19 a 10.12 a 0.40 Willingness to pay more taxes to support greater govt control 37.67 a 0.27 9.29 a 0.37 Willingness to pay more for electricity if it means cleaner air 24.07 a 4.85 b 3.67 b 0.33 Willingness to stop buying from companies that pollute even if it is inconvenient 46.26 a 6.23 a 2.29 0.46 Willingness to make personal sacrifices to slow down pollution 52.64 a 7.75 a 4.54 b 0.49 a p .01. b p .05. tions differed by the favorability of environmental attitudes attribute. This means that the more concerned the person is about the environment, the more likely s/he was to purchase and by the strength of the personal and injunctive norms, as expected. a product because it can be recycled or is made with recycled ingredients, to search for information about environmentally The interactions were not significant, so the univariate main effects were interpreted directly. It was interesting to note friendly products, and to recycle. But we cant say that about purchasing a product because its ingredients are safe for the slightly different relationships among the variables at the uni- variate level. For example, as in the multivariate analysis, the environment. Apparently, consumers make a distinction be- tween recycled ingredients and ingredients that are safe effect of the personal norm was significant for all four of the behaviors. In other words, the more strongly the person felt for the environment. This distinction makes sense if one considers that the benefits of the former stem from conserva- an obligation to perform the behavior, the more likely s/he was to do it. Given that the personal norm had the highest tion while the latter promise pollution avoidance. Furthermore, the effect of the injunctive norm was signifi- F ratio of the three main effects in the multivariate analysis, this result was not surprising. However, while the effect of cant for searching for information about environmentally friendly products and recycling, but not for purchasing a environmental concern was significant for purchasing due to the recycling attribute, search for information, and recycling, product for either environmental attribute. This means that the more strongly the person felt that others think s/he should it was not significant for purchasing due to the safe ingredients 44 J Busn Res A. P. Minton and R. L. Rose 1997:40:3748 Table 5. Dependent Variable Means Independent Variables* EC PN IN Dependent Variables Overall Higher Lower Higher Lower Higher Lower Purchase-recycling attribute 1.05 1.65 0.52 1.71 0.36 1.47 0.60 Purchase-safe ingredients attribute 1.20 1.71 0.78 1.92 0.48 1.64 0.76 Search for Information 9.37 11.47 7.32 12.04 6.35 11.62 6.74 Recycling 2.86 3.61 2.19 3.89 1.75 3.68 1.96 Willingness to sign a petition for an environmen- tal cause 2.52 3.33 1.75 3.05 1.99 2.93 2.10 Willingness to join a group concerned with envi- ronmental issues 1.91 2.53 1.31 2.44 1.35 2.39 1.39 Willingness to pay more taxes to support greater govt control of pollution 1.63 2.32 0.95 1.98 1.27 2.08 1.14 Willingness to pay more for electricity if it means cleaner air 1.99 2.64 1.38 2.51 1.47 2.40 1.57 Willingness to stop buying from companies that pollute even if it is inconvenient 2.59 3.29 1.94 3.10 2.09 2.97 2.20 Willingness to make personal sacrifices to slow down pollution 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 prod- behavioral intentions. That is, environmental concern had a greater effect on behavioral intentions than the injunctive ucts and recycle, the more likely s/he was to do it. This difference may be due to the more public nature of searching norm, and the injunctive norm had a greater effect than the personal norm did. for information and recycling than for product choice. The univariate results indicate a hierarchical effect among the inde- pendent variables on the behaviors. That is, the personal norm Discussion and Implications (what I feel morally obligated to do) had a greater effect on the behaviors than the injunctive norm (what others think I There were several interesting findings that resulted from this study, the most important of which were the main effects of should do), and the injunctive norm had a greater effect on the behaviors than the attitude toward the environment did. environmentally concerned attitudes and norms on product choice, search for information, recycling, and the various be- The univariate results for behavioral intentions also yielded some interesting differences compared to the multivariate havioral intentions. These results support the work of Schwartz (1977) and Hopper and Nielsen (1991) by showing analysis. Environmental concern had a significant effect on all six behavioral intentions at p .01. It also had the highest that the personal norm has the primary influence on environ- mentally friendly behavior. Another interesting finding per- multivariate F ratio of the four independent variables. This meant that the more concerned the person was about the tains to the different results for behaviors andbehavioral inten- tions. That is, attitude toward the environment had the environment, the more willing s/he was to perform these six behaviors. The personal norm had a significant main effect strongest effect of the three predictors on the behavioral inten- tions. However, the personal norm had the strongest effect of on all of the behavioral intentions except for willingness to pay more taxes in support of greater government control of the three predictors on product choice, information search, andrecycling. Consistently with the Schwartz model of altruis- pollution. This meant that the more strongly the person felt obligated to perform the behaviors, the more willing s/he was tic behavior, personal norms appear to shape prosocial, or in this case, ecological behaviors (Schwartz, 1977; Hopper and to do them. The injunctive norm had a significant effect on willingness to join a group, willingness to pay more taxes, Nielsen, 1991). Thus, while attitude is a good predictor of intentions to act in environmentally concerned ways, a sense willingness to pay more for electricity, and willingness to make personal sacrifices, but not for willingness to sign a of personal moral obligation is more likely to lead to action in the form of environmentally friendly product choices, petition, and willingness to stop buying from companies that pollute. The fact that the two behavioral intentions on which search, and recycling. These results support the use of segmentation based on the injunctive norm had no significant effect would be more politically motivated behaviors than the other four may explain differences in attitudes and personal norms by public and private policymakers seeking to encourage environmentally the difference. These results, when taken together, also indi- cate a hierarchical effect of the independent variables on the friendly behaviors. Especially among groups of people who 45 Environmentally Friendly Consumer Behavior J Busn Res 1997:40:3748 are not environmentally active, such as the grousers and a persuasion perspective. Rather than try to directly influence the personal norm, the more effective strategy might be to basic browns identified in the 1990 Roper Green Gauge work indirectly through injunctive norms. Over time, a sense study (Schwartz and Miller, 1991), an important objective of personal moral obligation may develop from an internaliza- would be to engineer a shift in environmental attitudes from tion of the prevailing societal view of how consumers ought less favorable to more favorable. Because these groups were to behave in the marketplace (cf. Schwartz, 1977; Hopper found to be less likely to support government environmental and Nielsen, 1991). regulations, dont believe their individual efforts help much, A more direct approach to influencing personal norms and believe that companies should solve the problems with would be to encourage doing the right thing through public the environment (Stisser, 1994), this attitude shift might best service messages and school- or church-based programs. Re- be accomplished by attempting to change these crucial beliefs search around the globe has shown that environmental educa- underlying their unfavorable or neutral attitudes. Any attempt tion programs have favorable effects on childrens knowledge to establish a sense of personal moral obligation among mem- andenvironmental attitudes (cf. Armstrong and Impara, 1991; bers of these groups would seem to be much more difficult Keen, 1991; Francis, Boyes, Qualter, and Stranisstret, 1993). in the short term than changing attitudes. Public efforts to Beginning environmental awareness training at an early age enhance the perceived value of environmental concern have is also crucial if personal norms are to be encouraged that been used in the past to encourage appropriate attitudes and favor environmental concern upon reaching adulthood. behaviors (e.g., the Pitch In campaign and Dont Mess with Because personal norms are internalized social norms, poli- Texas). In addition, private resources should be applied to cymakers should also consider using social influence strategies educate consumers as to the link between product choices such as celebrity or opinion leader endorsement of environ- and environmental protection. Corporate activities in many mentally friendly behaviors which appeal to feelings of guilt strategic areas such as product development, packaging, man- for noncompliance or enhanced self-esteem for environmental ufacturing, and public service should be linked through infor- concern ina like manner. Bothapproaches work by associating mative advertising to show consumers that their product affect with behaviors, negative in the case of noncompliance, choices do help solve problems in the environment. The bene- positive for environmentally friendly actions. Previous re- fits of greener strategies in terms of cost savings, increased search has suggested that affect is more important for attitude market share, increased profits, and national recognition have and behavior change when attitudes are weak (Smith, Haug- been documented elsewhere (cf. Ottman, 1992; Coddington, tvedt, and Petty, 1994). Therefore, such affect-laden appeals 1993; Kelly, 1994; Stisser, 1994). from credible sources could be effective in achieving behavior In sum, as a result of these efforts from the private and changes among members of the less environmentally con- public sectors, consumers attitudes toward the environment cerned groups. Robert Redfords promotion of proenviron- may become more favorable. The public efforts should be mental behavior is one example of this approach. Along the directed to enhancing consumers evaluation of environmen- lines of opinion leaders, Hopper and Nielsen (1991) found tally favorable consequences of product choices. Private ef- that using volunteer block leaders who personally visited their forts, then, act on the belief component of attitude by encour- neighbors to encourage participation in curbside recycling aging instrumental beliefs regarding product choices. That is, had a greater effect on increased recycling behavior than less commercial messages will tend to affect consumers percep- personal prompting and information distribution. Further- tions of the likelihood that positive environmental conse- more, Lord (1994) found that negatively framed messages quences will be obtained when certain brands or product conveyed by a personal acquaintance were more effective than types are purchased (Fishbein and Ajzen, 1975). When, on positively or negatively framed messages conveyedby advertis- the average, consumers attitudes toward the environment are ing or publicity. While recruiting people to go out and talk more favorable, their intentions to stop buying from compa- to their neighbors might be impractical, public and private nies that pollute (or buy from companies that do not pollute policymakers could encourage people who are concerned as much) and to make personal sacrifices to slow down pollu- about the environment to talk to their peers about environ- tion will be stronger andleadto more environmentally friendly mentally friendly behaviors. consumer behaviors. A second recommendation, in addition to efforts devoted Limitations and Future Research to changing environmental attitude, is based on the finding that personal norms had the strongest effect on environmen- Generalization from this study to the consumer population tally friendly behaviors. Thus, a second strategy would be to as a whole should be made with caution. The sample, while engineer a shift towards a sense of personal, moral obligation fairly diverse, was relatively small and drawn from staff at a to take care of the environment. Given the assumption that single Southern university. While respondents were restricted the personal environmental norm is an internalized social to those adults with primary shopping responsibility for their norm which is tied to the self-concept, this suggestion poses households, it would be prudent, given sample limitations, to consider this an exploratory study. a greater challenge for public and private policymakers from 46 J Busn Res A. P. Minton and R. L. Rose 1997:40:3748 of the Role of Norms in Human Behavior. Advances in Experimental With respect to future research, there is a need to identify Social Psychology 24 (1991): 201234. those factors that may moderate the impact of environmental Coddington, W.: Environmental Marketing: Positive Strategies of Reach- concern and norms on environmentally friendly consumer ing the Green Consumer. McGraw-Hill, New York, (1993). behavior. Clearly, personal norms are important determinants Colford, S. W.: Fade-out for Green? Advertising Age (December 5, of environmentally friendly behaviors in their own right. How- 1994), 1. ever, the degree to which such norms affect behavior may be Crosby, L. A., Gill, J. D., and Taylor, J. R.: Consumer/Voter Behavior dependent on their activation at the time a product decision inthe Passage of the Michigan Container Law. Journal of Marketing is made. Cialdini et al. (1990) have suggested that individual 45 (Spring 1981): 1932. differences may chronically focus consumers on one type or Darley, J. M., and Latane, B.: Norms and Normative Behavior: Field norm or another. In other words, some consumers may be Studies of Social Interdependence. In Altruism and Helping Behav- more likely to act in a fashion consistent with personal or ior, J. Macaulay and L. Berkowitz, eds.: Academic Press, New injunctive norms than others. In addition, other variables have York. 1970, pp. 83102. been shown to affect behavior independently of the effects of Davis, J. J.: Consumer Response to Corporate Environmental Adver- behavioral intentions. For example, volitional control has been tising. Journal of Consumer Marketing 11 (1994a): 2537. shown to moderate the effects of intentions on behavior as Davis, J. J.: Federal and State Regulation of Environmental Marketing: well. That is, consumers who believe that they control their A Managers Guide. SAM Advanced Management Journal Summer (1994b): 3644. behavior and are able to affect desired outcomes are more likely to act in a manner consistent with their intentions (Ajzen Ellen, P. S.: Do We Know What We Need to Know? Objective and Subjective Knowledge Effects on Pro-Ecological Behaviors. Journal and Madden, 1986; Bagozzi et al., 1992). The relationships of Business Research 30 (1994): 4352. of individual differences in values and personality with ante- Ellen, P. S., Wiener, J. L., and Cobb-Walgren, C.: The Role of Per- cedents of environmentally friendly attitudes, norms, and be- ceived Consumer Effectiveness in Motivating Environmentally haviors is still unclear. While this study has provided addi- Conscious Behaviors. Journal of Public Policy and Marketing 10 tional support for the notion of environmentally friendly (1991): 102117. behaviors as prosocial or altruistic, embedding the general Fishbein, M., and Ajzen, I.: Belief, Attitude, Intention and Behavior: attitude of environmental concern within this larger nomologi- An Introduction to Theory and Research. Addison-Wesley, Reading cal network is a task that remains for future research. Mass. 1975. Fornell, C., and Larcker, D. G.: Evaluating Structural Equation Mod- els with Unsolved Variables and Measurement Error. Journal of References Marketing Research, 18 (1981): 3950. Ajzen, I., and Madden, T. J.: Prediction of Goal-Directed Behavior: Attitudes, Intentions, and Perceived Behavioral Control. Journal Francis, C., Boyes, E., Qualter, A., and Stanisstreet, M.: Ideas of Elementary Students about Reducing the Greenhouse Effect. Sci- of Experimental Social Psychology, 22 (1986): 453474. ence Education 77 (1993): 375392. Anderson, W. T. Jr., and Cunningham, W. H.: The Socially Conscious Consumer. Journal of Marketing 36 (July 1972): 2331. Gerbing, D. W., and Anderson, J. C.: An Updated Paradigm for Scale Development Incorporating Unidimensionality and Its Assess- Antil, J. H., and Bennett, P. D.: Construction and Validation of a ment. Journal of Marketing Research, 25 (May 1988): 186192. Scale to Measure Socially Responsible Consumption Behavior. In The Conserver Society. Karl E. Henion and Thomas C. Kinnera Gill, J. D., Crosby, L. A., and Taylor, J. R.: Ecological Concern, Attitudes, and Social Norms in Voting Behavior. Public Opinion eds.: American Marketing Association, Chicago, 1979, pp. 5168. Quarterly 50 (1986): 537554. Armstrong, J. B., and Impara, J. C.: The Impact of an Environmental Education Program on Knowledge and Attitude. Journal of Envi- Granzin, K. L., and Olsen, J. E.: Characterization Participants in Activities Protecting the Environment: A Focus on Donating, Re- ronmental Education 22 (1991): 3640. cycling, and Conservation Behaviors. Journal of Public Policy and Bagozzi, R. P., Baumgartner, H., and Yi, Y.: State Versus Action Marketing 10 (1991): 127. Orientation and the Theory of Reasoned Action: An Application to Coupon Usage. Journal of Consumer Research 14 (March 1992): Hines, J. M., Hungerford, H. R., and Tomera, A. N.: Analysis and Synthesis of Research on Responsible Environmental Behavior: 583587. A Meta-Analysis. Journal of Environmental Education 18 (1987): Balderjahn, I.: Personality Variables and Environmental Attitudes 19. as Predictors of Ecologically Responsible Consumption Patterns. Journal of Business Research 17 (1988): 5156. Homer, P., and Kahle, L. R.: AStructural Equation Test of the Values- Attitudes-Behavior Hierarchy. Journal of Personality and Social Psy- Berkowitz, L.: Social Norms, Feelings, and Other Factors Affecting chology 54 (April 1988): 638646. Helping and Altruism. In Advances in Experimental Social Psychol- ogy. L. Berkowitz ed.: Academic Press, New York, 6 (1972). Hopper, J. R., and Nielsen, J. M.: Recycling as Altruistic Behavior: Normative and Behavioral Strategies to Expand Participation in Cialdini, R. B., Reno, R. R., and Kallergren, C. A.: A Focus Theory a Community Recycling Program. Environment and Behavior 23 of Normative Conduct: Recyclingthe Concept of Norms to Reduce (March 1991): 195220. Littering in Public Places. Journal of Personality and Social Psychol- ogy 58 (1990): 10151026. Joreskog, K. G.: Statistical Analysis of Sets of Congeneric Tests. Psychometrika 36 (June 1971): 108133. Cialdini, R. B., Kallgren, C. A., and Reno, R. R.: A Focus Theory of Normative Conduct: A Theoretical Refinement and Reevaluation Keen, M.: The Effect of the Sunship Earth Program on Knowledge 47 Environmentally Friendly Consumer Behavior J Busn Res 1997:40:3748 and Attitude Development. Journal of Environmental Education 22 Schwartz, J., and Miller, T.: The Earths Best Friends. American Demo- graphics (February 1991): 2635. (1991): 2832. Schwartz, S.: Normative Explanations of Helping: A Critique, Pro- Kelly, K.: It Really Can Pay to Clean Up Your Act. Business Week posal, and Empirical Test. Journal of Experimental Psychology 8 (November 7, 1994): 141. (1973): 349364. Kinnear, T. C., Taylor, J. B., and Ahmed, S. A.: Ecologically Con- Schwartz, S.: Normative Influences on Altruism, in Advances in Exper- cerned Consumers: Who are They? Journal of Marketing 38 (April imental Social Psychology. Leonard Berkowitz, ed., Academic Press, 1974): 2024. New York 19 (1977): 221279. Krebs, D. L.: AltruismAn Examination of the Concept and a Review Schwepker, C. H., Jr., and Cornwell, T. B.: An Examination of Ecolog- of the Literature. Psychological Bulletin 73 (1970): 258302. ically Concerned Consumers and Their Intention to Purchase Krebs, D. L., and Miller, D. T.: Altruismand Aggression. In Handbook Ecologically Packaged Products. Journal of Public Policy and Mar- of Social Psychology. G. Lindzey and E. Aronson eds., Random keting 10 (1991): 77101. House, New York. 3rd Edition. 1985. Smith, S. M., Haugvedt, C. P., and Petty, R. E.: Attitudes and Recy- Lord, K. R.: Motivating Recycling Behavior: A Quasiexperimental cling: Does the Measurement of Affect Enhance Behavioral Predic- Investigation of Message and Source Strategies. Psychology and tion? Psychology and Marketing 11 (1994): 359374. Marketing 11 (1994): 341358. Stern, P. C., and Dietz, T.: The Value Basis of Environmental Concern. Marini, M. M.: Age and Sequencing Norms in the Transition to Journal of Social Issues 50 (1994): 6584. Adulthood. Social Forces 63 (September 1984): 229244. Stisser, P.: A Deeper Shade of Green. American Demographics (March McCarty, J. A., and Shrum, L. J.: The Recycling of Solid Wastes: 1994): 2429. Personal Values, Value Orientations, and Attitudes about Recy- Triandis, H. C.: Interpersonal Behavior. Brooks/Cole, Monterey, CA. cling as Antecedents of Recycling Behavior. Journal of Business 1977. Research 30 (1994): pp. 5362. VanLiere, K. D., and Dunlap, R. E.: The Social Bases of Environmental Ottman, J.: Green Marketing. NTC Business Books. Lincolnwood, Concern: A Review of Hypotheses, Explanations and Empirical Illinois. 1992. Evidence. Public Opinion Quarterly 44 (Summer 1981): 181197. Pickett, G. M., Kangun, N., and Grove S.: Is There a General Conserv- Zimmer, M., Stafford, T. F., and Stafford, M. R.: Green Issues: Dimen- ing Consumer? A Public Concern. Journal of Public Policy and sions of Environmental Concern. Journal of Business Research 30 (1994): 6374. Marketing 12 (1993): 234243. 48 J Busn Res A. P. Minton and R. L. Rose 1997:40:3748 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. Most of my friends think I should use household products that are safe for the environment. 2. Most of my friends think I should recycle household garbage. 3. Most of my neighbors think I should use environmentally friendly household products. 4. Most of my neighbors think I should recycle. 5. Most of my coworkers think I should use environmentally friendly household products. 6. Most of my coworkers think I should recycle. 7. Most of my family members think I should use environmentally friendly products. 8. Most of my family members think I should recycle. 9. The leaders of my community encourage us all to be good to the environment. Personal Environmental Norm Measure 1. Do you feel a personal, moral obligation to buy environmentally friendly products for your household? 2. Do you feel a personal, moral obligation to recycle household waste? 3. Do you feel a personal, moral obligation to pay attention to advertisements about products which are safe for the environment? 4. Do you feel a personal, moral obligation to read and compare package labels for environmentally safe ingredients when you shop? 5. Do you feel a personal, moral obligation to buy products made with recycled ingredients? 6. Do you feel a personal, moral obligation to buy larger size products in order to reduce waste? 7. Do you feel a personal, moral obligation to do whatever you can to help improve the environment? 8. Do you feel a personal, moral obligation to buy products made by companies known for being environmentally responsible? Environmental Concern Measure 1. I think we are not doing enough to save scarce natural resources from being used up. 2. Natural resources must be preserved even if people must do without some products. 3. I feel sorry that the government does not do more to help control pollution of the environment. 4. (Reversed) Much more fuss is being made about air and water pollution than is really justified. 5. I feel angry and frustrated when I think about the harm being done to plant and animal life by pollution. 6. I think the government should devote more money toward supporting conservation and environmental programs. 7. Consumers should be interested in the environmental consequences of the products they purchase. 8. Consumers should pay higher prices for products which pollute the environment. 9. Non-recyclable containers should be taxed to reduce waste. 10. The government should subsidize research on technology for recycling waste products. 11. Manufacturers should be required to use recycled materials in their operations whenever possible. 12. Commercial advertising should be required to mention the environmental disadvantages of products. 13. Products which pollute the environment during manufacturing or consumption should be taxed. 14. Public schools should require all students to take a course dealing with the environment and conservation problems. 15. I feel angry and frustrated when I think of the ways industries are polluting the environment. 16. (Reversed) Environmental issues are overrated and do not concern me. Behavioral Intentions Measures 1. I would be willing to sign a petition to support an environmental cause. 2. I would consider joining a group or club which is concerned with the environment. 3. I would be willing to pay more taxes to support greater government control of pollution. 4. I would be willing to pay more each month for electricity if it meant cleaner air. 5. 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.