literature review

Journal of Consumer Marketing Exploring the role of anticipated guilt on pro-environmental behavior – a suggested typology of residents in France based on their recycling patterns Leila Elgaaied,

Article information: To cite this document: Leila Elgaaied, (2012) "Exploring the role of anticipated guilt on pro‐environmental behavior – a suggested typology of residents in France based on their recycling patterns", Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 29 Issue: 5, pp.369-377, https:// doi.org/10.1108/07363761211247488 Permanent link to this document: https://doi.org/10.1108/07363761211247488

Downloaded on: 10 July 2017, At: 17:07 (PT) References: this document contains references to 39 other documents. To copy this document: [email protected] The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 1539 times since 2012*

Users who downloaded this article also downloaded: (2012),"Understanding pro-environmental behavior: A comparison of sustainable consumers and apathetic consumers", International Journal of Retail &amp; Distribution Management, Vol. 40 Iss 5 pp. 388-403 <a href="https:// doi.org/10.1108/09590551211222367">https://doi.org/10.1108/09590551211222367</a> (1994),"Conceptualizing Guilt in the Consumer Decision-making Process", Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 11 Iss 3 pp. 33-43 <a href="https://doi.org/10.1108/07363769410065454">https://doi.org/10.1108/07363769410065454</a>

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:226864 []

For Authors If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.

About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and services.

Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation.

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

D ow

nl oa

de d

by J

am es

C oo

k U

ni ve

rs it

y A

t 17

:0 7

10 J

ul y

20 17

( P

T )

Exploring the role of anticipated guilt on pro-environmental behavior – a suggested

typology of residents in France based on their recycling patterns

Leila Elgaaied

University of Toulouse, Toulouse, France

Abstract Purpose – So far, few studies dealing with the determinants of pro-environmental behavior have examined the impact of emotional variables. This research aims to extend previous work on the role of affective motivations underlying ecological behavior by exploring the influence of anticipated guilt on recycling. Design/methodology/approach – A cluster analysis was conducted among 276 French interviewees based on their current recycling behavior, anticipated guilt, environmental concern, awareness of negative consequences and beliefs about facilitating conditions in their community of residence. In order to confirm assumptions related to the suggested typology, further quantitative tests were performed. Findings – Three profiles were identified. Results suggest that environmental concern and awareness of the negative consequences associated with the increase of waste volume are not sufficient conditions to stimulate diligent recycling efforts. Anticipated guilt appears to influence behavior more directly and totally mediates the relationship between environmental concern and intention to recycle. Research limitations/implications – Implications of this research exclude countries where recycling is mandatory or represents a strongly internalized social norm. Practical implications – This study holds important implications in terms of public authorities’ intervention. The emergence of anticipated guilt as a key determinant of intention to recycle suggests that guilt appeals could be a relevant communication strategy in order to promote recycling. Originality/value – This research provides new insights to understand the role of anticipated guilt on ecological behavior using a typology. A predictive model of intention to recycle was also proposed.

Keywords Pro-environmental behavior, Recycling, Anticipated guilt, Environmental concern, Typology, Cluster analysis, France

Paper type Research paper

An executive summary for managers and executive

readers can be found at the end of this article.

Introduction

Since the 1970s, pro-environmental behavior has been a

major topic of interest for researchers, essentially in the fields of social psychology and marketing. The key objective is to identify the determinants of environmentally friendly behavior. In that framework, a large number of studies focused on environmental concern as the main motivation for ecological behavior, even though empirical evidence highlights a disappointing relationship between general environmental attitudes and specific behaviors (Hines et al., 1986/1987; Bamberg, 2003). Other interesting cognitive determinants were also examined (i.e. beliefs, values, personal and social norms, knowledge, etc.), however the role of emotions and affective responses in general has not been sufficiently addressed (Carrus et al., 2008).

This research aims at developing previous academic works

dealing with the effect of emotions, and particularly

anticipated guilt, on environmentally-friendly behaviors.

More specifically, we propose to focus on recycling behavior

among the French. The relevance of “recycling as a marketing

problem” (Shrum et al., 1994) was acknowledged long ago,

whether one considers recycling as a consumer behavior, or

from the stance of policymakers’ interventions and

advertising. As for the context, France appears to be lagging

behind other European countries in terms of waste

management. In Europe, indeed, substantial differences

exist between countries regarding the issue of recycling. For

instance, countries like Austria and Germany have

significantly higher overall recycling rates (over 65 percent

in 2006) than countries like Italy and France (around 55

percent) (ADEME, 2009). Even if the amount of waste

produced by a French (543 kg in 2008) is only slightly above

the European average (524 kg) (Eurostat, 2008), according to

the French Environment and Energy Management Agency

the volume of waste has doubled in forty years and waste

incineration and storage are becoming more and more

complicated. Despite substantial improvements in public

awareness and behavior, extensive efforts still need to be

made. In that context (where recycling is not compulsory),

improving the understanding of what motivates people to

recycle their solid waste is an important issue for public

authorities.

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/0736-3761.htm

Journal of Consumer Marketing

29/5 (2012) 369–377

q Emerald Group Publishing Limited [ISSN 0736-3761]

[DOI 10.1108/07363761211247488]

369

D ow

nl oa

de d

by J

am es

C oo

k U

ni ve

rs it

y A

t 17

:0 7

10 J

ul y

20 17

( P

T )

In order to understand differences in recycling behaviors,

this exploratory research proposes a typology of respondents

based on anticipated guilt and other variables related to

recycling identified thanks to qualitative study. Intuitions

emerging from the cluster analysis were tested quantitatively

and a predictive model of intention to recycle was finally

proposed.

1. Research background and objectives

1.1 Guilt, anticipated guilt and behavior change

Guilt can be either conceptualized as a personality trait, i.e. an

individual’s predisposition which finds expression in a general

tendency to feel guilty, or as an emotion, referring to a

temporary state (“guilt trait” vs “guilt state”; Lascu, 1991).

This research focuses exclusively on the latter approach. In

that framework, guilt is generally defined as a negative and

unpleasant state occurring when one’s behavior or intentions

are in contradiction with one’s moral standards (Baumeister

et al., 1994) or violate well-established social standards

(Kugler and Jones, 1992). Huhmann and Botherton (1997) synthesized previous

works on the concept and identified three main types of

guilt differing in terms of the reasons leading to the

“experience of guilt": reactive guilt occurs when the

internalized norms regarding what makes a behavior

acceptable were infringed, existential guilt occurs when the

individual feels more privileged or more fortunate than

others, and anticipatory guilt refers to the anticipation of a

feeling one might experience when they contemplate violating

their personal standards. This anticipation provides an

opportunity to avoid the unpleasant emotion linked to

transgression. In practice, the two main forms that are

generally contrasted are reactive and anticipated guilt,

following Rawlings’ (1970) original distinction. Many authors deplored the scarcity of research dealing with

the influence of guilt on behavior (e.g. Lascu, 1991;

Baumeister et al., 1994; Dahl et al., 2003). As a result, little

knowledge is available about the effects of anticipated guilt

(Massi Lindsey et al., 2007). Yet, a number of studies

provided evidence that guilt (and its anticipation) shapes

behavior (or behavior intention) and it has been

acknowledged that people tend to avoid behaviors they

anticipate will make them feel guilty (e.g. Lindsey, 2005;

Baumeister et al., 1994). Among the types of behavior

studied, guilt was found to influence ethical behavior

(Steenhaut and Van Kenhove, 2006), charitable donations

(Basil et al., 2006; Hibbert et al., 2007), bone marrow

donation (Lindsey, 2005) etc. The notion of guilt started to draw the attention of

researchers in the field of marketing essentially in the 1980s

and 1990s. Based on the idea that negative emotions can

stimulate the adoption of certain behaviors, scholars proposed

to extend existing knowledge on the effects of fear appeals, in

order to explore the opportunity of guilt as a persuasion tool

(Lascu, 1991; Huhmann and Botherton, 1997). In the main,

a number of studies confirmed the efficiency of guilt appeals

in advertising persuasion techniques (e.g. Steenhaut and Van

Kenhove, 2006; Hibbert et al., 2007; Burnett and Lunsford,

1994; Coulter and Pinto, 1995).

1.2 Guilt, prosocial behavior and ecological behavior

It is generally recognized that guilt involves a social dimension (e.g. Parkinson and Illingworth, 2009; Baumeister et al., 1994) and that altruistic behaviors are sometimes performed

only to reduce a feeling of guilt (Rawling, 1970). Previous research showed indeed that guilt influences prosocial

behavior positively (e.g. Lindsey, 2005). However, few studies tackled specifically the question of the impact of

guilt on ecological behavior, or the issue of behavior change in favor of an environmentally responsible alternative due to the

anticipation of a feeling of guilt. Yet, pro-environmental behavior can be regarded as a pro-social behavior in the sense

that the effects of such behavior mainly benefit others. As a matter of fact, behaviors that are driven by pro-environmental

motivations are generally “future oriented and unlikely to benefit directly the person performing the behavior”

(McCarty and Shrum, 2001). Among the researchers who examined the role of guilt in

the context of pro-environmental behavior, Hunecke et al. (2001) followed by Bamberg et al. (2007) considered the effect of feelings of ecological guilt to explain travel mode

choice behaviors and found it to be a relevant predictor of personal environmental norms. In the first case, however the

concept is not clearly defined and seems to be tackled as reactive guilt, while in the second the authors explicitly

mention anticipated guilt.

1.3 A focus on recycling behaviors

The choice of the ecological behavior to study is crucial since some so-called environmentally friendly behaviors are in fact

performed for non-ecological reasons. For instance, energy conservation might be motivated by the financial economy

implied, purchasing of non-toxic detergents or organic food

might be carried out for health-related motivations etc. This study focuses on recycling because such behavior implies

personal costs in terms of effort and time and does not benefit the individual directly (Smith et al., 1994). Since the possible egocentric motivations inferred are less obvious, one can assume that the pro-environmental motivation is more

genuine. Research dealing with motivations to recycle found that recycling was indeed influenced by altruistic values and

satisfaction from frugality among other motives (Granzin and Olsen, 1991). Academic studies aiming to understand what motivates

pro-environmental behavior are generally articulated around

three main approaches (Steg and Vlek, 2009). The first line of research is based on a costs/benefits approach where

individuals are driven by rational motivations. Most studies sharing this view are often relying on cognitive models such as

the Theory of Reasoned Action (TRA, Fishbein and Ajzen,

1975) or its extended version, the Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB, Ajzen, 1991). According to the second line

of research, ecological behavior is rather stirred by moral and normative considerations. One of the most famous theories

used in this context is Schwartz’s (1977) Norm Activation Model (NAM) which suggests that pro-social behavior is

motivated by altruism. And finally, the third approach examines the impact of affective motivations on the

adoption of environmentally friendly behavior, but as mentioned earlier, such research remains quite marginal. The literature dealing with the determinants of recycling is

consistent with the broader framework on ecological behavior

and uses mainly TRA or NAM related approaches

Exploring the role of anticipated guilt on pro-environmental behavior

Leila Elgaaied

Journal of Consumer Marketing

Volume 29 · Number 5 · 2012 · 369 – 377

370

D ow

nl oa

de d

by J

am es

C oo

k U

ni ve

rs it

y A

t 17

:0 7

10 J

ul y

20 17

( P

T )

(Thogersen, 1996). In order to predict recycling intention,

TRA and TPB models are often extended, including variables like past behavior (e.g. Carrus et al., 2008), perceived lack of facilities (e.g. Knussen et al., 2004), perceived consequences of recycling (e.g. Chen and Tung, 2010) etc. The level of

knowledge also emerges as an important variable to discriminate between recyclers and non-recyclers (Vining

and Ebreo, 1990). Studies examining the influence of affective variables on

recycling behavior are rather scarce. Among those who did, Carrus et al. (2008) highlighted a positive and significant effect of anticipated negative emotions on recycling. However, they used an aggregated measure including nine different

emotions and did not analyze the independent effect of each specific emotion. Finally, Smith et al. (1994), did not focus on anticipated guilt specifically, but they nevertheless concluded that the link between pro-environmental attitude and behavior

is often disappointing because altruistic behaviors like recycling are influenced by affective responses which are not

totally grasped by attitudinal measures. The purpose of this research is to explore the role of

anticipated guilt in the adoption of recycling behaviors. To do so, we propose to conduct a cluster analysis in order to classify

consumers depending on whether they anticipate a guilt feeling when contemplating not to recycle in the near future

and other recycling-related variables that will be identified thanks to a preliminary qualitative phase. Insights emerging

from the typology will then be backed up with further quantitative tests. Finally, based on the nature and scope of

the influence of anticipated guilt, we will be able to discuss if guilt appeals would be relevant to encourage such behaviors.

2. Research methodology

2.1 Preliminary step: selection of the variables for

cluster analysis

In order to identify the variables relevant to distinguish

profiles related to this specific behavior, a focus group was carried out among 8 respondents with the following question:

“What are the main differences between individuals who recycle on a regular basis, and those who do not?” In the

perspective of a typology, the instruction was voluntarily formulated so as to elicit discrepancies between recyclers and

non-recyclers. Instead of asking what could motivate recycling as a general rule, the idea was to lay emphasis on factors that

are likely to discriminate between opposite profiles. Once they established a comprehensive list of all the

possible motivations, respondents were asked to select a short list of the variables they believed to be the most relevant.

Their conclusion was that contrary to non-recyclers, people who do recycle assiduously “care about the environment”,

“live in a place where waste-sorting facilities are available”, and “are aware that not sorting harms the environment”. As a

result, three variables were retained for the quantitative study, namely: environmental concern, perceived facilitating

conditions, and awareness of negative consequences. Anticipated guilt, which is the central variable studied in

this research, and current recycling behavior were also included in order to compute the cluster analysis.

2.2 Quantitative data collection

Data collection took place in October 2010 among 276

respondents living in France. The questionnaire was

administered through an online survey. This method

allowed to reach people living in various locations all over

the country. The option of an online survey was also preferred

to an interviewer-administered questionnaire in order to avoid

the emergence of a social desirability bias due to the presence

of the interviewer (see Table I).

2.3 Construct measurement

Awareness of negative consequences (ANC) was measured

with three items inspired by previous work by Stern et al. (1995) who apprehended the concept as the “consequences of

environmental conditions for self, for others, and for

nonhuman species”. Items were adapted to our research

topic and were used to measure the perceived harmful effects

of the increase of waste volume due to non-recycling at three

levels: the individual, the country as a whole and vegetal and

animal species. Perceived facilitating conditions (PFC) were captured with

two items measuring respondents’ beliefs about public

authorities’ efforts in their municipality of residence to

implement the necessary facilities and encourage people to

recycle. Anticipated guilt (AG) was measured with a three-item

scale. The idea of a “feeling of ecological guilt” was already

measured in previous research (e.g. Hunecke et al., 2001), but in our context we had to adapt items in order to measure the

anticipation of such a feeling. More specifically, we were

seeking to measure the anticipation of a feeling of guilt that

individuals might experience if they failed to recycle in the

near future. In order to make things more realistic we

assumed that taking “the next three months” as a reference

would push respondents to project themselves into a concrete

and credible situation. Environmental concern (EC) was measured with an eight-

item scale proposed by Bamberg (2003). Originally created by

Preisendorfer (1996, in Bamberg, 2003) and translated from

German by Bamberg, this scale was chosen because it was

designed and used in a European context. Moreover, it

apprehends environmental concern as a one-dimension

concept referring to a general attitude toward environmental

Table I Sample characteristics

Percent

Gender Male 41

Female 59

Age #25 16

26-35 51

36-45 13

>45 20

Place of residence City centre 49

Suburbs 34

Rural area 17

Dwelling type Apartment 63

Individual house 37

Exploring the role of anticipated guilt on pro-environmental behavior

Leila Elgaaied

Journal of Consumer Marketing

Volume 29 · Number 5 · 2012 · 369 – 377

371

D ow

nl oa

de d

by J

am es

C oo

k U

ni ve

rs it

y A

t 17

:0 7

10 J

ul y

20 17

( P

T )

issues, which was the conceptualization inferred from the

qualitative study. Principal component analysis, however, led

to remove three items which were associated with low

communalities (,0.5). The five remaining items account for

64 percent of the total variance. Confirmatory factor analysis

using the maximum likelihood method reveals that the model

is properly adjusted to the data (CFI ¼ 0:992; AGFI ¼ 0:956; RMSEA ¼ 0:058; Chi2=df ¼ 1:92). The scale is reliable (see Table II) and shows an acceptable convergent validity

(rho ¼ 0:56). Finally the questionnaire included an item about current

behavior (CB), intention to recycle during the next three

months and the usual demographic and socio-economic

characteristics. All responses were collected thanks to a seven-

point Likert scale except for current behavior which was

binary (“Do you currently recycle all your waste

systematically?” Yes/No).

2.4 Approach used for cluster analysis:

The cluster analysis was computed based on standardized

factor scores. Given our sample size a partitional method

using k-means clustering was preferred to a hierarchical

agglomeration method. In order to determine the optimal

number of clusters, we examined the evolution of within-

cluster distance and dispersion, number of cases in each

cluster, and most importantly, the relevance of profiles

interpretability.

3. Findings

3.1 Cluster analysis

The procedure mentioned above led us to retain three

clusters. The ANOVA test was significant for all the five

variables, meaning that the three groups have different

characteristics on these criteria (see Table III). The first group is characterized by low to very low scores (in

comparison to the whole sample and to other clusters) on all

the variables. On the contrary, individuals belonging to the

second group are characterized by high scores on all the

variables considered. The first cluster only accounts for 15

percent of the whole sample while the second accounts for

almost 48 percent which is not very surprising given that

environmental attitudes and behavior are subject to social

desirability. The third cluster represents 37 percent of the

whole sample and shows more ambivalent attributes.

Individuals in this group are equally concerned about the

environment and equally aware of the negative consequences

than individuals in the second group (Respectively, mean

difference between cluster 2 and 3 ¼ 20:199; p . 0:05 and 20.124; p . 0:05). However, their levels of perceived facilitating conditions are low and similar to those of the

individuals in the first group (mean difference between cluster

3 and cluster 1 ¼ 20:051; p . 0:05). Moreover, their level of anticipated guilt is low compared to the average level,

significantly lower than individuals in group 2 but significantly

higher than people in group 1. Finally, the proportion of

people who currently recycle in this group is very low, even

lower than in cluster 1 (3 percent recycle systematically vs 27

percent in cluster 1; p , 0:05). This means that individuals with similar levels of

environmental concern and similar levels of awareness of

negative consequences do not behave similarly. Differences in

behavior seem to be due to differences in perceived facilitating

conditions and anticipated guilt.

3.2 Testing relationships between the variables

Correlation analysis shows that intention to recycle during the

next three months is significantly correlated to EC, ANC,

PFC and AG. The highest correlation is between anticipated

guilt and intention (r ¼ 0:663; p , 0:001). All these variables are also significantly linked to each other except for

environmental concern and perceived facilitating conditions

(r ¼ 0:082; p . 0:05). Multiple regression analysis with intention as the dependent variable and all the four others

Table II Measurement scales

Construct/items

Factor

loadings

Environmental concern (Cronbach’s a 5 0:85) Thinking about the environmental conditions our children and grandchildren have to live under, worries me 0.83

When I read newspaper articles about environmental problems or view such TV-reports, I am indignant and angry 0.85

If we continue as before, we are approaching an environmental catastrophe 0.81

It is still true that politicians do far too little for environmental protection 0.73

For the benefit of the environment we should be prepared to restrict our momentary style of living 0.75

Anticipated guilt (Cronbach’s a 5 0:93) I would feel guilty if I did not recycle on a daily basis during the next three months 0.93

My conscience would bother me if I did not recycle on a daily basis during the next three months 0.95

I would have a bad conscience toward the environment if I did not recycle my waste on a daily basis during the next three months 0.92

Awareness of negative consequences (Cronbach’s a 5 0:87) The increase of waste volume is a problem which is likely to have serious repercussions for me and my family 0.86

The increase of waste volume is a problem which is likely to have serious repercussions at the country level 0.93

The increase of waste volume is a problem likely to have serious repercussions for animal and vegetal species 0.88

Perceived facilitating conditions (Cronbach’s a 5 0:82) My municipality of residence has made available all the necessary facilities in order to facilitate waste recycling 0.92

My municipality of residence is trying its best to encourage its inhabitants to recycle their waste 0.92

Exploring the role of anticipated guilt on pro-environmental behavior

Leila Elgaaied

Journal of Consumer Marketing

Volume 29 · Number 5 · 2012 · 369 – 377

372

D ow

nl oa

de d

by J

am es

C oo

k U

ni ve

rs it

y A

t 17

:0 7

10 J

ul y

20 17

( P

T )

as independent variables highlights a satisfactory model with R2 ¼ 0:723. All the regression coefficients are significant except for environmental concern (see Table IV). This result is consistent with conclusions stemming from the literature and suggests that the impact of environmental attitudes on intention is indirect. Variance Inflation Factor (VIF) scores as well as Tolerance scores were used to diagnose multicollinearity, which appeared to be acceptable. Numerous iterations permitted to observe that the effect of

environmental concern on intention to recycle is always significant unless AG is included in the model. Following Baron and Kenny’s (1986) recommendations, we tested a mediator effect of anticipated guilt in the relationship between environmental concern and intention, which was confirmed (Figure 1). Anticipated guilt also mediates the link between awareness of negative Consequences and intention; however this mediation is partial while it was a total mediation for EC/ intention (Figure 2). Finally, insights emerging from the results of cluster

analysis suggest that individuals who do not recycle do not anticipate feelings of guilt associated with non recycling and believe that not much is done to encourage them to recycle. Successive regression analyses showed that perceived facilitating conditions influences positively anticipated guilt and intention and that the effect of perceived facilitating conditions on intention is attenuated when anticipated guilt is controlled, indicating once again a partial mediation of AG (Figure 3). Given the acknowledged limitations of the method used

above (MacKinnon et al., 2002), further tests using a more robust method were required in order to validate the three mediation effects. Because of its superiority, the Bootstrap procedure was chosen (Shrout and Bolger, 2002).

As shown in Table V, all the mediation effects appeared to be

significant. Anticipated guilt totally mediates the relationship

between environmental concern and intention to recycle,

while it partially mediates the relationships between awareness

of negative consequences and intention to recycle, and

Table IV Regression analysis using intention to recycle as the outcome variable

Unstandardized

coefficients Standardized coefficients Collinearity statistics

Independent variables B Std error Beta t Sig. Tolerance VIF

(Constant) 0.007 0.042 0.161 0.872

EC 0.048 0.058 0.048 0.840 0.402 0.530 1.885

ANC 0.130 0.054 0.131 2.398 0.017 * 0.588 1.702

PFC 0.261 0.045 0.262 5.843 0.000 * * 0.875 1.143

AG 0.496 0.051 0.499 9.656 0.000 * * 0.661 1.513

Notes: * Significant at the 0.05 level; * * significant at the 0.001 level

Table III ANOVA test, mean and standard deviation for the three clusters identified

ANOVA Cluster 1 (n 5 42) Cluster 2 (n 5 132) Cluster 3 (n 5 102) F Sig. Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD

EC 133.14 0.000 21.642 1.029 22 0,.382 0.626 þþ 0.182 0.683 þ

ANC 175 0.000 21.766 1.131 22 0.375 0.551 þþ 0.251 0.540 þ

PFC 11.97 0.000 20.246 0.998 2 0.285 0.945 þ 20.297 0.977 2

AG 98.57 0.000 21.120 0.978 22 0.612 0.564 þþ 20.375 0.900 2

CB 679.30 0.000 20.566 0.861 2 0.942 0.174 þþ 20.983 0.343 22

Profile interpretation «The apathetic» «The converted» «The undecided» Absolute non-recyclers Convinced recyclers Potential recyclers

Notes: EC: Environmental concern; ANC: Awareness of negative consequences; PFC: Perceived facilitating conditions; AG: Anticipated guilt, CB: Current behavior. +/ – : high/low scores in comparison to the rest of the sample

Figure 1 Tests for the mediating role of AG between environmental concern and intention to recycle

Figure 2 Tests for the mediating role of AG between awareness of negative consequences and intention to recycle

Exploring the role of anticipated guilt on pro-environmental behavior

Leila Elgaaied

Journal of Consumer Marketing

Volume 29 · Number 5 · 2012 · 369 – 377

373

D ow

nl oa

de d

by J

am es

C oo

k U

ni ve

rs it

y A

t 17

:0 7

10 J

ul y

20 17

( P

T )

between the perceived facilitating conditions and intention to

recycle. These conclusions led to propose the following

predictive model of intention to recycle (Figure 4).

4. Summary and discussion

The aim of this research was to explore the effect of

anticipated guilt on intention to recycle. A typology was

developed based on participants’ recycling behavior, anticipated guilt, environmental concern, awareness of the

negative consequences related to non-recycling, and perceived facilitating conditions. Three typical groups were identified

and led to conduct further tests revealing that anticipated

guilt plays a crucial mediator role between intention to recycle and its antecedents. Our findings hold interesting implications for the literature

dealing with environmental behavior. First, they confirm the

idea that environmental concern conceptualized as a general

attitude influences pro-environmental behavior indirectly rather than directly. This indirect effect has often been

proposed to account for environmental attitude/behavior

inconsistencies and was even empirically validated (e.g. Bamberg, 2003). However proposed mediators are

often specific attitudinal or normative variables. This research suggests that the relationship between environmental concern

and recycling behavior could be mediated by affective

variables, specifically anticipated guilt. Second, in line with Steenhaut and Van Kenhove (2006)

who found that AG mediates ethical beliefs/ethical intentions relationship, we also found a positive mediator effect of AG

between awareness of negative consequences associated with

non-recycling and intention to recycle. Third, AG also appeared to mediate the link between

perceived facilitating condition and intention to recycle. This

finding is interesting since it shows that guilt can be activated

by situational factors. Previous research examined the effect

of perceived lack of facilities as a moderator of the relationship

between TPB constructs and intention to recycle (Knussen

et al., 2004; Chen and Tung, 2010). In our case, it is not the

lack but rather the availability of such facilities as well as the

perception of an effort from public authorities that was

examined as an antecedent of anticipated guilt. The idea is

that the more the facilities, the guiltier individuals would feel

about not recycling. In terms of limitations and future perspectives, the typology

proposed in this research focuses exclusively on personal

predispositions and perceptions rather than on objective and

situational factors. Future research could extend this typology

to other categories of variables and other pro-environmental

behaviors. Moreover, our results are specific to the French

context and may not be generalized to countries where

recycling is mandatory or countries where recycling is a

deeply internalized behavior due to curbside recycling

programs adopted years ago. Finally, future studies should

test the effect of guilt appeals in advertisements on audience

intention to recycle or to engage in any specific pro-

environmental action, using an experimental design.

Figure 3 Tests for the mediating role of AG between perceived facilitating conditions and intention to recycle

Table V Test of the mediation effect of AG in the relationship between the three independent variables and intention to recycle using a bootstrap method

Paths

Confidence

interval of

indirect effect

Independent variable a b c c’ Sobel statistic Lower Upper Conclusion

EC Coeff 0.499 0.613 0.399 0.093 7.435 * * 0.218 0.402 Total mediation

t 9.492 * * 11.883 * * 7.225 * * 1.794

ANC Coeff 0.669 0.524 0.603 0.252 6.502 * * 0.24 0.453 Partial mediation

t 7.631 * * 12.322 * * 7.763 * * 3.658 * *

PFC Coeff 0.356 0.511 0.431 0.249 5.389 * * 0.112 0.269 Partial mediation

t 5/918 * * 12.886 * * 8.547 * * 5.866 * *

Notes: * Significant at the 0.05 level; * * significant at the 0.001 level; a: independent variable/anticipated guilt; b: anticipated guilt/intention to recycle; c: direct effect, c’:direct effect when including anticipated guilt

Figure 4 Predictive model of intention to recycle

Exploring the role of anticipated guilt on pro-environmental behavior

Leila Elgaaied

Journal of Consumer Marketing

Volume 29 · Number 5 · 2012 · 369 – 377

374

D ow

nl oa

de d

by J

am es

C oo

k U

ni ve

rs it

y A

t 17

:0 7

10 J

ul y

20 17

( P

T )

5. Managerial implications and applications

In terms of public authorities’ interventions and advertizing,

this research implies that guilt appeals would be relevant to

push people into recycling more meticulously. One possible

way to proceed would be to emphasize the negative

consequences related to inaction, on both the environment

and the individual’s self-esteem. However, such practices

should be used with caution since previous research showed

that low and moderate levels of guilt appeals can be effective

in advertising while high levels can provoke anger and

therefore discredit the message (Coulter and Pinto, 1995). Furthermore, promoting recycling through guilt appeals

could have opposite effects if people believe they are not

provided with the necessary devices to act ecologically. This

idea was evoked in the qualitative study:

In my municipality there are no centers for waste treatment. Only glass is actually recycled. People’s efforts to recycle are in vain. All this noise about yellow trash containers. . . Policymakers have the impression of doing what is needed and voters get rid of their guilty conscience by putting their small bag in a yellow rubbish bin.

Our findings show indeed that people who do not believe they

are encouraged to recycle and who do not anticipate a very

strong feeling of guilt related to not recycling their waste tend

not to recycle. As mentioned earlier, participants belonging to

cluster 3 (“the undecided”) are currently even more reluctant

to recycle that those in cluster 1 (“the apathetic”). But

interestingly, mean comparison regarding intention to recycle

in the future indicates that potential recyclers (C3) express

significantly stronger intentions to recycle than absolute non-

recyclers (C1). This indicates that potential recyclers, who do

not currently recycle because they believe that public

authorities are not making the necessary efforts, are willing

to change their behavior if they feel they are encouraged in

that direction with more appropriate facilities. As a

consequence, public organizations should communicate in

order to make citizens aware of the measures implemented.

This would influence citizens’ behavioral intention either

directly or through the activation of an anticipated feeling of

ecological guilt. Finally, Koestner et al. (2001) suggest that recycling

because of guilt implies unstable attitudes and behavior and

that “recyclers must feel that they are doing it because it is

personally important and related to their values, not because

they feel guilty” otherwise their beliefs can easily be

challenged by other people’s influence. This idea is sensible,

however it can be argued that recycling to avoid feeling guilty

and to comply with social pressure can be a first step towards

more sustainable behaviors. Bamberg et al. (2007) showed indeed that the perception of a pro-environmental social norm

could provoke anticipated guilt, but persisting social norms

can progressively transform into personal norms through the

process of internalization (Kelman, 1961). Thus, public

authorities can focus on the social dimension of recycling in

the perspective that individuals internalize this norm

eventually.

References

ADEME (2009), “Assessment of results on the reuse and

recycling of packaging in Europe”, available at: www2.a

deme.fr/servlet/KBaseShow?catid¼17618&m¼3&cid¼96&

sort¼1&p1¼00&p2¼05&p1¼00 (accessed March 2011).

Ajzen, I. (1991), “The theory of planned behavior”,

Organizational Behavior and Human, Decision Processes, Vol. 50 No. 2, pp. 179-211.

Bamberg, S. (2003), “How does environmental concern

influence specific environmentally related behaviors? A new

answer to an old question”, Journal of Environmental Psychology, Vol. 23 No. 1, pp. 21-32.

Bamberg, S., Hunecke, M. and Blöbaum, A. (2007), “Social

context, personal norms and the use of public

transportation: results of two field studies”, Journal of Environmental Psychology, Vol. 27 No. 3, pp. 190-203.

Baron, R.M. and Kenny, D.A. (1986), “The moderator- mediator variable distinction in social psychological

research: conceptual, strategic, and statistical

considerations”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 51 No. 6, pp. 1173-82.

Basil, D.Z., Ridgeway, N.M. and Basil, M.D. (2006),

“Guilt appeals: the mediating effect of responsibility”,

Psychology & Marketing, Vol. 23 No. 12, pp. 1035-54. Baumeister, R.F., Stillwell, A.M. and Heatherton, T.F.

(1994), “Guilt: an interpersonal approach”, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 115 No. 2, pp. 243-67.

Burnett, M.S. and Lunsford, D.A. (1994), “Conceptualizing

guilt in the consumer decision-making process”, Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 11 No. 3, pp. 33-43.

Carrus, G., Passafaro, P. and Bonnes, M. (2008), “Emotions,

habits and rational choices in ecological behaviours: the

case of recycling and use of public transportation”, Journal of Environmental Psychology, Vol. 28 No. 1, pp. 51-62.

Chen, M. and Tung, P. (2010), “The moderating effect of perceived lack of facilities on consumers’ recycling

intentions”, Environment and Behavior, Vol. 42 No. 6, pp. 824-44.

Coulter, R.H. and Pinto, M.B. (1995), “Guilt appeals in

advertising: what are their effects?”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 80 No. 12, pp. 697-705.

Dahl, D.W., Honea, H. and Manchanda, R.V. (2003),

“The nature of self-reported guilt in consumption

contexts”, Marketing Letters, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 159-71. Eurostat (2008), “Environmental statistics and accounts in

Europe”, available at: http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/cache/

ITY_SDDS/fr/env_wasr_esms.htm (accessed May 2011). Fishbein, M. and Ajzen, I. (1975), Belief, Attitude, Intention

and Behavior, Addison Wesley, Reading, MA. Granzin, K. and Olsen, J. (1991), “Characterizing participants in activities protecting the environment:

a focus on donating, recycling, and conservation

behaviours”, Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 1-27.

Hibbert, S., Smith, A., Davies, A. and Ireland, F. (2007),

“Guilt appeals: persuasion knowledge and charitable giving”, Psychology and Marketing, Vol. 24 No. 8, pp. 723-42.

Hines, J.M., Hungerford, H.R. and Tomera, A.N. (1986/ 1987), “Analysis and synthesis of research on

environmental behavior: a meta-analysis”, Journal of Environmental Education, Vol. 18, pp. 1-8.

Huhmann, B.A. and Botherton, T.P. (1997), “A content

analysis of guilt appeals in popular magazine

advertisements”, Journal of Advertising, Vol. 26 No. 2, pp. 35-46.

Hunecke, M., Blöbaum, A., Matthies, E. and Höger, R.

(2001), “Responsibility and environment. Ecological norm

Exploring the role of anticipated guilt on pro-environmental behavior

Leila Elgaaied

Journal of Consumer Marketing

Volume 29 · Number 5 · 2012 · 369 – 377

375

D ow

nl oa

de d

by J

am es

C oo

k U

ni ve

rs it

y A

t 17

:0 7

10 J

ul y

20 17

( P

T )

orientation and external factors in the domain of travel

mode choice behaviour”, Environment & Behavior, Vol. 33 No. 6, pp. 830-52.

Kelman, H.C. (1961), “Processes of opinion change”, Public Opinion Quarterly, Vol. 25 No. 1, pp. 57-78.

Knussen, C., Yule, F., MacKenzie, J. and Wells, M. (2004), “An analysis of intentions to recycle household waste: the

roles of past behaviour, perceived habit, and perceived lack

of facilities”, Journal of Environmental Psychology, Vol. 24 No. 2, pp. 237-46.

Koestner, R., Houlfort, N., Paquet, S. and Knight, C. (2001),

“On the risks of recycling because of guilt: an examination of the consequences of introjection”, Journal of Applied Social Psychology, Vol. 31 No. 12, pp. 2545-60.

Kugler, K. and Jones, H.J. (1992), “On conceptualizing and

assessing guilt”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 62 No. 2, pp. 318-27.

Lascu, D.-N. (1991), “Consumer guilt: examining the

potential of a new marketing construct”, Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 290-5.

Lindsey, L.L. (2005), “Anticipated guilt as behavioral

motivation: an examination of appeals to help unknown

others through bone marrow donation”, Human Communication Research, Vol. 31 No. 4, pp. 453-81.

McCarty, J.A. and Shrum, L.J. (2001), “The influence of

individualism, collectivism, and locus of control on environmental beliefs and behaviour”, Journal of Public Policy and Marketing, Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 93-104.

MacKinnon, D.P., Lockwood, C.M., Hoffman, J.M., West, S.G. and Sheets, V. (2002), “A comparison of methods to

test mediation and other intervening variable effects”,

Psychological Methods, Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 83-104. Massi Lindsey, L.L., Yun, K.A. and Hill, J.B. (2007),

“Anticipated guilt as motivation to help unknown others: an

examination of empathy as moderator”, Communication Research, Vol. 34 No. 4, pp. 468-80.

Parkinson, B. and Illingworth, S. (2009), “Guilt in response to blame from others”, Cognition and Emotion, Vol. 23 No. 8, pp. 1589-614.

Rawling, E.I. (1970), “Reactive guilt and anticipatory guilt in altruistic behavior”, in Macaulay, J. and Berkowitz, L.

(Eds), Altruism and Helping Behavior, Academic Press, New York, NY, pp. 163-77.

Schwartz, S.H. (1977), “Normative influence on altruism”, in

Berkowitz, L. (Ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, Vol. 10, Academic Press, New York, NY, pp. 221-79.

Shrout, P.E. and Bolger, N. (2002), “Mediation in

experimental and nonexperimental studies: new procedures and recommendations”, Psychological Methods, Vol. 7 No. 4, pp. 422-45.

Shrum, L.J., Lowrey, T.M. and McCarty, J.A. (1994), “Recycling as a marketing problem: a framework for

strategy development”, Psychology and Marketing, Vol. 11 No. 4, pp. 393-416.

Smith, S.M., Haugtvedt, C.P. and Petty, R.E. (1994),

“Attitudes and recycling: does the measurement of affect

enhance behavioral prediction?”, Psychology & Marketing, Vol. 11 No. 4, pp. 359-74.

Steenhaut, S. and Van Kenhove, P. (2006), “The mediating role of anticipated guilt in consumers’ ethical decision-

making”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 69 No. 3, pp. 269-88.

Steg, L. and Vlek, C. (2009), “Encouraging pro-

environmental behaviour: an integrative review and research agenda”, Journal of Environmental Psychology, Vol. 29 No. 3, pp. 309-17.

Stern, P.C., Dietz, T., Kalof, L. and Guagnano, G. (1995),

“Values, beliefs and pro-environmental action: attitude formation toward emergent attitude objects”, Journal of Applied Social Psychology, Vol. 25 No. 18, pp. 1611-36.

Thogersen, J. (1996), “Recycling and morality: a critical review of the literature”, Environment and Behavior, Vol. 28 No. 4, pp. 536-58.

Vining, J. and Ebreo, A. (1990), “What makes a recycler? A

comparison of recyclers and non-recyclers”, Environment and Behavior, Vol. 22 No. 1, pp. 55-73.

About the author

Leila Elgaaied is a member of the Center for Research in

Management (CRM) and Assistant Professor in the Department of Marketing at the University of Toulouse 1

Capitole in France, where she is currently completing her PhD. Her research interests deal mainly with consumer

behavior, and include the determinants of pro-environmental behavior. Leila Elgaaied can be contacted at: [email protected]

Executive summary and implications for managers and executives

This summary has been provided to allow managers and executives a rapid appreciation of the content of this article. Those with a particular interest in the topic covered may then read the article in toto to take advantage of the more comprehensive description of the research undertaken and its results to get the full benefits of the material present.

Growing consumer apprehension about environmental

welfare over several decades has prompted marketing attempts to identify factors which prompt ecologically-

friendly behaviors. Concern for the environment has been the focus of much

research but other determinants have also been explored. Among these are consumer beliefs, values and knowledge, together with personal and social norms. In this area, guilt is of particular interest. The construct is

alternatively regarded as a personality trait or as an emotion.

The first instance reflects “a general tendency” to feel guilty, whereas the second is seen as a temporary state. In the current

study, the emphasis is on the latter where guilt is perceived as “negative and unwelcome” and triggered when an individual’s intended or actual behavior conflicts with his or her moral

code. This state can also emerge when conventional social standards are debased. In the opinion of certain academics, three types of guilt

prevail. These have been labeled existential guilt, reactive guilt

and anticipatory guilt. Evidence suggests that the reactive and anticipatory types are the most common. Infringement of

“internalized norms” concerning behavior acceptability leads to reactive guilt, while the anticipatory form reflects the expectation of feeling guilty when a violation of personal

standards is contemplated. Anticipated guilt has received little scholarly attention

overall. However, some evidence points to people avoiding

Exploring the role of anticipated guilt on pro-environmental behavior

Leila Elgaaied

Journal of Consumer Marketing

Volume 29 · Number 5 · 2012 · 369 – 377

376

D ow

nl oa

de d

by J

am es

C oo

k U

ni ve

rs it

y A

t 17

:0 7

10 J

ul y

20 17

( P

T )

behaving in ways for which subsequent guilt is expected. Other research shows a positive relationship between guilt and ethical behavior, giving to charity and bone marrow donation. Marketing awareness that the exploitation of negative emotions can inspire desired responses has resulted in the successful use of fear appeals as a persuasive technique. The social dimension of the guilt construct is widely

acknowledged. This suggests that social conscience is a likely motivator of some altruistic behaviors. Although studies support this notion, few have specifically addressed the relationship between guilt and behaviors affecting the environment. Investigations into “travel mode choice” did find that guilt impacted on personal behaviors. An important consideration is the fact that reasons which

are not ecologically-related can drive certain behaviors. Cost and health are examples of such reasons that might be respectively associated with energy conservation or food purchases. Recycling is considered somewhat unique since engaging in such activities typically has no direct benefit for those involved. Consequently, there is an assumption that the desire to help the environment is authentic is this situation. Some empirical evidence exists to corroborate this belief. When striving to ascertain motivations for environmentally-

conscious behavior, scholars have adopted three main approaches: cost/benefits, altruism and affective. However, consideration of the impact of emotions and affective responses has been minimal in comparison with the other two. Despite the rarity of appropriate studies, some analyst

found that “anticipated negative emotions” have a strong positive impact on recycling behavior. Nine different emotions were examined, although the impact of each emotion individually was not determined. This study nevertheless acknowledged the role of affective responses in influencing recycling behaviors. These issues were explored in a survey of French

consumers. France was chosen because its waste management performance remains inferior to many other European nations, despite raised public awareness and other significant improvements. Prior to the main study, a focus group was convened to identify attributes most likely to motivate recycling behavior. Environmental concern, perceived facilitating conditions (having access to waste- processing facilities) and awareness of negative consequences were the variables selected, along with anticipated guilt. An online survey was used to eliminate the potential for social desirability bias and 276 responses were obtained from various locations in France. Questions related to current behavior and intention to recycle during the forthcoming three months. Demographic and socio-economic details were also requested. Data analysis prompted the authors to cluster respondents

into three groups: 1 low or extremely low scores on all variables and 15

percent of the sample; 2 accounts for 48 percent of respondents and scores high on

all variables; and 3 a less certain profile of a group which represents 37

percent of the survey.

Levels of environmental concern and awareness of negative

consequence mirrors the second group. Similar to group one

for perceived facilitating conditions but anticipated guilt rates

lower than average and between the two other groups. The

lowest number of recyclers found in group three. A significant conclusion to emerge from this is that

recycling behavior is likelier to be influenced more by access

to recycling facilities and anticipated guilt. In contrast,

behavior will not necessarily be alike among those whose

environmental concern and awareness of negative

consequences is similar. Elgaaied also revealed correlation between intention to

recycle within the next three months and all the other four

variables. The relationship was strongest with anticipated

guilt. An indirect impact of environmental attitudes on

intention was also found. Further exploration revealed that: . Anticipated guilt mediates the relationship between

environmental concern and intention. . The connection between awareness of negative

consequences and intention is partially mediated by

anticipated guilt. . Anticipated guilt partially mediates the link between

perceived facilitating conditions and intention.

In the author’s opinion, the latter suggests that people who do

not recycle do not feel guilty because they believe not enough

is done to encourage them to engage in such behavior. It also

indicates that “situational factors” possess the capacity to

elicit guilt and sends the message that increasing the

availability of recycling facilities would accordingly make

people feel more guilty if they do not recycle. On this evidence, public bodies are advised to use “guilt

appeals” in an effort to increase recycling behavior.

Highlighting how inaction negatively impacts on both the

environment and consumer self-esteem is a suggested

approach. Overkill poses a risk that the strategy will

backfire, as Elgaaied recognizes. The likely outcomes of this

are consumer annoyance and a discredited message. Caution

is likewise advised about using guilt appeals to target those

who believe they lack access to recycling facilities. The

important task here is to implement measures and

communicate this effectively to individuals affected. Another

recommendation is for public authorities to emphasize how

recycling benefits society. The rationale is that the process of

internalization means that social norms can ultimately

become personal norms too. In future, an experimental design might be used to further

investigate how advertisements using guilt appeals impact on

consumer intention to participate in recycling or other specific

pro-environmental activities.

(A précis of the article “Exploring the role of anticipated guilt on

pro-environmental behavior – a suggested typology of residents in

France based on their recycling patterns”. Supplied by Marketing

Consultants for Emerald.)

Exploring the role of anticipated guilt on pro-environmental behavior

Leila Elgaaied

Journal of Consumer Marketing

Volume 29 · Number 5 · 2012 · 369 – 377

377

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: [email protected]

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

D ow

nl oa

de d

by J

am es

C oo

k U

ni ve

rs it

y A

t 17

:0 7

10 J

ul y

20 17

( P

T )

This article has been cited by:

1. Alessandra Varotto, Anna Spagnolli. 2017. Psychological strategies to promote household recycling. A systematic review with meta-analysis of validated field interventions. Journal of Environmental Psychology 51, 168-188. [CrossRef]

2. Dorothea Schaffner, Timo Ohnmacht, Christian Weibel, Matthias Mahrer. 2017. Moving into energy-efficient homes: A dynamic approach to understanding residents' decision-making. Building and Environment . [CrossRef]

3. Camille Chédotal, Bénédicte Berthe, Bénédicte de Peyrelongue, Marine Le Gall-Ely. 2017. Using guilt appeals in communication. Recherche et Applications en Marketing (English Edition) 16, 205157071770683. [CrossRef]

4. KiChungwha, Chungwha Ki, LeeKangbok, Kangbok Lee, KimYoun-Kyung, Youn-Kyung Kim. 2017. Pleasure and guilt: how do they interplay in luxury consumption?. European Journal of Marketing 51:4, 722-747. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

5. Ray Yun, Azizan Aziz, Bertrand Lasternas, Vivian Loftness, Peter Scupelli, Chenlu Zhang. 2017. The persistent effectiveness of online feedback and controls for sustainability in the workplace. Energy Efficiency . [CrossRef]

6. Zeinab Rezvani, Johan Jansson, Maria Bengtsson. 2017. Cause I'll Feel Good! An Investigation into the Effects of Anticipated Emotions and Personal Moral Norms on Consumer Pro-Environmental Behavior. Journal of Promotion Management 23:1, 163-183. [CrossRef]

7. Edward Shih-Tse Wang, Hung-Chou Lin. 2017. Sustainable Development: The Effects of Social Normative Beliefs On Environmental Behaviour. Sustainable Development . [CrossRef]

8. Mohamed M. Mostafa. 2017. Concern For Global Warming In Six Islamic Nations: A Multilevel Bayesian Analysis. Sustainable Development 25:1, 63-76. [CrossRef]

9. Arvid Erlandsson, Amanda Å. Jungstrand, Daniel Västfjäll. 2016. Anticipated Guilt for Not Helping and Anticipated Warm Glow for Helping Are Differently Impacted by Personal Responsibility to Help. Frontiers in Psychology 7. . [CrossRef]

10. CharsetadParvaneh, Parvaneh Charsetad. 2016. Role of religious beliefs in blood donation behavior among the youngster in Iran. Journal of Islamic Marketing 7:3, 250-263. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

11. Mohamed M. Mostafa. 2016. Post-materialism, Religiosity, Political Orientation, Locus of Control and Concern for Global Warming: A Multilevel Analysis Across 40 Nations. Social Indicators Research 128:3, 1273-1298. [CrossRef]

12. Mohamed Mostafa. 2016. Egyptian public’s concern for global warming. World Journal of Science, Technology and Sustainable Development 13:1, 31-45. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

13. Aurélien Graton, François Ric, Emilie Gonzalez. 2016. Reparation or reactance? The influence of guilt on reaction to persuasive communication. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 62, 40-49. [CrossRef]

14. Benjamin Campbell, Hayk Khachatryan, Bridget Behe, Charles Hall, Jennifer Dennis. 2016. Crunch the can or throw the bottle? Effect of “bottle deposit laws” and municipal recycling programs. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 106, 98-109. [CrossRef]

15. Zeinab Rezvani, Johan Jansson. Cause I’ll Feel Good! The Influence of Anticipated Emotions on Consumer Pro-environmental Behavior 117-125. [CrossRef]

16. Lisa A. Williams, Barbara Masser, Jessie Sun. 2015. Revisiting the Effect of Anthropomorphizing a Social Cause Campaign. PLOS ONE 10:9, e0138886. [CrossRef]

17. Dorothea Schaffner, Sascha Demarmels, Uta Juettner. 2015. Promoting biodiversity: do consumers prefer feelings, facts, advice or appeals?. Journal of Consumer Marketing 32:4, 266-277. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

18. Naz Onel, Avinandan Mukherjee. 2015. Understanding environmentally sensitive consumer behaviour: an integrative research perspective. World Journal of Entrepreneurship, Management and Sustainable Development 11:1, 2-16. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

19. Ben Bedwell, Caroline Leygue, Murray Goulden, Derek McAuley, James Colley, Eamonn Ferguson, Nick Banks, Alexa Spence. 2014. Apportioning energy consumption in the workplace: a review of issues in using metering data to motivate staff to save energy. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management 26:10, 1196-1211. [CrossRef]

20. Caroline Leygue, Eamonn Ferguson, Anya Skatova, Alexa Spence. 2014. Energy Sharing and Energy Feedback: Affective and Behavioral Reactions to Communal Energy Displays. Frontiers in Energy Research 2. . [CrossRef]

21. Hyun-Joo Lee, Cynthia Goudeau. 2014. Consumers’ beliefs, attitudes, and loyalty in purchasing organic foods. British Food Journal 116:6, 918-930. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

22. Rungrat Chaisamrej, Rick S. Zimmerman. 2014. A Comparative Investigation of TPB and Altruism Frameworks for an Empirically based Communication Approach to Enhance Paper Recycling. Applied Environmental Education & Communication 13:1, 28-37. [CrossRef]

D ow

nl oa

de d

by J

am es

C oo

k U

ni ve

rs it

y A

t 17

:0 7

10 J

ul y

20 17

( P

T )