literature review

Journal of Tropical Psychology Volume 2, e5, pp. 1–7, c© The Authors 2012, doi 10.1017/jtp.2012.4

Collective Guilt and Attitudes Toward Recycling: Data From a North Queensland Sample

Pamela M. Pensini and Nerina J. Caltabiano James Cook University, Australia

There is overwhelming evidence that environmental concerns currently facing the modern world are, at least partly, due to the unsustainable use of resources in developed countries. In this study, feelings of collective guilt in members of a developed nation, Australia, were investigated as a factor motivating individuals to recycle. Eighty-five participants from North Queensland (24 male, 61 female; aged 17 to 64, M = 24.16, SD = 8.42) completed self-report measures of collective guilt, social desirability, social norms, attitudes toward recycling and percentage of household rubbish recycled. As predicted, those accepting more collective guilt for the actions of their ingroup reported more favourable attitudes toward recycling. However, collective guilt failed to predict actual recycling behaviour. The same was found for social norms in that they predicted attitudes to recycling, but not the amount of rubbish recycled. Attitudes toward recycling were the only successful predictor of the amount of rubbish recycled. This study has demonstrated the role of the emotion of collective guilt and social norms in one environmentally relevant domain. Avenues for future research regarding the implications of collective guilt on ecological behaviour have been discussed.

� Keywords: collective guilt, recycling, environment, attitudes, norms

The global climate has shown several relatively rapid changes over recent years and although climate change is a naturally occurring phenomenon, the actions of individuals can influ- ence this process. Understanding motivations toward pro- environmental behaviours is valuable and relevant in this age of global climate concern. These behaviours include reducing resource usage, picking up litter, refusing plas- tic bags at the supermarket, participating in environment- related protests and recycling behaviours. Previous research (e.g., Caltabiano & Caltabiano, 1994; Van Liere & Dunlap, 1980) has investigated many potential influences of conser- vation and preservation of the natural environment. This article proposes to investigate the influence of the emotion of collective guilt on attitudes and behaviours in one envi- ronmentally relevant domain, namely, recycling.

Collective guilt is a group-based emotion involving feel- ings of guilt from the inconsistency of ingroup standards and ingroup behaviour (Doosje, Branscombe, Spears, & Manstead, 1998). Collective guilt is based on the social identity theory (Tajfel, 1978) notion that individuals de- rive esteem from the groups to which they belong, and thus can feel emotions resulting from their group mem-

berships. Feelings of collective guilt usually result from the harmful actions of one’s group toward another; and the degree to which the deviation between ingroup standards and behaviour determines the degree to which guilt may be experienced (Bizman, Yinon, & Krotman, 2001). These feelings of guilt may even be present if personal responsi- bility for the harmful actions is absent, solely by association with the group that caused the harm (Doosje et al., 1998). Collective guilt is commonly linked to nations with a colo- nial past or a history of ethnic cleansing in which there is, or has been, substantial harm or discrimination toward outgroups of different ethnicities (e.g., Doosje et al., 1998; Halloran, 2007). Feelings of collective guilt are linked with efforts at reparation to alleviate the feelings of guilt. For ex- ample, feelings of collective guilt have been linked to more favourable attitudes towards Indigenous reconciliation in Australia (e.g., Brown, 2002; Halloran, 2007; McGarty

ADDRESS FOR CORRESPONDENCE: Pamela Pensini, School of Arts and Social Sciences, James Cook University, Townsville, Australia 4811. E-mail: [email protected]

1

https:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/jtp.2012.4 Downloaded from https:/www.cambridge.org/core. James Cook University Library, on 11 Jul 2017 at 00:20:07, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at

Pamela M. Pensini and Nerina J. Caltabiano

et al., 2005), as well as towards affirmative action policies in the United States (e.g., Branscombe, Slugoski, & Kappen, 2004; Swim & Miller, 1999). Collective guilt incorporates the notions of the acceptance of collective guilt for the actions of one’s group, the assignment of collective guilt to others for the actions of their group, that whole groups may be responsible for the actions of its members and also includes not denying the actions of one’s group (Branscombe et al., 2004).

It is contended that feelings of collective guilt will relate to favourable attitudes to recycling and recycling behaviours, as an attempt to make reparations for the harm that one’s group has committed and is committing, against the nat- ural environment. In this case, one’s group may be one’s national group, Australia, or more generally the developed, industrialised world. In order for collective guilt to occur it is necessary to first categorise the self as a member of the per- petrator group and to accept that this group is responsible for the harm (Branscombe, Doosje, & McGarty, 2003). In the case of environmental issues, harmed outgroups include groups that will exist in the future when the consequences of current environmentally unconscious behaviours have become fully realised. For example, small island communi- ties and nations that will lose their homelands to rising sea levels, poorer nations that do not have the infrastructure or capital to adjust to a changing climate, future generations who will inhabit the earth, one’s own self in the future and nature itself. All these groups have had no or minimal im- pact on the environment, yet they will experience suffering as a result of the ingroup’s actions. The ease of reparative efforts has been found to influence the degree of collec- tive guilt reported and has subsequent behavioural impacts (Schmitt, Branscombe, & Brehm, 2004). This suggests that despite acknowledging ingroup harmdoing to the environ- ment, feelings of collective guilt may be relatively low if the perceived difficultly of recycling is too high.

Although it is possible that feelings of personal guilt may also influence an individual to engage in pro-environmental behaviours, these feelings are distinct from feelings of col- lective guilt. The difference lies with the perpetrator of the harm; for personal guilt, the individual is perceived as re- sponsible (Tangney, 1995), while for collective guilt, the individual’s ingroup bears the responsibility and the indi- vidual may lack any personal involvement in the actions (Doosje et al., 1998). The two forms of guilt have been demonstrated to be separate constructs and Branscombe et al. (2004) have distinguished collective guilt from per- sonal state as well as trait guilt.

Furthermore, when individuals choose to act, their deci- sions are informed by the expectations for how they should behave in a particular situation. These rules or expectations are referred to as norms and can come from within an in- dividual (personal norms) or from others (social norms) (Schwartz, 1977). Indeed, departures from normative be- haviour can lead to feelings of guilt and shame and, in the case of social norms, can also lead to the receipt of punish-

ment (Van Liere & Dunlap, 1980). As such, norms can be good predictors of behaviour; however, perceptions of re- sponsibility, an understanding of the consequences of acting (or failing to act) and the threat of punishment are required for norms to influence behaviour (Schwartz, 1977). Indeed, Oskamp et al. (1991) have demonstrated the influence of so- cial norms on recycling and found that it was greater among those whose friends and neighbours recycled. Pensini, Slugoski and Caltabiano (in press) have also demonstrated that social norms are greater in those actively involved in the environmental movement. Kantola, Syme and Campbell (1982) identified social norms as the single greatest predic- tor of intentions to conserve water during a drought period. Chan (1998) found social norms to be a major predictor of recycling behaviour in Hong Kong citizens. As such, this study aims to replicate the findings of Chan (1998) on an Australian sample, by demonstrating the positive influence of social norms on recycling attitudes and behaviour.

It has been asserted that women are more concerned about the environment, making them more likely to engage in pro-environmental behaviours than men (e.g., Davidson & Freudenburg, 1996; Winter & Koger, 2004). This has not been consistent, however, with several studies failing to find a significant gender difference in environmental activism, (e.g., Gillham, 2008; Tindall, Davies, & Mauboules, 2003). Despite this, however, women are usually found to engage in more environmentally friendly behaviours in their general day-to-day lives, including reducing electricity usage, pur- chasing organic produce, reusing or repairing items instead of discarding them and choosing environmentally friendly chemical products, among others (e.g., Mohai, 1992; Stern, Dietz, & Kalof, 1993; Tindall, Davies, & Mauboules, 2003; Zelezny, Chua, & Aldrich, 2000). Interestingly, Zelezny et al. (2000) found that women engaged in pro-environmental behaviours more often; however, they failed to find a signif- icant gender difference in pro-environmental attitudes, sug- gesting that any gender difference in pro-environmental be- haviours may be largely a function of the specific behaviour under consideration and general lifestyle constraints faced by men and women and not reflective of an inherent gender difference. This study will investigate if any gender differ- ence can be found in recycling attitudes and behaviours.

Finally, attitudes toward recycling should relate to re- cycling behaviour. Ajzen and Fishbein’s (1980) theory of reasoned action explains that specific attitudes predict be- haviour in those domains. Chan (1998) found that the best predictor of intention to engage in pro-environmental be- haviours was indeed attitudes toward those behaviours. Pos- itive attitudes have been found to be a good predictor of ecological behaviour as demonstrated in several domains, including forest management (McFarlane & Boxall, 2003), the conservation of endangered species (Kotchen & Reiling, 2000) and green purchasing (Mainieri, Barnett, Valdero, Unipan, & Oskamp, 1997). This article will investigate the relationship between attitudes toward recycling and amount of household rubbish recycled.

2 JOURNAL OF TROPICAL PSYCHOLOGY

https:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/jtp.2012.4 Downloaded from https:/www.cambridge.org/core. James Cook University Library, on 11 Jul 2017 at 00:20:07, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at

Collective Guilt and Attitudes Toward Recycling

Understanding factors influencing recycling of those in North Queensland is important given the environmental significance of surrounding areas, including World Her- itage rainforests and the Great Barrier Reef. It is predicted that those inclined towards collective guilt will report more positive attitudes to recycling and recycle greater amounts of household rubbish. It is also predicted that those re- porting greater social norms will express more positive atti- tudes toward recycling and also recycle greater amounts of their household rubbish. Finally, those reporting more pos- itive attitudes toward recycling should also report recycling more than those expressing less positive attitudes. A gender analysis will also be conducted to investigate whether fe- males report more positive attitudes and recycle more than males.

Method Participants Participants were 88 Australian students from the School of Psychology, James Cook University Townsville, North Queensland who voluntarily participated for course credit. Three participants were removed from the study because they failed to complete large portions of the questionnaire and, as such, data for 85 participants (24 male, 64 fe- male) with ages ranging from 17 to 64 years (M = 24.16, SD = 8.42) was included in the analysis.

Materials The questionnaire consisted of demographic questions on age and gender, followed by scales to assess collective guilt; social desirability; and recycling attitudes, norms, and be- haviour. The three scales were included after the demo- graphic information and counterbalanced to control for any priming effects.

Collective guilt measure. Branscombe, Slugoski and Kappen’s (2004) Collective Guilt Scale is a 20-item mea- sure assessing individual differences in collective guilt. It consists of four subscales of five items each, including: (1) the assignment of collective guilt to other groups (cur- rent sample α = .65), (2) acceptance of guilt for one’s own group (current sample α = .83), (3) denial of responsibil- ity for one’s group (current sample α = .82) and (4) whole group accountability (current sample α = .77). Items are assessed on an 8-point scale from 1 (strongly agree) to 8 (strongly disagree). Test–retest reliability for this scale has also been established (r = .90) (Slugoski, Branscombe, & Kappen, 2002), as well as discriminant validity between the Collective Guilt Scale and measures of personal state and trait guilt (see Branscombe et al., 2004). This scale has also been distinguished from measures of an individ- ual’s personal self-worth, as correlations between the Collec- tive Guilt Scale and measures of personal self-esteem failed to reach significance (r = −.01 to r = −.13) (Branscombe et al., 2004).

Social desirability measure. The Social Desirability Scale is a 33 true/false item measure that assesses the degree to which a participant may alter their self-presentation or opin- ions to appear more socially desirable (Crowne & Marlowe, 1960). It includes items such as ‘I have never intensely dis- liked someone’ and ‘I can remember “playing sick” to get out of something’. The scale has been shown to possess an adequate internal consistency reliability of .88 (Kuder- Richardson Formula 20) as well as test–retest reliability (r = .89) (Crowne & Marlowe, 1960). Recycling information measure. For the purposes of this research, and as no published measure of recycling attitudes or normative influence was available, a 13-item measure was developed. It included eight items to directly assess attitudes toward recycling (e.g., ‘I make an effort to recy- cle where I can’), four items to assess social norms about ecological behaviour (e.g., ‘My close friends expect me to engage in environmentally conscious behaviours’), and one item asking participants to report the percentage of house- hold rubbish they recycled in the last month. Items were assessed on a 6-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 6 (strongly agree), except for the last item that was recorded as a percentage. Due to low item-total correlations apparent from the analysis of internal consistency reliabil- ity, two items assessing attitudes toward recycling, namely, ‘The prospect of climate change upsets me’ and ‘Any climate change that may be occurring is natural and not caused by humans’ were removed from the measure. The Cronbach’s alpha for the remaining 6-item measure was .88.

Procedure Prior to the commencement of this study, Human Ethics Clearance was obtained. Participants were invited to com- plete a questionnaire in their own time after collecting it from a designated location on the university campus and then return it to a designated drop-box. Data was collected during early 2008.

Results Socially Desirable Responding The social desirability scale was found to be significantly re- lated to responses on the collective guilt scale for all its sub- scales, except for that of not denying group responsibility; namely, for collective guilt acceptance (r85 = .26, p < .01), collective guilt assignment (r85 = .24, p < .01), and whole group accountability (r85 = .19, p <.05). Interestingly, the item that asked participants to report the percentage of household rubbish they have recycled in the past month approached significance when correlated with socially de- sirable responding, r85 = .21, p < .06. One item on the Re- cycling Information Measure, ‘I make an effort to recycle where I can’, also approached significance when correlated with social desirability (r85 = .19, p < .08). All other items on the Recycling Information Measure appeared largely un- related to social desirability responses. Finally, it was also

JOURNAL OF TROPICAL PSYCHOLOGY 3

https:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/jtp.2012.4 Downloaded from https:/www.cambridge.org/core. James Cook University Library, on 11 Jul 2017 at 00:20:07, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at

Pamela M. Pensini and Nerina J. Caltabiano

TABLE 1

Factor Loadings for Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the Recycling Behaviours Measure

Scale AR NI

I make an effort to recycle where I can. .85 .10

I frequently recycle household rubbish. .85 .10

It concerns me that others do not recycle as much as I do.

.83 .26

Recycling is not an issue that I am very much concerned with.1

.77 .03

I think that I recycle more than others do. .77 .05

I feel guilty when I don’t bother recycling. .62 .23

My close friends expect me to engage in environmentally conscious behaviours.

.09 .88

The majority of my other friends expect me to engage in environmentally conscious behaviours.

.17 .87

My parents expect me to engage in environmentally conscious behaviours.

.14 .74

My partner expects me to engage in environmentally conscious behaviours.

.08 .70

Note: 1 Indicates reverse-scored item. Factor loadings >.4 are in boldface. AR = Attitudes toward Recycling; NI = Normative Influence

found that females reported significantly more socially de- sirable responses than did males, t83 = −2.00, p < .05 (two- tailed). This indicates that some participants were influ- enced by social approval motivations when responding to the questionnaire. As a result, social desirability was par- tialled out of all variables in the subsequent analyses.

Recycling Information Measure An analysis of internal consistency reliability suggested the removal of two items assessing attitudes toward recycling, due to low item-total correlations. This resulted in a Cron- bach’s alpha of .88 for this measure. A principal components analysis (PCA) was performed on the recycling information measure. Prior to performing the PCA, the suitability of data for factor analysis was assessed. Inspection of the cor- relation matrix revealed the presence of many coefficients of .3 and above. The Kaiser-Meyer-Oklin value was .82, ex- ceeding the recommended value of .6 (Kaiser, 1974) and the Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity (Bartlett, 1954) reached sta- tistical significance, supporting the factorability of the cor- relation matrix. Results revealed, as expected, two separate and internally consistent factors with eigenvalues exceeding 1. Varimax rotation was performed to aid in the interpre- tation of these two components and revealed loadings that were substantially on only one component. These factors were (1) attitudes toward recycling (6 items, α = .88), and (2) normative influence (4 items, α = .80), accounting for 37% and 27% of the variance, respectively. Factor loadings for these items have been summarised in Table 1.

Correlations It was found that, using scale totals for each of the vari- ables, the acceptance of collective guilt was positively corre-

lated with attitudes to recycling, (r85 = .33, p = .005). Thus, in support of the hypothesis, those reporting more collec- tive guilt had more favourable attitudes toward recycling. However, collective guilt was not significantly related to the amount of household waste participants reported recycling, r85 = .12, p > .05.

As expected, the subscales of the collective guilt measure were all substantially correlated with each other (r85 = .39, p = .001, to r85 = .60, p < .001). Although each assesses dif- ferent components of the collective guilt experience, all re- late to the notion of group-based responsibility and guilt emotions to intergroup harm.

Social norms were, as predicted, significantly correlated with attitudes toward recycling, r85 = .38, p = .001. How- ever, social norms failed to significantly correlate with the amount of household rubbish recycled, r85 = .17, p > .05. Social norms also correlated with collective guilt accep- tance (r85 = .33, p = .005) and whole group accountability (r85 = .25, p = .032).

Attitudes toward recycling was the only successful corre- late of recycling behaviour (r85 = .62, p < .001). This indi- cates that positive attitudes toward recycling may be neces- sary for recycling behaviour to occur.

Independent samples t tests were also conducted to in- vestigate possible gender differences in collective guilt and the recycling measures. No gender differences were found on any of the collective guilt subscales, or in recycling atti- tudes, social norms or amount of household rubbish recy- cled (p > .05).

Discussion Consistent with predictions, this research showed that in- dividuals who are more inclined to experience collective guilt hold positive attitudes toward recycling than those with lower collective guilt. Collective guilt, however, failed to reach significance in predicting the amount of house- hold rubbish participants reported recycling. Social norms surrounding ecological behaviour also showed the same pat- tern in that they did not successfully predict the amount of household rubbish participants reported recycling, but did predict attitudes toward recycling.

The acknowledgement that one’s group is having a negative impact on the environment and producing large amounts of waste that can be recycled can cause feelings of collective guilt in members of the group that is causing the harm. This can motivate more positive attitudes toward reparative behaviours, including recycling. Doosje et al. (1998) explained this as a means of alleviating the negatively valenced guilt feelings. Reminders of one’s group contribu- tion to the harm, as well as the impact and ‘do-ability’ of reparative behaviour, have been found to increase collec- tive guilt levels (Schmitt et al., 2004) and are thus possible avenues for increasing recycling. Hence, efforts to increase recycling behaviours in North Queensland may find success in reminding people of their group’s contribution to waste

4 JOURNAL OF TROPICAL PSYCHOLOGY

https:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/jtp.2012.4 Downloaded from https:/www.cambridge.org/core. James Cook University Library, on 11 Jul 2017 at 00:20:07, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at

Collective Guilt and Attitudes Toward Recycling

production, affirmation that recycling is a not-too-difficult behaviour and that one’s behaviour does, in fact, make a difference.

Social norms surrounding ecological behaviour also showed the same pattern as collective guilt, namely that they predicted favourable attitudes toward recycling but failed to predict the amount of household rubbish actually recycled. Others have found that social norms regarding recycling do impact the amount of rubbish recycled (e.g., Hopper & Nielsen, 1991; Oskamp et al., 1991). Schwartz (1977) ex- plained that in order for norms to influence behaviour there needs to be an awareness of the consequences of the action (or failing to act), a sense of responsibility to uphold the norm and the threat of punishment if the norm is not up- held. Perhaps one or more of these factors are absent in this North Queensland sample. Indeed, failure to engage in domestic recycling behaviour is a difficult behaviour to monitor and reprimand, increasing the importance for in- dividuals to monitor their own behaviour. This can be done through the internalisation of social norms into personal (moral) norms, whereby negative emotions such as guilt result from failure to uphold these norms; thus, allowing personal behaviour to self-regulate (Schwartz, 1977). Re- minders of the consequences of not acting ecologically — such as resource depletion, waste production and the im- pacts this has on other groups, as well as it being the re- sponsibility for each individual to act ecologically and that ‘everyone else is doing it’ — may be successful at increasing recycling behaviours in North Queensland by connecting norms to behaviour.

Attitudes toward recycling were demonstrated to be the only successful predictor of the amount of household rub- bish participants reported recycling. This is in line with Ajzen and Fishbein’s (1980) theory of reasoned action, that specific attitudes predict behaviour in those domains and Chan’s (1998) finding that the best predictor of intention to engage in pro-environmental behaviours was attitudes toward those behaviours. Thus, positive attitudes toward recycling seem an important antecedent for voluntary recy- cling behaviour to occur.

No gender differences were found in recycling attitudes and behaviour. This suggests that women may not be more concerned about environmental issues than men as has been suggested (e.g., Davidson & Freudenburg, 1996; Winter & Koger, 2004). It also suggests that different lifestyle con- straints faced by men and women that may have influenced ecological behaviour in other domains and in different pop- ulations are not applicable to the recycling of household rubbish in North Queensland.

Limitations and Future Directions The main limitation of this study is that it is solely correla- tional and therefore a causal pathway or mechanism cannot be confirmed. Future studies could manipulate collective guilt (via priming) and measure the effects on subsequent ecological behaviour, with the aim of demonstrating that in-

creasing collective guilt levels results in increased ecological behaviour. Another limitation of this study was the relatively small sample size and that the sample was largely female. This is reflective of the general gender bias of a university hu- manities sample. It is important to acknowledge that all data in this study was self-report. Particular hazards associated with self-reported information include the difficulty partic- ipants may have in accurately reporting their recycling be- haviour, as well as possible social desirability influences. As the current study did not assess degree of identification with Australia, future studies could also assess this as research has shown (e.g., Doosje et al., 1998) that collective guilt is gen- erally experienced only by those not strongly identified with the ingroup, or at least those with a critical attachment to their group (e.g., Roccas, Klar, & Liviatan, 2006). This is because low identifiers and those with a critical attachment are less likely to deny or reinterpret information about their ingroup to keep it in a positive view, as high identifiers and ingroup glorifiers may be. This suggests that these low iden- tifiers may also be more likely to engage in greater ecological behaviour than their high-identifying counterparts. Finally, investigating differences in collective guilt experienced by community groups differing in their environmental con- cern, such as conservation groups, may be another focus of future work with the aim of understanding antecedents of ecological behaviour. Future work could also investigate collective guilt specifically for environmental concerns, in addition to the general notion of group-based guilt.

Conclusion Acknowledging the contribution one’s group is having to environmental degradation, resource use and waste produc- tion can elicit feelings of collective guilt and motivate one to hold more positive attitudes about ecological behaviour. This study demonstrated that the acceptance of collective guilt for the actions of one’s group is associated with more favourable attitudes toward one measure of ecological mind- edness, namely attitudes toward recycling. Although collec- tive guilt acceptance did not directly predict the amount of household rubbish participants reported recycling, atti- tudes toward recycling was moderately correlated with the amount of household rubbish recycled. Social norms also showed the same trend in that they predicted attitudes to- ward recycling, but not recycling behaviour. Recycling be- haviour in North Queensland could be increased possibly with reminders of the group’s contribution to waste produc- tion, that the responsibility for acting ecologically lies with each individual, that one’s actions do make a difference and that recycling is a ‘not too hard’ task and is a behaviour expected and performed by others in the community.

References Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1980). Understanding attitudes and

predicting social behaviour. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice- Hall.

JOURNAL OF TROPICAL PSYCHOLOGY 5

https:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/jtp.2012.4 Downloaded from https:/www.cambridge.org/core. James Cook University Library, on 11 Jul 2017 at 00:20:07, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at

Pamela M. Pensini and Nerina J. Caltabiano

Bartlett, M.S. (1954). A note on the multiplying factors for various chi square approximations. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, 16(B), 296–298.

Bizman, A., Yinon, Y., & Krotman, S. (2001). Group-based emotional distress: An extension of self-discrepancy the- ory. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27, 1291– 1300.

Branscombe, N.R., Doosje, B., & McGarty, C. (2003). An- tecedents and consequences of collective guilt. In D.M. Mackie & E.R. Smith (Eds.), From prejudice to intergroup emotions: Differentiated reactions to social groups (pp. 49– 66). New York: Psychology Press.

Branscombe, N.R., Slugoski, B., & Kappen, D.M. (2004). The measurement of collective guilt: What it is and what it is not. In N.R. Branscombe & B. Doosje (Eds.), Collective guilt: International perspectives (pp. 16–34). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Brown, T. (2002). The effect of Indigenous awareness and level of identification with White Australia on feelings of collective guilt (Unpublished honours thesis). James Cook University, Australia.

Caltabiano, N.J., & Caltabiano, M.L. (1994). Demographic variables, cognitive and personality factors as predictors of environmentally responsible behaviour. In W. Vialle (Ed.), Selected papers from the 29th annual Australian Psychological Society conference (pp. 209–216). Wollongong, NSW: The Australian Psychological Society Ltd.

Chan, K. (1998). Mass communication and pro- environmental behaviour: Waste recycling in Hong Kong. Journal of Environmental Management, 52, 317–325.

Crowne, D.P., & Marlowe, D. (1960). A new scale of social de- sirability independent of psychopathology. Journal of Con- sulting Psychology, 24(4), 349–354.

Davidson, D. J., & Freudenburg, W.R. (1996). Gender and envi- ronmental risk concerns: A review and analysis of available research. Environment and Behaviour, 28(3), 302–339.

Doosje, B., Branscombe, N.R., Spears, R., & Manstead, A.R.S. (1998). Guilty by association: When one’s group has a neg- ative history. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75(4), 872–886.

Gillham, P.F. (2008). Participation in the environmental move- ment: Analysis of the European Union. International Soci- ology, 23(1), 67–93.

Halloran, M.J. (2007). Indigenous reconciliation in Australia: Do values, identity and collective guilt matter? Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, 17, 1–18.

Hopper, J.R., & Nielsen, J.M. (1991). Recycling as altruistic be- haviour: Normative and behavioural strategies to expand participation in a community recycling program. Environ- ment and Behaviour, 23, 195–220.

Kaiser, H. (1974). An index of factorial simplicity. Psychome- trika, 39, 31–36.

Kantola, S.J., Syme, G.J., & Campbell, N.A. (1982). The role of individual differences and external variables in a test of the sufficiency of Fishbein’s model to explain behavioural intentions to conserve water. Journal of Applied Social Psy- chology, 12(1), 70–83.

Kotchen, M.J., & Reiling, S.D. (2000). Environmental attitudes, motivations, and contingent valuation of nonuse values: A case study involving endangered species. Ecological Eco- nomics, 32, 93–107.

Mainieri, T., Barnett, E.G., Valdero, T.R., Unipan, J.J., & Oskamp, S. (1997). Green buying: The influence of en- vironmental concern on consumer behaviour. The Journal of Social Psychology, 137(2), 189–204.

McFarlane, B.L., & Boxall, P.C. (2003). The role of social psy- chological and social structural variables in environmental activism: An example of the forest sector. Journal of Envi- ronmental Psychology, 23, 79–87.

McGarty, C., Pederson, A., Leach, C.W., Mansell, T., Waller, J., & Bliuc, A.-M. (2005). Group-based guilt as a predictor of commitment to apology. British Journal of Social Psychol- ogy, 44, 659–680.

Mohai, P. (1992). Men, women, and the environment: An examination of the gender gap in environmental concern and activism. Society and Natural Resources, 5(1), 1–19.

Oskamp, S., Harrington, M.J., Edwards, T.C., Sherwood, D.L., Okuda, S.M., & Swanson, D.C. (1991). Factors influenc- ing household recycling behaviour. Environment and Be- haviour, 23, 494–519.

Pensini, P.M., Slugoski, B.R., & Caltabiano, N.J. (in press). Predictors of environmental behaviour: A comparison of known groups. Management of Environmental Quality.

Roccas, S., Klar, Y., & Liviatan, I. (2006). The paradox of group- based guilt: Modes of national identification,conflict vehe- mence, and reactions to the in-group’s moral violations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91(4), 698–711.

Schmitt, M.R., Branscombe, N.R., & Brehm, J.W. (2004). Gen- der inequality and the intensity of men’s collective guilt. In N.R. Branscombe & B. Doosje (Eds.), Collective guilt: In- ternational perspectives (pp. 75–94). Cambridge, UK: Cam- bridge University Press.

Schwartz, S.H. (1977). Normative influences on altruism. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 10, pp. 221–279). New York: Academic Press.

Slugoski, B., Branscombe, N.R., & Kappen, D.M. (2002, April). Development and validation of the Collective Guilt Scale (CGS). Paper presented at the Society for Australasian So- cial Psychologists, Adelaide, Australia.

Stern, P.C., Dietz, T., & Kalof, L. (1993). Value orientations, gender, and environmental concern. Environment and Be- haviour, 25(3), 322–348.

Swim, J.K., & Miller, D.L. (1999). White guilt: Its antecedents and consequences for attitudes toward affirmative action. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25(4), 500–514.

Tajfel, H. (Ed.). (1978). Differentiation between social groups: Studies in the social psychology of intergroup relations. Lon- don: Academic Press.

Tangney, J.P. (1995). Shame and guilt in interpersonal relation- ships. In J.P. Tangney & K.W. Fischer (Eds.), Self-conscious emotions: The psychology of shame, guilt, embarrassment and pride (pp. 114–139). New York: The Guilford Press.

Tindall, D.B., Davies, S., & Mauboules, C. (2003). Activism and conservation behaviour in an environmental movement:

6 JOURNAL OF TROPICAL PSYCHOLOGY

https:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/jtp.2012.4 Downloaded from https:/www.cambridge.org/core. James Cook University Library, on 11 Jul 2017 at 00:20:07, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at

Collective Guilt and Attitudes Toward Recycling

The contradictory effects of gender. Society and Natural Resources, 16, 909–932.

Van Liere, K.D. & Dunlap, R.E. (1980). The social bases of environmental concern: A review of hypotheses, explana- tions and empirical evidence. Public Opinion Quarterly, 44, 181–197.

Winter, D.D.N., & Koger, S.M. (2004). The psychology of environmental problems (2nd ed.). Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Zelezny, L.C., Chua, P.P., & Aldrich, C. (2000). Elaborating on gender differences in environmentalism. Journal of Social Issues, 56(3), 443–457.

JOURNAL OF TROPICAL PSYCHOLOGY 7

https:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/jtp.2012.4 Downloaded from https:/www.cambridge.org/core. James Cook University Library, on 11 Jul 2017 at 00:20:07, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at