The Effects of Environmental Concern on

Environmentally Friendly Consumer

Behavior: An Exploratory Study
Ann P. Minton
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Randall L. Rose
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA
The purpose of this exploratory study was to investigate the relative effects mentally active consumer groups grew from 48% to 55% of
all adults in the U.S. between 1990 and 1993 (Schwartz and of environmental concern (a general attitude) and social norms pertaining
to concern for the environment on three consumer behaviors and six Miller, 1991; Stisser, 1994). That leaves another 45% of U.S.
adults who are not environmentally active. Identifying who behavioral intentions. Our primary research question was Which has
the strongest effect on environmentally concerned behaviors and behavioral is concerned and who is not helps policymakers target their
messages to inform, persuade, and remind people to be more intentions: attitude, the injunctive norm, or the personal norm? Answers
to this basic research question have important implications for marketers environmentally friendly.
According to the Roper studies, there are three environ- and public policy makers. A mail survey was administered to a sample
of consumers who were the primary shoppers in their household. Confirma- mentally active consumer groups and two inactive groups
which differ in terms of demographics, attitudes, and behav- tory factor analysis was used to determine unidimensionality of measures.
Hypotheses were tested using multivariate and univariate analysis of iors. The true-blue greens are the most committed group of
environmentally active consumers who have made consider- variance (MANOVA/ANOVA). MANOVA analysis indicated significant
main effects of environmental concern, the personal norm, and the injunc- able changes in their behavior patterns. The green-back
greens are committed to the environmental movement finan- tive norm on the behaviors and behavioral intentions. There were no
significant interactions. ANOVA results indicated that the personal norm cially andphilosophically, but have not changed their behavior
patterns as much as the true-blue greens. The sprouts are had the primary influence on the behaviors while the attitude had the
primary influence on behavioral intentions. J BUSN RES 1997. 40.3748 just beginning to change their behaviors to become more
environmentally friendly. The grousers think that companies 1997 Elsevier Science Inc.
should solve environmental problems instead of consumers,
and the basic browns are apathetic and dont think that
their individual efforts will help.
A
lthough the environmental movement began in the The 1990 Roper study determined the groups by using
a clustering technique based on 14 different environmental 1960s, the Roper Organizations Green Gauge Study
for 1993 indicated that environmentally friendly con- behaviors (Shwartz and Miller, 1991). Purchase behaviors
included reading labels, using biodegradable garbage bags, sumer behavior is still growing, especially in the areas of
recycling and community activism (Stisser, 1994). Consumers using biodegradable soaps and detergents, avoiding aerosols,
are becoming more knowledgeable about and competent in avoiding products from specific companies, buying products
buying environmentally sound products, and their attitudes made from and/or packaged in recycled materials, buying
are growing greener (Stisser, 1994). This is good news for products in refillable packaging, and avoiding restaurants that
public and private policymakers alike, but there is still a need use Styrofoam containers. Post-purchase behaviors included
to increase environmentally friendly behaviors. For example, returning bottles and cans, recycling newspapers, and sorting
the 1993 Green Gauge Study reported that their three environ- trash. Other behaviors included contributing money to an
environmental group, cutting down on car use, and writing
to politicians. After the researchers developed the clusters
Address correspondence to Ann P. Minton, College of Applied Professional
Sciences, University of South Carolina, Columbia, South Carolina 29208. based on these behavioral measures, the clusters were also
Journal of Business Research 40, 3748 (1997)
1997 Elsevier Science Inc. All rights reserved. ISSN 0148-2963/97/$17.00
655 Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY 10010 PII S0148-2963(96)00209-3
38 J Busn Res A. P. Minton and R. L. Rose
1997:40:3748
described demographically. The study reported that the three ioral intentions (Gill, Crosby, andTaylor, 1986), inthe domain
of voting behavior. environmentally active groups had higher than average levels
Using the definition of environmental concern as a general of income and education, and were more likely to be women
attitude toward preserving the environment, the purpose of
and to have executive or professional jobs (Schwartz and
the present study was to investigate the relationship between
Miller, 1991).
mundane environmentally friendly consumer behaviors and
While it is important to knowthe demographic characteris-
environmental concern as well as injunctive and personal
tics of the different groups, those characteristics cant be used
norms for those behaviors. Although the methods are different,
to predict environmental concern. Marketing researchers have
this study was a replication and extension of the work of Gill,
found that attempts to identify or predict environmentally
Crosby, and Taylor (1986) in that it used attitudes and norms
friendly behavior or behavioral intentions from demographic
to predict environmentally friendly behavioral intentions and
variables were not consistent (Anderson and Cunningham,
behaviors. It was also a replication and extension of the Hop-
1972; Kinnear, Taylor, and Ahmed, 1974; Balderjahn, 1988;
per and Nielson (1991) study which examined the effects of
Schwepker and Cornwell, 1991; Picket, Kangun, and Grove,
the social (injunctive) and personal norm on behaviors and
1993). Many published studies of environmental concern dis-
intentions.
agree as to what predicts environmentally friendly behaviors
The effects of the attitude and norms were tested on some
and behavioral intentions (Hines, Hungerford, and Tomera,
simple, pro-social consumer behaviors: search for information
1987). Just what is environmental concern and how should
about environmentally friendly products, product choice
it be studied? A review of the literature reveals little evidence
based on an environmentally friendly attribute, and recycling
of consistency in terms of conceptualization andmeasurement
solid waste; plus a group of prosocial behavioral intentions.
of important constructs, along with mixed results. However,
These intentions included signing a petition for an environ-
there is support for the argument that environmental concern
mental cause, joining an environmental group, paying more
is an attitude separate from its subsequent intentions and
taxes to support greater government control of pollution, pay-
behaviors.
ing higher utility bills if it meant cleaner air, not buying
In a study of the Michigan container law Crosby, Gill, and
products from companies that pollute, and making personal
Taylor (1981) tentatively defined environmental concern as
sacrifices to slow down pollution. On the practical side, the
a strong positive attitude toward preserving the environment.
results of the study will provide insights for marketing manag-
Later, they defined environmental concern as a general or
ers and policymakers to help them develop more effective
global attitude with indirect effects on behaviors through be-
strategies and communications programs to help more people
havioral intentions (Gill, Crosby, and Taylor, 1986), based
behave in environmentally friendly ways. On the theoretical
on the work of Van Liere and Dunlap (1981). This definition
side, the results of the study will provide additional empirical
was supported by Zimmer, Stafford, and Stafford (1994) who
evidence to researchers as to the consequences of environmen-
described environmental concern as a general concept that
tal concern.
can refer to feelings about many different green issues. The
notion of a general attitude which precedes more specific
attitudes, intentions, and behaviors is important because pre-
Environmental Concern
vious research indicates that various environmentally friendly
Attitudes
behaviors seem to have their own predictors (Balderjahn,
Various attitude constructs have been related to environmen-
1988; Pickett, Kangun, and Grove, 1993). With respect to
tally friendly behaviors. Using stepwise regression, (Crosby,
the intentions and behaviors, other researchers categorized
Gill, and Taylor, 1981) found that four different attitudes
environmentally friendly behaviors as a subset of altruistic or
(toward preserving the environment, the seriousness of the
prosocial behavior (Schwartz, 1977; Granzin andOlsen, 1991;
littering problem, and unemployment and higher prices as
Hopper and Nielsen, 1991; McCarty and Shrum, 1994),
consequences of environmental legislation) were significant
thereby linking environmentally friendly behaviors with the
predictors of voting behavior. Schwepker and Cornwell
attitude of environmental concern, values, and various types
(1991) used linear discriminant analysis in their study which
of social norms.
related intentions to purchase ecologically packaged products
to attitudes toward litter and ecologically conscious living.
Purpose of the Study
Using multivariate analysis of variance, Ellen, Wiener, and
Previous environmental research examined attitude-behavior
Cobb-Wallgren (1991) found that a general attitude toward
or attitude-behavioral intention relationships (cf. Balderjahn,
improving the environment was a significant predictor of pur-
1988; Crosby, Gill, and Taylor, 1981; Kinnear, Taylor, and
chasing environmentally safe products, recycling, contributing
Ahmed, 1974; Schwepker and Cornwell, 1991) as well as money to environmental groups, joining environmental
norm-behavior relationships (Schwartz, 1977; Hopper and groups, communicating with elected officials, and attending
Nielsen, 1991). However, only one study examined the com- public hearings. Ellen (1994) found that a general attitude
toward improving the environment was a significant predictor bined effects of norms and attitudes on behavior and behav-
39 Environmentally Friendly Consumer Behavior J Busn Res
1997:40:3748
of recycling, source reduction, and political action. Ellen and normative structures, attitude toward voting, and the
(1994) also reported that more specific attitudes toward the subjective norm for voting. They also reported direct effects
loss of convenience, the effort to shop, and effort to recycle of the attitude toward voting and the subjective norm for
affected recycling and source reduction behaviors as covari- voting on the behavioral intention to vote, as expected. Hopper
ates. McCarty and Shrum (1994) related recycling behavior and Nielsen (1991) found that the social (injunctive) norm
to attitudes toward the inconvenience of recycling and the influenced recycling behavior indirectly through the personal
importance of recycling using path analysis. norm which is purported to shape prosocial or altruistic be-
These studies were chosen as examples to illustrate the haviors. They also found that awareness of the consequences
range of attitude-behavior and/or attitude-behavioral intention
of the behavior moderated the personal norm-behavior rela-
relationships which have already been established, and the
tionship. That is, the personal norminfluencedrecycling when
variety of methods used to study them. The present study
awareness of consequences was high.
utilized a general attitude approach to study the effects of
Three studies related values and environmentally friendly
environmental concern on intentions andbehaviors along with
behaviors. Granzin and Olsen (1991) found that helping (i.e.,
the effects of different types of norms.
perceived benefits of helping, empathyfor society, group iden-
tity, etc.), personal values (i.e., altruism, preserving the envi-
ronment, etc.), knowledge, and interpersonal influence were Norms and Values
good (but not uniform) discriminators of recycling newspa-
While most scholarly research on environmental topics has
pers, donating items for reuse, andwalking to conserve energy.
examined friendly behaviors and intentions, an interesting
McCarty and Shrum(1994) studied values, value orientations,
theoretical contribution from the psychology literature per-
and attitudes as antecedents of recycling behavior. They found
tained to littering behavior (Cialdini, Reno, and Kallgren,
that attitudes about the inconvenience of recycling had a
1990; Cialdini, Kallgren, andReno, 1990). There was a dispute
negative influence on attitudes about the importance of recy-
between two schools of social psychologists regarding the
cling, that values of collectivism (group orientation) had a
usefulness of social norms to predict and explain behavior.
negative relationship with attitudes about the inconvenience
One school of thought criticized social norms as having little
of recycling, and that the importance of recycling (an attitude)
explanatory or predictive value (Darley and Latane, 1970;
had no influence on recycling. Using regression analysis, Stern Krebs, 1970; Marini, 1984; Krebs and Miller, 1985). They
and Dietz (1994) found that value orientations affect political argued that if norms are in place not only when behavior is
action behavioral intentions directly as well as indirectly consistent with norms, but also when behavior is inconsistent
through beliefs, which could be construed as attitudes. with norms, then why should we believe that norms mediated
McCarty and Shrum (1994) and Stern and Dietz (1994) both either behavior pattern? The other school of thought viewed
found support for the Homer and Kahle (1988) values-atti- social norms as critical components for understanding human
tudes-behavior hierarchy which models values as antecedents social behavior (e.g., Berkowitz, 1972; Fishbein and Ajzen,
of attitudes.
1975; Triandis, 1977).
To summarize what we could say we have learned about
In an attempt to settle this dispute, Cialdini et al. (1990,
what makes people more inclined to behave in environmen- 1991) distinguished among several different types of social
tally friendly ways: They are aware of various environmental norms. Two of these types of norms were the injunctive norm
problems and the consequences of their behavior, they think and the personal norm. The injunctive norm is conceptually
their individual efforts help solve the problems, they care like the subjective norm of the theory of reasoned action
about solving the problems, and they are willing to reallocate (Fishbein and Ajzen, 1975). It refers to what others think I
their resources (time, money, attention) in order to make should do and motivates behavior by imposing informal so-
their behaviors more friendly. We know that some values, cial sanctions. The personal norm is tied to the self-concept
sociopsychological variables, and to some extent, demo-
and is experienced as a feeling of moral obligation (Schwartz,
graphic variables influence attitudes and norms for various
1973, 1977). It refers to what I feel morally obligated to do
green behaviors. But there are lots of things we dont know, and motivates behavior by the desire to act in ways that are
one of which is the possible effects of normative influences consistent with ones values. Compliance with the personal
on environmentally friendly behaviors other than recycling norm results in greater self-esteem while noncompliance re-
and voting, and the possible combined effects of attitudes and sults in feelings of guilt. Cialdini et al. (1990, 1991) noted
norms on a variety of behaviors and behavioral intentions. that their definitions would help future researchers specify
which norm would be operating in their respective studies.
Gill, Crosby, and Taylor (1986) used causal modeling to
Method
test the effects of a general attitude of environmental concern
Data Collection
in the theory of reasoned action (Fishbein and Ajzen, 1975).
A mail survey was administered to a sample of non-faculty They found a direct effect (which was not expected) of envi-
staff members at a Southern university who were the primary ronmental concern on the behavioral intention to vote for a
container law as well as indirect effects through cognitive shoppers in their households. While the study used a conve-
40 J Busn Res A. P. Minton and R. L. Rose
1997:40:3748
Table 1. Ranges, Means, Standard Deviations, and Correlations for Variables
Variable Minimum Maximum Mean Std Dev EC SE RE PN IN
EC 6 64 43.4938 12.4824
SEARCH 0 21 9.3742 5.0517 0.52
RECYC 0 8 2.8625 2.1675 0.39 0.43
PN 2 96 52.7117 18.3558 0.60 0.65 0.52
IN 0 35 19.7222 7.4511 0.31 0.48 0.33 0.52
nience sample, the constraint that they be non-student adults construct than is due to error. Furthermore, for all six paired
who were the primary shoppers in their households added comparisons (four measures taken two at a time), the average
credibility to the results in general and to the generalizability variance extracted for each measure is greater than gamma
of results to similar shoppers (Bagozzi, Baumgartner, and Yi, squared, which is the shared variance in the structural model
1992). Questionnaires were distributed through campus mail.
between the pair of constructs (Fornell and Larcker, 1981).
Of the 500 questionnaires sent, 144 were sufficiently complete
DEPENDENT VARIABLE MEASURES. The dependent variables
to allow analysis, yielding a response rate of 29%.
in this study included purchase based on an environmentally
friendly attribute, search for information about environmen-
Measures
tally friendly products, recycling behavior, and six behavioral
Some of the variables were operationalized with previously
intentions. The first group of questions in the questionnaire
developed scales which were adapted for this study. For exam-
pertained to product choice by attribute type. Respondents
ple, the personal norm measure which is behavior-specific
were presented with 14 different product categories: dish-
was based on a measure developed by Schwartz (1977), and
washing liquid, dishwasher detergent, all-purpose cleaner, tile
the environmental concern scale was adapted from the Antil
floor cleaner, bath soap, bathtub and tile cleaner, toilet cleaner,
and Bennet (1979) socially responsible consumption scale.
laundry detergent, fabric softener, paper napkins, paper tow-
Other variables were operationalized with scales that were
els, toilet tissue, facial tissue, and garbage bags. These product
carefully developed for the study. All the scales were pretested
categories were chosen because they represented a simple
by a panel of marketing experts as well as by a panel of
marketbasket of mundane, non-food, non-durable, consumer
consumers. Panel members completed the questionnaires,
goods which could be purchased at any retail grocery store.
then provided feedback in personal interviews pertaining to
Respondents were asked to write the name of the most fre-
measurement clarity or difficulty. Some of the scales were
quently selectedbrand in each category. The purpose of asking
modified and therefore improved in terms of clarity and sim-
the brand they usedwas not of interest for this study. However,
plicity as a result of the feedback fromthe panels. Themodified
that information was captured during data collection and is
questionnaire was assessed by another panel of consumer
available on request from the author. They were also asked
experts which determined that the measures were ready for
to report why they bought that brand by placing a checkmark
the study.
by attributes from a list provided. The list of attributes for
All the measurement scales used in this study are included
each of the 14 product categories included two attributes
in the appendix. Various analyses indicated that all the mea-
related to the environment: This product or its package is
sures were unidimensional as well as acceptably reliable and
made with recycled ingredients and its ingredients are safe
valid. Table 1 reports ranges, means, standard deviations, and
for the environment. If the attribute were checked, it received
correlations for the measures of variables developed for this
a value of 1; otherwise it received a value of zero. The points
study. Table 2 reports results of confirmatory factor analyses
were summed across product categories to form two purchase
which provided evidence of unidimensionality and reliability
measures: one product choice based on recycled ingredients,
as described by Gerbing and Anderson (1988) for the depen-
and one based on environmentally safe ingredients. Scores for
dent and independent variables. Factor loadings (lambda x)
both attributed-based purchase measures ranged from 0 to
were all significant at the .001 level and Joreskogs reliability
14, with higher values indicating the number of product
coefficients for the variables were all greater than .95.
choices based on one of two reasons related to concern for
Table 3 summarizes evidence of convergent and discrimi-
the environment.
nant validity as described by Fornell and Larcker (1981). Four
The measure for the disposal of consumer waste was similar
measures (search for information, environmental concern,
to the measures for the purchase based on an environmental personal norm, and injunctive norm) were included in the
attribute in that both indicate the number of product catego- assessment of discriminant validity. The average variance ex-
ries included in the behavior of interest. Respondents were tracted for each measure is greater than .5, indicating that
more of the variance in each measure is shared with the asked to report what different types of items they recycled in
41 Environmentally Friendly Consumer Behavior J Busn Res
1997:40:3748
Table 2. Confirmatory Factor Analyses: Pattern Coefficients, Standard Errors, Reliabilities
Variable Joreskogs
Search for Information Lambda X Std. Error Item Reliability coefficient
S1 0.77 0.07 0.53 0.95
S2 0.63 0.07 0.37
S3 0.66 0.07 0.40
S4 0.92 0.06 0.72
S5 0.99 0.06 0.82
S6 1.0 0 0.83
S7 0.89 0.06 0.68
Environmental Concern 0.98
EC1 0.85 0.08 0.57
EC2 0.92 0.08 0.65
EC3 0.95 0.08 0.68
EC4 0.79 0.08 0.51
EC5 0.99 0.08 0.73
EC6 0.77 0.08 0.49
EC7 0.96 0.08 0.69
EC8 0.80 0.08 0.52
EC9 0.82 0.08 0.54
EC10 0.70 0.08 0.42
EC11 0.77 0.08 0.49
EC12 0.86 0.08 0.58
EC13 0.94 0.08 0.67
EC14 0.82 0.08 0.54
EC15 1 0 0.73
EC16 0.84 0.08 0.56
Personal Norm 0.98
PN1 1 0 0.85
PN2 0.89 0.06 0.69
PN3 0.90 0.06 0.71
PN4 0.96 0.05 0.79
PN5 0.99 0.05 0.84
PN6 0.79 0.06 0.56
PN7 0.98 0.05 0.81
PN8 0.86 0.06 0.65
Injunctive Norm 0.97
IN1 0.94 0.06 0.73
IN2 0.94 0.06 0.72
IN3 1 0 0.80
IN4 0.89 0.07 0.66
IN5 0.96 0.06 0.75
IN6 0.89 0.07 0.66
IN7 0.89 0.07 0.66
IN8 0.76 0.07 0.50
IN9 0.53 0.08 0.26
their household by placing a checkmark by the item category With respect to information search, respondents were
asked to report howoften they searched for information about (such as glass containers, aluminum cans, etc.) or to fill in a
blank if their recycled item did not appear on the list. The environmentally friendly products and activities. Seven items
measured various ways to search for information included first item on the list was My household does not recycle. If
this item was checked, a score of zero was assigned. For each comparing package label information; noticing and paying
attention to advertisements about environmentally friendly different type of item checked, a score of one was assigned.
The points were summed to indicate the actual number of products; and talking to family, friends, neighbors, and co-
workers about various environmentally friendly products and different types of items the household recycled. This measure
ranged from zero to eight. Because the measures for purchase activities. The response format for this measure was labeled
and coded never 0, seldom 1, sometimes 2, and and recycling simply refer to the number of items for which
the respondent performed the behaviors, no psychometric frequently 3. Responses were summed to produce scores
ranging from 0 to 21, with higher scores indicating greater properties are reported for these dependent variables.
42 J Busn Res A. P. Minton and R. L. Rose
1997:40:3748
Table 3. Discriminant Validity Assessment Average Variance Ex-
The personal norm (PN) measure (what I feel morally
tracted and Gamma Squared
obligated to do) was developed for this study, but was pat-
terned after similar measures reported by Cialdini et al. (1991)
Average
Variance
and Schwartz (1977). The response format for this measure
Variable Pairs Extracted Gamma Squared
was a nine-point scale anchored by no personal obligation
and very strong obligation and was scored in the direction of
Search for Information 0.63 0.44
obligation. In other words, higher scores indicated a stronger
Environmental Concern 0.59
personal norm. This eight-item measure ranged from two to
Search for Information 0.63 0.29
Personal Norm 0.74 96 with a mean of 52.71 and standard deviation of 8.36.
Search for Information 0.63 0.47
Confirmatory factor analysis indicated unidimensionality with
Injunctive Norm 0.65
pattern loadings all significant at p .001. The personal norm
Environmental Concern 0.59 0.35
measure was assessed in terms of reliability by coefficient
Personal Norm 0.74
alpha .95 and Joreskogs coefficient .98. Convergent
Environmental Concern 0.59 0.63
Injunctive Norm 0.65 validity of the personal norm measure was evaluated with
Personal Norm 0.74 0.42
Fornell and Larckers coefficient .96 and average variance
Injunctive Norm 0.65
extracted .74.
The injunctive norm measure (what others think I should
do) was also developed for the study. The response format
search for information about environmentally friendly prod- for this measure was the five-point Likert type response an-
ucts and activities. chored by strongly disagree and strongly agree. This nine-
Confirmatory factor analysis for search for information in-
item measure ranged from 0 to 35 with a mean of 19.72 and
dicated that this measure was unidimensional. All the pattern
standard deviation of 7.45. The injunctive norm measure was
coefficients were significant at p .001. Given the interpreta-
interpreted as unidimensional by confirmatory factor analysis.
tion of this variable as unidimensional, the reliability for search
All pattern loadings were significant at p .001 with standard
for information was measured in two ways: coefficient alpha
errors .08. Giventhe unidimensional evaluation, reliabilities
.90, and Joreskogs coefficient .95. Evidence of convergent
were assessed to be adequate with coefficient alpha .92
validity was provided by Fornell and Larckers reliability coef-
and Joreskogs coefficient .97. Furthermore, evidence of
ficient .92. Furthermore, average variance extracted .63,
convergent validity was provided by Fornell and Larckers
indicating that more of the variance in the measure was shared
coefficient .94 and average variance extracted .65.
with the search for information construct than was due to
measurement error.
Results
Six different environmentally friendly behavioral intentions
were measured with single items which were also taken from
MANOVA and ANOVA analysis of variance techniques were
the Antil andBennett scale (1979). These behavioral intentions
used to test the hypotheses. The effects of environmental
represent the last group of dependent variables. These behav-
concern and the norms were tested on behaviors and behav-
ioral intentions were analyzed individually as single item mea-
ioral intentions separately. Median splits were used to classify
sures, therefore no psychometric properties are reported.
the independent variables into higher and lower levels. MA-
NOVA and ANOVA results are reported in Table 3, while cell
INDEPENDENT VARIABLE MEASURES. Environmental attitudes,
means are reported in Table 4.
as well as the personal and injunctive norms, had Likert-type
The effects of environmental concern and the norms were
response formats, using a five-point response anchored by
first tested on the behaviors, then on the behavioral intentions,
strongly disagree to strongly agree. All were scored in the
using MANOVA in both cases. For the environmentally
direction of agreement, meaning that higher scores indicated
friendly behaviors, significant overall main effects were found
more favorable environmental attitudes or stronger norms.
for environmental concern, the personal norm, andthe injunc-
Respondents completed a 16-item measure of environmental
tive norm (F 3.92, p .01; F 8.00, p .01, and F
concern (EC) which was adapted from the Antil and Bennett
4.45, p .01, respectively). Significant overall main effects
(1979) scale to measure socially responsible consumption be-
were also found for the six behavioral intentions: environmen-
havior. This measure ranged from 6 to 64 with a mean of
tally concerned attitudes (F 15.59, p .01), the personal
43.49 and standard deviation of 12.48. The EC scale was
norm (F 2.61, p .05), and the injunctive norm (F deemed unidimensional as a result of confirmatory factor anal-
2.89, p .01). In other words, the four behaviors (purchase ysis with all pattern loadings significant at p .001. The
based on recycling, purchase based on safe ingredients, search measure was acceptably reliable as assessed by coefficient
for information, and recycling) differed by the favorability of alpha .93 and Joreskogs coefficient .98. Fornell and
environmental attitudes and by the strength of the personal Larckers coefficient of construct reliability (convergent valid-
ity) .96, and average variance extracted .59. and injunctive norms. Furthermore, the six behavioral inten-
43 Environmentally Friendly Consumer Behavior J Busn Res
1997:40:3748
Table 4. Multivariate and Univariate Analysis of Variance
Independent Variables
Dependent Variables EC P-N I-N R
2
(Behaviors)
Multivariate F ratio 3.92
a
8.00
a
4.45
a

Wilks lambda 0.89 0.80 0.88

Interactions F ratio
EC PN 0.59
EC IN 0.44
IN PN 0.85
EC IN PN 1.29
Univariate F ratio
Purchase-recycling attribute 5.35
b
5.41
b
1.33 0.15
Purchase-safe ingredients attribute 1.62 5.78
a
0.60 0.11
Search for Information 7.77
a
19.95
a
12.21
a
0.41
Recycling 7.03
a
13.70
a
7.98
a
0.33
(Behavioral Intentions) EC P-N I-N R
2
Multivariate F ratio 15.99
a
2.61
a
2.89
a

Wilks lambda 0.61 0.90 0.89

Interactions F ratio
EC PN 0.55
EC IN 0.92
IN PN 0.34
EC IN PN 0.55
Univariate F ratio
Willingness to sign a petition for an
environmental cause 59.87
a
4.94
b
2.36 0.49
Willingness to join a group concerned
with environmental issues 26.20
a
7.19
a
10.12
a
0.40
Willingness to pay more taxes to support
greater govt control 37.67
a
0.27 9.29
a
0.37
Willingness to pay more for electricity if
it means cleaner air 24.07
a
4.85
b
3.67
b
0.33
Willingness to stop buying from companies
that pollute even if it is inconvenient 46.26
a
6.23
a
2.29 0.46
Willingness to make personal sacrifices to
slow down pollution 52.64
a
7.75
a
4.54
b
0.49
a
p .01.
b
p .05.
tions differed by the favorability of environmental attitudes attribute. This means that the more concerned the person is
about the environment, the more likely s/he was to purchase and by the strength of the personal and injunctive norms, as
expected. a product because it can be recycled or is made with recycled
ingredients, to search for information about environmentally The interactions were not significant, so the univariate main
effects were interpreted directly. It was interesting to note friendly products, and to recycle. But we cant say that about
purchasing a product because its ingredients are safe for the slightly different relationships among the variables at the uni-
variate level. For example, as in the multivariate analysis, the environment. Apparently, consumers make a distinction be-
tween recycled ingredients and ingredients that are safe effect of the personal norm was significant for all four of the
behaviors. In other words, the more strongly the person felt for the environment. This distinction makes sense if one
considers that the benefits of the former stem from conserva- an obligation to perform the behavior, the more likely s/he
was to do it. Given that the personal norm had the highest tion while the latter promise pollution avoidance.
Furthermore, the effect of the injunctive norm was signifi- F ratio of the three main effects in the multivariate analysis,
this result was not surprising. However, while the effect of cant for searching for information about environmentally
friendly products and recycling, but not for purchasing a environmental concern was significant for purchasing due to
the recycling attribute, search for information, and recycling, product for either environmental attribute. This means that
the more strongly the person felt that others think s/he should it was not significant for purchasing due to the safe ingredients
44 J Busn Res A. P. Minton and R. L. Rose
1997:40:3748
Table 5. Dependent Variable Means
Independent Variables*
EC PN IN
Dependent Variables Overall Higher Lower Higher Lower Higher Lower
Purchase-recycling attribute 1.05 1.65 0.52 1.71 0.36 1.47 0.60
Purchase-safe ingredients attribute 1.20 1.71 0.78 1.92 0.48 1.64 0.76
Search for Information 9.37 11.47 7.32 12.04 6.35 11.62 6.74
Recycling 2.86 3.61 2.19 3.89 1.75 3.68 1.96
Willingness to sign a petition for an environmen-
tal cause 2.52 3.33 1.75 3.05 1.99 2.93 2.10
Willingness to join a group concerned with envi-
ronmental issues 1.91 2.53 1.31 2.44 1.35 2.39 1.39
Willingness to pay more taxes to support greater
govt control of pollution 1.63 2.32 0.95 1.98 1.27 2.08 1.14
Willingness to pay more for electricity if it means
cleaner air 1.99 2.64 1.38 2.51 1.47 2.40 1.57
Willingness to stop buying from companies that
pollute even if it is inconvenient 2.59 3.29 1.94 3.10 2.09 2.97 2.20
Willingness to make personal sacrifices
to slow down pollution 2.56 3.19 1.95 3.02 2.08 2.93 2.17
* The means comparisons for all the independent variables were significant at p .05 using the Scheffe test.
search for information about environmentally friendly prod- behavioral intentions. That is, environmental concern had a
greater effect on behavioral intentions than the injunctive ucts and recycle, the more likely s/he was to do it. This
difference may be due to the more public nature of searching norm, and the injunctive norm had a greater effect than the
personal norm did. for information and recycling than for product choice. The
univariate results indicate a hierarchical effect among the inde-
pendent variables on the behaviors. That is, the personal norm
Discussion and Implications
(what I feel morally obligated to do) had a greater effect on
the behaviors than the injunctive norm (what others think I There were several interesting findings that resulted from this
study, the most important of which were the main effects of should do), and the injunctive norm had a greater effect on
the behaviors than the attitude toward the environment did. environmentally concerned attitudes and norms on product
choice, search for information, recycling, and the various be- The univariate results for behavioral intentions also yielded
some interesting differences compared to the multivariate havioral intentions. These results support the work of
Schwartz (1977) and Hopper and Nielsen (1991) by showing analysis. Environmental concern had a significant effect on
all six behavioral intentions at p .01. It also had the highest that the personal norm has the primary influence on environ-
mentally friendly behavior. Another interesting finding per- multivariate F ratio of the four independent variables. This
meant that the more concerned the person was about the tains to the different results for behaviors andbehavioral inten-
tions. That is, attitude toward the environment had the environment, the more willing s/he was to perform these six
behaviors. The personal norm had a significant main effect strongest effect of the three predictors on the behavioral inten-
tions. However, the personal norm had the strongest effect of on all of the behavioral intentions except for willingness to
pay more taxes in support of greater government control of the three predictors on product choice, information search,
andrecycling. Consistently with the Schwartz model of altruis- pollution. This meant that the more strongly the person felt
obligated to perform the behaviors, the more willing s/he was tic behavior, personal norms appear to shape prosocial, or in
this case, ecological behaviors (Schwartz, 1977; Hopper and to do them. The injunctive norm had a significant effect on
willingness to join a group, willingness to pay more taxes, Nielsen, 1991). Thus, while attitude is a good predictor of
intentions to act in environmentally concerned ways, a sense willingness to pay more for electricity, and willingness to
make personal sacrifices, but not for willingness to sign a of personal moral obligation is more likely to lead to action
in the form of environmentally friendly product choices, petition, and willingness to stop buying from companies that
pollute. The fact that the two behavioral intentions on which search, and recycling.
These results support the use of segmentation based on the injunctive norm had no significant effect would be more
politically motivated behaviors than the other four may explain differences in attitudes and personal norms by public and
private policymakers seeking to encourage environmentally the difference. These results, when taken together, also indi-
cate a hierarchical effect of the independent variables on the friendly behaviors. Especially among groups of people who
45 Environmentally Friendly Consumer Behavior J Busn Res
1997:40:3748
are not environmentally active, such as the grousers and a persuasion perspective. Rather than try to directly influence
the personal norm, the more effective strategy might be to basic browns identified in the 1990 Roper Green Gauge
work indirectly through injunctive norms. Over time, a sense study (Schwartz and Miller, 1991), an important objective
of personal moral obligation may develop from an internaliza- would be to engineer a shift in environmental attitudes from
tion of the prevailing societal view of how consumers ought less favorable to more favorable. Because these groups were
to behave in the marketplace (cf. Schwartz, 1977; Hopper found to be less likely to support government environmental
and Nielsen, 1991). regulations, dont believe their individual efforts help much,
A more direct approach to influencing personal norms and believe that companies should solve the problems with
would be to encourage doing the right thing through public
the environment (Stisser, 1994), this attitude shift might best
service messages and school- or church-based programs. Re-
be accomplished by attempting to change these crucial beliefs
search around the globe has shown that environmental educa-
underlying their unfavorable or neutral attitudes. Any attempt
tion programs have favorable effects on childrens knowledge
to establish a sense of personal moral obligation among mem-
andenvironmental attitudes (cf. Armstrong and Impara, 1991;
bers of these groups would seem to be much more difficult
Keen, 1991; Francis, Boyes, Qualter, and Stranisstret, 1993).
in the short term than changing attitudes. Public efforts to
Beginning environmental awareness training at an early age
enhance the perceived value of environmental concern have
is also crucial if personal norms are to be encouraged that
been used in the past to encourage appropriate attitudes and
favor environmental concern upon reaching adulthood.
behaviors (e.g., the Pitch In campaign and Dont Mess with
Because personal norms are internalized social norms, poli-
Texas). In addition, private resources should be applied to
cymakers should also consider using social influence strategies
educate consumers as to the link between product choices
such as celebrity or opinion leader endorsement of environ-
and environmental protection. Corporate activities in many
mentally friendly behaviors which appeal to feelings of guilt
strategic areas such as product development, packaging, man-
for noncompliance or enhanced self-esteem for environmental
ufacturing, and public service should be linked through infor-
concern ina like manner. Bothapproaches work by associating
mative advertising to show consumers that their product
affect with behaviors, negative in the case of noncompliance,
choices do help solve problems in the environment. The bene-
positive for environmentally friendly actions. Previous re-
fits of greener strategies in terms of cost savings, increased
search has suggested that affect is more important for attitude
market share, increased profits, and national recognition have
and behavior change when attitudes are weak (Smith, Haug-
been documented elsewhere (cf. Ottman, 1992; Coddington,
tvedt, and Petty, 1994). Therefore, such affect-laden appeals
1993; Kelly, 1994; Stisser, 1994).
from credible sources could be effective in achieving behavior
In sum, as a result of these efforts from the private and
changes among members of the less environmentally con-
public sectors, consumers attitudes toward the environment
cerned groups. Robert Redfords promotion of proenviron-
may become more favorable. The public efforts should be
mental behavior is one example of this approach. Along the
directed to enhancing consumers evaluation of environmen-
lines of opinion leaders, Hopper and Nielsen (1991) found
tally favorable consequences of product choices. Private ef-
that using volunteer block leaders who personally visited their
forts, then, act on the belief component of attitude by encour-
neighbors to encourage participation in curbside recycling
aging instrumental beliefs regarding product choices. That is,
had a greater effect on increased recycling behavior than less
commercial messages will tend to affect consumers percep-
personal prompting and information distribution. Further-
tions of the likelihood that positive environmental conse-
more, Lord (1994) found that negatively framed messages
quences will be obtained when certain brands or product
conveyed by a personal acquaintance were more effective than
types are purchased (Fishbein and Ajzen, 1975). When, on
positively or negatively framed messages conveyedby advertis-
the average, consumers attitudes toward the environment are
ing or publicity. While recruiting people to go out and talk
more favorable, their intentions to stop buying from compa-
to their neighbors might be impractical, public and private
nies that pollute (or buy from companies that do not pollute
policymakers could encourage people who are concerned
as much) and to make personal sacrifices to slow down pollu-
about the environment to talk to their peers about environ-
tion will be stronger andleadto more environmentally friendly
mentally friendly behaviors.
consumer behaviors.
A second recommendation, in addition to efforts devoted
Limitations and Future Research
to changing environmental attitude, is based on the finding
that personal norms had the strongest effect on environmen- Generalization from this study to the consumer population
tally friendly behaviors. Thus, a second strategy would be to as a whole should be made with caution. The sample, while
engineer a shift towards a sense of personal, moral obligation fairly diverse, was relatively small and drawn from staff at a
to take care of the environment. Given the assumption that single Southern university. While respondents were restricted
the personal environmental norm is an internalized social to those adults with primary shopping responsibility for their
norm which is tied to the self-concept, this suggestion poses households, it would be prudent, given sample limitations,
to consider this an exploratory study. a greater challenge for public and private policymakers from
46 J Busn Res A. P. Minton and R. L. Rose
1997:40:3748
of the Role of Norms in Human Behavior. Advances in Experimental
With respect to future research, there is a need to identify
Social Psychology 24 (1991): 201234.
those factors that may moderate the impact of environmental
Coddington, W.: Environmental Marketing: Positive Strategies of Reach-
concern and norms on environmentally friendly consumer
ing the Green Consumer. McGraw-Hill, New York, (1993).
behavior. Clearly, personal norms are important determinants
Colford, S. W.: Fade-out for Green? Advertising Age (December 5,
of environmentally friendly behaviors in their own right. How-
1994), 1.
ever, the degree to which such norms affect behavior may be
Crosby, L. A., Gill, J. D., and Taylor, J. R.: Consumer/Voter Behavior
dependent on their activation at the time a product decision
inthe Passage of the Michigan Container Law. Journal of Marketing
is made. Cialdini et al. (1990) have suggested that individual
45 (Spring 1981): 1932.
differences may chronically focus consumers on one type or
Darley, J. M., and Latane, B.: Norms and Normative Behavior: Field
norm or another. In other words, some consumers may be
Studies of Social Interdependence. In Altruism and Helping Behav-
more likely to act in a fashion consistent with personal or
ior, J. Macaulay and L. Berkowitz, eds.: Academic Press, New
injunctive norms than others. In addition, other variables have
York. 1970, pp. 83102.
been shown to affect behavior independently of the effects of
Davis, J. J.: Consumer Response to Corporate Environmental Adver-
behavioral intentions. For example, volitional control has been
tising. Journal of Consumer Marketing 11 (1994a): 2537.
shown to moderate the effects of intentions on behavior as
Davis, J. J.: Federal and State Regulation of Environmental Marketing:
well. That is, consumers who believe that they control their
A Managers Guide. SAM Advanced Management Journal Summer
(1994b): 3644. behavior and are able to affect desired outcomes are more
likely to act in a manner consistent with their intentions (Ajzen
Ellen, P. S.: Do We Know What We Need to Know? Objective and
Subjective Knowledge Effects on Pro-Ecological Behaviors. Journal
and Madden, 1986; Bagozzi et al., 1992). The relationships
of Business Research 30 (1994): 4352.
of individual differences in values and personality with ante-
Ellen, P. S., Wiener, J. L., and Cobb-Walgren, C.: The Role of Per-
cedents of environmentally friendly attitudes, norms, and be-
ceived Consumer Effectiveness in Motivating Environmentally
haviors is still unclear. While this study has provided addi-
Conscious Behaviors. Journal of Public Policy and Marketing 10
tional support for the notion of environmentally friendly
(1991): 102117.
behaviors as prosocial or altruistic, embedding the general
Fishbein, M., and Ajzen, I.: Belief, Attitude, Intention and Behavior:
attitude of environmental concern within this larger nomologi-
An Introduction to Theory and Research. Addison-Wesley, Reading
cal network is a task that remains for future research.
Mass. 1975.
Fornell, C., and Larcker, D. G.: Evaluating Structural Equation Mod-
els with Unsolved Variables and Measurement Error. Journal of References
Marketing Research, 18 (1981): 3950.
Ajzen, I., and Madden, T. J.: Prediction of Goal-Directed Behavior:
Attitudes, Intentions, and Perceived Behavioral Control. Journal Francis, C., Boyes, E., Qualter, A., and Stanisstreet, M.: Ideas of
Elementary Students about Reducing the Greenhouse Effect. Sci- of Experimental Social Psychology, 22 (1986): 453474.
ence Education 77 (1993): 375392.
Anderson, W. T. Jr., and Cunningham, W. H.: The Socially Conscious
Consumer. Journal of Marketing 36 (July 1972): 2331. Gerbing, D. W., and Anderson, J. C.: An Updated Paradigm for Scale
Development Incorporating Unidimensionality and Its Assess-
Antil, J. H., and Bennett, P. D.: Construction and Validation of a
ment. Journal of Marketing Research, 25 (May 1988): 186192.
Scale to Measure Socially Responsible Consumption Behavior. In
The Conserver Society. Karl E. Henion and Thomas C. Kinnera Gill, J. D., Crosby, L. A., and Taylor, J. R.: Ecological Concern,
Attitudes, and Social Norms in Voting Behavior. Public Opinion eds.: American Marketing Association, Chicago, 1979, pp. 5168.
Quarterly 50 (1986): 537554.
Armstrong, J. B., and Impara, J. C.: The Impact of an Environmental
Education Program on Knowledge and Attitude. Journal of Envi- Granzin, K. L., and Olsen, J. E.: Characterization Participants in
Activities Protecting the Environment: A Focus on Donating, Re- ronmental Education 22 (1991): 3640.
cycling, and Conservation Behaviors. Journal of Public Policy and
Bagozzi, R. P., Baumgartner, H., and Yi, Y.: State Versus Action
Marketing 10 (1991): 127.
Orientation and the Theory of Reasoned Action: An Application
to Coupon Usage. Journal of Consumer Research 14 (March 1992): Hines, J. M., Hungerford, H. R., and Tomera, A. N.: Analysis and
Synthesis of Research on Responsible Environmental Behavior: 583587.
A Meta-Analysis. Journal of Environmental Education 18 (1987):
Balderjahn, I.: Personality Variables and Environmental Attitudes
19.
as Predictors of Ecologically Responsible Consumption Patterns.
Journal of Business Research 17 (1988): 5156. Homer, P., and Kahle, L. R.: AStructural Equation Test of the Values-
Attitudes-Behavior Hierarchy. Journal of Personality and Social Psy-
Berkowitz, L.: Social Norms, Feelings, and Other Factors Affecting
chology 54 (April 1988): 638646.
Helping and Altruism. In Advances in Experimental Social Psychol-
ogy. L. Berkowitz ed.: Academic Press, New York, 6 (1972). Hopper, J. R., and Nielsen, J. M.: Recycling as Altruistic Behavior:
Normative and Behavioral Strategies to Expand Participation in
Cialdini, R. B., Reno, R. R., and Kallergren, C. A.: A Focus Theory
a Community Recycling Program. Environment and Behavior 23
of Normative Conduct: Recyclingthe Concept of Norms to Reduce
(March 1991): 195220.
Littering in Public Places. Journal of Personality and Social Psychol-
ogy 58 (1990): 10151026. Joreskog, K. G.: Statistical Analysis of Sets of Congeneric Tests.
Psychometrika 36 (June 1971): 108133.
Cialdini, R. B., Kallgren, C. A., and Reno, R. R.: A Focus Theory of
Normative Conduct: A Theoretical Refinement and Reevaluation Keen, M.: The Effect of the Sunship Earth Program on Knowledge
47 Environmentally Friendly Consumer Behavior J Busn Res
1997:40:3748
and Attitude Development. Journal of Environmental Education 22 Schwartz, J., and Miller, T.: The Earths Best Friends. American Demo-
graphics (February 1991): 2635. (1991): 2832.
Schwartz, S.: Normative Explanations of Helping: A Critique, Pro-
Kelly, K.: It Really Can Pay to Clean Up Your Act. Business Week
posal, and Empirical Test. Journal of Experimental Psychology 8
(November 7, 1994): 141.
(1973): 349364.
Kinnear, T. C., Taylor, J. B., and Ahmed, S. A.: Ecologically Con-
Schwartz, S.: Normative Influences on Altruism, in Advances in Exper-
cerned Consumers: Who are They? Journal of Marketing 38 (April
imental Social Psychology. Leonard Berkowitz, ed., Academic Press,
1974): 2024.
New York 19 (1977): 221279.
Krebs, D. L.: AltruismAn Examination of the Concept and a Review
Schwepker, C. H., Jr., and Cornwell, T. B.: An Examination of Ecolog-
of the Literature. Psychological Bulletin 73 (1970): 258302.
ically Concerned Consumers and Their Intention to Purchase
Krebs, D. L., and Miller, D. T.: Altruismand Aggression. In Handbook
Ecologically Packaged Products. Journal of Public Policy and Mar-
of Social Psychology. G. Lindzey and E. Aronson eds., Random
keting 10 (1991): 77101.
House, New York. 3rd Edition. 1985.
Smith, S. M., Haugvedt, C. P., and Petty, R. E.: Attitudes and Recy-
Lord, K. R.: Motivating Recycling Behavior: A Quasiexperimental
cling: Does the Measurement of Affect Enhance Behavioral Predic-
Investigation of Message and Source Strategies. Psychology and
tion? Psychology and Marketing 11 (1994): 359374.
Marketing 11 (1994): 341358.
Stern, P. C., and Dietz, T.: The Value Basis of Environmental Concern.
Marini, M. M.: Age and Sequencing Norms in the Transition to
Journal of Social Issues 50 (1994): 6584.
Adulthood. Social Forces 63 (September 1984): 229244.
Stisser, P.: A Deeper Shade of Green. American Demographics (March
McCarty, J. A., and Shrum, L. J.: The Recycling of Solid Wastes: 1994): 2429.
Personal Values, Value Orientations, and Attitudes about Recy-
Triandis, H. C.: Interpersonal Behavior. Brooks/Cole, Monterey, CA.
cling as Antecedents of Recycling Behavior. Journal of Business
1977.
Research 30 (1994): pp. 5362.
VanLiere, K. D., and Dunlap, R. E.: The Social Bases of Environmental
Ottman, J.: Green Marketing. NTC Business Books. Lincolnwood,
Concern: A Review of Hypotheses, Explanations and Empirical
Illinois. 1992.
Evidence. Public Opinion Quarterly 44 (Summer 1981): 181197.
Pickett, G. M., Kangun, N., and Grove S.: Is There a General Conserv- Zimmer, M., Stafford, T. F., and Stafford, M. R.: Green Issues: Dimen-
ing Consumer? A Public Concern. Journal of Public Policy and sions of Environmental Concern. Journal of Business Research 30
(1994): 6374. Marketing 12 (1993): 234243.
48 J Busn Res A. P. Minton and R. L. Rose
1997:40:3748
Appendix: Questionnaire Items
Search for Information
1. How often do you compare package label information about the environmental safety of the product and/or package while you are
in the grocery store?
2. How often do you notice advertisements about environmentally friendly products?
3. How often do you actually pay attention to advertisements about products which are safe for the environment?
4. How often do you talk to your neighbors about various environmentally friendly products or activities?
5. How often do you talk to your close personal friends about various environmentally friendly products or activities?
6. How often do you talk to your coworkers about various environmentally friendly products or activities?
7. How often do you talk to your family members about various environmentally friendly products or activities?
Injunctive Environmental Norm Measure
1. Most of my friends think I should use household products that are safe for the environment.
2. Most of my friends think I should recycle household garbage.
3. Most of my neighbors think I should use environmentally friendly household products.
4. Most of my neighbors think I should recycle.
5. Most of my coworkers think I should use environmentally friendly household products.
6. Most of my coworkers think I should recycle.
7. Most of my family members think I should use environmentally friendly products.
8. Most of my family members think I should recycle.
9. The leaders of my community encourage us all to be good to the environment.
Personal Environmental Norm Measure
1. Do you feel a personal, moral obligation to buy environmentally friendly products for your household?
2. Do you feel a personal, moral obligation to recycle household waste?
3. Do you feel a personal, moral obligation to pay attention to advertisements about products which are safe for the environment?
4. Do you feel a personal, moral obligation to read and compare package labels for environmentally safe ingredients when you shop?
5. Do you feel a personal, moral obligation to buy products made with recycled ingredients?
6. Do you feel a personal, moral obligation to buy larger size products in order to reduce waste?
7. Do you feel a personal, moral obligation to do whatever you can to help improve the environment?
8. Do you feel a personal, moral obligation to buy products made by companies known for being environmentally responsible?
Environmental Concern Measure
1. I think we are not doing enough to save scarce natural resources from being used up.
2. Natural resources must be preserved even if people must do without some products.
3. I feel sorry that the government does not do more to help control pollution of the environment.
4. (Reversed) Much more fuss is being made about air and water pollution than is really justified.
5. I feel angry and frustrated when I think about the harm being done to plant and animal life by pollution.
6. I think the government should devote more money toward supporting conservation and environmental programs.
7. Consumers should be interested in the environmental consequences of the products they purchase.
8. Consumers should pay higher prices for products which pollute the environment.
9. Non-recyclable containers should be taxed to reduce waste.
10. The government should subsidize research on technology for recycling waste products.
11. Manufacturers should be required to use recycled materials in their operations whenever possible.
12. Commercial advertising should be required to mention the environmental disadvantages of products.
13. Products which pollute the environment during manufacturing or consumption should be taxed.
14. Public schools should require all students to take a course dealing with the environment and conservation problems.
15. I feel angry and frustrated when I think of the ways industries are polluting the environment.
16. (Reversed) Environmental issues are overrated and do not concern me.
Behavioral Intentions Measures
1. I would be willing to sign a petition to support an environmental cause.
2. I would consider joining a group or club which is concerned with the environment.
3. I would be willing to pay more taxes to support greater government control of pollution.
4. I would be willing to pay more each month for electricity if it meant cleaner air.
5. I would be willing to stop buying products from companies guilty of polluting the environment even though it might be inconvenient
for me.
6. I would be willing to make personal sacrifices for the sake of slowing down pollution even though the immediate results may not
seem significant.