ngURNING MATERIALS: TV1ESI_J P1ace in book drop to LIBRARJES remove this checkout from ”Fl.- your record. FINES win ——— be charged if book is returned after the date stamped be1ow. {'7 co m CONSUMER DISPOSITION BEHAVIOR: THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN VALUE ORIENTATIONS AND THE TENDENCY TO CHOOSE DISPOSITION OPTIONS By Diane Martin Neeb A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Marketing and Transportation 1986 ABSTRACT CONSUMER DISPOSITION BEHAVIOR: THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN VALUE ORIENTATIONS AND THE TENDENCY TO CHOOSE DISPOSITION OPTIONS By Diane Martin Neeb The primary purpose of this study was to investigate the relationship between consumers' Value Orientations and their usage of responsible versus irresponsible methods of disposition. Value Orientations (on a Time Dimension and a Relational Dimension) were investigated in relation to consumers' tendencies to use six disposition options (Keeping, Throwing-Away, Selling, Deducting, Donating, and Passing). Two models were proposed, one suggesting that High Involvement Disposers plan disposition, based in part on Value Orientations that are also logically linked to the Rationales for the chosen behavior. A second model (Low Involvement Disposition) suggested that Value Orientations were less relevant to disposition choice. Data was reported, therefore, only for High Involvement Disposers. The research design involved a mail survey sent to persons in the Dayton, Ohio area. Consumers' names were drawn systematically from the Dayton telephone directory. They were first contacted by phone, then solicited to participate in a study concerning the manner in which consumers get rid of products they no longer use. Items on the mailed questionnaire included-questions on Value Orientations, Rationales for selecting disposition options, usage of different disposition options, Disposition Attitudes, Disposition Style, Demographics, and Residence variables. The data obtained from the mail survey was analyzed by means of correlational analysis to determine associations between cognitive, affective, and behavioral variables;.and One—Way Analysis of Variance was conducted to determine differences in usage of options between categories of Demographic and Residence variables. Each disposition option was then "profiled" by Value Orientations, Rationales, Disposition Attitudes, Demographics, and Residence variables. Some preliminary understanding of the composite of relevant factors in disposition choice was provided by this procedure. Predictions concerning correlations between specific Value Orientations and specific Disposition Tendencies were supported for five of twelve hypotheses. Interrelationships (significantly different from zero at £E§05) between Value Orientations, Rationales, and Disposition Tendencies were depicted to illustrate how the general model of High Involvement Disposition could, in fact, be applied to each specific disposition option. Finally, conclusions were presented concerning a number of contributions to theory in both Marketing Channels and Environmental Responsibility, as well as implications for tax policy and charitable organization strategy. To my children Courtney and John iv ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would like to express appreciation to those who helped across the many stages of developing and completing this dissertation. While serving as chairman of the dissertation committee, Dr. Gilbert D. Harrell.was able to strike a remarkable balance between thoughtful, intelligent guidance and the willingness to let me be independent and creative in my research. AdditiOnally, I would like to thank Dr. F. Samuel Carter and Dr. M. Bixby Cooper for their numerous insights and sound advice as committee members. Three persons deserve special credit for making a lonely endeavor feel more like a team effort. First, Michele Speh, my typist, was always there when I needed her, often adjusting her personal schedule to help me meet deadlines. Second, Dr. Jack Lesser‘s painstaking editing of the first three chapters during the proposal stage provided me with a memorable education in scholarly writing style. Third, Pushp Kamal, my computer consultant, spared me the horrors of dealing with an unfamiliar computer system and reduced dramatically the time it would have taken for me to run the analyses if left to my own devices. Next, credit is due to the young women who contacted the research participants by phone. Their determination resulted in twice as many agreed participants per hour of phone work as I had expected, thereby greatly reducing my expenses. Thanks for this job go to Laurie Keller, TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW Purpose of the Study Importance of the Research Area Scope of the Investigation Alternative Models Overview’of the Methodology Implications CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW The Theory of Value Orientations Social and Environmental Responsibility Disposition Choice Theoretical Differences Between Disposition Options Discard Behavior as a Socio-Cultural Phenomenon Chapter Summary . CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY Overview Questionnaire Development Sampling and Data Collection Procedures Coding and Analysis Preliminary Guidelines for Interpreting Data Analysis CHAPTER FOUR: FINDINGS AND INTERPRETATIONS Preliminary Information Associations Between Value Orientations and Disposition Tendencies Profiles of the Six Disposition Tendencies General Discussion of the Models of Disposition Behavior Chapter Summary vii Page 55 55 56 64 68 7O 73 73 77 81 95 104 CHAPTER FIVE: CONCLUSIONS TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONT'D.) Implications of the Findings Limitations Future Research in Disposition Summary of the Research Design and Findings APPENDICES Appendix Appendix Appendix Appendix Appendix Appendix Appendix Appendix Appendix Appendix Appendix Appendix Appendix Appendix BIBLIOGRAPHY II III IV VI VII VIII IX XI XII XIII XIV First Version of Questionnaire: Lansing Mail Survey Second Version of Questionnaire: Oxford Store-Front Intercept Final Version of Questionnaire Demographic and Residence Characteristics of the Sample and the Two Sub—Samples Rationales by Value Orientation Adherences: Correlation Coefficients Rationales by Disposition Tendencies: Correlation Coefficients Mean Usage Percentages of Each Disposition Option for High Involvement Disposers Keeping Behavior and Relevant Variables Throwing-Away Behavior and Relevant Variables Selling Behavior and Relevant Variables Deducting Behavior and Relevant Variables Donating Behavior and Relevant Variables Passing Behavior and Relevant Variables Disposition Attitudes by Disposition Tendencies: Correlation Coefficients viii Page 107 107 113 116 117 120 125 128 135 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 Table 1. Table 2. Appendix Appendix Appendix Appendix Appendix Appendix Appendix Appendix Appendix Appendix Appendix LIST OF TABLES Reliability Coefficients for the Six Value Orientation Indices Value Orientation Adherences by Disposition Tendencies: Correlation Coefficients IV Demographic and Residence Characteristics of the Sample and the Two Sub-Samples V Rationales by Value Orientation Adherences: Correlation Coefficients VI Rationales by Disposition Tendencies: Correlation Coefficients VII Mean Usage Percentages of Each Disposition Option for High Involvement Disposers VIII Keeping Behavior and Relevant Variables IX Throwing-Away Behavior and Relevant Variables X Selling Behavior and Relevant Variables XI Deducting Behavior and Relevant Variables XII Donating Behavior and Relevant Variables XIII Passing Behavior and Relevant Variables XIV Disposition Attitudes by Disposition Tendencies: Correlation Coefficients ix Page 76 78 135 137 138' 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure 1. 10. 11. LIST OF FIGURES Channels of Disposition Disposition Options in the Extended Channel and Their Environmental Impact High Involvement Model of Disposition Low Involvement Model of Disposition The Five Value Orientations and the Range of variations Postulated on Each A Taxonomy for Describing Consumer Disposition Behavior Four Types of Giving Behavior Process Mbdel for Contributing Behavior Relational Dimension Modifications for the Present Study Items and Stimulus Topics Used to Create Value Orientations Scales Summary of the Influence of Specific Value Orientations, Disposition Attitudes, and Rationales on Disposition Tendency Model of Keeping Behavior Model of Throwing-Away Behavior Model of Selling Behavior Mbdel of Deducting Behavior Model of Donating Behavior Model of Passing Behavior Page 11 11 19 34- 43 49 57 61 93 96 97 99 102 103 105 CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW Purpose of the Study Every year most consumer households dispose of a number of durable and semi-durable products held in personal inventory. Factors which might trigger the removal of no-longer-wanted items include the need for space, redecorating, maturation, an imminent move, and changes in lifestyle or household structure. The methods used for removal are referred to as "disposition" options (Jacoby, Berning and Dietvorst, 1977)eand generally include selling, swapping, passing along, donating, and trashing. Product category and condition, as well as the particular situational pressures, may influence the specific disposition option chosen. However, given the same products and the same situation, consumers often show a diversity of behaviors as to the manner in which they dispose. Personal charactecistics of the disposer are then likely to be the influential factor. Value Orientations theory may offer some insight as to why consumers dispose differently when product and situation factors are controlled. Value Orientations theory proposes that specific behavioral choices are related to beliefs about "what works bestJ' In other words, the individual acts in accord with his/her world outlook or philosophy of life (Kluckhohn, 1959.) This overall philosophy of life consists of five dimensions, each having a different degree of influence on any particular behavioral sphere (Kluckhohn and Strodtbeck, 1961L It is the purpose of the present research to examine how two of the dimensions of the Value Orientations Set, the Relational Dimension and the Time Dimension, are related to the tendency to use each of the specific disposition options. These relationships will be discussed within the context of socially responsible consumer behavior. This introductory section will be divided into the following sub-sections: 1) Importance of the Research Area, 2) Scope of the Investigation, 3) Alternative Models, 4) Overview of the Methodology, and 5) Implications. Importance of the Research Area The research presented here offers contributions in both theoretical and pragmatic arenas. First, the concept of disposition expands on the domain of consumer behavior and extends channels theory. Secondly, the study adds to the body of Social Responsibility 4 literature in the area of Environmentally'Responsible Behavior. Third, the findings may aid in policy decisions concerning the tax system. Finally, the results are relevant to understanding the macroeconomic impact of disposition as part of an underground economy. The fblflhywing paragraphs will briefly present these areas of contribution. Expanding Theory'of the Consumer's Role in the Channel of Distribution. Most of the research in consumer behavior has investigated how consumers acquire goods; however, consumer behavior actually entails acquisition, usage, and disposition of goods (Jacoby, 1976; Nicosia and Mayer, 1976). Only a small stream of research has addressed the issue of the consumer as a disposer. This neglect of disposition may be due to the manner in which marketing depicts the consumer, that is, as the end-point in a channel of distribution. In reality, however, the consumer is often not the final user of the good. He/she takes on the role of supplier in a "channel of disposition)‘ Goods may be moved up the Backward Channel via recycling, trade-ins, returns, and exchanges (Zikmund and Stanton, 1971). Conversely, goods may be moved down the Extended Channel when they are sold, passed along, or donated to other individuals or organizations. Figure 1 depicts the possible movements in a channel of disposition. Producer /: Indiv iduals Midd Tlema;:Consumer —* Organizations BACKWARD CHANNEL FLOWS EXTEND- CHANNEL nous Figure 1. Channels of Disposition The present investigation thus contributes to the smell.body of literature that views the consumer as a pivot-point rather than an end- point in the movement of resources. In the long run, every physical good a consumer acquires must be disposed of in some manner. Even so- cal led "consumables" like soaps are not truly "used up"; they are disposed of, after use, through the sewerage system. Items kept till death are disposed of by legacy. In the words of the noted Environmentalist, "Everything has to go somewhere" (Commoner, 1971). Adding to the Body of Social Responsibility Literature. When the consumer selects a disposition option, the behavior can be deemed as either socially responsible or irresponsible. Two of the basic concerns of Environmentalists are pollution and the waste of natural resources. When.a.still-usable product is thrown away, it contributes to both of these problems. First, the resources which might have been used by another person have been wasted. Second, the product is moved to a dump site or landfill where it will deteriorate. There are several concerns related to landfill accumulation. Decomposing products introduce toxins into the water table and are particularly dangerous if the materials are synthetics that do not break down to natural elements (Commoner, 1971). Fumes from deteriorating products may cause not only air pollution but also spontaneous combustion (White, 1983L Finally, landfills and dump sites scar the landside and create a form of aesthetic pollution. Socially responsible disposition may be defined as any behavior that moves a good along for extended use of its resources and delays its becoming part of a landfill or dump site. An understanding of the responsible disposer will enable agencies to reinforce these desirable behaviors. Relevance to Tax Policy; There are important implications for policy makers who are concerned with "redistribution of wealth" to lower-income households. Any method of disposition that allows second- hand merchandise to be moved down an extended channel maintains a source of supply to those households which may purchase items at very low prices or receive them as charity. Proposed changes in the deductibility of donations might act as deterrents to the donating process. ‘When low-priced merchandise is made available, the "real income" of the needy household is increased; when the incentives to supply such merchandise are reduced, that availability will dwindle. The movement of goods down the Extended Channel thus represents a redistribution of "wealth" which is in the form of products rather than cash, and which is provided in a voluntary manner by the individual who is supplying this "wealiflm" Much has been written on donor behavior concerning blood, body parts, cash, and volunteer time: but no scholarly research has been conducted in reference to product donation. Given the long-standing operations of the Salvation Army, Goodwill Industries, and the Volunteers of America, there is clearly a function of redistribution for which these organizations exist to serve some sector of our society. Macroeconomic Relevance. There is a market expansion taking place ' in the area of second-hand goods. On the one hand, this expansion represents a shift in consumer tastes and acceptance of used goods. Some merchandisers of second-hand garments even refer to them as "vintage" clothing. On the other hand, it represents some interesting macroeconomic phenomena. Most extended channel activity is not 'keportedfl' As a result, there is an underestimate of "income" for those who are ardent garage-salers and those who swap goods and services. When economic transactions are not reported, they are not taxed, thereby making them worth even more. In years when GNP is quite low growth-wise, there may be a vast underground economy in operation, so that measuring sales of first-hand merchandise may grossly underestimate the actual degree of economic activity taking place. Understanding the disposition choice process and the characteristics of those who engage in these "underground" transactions may shed some light on why these activities occur and who is most likely to engage in them. Scope of the Investigation The following paragraphs will briefly describe the manner in which the study has been narrowed down to a manageable yet meaningful set of variables. Disposition Options. Figure 1 illustrates that the consumer may move unwanted goods backward up the conventional channel or downward through an Extended Channel. Because the Backward Channel options are limited by the policies of producers and middlemen, they are less voluntary. Moreover, the Backward Channel activities tend to be product-or-situation-dependent. (There are a limited number of product categories which can be traded-in. Returns and exchanges are usually' limited to unwanted gifts or items about which the consumer wants to make a complaint. Recycling is primarily a container-related activity) Therefore, this study will focus on the Extended Channel options from which the consumer maygchoose when decidinggwhat to do with an item which is usuable-but-no-longer-used. The list of Extended Channel options can be quite lengthy if each basic option is subdivided. For example, Selling could be subdivided into garage sale, classified ad, auction, consignment agreement with a second-hand merchant, and swap-meet bargaining. In spite of the possible differences between people who choose one of these sub-options and persons who choose another, such fine discrimination was not deemed necessary for the present study. All of the selling sub-options represent immediate economic gain and some degree of effort. 0n the other hand, there should be a relevant difference in Value Orientations between those who donate for tax deduction purposes versus those who donate items without listing them on their tax returns. These two options have been treated as different behaviors, referred to as Deducting and Donating. While Deducting produces a delayed economic return and requires some effort in listing and evaluating itens, Donating produces mainly psychological rewards for the donor but is relatively effortless. Passing-Along could be subdivided by the type of recipient: relative, friend, neighbor, or servant/employee. ‘While passing items to servants/employees (persons of lower status than oneself) may appear to be more like charitable donation than passing along to a relative, friend, or neighbor, the former is considered to be a relatively rare occurrence and not worthy of a separate category. Therefore, Passing activity has simply been treated as "passing along to an acquaintance)‘ The Throwing-Away option is sufficiently self-explanatory. The Keeping option has been included, although it is not truly a form of disposition in that the good does not move out of personal inventory. It has been included primarily because it is traditionally included in disposition studies. Moreover, Keeping deals with the pack-rat phenomenon, which slows the movement of goods to those who could make better use of the idle resources they contain. Because the context in which these variables have been considered is one of social responsibility, the disposition options have been tabled to show how they relate to the environmental consequences of their usage. (See Figure 2.) Resource Landfill Socially Disposition Option Waste Pollutant Responsible Sell/Swap No No Yes Donate and Deduct No No Yes Donate w/o Deduct No No Yes Pass to Acquaintance No No Yes Throw Away Yes Yes No Keep Maybe . No Maybe Figure 2. Disposition Options in the Extended Channel and Their Environmental Impact If socially responsible disposition is defined as "any method that prevents waste of resources and delays the time at which the product will add to the pollutions caused by landfill accumulationfl'then the first four behaviors may be considered to be responsible, Throwing-Away to be irresponsible, and Keeping to be questionnable. Products Studied. The few existing studies on disposition behavior have identified specific products and asked consumers what they did when the product was no longer wanted. This approach may be adequate when one wants to learn about the disposition of a specific product or set of products; however, the purpose of the current study is to examine the tendency to use certain options across a variety of products. What the respondent says would be done with a toaster may not be representative of his/her general pattern of disposing. Results from exploratory work for this dissertation suggest that most consumers have something analogous to an evoked set of preferred disposition options. A few would claim to have a single option that they tend to use whenever possible. Therefore, if one is investigating behavioral tendencies, it is not necessary to specify the stimulus set by products. The stimulus set has been described essentially'as "a number of moderate value items that have not been used in a while, that are in usable condition, and have no sentimenmal valueJ' High and low value items were excluded because the former may be likely to be sold and the latter thrown away. Moderate value items should elicit more variance in disposition responses across consumers. Similarly, damaged condition is likely to rule out/dictate some options for some consumers. In addition, an effort was made to eliminate the effects of emotional attachment. In sum, the respondents to the survey should have been able to recall a set of common household items which they personally had held in inventory and about which disposition decisions had been made in the past. Value Orientations Dimensions. Value Orientations theory proposes that every culture has a dominant set of orientations on each of five dimensions, but that subgroups show variations on the dominant philosophy (Kluckhohn and Strodtbeck, 1961). Those with variant orientations are expected to behave differently. The five dimensions are: 1) Nature of Man, onehs beliefs about human nature; 2) Man and Nature, one's beliefs about man's ability to control nature; 3) Relational, oneis beliefs about responsibility to others; 4) Time, onehs beliefs about looking to past, present, or future for guidelines; and 5) Activity, onehs beliefs about the motives for conduct. All of these orientations will be fully explained in the literature review. Value Orientations theory says that not every dimension will be equally'influential in.a given behavioral sphere; three of the Value 10 Orientation variables have not been considered to have adequate theoretical linkage to the behavior of disposition. Two dimensions were selected for the present study because of the relevance of similar constructs in related literature on socially responsible behavior. The Relational Dimension, concerned with mania responsibility to mankind, deals with whether an individual takes responsibility primarily for self versus looking out for others versus feeling dependent on others to solve society's problems. This dimension appears to be the essence of social responsibility. Secondly, the characteristic of "traditional" vs. "liberal" is a recurring variable of interest in the social responsibility literature.- Since traditionals look to the past, while liberals look more to future change, the Time Dimension from Value Orientations theory is appropriate for the current study. Due to the need for lengthy scales to measure each dimension, it was deemed impractical to go on a "fishing expedition" with the other dimensions to find if they might bear some untheorized influence on socially responsible disposition. Alternative Mbdels Since Value Orientations tend to be somewhat abstract, they are likely to be linked to a particular behavioral sphere by an intervening set of cognitions. This set of cognitions can be expressed as a set of expectations about the desired attributes or outcomes of the activity. These expectations, or justifications, will henceforth be referred to as the "rationales" for the‘behavioral tendency. Figure 3 depicts the linkage from Value Orientations to Rationales to Disposition Tendency. 11 This process can be described as one that reflects relatively high involvement. Value Orientations ---> Rationales --—> Disposition Tendency Figure 3. High Involvement Model of Disposition The above model assumes that the behavioral sphere in question is perceived by the consumer to be important; the behavior's attributes are linked to some more fundamental, central value system (Rokeach, 1968), or ego (Sherif and Cantril, 1947). As a highly involving decision area, it would merit information search, alternative evaluation, and problem-solving effort. On the other hand, some individuals may not dispose in accord with their Value Orientations because, for them, disposition choice is a behavioral sphere that is p_o_t_:_ cognitively linked to their personal philosophies. Disposition may be seen as a peripheral activity, deserving little forethought. These persons' disposition activities may be induced more spontaneously by situational influences than by Value Orientations. When asked about Rationales for the behavior, they may develop post hoc justifications that appear very similar to the Rationales used by High Involvement Disposers. These Rationales may well be logically consistent with the disposition options chosen, though inconsistent with Value Orientations. Figure 4 depicts Low In vo l vement Dispos ition. Situational Influences ---> Disposition Tendency --> Rationale Figure 4. Low Involvement Model of Disposition 12 Observation indicates that these two types of disposers do indeed exist. 'To ignore this classification would hamper the validity of the study. In addition, analyzing the data for both types together would weaken the findings concerning the relationship between Value Orientations and socially responsible disposition behaviors. It was therefore important to allow respondents to self-classify as to the degree of involvement they feel for this behavioral sphere. Since those who are only minimally "involved" in an activity may simply answer the questions without much thought or may recall.their behaviors inaccurately, their responses were excluded from the analysis. Overview of the Methodology_ A large sample survey was conducted by mail in the Dayton, Ohio area. Respondents were first contacted by phone, told very briefly about the nature of the study, and then solicited for participation. . The research instrument consisted of questions concerning 1) Value Orientations on the Relational and Time dimensions, 2) Rationales for disposition choice, 3) Disposition Tendency, Attitudes, and Style (High versus Low Involvement), and 4) Demographic and Residence variables. Data analysis focused primarily on the strength and direction of correlations between Value Orientations and Disposition Tendency for those respondents who self-classified as more highly involved in their disposition decisions. In addition, each Disposition Tendency was profiled by both psychological and demographic characteristics in order to develop interpretations and implications. Models of each specific disposition option were then constructed to depict the correlations between relevant Value Orientations, Rationales, and Disposition Tendencies. 13 Implications Critics of marketing often cite "planned obsolescence" as a strategy which leads to the wastefulness of a throw-away society. They seem to imply that the consumer tires of a still-usable good and simply trashes it. Preliminary studies for this dissertation indicated that this is far from the case; in each of the small-sample studies conducted, only 13% of the usable products were reported to be likely to be trashed. In the aggregate, at least, these exploratory results would suggest that Americans tend to be a socially responsible nation of disposers. Value Orientations have been hypothesized to explain why some consumers behave more responsibly than others. Implications for government agencies, charitable organizations, and environmental action groups can be drawn from the findings of studies such as the present one. Charitable organizations might use these findings to target reinforcing messages to current donors and to develop tactics for appealing to potential donors. Environmental action groups might learn which disposers are currently behaving irresponsibly and, by understanding such disposers, determine whether behavior modification is feasible. Policy makers in the area of income tax should consider what might happen when deductibility for donations is decreased, inn, to which option will those donors tend to switch when their incentive for donating is removed? Deducters may be likely to discontinue donating in favor of some other option which also fits with their Value Orientations and Rationales, thereby reducing the flow of low-priced or free goods to the truly needy. 14 Producers of new goods should be aware of the factors influencing consumers who tend to dispose by resale or passing along to acquaintances. Superior quality goods that tend to be outgrown-before- worn-out or subject to style changes might be positioned as having good resale value or as durable enough to pass on to a friend. The tone of the advertising could be set by the Value Orientation that correlates with the respective Disposition Tendency, and copy points could be based on appropriate Rationales. In conclusion, the manner in which consumers deal with usable-but- no-longer-used goods has implications for several sectors of society. Moreover, disposition is worthy of study as one of the most common, yet rarely researched, sociological phenomena. This research should enhance the theoretical elaboration of a relatively new area of investigation concerning one of man's oldest activities. CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW The literature related to the present study could indeed be considered interdisciplinary. References have been drawn from literature and theories in not only marketing and consumer behavior but also anthropology, sociology, small group psychology, economics, ecology, and urban planning. Due to this diversity of related areas, some topics are represented by only a few articles which seemed to be particularly useful in providing insights. Although some areas are not presented in depth, their relevance to this dissertation will be demonstrated. This chapter will be divided into several sub-sections: 1. Value Orientations theory will be reviewed first in order to provide the theoretical framework for the study. 2. The literature on socially'responsible behavior is covered, with specific focus on environmentally conscious consumption. While none of these studies specifically address responsible disposition choice, they add insight into the usefulness of investigating Value Orientations in relation to responsible behaviors. In addition, the recurring debate about the political orientations of socially'responsible individuals highlights two of the Value Orientation dimensions as relevant and justifies their inclusion in the present study. 3. The literature on disposition choice per se will be presented. 4. Disposition options will be differentiated within a theoretical justification of the taxonomy of options. 5. Discard behavior will be discussed as a socio-cultural phenomenon. The Theory of Value Orientations Consumer behaviorists generally include the construct of values in comprehensive models of consumer decision making. Values have been 15 16 defined in many ways, but they are usually thought of as normative ideals. 'The theory of Value Orientations, however, goes a step beyond the concept of ideals by dealing with the more pragmatic conceptions that make up an individual's personal philosophy. ‘This section of the literature review will present the major ideas developed in Value Orientations theory by Clyde Kluckhohn (1959) and Florence Kluckhohn with Fred Strodtbeck (1961). The following quotation from Clyde Kluckhohn (1959) captures the essence of Value Orientations theory: "Values go back to a conception of nature. . . .Different cultures are tied to different conceptualizations. "Values are constrained within the framework of what is taken as given by nature. If the nature of human nature is conceived as intrinsically evil, men are not enjoined to behave like gods; though if human nature is believed to be perfectible, they may be." (p. 392) Kluckhohnfls position is that what one thinks one "ought to do" is determined by culturally learned existential beliefs about "how things are!’ "How things are" is the conceptualization of reality, or, simply, one's world outlook. Behavior is said to follow logically from what one thinks is "possibleJ' In terms of the role values play, Kluckhohn states that a value is "a conception, explicit or implicit, distinctive of an individual or characteristic of a group, of the desirable which influences selection from suitable modes, means, and ends of acthmf'(p. 395% Kluckhohn prefers the term "selection" over "choice" because choice implies conscious intention. Describing selection between behavioral options, he says that the individual will.in.some cases make a "conscious choice between alternatives for action; in others, an action will appear 17 inevitable and the actor will not be aware that any selection is being .made" (p. 402). In addition, Kluckhohn posits that two individuals or cultures may have a common perception of a desirable goal, but employ different means or modes of action because they adhere to different Value Orientations. (Therefore, in terms of disposition selection, two individuals may both see non-waste as a desirable goal: but the mode of disposition chosen may be different for each because, for one person, the most pragmatic method is Selling, while the other believes that the most workable solution is Donating.) As a conceptualization of reality is absorbed by the individual or the culture, it may take on a normative status. In time, there is an entanglement between "what is good" and "which things work" (p. 410). While Kluckhohn does not use the term "utilitarian." he appears to assume that people operate under the philosophy that "if it works, itka good." Finally, then, Kluckhohn formally defines a Value Orientation as "a generalized and organized conception, influencing behavior, of nature, of man's place in it, of man's relation to man and of the desirable and nondesirable as they may relate to man-environment and interhuman relations"'(p. 411% WOrking from the above definition of‘Value Orientations, Florence Kluckhohn and Fred Strodtbeck (1961) developed a taxonomy of the dimensions of the Value Orientation set. They propose that there are five basic dimensions, each having three or four alternative outlooks as possible orientations. A given culture or individual is said to adhere more strongly to one alternative on each dimension than to the 18 other alternatives. In addition, a culture is proposed to adhere to a "dominant" s25 of orientations with which most of its members would agree. Within-culture variations on the dominant outlook are not considered to be "deviant" but rather "permitted, even required" (p. 3) in order totallow for diversity of occupations in society. For example, they point out that if all persons in a business-oriented society held the exact same orientations, there would be no artists. The orientation is thus said to affect selection between behavioral alternatives. Figure 5 depicts Kluckhohn and Strddtbeckfs taxonomy of Value Orientation dimensions. The alternative outlooks which a person may hold are briefly described as follows: 1. The Human Nature Orientation deals with how one views the intrinsic morality of man. Man may be seen as basically good, basically evil, neutral, or some mixture of good and evil. These alternatives are further subdivided as to whether the nature of man is changeable or fixed. 2. The Man-Nature Orientation deals with whether man is able to master the forces of nature. ‘The first outlook views man as a victim of the elements; the third outlook is one which indicates a philosophy that man can harness nature to serve him. In the middle is a philosophy of harmony, wherein man is seen as inseparable from the natural order of things, neither slave nor master. 3. The Time Orientation deals with the temporal focus of human life. The past-orientation is essentially a tradition-driven outlook, one in which the "old ways" are considered best. 'The present-orientation is.a live-for- today philosophy. The future-orientation is the belief that things will be better tomorrow than today; it places emphasis on the value of change. 4. The Activity Orientation deals with the modality of human activities. The being-orientation sees activities as spontaneous or non-purposive; things are done as the mood strikes. The being-in—becoming outlook focuses on the development of the inner self as an integrated whole; activities are geared to self-improvement and self- comprehension. The doing-orientation is the belief that 19 Orientation Postulated Rapge of Variations Human Nature Evil Neutral Mixture of Good Good/Evil mutable mutable immutable mutable immutable immutable Man-Nature Subjugation- Harmony-with- Mastery- to-Nature Nature over-Nature Time Past Present Future Activity Being Being-in-Becoming Doing Relational Lineality Collaterality Individualism Figure 5. The Five Value Orientations and the Range of Variations Postulated on Each Source: Peterson, 1961), 12. Adapted from Florence Kluckhohn and Fred L. Variations in Value Orientations (Evanston: Strodtbeck, Row, 20 activities are best directed toward achieving recognition and rewards from others; there is an element of planning or structuring of activities to attain socially rewarded goals. 5. The Relational Orientation deals with manks responsibility to man. The lineal-orientation represents the viewpoint that there is a hierarchal structure that dictates which jobs or responsibilities are to be undertaken by which sectors of society. The collateral— orientation is one in which all men are seen as "siblings" to each other, 1mm, it is a philosophy of interdependent brotherhood. ‘The individualistic- orientation is the belief that society works best overall when each individual takes responsibility for himself and moves toward achieving his own goals. A key concept presented by Kluckhohn and Strodtbeck is that the individual may adhere somewhat to each alternative on a dimension, but that the individual will adhere more strongly to one than the other two outlooks on that dimension. This theoretical position leads these authors to conclude that an individual could rank-order agreement with the alternative outlooks on any given dimension (p. 10); 1mm, adherences to alternative outlooks are not mutually exclusive. Considering the role of these dimensions in influencing behavior, the authors stress that, in some patterns of behavior, one orientation may be of critical importance, whereas for other behaviors a different dimension may be the major influence (p. 19). They add that "seldom, if ever, is any pattern a pure expression of one and only one value orientation." Kluckhohn and Strodtbeck developed a research instrument to study the differences in adherence to the alternative Value Orientations between five communities in the southwest United States. They examined the dominant philosophies of five farm communities (Zuni, Navajo, Mormon, Mexican-American, and Texas-Oklahoman) and looked for variations on the dominant set of orientations within those 21 'hubculturesfl' The stimulus topics in the questionnaire dealt with issues such as the death of sheep (Man—Nature Dimension) and the building of a community well (Relational DimensionL. As such, the specific data is of little interest for the present study. However, the format and structure of their instrument are useful as guidelines for those who would study Value Orientation adherence in other populations. The questionnaire consists of a series of stimulus topics which are phrased as "life situations" or "common problems" being discussed by three individuals, each individual expressing a viewpoint which matches one of the possible alternative orientations on the dimension being studied in that question. The respondent is asked to rank-order agreement with the three viewpoints. The following item from their instrument was intended to determine adherence to the Man-Nature orientations; weather was used as the stimulus topic. "Several people were talking about the things that control the weather. Here are three-different views. Rank them in the order you agree with most. A. Man has never been able to control the weather and never will. It is a matter of taking the weather as it comes and doing the best you can afterward. B. Man cannot control the weather, but we can watch it carefully and take action ahead of time to prevent damage from storms. C. Man must learn to overcome and control the weather for our own use. Some day we will be able to change the weather to meet our wantsJ' Alternative A represents the subjugated-orientation: B represents the harmony-orientation; and C represents the mastery-orientation. Several scenarios of this sort were used for each dimension. ‘The Value Orientations of each community were then described in terms of 22 adherence rankings, eqy, a community might be more present than past than future-oriented, and so forth for each of the dimensions. The study was concerned with showing differences between the subcultures and variations within each subculture. Unfortunately, Kluckhohn and Strodtbecks' study did not investigate how a person's Value Orientations are related to any specific behavioral choice. One consumer behavior study (Henry, 1976) did, however, investigate the relationship between a personhs Value Orientations and behavior in a specific area, that of automobile— category-ownership. Henry modified the Kluckhohn and Strodtbeck scale so that the stimulus topics were more appropriate to his population of interest but maintained the conceptual meaning of the dimensions. Henry found that certain orientations were correlated with ownership of a full-sized car (lineal and subjugated), while others were related to ownership of a sub-compact (collateral), and others to ownership of a A sports car (harmony and becoming). The importance of Henry‘s study to this dissertation is the support it lends to the proposition that abstract values £33_be related to very specific behavioral choices. No subsequent research has been found in which the construct of Value Orientations is used as a relevant influence in consumer behavior. In summary, Value Orientations are the conceptualizations one holds about the nature of reality. There are five basic dimensions of the Value Orientations Set, each having three or more alternative outlooks. The individual may adhere somewhat to all three alternatives on a dimension but will generally'tend to prioritize agreement with the three outlooks. While a culture tends to manifest a dominant set of orientations, sub-groups of individuals may vary from the dominant 23 pattern. 'These variations in orientations are expected to be related to variations in behavioral choice tendencies in specific areas. Certain dimensions will be more influential in one behavioral sphere, while other dimensions would be most relevant to other behaviors. Most behaviors are expected to be influenced by more than one dimension of the Value Orientations set. Since not every dimension is likely to be influential in choice of disposition option, two were selected as having a logical linkage to this behavioral sphere. 'The flollowing section of the literature review will report studies on socially responsible individuals in order to indicate why the Time Dimension and the Relational Dimension were chosen as the relevant Value Orientations for the study of Disposition Tendencies among consumers. Because consumers' disposition choices have environmental impact, responsibility is an appropriate concept to study. The next section of the literature review will discuss some of the studies conducted in the area of socially responsible behavior. Social and Environmental Responsibility Since the late 1960Eu attention has been given to the concept of socially responsible behavior in several areas. (Of interest to the present study are those pieces of research which have attempted to define environmentally responsible behavior and have assessed the characteristics of those persons who are categorized as responsible. Researchers have examined attitudes, behaviors, and demographics and have presented conflicting results. Discrepancies may have been due, in part, to differences in the scales used to determine social responsibility. For example, one scale uses measures of community 24 involvement (Berkowitz and Lutterman, 1968),.flmile others use measures of recycling behaviors (e.g., Webster, 1975). Of particular interest is the unresolved issue of the political orientations and values of the environmentally responsible consumer. While some authors conclude that responsible individuals are traditionals (past-oriented) and opposed to more government intervention (individualistic-orientation), others conclude that the environmentally concerned are liberals seeking change-for-the-better in a Utopian sense (future-oriented) and more likely to support government regulation (non—individualisticL. The parentheticals in the preceding sentence indicate an extrapolation to the terminology of Value Orientations theory, specifically the Time and Relational Orientations, based on judgment that these are, in fact, the philosophical issues in question. 'The literature on social responsibility will be reviewed in chronological order, with editorial comments on how these extrapolations may be derived. The classic article on social responsibility by Berkowitz and Lutterman (1968) defined the responsible person as one who has a sense of involvement and participation in society and community but does not expect immediate personal rewards. The Berkowitz-Lutterman Social Responsibility Scale consisted of Agree-Disagree items which seem very similar to Value Orientation statements, e.g. "It is no use worrying about current events or public affairs; I can't do anything about them anywayJ' (This might be the philosophy of a person who does not feel responsible for himself or othersJ Respondents who disagreed with such statements were deemed "responsible." Those who scored high on the responsibility scale tended to belong to a church with traditional 25 beliefs, have strong political convictions, leaning toward the Republican party and opposing government intervention. They expressed a preference for thinking for oneself and felt generally comfortable that they were in control of their own destinies. The strongest demographic correlate was level of education. (In terms of Value Orientations, these socially'responsible individuals could be described as past-oriented and individualistic.) ‘It should be noted that Berkowitz and Luttermanhs definition of social responsibility did not at any time deal specifically'with environmental concerns. The areas of responsibility were more focused on "participating" by becoming informed on political issues, actively supporting campaigns for candidates, and voting. The focus of responsibility was narrowed down to "Socially Responsible Consumption" by Herberger (1975). Herberger dealt with the voluntary consumption of socially safe products as his measure of responsibility. He investigated the relationship between the consumerks level of ecological knowledge and purchase of safe products. Reviewing the available literature he concluded that consumers' behaviors did not always follow from their stated attitudes on environmental issues; int, ecological concern may not be reflected in brand choice. (Extrapolatimg from this conclusion, it might be proposed that some consumers may express responsible values but not behave responsibly in the area of disposition. This conclusion would run counter to the assumptions of a high involvement decision model and thus justifies the development of an alternative model.) The socially conscious consumer was defined by Webster (1975) as 'bne who takes into account the public consequences of his or her 26 private consumption!’ This definition views a person as responsible without requiring the active community participation prescribed by Berkowitz and Lutterman: 1mm, it is enough that one's private behavior not result in harm to others. Moreover, Webster contended that a person who scored high on the Berkowitz-Lutterman scale might not score high on his own Socially Conscious Consumption scale. Webster's scale consisted of behavioral questions; e.g., the so—cal led "responsible" consumer used lead-free gas, low-phosphate detergent, and returnable bottles; he/she used a recycling service, had a pollution control device on the car, and reused grocery bags. This person also refused to buy goods involved in labor disputes. Given the nature of those descriptors of responsible consumption, it is not surprising that Webster found a different profile from the one described by Berkowitz and Lutterman. Webster concluded that, if the Socially Responsible Individual could be described as a traditional pillar of the community, the Socially Conscious Consumer could be described as belonging to an upper—middle-class "counterculturel' (This conclusion would seem to indicate that the environmentally responsible consumer is the opposite of the traditional and would have Value Orientations that are g£h§£_ _t_h_a;1 "past-oriented" and "individualistic.") While Berkowitz and Lutterman examined individuals who were active participants in community issues and Webster investigated private responsible consumption, Cotgrove (1976) analyzed the active Environmentalist, one who belongs to formal groups concerned with protecting the environment. Cotgrove concluded that zealous Environmentalists had simply latched onto the Environment crusade as a means of attacking the capitalist system and creating preference for a 27 welfare state. He very specifically addressed the idea of differences in Value Orientations between the Utopian environmental activists and adherents of the capitalist culture. ‘These Utopians were said to be generally of the opinion that the world would be better with change (future-oriented) and more in favor of government intervention to solve the problems of pollution (lineal-orientationL They were likely to be of liberal or even radical political persuasion, adhering to anti- traditionalismmand anti-individualism outlooks. Mayer (1976) attempted to look at the previous studies and resolve the discrepant findings in order to develop a tighter concept of the socially conscious consumer. Mayer suggested that the term "counterculture,".as used by Webster, may have been an exaggeration and that the socially conscious consumer was one who had given up on being able to effect changes in our society in other areas. This person was described as simply having redirected his "mainstream cultural values" 'toward the issue of ecology, where he/she might have a chance of being efficacious. Mayer thus seemed to contradict webster and Cotgrove and leaned more toward Berkowitz and Lutterman in his depiction of traditional orientations of the "responsible" consumer. Looking beyond educational level for further demographic characteristics of ecologically conscious consumers, Murphy, Kangun, and Locander (1978) examined the race variable when comparing upper and middle class female shoppers. The experiment involved three levels of exposure to ecological information concerning three product categories. After exposure to either a high level, moderate level, or zero level of information, the women were asked to choose a brand from each category. They were also asked to rate the importance of ecological attribUtes 28 for these products. There were no significant differences between black and white women on most of the attribute-importance ratings. However, when it came to brand choice, white women chose the ecologically "correct" brand significantly more often than did black women. Because the effects of information level were not reported in depth, it is difficult to draw conclusions from this study. In addition, little insight was provided as to the liberal-versus- traditional-tendencies aspect of social responsibility. Renewing his position on the liberal characteristics of Environmental Activists, Cotgrove investigated with Duff (1980) the differences in orientations of three groups: Environmental Activist group members, leading industrialists, and a sample of the general public. All three groups showed sLmilar levels of.awareness concerning ecological problems; therefore, the authors were able to discard the proposition that people join Environmental Activist groups because of a higher awareness of ecological problems. Cotgrove and Duff did find considerable variations on the orientations of the activists versus the other two groups. They concluded that the activists "hold a completely different world view, with different beliefs about the way society works. ....Their world-view differs markedly from the dominant view)’ The authors examined the demographics of activists and found that they tended to be members of the "non-productive" sector (teachers, doctors, artists, and social workers». This occupational variable was interpreted to be indicative of the behavioral choice of those with anti-capitalist viewpoints. The same orientations that led these people to be in non-industry occupations were assumed to lead them to join Environmental Activist groups. The authors suggested that 29 Environmental Activists were anything but socially responsible, that they were, in fact, attacking industry about ecological issues as a means of destroying the capitalist status quo. Investigating the role of locus-of-control in relation to the tendency to engage in environmentally responsible behaviors, Tucker (1980) had subjects select between returnable versus disposable~soft drinks and high versus low phosphate detergents and then answer self- report behavioral questions. 'The locus-of—control variable was measured by having subjects choose which of two viewpoints was most like their own on 29 items. The two alternatives on each item represented an internal-control versus an external-control viewpoint. The findings indicated that persons who were categorized as performing environmentally responsible behaviors tended to perceive themselves as being more in control of their own lives than did the "irresponsibleJ' (The forced-choice format of these scales is somewhat similar to the Kluckhohn-Strodtbeck scale, and the concept of being responsible for oneself is similar to the individualistic—orientation on the Relational Dimension in Value Orientations theory.) Henion, Gregory, and Clee (1980) observed consumers as they selected detergent from the store shelf and categorized them as ECCs (Ecologically Concerned Consumers) or non-ECCs. The shoppers were then given a questionnaire concerning the utilities of three attributes: price, cleaning power, and phosphate content. ECCs ranked phosphate content over cleaning power over price, while non-ECCs ranked price over cleaning power over phosphate content. Concern for the environment was measured by attitude scales. The authors warned that the attitude-behavior consistency may have been an artifact of the 30 research method: i.e. the illusory consistency might be explained by self-perception theory. "According to that theory, some persons who bought low-phosphate detergents conceivably might have labeled themselves as ECCs and developed an attitude. ..consistent with such behaviorJ' (This warning lends support to the proposed low involvement model in the present study.) Crosby and Gill (1980) investigated, among several other variables, alienation and liberalism in reference to two criterion variables: voting preference on the Michigan Bottle Bill and usage of returnable cans prior to the bill. By developing a path analysis of the influence of the predictor variables, the authors concluded that alienation had a significant direct negative association with voting for the bottle bill, while liberalism had an indirect positive association. Associations of alienation and liberalism with prior usage of returnable cans were too weak to allow conclusions. Ecologically'concerned consumers were deemed to be more liberal while conservatives were found to be less concerned. (The non-alienated orientation might be indicative of’a collateral brotherhood-of-man orientation.) A review article by Van Liere and Dunlap (1980) addressed five major issues concerning the relationships between demographic/social variables and environmental concern. First, age, in most cases, was found to be negatively associated with environmental concern. Second, social class was weakly associated with environmental concern when education, income, and occupation were used in conjunction; however, there was a moderately strong positive association between environmental concern and education alone. Third, sex had been 31 investigated too rarely to make any generalizations, but the existing evidence indicated little influence of sex on environmental concern. Fourth, residence in an urban community seemed to lead to more environmental concern than in a rural community; this relationship was particularly likely if the issues presented to the urban respondent dealt with his/her lgggl_community. Fifth, the political orientation findings are inconsistent and confusing, in that there appeared to be little difference in ecological concern between Republicans and Democrats, whereas there was substantial support for the hypothesis that liberals are more environmentally concerned than conservatives. Finally, Van Liere and Dunlap (1981) addressed the issue of different conceptualizations of the construct of "environmental concernJ' The basic question was whether or not different measures of environmental concern were equivalent when some addressed concern about pollution while others addressed conservation of natural resouraces, wildlife, etc. Did concern for one issue reflect a broader environmental concern? After reviewing many investigations, Van Liere and Dunlap concluded that "different theoretical conceptualizations of environmental concern are not highly intercorrelatedJ' Therefore, the next conclusion was that "the relationship between environmental concern and some demographic characteristics may vary considerably depending on the manner in which concern is conceptualizedJ' This issue points to the relevance of investigating demographics as they relate to Disposition Tendency, since previously found relationships between demographics and environment responsibility may not recur in the present area of study. 32 Examining the relationships between cognitions and attitudes, Van Liere and Dunlap found intercorrelations; but behavior tended to be inconsistent with such cognitive and affective expressions of concern for the environment. This finding suggests that the issue of attitude- behavior consistency should be addressed in other studies such as the present one. Several comments concerning the literature on the socially/environmentally responsible individual are in order. First, the definitions which have been used across these studies have been quite diverse. Thus, one operationalization might be "purchase of environmentally safe products" (Herberger, 1975) while another is "voting behavior on a bottle bil]}'(Crosby and Gill, 1980).and yet another is "membership in an activist group" (Cotgrove, 1976). Discrepancies in findings on relationships with other variables may be due to these different operationalizations. Shmilarly, the present Istudy deals with a conceptually different form of responsible behavior than those mentioned in extant research. Secondly, in spite of the differences in the studies, there is a recurring theme of interest in the political orientations of the "responsible" versus "irresponsible" individual. Two underlying dimensions appear to be reflected by the traditional-versus-liberal outlook and the individualistic-versus-brotherhood outlook. 'Therefore, it was determined that the Time Dimension and the Relational Dimension from Value Orientations theory should be studied in conjunction with disposition, a behavioral sphere which has social responsibility implications. 33 Thirdly, in more than one study it was suggested that overt behaviors might be inconsistent with expressed values/attitudes. Conversely, it was suggested that attitude-behavior consistency might be an illusion created by post hoc justification on the part of the respondent. Both of these issues support the present proposal of two alternative models, the one being a high involvement model, wherein behaviors should follow from Value Orientations, and the other being a low involvement.model, wherein spontaneous behavior is justified after it occurs. For some persons, their more general Value Orientations concerning responsibility to others in society may, in fact, pg£_be related to a particular behavioral sphere such as disposition, even though it has serious responsibility implications to the scholarly observer. While researchers in the area of disposition have acknowledged the societal impact of our disposition choices, none have studied beliefs that individuals have concerning their responsibility to society. The next section of the literature review will cover the extant stream of research in disposition and discuss those variables which have been investigated. Disposition Choice Only a small number of studies have addressed the issue of disposition choice. Each study proceeds from a different angle, such that the literature has the disjointed appearance typical of a new body of knowledge. While consumers have been disposing since the dawn of civilization, attention was only recently drawn to the process as a phenomenon worthy of scholarly investigation. 'Two articles published 34 in the same year pointed out that consumer behaviorists had tended to focus on acquisition of goods in spite of the fact that the domain of consumer behavior rightfully included acquisition, usage, and disposition (Jacoby, 1976; Nicosia and Mayer, 19760. While some work had been done in "usage" of products after purchase, nothing whatever had been done on disposition at that time. The first study to address disposition choice (Jacoby, Berning, and Dietvorst, 1977) investigated which options consumers had used for six different products: stereo amplifier, watch, toothbrush, phonograph record, bicycle, and refrigerator. The authors proposed a taxonomy of choices or options.available to the consumer. Figure 6 depicts their taxonomy. Keep the product Permanently dispose Temporarily 1. Continue to use 1. Throw away or 1. Loan it for original abandon it purpose 2. Convert for 2. Give it away 2. Rent it another use to someone else 3. Store it 3. Sell it 4. Thade it Figure 6. A Taxonomy for Describing Consumer Disposition Behavior Source: Adapted from Jacob Jacoby, Carol K. Berning and Thomas F. Dietvorst, "What About Disposition?" Journal of Marketing. 41 (1977): 22. 35 Respondents were asked which disposition options they had used in the past for these products and which options they would use when the currently owned product in that category would be no longer in use. Additionally, they were asked which other option (other than their first choice) had been considered for each product. For eighty percent of the reported choices, the respondents claimed not to have contemplated any other alternative than the one chosen. The most popular response was "throw awayfl'accounting for 40% of the decisions made. The temporary disposition options were rarely chosen. Certain products evidenced obvious disposition tendencies; for example, toothbrushes were never sold, and refrigerators were most likely to be sold. However, Jacoby, et al, proposed that product characteristics alone would not predict the disposition option that wOuld be chosen. They suggested that personal characteristics of the individual and situational factors be investigated in future research. Concerned with the issue of building more durability into major appliances, researchers investigated disposition for washing machines and refrigerators, hypothesizing that the first category was disposed of for functional reasons while the second category was more likely to be disposed of for fashion/feature/obsolescence reasons (DeBell and Dardis, 1978). .All respondents were drawn from retailers' lists of recent purchasers of a new/replacement machine. The disposal questions focused on product age at time of disposal, reasons for disposal, condition at disposal, and method of disposal. There were no significant socioeconomic differences between purchasers of washing machines and purchasers of refrigerators to account for differences in disposal. The definition of "disposal" was chosen specifically to 36 include "keeping"; i.e. disposition is "the action taken by the owner when he decides to replace an appliance, regardless of the motive. For example, if the householtPs primary refrigerator is replaced by a new refrigerator, the old refrigerator is considered as 'disposed' even though it may be retained in the basement!’ These authors considered the disposal decision as a disposal/replacement decision. (Their definition was quite restrictive in that the broader view of disposition does not usually depend upon replacement as a necessary condition.) .As hypothesized, washing machines were more likely to be replaced due to mechanical problems (93%) than refrigerators (542). Not surprisingly, very few replaced washers were kept in the home (42), compared to replaced refrigerators (26%). Worthy of note is the finding that, while 93% of the washers had mechanical problems, about 25% were sold, given away, donated, etc., rather than being trashed or hauled away by the dealer. Product condition did not necessarily predict disposition option. DeBell and Dardis offered no explanation as to ghy_some people sell, donate, or give away broken products while others used the seemingly more obvious option of trashing them. The focus shifted from that of product characteristics to a description of the consumer‘s personal characteristics in relation to his/her disposition choices in a psychographic study (Burke, Conn, and Lutz, 1978). Slightly modifying the taxonomy of disposition choices developed by Jacoby, et al (1977), the authors investigated the demographic and psychographic profiles of different disposer types with respect to 12 small electrical appliances. The variables studied were not able to distinguish between disposer types until the disposer types were collapsed into two categories, Trashers and All Others. Age was 37 the only strong demographic discriminator in the two-group analysis, with the Trashers being somewhat younger than the All Others group. .A more meaningful finding was that Trashers tended not to take care-of their products or read owner‘s manuals, possibly indicating that, if they placed little value on products as possessions, they would not value them as reparable, recyclable resources. (While the authors did not use the concept of Value Orientations, their lifestyle statements which discriminate between the two groups suggest that Trashers had some different outlooks than All OthersJ Conn (in an undated monograph) used the data from the above study to suggest specific legislative policies and communications strategies that might be employed to encourage waste reduction concerning consumer goods. His suggestions leaned considerably more toward legislation than to understanding the behavior of the consumer. (Conn is in the field of urban planning; his limited understanding of consumer behavior is exemplified by his proposal to discourage the consumerhs preferences for new acquisitions and new product features.) Two dissertations in 1980 involved research in the area of disposition. Information processing time and effort were studied in conjunction with high and low involvement small electrical appliances (Razzouk, 1980). He found a tendency toward the use of lexicographic, short-cutting decision strategies in the evaluation of disposition methods and that certain rationales were strongly related to choice of a disposal option. The rationales included "economic" considerations such as financial benefit gained, effort involved, and cost involved. One must, however, view some of these findings cautiously, as they may be an artifact of Razzouk's methodology (using a student sample in a 38 role-playing situation in a laboratory setting). On the other hand, there is much intuitive appeal to the rationale factors he found; they will be used in the present study. I The second dissertation addressing the factors in disposition choice (Hanson, 1980) examined several variables in their relation to disposal of a high-value product (a refrigerator) and a low-value product (newspapers). Hanson found that respondents were influenced by situation, product, 33g_personal variables when disposing of refrigerators. Of the personal variables, psychographics were found to be more relevant than demographics. For newspapers, psychographics and perceived convenience were most influential. A paradigm developed in Hanson's dissertation was subsequently published (Hanson, 1980a). He proposed a "comprehensive model" for the consumer disposition process. Hanson's model was explicitly a problem- solving model. This model neglected the possibility that consumers may dispose quite spontaneously without feeling much involvement. To summarize, few dispositioh-choice studies have been conducted. Taxonomies of disposition options have been very similar and usually include the "keep" option. Notably, none of the taxonomies have broken down "donate" into two different options, "donate for tax deduction purposes" versus "donate without declaring a tax deduction!‘ It.seems there should be an underlying difference in values behind these different behaviors. In terms of products studied, there seems to have been a disproportionate interest in the disposal of sma11.and large electrical appliances. ‘The narrow range of products studied limits the generalizability of the existing conclusions. None of the researchers 39 in this area have used an unspecified set of products as the stimulus list for disposition choice. If persons have strong tendencies to sell, they should respond with high likelihood scores for the "sell" option even though the specific products are not stated. The intent of an unspecified stimulus set would be to increase the validity and generalizability of the Disposition Tendency measure. Demographics have been generally found to be weak predictors of disposition choice, while psychographics and rationales based on costs and benefits of the disposition method have shown some relationship to behaviors. The issue of problemrsolving is unresolved. None of the researchers have investigated whether some consumers go through a planning process while others act spontaneously. Jacoby, et al (1977) found that most consumers never considered more than one option. This finding might indicate a lack of alternative-evaluation (or low I involvement). On the other hand, Hanson (1980a) depicted the disposition choice in a traditional problem-solving model (high involvement). It is useful, therefore, to consider that there may be two models to allow'for two types of disposers, one actively solving the disposition—choice problem, and the other reacting to situational influences without giving mugh forethought to such decisions. While most of the researchers have discussed the importance of studying disposition behavior as a factor in the waste of resources, none have specifically investigated the consumer's outlook on social responsibility and its relation to disposition tendencies of consumers. Overall, the research in disposition appears fragmented, as one might expect in any new area of investigation. In order to develop an 4O integrated and more comprehensive perspective, it is useful to consider how some of the specific disposition options could be explained in relation to other research topics, such as Gift Giving and Donor Behavior. ‘The fiollowing section of this literature review will examine studies in each of these areas and explain how they provide insights to disposition-choice theory. Theoretical Differences Between Disposition Options Overview of Theoretical Differences. While all of the disposition studies to date have recognized that there are several options available for disposition, there seems to have been no theoretical justification provided for collapsing some options into one category while subdividing other options. This section of the literature review will provide clarification as to why the current taxonomy of options has been chosen. Although there are some similarities between some options, there are underlying differences which require treating them as distinctly different behaviors. This section will briefly discuss Selling, Keeping, and Throwing-Away, and then provide a more lengthy discussion of the three options which were originally subsumed by Jacoby, et a1 (1977) in the "Give Away" option, 14%, Passing Along, Donating for Tax Deduction Purposes, and Donating Without Tax Deduction. (These Give-Away options will be elaborated upon within the framework of an overall model of giving behavior.) 1. The Selling/Swapping Option. Both selling and swapping are activities in which a price is agreed upon by both parties in the exchange. Whether that exchange takes place through a classified ad, garage sale, swap- 41 meet, or other means of conducting a transaction, there is an economic intent. "Buyers" may be either acquaintances or strangers. Z. The KeepingWOption. Keepers are sometimes referred to as "pack-rats. While there is no substantive literature on pack-rat behavior, "hoarding" tendencies have been used as examples of obsessive-compulsive behaviors (Leitner, 1985L As such, keeping of no-longer-used items would seem to be affected more by personality traits than by Value Orientations. Correlations between keeping tendencies and Value Orientation adherences may therefore be somewhat weak. IL The Throw-Awangption. The tendency to trash usable items may be viewed as irresponsible behavior. However, if the owner of the good does not perceive value in the item, he/she probably does not consider trashing it to be irresponsible (Burke, et al, 1978} The consumer who sees little value in the product is less likely to plan disposition in a highly involved manner. 4-(6. The Give-Away Options: Passing Along, Donatirifor Tax Deduction Purposes, and Donating Without Tax Deduction. Jacoby, et a1 (1977) treated these behaviors as one category. Burke, et al (1978) treated donating and passing along to an acquaintance as two separate options but did not classify donating into two separate activities based on tax deduction versus non-deduction. There is substantial theoretical reasoning to justify treating these three behaviors as distinct. The remainder of this section of the literature review will discuss these three giving options within a framework of giving behavior by developing a model derived from literature in "donor behvior" and "gift-giving behavior." Differences between gift—giving and donor behavior will be suggested. A model will then be illustrated. Finally. related research will be cited as justification for the model. The intent of the flollowing passages is to clarify the underlying differences between the two types of donating and the passing along of no-longer-wanted goods. Differences Between Gift-Giving and Donating, Two major differences between donating and gift-giving can be suggested: 42 1. An operational difference: donating to a charitable organization usually results in the money or good being received by an individual who is unknown to the donor, whereas the recipient of a gift is one with whom the giver has some form of interpersonal relationship. 2. A theoretical difference: donating behavior has been associated with philanthropy or altruism, whereas gift- giving has been associated with the norm of reciprocity. It is important to the present study to analyze where Passing behavior fits into the total concept of giving behavior. While Passing behavior may appear on the surface to be altruistic (like Donating), it is proposed to have more in common with gift-giving. Value Orientations and Rationales associated with Donating should be different from those associated with Passing behavior. Similarly, donating for tax deduction purposes is not the same as donating for purely altruistic reasons. These two types should also differ on Value Orientations and Rationales. The following model (Figure 7) depicts the four types of giving behavior (gift-giving, passing, donating for tax deduction, and donating without tax deduction). The diagonal line which cuts through the model divides the activities into those which move goods to a known recipient and those which move goods to an unknown recipient. The solid arrows represent theoretical linkages which have been presented in prior literature; the dashed arrows indicate the two possible influences on the unresearched activity of Passing behavior. Expected reciprocity has been linked to gift-giving behavior (Sherry, 1983),.and is posited here to have a similar influence on Passing behavior. Altruism has been attributed to philanthropic donations in varying degrees (Smith, 1979L. Ebonomic return operates 43 KNOWN RECIPIENT J'PASSING ,. BEHAVIOR .I" 1 RECIPROCITY . ’EXPECTED , | GIFT ALTRUISM/ I DONATION WITHOUT GIVING PHI ROPY 'fi' TAX DEDUCTION ECONOMIC RE'I'URN DONATION FOR . TAX DEDUCTION UNKNOWN RECIPIENT Figure 7. Four Types of Giving Behavior in conjunction with philanthropy when tax deductions are derived from the donating process (Schwartz, 1970). At first glance, it may seem that economic return and reciprocity are quite similar because both involve an exchange of some kind. However, they are conceptually different in the specificity of the "return" and the source of the "return." When the individual donates for tax purposes, there is a specificI plannedI and calculable return; and the source of the return is the Internal Revenue Service rather than the recipient of the good. Conversely, when a person passes along a good, the return may be more like a "credit" for future, unspecified favors from the actual recipient or the tacit payment of a "debt." _ In terms of Value Orientations, the altruistic or philanthropic donation might be evidence of an outlook of responsibility to mankind. The economic return from tax deductible donating appears similar to the price charged by a seller, and such donating may thus be influenced by 44 similar orientations as those related to Selling. Passing-along may involve an outlook of interdependence between neighbors and friends. This outlook would be similar to the collateral-orientation. More depth on these concepts will now be presented by considering selected literature, first on gift-giving and reciprocity, then on donor behavior and altruism. Gift-Giving, A recent review of gift-giving (Sherry, 1983) put the process into an anthropological perspective as a cultural phenomenon, laden with the norms and expectations of tradition. The theoretical focus was on the norm of reciprocity as elaborated by Gouldner (1960). Sherry delineated a dynamic model of gift-giving wherein, after the "gestatnmf'(decision as to what to give), and "prestation" (actual giving of the gift), a "reformulation" stage occurs for the recipient, who decides what to do with the gift, evaluates the giver, and realigns thoughts about what is pggg_to the 'giver, as they will now switch roles. While Sherry"s article dealt with true gifts, many of the implications for passing of used items seem to be similar. The concept of reciprocity is one of the core issues in social exchange theory. It is worthwhile to examine the propositions of Gouldner's theory (1960) in some depth. While reciprocity has been typically defined as a "quid pro quo" phenomenon, Gouldner argued that there are degrees of reciprocity, ranging from a perfectly equal balance of exchange to a complete imbalance. Both of these extremes were deemed to be rare occurrences. The perfect balance was referred to as homeomopphic reciprocity, wherein the exact same favor is returned as the one which was given. 45 (This balance might be more aptly called "quid pro quidJO More often, however, reciprocity is heteromorphip, with favors being not identical, but having similar value. Gouldner stressed that "equal value" is not meant in the economic sense of the term. The equity is deemed to exist if the exchange is "fair." given the respective needs and resources of the parties in the exchange. (For example, the passer of childrenka clothes may not expect her less fortunate neighbor to repay in kind, but would feel entitled to ask for a ride to the service station to pick up her car.) Gouldner suggested another important aspect of reciprocity, the temporal element. Immediate or concurrent exchange of favors does not usually occur. A person may provide a favor as "repayment" for a favor received far in the past; or, the favor may be given with the expectation that some favor will be returned sometime in the future. Unlike swapping, Passing may involve a reciprocity that does not entail a clear "price" or an immediate transaction. The whole concept of exchange may be tacit, in fact. .Although temporal lag is acceptable, if the relationship is not somehow maintained with equitable exchanges over time, it is likely to deteriorate. While Gouldner generally dealt with two-party exchanges, Passing behavior could involve a reciprocity situation wherein there is a series of multi—party exchanges. ‘While A gives to B, B gives to C, and C gives to A (Bagozzi, 1981). This form of reciprocity would suggest a close, interdependent social network, wherein the giver feels confident that."someone else" in the system will provide favors in return when he/she needs something. 46 At the heart of the norm of reciprocity is the concept of moral duty to repay debts, as well as a utilitarian understanding that a person cannot expect favors unless willing to provide equitable favors in return. Reciprocity therefore appears to suggest a collateral- orientation of interdependence. Insofar as Passing behavior is considered to be like gift-giving, and gift-giving involves reciprocity, it is proposed that Passing behavior should be associated with.aaouom cu vacuum mucuocoo comm .HH assume vmon< use 0500 wouMuomuan< comm: uoz mo. um oeoz eusuoz vasoeouu auscoum mo. um oeoz oeooaom mam: meooeom man: I In uuuuuuuuuuuu mmaconpam eouuomuoueH Houuom o>wmomx ou vacuum mafism m.voo vooz< use oeoo mom: uxoz msouocmm comm oeomeom mam: socu uoz eusumm vmmc< use 0300 mama: uoz ocomeom mam: eusumm odaoeoum oueocoum no. um meoz cusuom ofieocouw + mmmm cu oxaq Hoom am «so; away as was; ammu ou mxuq mmmm ou ox“; rough ou mafia ammx ou ox“; uoacma cu ox“; ounces cu mxfiq ounce: cu ox“; coma ou ox“; oumeoo ou oxaq I I mmnaeHea< onHHmommHa amazon cu ox“; mama ou ox“; oumcon ou mxfiq uosco: ou oxua Hfimm cu oxfiq songs cu ox“; away on mxfia + ucomoum mo. um 0:02 ucoveoamn ummm nonuo cocuo nonuo I :u:: : monh nonuo nonuo uemmoum uemcemama ucoveoamn mo. um 0:02 + mmncmm mcuamou we flavor .Nz cosmos mmo.na..nmm_. In vmoz< use @900 «so..a .mzoz.-.t meomqom as»: ooo.«a,.~xmm. at ooo.vqumm-. nu euauox uoeoeoum gumbo. muoqmmiwwmmfi.num 97 .Amo. um unmouuuewum meoaumaouuou u=m>oaouv neu>mcom ama<|mcuzounh no Hove: .m~ agenda by ><3< oszoxze mfio.lm‘.hmm~.lnu muo.un .mmo~.llu eeo.la,qovma.lu pzmnzmmmn 883 .3: 86¢ $3.... meomeom mam: ooo.mm‘.~nmm.nu -o.la‘qfiwo~.llu 98 relevant Rationales. The Other-Orientation is negatively associated with Throwing-Away, as might be expected due to the "irresponsible" nature of the behavior. While an Other-Orientation is positively associated with "helping someone" and "not letting the product go to waste," these Rationales are negatively associated with Throwing-Away. The findings are thus quite understandable. Model of Selling Behavior. Figure 14 depicts the complex of interrelationships between four of the Value Orientations (Past, Present, Other, and Dedependent), relevant Rationales, and Selling. The Present-Orientation is negatively associated with Selling but is not related to any of the relevant Rationales. Two of the six Rationales are not linked to any Value Orientation that is also significantly correlated with the behavior. These two Rationales are "getting an economic return" and "coming out aheadJ' Past-Orientation and Dependent-Orientation are bg£h_positively related to Selling and to "being seen as generous," "earning God's smile," "earning the right to be on the receiving end in the future," and "getting some social interaction in the process." All four of these Rationales are positively related to Selling. It appears that Selling is believed to generate not only economic returns but also to provide a number of other self-serving results as well. (There is some confusion in the Selling model in that the Other- Orientation is negatively related to Selling but positively related to two of the Rationales that are positively associated with Selling. Further investigation would be necessary before drawing any conclusions about this discrepancy.) 99 .Amo. um ucmofimacwfim chwumHopuoo ucm>mHmuV pou>mcom mcHHHom mo Hove: .ez assume 100 .3 9.33m mcofl .82 .1... 0544mm Emu—mm $8....— .83.... 3.0.8 .83.! .m~o.n. mmm~.uu 93...: «32.3 ecuuumuoucn . .55— 3? o8... .88.... «.8... Nov—.5 9530: / 1 cu woe... " 800m .53.... «Bid .83.... 0:5 o .v. ’( Said .33.}. .32: use 260.] 89nd .38.... Said .28.... 2.9.2.09 co. 68.1w .ommmfu . Eczema oooid .32.: 53oz oaeoeoom oooiq .33.}. 80.nq «33:... Safe 133:... (Acid .22.... 55.8 305m 132.3 woof: «SS .uu.. 101 Model of Deducting Behavior. Figure 15 presents the interrelationships between the Past and Present-Orientations, relevant Rationales, and Deducting. 'The Present-Orientation is positively related to Deducting but is not associated with any of the relevant Rationales. The Past-Orientation is negatively associated with Deducting. While Past-Orientation is positively associated with "feeling the product will be appreciated by the next owner," that Rationale is negatively related to Deducting, thus the logic is preserved. The "economic return" Rationale is appropriately (positively) related to Deducting but is not linked to either of the Value Orientations associated with Deducting. Model of DonatinggBehavior. Figure 16 presents the complex of interrelationships between the Dependent and Other-Orientations, nelevant Rationales, and Donating. Two of the Rationales ("economic return" and "coming out ahead").are not linked to either of the related 1 Value Orientations. 0f the five remaining Rationales, each is linked to either the Dependent or Other-Orientation. There is a positive association between the Other-Orientation and Donating and a negative association between the Dependent-Orientation and that behavior. All three Rationales that are positively linked to Dependence are negatively associated with Donating, thus the logic is maintained. (These three Rationales are "being seen as generous," "earning the right to be on the receiving end later," and "earning Godhs smileJO 0f the three Rationales positively associated with the Other- Orientation, two are also positively associated with Donating,("he1ping someone" and "not knowing the next user"L 102 .Amo. um guacamacmfim mcoaumamnuou uem>mfiouv uo~>mcom mcfiuoavon mo Hove: .m~ musmfim qu.mm .NNNH. In UZHPUDQMQ ONcofld «vafio I.“ chad—”~— 0.260600” ..o.-al.woe..-n. eo.m.um.aa< HZMWMzm uosvoum mmc.nm.qmo¢~.lu. Bmm~muv uofismcom meaumcon mo Hove: .c~ ousmum quhuooo¢ cu vacuum maouocoo co «cooqom a..= awe..a‘.q~e..u.. . vuoz< uzo meoo deo.ld.qmmmm.lu eusumm afieoeoum ooo.un .thm.lu mmzbc coo.ua.q~N¢~. In 104 However, one set of linkages appears inexplicable; while the Other-Orientation is linked positively to "earning Godks:mnile" and to Donating, "earning Godhs smile" is negatively associated with Donating. Model of PassinggBehavior. Figure 17 presents the interrelationships between the Other-Orientation, relevant Rationales, and Passing. 'The Other-Orientation is positively associated with Passing, and both of the Rationales positively associated with Passing ("helping someone" and "not letting the product go to waste")‘are also positively associated with the 0ther-Orientation.’ Chapter Summagy_ All six of the specific disposition models presented indicate that there is some logically consistent set of interrelationships between Value Orientations, Rationales, and Disposition Tendencies. While the correlation coefficients between constructs are not impressive in size, they are relatively unlikely to have occured by chance, in that many of these associations are significant at .01 or less. Clearly, disposition in its many forms is influenced by a large variety of factors. The small amount of variance explained in the preceding models suggests that these six disposition options should be researched in far greater depth in order to develop more comprehensive models of these behaviors. It was the intention of the present research to examine a small set of personal, cognitive characteristics as possible explanations for differences in disposition choices among consumers. The results suggest that Value Orientations do provide some partial explanation for these behaviors. Logical connections between Value Orientations and 105 .Amo. um uemouMficmwm meouumHmuuoo ucmsofimuv uoa>mcom wcwmmmm mo Hove: UZHmm