.. 5..
A I: S.
. .

n ..
19
awfihfiq.

ammméf
l C

F1“... 1 .
3.71.25.

$3

217...; . $1....
n... Shh-Hanan.

$24135.
..

.ummu. Jug.

 

 

 

gnawing

 

 

 

1:.

.13? .
...-:...nuf;.u
.5 i.

a: 2': WM:
‘ i.l‘cr.3 A. .2
2.155..) :: .11....Qa1
it It: . Hr ‘ . l ..
[795147; A i.

WESIS
1/
4°“ LIBRARY 1
Michigan State
University

 

 

 

 

This is to certify that the

dissertation entitled

THE IMPACT OF PERSONAL VALUE STRUCTURES ON CONSUMER
PROENVIRONMENTAL ATTITUDES, BEHAVIORS, AND CONSUMERISM:
A CROSS-CULTURAL STUDY

presented by

Yeonshin Kim

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

 

Ph.D. degree in Mains

L7ZI’ZC‘LQ /ZA4V

M a )0 p ofessorf

4/30/2002
Date

 

MSUi: an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution 0-12771

 

PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record.
TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due.
MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested.

 

DATE DUE DATE DUE ' DATE DUE

 

rwfddfimfl

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

6/01 c:/CIRC/DatoDue.p65-p.15

THE IMPACT OF PERSONAL VALUE STRUCTURES ON CONSUMER
PROENVIRONMENTAL ATTITUDES, BEHAVIORS, AND CONSUMERISM:
A CROSS-CULTURAL STUDY

By

Yeonshin Kim

A DISSERTATION
Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
Department of Advertising

2002

ABSTRACT
THE IMPACT OF PERSONAL VALUE STRUCTURES ON CONSUMER
PROENVIRONMENTAL ATTITUDES, BEHAVIORS, AND CONSUMERISM:
A CROSS-CULTURAL STUDY
By

Yeonshin Kim

This study develops and tests a conceptual model that features the role of personal
value structures in guiding individuals’ environmentalism. While prior research has
shown that personal values may influence pro-environmental behaviors, little research
has been done that investigates how variables such as environmental attitudes mediate
between abstract personal values and specific pro-environmental behavior. This study
also examines how personal values affect the perception of pro-environmental attributes
and buying-green products. This is one of only a few recent attempts to understand
psychological antecedents of pro-environmental behavior in a causal approach and across
two national groups (US. and Korean).

This study investigates the impact of three variables on pro-environmental
behavior; that is, values, environmental attitudes, and perceived consumer effectiveness.
According to the proposed theoretical framework, the ecology subtype of Self-
Transcendence/Openness to Change (i.e., biospherism) has a positive influence on pro-
environmental behaviors directly and indirectly via high pro-environmental attitudes.
However, the Korean subjects showed the importance of environmental attitudes that
mediate between their abstract values and their specific behaviors.

Additionally, the study investigates the links between the ecology subtype of Self-

Transcendence/Openness to Change and preference for environmental attributes, and

between preference for environmental attributes and purchase of green product. This
study also explores the effects of cultures on personal value orientations and
commitments to pro-environmental behaviors. As a result, this study demonstrates that
personal values play an important role in determining individuals’ environmental
sensibility and suggests that the relationship between attitudes and behavior can be
stronger in some cases than in others. Perceived consumer effectiveness (PCB) has been
found to have moderating effect on the attitudes and behavior relationship as well as
direct impact on individually oriented pro-environmental behaviors. Finally, these
findings have important implications for marketing communicators intending to target

consumers with pro-environmental options.

Copyright by
YEONSHIN KIM
2002

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

First, I thank God, who makes all things possible. I began working on this
dissertation with prayers requesting God’s wisdom. Without his grace and mercy, this
work could not be complete.

I would like to extend my appreciation to Professor Nora Rifon, chairperson of my
doctoral program guidance committee, for her valuable advice and encouraging
comments. From the very beginning of my work, she has always encouraged me to finish
my doctoral program as well as my dissertation. She took care of me like a parent when I
had gone through so many things at Michigan State University.

I would also like to express my gratitude to the other members of my guidance
committee, Dr. Atkin, Dr. Salmon, and Dr. Laferle for their contributions in this work.
Their suggestions helped me to improve this research. I espeCially appreciate the support
I received from Professor Doc-Bum Oh. His support has been invaluable as I collected
data from Korean students at Chongju University.

I give special thanks to my parents. Their endless love, sacrifice, and support
have always been my strength. Deep appreciation is extended to my husband Jaehwa and
my lovely son Edmond for inspiring me to work harder. I also thank my lovely daughter
Grace, who is blooming in God. She was the greatest motive for my finishing this work.

Finally, I thank my friends for their concerns and prayers for my family. Special
thanks are due to my dear friend, Sejung Marina Choi, not only for helping me to
complete this work but also for making my stay at Michigan State University meaningful

through friendship.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................. viii

LIST OF FIGURES ............................................................................. x

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION .............................................................................. 1
Statement of the Problem ............................................................ 2
Theoretical Base and Research Overview .......................................... 4

CHAPTER 2

REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE .......................................................... 12
Determinants of Environmentally Conscious Behavior .......................... 12
Value-Attitude-Behavior Model ..................................................... 25
Values and Consumer Choice Behavior ............................................ 27
Environmental Consumerism ........................................................ 28
Culture and Environmentalism ...................................................... 30

CHAPTER 3

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK ............................................................ 37
Value Theory ........................................................................... 37
Micro Theories of Environmentalism ............................................... 38
Schwartz’s Norm-Activation Model of Altruism and

the Model of Environmental Concern ..................................... 40
Theory of A Universal Psychological Structure of
Human Values ................................................................ 42

A Conceptual Model of the Present Study ......................................... 47

CHAPTER 4

RESEARCH OBJECTIVES ................. 48
The Purpose of Study .................................................................. 48
Research Questions .................................................................... 50
Research Hypotheses .................................................................. 52

CHAPTER 5

METHODOLOGY ............................................................................. 60
Samples ................................................................................. 60
Research Design and Procedure .................................................... 60
Variables Measures ..................................................................... 61
Analysis ................................................................................. 67

CHAPTER 6

vi

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION .............................................................. 68

Demographic Profile of the Respondents .......................................... 68
Descriptive Findings .................................................................. 69
Predictors of Pro-environmental Behavior and
Relations among the Predictor Variables .................................. 78
The Value-Attitude-Behavior Model ................................................ 88
Relations between the Predictor Variables and Greenness ....................... 92
Effects of Ethnicity on Pro-environmental Consciousness ....................... 95
Effects of Collectivism on Value Structures and
Pro-environmental Behavior ............................................... 98
Summary of Results and Discussion ................................................ 99
CHAPTER 7
CONCLUSIONS, LIMITATIONS, IMPLICATIONS, AND SUGGESTIONS FOR
FUTURE RESEARCH ........................................................................ 110
Conclusions ............................................................................. 1 10
Limitations .............................................................................. 1 15
Implications ............................................................................. 116
Suggestions for Future Research ..................................................... 119
APPENDD( A — Tables and Figures .......................................................... 120
APPENDIX B — Measurement Items ......................................................... 141
BIBLIOGRAPHY ............................................................................... 146

vii

LIST OF TABLES

Table l. The Attributes of the Selected Products ......................................... 120
Table 2-1. Value Items according to Schwartz’s Dimensions of
Self-Transcendence Versus Self-Enhancement (T/E),

Openness to Change Versus Conservation (O/C), and
10 Motivational Types ........................................................... 121

Table 2-2. Factor Loadings of Value Items with Quartimax Rotation
(The United States) ............................................................. 122

Table 2-3. Factor Loadings of Value Items with Quartimax Rotation
(Korea) ............................................................................ 123

Table 3. Comparisons of the US. and the Korean Sample on
Attitudes and Collectivism ........................................................ 124

Table 4. Description of PCB Items and Scale Length, Means, and
Reliabilities .......................................................................... 124

Table 5. Pro-environmental Behavior Factors with Varimax Rotated
Factor Loadings, Means, and Standard Deviations ............................. 125

Table 6. Description of Personal Involvement Inventory Means and
Stande Deviations ................................................................ 126

Table 7-1. Descriptions of Product Attribute Items, Means, and
Standard Deviations (Laundry detergent) .................... ‘ ................. 126

Table 7-2. Descriptions of Product Attribute Items, Means, and
Standard Deviations (Toilet paper) ............................................. 126

Table 7-3. Descriptions of Product Attribute Items, Means, and
Standard Deviations (Fruits and Vegetables) ................................. 127

Table 8. Multiple Regression Analysis for
the Prediction of Environmental Attitudes ...................................... 127

Table 9. The Relations between Environmental Attitudes and
Pro-environmental Behavior (Corrlations) ....................................... 128

Table 10. Regression Coefficients across High and Low Level of

viii

Moderator Variable (PCE) ..................... 129

Table 11. The Relations between PCE and Pro-environmental Behavior
(Correlations) ...................................................................... 130

Table 11-1. Influences of Attitudes and PCE on

Pro-environmental Behavior (Beta Coefficients) ............................ 130
Table 12. Correlations of Latent Constructs ............................................... 131
Table 13. Factor Loadings of Indicators of Latent Constructs .......................... 131
Table 14. Parameter Estimates .............................................................. 133

Table 15. Regression Coefficients of Value Structures on
the Importance of Environmental Attributes (The United States) .......... 134

Table 16. Regression Coefficients of Value Structures on
the Importance of Environmental Attributes (Korea) ........................ 134

Table 17. The Relations between Environmental Attitudes and
the Importance of Environmental Attributes (Correlations) ................. 135

Table 18. The Relations between the Importance of Environmental Attributes
and Buying Green Products (Correlations) .................................... 135

Table 19. Comparisons of the US. Sample and the Korean Sample on
Valuing Self-Transcendence/Openness to Change (t-test) .................. 135

Table 20. Comparisons of the US. Sample and the Korean Sample on
Pro-environmental Behavior (t-test) ............................................ 135

Table 21. Comparisons of the US. Sample and the Korea Sample on
the Importance of Environmental Attributes (t-test) .......................... 136

Table 22. Comparisons of the US. Sample and the Korea Sample on
Buying Green Products (t-test) .................................................. 136

Table 23. The Relations between Collectivism and Value Priorities
(Simple Regression Analysis) .................................. ' .................. 136

Table 24. The Relations between Collectivism and
Pro-environmental Behavior (Simple Regression Analysis) .................. 137

Figure 1.

Figure 2.

Figure 3.

Figure 4.

Figure 5.

LIST OF FIGURES

Theoretical Model of Relations among Motivational Types of
Values, Higher Order Value Types, and Bipolar Value Dimensions ....... 138

The Interrelationships of Values, Environmental Attitudes, and
Pro-environmental Behavior ..................................................... 139
The Moderating Effect of PCE between Environmental Attitudes and
Pro-environmental Behavior ...................................................... 139
The Proposed Model regarding the Interrelationships among

the Environmental Variables .................................................... 140
The Revised Model regarding the Interrelationships among

the Environmental Variables .................................................... 140

Chapter 1

INTRODUCTION

Environmental protection issues have come to the forefront of the international
business agenda. Surveys indicate that consumers have become more concerned about
environmental problems and that they recognize the need for pro-environmental behavior.
Many surveys have recorded noticeable shifts in the grth and diffusion of green
marketing and ecologically conscious consumer behavior (e.g., Kelly, 1993; Levin, 1990;
Cramer, 1991; Roper Organization, 1992; Hastak, Horst, and Mais, 1994; Marketing
News, 1997).

However, there is skepticism about how behaviorally committed consumers are to
environmentally friendly ideas. There is little evidence that the growing concern for
environmental issues has translated into pro-environmental consumer behavior (Schwartz
and Miller, 1991). For many years, the inconsistency between a consumer’s ecological
concern and related behaviors have troubled green marketing strategists and ecologically
minded social marketers who may wish to facilitate pro-environmental behaviors.

Social scientists have tried to identify and explain variations in public concern
with environmental issues and actual commitment by using demographic and
psychographic variables. However, studies examining demographic variables (e.g., age,
gender, income, education) provide equivocal evidence about their relationship with pro-
environmental behavior and to date suggest that demographics are rather poor predictors

of pro-environmental behavior. Consequently, attention has been paid to psychological

factors. Fortunately, there has been evidence that heavier participants in environmental
protection activities can be significantly distinguished by using psychological variables
such as personal values (Granzin and Olsen, 1991). Psychological information tells us
about the internal make-up of individuals which may cause different reactions to the same
issues. Such information allows marketers to understand the motivations of the consumer,
that is, why consumers behave as they do. According to Shrum et a1. (1995), three
psychological constructs are important in understanding environmentally conscious
behavior: attitudes, values, and traits. Attitudinal antecedents are believed to guide
behavior. However, few studies have addressed the nature of the links among the
attitudinal antecedents and behavior. Furthermore, research by psychologists on
environmental issues has been criticized fir their lack of universality, that is, most of them

are culture specific (Schultz and Zelezny, 1998).

Statement of the Problem

This study investigates the role personal values play in guiding individuals’
environmental attitudes and behavior, and provide a fuller, conceptual model to better
understand the antecedents of environmentally conscious behavior across cultures.
Values are considered to be the fundamental source of an individual’s environmental
sensibility. It is one of a few recent attempts to understand environmental attitudes,
beliefs, and behaviors across cultures.

As a result, this study will explain how values can influence pro-environmental
behaviors directly and indirectly through attitudes and beliefs toward the environment.

This research will develop a model of the value-attitude-behavior relationship and test the

model on samples of the US. and Korean college students. Testing the model within and
across cultures indicates if the model may be applicable to various groups beyond
cultures. Specifically, all of this research will demonstrate the following: First, research
on values as a fundamental basis of environmental attitudes and behavior will suggest
that certain value dimensions are linked to environmental attitudes and pro-environmental
behaviors (specifically buying green) via positive attitudes toward the environment. To
test this, different levels of consumer responses to environmentally friendly products as
well as general pro-environmental behavior will be examined. As consruner responses to
green products, two factors are measured: (1) the importance of environmental attributes
in consumers’ choice criteria and (2) purchase of green product. Second, considering
PCE as a moderator will (a) strengthen the model in predicting environmentally
conscious behaviors - that is, this will extend understanding of attitude-behavior
correlation by examining the moderating role of PCE in the context Of general
proenvironmental behavior and particular ecological purchase - and (b) clarify what kinds
of pro-environmental behaviors PCE predicts significantly, which has been in
disagreement. Third, the test of the value-attitude-behavior model on samples of the US.
and Korean students will provide additional opportunity to explore the impact of cultural
differences on (a) their value orientations and thus, (b) their proenvironmental attitudes
and behaviors. This study proposes that environmental behavior may be different in
different cultures, due to the differences in value orientations that may be affected by
culture. That is, cultural differences can be used as independent variables affecting
people’s value orientations, and their value orientations, in turn, influence their attitudes

and beliefs toward the environment and finally their proenvironmental behavior. In

contrast to previous studies, clusters of consumer values will be examined rather than
limiting the research to one main value of concern for the environment.

The prediction of pro-environmental behavior is still a field with a high degree of
uncertainty and in need of more research. This cross-cultural study is expected to solve
some problems by enhancing understanding of the factors that lead people to act in
proenviromnental ways. The understanding of the antecedents of proenvironmental
behaviors across cultures will benefit marketing practitioners (especially, international
marketing people) by providing insight into how to develop effective promotional
strategies. The closer we move to an understanding of what causes some people to
behave proenvironmentally while others do not, the better we will be able to design
public policy and marketing programs aimed at increasing proenvironmental behavior.
Moreover, this research may provide information for marketing strategy that might be
useful in overcoming the environmentally unconscious behavior of some consumers.
Finally, it will also assist our understanding of cultural impact on pro-environmental

attitudes and behavior.

Theoretical Base and Research Overview
The theoretical base for this study is derived primarily from attitude research
investigating the cognitive (attitudinal) antecedents or dispositions believed to guide the
behavior. Specifically, Schwartz’s theory of altruism (1977), Stem et al.’s social
psychological model (1993), and the Value-Attitude-Behavior model (Mch and
Shrum, 1993, 1994) provide theoretical underpinnings. Also, Schwartz and Bilsky’s

(1987, 1990) theory of the universal content and structure of human values will assist

theorizing about the relationships among values and between values and other
psychological variables such as attitudes, beliefs, and behavioral intentions. The
psychological literature examining the role of value priorities in behavior, particularly
prosocial behavior, and the marketing literature investigating the effect of consumer value
structures on choice criteria will provide useful insights into understanding
environmentally conscious consumer behaviors.
Schwartz ’3 Norm-Activation Model

Pro-environmental behavior has been interpreted mainly in the light of Schwartz’s
theory of activation of altruistic norms (see Widegren, 1998), considering altruistic
aspects of motivation to behave in an environmentally friendly manner. Some scholars
suggest that behaviors that are driven by environmental concern are within the boundaries
of the domain of morality (Van Liere and Dunlap, 1978; Stem, Dietz, and Black, 1986;
Guagnano, Stern, and Dietz, 1995; Hopper and Nielsen, 1991). Under this recognition,
Schwartz’s norm-activation model of altruism has been used to explain actions intended
to ameliorate environmental problems. Schwartz’s theory of altruism implicitly assumes
(Stern et al., 1993) that “people have a general orientation toward the welfare of others
(e. g., altruistic value orientation), that is, they value outcomes that benefit others and can
be motivated to act to prevent harm to others” (p. 324). Consequently, pro-environmental
behavior will follow from this social or altruistic value orientation.
The Social Psychological Model

Stern, Dietz, and Kalof (1993) expand the Schwartz model which treats
environmental concern as altruism toward other human being, to incorporate both self-

interest, or egoism, and concern with other species or the biospheric itself. They

recognize that environmentally conscious behavior can reflect a trade-off between
altruistic and egoistic motivations, and therefore that egoistic value orientations as well as
social-altruistic ones are implicated in environmental attitudes and behavior. Concern
with nonhuman species or biospheric values can be postulated to have a role in behavior
analogous to the role of social-altruistic values in the Schwartz model of moral nonn-
activation. Stern et al. (1993) proposed a social psychological model that presumes that
the pursuit of environmental quality may stem from any of three value orientations:
egoistic, social-altruistic, and biospheric. Their results showed that these three value
orientations might underlie environmental attitudes and behavior.
Schwartz and Bilsky 's Theory of the Universal Content and Structure of Human Values
Schwartz and Bilsky (1987, 1990) have developed a theory-based approach to
measuring values and tried to identify cross-cultural universalsin the structure and
content of human values. The theory assists theorizing about the relationship between
values and other psychological variables such as attitudes, beliefs, and behavior.
Schwartz (1992) identified 10 motivational types of values that are likely to be
recognized within and across cultures and used to form value priorities. According to
him, the 10 value types can be classified into 4 broader clusters that have been reliable
across cultures. These groups of values are referred as: 1) openness to change, 2) self-
enhancement, 3) conservation, and 4) self-transcendence. Schwartz’s Self-Enhancement
cluster, according to Stern et a1. (1993), is very close to the egoistic values on which pro-
environmental attitudes might rest. Also, Schwartz’s Self-Transcendence cluster
encompasses the biospheric and altruistic values. Schwartz’s (1992) model indicates the

negative relation between the self-enhancement and the self-transcendence values, and

another negative relationship between the openness to change and conservation values.
The self-enhancement and self-transcendence domains are unrelated to the openness to
change and conservation domains (see Figure 1).

The Value-Attitude—Behavior Model

Environmentally conscious behavior can be characterized as pro-social behavior
from the perspective that such behavior is primarily performed for the sake of others
(Guagnano, Stern, and Dietz, 1995; Hopper and Nielsen, 1991). This pro-social behavior
may be influenced by values that transcend self-interest. Karp (1996) found that values
related to a concern for the welfare of others have a positive influence on environmental
behavior and that values oriented toward the pursuit of self-interest have a negative
influence on environmental behavior. Environmentally conscious behaviors which are
mainly intended to benefit another might be related to one’s concern for others and
nonhuman species. Past research has suggested that values play a role in specific
situations when they are activated by a set of altruistic concerns (Schwartz, 1977; Hopper
and Nielsen, 1991; Stem, Dietz, and Kalof, 1993). Therefore, the extent to which
individuals engage in such pro-environmental behaviors would be influenced by their
values.

On the other hand, the research linking personal values with pro-environmental
behavior, such as recycling, suggests that the influence of values on behavior is mediated
through attitudes and beliefs (McCarty and Shrum, 1993, 1994). That is, the influence of
values may not be apparent in instances when critical mediating constructs are not
explored. Stern and Dietz (1994) also indicate that value orientations affect behavioral

intentions both directly and indirectly (through beliefs). So it is required to consider a

fuller model of variables rather than a model using simple bivariate correlations like the
value-behavior relation. The value-attitude-behavior model may provide the foundation
for ecologically conscious behaviors. Theoretical links such as values/attitudes,
attitudes/behavior, and values/behavior in relation to environmental issues are beginning
to receive empirical confirmation. Value theory and the literature clearly suggest that
pro-environmental behavior can be affected by environmental attitudes flowing from a
value orientation that reflects concern for the welfare of other human beings, concern
with nonhuman species, self-interest, or some combination of the three orientations.
Attitude and Perceived Consumer Eflectiveness (PCE)

Attitudes have been one of the most widely used variables in understanding
environmentally conscious behavior. Attitude, as it is measured and used, represents a
consumer’s general ecological orientation. However, attitude has shown varied results as
a predictor of environmental behaviors; for instance, attitude is significant enough to
show meaningful relationship with the behavior and sometimes insignificant. Thus, some
researchers were led to consider other variables that have been offered as reasons for
attitude-behavior consistency. This perspective has identified several categories of
variables that “moderate” the relationship between attitudes and behavior (Berger and
Corbin, 1992). Personal traits such as perceived consumer effectiveness (PCE) form one
of those categories. PCE is a domain-specific belief that individuals’ actions make a
difference in solving a problem (Ellen, Weiner, and Cobb-Walgren, 1991). PCE has been
considered a factor influencing an individual’s willingness to engage in environmentally
fiiendly behaviors, beyond simple concern for the environment. Therefore, the

relationship between environmental attitudes and behavior can also be examined by using

PCE, which moderates the influence of attitudes on behavior. For example, an individual
may feel very concerned about an environmental issue (pollution in water) and at the
same time, completely helpless in his or her ability to have an impact on the problem
through his or her own consumption. In this case, he or she will be less likely to buy
environmentally fiiendly products. That is, he or she shows low levels of environmental
behavior, despite high levels of concern. Attitudes are not consistent with the consumer’s
personal behavior. By contrast, another individual may not be at all concerned about the
environment and may believe that individual effort could be effective but is patently
unnecessary. This person is likely to have low attitude score, high PCE score, and again
low levels of environmentally friendly consumer behaviors. These two situations could
be captured by modeling PCE as a moderator of the relationship between attitudes and
consumer behavior, such that attitude-behavior correlations are expected to be high when
PCE is high and low when PCE is low. This consideration may provide a better
understanding of when environmental attitudes will influence behavior, and why.
The Relationship Between Values and Choice Criteria

Buying green indicates purchases reflecting a consumer’s preference for
environmentally considered products. Based on the previous literature, consumers’
preference for environmentally fiiendly products can be explained in relation to their
value structures. Consumer value structures were found to be linked to the importance of
product attribute (choice criteria) for product brands. This evidence has inspired one of
the purposes of this study: to investigate the relationship between certain value priorities

and the perceived importance of environmentally considered attributes. For instance,

consumers who place more importance on self-transcendence/openness to change values
will value environmentally safe attributes more highly.
Effects of Culture on the Model

Relatively little is known about the relationships among values, attitudes, and
environmental behavior, particularly when a cultural variable such as ethnicity is
considered. The test of the model on samples from different countries will allow us to
examine the role of values in guiding pro-environmental attitudes and behavior within
and across cultures, and it will further provide an opportunity to explore the effects of
culture on individuals’ environmentalism. For example, this study will investigate
whether the significant difference between the US. and Korean subjects in terms of their
pro-environmental behavior can be explained, in part, by any difference in their value
priorities.

Empirical evidence suggests that culturally based attitudes and values can
influence general orientation toward environmental problems and issues. Particularly,
culturally oriented values such as individualism—collectivism appear to influence
environmental behavior (see McCarty and Shrum, 1994). According to Hofstede (1983),
Korean and American cultures show the most contrast in individualism-collectivism; that
is, Korea is a predominantly collectivistic culture and America an individualistic culture.
In contrast to individualism, collectivism refers to a higher valuation of needs and goals
of the collectivity than of individual needs and goals. Research on collectivist versus
individualist cultures suggests that the extent of collectivism or individualism of a society
or country may affect value priorities individuals hold. For instance, according to

Schwartz’s scale of values, individualist or collectivist cultures may be positively related

10

to self-transcendence values which are proposed to affect pro-environmental attitudes and
behavior. Therefore, this study proposes that the US. and the Korean subjects may show
different levels of pro-environmental attitudes and behavior because of the differences in
their value priorities (e.g., valuing Self-Transcendence/Openness to Change), influenced
by their cultural differences (e. g., individualistic or collectivistic culture).
The Various Types of Pro-environmental Behaviors

The psychological variables indicated above will be related to a broad range of
pro-environmental behavior in this study. Studies of environmental behavior have
traditionally examined single behaviors such as recycling (Derksen and Gartrell, 1993) or
energy conservation (Weiner and Doescher, 1994). However, different types of pro-
environmental behaviors do not appear to be closely related to one another (e. g., Lee,
DeYoung, and Marans, 1995; Oskamp et al., 1991; Pickett, Kangun, and Grove, 1993;
Tracy and Oskamp, 1983-1984). That is, it is very hard to say that participation in energy
conservation or other pro-environmental actions significantly predicts green-buying
behavior (see Mairieri et al., 1997). In addition, literature conceming PCE indicates that
consumers with high levels of PCB are more likely to engage in pro-environmental
behaviors than consumers without that belief. However, the relationship appears to be
behavior specific; i.e., consumers consider some behaviors to be effective and others not
(see Ellen, Wiener, and Cobb-Walgren, 1991). It would be interesting to find what types
of pro-environmental behaviors can be significantly predicted by PCE. Specifically, the
relationship between PCE and various types of pro-environmental behavior will

contribute to improve the disagreement existing between the variables.

11

Chapter 2

REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

This research centers on the determinants of pro-environmental consumer
behaviors. It is believed that values, attitudes, and personality traits such as PCE are
important psychological variables in relation to environmental behavior. This study
proposes that personal value orientations influence individuals’ environmental attitudes,
and that these attitudes impact consumers’ decisions to buy green as Well as other
environmentally conscious consmner behaviors.

It also proposes that the value-attitude-behavior model fits well in the context of
different cultures. Furthermore, this study presumes that the differences in valuing self-
transcendence and Openness to change and in collectivism can account for the differences
in the degree of pro-environmental behaviors across cultures.

To provide a theoretical background for this research, this study briefly reviews
literature in the following broad areas: (1) psychological antecedents of environmentally
conscious behaviors, (2) the value-attitude-behavior hierarchy, (3) the relationship
between values and consumer choice behavior, (4) environmental consumerism, and (5)

culture and environmentalism.

Determinants of Environmentally Conscious Behavior
Social marketers have found that various reactions to environmental issues exist

among people. Therefore, the main concerns of these marketers have been focused on a

12

critical question: “What causes different attitudes and behaviors in relation to
environmental problems?” For the past decades, psychologists have attempted to
understand the factors that lead people to participate in environmental programs (Schultz,
Oskamp, and Mainieri, 1995). Research has examined demographics, attitudes, beliefs,
and personality as predictors of environmental behavior (Oskamp, Burkhardt, Schultz,
Hurin, and Zelezny, 1998; Schultz and Oskamp, 1996; Steel, 1996; Vining and Ebreo,
1990). This research has produced some correlates with certain demographic factors
among US. samples. The list of correlates includes age (negative), gender (female),
education (positive), income (positive), and also shows positive correlations with general
environmental attitudes, specific pro—environmental attitudes, and locus of control.
Despite the established findings, demographic categories have been poor predictors of
pro-environmental behavior because of the typically small effective size and/or the
conflicting results of research (e.g., Neuman, 1986; Samdahl and Robertson, 1989). This
poor relationship between demographic factors and some attitudinal and behavioral
variables indicated a “demographic shift” in the nature of the environmentally concerned
public (e. g., Howell and Laska, 1992). Thus, demographic characteristics that formerly
predicted environmental concern are no longer closely associated with it (Mainieri,
Barnett, Valdero, Unipan, and Oskamp, 1997). Consequently, it becomes increasingly
important to understand psychological factors underlying environmentally conscious
behaviors. The large psychological research has provided useful theories of
environmental behavior. Especially, viewing pro-environmental behavior as based on

altruistic motivation leads to a variety of potentially useful predictors.

13

A great deal of studies have attempted to study the psychological nature of the
environmental conscious consmner. These studies can roughly be divided into the
following categories: (a) personal values, (b) attitudes and beliefs, and (c) trait variables
(Shrum, Lowrey, and McCarty, 1994). Each is discussed below.

Personal Values

Milbrath (1986) notes that current ecological problems are a result of a crisis in
human values. A number of studies, in fact, have indicated that the values people hold
are related to pro-environmental behaviors (Granzin and Olsen, 1991; Shean and Shei,
1995; Karp, 1996; Lee and Holden, 1999). Several authors have speculated that
environmental attitudes and behaviors are the results of underlying values (F ishbein and
Ajzen, 1975; Harbin, 1977; Rozak, 1992). Personal values have been shown to be useful
in explaining people’s attitudes and activities toward environmental protection. Value
and belief variables explain much more of the difference between environmentalists and
non-environmentalists than do socio-demographic variables (Milbrath, 1979, 1981b,
1984; Dietz, Stern, and Guagnano, 1998). Placing a high value on preserving the natural
environment and on closeness to nature and living in a beautiful world has been linked
positively to environmental protection attitudes and activities (Dturlap, Grieneeks, and
Rokeach, 1983; Neuman, 1986; Rankin, 1983). The importance of living aprosperous,
comfortable life has been shown to be related negatively to environmental protection
activities (Dunlap, Grieneeks, and Rokeach, 1983; Rankin, 1983) and to recycling
activities (DeYoung, 1985-1986). More recently, Shean and Shei (1995) conducted a

survey with environmentally active students. According to them, the environmentally

l4

active students placed significantly more importance on the values of responsibility and
concern for the welfare of others than on personal affluence and political achievement.

Specifically, Herberlein (1972) claimed that protecting the environment is
perceived as a moral and altruistic issue because environmental damage has negative
consequences for others. As a result, a number of studies have demonstrated that
Schwartz’s (1970, 1977) theory of altruism, in which altruistic behavior is seen as
resulting from the activation of (personal) norm, can be used to predict environmentally
conscious behaviors (Black, Stern, and Elworth, 1985; Guagnano, Dietz, and Stern, 1994;
Hopper and Nielsen, 1991; Stem, Dietz, and Black, 1986; Stem, Dietz, and Guagnano,
1995). Schwartz’s norm-activation model explains when an altruistic behavior is more
likely to occur. That is, people develop a sense of moral obligation to act in ways that
benefit rather than harm others when they both become aware of the harmful
consequences of their actions for others and ascribe responsibility for these consequences
to themselves. Applying this model, pro-environmental behavior can be viewed as an
altruistic action that is motivated by an internalized moral norm grounded in values
concerned with the welfare of others

Stern, Dietz, and Kalof (1993) found that the Schwartz model could predict
environmental behavioral intentions. Stern et a1. (1993), however, argued that
environmentally relevant behavior can stem from three distinct value bases: the welfare of
others, the hannful consequence environmental damage will have for self (termed
egocentric), and the hannfirl consequences environmental damage will have for all living
things (termed biocentric). That is, egoistic value orientations as well as social-altruistic

ones are implicated in environmental attitudes and behavior (Stern et al., 1993). Bagozzi

15

and Dabholkar (1994), in a means-end chain analysis, show that both egoistic and
altruistic goals drive environmental behavior but that altruistic goals tend to dominate.

Egoistic and altruistic value orientations are reflected in value clusters identified
by Schwartz (1992). More recent work by Schwartz (1992, 1994) has gone beyond the
welfare of others in an attempt to characterize the domain of human values. According to
Schwartz (1992), values are arrayed along two dimensions: self-enhancement/self-
transcendence and openness to change/conservation. Self-transcendence is an orientation
toward the welfare of others, whereas self-enhancement is an orientation toward self-
interests. Openness to change reflects the degree to which a person is motivated to follow
his or her own emotional and intellectual interests, whereas conservation reflects a
motivation to preserve the status quo (Schwartz, 1992).

Recent research based on Schwartz’s theory is limited but it has demonstrated the
link between values and behavior. Stern, Dietz, Kalof, and Guagnano (1995) conducted
telephone interviews with 199 randomly selected adults in Fairfax, Virginia. Values were
measured using Schwartz’s dimensions of self-transcendence, self-enhancement,
openness to change, and conservation. Stern et al. (1995) proposed that each of the three
value-based sets of environmental concerns could be measured with selected items falling
within Schwartz’s (1992) value dimensions. The egoistic orientation was measured with
items from self-enhancement; the social altruistic orientation was measured with items
from self-transcendence that were specific to other people; the biospheric orientation was
measured with items from self-transcendence that were specific to the natural

environment. Behavior was measured with self-reported intentions. Regression analyses

16

revealed a positive relationship between biospherism and pro-environmental behavior but
non-significant relationship for the other value orientations.

Similar results were found by Karp (1996) in a study of 302 US. undergraduates.
Values were measured using all 56 value items of Schwartz’s scale, and environmental
behaviors were measured by self-reported frequency of participation in eight
environmental activities. A factor analysis produced four value factors that correspond to
each quadrant of Schwartz’s model: self-transcendence/conservation, self-
transcendence/openness to change, self-enhancement/openness to change, and self-
enhancement/conservation. As predicted by the researcher, the self-
transcendence/openness to change values were significantly positively related to
environmental behaviors, and self-enhancement/conservation values were negatively
related to the behaviors. Neither of other two value dimensions correlated with pro-
environmental behavior.

More recently, Schultz and Zelezny (1998) conducted a multinational survey that
was designed to examine the relationship between values and pro-environmental behavior
in different countries and to examine the relationship between values of self-
transcendence and pro-environmental behavior with respect to the norm activation model.
Survey data were collected from college students in Mexico, Nicaragua, Peru, Spain, and
the United States. The results from the study clearly indicate that pro-environmental
behavior is positively associated with values, particularly biospheric value items of self-
transcendence. This finding was consistent across the multinational sample. In addition,
the regression analyses showed a negative relationship between self-enhancement and

pro-environmental behavior.

17

These findings suggest that values, particularly self-transcendence values, play an
important role in determining environmentally responsible behavior. The negative
relationship between self-enhancement and pro-environmental behavior can be
interpreted as evidence that egoism is related to less pro-environmental behavior.
However, literature indicates that most of evidence about the relationship between values
and pro-environmental behavior comes from US. samples and that the value-attitude-
behavior relationship represent a neglected level of analysis in the study of
environmentally sound behavior, especially buying green.

Attitudes and Beliefir

Concerns for environmental problems represent predispositions of human beings
that influence behavior in certain favorable and unfavorable manners. These
predispositions are commonly referred to as attitudes (Ajzen and F ishbein, 1980;
Scheider, 1988). Attitude has been a fundamental part of environmental studies. Over
the past decades, national opinion polls have shown a consistently high level of
awareness of and concern for environmental problems (e. g., Gallup & Newport, 1990;
Roper Organization, 1990). As the number of people expressing environmental concern
and engaging in ecological activities has grown, the economic and social diversity of this
environmental public has widened to include people from diverse backgrounds (Mainieri,
et al., 1997). Therefore, many empirical investigations have indicated that demographics
may not be as clearly tied as they were previously to environmental concern and behavior
(Hines, Hungerford, and Tomera, 1986-1987; Samdahl and Robertson, 1989). For
example, a positive relationship between education and pro-environmental attitudes

(Vining and Ebreo, 1990) appeared to be weakening (Gallup & Newport, 1990).

18

Likewise, though some studies have reported that income predicts environmental concern
and activity (Garnba and Oskamp, 1992), the differences in environmental concem
among socioeconomic groups are gradually vanishing (Gallup & Newport, 1990; Hines,
Hungerford, and Tomera, 1986-1987; Samdahl and Robertson, 1989). A recent study
(Mainieri et al., 1997) indicated that gender and consumer beliefs predicted
environmental attitudes. That is, women were more concerned than men about
environmental matters, and participants with specific beliefs about the environmental
impact of the purchase and use of consumer products were also likely to hold pro-
environmental attitudes. But age, income, and education were not related to any of the
attitudinal and behavioral variables. Accordingly, much of the social-scientific
investigation of environmental attitudes, rather than remaining focused on demographic
predictors, has turned instead to explanation for the widespread popularity of
environmental issues (Wall, 1995). Cultural change theories that have been advanced to
explain widespread environmental concern revolve around the concept of post-materialist
value change (see Inglehart, 1990). The value-change theories emphasize psychological
factors as the most important determinant of attitudes (Rohrschneider, 1990). Further,
Schultz (2000) tested the structure of people’s concern for environmental problems by
using social-psychological research on prosocial behavior. Stern and Dietz (1994)
proposed that attitudes of environmental concern are rooted in a person’s value system
(see also Stern, Dietz, and Kalof, 1993; Stem, Dietz, Kalof, and Guagnano, 1995). They
argued, as mentioned above, that people’s attitudes about environmental issues are based
on the value that they place on themselves, other people, or plants and animals. Stern and

Dietz (1994) termed these three value-based environmental concerns egoistic, social-

19

altruistic, and biospheric. Schultz (2000) used confirmatory factor analysis and
demonstrated that environmental concerns are based on the negative consequences that
could result for valued objects that can be classified as self, other people, or other living
things. In contrast to the theories that place major emphasis on people’s value systems,
there are theories that emphasize the social context that shapes motivation as the most
important determinant of attitudes (Dunlap, 1989; Lowe and Rudig, 1987; Uusitalo,
1990; Rohrschneider, 1990). The theorists behind these studies argue that given the
broad array of problems that are defined as environmental issues, the probability that
individuals will be affected by one or more of these issues is high (Dunlap, 1989;
Mitchell, 1990). Thus, the diversity and intensity of environmental problems as
experienced by the public are themselves proposed as an explanation for the widespread
nature of enviromnental concern.

On the other hand, a key research question has been whether environmental
attitudes predict actual behavior in relevant situations. If an attitude is “an enduring set of
beliefs about an objects that predispose people to behave in particular ways toward the
object” (Weigel, 1983, p. 257), one may expect people with a pro-environmental attitude
to act in ways consistent with that attitude. There is plentiful empirical evidence that
individuals’ environmental ecological concern level is a useful indicator of ecologically
conscious behaviors, such as purchase behaviors (Kerr, 1990; Donaton and Fitzgerald,
1992; Ottrnan, 1993; Schlossberg, 1992; Wall, 1995; Chan, 1996), recycling (Arbuthnot
and Ligg, 1975; Kellgren and Wood, 1986; Simmons and Widmar, 1990; Wall, 1995),
and a general pro-environmental behavior (Lee and Holden, 1999). However, a meta-

analysis about the attitude-behavior relation indicates that depending on the nature and

20

measurement of each of the variables (Hines, Hungerford, and Tomera, 1987), attitude
has shown varied results as a predictor of environmental behaviors. While some studies
have found a positive relationship between environmental concern and ecologically
responsible behavior, others have found a weak relationship or no significant relationship
between the two variables (e. g., Oskamp et al., 1991; Vining and Ebreo, 1990; Wall,
1995). Specifically, Wall (1995) suggests that environmental attitudes do have a limited
influence on behavior. However, the analysis of consistency between attitudes and
behavior also suggests that the relationship between attitudes and behavior is not a
straightforward one, but rather that it is stronger in some cases than in others.
Consequently, a substantial relationship between general environmental concern and
specific environmental behaviors is questionable. Accordingly, researchers have focused
on the conditions under which attitudes tend to drive behavior; one of the results suggests
that other variables, such as affect (Smith, Haugtvedt, and Petty, 1994), perceived
consumer effectiveness (Berger and Corbin, 1992), and faith in others (Berger and
Corbin, 1992) should be considered.

Perceived Consumer Eflectiveness(PCE)

As mentioned previously, some personality variables have been included to
improve the attitudes and behavior correlation, which may also contribute to the
understanding of the determinants of pro-environmental behavior. Especially, perceived
consumer effectiveness (PCE) (Berger and Corbin, 1992; Ellen, Wiener, and Cobb-
Walgren, 1991; Kinnear, Taylor, and Ahmed, 1974) has received a great deal of attention
based on the evidence that PCE has been shown to be particularly important as a direct

predictor of socially conscious personal behaviors. Perceived consumer effectiveness

21

was initially considered a measure or element of the attitude itself and consequently was
modeled as a direct predictor of environmentally conscious behavior. Kinnear, Taylor,
and Ahmed (1974) found empirical support for consumer effectiveness as ecological
concern.

However, some studies show that attitudes and PCE can be modeled as two
distinct constructs (see Ellen, Wiener, and Cobb-Walgren, 1991). Perceived consumer
effectiveness is defined as a domain-specific belief that the efforts of an individual can
make a difference in the solution to a problem. PCE may be affected by knowledge,
direct experience, and the experiences of others (Brown, 1979; Thompson, 1981). Ellen,
Wiener, and Cobb-Walgren (1991) demonstrate that PCE is distinct from environmental
concern and contributes uniquely to the prediction of certain pro-environmental
behaviors. The degree to which a person feels that he or she has little behavioral control
over the performance of a behavior has been shown to uniquely reduce behavioral
intentions and behavior, even under circmnstances where attitudes toward the action are
very favorable (Ajzen, 1985).

Berger and Corbin (1992, pp. 80-81) defined perceived consumer effectiveness
(PCE) as “the evaluation of the self in the context of the issue,” while an attitude is
defined as simply an evaluation of an issue or problem (Tesser and Shaffer, 1990); they
proposed PCE as moderator of the attitude-environmentally conscious behavior
relationship. They hypothesized that PCE would moderate the relationship between
general environmental attitudes and personal consumer behaviors. In support of the
hypotheses, individuals with high level of PCE show higher attitude-consumer behavior

correlation (e.g., low (high) attitude scores and low (high) level of pro-environmental

22

behavior) than those with low level of PCB. Though this tendency is present for all three
kinds of behavior (i.e., consumer behavior, willingness to pay more, and support for
regulatory actions), its greatest impact is on the behavioral measure that represents
specific acts of personal responsibility. They also, however, recognized that PCE may
operate as direct effects. Indeed, Ellen et a1. (1991) found a direct effect of PCB on
environmentally conscious behaviors.

On the other hand, if PCE is believed to motivate a wide variety of behaviors,
then its role may be over— or understated, depending on the specific behaviors included.
According to some theories, ranging from the theory of reasoned action (Gill, Grosby,
and Taylor, 1986) to social dilemma theory (Wiener and Doescher, 1991), an individual’s
belief that an environmental problem can be solved by a specific action will strongly
influence the individual’s willingness to engage in that specific action. In other words,
PCE should not be used to predict generalized pro-environmental behaviors. The
findings showed that while concern was significantly related to all behaviors,
effectiveness was a significant predictor for only three of the six behavioral measures:
purchase, recycling, and contribution to environmental groups. Greater perceived
effectiveness was associated with greater likelihood of performing these individual
behaviors because according to social dilemma theory, the degree to which the individual
feels his or her efforts to make a difference affects his or her performance of individually
oriented activities (e. g., recycling), as opposed to political behaviors. On the other hand,
perceived effectiveness was not a significant factor in a person’s membership in groups or
his or her communication with public officials, which is predicated on the greater effect

of groups, rather than individuals.

23

Consistent with Berger and Corbin (1992), Lee and Holden’s study (1999) found
that PCE moderates the strength of the attitude-behavior relationship and is a significant
positive predictor of high-cost consmner behaviors (such as contribution to or being a
member of an environmental group, writing the government about the environment, and
attending a meeting on environmental issues). That is, consumers with high PCE are
more likely to adopt personal helping behavior. Interestingly, however, PCE did not
significantly predict low-cost consumer activities, such as seeking out green products,
avoiding harmfirl packaging, car pooling, walking or taking public transit in order to
protect the environment, and recycling. The failure of PCB in predicting low-cost
consumer behaviors may be due to a lower threshold (i.e., as the cost' is minimal, the
benefit does not have to be perceived as very high). As such, low-cost behaviors are less
likely to be affected by consumers’ perceptions of their own effectiveness. This indicates
that while Ellen et al. (1991) and Lee and Holden (1999) agree that PCE may be a
significant predictor of certain environmental activities, they might not agree on what
types of behaviors can be significantly predicted from PCE.

This study may additionally be used to identify which kinds of pro-environmental
behaviors are significantly or not significantly influenced by PCE. In sum, the review of
the literature suggests that perceived consumer effectiveness is an important construct in
the explanation of the relationship between environmental attitudes and personal
consumer behaviors and an important predictor of certain pro-environmental behaviors by
influencing the sensibility of consumer actions to changes in environmental concern.

For the past decades, it has been empirically supported that psychographic

variables such as values, attitudes, and beliefs like PCE explain individuals’ diverse

24

commitments to environmental protection better than any other variables such as socio-
demographics. Thus, a theory that links values, attitudes, and behavior seems to work

most persuasively in the field of environmental behavior.

Value-Attitude-Behavior Model

Rokeach (1968) views a value as a “centrally held, enduring belief which guides
actions and judgments across specific situations and beyond immediate goals to more
ultimate end-states of existence.” Values are responsible for the selection and
maintenance of the ends or goals toward which human beings strive and, at the same
time, regulate the methods and manner in which this striving takes place.

Numerous scholars have suggested that behavior is a result of values and
attitudes. Both Connor and Becker (1979) and Homer and Kahle (1988) propose that
values provide the basis for the development of individual attitudes which lead to specific
decision-making behavior. Values are conceptualized as determinants of attitudes and,
consequently, as a causal influence on behavior (Tohnan, 1951; ParsOns and Shils, 1951).
However, most of the earlier work on personal values addressed a simple bivariate
relationship such as the value-behavior or the value-attitude link. The role of values has
received limited empirical attention relative to its potential significance, especially within
a causal modeling approach.

The value-attitude-behavior relationship has been investigated by several studies
(e.g., Homer and Kahle, 1988; McCarty and Shrum, 1994), and the results support the
hypotheses that values influence attitudes and that attitudes in turn influence behaviors, as

the final phase in the value-attitude-behavior hierarchy. Homer and Kahle (1988)

25

examined personal values, attitudes about health foods, and the purchase of health foods
within a causal modeling analysis. They discovered an indirect influence of values on
shopping behavior, with attitudes providing a mediating role. McCarty and Shrum’s
(1994) study conceptually replicated the work by Homer and Kahle (1988) by
demonstrating a link between values and attitudes, and attitudes and behavior, in the
context of the socially conscious behavior of recycling solid wastes. McCarty and Shrum
(1994) demonstrate a significant effect of collectivistic orientation on recycling attitude,
which in turn affects recycling behavior. Collectivistic orientation tends to have an
indirect effect on recycling behavior via the attitude toward the inconvenience of
recycling. In particular, values were shown to have indirect effects on behavior: attitudes
and beliefs provided a mediating role between the abstract values and specific behaviors.

Further, a review of research on values and behaviors provides a variety of
evidence that differences in values have been related to significant differences in
attitudinal and behavioral outcomes: cigarette smoking (Grube, Weir, Getzlaf, and
Rokeach, 1984), automobile purchase (Henry, 1976; Sukhdial, Chakraborty, and Steger,
1995), fashion (Goldsmith, Heitmeyer, and Freiden, 1991), and media preferences
(Beatty, Kahle, and Homer, and Misra, 1985).

Some authors (e.g., Stern, Dietz, and Kalof, 1993; Fishbein and Ajzen, 1975;
Harbin, 1977; Rozak, 1992; Milbrath, 1979, 1981a) have speculated that environmental
attitudes can flow from a value orientation that reflects concern for the welfare of other
human beings. Stern and Dietz (1994) tested a theory about the basis of environmental
concern in values. They found that environmental concern is related to egoistic, social-

altruistic, and biospheric value orientations. Stern, Dietz, Kalof, and Guagnano (1995)

26

found that endorsements of self-transcendent or biospheric-altruistic values were
positively associated with reported willingness to take political action to support
environmental causes, whereas endorsement of self-enhancement values were negatively
associated with willingness to take action. Such studies have provided evidence that
values may have both a direct effect on behavioral measures and indirect effects flowing
through concerns about the consequences of environmental changes for valued objects.
Therefore, the literature review indicates the need to investigate the causal relationships
among the three variables of values, attitudes, and behavior in order to find a better way

to encourage people’s pro-environmental behavior.

Values and Consumer Choice Behavior

Consumer value structures were found to be linked to the importance of product
attribute (choice criteria) for product classes and brands. Salient product attributes are
defined as those that are both important to the prospective buyer and used by the
individual to differentiate between brands when deciding on which brand to purchase
(Boote, 1981). Specifically, research interests in marketing have centered on predicting
brand choice and assessing the relative importance of various product attributes in
determining brand preference. It has been suggested that value acquisition represents a
socio-cultural process and that differential value orientations will lead to variations in
preferences for products and brands. Vinson, Scott, and Lamont (1977) investigated
these propositions and found that the subjects from two culturally distinct regions of the
United States were significantly different with respect to their basic value orientations

and that values and the evaluation of product attributes were consistent with preference

27

for the consumer products or services. It is well accepted in the consumer behavior
literature that cultural differences affect consumer behavior through their influence on
consumer values, which are known to affect consumption motives and individual choice
criteria (Bozinoff and Cohen, 1982; Omura, 1980; Valencia, 1989).

Values have been shown to directly influence the product attributes the individual
evaluates in making purchase decisions (Pitts and Woodside, 1983). Pitts (1981) has
demonstrated that homogeneous groups of individuals with similar value systems may be
effectively developed and differentiated from dissimilar groups on the basis of education,
income, and occupation. Howards (1977) contends that grouping consumers with similar
values will provide groups with similar choice criteria and final behavior. Boote (1981)
related personal values to specific product attributes in a study of preferences for
restaurant services.

For activities and interests, Jackson (1974) found that value orientation affected
both the individual’s choice between work and leisure and the selection among alternative
leisure activities. Pitts and Woodside (1986) examined the relationship between personal
values and travel or leisure decisions and supported current conceptualizations of value
influence on the individual. Values were shown to be related to differences in choice

criteria and to actual behavior.

Environmental Consumerism
Environmental consumerism (green buying)-purchasing and consuming products
that are benign toward the environment (Mainieri, Barnett, Valdero, Unipan, and

Oskamp, 1997)-began to receive serious attention in the early 1970’s. The studies

28

reported in the marketing literature have focused on the characteristics of the consumer
who shows an ecological concern (Kinnear and Taylor, 1973; Webster, 1975) and on
environmental aspects of the purchase activities of consumers (Henion, 1972; Fritzsche,
1974; Fritzsche and Duehr, 1982). Some studies have focused on the relationship
between specific product attributes of environmental aspects and the purchase activities
of consumers (Kerin and Peterson, 1974; Henion et al., 1980; F ritzsche and Dueher,
1982). The findings indicate that ecologically concerned consumers constitute a
substantial market segment because they preferred certain product attributes for
ecological reasons. There may be certain segments of the market that place a high value
on the environmental dimension of products they purchase. In 1991, 49% of Americans
reported that they avoided purchasing environmentally harmful products (Hueber, 1991).
Despite the fact that substantial numbers of consumers claim to be “green” (Ottrnan,
1998), it is unclear to what extent these consumers are willing to purchase goods based
solely on environmental grounds. Hume (1991) concluded from a review of studies on
consumers’ self-reported actions that, although many consumers say they are pro-
environment, they often do not act that way. A more recent study (Mainieri et al., 1997)
also reported that the respondents, though expressing generally favorable environmental
viewpoints, did not display their concerns in their purchasing behavior. Only 14-30% of
them stated that they had ever bought any category of products because of its
environmental impact; safety to the environment ranked fourth of five factors influencing
their purchase decisions.

Conclusively, a review of literature indicates that despite a high level of

environmental concern among the public, this concern did not carry over to most people’s

29

environmental buying behaviors. Thus, it is important to explore how consumers’
psychological variables affect their preferences for pro-environmental attributes and
consumption. The second part of this study is designed to increase understanding of
people’s self-reported green buying and to determine how values and attitudes predict

environmentally conscious purchasing.

Culture and Environmentalism

Very few studies of the culture/environment link can be found in the United States
(Arp and Kenny, 1996; Mohai, 1990; Schultz and Zelezny, 1998). However, cultural
differences can not be underestimated in understanding the variability of people’s forms
of responses to environmental problems and issues. Culture has been used as a factor in
the creation of environmental attitudes mainly to explain how and why environmental
attitudes may differ between people of color and whites. A review of literature suggests
three theoretical arguments explaining different environmental attitudes between people
with different ethnicity (Mohai and Bryant, 1998). These explanations include (1)
hierarchy of needs, (2) cultural differences, and (3) environmental deprivation.
Especially, cultural differences among those three arguments will be heavily discussed
here, and this is why the differences between the American and Korean subjects in their
environmental attitudes and behavior can be explained best by their cultural differences.
Of course, the other explanations will be also briefly stated.

The hierarchy of needs explanation is adopted from Maslow’s (1954) “Hierarchy
of Needs Theory” (Caron, 1989; Mohai, 1990; Taylor, 1989; Van Liere and Dunlap,

1980). According to the theory, before people can begin to focus their attention on

30

“higher order” needs, such as aesthetics, more basic survival needs must first be satisfied.
These needs include food, shelter, and physical and economic security. From this view, a
clean, aesthetic environment is seen as a higher order need (Inglehart, 1990). An
individual’s place in the socioeconomic order can affect the conditions in which he or she
is likely to react to environmental protection. Someone whose needs for food, shelter,
and physical security are barely met is not likely to spare the energy to maintain concern
about higher-level needs such as clean air. It suggests that the differences between people
of color and whites in terms of environmental concern can be associated with the
differences in their socioeconomic status. In fact, a research by Newell and Green (1997)
indicates that as blacks’ income and education rise, the gap in environmental concern
between blacks and whites significantly decreases.

A second explanation that may account for racial differences in concern for the
environment is cultural differences (Caron, 1989; Mohai, 1990; Taylor, 1989; Vaughan
and Nordenstam, 1991). According to this perspective, attitudes toward the environment
are conditioned by people’s cultural backgrounds and experiences. Cultural differences
create a basis for differences in attitudes and behavior toward the environment. Those
who differ in cultural and historical experiences may have different value systems
(Pepitone and Triandis, 1988; Taylor, 1979) and a different orientation toward
environmental problems (Banks, 1988; Caron, 1989; Taylor, 1989).

Beliefs and values are a critical part of culture. Hofstede (1991) defines culture as
“the collective mental programming of the people in an environment.” Culture is a
people’s way of life (Parker and McDonough, 1999), and a group of people within a

culture think and act in common ways. For the purpose of understanding the word for

31

marketing, Rice (1993) defines culture as “the values, attitudes, beliefs, artefacts and
other meaningful symbols represented in the pattern of life adopted by people that help
them interpret, evaluate and communicate as members of a society.” Thus, behaviors,
values, beliefs, and attitudes distinguish the group from other parts of society and the
country from other countries of the world. Belonging to a culture means that similar
histories are shaped, and this influences the creation of values within the culture.
Priorities of values vary across cultures (e. g., Grunert, Grunert, and Beatty, 1989).
According to Hofstede’s work (1980), Korean and American cultures show the
most contrast in individualism/collectivism and power distance dimensions of cultural
programming. Briefly stated, power distance is the extent to which those of lesser status
in as society accept that power is distributed unequally, and in contrast to individualism,
collectivism refers to the extent to which needs and goals of the collectivity are more
highly valued than individual needs and goals. Hofstede (1983) suggests that Korean
culture shows large power distance and low individualism, while the United States shows
small power distance and high individualism. These cultural contrasts between Korea
and the United States may be assumed to affect individuals’ values, which may in turn
influence the subjects’ attitudes toward environmental issues and decisions regarding
environmental practices. McCarty and Shrum (1994) suggest that culturally oriented
values might influence individuals’ environmental behaviors. For instance, those who are
more collectivistic tend to recycle more than those who are more individualistic because
collectivistic people tend to be more cooperative and helpfiil and to care more for the
goals of the group relative to the individual. Li (1997) also confirmed the main effects of

collectivist orientation on ecological commitment.

32

On the other hand, there is literature evidence indicating a different result from the
finding by McCarty and Shrum (1994). That is, collectivism may affect negatively
individuals’ attitudes toward the environment and behavior, especially through its
influence on personal values. Research on collectivist versus individualist cultures
demonstrates the importance of distinguishing between the universalism and benevolence
value types (which are included in self-transcendence cluster) of pro-Social concern
(Schwartz, 1990). Members of collectivist cultures tend to show great concern for the
welfare of members of their own in-group but relative indifference to the needs of
outsiders. However, members of individualist cultures tend to distinguish less sharply
between in-groups and out-groups when responding to their needs (Trandis, 1990;
Trandis, McCusker, and Hui, 1990). This suggests that collectivist cultures put much
greater emphasis on benevolence (helpful, honest, loyal) than on universalism (broad-
minded, world of beauty, unity with nature, wisdom, protecting the environment) values
while individualist cultures place a more equal emphasis on both value types. The
motivational goal of universalism is understanding, appreciation, tolerance, and
protection for the welfare of all people and for nature. This contrasts with the narrower
focus of benevolence values. Benevolence focuses on concern for the welfare of close
others in everyday interaction. Self-transcendence is assessed with items from
universalism and benevolence. However, value items (e. g., a world of beauty, unity with
nature, environmental protection) selected fiom universalism are particularly relevant to
environmental issues. These items measure what Stern and Dietz (1994) have labeled
biospherism. Also, Triandis, McCusker, and Hui (1990) Show that collectivists

emphasize values that promote the welfare of their ingroup, whereas individualists

33

emphasize values that promote individual goals. These findings indicate that value
priorities held by members of group can differ across individualist and collectivist
cultures.

Therefore, cultural differences might provide a basis for differences in
environmental attitudes and behavior. For example, culturally oriented values such as
individualism and collectivism might affect personal value orientations. In support of the
concept, Rohrschneider (1990) shows that the different strengths of the environmental
movement in several countries can be related to different strengths of post-material value
priorities that those countries exhibit. For instance, post-material value priorities are low
in France where the environmental movement is weaker but high in West Germany where
the environmental movement is the strongest among four countries (Germany, France,
Great Britain, and Netherlands). This evidence proposes two things: First, the differences
in value priorities may cause the different levels of pro-environmental activities, and
second, consumers from different countries may be distinguished by their values.

In sum, Americans and Koreans have been educated and nurtured under the
influence of their unique own cultures and life situations, and such cultures and
experiences might significantly affect their value priorities and their beliefs about the
environment or about people’s relationship with the ecological environment. These
values and beliefs may influence their attitudes toward environmental problems and,
further, the level of their support for environmental protection.

Finally, according to the environmental deprivation explanation, direct experience
with or exposure to pollution leads to greater concern about it (Lowe and Pinhey, 1982;

Van Liere and Dunlap, 1980). That is, the level of public concern for environmental

34

problems is related to actual levels of pollution and degradation (Tremblay and Dunlap,
1978). This environmental deprivation theory has often been used to explain rural-urban
differences in support for environmental protection. According to some studies
(Tremblay and Dunlap, 1978; Lowe and Pinhey, 1982), urban residents are more
concerned with environmental problems and show higher levels of support for
environmental protection than rural people because they are generally exposed to higher
levels of pollution and other types of environmental deterioration. Second, heavy
dependence on use of the natural environment by rural residents is assumed to result in
less concern with enviromnental protection than that shown by urban residents. Murdock
and Schriner (1977) suggest a third explanation: Because small towns need to maintain
economic growth to survive, they are assumed to value grth over protection of
environmental quality. Thus the growth orientation of rural and small-town residents, not
the utilitarian orientation of farmers and other rural residents, presumably accounts for the
positive relationship between environmental concern and size of place of residence. The
differences between Koreans and Americans in their environmental concern and support
for environmental protection can be expected and explained, in part, based on these
theoretical explanations. For example, the different levels of pollution and exposure to
environmental risks which exist between two countries may affect how subjects assess
environmental problems. Also, the differences between subjects of two countries in
whether to value economic growth or environmental protection may influence their
different levels of support for environmental protection.

It is significant to examine ethnic-cultural impact on environmentalism because

both ecological and cultural experiences that may be unique to a particular group can be

35

associated with individuals’ environmental attitudes and behavior. Further, cross-cultural
research on pro-environmental values, attitudes, and behavior is critical as psychologists

attempt to develop models that predict behavior intended to benefit the environment.

36

Chapter 3

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

Value Theory

A value is an enduring belief that a specific mode of conduct or end-state of
existence is personally or socially preferable to an opposite or converse mode of conduct
or end-state of existence (Rokeach, 1973, p. 5). Values are organized into value systems.
A value system is an enduring organization of beliefs concerning preferable modes of
conduct or end-states of existence along a continuum of relative importance.

Values have been important variables in the study of various topics in relation to
human behaviors based on the underlying belief that values guide actions and judgments
across specific situations and stimuli. Values serve as standards that guide ongoing
activities and value systems as general plans employed to resolve conflicts and to make
decisions. Values lead us to take particular positions on social issues and predispose us
to favor one particular political or religious ideology over another.

Another way to study values is to think of them as giving expression to human
needs (Rokeach, 1973). Values have strong motivational components as well as
cognitive, affective, and behavioral components. Instrumental values are motivating
because the idealized modes of behavior they are concemed with are perceived to be
instrumental to the attainment of desired end-goals. If we behave in all the ways

prescribed by our instrumental values, we will be rewarded with all the end-states

37

specified by our terminal values. Terminal values are motivating because they represent
the supergoals beyond immediate, biologically urgent goals. .

Values are in the final analysis the conceptual tools and weapons that we all
employ in order to maintain and enhance self-esteem. All of a person’s attitudes can be
conceived as being value-expressive, and all of a person’s values are conceived to
maintain and enhance self-esteem by helping a person adjust to his or her society, defend
his of her ego against threat, and test reality. Values serving adjustive, ego-defensive,
knowledge, and self-actualization functions may well be ordered along a continuum
ranging from lower- to hi gher-order, as is suggested by Maslow’s well-known
hierarchical theory of motivation (1954).

Values can be used as dependent or as independent variables. On the dependent
side, they are a result of all the cultural, institutional, and personal forces that act upon a
person throughout his lifetime. For instance, similar values are widely held by most
members of a culture or subculture. Values are derived from and modified through
personal, social and cultural leaming. On the independent side, they have far-reaching
effects on virtually all areas of human behaviors that social scientists may consider worth
investigating and understanding. A major role of values is that of a standard that
individuals can use in formulating attitudes and guiding their own behavior (Clawson and

Vinson, 1978).

Micro Theories of Environmentalism
A psychological component should not be missed in some models’ explanation of

why certain segments of society are more prone than others to support the environmental

38

movement. There is a group of models that emphasizes psychological factors such as
values or the perception of problems in explaining public movements toward social
issues. Among the most prominent psychological models are Inglehart’s model of post-
material value priorities (Inglehart, 1977, 1987). Other psychological approaches that
have a claim to the universal explanation of human behavior include self-interest theories
(Sears et al., 1980; Sears and Citrin, 1985) and sociotropic theories about public issue
opinion (Kinder and Kiewiet, 1979; Kiewiet, 1983). A self-interest model argues that
individuals utilize information collected from their personal lives as the major basis of
issue opinions (Sears, et al., 1980). A sociotropic approach suggests that citizens support
environmental organizations because they perceive the deteriorating condition of the
national environment as threatening (Kinder and Kiewiet, 1979).

However, one of the most frequently discussed factors that may explain the
public’s support of environmental issues is post-material values. Inglehart (1977, 1987,
1989) provided empirical evidence that the rise of a material-post-material value cleavage
is an important cause of the political changes observed in industrialized democracies.
Post-materialists emphasize, for instance, the quality of life, altemati've conceptions of
security strategies, or the protection of the environment; materialists continue to focus on
such issues as continued economic growth, keeping inflation rates down, or traditional
security strategies. According to Inglehart, once these value priorities are shaped,
individuals have acquired a broad set of values that from then on guides their perception
of environmental problems, provides cues for their orientation on environmental issues,

and influences their environmental behavior.

39

In sum, psychological models emphasize value priorities and the perception of
environmental problems as the major sources of public support for environmental
activities. That is, psychological theories emphasize that individuals independent of their
social location may exhibit the psychological characteristics that presumably generate

support for new social movement.

Schwartz’s Norm-Activation Model of Altruism and the Model of Environmental
Concern (Stern, Dietz, and Kalof, 1993)

Schwartz (1970, 1977) has developed a social-psychological model of altruistic
behavior. According to Schwartz, the process begins with social norms regarding moral
behavior upon which people generally agree in a sort of abstract, detached way. These
norms represent the values and attitudes of significant others; we expect others to act in
the morally proper way, and they in turn expect the same of us. However, these norms
are too general and detached to govern behavior. The social norms are adopted by
individuals on a personal level. That is, the social norms become personal norms.
Personal norms are distinguished from social norms although they are derived from
socially shared norms, because the consequences of violating and upholding personal
norms are closely related to one’s self-concept. In sum, social norms exist on the social
structural level, whereas personal norms are strongly internalized moral attitudes
(Heberlein, 1975; Schwartz and Howard, 1980).

The model suggests a critical link between personal norms and behavior. Unless
the personal norms are defined as relevant and applicable to a situation, they will not be

activated. Schwartz identifies two variables that influence whether or not personal norms

40

translate into behavior: the awareness of the consequences (AC) that action or inaction
will have, and the ascription of responsibility (AR) for those consequences. When AC
and AR are high, personal norms guide subsequent behavior. In short, the effect of a
social norm is mediated through the personal norm, and AC and AR intervene between
the personal norm and behavior. This model of norm-activation has been used mainly to
study such altruistic behaviors as helping and volunteering, but the theory has been
extended to individual beliefs and actions affecting environmental quality. This
theoretical approach treats environmental concern as the consequence of a process of
activating personal moral norms based on altruism (e. g., Homer and Nielsen, 1991;
Stem, Dietz, and Black, 1986). In this approach, environmental concerns are a subset of
morally tinged human concerns, rooted in universal values.

Stern et al. (1993) extend the Schwartz’s norm-activation model, which treats
environmental concern as altruism toward other human beings, to incorporate both self-
interest and concern with other species or the biosphere itself. They presume that the
value orientation toward human welfare (altruistic motivation) is only one of at least three
value orientations that might underlie enviromnental attitudes and behavior. The others
are egoistic value orientation (self-interest) and a biospheric value orientation. Altruistic
personal norms can be partially countered by the effect of perceived costs to the
individual engaging in the behavior these norms prescribe (Black, Stern, and Elsworth,
1985). A biospheric value orientation indicates concern with other species and with
natural environments. Stern et al. (1993) presume that action in support of environmental
quality may derive from any of these three value orientations. They imply that beliefs

about consequences for self or for the biosphere, and not only about consequences for

41

others, can motivate action on environmental issues. This perspective draws attention to
different value frames, which might yield differing degrees of measured environmental

concern.

Theory of A Universal Psychological Structure of Human Values

Schwartz and Bilsky (1987, 1990) proposed a tentative theory of the universal
content and structure of human values, which they tested with data from seven countries.
They revised that theory with numerous modifications and extensions and assessed the
viability of the revised version of the theory with data gathered from 40 samples in 20
countries (Schwartz, 1992). They generated a conceptual definition of values that
incorporates the five features of values recurrently mentioned in the literature. Values (1)
are concepts or beliefs, (2) pertain to desirable end states or behaviors, (3) transcend
specific situations, (4) guide selection or evaluation of behavior and events, and (5) are
ordered by relative importance. Values differ from attitudes primarily in their generality
or abstractness and in their hierarchical ordering by importance (Rokeach, 1973). In
addition to the formal features of values, Schwartz and Bilsky (1987, 1990) proposed that
the primary content aspect of a value is the type of goal or motivational concern that it
expresses. They derived a universal typology of the different contents of values by
reasoning that values represent, in the form of conscious goals, three universal
requirements of human existence to which all individuals and societies must be
responsive: needs of individuals as biological organisms, requisites of coordinated social
interaction, and survival and welfare needs of groups. Through socialization and

cognitive development, individuals learn to represent these requirements as conscious

42

goals and values, to use culturally shared terms to communicate about these goals and

values, and to attribute varying degrees of importance to them.

The Nature of the Value Types

Schwartz (1992) identified 10 distinct motivational types that are likely to be

recognized within and across cultures and used to form value priorities:

1.

Self-Direction: The defining goal of this value type is “independent thought
and action-choosing, creating, exploring” (p. 5).
Stimulation: The motivational goal of stimulation values is “excitement,

novelty, and challenge in life” (p. 8).

. Hedonism: The motivational goal of this value type is “pleasure or sensuous

gratification for oneself (pleasure, enjoying life)” (p. 8).

. Achievement: The defining goal of this value type is “personal success through

demonstrating competence according to social standar ” (p. 8).

. Power: The central goal of power values is “attainment of

social status and prestige, and control or dominance over people and resources
(authority, wealth, social power, preserving my public image, social
recognition)” (p. 9).

Security: The motivational goal of this value type is “safety, harmony, and

stability of society, of relationships, and of self” (p. 9).

. Conformity: The defining goal of this value type is “restraint of actions,

inclinations, and impulses likely to upset or harm others and violate social

expectations or norms” (p. 9).

43

8. Tradition: The motivational goal of tradition values is “respect, commitment,
and acceptance of the customs and ideas that one’s culture or religion
impose on the individual (respect for tradition, humble, devout, accepting
my portion in life, moderate)” (p. 10).

9. Benevolence: The motivational goal of benevolence values is “preservation
and enhancement of the welfare of people with whom one is in frequent
personal contact (helpful, loyal, forgiving, honest, responsible, true
friendship, mature love)” (p. 11).

10. Universalism: The motivational goal of universalism is “understanding,

appreciation, tolerance, and protection for the welfare of all people and for
nature” (p. 12).
Dynamic Structures of Value Types
The relationships among the motivational types of values and among the single
values can be summarized in terms of a two-dimensional structure. The total value
structure can be viewed as composed of four higher-order value types that form two
basic, bipolar conceptual dimensions.

The first basic dimension places a higher-order type combining stimulation and

self-direction values in opposition to one combining security, conformity, and tradition

values. They call this dimension “openness to change versus conservation.”

“It arrays values in terms of the extent to which they motivate people to follow

their own intellectual and emotional interests in unpredictable and uncertain

44

directions versus to preserve the status quo and the certainty it provides in

relationships with close others, institutions, and traditions. (p.43)”

The second basic dimension places a higher-order type combining power, achievement,
and hedonism values in opposition to one combining universalism and benevolence
values (including a spiritual life). They call this dimension “self-enhancement versus

self-transcendence.”

“It arrays values in terms of the extent to which they motivate people to enhance
their own personal interests (even at the expense of others) versus the extent to which
they motivate people to transcend selfish concerns and promote the welfare of others,

close and distant, and of nature. (p.43)”

Figure 1 represents the theoretical model of relations among motivational types of values
revised to reflect what has been learned from the empirical research. These value
dimensions and motivational types may be predictive of behavior that promotes the
collective good in general and environmental behavior in particular.
Patterns of Value—Attitude Relations

Schwartz’s (1992) model of value association can be used to predict a general
pattern of value-attitude relations. The self-enhancement and the self-transcendence
values are negatively related. That is, people who tend to value self-enhancement values
tend not to value self-transcendence values, and people who value self-transcendence

values tend not to value self-enhancement values. In addition, the self-enhancement and

45

self-transcendence domains are unrelated to the openness and conservation domains,
which are negatively related to each other.

This pattern in the relations between values allows one to predict a pattern of
relations between values and other variables (e.g., demographic statistics, attitudes) (Maio
and Olson, 1995). For example, people may be favorable toward donating to charity
because they consider altruism and self-transcendence values to be important. Thus, self-
transcendence values may be positively related to attitudes toward donating to a charity.
If this is the case, there should also be a negative relation between self-enhancement
values and attitudes toward donating. This prediction is made because people who value
self-transcendence should be less likely to value self-enhancement. Thus, relations
between a variable and one higher-order value domain should be opposite of the relations
involving the opposing domain.

Finally, value-attitude relations are stronger when people have value-expressive
attitudes (attitudes used to express central values and self-concept) than when they have
utilitarian attitudes (attitudes maximizing rewards and minimizing punishments obtained
from the environment) (Maio and Olson, 1995). Most people’s attitudes toward
environmental behaviors, such as buying green, energy conservation, and joining an
environmental club, are likely to be value-expressive because one’s attitudes toward
environmental behavior tends to express one’s values and social identity. Environmental
behaviors are regarded as value influenced behavior (e. g., the cost of, and opportunity for,

engaging in a particular kind of behavior).

46

A Conceptual Model of The Present Study

Based on the importance of values in understanding consumer behavior and their
relationships with other constructs such as attitudes and behavior, this study will
investigate a fuller model consisting of intrinsic psychological-type determinants of pro-
environmental behavior. This proposes that values influence individual’s enviromnental
attitudes and such attitudes in turn influence environmental behaviors. These links,
called the value-attitude-behavior relationship, are important because these suggest that
values may be meaningful to understanding behavior. But it is also important to consider
these links in relation to intervening variables such as attitudes and beliefs, because there
are instances that when appropriate constructs are not considered between values and
behavior values seem not to have significant influences on behavior.

Values measures defined as in Schwartz’s work have proved to be strong
predictors of pro-environmental attitudes and behavior (Karp, 1996; Stern and Dietz,
1994; Stem, Dietz, and Kalof, 1993; Stem, Dietz, Kalof, ad Guagnano, 1995). However,
most of these studies were done to find simple bivariate correlations such as the value-
attitude or value-behavior relation. That is, the relationship of values to behaviors has
generally not been investigated in the context of mediating variables Such as attitudes.
Therefore, this study will be expected to find a more extensive conceptual model (Figure
2) representing value structures as the independent variable causing the differences
among individuals’ enviromnental attitudes, which can indicate differences among
consumers’ environmentally sound behaviors. Additionally, PCE will be used to

moderate the influence of attitudes on behavior (Figure 3).

47

Chapter 4

RESEARCH OBJECTIVES

The Purpose of the Study

This study’s objectives are predicated on the belief that values influence behaviors
directly and indirectly through attitudes and beliefs. This belief is empirically tested in
the context of different cultures in order to know whether or not the relationships among
the variables appear to be true within and across cultures. Based on a theory of values,
attitudes, and behavior, this study investigates the roles of values in guiding
environmental attitudes and behaviors (e. g., particularly buying green products and other
types of pro-environmental actions in general). It also, on the other hand, tests PCE as a
moderator of the relationship between attitudes and consumer behaviors. PCE and
attitudes can be used more effectively as two distinct constructs in predicting
enviromnentally conscious personal behaviors. This increases the likelihood that
attitudes can predict environmentally conscious behaviors. In order to reach this goal,
several objectives were developed to guide the research: '

0 To investigate the relationship between values and environmental attitudes

0 To predict the relationship between environmental attitudes and

pro-environmental behaviors
0 To investigate PCE as a moderating role in the relationship between

environmental attitudes and personal consumer behaviors

48

By achieving the goals, this study suggests a fuller model explaining a greater amount of
the variance in pro-environmental behaviors. Thus, one of the objectives is the
following:
c To examine the value-attitude-behavior relationship in a causal model
A second purpose of the study is to investigate the relationship between value
orientations and green buying (purchase reflecting consumer’s preference for
environmentally sound products). As a different form of support for environmental
protection, consumers’ preference for environmentally sound products is tested in relation
to consumer value structures. This study examines whether value orientations affect
individuals’ choice criteria and selection among alternatives. Consumers who strongly
value self-transcendence/openness to change may have a more heightened perception of
environmentally considered attributes, through their high level of environmental attitudes.
Accordingly, consumers who value environmental attributes of products more highly may
buy green products more often. Accordingly, some research objectives were required to
find the relationships among values, attitudes, and consumerism:
0 To investigate the relationship between value structures and the
importance of product attributes
c To investigate the relationship between environmental attitudes and
the importance of product attributes
0 To predict the relationship between the importance of environmentally
fiiendly attributes and the selection of environmentally fiiendly products
On the other hand, there is empirical evidence that choice criteria including

environmentally considered attributes differ across countries with varying levels of

49

environmental sensibility. Thus, this study further proposes that people from different
countries may demonstrate different valuations of environmental attributes in determining
product preference. A third purpose of the study is to investigate thejeffects of cultural
differences on value orientations and environmentally conscious behaviors including
environmental consumerism. As mentioned in the literature review, countries that show
different levels of public support for environmental protection also exhibit differences in
strengths of postrnaterial value priorities that appear to be positively related to pro-
environmental behavior (Rohrschneider, 1990). Value orientations, this study presumes,
may vary across cultures as well as between individuals. As noted earlier, individuals’
value orientations might be affected by culturally oriented values-e.g., collectivism and
individualism. Value orientations take shape during the socialization process and are
fairly stable in adults. Thus, culturally distinct groups may be different with respect to
their value orientations, and this difference may affect diverse responses to programs for
environmental protection. This study proposes that the differences in how two countries
rate self-transcendence and openness to change values may be associated with the
difference in strengths of pro-environmental actions that they demonstrate. That is, this
study examines whether differences between how American and Korean subjects value
self-transcendence and openness to change have any impact on the differences in their

engagements in pro-environmental behaviors.

Research Questions
In order to accomplish these objectives, several specific research questions are

addressed.

50

1. Do consumers’ value orientations greatly influence their
environmental attitudes?

2. Do environmental attitudes influence pro-environmental behaviors (e. g.,
consumer’s ecologically friendly purchase behavior and other environmental
behaviors)? That is, do environmental attitudes mediate between values and
behaviors?

3. Does PCE moderate the relationship between environmental attitudes and pro-
environmental consumer behaviors? .

4. Do consumers’ value orientations affect their choice criteria (e.g., perceived
importance of a specific product attribute)?

5. Is consumers’ perceived importance of environmental attributes related to their
selection of green products?

In addition, the same measurement is administered to two different ethnic-cultural
groups—the US. and Korean subjects, under the same purpose of the study. This study
explores the role of “personal values” in explaining diverse environmental concerns and
behaviors that consumers demonstrate in the contexts of different cultures. The subjects
from the two different countries may be considered to be different in terms of their
cultural values such as collectivism, and the differences in collectivism may influence
such value orientations as self-transcendence/openness to change. Finally, their value
orientations would affect their attitudinal and behavioral reactions to environmental
issues. It is interesting to examine whether culturally distinct subjects may exhibit

different strengths with respect to their value orientations and also show different levels

51

of environmental behavior. Therefore, this study has some research questions regarding

cross-cultural circumstances.

6. Will value orientations affect individuals’ pro-environmental behavior
through their influence on environmental attitudes within and across cultures?

7. Do the US. and the Korean subjects exhibit differences in their collectivism and
in the value orientations measured by the Schwartz’s Values Scale? Do their
value orientations influence their pro-environmental behaviors? In other words,
can the differences in their value priorities regarding self-transcendence/openness
to change values explain the differences in their engagements in pro-
environmental behaviors?

8. Do the US. and the Korean subjects differ in their environmental consumerism?

Research Hypotheses

Several hypotheses are presented based on the above research questions. They
test the theoretical implications of my model. Hypothesis one examines how value
orientations can influence attitudes toward the environment. Hypothesis two examines
how attitudes toward the environment influence pro-environmental behaviors.
Hypothesis three examines how PCE moderates the relationship between environmental
attitudes and behavior. Hypothesis four examines the value-attitude-behavior model
within and across cultures. Hypotheses five, six, and seven examine how value
orientations and attitudes can impact the importance of environmental attribute among
product features, and ecologically considered choice. Hypotheses eight and nine examine

how cultural differences influence individuals’ value orientations and their

52

environmentalism-that is, pro-environmental behaviors, the importance of pro-
environmental attributes, and green buying. Especially, in the hypothesis eight,
collectivism was related to the value orientations identified by the Schwartz’s value
measurement and the performance of pro-environmental behavior.
First, the way value structures provide a basis for environmental attitudes is
hypothesized employing the Schwartz’s Values Scale:
H1: The value structures will be related to environmental attitudes.
Hla: Self-Transcendence/Openness to change will be positively related to
environmental attitudes.
Hlb: Self-Transcendence/Conservation will have no significant relationship
with environmental attitudes.
Hic: Self-Enhancement/Openness to change will have no significant
relationship with environmental attitudes.
Hid: Self-Enhancement/Conservation will be negatively related to
environmental attitudes.
The study presumes that attitudes are the product of a variety of variables including an
individual’s underlying value structures. The individual’s values can operate to influence
attitude formation. Thus, individuals’ value orientations would significantly influence
their concerns and decisions about the environment. Specifically, three types of values
(egoistic, altruistic, and biospheric values) might provide bases for environmental
concern and influence environmental action (Stern and Dietz, 1994).- The Schwartz’s
value measures reflect these values on which environmental concern is based. That is,
self-enhancement values are similar to egoistic value orientations, and the self-
transcendence cluster to social-altruistic value orientations. The self-transcendence
cluster also included all three items that seem to reflect a biospheric value orientation.

Thus, it includes both altruistic and biospheric value orientation. For instance, people

who place values such as “broad-minded” and “unity with nature” (which, according to

53

Schwartz, are self-transcendence and openness to change values) at the top of their
hierarchy would be more likely to choose the environmentally protective behavior
through their favorable attitudes toward the environment, whereas people who pursue the
values weighted on economic, security, and material desires-like a comfortable life (e.g.,
self-enhancement and conservation values)-would tend to select options satisfying such
needs regardless of environmental protection, because they tend to be environmentally
less conscious (have less favorable attitudes toward the environment). However, a self-
transcendence/conservation and a self-Enhancement/openness to change value structures
are assumed not to have significant relationship with environmental attitudes based on the
previous evidence (e. g., Karp, 1996).

H2: Environmental attitudes will be positively associated with
Pro-environmental behaviors. That is, higher levels of environmental
attitudes will be related to greater pro-environmental behavior.

Environmental attitudes have correlated with behaviors, although the strengths of

attitude-behavior correlation can vary depending on the nature and measurement of each
of the variables. Consumers with favorable attitudes toward the environment will be
more likely to perform a number of environmentally conscious behaviors.

When considering a moderator variable, PCE, affecting the association between

attitudes and behavior, it is hypothesized that:

H3a: Perceived consumer effectiveness (PCE) will moderate the relationship
between environmental attitude and pro-environmental behaviors.

That is, the relationship between environmental attitudes and pro-
environmental behaviors will be stronger for individuals with high PCE
than for those with low PCE.

As noted, the relationship between environmental attitudes and behaviors can also

be examined by using a moderator variable perspective. A moderator variable can be

54

defined as any variable that systematically affects the association between a predictor and
a criterion variable (Berger and Corbin, 1992). While an attitude represents a summary
evaluation of an individual’s beliefs or feelings about an issue, PCE represents an
evaluation of the self in the context of the issue. Accordingly, attitudes and PCB can be
modeled separately (Ellen, Weiner, and Cobb-Walgren, 1991). Berger and Corbin (1992)
supported empirically the proposition that PCE moderates the degree of attitude-personal
consumer behavior relationship. They found significantly higher correlations between
attitudes and consumer behaviors for high PCE groups relative to low PCE groups.

When modeling PCE as a moderator of the relationship between attitudes and consumer
behavior, attitude-behavior correlations may be expected to be high when PCE is high
and low when PCE is low. For instance, if a group of individuals is very concerned about
the state of the environment but is convinced that only big business, government, or in
general “others” can produce effective solutions, these individuals may show low levels
of pro-environmental consumer behaviors.

Also, several studies show that feelings of PCE have significant impact on the
behavioral measure that represents specific acts of personal responsibility (e. g., consumer
behaviors such as buying green, use of car pool or public transit, avoidance of
environmentally harmful products, and recycling) (see Ellen, Weiner, and Cobb-Walgren,
1991; Berger and Corbin, 1992).

H3b: Perceived consumer effectiveness (PCE) will positively affect the
engagement in pro-environmental behaviors.

Although Berger and Corbin (1992) propose perceived consumer effectiveness as

moderators of the attitude-behavior relationship, and test them as such in their analyses,

55

 

they also recognized that they may operate as direct effects. Ellen et a1. (1991) found a
direct effect of PCB on environmentally conscious behaviors. However, as mentioned in
previous literature, PCE was a significant predictor for certain behavioral measures while
environmental concern was significantly related to all behaviors. Therefore, PCE should
be studied to find what specific types of pro-environmental behaviors, not generalized
pro-environmental behaviors, can be predicted by PCE.

H4: The value-attitude-behavior model will be meaningfully supported. That

is, individuals who strongly value Self-Transcendence/Openness to
Change will be more concerned about environmental problems and thus
engage more in environmentally conscious behaviors.

An indirect influence of values on pro-environmental behavior via attitudes
providing a mediating role will be tested. The results may build a conceptual model
describing the relationships among those variables. That is, this research will
consequently investigate whether individuals’ value structures are significantly related to
their different levels of environmental consciousness and thus to the differences in their
pro-environmental behaviors.

For the second part of the model, which is predicting the relationship between
value orientations and environmental consumerism, some hypotheses can be suggested:

H5: The value structures will be related to consumers’ perceived importance of

environmental attributes. That is, consumers who strongly value Self-
Transcendence/Openness to change will consider the environmental
attribute of product features to be more important than those who strongly
value Self-Enhancement/Conservation.

Consumer value structures have been shown to directly influence the importance of

product attributes in making purchase decisions. Consumers with similar values will

show similar choice criteria and final behavior. Therefore, consumers who significantly

56

value self-transcendence and openness to change can be differentiated from those who
value self-enhancement and conservation in evaluating the importance of environmental
attributes of product features.

H6: Consumers with environmentally favorable attitudes will consider the
environmental attribute to be more important than will those with
environmentally unfavorable attitudes.

Individuals with favorable attitudes toward the environment will be intrinsically
motivated to attend to the environmental attributes of products. Research by Kinnear and
Taylor (1973) identified differences in perception of detergent brands among respondents
who indicated different degrees of environmental concern. Value structures are expected
to influence choice criteria salience within a product category through their impact on
attitudes toward the environment. In other words, environmentally conscious consumers
will be assumed to use different choice criteria in selecting brands than will
environmentally less conscious consumers due to their different beliefs and attitudes
toward environmental issue based on their different value orientations. As a result,

consumers will be more likely to buy ecologically considered products.

H7: Consumers who consider the environmental attribute to be more important
will be more likely to buy ecologically fiiendly products.

Brands perceived as having higher levels of these salient attributes are more likely to be
liked by the individual and will be the ones having highest probability of selection in the
market. Conversely, the brands least favored will have the lowest probability of
selection.

AS mentioned previously, this study will have the chance to see the effects of

cultural differences on environmentalism by surveying subjects from two different

57

countries. Korean subjects are considered to have different ethnic and cultural
backgrounds from US. subjects. Especially, the two groups show contrasts in
collectivism-individualism and power distance. In relation to environmentalism,
collectivist and individualist cultures might influence individuals’ environmental attitudes
and behavior (McCarty and Shrum, 1994; Schwartz, 1990). This cultural difference may
also affect their value orientations. According to Schwartz (1990), people of collectivist
and individualist cultures may tend to show differences in prefening self-transcendence
values (see literature review for details). It can be proposed that differences in valuing
the self-transcendence/openness to change dimensions may cause different levels of
environmental attitudes and behaviors.

In any culture, individual values will fall along a dimension of self-enhancement
(e.g., values oriented toward the pursuit of self-interest) to self-transcendence (e.g., values
related to a concern for the welfare of others) (Schwartz, 1992). However, cultural
differences may affect individuals’ value orientations or the strengths of their value
orientations. There is evidence that support for environmental protection is consistently
and strongly related to specific values, such as social-altruism and biospheric values.
This can result in different levels of environmental attitudes and pro-environmental
behavior. Therefore, the study hypothesizes that:

H8a: The US. and the Korean subjects will be significantly different in terms of

the extent to which they value Self-Transcendence/Openness to Change.

H8b: The US. and the Korean subjects will be significantly different in terms of
their engagements in pro-environmental behavior.

58

The form of response to environmental protection can vary across countries.
Especially, it will be interesting for international marketers to investigate the differences
in consumer’s preference to environmental attributes of product features.

H8c: The US. and the Korean subjects will significantly differ in the

importance they attach to a product’s environmental attributes.

H8d: The US. and the Korean subjects will significantly differ in

their purchases of environmentally considered products.
The marketing literature provides convincing evidence that consumers across different
cultures indeed differ in unexpected and sometimes subtle ways. Srirarn and Forman
(1993) empirically tested and found that choice criteria differ across the Dutch and
American samples with varying degrees of sensibility regarding environmental factors.
While consumers across two countries (i.e., the United States and Korea) may agree on
the need for environmental protection, these consumers may very well differ in their
responses to environmental consideration. Particularly, US. and Korean subjects may
differ in the importance of a product’s environmental attributes in relation to its other
features in consumer preference and choice criteria.

Finally, as mentioned in the literature review, an investigation regarding the
relationship between collectivism and pro-environmental behaviors is needed. This
relationship was argued by McCarty and Shrum (1994), and Schwartz (1990). In order to
understand the relationship between collectivism and behavior, it may first be examined
how preference for collectivism influences people’s value orientations.

H9a: Individuals’ collectivism will affect their value priorities.

H9b: Individuals’ collectivism will affect their performance of pro-
environmental behavior.

59

Chapter 5

METHODOLOGY

Samples

Data were collected from a sample of American and a sample of Korean
respondents. In each case, the sample was selected using a non-probability, convenience
sample. When considering the nature of the study and practical difficulties due to
surveying subjects from two different countries, college students were recommended.
The use of college students controls variations on some variables such as age and
education which might affect the relationships of the variables of interest.

A total of 581 university undergraduate students studying in the United States
(n=306) and Korea (n=275) participated in this research. The AmeriCan sample consisted
of college students who were enrolled at Michigan State University, and the Korean
sample was drawn from students enrolled at Chongju University in Korea. For
comparability, students were considered in terms of their demographic variables and

geographic factors such as the location of school and residence.

Research Design and Procedure
Given the difficulty of studying actual consumer choice behavior, this study chose
to conduct a survey of subjects. The data were collected through self-reported
questionnaires which were completed in the presence of the researcher or the

collaborators. The questionnaire was constructed in English and translated into Korean

60

using native Korean speakers who were also fluent in English. The questionnaire was
“back-translate ”into English to ensure its accurate translation.

This self-administered questionnaire largely consisted of five sections divided by
the kinds of the variables. Questionnaires were distributed to students who were

participating in classes on campus.

Variables Measures

a. Value measurement: Subjects completed a version of Schwartz’s (1992) Value Survey
shortened because of space constraints. The 22 values chosen for the shortened survey
were selected based on three studies (Maio and Olson, 1995; Schultz and Zelezny,
1998; Stem, Dietz, and Guagnano, 1998), which also selected items based on
Schwartz’s (1992, 1994) two-dimensional representation of the values indicated by
samples from various countries. I selected the 22 values which appeared most
frequently in the three value measurements. The value items appeared to be most
centrally located and occurred most frequently in each of Schwartz’s 10 primary
domains. In the survey, respondents were asked to rate each value following these
instructions: “Please indicate how important each of these is as a guiding principle in
YOUR life.” The rating was made using a seven-point scale withjthe end points
labeled “extremely important” and “not important at all.”

h. Environmental attitudes measurement: The 12-item New Environmental Paradigm
(NEP) scale (Dunlap and Van Liere, 1978; Noe and Snow, 1989-1990) was used to
assess environmental attitudes. Van Liere and Dunlap’s (1978) NEP scale is one of

the best developed measures of environmental concern in the existing literature. The

61

scale was often used as a measure of general pro-environmental attitudes. For the NEP
scale, a standard 7-point Likert response format was employed. The end points were
labeled “strongly agree” and “strongly disagree”, the midpoint “completely neutral.”

. Perceived consumer eflectiveness (PCE): As a moderating variable in the relationship
between environmental concern and behavior, PCE was measured by using seven
items: four items indicating more general and broad PCE (i.e., “I feel capable of
helping solve the enviromnent problems”) and three for PCE specific to
environmentally conscious behavior (i.e., “I can protect the environment by buying
products that are fiiendly to the environment”). The statements measuring general
PCE have been used to measure PCE in previous studies (Ellen, Wiener, and Cobb-
Walgren, 1991; Berger and Corbin, 1992; Lee and Holden, 1999). Respondents were
asked their level of agreement/disagreement with Likert-type statements on a 7-point
scale.

. Individualism/collectivism: In a separate part of the value measurement, ten items that
were expected to tap collectivism were measured on a 1 to 5 scale from “not at all
important” to “extremely important.” In this research, collectivist orientation was
assessed in terms of priority of group goals, perceived importance of unity with nature,
and harmony with others (Yamaguchi, 1990), which could reflect collectivism.

. Salient product attributes (choice criteria) : To measure the relative importance of
environmental attributes among the product attributes in consumer preference and
choice decisions this study chose three low-cost consumer nondurables: laundry
detergent, toilet paper, and hits and vegetables. There were some reasons to select

low cost, consumer nondurable products. First, this study wanted to minimize

62

subjects’ involvement with the product. Consumers’ choice criteria may vary
depending on their involvement with the products. In fact, a study (Srirarn and
Forrnan, 1993) demonstrated different results depending on product class, that is,
whether the product was of a high or low involvement. For more expensive and less
frequently purchased products like washing machines, consumers who might be
environmentally conscious placed less importance on a product’s environmental
attributes. The financial and other features involved in the decision seemed to be a
moderating influence. However, for relatively inexpensive and frequently purchased
products like deodorants, consumers placed a lot of value in a product’s environmental
attributes. Therefore, relatively inexpensive and frequently purchased products like
laundry detergent seemed to be more appropriate to see respondents’ sensibility to the
environment through assessing the importance placed in a product’s environmental
attributes. Secondly, the respondents should have a good knowledge of the
alternatives and attributes. By this criterion, the chosen products were appropriate.
Finally, the usage of these products was related to environmental protection, as each
impacted ecological pollution. Household nondurables such as laundry detergent
frequently appeared in green advertisements, which added realism to the task (Iyer,
Banerjee, and Gulas, 1993). A study by Mainieri et al. (1997) repOrted that the one
category in which the greatest number of respondents had based their purchases on
environmental impact was laundry detergent (30%), followed by household cleaners
(29%), paper products (29%), garbage bags (17%), light bulbs (14%) and other
products (9%). Although fruits and vegetables were not mentioned in the study, this

product category seemed to be appropriate in considering the product’s environmental

63

fiiendliness. Recently, consumers have been presented with a variety of organic
products in the grocery. The number of stores which sell organic foods has been
increasing and becoming more popular among customers. The questionnaire contains
possible attributes of each product offered by several brands. The. product attributes
were generated by collecting terms used to advertise and describe the features of the
products. For each of the three products, eight factors that influence consumer
preference and purchasing were selected. Table 1 describes the attributes used for

each product. The respondents were presented with these attributes for each product

and asked both to rate each feature in terms of its importance to him/her in selecting a
brand of this kind and to rank them from 1 (“most preferred”) to 8 (“least preferred”).
For rating, a 5-point Likert response format was used with the end points labeled
“strongly important” and “strongly unimportant.”

. Product involvement: To analyze the relative importance of product attributes, it was
first necessary to measure consumer involvement to the products in question.
Generally speaking, high-involvement consumers demonstrate a greater interest in
information search and attribute comparison and show a greater perceived brand
difference and a stronger brand preference (Zaichkowsky, 1985) than do low-
involvement consumers. Consumer involvement was measured by the Product
Involvement Inventory (PII) (Zaichkowsky, 1985). Zaichkowsky’s personal
involvement inventory has been proved useful and widely used. This study used a
reduced form consisting of 10 items (Zaichkowsky, 1994) based on Zaichkowsky’s 20
items because of the length of the overall questionnaire and the tedium imposed on

survey respondents. The scale ranged from a low score of 10 to a'high score of 70. As

an additional check for the subject’s relationship with the object, the study asked who
usually bought the product.

g. Previous behavior toward environmentally fi'iendly products: Environmental
consumerism like purchasing ecologically considered products is one type of pro-
environmental behavior. The data concerning consumer purchase behavior toward
environmentally fiiendly products were collected by presenting three statements based
on three products (e.g., laundry detergent, toilet paper, and fruits and vegetables), i.e.,
“I make a special effort to buy vegetables and hits grown without pesticides or
chemicals, also known as organic fruits and vegetables,” “I make a special effort to
buy toilet paper that are made from recycled materials,” and “I make a special effort to
buy detergents and cleansing solutions that are environmentally fi'iendly.” The items
used for this study were prepared based on some previous studies measuring
environmental behavior (e. g., Maloney, Wards, and Braucht, 1975; McKenzie-Mohr,
Nemiroff, Beers and Desmarais, 1995; Roberts, 1996). The respondents were asked to
report the frequency with which they perform the activities included in the questions
along a 5-point scale: “never” (1), “rarely” (2), “sometimes” (3), “often” (4), “always”
(5).

h. Previous pro—environmental behavior: Dunlap (1991) identifies two major types of
pro-environmental behaviors: those that focus on individual responsibility and those
that emphasize political action. Individual changes in lifestyle include such things as
ecologically responsible consumer choices, recycling, and energy-saving behaviors.
Political behaviors include voting decisions, letter writing, consumer boycott, and

contributing money to, or volunteering for, environmental organizations. While the

65

literature generally supports the conclusion that broad values and attitudes are
predictive of specific ones, it also suggests that the most important social-
psychological factors depend on the type of behavior. For instance, the predictors of
support for political action may be different from those of pro-environmental
consumer behavior. Therefore, this study tried to link various types of pro-
environmental behavior as well as ecologically conscious buying behavior to values in
order to clarify the role of values in predicting environmental behavior. A scale for
pro-environmental behavior measurement was created by including broad types of
environmental behavior, such as participating in some actions to save energy,
attending a meeting of an organization concerned with environmental protection,
buying environmentally friendly brand, recycling, and signing a petition for tougher
environmental law, to protect the environment. These items were developed based
mainly on two aspects of environmental actions: consumer and political activity.
Those items have been considered to be reliable and appropriate to measure people’s
commitments for ecological improvement (Maloney, Ward, and Braucht, 1975; Stem,
Dietz, Kalof, and Guagnano, 1995; McKenzie-Mohr, Nemiroff, Beers and Desmarais,
1995; Roberts, 1996; Karp, 1996). The respondents were asked to report the
frequency with which they had engaged in several environmental activities over the
year. These items were measured along a 5-point scale: “never” (1), “rarely” (2),
“sometimes” (3), “often” (4), “always” (5).

i. Demographic information of respondents: Subjects’ basic demographic profiles

including the type of residence were asked in order to better understand subjects.

66

Analysis
For the purpose of analyzing collected data, various statistic methods were
employed. A factor analysis was used to reduce the 22 value items and the 18 pro-
environmental behavior items into underlying constructs. Regressions, correlation, t-
tests, and structural equation model with AMOS 4 were conducted to test the hypotheses.

The tests used 95% confidence intervals and a .05 level of significance.

67

Chapter 6

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Demographic Profile of the Respondents

The respondents ranged in age from 18 years to 51 years, with the mean age of
20.6 years for the US. group. Forty percent of the US. respondents were male and 60%
were female. Ethnic identification doesn’t show much variance: 82.3% reported
themselves as White and 17.7% as other racial categories (2% for Asian/Pacific Islander,
11.7% for Black, 1.3% for Chicano/Hispanic, and 2.7% for other). At MSU, 71.8% of
the respondents were studying in the departments of the school of communication arts
and sciences (i.e., Advertising and Public Relations and Telecommunication).

For the Korean group, age ranged from 18 years to 29 years, with a mean age of
21.6 years. Forty percent of the Korean respondents reported themselves as male and
60% as female. Differently from the US. group, the Korean group consisted of one race
(i.e., Asian). At Chongju University, most of them (74%) were studying at the
departments of the school of communication arts and sciences (i.e., Advertising and
Public Relations, and Communication).

These measures showed very small variations across countries. Subjects across
the two countries were quite similar in terms of their age, major, and the ratio of male to
female. The only significant variation was in type of residence. For the US. group,
34.8% lived on campus (e.g., dormitory) and 65.2% lived off campus. For the Korean

group, only 4.1% lived on campus and 95.9% lived off campus. This can be explained by

68

a

the residential situations of each country’s campus. Generally Korean universities don’t
provide as many dormitories as the US. universities do. Only a few of students who need
housing near the campus can be accommodated in a dormitory on campus. The rest of

them reside off campus, for example, in a boarding house or rented room.

Descriptive Findings

Values measured by Schwartz ’s Value Items

Schwartz’s value items are arrayed in two dimensions: one dimension indicates
the degree of concern for welfare of others (self-transcendence) and the pursuit of self-
interest (self-enhancement), and the other dimension reflects the degree to which
individuals are motivated to independent action and willing to challenge themselves for
both intellectual and emotional realization (openness to change vs. conservation). To
analyze the structure of values and to assess the impact of these values on environmental
attitudes and pro-environmental behavior through the attitudes, a factor analysis was first
conducted. A quartimax rotation was used to test Schwartz’s two-dimensional theory of
values, because a quartimax rotation emphasizes dominant factors, minimizing the
munber of interpretable factors needed to explain the structural relationship of the 22
value items. Thus, the obtained large factors ought to correspond to the quadrants of the
two Schwartz dimensions.

In the quartimax rotation, for the US. subjects, 6 factors received eigenvalues

greater than 1; but for the Korean subjects, 5 factors were extracted according to
eigenvalues greater than 1. These factors have two or more high loadings (greater than

.4) that do not load on other factors. These factors are reported in Tables 2-2 and 2-3.

69

 

Two factor analyses were performed separately by country. They produced different
number of factors, and factors consisting of somewhat different value items. This
phenomenon might be considered to be due to cultural differences between the two
countries. The US. subjects seemed to be closer to Schwartz’s theory of values than the
Korean subjects. That is, the value factors obtained from the US. sample corresponded
more closely to each quadrant of Schwartz’s two dimensions (see figure 1) than those
from the Korean sample. Table 2-1 lists the Schwartz value items measured in this study

and their relationship to the two dimensions and 10 motivational types. Thus, further

statistical analysis should be done separately by country to respect the outcomes obtained
from factor analysis.

As Stern et al.’s studies (1993, 1995) indicated, the factor analysis of the US.
subjects yielded six dimensions, including a factor reflecting biospheric values distinct
from altruistic values for people in general. Each of these factors can be compared to a
quadrant of these two dimensions (i.e., Schwartz’s dimensions of Self-Transcendence
versus Self-Enhancement, and Openness to change versus Conservation). These
comparisons were used in a previous study (Karp, 1996) and helped interpretation of each
factor for values. Factor 1 consists of 6 items with loadings greater than .4; all of these
value items are self-transcendence value items and conservation items. Therefore, this
factor is interpreted as Self-Transcendence/Conservation (TC). Factor 2 consists of 3
items. All items (100%) are self-enhancement items. All items (100%) are openness to
change items. This supports a Self-Enhancement/Openness to Change (EO)
interpretation. Factor 3 consists of three items; two (67%) are self-enhancement items

and two (67%) are openness to change items. This is a Self-Enhancement/Openness to

70

Change 11 (E011) factor based on “achievement” of Schwartz’s 10 motivational types,
while factor 2 is based on a motivational type called “stimulation.” Factor 4 consists of 2
value items, which are included in a self-transcendence/openness to change quadrant but
are specific to environmental values such as biospheric values. This factor, consisting of
“unity with nature” and “protecting the environment” items, measures what Stern and
Dietz (1994) have labeled biospherism. The biospheric values indicate altruism for
ecology independently from altruistic values for people (such as “equality” and
“freedom”). Such values were also found to be loaded separately from altruistic values
for people in other previous studies (Stem et al., 1993, 1995). This factor is interpreted as
an ecology subtype of Self-Transcendence/Openness to Change (TOE). Factor 5 consists
of three items, which are included in self-transcendence/openness to change. The factor
indicates altruistic values for people, and it is named a general, subtype of Self-
Transcendence/Openness to Change (TO) factor. Finally, factor 6 consists of two items;
both (100%) self-enhancement items and both (100%) conservation items. This factor
represents Self-Enhancement/Conservation (EC).

For the Korean subjects, five value factors were obtained; each of them can also
be compared to a quadrant of Schwartz’s dimensions of Self-Transcendence vs. Self-
Enhancement, Openness to Change vs. Conservation. Factor 1 consists of 6 items; 4
items support a quadrant of Self-Transcendence/Conservation (TC) but two items-
“protecting the environment,” and “unity with nature”-represent an ecological subtype of
Self-Transcendence/Openness to Change (TOE). Interestingly, those biospheric values
were not loaded independently, as the US. subjects showed. For the Korean subjects, the

biospheric value items were loaded with other value items measuring Self-

71

Transcendence/Conservation in a same value factor. This result demonstrates that
according to the subjects, the biospheric values can be located in a different quadrant that
Schwartz presents based on his theory of human value structures. This factor is named a
combination of Se1f-Transcendence/Conservation and an ecological subtype of Self-
Transcendence/ Openness to change (TCE). Factor 2 includes three items; all of them
indicate a Self-Enhancement/Openness to change (EO) factor. Factor 3 consists of four

items; three items were included in a quadrant of Self-Enhancement/Conservation and

’ i...

one item in a Self-Enhancement/Openness to change quadrant. This factor supports a

1.9; 2...

Self-Enhancement/Conservation (EC) interpretation. Factor 4 consists of two items; both
(100%) are self-transcendence and openness to change items. This factor is called a
general type of Self-Transcendence/Openness to change (TO). Finally, factor 5 consists
of three items; using Schwartz’s two dimensions, two (67%) are self-transcendence items
and two (67%) are openness to change items. Thus, this is called a Self-
Transcendence/Openness to change H (T OH) factor to distinguish it from factor 4.
Environmental Attitudes

The New Environmental Paradigm (Dunlap and Van Liere, 1978) was shown to
have good internal validity with both the US. and the Korean sample. However, it also
demonstrated that cross-cultural research could have difficulty in translating several of
the items (Noe and Snow, 1990). Reliability coefficients for the 12-item scale were
calculated separately for each country. The alpha coefficients were .80 for the United
States and .67 for Korea. Means and standard deviations for environmental attitudes,

calculated separately by country, are listed in Table 3.

72

A t-test to see any significant difference in environmental attitudes indicated that the US.
subjects were less environmentally concerned than the Korean subjects were (t = -4.808,
p = .000 < .01).
Individualism/ Collectivism

Previous literature used culturally oriented values such as
individualism/collectivism as independent measures in explaining a variety of attitudinal
and behavioral variables. A few studies have examined the effect of collectivism on pro-
environmental behavior like recycling (e. g., McCarty and Shrum, 1994). Also Schwartz
(1990) implied the possibility that value priorities exhibited by individuals can be
influenced by the individuals’ individualistic or collectivistic inclination. That is,
individualists are likely to put more emphasis on value items (e. g., protecting the
environment and unity with nature) based on a motivational value type such as
“universalism” than are collectivists. Therefore, it is interesting to explore the effect of
individualistic or collectivistic values on personal value orientations and
proenvironmental behavior. Specifically, American and Korean cultures show the most
contrast in individualism/collectivism. It is expected that this contrast may affect the
value priorities that the subjects from the two countries exhibit. Ten items on the
respondent’s collectivism were asked, and the average score of the ten items were
obtained to compare the means of the two independent groups. Reliability coefficients
for the 10-item scale were .59 for the US. subjects and .74 for the Korean subjects.

A t-test to see whether the US. (N = 304) and Korean (N = 272) sample are
different in terms of individualism showed that there is no significant difference between

the two groups in their individualism (t = .355, p = .723 > .05). The mean difference

73

between the US. sample (M = 3.44, SD = .51) and the Korean sample (M = 3.42, SD =
.62) was very small. This result supports evidence that there appears to be a shift from
collectivism to individualism in many parts of the world (Triandis, McCusker, and Hui,
1990). The major determinant of this shift is affluence. Fast industrialization and
economic grth in Korea have brought materialistic affluence, along with changes in the
method of making a living (away from the agricultural method) and social mobility; all of
these have contributed to individualism. Exposure to programs produced in
individualistic cultures through the modern mass media has also contributed the shift
from collectivism to individualism. This transition has weakened the cultural contrast of
individualism vs. collectivism between the US. and the Korean sample.

Perceived Consumer Eflectiveness (PCE)

PCE was measured by 7 items, which included ones for general PCE and ones for
specific PCE stating particular behavior. For the US. group, the coefficient alpha was
.76 for all seven items, the reliability coefficient for only general PCE items was .69, and
the reliability coefficient for particular PCE items .74. For the Korean group, the
coefficient alpha was .70 for all items, .60 for three items reflecting general PCB, and .73
for four items of particular PCE. Based on the coefficients, the scale measuring PCE is
pretty reliable and the four items for particular PCE seem more reliable than the items for
general PCE. The means and standard deviations for PCE items and scale were
calculated separately by country and summarized in Table 4
Environmental Behaviors

The 18 environmental behavior items in the questions were reduced to underlying

constructs by factor analysis with a varimax rotation. F our factors were obtained after

74

varimax rotation. These factors are reported in Table 5, along with means and standard
deviations of each item and summary means for each factor, calculated separately by
country. No item had a factor loading greater than .4 on more than one factor. This
factor analysis enabled the researcher to construct four dependent variables: a factor-
based score of the political-behavior items (or = .73 for the US. sample and a = .74 for
the Korean sample); a factor-based score of the energy-saving behavior items (or = .64 for
the US. sample and or = .60 for the Korean sample); a factor-based score of the green-
buying behavior items (or = .82 for the US. sample and or = .72 for the Korean sample);
and a factor-based score of the recycling-behavior items (or = .68 for the US. sample and
or = .69 for the Korean sample). These dependent variables are simple mean scores of the
individual responses to each item with a factor loading of .4 or higher on the
corresponding factor.

A composite behavioral score as a general measure of proenvironmental behavior
was also generated by averaging the 18 environmental behavior items, and a reliability
analysis was performed separately for each country. In the US. the alpha reliability was
.87, and in Korea the alpha reliability was .84. The composite measure of
proenvironmental behavior was used as a dependent variable with the other four
behavioral measures (political, energy-saving, green-buying, and recycling behaviors).
Product Involvement

To assess the extent to which a subject perceives the object in question as
personally relevant based on inherent needs, values, and interests (Zaichkowsky, 1985, p.
342), subjects were asked to answer the items in Zaichkowsky’s Personal Involvement

Inventory (PII). Not all cases are considered to have the scores of PH. Respondents who

75

didn’t buy the product in question for their own use were dropped from consideration for
further assessments. That is, only subjects who reported “I” usually buy laundry
detergent, toilet paper, or fruits and vegetables for “myself” were assessed to examine the
relationships between the importance of environmental attributes and buying green.

Consumers’ involvements with each of the three products measured by
Zaichkowsky’s PII can be reported by country (see Table 6). For the US. subjects, fruits
and vegetables showed the highest product involvement (N = 185, M = 56.75, SD = 8.1),
followed by toilet paper (N = 153, M = 45.71, SD = 7.23) and laundry detergent (N =
168, M = 42.82, SD = 8.31). For the Korean subjects, very similar findings were
obtained; that is, fruits and vegetables also demonstrated highest product involvement (N
= 113, M = 55.15, SD = 10.82), and toilet paper (N = 135, M = 52.0, SD = 7.19) and
laundry detergent (N = 114, M = 45.52, SD = 6.64) took the second and the third place.

To test the significant differences between the two national groups in terms of
product involvement, t-tests were performed and the results indicated that the product
involvement with laundry detergent (t = -3.018, p value = .003) and toilet paper (t =
-7.386, p value = .000) were significantly different between the Korean group and the
US. group. The Korean group showed greater product involvement with the two
products than the US. group. However, the Korean group and the US. group were not
significantly different in their involvement with fruits and vegetables (t = 1.357, p value =
.176)
The Relative Importance of the Environmental Attribute

As mentioned earlier, eight variables that seem to influence cOnsumer’s

preference and decision were included and measured by using rating and ranking

76

methods. Among the eight product attributes for each of three products, one is relevant to
environmental issue, for instance “nonpolluting ingredient (e.g., biodegradable)” for
laundry degergent, “made from recycled paper” for toilet paper, and “organically grown”
for fruits and vegetables. To assess respondents’ preference to such environmental
attributes, both ranking and rating methods were employed. Only subjects that identified
“me” or “myself” as the person in their households who usually bought the object in
question were considered for the further statistical analysis. The means, standard 3'.“

deviations, and ranks according to the mean size are presented in Table 7.

According to the mean scores obtained from rating measurement, in case of fruits
and vegetables “freshness” was the most preferred among the 8 product attributes across
the two groups. Enviromnental attributes such as “organically grown” were ranked 6th
according to the subjects’ preference. In the case of laundry detergent, the Korean
subjects chose “removal of tough stains” as the most important attribute and
“nonpolluting ingredient” as the 7th most important one out of the eight attributes. The
US. subjects considered “price” to be the most important and “nonpolluting ingredient”
to be the least important among the 8 product features. Finally, in the case of toilet paper,
the US. sample also rated “price” to be the most important attribute when selecting a
brand to buy and “made from recycled paper” to be the least important one. The Korean
sample selected “softness” as the most important attribute and “made from recycled
paper” as the least important one. The “price” attribute was ranked second most
important for the Korean subjects, while the “softness” attribute was ranked second most
important for the US. subjects. Very similar preferences for each product attribute were

obtained across the two groups and across the two methods used to measure the

77

preference of each attribute. Although the number of consumers who demonstrate a
willingness to buy environmentally considered products has been increasing, this study
has noted that the environmental attributes were still less preferred by consumers in
comparison to other quality- or price-oriented attributes. This is consistent with the
previous market research indicating that consumers, despite their concern with
environmental protection, are still extremely price-sensitive when it comes to buying

green.

Predictors of Pro-environmental Behavior and Relations among the Predictor Variables
The Relationship Between Values and Environmental Attitudes (Hla - H Id):

As predicted, regression analysis for the US. subjects revealed a significant
positive relationship between the ecology subtype of Self-Transcendence and Openness to
Change (TOE) values (i.e., biospheric values) and environmental attitudes (Beta = .428, t
= 7.381, p value = .000 < .01) and between Self-Transcendence/Openness to change (TO)
values and environmental attitudes (Beta = .154, t = 2.530, p = .012 < .05). But it
revealed nonsignificant relationships for the other four value factors. That is, Self-
Transcendence/Conservation (Hrb), Self-Enhancement/Openness to Change (lite), and
Self-Enhancement/Conservation (Hid) values respectively have no significant
relationship with environmental attitudes. Especially, the relationship between Self-
Enhancement/Conservation (EC) values and environmental attitudes was negative as
hypothesized, although it was not statistically significant (Beta = -.104, t = -1.957, p =

.051 > .05).

78

Regression analysis for the Korean subjects also showed a significant positive
relationship between a Self-Transcendence/Conservation value factor including the
biospheric value items (e. g., TCE) and environmental attitudes (Beta = .425, t = 6.392, p
= .000 < .01). The relationships between the other value factors (e.g., TO, TOII, EO, and
EC) and environmental attitudes were not significant. Specifically, Self-
Transcendence/Openness to Change, indicating altruistic values toward other people
(TOH and T0), was not significantly related to environmental attitudes for the Korean
subjects, while the relationship for the US. subjects was significant. The relationship
between Self-Enhancement/Conservation (EC) and environmental attitudes was not
significant but negative as well (Beta = -.085, t = -1.415, p = .158 > .05). The analytical
results are presented in Table 8.

This finding implied that an ecology subtype of self-transcendence/openness to
change values (i.e., biospheric values) would be more likely prodictive of pro-
environmental attitudes than a general type of self-transcendence/openness to change
values. A significant positive relationship between a general type of Self-
Transcendence/Openness to change (TO) values, indicating altruism for people, and
environmental attitudes was shown only among the US. samples. This result shows a
similarity to the study by Schultz and Zelezny (1998), which investigated a relationship
between value structures and pro-environmental behavior. The results from five
countries show a positive relationship between biospherism, the nature subtype of self-
transcendence, and pro-environmental behavior. Results for the self-transcendence scale
(consisting of items selected from benevolence, except biospherism) showed a significant

positive effect only among the US. sample.

79

In addition, the Self-Enhancement/Conservation (EC) factor showed insignificant
negative relationship with environmental attitudes (Hid) across the two samples (i.e., the
Korean subjects and the US. subjects). In general, the hypotheses for the specific
relationships between value structures and attitudes toward the environment were
supported for the US. subjects while they were partially supported for the Korean
subjects. The findings suggest that biospheric values, particularly the ecology values
within Self-Transcendence/Openness to Change, play an important role in determining
environmental attitudes within and across countries. In addition, the analyses showed a
negative relationship between Self-Enhancement/Conservation (EC) values and
environmental attitudes, although it failed to reach conventional levels of statistical
significance.

The Relationship between Environmental Attitudes and Pro-environmental Behavior
(H2): First, environmental attitudes measured by the NEP scale were correlated with a
composite score of 18 pro-environmental behaviors separately by country. The
correlations, as predicted, revealed a significant positive relationship between
environmental attitudes and pro-environmental behavior. Pearson correlations by country
showed that attitude was significantly correlated with pro-environmental behavior (for the
US. subjects, r = .386, p = .000 < .01; for the Korean, r = .201, p = .001 < .01) at the .01
level. However, as mentioned previously, the strengths of relationship between
environmental attitudes and pro-environmental behavior may vary according to different
types of pro-environmental behavior. Thus, the four specific types of pro-environmental
behaviors (e. g., energy-saving, green-buying, political, and recycling behavior) obtained

after a factor analysis could be used as four dependent variables instead of one composite

80

If;; ‘l—m

measure of pro-environmental behavior. These analyses might provide explanations
about what types of pro-environmental behaviors are most popular among
environmentally conscious consumers. The correlations matrix between environmental
attitudes and four pro-environmental behavior factors is summarized in Table 9.

For the US. subjects, attitudes toward the environment were significantly related
to each of the four types of pro-enviromnental behaviors at the .01 level. Therefore, the
more individuals are environmentally conscious, the more they engage in various pro-
environmental behaviors. When considering correlation size, the correlation size between
attitudes and green-buying behavior (r = .377, p < .01) was biggest, followed by energy-
saving behavior (r = .304, p < .01), political behavior (r = .216, p < .05), and recycling
behavior (r = .213, P < .05).

For the Korean subjects, the correlations between attitudes toward the
environment and the three types of pro-environmental behavior—except for political
behavior—were positively significant at the .01 level. Interestingly, political behavior
showed a significant negative relationship with environmental attitudes (r = -.145, p =
.017 < .05). That is, the more individuals are environmentally conscious, the less they
engage in political activities such as writing a letter to the government supporting a sound
environment. This unexpected result may be inferred by considering the nature of
political actions. For example, even though people are environmentally concerned they
may prefer to selectively engage in the specific types of pro-environmental behaviors
instead of all kinds of pro-environmental behaviors. Especially personal types of pro-
environmental behaviors were popular because they could be effectively performed under

individual responsibility. However, political actions such as writing a letter to the

81

 

government must be collective to be effective. Thus people who are environmentally
concerned may be more inclined to personally performed behavior than political actions.
They may not expect greatly that political actions can help environmental problems. As
another possibility, measurement error can be taken into count. For the ecologically
concerned Korean subjects, recycling behavior was most frequently performed (r = .237,
p < .01), and energy saving (r = .212, p < .01) and green buying behavior (r = .168, p <
.01) were followed.

In general the hypothesis describing the association of environmental attitudes
with pro-environmental behavior was significantly supported. That is, the findings
showed that general environmental concern was a predictor of pro-environmental
behavior in both cases (the US. and the Korean sample). The strengths of the
relationship between attitudes and behavior, however, were various according to the types
of pro-environmental behaviors. For the US. subjects, the more they are ecologically
concerned the more they make efforts to buy ecologically considered products; for the
Korean subjects, the more they are ecologically concerned the more they do recycling.
Moderating Eflects of Perceived Consumer Effectiveness (H3a):

This hypothesis was tested by subgroup analysis (Arnold, 1982). For the
moderator variable of PCE, the sample was first sorted in ascending order. Next, the top
and bottom 30% of the cases were selected in order to obtained two subgroups reflecting
high and low score on the moderator variables. The middle 40% of the cases were
omitted to improve the contrast between the subgroups. Pro-environmental behavior was
then regressed on environmental attitudes using all cases in the two subgroups (restricted

run). A second regression was performed, this time allowing the regression coefficient

82

 

estimates to take on different values across the two subgroups (unrestricted run). The
difference in the sums of squared residuals from the restricted and unrestricted regression
runs was incorporated in the Chow test (Chow, 1960) to assess the statistical significance
of the differences in the regression coefficient of environmental attitudes across the high
and low subgroups. The same procedures were performed for two different groups by
country, and analytical results were obtained.

For the US. subjects, when a composite measure of pro-environmental behavior
is the dependent variable, the difference in the regression coefficients across the two
subgroups reflecting high and low PCE is statistically significant (F [2,201] = 4.51, p <
.05). The tabled critical value is 4.61 for 1% significance and 3.00 for 5% significance.
This finding supports the prior expectation that an individual’s perceived consumer
effectiveness moderates the effect of his or her environmental concern on pro-
environmental behavior. With regard to pro-environmental behaviors, the regression
coefficient for environmental attitudes is .36 in the high PCE group versus .31 in the low
PCE group. This finding suggests that a unit change in environmental attitudes has a
stronger impact on pro-environmental behavior of people with high PCE than on that of
people with low PCE. This result supports H3a and the expectation that people with high
level of PCE would show greater relationship between pro-environmental attitudes and
behavior than those with low level of PCE.

When each of the four types of pro-environmental behaviors was used as a
dependent variable, the difference in the regression coefficients across the two subgroups
by high and low PCE was significant for green-buying [F (2,201) = 3.88 < .05]. When

green-buying behavior was the dependent variable, the coefficient for attitudes toward the

83

 

environment was .42 (p < .01) for people with high PCE and .32 (p < .01) for those with
low PCE. This finding suggests that environmentally concerned people with high PCE
are more likely to buy ecologically considered products than people with low PCE.
However, for political behavior the difference in the regression coefficients across high
and low PCE groups was not statistically significant [F (2,201) = .41 > .05], although the
coefficient for environmental attitudes of subjects with high PCE (Beta = .26, p < .01)
was statistically significant but not significant for subjects with low PCE (Beta = .08, p >
.05). In contrast to expectation, for energy saving and recycling behavior, people with
low PCE are more likely to make steps to save energy and participate in recycling than
people with high PCE. When energy saving is a dependent variable, the regression
coefficients for attitudes are .18 for high-PCE people and .32 for low-PCE people, and
when recycling behavior is a dependent variable, the coefficients for attitudes are .20 for
high-PCE people and .22 for low-PCE people. The difference in the regression
coefficients across the two subgroups according to the levels of PCE is statistically
significant [F (2.201) = 5.62 < .01 for energy saving; F (2,201) = 4.50 < .05 for
recycling]. This suggests that the influence of environmental attitudes on energy saving
and recycling behavior is stronger for people with low PCE than for people with high
PCE. In sum, perceived consumer effectiveness (PCE) moderates the effect of
environmental attitudes on pro-environmental behaviors except for political behavior, but
the effects of environmental attitudes on a composite measure of pro-environmental
behavior and green buying behavior are stronger for people with high PCB, and the
effects of the attitudes on energy saving and recycling behavior are stronger for people

with low PCE. The moderating effects of PCB are summarized in Table 10.

84

For the Korean subjects, when the general measure of pro-environmental behavior
is the dependent variable, PCE also appears to moderate the impact of attitudes toward
the environment on pro-environmental behavior [F (2,147) = 6.39 < .01]. The
coefficients for environmental attitudes are .30 (p < .05) for people with high PCE and -
.07 (p > .05) for people with low PCE. The moderating effect of PCB on the relationship
between attitudes and behavior was also found when each of the four types of pro-
environmental behaviors was a dependent variable. The effects of environmental
attitudes on the four types of pro-environmental behaviors were significantly different
across the PCB subgroups: for energy saving [F (2,147) = 5.26 < .01], for green buying [F
(2,147) = 9.57 < .01], for political behavior [F (2,147) = 4.95 < .01], and for recycling [F
(2,147) = 5.38 < .01]. The effects of environmental attitudes on a general measure of
pro-environmental behavior and the four types of pro-environmental behaviors are
significantly stronger for people with high PCE than for those with low PCE. While the
US. group provided inconsistent findings about the moderating effects of PCB on the
relationship between attitudes and behavior, the Korean group demonstrated findings
consistent with the expectation that environmentally concerned subjects with high PCE
are more likely to engage in certain types of pro-environmental behavior as well as
general pro-environmental behavior. As Table 10 indicates, however, when a composite
measure of pro-environmental behavior and green buying behavior are the dependent
variables, the moderating effect of PCE is most obvious. That is, in cases of energy
saving and recycling behavior, the regression coefficients of environmental attitudes are
not statistically significant across the two subgroups reflecting high and low PCE, even

though the difference in the coefficients across the two subgroups is statistically

85

significant. When political behavior is the dependent variable, the regression coefficient
for environmental attitudes is .10 (p > .05) in the high PCE group versus -.34 (p < .01) in
the low PCE group. That is, the subgroup with high PCE showed an insignificant but
positive relationship between environmental attitudes and political activities, but the
subgroup with low PCE showed a significant but negative relationship between the two
variables. The difference in the regression coefficients across the two subgroups
according to the levels of PCB is statistically significant. These findings may suggest
another role as well as the moderating one of PCE. That is, considering an attitudinal
construct like PCE when investigating the relationship between attitudes and behavior
may improve understanding of the relationship. For instance, when examining the
relationship between environmental attitudes and political behavior without considering
PCE among the Korean subjects, the relationship was unexpectedly negative and
significant. However, the relationship between environmental attitudes and political
behavior became different when considering PCE. That is, the environmentally
concerned subjects who showed high level of self-efficacy in improving environmental
problems reacted positively to political actions although the participation was not
statistically significant. However, the subjects with low self-efficacy in improving
environmental problems were very negative in engaging in political behaviors towards a
better environment in spite of their concern about the environment. Thus, it is concluded
that the consideration of PCE may help explain the direction as well as the strength of the
relationship between attitudes and behavior.

In short, the analytical findings from the two multinational groups support H3a—

that PCE moderates the effect of attitudes toward the environment on pro-environmental

86

behavior. Generally speaking, individuals with higher level of perceived consumer
effectiveness engage in pro-environmental behavior in general, and in particular, purchase
green products more often.

The Relationship between PCE and Personal Pro-environmental Behaviors (H312):

Previous research (Berger and Corbin, 1992; Weiner and Doescher, 1991; Robert,
1996; Lee and Holden, 1999) indicates that consumers’ levels of PCB do affect their
likelihood of engaging in ecologically conscious consumer behaviors. This study also
empirically supports the relationship between PCB and personal pro-environmental
behavior. That is, an individual’s belief that he or she can make a difference in solving an
environmental problem significantly influences his or her willingness to engage in a
specific action designed to improve the ecological environment.

The correlations for the relationships between PCB and the four types of pro-
environmental behaviors across two multinational groups showed that while
environmental attitudes were significantly related to all behaviors, PCE was not
correlated to political behavior (see Table 11). Further, the influences of environmental
attitudes and PCB on pro-enviromnental behaviors were examined by employing a
regression analysis. The result also indicated that PCE was a significant predictor for
three of the four behavioral measures—that is, energy saving, green buying, and recycling
behavior. The regression coefficients of PCE and environmental attitudes on the four
types of pro-environmental behaviors are listed in Table 11-1. Greater perceived
consumer effectiveness was associated with greater likelihood of engaging in consumer

behaviors such as buying green, energy saving, and recycling actions.

87

This result is consistent with those of some previous studies (e.g., Ellen et al.,
1991) that indicate PCE has a great impact on the behavioral measure that represents
specific acts of personal responsibility. The individual’s belief that he or she can make a
difference affects his or her performance of individually oriented activities such as buying
ecologically considered products, limiting consumption of energy, or recycling.
However, PCE was not a significant predictor of political behavior like contributing
money to improve the environment, attending a meeting, or writing a letter to the
government for the environment. Perceived consumer effectiveness appears to be a
significant factor in explaining acts of personal discretion but not in explaining actions
aiming at the effect of groups. This is not consistent with Lee and Holden (1999), whose
results showed that PCE did not significantly predict low-cost consumer activities (e.g.,
seeking out green products, avoiding harmful packaging, or taking public transit). They
found that PCE is a significant predictor of high-cost consumer behaviors (e. g.,
contribution to or being a member of an environmental group, writing to the government

about the environment, or attending a meeting on environmental issues).

The Value-Attitude-Behavior Model
Test of the Value-Attitude—Behavior Model (H4):

The proposed model was tested to indicate how the predictors of pro-
environmental behavior are related one another; that is, how they influence pro-
enviromnental behavior. It was also assessed if the predicted relationships among the
variables vary with the two national groups. The proposed structural equation model was

tested with AMOS 4, using the two-step model-building approach that tests the

88

measurement model before examining the hypothesized structural linkages (Anderson
and Gerbing 1988). A measurement model that included latent constructs was first
analyzed. The missing data were treated with listwise deletion of cases, and the final
sample size of 574 was used for analysis (N = 304 for the US, and N = 270 for the
Korean).

Table 12 presents correlations of all latent constructs in the measurement model,
and Table 13 reports the factor loadings for each latent variable. The goodness-of-fit
indices indicated a good fit of the measurement model: 12 = 87.093, d.f. = 51, p = .001;
GFI = .951; AGFI = .931; NFI = .937; CFI = .972; RMSEA = .048 for the US. sample /
x2 = 94.973, d.f. = 74, p = .051; GFI = .953; AGFI = .933; NFI = .904; CFI = .977;
RMSEA = .032 for the Korean sample.

Next, the hypothesized paths were estimated. The predicted relationships from
values to environmental attitudes and from the attitudes to pro-environmental behaviors
were found significant (p < .01) for both the US. and the Korean groups. As expected,
values positively influenced environmental attitudes (standardized path coefficient =
.569, p = .000 with the US. subjects; standardized path coefficient = .505, p = .000 with
the Korean subjects). The environmental attitudes, in turn, exerted a positive influence
on pro-environmental behaviors both with the US. sample (standardized path coefficient
= .437, p = .000) and with the Korean sample (standardized path coefficient = .435, p =
.000). The parameter estimates for the models are reported in Table 14.

Furthermore, the goodness of fit indices showed that the proposed model with the
relationships among the values, attitudes, and behaviors had good fit with the data with

both the US. and the Korean subjects, although the chi-square statistics were still

89

significant for the US. sample (x2 = 99.704, d.f. = 52, p = .000, GFI = .949, AGFI = .924,
NFI = .927, CFI = .963, RMSEA = .055 for the US. group / x2 = 94.973, d.f. = 74, p =
.051, GFI = .953, AGFI = .933, NFI = .904, CFI = .977, RMSEA = .032 for the Korean
groura).

To assess the possible direct influence of values on pro-environmental behaviors,
a model with an additional path from values to behaviors was tested. With the US.
subjects, values were found to have a direct, positive influence on the pro-environmental
behaviors (standardized path coefficient = .278, p = .001). Interestingly, with the Korean
subjects, values did not appear to have a significant, direct effect on the behaviors
(standardized path coefficient = .178, p > .05). The chi-square values for the two models
were compared to evaluate the contribution of the direct relationship from values to
behavior to the model fit with the data. With the US. group, the direct path from values
to behaviors improved the model fit significantly (x2 difference = 12.611, d.f. = l, p < .01),
whereas the improvement in fit with the model including the path was marginally
significant for the Korean sample (x2 difference = 4.181, d.f. = 1, p > .05).

Consequently, this study supports the value-attitude-behavior relationship within a
causal model approach across the two national groups (see Figures 4 and 5). That is, a
value factor consisting of the biospheric value items positively affects environmental
attitudes and in turn, the attitudes influence pro-enviromnental behavior. For example,
the individuals who put a greater importance on the ecological values are more
environmentally conscious and based on such environmental consciousness engage in
pro-environmental behavior more often.

The Relationship between Values and the Importance of Environmental Attribute (H5):

90

To understand the relationship between the value structures and environmental
consciousness in a more practical way, this hypothesis was tested. Several tests were
performed due to the different types of products and the two different groups surveyed.
First, for the US. subjects, six value factors were regressed on a specific environmental
attribute according to three different products. Table 15 presents the results of the
analysis for the three products.

As predicted, an ecology subtype of Self-Transcendence/Openness to change
(TOE) (i.e., biospheric values) showed a significant positive relationship with the
importance of environmental attributes for laundry detergent (Beta = .252, t = 4.037, p =
.000 < .01), for toilet paper (Beta = .326, t = 5.304, p = .000 < .01), and for fruits and
vegetables (Beta = .218, t = 3.543, p = .000 < .01). The other value structures (e.g., TO,
TC, EO, E011, and EC), however, failed to show a significant relationship with the
importance of enviromnental attributes of laundry detergent and toilet paper. The
importance of environmental attribute such as “organically grown” for fi'uits and
vegetables appeared to be significantly related to a Self-Enhancement/Openness to
change 11 (E011) values (Beta = .188, t = 2.809, p = .005 < .01) and a Self-
Transcendence/Openness to change (TO) values (Beta = .137, t = 2.119, p = .035 < .05).

For the Korean subjects, the summary of the regression analysis for the three
products is presented in Table 16. A Self-Transcendence/Conservation factor including
the biospheric values (TCE) showed a significant positive relationship with the
importance of each environmental attribute of the three products (e.g., Beta = .390, t =
5.604, p = .000 < .01 for laundry detergent, Beta = .251, t = 3.573, p = .000 < .01 for

toilet paper, and Beta = .333, t = 4.825, p = .000 < .01 for fruits and vegetables). The

91

other four value factors (i.e., TO, TOH, EC, and E0) were not significantly related to any
environmental attributes for the three products.

In sum, the results indicated that consumer value structures could predict the
importance of environmental attributes. That is, consumers who strongly hold biospheric
values considered an environmental attribute of the product feature to be important.
Significant relationship was found between certain values (e. g., biospherism) and the

importance of an environmental attribute.

' ‘CA ‘.

7E '.
:-

Relations between the Predictor Variables and Greenness
The Relationship between Environmental Attitudes and the Relative Importance of
Environmental Attribute (H6):

To test the hypothesized relationship, correlations were measured between
individuals’ environmental attitudes and their perception of the importance of
environmental attributes. The results are summarized in Table 17. The obtained
correlations for the US. subjects showed that the environmental attributes for two
products such as laundry detergent (r = .280, p = .000 < .01) and toilet paper (r = .279, p =
.000 < .01) were significantly correlated with individuals’ environmental attitudes.
However, in case of fruits and vegetables, the environmental attribute was not
significantly related to individuals’ environmental attitudes (r = .108, p = .061 > .05).
This insignificant relationship can be interpreted somewhat by the US subjects’
involvement with the product (i.e., fruits and vegetables). There is evidence that for
product with a high involvement, compared to that with a low involvement, consumers

tend to place less importance on a product’s environmental attributes although they are

92

environmentally conscious (see Sriram and Forman, 1993). The two national groups of
this study showed highest involvement with fruits and vegetables among the three
products measured, and the US. sample’s involvement with the product was a little
higher than the Korean sample’s one.

For the Korean group, the correlations indicated that the subjects’ environmental
attitudes were significantly related to the three environmental attributes for the three
products measured. That is, consumers who are more environmentally conscious
considered the environmentally favorable attributes to be more important than those who
are less environmentally conscious. Across the two groups, a significant positive
relationship was found between the subjects’ attitudes toward the environment and the
importance of environmental attributes for the two products such as laundry detergent and
toilet paper. But for fruits and vegetables the results were mixed across the two different
groups.

The Relationship between the Importance of Environmental Attribute and Buying Green
(H7):

To test the hypothesis that individuals who consider the environmental attribute to
be more important would be more likely to buy ecologically fiiendly products, three items
were measured in relation to the three products and were used as three dependent
variables. For instance, in case of laundry detergent, the importance of “nonpolluting
ingredient” for individuals was correlated to how often they buy household chemicals
such as laundry detergents and cleansing solutions that are environmentally friendly. For
toilet paper, the importance of “made from recycled paper” was correlated to the extent to

which individuals make a special effort to buy paper products like toilet paper that are

93

made from recycled materials. Also, for fruits and vegetables, the importance of an
environmental attribute like “organically grown” was correlated to the extent to which
respondents make a special effort to buy fruits and vegetables grown organically. Before
correlations were performed, some cases were filtered according to the answer to the
question “who usually buys such product in your household.” Only the cases that
reported “me” or “myself” as a person who usually bought the product in question were
included for statistical analysis.

The correlations obtained for each of the two groups generally indicated that
individuals who evaluate environmental attributes more highly would buy ecologically
considered products more fiequently. The importance of environmental attributes for the
subjects was significantly related to their frequency of making efforts to buy green
products in the categories of laundry detergent (for only the US subjects) and toilet
paper and fruits and vegetables (for both the US. and the Korean subjects). The
analytical findings are summarized in Table 18.

The findings for the US. sample indicated a significant positive correlation
between the importance of environmental attributes and buying-green behavior for the
three products. These significant relationships were found among the Korean sample as
well, for the two products besides laundry detergent (r = .176, p = .055 > .05). Although
the Korean subjects failed to show a significant correlation between the importance of
environmental attributes and the purchase of ecologically considered‘product in case of
laundry detergent, the two groups supported the hypothesis for the other two products,

indicating a significant relationship between the variables. That is, individuals who

94

considered environmental attributes to be more important were more likely to buy

ecologically considered products.

Effects of Ethnicity on Pro-environmental Consciousness
Impact of Ethnicity on Valuing Self-Transcendence/Openness to Change (H8a):

This hypothesis examined whether the Korean and the US. subjects are different
in the extent to which they value Self-Transcendence/Openness to change. To test this
hypothesis, the researcher constructed new scores based on each value structure according
to the Schwartz value theory, because each value factor obtained from a factor analysis
performed separately by country consisted of slightly different value items, which makes
the comparison of the two groups difficult. The 22 value items, according to the value
items’ relationship to the two dimensions and 10 motivational types indicated by
Schwartz (see Table 2-1), were used to generate five value structures regardless of factor
analysis: a Self-Transcendence/Conservation, a general type of Self-
Transcendence/Openness to change, an ecology subtype of Self-Transcendence/Openness
to change, a Self-Enhancement/Conservation, and a Self-Enhancement/Openness to
change. While Schwartz did not divide a Self-Transcendence/Openness to change (TO)
value into an ecology subtype (i.e., biospheric values) and a general subtype of T0, this
study did so because the other previous studies (e.g., Stern et al. 1993, 1995; Schultz and
Zelezny, 1998) as well as this study produced and emphasized biospheric values (called
an ecology subtype of self-transcendence/openness to change) independently from a

general type of self-transcendence/openness to change values.

95

 

A t-test of each of the five value structures between the two separate groups,
presented in Table 19, supports the hypothesis. That is, the US. and the Korean group
were significantly different in valuing an ecology subtype of Self-
Transcendence/Openness to change (t = -3.049, p = .002) and in valuing a general Self-
transcendence /Openness to change (t = 4.178 , p = .000). The Korean subjects (M =
5.30, SD = 1.08) value an ecology subtype of Self-Transcendence/Openness to change
more strongly than the US. subjects do (M = 5.01, SD = 1.21). The comparison of mean
scores by two groups indicated that the Korean subjects put more emphasis on an ecology
subtype of Self-Transcendence/Openness to change than the US. subjects do. However,
the US. subjects (M = 6.19, SD = .59) more strongly valued a general type of Self-
Transcendence/Openness to change than the Korean subjects do (M = 5.95, SD = .71).
Impact of Ethnic Difference on Pro-environmental Behavior (H8b):

This study tests the hypothesis that the Korean and US. group will be different in
their pro-environmental behaviors based on the proposition that their value structures
especially, among several plausible factors affect their engagements in pro-environmental
behavior. The results of t-tests of pro-environmental behavior for each group are
presented in Table 20.

As hypothesized, subjects from the US. and Korea were significantly different in
their general measure of pro-environmental behavior (t = -1.99, p = .047) and in three out
of four types of pro-environmental behavior; that is, green buying behavior (t = -1.974, p
= .049), energy saving behavior (t = -2.44, p = .015), and recycling behavior (t = 2.54, p =
.011). However, subjects were not significantly different in political behavior (t = .536, p

= .593). That is, the Korean subjects engaged more in proenvironmental behavior than

96

the US. subjects, and especially they showed a higher level of participation in green
buying and energy saving than the US. subjects. The US. subjects appeared to engage
more in recycling than the Korean subjects did.

Impact of Ethnic Difference on the Importance of Environmental Attributes (H8c):

This hypothesis tests empirically the proposition that the US. and the Korean
sample are different in their evaluation of environmental attributes included in product
features when they decide their product preference. The t-tests between the US. and the
Korean subjects regarding the importance of environmental attributes provided
supporting evidence that consumers from different countries might be different in their
preferences related to environmental considerations. The importance of each
environmental attribute for the three products was significantly different for the two
national groups. That is, the Korean subjects attached more importance than the US.
subjects did to the environmental attributes of laundry detergent (t = -5.369, p value =
.000), toilet paper (t = -2.l77, p value = .030), and fruits and vegetables (t = -3.860, p
value = .000). The results of the t-tests are presented in Table 21.

The Impact of Ethnic Difi’erence on Buying Green Products (Had):

This hypothesis examines the influence of ethnic difference on environmental
consumerism. Environmental, or “green” consumerism is a purchasing choice that
expresses a preference for less environmentally harmful goods and services (Sriram and
F onnan, 1993). The results of t-tests are presented in Table 22. In accordance with H7d,
the Korean subjects made more efforts to buy organically grown fruits and vegetables

than the US. subjects did (t = -6.294, p = .000 < .01). However, in cases of laundry

97

detergent and toilet paper, the two national groups were not significantly different in their

purchases of environmentally considered brands.

Effects of Collectivism on Value Structures and Pro-environmental Behavior
The Relationship between Collectivism and Value Priorities (H9a):

The proposition that value priorities can be influenced by the individual’s
collectivism was tested by regressing collectivism on each value structure. The results
(presented in Table 23) indicated that collectivism was significantly related to Self-
Transcendence/Conservation values (Beta = .26, p = .000 for the US. subjects; Beta =
.21, p = .001 for the Korean subjects) across the two groups. Furthermore, the US.
subjects showed that collectivism was not significantly related to an ecology subtype of
Self-Transcendence/Openness to change values (Beta = .061, p = .291) and a general type
of Self-Transcendence/Openness to change (Beta = .065, p = .260). The Korean subjects
also indicated that collectivism was not significantly related to a general type of Self-
Transcendence/Openness to change (Beta = .09, p = .138), but was significantly related to
an ecology subtype of Self-Transcendence/Openness to change (Beta = .15, p = .013).
The Relationship between Collectivism and Pro-environmental Behavior (H912):

Unlike the previous study by McCarty and Shrum (1994), this study showed an
insignificant relationship between collectivism and pro-environmental behavior across the
two groups by country. Furthermore, the US. subjects demonstrated negative
insignificant relationship with five dependent variables: a general measure of pro-
environmental behavior (Beta : -.085, p = .135); energy saving (Beta = -.039, p = .497);

green buying (Beta = -.083, p = .148); political behavior (Beta = -.052, p = .362); and

98

recycling behavior (Beta = -.082, p = .155). The Korean subjects showed insignificant
relationship with the five dependent variables according to the types of pro-environmental
behaviors as well, but negative relationship was found only between collectivism and

political behavior. The results are summarized in Table 24.

Summary of Results and Discussion

The goal of this study was to determine values as firndamental bases of
environmental attitudes and behavior and to suggest a conceptual model to better
understand the antecedents of pro-environmental behavior across cultures. Furthermore,
this study investigated the links between psychological variables—such as values and
attitude— and green consumerism. These investigations explored the possibility of
building a causal relationship between the attitudinal variables and buying-green
behavior. This study also examined the impact of cultures and cultural values on the
respondents’ environmental behavior.

According to the model suggested in this study, an individual’s value orientations
can affect his or her attitudes toward the environment and participatiOn in pro-
environmental behavior. This study proposed that certain value structures were more
likely to result in greater concern about the environment, which in turn might lead a
subject to take part in behavior designed to address the environmental problems.
Furthermore, this study proposed that individual expectations of perceived consumer
effectiveness (PCE) impacted the attitude-behavior relationship, resulting in different

levels of engagement in pro-environmental behavior.

99

 

Impact of personal value structures on environmenta_lattitudes. The results tend
to support the hypothesis of this study that value structures influence attitudes toward the
environment. The researcher factor analyzed the value items separately by country and
found a six-factor solution (for the US. sample) and a five-factor solution (for the Korean
sample) that corresponded somewhat to the value clusters reported by Schwartz.
Regression analyses revealed a significant positive relationship between biospherism (i.e.,
the value items from self-transcendence/openness to change that are specific to the
natural enviromnent) and pro-environmental attitudes, but nonsigrrificant relationships for
the other value structures. Furthermore, the results of this study indicate that the
biospheric value items can be loaded on a different value dimension corresponding to the
quadrants of the two Schwartz dimensions (Self-Transcendence vs. Self-Enhancement
and Openness to change vs. Conservation) according to the two national groups. That is,
the two value items (for example, “protecting the environment” and “unity with nature”)
were loaded independently from other value items that are supposed to be included in a
Self-transcendence/Openness to Change quadrant in case of the US. sample. However,
in case of the Korean sample, these two biospheric value items were loaded into a factor
with other items within a Self-Transcendence/Conservation quadrant. This finding could
be explained by cultural differences. Cultures may influence the perspectives toward the
environment the two national groups have formed. Especially, the Korean subjects tend
to consider the ecological enviromnent as an object that they should respect and honor
rather than one that they should protect. Their beliefs and attitudes tOward the influence
that ecological nature has on people’s lives might influence their perspectives toward the

environment and the issues like environmental protection. Therefore, the biospheric

100

 

values can be accepted by the Korean subjects as important guiding principles in their
lives as much as other traditional ethical values such as “honest”, “helpful”, and
“honoring parents and elders.”

Consequently, two regression analyses by country were performed in order to see
the relationship between value structures and environmental attitudes, and the two groups
supported the hypotheses that personal value structures may affect attitudes toward the
environment. Specifically, biospheric values within self-transcendence/openness to
change quadrant were positively related to environmental consciousness. It seems likely
that biospheric values (i.e., altruistic values for nature) are more predictive of
environmentalism than general altruistic values for other people in a self-
transcendence/openness to change quadrant. In addition, a Self-
Enhancement/Conservation value factor was negatively related to individuals’
environmental concern, although the relationship was not statistically significant. These
findings suggest that values, particularly the ecology items within a self-
transcendence/openness to change quadrant, play an important role in determining
environmental consciousness. Altruistic value orientations (toward the welfare of others
and nature) positively influence subjects’ environmental concern. Egoistic value
orientations (toward self-interest) tend to negatively influence environmental concern.

_Ii;rp_act of environmenta_l_attitudes on pro-environmentaflehlior. This study
proposed that more environmentally concerned subjects were more likely to engage in
pro-environmental behavior. Furthermore, environmental attitudes may affect a broad
range of pro-enviromnental behavior. The results support this hypothesis. As predicted,

subjects who were environmentally concerned were more likely to engage in pro-

101

 

environmental behavior across cultures. Specifically, the US. subjects who showed
positive attitudes toward the environment engaged in various types of pro-environmental
behaviors and appeared to be most active in buying ecologically considered products
among them. The Korean subjects were also more likely to participate in various types of
pro-environmental behaviors, except for political behavior, based on their greater concern
about the environment, and they were most active in recycling.

Moderating impacts of PCB on the attitude-behavior relationship. H3a was
supposed to investigate the moderating effects of perceived consumer effectiveness
(PCE) on the relationship between attitudes toward the environment and pro-
environmental behavior. Consistent with previous studies (e. g., Berger and Corbin,
1992), this study found that PCE moderates the strength of the attitude-behavior
relationship. That is, subjects with high PCE showed a significantly stronger relationship
between environmental attitudes and pro-environmental behavior than those with low
PCE did, across cultures. But when each of the four types of pro-environmental
behaviors was used as a dependent variable, while the US. sample indicated that PCE
moderated the degree of relationship between environmental attitudes and green buying
behavior, the Korean sample showed that PCE moderated the degree of relationship
between environmental attitudes and green buying, energy saving, and political and
recycling behaviors. These results indicate that PCE is a very influential moderator of the
environmental attitude-consumer behavior relationship for the Korean sample. The
contestable moderating effects of PCB for the US. sample imply the possibility that PCE
may have differential influences on the form of the relationship between attitudes and

behaviors according to the types of pro-environmental behaviors.

102

 

Consequently, the results of this investigation provide evidence that perceived
consumer effectiveness is an important variable in explaining the relationship between
environmental attitudes and personal consumer behaviors such as green-buying behavior.
An individual’s self-perception of his or her efficacy in struggling with environmental
problems clearly influences whether or not he or she will act on these environmental
concerns in the marketplace. Moreover, the results from the US. sample indicate that the
influence of such efficacy may be significantly different in different behavioral situations.

Impact of PCE on personal environmentflieflviors. Perceived consumer
effectiveness (PCE) was examined as a supplementary predictor of pro-environmental
behaviors. PCE significantly predicted three environmentally conscious consumer
behaviors—energy-saving behavior, green-buying behavior, and recycling—but it did not
significantly predict political behavior across the two national groups.

While environmental attitudes were significantly related to all behaviors, PCE was a
significant predictor for only three of the four behavioral measurements; i.e., green
buying, energy saving, and recycling. A consumer’s perceived self-efficacy is likely to be
more of an issue for relatively individually oriented behaviors than for political behavior
such as contributing money to improve the environment or writing a pro-environment
letter to the government, which are predicated on the effect of groups. In short, greater
perceived consumer effectiveness was associated with greater likelihood of engaging in
such individual behaviors. Finally, based on analytical findings concerning the impacts
of attitudes and PCE, this study has implied the importance of treating pro-environmental
behavior as a variable in future research. That is, this study provided evidence that the

relationship between attitudinal variables and pro-environmental behavior could be

103

different due to the kinds of pro-environmental behaviors being measured. Thus, future
research should measure a specific type of pro-environmental behaviOr rather than a pro-
environmental behavior in general, in order to indicate significant predictors of pro-
environmental behavior in a better manner.

The paLusal relapionship of environmental variables in predicting pro-
environmental behavior. The results of the proposed conceptual model using structural
equation model with AMOS 4 indicated the positive effects of value structures on
environmental attitudes and of environmental attitudes on pro-environmental behavior.
These significant links between environmental variables were found across the two
national groups. That is, this study found that personal value structures play an important
role as fimdamental bases in guiding an individual’s attitudes toward. the environment,
and finally his or her actual behavior. Especially, the results for the Korean sample
suggest an indirect effect of values on pro-environmental behavior, emphasizing the
importance of mediating constructs such as environmental attitudes between values and
pro-environmental behavior. Previous studies (e. g., Karp, 1996; Schultz and Zelezny,
1998) examined only the direct relationship between values and behavior or attitudes and
behavior. This study has extended the past studies by incorporating attitudes between the
link of values and behavior, and suggested that the effects of values on behavior may not
seem salient unless one considers a mediating variable like attitudes or beliefs.

Irrpract of values on the perceived importance of environmental attributes.
Subjects’ value priorities were supposed to affect the importance they attached to a given
environmental attribute included in product features. As hypothesized, the US. subjects

that strongly valued an ecology subtype of Self-Transcendence/Openness to Change

104

(biospheric values) perceived environmental attributes as more important across the three
products. The Korean subjects that strongly valued a Self-Transcendence/Conservation
including the biospheric value items perceived environmental attributes as more
important across the three products. Consequently, subjects’ value priorities were found
to be linked to the importance of product attribute. That is, consumers with altruistic
values for nature considered an environmentally friendly attribute to be an important
factor when purchasing products.

Impact of environmental_attitudes on the perceived importance of environmental
attributes. This study found that environmentally more concerned subjects tend to
perceive environmental attributes (especially when selecting laundry detergent and toilet
paper) as more important than do environmentally less concerned subjects. However, in
the case of fi'uits and vegetables, the results were mixed across the two national groups;
that is, while the US. subjects failed to show a significant relationship between
environmental attitudes and the perceived importance of the environmental attribute (e. g.,
organically grown), the Korean subjects showed a positive significant relationship
between environmental attitudes and the perceived importance of the environmental
attribute. It was considered in the previous result section that these mixed results could
be explained in relation to consumers’ involvement with the product. Consequently, the
findings support evidence that there is a positive relationship between environmental
attitudes and the perceived importance of environmental attributes. Moreover, it
indicates that respondents are more likely to base their purchases on products’

environmental impact when buying laundry detergent or toilet paper.

105

Met of the importance of environmentafirttributes on buvingm. If subjects
considered the environmental attribute to be more important among the product features,
they may have bought ecologically considered products more often. The findings from
the tests tend to support this proposition. That is, subjects who rated the environmental
attribute as more important were more likely to purchase ecologically considered
products. This result for the US. sample was consistent across the three products; that is,
laundry detergent, toilet paper, and fruits and vegetables. However, for the Korean
sample, such positive significant relationships between the importance of environmental
attributes and buying green products were found for the two products besides laundry
detergent. In general, the results support the positive association between the perceived
importance of environmental attributes and purchases of green products. F urtherrnore,
the results across the two national groups about the relationships amOng environmental
attitudes, importance of pro-environmental attributes, and buying green suggest a
possibility that purchases of green products can be affected by the categories of products
(specifically, the consumer’s involvement with the product) and/or the characteristics of
consumer.

Impacts of ethnic difference on ialuing Self-Tra_r_r_scenden_ce/Openness to Chgga.
Due to some cultural variations, this study proposed that the US. and Korean sample
would be different in terms of the extents to which they value Self-
Transcendence/Openness to Change, which was regarded as being related to
environmentalism. To assess cultural difference between the two national groups, the
individuals’ collectivism was measured and analyzed by t-test, but they appeared not to

be significantly different in their collectivism. However, the findings provided evidence

106

that the US. subjects and the Korean subjects were significantly different in terms of
valuing an ecology subtype of Self-Transcendence/Openness to Change and a general
type of Self-Transcendence/Openness to Change. That is, the US. sample valued a
general type of Self-Transcendence/Openness to Change more strongly than the Korean
sample did, while the former valued an ecology subtype of Self-Transcendence/Openness
to Change less strongly than the latter did.

Met of ethnic difference on environmenta_liara. This ethnic difference was also
used to test whether the two ethnic groups were different in terms of their engagements in
pro-environmental behavior. The results support the proposition that the US. and Korean
subjects might be different in the extent to which they engage in pro-environmental
behavior. In general, the US. subjects were less likely to engage in pro-environmental
behavior than the Korean subjects. Moreover, the US. subjects attached less importance
to the environmental attributes of laundry detergent, toilet paper, and fruits and vegetables
than the Korean subjects did. The US. subjects showed less tendency to buy ecologically
considered products than the Korean subjects did. This ethnic difference suggests that the
difference in valuing an ecological subtype of Self-Transcendence/Openness to Change
affects the difference between two ethnic groups in their pro-environmental behavior. It
was found that the Korean subjects more strongly valued an ecology subtype of Self-
Transcendence/Openness to Change than the US. subjects did. These results implied that
biospheric values representing altruism toward the ecology may explain the subjects’ pro-
environmental tendencies better than altruistic values toward people, and suggested

further testing to make sure whether the differences in perople’s pro-environmental

107

behavior are due more to the differences in their orientations to values (especially
biospheric values) than to the differences in any other variables such .as ethnicity.

The mam of collectivis_m on value priorities and on pro-environmental behavior.
This study was extended to explore the relationship between collectivism and
environmentalism based on the previous evidence that individuals’ collectivism may
affect their environmental behavior. This study intended to explore the effect of
collectivism on personal value priorities and on pro-environmental behavior. The US.
and Korean sample respectively showed that collectivism was significantly related to
Se1f-Transcendence/Conservation. Furthermore, the two national groups provided
empirical evidence that collectivism was not related to pro-environmental behavior.
Rather, the relationship between collectivism and pro-environmental behavior was
negative according to the results for the US. subjects. A Self-
Transcendence/Conservation value dimension was measured by five value items based on
the motivational value types such as benevolence, conformity, and tradition. These
motivational value types emphasize care for the welfare of people with whom one is in
frequent personal contact as well as respect and obedience of the customs and ideas
imposed by one’s culture. These motivations underlying self-transcendence/conservation
values help explain how or why collectivism may be in some conflict with biospherism
(altruistic values for nature) and pro-environmental activities. These findings tend to
support Schwartz’s proposition (rather than McCarty and Shrum’s suggestion) that
individualism, rather than collectivism, may have a more positive impact on
environmentalism, although this study did not Show a positive significant relationship

between individualism and pro-environmental behavior. Finally, the results indicate that

108

culturally oriented values such as individualism or collectivism may affect environmental

behavior, and that more empirical studies are still needed to clarify the relationship.

109

Chapter 7

CONCLUSIONS, LIMITATIONS, IMPLICATIONS, AND SUGGESTIONS FOR

FUTURE RESEARCH

Conclusions

The primary goal of this dissertation was to investigate the role of personal value
structures in guiding individuals’ environmental attitudes and behavior across cultures.
Specifically, it attempted to examine the antecedents of pro-environmental behavior and
to determine the relationships among the predictors of buying green behavior in particular
as well as pro-environmental behavior in general. Moreover, this dissertation examined
the impact of ethnic difference on value structures and environmental consumerism. This
research found the predictors of pro-environmental behavior and stimulated firrther study
by suggesting several possibilities to gain better understandings of variables which lead
people to behave pro-environmentally.

In hypothesis one, this study examined the impact of values on environmental
attitudes. It found that environmental attitudes might stem from biospheric values among
the three value orientations that Stern et a1. (1993) proposed as underlying environmental
attitudes and behavior. Across the two national groups, biospheric values appeared to
influence environmental attitudes, although the outputs of factor analysis by the two
groups indicated that the location of the biospheric value items was different in the
quadrants formed by Schwartz’s two value dimensions; e. g., for the US. subjects the two

biospheric items were located in a Self-Transcendence/Openness to Change dimension,

110

and for the Korean subjects the items were located in a Self-Transcendence/Conservation
dimension. This finding indicates that Schwartz’s value structures can be affected by
ideas or beliefs and customs that cultures impose to individuals. In sum, the value
dimensions, including the biospheric value items, showed a positive significant
relationship with enviromnental attitudes across two cultures. In contrast to the
biospheric-altruistic values reflecting one’s concern for others and nonhuman species, the
egoistic values enhancing self-interest (located in a Self-Enhancement/Conservation
dimension) showed a negative relationship with environmental attitudes. This can be
interpreted as evidence that values enhancing self-interest are related to lower levels of
environmental concern.

In hypothesis two, this study investigated the impact of environmental attitudes on
pro-environmental behavior and determined that attitude is a significant predictor of pro-
environmental behaviors. When the subject has a positive attitude toward the
environment, she or he is likely to perform a number of environmentally conscious
behaviors, although the strengths of the relationship vary depending on the types of pro-
environmental behavior. In hypothesis three, this study examined the moderating impact
of PCB on the attitude-behavior relationship and the relationship betvveen PCB and
personal pro-environmental behavior. The findings suggest that in general, subjects with
high level of PCB show higher attitude-behavior relationship than those with low level of
PCE, except in particular cases of energy-saving and recycling behavior for the US.
sample. For the Korean sample, this tendency is present for all measures of pro-
environmental behaviors. Also, the results regarding the relationship between PCE and

the four types of pro-environmental behaviors suggest that the relationship seems to be

111

somewhat behavior specific. That is, subjects consider some behaviors to be effective
and others not. The greatest impact of PCB is on the behavioral measure that represents
specific acts of personal responsibility such as energy saving, green buying, and recycling
behavior.

Hypothesis four tested a conceptual model indicating the relationships among the
predictors of pro-environmental behavior. While most of earlier studies on personal
values addressed a single bivariate relationship, such as the value-behavior link, this
study provided a fuller model describing the value-attitude-behavior relationship within a
causal modeling approach. That is, the proposed model in this study emphasized a
mediating construct, like attitude, between values and behavior. The results of model
tests involving the two national groups demonstrated a significant effect of value
orientations on environmental attitudes, which in turn affected pro-environmental
behavior. Especially for the Korean sample, biospheric value orientations tend to have an
indirect effect on pro-environmental behavior via attitudes toward the enviromnent.
Values were shown to have indirect effects on behavior: environmental attitudes provided
a mediating role between the abstract values and specific behaviors. The US. sample
also suggests an indirect effects of values on behavior, although they are not as obvious as
the effects the Korean sample showed. The influence of values may be more apparent in
instances when critical mediating constructs such as attitudes are explored.

As a second purpose of this study, the relationships among the variables related to
green consumerism were examined. In hypotheses five to seven this study investigated
the impact of values on the importance of environmental attributes. Although the

environmental attributes included in the three categories of products were not salient

112

product attributes for the subjects across the two groups, endorsements of biospheric
value orientations (an ecology type of self-transcendence) were positively associated with
the perceived importance of environmental attributes. Furthermore, environmental
attitudes in general were positively related to the perceived importance of environmental
attributes and purchases of green products, although there were some variations across the
three products and/or the two subjects. In sum, values influenced the product attributes
the individuals evaluated when making purchase decisions. Specifically, a Self-
Transcendence/Openness to Change dimension which consists of only the biospheric
value items (in the case of the US. sample) and a Self-Transcendence/Conservation
dimension including the biospheric value items (in the case of the Korean sample) were
shown to be positively related to the individuals’ evaluations of pro-environmental
attributes, which in turn were positively related to actual behavior.

As the third purpose of this dissertation, in hypothesis eight it explored the impact
of ethnic difference on environmental consumerism and intended to find a fundamental
base of the differences in personal value structures the individuals hold. Furthermore,
culturally oriented values such as collectivism were examined in relation to the
individuals’ pro-environmental behavior. The results from the study'indicated that the
US. and the Korean sample were significantly different in their valuing the biospheric
value orientations (e. g., an ecology subtype of Self-Transcendence/Openness to Change)
and also significantly different in their engagements in pro-environmental behaviors.
That is, the US. subjects were less likely to endorse to biospheric values, and they were
less likely to engage in pro-environmental behaviors generally and particularly in energy

saving and green buying behavior than the Korean subjects were. These results, as

113

mentioned above, suggest that personal values can be better predictor of pro-
environmental behavior than can ethnic difference, although further analysis for this
suggestion is needed.

This study also suggests that collectivism may affect personal value priorities; that
is, that collectivism is more related to self-enhancement and conservation values and less
related to self-transcendence values. This tendency is obviously present in the US.
sample. The Korean sample also indicated that collectivism influenced value priorities,
but the two national groups showed a little variation on the value structures that
collectivism could be related to. That is, for the Korean sample, collectivism was related
to biospheric values as well as conservation values. The result of the Korean sample may
be explainable in light of the outcomes of factor analysis for value structures; that is,
biospheric value items were loaded in the sarrre factor with» items indicating self-
transcendence/conservation values. Thus for the Korean subjects, the relationship of
collectivism with biospherism was similar to that between collectivism and self-
transcendence/conservation values. Consequently, some cultural differences between the
two national groups have been demonstrated in several analytical results.

The relationship between collectivism and pro-environmental behavior was not
significant across the two groups. However, negative relationship between the two
variables indicated how collectivism could affect pro-environmental behavior. The
negative relationship appeared across all measures of pro-environmental behaviors in the
case of the US. sample, but the negative relationship was found only for political
behavior in the case of the Korean sample. In general, the results from the study suggest

that collectivism may negatively influence pro-environmental behavior, which contrasts

114

to the suggestion by McCarty and Shrum (1994). Rather, the results showed evidence
supporting Schwartz’s proposition. According to Schwartz (1990), individualism may be
more positively related to pro-environmental behavior than collectivism, because
individualism can be more closely related to the universalism value types of caring for the

protection and welfare of all people and caring for nature.

Limitations

This study has several limitations. A potential limitation of this study is the use of
a student sample. This may limit the generalizability of the findings. College students
might affect the findings because they were young and in the process of completing their
college education. Although the data collected through a questionnaire were related to
the respondents in the sample, a non-student sample would enhance the interpretations of
the findings of this study. Another limitation of this research is related to measurement.
That is, this study used a short scale of values based on Schwartz’s value measurement
scale. It did not use all of the items from Schwartz’s values instrument. Schwartz’s
values instrument was used across cultures in multiple countries, but it was not tested
against the Korean sample. Also, pro-environmental behavior was measured with items
selected from research conducted in the United States. Therefore, it is hard to eliminate
the possibility that some items to measure individuals’ pro-environmental actions might
not be common to the Korean sample. It is possible that meaning we attached to the
constructs is different across cultures. What this study has operationally defined as pro-

environmental behavior may not be considered such in other countries; for example,

115

using public transportation may be considered pro-environmental for the US. subjects but

not for the Korean subjects.

Implications

Despite these limitations, this cross-cultural research on pro-environmental
values, attitudes, self-perception of efficacy, and behavior will be essential as
psychologists attempt to develop models that predict behavior intended to help the
ecological environment. This dissertation contributes to the existing theoretical research
on the antecedents of people’s pro-environmental behavior by proposing and empirically
testing a conceptual model of pro-environmental behavior that emphasizes mediating
constructs such as attitudes. Understanding the psychological antecedents of pro-
environmental behavior provides information about what motivates the behavior.
Furtherrnore, an emphasis on who does not behave pro-environmentally—and why—helps
marketers and public policymakers to focus on characteristics of the person who is not
participating in pro-environmental behaviors.

Cross-cultural evidence on the antecedents of pro-environmental behavior and the
relationships among the variables will contribute to improving the prediction of pro-
environmental behavior and to determining the directions environmental marketing
strategies must take in international market places. Practically, the outcomes of this study
will help segment a group of people who are not responding to pro-environmental actions
on particular characteristics. This study revealed different motivations for different
people, and this indicates that different types of communication tactiCs are needed

according to the target audience. Especially, marketers and/or public policymakers need

116

to target their messages in order to overcome the barriers that are inhibiting the
performance of specific behaviors designed to improve environmental problems. For
instance, the results of this study suggest the development of strategies to overcome
negative perceived consumer effectiveness. In fact, persons who were high in concern
and low in PCE were less supportive of pro-environmental behaviors than those who
were high in concern and high in PCE were. Thus, such persuasive communication
strategies would be more adequate than emotional communication strategies to encourage
consumers to make individual efforts for the better ecological environment. Appeals that
stress how the individual can make a difference (e. g., the problem of energy shortage can
be resolved by your actions like turning off unnecessary light) would significantly affect
individuals’ PCE. The heightened PCE level would positively affect consumers’
willingness to engage in pro-environmental behaviors. These findings have significant
implications for the design of promotion programs of green marketing strategies. Rather
than a tactic increasing concern for the problem, a persuasive tactic emphasizing the
difference made by an individual’s daily actions would be more effective in encouraging
his or her engagement in pro-environmental actions. These suggestions are not different
from the ones of previous studies (e. g., Ellen et al., 1991).

On the other hand, public policymakers can help enhance an individual’s level of
PCB by providing information and rewarding behavior consumers should know how to
do for the betterment of the environment. For example, consumers can be motivated
either by programs that provide practical information (e.g., how to save energy to benefit

human beings as well as the environment) or by educational programs, such as one that

117

would help a consumer identify “green” products that are truly manufactured out of
materials benign to the environment.

The understanding of the value-attitude-behavior link will greatly assist in
designing persuasive communications to change attitudes and subsequent behavior. If
one indeed holds a particular set of attitudes (e. g., favorable) toward green products
because the attitudes are seen as a means to attaining a particular end-state value (e.g., an
altruistic value for nature and other people), then messages addressing and enforcing this
link may help increase the consistency between people’s pro-environmental attitudes and
these behaviors.

Particularly, the findings about green consumerism indicate important facts that
marketing managers who are interested in green marketing should recognize. That is, this
study showed that pro-enviromnental attributes still ranked seventh or eighth of eight
factors influencing buyers’ purchase decisions. However, some analytical results of this
study also demonstrated that consumers who are environmentally concerned tend to rate
such environmental attributes highly. This indicated the possibilities of the expansion of
green marketing. Therefore, green marketing managers need to understand what
consumers want from them and develop green products based on the findings. In other
words, they would better develop “green” goods to be competitively priced and to
perform the same as others, and thus help consumers use a product’s greenness to

differentiate two relatively equal goods.

118

Suggestions for Future Research

This study also raises some research questions for firture research. Future
research should include, in addition to the suggestions for future study mentioned in the
discussion section, the impact of perceived consumer effectiveness (PCE) in the proposed
causal model as a moderator variable. For example, two subgroups may Show different
explanatory power in predicting pro-environmental behavior according to the levels of
PCB. Based on some variations concerning the moderating effects of PCE and the
differential impacts of PCE on behaviors, future study needs to include more broad types
of pro-environmental behaviors or to focus on a specific behavior. This will clarify
whether the moderating effects as well as the direct impacts of PCB are affected by the
characteristics of behavior. Furthermore, the influences of cultures on Schwartz’s value
structures should be investigated. This study showed evidence that there might be
cultural impact on human value structures presented by Schwartz and Bilsky (1987,
1990). Finally, this research suggests that future study needs to investigate the
interrelationship among variables such as value, environmental attitudes, importance of

pro-environmental attribute, and ecological choice in a causal modeling approach.

119

APPENDIX A

Table 1: The Attributes of the Selected Products

 

 

 

 

Attributes
Laundry detergent Toilet paper Fruits and Vegetables
1. Type (e.g., powder or liquid) 1. Roll size (e.g., double or 1 Freshness
single roll)
2. Scent 2. Thickness 2 Taste
3. Nonpolluting ingredient ‘ 3. Made from recycled paperal 3. Organically grown '
(e.g., biodegradable)
4. Price 4. Price 4. Price
5. Safe for colors 5. Softness 5. Nutritional value
6. Removal of tough stain 6. Absorbent 6. Place of origin
7. Range of size available 7. Range of size available (# of 7. Range of size available (1b.)
rolls)
8. Prior use of the product 8. Prior use of the product 8. Prior use of the product

 

 

 

a. The environmentally considered attribute for the product.

120

 

Table 2-1: Value Items according to Schwartz’s Dimensions of Self-Transcendence
Versus Self-Enhancement (T/E), Openness to Change Versus Conservation
(O/C), and 10 Motivational Types

 

 

Value T/E O/C Motivational Type
1. Equality T O Universalism
2. Social power E C Power

3. Freedom T O Self-Direction
4. An exciting life E O Stimulation
5. Wealth E C Power

6. Respect for tradition T C Tradition

7. Self-discipline T C Conformity
8. Family security E C Security

9. Unity with nature T O Universalism
10. A varied life E O Stimulation
11. Authority E C Power

12. Loyal T C Benevolence
13. Ambitious E O Achievement
14. Broad-minded T O Universalism
15. Protecting the environment T O Universalism
16. Influential E O Achievement
17. Honoring parents and elders T C Conformity
18. Honest T C Benevolence
19. Helpful T C Benevolence
20. Enjoying life E O Hedonism
21. Curious T O Self-Direction
22. Successful E O Achievement

 

121

Table 2-2: Factor Loadings of Value Items with Quartimax Rotation (The United

 

 

 

States)
Item The United States
Factor Loading a

Factor 1: Self-Transcendence/Conservation .77
Honoring of parents and elders .71

Honest .72

Helpful .68

Loyal .60

Family security .69

Factor 2: Self-Enhancement/Openness to Change .57
An exciting life .73

Enjoying life .58

A varied life .58

Factor 3: Self-Enhancement/Openness to Change 11 .58
Self-discipline .66

Influential .54

Successful .64

Factor 4: Self-Transcendence/Openness to Change .81

(Ecology)

Protecting the environment .78

Unity with nature .82

Factor 5: Self-Transcendence/Openness to Change .59
Broad-minded .70

Equality .56

Freedom .68

Factor 6: Self-Enhancement/Conservation .61
Social power .85

Authority .76

 

Total variance explained: 59%

122

Table 2-3: Factor Loadings of Value Items with Quartimax Rotation (Korea)

 

 

 

Item
Factor Loading a.
Factor 1: Self-Transcendence/Conservation .81
(Ecology)

Honoring of parents and elders .81

Honest .77

Helpfirl .76

Respect for tradition 50

Protecting the environment .72

Unity with nature .52

Factor 2: Self-Enhancement/Openness to Change .65
An exciting life .72

Enjoying life .71

A varied life .67

Factor 3: Self-Enhancement/Conservation .67
Social power .77

Wealth .72

Authority .60

Factor 4: Self-Transcendence/Openness to Change .53
Equality .79

Freedom .53

Factor 5: Self-Transcendence/Openness to Change 11 .64
Loyal .64

Broad-minded .64

Ambitious .54

 

Total variance explained: 59%

123

Table 3: Comparisons of the US. and the Korean Sample on Attitudes and

 

 

Collectivism
Mean (SD) Mean (SD) t-value P-value
United States Korea
(N=305) (N=274)
Attitudes 4.94 (.79) 5.24 (.68) -4.808 .000

 

Note: Responses were made on a 7-point scale, ranging from 1=strongly disagree to 7=strongly agree

 

 

Mean (SD) Mean (SD) t-value P-value
United States Korea
(N=304) (N=272)
Collectivism 3.44 (.51) 3.42 (.62) .355 .723

 

Note: Responses were made on a 5-point scale, ranging from 1=extremely unimportant to
5=extremely important

Table 4: Descriptions of PCE Items and Scale Length, Means, and Reliabilities

 

 

 

 

 

 

Item # of item Mean (SD) or
US. Korean U.S. Korean

1. There is not much that 1 can do about the 4.95 4.54

environment. (1.44) (1.40)

2. I feel personally helpless to have much 4.27 4.43

ofan impact. ‘ (1.49) (1.48)

3. 1 don’t feel 1 have enough knowledge to 4.24 3.80

make well-infomed decisions on (1.58) (1,37)

environmental issues.

4. I feel capable of helping solve the 4.22 4.92

environment problems. (1 .32) (1,31)

PCE (general) 4 4.42 4.42 .69 .60
(1.05) (.94)

5. I can protect the environment by buying 5.42 5.38

products that are friendly to the ( 1 , 27) (1,18)

envrronment.

6. I feel 1 can help solve natural resource 5.15 5.65

problems by conserving water and energy. (140) (1.23)

7. Each person’s behavior can have a 4.86 4.70

positive effect on society by signing a (142) (L46)

petition in support of promoting the

envrronment.

PCE (special) 3 5.14 5 .24 .74 .73
(1 . 10) (1 .04)

PCE (total) 7 4.73 (.91) 4.78 (.81) .76 .70

 

Note: Responses were made on a 7-point scale, ranging from l=strongly disagree to 7=strongly agree
*means are calculated after reversibly coded.

124

Table 5: Proenvironmental Behavior Factors with Varimax Rotated Factor

Loadings, Means, and Standard Deviations

 

 

Proenvrronmental behavror The Umted States Korea
Factor Mean SD or Factor Mean SD or
loading loadinL
Factor 1: Green-buying 2.57 .79 .82 2.70 .78 .72
lhave avoided buyingaproduct .74 2.41 1.11 .70 2.50 1.12
because it had potentially harmful
environmental effects.
lhave switched products for ecological .69 2.15 1.06 .66 2.38 1.09
reasons.
When I have a choice between two .68 3.07 1.22 .58 3.23 1.10
equal products, 1 purchase the one less
harmful to other people and the
environment.
1 make 5 special effort to buy household .62 2.28 1 . 10 .59 2. 5 2 .99
chemicals such as detergents and
cleansing solutions that are
environmentally friendly.
lhave signedapetin'on in supporter .56 2.17 1.35 .63 2.84 1.36
promoting the environment.
I have purchased brands packaged in . 53 3. 38 .99
recyclable or reusable containers.
1 make a special effort to buy paper .44 2.52 1.04
(e.g., toilet paper) that are made from
recycled materials.
Factor 2: Political behavior 1.39 .55 .73 1.36 .56 .74
l have written a letter to the editor ofa .80 1.09 .44 .87 1,14 .53
newspaper about the environment.
[have “inc" 8 letter to thc government .80 1.28 .78 .81 1.19 .65
(or congressman) about the
environment.
I have contfibuted WM! 10 support all .61 1.73 1.09 .60 1.65 .92
environmental group or organization.
lhaveanended meenngisysennnaris) .61 1.65 .92 .69 . 1.46 .82
related to environmental protection.
I bring my own bag when shopping. , 57 1 . 18 .58
Factor 3: Energy-saving 2.75 .81 .64 2.92 .92 .60
ltrytolimit consumption orwater. .74 2.25 1.19 .74 3.04 1.15
1 try to reduce the amount of paper used .63 2_61 1_08
or produced.
Hake steps to reduce the amount of .58 3.62 1.17 .69 3.52 1.26
electricity 1 use.
Iblills my own has when sheppl'ns- .51 2.21 1.30
1 use public transportation, carpools, or .51 2.51 1 . 22
a bicycle.
Factor 4: Recycling 2.95 1.20 .68 2.73 .83 .69
I keep garbage in separate piles of glass. .83 2.65 1.41 .60 3.47 1.09
plastic, paper, newspapers and metal for
recycling.
I use a recycling center .81 3.24 1.36 .77 2.44 1.17

l have purchased brands packaged in
recyclable or reusable containers.

1 use public transportation, carpools, or
a bicycle.

Total variances explained: 56%
Note: Scale ranges from 1 = never to 5 = always.

125

.60 2.63 1.09
.61 2.38 1.22

Total variances explained: 54%

Table 6: Description of Personal Involvement Inventory Means and Standard

 

 

 

 

 

Deviations
Product N. of Cases Mean (SD) t-value p-value
U.S. Korea U.S. Korea

Laundry detergent 168 114 42.82 45.52 -3,()2 .003

(8.31) (6.64)
Toilet paper 153 135 45.71 52.0 -739 .000

(7.23) (7.19)
Fruits and vegetables 185 113 56.57 55.15 136 _176

(8.1) (10.82)
Note: Means are ranged from 10 to 70
Table 7-1: Descriptions of Product Attribute Items, Means, and

Standard Deviation (Laundry detergent)
Product Attribute N. of Cases Mean (SD)
U.S. Korea U.S. Korea

Type 172 120 3.86 (.99)4 3.38 (.99)8
Scent 172 120 3.73 (1.13)6 4.33 (.75)’
Biodegradable‘ 172 120 3.01 (1 .04)8 3.63 (.92)7
Price 172 120 4.38 (.91)1 4.49 (.71)2
Safe for colors 172 120 4.30 (.81)2 4.17 (.85)4
Removal oftough stains 172 120 4.28 (.73)3 4.63 (.58)1
Range of size available 172 120 3.49 (1 .04)7 3.75 (.98)6
Prior use of the product 172 120 3.80 (1.08)5 3.98 (.90)5

 

Note: Responses were made on a 5-point scale, ranging from 1=strongly unimportant to 5=strongly

important

Table 7-2: Descriptions of Product Attribute Items, Means, and
Standard Deviation (Toilet paper)

 

 

Product Attribute N. of Cases Mean (SD)
U.S. Korea U.S. Korea

Roll size 155 143 3.63 (.99)6 3.66 (.88)7
Price 156 143 4.45 (.87)1 4.23 (.81)2
Thickness 155 143 3.89 (.94)3 3.83 (.89)5
Sofiness 156 143 4.28 (.83)2 4.38 (.78)1
Absorbent 156 143 3.81 (.95)5 4.10 (.92)3
Made from recycled paper. 155 143 2.85 (.95)8 3.08 (.94)8
Range ofpackage sizes 154 143 3.83 (1.03)4 3.78 (1.03)6
Prior use ofthe product 156 143 3.56 (1.13)7 3.92 (.96)‘

 

Note: Responses were made on a 5-point scale, ranging from 1=strongly unimportant to 5=strongly

important

1

26

Table 7-3: Descriptions of Product Attribute Items, Means, and
Standard Deviation (Fruits and Vegetables)

 

 

Product Attribute N. of Cases Mean (SD)
U.S. Korea U.S. Korea

Freshness 189 113 4.84 (.56)1 4.87 (.41)1
Price 189 113 3.92 (1.18)“ 4.09 (.96)“
Organically grown' 189 113 3.11 (1.15)7 3.59 (1.01)7
Nutritional value 189 113 4.25 (.91)3 3.96 (1.03)“
Taste 189 113 4.80 (.55)2 4.73 (.53)2
Place of origin 189 113 2.94 (1.11)8 3.42 (.99)8
Range of size available 189 113 3.34 (1.14)“ 3.63 (1.08)“
Prior use ofthe product 189 113 3.80 (1.10)5 4.19 (.94)3

 

Note: Responses were made on a 5-point scale, ranging from l=strongly unimportant to 5=strongly
important

Table 8: Multiple Regression Analysis for the Prediction of Environmental Attitudes

 

 

Predictor Variables The United States Korea
(N=303) (N=273)

Value Structures

1. Self-Enhancement/Conservation -. 10 -.09

2. Self-Enhancement/Openness to Change -.02 .04

3. Self-Enhancement/Openness to Change II ' -.01

4. Self-Transcendence/Conservation ‘ -.08

5. Self-Transcendence/Conservation (Ecology) b ' .43"

6. Self-Transcendence/Openness to Change 11 b -.03

7. Self-Transcendence/Openness to Change .15" -.07

8. Self-Transcendence/Openness to Change (Ecology) ' .43"

R Square .46 .40

Adjusted R Square .22 .16

F 13.52” 10.45“

 

Note: a. The value factors for only the US. sample.
b. The value factors for only the Korean sample
Betas presented are standardized betas. ‘P < .05, “P < .01.

127

Table 9: The Relations between Environmental Attitudes and Proenvironmental
Behavior (Correlations)

 

 

 

 

 

(a) US.
con-elation attitudes proenviron- energy saving green buying political recycling
(N=305) mental behavior
behavior

attitudes 1,00

Proenviron- .39" 1.00

mental

energy 581/1'08 .30" .78" 1.00

green buyins .38" .91"”'I .61“ 1.00

POlitical .22" .68" .34" .54" 1.00

behavior

recycling .21" .60” .38""‘l .39“ .24" 1.00
(b) Korea
con-elation attitudes proenviron- energy saving green buying political recycling

(N=270) mental behavior
behavior

attitudes 1.00

PWVifOll- .20" 1 .00

mental

energy saving .21 ** .74" 1.00

Bree" buying .17" .80" .44" 1.00

Political -.15" .49" .14" .35" 1.00

behavior .

recycling .24" .76” .52” .41“ .lS“ 1.00

 

Note: ‘P < .05, I""‘P < .01.

128

Table 10: Regression Coefficient across High and Low Level of Moderator Variable

 

 

 

 

 

(PCE)
a) US. (N=205)
Moderator Dependent V. R Square Attitudes F
High PCE (N=101) Proenvironmental .13 ..36** 4.51“
Behavior
Low PCE (N=104) Proenvironmental .09 .31"
Behavior
High PCE (N=101) Energy-saving .03 .18 5.62“
Low PCE (N=104) Energyesaving .10 .32"
High PCE (N=101) Green-buying .17 .42” 3.88““
Low PCE (N=104) Green-buying .08 .29”
High PCE (N =101) Political behavior .07 .26“ .41
Low PCE (N=104) Political Behavior .01 .08
High PCE (N=101) Recycling .04 .20" 4.50"
Low PCE (N=104) Recycling .05 .22"
b) Korea (N=151)
Moderator Dependent V. R Square Attitudes F
High PCE (N=70) Proenvironmental .09 .30“ 6.39”
Behavior
Low PCE (N=81) Proenvironmental .00 -.07
Behavior
High PCE (N=70) Energy-saving .04 .20 5.26"
Low PCE (N=81) Energy-saving .01 .10
High PCE (N=70) Green-buying .08 .27" 9.57"
Low PCE (N =8 l) Green-buying .00 .03
High PCE (N=70) Political behavior .01 .10 4.95"
Low PCE (N=81) Political Behavior .12 -.34*"‘
High PC 13 (N=70) Recycling .05 .23 5.38"
Low PCE (N=8 1) Recycling .00 .22“

 

Note: ‘P < .05, I""‘P < .01.

129

Table 11: The Relations between PCB and Proenvironmental Behavior (Correlations)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

aLUS.
con-elation PCE proenviron- energy saving green buying political recycling
(N=306) mental behavior
behavior

PCE 1.00

PWVifOfl- .30" 1 .00

mental

energy saving .30" .78" 1.00

8mm buying .28" .91” .61" 1.00

90ml":al .07 .68" .34” .54" 1.00

behavior

myCling .25M .60” .38“I .39" .24" 1.00
(b) Korea
con-elation PCE proenviron- energy saving green buying political recycling

(N=27 1) mental behavior
behavior

PCE 1.00

Prowl/"OW .20" 1.00

mental

energy “Wins .2 l ** .74" 1.00

W buying .21 ** .80“I .44" 1.00

Political —.12 .49" .14“ .35” 1.00

behavior

teeming .22" .76" .52” .41" .15" 1.00
Note: *P < .05, l""‘P < .01.
Table 11-1: Influences of Attitudes and PCE on Proenvironmental Behavior

(Beta coefficients)
Behavioral measures Attitudes PCE R-square Attitudes PCE R-square
(The United States) (Korea)

Proenvironmental behavior .340” .2 14“ .202 . 147‘l . 149* .054
Energy-saving .238" .230" .141 .175" . 169“ .072
Green-buying .224” .188” .175 .140“ .174" .061
Political behavior .208" .029 .048 -.125"‘ -.090 .029
Recycling behavior .154“ .210” .086 .200” .169” .083

 

Note: *P < .05, "P < .01.

130

Table 12: Correlations of Latent Constructs

 

 

 

 

 

a) US.

Constructs Values Attitudes Behavior
Values 1 .00

Attitudes .538 1 .00

Behavior .417 .408 1.00

b) Korea

Constructs Values Attitudes Behavior
Values 1 .00

Attitudes .473 1 .00

Behavior .329 .404 1 .00

 

Table 13: Factor Loadings of Indicators of Latent Constructs

 

 

a) US.
Factors Indicators Unstd. Std. R Square
Values Protecting the enVironmcnt 1.000 .914 .835
Unity With nature .825 .741 .550
Attitudes The balance of nature is very delicate and 1,000 ,7 5 3 , 567
easily upset.
When humans interfere with nature it 1,127 ,757 ,573
often produces disastrous consequences.
Humans must live in harmony with nature ,839 ,649 ,422
in order to survive.
Mankind is severely abusing the ,984 ,668 ,447
environment.
Behavior I try to reduce the amount of paper used or 1,000 ,606 ,367
produced.
I make a special effort to buy paper and 1,03 3 ,649 42]
plastic products made from recycled
materials.
When I have a choice between two equal 1,193 ,640 ,410
products, I purchase the one less harmful .
to other people and the environment.
I make a special effort to buy detergents 1,283 ,769 ,591
and cleansing solutions that are
environmentally friendly.
I have switched products for ecological 1,243 ,770 ,592
reasons.
I have avoided buying a product because 1,123 ,66 5 ,442

it had potentially harmful environmental
effects

131

b) Korea

 

 

Constructs Indicators Unstd. Std. R Square
Values Protecting the environment 1.000 .689 .475
Unity With nature .926 .546 .298
Honoring parents and elders ,82 5 ,709 ,502
Helpful .990 .741 .549
Honest .888 .684 .468
Respect for tradition ,79 3 , 52 1 ,271
Attitudes We are approaching the limit 0f the 1.000 .576 .331
number of people the Earth can support.
The balance of nature is very delicate and 1,494 ,742 ,5 51
easily upset.
When humans interfere with nature it ,982 ,652 ,425
often produces disastrous consequences.
Behavior ItrY to reduce the amount 0f Paper used or 1.000 .623 .388
produced.
I have purchased brands packaged in 1,064 ,669 ,447
recyclable or reusable containers.
I try to limit consumption of water. 1,047 ,627 ,393
When I have a choice between two equal ,8 3 1 ,518 ,268
products, I purchase the one less harmful
to other people and the environment.
1 make a special effort to buy detergents ,722 ,5 01 , 2 51

and cleansing solutions that are
environmentally friendly.

132

Table 14: Parameter Estimates

 

 

 

 

 

(a) US.
Relationship (Figure 2) (Figure 3)
From —-) To Proposed Model Revised Model
Unstd. Std. Unstd. Std.
Values —> Attitudes 0.431 0.569 0.397 0.538
Attitudes —> Behavior 0.316 0.437 0.185 0.258
Goodness-offit indices
x2 (d.f.) 99.704 (52) 87.093 (51)
Joreskog-Sordom Goodness of Fit 0.949 0955
1nd
Benefl‘er-Bonett Normed Fit Index 0927 0937
Comparative Fit Index 0963 0972
lb) Korea
Relationship (Figure 1) (Figure 2)
From —-> To Proposed Model Revised Model
Unstd. Std. Unstd. Std.
Values —-> Attitudes 0.450 0.505 0.433 0.473
Attitudes —-) Behavior 0.414 0.435 0.296 0.320
Goodness-offit indices
X’ (d.f.) 98.554 (75) 94.973 (74)
Joreskog-Sordom Goodness of Fit index 0.950 0.953
Bentler-Bonett Normed Fit index 0.900 0904
Comparative Fit Index 0974 0377

 

133

Table 15: Regression Coefficients of Value Structures on the Importance of
Environmental Attributes (The United States)

 

 

Dependent variable TC E0 E0 11 TOE TO EC R-square
Biodegradable -.02 -.06 .10 .25" .08 -.01 .09
(laundry detergent)

Made from recycled -.01 -.11 .02 .33“ .11 , -.04 .12
paper (toilet paper)

Organically grown -.06 -.08 .19” .22" .14’“ .03 .12
(fruits and vegetables)

 

Note: *P < .05, “P < .01.
TC = Self-Transcendence/Conservation,
E0 = Self-Enhancement/Openness to change,
EO II = Self-Enhancement/Openness to change II,
TOE = Self-Transcendence/Openness to change (ecology),
EC = Self-Enhancement/Conservation.

Table 16: Regression Coefficients of Value Structures on the Importance of
Environmental Attributes (Korea)

 

 

Dependent variable TCE EO T0 TO 11 EC R-square
Biodegradable .39" .01 -.04 -.09 .01 .1 l
(laundry detergent)

Made from recycled .25“ -.02 -.03 .09 -_.43 .11
paper (toilet paper)

Organically grown .33“ .09 -.08 -. 12 .06 .10
(fruits and vegetables)

 

Note: I"P < .05, ”P < .01.
TCE = Self-Transcendence/Conservation (Ecology),
E0 = Self-Enhancement/Openness to change,
T0 = Self-Transcendence/Openness to change,
TO 11 = Self-Transcendence/Openness to change II,
EC = Self-Enhancement/Conservation.

134

Table 17: The Relations between Environmental Attitudes and the Importance of
Environmental Attributes (Correlations)

 

 

Correlation Attitudes (U .S.) Attitudes (Korea)
Biodegradable (Laundry Detergent) .28" .20“
Made from recycled paper (Toilet paper) .28""'I .16“
Organically grown (Fruits and Vegetables) .11 .17”

 

Note: “'P < .05, "P < .01.

Table 18: The Relations Between the Importance of Environmental Attributes and
Buying Green Products (Correlations)

 

 

 

Predictor Variables Buying Green Products
U.S. Korea
Biodegradable (Laundry detergent) .47“ .18
Made from recycled paper (Toilet paper) .43” _ .26"
Organically grown (Fruits and Vegetables) .49" .52”

 

Note: I"P < .05, “P < .01.

Tables 19 and 20: Comparisons of the US. Sample and the Korean Sample on
Valuing Self-Transcendence/Openness to Change and
Proenvironmental Behavior (t-test)

 

 

 

Independent Variables Mean (SD) t-value p-value
U.S. Korea
(N=305) (N=271)
Self-Transcendence/Openness to 6.19 (.64) 5.95 (.71) 4.18" .000
Change (General)
Self-Transcendence/Openness to 5.01 (1.21) 5.30 (1.08) -3.05** .002
Change (Ecology)

Proenvironmental Behavior 2.32 (.60) 2.42 (.55) -1.99"' .047
Energy-saving 2.75 (.81) 2.92 (.92) -2.44"' .015
Green-buying 2.57 (.79) 2.70 (.78) -1.97* ' .049

Political Behavior 1.39 (.55) 1.36 (.56) .54 .593
Recycling Behavior 2.95 (1.20) 2.73 (.83) 2.54“ .011

 

Note: ‘P < .05, “P < .01.

135

Tables 21 and 22: Comparisons of the US. Sample and the Korean Sample on the

Importance of Environmental Attributes and Buying Green Products

 

 

 

(t-test)
Independent Variables Mean (SD) t—value p-value
U.S. Korea
Environmental Attributes ,
Biodegradable (laundry detergent) 3.01 (1.04) 3.63 (.92) -537" .000
Made frontl recycled Paper (toilet Paper) 2.85 (.95) 3.08 (.94) -2.l8* .030
Organically grown (fruits and 3.11 (1.14) 3.59 (1.01) -3.86“ .000
vegetables)
Buying green Products
laundry detergent 2.40 (1.07) 2.56 (1.00) -1.37 .173
Toilet Paper 2.51 (1.06) 2.40 (.90) .980 .328
Fruits and Vegetables 2.13 (1 .07) 2.92 (1.04) -6.29** .000

 

Note: I"P < .05, "P < .01.

Table 23: The Relations between Collectivism and Value Priorities (Simple

 

 

 

 

 

Regression Analysis)
a) US. (N=302)
Predictor EC EO TC TO TOE
Collectivism . 17 ** .22" .26" .06 .07
R Square .03 .05 .07 .00 .00
F 8.73" 15.25" 22.55" 1.12 1.28
Note: Betas presented are standardized betas.
*P < .05, "P < .01.
b) Korea (N=271)
Predictor BC BC TC TO TOE
Collectivism .07 .09 .21 ** .09 .15*
R Square .01 .01 .42 .01 .02
F 1.24 2.32 11.96“ 2.21 6.32““

 

Note: Betas presented are standardized betas.

I"P < .05, l""‘P < .01.

136

Table 24: The Relations between Collectivism and Proenvironmental Behavior

(Simple Regression Analysis)

 

 

 

 

 

a) US.
Predictor Proenvironmental Energy-saving Green-Buying Political Recycling
Behavior Behavior
Collectivism -.09 -.04 -.08 -.05 -.08
R Square .01 .00 .01 .00 .01
F 2.21 .46 2.11 .83 2.03
Note: Betas presented are standardized betas.
*P < .05, "P < .01.
b) Korea
predictor Proenvironmental Energy-saving Green-Buying Political Recycling
Behavior Behavior
Collectivism .10 .07 .1 l -.08 .10
R Square .01 .01 .01 .01 .01
F 2.43 1.49 3.53 1.55 2.40

 

Note: Betas presented are standardized betas.
*P < .05, I""‘P < .01.

137

Figure 1: Theoretical Model of Relations among Motivational Types of Values,
Higher Order Value Types, and Bipolar Value Dimensions. (Taken from
Schwartz S. H 1992, Universals in the content and structure of values:

Theoretical advances and empirical tests in 20 countries, Advances in
Experimental Social Psychology, 25, 1-65, p. 45)

Self-Transcendence

Universalism

      
    

Self-Direction

Openness to change

”
O

I

I
I

O

Achievement

i

‘l

    

Benevolence

Tradition

V

P Conservation

Power

 

7

Self-Enhancement

138

Figure 2: The Interrelationships of Values, Environmental Attitudes, and
Pro-environmental behavior

 

 

Values:
Self-Transcendence/
Openness to change

 

 

 

 

Environmental
Attitudes

—>

 

 

 

ro—environmental
Behavior

 

Figure 3: The Moderating Effect of PCB between Environmental Attitudes and
Pro-environmental Behavior

PCE

 

Environmental
Attitudes

 

 

 

 

 

139

 

Pro-environmental
Behavior

 

 

 

 

Figure 4: The Proposed Model Regarding the Interrelationships among the
Environmental Variables

(a) US.

 

 

 

Values:
Biospheric-Values of

Self-transcendence/
Openness to change

.43 Environmental .32 Pro-environmental
Attitudes Behavior

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(b) Korea

 

 

 

Values:
Biospheric-Values of

Self-transcendence/
Openness to change

.41 Pro-environmental

.45 Environmental
——> .
Behavwr

' Attitudes

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Note: All the path coefficients are unstandardized and significant at p < .01.

Figure 5: The Revised Model regarding the Interrelationships among the
Environmental Variables

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(a) US.
Values:
Biospheric-Values of .40 Environmental .19 Pro-environmental
Self-transcendence/ Attitudes Behavior
Openness to change
15 l
(b) Korea
Values:
Biospheric-Values of .43 Environmental .30 Pro-environmental
Self-transcendence/ Attitudes Behavior
Openness to change

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1

Note: ‘ Not significant (p > .05). All the other path coefficient are significant at p < .01.
All the path coefficients are unstandardized

140

 

APPENDIX B

Measurement Items

Section 1: Values

“AS A

GUIDING PRINCIPLE IN MY LIFE,”

Endpoints: Extremely Important/Extremely Not Important

“09°NP‘SAPP‘N!‘

10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.

EQUALITY (equal opportunity for all)

SOCIAL POWER (control over others, dominance)
FREEDOM (freedom of action and thought)

AN EXCITING LIFE (stimulating experiences)

WEALTH (material possessions, money)
SELF-DISCIPLINE (self-restraint, resistance to temptation)
FAMILY SECURITY (safety for loved ones)

UNITY WITH NATURE (fitting into nature)

A VARIED LIFE (filled with challenge, novelty, and change)
AUTHORITY (the right to lead or command)

LOYAL (faithful to my friends, group)

AMBITIOUS (hardworking, aspiring)

BROAD-MINDED (tolerant of different ideas and varied beliefs)
PROTECTING THE ENVIRONMENT (preserving nature)
INF LUENTIAL (having an impact on people and events)
HONORING OF PARENTS AND ELDER (showing respect)
HONEST (genuine, sincere) '
HELPFUL (working for the welfare of others)

ENJOYING LIFE (enjoying food, sex, leisure, etc.)
CURIOUS (interested in everything, exploring)

RESPECT FOR TRADITION (preservation of time-honored customs)
SUCCESSFUL (achieving goals)

Section II: Attitudes
Endpoints: Strongly Agree/Strongly Disagree

@NQMPP’N?

l-'\O

O.

11.
12.

We are approaching the limit of the number of people the Earth can support.

The balance of nature is very delicate and easily upset.

When humans interfere with nature it often produces disastrous consequences.
Humans have the right to modify the natural environment to suit their needs.
Mankind was created to rule over the rest of nature.

Plants and animals exist primarily to be used by humans.

Humans must live in harmony with nature in order to survive.

To maintain a healthy economy we will have to develop a “steady-state” economy
where industrial grth is controlled.

The Earth is like a spaceship, with only limited room and resources.

Humans need not adapt to the natural environment because they can remake it to
suit their needs.

There are limits to growth beyond which our industrialized society cannot expand.
Mankind is severely abusing the environment.

141

Section III: Behaviors
Endpoints: Always/N ever

1.

2.
3
4.
5
6.
7

8.

9.
10.
ll.

12.
13.

14.
15.
16.
17.
18.

19.

I make a special effort to buy fruits and vegetables grown without pesticides or
chemicals, also known as organic fruits and vegetables.

I make a special effort to buy paper (e.g., toilet paper, Kleenex, paper towel) and
plastic products that are made from recycled materials.

. I have attended meeting(s)/seminar(s) related to environmental protection.

I have switched products for ecological reasons.

. I make a special effort to buy household chemicals such as detergents and

cleansing solutions that are environmentally fiiendly.
I have signed a petition in support of promoting the environment.

. I take steps to reduce the amount of electricity I use. e. g., unplug electric

appliances which is not being used, and turn off the light unnecessary.

When I have a choice between two equal products, I purchase the one less
harmful to other people and the environment.

I bring my own bag when shopping.

I try to limit consumption of water.

I keep garbage in separate piles of glass, plastic, paper, newspapers and metal for
recycling.

I have contributed money to support an environmental group or organization.

I have avoided buying a product because it had potentially harmful environmental
effects.

I have written a letter to the government (or congressman) about the environment.
I have written a letter to the editor of a newspaper about the environment.

I use a recycling center or in some way recycle some of my household trash.

1 try to reduce the amount of paper used or produced. ,

I use public transportation, carpools, or a bicycle instead of a car, in an effort to
save energy and reduce air pollution.

I have purchased brands packaged in recyclable or reusable containers.

Section IV: Effectiveness
Endpoints: Strongly Agree/Strongly Disagree

1.
2.

3.

SS"

There is not much that I can do about the environment.

I feel personally helpless to have much of an impact on a problem as large as the
environment.

I don’t feel I have enough knowledge to make well-informed decisions on
environmental issues.

I feel capable of helping solve the environment problems.
I can protect the environment by buying products that are friendly to the
environment.

I feel I can help solve natural resource problems by conserving water and energy.
Each person’s behavior can have a positive effect on society by signing a petition
in support of promoting the environment.

142

Section V: Group Interactions

Endpoints: Extremely Important/Extremely Unimportant

I sacrifice self-interest for my group.

I act as fellow group members would prefer.

I stick with my group even through difficulties.

I maintain harmony in my group.

I respect the majority’s wish.

I support my group, whether they are right or wrong.

I respect decisions made by my group.

I remain in my group if they need me, even though dissatisfied with them.
I avoid arguments within my group, even when I strongly disagree with other
members.

10. I make an effort to avoid disagreements with my group members.

99°99‘999’N2‘

Section VI: Product Attitudes

To me laundry detergent is:
Important/Unimportant
Boring/Interesting

Relevant/ Irrelevant

Not needed/Needed
Exciting/Unexciting

Means nothing/Means a lot to me
Appealing/Unappealing
Fascinating/Mundane
Worthless/Valuable

l 0. Involving/Uninvolving

11. Who usually buys laundry detergent in your household?

199°NP‘PPPPE‘

To me toilet paper is:
Important/Unimportant
Boring/Interesting
Relevant/Irrelevant

Not needed/Needed
Exciting/Unexciting

Means nothing/Means a lot to me
Appealing/Unappealing
Fascinating/Mundane
Worthless/Valuable

l 0. Involving/Uninvolving

11. Who usually buys toilet paper in your household?

99°99‘99pr

To me fruits and vegetables are:
Important/Unimportant
Boring/Interesting
Relevant/Irrelevant

Not needed/Needed

99°59!"

143

©¢S99

Exciting/Unexciting

Means nothing/Means a lot to me
Appealing/Unappealing
Fascinating/Mundane
WorthlessNaluable

10.1nvolving/Uninvolving
11. Who usually buys fruits and vegetables in your household? .

Section VII: Product Characteristics
Endpoints: Strongly Important/Strongly Unimportant
Laundry detergent

msewewwr

Type (e.g., powder or liquid)

Scent

Nonpolluting ingredient (biodegradable)
Price

Safe for colors

Removal of tough stains

Range of size available (02.)

Prior use of the product

Toilet Paper

WNQMPS‘N!‘

Roll size (e.g., double roll or single roll)
Price

Thickness

Softness

Absorbent

Made from recycled paper

Range of package sizes available (# of rolls)
Prior use of the product

Fruits and Vegetables

“$99991"?

Freshness

Price

Organically grown
Nutritional value

Taste

Place of origin

Range of size available (1b.)
Prior use of the product

Section VII-2: Attitudes Toward Each Attribute
Rank From Most Important (1) to Least Important (8)

Laundry detergent
1. Type (e.g., powder or liquid)
2. Scent
3. Price
4. Nonpolluting ingredient (e.g., biodegradable)
5. Safe for colors

144

6. Removal of tough stains

7. Range of size available (02.)

8. Prior use of the product
Toilet Paper

1. Roll size (e.g., double roll or single roll)

2. Price

3. Thickness

4. Softness

5. Absorbent

6. Made from recycled paper

7. Range of package sizes available (# of rolls)

8. Prior use of the product
Fruits and Vegetables

1. Freshness

2. Price

3. Organically grown

4. Taste

5. Nutritional value

6. Place of origin

7. Range of size available (1b.)

8. Prior use of the product

Section VIII: Demographic Information

1.

$9999.“

Racial or ethnic identification: Asian/Pacific Islander, White, Black,
Chicano/Hispanic, Native American

American Citizen:Yes/No

Undergraduate/ Graduate

Major(s)

Age

Sex: Male/Female

Residence: On campus/Off campus

145

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Ajzen, I. (1985). From intentions to actions: A theory of planned behavior. In J. Kuhland
and J. Beckman (Eds.), Action Control: From Cognitions to Behavior.
Heidelberg: Springer, 11-39. '

Ajzen, I., and F ishbein, M. (1980). Understanding attitudes and predicting social
behavior. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall Inc.

Anderson, J. C. and D. W. Gerbing (1988). Structural Equation Modeling in Practice: A
Review and Recommended Two-Step Approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103,
411-423.

Arbuthnot, J ., and Lingg, S. (1975). A comparison of French and American
environmental behaviors, knowledge, and attitudes. International Journal of
Psychology, 10, 275-281.

Arnold, H. J. (1982). Moderator variables: A clarification of conceptual analytical, and
psychometric issues. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 29, 143-
1 74.

Arp, W., and Kenny, C. (1996). Black environmentalism in the local community context.
Environment and Behavior, 28(3), 267-282.

Bagozzi, R. P., and Dabholkar, P. A. (1994). Consumer recycling goals and their effect
on decisions to recycle: A means-end chain analysis. Psychology & Marketing,
1 1, 313-340.

Banks, J. A. (1988). ethnicity, class, cognitive, and motivational styles: Research and
teaching implication. Journal of Negro Education, 57, 452-467.

Beatty, S. Kahle, L. P., Homer, P., and Misra, S. (1985). Alternative measurement
approaches to consumer values: The List of Values and the Rokeach Value
Survey. Psychology and Marketing, 3, 181-200.

Berger, 1. E., and Corbin, R. M. (1992). Perceived consumer effectiveness and faith in
others as moderators of environmentally responsible behaviors. Journal of Public
policy & Marketing, 11, 79-89.

Black, J. 8., Stem, P. C., and Elworth, J. T. (1985). Personal and contextual influences
on household energy adaptations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 70, 3-21.

146

Boote, A. S. (1981). Market segmentation by personal values and salient product
attributes. Journal of Advertising Research, 21, 29-35.

Bozinoff, L., and Cohen, R. (1982). The effects of personal values and usage situations
on product attribute importance. In B. J. Walker, et al. (Eds.), Assessment of
Marketing Thought and Practice. Chicago: AMA.

Brown, 1. Jr. (1979). Learned helplessness through modeling: self-efficacy and social
comparison processes. In L. C. Perlmutter and R. A. Monty (Eds.), Choice and
Perceived Control. Hillandale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Carman, J. M. (1977). Values and consumption patterns: A closed loop. In H. K. Hunt
(Ed.), Advances in consumer research (Vol. 5, pp. 403-407). Ann Arbor, MI:
Association for Consumer Research.

Caron, J. A. (1989). Environmental perspectives of Blacks: Acceptance of the “new
environmental paradigm.” Journal of Environmental Education, 20, 21-26.

Chan, T. S. (1996). Concerns for environmental issues and consumer purchase
preferences: A two-country study. Journal of International Consumer Marketing,
9, 43-55.

Chow, G. (1984). Tests of equality between sets of coefficients in two linear regressions.
Econometrica, 52, 531-534.

Clawson, G., and Vinson, D. (1978). Human values: a historical and interdisciplinary
analysis. In K. Hunt (ed.), Advances in Consumer Research, 5, 396-402.

Connor, P. E., and Becker, B. W. (1979). Values and the organization: Suggestions for
research. In M. Rokeach (Ed.), Understanding Human Values: Individual and
Societal, New York, NY: The Free Press.

Cramer, J. (1991). The selling of the green. Time, 138, 48.

Derksen, L., and Gartrell, J. (1993). The social context of recycling. ‘ American
Sociological Review, 58, 434-442.

De Young (1986). Some psychological aspects of recycling: The structure of
conservation satisfaction. Environment and Behavior, 18, 435-449.

Dietz, T., Stern, P. C., and Guagnano, G. A. (1998). Social structural and social
psychological bases of environmental concern. Environment and Behavior, 30,
450-472.

147

Donaton, S., and Fitzgerald, K. (1992). Polls show ecological concerns is strong.
Advertising Age, 63, 49.

Dunlap, R. E. (1989). Public opinions and environmental policy. In J. P. Lester (Ed.),
Environmental Politics and Policy: Theories and Evidence (pp. 87-134).
Durham: Duke University Press.

Dunlap, R. E. (1991). Public opinion in the 1980’s: Clear consensus, ambiguous
commitment. Environment, 33(8), 9-15, 32-37.

Dunlap, R. E., Grieneeks, J. K., and Rokeach, M. (1983). Human values and pro-
environmental behavior. In W. D. Conn (Ed.), Energy and material sources:
Attitudes, values, and public policy (pp. 145-168). Boulder, CO: Westview.

Dunlap, R. E., and Van Liere, K. D. (1978). The New Environmental paradigm. Journal
of Environmental Education, 9(4), 10-19.

Ellen, P. M., Wiener, J. L., and Cobb-Walgren, C. (1991). The role of perceived
consumer effectiveness in motivating environmentally conscious behaviors.
Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 10, 102-117.

Fishbein, M. and Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intentions, and behavior: An
introduction to theory and research. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Fritzsche, D. J. (1974). The environmental consistency of consumer purchases.
American Marketing Association Combined Proceedings, Spring and Fall, 312-
315.

Fritzsche, D. J ., and Duehr, R. (1982). The effect of ecological concern on product
attribute utility.

Gallup, G. In, and Newport, F. (1990). Americans strongly in tune with the purpose of
Earth Day 1990. Gallup Poll Monthly, 295, 5-14.

Gamba, R. J ., and Oskamp, S. (1992). Factors influencing community residents’
participation in commingled curbside recycling programs. Paper presented at

American Psychological Association meeting, Washington, DC.

Gill, J. D., Crosby, L. A., and Taylor, J. R. (1986). Ecological concern, attitudes, and
social norms in voting behavior. Public Opinion Quarterly, 50, 537-554.

Goldsmith, R. E., Heitmeyer, J. R., and Freiden, J. B. (1991). Social values and fashion
leadership. Clothing and Textile Research Journal, 10, 37-45.

Granzin, K. L., and Olsen, J. E. (1991). Characterizing participants in activities

148

protecting the environment: A focus on donating, recycling and conservation
behaviors. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 10, 1-27.

Grube, J. W., Weir, I. L., Getzlaf, S., and Rokeach, M. (1984). Own value system,
value images, and cigarette smoking. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,
10, 306-313.

Grunert, K. G., and Grunert, S. C., and Beatty, S. E. (1989, February). Cross-cultural
research on consumer values. Marketing and Research Today, 30-39.

Guagnano, G. A., Stern, P. C., and Dietz, T. (1995). Influences on attitude-behavior
relationships: A natural experiment with curside recycling. Environmental and
Behavior, 27, 699-718.

Harbin, T. D. (1977). Mine or garden? Values and the environment-Probable sources of
change in the next hundreds years. Zygon, 12, 134-150.

Hasrak, M., Horst, R. L., and Mazis, M. B. (1994). Consumer perceptions about and
comprehension of environmental terms: Evidence from survey research studies.
In D. J. Ringold (Ed.), Proceedings of the 1994 Marketing and Public Policy
Conference (pp. 94-108). Washington, DC: University of Baltimore.

Heberlein, T. A. (1972). Social norms and environmental quality. Paper presented at the
Annual Meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science,
New York.

Henion, K. E. (1972). The effect of ecological relevant information on detergent sales.
Journal of Marketing Research, February, 10-14.

Henion, K. E., Gregory, R., and Clee, M. A. (1980). Trade-offs in attitude levels made by
ecologically concerned and unconcemed consumers when buying detergents.
Advanced in Consumer Research, 8, In K. Monroe (Ed.), Proceeding of the
eleventh annual conference of the Association for Consumer Research (pp. 624-
629)

Hines, J. M., Hungerford, H. R., and Tomera, A. N. (1987). Analysis and synthesis of
research on responsible environmental behavior: A meta-analysis. Journal of
Environmental Education, 18, 1-8.

Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture ’s consequences. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Hofstede, G. (1983). Dimensions of national cultures in fifty countries and three regions.

In J. B. Deregowski, S. Dziurawie, and R. C. Annis (Eds.), Expiscations in cross-
cultural psychology. Lisse Neth: Swets and Zeitlinger, 335-355.

149

Hofstede, G. (1991). Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind. New York:
McGraw-Hill.

Homer, P. M., and Kahle, L. R. (1988). A structural equation test of the value-attitude-
behavior hierarchy. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 638-646.

Hopper, J. R., and Nielsen, J. M. (1991). Recycling as altruistic behavior: Normative and
behavioral strategies to expand participation in a community recycling program.
Environment and Behavior, 23, 195-220.

Howard, J. A. (1977). Consumer Behavior: Application of Theory, New York: McGraw-
Hill Book Company.

Howell, S. E., and Laska, S. B. (1992). The changing face of the environmental coalition:
A research note. Environment and Behavior, 24, 134-144.

Hueber, G. (1991). Americans report high levels of environmental concern, activity.
Gallup Poll Monthly, 307, 6-12.

Hume, S. (1991). Consumer doubletalk makes companies wary. Advertising Age,
62(46), GR4.

Inglehart, R. (1977). The Silent Revolution. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Inglehart, R. (1987). Value change in industrial society. American Political Science
Review, 81, 1303-1319.

Inglehart, R. (1989). Culture Shift. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Inglehart, R. (1990). Cultural shift in advanced industrial society. Princeton, NJ:
Princeton University Press.

Inglehart, R. (1995). Public support for environmental protection: Objective problems
and subjective values in 43 societies. PS: Political Science and Politics, 15, 57-
71.

lyer, E. S., Banerjee, B. and Gulas, C. (1993). An expose on green television ads. In C.
T. Allen and D. R. John (Eds.), Advances in Consumer Research, 21, 292-298.

Jackson, R. G. (1974). A preliminary bicultural study of value orientations and leisure
attitudes. Journal of Leisure Research, 5, 10-22.

Karp, D. G. (1996). Values and their effect on pro-environmental behavior. Environment
and Behavior, 28, 111-133.

150

Kellgren, C. A., and Wood, W. (1986). Access to attitude-relevant information in
memory as a determinant of attitude-behavior consistency. Journal of
Experimental Social Psychology, 22, 328-338.

Kelly, B. (1993). The new consumer revealed. Sales and Marketing Management, 145,
46-52.

Kerin, R. A., and Peterson, R. A. (1974). Selected insights into the dynamics of
ecologically responsible behavior. In M. Hopfe (Ed.), American Institute for
Decision Science Proceedings (p. 33).

Kerr, K. (1990). Thinking green is no longer a hippie dream. Ad Week Marketing Week,
31, 18-19.

Kiewiet, R. (1983). Macroeconomics and micropolitics. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press.

Kinder, D., and Kiewiet, R. (1979). Economic discontent and political behavior: The role
of personal grievances and collective judgment in congressional voting. American
Journal of Political Science, 23, 495-527.

Kinnear, T. C., and Taylor, J. R. (1973). The effect of ecological concern on brand
perceptions. Journal of Marketing Research, 10, 191-197.

Kinnear, T. C., Taylor, J. R., and Ahmed, S. A. (1974). Ecologically concemed
consumers: Who are they? Journal of Marketing, 11, 20—24.

Lee, Y. J ., DeYoung, R., and Marans, R. W. (1995). Factors influencing individual
recycling behavior in office settings: A study of office workers in Taiwan.
Environment and Behavior, 27, 380-403.

Lee, J. A., and Holden, S. J. S. (1999). Understanding the determinants of
environmentally conscious behavior. Psychology & Marketing, 16, 373-392.

Levin, G. (1990). Consumers turning green: J WT survey. Journal of Advertising, 8, 5-7.

Li, L. (1997). Effect of collectivist orientation and ecological attitude on actual
environmental commitment: The moderating role of consumer demographics and
product involvement. Journal of International Consumer Marketing, 9, 31-53.

Lowe, G. D., and Pinhey, T. K. (1982). Rural-urban differences in support for
environmental protection. Rural Sociology, 47, 114-128.

Lowe, G. D., and Ludig, W. (1987). Review article: Political ecology and the social
sciences-The state of the art. British Journal of Political Science, 16, 513-550.

151

Mainieri, T., Barnett, E. G., Valdero, T. R., Unipan, J. B., and Oskamp, S. (1997).
Green buying: The influence of environmental concern on consumer behavior.
The Journal of Social Psychology, 137, 189-204.

Maio, G. R., and Olson, J. M. (1995). Relations between values, attitudes, and
behavioral intentions: The moderating role of attitude function. Journal of
Experimental Social Psychology, 31, 266-285.

Maloney, M. P, Wards, M. P., and Braucht, G. N. (1975). Psychology in action: A
revised scale for the measurement of ecological attitudes and knowledge.
American Psychologist, 30, 787-790.

Marketing News (1997). Marketing Briefs. 31 (June 9), 2.
Maslow, A. H. (1954). Motivation and personality, New York: Harper & Row.

McCarty, J. A., and Shrum, L. J. (1993). A Structural equation analysis of the
relationships of personal values, attitudes and beliefs about recycling, and the
recycling of solid waste products. In L. McAlister and M. Rothschild (Eds.),
Advances in consumer research (V 01. 20, pp. 641-646. Provo, UT: Association
for Consumer Research.

McCarty, J. A., and Shrum, L. J. (1994). The recycling of solid wastes: Personal and
cultural values and attitudes about recycling as antecedents of recycling behavior.
Journal of Business Research, 30, 53-62.

McKenzie-Mohr, D., Nemiroff, L. S., Beers, L., and Desmarais, S. (1995).
Determinants of responsible environmental behavior. Journal of Social Issues,
51, 139-156.

Milbrath, L. W. (1979). Values and beliefs that distinguish environmentalists from non-
environmentalists. Paper presented at annual meeting of the International society
for political psychology, Washington, D. C..

Milbrath, L. W. (1981a). Beliefs about our social paradigm: Are we moving to a new
paradigm? Paper presented at 22nd annual convention of the International Studies
Association, Philadelphia.

Milbrath, L. W. (1981b). Environmental values and beliefs of the general public and
leaders in the United States, England, Germany. In D. Mann (Ed.), Environmental
Policy Formation. Lexington, Mass.: Health. '

Milbrath, L. W. (1984). Environmentalists: Vanguard for a new society. Albany: State
University of New York Press.

152

Milbrath, L. W. (1986). Environmental beliefs and values. In M. Herman (Ed.),
Political psychology (pp. 97-138). San Francisco: J ossey-Bass.

Mitchell, R. C. (1990). Public opinion and the green lobby: Poised for the 1990S? In E.
J. Vig and M. E. Krafi (Eds.), Environmental Policy in the 1990s: Toward a new
agenda (pp.81-99). Washington DC: Congressional Quarterly Press.

Mohai, P. (1990). Black environmentalism. Social Science Quarterly, 71, 744-765.

Mohai, P., and Bryant, B. (1998). Is there a “race” effect on concern for environmental
quality? Public Opinion Quarterly, 62(4), 475-505.

Murdock, S. H., and Schriner, E. (1977). Social and economic determinants of the level
of support for environmental protection and economic growth in a rural
population. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Rural Sociological
Society, Madison, Wisconsin.

Noe, F. P. and Snow, R. (1989—1990). Hispanic cultural influence on environmental
concern. Journal of Environmental Education, 21(2), 27-34.

Omura, G. S. (1980). Cultural values as an aid in understanding domestic versus foreign
car ownership. In J. H. Summey and R. D. Taylor (Eds.), Evolving Marketing
Thought for 1980. Carbondale, IL: Southern Marketing Association.

Oskamp, S., Burkhardt, R., Schultz, P. W., Hurin, S., and Zelezny, L. (1998). Predicting
three dimensions of residential curbside recycling: An observational study.
Journal of Environmental Education, 29(2), 37-42.

Oskamp, S., Herringtone, M. J, Edwards, T. C., Sherwood, D. L., and Okuda, S. M.,
and Swanson, D. C. (1991). Factors influencing household recycling behavior.
Environment and Behavior, 23, 494-519.

Ottman, J. (1993). Industry’s response to green consumerism. Journal of Business
Strategy, 13, 3-7.

Ottman, J. (1998). Green Marketing, 2“d ed. Lincolnwood, IL: NTC Business Books.

Parker, J. D., and McDonough, M. H. (1999). Environmentalism of African Americans.
Environment and Behavior, 31(2), 155-177.

Parsons, T., and Shils, E. A. (1951). Toward a general theory of action. Cambridge:
Harvard University Press.

153

Pepitone, A., and Triandis, H. C. (1988). On the universality of social psychological
theories. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychologi, 18, 471-497.

Pickett, G. M., Kangun, N., and Grove, S. (1993). Is there a general conserving
consumer: A public-policy concern. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 12,
234-243.

Pitts, R. E. (1981). Value group analysis of cultural values in heterogeneous populations.
Journal of Social Psychology, 1 15, 109-124.

Pitts, R. E., and Woodside, A. G. (1983). Personal values influences on consumer
product class and brand preferences. The Journal of Social Psychology, 119, 37-
53.

Pitts, R. E., and Woodside, A. G. (1986). Personal values and travel decisions. Journal
of Travel Research, 25, 20-25.

Roberts, J. A. (1996). Green consumers in the 1990s: Profile and implications for
advertising. Journal of Business Research, 36, 217-231.

Rohrschneider, R. (1990). The roots of public opinion toward new social movement: An
empirical test of competing explanations. American Journal of Political Science,
34, 1-30.

Rokeach, M. (1973). The Nature of Human Values, New York, NY: Free Press.

Roper Organization (1990). The environment: Public attitudes and individual behavior.
Princeton: Author.

Roper Organization (1992). Environmental Behavior, North America: Canada, Mexico,
United States. A Report on the Study Commissioned by S. C. Johnson and Sons,
Inc.

Rozak, T. (1992). The voice of the earth. New York: Simon and Schuster.

Samdahl, D. H., and Robertson, R. (1989). Social determinants of environmental
concern: Specification and test of the model. Environment and Behavior, 21, 57-

81.

Schlossberg, H. (1992). Kids teach parents how to change their buying habits. Marketing
News, 26, 8.

Schultz, P. W. (2000). Empathizing with nature: The effects of perspective taking on
concern for environmental issues. Journal of Social Issues, 56, 391-402.

154

Schultz, P. W., and Oskamp, S. (1996). Effort as a moderator of the attitude-behavior
relationship. Social Psychology Quarterly, 59, 375-383.

Schultz, P. W. , Oskamp, S., and Mainieri, T. (1995). Who recycles and when: A review
of personal and situational factors. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 15,
105-121.

Schultz, P. W., and Zelezny, L. C. (1998). Values and proenvironmental behavior: A
five-country survey. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 29, 540-558.

Schwartz, S. H. (1970). Moral decision making and behavior. In J. Macauley and L.
Berkowitz (Eds.), Altruism and helping behavior. New York: Academic Press.

Schwartz, S. H. (1977). Normative influences on altruism. Advances in Experimental
Social Psychology, 10, 221-279.

Schwartz, S. H. (1990). Individualism-collectivism: Critique and proposed refinements.
Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 21, 139-157.

Schwartz, S. H. (1992). Universals in the content and structure of values: Theoretical
advances and empirical tests in 20 countries. Advances in Experimental Social
Psychology, 25, 1-65.

Schwartz, S. H. (1994). Are there universal aspects in the structure and contents of
human values? Journal of Social Issues, 50(4), 19-45.

Schwartz, 8. H., and Bilsky, W. (1987). Toward a universal psychological structure of
human values. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 550-562.

Schwartz, S. H. ,and Bilsky, W. (1990). Toward a theory of the universal content and
structure of values: Extensions and cross-cultural replications. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 58, 878- 891.

Schwartz, S. H., and Howard, J. A. (1980). Explanations of the moderating effect of
responsibility denial on the personal norm-behavior relationship. Social
Psychology Quarterly, 43, 441-446.

Schwartz, S. H., and Miller, T. (1991, Februrary). The earth’s best friends. American
Demographics, 26, 35.

Sears, D. O., and Citrin, J. (1985). Tax Revolt. 2d ed. Cambridge: Harvard University
Press.

155

Sears, D. O., Lau, R. R., Tyler, T. R., and Allen, H. M. (1980). Self-interest vs.
symbolic politics in policy attitudes and presidential voting. American Political
Science Review, 74, 670-684.

Shean, G. and Shei, T. (1995). The values of student environmentalists. The Journal of
Psychology, 129(5), 559-564.

Shrum, l. J ., McCarty, J. A., and Lowrey, T. M. (1994). Recycling as a marketing
problem: A framework for strategy development. Psychology & Marketing, 11,
393-416.

Shrum, L. J ., McCarty, J. A. and Lowrey, T. M. (1995). Buyer characteristics of the
green consumer and their implications for advertising strategy. Journal of
Advertising, 24, 71-82.

Simmons, D., and Widmar, R. (1990). Motivations and baniers to recycling: Toward a
strategy for public education. The Journal of Environmental Education, 22, 13-
18.

Smith, S. M., Haugtvedt, C. P., and Petty, R. E. (1994). Attitudes and recycling: Does
the measurement of affect enhance behavioral prediction? Psychology &
Marketing, 11, 359-374.

Sriram, V., and F orrnan, A. M. (1993). The relative importance of products’
environmental attributes: A cross-cultural comparison. International Marketing
Review, 10(3), 51-70.

Steel, B. (1996). Thinking globally and acting locally? Environmental attitudes,
behavior and activism. Journal of Environmental Management, 47, 27-36.

Stern, P. C., and Dietz, T. (1994). The value basis of environmental concern. Journal of
Social Issues, 50, 65-84.

Stern, P. C., Dietz, T., and Black, J. S. (1986). Support for environmental protection:
The role of moral norms. Population and Environment, 8, 204-222.

Stern, P. C., Dietz, T., and Kalof, L. (1993). Values orientations, gender, and
environmental concern. Environment and Behavior, 25, 322-348.

Stern, P. C., Dietz, T., Kalof, L., and Guagnano, G. A., (1995). Values, beliefs, and
proenvironmental action: Attitude formation toward emergent attitude objects.
Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 25, 1611-1636

156

Sukhdial, A. S., Chakraborty, G., and Steger, E. K. (1995). Measuring values can
sharpen segmentation in the luxury auto market. Journal of Advertising Research,
35, 9-22.

Taylor, D. E. (1989). Blacks and the environment: Toward explanation of the concern
and action gap between Blacks and Whites. Environment and Behavior, 21, 175-
205.

Taylor, R. L. (1979). Blacks ethnicity and the persistence of ethnigenesis. American
Journal of Sociology, 84, 115-123.

Tesser, A., and Shaffer, D. R. (1990). Attitudes and attitude change. Annual Review of
Psychology, 41, 479-523. -

Thompson, S. C. (1981). Will it hurt less if I can control it? A complex answer to a
simple question. Psychological Bulletin, 90, 89-101.

Tolman, E. C. (1951). A psychological model. In T. Parsons and E. A. Shils (Eds)
Toward a General Theory of Action, Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Tracy, A. P., and Oskamp, S. (1983-1984). relationships among ecologically responsible
behaviors. Journal of Environmental Systems, 13, 651-676.

Tremblay, K. R., Jr., and Dunlap, R. E. (1978). Rural-urban residence and concern with
environmental quality: a replication and extention. Rural Sociology, 43, 474-491.

Triandis, H. C. (1990). Cross-cultural studies of individualism and collectivism. In J.
Berman (Ed.), Nebraska Symposium on Motivation, 1989 (pp. 41-133). Lincoln:
University of Nebraska Press.

Triandis, H. C., McCusker, C., and Hui, C. H. (1990). Multimethod probes of
individualism and collectivism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
59, 1006-1020.

Uusitalo, L. (1990). Are environmental attitudes and behavior inconsistent: Findings
from a Finnish study. Scandinavian Political Studies, 13, 211-226.

Valencia, H. (1989). Hispanic values and cultural research. Journal of the Academy of
Marketing Science, 17, 23-28.

Van Liere, K. D., and Dunlap, R. E. (1978). Moral norms and environmental behavior:

An application of Schwartz’s norm-activation model to yard burning. Journal of
Applied Social Psychology, 8(2), 174-188.

157

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

Vaughan, E., and Nordenstam, B. (1991). The perception of environmental risks among
ethnically diverse groups. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 22, 29-40.

Vining, J ., and Ebreo, A. (1990). What makes a recycler? A comparison of recyclers and
non-recyclers. Environment and Behavior, 22, 55-73.

Vinson, D. E., Scott, J. E. and Lamont, L. M. (1977). The role of personal values in
marketing and consumer behavior. Journal of Marketing, 41, 44-50.

Wall, G. (1995).. Baniers to individual environmental action: The influence of attitudes

and social experiences. The Canadian Review of Sociology and Anthropology,
32, 465-490.

Webster, F. E., Jr. (1977). Determining the characteristics of the socially conscious
consumer. Journal of Consumer Research, 2, 188-196.

Weigel, R. H. (1983). Environmental attitudes and the prediction of behavior. In N. R.
F ermer and E. S. Geller (Eds), Environmental psychology: Directions and
perspectives (pp. 257-287). New York: Praeger.

Wiener, J. L., and Doescher, T. A. (1991). A framework for promoting cooperation.
Journal of Marketing (April), 38-47.

Yamagishi, T. (1994). Social dilemmas. In K. S. Cook, G. A. Fine, and J. House (Eds.),
Sociological Perspectives on Social Psychology (pp. 311-334). Boston: Allyn &

Bacon.

Zaichkowsky, J. L. (1985). Measuring the involvement construct. Journal of Consumer
Research, 12, 341-352.

Zaichkowsky, J. L. (1994). The personal involvement inventory: Reduction, revision,
and application to advertising. Journal of Advertising, 23, 59-71.

158

   

lu111111111111111