: 1.3;LLY EC“? :13!" L- .Uh‘h-biu W kid's a ‘ 'r-a ). 3n o A... u.» . «It‘flffi‘ art-j "'/ h I G b: J ""J 3:: qukcaiu.» u. a «an: 3 (‘1': [31.11%] F x b ~lv.'.2. u ‘1 53 Raw 1 u . q . ll\\l\l\1l|\9ullllllzllll llmlllll ‘ This is to certify that the thesis entitled An Empirical Investigation of Ecologically Responsible Consumers and Their Buying Behavior Date i' j “’ 0-7 639 presented by Sergio Topacio Goquiolay M "“ "- J‘s-g A ‘- uarzAzz y 1.....,.*..::;g:m 3mm 1 " : .‘ . 4' 7"?“313‘. it; "" " I, V‘ hit‘y has been accepted towards fulfillment 76 of the requirements for Ph.D. degree in Market in g ‘ / Vg/LLMULM QR Major professor ‘m‘mumm‘ny "’1: HMS & SUNS' ‘ t 2 300K BINDERY INC. ‘| i El " i; Lllmv muons 11 Inna-v mn- “ , ABSTRACT AN EMPIRICAL INVESTIGATION OF ECOLOGICALLY RESPONSIBLE CONSUMERS AND THEIR BUYING BEHAVIOR by Sergio T. Goquiolay A small number of recent marketing studies have compiled profiles of ecologically responsible consumers. The results, however, have not been consistent. The only variable that has been found to be signifi- cant throughout most of the studies is education. This may have occurred because the research has not gone very far. This dissertation is primarily concerned with consumers who, in exercising their freedom of choice, engage in ecologically responsible consumption. This research attempts to accomplish three primary objectives: (1) to establish an acceptable definition of ecologically responsible consumers, (2) determine whether or not they exist, and (3) if they do exist, define their demographic and personality characteristics and how they can be identified. A secondary objective is to search for relationships among the personality scales and demo- graphic variables that are used as independent variables in this research. Ecologically responsible consumers in this study are defined as consumers who are £2352 of the ecological implications of their consumption decisions and behave in an ecolggically consistent manner. The results of this study came from a multistage area random sample. .A survey was conducted of 107 adults (18 years of age or river) in the City of Royal Oak, Michigan. Royal Oak was selected Sergio T. Goquiolay because it is a fairly large accessible city containing respondents with education and income that are higher than the national average. Several of the previous studies on ecological responsibility have found education and income to be important variables. The study relied on personal interviews. The reason for this was that the sensitive nature of the subject matter was such that other techniques might not yield the needed information. To determine ecologically responsible behavior, consumer behavior with regard to the purchase of (l) laundry detergents, (2) soft drinks, (3) energy, and (4) gasoline were measured. A concerted effort was made to reduce respondent bias. Considering the manner in which the random sample was chosen and the interviews conducted, it was rather surprising to find that on the basis of respondents' actual purchase behavior virtually no ecologi- cally responsible consumers were found. It was even more surprising to learn that when using a less stringent definition of ecologically consistent buying behavior requiring such behavior only 50 percent of the time with respect to the products studied, only 6 ecologically responsible respondents could be so classified out of 107. The absence of ecologically responsible consumers did not support the findings of previous studies, which either identify or assume the existence of such a group. A major reason for the discrepancy may be definitional. In this study, ecologically consistent behavior was deemed to be an important criterion of ecological responsibility. In previous studies, however, this was not the case. Rather, highly specific criteria for defining ecological responsibility were used. The findings in this study indicate that consumers are inconsistent Sergio T. Goquiolay in their ecological behavior. Thus, it might not be possible to directly compare the findings of previous studies. The finding that there are virtually no consumers who are consistent in their ecological behavior among products suggests that ecologically responsible consumers may be product or issue specific. Generalized ecologically responsible consumers do not exist in sufficient numbers to provide a basis for market segmentation. Thus, future research would probably be more fruitful if consumers were investigated in terms of their attitudes and buying behavior toward specific products and/or product classes. Because of the lack of ecologically responsible consumers, none of the proposed statistical procedures for measuring ecological behavior proposed could be employed. They were all contingent upon the expectation that a measurable group of ecologically responsible consumers would be identified. In reality there were none. A secondary objective of this dissertation was to discover the relationships between the personality scales and demographic variables. With regard to the Social Responsibility Scale, it was found that the respondents' educational level was related to their Scale scores. How- ever, no further significant relationship was found between the Social Responsibility Scale and the other variables. With regard to the Concern for Environmental Rights Scale, no relationships were found between them. With regard to the Opinion Leadership Scales for Packaged Food Products and Automobiles, no significant relationships were found between the Opinion Leadership Scale for Packaged Food Products and the other variables. However, the Opinion Leadership Scale for Automobiles was found to be significantly related to the level of respondents' education and family income. AN EMPIRICAL INVESTIGATION OF ECOLOGICALLY RESPONSIBLE CONSUMERS AND THEIR BUYING BEHAVIOR By Sergio Topacio Goquiolay A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Marketing and Transportation Administration 1976 ©Copyrisht by SERGIO TOPACIO GOQUIOLAY 1976 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Several persons contributed significantly to the completion of this dissertation. First, I express my sincerest gratitude to Dr. William Lazer, the chairman of the dissertation committee. I learned a great deal from his numerous comments and suggestions about my research. It was a pleasure and an honor to have written the dissertation under his supervision. Second, I am indebted to Dr. Stanley C. Hollander, a member of the dissertation committee. Several parts of the dissertation were substantially improved as a direct result of his suggestions. Third, I thank Dr. Gilbert D. Harrell for his guidance while serving as a member of the dissertation committee. Fourth, I thank my mother and father for giving me the opportunity to complete my Ph.D. program. Lastly, I express my deepest appreciation to my wife, Nualsri, and children, Colin and Nadine, for providing the additional incentive I needed to successfully complete the Ph.D. program. ii TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES . . . . . . . . . . . . LIST OF FIGURES . . . . . . . . . . . Chapter I. II. III. IV. INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . The Problem . . . . . . . . . Hypotheses . . . . . . . . . Limitations of the Study . Organization of the Dissertation REVIEW OF THE RELEVANT LITERATURE Literature on Market Segmentation . Ecologically Responsible Consumers RESEARCH.METHODOLOGY . . . . . . Introduction . . . . . . . . Ecologically Responsible Consumers: Dependent Variables . . . . Independent Variables . . . Testable Hypotheses . . . . Sample . . . . . . . . . . . Questionnaire Design, Interpretation, and Administration . . . Instruments . . . . . . . . Conclusion . . . . . . . . ANALYSIS OF RESULTS . . . . . . Introduction . . . . . . . . Ecologically Responsible Consumers Dependent Variables . . . . The Personality Scales . . . Summary of the Major Findings iii Definition Page vi 10 10 12 12 25 39 39 4O 44 48 54 63 71 75 80 82 82 83 88 95 115 Chapter Page v 0 SWY AND CONCLUS IONS O O O O O O O O 0 O O O O O O O 116 Summary of the study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116 Summary of the Major Findings . . . . . . . . . . . 118 Implications of the Research . . . . . . . . . . . . 124 The Personality Scales . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127 Suggestions for Future Research . . . . . . . . . . 130 APPENDICES Appendix A. Map of the City of Royal Oak . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133 B. Research Instrument . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134 C. Letter of Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145 D. An Example of a Guide Used by the Interviewers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 146 B IBL IOGMPHY O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O C O O C O O O O 1 4 7 iv Table 3.1 3.2 3.3 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.5 4.6 4.7 4.8 LIST OF TABLES Simple Random Size for Several Degrees of Precision . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Random Starting Corners . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Respondent Selection Key . . . . . . . . . . . . . Breakdown of Response Categories . . . . . . . . . Distribution of Respondents Who Use or Purchase Products Studied in the Research . . . Distribution of Ecologically Responsible Respondents for Each of the Four Products . . . Number of Ecologically Responsible Respondents Who Bought or Used the Four Products . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Stated Relationships between Scores on the Social Responsibility Scale and Selected Demographic and Personality Variables . Stated Relationships between Scores on the Concern for Environmental Rights Scale and Selected Demographic and Personality Variables . Stated Relationships between the Opinion Leadership Scale for Packaged Food Products and Selected variables 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O Stated Relationships between the Opinion Leadership Scale for Automobiles and Selected Demographic variables 0 O O I O O O O O O I O O O O O O O O Page 65 69 7O 83 85 87 94 98 105 110 111 LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page 3.1 The Ecological Responsibility Continuum . . . . . . . 43 vi 'l‘v‘,‘ “galv- "‘46 51 4‘“. CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION The Problem Need for the Study Foul smelling rivers and lakes, unhealthy air, and solid waste pollution are only a few examples of man's harmful effects on the ecological system. The reduction of such ecologically detrimental effects depends a great deal on voluntary efforts from consumers and industry. In this dissertation, the focus will be on consumers and their ecological awareness, concern, and behavior. Should ecologically responsible consumers become an important factor in the economy, there will be less pressure for government or industry imposed ecological standards, and more freedom for consumers to exercise their choice in the marketplace. Industry cannot help but respond to the needs and wants of a group that exerts a significant amount of economic power. Businesses also need data about ecologically responsible con- sumers. For many firms are wary of radical changes in their business strategy to reflect the increased concern for the environment. They fear that they might lose their market share or decrease profits and return on investment. Businessmen do not know whether ecologically sound products would sell well enough to be profitable. Unless more data about potential buyers for these products are available, many firms will just not have enough information to work with. ' .u. lo- we n q ': .N‘ (I) :1 'U . u.~ u.“ u . a” (I. Al! 1 2 Environmentalists and governmental agencies are also concerned. They want to know how £9_motivate consumers to adopt ecologically responsible behavior. They want to know who the ecologically responsible consumers are. By determining the attitudes and characteristics of ecologically responsible consumers and how they came to think and act responsibly, better insights into the means of motivating an apathetic public could be developed. The marketing sector obviously has a considerable interest in responsible consumers, for they represent the market segment that will purchase ecologically—sound products. Knowledge about these consumers can provide insights into developing more effective marketing strategies and mixes. Moreover, should these people prove to be the opinion leaders of society, they could play an important role in influencing their fellow consumers to follow their purchase behavior, and the broader benefits of responsible consumption would accrue to all of society. Most marketing research studies about the ecology deal with specific ecological issues, such as air pollution and phosphates in detergents, rather than the ecology in general, and the inter- relationship between the issues. Also, most of these studies are concerned with attitudes and behavioral intention, rather than with actual ecological behavior. A small number of recent marketing studies have compiled profiles of ecologically responsible consumers. Unfortunately, the results of these studies might not be comparable because they each set up their own highly specific criteria for defining ecological responsibility. For example, Kinnear and Taylor measured ecologically \n .~~’ A I u‘ . vow.- .ai. a-uov .‘l‘.. a\ I .p.y. .- so... I‘ll. N-~. ll", \u..¢, 0... "v\ A. 3 responsible behavior through the purchase of low phosphate laundry detergents, whereas Anderson et al defined such behavior as delivering materials to a recycling center.1 Comparing research studies would be easier if consumers who delivered materials to recycling centers also bought low phosphate laundry detergents and vice versa. But where ecologically responsible consumers are inconsistent in their ecological actions, as one study has indicated,2 results of studies designed to rneasure different kinds of ecological behavior might not be comparable. JLt.would have been much better if these studies used a more general cariteria for defining ecological responsibility, which would take inconsistent behavior into account. ZE’quose This study is concerned with developing a profile of consumers Who are we of the ecological implications of their consumption dExcisions and behave in an ecologically consistent manner. They are dGafined as the ecologically responsible consumers. The project seeks to determine whether or not four personality 1Thomas C. Kinnear and James R. Taylor, "The Effect of I3<=inion Leadership Scales, originally devised by Rogers and Cartano E111dlater modified by King and Summers,5 are used in this research to try and find out whether opinion leaders are ecologically responsible or not. Using data obtained from the above scales and certain selected ‘1S3lnographic variables, an ecological consciousness scale will be v i \ 3Leonard Berkowitz and Kenneth G. Lutterman, "The Traditionally socially Reaponsible Personality," Public Opinion Quarterly 32 (Sumner 1968): pp. 169-185. ,' 4Riley E. Dunlop, Richard P. Gale, and Brent M. Rutherford, 5::<>ncern for Environmental Rights Among College Students," American éIlEzfigrnal of Economics and Sociology 32 (January 1973): pp. 45-60. 5Ibid., pp. 45-60. nun I ".4 .0” .14 l *1 a 3.. or. - l :- I 'n A. [a i. N developed. It will be based on the variables that exhibit the greatest significance in distinguishing consumers who are ecologically responsi— ble from those who are not. Ecologically responsible consumers are defined behaviorally in this study as those who are aware of an ecological problem connected with the products that they buy or use. Nonecologically responsible consumers, on the other hand, are those who do not satisfy one or more of the above criteria. The results of the study, if significant, will allow marketing managers to define market segments and devise marketing strategies accordingly. Interested groups will be able to obtain a better perspective on the character- istics of ecologically responsible consumers, how they are motivated, and whether or not they can influence their apathetic neighbors. Finally, the study will also seek to validate some of the previous findings regarding the four personality scales: (1) Social Responsibility Scale (2) Concern for Environmental Rights Scale, ( 3) Opinion Leadership Scale for Packaged Food Products, and (4) oPinion Leadership Scale for Automobiles. Hypotheseg The general hypotheses of this dissertation are divided into four topic areas. The first, which for this study is the most important, is Q(Jrrcerned with ecologically responsible consumers. Do they exist? If so, what are their characteristics? The other three topic areas covered by the general hypotheses Q(Tricern the validation of previous findings regarding the four personal- 11:). scales and their relationship to such demographic variables as age, income, and education as well as the associations between the four 6 scales. Thus, the second part contains hypotheses about the Social Responsibility Scale, the third part focuses on the Concern for Environmental Rights Scale, and the last part deals with the two Opinion Leadership Scales. Part I Ecologically Responsible Consumers Definition In the material that follows, reference will be made to (ecologically responsible consumers. These consumers are aware of an (ecological problem in their consumption decisions, and behave in an ecologically consistent manner. (General Hypothesis 1 Ecologically responsible consumers in Royal Oak, Michigan can be identified. General Hypothesis 2 Ecologically responsible consumers in Royal Oak, Michigan are sOcially responsible.6 General_§ypothesis 3 Ecologically responsible consumers in Royal Oak, Michigan are 0P inion leaders . 7 Socially responsible consumers receive above average scores in the Social Responsibility Scale. 7Opinion leaders in the study receive scores in the upper 30 Dercent of the OLSP and OLSA. -2" . ,ou~ , >0- . Hubs 't-s. .. ~'. I .:,. W‘ . General Hypothesis 4 Ecologically responsible consumers in Royal Oak, Michigan are younger than the average consumer. General Hypothesis 5 Ecologically responsible consumers in Royal Oak, Michigan are better educated than the average consumer. General Hypothesis 6 Ecologically responsible consumers in Royal Oak, Michigan have lligher social status than the average consumer. General Hypothesis 7 Ecologically responsible consumers in Royal Oak, Michigan are unore affluent than the average consumer. General Hypothesis 8 There are more ecologically responsible females than males in Royal Oak, Michigan . Part II Socially Responsible Consumers Definition In the material that follows reference will be made to socially IIQSponsible consumers. These consumers receive above average scores in the Social Responsibility Scale. General Hypothesis 1 Socially responsible consumers in Royal Oak, Michigan are younger than the average consumer. General Hyppthesis 2 Socially responsible consumers in Royal Oak, Michigan are better educated than the average consumer. .“u‘. 3.70-- 5‘: General Hypothesi§f3 Socially responsible consumers higher social status than the average General Hypothesis 4 Socially responsible consumers affluent than the average consumer. General Hypothesis 5 Socially responsible consumers concerned with environmental rights.8 General Hypothesis 6 Socially responsible consumers (opinion leaders. in Royal Oak, consumer o in Royal Oak, in Royal Oak, in Royal Oak, lPart III Concern for Environmental Rights Scale Definition Michigan have Michigan are more Michigan are Michigan are In the material that follows reference will be made to consumers <=<>ncerned with environmental rights. These consumers receive above Eixrerage scores in the Concern for Environmental Rights Scale. General Hypothesis 1 Consumers concerned with environmental rights in Royal Oak, 1HEtchigan are younger than the average consumer. General Hypothesis 2 Consumers concerned with environmental rights in Royal Oak, IMtichigan are better educated than the average consumer. \ 8Consumers concerned with environmental rights receive above iafiverage scores in the Concern for Environmental Rights Scale. '— ~ H G. General Hypothesis 3 Consumers concerned with environmental rights in Royal Oak, Midhigan have higher social status than the average consumer. General Hypothesis 4 Consumers concerned with environmental rights in Royal Oak, lfichigan are more affluent than the average consumer. General Hypothesis 5 Consumers concerned with environmental rights in Royal Oak, Diichigan are opinion leaders. Part IV Opinion Leadership Scale Definition In the material that follows reference will be made to opinion leaders. These consumers receive above average scores in the Opinion Leadership Scale. General Hypothesis 1 Opinion leaders in Royal Oak, Michigan are better educated than nonopinion leaders. General Hypothesis 2 Opinion leaders in Royal Oak, Michigan have higher social status than nonopinion leaders . General Hypothesis 3 Opinion leaders in Royal Oak, Michigan are moye affluent than I1O‘nopinion leaders . General Hypothesis 4 Opinion leaders in Royal Oak, Michigan overlap across product (=Eltegories. w; 10 Limitations of the Study Besides the problems encountered in most survey research of this nature, several limitations associated specifically with this study are: l. The findings of this study cannot be generalized beyond the City of Royal Oak without incurring the risk that Royal Oak may not be representative of the population in other studies. 2. The sample size is relatively small. 3. The extent of biased responses in favor of the ecology is unknown, even though precautions were made to minimize bias. 4. Ecological problems and governmental regulations have been changing. 5. The interviews were conducted in the midst of a severe recession and were affected by the energy crisis; thus there is the possibility of an abnormal situation that is not found in periods of prosperity. Qgggnization of the Dissertation This dissertation is an empirical study of ecologically responsible ‘:<>Ilsumers. The first chapter presents the need and purpose of this research, £153 ‘well as its limitations. It also lists the general hypotheses. Several gl‘lfiestions are posed: Do ecologically responsible consumers exist? If they do . who are they? What are their demographic and personality character- irfiiitics? Can a scale be developed to identify them? The second chapter is a review of the literature on.market seg- IllSitztation and ecologically responsible consumers. The market segmentation 11 literature proved to be helpful in providing ideas for ways to identify and group ecologically responsible consumers. The ecologically responsible consumer literature provided some additional insights, highlighting the fact that virtually all the reports chose to de- emphasize the importance of definitions and terminology. This study attempts to correct this condition. The third chapter outlines the research methodology. Here, dependent and independent variables, sampling, questionnaire design, interpretation and administration, testable hypotheses, and statistical instruments used are described. Ecologically responsible behavior is developed in terms of purchase of low phosphate detergents and returnable soft drink containers, conservation of energy, and use of 101:: lead gasoline as the major dependent variables. Four personality 8(:ales, Social Responsibility Scale, Concern for Environmental Rights Scale, Opinion Leadership Scale for Packaged Food Products, and Opinion leadership Scale for Automobiles and such demographic variables as age, income, education, social status are used as independent variables. Previous findings about the four scales and their relationship to Selected demographic variables and personality scales are examined. The fourth chapter contains the interview results, the analysis of data and interpretations. One hundred and seven completed question- naires formed the basis of the data analysis. The fifth and last chapter summarizes the results of the analysis, evaluates the hypotheses, presents the major findings, and discusses the implications of this research. CHAPTER II REVIEW OF THE RELEVANT LITERATURE The review of the relevant literature is presented in this Chapter, which is divided into two major sections. The first section deals with the theoretical background needed for a framework of analysis and considers the segmentation literature concerning e1::c>10gically responsible consumers. It is the literature of the J~a-tter that provides the best insights into what contributions this 8 tudy may make, which dependent and independent variables ought to be ‘18 ed, and the results that might be expected. Literature on Market Segmentation "Market segmentation is the subdividing of a market into homo- 3Q1:1.eous submarkets of customers, where any submarket may conceivably be galacted as a market target to be reached with a distinct marketing ”zed" In market segmentation research, the attempt is to look for ansumers with similar personal characteristics in each market segment. Q‘h-G'ee a segment is determined, buyers within the segment are deemed to B Q similar in their purchase response functions. Segmenting a market according to consumers with similar Qsponses to a set of hypothesized variables is not enough to test QQgrnentation validity. Howard and Sheth have noted: "To test the \ 1'Philip Kotler, Marketing Management: AnalysisL Planning, and W, 2nd ed. (Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1972), 166. 12 13 Validity of segmenting a market . . . a third piece of information, the shape and position of the buyers' response curves" is required. The reason is that consumers similar in overt buying behavior at one period in time may not be similar later if stimuli and other conditions change. The characteristics of the buyers' response curves are almost impossible to derive. Moreover, in attempting to derive them assumptions must be made regarding the similarity of buyer response fUnctions. One assumption which has proven to be tenable in previous research is used in this study. It is that consumers exhibiting S imilar overt buying behavior characteristics and similar responses to hypothesized variables have similar response functions.3 'A widely used procedure in market segmentation studies is to ’ S"EJ—ect a product and then develop a profile of those consumers who Ib‘rl-I'ehase it. Another method is to develop a profile of consumers with S. imilar buying behavior and personal chracteristics, and then work 5 ackward by asking what kinds of products these consumers would buy. Th is dissertation utilizes the latter procedure, called backward market g Q gmentation. Backward market segmentation is chosen because the focus here is 1I‘Qi: on a specific product or product line. Rather it is on products th at affect the ecology. The concern is not only whether ecological t Qducts, such as recycled paper towels and unleaded gasoline, can be \V—fi ( 2John A. Howard and Jagdish N. Sheth, The Theory of Behavior New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1969), p. 71. E 3V. Parker Lessig, Personal Characteristics and Consumer Buying flavior: A Multidimensional Approach (Pullman: Washington State hiversity Press, 1971), pp. 23-24. l4 sold for a profit, but also with the public policy implications of For if an ecologically responsible group of consumers such decisions . exist, two questions are germaine. First, why are these consumers ecologically responsible? Second, what are their behavioral character- istics? By answering the first question, it may be possible to isolate critical variables that are associated with or cause consumers to be- come more ecologically responsible. The answer to the second question can provide a means of identifying ecologically responsible consumers. Many of the market segmentation approaches to be discussed in the following sections have proven useful for achieving product Segmentation as well as backward market segmentation. The material is organized around four topics: (1) traditional segmentation, (2) use of attitude, (3) use of personality, and (4) life-style research. Es‘éditional Semtation Haley classified traditional research in market segmentation in terms of geographical, demographic, and volume segmentation studies. ‘. All are based on an ex-post facto analysis of the kinds of people who make up various segments of a market. They rely on descriptive factors : ather than causal factors. For this reason they are not efficient b redictors of future buying behavior that is of central interest to ‘h-QIketers . "5 \ 4Russell I. Haley, "Benefit Segmentation: A Decision-Oriented r901," Journal of Marketifl 32 (July 1968): 30-31. SIbid., p. 31. 15 Traditional methods of market segmentation have been useful in defining various groups of consumers.6 It is important to realize, however, that identifying a segment is only one step in the market segmentation process. Another significant step is to determine whether or not the segment is accessible to marketers and is economically Viable. Above all, marketers are concerned with behavior, and this cOmplex aspect requires measurement techniques more sophisticated than those offered by traditional methods. In the context ‘of this study, for example, predicting the responses to various ecological products would require knowledge of ecological awareness as well as demographic faa~ctors. Such information simply cannot be gleaned from demographic, 8e(Dgi'aphic, and volume segmentation studies, since they do not consider the causal factors affecting behavior. In an effort to examine this £cht of consumer behavior, marketers have conducted numerous Q t t itudinal studies . S \eggnentation by. fittitude The use of attitude measurements to predict consumer behavior 1% quite popular in market segmentation studies. The results, however, 11 QVe not been encouraging. Adler has written: \ fl 6James U. McNeal, Dimensions of Consumer Behavior (New York: bpleton—Century-Crofts, 1965), p. 301. v “M‘- 1": e I. 9.13» L ‘I ‘~ 16 Published studies (on attitude) have mainly shown either an absence of or a non-obvious relation- ship. At this point in time, we have to admit that attitude sometimes foreshadows behavior, other times it does not; sometimes partially, more generally, imperfectly.7 This statement seems to hold true for studies of attitudes toward pollution. For example, it was mentioned earlier that over 50 percent of the respondents in one study view pollution as a major national Fa“ t~ problem but only a minority are doing something about it. In this J ‘ ] vein, Tide, a high phOSphate detergent, is still the largest selling laundry detergent in the country,8 and most soft drinks are still bought in nonreturnable containers. The basic assumption made in attitudinal research, that there 18 a strong relationship between attitude and behavior, has been q‘JeStioned. Fishbein believes that this assumption has led to poor "-‘esultslo and suggests two possible reasons for the failure of attitude measurements predicting behavior: 1. The particular attitude being considered may be measured toward an inappropriate stimulus object. F 7Lee Adler, "Can Attitudes Predict Customer Behavior?" in We of the 1966 World Cows (Chicaga . American Marketing Sociation, 1966), p. 349. P11 8William Simon Ruckeyser, "Facts and Foam in the Row Over Osphates, " in Consumerism: Search for the Consumer Interest, ld1ted by David A. Aaker and George 8. Day (New York: The Free Press, 974), p. 381. Wa 9William G. Zikmund and William J. Stanton, "Recycling Solid 8tes: A Channels-of-Distribution Problem," Journal of Marketing 35. 10Martin Fishbein, "Attitude and the Prediction of Behavior," F1 Readin s in __Attitude Theory and Measurement, edited by Martin 81‘lbein (New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1967), p. 477. l7 2. The particular behavior being studied may be completely or partially unrelated to attitude.ll Although the usefulness of attitude as a predictor has been criticized, few researchers question its theoretical importance. Consequently, its failure to predict behavior has not led to an abandonment of the techniques. Rather, researchers have attempted to redefine and reconceptualize the concept of attitude and its relation to behavior . 1'2 Attitude measurement began to receive considerable attention V1 th the introduction of multi-attribute models by Rosenberg in 1956 and Fishbein in 1963.13 The basic Fishbein model is represented by the f0 llowing equation : n A - 2 b a .1 1.1 ii i where A is an individual's attitude (i.e., affect for or against) toward an object (e.g., brand) 3; bij is the individual's belief (expressed as a sub- jective probability) that object j is associated with some other "object" 1 (e.g., a brand attribute); a1 is the evaluative aspect (i.e., judged goodness or \ llIbid., p. 483. 12James H. Myers and Mark I. Alpert, "Determinant Buying Attitudes: Meaning and Measurement," ‘JOurnal of Marketing 32, Part 1 Cetober 1968) : 13. 13Martin Fishbein, "A Consideration of Beliefs, and Their Role in Attitude Measurement," in Readings in Attitude Theory and Measure- $3) editgg7by Martin Fishbein (New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., , p. O l8 badness) of attribute ij; and n is the number of salient beliefs.“ In an excellent review of multi—attribute models, Wilkie and Pessemier explained that "the potential advantage of multi-attribute models over the simpler 'overall affect' approach is in gaining understanding of attitudinal structure. Diagnosis of brand strengths and weaknesses on relevant product attributes can then be used to suggest Specific changes in a brand and its marketing support."15 Although this dissertation will not pursue the discussion of multi-attribute models because they are not used in this research, their inrportance in the consumer behavior literature is increasing, and their POtential usefulness in studies of ecologically responsible consumers is noted. Attitude is only one dimension of consumer behavior. For be‘havior is dependent not only upon attitudes, but also upon other variables, such as personality and reference groups. The next section discusses personality and its relationship to behavior. \ 14Milton J. Rosenberg, "Cognitive Structure and Attitudinal Affect," Journal of Abnormal afldSocial Psychology 53 (November 1956): :6 7-372; and Martin Fishbein, "An Investigation of the Relationship Hemeen Beliefs about an Object and the Attitude Toward That Object," \‘nfin Relations 16 (August 1963): 223-240. a. lsJames R. Bettman, Noel Capon, and Richard J. Lutz, "Multi- ttribute Measurement Models and Multiattribute Attitude Theory: ( Test of Construct Validity," Journal of Consumers Research 1 March 1975): 1. .1-1 M- van. l9 Personality The relationship between behavior and personality has intrigued numerous market researchers. According to Kassarjian, personality studies may be grouped according to several schools of thought: (1) psychoanalytic theory, (2) social theories, (3) stimulus-response theories, (4) trait and factor theories, (5) theories of self and self- concept, (6) life-style research, and (7) miscellaneous (other approaches).16 Each will be discussed in turn. However, only life- Style research will receive some elaboration, because several of its concepts are used in this research. Psychoanalytic Theory Freud's psychoanalytic theory contends that behavior is a flllnction of three interrelated factors, the id, ego, and superego. The id is that part of the psyche containing one's restrained impulses. The superego represents the norms and values of society. And the ego Q<>rltrols the unrestrained impulses of the id and the moralistic demands of the superego. Psychoanalytic theory has exerted a considerable influence in the consumer behavior literature, especially in the area of motivation teSearch. Although there are currently more critics than supporters \ 1'6William L. Wilkie and Edgar A. Pessemier, "Issues in Lie~I‘keting's Use of Multi-Attribute Attitude Models," Journal of \liarketing Research 10 (November 1973): 428. ~13...— on. - I. 20 of psychoanalytic theory, its contribution to consumer behavior has been significant .17 Social Theorists Instead of emphasizing the biological basis of personality, social theorists concern themselves with social relationships, such as striving for superiority and seeking love, brotherhood, and security.18 Kassarjian indicated that the impact of social theorists on consumer behavior research is minimal.19 Stimulus-Response Theories Stimulus-reaponse theorists conceive of personality as a conglomerate of habitual reSponses acquired over time to specific and generalized cues. The bulk of theorizing and empirical research has been concerned with specifying conditions under whiSB habits are formed, changed, replaced or broken. Although the influence of learning theory on buyer behavior theory has been significant, empirical research in this area has not been significant. Kassarjian suggests that "The reason for the lack of impact is probably that personality tests and measuring instruments ‘J-Bing this theoretical base do not exist."21 17Harold H. Kassarj ian, "Personality and Consumer Behavior," in wectives in Consumer Behavior, rev., edited by Harold H. Kassarjian and Thomas S. Robertson (Glenview, Illinois: Scott, Foresman and company, 1973), pp. 129-130. 181bid., p. 130. 191b1d., p. 130. 20Ibid., p. 131. 21Ibid., p. 131. I- 21 Trait and Factor Theories The core of these theories is that personality is composed of a set of traits or factors, some gen- eral and others specific to a particular situation or test. In constructing a personality instrument, the theorist typically begins with a wide array of behavioral measures, mostly reSponses to test items, and with statistical techniques distills factors which are then defined as the personality variables. The consumer behavior literature contains a large number of 1:12ait and factor studies using sophisticated statistical techniques. licnwever, findings indicate that quantification has not significantly increased the explanatory power of personality variables. Theories of Self and Self-Concept The core of these views (Theories of Self and Self- Concept) is that the individual has a real- and ideal- self. This 23 or self is "The Sum total of all that a man can call his--his body, traits, and abilities; his material possessions; his family, friends, and enemies; his vocations and avocations and much else." . . . Congruence between the symbolic image of a product (e.g., a .38 caliber is aggressive and masculine, a Lincoln automobile is extravagant and wealthy) and a consumer's self-image implies greater prdbability of positive evaluation, preference, or ownership of that product or brand. Contributions of these theories of Self and Self-Concept to the Q<>usumner behavior literature are increasing. Life-Style Research Although life-style research is sometimes included with person- alilty research, it encompasses a broader range. The life-style concept :f;f:_liased on distinctive or characteristic modes of living of societal 221bid., p. 132. 23Ibid., p. 135. \I Ii.‘ ‘1. 22 and it includes such variables as personality, attitudes, 24 segments , At this time , activities, interests, opinions, and demographic factors. most life-style researchers have not been able to explain more than 10 percent of the variance occuring in consumer behavior. While not a large percentage, such a factor should not be neglected however. There are several problems in this field of research. First, the measuring instruments being used are still in the process of . 5 In essence, "the studies to date are encouraging, but re f inement . more sophisticated techniques may yield better data in the future. Second, many researchers have used the "shotgun" approach to hypothesis formulation. This is a drawback because reliance is not placed on theory. Third, many have attempted to predict behavior in terms of one PrOduct class rather than to seek consistent patterns of behavior among 8everal product classes. Present life-style research falls into two categories. First there is benefit segmentation research which "is based upon being able to measure consumer value systems in detail, together with what the Consumer thinks about various brands in the product category of interest."27 This approach is more specific in character and is Primarily concerned with the consumer perception of benefits accrued \ 2"William Lazer, "Life Style Concepts and Marketing," in medings, Winter Conference (Chicago: American Marketing Asfiociation, 1963), pp. 130-39. 25Kassarjian, "Personality," p. 416. 26Ibid., p. 416. 27Russell 1. Haley, "Benefit Segmentation," Journal of \I‘Ial‘keting , p . 32 . 23 from consumption of certain products. Second, there is a more general approach based on obtaining consumer responses regarding their activi- ties, interests, and opinions on a broad range of issues that are hypothesized to be of value in discerning behavior patterns.28 Miscellaneous Other Approaches This catch-all category includes those marketing research studies that do not fall into any of the aforementioned categories. Their impact on the consumer behavior literature has not been signific- ant . Review of Personality Studies In 1971 Kassarjian reviewed the findings of personality researchers over the years and said: "A review of these dozens of Studies and papers can be summarized in a single word, equivocal."29 The two most important limitations of such research are the use of poor measuring instruments and the lack of specific hypotheses or theoretical justification. In 1975 Kassarjian and Sheffet reviewed the literature published since 1971 and arrived at Kassarjian's earlier conclusion. The authors proposed that successful explanation of behavior will occur "only when we can explain the behavior of a single 1Individual in a variety of situations over time."30 As is the case with attitude studies, personality studies 28See, for example, William D. Wells and Douglas J. Tigert, "Activities, Interests and Opinions," Journal of Advertising Research (August 1971): 27-35. 29Harold H. Kassarj ian, "Personality and Consumer Behavior: A Review," Journal of MarketiniResearch 8 (November 1971): 409-418. 3°1b1d., p. 415. Li [11‘ 24 should not be discounted simply because they have been criticized. Obviously the market segmentation approach is not useless simply because the multiple correlations (explanation of variances) are low. As Bass, Tigert, and Lonsdale have pointed out: The absence of a satisfactory theory of individual behavior does not necessarily imply the absence of valid propositions about the group's behavior. For marketing strategy, it is the behavior of groups, not persons, that is primarily important . . . . For purposes of market segmentation, however, it is sufficient that the variables yield large differences in mean purchase rates. Some researchers are attempting to improve their measuring ins truments and theoretical justification,:32 and still others are attempting to circumvent the problem of low multiple correlations by cOneidering behavior patterns rather than specific behavior.33 Having briefly discussed market segmentation, attention is now f(Jensed on a review of the relevant literature regarding changing p‘lblic opinion on environmental issues and ecologically responsible cousumers. This will provide a clearer perspective on the dynamics of the ecological movement. By knowing what has occurred and is occurring today, some insights may be gained into the future directions of the ec(blogical movement. \ 3:I‘Harold H. Kassarj inn and Mary Jane Sheffet, "Personality and Consumer Behavior : One More Time," unpubl. manuscript, University of aClifornia, Los Angeles, 1975, p. 8. , 32Frank M. Bass, Douglas J. Tigert, and Ronald T. Lonsdale, mrket Segmentation: Group Versus Individual Behavior," Journal of meting Research 5 (August 1968): 265. ,. 33Parker M. Worthing, M. Venkatesan, and Steve Smith, CA Modified Approach to the Exploration of Personality and Product Use," fiined Proceedinj : ‘1971 Spring:and Fall Conferences (Chicago: rican Marketing Association 1971), pp. 363-67. 0.1 -.U‘ 25 Ecologically Responsible Consumers Tichenor and associates have provided an apt review of the historical background of the ecological movement. Their summary is presented here. Twenty years ago (1950s), concern about the environ- ment was largely confined to a relatively small circle of interest groups and professional organizations devoted to conserving or preserving certain natural resources. The soil conservation movement of the 1930's had not captured general public attention in a major way, however significant it may have been in rural areas. In the early 19608, it may fairly be said that the pesticide controversy was a forerunner of the environmental issue. A principal factor here was Rachel Carson's book, Silent Spgigg (published in 1962), followed by a variety of books by other biologists, ecologists, and similar professionals. Later in the decade, environmental questions captured the imagination of a growing number of legislators, congressmen, and public officials. Environmental study centers were formed. This government activity was accompanied by rapidly increasing mass media attention and su sequent public definition of environment as an issue. I?£3xhaps national awareness of the environment reached its highest level filth 1969-1970, culminating in Earth Day.35 The wide publicity given to 1:1me.environmental issue might have been a drawback. Tichenor and associates has explained it thus: Another characteristic of the environmental issue is its apparent consensus quality. Environment being something that no public Spokesman is likely to oppose, it has reached public prominence in an atmosphere of general agreement about the importance of the issue. What may be overlooked today is that issues with apparent appeal for the majority initially, as 34F. J. Tichenor et a1, "Environment and Public Opinion," :Slggurnal of Environmental Education 6 (Summer 1971): 38. 35Thomas J. Rilo, "Basic Guidelines for Environmental Education," 6 (Fall 1974): 52. 26 environment possesses today, may contain the seeds for later conflicts and cleavages (such as the general need for improvement in education after WWII and the 19505). If environmental concern follows the pattern of other public issues, then, we might well prepare for the possibility that the . . . consensus about the importance of the issue may give way to some social conflicts of a type which have not been widely exper- ienced in the past. Researchers who ask consumers about their opinions regarding the ecology .are faced with an unenviable task. For most consumers would not want to anppear ecologically irresponsible in front of the researchers. Answers finyuld probably be biased in favor of the ecology. Therefore, it may be (ligfficult to arrive at an unbiased estimate of the proportion of ecologically responsible consumers. In the business sector, increasing concern for ecological impact fleas led to the development of modified and/or new products. Many of 37 As such products are filliese products, however, were hastily developed. 'Eilrought into the market, the need for research into the characteristics Of ecologically responsible consmners is heightened. Research studies on ecological responsibility may be divided 13<>ughly into two categories. The first includes those studies dealing I>1rimarily with ecological concern and/or behavioral intent--studies <=<>ncerning consumers' opinions. The second includes those studies that cleal with actual ecological behavior--studies that deal with consumers' £1(:tions. 36Tichener et a1, "Environment," p. 39. :5; 37Harold J. Kassarjian, "Incorporating Ecology into Marketing t:rategy: The Case of Air Pollution," Journal of Marketigg 35 July 19 71) : 61-65 . , - ask I In; ,.,. ua' E4 1‘. Q'. Vbd I v p v .a. g t l!- I - ‘Q 27 Ecological Concern Most of the studies reviewed below deal with pollution, which is a narrower subject than ecology simply because this has been the direction of most studies. Kassarjian's 1971 article about ecology and air pollution was one of the first attempts to describe the characteristics of ecologi- cally concerned consumers. Consumer concern about air pollution was cross-tabulated with consumer awareness of an advertised "low pollutant" gasoline, rate of usage for gasoline, and demographic variables. The major conclusion from his study was that the only significant dis- criminator of those consumers expressing air pollution concern was the attitude of consumers toward air pollution itself. The usual market segmentation criteria, such as demographics, personality, and so forth,38 did not relate. It should be noted that Kassarjian's conclusions differ from those of the later studies. For they found demographic and personality variables to be significant discriminators Of ecological concern. Perhaps some of the discrepancy between I(assarjian's findings and the other research studies might be attributed to both the timing of Kassarjian's study which was conducted at an earlier period in the ecological movement, and to the specific Problem with which he dealt--air pollution rather than pollution in general. Two subsequent studies concluded that demographic variables are useful in distinguishing ecologically concerned consumers. In One project, young, white-collar professionals were found to be more \ 38Ibid., p. 65. .45., g \ I» ;r\ any au‘ 0 0.9. {If A») 722: 0 I. 28 "eco-concerned" than other groups.39 Darling's work revealed that younger, better educated females were more concerned with pollution than were people who were older, less educated, or male.40 Another group of studies has addressed the problem of ecologi- cal concern and behavioral intention (willingness to pay for pollution abatement). A.stateof the art report for this group of studies Suggests that, with the only exception of education, studies using other demographic variables have produced conflicting results: Thus, available literature portrays a public which is concerned.with pollution abatement and which considers itSelf aware of environmental problems. There is, among the majority, an inclination to be willing to pay a small amount for remediation. Unfortunately, the only common thread . . . is the amount of formal education of the respondent. As to other demographic variables, the studies reviewed are in conflict, with some emphasizing and some denying the importance of age, income, and/or sex as possible indication of awareness and willingness to pay for remediation of environmental/air/water pollution. It appears, therefore, that researchers have been able to seg- Ineant on demographic lines but that they seldom produce the same seegmentation variables, with education being the only exception. Which £3laggests that either the research has not gone very far, or that <1€2mography is just one of numerous factors which must be considered. \ 393. A. Greenburg and R. A. Herberger, "Is There an Ecology Eic>nscious Market Segment?", Atlanta Economic Review (March-April 1973): 2-43 I 40John R. Darling, "Consumer Perception of the Pollution :IPJDoblem: A Research Study," paper presented at the annual meeting of t:he Southern Marketing Association, November 1971. . 41Richard C. Reizenstein, Gerald E. Hills, and John W. Philpot, 'Fflillingness to Pay for Control of Air Pollution: A Demographic alysis," in 1974 Combined Proceeding§_Series No. 36, edited by gonad C. Curhan (Chicago: American Marketing Association, 1974), .. 324. 0-» :v a... 29 The step from attitude and behavioral intention to actual buyer behavior is a giant one. For there is a possibility that consumers do not relate directly ecological problems, such as pollution, to their everyday consumption decisions. Some consumers may not even realize that they themselves consume ecologically unsound products. Rather, they may blame industry for causing substantial amounts of pollution. For example, in two polls conducted in 1966 and 1967, reSpectively, only 23 percent of the respondents felt that people in general are the major cause of water pollution."2 Ecological Behavior Relationships between attitude and ecological behavior have been a concern of several studies. Findings suggest that there is a relationship; however, it is weak,"3 which is not unexpected. For the lack of any real relationship between attitude and behavior is con- sistent with those of others in the consumer behavior literature. There exists a possibility that the statistical measures of the lTeflLationship between attitude and ecological behavior could show higher cOrrelations by using more recent techniques, such as Fishbein's eatpectancy value model. Fishbein recommends that attitude should be Ianfliesured in terms of a specific action in a given situation. Thus, itlastead of asking a consumer how he feels about pollution in general alllci then correlating his response with purchases of low phosphate \ 42Hazel Erskine, "The Polls: Pollution and Industry," Public JEllaggnion Quarterly (Summer 1972): 268. 43For example, see Andrew Kohut, "Some Observations on Social Indicators and Marketing Decisions," paper presented at the First ual Social Indicators Conference, American Marketing Association, waShington, D.C., 17 February 1972, p. 7. 30 detergents, the consumer might be asked: (1) what he (she) believes about phosphates in detergents (gives a whiter wash, pollutes the environment, and so forth); (2) whether these beliefs are good or bad; and (3) how he (she) would feel about using different brands with different amounts of phosphates. The answers would be tested for correlation with the actual behavior of the consumer. The Fishbein model of attitude measurement is not utilized in this study. It represents the serious possibility of inducing con- sinner bias in favor of the ecology. For if consumers feel that they sfuould be against practices that are ecologically unsound, even if timey personally do not really care, the opportunity for bias may exist. Such consumers may respond in terms of what they think is expected of them or what they should do. When using this attitude measurement technique, the researcher must be very careful to try and avoid or <=<:ially Conscious Consumer," JOurnal of Marketig 36 (July 1972) : 23-31. an I. 31 The Scale indicated that the socially responsible person "appears to have highly traditional values . . . he is inclined to be somewhat conservative in terms of many of the ideals of this American core culture."45 Several characteristics noted in the Anderson and Cunningham socially conscious consumer profile, such as high occupational attain- ment and cosmopolitanism, are also found in Roger's description of opinion leaders.46 It might be useful to investigate whether or not tflaere is a relationship between opinion leadership and the Berkowitz- Daniels Social Responsibility Scale. Anderson and Cunningham concluded that both demographic and £3<>cio-psychological variables are useful in distinguishing the socially (:cxnscious consumer. However, the latter were found to be better Predictors. Although Anderson and Cunningham in their study did not attempt 1:<> measure the buying behavior of their predefined socially conscious (:crnsumer, Anderson, Henion, and Cox produced a sequel which did. This second study compared socially responsible and ecologically responsible <=<>nsumers. The former were defined as those who achieved high scores <>t1 the Social Responsibility Scale. The latter were defined as those ‘9110 delivered materials to recycling centers."7 In this context, it \ "sLeonard Berkowitz and Kenneth G. Lutterman, "The Traditional S<>cially Responsible Personality," Public Opinion Quarterly 32 C Summer 1968): 171. 46Everett M. Rogers, Diffusion of Innovations (New York: Utile Free Press, 1962). 47W. Thomas Anderson, Jr., Karl E. Henion, and Eli P. Cox III, "ESocially vs. Ecologically Responsible Consumers," edited by Ronald C. "1rham in 1974 Combined Proceedings Series No. 36 (Chicago: American L"tarkenlng Association, 1974), pp. 304-311. V.- v .-.0 n l ..06 «we .— ire: v; - .e). . ‘h. .1: '9. d. (”I (I ‘« “LE 32 was found that the ecologically responsible consumer tends to be better educated, younger, of relatively higher socioeconomic and occupational status, and at an earlier stage in the family life cycle than the average U. 8. household resident.48 The study also identified a difference between socially responsible and ecologically responsible consumers. The socially responsible consumer seemingly sub- scribes to the conventions of society. This, coupled with his high occupational status, suggests an achievement orientation that is said to character- ize the middle class. In contrast with socially responsible consumers, ecologically responsible consumers seem quite alienated, yet personally competent. Thus it seems that ecologically reSponsible consumers are self-actualizing individ- uals and probably largely insulated from the need for social sanction.4 These two studies on social and ecological responsibility are important. To date they comprise the most comprehensive research in the area using demographics and personality variables. The most important weakness of both was the dependence on only one form of Gacological behavior--taking materials to a recycling center-~as being Iaepresentative of that behavior. Inconsistencies in behavior can <>ccur if, for example, these same people also buy high phosphate deter- Egents and use leaded gasoline. Or problems exist if another person, Such as a parent or a friend, had asked the individual to deliver the Inaterials. Then the person interviewed logically should not be (:onsidered ecologically reSponsible. 481bid., p. 308. 491618., p. 310. ,... ‘ \r v a a " ha. 0'. ‘8 a. .1 Q Q - 4VjI ‘5‘. I) u in» *5 H u- ‘c. ‘M V.“ 33 Research by Kinnear and Taylor indicated "that the higher a buyer's ecological concern, the greater is the perceived similarity of brands that are ecologically non-destructive."50 In a sequel to this research, Kinnear, Taylor, and Ahmed, found that demographic measures are not significant in distinguishing ecologically responsible con- sumers. Rather, their findings indicated that personality variables are better predictors.51 A significant feature and useful contribution of the earlier Kinnear research was the formulation of an Index of Ecological Concern. Primarily, the index measured the consumer's purchase behavior of laundry detergents and attitudes toward pollution. The index was used as the independent variable in subsequent work. There are several limitations of the Kinnear and Taylor studies. One is the wording of the questions regarding pollution in the Index of Ecological Concern. For example, one question reads: "I think that a person should urge her friend not to use products that pollute."52 This may well bias the respondent's choice of answers when public con- sensus on environmental issues is high, and a respondent might very well wish to avoid giving the impression of not being pollution conscious. 50Thomas C. Kinnear and James R. Taylor, "The Effect of Ecological Concern on Brand Perceptions," Journal of Marketing;Research (May 1973): 196. 51Thomas C. Kinnear et a1, "Ecologically Concerned Consumers: Who Are They?", Journal of Marketigg 38 (April 1974): 20-24. 52Kinnear and Taylor, "Effect," p. 196. 34 A second problem involves the assumption that ecological behavior is a function of attitudes about laundry detergents only. However, a consumer may buy high phosphate detergents because she (he) feels that phosphate-free detergents are harmful to human health, as some of the published reports claim.53 Also, detergents might not be representative of other ecologically relevant products. The third problem, which has to do with the Index of Ecological Concern, involves the arbitrary weights assigned by the researchers to the various questions in the Index. Platzer developed a profile of ecologically responsible con- sumers by considering their (1) attitudes toward pollution, (2) buying behavior, and (3) reasons for the behavior. His study was an improve- ment over some of the others in the sense that five purchase activities were mentioned: (1) low lead gasoline, (2) returnable bottles, (3) low phOSphate detergents, (4) paper meat trays, and (5) frozen foods. Platzer found that consumers "active" in purchasing ecological products are better educated and have higher family incomes than the national average. His definition of an "active" consumer is one "who indicated that he purchased one or more of the five related products .54 because of ecological considerations.‘ In his sample, 55 out of 101 respondents were classified as active. However, only about 20 percent of these were both "active" and had strong attitudes against pollution.55 —_ 53William Simon Rukeyser, "Facts and Foam in the Row Over Phosphates," pp. 379-391. 54Willard B. Platzer, Jr., "An Analysis of Ecologically liotivated Consumer Purchase," Ph.D. Diss., University of Arkansas, 1973. 55Ibid., p. 31. 35 The 20 percent figure probably yields a better estimate of ecologically responsible consumers than the 55 "active" consumers in the sample. For the large number of "active" consumers could be attributed at least partially to Platzer's direct reference to pollution and ecological considerations, which could produce answers biased in favor of non— polluting behavior. Although Platzer's study ineluded various purchase activities, he did not consider ecologically consistent behavior. In fact, the only piece of research in the literature which has addressed itself to this topic was conducted by Fritzsche.56 The sample in his study comprised customers of the Better Life Services Corporation, a collector of recyclable materials. The issues he considered were: (1) bond referendum for environmental quality, (2) detergent purchases by phosphate level, (3) gasoline purchases by lead content, (4) paper towel purchases by recycled paper content, (5) bathroom tissue purchases by recycled paper content, and (6) support of auto emission standards. Fritzsche concluded: The findings of this study evidence a strange pattern. The majority of the Better Life Customers were environmentally consistent with regard to indirect purchases but were environmentall inconsistent when making direct purchases. 7 The two indirect "purchases" were the bond referendum and support of auto emission standards. 56David J. Fritzsche, "The Environmental Consistency of Consumer Purchases," in'l974 Combined Proceedings Series No. 36, edited by Ronald C. Curhan (Chicago: American Marketing Association, 1974), Pp. 312-315. 57Ibid., p. 315. 36 Fritzsche's conclusions regarding inconsistencies in direct purchases of detergents, gasoline, paper towels, and bathroom tissue may, however, be overstated. First, Fritzsche did not consider whether the respondents acted irresponsibly by their own choice or acted unavoidably. For example, the study found that only 6 percent of the Better Life customers used low lead gasoline. Many customers are unaware that their automobiles can take unleaded fuel, or are afraid to try. These consumers are not so much ecologically irresponsible as ecologically uninformed. Also, consumers who do not actually buy detergents, but who live in households where high phos- phate detergents are used, are also considered as being ecologically irresponsible. A second problem, acknowledged by Fritzsche, was the lack of promotion or publicity about recycled paper towels and bath- room tissues as compared with phosphates in detergents or unleaded gasoline. These criticisms suggested two criteria for this research. First there is the need to consider products that have received a reasonable amount of publicity about their relationship to the ecology. Thus an effort was made to confine this study to the better-known ecological issues: (1) phosphates in detergents, (2) returnable soft drink containers, (3) energy conservation, and (4) unleaded or low lead fuel. Second, respondents to the questionnaire should be con- sumers who are actually engaged in the decision-making process when they buy or use these products. 37 Summary There are an increasing number of studies about ecologically responsible consumers, but there are still too few to permit generali- zation beyond certain demographic factors such as age and education. The results have been equivocal. There are two major criticisms of these studies. First there is no consistent and acceptable definition of ecologically responsible consumers. Second, attitudinal questions about pollution and ecology often lead to biased results. Without a sound definition of ecologically responsible consumers, generalizations about their characteristics are difficult to make and even more difficult to defend logically. For example, the ecologically responsible consumers referred to in one study who buy low phosphate detergent may not be considered responsible in another study, which uses delivery of materials for recycling as the responsibility criterion. When direct questions are asked about the ecology they actually force people to be for or against the widespread consensus that there is an ecological problem. Few people wish to state flatly that they are against such items as pollution control. If bias is created when asking attitudinal questions, this will certainly carry over to the behavior portion of a questionnaire since respondents know what to look for. Thus, if possible, attitudinal questions probably should be well disguised or handled indirectly by questions dealing with ecological literacy or knowledge. In this study, mention of the ecology was held to a minimum in order to minimize consumer bias. 38 Furthermore, a concerted effort was made to provide a logical and consistent definition of ecologically responsible consumers. The next chapter explains the research methodology, in particular the specific steps taken in constructing and administering the empirical study. Included in the discussion are the choice of dependent and independent variables, the sample design, testable hypotheses, questionnaire design, interpretation and administration, and statistical instruments. CHAPTER III RESEARCH.METHODOLOGY lntroduction This dissertation is primarily concerned with consumers who, in exercising their freedom of choice, engage in ecologically responsible consumption. This research attempts to establish an acceptable definition of ecologically responsible consumers; determine whether or not they exist; and if they do exist, define their demographic and personality characteristics and how they can be identified. Since certain selected demographic and personality variables are already in use, this study also attempts to discover how these personality scales are related to one another and to other demographic variables. This chapter is divided into eight sections and deals with the definition of ecologically responsible consumers, dependent and independent variables, sample design, sample selection, the instruments used, and methods of analysis. The first section provides the definition of ecologically responsible consumers. The second and third investigate the nature of the dependent and independent variables. The fourth discusses the choice of the sample size and the method of selecting the sample. The fifth section lists the testable hypotheses, and the sixth deals with questionnaire design, interpretation, and administration. The seventh describes the instruments used in the analysis, and the last section summarizes the entire chapter. 39 40 Ecologically Responsible Consumers: Definition The respondents in this study are classified into two behavioral groups: (1) ecologically responsible consumers (ERCs) and (2) non— ecologically responsible consumers (NERCs). Three criteria are used as the basis for the classification. First, are the respondents 22232 of an ecological problem connected with the products that they buy or use? Questions about aware— ness include the following: Do they know that high phosphate detergents pollute rivers and streams? Are they aware that setting a low home heating temperature would conserve energy for future use? Do they know that buying soft drinks in returnable containers helps eliminate solid wastes pollution? Do they realize that leaded gasoline is harm- ful to man? Second, do the respondents take ecologically responsible actions with respect to the products that they buy or use because they are aware of their ecological problems? If they know that phosphates pollute the rivers and streams, do they then buy low phosphate deter- gents? If they are aware of the need to conserve energy, do they lower their home heating temperature? If they are concerned with eliminating solid wastes pollution, do they buy returnable soft drink containers? Do they buy unleaded gasoline because they realize that lead in the atmosphere is harmful to man? This second criterion ensures that consumers are considered to be ecologically responsible only if they buy or use products that are ecologically wholesome because they are aware of their ecological implications. Those consumers who buy low phosphate detergents or use unleaded gasoline because they are less expensive or because they prefer the product are 41 not included in the analysis, for they are not buying or using the products because of their ecological awareness. Third, do the respondents demonstrate ecologically consistent behavior? In a strict sense, ecologically consistent behavior by the consumer includes all his (her) purchase activities. Thus, respondents who buy low phosphate detergents to prevent water pollution, but who also consume excessive energy and/or who use disposable soft drink bottles are not consistent in their ecological behavior. Whatever good they do by preventing water pollution is negated by their abuse of the environment through their other purchase activities. Using this strict definition, ecologically responsible consumers must satisfy all three of the above criteria: (1) awareness of an ecological problem, (2) ecologically responsible behavior, and (3) an ecologically consistent pattern of behavior. 0n the other hand, nonecologically responsible consumers are those who do not satisfy one or more of the above criteria. Thus, nonecologically responsible consumers might buy low lead gasoline or low phosphate detergents, but if they are not aware of the ecological problem(s) associated with these products, they are not considered ecologically responsible. Also, consumers who are aware and who act to protect the environment in some but not all purchases or uses of products are still not considered ecologically responsible because they may negate whatever good they do for the environment by being ecologically irresponsible in other areas. It might be argued that requiring a consumer to be totally consistent in his behavior is unrealistic, for we live in an imperfect world with imperfect information. Some consumers might not know the ecological impact of their actions or might believe that what they are 42 doing is ecologically sound. For example, some people might actually believe that energy conservation is unnecessary because the energy crisis is an artificial problem instigated by oil companies to enrich themselves, while energy is, in fact, abundant. Also, some people might use high phosphate detergents because they believe that the low phosphate varieties are actually harmful to the environment. In essence, if one adopts a less stringent definition of ERCs, a more "reasonable" proportion of ERCs is to be expected. But to what extent should the definition be relaxed, if at all? If the definition is too broad and too vague, one is liable to "create" ERCs rather than determine objectively whether or not they really exist and in what proportion they are of the entire population. What is a "reasonable" definition of an ERC? The problem might not be insurmountable if consumers are con- ceived of as being ranked along an ecological responsibility continuum. At one end are consumers (NERCs) who are unaware of an ecological prdblem and who do not buy or use even 223 product in an ecologically responsible manner. At the other end of the continuum are the ecologi- cally responsible consumers (ERCs), who are aware of an ecological problem and who act in an ecologically responsible manner for all the products that they buy or use. Thus two factors are involved in the scale, ecological awareness and ecologically responsible buying behavior. Figure 3.1 illustrates this continuum. In a more realistic manner, using the majority rule ERCs could be defined as those who are aware of the ecological problems associated with the products that they buy or use and act in an ecologically responsible manner for at least 50 percent of the products that they buy or use. Then NERCs would be those consumers who do not 43 NERCs ERCs 02 50% 100% : - ~ -- : 1' IF A\ [k These consumers are These consumers are These consumers are ecologically unaware ecologically aware ecologically aware and act in an and act in an and act in an ecologically irre— ecologically respon- ecologically sponsible manner in sible manner in half responsible manner all the products that of the products that in all of the they buy or use. they buy or use. products that they buy or use. Figure 3.1 The Ecological Responsibility Continum. satisfy the awareness criterion and/or the ecologically responsible buying behavior criterion for at least 50 percent of the product purchases. An illustration involving the four products used in this study should clarify the above definitions. Respondents who buy low phos— phate detergents and returnable soft drink containers because they are concerned about the ecology are considered to be ecologically responsible even if they use leaded gasoline and maintain their home heating temperature at an excessive level (above 68°F), for they are ecologically responsible in at least 50 percent of their consumption 44 behavior (two out of four products). Nonecologically responsible consumers, on the other hand, might buy or use one of the four products in an ecologically responsible manner, but they are considered to be irresponsible because they consume the other three products (over 50 percent of their purchase activities) in an ecologically irresponsible manner 0 Dependent Variables Ecologically responsible behavior is the primary dependent variable in this study and is measured in terms of consumer behavior in four product categories: (1) laundry detergents, (2) soft drinks, (3) energy, and (4) gasoline. Each was chosen from an array of products such as paper towels, meat trays, and frozen foods. The reasons for choosing four products are as follows: (1) Fewer than four products would represent too small a number to measure ecological consistency of behavior. (2) More than four products would necessitate an extremely lengthy interview, and it was felt that cooperation by respondents would be hampered. Phosphates in laundry detergents have been the target of environmentalists' complaints and of governmental legislation. The issue of returnable containers and recycling has received extensive publicity. Energy conservation, particularly in the face of the energy crisis, is still receiving governmental attention. Finally, lead in gasoline has been an important issue for environmentalists and government and has led to the use of low lead or no lead gasoline. Each of the four products is discussed below. 45 Laundry'Detergents In this research consumers who are aware that phosphates in laundry detergents pollute the environment and who buy low phosphate detergents for this reason are considered to act in an ecologically responsible manner. There has been much controversy concerning the use of phos- phates in laundry detergents. Phosphates are detrimental to rivers and streams because they increase the rate of eutrophication.1 Eutrophication is a natural growth and aging process during which aquatic systems acquire nutrients such as phosphorous, nitrogen, and carbon in fixed proportions. When phosphorous is introduced into the water systems through sewage and runoffs, algae growth is encouraged. Consequently, algae die and then decay. The increased number of decay bacteria uses up deepdwater oxygen so critical for such species as fish and crustaceans. Further decay produces foul- smelling compounds. Sutton and Harmon note that "by simply adding nutrients, man can change a relatively clear lake into a foul-smelling, swamplike body of water thick with algae scums and decaying vegatation."2 Soft Drink Bottles Consumers who buy returnable soft drink bottles because of their ecological implications rather than nonreturnable containers are v a V ‘V VV “ ‘V 1David B. Sutton and N. Paul Harmon, Ecolggy: Selected Concepts (New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1973). 21b1d. ’ p. 119. 46 considered, in this research, to be ecologically responsible. The use of throw—away bottles and cans is a source of solid wastes pollution. Even though a number of these nonreturnable con- tainers are being reprocessed through recycling centers,3 the majority are used only once and thrown away. Returnable soft drink bottles, which existed before most throwaways, are considered inconvenient by many consumers. Returnable bottles often require a deposit at purchase and must be taken back to the store. Nonreturnable containers are obviously more convenient, although wasteful. Unless recycling becomes more popular, consumers who buy soft drinks in throwaway containers normally contribute to solid wastes pollution. Energy In this research, ecologically responsible energy consumption is measured in terms of home heating temperature. Consumers who, during the past winter, set their thermostats at or below 68°F in order to conserve energy are considered to have behaved in an ecologically responsible manner. A serious concern today is rapidly depleting energy sources such as oil, coal, and gas, or what are termed fossil fuels. Alter- native sources, such as nuclear and solar energy are being explored, but it will be some time before these kinds of energy can be produced in sufficient quantities for the earth's population. By conserving energy, consumers can contribute to the environment by buying the time .v if V f w 3William G. Zikmund and William J. Stanton, "Recycling Solid wastes: A Channels of Distribution Problem," Journal of Marketing 35 (July 1971) : 34-39 . 47 necessary to develop alternative energy sources. A more serious energy problem which has not received much publicity is the amount of heat dissipated into the atmosphere. Sutton and Harmon have commented: Regardless of the source and means of generating external power, we still face the basic fact of thermodynamics that virtually all energy generated finally ends up as heat. As G. Tyler Miller puts it, 'The limitation of energy consumption in the next 30 to 100 years does not seem to lie in any critical shortage of resources but in the impact on the environment of using these resources.‘ ....But here it is important to realize that the ultimate pollutant is heat! If the amount of heat dissipated into the atmosphere by man's activities reaches 1 percent of the solar radiation normally received, disastrous climatic changes could occur. At the present rate of increase (approximately 5 percent) in world consumption, this level will be reached in less than a century. Thus, we might say that the factor limiting future growth in the rate of energy consumption is the Second Law of Thermo— dynamics.4 Thus, even if the problem of exhaustible energy resources is solved, the greater problem of heat and its serious consequences on climatic conditions remains. Conservation of energy, therefore, is even more imperative if mankind is to survive. Gasoline Consumers who use low lead gasoline and who also recognize the effects of lead on the environment are considered ecologically responsible in this study. Conversely, consumers who gggld_use low lead gasoline but who do not, and/or those who use such gasoline but who are unaware of its ecological implications, are considered ecologically irresponsible. W. v Vv~ ‘ Vfi V‘vvwv "Sutton and Harmon, Ecology, p. 84. 48 The effects of lead from gasoline consumption have received much publicity from environmentalists and governmental agencies. Furthermore, low lead gasoline is available in most service stations in Royal Oak, Michigan, where this study was conducted. Thus it is relatively easy for consumers to buy low lead gasoline if they wish to. ‘In summary, the four dependent variables chosen for this study are (1) laundry detergents, (2) soft drinks, (3) energy, and (4) gasoline. In addition to these, several independent variables are included, and these will be examined below. Independent Variables As mentioned in Chapter 2, traditional segmentation using demographic variables is descriptive and does not emphasize causal factors. The concern in this dissertation is with predicting future buying behavior. The method used considers not only demographic variables but also personality factors and concern for the ecological behavior being studied. Four personality scales were used in this study to gather data about personality factors: (1) Social Responsibility Scale (SRS); (2) Concern for Environmental Rights Scale (CERS); (3) Opinion Leadership Scale for Packaged Food Products (OLSP); and (4) Opinion Leadership Scale for Automobiles (OLSA). Data about demographic variables, including age, income, education, and socioeconomic status, also were collected. Earlier investigations of socially responsible consumers used similar demographic variables. Although the findings were not totally in agreement, social status and 49 education generally were found to vary directly with consumer scores on the SRS. Younger consumers tended to be more socially responsible. Income, although expected to be important in distinguishing socially responsible from irresponsible consumers, has so far proved to be insignificant. Social Responsibility Scale (SRS) The SRS was originally devised by Harris to compare the attitudinal responses of school children having a reputation for social responsibility with those who did not.5 Further tests conducted on an older population sample validated the use of the Harris measure with adults. Berkowitz and Lutterman further refined the Harris scale into an abbreviated eight-item Social Responsibility Scale, which provided a very satisfactory internal consistency.6 The refined scale was used in this study. Anderson and Cunnintham felt that consumers who scored well on the SRS would also manifest social consciousness in consumption decisions. They also tested the relationship of the SRS to certain selected demographic and personality variables. In a further study by Anderson, Henion, and Cox, socially responsible consumers were compared with ecologically responsible consumers. As mentioned earlier in Chapter 2, this latter study found that socially responsible consumers were more traditional in comparison to ecologically responsible consumers fifi 5Dale B. Harris, "A Scale for Measuring Attitudes of Social Responsibility," Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology 47 (November 1957): 322—26. 6Leonard Berkowitz and Kenneth G. Lutterman, "The Traditional Socially Responsible Personality," Public Opinion Quarterly 32 (Summer 1968): 169—85. 50 who did not adhere to traditional norms and values.7 This study attempts to validate the findings of the above mentioned research regarding the SRS and its relationship to ecologically responsible consumers. Test for relationships between the following demographic variables were also conducted in this study: (1) age, (2) education, (3) social status, and (4) family income. Concern for Environmental Rights Scale (CERS) The CERS was developed by Dunlop, Gale, and Rutherford to deter— ‘mine the attitudes of college students regarding environmental issues, particularly those related to: (1) conservation of natural resources, (2) prevention of pollution, and (3) control of population growth.8 The CERS consists of eight statements, and consumers are asked to state the extent of their agreement or disagreement with each of the statements on a seven—point scale, with one being the least concerned and seven being the most concerned. The scores are totaled with 8 being the lowest possible score and 56 the highest. In this study a five- point scale was used to make it consistent with the SRS, which uses a five-point scale. Gale and Rutherford "used several quantitative techniques to assess the appropriateness of combining the items into a scale [split-half reliability - 0.76]," and they concluded that it i v" v vw ‘Vvq‘vwvv V “w 7W. Thomas Anderson, Jr., and William H. Cunnintham, "The Socially Conscious Consumer," Journal oijarketingy36 (July 1972): 23-31; W. Thomas Anderson, Jr., Karl E. Henion, and Eli P. Cox III, "Socially vs. Ecologically Responsible Consumers," Combined Proceedings, edited by Ronald C. Curhan, Series No. 36 (Chicago: American Marketing Association, 1975), pp. 304-11. 8Riley E. Dunlop, Richard P. Gale, and Brent M. Rutherford, "Concern for Environmental Rights Scale Among College Students," American Journal of Economics and Sociology 32 (January 1973): 45—60. 51 "seems appropriate to treat the eight items as a unidimensional scale."9 An important aspect of this scale is the use of statements with conflicting issues. For example, respondents are asked to choose between more jobs along with pollution or fewer jobs but less pollution. They are also asked to choose between having as many children as they wish and having the government discourage them from having more children. It was felt that the ecologically responsible consumers would choose in favor of ecology. Two statements in the eight-item CERS were similar to the Opinion Research Corporation opinion poll,10 which focused on attitudes toward pollution and attitudes toward employment versus pollution. The ORC found that in 1971 a large proportion (45 percent nationally and 41 percent in the Midwest) of consumers favored closing down a plant if it caused severe pollution even if their neighbors worked in that plant.11 The same demographic variables used to test for relationships with the SRS were used for the CERS: (1) age, (2) education, (3) social status, and (4) annual family income. Although the original CERS study by Dunlop, Gale, and Rutherford did not consider specifically the profiles of the subjects, it did allude to the fact that college students, who are generally younger and have more education, would prdbably score better than the public at large. .VwVwVVV-vwvw V-V“V“ww“ 91bid., p. 51. 10Hazel Erskine, "The Pollution and Industry," Public Opinion Quarterly (Summer 1972); 280. llIbid., p. 280. 52 Opinion Leadership Scales (OLSP and OLSA) It was noted earlier that opinion leaders may be more ecologic- ally responsible than those who are not opinion leaders. In order to determine who these leaders are, King and Summers developed an opinion leadership scale by refining an original six-item scale developed by Rogers. The King and Summers revision omitted the word "new" in order to remove the bias in favor of innovators, added questions, and changed the order of the questions.12 In the original Rogers scale a split- half reliability of .70 was reported by Rogers and Cartano.13 In the present sutdy, opinion leadership with respect to packaged food products (LSP) and automobiles (OLSA) was tested. The choice of these two types of products was deliberate. First, it is useful to compare any overlap of opinion leadership between durable and nondurable goods. Second, both product categories are a source of pollution. Packaged food products produce solid wastes pollution, and automobiles are a major source of solid wastes and atmospheric pollution. Using Katz's and Lazarsfield's definition of opinion leadership, King and Summers defined opinion leaders as the upper 23 to 30 percent of their study.14 The range from 23 to 30 percent occurred because Opinion leadership was measured across several product categories. The present study uses 30 percent as the cut-off point for the sake of simplicity for both packaged food products and automobiles. vm .V ‘j‘ v fl ii‘ji—vfi‘ 12Charles W. King and John O. Summers, "Overlap of Opinion Leadership Across Consumer Product Categories," Journal of Marketing Research 7 (February 1970): 46. 13Everett Rogers, and David G. Cartano, "Methods of Measuring Opinion Leadership," Public Opinion Quarter1y26 (Fall 1962): 435—41. 14King and Summers, "Overlap of Opinion Leadership," p. 46. 53 Past studies commonly found social status, education, and income to be related to opinion leadership. Opinion leaders normally have higher social status than their followers and tend to be better educated and to earn higher income. SummaEy The SRS and the CERS were specifically chosen because they both attempt to recognize concerned individuals. The results of this study should further assess the usefulness of these scales as predictors of ecologically reaponsible consumers. The opinion leadership scales for packaged food products and automobiles were chosen because there is a possibility that socially and ecologically concerned consumers are Opinion leaders. The two products were chosen because they are both a cause of pollution, and also because they represent two different products types, durable and nondurable goods, and will provide information as to whether there is an overlap of opinion leadership between packaged food products and automobiles. Each of the four personality scales will also be used to validate previous findings regarding the relationship between personality and demographic variables such as social status, education, and income. Relationships between the four scales will also be tested. In the next section, a list of testable hypotheses used to analyze the data are given. 54 Testable‘Hypotheses In Chapter 1 the general hypotheses were divided into four sets. The first and most important set consists of hypotheses referring to ecologically responsible consumers. The second refers to the SRS, the third to the CERS, and the fourth to the OLSP and OLSA. The same organization is followed in this section. Furthermore, for the sake of simplicity, each of the testable hypotheses is stated in alternate form (H1) rather than in terms of a null hypothesis (H0). Ecologically Responsible Consumers (ERCs) Before stating the hypotheses, the definition of an ecologic- ally responsible consumer (ERC) must be clarified in terms of what behavior is expected of such consumers. Definition“: The ERC is both aware of an ecological problem associated with the products he (she) consumes and acts in an ecologically consistent pattern in product purchases and uses. In this study four activities and their relationship to ecology are measured. First, consumers who buy laundry detergents have a variety of products from which to choose. Ecologically responsible consumers, because they are concerned about the environment, are expected to buy low phosphate detergents which contain less than 4 percent phosphates. Second, consumers who buy soft drinks have a wide variety of choices in terms of brands and containers. Ecologic- ally responsible consumers, because they are concerned about solid wastes pollution, are expected to buy soft drinks in returnable containers more than 50 percent of the time. Third, consumers are considered ecologically responsible in terms of energy consumption if 55 they set their thermostats during the past winter at or below 68°F and also are aware of the importance of.conserving energy. The 68°F figure was recommended by President Nixon at the height of the energy crisis in 1974. Fourth, cars are a source of much pollution. Con- sumers who use low lead gasoline because of their concern for pollution are considered to be exhibiting ecologically responsible behavior. In the following pages, the general hypotheses referring to ecologically responsible consumers (ERCs) are stated first, followed by their respective testable hypotheses. General Hypothesis 1 Ecologically responsible consumers in Royal Oak, Michigan can be identified. Testable hypotheses: l. A cluster (or clusters) of ecologically responsible consumers exists whose members receive above average scores on the ecological behavior measures. 2. Ecologically reSponsible consumers exhibit similar demographic and personality characteristics that distinguish them from nonecologically responsible consumers. 3. Membership in the ecologically responsible cluster (or clusters) can be predicted using discriminant analysis. General Hypothesis 2 Ecologically responsible consumers in Royal Oak, Michigan are socially reSponsible.15 Testable hypothesis: 4. There is'a statistical difference in the distribution of ecological behavior between those respondents with above average SRS scores and those with below average SRS scores.r 5Socially responsible consumers receive above average scores in the Social Responsibility Scale. 56 General Hypothesis 3 Ecologically responsible consumers in Royal Oak, Michigan are 16 Testable hypothesis: concerned with environmental rights. 5. There is a statistical difference in the distribution of ecological behavior between those respondents with above average CERS scores and those with below average CERS scores. General Hypothesis 4 Ecologically reaponsible consumers in Royal Oak, Michigan are opinion leaders.17 Testable hypotheses: 6. There is a statistical difference in the distribution of ecological behavior between those respondents who score in the upper 30 percent of the OLSP and those who score in the lower 70 percent of the OLSP. 7. There is a statistical difference in the distribution of ecological behavior between those respondents who score in the upper 30 percent of the OLSA and those who score in the lower 70 percent of the OLSA. General Hypothesis 5 Ecologically responsible consumers in Royal Oak, Michigan are younger than the average consumer in the population. Testable hypotheses: 8. There is a statistical difference in the distribution of ecological behavior between those reapondents who are older than average and those who are younger than average respondents. 9. There is a statistical difference in the distribution of ecological behavior between those respondents in house— holds where the head of the household is older than average as compared with those where the head of the household is younger than average. l6Consumers concerned with environmental rights receive above average scores in the Concern for Environmental Rights Scale. 17Opinion Leaders in this study receive scores in the upper 30 percent of the OLSP and OLSA. 57 General_Hypothesis 6 Ecologically responsible consumers in Royal Oak, Michigan are better educated than the average consumer in the population. Testable hypotheses: 10. There is a statistical difference in the distribution of ecological behavior between those respondents with above average education and those with below average education. 11. There is a statistical difference in the distribution of ecological behavior between those respondents where the head of the household has above average education and those where the head of the household has below average education. General Hypothesis 7 Ecologically responsible consumers in Royal Oak, Michigan have higher social status than the average consumer in the pOpulation. Testable hypotheses: 12. There is a statistical difference in the distribution of ecological behavior between those respondents with above average socioeconomic status scores and those with below average socioeconomic status scores. 13. There is a statistical difference in the distribution of ecological behavior between those respondents where the head of the household has above average socio- economic status scores and those where the head of the household has below average socioeconomic status scores. General Hypothesis 8 Ecologically responsible consumers in Royal Oak, Michigan are more affluent than the average consumer in the population. Testable hypothesis: 14. There is a statistical difference in the distribution of ecological behavior between those respondents with above average annual family income and those with below average annual family income. 58 General Hypothesis 9 There are more female than male ecologically responsible con— sumers in Royal Oak, Michigan. Testable hypothesis: 15. There is a statistical difference in the distribution of ecological behavior between male and female respondents. - The next group of hypotheses are related to the Social Responsibility Scale (SRS) and are concerned with the relationship between social reaponsibility and demographic and personality variables. Social Reaponsibility Scale (SRS) Respondents are considered socially responsible if they receive above average scores on the Social Responsibility Scale. The general hypotheses are stated first, followed by their respective testable hypotheses. General Hypothesis 1 Socially responsible consumers in Royal Oak, Michigan are younger than the average consumer. Testable hypothesis: 16. There is a statistical difference in the age distribution between those respondents with above average and those with below average Social Responsibility Scale scores. General Hypothesis 2 Socially responsible consumers in Royal Oak, Michigan are better educated than the average consumer. Testable hypotheses: 17. There is a statistical difference in the distri- bution of educational levels between those res- pondents with above average and those with below average Social Responsibility Scale scores. 59 18. There is a statistical difference in the distri— bution of the educational level of the household head between those respondents with above average and those with below average Social Responsibility Scale scores. General Hypothesis 3 Socially responsible consumers in Royal Oak, Michigan have higher social status than the average consumer. Testable hypothesis: 19. There is a statistical difference in the distribution of family socioeconomic status between those respondents with above average and those with below average Social Responsibility Scale scores. General Hypothesis 4 Socially reSponsible consumers in Royal Oak, Michigan are more affluent than the average consumer. Testable hypothesis: 20. There is a statistical difference in the distri- bution of annual family income between those respondents with above average and those with below average Social Responsibility Scale scores. General Hypothesis 5 Socially responsible consumers in Royal Oak, Michigan are concerned with environmental rights. Testable hypothesis: 21. There is a statistical difference in the distri- bution of the scores of respondents in the Concern for Environmental Rights Scale between those res- pondents with above average and those with below average Social Responsibility Scale Scores. General Hypothesis 6 Socially responsible consumers in Royal Oak, Michigan are opinion leaders. Testable hypotheses: 22. There is a statistical difference in the distri- bution of scores between those respondents with above average and those with below average Social Responsi- bility Scale scores on the Opinion Leadership Scale for Packaged Food Products. 60 23. There is a statistical difference in the distri- bution of scores between those respondents with above average and those with below average Social Responsibility Scale scores on the Opinion Leadership Scale for Automobiles. Concern for Environmental Rights Scale (CERS) Respondents concerned about environmental rights receive above average scores on the CERS. The general hypotheses are stated first, followed by their respective testable hypotheses. General Hypothesis 1 Consumers expressing concern with environmental rights in Royal Oak, Michigan are younger than the average consumer. Testable hypothesis: 24. There is a statistical difference in the distri- bution of age between those respondents with above average and those with below average scores on the Concern for Environmental Rights Scale. General Hypothesis 2 Consumers expressing concern with environmental rights in Royal Oak, Michigan are better educated than the average consumer. Testable hypotheses: 25. There is a statistical difference in the distri- bution of education levels between those respondents with above average and those with below average scores on the Concern for Environmental Rights Scale. 26. There is a statistical difference in the distri- bution of education levels between those respondents with above average and those with below average Concern for Environmental Rights Scale scores. 61 General Hypothesis 3 Consumers expressing concern with environmental rights in Royal Oak, Michigan have higher than average social status. Testable hypothesis: 27. There is a statistical difference in the distri- bution of family socioeconomic status between those respondents with above average and those with below average scores on the Concern for Environmental Rights Scale. General Hypothesis 4 Consumers expressing concern with environmental rights in Royal Oak, Michigan are more affluent than the average consumer. Testable hypothesis: 28. There is a statistical difference in the distri- bution of annual family income between those respondents with above average and those with below average scores on the Concern for Environ- mental Rights Scale. General Hypothesis 5 Consumers expressing concern with environmental rights in Royal Oak, Michigan are opinion leaders. Testable hypotheses: 29. There is a statistical difference in the distri- bution of scores in the Opinion Leadership Scale for Packaged Food Products between those respondents with above average and those with below average scores on the Concern for Environmental Rights Scale. 30. There is a statistical difference in the distri- bution of scores in the Opinion Leadership Scale for Automobiles between those respondents with above average and those with below average scores on the Concern for Environmental Rights Scale. 62 The last group of hypotheses are related to the Opinion Leader- ship Scales for Packaged Food Products and Automobiles (OLSP and OLSA). , General'HyPOthesis 1 Opinion leaders in Royal Oak, Michigan are better educated than nonopinion leaders. Testable hypotheses: 31. There is a statistical difference in the distri- bution of education levels between those who are opinion leaders and nonopinion leaders in the purchase of packaged food products. 32. There is a statistical difference in the distri- bution of education levels between those who are opinion leaders and nonopinion leaders in the purchase of automobiles. General Hypothesis 2 Opinion leaders in Royal Oak, Michigan have higher social status than nonopinion leaders. Testable hypotheses: 33. There is a statistical difference in the distri- bution of family socioeconomic status between opinion leaders and nonopinion leaders for packaged food products. 34. There is a statistical difference in the distri- bution of family socioeconomic status between opinion leaders and nonOpinion leaders for ' automObiles. General Hypothesis 3 Opinion leaders in Royal Oak, Michigan are more affluent than nonopinion leaders. Testable hypotheses: ‘ 35. There is a statistical difference in the distri- ' bution of annual family income between opinion leaders and nonopinion leaders for packaged food products. n 3" 0,- Hock 63 36. There is a statistical difference in the distri- bution of annual family income between opinion leaders and nonopinion leaders for automobiles. General Hypothesis 4 Opinion leaders in Royal Oak, Michigan overlap across product categories. Testable hypothesis: 37. There is a statistical difference in the distri— bution of the Opinion Leadership Scale for Packaged Food Products between those respondents who score in the upper 30 percent of the Opinion Leadership Scale for Automobiles and those who score in the lower 70 percent. Having indicated what is to be studied, the next section of this chapter is concerned with how the subjects in the study were chosen. Sample Three interrelated tasks were involved in designing the sample. First, the size of the sample was determined so that a reasonable degree of accuracy was achieved without exceeding budget constraints. Second, the sample that was to be drawn was defined. Third, the method of drawing the sample was developed. The size of the sample to be chosen primarily depends on the degree of confidence needed and the size of the tolerated error. The degree of confidence, or the assurance that the sample exhibits the actual population characteristic within a certain estimated tolerated error range, is commonly expressed in probability terms. A greater degree of confidence means greater tolerated error, and vice versa. ,Only by increasing the sample size can both be reduced. '15 ~h¢n INN: an!“ .M 64 Table 1 presents data on the maximum random sample size required for varying degrees of confidence and tolerated error. It occurs when the proportion of ERCs is 50 percent, since the variance is greatest at this rate. The actual sample size would be lower at each level of tolerated error and confidence level should the proportion of ERCs be less than or greater than 50 percent.18 A sample size of 110 was selected for this study. This number balanced reasonable costs with a maximum of 8 percent tolerated error and a confidence level of .90. Population Adults, 18 years or older, rather than heads of households, were the unit of analysis. Using 18 years of age or over is consistent with the census definition of adults, thus facilitating comparisons. It does not screen out the young who may not{head households. It should be noted, however, that a definition including those under 18 may result in conclusions that are more skewed towards ecological factors if younger people tend to be more ecologically responsible, as some studies have indicated.19 The area chosen for the study was Royal Oak, Michigan, a suburban community north of Detroit with a population of 85,718, of 18Charles H. Backstrom and Gerald D. Hursh, SPFY3¥13999§FFE. (Evanston: Northwestern University Press, 1963), p. 33. The data in Table 1 include my own estimates of a 90 percent confidence level. , 19For example, see B.A. Greenburg and R.A. Herberger, "Is There An Ecology—Conscious Market Segment?" Atlanta Economic Review (March« April 1973): 42e43; and Willard B. Platzer,'Jr:,v"An Analysis of Ecologically Motivated Consumer Purchase," Ph.D. diss., University of Arkansas, 1973. 65 TABLE 3.1 Simple Random Size for Several Degrees of Precision* Confidence Limits Tolerated 90 samples 95 samples 99 samples Error in 100 in 100 in 100 12 6,765 9,604 16,587 2% 1,691 2,401 4,147 32 752 1,067 1,843 42 423 600 1,037 5% 271 384 663 62 188 267 461 7% 138 196 339 82 106 150 259 *Enlarged from Table 1 in Charles H. Backstrom and Gerald D. Hursh, Survey Research (Evanston: Northwestern University Press, 1963), p. 33. The data in Table 1 include my own estimates of a 90 percent confidence level. 66 which 56,415 are adults. The adults (18 years or over) comprised about 66 percent of the population. Royal Oak was selected because it is a fairly large city, is accessible, and contains better educated and higher income residents. The median school years completed by persons 25 years old and over is 12.4, as compared with the national average of 12.1. Of these same people, 66.6 percent have completed four years or more of high school, compared to 54.6 percent in Michigan and 52.3 percent nationally. The average family income in Royal Oak is $14,607, compared to $12,296, in Michigan and $10,930 nationally.20 The Sample A random area sample was obtained using 1970 census data as a base. The following method of drawing the sample was chosen because it was both feasible and designed to afford accurate results.21 First, clustering was used to economize on interviewer travel time. Three adjacent housing units were included in the sample for every block that was chosen. The number of sample clusters required in this study was derived by dividing the maximum sample size of 173 by 3. Thus, the total number of sample clusters was 58. ‘w wvvw'~~v—-v‘w —‘ j.“v"fi" 20U.S. Bureau of the Censps%:Census_ofPopulationj‘hlg70, General Social and Economic Characteristics, Final Report PC(1):C24: V‘Vfi—wv‘—‘- wifi‘w wv ti“ ‘xv‘ V‘ Michigan (Washington, D. Cw.: U.S. Government Printing Office,fl972); and U. 8. Bureau of the Census, Census of Population; 1970, Detailed Characteristics, Final Report PC(1)«D1: United States Summary (washington, D. C.: U. S. Government Printing Office, 1973). 21Backstrom and Hursh, Survey Research, pp. 34-64. 67 Second, the skip interval was determined. "The interval is a systematic skipping device to ensure that sample clusters are dispersed geographically and to give each cluster a known chance to be in the 22 The skip interval was found by dividing the total number of sample." year-round housing units in Royal Oak (27,903) by the number of sample clusters (58), yielding a skip interval of 481. Third, the starting point for the first sample cluster was derived by consulting a table of random numbers and selecting a number at random, which turned out to be 119. Thus, the city block in which the 119th year-round housing unit is located became the first sample cluster. The next designated housing unit was obtained by adding to 119 the skip interval of 481 or housing unit 600. The same procedure was employed until 58 sample clusters were obtained. Fourth, the determination of the particular city block in which the sample cluster was located was accomplished by cumulating housing units until the first total greater than 119 appeared. In this study the figure was 137. The block happens to be numbered 1019.110 and consists of 25 year-round housing units. The rest of the census blocks were specified in the same manner. Fifth, the location of three housing units in the sample cluster was derived. The method used was to choose the middle unit as the designated unit (119). This was accomplished by subtracting 119 from 137, yielding 18. Since the numbers are inclusive, the number 18 represents the first housing unit and is the 18th housing unit from 22Ibid., p. 40. 68 some random point on the block. The three relevant housing units are numbered 18, 19, and 20. The middle housing unit, 19, corresponds to the designated unit (119). The starting corner was determined randomly by choosing four different single digit random numbers, 1, 4, 8, and 7. Each of these numbers were associated with a corner of a block at random: 1. Northwest corner = 1; 2. Southeast corner = 4; 3. Southwest corner = 8; and 4. Northeast corner = 7. A table of random numbers was used to determine the 58 starting corners of the sample clusters. Table 2 summarizes these data. The use of a random starting corner compensates "for additional housing units built "23 Inter- since your most recent updating of the census material. viewers can then start at a particular designated corner and continue in a clockwise direction to the designated housing units. For example, cluster 1, according to Table 3.2, begins with the southwest corner. The interviewer would count 18 housing units in a clockwise direction. The 18th housing unit would be the first unit in which there was to be an interview. The other two units would be the 19th and 20th units from the southwest corner moving in a clockwise direction. After selecting the housing unit at random, the person to be interviewed was also chosen at random. Tables were available for use by interviewers to select specific respondents. An example appears in Table 3.3. The respondents were assigned in a systematic manner to w V VV‘Vw V‘ V ‘V 23Ibid., p. 44. 69 EEEEEESSESEEE EEEEE Mm mm noouoo unannoum QQHv-Ix'fwGQQHQHHQHHNHHHHmcflwfi’HQw amggi mm mm on mm on mm mm an on me we so we no we no me He oe an an um on mm on mm NM an on '77,? .mmnuoumoao EEEEEEEEHEEE EEHEEEEEESE noouoo unannoum 7' wHfi‘I-ImI-INQNQHfi‘d’hwwfi'hwhflflhfl’wfi’hhw .02 Become 'Lrlrv. )Vlr aw an RN 0N mu cu MN Nu AN ON an ma NH 9H ma «H ma NH HH HNMQM‘DNQO‘S .oz Housman mucouoo unannoum noose: N.n wqmonon weaken oHonaoemou hHHoouonoum m .wafiumosnoaon 30H mafia: no menu» ad was uow>o£on wowhoo oaowmooemou mHHooawoaoom o .muoawmuooo oaomsuouou ca madame umom weaken no money ow was uou>osoa madman manamooeuou haaouawoaoom m .muaowuouoo manganese 36H weaken mo mason me was uoa>osoo wageso oaoamooemou maaooawoaooua H o.nH 0H mm m maufiomou .e mm m.mm mm noa o magnum: .m H H.n 5 mm m masque umom .N H o.oa ma an «nonomnoooo anonnoa .H oaowmooemom oaoamoommom uoa>ooom weaken pomp no unwoom hHHoonoaoom mos MHHoonoaoou mH oHonooemmm on: announcemom uoa>mrom waahnm Hausa amok uoa>onom hHHoowwoaoom Ho Morena yoga ouo3< ouoz 0:3 wsahom Houoa announcemom mo Hoosoz mo acquuoeoum n— T U r vim r: I; - r < . uonvoum I ill-l r ”fillL’ [H _ _ In”. _ I'll-Ir muooooum noon onu mo noon you uuaovooemom oaofimaommom haaooawoaoom mo oouuooauuman m.¢ mandfi 88 Depeooent‘Yariables Ecologically responsible behavior is the primary dependent variable in this study and is measured in terms of consumer behavior in four product categories: (1) laundry detergents, (2) soft drinks, (3) energy, and (4) gasoline. Each was chosen from an array of products such as paper towels, meat trays, and frozen foods. The reasons for choosing four products are as follows: (1) Fewer than four products would represent too small a number to measure ecological consistency of behavior. (2) More than four products would necessitate an extremely lengthy interview, and it was felt that cooperation by respondents would be hampered. Phosphates in laundry detergents have been the target of environmentalists' complaints and of governmental legislation. The issue of returnable containers and recycling has received extensive publicity. Energy conservation, particularly in the face of the energy crisis, is still receiving governmental attention. Finally, lead in gasoline has been an important issue for environmentalists and the government which has led to the use of low lead or no lead gasoline. Each of the four products is discussed below. Laundry Deteggents Table 4.3 points out the surprising fact that almost all respondents bought laundry detergents without considering the impact of phosphates on the environment. Of the 77 respondents who reported buying detergents, only 13 (16.9 percent), a very small proportion, bought low phosphate detergents. Moreover, only one respondent can be considered an ecologically responsible consumer in the strict sense, 89 being the only one to mention concern for the environment as a reason for purchasing low phosphate detergents. The other 12 respondents who bought such detergents did so without considering the ecological impact. Their stated reasons for purchasing them was to obtain a better wash, just personal preference, and the fact that their parents used it. The results of this study concerning low phosphate detergents are contrary to Platzer's findings relevant to a study of ecologically responsible consumers in Fayetteville, Arkansas. Nineteen percent of his respondents, compared to only one percent in this study, bought low phosphate detergents and were also aware of the ecological impact of phosphates.1 There are several possible reasons for this discrepancy. First, Michigan consumers, if they are aware of state requirements, might feel that since Michigan law restricts the phosphate content in laundry detergents to no more than 8.7 percent, the impact of phosphates is minimal. Second, concern over phosphates in 1972, the year of Platzer's study, seems to have been higher than it was in 1974, when this study was conducted. In 1974, people in Royal Oak seemed con- cerned with a soaring unemployment rate and general economic conditions rather than.with the problem of phosphates in detergents. Third, Platzer's direct questions about ecological issues reminded his respondents about the importance of ecological behavior, which might have biased the reaponses received. In any case, the main finding in 1'Willard B. Platzer, Jr., "An Analysis of Ecologically Motivated Consumer Purchase," Ph.D. diss., University of Arkansas, 1973, p. 41. 90 both studies is that the proportion of ecologically responsible consumers of detergents was small. Detergent purchasers did not seem to be concerned with environmental impact. Soft Drinks In the purchase of soft drinks, the overwhelming majority of respondents behaved in an ecologically irresponsible manner. They bought soft drinks in nonreturnable containers. Only 7 of 98 res- pondents, or 7.1 percent, bought soft drinks in returnable containers. More interesting is the fact that only one of these 7 acknowledged buying soft drinks in returnable containers because of a desire to protect the environment. The other 6 reported that they did so to save money. The findings of previous studies were contradicted by the results of this research. One previous researcher found that 20 percent of his respondents bought returnable bottles because they were concerned about the ecology.2 This survey indicates that, in the strict sense of total or for that matter even partial consistency of ecologically responsible behavior with regard to soft drink purChases, virtually no ecologically responsible respondents were found. Two conjectures may be offered to explain the low percentage reported here. First, several major supermarket chains in the Royal Oak area do not carry any returnable containers. Thus, consumers shopping at these chains are not willing to accept the inconvenience of going elsewhere for their soft drinks. Yet, truly concerned consumers 2Ibid., p. 41. 91 might well go out of their way to buy from stores offering returnable containers. Second, consumers who buy soft drinks in nonreturnable containers are not necessarily acting in an irresponsible manner in the event that they recycle the containers. However, previous research indicates that there is a very high probability that nonreturnable containers will not be recycled.3 Home Heating Temperature Roughly one out of every four respondents in this study behaved in an ecologically responsible manner by maintaining their home heating temperature at or below 68°F. This is a surprisingly large proportion considering that these same respondents were ecologically irresponsible in their purchase of laundry detergents and soft drinks. This relatively larger proportion may be attributed partly to the energy crisis of 1974. At that time President Nixon and govern- mental and industrial sources appealed to the populace to lower their home heating temperature. In addition, however, heating costs increased dramatically during the winter of 1974. Thus, consumers who lowered their temperature may have done so primarily to save money rather than to conserve fuel for the nation. While interviewers did try to probe and determine why consumers set low temperatures, from the results it proved very difficult indeed to try to separate the two objectives. But in most cases, those consumers who maintained a lower heating temperature mentioned their concern about the energy crisis. 3Arsen J. Darnay,-Jr., "Throwaway Packages--A Mixed Blessing," in Consumerism: Search for the Consumer Interest, edited by George S. Day, 2nd edition (New York: The Free Press), pp. 402-412. 92 Low Lead Gasoline Virtually none of the respondents in this study used low lead gasoline because of a concern about pollution. Although 10 out of 59 respondents, 17.0 percent, used low lead gasoline, only one mentioned concern with pollution. Four respondents mentioned that they used unleaded gasoline because of the automobile manufacturer's requirements. However, during interview probes, none of the four ever mentioned ecological factors. The 5 remaining respondents reported using low lead gasoline because it was cheaper or available. They, too, did not report concern with the impact of lead on the environment. It is further interesting to note that almost 40 percent of the respondents believed that they could not use low lead gasoline in their automobiles. This indicates that if one merely assumes that a consumer who does not use low lead gasoline is ecologically irresponsible, one may well neglect a rather sizeable group of people who think that their cars are not equipped to use it. It would be erroneous to consider that actions of such consumers as ecologically irresponsible. The virtual absence of ecologically responsible reapondents, in terms of the use of low lead gasoline, contradicts the findings of previous research. For example, 39 percent of the reSpondents in one study were found to be ecologically responsible because they used low lead gasoline." However, this rather sizeable discrepancy may be explained in terms of two sets of factors: what was measured and the environmental situation. 4Platzer, "Ecologically Motivated Consumer Purchase," p. 41. 93 While this research dealt with the actual use of low lead gasoline, previous studies measured intent, rather than actual usage. This constitutes a significant difference, and the consumer behavior literature points to many discrepancies between actual behavior and intent. From an environmental perspective it should be recalled that concern about low lead gasoline was relatively low in 1974, when this study was conducted. More attention was directed toward economic issues such as high unemployment rates, high inflation, rising interest rates, rising prices, and the severity of the recession. Identifying a Group of Ecologically Responsible Consumers Once the number of respondents that both behave in an ecologic- ally responsible manner and are aware of the ecological impact of their behavior was obtained, the next step was to determine whether the research findings permit identification of a group of ecologically reaponsible consumers. Table 4.4 summarizes the results of the data analysis. In Table 4.4, the respondents are classified into four groups, depending on whether the respondents bought or used one, two, three or all four products. The number of ecologically reSponsible respondents is then tabulated for each group. The result was quite remarkable. Eighty-one out of 107 reSpondents did not so much as buy or use even lkproduct in an ecologigally responsible manner. Twenty-four respondents bought or used only 1 product in an ecologically responsible manner. Only 2 respondents were classified as acting in an ecologically responsible manner for 2 products. 94 SH 3 3 2 m 3.523%: mo snag H33 0|. W3 I II I 33695 usom .m o o o muosvoum dough .q N N o o 3268s 2a. .m «N w NH q o uosvoum 0:0 .N am an on Ha m uosvoum 02 .H Hmuoa muusvoum usom muosvoum mossy muoswoum 038. ,uoswoum.mso manwmsommmm , mHHwUHwoaoum mum: muswvaoawom com: no unwsom 0:3 musmvsommmm mo Honesz. sowaz How muuswoum mo Honsbz . muosvoum much was puma no unwson 0:3 musovsommom manamsommum maamuawoaoom mo Honssz ¢.¢ mgm . Hones: mumavmlfinu mau now mumsvmlaso mammnuomhm mSHm> moswowmaswfim moanuaum> zuHHmsomuom can uasmuuwosun vmuumHom was mawom huaafinamsonmmm Hmauom new so mououm smmsuwn maHnmsoaumHom woumum m.q MAQ cosmoHMstHm moHanuo> huHHmsomumm was oHsmmuwosoq vouooHom was onom wuanm HousoasouH>sm you sumosou was so mouoom soosuon mmHnmsOHumHuM possum o.¢ mqm Hones: mumnvthso was you mumsvmlHno mHmmsuomhm osHm> ousmoHMstHm r '7 7 7 P VIP moHpsHuob wouooHom was nauseoum voom cowmxomm How onom aHnmuownoH sOHsHao onu soosuop moHnmsOHumHmm voumum h.¢ MHm Hones: mumsvmlHnu was How oussumlHnu mHmonuoeam osHm> oosm0HMstHm [4 mmemHum> oHnawuwoaon vmuoonm was noHHAOEOus< How mHoom oHnmuovmoH sOHano onu soosuon mmHSmsOHuwHQm wouuum m.e mqq z 4r I’ v..- ---.- N 18, 19, and 20th housing units 146 BIBLIOGRAPHY BIBLIOGRAPHY Adler, Cy A. "Differing Views: The Environmental Pollution Problems." Journal of Environmental Systems 4 (1974): 251-256. Adler, Lee. "Can Attitudes Predict Customer Behavior?" In Proceedings of the 1966 World Congress. Chicago: American Marketing Association, 1966. Anderberg, Michael R. Cluster Analysis for Applications. New York: Academic Press, 1972. Anderson, W. Thomas, Jr. "Identifying the Convenience-Oriented Consumer." Journal of Marketing 8 (1971). Anderson, W. Thomas, Jr., and Cunningham, William.H. "The Socially Conscious Consumer." Journal of Marketing. 36 (1972): 23-31. Anderson, W. Thomas; Henion, Karl E.; and Cox, Eli P. III. "Socially vs. Ecologically Responsible Consumers." In 1974 Combined Proceedings Series No. 36. Chicago: American Marketing Association, 1974. Babbie, Earl R. Survey Research Methods. Belmont, California: Wadsworth Publishing Company, Inc., 1973. Backstron, Charles H., and Hursh, Gerald D. Survey Research. Evanston: Northwestern University Press, 1963. Bass, Frank M.; Tigert, Douglas J.; and Lonsdale, Ronald T. "Market Segmentation: Group Versus Individual Behavior." Journal of Marketing Research 5 (1968): 264-270. Bettman, James R.; Capon, Noel; and Lutz, Richard J. "Multi-attribute Measurement Medals and Multiattribute Attitude Theory: A Test of Construct Validity." Journal of Consumer Research 1 (1975): 1-15 0 Berkowitz, Leonard, and Lutterman, Kenneth G. "The Traditionally Socially Responsible Personality." Public Opinion Quarterly 32 (1968): 169-185. 147 148 Brennan, Matthew J. "Total Education for the Total Environment." The Journal of Environmental Education 6 (1974): 16-19. Darling, John R. "Consumer Perception of the Pollution Problem: A Research Study." Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Southern Marketing Association. November, 1971. Darnay, Arsen J., Jr. "Throwaway Packages - A Mixed Blessing." In Consumerism: Search for the Consumer Interest, edited by George S. Day, 2nd edition. New York: The Free Press, 1974. Davis, Craig B., and Surls,Fred. "Community-oriented Environmental Education." The Journal of Environmental Education 4 (1972): 7-9 s Dunlap, Riley E.; Gale, Richard P.; and Rutherford, Brent M. "Concern for Environmental Rights Scale Among College Students." American Journal of Economics and Sociology 32 (1973): 45-60. Eisenbeis, Robert A., and Avery, Robert B. Discriminant Analysis and Classification Procedures: Theory and Applications. Lexington, Mass.: Lexington Books, 1972. Erskine, Hazel. "The Polls: Pollution and Industry." Public Opinion gosrterly (Summer, 1972): 263-280. Fishbein, Martin. "A Consideration of Beliefs, and Their Role in Attitude Measurement." In Readings in Attitude Theory and Measurement. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1967. Fishbein, Martin. "An Investigation of the Relationship between Beliefs About an Object and the Attitude Toward That Object." Human Relations 16 (1963): 223-240. Fishbein, Martin. "Attitude and the Prediction Of Behavior." In Readings in Attitude Theory and Measurement. Edited by Martin Fishbein. New York: John Wiley 8 Sons, Inc., 1967. Fritzsche, David J. "The Environmental Consistency of Consumer Purchases." In 1974 Combined Proceedings Series No. 36, edited by Ronald C. Curhan. Chicago: American Marketing Association, 1974. Cable, Frank. The Third Force. New York: Simon and Schuster, Inc., Pocket Books, 1971. Graham, David L. and Kalman, Sumner M. "Lead in Forage Grass from a Suburban Area in Northern California." Environmental Pollution 7 (1974): 209-215. 149 Greenburg, B.A., and Herberger, R. A. "Is There an Ecology Conscious Market Segment?" Atlanta Economic Review March-April (1973): 42-430 Haley, Russel I. "Benefit Segmentation: A Decision-Oriented Tool." Journal of Marketing 32 (1968): 30-35. Harris, Dale B. "A Scale for Measuring Attitudes Of Social Responsibility." Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology 47 (1957): 322-26. Howard, John A., and Sheth, Jagdish N. The Theopyiof Buyer Behavior. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1969. "Interview: Professor Stern on Air." Environmental Science and Technology 9 (1975): 507-510. Kassarjian, Harold J. "Incorporating Ecology into Marketing Strategy: The Case of Air Pollution." Journal of Marketing 35 (1971): 61-65 0 Kassarjian, Harold H. "Personality and Consumer Behavior: A Review." Journal of Marketing Research 8 (1971): 409-418. Kassarjian, Harold H., and Sheffet, Mary Jane. "Personality and Consumer Behavior: One Mbre Time." Mimeographed. Los Angeles, California: University of California, Los Angeles, 1975. Kelley, Eugene J., and Harvey, James W. "The Poverty of Time, Spatial Considerations, and Buyer Behavior." Managerial Marketing: Policies, Stratsgies and Decisions. Edited by Eugene J. Kelley and William Lazar. Homewood, Illinois: Richard D. Irwin, Inc., 1973. . King, Charles W. and Summers, John O. "Overlap of Opinion Leadership Across Consumer Product Categories." Journal of Marketing Research 7 (1970): 43-50. Kinnear, Thomas C. et a1. "Ecologically Concerned Consumers: Who Are They?" Journal of Marketing 38 (1974): 20-24. Kinnear, Thomas C., and Taylor, James R. "The Effect of Ecological Concern on Brand Perceptions." Journal of Marketing Research May (1973): 191-197. Kohut, Andrew. "Some Observations on Social Indicators and Marketing Decisions." Paper presented at the First Annual Social Indicators Conference. Washington: American Marketing Association, 1972. 150 Kotler, Philip. Marketing Management: Analysis, Planning, and Control. 2d ed. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1972. Lazer, William. "Life Style Concepts and Marketing." In Proceedings, Winter Conferenos, Chicago: American Marketing Association, 1963. Lessig, Parker V. Personal Characteristics and Consumer Buying Behavior: A Multidimensional Approach. Pullman: washington State University Press, 1971. Matthews, Jean. "Environmental Education and Community." The Journal of Environmental Education 6 (1974): 45-49. McClelland, David C. "Business Drive and National Achievement." In Marketing and the Behavioral Sciences, edited by Perry Bliss, 2nd edition. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, Inc., 1968. McNeal, James U. Dimensions of Consumer Behavior. New York: Appleton- Century-Crofts, 1965. Myers, James H., and Alpert, Mark I. "Determinant Buying Attitudes: Meaning and Measurement." Journal of Marketing_32, Part 1 (1968): 13-20. Office of Research and Sponsored Programs Services, Sponsored Program Information 1 (1975). wayne State University. Platzer, Willard Bruce, Jr., "An Analysis of Ecologically Motivated Consumer Purchase." Ph.D. dissertation, University of Arkansas, 1973. Reizenstein, Richard C.; Hills, Gerald E.; and Philpot, John W. "Willingness to Pay for Control of Air Pollution: A Demographic Analysis." In 1974 Combined Proceedings Series No. 36, edited by Ronald C. Curhan. Chicago: American.Marketing Association, 1974. R110, Thomas J. "Basic Guidelines for Environmental Education." The Journal of Environmental Education 6 (1974): 32-55. Robertson, Thomas S. Innovative Behavior and Communication. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc., 1971. Rogers, Everett M., and Shoemaker, F. Floyd. Communication of Innovations. New York: The Free Press, 1971. Rogers, Everett M. Diffusion of Innovations. New York: The Free Press, 1962. 151 Rogers, Everett, and Cartano, David J. "Methods of Measuring Opinion Leadership." Public Opinion Quarterly 26 (1962): 435-41. Rosenberg, Milton J. "Cognitive Structure and Attitudinal Affect." Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology 53 (1956): 367-372. Rubin, J. and Friedman, H. P. "On Same Invariant Criteria for Grouping Data." Journal of the American Statistical Association 62 (1967): 1159-1178. Ruckeyser, William Simon. "Facts and Foam in the Row Over Phosphates." In Consumerism: Search for the Consumer Interest, edited by David A. Aaker and George S. Day. New York: The Free Press, 1974. Siegel, Sidney. Nonparametric Statistics for the Behavioral Sciences. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1956. Smith, M. Brewster. "Motivation, Communications Research, and Family Planning." Creating Social Change. Edited by Gerald Zaltman et al. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc., 1972. Sturdivant, Frederick D. et al. Managorial Analysis in Marketing. Glenview, Illinois: Scott, Foresman and Company, 1970. Sutton, David B., and Harmon, N. Paul. Ecology: Selected Concepts. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1973. Tichenor, P. J. "Environment and Public Opinion." The Journal of Environmental Education 2 (1971): 38-42. Trent, John H. "How One State Teaches Environmental Education." The Journal of Environmental Educagi§h 6 (1975): 32-33. U.S. Bureau of the Census. Census of Population: 1970, Detailed Characteristics, Final Report PC(l)-Dl : United States Summary. washington, D. C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1973. U.S. Bureau of the Census. Census of Population: 1970, General Social and Economic Characteristics, Final Report PC(l)-C24: Michigan. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1972. Weiner, John M., and Dunn, Olive Jean. "Elimination of Variates in Linear Discrimination Problems." Biometrics (June, 1966): 268-275. Wells, William D., and Tigert, Douglas J. "Activities, InterSSts and Opinions." Journal of Advertising Research 11 (1971): 27-35. 152 Wilkie, William L., and Pessemier, Edgar A. "Issues in Marketing's Use of Multi-Attribute Attitude Models." Journal of Marketing Research 10 (1973): 428-441. WOrthing, Parker M.; Venkatesan, M.; and Smith, Steve. "A.MOdified Approach to the Exploration of Personality and Product Use." In Combined Proceedings: 1971 Spring_and Fall Conferences. Chicago: American Marketing Association, 1971. Zikmund, William G. and Stanton, William J. "Recycling Solid Wastes: A Channels of Distribution Problem." Journal of Marketing 35 (1971): 34-39. "IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII