The Focus Theory of Normative Conduct: Application to Pro-environmental
Jurnal:
The Focus Theory of Normative Conduct: Application to
Pro-environmental
Grocery Shopping Behaviors
Ellen Weir
A thesis
Submitted in partial
fulfillment of the
Requirements for the degree
of
Master of Science
University of Washington
2012
Committee:
Stanley Asah, Thesis Advisor
Dale Blahna
Sergey Rabotyagov
Program Authorized to Offer
Degree:
Environmental and Forest
Sciences
Note only, please reference
to source
From:
(1 Okt 2014)
University of
Washington
The Focus
Theory of Normative Conduct: Application to Pro-environmental Grocery Shopping
Behaviors
Ellen Weir
Chair of the
Advisory Committee:
Assistant
Professor Stanley Asah
School of
Environmental and Forest Sciences
Abstract
Unsustainable food
systems in the United States warrant adjusting food consumption behaviors to
help mitigate negative environmental impacts. To effectively influence
pro-environmental (‘green’) consumption behaviors, it is necessary to first
understand purchasing behaviors.
Existing research
suggests that social normative influence is an important component in encouraging
pro-environmental behavior. The Focus Theory of Normative Conduct provides insight
as to the effectiveness of social normative influence. The importance of norm
salience in affecting behavioral change is central to the focus theory of
normative conduct; injunctive and descriptive norms affect behavior in a
variety of contexts, but only if they are salient. The purpose of the present
research is to identify which components of grocery shopping behaviors are
perceived as important in lowering environmental impact and to determine what
factors contribute to consumers’ purchasing behaviors with regard to ‘green’
grocery products. In this study I investigated the role of social norms and
motivations in influencing ‘green’ grocery purchasing choices. I sought to
further the experimental findings of the focus theory of normative conduct by
identifying the most influential, and thus most salient, norms in an applied setting.
I interviewed consumers, asking respondents which behaviors are most important
in the context of ‘green’ consumption behavior. I used data from these
interviews to construct a survey that contained questions about grocery
shopping behavior, motivational factors, and descriptive and injunctive social
norms. The survey was administered to customers at selected grocery stores in
Washington State. Results indicate that social norms account for a significant
amount of green grocery shopping behavior. Specifically, personal injunctive
normative influence was a highly significant predictor of ‘green’ grocery
shopping behavior. Social injunctive norms were also significant, but the
effect was less pervasive throughout the various ‘green’ constructs.
Descriptive
normative influence was not a significant predictor. The results indicate that injunctive
norms are salient in a ‘green’ grocery shopping setting, while descriptive
norms do not appear to be salient in this particular situation. Motivational
factors (e.g., taste) were also salient predictors of ‘green’ purchasing
behaviors. These results emphasize the importance of social norms in the
context of ‘green’ consumption behavior. I offer suggestions for ways to use motivations
and social normative influence in social marketing campaigns to increase
‘green’ consumption behaviors and thereby lessen the environmental impact of
food systems.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Am extremely grateful to the many people who
helped to make this research possible. I would like to thank all the
participants who took part in the interviews and surveys that I conducted for his
research, as well as the local grocery stores who allowed me to talk to
customers.
At the University
of Washington, I would first like to thank my advisor Dr. Stanley Asah, who guided
and supported me as I designed and carried out my research project. He
challenged me to become a better researcher, helped me to identify my own
strengths and limitations, and provided me with encouragement along the way. I
would also like to thank Dr. Sergey Rabotyagov at the University of Washington
and Dr. Dale Blahna at the US Forest Service. As my committee members, they
provided valuable feedback from economic and sociological perspectives. I am
greatly appreciative of the time and effort they committed to reading and reviewing
my written work, as well as the input they provided as I conducted my study.
I would also like to thank my fellow students
in the social sciences office, who provided a welcoming and fun environment and
a sense of camaraderie that was extremely valuable during the past two years.
In particular, I would like to thank Yu-Chi (Kelly) Huang and my lab-mates Miku
Lenentine, Hanna Lee, and Caitlin Singer.
Finally, I owe
endless thanks to my wonderful family who has provided me with unconditional support
throughout all of my endeavors, educational and otherwise. Lisa Weir, Joel
Wilks, Ed Frohning, Loren Frohning, Jan Weir, and Bob Weir, your love and
support have been essential to my success and development as both a researcher
and an individual. I could not have accomplished any of this without you.
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 Focus Theory of Normative Conduct
Activation of social norms can be a powerful
tool in promoting environmentally beneficial behavior (Cialdini, 2003).
The focus theory of normative conduct
emphasizes the importance of social normative influence in affecting behavior.
A major component of the theory is the distinction between Injunctive and
Descriptive social norms. Injunctive norms specify what is typically approved
of, and therefore what ‘ought’ to be done. Descriptive norms refer to what
people actually do, and consequently provide information as to what is typical
or normal behavior (Kallgren, Reno & Cialdini, 2000). Both types of norms
influence behavior, but do not do so in all situations. A primary tenet of the
focus theory of normative conduct is the importance of norm salience in
affecting behavior. Norms are in play primarily when they are salient, and
people will act in ways that are consistent with socially acceptable behavior
only when their attention is focused on the behavior that is occurring or that
is commonly accepted (Cialdini, Reno & Kallgren, 1990). When considering
ways to affect behavior change through normative influence, the issue of norm
salience is critical. No matter how pervasive a norm is, it is unlikely that it
will affect behavior if the norm is not salient.
Experimental
studies have shed light on people’s behavior in controlled settings, but there
has been little exploration into the relative influence of the various types of
norms on pro-environmental behavior (PEB). Despite the findings of Cialdini
(2003) and Kallgren and colleagues (2000), most studies have focused on only
one type of norm at a time. There is a need for studies that examine the
differential influences, and thus saliency, of norms in particular applied
settings. People often cite reasons other than norms for their decision to
engage in ‘green’ consumption behaviors (Makatouni, 2002; Zanoli &
Naspetti, 2002), so I also wanted to explore how consumers’ stated motivations
compare to norms in influencing ‘green’ grocery purchasing behavior. Therefore,
I conducted this study to verify the relative influence of different types of
norms on ‘green’ purchasing behavior and to examine how normative influence
compares to that of other motivations. Finally, I included analysis of
demographic variables because previous research indicates that demographic
variables, particularly political ideology and income, predict ‘green’
purchasing behavior (Gilg, Barr & Ford, 2005).
Research into the
focus theory of normative conduct has yet to explore which norms are most
salient in applied settings. Most studies focus on only one norm and do not
compare the influence of different norm types on the same behavior. This
constitutes a large gap with regard to the applicability of the focus theory of
normative conduct in ‘green’ consumption settings. As such, it is important to
identify which norms are most salient in an uncontrolled setting. Research by
Cialdini (1990) indicates that whichever norm is most salient then becomes more
influential.
Presumably, then,
whichever norm is more influential is more salient. I sought to address the gap
between experimental findings and applications in the present study. Furthermore,
there has been very limited research as to the relevance of the focus theory of
normative conduct in the context of ‘green’ grocery shopping behavior. I
explored whether and to what extent social norms influence behavior in a
non-experimental grocery shopping setting. I offer ideas for future research
and recommendations for ways the findings can be used in conservation efforts
related to ‘green’ grocery purchasing behavior.
2. LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 Pro-Environmental (‘Green’) Grocery Shopping
Human behavior
plays a critical role in the current rate of environmental degradation (Arrow
et al., 1995; Jorgenson, 2003; Tilman & Lehman, 2001; Wang, Qian, Cheng
& Lai, 2000). A large part of this
comes from individual consumer choices (González, Frostell & Carlsson-Kanyama,
2011). A key question is how to promote ‘green’ grocery purchases through decreased
consumption of environmentally detrimental products and adjust grocery
shoppers’ behavior toward making purchasing choices that have a low
environmental impact. A large portion of what we consume is food and this study
focuses on consumer purchasing behaviors in grocery shopping settings.
‘Green’ buying or
‘green’ grocery shopping refers to purchasing products that are environmentally
beneficial (or not environmentally harmful) (Mainieri, Barnett, Valdero, Unipan
& Oskamp, 1997). For the purposes of this research, I focus on behaviors
that are perceived to be ‘green’ and are marketed as such. The ‘green’ grocery
shopping behaviors of particular interest for this research are purchase of
food products that are organic, raised or grown locally, not genetically
modified, and free of hormones and antibiotics. These actions can have a
significant environmental impact, do not require major lifestyle changes to
perform, and yet are not widespread (Kalafatis et al., 1999). Together, these
behaviors deal with issues that are critical with regard to preventing environmental
damage due to conventional agricultural processes.
Problems
associated with conventional agriculture include contamination from
agricultural chemicals (Pimentel & Edwards, 1982; Rabalais et al., 2002),
pollution from transportation (Kanyama & González, 2009), and food
contamination and antibiotic resistance (Schafer et al., 2007). Given their
wide-ranging nature, the above-mentioned ‘green’ grocery shopping behaviors
compose a comprehensive assessment of ‘green’ consumption.
There exists some
degree of ‘green’ grocery purchasing among consumers, and when asked why they
engage in these behaviors, individuals rate environmental protection, societal benefits,
taste, and saving money as the most salient motivators (Nolan et al., 2008;
Soil Association, 2003). Such findings appear to support the view that
education about environmental issues and promotion of environmental concern are
the best avenues for increasing green grocery purchasing. However, research
suggests that a desire to save the environment does not, in and of itself, act
as a significant motivator of green grocery purchasing (Mainieri et al., 1997).
This holds true even for those who believe that their primary motivation for
conservation is environmental concern (Nolan et al., 2008). Despite large-scale
campaigns aimed at increasing awareness and concern, a widespread increase in
‘green’ grocery purchasing among grocery shoppers has yet to occur (Kalafatis
et al., 1999). This raises the question as to what factors will be most effective
in influencing green grocery purchasing and, consequently, consumption behaviors.
2.2 Social Norms
Before laws and
regulation, compliance with socially acceptable behavior was enforced through
threat of rejection from society (Triandis, 1994). Social norms continue to be
an important part of societal function, even when laws and regulations are in
place (Posner, 1997).
In fact, social
norms often act independently of the legal system, and consequences for
deviating from social norms come from individuals’ social networks rather than
the legal system (Cialdini & Trost, 1998).
As mentioned
above, two types of norms have been shown to influence environmentally significant
behaviors. Descriptive norms involve individuals’ perceptions of what behaviors
are typically being performed and give an indication of which behaviors are
‘normal’. Injunctive norms refer to beliefs about what behaviors are socially
approved of, or what “ought” to be done (Cialdini et al., 1990; Kallgren et
al., 2000). There is a personal aspect to injunctive norms, as well as a social
component. Personal injunctive norms, also called moral norms, are related to feelings
of moral obligation and deal with personal beliefs about right and wrong (Dean,
Raats & Shepherd, 2008). Social injunctive norms refer to the rules and
expectations that come from friends and family members, as well as other
members of society (Lee, Geisner, Lewis, Neighbors & Larimer, 2008).
Kilty’s (1978)
findings provide support for the influence of injunctive norms in a study designed
to test the role of social norms on drinking behavior. Kilty measured
behavioral intentions, self-reported drinking behavior, and attitudes toward
drinking. Normative measures included 4 types of normative expectations –
personal, family, friends, and religion. In all groups studied, behavioral
intentions or self-reported drinking behavior could be predicted by normative measures.
Accurate predictions were most strongly based on personal injunctive normative beliefs.
Henry and others
(2000) investigated the influence of normative beliefs about aggression on
aggressive behaviors in elementary school classrooms. They found that direct
and indirect injunctive personal norms were significant predictors of
aggression. In older children injunctive norms affected beliefs and aggressive
behavior, while in young children beliefs alone were predicted by injunctive
norms. Classroom-level rejection of aggression was strongly positively associated
with decreased individual aggression, further illustrating the influence of
injunctive norms. Descriptive norms, however, were not found to be significant
in this study. Both of the above studies provide evidence for the strength of
injunctive norms in affecting behavior.
There is evidence
that both personal and social injunctive norms are important components in
influencing environmentally significant behavior among consumers. Previous research
indicates that personal injunctive norms influence behavioral commitment to environmental
protection, as well as beliefs about the role of industry in environmental protection
(Stern, Dietz & Black, 1986). Schultz and colleagues (2007) identified the
importance of social injunctive norms in the context of home energy use. People
gravitate towards the descriptive norm (what others are doing), even if doing
so entails increasing energy use. There is an overall tendency for people to
avoid deviating from what others are doing. However, in the case of home energy
use, Schultz et al (2007) found that invoking social injunctive norms that emphasize
social expectations to reduce energy use resulted in a decreased likelihood
that participants would increase their energy use. This was the case even when
decreasing energy use moved consumers further away from the norm of what other
participants were doing.
There is also
evidence that personal norms are a significant factor in consumers’ choices to
purchase ‘green’ products (Dean et al., 2008).
Dean and colleagues analyzed the influence of personal injunctive norms
alone and found that personal injunctive norms influenced consumers’ decisions
to purchase ‘green’ products. However, none of the researchers mentioned above explored
the effects of both personal and social injunctive norms on a single behavior.
It is important to explore the roles of personal and social norms separately,
as the influence of each may be discrepant. I addressed this issue by examining
both personal and social injunctive normative influence in the context of
‘green’ grocery shopping, so as to gain a greater understanding of injunctive
normative influence. Additionally, the ‘green’ products in the grocery study by
Dean and colleagues were limited to organic foods, specifically apples and pizza.
Organic foods are an important component of ‘green’ green grocery consumption,
but purchasing of organic foods does not represent the entirety of ‘green’
grocery purchasing. It is important to determine, as I do in the present
research, which other behaviors are considered ‘green’ and to what degree
social normative influence applies to those behaviors.
Descriptive norms
motivate behavior by providing evidence as to what actions are likely to be
effective in a given situation (Cialdini, 1990). The results of the studies
discussed above did not indicate any significant influence of descriptive norms
on behavior. However, there is evidence that descriptive social norms play an
influential role in increasing PEB for some types of environmentally
significant behavior, such as reuse of hotel towels (Goldstein, Cialdini, &
Griskevicius, 2008) and home energy use (Nolan et al., 2008).
The role of
descriptive norms in influencing behavior was explored by Cialdini, Reno, and
Kallgren (1990) in a study of littering behavior. In the study, subjects
unaware of the study walked into a parking lot that was either clean
(antilittering norm) or littered (littering norm).
Subjects littered
significantly more in a littered than in a clean parking lot and when they observed
another person litter in the parking lot. In addition, there was an increased
likelihood of littering when there were more pieces of litter in the parking
lot. This study offers strong support for the role of descriptive norms in
affecting behavior, as the presence or absence of litter, as well as the
presence or absence of another litterer, provided a strong descriptive norm as
to what other people were doing in a similar situation to that of the study
subject. The study also offers strong implications with regard to the
importance of norm salience in affecting behavior. A clean parking lot made
salient the social injunctive norm of not littering, which overshadowed the descriptive
norm for littering that was demonstrated by the littering researcher.
Goldstein and
others (2008) investigated the relationship between descriptive normative influence
and conservation behavior among hotel patrons. In an attempt to increase towel
reuse and thereby decrease water and energy consumption, hotels place signs in
rooms to encourage reuse of towels. The researchers in this study placed one of
two signs in each room. One sign encouraged people to “help save the
environment” by reusing towels. The other asked people to “join your fellow
guests in helping to save the environment” and stated that 75% of other hotel patrons
reuse their towels (descriptive norm condition). Analysis of rates of
participation in the towel reuse program showed a significantly higher rate of
reuse in the descriptive norm condition, providing another strong piece of
evidence in support of the influence of norms.
There is also
evidence that descriptive norms are effective in decreasing energy consumption.
Nolan and others (2008) found that descriptive social norms were the biggest determinant
in motivating consumers to decrease energy use, despite the fact that consumers
cited the behavior of others as the least influential factor in their choice to
use less energy. It appears that people were either unaware of the influence of
the behavior of others on their own behavior or were not willing to admit that
they performed a behavior simply because others were doing so. A large part of
this may be due to the fact that people are often reluctant to admit that they
are performing an activity primarily because others perform that activity.
However, there is evidence that people follow the lead of others even if they
are not aware that they are doing so (Pronin, Berger & Molouki, 2007). The
theory of introspection illusion provides some insight as to potential causes
for this behavioral tendency.
Introspection
illusion refers to the tendency of individuals to focus on internal information
at the expense of behavioral information in making self-assessments, but not
other-assessments (Pronin et al., 2007). Introspection illusion is a
manifestation of the fundamental attribution error, in which people overlook
situational influences (e.g., social norms) on their behavior and believe
instead that they acted based on their own internal states (Woodside, 2006).
One example, cited
by Pronin and others (2007), centers on a person’s justification for purchasing
a barbeque that is popular in their neighborhood. According to introspection
illusion, the purchaser would likely cite internal information (e.g., interest
in high Consumer Report ratings) as justification for the purchase of that
particular grill, and would deny that the behavior of neighbors influenced the
purchasing decision. In the present study, I explore consumers’ stated
reasoning for engaging in ‘green’ behavior, as well as the influence of social
norms in attempt to gain insight into the role of introspection illusion in the
context of ‘green’ grocery purchasing behavior.
Induction of
social norms has also been successful in efforts to promote smoking cessation
(Zhang, Cowling & Tang, 2011) and is shown to have a significant effect on
gambling (Larimer & Neighbors, 2003) and prejudicial behavior (Crandall,
Eshleman & O’Brien, 2002).
Given that social
norms have been shown to influence behavior a vast array of different contexts,
it is reasonable to expect that social norms could have a strong effect on
green grocery purchasing behavior as well. Based on the widespread influence of
social norms in varying situations, it is likely that grocery shoppers will
change their purchasing behavior to conform to what they believe the majority
of other people are doing, regardless of personal level of environmental
concern or knowledge about conservation.
The findings
discussed above emphasize the powerful influence of social norms and indicate
the potentially significant role that social norms could play in pro-environmental
grocery purchasing behavior as well. However, most of the previously mentioned
studies have looked at the influence of one norm individually or at social
norms as a whole. Previous research has provided very limited analysis as to
which norm has the most influence over performance of a single behavior.
Additionally, research exploring the effects of social normative influence on ‘green’
purchasing behavior is very limited. The present study, which addresses the
role of personal injunctive, social injunctive and descriptive norms in the
context of ‘green’ grocery purchasing, constitutes an important addition to the
existing social normative influence literature.
Research by
Cialdini and colleagues (1990) and Kallgren and others (2000) illustrate the difference
between descriptive and injunctive norms both in terms of the mechanisms
through which the norms are invoked and the differing effects on behavior. In
the present study I investigate the relative influence of both injunctive and
descriptive norms on grocery shoppers’ ‘green’ purchasing behavior through
survey methods and extensive statistical analysis to explore motivations and
parse out correlations between the behavior of participants and that of
important others. In addition, I explored both personal and social injunctive
norms in relation to consumption behavior. These dimensions have not yet been
explored comparatively, and it is likely that the distinction between the two
types of injunctive norms is an important one.
2.3 Motivations
Beyond the role of
social norms, there are other factors that motivate consumers to perform
environmentally significant behavior. Individual and social values that revolve
around health are often found to be influential motivating factors for
purchasing and consuming ‘green’ foods (Makatouni, 2002; Zanoli & Naspetti,
2002). Environmental concerns, animal welfare, and food enjoyment are also
important factors (Makatouni, 2002; Zanoli & Naspetti, 2002).
Consumers may also
be motivated to purchase ‘green’ products as an ego-defense and enhancement
mechanism. Ego defense and enhancement refers to strategies that individuals
use in order to maintain self-image and cope with anxiety and/or social
sanctions associated with particular behaviors (Markin, 1979; Valiant, 1992;
“Defense Mechanisms”, n.d.). There is evidence that consumers sometimes
purchase products that provide ego support or enhancement by way of supporting
a particular self-image (Woods, 1960). In a grocery shopping setting, consumers
who are concerned about their environmental or social impact may purchase
‘green’ products as a way to maintain their self-image or relieve themselves of
any guilt they feel.
Questions were
included in the present study which addressed the potential motivational impact
of ego-defense and enhancement on ‘green’ grocery purchasing behavior.
There is evidence,
however, that consumers’ expressed reasons for engaging in pro-environmental
behaviors may not be the primary reason that they engage in those behaviors.
This relates to introspection illusion (discussed above), which refers to a
general tendency to fail to recognize outside influences on one’s own behavior
(Pronin, Gilovich & Ross, 2004). This phenomenon often makes people unable
to accurately justify their behaviors. Social norms, in particular, may play a
more prominent role in influencing individuals’ behavior than consumers realize
(Sherif, 1937). As such, it is of interest to further explore the relationship
between reported motivations, social normative influence, and ‘green’ grocery
purchasing behavior, which I do in the present study.
There has been
limited focus on purchasing behavior specifically related to grocery shopping,
leading to a dearth of information concerning the effects of social norms and motivations
on pro-environmental behavior among consumers. To contribute to filling this
gap, I investigated factors that affect consumers’ engagement in green grocery
purchasing behavior.
Specifically, I
explored the role of social normative influence and motivations in the context
of ‘green’ grocery purchasing behavior.
2.4 Research Questions and Objectives
My main goal in
conducting this study was to explore the factors that influence ‘green’ grocery
purchasing behavior among consumers. Of particular interest are the roles of
social norms and motivations in encouraging green grocery purchasing behavior.
The following questions are of specific interest in this study: How well do social norms predict grocery
shoppers’ decisions to purchase and consume ‘green’ food products?
O Do personal
injunctive, social injunctive and descriptive norms uniquely predict ‘green’
grocery purchasing behaviors? What
factors motivate grocery shoppers to purchase ‘green’ grocery products?
O How does the
influence of other motivations compare to that of norms? What are the implications of the answers to
the above questions with regard to efforts to encourage ‘green’ consumption
behavior?
I used interviews
and questionnaires, followed by various analyses, to address my research
questions. I began by conducting interviews with a convenience sample of the
general public in order to develop questionnaires to test the ability of social
norms and motivations to predict ‘green’ grocery purchasing behavior. Following
completion and analysis of interviews, I developed a questionnaire to address
the research questions.
Data analysis,
described in detail below, was performed to analyze relationships between social
normative influence, motivations, and ‘green’ grocery purchasing behavior. I
used principal components analysis to reduce the data sets and assess
participants’ conceptualization of ‘green’ behavior and social normative
influence. Whether and to what extent norms and motivations predict ‘green’
grocery behavior was tested in a regression model. A second regression model
was run to test whether and to what extent social injunctive, personal injunctive
and descriptive norms predict ‘green’ grocery behavior. Finally, a third
regression model tested whether and to what extent the components of
motivations predict ‘green’ grocery behavior.
3. METHODS
3.1 Interviews
In the spring of
2011 I conducted exploratory interviews with a convenience sample of individuals
who shop for groceries (n=10). The primary function of these interviews was to understand
grocery shoppers’ construction of green grocery consumption and to use that construct
to develop a scale for measuring ‘green’ grocery consumption. There is not a standardized
scale for measuring ‘green’ grocery consumption, so input from grocery shoppers
was critical. In these interviews, I inquired about what participants believed
to be the most important green consumption behaviors, as well how they
themselves define ‘green’ consumption. I also asked participants what types of
grocery products they considered to be ‘green’, what factors encourage them to
purchase ‘green’ grocery products (motivations), and whether other people in
their life engage in ‘green’ consumption (social norms).
...
3.2 Surveys
Questionnaire
I used Likert scales to measure behavior
frequency, motivations, and social norms. I focused on behaviors related to the
purchase of different types of groceries that are considered ‘green’ or not
‘green’, including fruits, vegetables, meats, seafood, dairy, eggs, grains, and
commodity items (chocolate, coffee, and tea). While analyzing interview data it
became clear that separate scales were necessary for the purchase of fruits,
vegetables, meats, seafood, dairy, eggs, grains, and commodity items. This is
important because the types of grocery products people buy is a major outcome
variable with regard to ‘green’ grocery shopping. I also included questions
regarding demographic variables (race/ethnicity, age, income, education, and
gender).
See Appendix A for
a copy of the survey instrument.
Green Consumption Scale
The scales for fruits, vegetables, and grains
each include questions about the frequency with which respondents purchase
fruits, vegetables, and grains that are local, organic, and not genetically
modified. The scale for dairy includes questions about the frequency with which
respondents purchase dairy products that are local, organic, hormone-free,
antibiotic-free, and BST-free. Questions for the egg scale are the same as
those for the dairy scale with the addition of questions about the purchase of
eggs from hens that were certified humane raised and handled,
...
Social Norms
The social norms
scale contained questions about what the participants’ friends, family members,
and neighbors do, as well as their own normative values about ‘green’
purchasing.
Distinct questions
were developed to measure the influence of social and personal injunctive norms
and descriptive norms. The questions were adapted from survey instruments used
by Tanner and Kast (2003), Dietz and colleagues (1986), and Rimal and Real
(2005). They were adjusted to apply to ‘green’ grocery shopping behavior. There
were 21 items in the social norms scale, all of which were retained following
reliability analysis and 16 of which were retained following factor analysis.
The response options included a five-point response scale ranging from 1
(“strongly disagree”)-to-5 (“strongly agree”).
Demography
Sampling
...
...
5. DISCUSSION
5.1 Principal Components
Because there were
not any existing scales to measure ‘green’ grocery shopping, it was essential
to understand how consumers structure ‘green’ consumption. I designed a scale
based on commonly accepted ideas of ‘green’ products, according to consumers
who were interviewed for this study. Principle components analysis was
necessary to ensure that my conceptualization was consistent with that of
consumers. PCA confirmed the groupings and clarified which factors were most
strongly indicated in ‘green’ grocery shopping. This finding is important in
the context of ‘green’ consumption research because it indicates that the
behaviors cited by interviewees, and that I subsequently organized into scales,
are consistent with groupings that are designated by the large sample of
grocery shoppers who responded in this study. The consistency with which the
‘green’ components were factored indicates that the grouping of components may be
widespread and is thus likely to be an accurate representation of the
constructs. As such, application of the ‘green’ factors used in this study
would be appropriate for future research into ‘green’ grocery shopping
behavior.
The literature
regarding the effects of normative influence on behavior is more prevalent than
that on ‘green’ grocery purchasing, so there was a stronger theoretical
framework from which to construct scales to measure normative influence for
this study. Even so, social norms had not been explored in the context of
‘green’ grocery shopping, so PCA was helpful in clarifying distinctions between
the factors. It was important to see that participants grouped the normative
factors into clear categories representing personal injunctive, social injunctive
and descriptive norms. Previous research into normative influence utilized
categorical groupings based on researchers’ conceptualizations of which
behaviors fit the appropriate injunctive or descriptive normative categories
(Kallgren et al., 2000). It is important to notice that the finding from the
existing literature on experimental explorations of norms was replicated in
this study of self-reported behavior in an applied setting. Respondents’ norm
categorization was consistent with the theoretical categorization. The results
of the PCA in the present study show that, at lea in the context of ‘green’
purchasing behavior, consumers group normative constructs in a way that is
consistent with the existing theoretical framework for norm
categorization.
5.2 Social Norms
The results
confirmed that both personal and social injunctive norms predict ‘green’ grocery
purchasing behavior. The findings are consistent with previous research
indicating that injunctive norms affect environmentally significant behavior
(Dean, et al., 2008; Thøgersen, 1999; Schultz et al., 2007; Stern et al.,
1986). Personal injunctive norms refer to an individual’s belief that acting in
a particular way is right or wrong (Bamberg, Hunecke & Blöbaum, 2007; Dean
et al., 2008). Social injunctive norms refer to an individual’s perception of
what others believe is right or wrong (Lee et al., 2008). The present study
extends the applications of injunctive norms with the finding that personal
injunctive norms and social injunctive norms each uniquely predict ‘green’
purchasing behavior.
The findings of
the present research are unique in that they illustrate the distinct predictive
power of personal and social injunctive norms when applied to a single set of behaviors
in a particular setting. The difference between these two subcategories of
injunctive norms has likely implications for strategies to promote ‘green’
grocery purchasing behavior. In the current study I explored the role of
personal and social injunctive norms and found that the two norm types appear
to have a significantly different predictive power with regard to ‘green’ consumer
behavior.
Personal
injunctive norms had the strongest and most consistent influence on ‘green’ consumer
behavior. This makes sense, given the strong predictive power of environmental concern
as a motivation for ‘green’ behavior. This implies that those who place a high
value on environmental concern likely have a strong personal norm to engage in
behavior that is consistent with that concern (in this case, ‘green’ behavior).
The findings are consistent with the focus theory of normative conduct and
offer insight into ways the focus theory can be utilized in applied settings.
Given that personal injunctive norms were the most significant predictors of ‘green’
consumption behavior, it follows that they were also the most salient in this
setting.
Personal
injunctive norms may have been activated by the presence of ‘green’ food
products or, in the case of PCC and Whole Foods customers, by the act of
shopping in a store that specialized in selling ‘green’ products.
The results also
make sense in the context of the study design. Respondents were asked about
theirs and others beliefs and behaviors. It follows that their own beliefs and
behaviors would be the most salient and accessible and therefore the most
likely to be reported.
The results of
regressions conducted on each factor of ‘green’ grocery purchasing were consistent
with the results of regressions conducted on the composite score of ‘green’
grocery purchasing. Personal injunctive norms, in particular, were highly
significant throughout the various factors representing ‘green’ consumption.
Social injunctive norms were also significant predictors of ‘green’ behavior,
but the relationship was not as strong or as pervasive throughout the various
factors representing ‘green’ grocery shopping behavior. This reflects the pervasiveness
of injunctive normative influence as a predictor of ‘green’ consumer behavior throughout
multiple dimensions of the construct.
Descriptive normative influence was not a
significant predictor of ‘green’ grocery shopping behavior. Based on existing
literature, descriptive norms appear to influence environmentally significant
behavior in various domains; including littering (Cialdini et al., 1990) and
home energy use (Nolan, 2008). Based on previous findings, I expected
descriptive norms to be a significant predictor of ‘green’ grocery shopping
behavior. There are some possible explanations for why this was not the case.
First, the results indicating a significant effect of descriptive norms on PEB
were based on findings from experimental data, while the present study was
conducted in an applied setting. This concept has important implications when utilizing
the focus theory of normative conduct in applied settings.
According to the focus theory of normative
conduct, norms influence behavior only when they are salient (Cialdini et al.,
1990). In the littering and energy use studies mentioned above, subjects’
attention was directed to descriptive normative messages (behavioral or written
messages) to ensure that the norm was salient. These studies are highly
valuable in the context of isolating the effects of norm salience on behavior.
Through the findings of these studies, we have been made aware that whichever
norm is more salient (descriptive or injunctive) is more influential. It can
then be inferred that the reverse is also true: whichever norm is more influential
is also more salient. The present research furthers the applications of the
focus theory of normative conduct by utilizing the findings to identify which
norms are more influential, and thus more salient, when applied to settings
that are not experimentally controlled. Accordingly, descriptive norms do not
appear to be salient in a ‘green’ grocery shopping context, as descriptive
normative influence was not predictive of ‘green’ grocery shopping behavior.
Due to the fact that descriptive norms are not salient in this setting, social
marketing efforts could be better spent focusing on messages that target
injunctive normative influence.
It may also be the
case that the predictive power of descriptive norms was not apparent due to the
way the questions were asked. Descriptive norms may be better tested in studies
where behavior of others is visible rather than asking about the behavior of
others in previous instances.
Due to recall
error, in which people tend to inaccurately recall information from previous situations
(Wright & Pescosolido, 2002), it may be difficult for respondents to
remember what others did at the grocery store and to what extent that
influenced their own behavior.
Consequently,
perceived influence may be strongest in the moment for descriptive normative influence.
While consumers are often aware of what ‘should’ be done (injunctive norms), descriptive
norms may be salient only when they are observed. Respondents were asked to
report on the past behavior of others, and that information may not be retained
very well.
Alternatively,
grocery shoppers may be more strongly influenced by the behavior of other shoppers
than by the behavior of friends, family, and neighbors. Participants in this
study were only asked about the behavior of friends, family, and neighbors, and
not about the actions of other shoppers in the same store. It is the case with
many products that ‘green-ness’ is visible only based on stickers and in-store
labeling. Once the products are brought home, it is difficult to discern the
difference between ‘green’ and conventional products. Consequently, shoppers
may be influenced more by actions that take place in-store, as the behavior of
others and their own behaviors are more visible and obvious and therefore more
likely to conform to the requirements of descriptive normative influence.
Finally, it may be
the case that descriptive norms are simply not influential in the realm of
‘green’ grocery shopping behavior. This could be because the behavior of others
is not salient among consumers. Overall, it appears that descriptive norms
simply weren’t salient in this situation. Previous research into the focus
theory was experimental, and the descriptive norm was made obvious/salient. In
practice, the saliency may be quite different, as evidenced by the results of
this research into applications of the focus theory. It is also possible that
‘green’ grocery shopping is not yet subject to the social sanctions associated
with social normative behavior. ‘Green’ grocery shopping is still a relatively
new concept and descriptive norms therefore may not yet be influential in a
‘green’ consumption context.
5.3 Motivations
The findings regarding motivations have
implications for allocation of resources and optimization of behavior-change
techniques. Motivations had an overall positive predictive relationship with
‘green’ consumption behavior. However, motivations were not as strong of a predictor
as social norms, indicating that consumers’ behavior may be influenced more
strongly by social norms than by their own reported motivations.
Consistent with
findings from previous research (Blend & Ravenswaay, 1999; Chan, 1996),
environmental concern was a strong predictor of ‘green’ consumer behavior. This
is a logical finding, given that consumers will often act in accord with their
strongest values (Shaw & Shiu, 2003). As such, and given the results of
this study, it may be valuable to emphasize the “green-ness” of certain items.
This would provide consumers with a clear knowledge of which products align
with their values. At the same time, it will be important to target those
individuals who do not have a strong sense of environmental concern. Quality of
‘green’ items was also a significant predictor of ‘green’ grocery purchasing
behavior. This is an important finding and indicates that consumers express an
interest in ‘green’ products based on factors other than environmental concern.
Implied is the idea that consumers who do not possess a strong degree of environmental
concern may still be inclined to purchase ‘green’ items.
5.4 Demographic Variables
...
6. CONCLUSION
Current
agricultural practices contribute to environmental degradation through
pollution, deforestation, and marine and terrestrial ecosystem destruction.
Consumers, though often aware of environmental problems, generally do not take
the necessary actions to prevent further harm.
The focus theory
of normative conduct offers insight into ways in which social norms can promote
pro-environmental behavior. However, there exists limited research into the
role of the focus theory in an applied ‘green’ consumption setting. Previous
studies have also failed to examine social injunctive, personal injunctive and
descriptive norms in tandem. The present research fills that gap, contributing
to the understanding of normative influence and the comparative salience of
personal, social, and descriptive norms in a ‘green’ grocery consumption setting.
The objectives of this study were to examine the relative influence of various
norms on ‘green’ grocery purchasing behavior and to explore how the influence
of norms compares to that of other motivations.
Results implicate
injunctive norms as being highly significant predictors of ‘green’ consumption
behavior, with personal norms being the strongest predictor. Social injunctive norms
were also significant, while descriptive normative influence was not a
significant predictor of ‘green’ consumption behavior. The present study
extends the applications of previous social norm research with the finding that
personal and social injunctive norms uniquely predict ‘green’ purchasing
behavior. The predictive power of injunctive norms indicates that, at least in
a ‘green’ grocery purchasing setting, those norms were salient. On the contrary,
descriptive norms were not predictive and thus appear not to be salient in this
particular setting.
Motivations were
predictive of ‘green’ behavior as well, though the predictive power was not as strong
as that of social norms. In particular, environmental concern and quality were significantly
predictive of ‘green’ consumption. The significance of motivations indicates
that there is potential for additional methods of encouraging ‘green’ consumption
behavior.
The findings of
this study have strong implications for utilization of focus theory of normative
conduct principles in applied ‘green’ grocery shopping settings. I suggest
utilizing community-based social marketing strategies to make injunctive norms
regarding environmental conservation more salient in grocery shopping settings.
A similar strategy could be used to capitalize on findings regarding
motivations. By emphasizing the ‘quality’ components that consumers identify as
desirable, it may be possible to increase consumption of ‘green’ products among
individuals who do not express a great degree of environmental concern.
Applying these strategies would likely increase ‘green’ purchasing behavior and
would thereby contribute to increased environmental conservation.
REFERENCES
Anderegg, W., Prall, J., Harold., J. & Schneider, S.
(2010). Expert credibility in climate change.
PNAS, 107(27), 12107-12109.
Andreasen, A. (1994). Social marketing: Its definition and
domain. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing,
13(1), 108-114.
Arrow, K., Bolin, B., Costanza, R., Dasgupta, P., Folke, C.,
Holling, C., Jansson, B., Levin, S., Maler,
K., Perrings, C., & Pimentel, D. (1995). Economic growth, carrying
capacity, and the environment. Science, 268, 520-521.
...
Carlsson-Kanyama, A. & González, A. (2009). Potential
contributions of food consumption patterns
to climate change. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 89(5),
1704-1709.
Chan, T. (1996). Concerns for environmental issues and consumer
purchase preferences: A two-country
study. Journal of International Consumer Marketing, 9(1)
Cialdini, R. (2003). Crafting normative messages to protect
the environment. Current Directions in
Psychological Science, 12(14), 105-109.
Cialdini, R. & Trost, M. (1998). Social influence:
Norms, conformity, and compliance. In D. th Gilbert, S. Fiske, & G. Lindzey, The
handbook of social psychology (4 ed.,
pp. 151- 192). New York, NY: McGraw Hill.
Cialdini, R., Reno, R., & Kallgren, C. (1990). A focus
theory of normative conduct: Recycling
the concept of norms to reduce littering in public places. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58(6),
1015-1026.
Clayton, S. (2005). Can psychology help save the world? A
model for conservation psychology. Analyses of Social issues and Public Policy,
5(1), 87-102.
...
Kallgren, C., Reno, R., & Cialdini, R. (2000). A focus
theory of normative conduct: When norms do and do not affect behavior. Personality and
Social Psychology Bulletin, 26(8), 1002- 1012.
Kennedy, A. (2010). Using community-based social marketing
techniques to enhance environmental
regulation. Sustainability, 2, 1138-1160.
Kishimba, M., Henry, L., Mwevura, H., Mmochi, A., Mihale, M.
& Hellar, H. (2004). The status of pesticide pollution in Tanzania. Talanta,
64, 48-53.
Kollmuss, A. & Agyeman, J. (2010). Mind the gap: Why do
people act environmentally and what are the barriers to pro-environmental
behavior? Environmental Education Research,
8(3), 239-260.
Kotler, P. & Zaltman, G. (1971). Social marketing: An
approach to planned social change. Journal of Marketing, 35(3), 3-12.
Larimer, M. & Neighbors, C. (2003). Normative
misperception and the impact of descriptive
and injunctive norms on college
student gambling. Psychology of
Addictive Behaviors, 17(3), 235-243.
Lee, C., Geisner, I., Lewis, M., Neighbors, C. &
Larimer, M. (2007). Social motives and the interaction between descriptive and injunctive
norms in college student drinking. Journal
of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs,
68(5), 714-721.
Lockie, S., Lyons, K., Lawrence, G. & Mummery, K.
(2002). Eating ‘green’: Motivations behind
organic food consumption in
Australia. Sociologia Ruralis, 42(1), 23-40.
Mainieri, T., Barnett, E., Valdero, T. Unipan, J. &
Oskamp, S. (1997). Green buying: The influence of environmental concern on consumer
behavior. The Journal of Social
...
Komentar
Posting Komentar