Beyond the Intention–Behaviour Mythology

Davies, Janette, Gordon R. Foxall, and John Pallister. 2002. “Beyond the Intention–Behaviour Mythology.” Marketing Theory 2 (1) (March 1): 29 -113. doi:10.1177/1470593102002001645.

This paper is a lengthy critique of studies and theories that have been fundamental in formulating policy for recycling programs throughout Britain. The models critiqued were the Theory of Reasoned Action, and the Theory of Planned Behavior. These two theories have been used to predict consumer behavior for decades. One of the methods used to make this critique is an empirical investigation of consumer recycling habits.

The methodology consisted of a self administered mail survey followed by independent observation. The survey was to measure demographics, previous experience and other antecedents.

The empirical evidence concerning normative influences and recycling behavior is contradictory. The majority of those who claimed to be recycling were not observed using the curbside recycling during the term of the study.

One point that keeps coming to the front is the infinite number of contexts and variables that can be used to determine recycling behavior. Because of this, it is possible to create an infinite number of studies. It is not the factor that influences behavior, It is the context the factor arises in that shapes the behavior.

Other findings suggest that there is an assumption that attitudes play an important role in influencing behavior. However, it does not necessarily follow that the presence of one attitude sympathetic to recycling would equate with another attitude that is sympathetic also.

Factors affecting household-level environmental decision making

Yi, Y., S. Hartloff, and P. Meyer. 1999. “Factors affecting household-level environmental decision making: A three-country comparison of the determinants of household recycling.” Urban Ecosystems 3 (2) (July): 149.

This study examines data from the 1993 International Social Survey Program: Environment and usingfor nineteen countries including the study’ s author’s three target countries– Italy, The Netherlands and Great Britain. The purpose is to examine the similarities and the differences between the three countries.

There were four measurements applied to the three countries; Perceived environmental knowledge, environmental attitudes, recycling attitudes, and recycling behavior.

The results were rather surprising given the common participation of the countries involved. These differences were the mean age, the environmental attitude between the Italians and the Dutch and the recycling behavior between the British and the Italians. These kinds of differences suggest that although there might be a political and economic construct such as the European Union and a consistent intent to recyle, there is still a clear difference between certain factors from country to country. This highlights possible problems in designing and replicating recycling programs.

Other findings suggest that data collected across jurisdictions may distort factors affecting household recycling decisions. It also suggests that perceived costs and benefits are influenced by factors that are not evident at the household level. Those factors might include settlement patterns and attitudes about public land including the costs of using them for waste disposal.

In general, the result is that recycling programs don’t necessarily work from one country to the next unless they are adjusted according to the contexts in which they are implemented.

Factors Influencing Household Recycling Behavior

Oskamp, Stuart, Maura J. Harrington, Todd C. Edwards, Deborah L. Sherwood, Shawn M. Okuda, and Deborah C. Swanson. 1991. “Factors Influencing Household Recycling Behavior.” Environment and Behavior 23 (4) (July 1): 494 -519. doi:10.1177/0013916591234005.

This is an earlier recycling study (1991) that examines the recycling behavior of a small city in California. The variables include age, education, homeownership and several other factors. And how they affect or influence recycling behavior, especially curbside pick-up, which was relatively new at that time.

The outcome of this study is that it confirmed some past research “that different environmentally responsible behaviors have different patterns of antecedents.” However there were significant differences when curbside recycling was introduced.

The first reason given was the convenience of having the collection come to you on a regular basis. The second reason was that it took less space in the home to recycle. The third reason is that the city provides the homeowner with the containers to put the recycling in. The fourth reason is, for lack of a better phrase, peer pressure. The neighbors are doing it.

One major predictor for positive recycling behavior is home ownership, especially if it is a single family home, especially if the family owns it. Another positive predictor was if there had been a past behavior of recycling for cash.

Recycling behavior, in general was more likely in homes where there was a higher level of education attained, and the level of conservation knowledge. It is interesting to note that recycling behavior was not a predictor of other environmentally friendly behavior.

This study has one flaw from the start; the sample was quite small compared to the population, and therefore may have had a higher margin of error.