See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/320087119

Application of Value-Belief-Norm Theory to Responsible Post Consumption

Behaviors: Recycling and Reuse

Conference Paper · September 2017

CITATION READS

1 3,669

3 authors, including:

Ahmet Tugrul Tuger

Piri Reis University
10 PUBLICATIONS   86 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Scale Development and Validation View project

Consumer alienation View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Inci Dursun on 28 January 2020.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

International Congress of the New Approaches and Technologies for Sustainable Development
September 21-24, 2017 Isparta / TURKEY

Application of Value-Belief-Norm Theory to Responsible Post

Consumption Behaviors: Recycling and Reuse

İnci DURSUN1, Ebru TÜMER KABADAYI 2, Ahmet Tuğrul TUĞER 2,*

1
Yalova University, Yalova, Turkey
2
Gebze Technical University, Kocaeli, Turkey
*Responsible author e-mail: atuger@gtu.edu.tr

Abstract

There is consensus that environmental problems are consequences of human

behavior and can be solved through behavioral changes. Accordingly, altering
consumption habits in a responsible way is vital. Recycling is a post-purchase responsible
consumption form including material separation after usage; donating, sharing or
conserving objects for reuse instead of purchasing another one where the consumer
habitually considers not only personal but environmental and social benefits. There are
different researches revealing the impact of values, environmental awareness, moral
obligation on recycling but little is known about the possible chain effect of these factors.
This study aims to provide further insight on the sequential effects of the moral and
cognitive elements in reuse and recycling context, based on Value-Belief-Norm (VBN)
Theory. In this context, a sample of 160 Turkish consumers was examined through a
survey including VBN model’s main items. Results indicated a marginally acceptable fit
between the model and data and provided a partial support to VBN’s application in
recycling behaviors. As a self-transcendent value, universalism was the most significant
factor on environmental awareness while the other values, didn’t have the expected
impact. Concerning recycling behavior, a result not previously seen in VBN studies,
concluded that outside personal norms’ positive impact on recycling behavior, reuse
behavior has positively influenced recycling in a way that signaled an eventual spillover
effect between responsible behaviors.

Keywords: Value-Belief-Norm Theory, Recycling, Reuse, Pro-environmental consumption.

1. Introduction

Actual individual patterns of consumption have been recognized as significant

contributors to environmental degradation, among which air and water pollution, melting
ice caps, loss of biodiversity, rising sea levels, soaring carbon emissions, environmental
noise are distinctive (e.g. Meadows et al., 1972; Vlek & Steg, 2007). Most of these
anthropocentric problems necessitate individual consumers’ commitment to a more pro-
environmental lifestyle on the way to reduce ecological decadence. Accordingly, based

84
International Congress of the New Approaches and Technologies for Sustainable Development
September 21-24, 2017 Isparta / TURKEY

on the extant studies to encourage individuals to act in a more pro-environmental and pro-
social way, the responsible consumption offers an umbrella concept that covers cognitive
action (e.g. Antil, 1984; Follows & Jobber, 2000); emotional, experiential action (e.g.
Ulusoy, 2016); moral obligation feeling (e.g. Luchs et al., 2015); as well as sociocultural
action (e.g. Webster, 1975; Giesler & Veresiu, 2014). Responsible consumption can be
briefly defined as a group of voluntary activities in consumption context, based on the
awareness of negative social, economic and environmental consequences of consumption
to the external sphere of an individual (Ulusoy, 2016; Lim, 2017). Hence, it includes
specific actions in different stages of the whole consumption process in which simple
buying, green purchasing, socially conscious purchasing activities can be defined as pre-
consumption; energy conservation as a continuing consumption and recycling as post
consumption activities (Ulusoy, 2016; Dursun et al., 2016).
Within responsible consumption perspective, post consumption behaviors such as
recycling and reuse include actions that aim not only individual benefit but common good
such as solutions to waste originated pollution problems, loss of biodiversity (e.g. Ebreo
et al., 1999; Culiberg, 2014). Recycling represents briefly all post use activities such as
storing, trading or giving materials or energy via direct or indirect channels, collection
points of municipalities and/or private collection points to ensure reverse logistics
processes that minimize waste (Lebel & Lorek, 2008; Peattie, 2010). Reuse illustrates the
efficient cycle approach that aims to decrease eventual material consumption by keeping
available material for same or different purposes and also giving unused ones to others
via charity or municipalities collection centers (Lebel & Lorek, 2008; Barr, 2007).
Recycling and reuse activities have become essential topics since they offer
proficient solutions to increasing solid waste problems (McCarty & Shrum, 1994; Hopper
& Nielsen,1995; Ebreo et al., 1999; Bratt, 1999; Barr, 2007). In line with the common
good perspective of responsible consumption, the extant literature in post-purchase pro-
environmental behaviors underlines the link between social and personal moral
obligation feelings to encourage recycling, reuse activities (e.g. Hopper & Nielsen, 1991;
Thogersen, 1996; Bratt, 1999; Thogersen, 2009). Moreover, as shown by several studies
(e.g. Thogersen & Ölander, 2002; Hansla et al., 2008), altruistic individual values,
universalism and benevolence have a significantly positive impact on pro-environmental
consumption behaviors that also include recycling.
To strengthen the actual links revealed in extant environmentally responsible
consumption literature, Value-Belief-Norm (VBN) theory proposes a chain effect
between individual (altruistic, egoistic, biospheric) values, environmental awareness of
consequences-“a tendency to become aware of the consequences of one’s behavior for
others” (Schwartz,1977), ascription of environmental responsibility and personal norms,
known as individual moral obligation feeling (Stern, 2000). VBN is generally
successfully applied in pro-environmental behaviors such as energy policy support (Steg
et al., 2005); support for climate change policy (Dietz et al., 2007); conservation
behaviors in national parks (Van Riper & Kyle, 2014) that can be perceived as behaviors
relatively lower cost in terms of money, time and convenience.
In the extant literature, there is a need to assess the significance of VBN in higher
cost pro-environmental behaviors with the purpose of supporting the model’s validity in
different “private-sphere” or “daily life” human behaviors. As a private sphere behavior,
there are recent researches classifying recycling behaviors based on high and low cost to

85
International Congress of the New Approaches and Technologies for Sustainable Development
September 21-24, 2017 Isparta / TURKEY

conclude that as a relatively low cost pro-environmental behavior, recycling’s higher cost
activities may have different antecedents compared to lower cost actions (e.g.Andersson
& von Borgstede, 2010). This paper aims to assess a possible chain effect between
individual values, environmental consciousness and personal norms to promote relatively
higher and lower cost environmentally responsible activities in recycling and reuse
context and an eventual spillover effect between reuse and recycling behaviors.
In this study, we firstly review VBN model and its role to explain pro-environmental
behaviors, and then we propose our hypotheses based on the extant literature. Afterwards,
we explain the methodology used in this study and present the study results. In
conclusion, we discuss our results and make suggestions for future researches.
2. Theoretical Framework and Hypotheses

Theoretical models integrating values and/or norms as predictors of different

individual environmentally significant consumption behaviors have successfully showed
the relationship between norms, values and behaviors (e.g. Karp,1996; Bratt, 1999;
Thogersen, 1999a; Thogersen & Ölander, 2002; Thogersen & Ölander, 2006; Urien &
Kilbourne, 2011). With a linking model of values, norms and behaviors, VBN Model
(Stern, 2000) is an extension of Norm Activation Model (NAM) which suggests that
individual norms activated by awareness of consequences and personal responsibility
ascription influence positively altruistic and pro-environmental behaviors (Schwartz,
1977). In addition to NAM, VBN proposes that egoistic values are negatively related and
altruistic and biospheric values are positively related to environmental awareness/concern
which includes ecological worldview, environmental consequences. As part of the causal
chain proposed by VBN, environmental awareness influences ascription of responsibility
which has a direct impact on personal norms. Finally, personal norms, named as
individual moral obligation feelings influence several pro-environmental behaviors.
Figure 1: Value Belief Norm Model Adapted from Stern (2000)

Biospheric
Values

Altruistic NEP Awareness of Ascription of Personal Pro environmental

Values Consequences Responsibility Norms Behaviors

Egoistic
Values

Individual values, already shown to impact pro-environmental behaviors, influence

also post purchase behaviors (e.g.Thogersen & Ölander, 2002; Nordlund & Garvill, 2003;
Dietz et al., 2005). Self-transcendence values, especially universalism subset, had shown
a significant positive impact on environmental awareness and pro-environmental
behaviors including recycling and reuse activities (e.g. Nordlund & Garvill, 2002;
Thogersen & Ölander, 2002). On the other hand, self-enhancement values, have been
shown to be negatively related to environmental awareness and to pro-environmental
behaviors including recycling activities (e.g. Nordlund & Garvill, 2002; Urien &

86
International Congress of the New Approaches and Technologies for Sustainable Development
September 21-24, 2017 Isparta / TURKEY

Kilbourne, 2011). Stern & Dietz (1994) explain values’ total impact as environmental
motivation to act or intention which can also show awareness and concern level.
Following the hierarchical impact perspective of VBN, Van der Werff & Steg (2016)
integrated “New Environmental Paradigm” and “awareness of consequences” under
“problem awareness” label and also relabeled “ascription of responsibility” as “outcome
efficacy” to review if individual contribution encouraged consumers to invest responsibly
in energy efficient smart technologies higher in financial cost. This approach inspired our
study to assess the significance of same hierarchical relationships under same labels
within post purchase behaviors context.
“Outcome efficacy”, as an already verified interpretation of VBN’s ascription of
responsibility by Van der Werff & Steg (2016), has also been a successful mediator
between awareness of consequences and personal norms in pro-environmental context
(e.g. de Groot et al., 2008). To support the last link in VBN between personal norms and
recycling and reuse behaviors, Bratt (1999) has found a positive relationship between
recycling behaviors and personal norms. Harland (1999) has also found a similar positive
link between personal norms and use of unbleached paper that can be assumed as reuse
behavior.
As complementing post-purchase behaviors, the spillover effect found by Thogersen
(1999b) between reuse activities as waste prevention and recycling, might be expected to
be repeated at the end of VBN model including these post consumption activities.
Based on the extant literature, we can formulate the following hypotheses between
these variables shown in Figure 2:

H1: Self transcendence values (universalism, benevolence) have a positive impact

on environmental awareness.
H2: Self enhancement values (power, achievement, hedonism) have a negative
impact on environmental awareness.
H3: Environmental awareness has a positive impact on pro-environmental outcome
efficacy.
H4: Pro-environmental outcome efficacy has a positive impact on personal norms,
moral obligation feeling to behave pro-environmentally.
H5a: Personal norms have a positive impact on re-use behaviors.
H5b: Personal norms have a positive impact on recycling behaviors.
H6: Reuse behaviors have a positive impact on recycling behaviors.

Figure 2: Research Model

Benevolence Outcome Reuse

Universalism
Efficacy

Environmental
Awareness/Concern

Power & Hedonism Personal Recycling

Achievement Norm

87
International Congress of the New Approaches and Technologies for Sustainable Development
September 21-24, 2017 Isparta / TURKEY

3. Methodology

To test the research hypotheses data was collected through a survey of 160 consumers
living in İstanbul or Kocaeli who were selected via convenience sampling method. The
respondents ranged in age from 18 years to 72 years, with an average of 36 years. Of the
total respondents, 40 percent were male and 60 percent were female.
Table 1: Factor Loadings and Reliability Coefficients
Universalism α =.84
ST4_ She/He believes all the worlds’ people should live in harmony. Promoting peace among all ,793
groups in the world is important to her/him.
ST3_ He strongly believes that people should care for nature. Looking after the environment is ,759
important to him/her.
ST5_ It is important to her/him to adapt to nature and to fit into it. She/He believes that people ,689
should not change nature.
ST6_ She/He thinks it is important that every person in the world be treated equally. She/He ,669
believes everyone should have equal opportunities in life.
ST2_ She/He wants everyone to be treated justly, even people she/he doesn’t know. It is ,586
important to her/him to protect the weak in society.
Benevolence α =.87
ST9_ It is important to her/him to respond to the needs of others. She/He tries to support those ,777
she/he knows.
ST8_ It is important to her/him to be loyal to his friends. She/He wants to devote herself/himself ,763
to people close to her/him.
ST7_ It’s very important to her/him to help the people around him. She/He wants to care for their ,738
well-being.
Power & Achievement α =.83
SE3_ She/He always wants to be the one who makes the decisions. She/He likes to be the leader. ,780
SE6_ She/He thinks it is important to be ambitious. She/He wants to show how capable she/he is. ,725
SE4_ It’s very important to her/him to show her/his abilities. She/He wants people to admire ,724
what she/he does.
SE7_ Getting ahead in life is important to her/him. She/He strives to do better than others. ,717
SE2_ It is important to her/him to be in charge and tell others what to do. She/He wants people to ,695
do what she/he says.
SE5_ Being very successful is important to her/him. She/He likes to impress other people. ,687
Hedonism α =.81
SE10_ She/He really wants to enjoy life. Having a good time is very important to her/him. ,880
SE9_ Enjoying life’s pleasures is important to her/him. She/He likes to ‘spoil’ herself/himself. ,865
SE8_ She/He seeks every chance she/he can to have fun. It is important to her/him to do things ,858
that give her/him pleasure.
Environmental Awareness/Concern α =.85
EC2_ I am worried about the worsening of the quality of my country’s environment. ,847
EC1_ How concerned are you about water and air pollution in your city? ,815
EC3_ I become incensed when I think about the harm being done to plant and animal life by ,717
pollution.
EC4_ Humans are severely abusing the environment. ,704
Outcome Efficacy α =.78
SEF3_I feel I can help solve natural resource problem by conserving water and energy. ,816

88
International Congress of the New Approaches and Technologies for Sustainable Development
September 21-24, 2017 Isparta / TURKEY

SEF2_By purchasing products made in an environmentally friendly way, each consumer’s ,778
behavior can have a positive effect on the environment and society.
SEF4_The recycling efforts of one person do make a difference. ,739
Personal Norm α =.77
PN6_ Do you feel a personal, moral obligation to buy environmentally friendly products for your ,813
household?
PN3_ Do you feel a personal, moral obligation to buy products made by companies known for ,793
being environmentally responsible?
PN5_ Do you feel a personal, moral obligation to whatever you can to help improve the ,506
environment?
PN4_ Do you feel a personal, moral obligation to recycle household waste? ,500
Recycling α =.84
REC2_ I keep my garbage in separate piles of glass, plastic, paper,metal for recycling ,850
REC6_ I bring things (such as newspapers, plastic and glass bottles) to recycling collection ,808
points
REC3_ I recycle garbage at home, at work, and at my holiday destinations. ,743
REC7_ I disposed of used batteries in proper collection container instead of waste basket ,712
REC1_ I follow the key points of recycling and classify recycled waste at home ,674
Reuse α =.71
REC5_ I reuse plastic bags that’s previously served as shopping bags ,677
REC8_ I donate clothes to charity I donate furniture to charity ,649
REC4_ I use the back side of the documents that are not needed anymore as scrap/jotting paper ,636

A structured questionnaire was used which include a total of 42 items for the
measurement of constructs in the research model. The questionnaire consisted of three
parts. First part includes items of Portrait Value Questionnaire that were rated on a 5-
point scale ranging from (1) not like me at all to (5) very much like me (Schwartz et al.,
2001); second part includes items representing beliefs and norms of VBN, environmental
awareness adapted from Antil (1984), Dunlap et al., (2000), Kim & Choi (2005), Lee
(2008); outcome efficacy adapted from Ellen et al., (1991), Kim & Choi (2005), Kang et
al., (2013); personal norms adapted from Minton & Rose(1997) that were rated on a 5-
point scale ranging from (1) strongly disagree to (5) strongly agree. The third and final
part includes recycling and reuse items which are adapted from, Berger & Corbin (1992),
Yavetz et al., (1994), Gadenne et al (2011), Huang et al., (2014), Costa Pinto et al., (2014)
and rated on a 5-point scale ranging from (1) never to (5) always. Questions about
demographic characteristics (age, education, revenue and gender) concluded the
questionnaire.
Validity of the scales was evaluated through a series of exploratory factor analysis
(EFA) using varimax rotation. After the elimination of six problematic items EFA
revealed nine factors explaining 68% of total variance. Self-transcendent value, self-
enhancement value and post consumption behavior emerged as a two dimensional
variables, as expected. All factor loadings were larger than .500 providing support for
validity. Moreover, Cronbach’s Alpha coefficients for all factors were above .70
indicating reliability (Nunnaly, 1978). After the validation, all multiple-indicant variables
were transformed into composite scores by taking means of the constituent items, for
subsequent analysis.

89
International Congress of the New Approaches and Technologies for Sustainable Development
September 21-24, 2017 Isparta / TURKEY

Hypothesis Testing

A path analysis was conducted using maximum likelihood estimation technique to

test the proposed relationships. Analysis yielded a marginally acceptable model fit
(χ2(20)= 46,001 p=.01, χ2/df=2.30; GFI=.94, CFI=.91 and RMSEA=.09). Analysis results
for the proposed relationships were displayed in Table 2.
Table 2: Standardized β Estimates
Estimate t value P
Benevolence→Environmental Awareness/Concern .048 .583 .56
Universalism→Environmental Awareness/Concern .469 5.843 .01
Power & Achievement →Environmental
-.020 -.273 .79
Awareness/Concern
Hedonism→Environmental Awareness/Concern -.034 -.470 .64
Environmental Awareness/Concern →Outcome Efficacy .409 5.643 .01
Outcome Efficacy →Personal Norm .360 4.910 .01
Environmental Awareness/Concern →Personal Norm .279 3.808 .01
Personal Norm →Reuse .213 2.745 .01
Personal Norm →Recycling .223 3.342 .01
Reuse→Recycling .477 7.134 .01

4. Results
The results partially confirmed the positive relationship between self-transcendence
values and environmental awareness since universalism has a positive impact on
environmental awareness (β=.469, p<.01) but benevolence did not have a significant
impact. On the other side, the expected negative impact of self-enhancement values was
not supported as the impacts of power & achievement and hedonism were not found to
be significant. The hypotheses following VBN’s chain effect logic between beliefs,
norms and behavior were partially supported since environmental awareness and
outcome efficacy (β=.409, p<.01), outcome efficacy and personal norms (β=.36, p<.01),
personal norms and reuse (β=.213, p<.01) & recycling (β=.223, p<.01) were positively
related. Finally, reuse behavior was found to have a positive impact on recycling
(β=.477, p<.01).
Results revealed that the model explained 32% of the observed variance in
recycling, whereas only 5% of the variance in reuse behavior is explained. Comparing
standardized beta estimates, universalism appeared as the single antecedent of
environmental awareness/concern; while benevolence, as another self-transcendent
value and power & achievement and hedonism as self-enhancement values did not have
a significant impact. Additionally, environmental awareness had a positive impact on
personal norms. Finally the positive relationship between reuse and recycling has been
the most significant.
Refined Model

As modification indices indicated room for improvement, a further analysis was

conducted to provide additional insight into ways how to increase the explanatory power
of the model for post consumption behavior. Accordingly, a refined model presented in
Figure 2 includes only one additional direct effect on reuse which NAT do not predict.

90
International Congress of the New Approaches and Technologies for Sustainable Development
September 21-24, 2017 Isparta / TURKEY

Path analysis results revealed a more satisfactory fit between data and model (χ2(19)= 31,
209 p=.038, χ2/df=1,643; GFI=.96, CFI=.96 and RMSEA=.06). The refined model
explained 12% of the observed variance in reuse. It can be reasonable to conclude that
the mediating role of personal norms is not significant for reuse behavior, since its
influence was dominated by direct effect of universalist values.
Table 3: Standardized β Estimates for Re-specified Model

t
Estimate P
value
Benevolence→Environmental Awareness/Concern .048 .583 .56
Universalism→Environmental Awareness/Concern .469 5.843 .00
Power & Achievement →Environmental Awareness/Concern -.020 -.273 .79
Hedonism→Environmental Awareness/Concern -.034 -.470 .64
Environmental Awareness/Concern →Outcome Efficacy .409 5.643 .00
Outcome Efficacy →Personal Norm .360 4.910 .00
Environmental Awareness/Concern →Personal Norm .279 3.808 .00
Personal Norm →Reuse .110 1.446 .15
Personal Norm →Recycling .224 3.368 .00
Reuse→Recycling .477 7.159 .00
Universalism→ Reuse .310 4.087 .00

5. Conclusion

Extant literature on post-consumption pro-environmentally responsible behaviors

provides separate relationships between antecedents and behaviors. Meanwhile, as
already successfully applied in different behaviors (e.g. Steg et al., 2005), there is a need
to explain the hierarchical effect between antecedents and post use behaviors in order to
open the way for pro-environmental habits. In theoretical applications, Aguilar-Luzon
et al., (2012) made a comparative study of VBN and Theory of Planned Behavior’s
significance to explain recycling behaviors of small group of Spanish households and
concluded that TPB has a greater degree of fit to explain recycling behaviors. To our
knowledge, apart from this example, there are not so many researches to explain
hierarchical effects between independent and dependent factors in post consumption
behaviors with VBN. The actual study provides an assessment of recycling and reuse
behaviors by concentrating on how individual values, environmental awareness and
outcome efficacy, personal norms may support post purchase behaviors following a
chain effect and also how reuse influence recycling behaviors based on the universalist
values’ impact. The conceptual model is tested in a sample of 160 consumers living in
Turkey from different sociodemographic characteristics.
Results indicate that the basic conceptual model is marginally supported. Self-
transcendence, especially universalism has a strong positive effect on environmental
awareness, as well as on reuse behaviors. These findings support previous research on
positive relationships between altruistic values and pro-environmental behaviors
(Thogersen & Ölander, 2002) as well as the relationships between altruistic values and
environmental awareness (Nordlund & Garvill, 2002). Meanwhile contrary to our
expectations, benevolence as an altruist value, power & achievement and hedonism as
egoist values, did not have a significant effect on environmental awareness. These

91
International Congress of the New Approaches and Technologies for Sustainable Development
September 21-24, 2017 Isparta / TURKEY

results may partly be explained by the fact that the respondents had perceived the
behaviors in the survey as relatively low cost.
The positive hierarchical effect between environmental awareness, outcome
efficacy and personal norms is marginally confirmed in our study. However, the impact
of personal norms on recycling and reuse was lower than expected. This result can be
explained by the direct significant effect of universalism on reuse behavior and by the
positive impact of reuse on recycling.
We do not want to close without underlining some of the potential limitations of
this study. This study follows a survey method with self-reported measures that might
cause social desirability bias, as a potential cause for unexpected results. In future
research, experimental methods might be helpful to minimize social desirability bias.
Moreover, a concrete classification of high cost vs. low cost recycling behaviors may
be helpful to determine the impact of the related antecedents on these behaviors.

REFERENCES
Aguilar, Luzón, M. D. C., García, Martínez, J. M. Á., Calvo, Salguero, A., & Salinas, J. M. (2012).
Comparative study between the theory of planned behavior and the value– belief–norm model
regarding the environment, on Spanish housewives' recycling behavior. Journal of Applied Social
Psychology, 42(11), 2797-2833.
Andersson, M., Von Borgstede, C. (2010). Differentiation of determinants of low-cost and high- cost
recycling. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 30(4), 402-408.
Antil, J. H. (1984). Socially responsible consumers: Profile and implications for public policy. Journal of
Macromarketing, 4(2), 18-39.
Berger, I. E., Corbin, R. M. (1992). Perceived consumer effectiveness and faith in others as moderators of
environmentally responsible behaviors. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 11(2), 79-89.
Bratt, C. (1999). The impact of norms and assumed consequences on recycling behavior. Environment and
Behavior, 31(5), 630-656.
Costa Pinto, D., Herter, M. M., Rossi, P., Borges, A. (2014). Going green for self or for o thers? Gender
and identity salience effects on sustainable consumption. International Journal of Consumer Studies,
38(5), 540-549.
Culiberg, B. (2014). Towards an understanding of consumer recycling from an ethical perspective.
International Journal of Consumer Studies, 38(1), 90-97.
De Groot, J. I., Steg, L., Dicke, M. (2008). Transportation trends from a moral perspective: value
orientations, norms and reducing car use. In: New Transportation Research Progress, NOVA
Science Publishers,1-25.
Dietz, T., Dan, A., Shwom, R. (2007). Support for climate change policy: Social psychological and social
structural influences. Rural sociology, 72(2), 185-214.
Dunlap, R. E., Van Liere, K. D., Mertig, A. G., Jones, R. E. (2000). New trends in measuring environmental
attitudes: measuring endorsement of the new ecological paradigm: a revised NEP scale. Journal of
Social issues, 56(3), 425-442.
Dursun, I., Kabadayı, E. T., Köksal, C. G., Tuğer, A. T. (2016). Pro-Environmental Consumption: Is It
Really All About The Environment?. Journal of Management Marketing and Logistics, 3(2),114-
133.
Ebreo, A., Hershey, J., Vining, J. (1999). Reducing solid waste: Linking recycling to environmentally
responsible consumerism. Environment and Behavior, 31(1), 107-135.

92
International Congress of the New Approaches and Technologies for Sustainable Development
September 21-24, 2017 Isparta / TURKEY

Ellen, P. S., Wiener, J. L., Cobb-Walgren, C. (1991). The Role of Perceived Consumer Effectiveness in
Motivating Environmentally Conscious Behaviors. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 10(2),
43-52.
Gadenne, D., Sharma, B., Kerr, D., Smith, T. (2011). The influence of consumers' environmen-tal beliefs
and attitudes on energy saving behaviours. Energy policy, 39(12), 7684-7694.
Giesler, M., Veresiu, E. (2014). Creating the responsible consumer: Moralistic governance regimes and
consumer subjectivity. Journal of Consumer Research, 41(3), 840-857.
Hansla, A., Gamble, A., Juliusson, A., Gärling, T. (2008). The relationships between awareness of
consequences, environmental concern, and value orientations. Journal of Environmental
Psychology, 28(1), 1-9.
Harland, P., Staats, H., Wilke, H. A. (1999). Explaining proenvironmental intention and behavior by
personal norms and the theory of planned behavior. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 29(12),
2505-2528.
Hopper, J. R., Nielsen, J. M. (1991). Recycling as altruistic behavior normative and behavioral strategies
to expand participation in a community recycling program. Environment and Behavior, 23(2), 195-
220.
Huang, H. C., Lin, T. H., Lai, M. C., Lin, T. L. (2014). Environmental consciousness and green customer
behavior: An examination of motivation crowding effect. International Journal of Hospitality
Management, 40, 139-149.
Jansson, J., Marell, A., Nordlund, A. (2011). Exploring consumer adoption of a high involvement eco‐
innovation using value‐belief‐norm theory. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 10(1), 51-60.
Kang, J., Liu, C., Kim, S. H. (2013). Environmentally sustainable textile and apparel consumption: the role
of consumer knowledge, perceived consumer effectiveness and perceived personal relevance.
International Journal of Consumer Studies, 37(4), 442-452.
Karp, D. G. (1996). Values and their effect on pro-environmental behavior. Environment and Behavior,
28(1), 111-133.
Kim, Y., Choi, S. M. (2005). Antecedents of Green Purchase Behavior: An Examination of Collectivism,
Environmental Concern, and PCE. Advances in Consumer Research, 32(1), 592-599.
Lebel, L., Lorek, S. (2008). Enabling sustainable production-consumption systems. Annual Review of
Environment and Resources, 33, 241-275.
Lee, K. (2008). Opportunities for green marketing: young consumers. Marketing Intelligence & Planning,
26(6), 573-586.
Lim, W. M. (2017). Inside the sustainable consumption theoretical toolbox: Critical concepts for
sustainability, consumption, and marketing. Journal of Business Research, 78, 69-80.
Lind, H. B., Nordfjærn, T., Jørgensen, S. H., Rundmo, T. (2015). The value-belief-norm theory, personal
norms and sustainable travel mode choice in urban areas. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 44,
119-125.
Luchs, M. G., Phipps, M., Hill, T. (2015). Exploring consumer responsibility for sustainable consumption.
Journal of Marketing Management, 31(13-14), 1449-1471.
McCarty, J. A., Shrum, L. J. (1994). The recycling of solid wastes: Personal values, value orientations, and
attitudes about recycling as antecedents of recycling behavior. Journal of Business Research, 30(1),
53-62.
Minton, A. P., Rose, R. L. (1997). The effects of environmental concern on environmentally friendly
consumer behavior: An exploratory study. Journal of Business Research, 40(1), 37-48.
Nordlund, A. M., Garvill, J. (2002). Value structures behind proenvironmental behavior. Environment and
Behavior, 34(6), 740-756.
Nordlund, A. M., Garvill, J. (2003). Effects of values, problem awareness, and personal norm on
willingness to reduce personal car use. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 23(4), 339-347.

93
International Congress of the New Approaches and Technologies for Sustainable Development
September 21-24, 2017 Isparta / TURKEY

Nunnally, J.C., (1978). Psychometric Theory, 2nd ed. McGraw–Hill, New York, NY.
Peattie, K. (2010). Green Consumption: Behavior and Norms. Annual Review of Environment and
Resources, 35, 195-228.
Schultz, P. W., Zelezny, L. (1999). Values as predictors of environmental attitudes: Evidence for
consistency across 14 countries. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 19(3), 255-265.
Schwartz, S. H. (1977). Normative influences on altruism. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in Experimental
Social Psychology (10), 221-279. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Schwartz, S. H. (1994). Are there universal aspects in the structure and content of human values? Journal
of Social Issues, 50(4), 19–45.
Schwartz, S. H., Melech, G., Lehmann, A., Burgess, S., Harris, M., Owens, V. (2001). Extending the cross-
cultural validity of the theory of basic human values with a different method of measurement.
Journal of Cross-cultural Psychology, 32(5),519-542.
Steg, L., Dreijerink, L., Abrahamse, W. (2005). Factors influencing the acceptability of energy policies: A
test of VBN theory. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 25(4), 415-425.
Stern, P. C., Dietz, T. (1994). The value basis of environmental concern. Journal of Social Issues, 50(3),
65-84.
Stern, P. C. (2000). New environmental theories: toward a coherent theory of environmentally significant
behavior. Journal of Social Issues, 56(3), 407-424.
Thøgersen, J. (1996). Recycling and morality: A critical review of the literature. Environment and
Behavior, 28(4), 536-558.
Thφgersen, J. (1999a). The ethical consumer. Moral norms and packaging choice. Journal of Consumer
Policy, 22(4), 439-460.
Thøgersen, J. (1999b). Spillover processes in the development of a sustainable consumption pattern. Journal
of Economic Psychology, 20(1), 53-81.
Thøgersen, J., Ölander, F. (2002). Human values and the emergence of a sustainable consump-tion
pattern: A panel study. Journal of Economic Psychology, 23(5), 605-630.
Thøgersen, J., Ölander, F. (2006). The dynamic interaction of personal norms and environment friendly
buying behavior: a panel study. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 36(7), 1758-1780.
Thogersen, J. (2009). The motivational roots of norms for environmentally responsible behavior. Basic and
Applied Social Psychology, 31(4), 348-362.
Urien, B., Kilbourne, W. (2011). Generativity and self enhancement values in eco‐friendly behavioral
intentions and environmentally responsible consumption behavior. Psychology & Marketing,
28(1), 69-90.
Van der Werff, E., Steg, L. (2016). The psychology of participation and interest in smart energy systems:
comparing the value-belief-norm theory and the value-identity-personal norm model. Energy
Research & Social Science, 22, 107-114.
Van Riper, C. J., Kyle, G. T. (2014). Understanding the internal processes of behavioral engagement in a
national park: A latent variable path analysis of the value-belief-norm theory. Journal of
Environmental Psychology, 38, 288-297.
Vining, J., Ebreo, A. (1990). What makes a recycler? A comparison of recyclers and nonrecyclers.
Environment and Behavior, 22(1), 55-73.
Vlek, C., Steg, L. (2007). Human Behavior and Environmental Sustainability: Problems, Driving Forces,
and Research Topics. Journal of Social Issues, 63(1), 1-19.
Webb, D. J., Mohr, L. A., Harris, K. E. (2008). A re-examination of socially responsible consumption and
its measurement. Journal of Business Research, 61(2), 91-98.

94
 International Congress of the New Approaches and Technologies for Sustainable Development
September 21-24, 2017 Isparta / TURKEY

Yavetz, B., Goldman, D., Pe’er, S. (2009). Environmental literacy of preservice teachers in Israel: A
comparison between students at the onset and end of their studies. Environmental Education
Research, 15(4), 393-415.
Zikmund, W. G., Stanton, W. J. (1971). Recycling Solid Wastes: A Channels-of-distribution Problem.
Journal of Marketing, 35(3), 34-39.

95

View publication stats