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

net/publication/336740535

Predicting intention to recycle on the basis of the theory of planned behaviour

Article  in  International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing · October 2019

DOI: 10.1002/nvsm.1653

CITATIONS READS

15 1,197

11 authors, including:

Denni Arli Foluké Abigail Badejo

University of Tasmania Griffith University
107 PUBLICATIONS   2,427 CITATIONS    15 PUBLICATIONS   112 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Joan Carlini Cassandra France

Griffith University Griffith University
18 PUBLICATIONS   139 CITATIONS    6 PUBLICATIONS   402 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

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

Call for Book Chapters Transforming Relationship Marketing View project

Call for Book Chapters: Developing Digital Marketing: Relationship Perspectives View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Denni Arli on 11 June 2020.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Received: 22 May 2019 Revised: 5 August 2019 Accepted: 15 August 2019
DOI: 10.1002/nvsm.1653

RESEARCH ARTICLE

Predicting intention to recycle on the basis of the theory of

planned behaviour

Denni Arli1 | Abi Badejo2 | Joan Carlini2 | Cassandra France3 |

Charles Jebarajakirthy2 | Kathy Knox2 | Robin Pentecost2 | Helen Perkins2 |
Park Thaichon2 | Tapan Sarker4 | Owen Wright2

1
Department of Marketing, Labovitz School of
Business and Economics, University of Governments worldwide have launched various schemes to promote recycling by
Minnesota Duluth, Duluth, Minnesota
individuals, from legislation to voluntary and mandatory policies, waste charging,
2
Department of Marketing, Griffith Business
School, Griffith University, Nathan, kerbside collection, waste separation bins, and promotional campaigns. Much remains
Queensland, Australia to be done, however, in terms of understanding the psychological relationships
3
UQ Business School, University of
among consumers' attitudes, intentions, and behaviours when it comes to recycling.
Queensland, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia
4
Department of Business Strategy and
This study was designed to examine recycling intention through the lens of the the-
Innovation, Griffith Business School, Griffith ory of planned behaviour (TPB). Using online survey, we recruited participants (n =
University, Nathan, Queensland, Australia
827) through an online survey platform (mturk.com). The results show that TPB can
Correspondence predict consumers' intention to recycle. It was further found, however, that attitude
Denni Arli, Department of Marketing, Labovitz
School of Business and Economics, University
towards recycling did not predict intention to recycle. The findings presented here
of Minnesota Duluth, Duluth, MN 55812. have significant implications for policymakers and practitioners who are interested in
Email: darli@d.umn.edu
inculcating recycling intention and behaviours in members of the public. This study
Funding information extends the TPB in the context of recycling. There is a need to examine the theories'
Sustainability Small Grants Griffith Centre for
Sustainable Enterprise (GCSE)
explanatory power in different research settings and context. Moreover, regulations
and policies on recycling continue to evolve. For example, recently in 2018, Australia
is banning plastic bag. Consequently, the new policy will affect people's perception
towards recycling. Hence, continued research on recycling is needed.

1 | I N T RO D UC T I O N the present century (Varotto & Spagnolli, 2017). As a consequence of

Over the past three decades, waste management has become a critical
issue for governments (both nationally, from a policy development
perspective, and locally, through the implementation of waste
recycling measures), the private sector (through efforts to incorporate
“green” practices), and the general public (as the largest source of
waste). Although attitudes towards the environment (and recycling)
have improved over this time (e.g., Thomas & Sharp, 2013), efforts to
investigate and thereby improve recycling behaviour are ongoing
(Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, 2014).
As the population has increased, so has consumerism and with it
waste, which is now calculated at around 2 billion tons per year glob-
ally and is only expected to increase as the population grows through
all of this waste, environmental issues have now become a major con-
cern. In many parts of the world, materialistic consumption denotes
“the good life,” “freedom,” and “progress” and is associated with social
interaction, social inclusion, and self-expression (Bentley, Fien, & Neil,
2004; Hume, 2010). These lifestyle decisions have been identified as
one of the drivers of climate change (Roy & Pal, 2009). Urban waste
has become a critical environmental concern, with the reduction of
pollution through recycling being key to the preservation of earth's
natural resources (Varotto & Spagnolli, 2017).
As environmental issues become more important to individuals
and to society in general, interest in recycling as a form of waste man-
agement has increased as part of the effort to reduce human impact
on the environment (Chen & Tung, 2009; Strong, 1998). Governments

Int J Nonprofit Volunt Sect Mark. 2019;e1653. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/nvsm © 2019 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. 1 of 14
https://doi.org/10.1002/nvsm.1653
2 of 14
around the world have launched various schemes to promote
recycling practices (Wilson, Rodic, Scheinberg, Velis, & Alabaster,
2012), ranging from mandatory recycling policies, waste charging
schemes, kerbside recycling collection, community waste separation
bins, to promotional campaigns for recycling practices (De Jaeger,
Eyckmans, Rogge, & Van Puyenbroeck, 2011; Goddard, 1995; Phau &
Ong, 2007; Tencati, Pogutz, Moda, Brambilla, & Cacia, 2016; Wan,
Qiping Shen, & Choi, 2017; Wilson, 1996). Much remains to be done,
however, in terms of understanding the psychological relationships
among consumers' attitudes, intentions, and behaviours when it
comes to recycling (Varotto & Spagnolli, 2017; Wan et al., 2017). This
study built on previous environmental research through the inclusion
of self-efficacy (intrinsic motivation) and situational factors (extrinsic
motivation) as predictors of perceived behavioural control (PBC). The
argument is that intrinsic and extrinsic motivations lead to different
outcomes (Deci & Ryan, 2008) and, thus, are likely to have different
effects on PBC. Intrinsically motivated behaviours are produced and
maintained because enjoyment of them reinforces them (Lavigne et
al., 2009). Extrinsic motivation includes both external regulation,
which affects an individual's behaviour through contingencies of
reward or punishment, and self-regulation, which occurs when the
external regulation has been partially internalized and is energized by
such factors such as desire for approval, avoidance of shame, contin-
gent self-esteem, and ego-involvement (Deci & Ryan, 2008; Ryan &
Deci, 2017). Thus, one objective of this study was to investigate ante-
cedents of consumers' intention to recycle, specifically through the
lens of theory of planned behaviour (TPB; Ajzen, 1985). The study has
several theoretical and managerial contributions. This study extends
the TPB in the context of recycling. Despite critics on TPB (e.g.,
Sniehotta et al. 2014), Ajzen (2015) suggested that TPB is still relevant
and needed in order to understand human behaviour. There is a need
to examine the theories' explanatory power in different research set-
tings and context (Armitage & Conner, 2001; Black, 2010; Paul, Modi,
& Patel, 2016). Moreover, regulations and policies on recycling con-
tinue to evolve. For example, recently in 2018, Australia is banning
plastic bag (CNN 2018). Consequently, the new policy will affect peo-
ple's perception towards recycling. Hence, continued research on
recycling is needed.
The following section establishes the general background for
recycling behaviour, with contemporary consumerism serving as a
frame of reference. Next, we develop the theoretical framework used
for the investigation. The data are then presented, followed by the
main findings. The study concludes with a discussion of policy implica-
tions and avenues for future research.
2 | REVI EW O F T H E L IT ERAT URE
2.1 | Theory of planned behaviour
One method for promoting proenvironmental behaviour has been to
draw on social psychological theories. The TPB (Ajzen, 1985, 1991;
Greaves, Zibarras, & Stride, 2013) has proved particularly useful in this
respect (Botetzagias, Dima, & Malesios, 2015; Shaw, Shiu, & Clarke,
ARLI ET AL.
2000), though there are of course many other approaches to the
study of human behaviour (Chan & Bishop, 2013), such as the norm
activation model (Schwartz, 1973, 1977) and value–belief norm the-
ory (Stern, 2000). Thus, TPB has been used to explain phenomena
such as public transport use (Bamberg & Schmidt, 2003) and general
conservation behaviour (Kaiser & Gutscher, 2003) and has been
shown to predict behaviour better than demographics alone (Oreg &
Katz-Gerro, 2006; Trumbo & O'Keefe, 2001).
According to TPB, the primary antecedent of an individual's
behaviour is his or her intention. Intention in this respect is deter-
mined by three constructs: first, individuals' overall attitude towards
the behaviour; second, their subjective norms, which refer to the
social pressure felt in relation to performing the behaviour; and third,
PBC, which refers to the individual's perception of the difficulty of
performing the behaviour or, to put it another way, the extent to
which an individual believes that he or she has self-efficacy to per-
form the behaviour (Ajzen, 1985, 1991).
Over time, further constructs have been added to the TPB frame-
work. Thus, Chan and Bishop (2013), in a study of recycling, argued
for the inclusion of moral norms, defined as “the reflection of a per-
sonal value system in a given situation” by Klockner (2013, p. 1030).
These researchers, reacting to suggestions that discriminant validity
was lacking for attitudes within the context of conservation research,
found that replacing attitudes with moral norms increased the predic-
tive validity of both intentions and actual behaviour. So also a meta-
analysis by Bamberg and Möser (2007) indicated that as much as 52%
of the variance in intentions could be accounted for through the
incorporation of personal moral norms into the TPB framework. There
has in fact been some disputes regarding whether moral norms should
replace or rather should be included alongside attitudes in the TPB
model (Wan et al., 2017). Thus, Chan and Bishop (2013), in testing the
new construct, found the removal of attitudes to improve its predic-
tive power, whereas Botetzagias et al. (2015) rejected the substitution
of the latter term with the former on the grounds that both are the
same from a psychological perspective. As a consensus has yet to
emerge on the issue (Wan et al., 2017), the decision was accordingly
made to test both constructs in this study.
2.2 | Factors implicated in recycling behaviours
Early investigations of recycling behaviour identified attributes of
“recyclers” (e.g., Coggins, 1994; Thieme, Royne, Jha, Levy, & Barnes
McEntee, 2015; Vining & Ebreo, 1990), including shared characteris-
tics unique to consumers in this context (Schultz, Oskamp, & Mainieri,
1995). In light of these findings, recycling behaviours can be associ-
ated with three broad factors. The first involves environmental values,
which is to say underlying attitudes towards the environment; thus,
recycling behaviours can be driven by recognition of the inherent
value of the environment (Vining & Ebreo, 1992). Second, situational
or contextual factors promote or discourage recycling behaviours
(Derksen & Gartrell, 1993; Guagnano, Stern, & Dietz, 1995); such fac-
tors can be socio-demographic (Berger, 1997), knowledge based
(Schahn & Holzer, 1990), or experience based (Daneshvary,
ARLI ET AL.
Daneshvary, & Schwer, 1998). The third type of factors associated
with environmentally conscious behaviours is psychological in nature,
involving individuals' unique emotional attributes, such as altruism
(Hopper & Nielsen, 1991), intrinsic and extrinsic motivations (De
Young, 1986), perceptions of environmental hazards (Baldassare &
Katz, 1992), beliefs regarding outcomes (Boldero, 1995; Hopper &
Nielsen, 1991), subjective norms or social influence (Chan, 1998),
logistics and self-efficacy (Steel, 1996), and the notion of environmen-
tal “citizenship” (Selman, 1996). For this research, we focused on spe-
cific aspects of these factors in order to identify predictors of
recycling behaviours.
3 | D E V E L O P M E N T OF HY P O T H E S E S
3.1 | Attitude towards recycling ! intention to
recycle
Over the past few decades, solid waste has become a major issue
for industrialized countries (Wan et al., 2016). Among the many fac-
tors shown to impact environmentally conscious behaviour, public
awareness of environmental problems has been shown, not surpris-
ingly, to be especially important. This being the case, much of the
public policy relating to recycling has focused on information cam-
paigns (Barr, Gilg, & Ford, 2001). More specifically, because individ-
ual consumers and households can play a major role in waste
reduction and recycling, campaigns have been designed to increase
individual awareness of waste issues and thereby to reinforce atti-
tudes that positively affect behaviours that impact the environment
(Barr et al., 2001).
Informing consumers about the benefits of recycling is, then, an
important strategy in shaping their attitudes (Vicente & Reis, 2008).
Awareness of the difficulty of finding space for landfills, for example,
can increase the mindfulness of households about waste reduction
and recycling. Numerous studies have shown that awareness of the
well-documented benefits of recycling—which include, along with
reducing the need for landfills, conserving energy and natural
resources and creating new jobs—is a significant predictor of positive
attitudes towards it (Tonglet, Phillips, & Read, 2004, Wan et al., 2014).
Naturally enough, the conviction that recycling provides a tangible
benefit is associated with engaging in recycling behaviours (Blok,
Wesselink, Studynka, & Kemp, 2015). On the basis of these consider-
ations, we formulated the following hypothesis:
H1 : Attitudes towards recycling significantly influence the intention
to recycle.
3.2 | Awareness of recycling ! attitudes towards
recycling
The TPB, introduced above, is one of the most widely used rational
choice models for explaining individuals' decision-making processes
(Han, 2015). Simply put, from the perspective of TPB, individuals'
3 of 14
intentions predict their likelihood to engage in a behaviour (Ajzen &
Fishbein, 2000). TPB has capacity to help explain a variety of
behaviours, including, in one study, proenvironmental behaviours at
hotels (Han & Kim, 2010; see also Barr et al., 2001; Tonglet et
al., 2004).
Also as mentioned, attitudes towards recycling represent a key
factor, ranging from the extreme scepticism of individuals who only
perform the desired behaviours under coercion to the complete
acceptance of individuals who regularly and willingly perform the
desired behaviours (Guagnano et al., 1995). Positive consequences
of recycling appear to promote recycling behaviours, and external
conditions can affect the relationship between attitudes and behav-
iours (cf. Steg, Bolderdijk, Keizer, & Perlaviciute, 2014). Based on
the theory, one of the main factors influencing people's attitude is
awareness. Studies found that awareness towards recycling leads
to various behaviour such as positive attitude towards recycling
(Ramayah, Lee, & Lim, 2012); overcoming barriers towards the collec-
tion and utilization of recovered paper (Miranda & Blanco, 2010);
increasing the knowledge on the importance and benefits of
recycling (Sidique, Joshi, & Lupi, 2010); and increasing consumers'
intention to recycle e-waste (Dwivedy & Mittal, 2013; Tanskanen,
2013). On the basis of these considerations, we formulated the fol-
lowing hypothesis:
H2 : Awareness of recycling significantly influences attitudes towards
recycling.
3.3 | Subjective norms ! the intention to recycle
In a study of waste recycling in Hong Kong, Chan (1998) found that
subjective norms regarding the use of waste recycling receptacles cor-
related positively with behavioural intention and that those who per-
ceived significant social pressure were more likely to use the
receptacles. Thus, mass communication was found to be a major
source of influence in establishment of subjective norms. On the
other hand, Mannetti, Pierro, and Livi (2004) found that subjective
norms were a weak predictor of the intention to recycle and attrib-
uted this result to the specific weakness of agree–disagree measures.
This finding was consistent with previous research, including a meta-
analytic review by Armitage and Conner (2001) of 185 studies that
identified subjective norms as the weakest predictor in the TPB
model. On the other hand, Fornara, Carrus, Passafaro, and Bonnes
(2011) reported that various social norms make distinct contributions
to such place-related behaviour as household waste recycling and that
descriptive (i.e., subjective and local) norms were powerful predictors
of the target proenvironmental behaviour in specific spatial–physical
settings. Then again, Park and Ha (2014), in developing a comprehen-
sive model of consumers' recycling intentions, found that subjective
norms did not directly influence recycling intention but that subjective
norms did so indirectly through the mediation of attitudes, personal
norms, and PBC. These researchers' failure to find a direct impact
does not necessarily mean that social consensus and social pressure
4 of 14
play no role in increasing consumers' recycling intention; rather, sub-
jective norms play an essential role in recycling intention by promot-
ing favourable attitudes towards recycling, strong personal obligations
to engage in it, and the perception that recycling is not difficult (Park
& Ha, 2014). On the basis of these considerations, we formulated the
following hypothesis:
H3 : Subjective norms significantly influence the intention to recycle.
3.4 | Moral norms ! subjective norms
Given the research indicating that subjective norms are weak predic-
tors of intentions in the context of TPB (e.g., Armitage & Conner,
2001), calls have been made for the incorporation of additional nor-
mative variables relevant to the predictive validity of TPB (e.g.,
Manstead, 2000; Rivis & Sheeran, 2003), for instance, moral norms
(again, Chan & Bishop, 2013). The influence of moral norms—also
referred to as personal norms—has been shown to increase the
variance in intentions over and above that afforded by other TPB
variables across a range of behavioural contexts (see Rivis, Sheeran,
& Armitage, 2009). Thus, for example, Matthies, Selge, and Klöckner
(2012), in a study of the influence of parents on their children's reuse
and recycling of paper, found both personal and subjective norms to
be relevant (cf. Bamberg & Möser, 2007; Hunecke, Blöbaum,
Matthies, & Höger, 2001). A study by Bamberg and Möser (2007)
also pointed to moral norms as being responsible for a significant
part of the variance in proenvironmental behaviours. As moral norms
are activated when individuals become aware of the impact of
their actions on others and accept personal responsibility for them
(Schwartz, 1977), it was expected that moral norms would signifi-
cantly influence subjective norms, as stated in the following
hypothesis:
H4 : Moral norms significantly influence subjective norms.
3.5 | PBC ! intention to recycle
PBC, as discussed, refers to an individual's perception of the diffi-
culty of performing a behaviour, which is to say the perception of
self-efficacy to perform the behaviour (intrinsic motivation) and of
control over it (extrinsic motivation). Previous field studies of eco-
logical behaviours have suggested that PBC predicts
proenvironmental behavioural intentions and self-reported behav-
iours (Davis, O'Callaghan, & Knox, 2009). Thus, for example, for a
study of intentions to recycle household waste, Carrus, Passafaro,
and Bonnes (2008) used a survey conducted in Italy to test the
model of goal-directed behaviour (an extension of TPB) and deter-
mined that PBC correlated moderately but significantly with inten-
tion to engage in household recycling (r = .44). Similarly, in a cross-
sectional survey conducted in Taiwan, Chen and Tung (2014) found
PBC to correlate significantly with recycling intention (r = .44) but
ARLI ET AL.
not to be a significant independent predictor of intentions (p =
.77)—though the lack of physical facilities was a barrier to household
recycling and, therefore, exerted a significant moderating effect on
the relationship between PBC and recycling intentions. Likewise, in
a cross-sectional survey conducted in Glasgow, Scotland, at a time
when recycling facilities were relatively undeveloped, Knussen, Yule,
MacKenzie, and Wells (2004) found that PBC was moderately posi-
tively correlated with intention to recycle (p = .44); thus, the PBC–
intention relationship was significantly stronger when facilities were
not perceived to be lacking. However, PBC has not always proved
to be a significant independent predictor of recycling intentions.
Thus, for example, in a study of a mature kerbside recycling scheme
in the United Kingdom, the items used to measure PBC were tai-
lored to the specific context, for example, “I have plenty of opportu-
nities to recycle” and “I know what items of household waste can
be recycled” (Tonglet et al., 2004); again, PBC was not a significant
independent predictor of recycling intentions and recycling behav-
iour. On the basis of these considerations, we formulated the fol-
lowing hypotheses:
H5 : PBC significantly influences the intention to recycle.
H6 : PBC significantly influences recycling behaviour.
3.6 | Self-efficacy ! perceived behaviour control
A theoretical distinction has been made between self-efficacy (as
defined by Bandura, 1977; 1982) and PBC (as defined by Ajzen,
1991). In the integrated waste management model proposed by Tay-
lor and Todd (1995), which was based on TPB, self-efficacy is a key
determinant of waste management intentions and behaviour, exerting
an effect indirectly through its relationship with PBC. In these
scholars' study of household recycling behaviour in a city in Canada,
self-efficacy was a predictor of PBC within the integrated waste man-
agement model, and fit was tested using structural equation model-
ling. The path coefficient from self-efficacy to PBC was weak but
significant (p < .01), and that from PBC to behavioural intention was
even stronger (p < .001). Thus, the empirical precedent in the context
of household recycling behaviour indicates support for the theoreti-
cally derived prediction that self-efficacy is linked to PBC. We accord-
ingly formulated the following hypothesis:
H7 : Self-efficacy significantly influences PBC.
3.7 | Situational factors ! PBC
Beyond the influence of self-efficacy, the TPB suggests that situa-
tional factors play a significant role in the perception of behavioural
control (Ajzen, 1991). Although an individual's internal disposition
influences his or her decision to engage in a behaviour, features of a
given situation may act as enablers or disablers of that behaviour
ARLI ET AL.
(Ajzen, 2005; Barr, 2007). Thus, for example, individuals with a posi-
tive attitude towards recycling but little access to recycling facilities
are constrained by the situation in which they find themselves. Situa-
tional influences add a level of complexity to behavioural responses
owing to the dynamic nature of the forces that are potentially at play
(Flannery & May, 2000).
Situational factors, then, obtain within a specific time and space
(Carrington, Neville, & Whitwell, 2010); such factors are beyond indi-
viduals' control but nevertheless influence their behaviour (Flannery &
May, 2000). So it is that such demographic variables as age, gender,
and income are known to exert a significant influence in behavioural
contexts (Echegaray & Hansstein, 2017; Wang, Guo, & Wang, 2016).
An individual's personal situation, including environmental conditions,
knowledge, and experience, is also influential in behavioural contexts
(Barr, 2007; Mahmud & Osman, 2010). Effort, logistics, and inconve-
nience associated with recycling may also be important considerations
(Boldero, 1995), along with situational constraints, self-awareness,
and competence (Ajzen, 2005).
More specifically, TPB holds that situational influences directly
impact PBC, which in turn relates to individuals' perceptions of the
ease of a behaviour. Thus, for example, control of recycling is often
associated with perceptions of the situational influences represented
by the cost and convenience of recycling behaviour (Wang et al.,
2016). Therefore, in the case of recycling, situational barriers may
diminish individuals' perception of behavioural control (Pop,
Romonti-Maniu, & Zaharie, 2014): When these barriers increase the
effort required and create inconveniences (Boldero, 1995), individ-
uals' behavioural control with respect to recycling is directly
impacted.
Situational factors contribute directly to PBC in a range of con-
texts, including environmental ethical behaviours (Flannery & May,
2000) and recycling (Echegaray & Hansstein, 2017; Pop et al., 2014).
The effects of situational influences are somewhat inconsistent in the
recycling environment (Flannery & May, 2000; Latif, Omar, Bidin, &
Awang, 2012), but solid theoretical reasoning supports the conceptual
link between situational factors and perceived control. We accord-
ingly formulated the following hypothesis:
F I G U R E 1 The theory of
planned behaviour (adapted from
Ajzen, 1991)
5 of 14
H8 : Situational factors significantly influence perceived behaviour
control.
3.8 | Intention to recycle ! behaviour
There is a robust theoretical basis for the direct influence of intent
on behaviour (Ajzen, 1991). Specifically, according to TPB, the
strength of an individual's intention towards a behaviour correlates
with the likelihood of performing that behaviour (Ajzen, 2005).
Intentions thus reflect an individual's willingness to exert the effort
to perform a behaviour (Ajzen, 1991) and are impacted by a range
of direct and indirect factors, including the individual's nature, social
influences, and issues of control, all of which create the intent to
engage in a behaviour (Ajzen, 2005). Indeed, the concept of intent
is at the centre of TPB (Oztekin, Teksoz, Pamuk, Sahin, & Kilic,
2017) and has been shown to be a fairly reliable predictor actual
behaviour (Ajzen, 1991). Thus, when individuals have a strong intent
to engage in recycling behaviour, they are far more likely to perform
it than those with vague or weak intent. Various models confirm
this relationship between intention and behaviour, particularly in the
environmental behaviour arena, as Chao (2012) showed in the case
of Taiwanese students, Boldero (1995) in the case of Australian stu-
dents, and Latif et al. (2012) in the case of Malaysian consumers.
On the other hand, Carrington et al. (2010) found that, at least in
relation to environmentally ethical purchasing behaviour, individuals'
intent was a less than effective predictor, as did Echegaray and
Hansstein (2017) in the context of e-waste in Brazil. Therefore,
although there is strong evidence for a relationship between intent
and behaviour, uncertainty remains regarding the specifically envi-
ronmental context (Echegaray & Hansstein, 2017) that requires fur-
ther examination. Nevertheless, the prevailing view appears to be
that individuals with strong intentions are more likely to engage in a
given behaviour (see Figure 1). We accordingly formulated our last
hypothesis, as follows:
H9 : Intention to recycle significantly influences recycling behaviour.
6 of 14 ARLI ET AL.

4 | METHODOLOGY
4.1 | Measure and data collection
Participants (n = 827) were recruited through an online survey plat-
form (MTurk). The extant literature supports the use of this platform
in social science research (Goodman & Paolacci, 2017; Hauser &
Schwarz, 2016; Smith, Roster, Golden, & Albaum, 2016). Participants
received USD$1.0 in their Amazon.com account as a reward for suc-
cessfully completing the survey. The demographic information is sum-
marized in Table 1.
All of the measures used 5-point Likert-type scales, adapted from
previous research, with anchors ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5
(strongly agree). Attitudes towards recycling, subjective norms, moral
norms, PBC, intention to recycle, and situational factors were adapted
from Ajzen (1991) and Tonglet et al. (2004). Awareness of recycling
was adapted from Guagnano et al. (1995) and self-efficacy from
Bandura (1994). The scale items that we used in this study are sum-
marized in Table 2.
variable to test for internal consistency reliability and assessed con-
vergent validity by determining whether factor loadings were greater
than.50 and, therefore, statistically significant (p ≤ .05). The minimum
factor loading was.56 (for moral norm, Item 1; and awareness of
recycling, Item 4; Bagozzi & Yi, 2012), which met the threshold of
internal consistency (Malhotra & Birks, 2007). The confidence inter-
vals around the correlation estimates between any two constructs
were all significantly different from one another (Anderson & Gerbing,
1988). To assess discriminant validity among the constructs, we com-
pared the average variance extracted (AVE) values for each with the
squared correlation estimates of paired measured constructs in the
model (Fornell & Larcker, 1981); the AVE ranged from .47 (subjective
norm) to .89 (intention to recycle). We further calculated composite
reliability (CR) values and compared them with a threshold benchmark
of.60 (Bagozzi & Yi, 1988); the minimum CR of this study ranged
from.73 to.96. The variance extracted was tested, and the AVE for
each factor was greater than the square of the correlation coefficient
for each of the other factors (see Table 3). Thus, the test confirmed
the measurement model discriminant validity (Fornell &
Larcker, 1981).

4.2 | Reliability
Using structural equation modelling (AMOS), we ran a confirmatory
factor analysis (CFA) on the measures. The fit of the model was good,
χ 2(df) = 1,819.985 (538); comparative fit index = .93; Tucker–Lewis
index = .92; nonnormed fit index = .91; root mean square error of
approximation = .05; standardized root mean square residual = .04,
being well above the recommended values (Jöreskor & Sörbom, 2003;
Steiger, 1990). We also calculated Cronbach's alpha for each key
5 | RESULTS
Having established the unidimensionality and reliability of the models,
we next estimated the hypothesized relationships between the vari-
ous constructs (see Table 4). The results indicated that attitudes
towards the behaviour did not influence the intention to recycle; thus,
H1 was not supported. However, H2 was supported, as awareness of
recycling significantly influenced attitudes towards it (β = .538; p <
.001). H3 and H4 were also supported, as subjective norms or social

TABLE 1 Demographic profile (N = 210) pressure significantly influenced the intention to recycle (β = .593; p <
.001), and the subjective norm was influenced by the moral norm (β =
Demographic Percentage
.593; p < .001), respectively.
Gender Further, PBC, or the ease of recycling, significantly influenced
Male 53.3 intention to recycle (β = .695; p < .001) and recycling behaviour (β =
Female 46.7 .174; p < .001), so H5 and H6 were supported. So also were H7 and
Marital status H8, as PBC was significantly influenced by self-efficacy (β = .229, p <
Married 56.7 .001) and by situational factors (β = −.667, p < .001), respectively.
Single 43.3 Finally, intention to recycle significantly influenced recycling behav-

Age iour (β = .639, p < .001), so H9 was supported too.

18–24 years 13.8

25–34 years 54.3 6 | DISCUSSION
35–44 years 21.4
45–54 years 6.2 Moral norms are higher order constructs, being bound up in an indi-
Over 55 years 4.3 vidual's sense of self, and are relatively stable. These norms, therefore,
Ethnicity drive behaviour across a range of contexts (Bandura, 2012), particu-

Caucasian 37.1 larly those that have an “oughtness” quality or ethical element
(Rokeach, 1973), which includes proenvironmental behaviour
African American 4.8
(Schwartz, 1977). Whereas moral norms constitute a general individ-
Asian 50
ual standard of behaviour (Rokeach, 1973; Schwartz, 1977), social
Latino 3.3
norms emerge from collective agreement within important referent
Other 4.8
groups in regard to acceptable behaviour in a given context (Rokeach,
ARLI ET AL. 7 of 14

TABLE 2 Confirmatory factor analysis

Convergent validity Reliability

Factor Item Factor loading CR AVE

Awareness of recycling
Recycling substantially reduces the use of landfills. AR01 .81 .87 .63
Recycling conserves natural resources. AR02 .88
Recycling will make a difference in the quality of the AR03 .86
environment
Recycling creates jobs. AR04 .56
1 = strongly disagree; 5 = strongly agree
Moral norm
I feel I should not waste anything if it could be used again. MN01 .56 .86 .50
It would be wrong of me not to recycle my household MN02 .75
waste.
I would feel guilty if I did not recycle my household waste MN03 .76
Not recycling goes against my principles. MN04 .76
I am concerned with maintaining a good place to live. MN05 .58
I have a strong interest in the health and well-being of the MN06 .65
community in which I live
Everybody should share the responsibility to recycle MN07 .83
household waste.
1 = strongly disagree; 5 = strongly agree
Self-efficacy
I can always manage to solve difficult problems if I try SE01 .80 .84 .57
hard enough.
It is easy for me to stick to my aims and accomplish my SE02 .67
goals.
I am confident that I could deal efficiently with SE03 .78
unexpected events.
Thanks to my resourcefulness, I know how to handle SE04 .86
unforeseen situations.
I can solve most problems if I invest the necessary effort. SE05 .80
1 = strongly disagree; 5 = strongly agree
Situational factor
Recycling is too complicated. SF01 .80 .87 .63
Recycling takes up too much room. SF02 .79
Recycling programmes are a waste of money. SF03 .72
Recycling takes up too much time. SF04 .86
1 = strongly disagree; 5 = strongly agree
Attitude towards recycling
1 = bad; 5 = good ATR01 .67 .88 .59
1 = waste of time; 5 = useful ATR02 .83
1 = deceptive; 5 = rewarding ATR03 .73
1 = not sensible; 5 = sensible ATR04 .83
Subjective norm
Most people think I should recycle. SN01 .64 .73 .47
Most people would approve of me recycling. SN02 .59
Those people who are important to me would want me to SN03 .82
engage in recycling.
(Continues)
8 of 14 ARLI ET AL.

TABLE 2 (Continued)

Convergent validity Reliability

Factor Item Factor loading CR AVE

1 = strongly disagree; 5 = strongly agree
Intention to recycle
How likely are you to recycle your waste at home in the IR01 .94 .96 .89
next 4 weeks.
I intend to recycle my waste at home every day in the IR02 .93
forthcoming month.
I will try to recycle my waste at home each day in the IR03 .96
forthcoming month.
1 = strongly disagree; 5 = strongly agree
Perceived behavioural control
I have complete control over whether I engage in PBC01 .55 .89 .78
recycling.
I am confident that I could engage in recycling. PBC02 .74
It would be difficult for me to engage in recycling. PNC03 .77
1 = strongly disagree; 5 = strongly agree
Recycling behaviour
In the past 3 months, how frequently did you recycle RB01 .61 .59 .77
household waste that can be put into the recycling bins
provided by the council or local authorities?
In the past 3 months, how frequently did you recycle at RB02 .90
your workplace?
1 = never; 5 = always

Abbreviations: AVE, average variance extracted; CR, composite reliability.

TABLE 3 Discriminant validity

Construct 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
1. Awareness of recycling .63
2. Moral norm .56** .50
**
3. Self-efficacy .29 .29** .57
**
4. Situational factors −.50 −.53** −.24** .63
** ** **
5. Attitude towards recycling .49 .47 .14 −.47** .59
** ** **
6. Subjective norm .43 .57 .24 −.44** .37** .47
** ** ** ** **
7. Intention to recycle .34 .68 .23 −.51 .35 .42** .89
** ** ** ** **
8. Perceived behavioural control .31 .40 .24 −.50 .28 .28** .54** .48
** ** ** ** ** ** **
9. Recycling behaviour .25 .55 .21 −.47 .28 .37 .73 .45** .59
M 4.14 4.01 3.81 1.87 4.59 4.12 3.91 4.03 3.65
SD 0.65 0.71 0.64 0.81 0.62 0.65 1.07 0.78 1.12

Note. Values below the diagonal are bivariate correlations between the constructs; bold diagonal elements represent the average variance extracted for
the relevant construct; values above the diagonal represent squared correlations; and values below the diagonal represent correlations.
**p < .001.; *p < .05.

1973, Schwartz, 1977). Moral and social norms are, thus, distinct con-
structs, as the evaluations of discriminant validity for this study con-
firmed (see Table 3). However, precisely because social norms are
viewed as expressions of underlying, individual, and internally stable
cognitive structures, including morals and values (Rokeach, 1973;
Schwartz, 1977), the significant positive association between the
measures of moral norms (which are individual) and subjective norms
(which are group based) found in this study was consistent with theo-
retical expectations.
Ajzen (2012) argued that behaviour is determined in part by nor-
mative beliefs concerning the expectations of important referent
others, an idea introduced above, and that these normative beliefs
ARLI ET AL.
TABLE 4 Results of the structural model
Hypothesis Path
H1 Attitude towards the behaviour ! intention to recycle
H2 Awareness of recycling ! attitude towards recycling
H3 Subjective norm ! intention to recycle.
H4 Moral norm ! subjective norm
H5 Perceived behavioural control ! influence intention to recycle
H6 Perceived behavioural control ! recycling behaviour
H7 Self-efficacy ! perceived behavioural control
H8 Situational factors ! perceived behaviour control
H9 Intention to recycle ! recycling behaviour
Note. Fit statistics: χ (df) = 1819.985 (538); comparative fit index = .93; Tucker–Lewis index = .92; nonnormed fit index = .91; root mean square error of
2
approximation = .05; standardized root mean square residual = .04.
combine to produce a subjective norm or perceived social pressure to
perform a particular behaviour (see in particular p. 443). The finding
presented here that a subjective norm in support of recycling behav-
iour significantly predicted recycling intention is, thus, consistent with
Ajzen's theory. Furthermore, subjective norms are considered concep-
tually independent of attitudes towards a behaviour, in that an indi-
vidual can have a positive attitude about it but perceive little social
pressure to engage in it and, therefore, choose not to do so. It is,
therefore, important to consider the unique contribution of each of
the other variables in the extended TPB model.
These results confirm the expected association between aware-
ness of the positive consequences of recycling (i.e., beliefs about the
outcomes) and attitudes towards it. Ajzen (2012) argued that a behav-
iour is guided in part by evaluations of its likely outcomes (see in par-
ticular p. 448), which in turn produce either favourable or
unfavourable attitudes towards it. The significant positive association
between awareness of the consequences of recycling and attitudes
towards recycling found here is, thus, also consistent with Ajzen's
theory.
Unlike the meta-analysis by Bamberg and Möser (2007) of psy-
cho-social determinants of proenvironmental behaviour, which
found significant correlations between proenvironmental attitudes
and behaviours across nine studies, the CFA model tested here
showed no significant unique contribution of attitudes towards
intention to recycle. This result seems counter-intuitive given the
empirical evidence to the contrary reported in a number of previous
environmental studies and the broader evidence for the validity of
TPB and component constructs, including attitudes. However, it is
noteworthy that, in previous studies, neither measures of awareness
of consequences nor beliefs about the outcomes of the target
behaviours were used in the models. As has been seen, Ajzen's
(1991, 2012) theory emphasizes readily accessible beliefs about the
likely outcomes of a behaviour (e.g., the belief that recycling con-
serves natural resources) as a foundation for attitude formation. It
could accordingly be argued that a CFA model—one accounting for
the relative influence of all of the variables used in predicting inten-
tion to recycle—has the potential to reveal whether any predicted
9 of 14
Path coefficient p value Result
.025 .635 Not supported
.538 .000 Supported
.593 .000 Supported
.631 .000 Supported
.695 .000 Supported
.174 .000 Supported
.229 .000 Supported
−.667 .000 Supported
.639 .000 Supported
unique contribution of attitudes relating to intention to recycle
might, as per previous TPB models, actually be subsumed by the
inclusion of a measure of beliefs about the outcomes (i.e., measures
of awareness, as included in the current model) seen in the results
of the model analysed here. If a measure of beliefs regarding the
outcomes of a behaviour were included in a TPB-based model, this
effect would merit investigation in future studies using similar meth-
odology and measures. Were such further empirical evidence to be
found, then, measures of beliefs about behavioural outcomes could
prove to be effective substitutes for attitudes in TPB-based predic-
tive models of behaviour. Such a finding could be particularly impor-
tant, as beliefs of this type can be readily taught through evidence-
based proenvironmental initiatives and, therefore, may be more eas-
ily influenced than attitudes when it comes to increasing the likeli-
hood of proenvironmental behaviour.
Beyond self-efficacy, the findings presented also indicate that sit-
uational factors positively influence perceived behaviour control, as
was expected based on TPB (Bandura 1982). Thus, for instance, Tay-
lor and Todd (1995) proposed that self-efficacy is a key determinant
of waste management intentions and in particular intention to recycle
owing to its relationship with PBC. On the other hand, Ajzen (1991)
suggested that the situational factors should play an influential role in
the perception of behavioural control. Thus, Echegaray and Hansstein
(2017) identified age, gender, and income as situational influences
more commonly thought to exert significant influence on behaviour
(cf. Wang et al., 2016). In the case of recycling, situational barriers
may diminish individuals' perceptions of behavioural control (Pop et
al., 2014).
Likewise, the present study showed that PBC positively influences
intention to recycle, thus mirroring the finding of a cross-sectional
survey conducted in Taiwan by Chen and Tung (2014). Carrus et al.
(2008) also reported that PBC predicted proenvironmental behav-
ioural intentions in their study of household waste recycling. Further-
more, unlike Echegaray and Hansstein (2017), who found that
intention to recycle did not predict the behaviour of recycling of e-
waste in Brazil, we found a direct link between the two. This finding
corroborates the previous work in Australia (Boldero, 1995), Taiwan
10 of 14
(Chao, 2012), and Malaysia (Latif et al., 2012) discussed above, which
revealed a positive relationship between intention and
proenvironmental behaviour. These results are again consistent with
the tenet of TPB that the strength of an individual's intention towards
a behaviour correlates with the likelihood of performing it (Ajzen,
2005; Oztekin et al., 2017).
7 | MANAGERIAL IMPLICATIONS
The findings presented here have significant practical implications for
policymakers and practitioners interested in inculcating intention and
behaviour relating to recycling in the public through a review of the
relevant regulations. One such implication is that, in general, interven-
tions by governmental agencies and organizations should concentrate
on enhancing awareness of the benefits of recycling, increasing self-
efficacy, and being attentive to perceived norms. Mass media and
non-profit organizations can also promote recycling behaviours
through green campaigns.
In addition, the public should be made keenly aware of ethical
norms relating to recycling behaviour, including the purchase and use
of recycling products. Thus, for instance, environmental programmes
could highlight the norms and moral aspects of recycling behaviour
while at the same time discussing risks to the safety of people and
animals posed by poor waste management practices. Similarly, media
channels and governmental agencies should seek to remain active in
sharing insights regarding the negative impacts of poor waste
management.
At the same time, because the intention to recycle represents
an individual's willingness to exert effort and is influenced by direct
and indirect factors, such as social influences (Ajzen, 1991, 2005),
other communities, especially families and schools, have the poten-
tial to be effective in fostering recycling habits. One example is by
creating a recycling club within a school, which will help normalize
the recycling behaviour. The club will create the norm by “promot-
ing the significance of recycling and portraying recycling as a socially
desirable behavior” (Wan, Shen, & Yu, 2014, p. 148). These steps
stand to enhance the attitudes and behaviours of individuals regard-
ing recycling. Furthermore, parents and teachers could instruct chil-
dren on the use of recycling bins and recyclable products in order
to plan for a cleaner and healthier society. Mass media and social
media can contribute by drawing attention to the admiration of
family members and friends that recycling can engender. Members
of the public should encourage family and friends to support gov-
ernment recycling efforts. Watching similar people or hearing their
success stories in keeping the environment clean will motivate them
to believe that if other could, they can too. It will boost their self-
efficacy. Lastly, government can incentivize the process of recycling,
for example, by giving a coupon to residents who they can recycle
their waste for free, hence creating a sense of control in regard to
their recycling behaviour.
ARLI ET AL.
8 | LIMITATIONS AND FUTURE RESEARCH
Although samples of U.S. respondents recruited through Amazon's
Mechanical Turk are generally considered to be of high quality and
demographically diverse—and the approach is certainly cost-effec-
tive—as a source of data, this platform has a few limitations. Among
these limitations are restricted access, because Mechanical Turk
reaches only tech-savvy consumers, and the tendency of consumers
to become distracted by uncontrollable factors in their personal
physical environments (Minton et al., 2015). The very fact that the
respondents were all in the United States represents another limita-
tion on the generalizability of the findings, one that could be obvi-
ated in future studies by the inclusion of respondents from other
countries. Finally, the data for this study were cross-sectional.
Owing to the rapidity of technological developments, including
increased access to information through the Internet, attitudes, per-
ceptions, and intention relating to recycling are likely to change over
time. As a consequence, replicating this study using longitudinal
(rather than cross-sectional) data could reveal further interesting
results.
This study has paved the way for future research in other respects
as well. To begin with, attitudes, perceptions, and behaviours relating
to such environmental issues as recycling tend to vary with demo-
graphic characteristics, including gender, income, religion, and educa-
tion (Arli & Tjiptono, 2017; Gifford & Nilsson, 2014; Martínez-
Espiñeira, García-Valiñas, & Nauges, 2014; Liobikienė & Juknys,
2016). Hence, a similar study could be conducted comparing various
groups (e.g., younger with older or more with less educated respon-
dents). Further, although we treated norms as a single construct,
those enforced by family and friends also drive behavioural intentions
(Jebarakirthy & Lobo, 2015), including with respect to
proenvironmental issues (Gronhoj & Thogersen, 2012; Joung & Park-
Poaps, 2013). The norms of both family members and friends could
accordingly be factored into future research as separate determinants
of intention to recycle. Finally, we examined only direct effects, leav-
ing it to future researchers to examine the influence of moderating
factors, such as those affecting the association between awareness of
and attitudes towards recycling.
ET HICS S TAT E MENT
Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants
included in the study. All procedures performed in studies involving
human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of
the institutional and/or national research committee and with the
1964 Declaration of Helsinki and its later amendments or comparable
ethical standards.
OR CID
Denni Arli https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6320-3994
ARLI ET AL.
RE FE R ENC E S
Ajzen I. (1985). From intentions to actions: A theory of planned behaviour.
In Kuhl J. & Beckmann J.. (Eds.), Action-control: From cognition to
behaviour (pp. 11–39). Heidelberg, Germany: Springer. https://doi.org/
10.1007/978-3-642-69746-3_2.
Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behaviour. Organisational Behaviour
Human Decision Process, 50(2), 179–211. https://doi.org/10.1016/
0749-5978(91)90020-T
Ajzen, I. (2005). Attitudes, personality and behavior. New York, NY, Maiden-
head and Berkshire, UK: Open University Press.
Ajzen, I. (2015). The theory of planned behaviour is alive and well, and not
ready to retire: A commentary on Sniehotta, Presseau, and Araújo-
Soares. Health Psychology Review, 9(2), 131–137.
Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (2000). Attitudes and the attitude–behavior rela-
tion: Reasoned and automatic processes. European Review of Social
Psychology, 11(1), 1-33, 1, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/
14792779943000116.
Ajzen, I., Albarracin, D., & Hornik, R., eds. Prediction and change of health
behavior: Applying the reasoned action approach. Psychology Press;
2012.
Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. (1988). Structural equation modeling in
practice: A review and recommended two-step approach. Psychological
Bulletin, 103(3), 411.
Arli, D., & Tjiptono, F. (2017). God and green: Investigating the impact of
religiousness on green marketing. International Journal of Nonprofit and
Voluntary Sector Marketing, 22(3), e1578. https://doi.org/10.1002/
nvsm.1578
Armitage, C. J., & Conner, M. (2001). Efficacy of the theory of planned
behaviour: A meta-analytic review. British Journal of Social Psychology,
40(4), 471–499. https://doi.org/10.1348/014466601164939
Bagozzi, R. P., & Yi, Y. (1988). On the evaluation of structural equation
models. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 16, 74–94.
https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02723327
Bagozzi, R. P., & Yi, Y. (2012). Specification, evaluation, and interpretation
of structural equation models. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Sci-
ence, 40(1), 8-34.
Baldassare, M., & Katz, C. (1992). The personal threat of environmental
problems as predictor of environmental practices. Environment and
Behaviour, 24(5), 602–616. https://doi.org/10.1177/
0013916592245002
Bamberg, S., & Möser, G. (2007). Twenty years after Hines, Hungerford,
and Tomera: A new meta-analysis of psycho-social determinants of
pro-environmental behaviour. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 27,
14–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2006.12.002
Bamberg, S., & Schmidt, P. (2003). Incentives, morality, or habit? Predicting
students' car use for university routes with the models of Ajzen,
Schwartz, and Triandis. Environment and Behavior, 35, 264–285.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916502250134
Bandura, A. (1994). Self-efficacy. In V. S. Ramachaudran (Ed.), Encyclopedia
of human behavior (Vol. 4) (pp. 71–81). New York, NY: Academic Press.
Bandura, A. (2012). On the functional properties of perceived self-efficacy
revisited. Journal of Management, 38(1), 9–44.
Bandura, A, & Walters, R. H. (1977) Social learning theory Vol. 1. Engle-
wood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-hall.
Barr, S. (2007). Factors influencing environmental attitudes and behaviors:
A U.K. case study of household waste management. Environment and
Behavior, 39(4), 435–473. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916
505283421
Barr, S., Gilg, A. W., & Ford, N. J. (2001). A conceptual framework for
understanding and analysing attitudes towards household-waste man-
agement. Environment and Planning, 33(11), 2025–2048. https://doi.
org/10.1068/a33225
Bentley, M., Fien, J., & Neil, C. (2004). Sustainable consumption: Young
Australians as agents of change (No. 0975249843). Canberra, Australia:
11 of 14
Department of Family and Community Services on behalf of National
Youth Affairs Research Scheme.
Berger, I. E. (1997). The demographics of recycling and the structure of
environmental behavior. Environment and Behavior, 29(4), 515–531.
https://doi.org/10.1177/001391659702900404
Black, I. (2010). Sustainability through anti-consumption. Journal of Con-
sumer Behaviour, 9(6), 403–411. https://doi.org/10.1002/cb.340
Blok, V., Wesselink, R., Studynka, O., & Kemp, R. (2015). Encouraging sus-
tainability in the workplace: A survey on the pro-environmental behav-
iour of university employees. Journal of Cleaner Production, 106, 55–
67. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.07.063
Boldero, J. (1995). The prediction of household recycling of newspapers:
The role of attitudes, intentions, and situational factors. Journal of
Applied Social Psychology, 25(5), 440–462. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.
1559-1816.1995.tb01598.x
Botetzagias, I., Dima, A., & Malesios, C. (2015). Extending the theory of
planned behaviour in the context of recycling: The role of moral norms
and of demographic predictors. Resources, Conservation and Recycling,
95, 58–67. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2014.12.004
Carrington, M. J., Neville, B. A., & Whitwell, G. J. (2010). Why ethical con-
sumers don't walk their talk: Towards a framework for understanding
the gap between the ethical purchase intentions and actual buying
behaviour of ethically minded consumers. Journal of Business Ethics, 97
(1), 139–158. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-010-0501-6
Carrus, G., Passafaro, P., & Bonnes, M. (2008). Emotions, habits and ratio-
nal choices in ecological behaviours: The case of recycling and use of
public transportation. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 28(1), 51–
62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2007.09.003
Chan, K. (1998). Mass communication and pro-environmental behaviour:
Waste recycling in Hong Kong. Journal of Environmental Management,
52(4), 317–325. https://doi.org/10.1006/jema.1998.0189
Chan, L., & Bishop, B. (2013). A moral basis for recycling: Extending the
theory of planned behaviour. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 36,
96–102. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2013.07.010
Chao, Y.-L. (2012). Predicting people's environmental behaviour: Theory of
planned behaviour and model of responsible environmental behaviour.
Environmental Education Research, 18(4), 437–461. https://doi.org/10.
1080/13504622.2011.634970
Chen, M.-F., & Tung, P.-J. (2014). Developing an extended theory of
planned behaviour model to predict consumers’ intention to visit green
hotels. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 36, 221–230.
Chen, M. F., & Tung, P. J. (2009). The moderating effect of perceived lack
of facilities on consumers' recycling intentions. Environment and Behav-
iour, 42(6), 824–844.
Coggins, P. C. (1994). Who is the recycler? Journal of Waste Management
and Resource Recovery, 1(2), 1–7.
Daneshvary, N., Daneshvary, R., & Schwer, R. K. (1998). Solid-waste
recycling behavior and support for curbside textile recycling. Environ-
ment and Behavior, 30(2), 144–161. https://doi.org/10.1177/
0013916598302002
Davis, G., O'Callaghan, F., & Knox, K. (2009). Sustainable attitudes and
behaviours amongst a sample of non-academic staff: A case study
from an Information Services Department, Griffith University, Bris-
bane. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 10(2),
136–151. https://doi.org/10.1108/14676370910945945
De Jaeger, S., Eyckmans, J., Rogge, N., & Van Puyenbroeck, T. (2011).
Wasteful waste reducing policies? The impact of waste reduction pol-
icy instruments on collection and processing costs of municipal solid
waste. Waste Management, 31(7), 1429–1440. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.wasman.2011.02.021
De Young, R. (1986). Some psychological aspects of recycling. Environment
and Behavior, 18(4), 435–449. https://doi.org/10.1177/
0013916586184001
12 of 14
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). The general causality orientations scale:
Self–determination in personality. Journal of research in personality, 19,
109–134..
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2008). Self-determination theory: A macro the-
ory of human motivation, development, and health. Canadian Psychol-
ogy, 49(3), 1823–1185.
Derksen, L., & Gartrell, J. (1993). The social context of recycling. American
Sociological Review, 58, 434–442. https://doi.org/10.2307/2095910
Dwivedy, M., & Mittal, R. K. (2013). Willingness of residents to participate
in e-waste recycling in India. Environmental Development, 6, 48–68.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envdev.2013.03.001
Echegaray, F., & Hansstein, F. V. (2017). Assessing the intention–behavior
gap in electronic waste recycling: the case of Brazil. Journal of Cleaner
Production, 142, 180–190. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.
05.064
Flannery, B. L., & May, D. R. (2000). Environmental ethical decision making
in the U.S. metal-finishing industry. The Academy of Management Jour-
nal, 43(4), 642–662. https://doi.org/10.2307/1556359
Fornara, F., Carrus, G., Passafaro, P., & Bonnes, M. (2011). Distinguishing
the sources of normative influence on proenvironmental behaviors:
The role of local norms in household waste recycling. Group Processes
& Intergroup Relations, 14(5), 623–635. https://doi.org/10.1177/
1368430211408149
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models
with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Mar-
keting Research, 18, 39–50. https://doi.org/10.1177/
002224378101800104
Gifford, R., & Nilsson, A. (2014). Personal and social factors that influence
pro-environmental concern and behaviour: A review. International
Journal of Psychology, 49(3), 141–157.
Goddard, H. C. (1995). The benefits and costs of alternative solid waste
management policies. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 13(3),
183–213. https://doi.org/10.1016/0921-3449(94)00021-V
Goodman, J. K., & Paolacci, G. (2017). Crowdsourcing consumer research.
Journal of Consumer Research, 44(1), 196–210. https://doi.org/10.
1093/jcr/ucx047
Greaves, M., Zibarras, L., & Stride, C. (2013). Using the theory of planned
behaviour to explore environmental behavioral intentions in the work-
place. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 34, 109–120. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2013.02.003
Gronhoj, A., & Thogersen, J. (2012). Action speaks louder than words: The
effect of personal attitudes and family norms on adolescents' pro-envi-
ronmental behaviour. Journal of Economic Psychology, 33, 292–302.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joep.2011.10.001
Guagnano, G. A., Stern, P. C., & Dietz, T. (1995). Influences on attitude–
behavior relationships: A natural experiment with curbside recycling.
Environment and Behavior, 27(5), 699–718. https://doi.org/10.1177/
0013916595275005
Han, H. (2015). Travelers' pro-environmental behavior in a green lodging
context: Converging value-belief-norm theory and the theory of
planned behavior. Tourism Management, 47, 164–177. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.tourman.2014.09.014
Han, H., & Kim, Y. (2010). An investigation of green hotel customers' deci-
sion formation: Developing an extended model of the theory of
planned behavior. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 29
(4), 659–668. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2010.01.001
Hauser, D. J., & Schwarz, N. (2016). Attentive Turkers: MTurk participants
perform better on online attention checks than do subject pool partici-
pants. Behavior Research Methods, 48(1), 400–407.
Hopper, J. R., & Nielsen, J. M. (1991). Recycling as altruistic behavior: Nor-
mative and behavioral strategies to expand participation in a commu-
nity recycling programme. Environment and Behavior, 23(2), 195–220.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916591232004
Hume, M. (2010). Compassion without action: examining the young con-
sumers consumption and attitude to sustainable consumption. Journal
ARLI ET AL.
of World Business, 45, 385–394. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jwb.2009.
08.007
Hunecke, M., Blöbaum, A., Matthies, E., & Höger, R. (2001). Responsibility
and environment: Ecological norm orientation and external factors in
the domain of travel mode choice behavior. Environment and Behavior,
33(6), 830–852. https://doi.org/10.1177/00139160121973269
Jebarakirthy, C., & Lobo, A. (2015). A study investigating attitudinal per-
ceptions of microcredit services and their relevant drivers in bottom of
pyramid market segments. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services,
23, 39–48. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2014.12.005
Joung, H. M., & Park-Poaps, H. (2013). Factors motivating and influencing
clothing disposal behaviours. International Journal of Consumer Studies,
37, 105–111. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1470-6431.2011.01048.x
Jöreskog, K. G., & Sörbom, D. (2003). LISREL 8: Structural equation modeling
with the SIMPLIS command language. Scientific Software International;
1993.
Kaiser, F., & Gutscher, H. (2003). The proposition of a general version of
the theory of planned behavior: Predicting ecological behavior. Journal
of Applied Social Psychology, 33, 586–603. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.
1559-1816.2003.tb01914.x
Klockner, C. (2013). A comprehensive model of the psychology of environ-
mental behavior: A meta-analysis. Global Environmental Change, 23,
1028–1038. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2013.05.014
Knussen, C., Yule, F., MacKenzie, J., & Wells, M. (2004). An analysis of
intentions to recycle household waste: The roles of past behaviour,
perceived habit, and perceived lack of facilities. Journal of Environmen-
tal Psychology, 24(2), 237–246. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2003.
12.001
Latif, S. A., Omar, M. S., Bidin, Y. H., & Awang, Z. (2012). Environmental
problems and quality of life: Situational factor as a predictor of
recycling behaviour. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 35, 682–
688. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.02.137
Lavigne, G. L., Hauw, N., Vallerand, R. J., Brunel, P., Blanchard, C.,
Cadoretta, I., & Angot, C. (2009). On the dynamic relationships
between contextual (or general) and situational (or state) motivation
toward exercise and physical activity: A longitudinal test of the top-
down and bottom-up hypotheses. International Journal of Sport and
Exercise Psychology, 7, 147–168. https://doi.org/10.1080/1612197X.
2009.9671897
Liobikienė, G., & Juknys, R. (2016). The role of values, environmental risk
perception, awareness of consequences, and willingness to assume
responsibility for environmentally-friendly behaviour: The Lithuanian
case. Journal of Cleaner Production, 112, 3413–3422. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.10.049
Mahmud, S. N. D., & Osman, K. (2010). The determinants of recycling
intention behavior among the Malaysian school students: An applica-
tion of theory of planned behaviour. Procedia - Social and Behavioral
Sciences, 9, 119–124. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2010.12.123
Malhotra, N., & Birks, D. (2007). Marketing Research: an applied approach:
3rd European Edition. Pearson education.
Mannetti, L., Pierro, A., & Livi, S. (2004). Recycling: Planned and self-
expressive behaviour. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 24(2), 227–
236. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2004.01.002
Manstead, A. S. (2000). The role of moral norm in the attitude–behavior
relation. In D. J. Terry, & M. A. Hogg (Eds.), Applied social research. Atti-
tudes, behavior, and social context: The role of norms and group member-
ship (pp. 11–30). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates
Publishers.
Martínez-Espiñeira, R., García-Valiñas, M. A., & Nauges, C. (2014). House-
holds' pro-environmental habits and investments in water and energy
consumption: Determinants and relationships. Journal of Environmental
Management, 133, 174–183. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2013.
12.002
Matthies, E., Selge, S., & Klöckner, C. A. (2012). The role of parental behav-
iour for the development of behaviour specific environmental norms:
ARLI ET AL.
The example of recycling and re-use behaviour. Journal of Environmen-
tal Psychology, 32(3), 277–284. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2012.
04.003
Minton, E. A., Kahle, L. R., Kim, C. H. (2015). Religion and motives for sus-
tainable behaviors: A cross-cultural comparison and contrast. Journal
of Business Research, 68(9), 1937–1944.
Miranda, R., & Blanco, A. (2010). Environmental awareness and paper
recycling. Cellulose Chemistry & Technology, 44(10), 431.
Oreg, S., & Katz-Gerro, T. (2006). Predicting pro-environmental behavior
cross-nationally: Values, the theory of planned behavior, and value-
belief-norm theory. Environment and Behavior, 38, 462–483. https://
doi.org/10.1177/0013916505286012
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (2014). Green-
ing household behaviour: Overview from the 2011 survey (Revised ed.).
OECD Studies on Environmental Policy and Household Behaviour:
OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264214651-en
Oztekin, C., Teksoz, G., Pamuk, S., Sahin, E., & Kilic, D. S. (2017). Gender
perspective on the factors predicting recycling behavior: Implications
from the theory of planned behavior. Waste Management, 62, 290–
302. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2016.12.036
Park, J., & Ha, S. (2014). Understanding consumer recycling behavior:
Combining the theory of planned behavior and the norm activation
model. Family and Consumer Sciences Research Journal, 42(3), 278–291.
https://doi.org/10.1111/fcsr.12061
Paul, J., Modi, A., & Patel, J. (2016). Predicting green product consumption
using theory of planned behavior and reasoned action. Journal of retail-
ing and consumer services, 29, 123–134. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jretconser.2015.11.006
Phau, I., & Ong, D. (2007). An investigation of the effects of environmental
claims in promotional messages for clothing brands. Marketing Intelli-
gence & Planning, 25(7), 772–788. https://doi.org/10.1108/
02634500710834214
Pop, C.-M., Romonti-Maniu, A.-I., & Zaharie, M.-M. (2014). How do
moderating effects predict recycling behaviour? An examination of
situational factors and satisfaction with the local council. The Proceed-
ings of the International Conference, Marketing: from Information to
Decision.
Ramayah, T., Lee, J. W. C., & Lim, S. (2012). Sustaining the environment
through recycling: An empirical study. Journal of Environmental Man-
agement, 102, 141–147. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2012.
02.025
Rivis, A., Sheeran, P., & Armitage, C. J. (2009). Expanding the affective and
normative components of the theory of planned behavior: A meta-
analysis of anticipated affect and moral norms. Journal of Applied Social
Psychology, 39(12), 2985–3019. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-
1816.2009.00558.x
Rivis, A., & Sheeran, P. (2003). Descriptive norms as an additional predictor
in the theory of planned behaviour: A meta-analysis. Current Psychol-
ogy: Developmental Learning Personality Social, 22(3), 218-233.
Rokeach, M. (1973). The nature of human values. Free press.
Roy, J., & Pal, S. (2009). Lifestyles and climate change: Link awaiting activa-
tion. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 1, 192–200.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2009.10.009
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2017). Self-determination theory: Basic psychologi-
cal needs in motivation, development, and wellness. New York, NY: Guil-
ford Publications.
Schahn, J., & Holzer, E. (1990). Studies of individual environmental con-
cern: The role of knowledge, gender, and background variables. Envi-
ronment and Behavior, 22(6), 767–786. https://doi.org/10.1177/
0013916590226003
Schultz, P. W., Oskamp, S., & Mainieri, T. (1995). Who recycles and when?
A review of personal and situational factors. Journal of Environmental
Psychology, 15(2), 105–121. https://doi.org/10.1016/0272-4944(95)
90019-5
13 of 14
Schwartz, S. H. (1973). Normative explanations for helping behavior: A cri-
tique, proposal, and empirical test. Journal of Experimental Social Psy-
chology, 9, 349–364. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-1031(73)90071-1
Schwartz, S. H. (1977). Normative influences on altruism. Advances in
Experimental Social Psychology, 10, 221–279.
Selman, P. (1996). Local sustainability: Managing and planning ecologically
sound places. London, UK: Chapman.
Shaw, D., Shiu, E., & Clarke, I. (2000). The contribution of ethical obligation
and self-identity to the theory of planned behaviour: An exploration of
ethical consumers. Journal of marketing management, 16(8), 879–894.
https://doi.org/10.1362/026725700784683672
Sidique, S. F., Joshi, S. V., & Lupi, F. (2010). Factors influencing the rate of
recycling: An analysis of Minnesota counties. Resources, Conservation
and Recycling, 54(4), 242–249. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.
2009.08.006
Smith, S. M., Roster, C. A., Golden, L. L., & Albaum, G. S. (2016). A multi-
group analysis of online survey respondent data quality: Comparing a
regular USA consumer panel to MTurk samples. Journal of Business
Research, 69(8), 3139–3148. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2015.
12.002
Sniehotta, F. F., Presseau, J., & Araujo-Soares, V. (2014). Time to retire the
theory of planned behaviour. Health Psychology Review, 8(1), 1-7.
Steel, B. S. (1996). Thinking globally and acting locally? Environmental atti-
tudes, behaviour and activism. Journal of Environmental Management,
47, 27–36. https://doi.org/10.1006/jema.1996.0033
Steiger, J. H. (1990). Structural model evaluation and modification: An
interval estimation approach. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 25(2),
173–180.
Steg, L., Bolderdijk, J. W., Keizer, K., & Perlaviciute, G. (2014). An inte-
grated framework for encouraging pro-environmental behaviour: The
role of values, situational factors and goals. Journal of Environmental
Psychology, 38, 104–115. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2014.
01.002
Stern, P. C. (2000). Toward a coherent theory of environmentally signifi-
cant behaviour. Journal of Social Issues, 56, 407–424. https://doi.org/
10.1111/0022-4537.00175
Strong, C. (1998). The impact of environmental education on children's
knowledge and awareness of environmental concerns. Marketing Intel-
ligence & Planning, 16(6), 349–355. https://doi.org/10.1108/
02634509810237523
Tanskanen, P. (2013). Management and recycling of electronic waste. Acta
materialia, 61(3), 1001–1011. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actamat.2012.
11.005
Taylor, S., & Todd, P. (1995). An integrated model of waste management
behavior: A test of household recycling and composting intentions.
Environment and Behavior, 27(5), 603–630. https://doi.org/10.1177/
0013916595275001
Tencati, A., Pogutz, S., Moda, B., Brambilla, M., & Cacia, C. (2016). Preven-
tion policies addressing packaging and packaging waste: Some emerg-
ing trends. Waste Management, 56, 35–45. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
wasman.2016.06.025
Thieme, J., Royne, M. B., Jha, S., Levy, M., & Barnes McEntee, W. (2015).
Factors affecting the relationship between environmental concern and
behaviors. Marketing Intelligence & Planning, 33(5), 675–690. https://
doi.org/10.1108/MIP-08-2014-0149
Thomas, C., & Sharp, V. (2013). Understanding the normalisation of
recycling behaviour and its implications for other pro-environmental
behaviours: A review of social norms and recycling. Resources, Conser-
vation and Recycling, 79, 11–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.
2013.04.010
Tonglet, M., Phillips, P. S., & Read, A. D. (2004). Using the theory of planned
behaviour to investigate the determinants of recycling behaviour: A
case study from Brixworth, UK. Resources, Conservation and Recycling,
41(3), 191–214. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2003.11.001
14 of 14
Trumbo, C., & O'Keefe, G. (2001). Intention to conserve water: Environ-
mental values, planned behavior, and information effects. A compari-
son of three communities sharing a watershed. Society and Natural
Resources, 14, 889–899.
Varotto, A., & Spagnolli, A. (2017). Psychological strategies to promote
recycling: A systematic review with a meta-analysis of validated field
interventions. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 51, 168–188.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2017.03.011
Vicente, P., & Reis, E. (2008). Factors influencing households' participation
in recycling. Waste Management and Research, 26(2), 140–146.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0734242X07077371
Vining, J., & Ebreo, A. (1990). What makes a recycler? A comparison of
recyclers and nonrecyclers. Environment and Behavior, 22(1), 55–73.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916590221003
Vining, J., & Ebreo, A. (1992). Predicting recycling behavior from global
and specific environmental attitudes and changes in recycling opportu-
nities. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 22(20), 1580–1607. https://
doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.1992.tb01758.x
Wan, C., Qiping Shen, G., & Choi, S. (2017). Experimental and instrumental
attitudes: Interaction effect of attitude and subjective norm on
recycling intention. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 50, 69–76.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2017.02.006
Wan, W., Zhang, S., Huang, H., & Wu, T. (2016). Occurrence and distribu-
tion of organophosphorus esters in soils and wheat plants in a plastic
waste treatment area in China. Environmental Pollution, 214, 349–353.
View publication stats
ARLI ET AL.
Wan, C., Shen, G. Q., & Yu, A. (2014). The role of perceived effectiveness
of policy measures in predicting recycling behaviour in Hong Kong.
Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 83, 141–151. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.resconrec.2013.12.009
Wang, Z. H., Guo, D. X., & Wang, X. M. (2016). Determinants of residents'
e-waste recycling behaviour intentions: Evidence from China. Journal
of Cleaner Production, 137, 850–860. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jclepro.2016.07.155
Wilson, D. C. (1996). Stick or carrot? The use of policy measures to move
waste management up the hierarchy. Waste Management and Research,
14(4), 385–398. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734242X9601400406
Wilson, D. C., Rodic, L., Scheinberg, A., Velis, C. A., & Alabaster, G. (2012).
Comparative analysis of solid waste management in 20 cities. Waste
Management and Research, 30(3), 237–254. https://doi.org/10.1177/
0734242X12437569
How to cite this article: Arli D, Badejo A, Carlini J, et al.
Predicting intention to recycle on the basis of the theory of
planned behaviour. Int J Nonprofit Volunt Sect Mark. 2019;
e1653. https://doi.org/10.1002/nvsm.1653