BỘ GIÁO DỤC VÀ ĐÀO TẠO

ĐẠI HỌC KINH TẾ THÀNH PHỐ HỒ CHÍ MINH

BÁO CÁO TỔNG KẾT

ĐỀ TÀI NGHIÊN CỨU KHOA HỌC THAM GIA XÉT GIẢI THƯỞNG
‘’NHÀ NGHIÊN CỨU TRẺ UEH’’ NĂM 2024

CONSUMERS' ATTITUDES AND BEHAVIORS TOWARDS

E-WASTE RECYCLING

Thuộc nhóm chuyên ngành: 1

TP. Hồ Chí Minh, tháng 2/2024

 ABSTRACT
Many factors can influence consumers' intentions towards e-waste management
and recycling. Consumers with understanding the environmental and health
consequences of inappropriate e-waste disposal, as well as understanding of recycling
choices, is critical in developing positive attitudes and are more likely to prioritize
responsible waste management. According to several studies, people who care about
the environment and feel responsibility for their ecological imprint are more likely to
engage in environmentally friendly actions such as recycling. Perceived ease and
convenience are also important factors in consumer behavior. For example,
conveniently located and well-maintained recycling bins with clear labels can make it
easier for consumers to participate, while simplified sorting systems with minimal
instructions can reduce confusion and encourage recycling. In addition, societal norms
and peer pressure may be unexpectedly potent motivators when it comes to
influencing consumer behavior towards e-waste management and recycling. Seeing
friends, relatives, and neighbors actively recycling might make it appear as the
anticipated and proper thing to do, boosting the chance of individual participation.
When recycling becomes a communal activity, it may improve social relationships and
foster a feeling of collective responsibility, encouraging everyone to participate.
Keywords: e-waste, recycling, environment, factors, behavior, attitudes.
 TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABSTRACT.....................................................................................................................
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS.........................................................................................
LIST OF TABLES...........................................................................................................
LIST OF FIGURES........................................................................................................
CHAPTER 01: INTRODUCTION.............................................................................. 1
1.1. Reasons for selecting topic................................................................................. 1
1.2. Research objectives.............................................................................................3
1.3. Subject and scope of research.............................................................................3
1.4. Research method.................................................................................................4
1.5. Research contribution......................................................................................... 4
1.6. Research structure...............................................................................................5
CHAPTER 02: LITERATURE REVIEW AND HYPOTHESIS
DEVELOPMENT..........................................................................................................6
2.1. Research theory...................................................................................................6
2.1.1. Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB)........................................................... 6
2.1.2. Theory of Reasoned Action (TRA)............................................................7
2.1.3. Norm Activation Model (NAM)................................................................ 8
2.1.4. Social Impact Theory................................................................................. 8
2.2. Interpretive words............................................................................................... 9
Social norms.........................................................................................................9
Moral norms......................................................................................................... 9
Attitude...............................................................................................................10
Perceived behavioral control..............................................................................10
Convenience....................................................................................................... 11
Consequences awareness....................................................................................11
Social media usage............................................................................................. 12
Social influence.................................................................................................. 12
 Intention to recycle.............................................................................................13
Recycling behavior.............................................................................................13
2.3. Prior relevant studies........................................................................................ 14
2.4. Research framework and hypothesis development...........................................15
2.4.1. Moral norm, social norms, attitude and intention to recycle e-waste...... 15
2.4.2. Convenience, perceived behavioural control and intention to recycle
e-waste................................................................................................................16
2.4.3. The influences of consequences awareness on the intention to recycle
e-waste................................................................................................................17
2.4.4. The influences of social on the intention to recycle e-waste....................18
2.4.5. The influences of the intention to recycle e-waste on recycling behaviour.
18
2.5. Summary...........................................................................................................19
CHAPTER 03: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY....................................................21
3.1. Research process...............................................................................................21
3.2. Quantitative methods........................................................................................ 22
3.3. Data analysis process........................................................................................ 23
3.3.1. Descriptive statistics analysis...................................................................23
3.3.2. Measurement Model.................................................................................23
3.3.3. Assessing Cronbach’s Alpha coefficient..................................................23
3.3.4. Assessing Composite Reliability..............................................................24
3.3.5. Assessing Convergent validity................................................................. 25
3.3.6. Assessing Discriminant Validity.............................................................. 25
3.4. Assessing Structural Model.............................................................................. 26
3.4.1. Assessing Multicollinearity......................................................................26
3.4.2. Relationship in structural model.............................................................. 27
3.4.3. Assessing Coefficient of determination (R²)............................................27
3.4.4. Assessing Effect Size (f²)......................................................................... 27
3.5. Measurement Scale........................................................................................... 27
 3.6. Sample characteristics.......................................................................................29
3.7. Summary...........................................................................................................30
CHAPTER 04: DATA ANALYSIS AND RESULTS................................................ 32
4.1. Assessment of measurement scales.................................................................. 32
4.2. Assessment of structural model........................................................................ 37
4.3. Summary...........................................................................................................42
CHAPTER 05: DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION..............................................43
5.1. Discussion.........................................................................................................43
5.2. Theoretical contributions.................................................................................. 45
5.3. Practical implications........................................................................................45
5.4. Limitations and further research....................................................................... 47
REFERENCES............................................................................................................ 49
APPENDIX A. QUESTIONNAIRE – VIETNAMESE VERSION........................ 54
APPENDIX B. RESPONDENTS DEMOGRAPHIC...............................................59
APPENDIX C. BOOTSTRAPPING RESULTS FOR HYPOTHESIS TESTING61
 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

AT Attitudes

AVE Average Variance Extracted

AEC Awareness Of Environmental Consequences

CB - SEM Covariance Based Structural Equation Modeling

CR Composite Reliability

CA Consequences Awareness

CON Convenience

HTMT Heterotrait-Monotrait Ratio

IT Intention To Recycle E-Waste

MN Moral Norms

NAM Norm Activation Model

NGOs Non-Governmental Organizations

PLS-SEM Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling

PBC Perceived Behavioral Control

RB Recycling Behavior
SI Social Influence

SMU Social Media Usage

SN Social Norms

TPB Theory Of Planned Behavior

TRA Theory Of Reasoned Action

VIF Variance Inflation Factor

 LIST OF TABLES
Table 2.1. Relevant Research
Table 3.1. Measurement Scales
Table 3.2. Sample Demographic Characteristics
Table 4.1. Scale Accuracy Analysis
Table 4.2. Outer Loading Analysis
Table 4.3. Scale Accuracy Analysis: Discriminant Validity Assessment
Table 4.4. Inner Vif Values
Table 4.5. Structural Model Quality
Table 4.6. Significance Testing Results Of The Structural Model Path Coefficients
Table 4.7. Results Of Testing The Magnitude Of The Effect F2 In The Model
Table 4.8. Significance Testing Results Of The Total Indirect Effects
 LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 2.1. Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB), adapted from Wang, Guo, Wang,
Zhang and Wang
Figure 2.2. Theory of Reasoned Action (TRA), adapted from Fishbein and Ajzen
Figure 2.3. Norm Activation Model (NAM), adapted from Wang, Guo, Wang, Zhang
and Wang
Figure 2.7. The Hypothesized Model
Figure 3.1. Research Process
Figure 4.1. Research Model
Figure 4.2. The Impact Of Factors
 1

CHAPTER 01: INTRODUCTION

1.1. Reasons for selecting topic
The term "E-waste," or electronic waste, also referred to as waste electrical and
electronic equipment (WEEE), is experiencing rapid growth and has emerged as one
of the fastest-growing waste streams globally. E-waste stands out as one of the
significant contributors to pollutants within municipal waste, ranking among the
largest known sources. Additionally, it serves as a secondary source for a variety of
valuable materials and metals. The disposal and management of e-waste pose
environmental challenges due to the presence of hazardous materials such as lead,
mercury, cadmium, and various other substances that can be harmful to human health
and the environment if not handled properly. In addition, improper disposal methods,
such as burning or dumping e-waste in landfills, can lead to the release of these
hazardous substances into the air, soil and water causing harm to ecosystems and
human populations.
The exponential increase of e-waste and the attendant difficulties are a big concern
for both policymakers and environmentalists, generating massive amounts of litter and
causing significant environmental harm. It is now universally acknowledged that
growing volumes of global e-waste combined with a lack of environmentally sound
recycling systems are a matter for deep concern (Wang et al., 2018; United Nations
University Report, 2015). Every year, millions of electrical and electronic gadgets are
discarded when they break or become obsolete. These abandoned gadgets are
classified as e-waste and can constitute a harm to the environment and human health if
not properly handled, disposed of, and repurposed. Computers, mobile phones, big
home appliances, and medical equipment are all common things found in e-waste
streams. In 2019, an estimated 53.6 million tonnes of e-waste were produced globally,
but only 17.4% was documented as formally collected and recycled. In 2023, we
produced about 50 million metric tons of e-waste. This quantity is expected to reach
75 million tons by 2030. Asia plays a substantial role in this scenario, contributing to
nearly half of the global e-waste, with a significant portion originating from China
which stands as the world's largest e-waste producer, further emphasizing the scale and
impact of electronic waste on a global scale. If substantial measures are not
implemented, it is anticipated that this figure will increase to 120 Mt by the year 2050.
 2

This underscores the critical importance of adopting effective strategies and practices
to address the growing challenge of electronic waste on a global scale.
World Health Organization (2023) stated that electronic waste is processed using
substandard methods, it can release up to 1000 different chemical substances into the
environment, including harmful neurotoxicants such as lead and mercury which cause
harm to the development of the central nervous system throughout pregnancy, infancy,
childhood and adolescence. Studies indicate that pregnant women and children are
particularly vulnerable due to their unique exposure pathways and developmental
stages. The International Labour Organization (ILO) estimates that 16.5 million
children were working in the industrial sector in 2020, directly exposed to hazardous
waste (2).
The growth in e-waste is a complicated issue that is caused by numerous reasons,
including the rapid rate of technical innovation, intentional obsolescence, and the
rising demand for electronic products. New gadgets and gizmos are continually on the
market, spurred by unrelenting invention and intentional obsolescence. Consumers are
lured to upgrade to the latest and greatest, abandoning older gadgets behind.
Moreover, many individuals are ignorant of correct e-waste disposal procedures or the
negative environmental effects of improper management. This lack of information
results in reckless disposal procedures. The incorrect disposal of e-waste can have
serious environmental consequences, such as soil and water contamination, air
pollution, and the release of dangerous compounds. E-waste also contains valuable
materials that may be recovered through recycling, helping to limit the quantity of
garbage that ends up in landfills. Many places lack sufficient infrastructure for e-waste
collection and recycling. This makes it difficult for individuals to properly dispose of
their equipment, even if they want to.
Many countries and international organizations are taking steps to address the
issue of e-waste through regulations, recycling programs, and awareness campaigns.
Proper recycling and responsible disposal of electronic devices aim to reduce the
environmental impact of e-waste and promote the sustainable management of
electronic products throughout their life cycle.
 3

Instead of being thrown away, e-waste should be reused, resold, recovered,

remanufactured, recycled, or disposed of via a reverse logistics process. Identifying
the factors that impact customers' electronic waste recycling decisions can help
designers create focused and successful awareness campaigns and educational
activities. Understanding why individuals behave the way they do helps us to design
solutions that meet their unique problems and motives. We may strive toward a future
in which e-waste is reduced, and sustainable alternatives thrive by addressing
individual motives, providing required infrastructure, and enacting supporting
regulations.
1.2. Research objectives
This research proposes to understand the key determinants of e-waste recycling
intentions and e-waste recycling behavior by using the theory of planned behavior
(TPB) model. However, the TPB in the recycling context has limits since it is difficult
for the model to anticipate or assess behavior that is not driven by human want and
choice. To close the gaps, a thorough understanding of consumer e-waste behavior is
required, as well as the factors that influence customer intentions to engage in e-waste
recycling efforts. To address these limitations, our study employed an enhanced TPB
model to measure recycling intention and behavior across consumers by embedding
extra variables: consequences awareness (CA), convenience (CON), social media
usage (SMU). The research also aims to determine the level of influence of each factor
on the decision-making process and provide recommendations for further research on
this topic.
1.3. Subject and scope of research
Research subjects
The study focuses on identifying the factors that influence consumers' attitudes and
behaviors towards e-waste recycling: Moral norms, Social norms, Convenience,
Attitude, Perceived behavioral control, Consequences awareness, Social media usage,
Social influence.
Research subjects are young adults who are major e-waste generators, have different
access to recycling facilities and represent future trends.
Scope of the research
 4

- A quantitative study based on survey-based questionnaires has been conducted and

sent to E-waste consumers in Vietnam.
- Time boundary: from January 16, 2024 to February 02, 2024
1.4. Research method
Research Approach:
Based on past research and the authors’ aims, the study will predominantly use a
quantitative research technique. A preliminary qualitative research component will be
carried out to discover new research variables for the survey questionnaire. This will
entail studying literature, developing theoretical frameworks.
Data Collection and Analysis:
- The data will be collected via a Google Forms survey.
- The data will be evaluated with SmartPLS software to determine Cronbach's Alpha
reliability and Composite reliability coefficient (CR), and validity (convergent validity
and discriminant validity) evaluated through Cross loading coefficient, Average
Variance Extracted AVE and Correlation matrix between research variables.
- SmartPLS 4.1.0 is used, through the PLS algorithm (PLS algorithm) to analyze the
accuracy of the scales, R² and f² values. The bootstrapping method was performed to
test the significance of the path coefficients.
This will allow us to assess the effect of independent factors on the dependent variable
and determine the link between the two variables.
1.5. Research contribution
By identifying characteristics that influence e-waste recycling decisions, this research
can assess the potential environmental advantages of encouraging various behaviors and
solutions. The findings can help governments develop effective legislation, incentives,
and awareness campaigns to promote safe e-waste disposal. Identifying gaps in
consumers' awareness about e-waste recycling can help drive educational programs and
focused communication tactics. Moreover, understanding consumer preferences and
concerns might help businesses create goods that are easy to recycle or contain recycled
materials. The organizations improve their marketing and communications efforts in
order to better engage customers and boost participation in recycling initiatives.
 5

1.6. Research structure

The research is concluded list of abbreviations, list of tables and figures and the
context is organized as follow:
Chapter 01: Introduction
The first chapter of this research exhibits the overall research background in e-waste
management; the research objectives, subject and scope; as well as the method and
contribution of the research.
Chapter 02: Literature Review And Hypothesis Development
This chapter elucidates the important concepts mentioned in the research, briefs
certain theoretical bases supported for the research and recommends research model
and research assumptions.
Chapter 03: Research Methodology
In the third place, the author presents methodology and acquisition, the method of
measuring variables in the research model. Afterward, designing and composing a
survey, test and prospective method which applied to guarantee the corresponding
relationship between variables.
Chapter 04: Data Analysis and Results
This chapter detailed the research design, construction of the scale, and the evaluation
criteria for each research concept. In this chapter, the following sections will be
presented: description of data collected after data cleaning, reliability testing of the
scale by Cronbach's Alpha, CR, AVE. Then, pointing out the research results.
Chapter 05: Discussion and Conclusion
The final chapter gives the conclusions and limitations that the authors had to confront
during the research acquisition. Simultaneously, recommending some research
methodologies and recommendations so as to support.
 6

CHAPTER 02: LITERATURE REVIEW AND HYPOTHESIS

DEVELOPMENT
This chapter will include explanations of important terms and concepts used in the
paper, summarize the background theories for the research, propose the factors,
research models, and research hypotheses.
By examining the theoretical framework utilized in earlier research articles, the
team indicates which theories have been invoked to substantiate empirical findings and
which ones have been tested to confirm their relevance to consumer behavior in the
context of waste management. The contradiction between attitudes and behavior has
existed for many years and remains a controversial topic among social psychologists.
The detachment of deliberate cognition from emotions, a characteristic of the
mid-twentieth century, has now been supplanted by the adoption of an integrated
approach. In this approach, the interplay between rational processes and emotions is
considered the path to comprehend the origins of human concern for the environment
(Damasio, 1998).

2.1. Research theory

2.1.1. Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB)

The present study is mostly based on the Theory of Planned Behavior (Ajen, 1985)
framework to understand the consumers’ attitudes and behaviors toward e-waste
recycling. In the TPB model, an individual's engagement in a particular behavior is
influenced by their behavioral intention to perform that behavior. This intention, in
turn, is shaped by three key factors associated with the behavior: the attitude,
subjective norms, and perceived behavioral control. Behavior is, in turn, determined
by intentions and perceived behavioral control. These components collectively
contribute to understanding and predicting human behavior within the framework of
the TPB which is widely acknowledged as one of the most useful frameworks for
explaining human behavior across various fields; specifically, it finds great
applicability in the field of environmental psychology (Stern, 2005). For instance,
Khan et al. (2019) use the TPB to examine the intentions of consumers in a developing
country regarding their behaviors related to plastic waste management by considering
 7

various factors. Meanwhile, Aboelmaged (2021) integrated the e-waste recycling

habits into the theory of planned behavior.

Figure 2.1. Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB), adapted from Wang, Guo,
Wang, Zhang and Wang
2.1.2. Theory of Reasoned Action (TRA)

In 1967, the Theory of Reasoned Action (TRA) was developed by psychologists

Martin Fishbein and Icek Ajzen, drawing on earlier research in social psychology,
persuasion models, and attitude theories. Fishbein's theories highlighted the
relationship between attitude and behavior. However, critics argued that attitude
theories were not considered as reliable indicators for analyzing human behavior.
Subsequently, the Theory of Reasoned Action (TRA) was later revised and expanded
by the two authors in the following decades to address inconsistencies in the A – B
relationship, leading to the emergence of the Theory of Planned Behavior and the
Reasoned Action Approach (Lawrence, 2012).
 8

Figure 2.2. Theory of Reasoned Action (TRA), adapted from Fishbein and Ajzen

2.1.3. Norm Activation Model (NAM)

In addition, the research team also rely on the Norm Activation Model (NAM;
Schwartz, 1977) which explains altruistic and environmentally friendly behavior.
According to NAM, an individual's environmental protection behavior is shaped by
the extent of their personal responsibility for that behavior, which is reflected in
personal norms (PN). The development of a sense of pride or guilt in an individual is
contingent upon the consistency of their behavior with their personal norm. Moreover,
the formation of norm activation is also influenced by two factors, awareness of
consequences (AC) and ascription of responsibility (AR). In other words, if an
individual is aware of the problems arising by particular behaviors, this awareness will
prompt them to assess their own role in causing those problems and to contemplate
whether they can contribute to solving them. Previous research that has combined the
NAM and the TPB has identified that the impact of personal norms on behavior is
mediated through intentions. NAM and TPB complement each other and are
effectively used to explain pro-environmental behavior (Harland, Staats, & Wilke,
1999).

Figure 2.3. Norm Activation Model (NAM), adapted from Wang, Guo, Wang,
Zhang and Wang
2.1.4. Social Impact Theory

Social Impact Theory was developed by Bibb Latané in 1981 and focused on the
effects of three main factors: strength, immediacy, and number of sources in
influencing social behavior. Many research papers have built their models to observe
and draw conclusions based on this theory. For example, Dwyer et al. (2015) validates
that individuals are significantly influenced by the thoughts and actions of those
around them, including friends and family, emphasizes that social norms are the
dominant factors in the formation of pro-environmental behavior. Besides, social
 9

media stands out as one of the swiftest means to raise awareness about life and social
issues.

2.2. Interpretive words

Social norms

It can be said that people are highly social and they are quite sensitive to social
norms because they shape behavior. They establish a benchmark for conduct grounded
in commonly held attitudes, expectations, and psychological beliefs about how
individuals within a society ought to behave and are influenced by the standards given.
Recent research also shows that norms play a vital role in fostering social cohesiveness
and cultivating a mutual understanding of shared expectations that contribute to
shaping identities at both societal and individual levels. Consequently, norms hold
critical importance in assessing the effective and efficient functioning of social
communities (House, 2018).
Moral norms

Moral norms can be regarded as a subset of social norms, as they specifically

regulate behaviors with consequences that affect both the individual and others, either
positively or negatively. Moral norms refer to societal or cultural expectations
regarding what is considered right or wrong in terms of behavior. These norms are
often rooted in ethical principles and are designed to guide individuals in making
moral choices. Moral norms dictate the appropriateness of actions based on shared
values within a community, and they are often intertwined with notions of fairness,
justice, and empathy. It's important to note that moral norms can vary across different
cultures, societies, and belief systems, and they are subject to change over time. They
provide a framework for individuals to navigate ethical decisions and contribute to the
moral fabric of a community.
Moral norms play a significant role in recycling behavior because engaging in
recycling demands time and effort without immediate economic rewards. Therefore,
personal values and internalized rules become crucial factors in encouraging positive
behavior. Individuals who hold strong moral beliefs related to environmental
responsibility and sustainability are more likely to overcome the perceived
 10

inconveniences of recycling, fostering positive attitudes and consistent engagement in

pro-environmental practices (Chan and Bishop, 2013; Smallbone, 2005).

Attitude

In the conceptual framework, the term "attitude" is delineated as the

environmental awareness and residents' disposition toward the recycling of e-waste,
usually evident in a person's actions. Moral norms and social norms may also serve as
a predictor of attitude. Kaiser (2006) pointed out that moral norms may be expressed
in people's attitudes toward conservation behavior, or perhaps that moral norms are
strong antecedents of conservation attitude. Attitude is one of the components that
make up TPB and a measure to evaluate one's readiness to take action. Assessments of
attitude may incorporate intentions, although they do not consistently forecast actual
behaviors. In a research paper about motivation and challenges for e-commerce in
e-waste recycling from households in China, Zhang et al. (2019) discovered that
having a positive attitude significantly influenced an individual's willingness to engage
in recycling activities. Attitudes offer concise evaluations of target objects, commonly
believed to stem from specific beliefs, emotions, and past behaviors linked to those
objects.
Attitudes can originate from affective information (emotional feelings), cognitive
information (beliefs), and behavioral information (experiences), frequently serving as
predictors of subsequent behavior. It is a psychological inclination conveyed through
the assessment of a specific object on a scale ranging from unfavorable to favorable
(Eagly et al, 1998).

Perceived behavioral control

Behavior is influenced not only by attitudes but also perceived behavioral control
(PBC). Ajzen (1988) added the concept of "perceived behavioral control" to his theory
of planned behavior, identifying it as a factor influencing both behavioral intention and
the subsequent behavior. Research indicates that perceived behavioral control refers to
an individual's beliefs or the extent to which they think about their ability to perform a
particular behavior. It reflects the perception of the level of control a person believes
they can have to successfully carry out the intended behavior. If an individual
 11

perceives that they have a high level of control, it can positively influence both their
behavioral intentions and their actual behavioral performance.
PBC has two parts: self-efficacy which refers to an individual's belief in their own
capability to execute a specific behavior, and the perception of control over that
behavior (Greaves et al, 2013). The availability of resources and places to dispose of
waste influences consumer behavior in recycling e-waste because they believe they
can save money and time by taking action. Furthermore, consumers' experiences and
concerns in the past about waste disposal will motivate them to carry out recycling
activities more than those without recycling experience (Wang et al, 2018).

Convenience

Convenience refers to the state of being able to proceed with something with
minimal effort or difficulty which brings a pleasant feeling and satisfaction. It appears
that Kumar (2019) highlights how researchers have expanded upon the Theory of
Planned Behavior (TPB) by incorporating external factors to influence consumer
behavior. These supplementary factors include moral norms, a sense of duty,
convenience, and infrastructure. By integrating these elements into the TPB model,
researchers aim to explore and comprehend behaviors related to product return or
recycling. This approach recognizes that factors beyond the traditional components of
the TPB may also play a crucial role in shaping consumer actions, providing a more
comprehensive framework for analysis. People's needs are increasing due to the
constant innovation of technology, so they tend to consume smartly and do things as
conveniently as possible in a modern and wealthy society (Olsen, 2011). When there is
sufficient time, low cost, and convenient facilities available to store e-waste,
consumers are more likely to engage in recycling activities. If recycling is made
convenient, affordable, and easily accessible, it is more likely that individuals and
society as a whole will be motivated to participate in recycling initiatives (Saphores et
al., 2006; Tonglet, M., 2004).

Consequences awareness

Awareness of environmental consequences (AEC) indeed refers to an individual's

knowledge and comprehension of the environmental impacts associated with specific
 12

behaviors. This awareness is a crucial aspect of environmental consciousness, as

people who are well-informed about the consequences of their actions are more likely
to make environmentally responsible choices. Numerous research studies demonstrate
that consumers prioritize their health and exhibit apprehension regarding the potential
adverse environmental effects of electronic products. For instance, Akhtar (2014)
found that over half of the participants in the study were conscious of the fact that
electronic products had resulted in environmental and human health concerns. Similar
to the findings in the research of Afroz (2013) which found that most consumers are
aware of the impact of electronic equipment on the environment and human health.

Social media usage

The presence of social media and the initiatives undertaken by governmental and
non-governmental organizations (NGOs) can positively impact the overall process of
e-waste recycling besides other factors. The adoption of recycling behavior within the
broader community can be fostered through the influence of both social media and
interventions by NGOs. Campaigns led by governments and NGOs, especially those
promoted through social media such as Facebook, Instagram, Twitter and so on, can
reach a wide audience. These campaigns can highlight the importance of recycling
e-waste, showcase success stories and provide practical advice, influencing attitudes
and perceptions. In addition, They can raise awareness about the environmental impact
of improper disposal and educate individuals on the proper methods of recycling
electronic waste (Sujata et al., 2019).

Social influence

The rapid development of social networks has led to its significant positive influence
on consumers when embracing a stance that supports the environment (Delcea et al.,
2019). Friends, family, and colleagues can have a significant impact on individual
behavior. If those within one's social circle actively engage in e-waste recycling, it can
encourage others to do the same. For instance, Delcea et al. (2020) conducted research on
the determinants of e-waste recycling and indicated that just 27.44% of the survey
participants noted that their family, friends, or acquaintances discuss with them about
getting involved in e-waste recycling activities. Furthermore, a significant 32.14% of
 13

respondents confirmed that the viewpoints of their family, friends, and other individuals
they interact with regarding e-waste recycling hold importance for them. It can be
concluded that social factors play a pivotal role in shaping attitudes and behaviors
towards e-waste recycling. This influence can stem from adherence to societal norms, the
impact of peers and family, media and awareness campaigns, government regulations,
educational initiatives, community involvement, and even economic incentives. The
combined effect of these factors contributes to the overall social environment and
significantly affects how individuals perceive and engage in the recycling of electronic
waste.
Intention to recycle

The intention to recycle refers to an individual's conscious and purposeful decision or

inclination to engage in recycling activities. It encompasses the willingness and
commitment to participate in the recycling process, reflecting the individual's positive
attitude towards environmentally responsible behavior. This intention is influenced by
factors such as personal attitudes towards e-waste recycling, awareness of the
environmental consequences, perceived social norms related to e-waste disposal, one's
sense of control over recycling behaviors, moral considerations, and the convenience
associated with e-waste recycling options. Understanding and assessing the intention to
recycle is crucial in promoting sustainable practices and encouraging environmentally
friendly behaviors. Hence, stronger behavioral intentions arise when a behavior is
positively evaluated, there is a perceived social pressure to comply, and there is a sense of
perceived behavioral control. Ho (2013) believed that intentions and behavior are closely
related to each other. TPB posits that the immediate determinant of a behavior is the
individual's intention, whether it be the intention to engage in or abstain from performing
that particular behavior according to Ho's research paper. Therefore, engagement in
e-waste recycling behavior can be heightened when individuals possess the intention to
recycle e-waste, opt to drop off their e-waste at an authorized facility, or choose to return
their e-waste to the retailer or manufacturer (Kochan et al., 2016).
Recycling behavior

Recycling behavior is reflected in how consumers will handle electronic goods. It

refers to the actual actions and practices individuals undertake to properly dispose of
 14

waste materials, particularly by segregating and processing items for recycling instead

of sending them to landfills or incinerators. It involves the physical act of collecting,

separating, and depositing recyclable materials in designated recycling bins or

facilities. Recycling behavior is influenced by various factors, including personal

beliefs and attitudes, knowledge about recycling processes, accessibility to recycling

facilities, social norms, and the convenience of recycling options. A notable reason for

individuals' reluctance to recycle e-waste in many developing countries is the scarcity

of recycling facilities or the presence of non-strategic facilities located far from

residential areas (Sidique et al., 2010). Encouraging positive recycling behavior is a

key aspect of promoting environmental sustainability and reducing the negative impact

of waste on the environment.

2.3. Prior relevant studies

Table 2.1 Relevant research

Reference Independent Mediator/ Dependent Key finding

variables moderator variables

Yadav, R., Attitude, Subjective Behavioral Behavior Applying extended

Pathak, Norm, Perceived Intention Theory of Planned
G., 2017 Behavioral Control, Behavior in
Perceived Value, determining green
Willingness to pay purchase behaviour
premium of consumers in
developing country

Kumar, Attitude, Subjective N/A Intention to Multicultural

A., 2019 Norm, Perceived recycle Examination of
Control, Individual e-waste Young Adults'
Responsibility, E-Waste Recycling
Awareness of Behavior using an
Consequences, Extended Theory of
Sense of Duty, Planned Behavior
Convenience Model

Yadav, R., Moral norms, Social Attitude/ Intention to Interesting insights to

Panda, D. norms, Individuals’ Self-efficacy recycle the government and
K., & reasons for e-waste e-waste policymakers for
Kumar, S. recycling, increasing
(2022) Individuals’ reasons individuals’
 15

for e-waste participation in

recycling, e-waste recycling
Individuals’ attitude

Wang, Z., Recycling Attitude, Personal Recycling Information publicity

Guo, D., Subjective Norm, Norm, intention cannot directly
Wang, X., Perceived Ascription of influence residents’
Zang, B. Behavioral Control, Responsibility behaviour intentions,
& Wang, Information but indirectly affect
B., 2018 Publicity, Awareness their intentions
of Consequences through two
mediating variables –
Personal norm and
Recycling attitude.

Ahanger, Awareness, Sense of Attitude Intention Awareness leads to a

S. H., Responsibility, Towards favourable attitude
Bashir, I., Incentives, Social E-waste towards recycling
Shah, A. Influence Recycling e-waste and
R., & awareness also
Parry, M. indirectly cultivates
A. (2023). the intention to
recycle

Fano, D., Attitude, Perceived Intention to Direct The influence of

Schena, R. Control, Cost, recycle behavior, social media on
& Russo, Convenience, Peer indirect consumer behavior
A., 2022 influence, Social behavior
media, Sense of
Duty

2.4. Research framework and hypothesis development

2.4.1. Moral norm, social norms, attitude and intention to recycle e-waste

In the recycling of e-waste, moral norms have not received much attention (Kochan
et al., 2016). Furthermore, research has evaluated the direct influence of moral norms on
personal intention and behavior. Conversely, we have assessed how moral norms
influence the intention to recycle e-waste through attitude. Value, or moral norms in this
instance, is crucial to how people make decisions and behave. Additionally, research has
demonstrated that personal values impact attitude and have an impact on intention and
actual behavior (Claudy et al., 2015). Kaiser (2006) investigated how attitudes and moral
norms can both directly and indirectly influence an individual's intention to recycle.
Moreover, as previously noted in the research (Claudy et al., 2015; Tandon et al., 2020),
 16

people's values impact their attitudes, which in turn mold their conduct. When eating out,
Talwar et al. (2021b) assessed how moral norms affected attitudes on taking leftover food
home. On the other hand, there is no prior research on e-waste management behavior.
Hence, we propose the following hypotheses:
H1a. Moral norms have a positive effect on attitude.
In order to reflect pro-social and pro-environmental behavior, social norms are crucial
(Chakravarty and Mishra, 2019; Lin and Niu, 2018). Furthermore, it has been noted that
people's attitudes toward environmentally friendly activity, such recycling, are greatly
influenced by social norms (Lin and Niu, 2018; Park & Ha, 2014). Based on the
discussion, the following hypotheses are proposed:
H1b. Social norms have a positive effect on attitude.
Regarding the influence of attitude on intention, there is still disagreement in the
literature on consumer behavior. For example, a stream of studies has come to the
conclusion that behavioral intention is not significantly predicted by attitude (Davis,
1989). On the other hand, according to a different group of researchers, attitude is the
most important indicator of behavioral intention (Chu & Chiu, 2003; Tonglet, M., 2004).
As a result, well-known behavior prediction theories like the TRA and TPB fervently
support the idea that an individual's attitude serves as the primary predictor of their
intended behavior (Bashir & Madhavaiah, 2015; Botetzagias et al., 2015; Maichum et al.,
2016; Paul et al., 2016; Yadav & Pathak, 2017). Therefore, it makes sense to conclude
that having a positive attitude toward recycling e-waste will result in having a positive
intention to recycle e-waste. There is strong evidence from numerous prior studies to
demonstrate the positive correlation between attitude and intention (Pamuk &
Kahriman-Pamuk, 2019). Therefore, the following hypothesis is proposed:
H3. More favourable the attitude towards e-waste recycling, the more likely
consumers are to engage in recycling e-waste.
2.4.2. Convenience, perceived behavioural control and intention to recycle e-waste

One factor that may have an impact on how behavioral control is viewed is the
convenience of recycling. People's recycling behavior is positively impacted, in
particular, by the convenience of recycling infrastructure. McDonald & Ball (1998) noted
in their survey that the most frequent excuses for not recycling include inconvenience,
 17

lack of time, distance from recycling facilities, and issues with handling or storage.
Sidique et al. (2010) determined that one potential barrier to recycling may be the pickup
site's convenience. People will therefore be more likely to recycle if recycling
infrastructure is easily accessible. Based on the above premises, the following hypothesis
is proposed:
H2. Convenience has a positive effect on perceived behavioural control.
Perceived behavioural control not only predicts behavioral intention but also predicts
behavior and intention (Wang, Z. (2018), Pakpour, A.H. (2014)]. The presence of
adjacent disposal facilities may affect PBC in recycling, according to Echegaray and
Hansstein (Echegaray, F. et al., 2017), giving consumers the impression that they can save
time when recycling their e-waste. Conversely, Wang (2018) discovered that PBC is
largely assessed based on the recycling experience. Therefore, compared to someone
without recycling experience, someone with recycling experience would be more
interested in taking part in future recycling activities. Most previous research has shown
that PBC has a major impact on environmentally friendly behavior, like recycling. (Wan,
C. (2012), Pakpour (2014), Nigbur, D. (2010), Botetzagias, I. (2015)). PBC, which
measures a person's confidence in their ability to carry out a particular behavior in the
face of internal or external constraints, is, in summary, a significant indicator of recycling
behavior. Compared to someone who believes they have little control over current or
future setbacks, someone who feels confident performing recycling activities is more
likely to express recycling behavior (Tonglet, M., 2004). Thus, the following hypotheses
were developed:
H4. Perceived behavioural control has a positive effect on the intention to recycle
e-waste.
2.4.3. The influences of consequences awareness on the intention to recycle e-waste

Additionally, it has been demonstrated that consumer awareness and e-waste

recycling willingness are directly correlated (Sivathanu et al., 2016). Miner et al. (2020),
who felt that a knowledgeable and aware populace may make better decisions connected
to dealing with e-waste, emphasize the importance of households' awareness.
Pro-recycling attitudes have been found to play a significant role in recycling behavior, in
addition to consumer awareness (Tonglet, M., 2004).
 18

H5. Consequences awareness has a positive effect on the intention to recycle e-waste.
2.4.4. The influences of social on the intention to recycle e-waste

With the strong development of social media, a series of studies have presented the
role of consumers’ influence on these networks, proving that the social influence
positively affects the people’s behavior when adopting a pro-environment attitude
(Delcea, C. (2019), Chen (2018)).
The effect of SI on behaviour is well established across different domains, for
instance, in social media usage (Sujata et al., 2019), online shopping (Lee et al., 2011; Xu
et al., 2017), and online gambling (Sirola et al., 2021). It is revealed that SI has a positive
impact on one’s behaviour when adopting a pro-environmental attitude (Delcea et al.,
2020). According to Griskevicius et al. (2010), social pressure resulting from prescribed
social norms is also causing behaviors to change. Furthermore, Oskamp et al. (1991)
found that significant others, friends, and family have a significant influence on recycling
behavior. Consequently, it shows that the majority of people make the decision to act in a
certain way even when they disagree with the behavior or its consequences. If there is
sufficient motivation and they believe one or more significant referents think they should,
they will comply with the referents (Venkatesh & Davis, 2000). As a result, the following
hypotheses are put forth:
H6. Social media usage has a positive effect on the intention to recycle e-waste.
H7. Higher the level of social influence, the more likely consumers are to engage in
recycling e-waste.
2.4.5. The influences of the intention to recycle e-waste on recycling behaviour

The main factor influencing whether or not a particular behavior is carried out is
one's intention. One's level of willingness to participate in carrying out the intended
behavior is indicated by their behavioral intention. Recycling behavior is positively
impacted by recycling intention, according to a number of previous studies. For instance,
Poškus (2015) found that the most powerful factor influencing recycling behavior is
intention. In order to evaluate the relationship between IT and RB, the following theory
was proposed:
 19

H8. The intention to recycle e-waste has a significantly positive relationship with
e-waste recycling behavior.

Figure 2.7. The hypothesized model

2.5. Summary
Chapter 2 presented the theoretical basis on attitude, consequences awareness,
convenience, moral norms, perceived behavioral control, social influence, social media
usage and social norms, recycling behavior and intention to recycle E-waste. For each
research concept, the author in turn states the most appropriate definition. The author
mentions four theories including theory of planned behavior (TPB), theory of reasoned
action (TRA), norm activation model (NAM) and social impact theory. Furthermore, nine
hypotheses were proposed. The first two hypotheses are that with moral norms (a), social
norms (b) with attitude. Second, convenience (2) is positively associated with the
perceived behavioral control. The next five hypotheses are attitude (3), perceived
behavioral control (4), consequences awareness (5), social media usage (6) and social
influence (7) are positively associated with the intention to recycle E-waste. The last
hypothesis is that the intention to recycle E-waste (8) has a positive impact on recycling
 20

behavior. The next chapter would be concerned with the method used for the current
thesis.
 21

CHAPTER 03: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

In the third place, the author presents methodology and acquisition, the method of
measuring variables in the research model. Afterward, designing and composing a
survey, test and prospective method which applied to guarantee the corresponding
relationship between variables.
3.1. Research process
The research process was carried out according to the following basic steps:
The first step in this process was to review the literature and prior relevant papers
(Table 2.1) to adopt the measurement scale for all studied constructs; with some minor
modifications to fit the current research context. Constructing an initial questionnaire
in English from the original articles, then translated it into Vietnamese and then
conducted a preliminary survey to adjust the questionnaire to ensure the logical and
understandable meaning of each item and back to being translated into English for data
analysis.
This current study, quantitative methods were chosen to evaluate measurement
models and structural model testing. The reliability of the studied constructs was
represented by Cronbach’s alpha and composite reliability, while the convergent
validity was represented by indicator reliability and average variance extracted (AVE).
In addition, the Heterotrait-Monotrait Ratio (HTMT) and cross loadings were
employed to evaluate the discriminant validity of the measurement model. The
structural model was then evaluated using a variety of criteria, including the R² of the
endogenous constructs to evaluate the proposed research model's predictive power and
predictive relevance, respectively, and the VIF values to check for collinearity issues
(Henseler & Chin, 2010). A bootstrapping procedure of 5,000 samples was used to test
the direct effects, the mediating effects, and the moderating effects of the current thesis
hypotheses (Hair et al., 2021). Research process includes the following steps as
illustrated in Figure 3.1.
 22

Figure 3.1. Research process

3.2. Quantitative methods
The questionnaire was then modified to ensure its clarity before finalization and
distribution. Quantitative data was collected through Google Forms. The sample size
must be at least 100 and at least five observable variables for each measurement
variable (Hair et al., 2011). The research model proposed in Chapter 2 consists of 10
latent variables with 40 measured variables. Therefore, the minimum sample size
should be: 40*5 = 200 observable variables. The study is expected to be sent to
approximately 301 participants to ensure that the PLS-SEM analysis will yield the
most accurate results. The author team will contact friends, acquaintances,... to send
the Google form link through Facebook, Zalo and Messenger. The total number of
votes sent was 306 and 300 votes were collected. The survey took place between
January 16, 2024 and February 02, 2024.
 23

This study uses the PLS-SEM approach as the main tool for data analysis for
several reasons. This study uses the PLS-SEM approach as the main tool for data
analysis for several reasons. First of all, PLS-SEM is the preferred method because in
a direct comparison with CB-SEM the variance explained in the dependent variables is
substantially higher (Hair et al., 2017), so this method is more suitable (compared to
CB-SEM) when the purposes of the researchers are focusing on the predictive power
of the dependent variable (Henseler et al., 2009). Furthermore, PLS-SEM has a
relative advantage (compared to CB-SEM) in that it does not require the dataset to be
normally distributed or has no multicollinearity problem (Hair et al., 2018). In
addition, PLS-SEM can analyze models with many latent variables measured by many
different parameters at the same time, especially those measured by higher-order
variables (Hair et al., 2017). In addition, PLS-SEM allows both the measurement
model and the structural model to estimate at the same time, avoiding skewed or
inappropriate parts for the estimate (Hair et al., 2018).
SmartPLS 4.1.0 is used, through the PLS algorithm (PLS algorithm) to analyze the
accuracy of the scales, R² and f² values. The bootstrapping method was performed to
test the significance of the path coefficients.
3.3. Data analysis process
3.3.1. Descriptive statistics analysis
Summarize with the form obtained from Google Form and perform checks and
screenings to avoid errors before conducting data analysis. The end result is 300
samples. To conduct descriptive statistics analysis, SPSS 25.0 was used to describe the
characteristics of the research sample.
3.3.2. Measurement Model
The measurement model is evaluated based on reliability and validity. In which,
reliability is evaluated based on specific measures, Cronbach's Alpha reliability and
Composite reliability coefficient (CR), and validity (convergent validity and
discriminant validity) evaluated through Cross loading coefficient, Average Variance
Extracted AVE and Correlation matrix between research variables.
3.3.3. Assessing Cronbach’s Alpha coefficient
Cronbach (1951) proposed a formula to evaluate internal consistency reliability
 24

based on the correlation between observable variables. Cronbach's alpha assumes that
all observed variables have the same reliability (outer loading). Cronbach's Alpha
coefficient is relatively sensitive to the number of observable variables in each scale
and tends to underestimate the internal consistency reliability.
Formula (Hair et al., 2018):
𝑘 2
𝑘 ∑𝑖=1𝜎𝑖
α= 𝑘−1
(1 − 2 )
𝜎τ

Where:
α: Cronbach's Alpha Coefficient
k: Number of items in the scale
2
𝜎τ : the variance for all items on the scale

2
𝜎𝑖 : the variance of individual item 𝑖

Cronbach’s Alpha coefficient takes values between 0 and 1. In general, an Alpha

coefficient above 0.70 will pass the reliability test with values closer to 1 being
preferable. Here is a summary of Cronbach’s Alpha coefficient value ranges and how
to interpret them in reliability analysis.

Cronbach's Alpha value range Interpretation

α ≥ 0.90 Excellent

0.80 ≤ α ≤ 0.89 Good

0.70 ≤ α ≤ 0.79 Acceptable

0.60 ≤ α ≤ 0.69 Debatable

0.50 ≤ α ≤ 0.59 Poor

α < 0.50 Not acceptable

3.3.4. Assessing Composite Reliability

Composite reliability (CR) takes into different outer loadings of the observable
variables and is calculated by the formula (Hair et al., 2018).
 25

2
(∑𝑖 𝑙𝑖 )
CR = 2
(∑𝑖 𝑙𝑖 ) + ∑𝑖 𝑣𝑎𝑟(𝑒𝑖 )

Where:

𝑙𝑖 : completely standardized loading of the observable variable i of a particular

latent variable

𝑒𝑖 : measure error of observable variable

𝑣𝑎𝑟(𝑒𝑖 ): variance of the measurement error, and is determined by 1 − 𝑙². With the

condition that CR is 0.6 or higher.

3.3.5. Assessing Convergent validity
The average variance extracted (AVE) from each construct is calculated by
looking at the outer loadings of the indicators, which is how convergent validity is
assessed.

The construct score must account for at least 50% of the variance of the variable,
according to the square of the outer loadings, which should be greater than 0.708.
(Henseler et al., 2015). The AVE is a summary convergence indicator that is
determined by extracting the variance from all of the items loading on a single
construct (Hair et al., 2010). A general guideline for adequate convergence is an AVE
> 0.50, which denotes that the construct score includes more than half of the indicator
variance (Hair et al., 2017c).

Since internal consistency reliability is inappropriate for formative measurement

models, convergent validity assessment is quite different. It is necessary to include
additional reflectively measured variable(s) in the nomological net of each formative
construct in the survey in order to calculate convergent validity for formatively
measured constructs. Formatively measured constructs are evaluated in addition to
their convergent validity using the statistical significance, size, and collinearity of the
indicator weights (Hair et al., 2017c).

3.3.6. Assessing Discriminant Validity

Discriminant validity is a rather complementary concept: Two conceptually

 26

different concepts should exhibit sufficient difference (i.e. the joint set of indicators is
expected not to be unidimensional) (Henseler et al., 2009). The Fornell-Larcker
criterion and cross loadings are two measures of discriminant validity that have been
proposed for PLS path modeling. According to the Fornell-Larcker criterion (Fornell
& Larcker, 1981), a latent variable shares more variance than any other latent variable
with the indicators to which it is assigned. According to statistics, each latent
variable's AVE should be higher than its highest squared correlation with any other
latent variable.Assessing the heterotrait-monotrait ratio (HTMT) of the correlations,
which is the average of the heterotrait-heteromethod correlations (i.e., the correlations
of indicators across constructs measuring different phenomena), relative to the average
of the monotrait-heteromethod correlations (i.e., the correlations of indicators within
the same construct). With the condition that the HTMT is less than 0.9 (Henseler et al.,
2015).

3.4. Assessing Structural Model

To assessing the relationship between the research variables, the impact, the
intensity of the independent variables on the dependent variable, the researcher must
take the following steps: (1) evaluate the multicollinearity problems of the structural
model; (2) evaluate the magnitude and significance of the relationships in the
structural model; (3) evaluation of the impact factor f²; (4) evaluate the coefficient of
determination R².

3.4.1. Assessing Multicollinearity

Multicollinearity is a phenomenon where the independent variables are strongly
correlated, leading to bias and change in direction of its relationship with the
dependent variable. In other words, multicollinearity occurs when a linear correlation
exists between more than two independent variables in the model. That will lead to
problems such as: Limiting the value of R squared, distorting/changing the sign of the
regression coefficients.
To test the multicollinearity, the author relies on the variance inflation factor (VIF)
with the VIF index < 5 or the TOL tolerance > 0.20 (Hair et al., 2017). In the context
 27

of PLS-SEM, a tolerance value of 0.20 or less and a VIF value of 5.00 or higher can
cause multicollinearity (Hair et al., 2017).
3.4.2. Relationship in structural model
Because PLS-SEM does not assume that the data must be normally distributed.
The absence of a normal distribution means that the parameterized tests used in the
regression analysis cannot be applied to check whether the outer weight, outer loading
and path coefficients are statistically significant or not. Therefore, PLS-SEM uses a
coefficient that is statistically significant depending on its standard error obtained
through bootstrapping to check the significance level.
Hair et al. (2018) proposed a return magnified sample to approximately 5,000
samples. The bootstrap standard error allows us to calculate the experimental t-value
and the p-value for all the path systems in the structural model. With t-value > 1.96,
the test is statistically significant at the 5% level.
3.4.3. Assessing Coefficient of determination (R²)
The essential criterion for this assessment is the coefficient of determination R² of
the endogenous latent variables. The R² value is calculated as the squared correlation
between the predicted value and the value of the specific dependent research variable.
The value of R² ranges from 0 to 1, the higher the index, the more accurate the
forecast. R² values of 0.75; 0.50 or 0.25 in PLS path models as substantial, moderate,
and weak, respectively (Henseler et al., 2009).

3.4.4. Assessing Effect Size (f²)

For each effect in the path model, one can evaluate the effect size f² by means of
Cohen (1988). The effect size f² is calculated as the increase in R² relative to the
proportion of variance of the endogenous latent variable that remains unexplained.

The f² values of 0.02, 0.15, and 0.35 can be viewed as a gauge for whether a
predictor latent variable has a weak, medium, or large effect at the structural level
(Cohen, 1988).
3.5. Measurement Scale
Table 3.1 Measurement Scales
 28

Construct Items

1. I am willing to put extra effort into properly disposing of

my e-waste. (MN1)
Moral norms
2. I would feel guilty if I did not recycle my e-waste correctly.
(MN) (MN2)
3. I feel a strong personal obligation to dispose of my e-waste
properly. (MN3)
1. Most people who are important to me would support my
proper disposal of e-waste disposal/recycling behavior. (SN1)
Social norms
2. Most people who are important to me would want me to
(SN) dispose of my e-waste properly. (SN2)
3. Most people who matter to me would approve of proper
disposal of e-waste disposal/recycling behavior. (SN3)
1. E-waste recycling is pleasant. (AT1)
2. E-waste recycling is responsible. (AT2)
Attitudes 3. E-waste recycling is good. (AT3)
(AT) 4. E-waste recycling is beneficial. (AT4)
5. E-waste recycling is rewarding. (AT5)
6. E-waste recycling is sensible. (AT6)
1. There is enough space for me to keep my recycled e-waste
at home. (CON1)
Convenience 2. Recycling my e-waste is convenient. (CON2)
(CON) 3. I have convenient access to a drop-off center for e-waste
recycling. (CON3)
4. I have time to recycle my e-waste. (CON4)
1. I know what items of e-waste can be recycled. (PBV1)

Perceived behavioral 2. I have plenty of opportunities to recycle e-waste. (PBV2)

control 3. The local council provides satisfactory resources for
recycling e-waste. (PBV3)
(PBV)
4. I know where to take my e-waste for recycling. (PBV4)
5. I know how to recycle my e-waste. (PBV5)
Consequences 1. Recycling e-waste conserves energy. (CA1)
awareness 2. Recycling e-waste preserves natural resources. (CA2)
 29

(CA) 3. Recycling e-waste reduces pollution. (CA3)

4. Recycling e-waste saves money. (CA4)
5. Recycling e-waste reduces the use of landfills. (CA5)
6. Recycling e-waste protects human health. (CA6)
1. Posts of links related to e-waste recycling appear in the
newsfeed of my social media accounts. (SMU1)
2. Posts of discussions initiated by my friends on social media
Social media usage related to e-waste recycling appear in the newsfeed of my
social media accounts. (SMU2)
(SMU)
3. Posts of commercials related to e-waste recycling appear in
the newsfeed of my social media accounts. (SMU3)
4. Posts of videos related to e-waste recycling appear in the
newsfeed of my social media accounts. (SMU4)
1. Family/friends/people around me talk about e-waste
recycling and/or recommend me to engage in e-waste
recycling. (SI1)
Social influence
2. Family/friends/people around me would appreciate if I
(SI)
engage in an e-waste recycling behavior. (SI2)
3. The opinions of family/friends/people around regarding
e-waste recycling matters to me. (SI3)
1. I intend to recycle e-waste regularly. (IT1)
Intention to recycle 2. I intend to drop-off e-waste at a nearby recycling station.
(IT2)
E-waste (IT)
3. I intend to return e-waste to the retailer or the manufacturer.
(IT3)
1. I donate e-waste. (RB1)
Recycling behavior
2. I resell e-waste. (RB2)
(RB)
3. I store e-waste. (RB3)
Source: Yadav et al., (2022); Kumar, A. (2019); Ho et al., (2013); Tonglet et al.,
(2004); Delcea et al,. (2020); Kochan et al., (2016).
3.6. Sample characteristics
After thorough review, 300 valid responses were used for further analysis. The
majority of respondents (82.3%) have graduated from college or university. The most
common monthly income is less than 5 million VND (66.3%). More details about
respondents’ profiles and purchase behaviors are presented in Table 3.2.
 30

Table 3.2. Sample Demographic Characteristics

Gender Frequency Percentage %
Male 117 39
Female 183 61
Total 300 100
Education Frequency Percentage %
High school 51 17
College or university 247 82.3
Master’s degree and above 1 0.3
Others 1 0.3
Total 300 100
Monthly income Frequency Percentage %
Less than VND 5,000,000 199 66.3
VND 5,000,000 to < 11,000,000 66 22
VND 11,000,000 < 16,000,000 32 10.7
VND 16,000,000 < 20,000,000 1 0.3
VND 20,000,000 and more 2 0.7
Total 300 100
Age Frequency Percentage %
Less than 18 41 13.7
18 - 30 255 85
30 - 40 3 1
Over 40 1 0.3
Total 300 100
Address Frequency Percentage %
Ho Chi Minh City 258 86
Others 42 14
Total 300 100

3.7. Summary
This chapter dealt with the method used for the current study, including the
research process, measurement scale, questionnaire design, sample and data collection,
as well as the sample characteristics.

The scale was built from the inheritance of previous studies to design the questions
to serve the research process. The results have 10 research concepts in the model
measuring 40 questions.
 31

All measurements for these constructs were adopted from prior studies of Yadav et
al., (2022); Kumar, A. (2019); Ho et al., (2013); Tonglet et al., (2004); Delcea et al,.
(2020); Kochan et al., (2016). Data was collected from people who have an interest in
the issue of e-waste recycling. After close scrutiny, 300 valid responses would be used
for further analysis in the next chapter.
 32

CHAPTER 04: DATA ANALYSIS AND RESULTS

Chapter 04 detailed the research design, construction of the scale, and the
evaluation criteria for each research concept. In this chapter, the following sections
will be presented: description of data collected after data cleaning, reliability testing of
the scale by Cronbach's Alpha, CR, AVE.
4.1. Assessment of measurement scales

Figure 4.1. Research Model

To assess the reliability of the constructs, the thresholds of Cronbach’s α (0.7) and
composite reliability (0.7) (Hair et al., 2017) were applied; the data in Table 4.1
indicates the satisfactory level of scale reliability. Convergent validity for the studied
constructs were also verified, with the minimum requirement of indicator loadings
(0.5) and average variance extracted (AVE) values above the cut-off point of 0.5 being
satisfied (i.e., the AVE values: AT - 0.816; CA - 0.876; CON - 0.888; IT - 0.791; MN -
0.898; PBC - 0.875; RB - 0.831; SI - 0.908; SMU - 0.896; SN - 0.905). All outer
loadings are greater than 0.7. Overall, both the reliability and validity of the
measurement model were assured.
 33

Table 4.1. Scale Accuracy Analysis

Studied constructs (Dimensions) Alpha CRb AVEc

Attitudes (AT) 0.955 0.964 0.816

Consequences awareness (CA) 0.972 0.977 0.876
Convenience (CON) 0.958 0.970 0.888
Intention to recycle E-waste (IT) 0.868 0.919 0.791
Moral norms (MN) 0.944 0.964 0.898

Perceived behavioral control (PBC) 0.964 0.972 0.875

Recycling behavior (RB) 0.898 0.937 0.831
Social influence (SI) 0.949 0.967 0.908
Social media usage (SMU) 0.961 0.972 0.896
Social norms (SN) 0.948 0.966 0.905
Note: a Composite Reliability; b Average Variance Extracted

Table 4.2. Outer Loading Analysis

AT CA CON IT MN PBC RB SI SMU SN

AT1 0.904

AT2 0.899

AT3 0.912

AT4 0.907

AT5 0.890

AT6 0.907

CA1 0.934

CA2 0.941

CA3 0.941

CA4 0.931

CA5 0.938
 34

CA6 0.932

CON1 0.942

CON2 0.947

CON3 0.940

CON4 0.941

IT1 0.877

IT2 0.891

IT3 0.900

MN1 0.948

MN2 0.949

MN3 0.947

PBC1 0.936

PBC2 0.932

PBC3 0.935

PBC4 0.935

PBC5 0.939

RB1 0.916

RB2 0.912

RB3 0.907

SI1 0.956

SI2 0.947

SI3 0.955

SMU1 0.945
 35

SMU2 0.944

SMU3 0.948

SMU4 0.949

SN1 0.946

SN2 0.954

SN3 0.954

Cross loadings, the Fornell-Larcker criteria, and the Heterotrait-Monotrait Ratio

(HTMT) were also utilized to examine the discriminant validity of the measurement
model. Each indicator's cross-loading on its related construct was higher than all of the
other constructions' cross-loadings. The square root of each construct's AVE was also
greater than the construct's strongest correlations with the other constructs, as seen in
Table 4.3. Furthermore, all HTMT values were lower than the cautious limit of 0.9.
Overall, the measurement model's reliability and validity were assured.
Table 4.3. Scale Accuracy Analysis: Discriminant Validity Assessment
Fornell-Larcker Criterion

AT CA CON IT MN PBC RB SI SMU SN

Attitudes
0.903
(AT)

Consequences
awareness -0.063 0.936
(CA)

Convenience
-0.090 -0.024 0.942
(CON)

Intention to
recycle 0.185 0.187 0.298 0.889
E-waste (IT)
 36

Moral norms
0.553 -0.044 -0.003 0.083 0.948
(MN)

Perceived
behavioral -0.078 -0.081 0.871 0.326 0.047 0.935
control (PBC)

Recycling
behavior 0.128 0.125 0.284 0.743 0.100 0.314 0.912
(RB)

Social
0.037 -0.043 0.095 0.320 -0.013 0.093 0.301 0.953
influence (SI)

Social media
-0.011 -0.050 0.039 0.265 -0.025 0.055 0.176 -0.010 0.947
usage (SMU)

Social norms -0.00

0.606 0.072 -0.077 0.170 0.010 -0.107 0.114 0.085 0.952
(SN) 4

Note: The square root of AVE is on the main diagonal

Heterotrait-Monotrait Ratio (HTMT)

AT CA CON IT MN PBC RB SI SMU SN

Attitudes
(AT)

Consequences
awareness 0.065
(CA)

Convenience
0.095 0.036
(CON)

Intention to
recycle 0.202 0.202 0.328
E-waste (IT)
 37

Moral norms
582 0.046 0.025 0.094
(MN)

Perceived
behavioral 0.081 0.083 0.896 0.356 0.050
control (PBC)

Recycling
0.138 0.133 0.306 0.841 0.109 0.337
behavior (RB)

Social
0.048 0.046 0.098 349 0.014 0.097 0.323
influence (SI)

Social media
0.035 0.060 0.041 0.286 0.032 0.056 0.189 0.028
usage (SMU)

Social norms
0.636 0.075 0.082 0.186 0.026 0.112 0.123 0.091 0.022
(SN)

4.2. Assessment of structural model

Following the procedure to evaluate the structural model as proposed by Hair et al.
(2017), the collinearity issues among each set of predictor variables were firstly
checked; all VIF values (see Table 4.4) of less than 5.0 demonstrated that collinearity
was unlikely to be a concern.
Table 4.4. Inner VIF Values

AT CA CON IT MN PBC RB SI SMU SN

Attitudes (AT) 1.013

Consequences
awareness
(CA) 1.015
Convenience
(CON) 1.000
Intention to
recycle E-waste
(IT) 1.000
 38

Moral norms
(MN) 1.000
Perceived
behavioral
control (PBC) 1.025
Recycling
behavior (RB)
Social
influence (SI) 1.012
Social media
usage (SMU) 1.005
Social norms
(SN) 1.000

The statistical significance of the standardized paths was assessed through a

bootstrapping process with 5,000 subsamples. The model explained 66.4% (R2 =
0.664) of the variance of Attitudes, 34.6% (R2 = 0.346) of the variance of Intention to
recycle E-waste, 75.8% (R2 = 0.758) of the variance of Perceived behavioral control,
55.1% (R2 = 0.551) of the variance of the Recycling behavior.
Table 4.5. Structural Model Quality

R-square R-square adjusted

Attitudes (AT) 0.666 0.664
Intention to recycle
0.357 0.346
E-waste (IT)
Perceived behavioral
0.758 0.758
control (PBC)
Recycling behavior (RB) 0.553 0.551

In the current study, there are hypotheses. These were examined through the
structural equation modeling (SEM). Table 4.6 shows the result of tested hypotheses
(Fig. 4.1). The results show that moral norms (β=0.547, p=0.000), social norms
(β=0.600, p=0.000) have the significant impact on attitudes. Convenience (β=0.871,
p=0.000) has the significant impact on perceived behavioral control. Attitudes
(β=0.217, p=0.000), perceived behavioral control (β=0.321, p=0.000), awareness
consequences (β=0.253, p=0.000), social media usage (β=0.265, p=0.000) and social
 39

influence (β=0.295, p=0.000) have the significant impact on the intention to recycle
e-waste. Hence, confirming the H1a, H1b, H2, H3, H4, H5, H6 and H7.
Perceived behavioral control being the major predictor of intention to recycle
e-waste with the beta value 0.311. All the four results were in accordance with the
previous researches (Kumar, A. (2019); Ahanger et al., (2023)).
The previous studies also revealed that intention to recycle e-waste have the
significant relationship with the recycling behavior (Mohamad, 2022; Khan et al.,
2019)
Table 4.6. Significance Testing Results Of The Structural Model Path Coefficients

Standard
β Sample T statistics P
deviation Significance
mean (M) (|O/STDEV|) values
(STDEV) (p < 0.05)?
AT -> IT H3 0.217 0.218 0.043 5.051 0.000 Yes
CA -> IT H5 0.253 0.256 0.044 5.706 0.000 Yes
CON ->
0.871 0.871 0.012 72.510 0.000 Yes
PBC H2
IT -> RB H8 0.743 0.743 0.023 32.512 0.000 Yes
MN -> AT H1a 0.547 0.548 0.029 18.779 0.000 Yes
PBC -> IT H4 0.321 0.322 0.046 7.016 0.000 Yes
SI -> IT H7 0.295 0.295 0.043 6.787 0.000 Yes
SMU ->
0.265 0.266 0.045 5.895 0.000 Yes
IT H6
SN -> AT H1b 0.600 0.601 0.032 18.754 0.000 Yes
 40

Figure 4.2. The Impact Of Factors

The magnitude of the effect (f2) represents the effect of the factor when it is
removed from the model. Factor with f2 < 0.02 has low influence (Table 4.7).
Table 4.7 Results Of Testing The Magnitude Of The Effect f2 In The Model

AT CA CON IT MN PBC RB SI SMU SN

Attitudes (AT) 0.073
Consequences
awareness
(CA) 0.098
Convenience
(CON) 3.140
Intention to
recycle
E-waste (IT) 1.235
Moral norms
(MN) 0.897
Perceived
behavioral
control (PBC) 0.157
 41

Recycling
behavior (RB)
Social
influence (SI) 0.134
Social media
usage (SMU) 0.109
Social norms
(SN) 1.079

Mediating effects: Following Zhao et al., (2010) mediation analysis approach, we

used one bootstrap test (5,000 samples) to replace both the Baron-Kenny’s procedure
and the Sobel’s test to examine the indirect, mediating effects. The bootstrapping
results pointed out that indirect effects stipulated were positive and significant and the
95% bias corrected confidence intervals did not include zero (see Table 4.8). Further
identifying the typology of mediations was conducted. In addition to the above
significant and positive indirect effects, the direct effects of attitude, consequences
awareness, convenience, moral norms, perceived behavioral control, social influence,
social media usage and social norms on recycling behavior were also positive and
significant, thus intention to recycle E-waste was identified as a complementary
mediation of the proposed direct effects.
Table 4.8. Significance Testing Results Of The Total Indirect Effects

Original Standard
sample Sample deviation T statistics P Significancea
(O) mean (M) (STDEV) (|O/STDEV|) values (p < 0.05)?
AT -> RB 0.162 0.162 0.033 4.937 0.000 Yes
CA -> RB 0.188 0.190 0.033 5.613 0.000 Yes
CON ->
RB 0.208 0.209 0.031 6.789 0.000 Yes
MN -> RB 0.088 0.089 0.018 4.897 0.000 Yes
PBC ->
RB 0.239 0.239 0.035 6.848 0.000 Yes
SI -> RB 0.219 0.220 0.034 6.367 0.000 Yes
SMU ->
RB 0.197 0.197 0.034 5.776 0.000 Yes
 42

SN -> RB 0.097 0.097 0.021 4.665 0.000 Yes

Note: a The 95% confidence intervals bias corrected not included zero is also considered as a criterion
for significance testing

4.3. Summary
Chapter 4, we present the results of descriptive statistics of the observed sample.
Then, we evaluate the measurement model through testing the reliability and validity
(including convergence value and discriminant value) of the scale by using the
reliability coefficient Cronbach's alpha, system composite confidence (CR) and
extracted mean variance (AVE), discriminant validity test (Fornell-Larcker condition),
inner confidence interval (HTMT). Next, the study also tested the multicollinearity of
the scale through the VIF coefficient. The study uses the coefficient of determination
(R²), the coefficient of impact (f²) to evaluate the explanatory power of the dependent
variables. Bootstrapping 5000 samples is also used to test research hypotheses through
T-test.
 43

CHAPTER 05: DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

The final chapter gives the conclusions and limitations that the authors had to confront
during the research acquisition. Simultaneously, recommending some research
methodologies and recommendations so as to support

5.1. Discussion

The results show that moral norms (β=0.547, p=0.000), social norms (β=0.600,
p=0.000) have the significant impact on attitudes. We have assessed how moral norms
influence the intention to recycle e-waste through attitude. Value, or moral norms in
this instance, is crucial to how people make decisions and behave. This indicates that
regardless of their particular preferences or viewpoints, people feel obligated or
responsible to act in an ecologically friendly manner as a result of internalized
principles. People generally comply with the perceived expectations of their social
circles, communities, and society as a whole. Individuals are more likely to embrace
recycling if it is perceived as "normal" and acceptable behavior within a community,
even if their personal reasons are weak.

Convenience (β=0.871, p=0.000) has the significant impact on perceived

behavioral control. People will therefore be more likely to recycle if recycling
infrastructure is easily accessible. For example, individuals who live in areas with
easily accessible (within a 10-minute walk) and properly labeled drop-off places for
e-waste recycling had greater intentions to recycle e-waste than those who live in
neighborhoods with less accessible drop-off points. It may be more difficult and
inconvenient for residents of underserved or rural locations to access recycling
facilities, which makes it harder to dispose of e-waste appropriately. Low-income
people or families may find it difficult to pay for manufacturer take-back schemes or
to afford transportation to recycling sites. Restrictions in the availability of
information on recycling alternatives can pose challenges for groups who are digitally
excluded or non-native English speakers, particularly in languages other than English.

Attitudes (β=0.217, p=0.000), perceived behavioral control (β=0.321, p=0.000),

awareness consequences (β=0.253, p=0.000), social media usage (β=0.265, p=0.000)
and social influence (β=0.295, p=0.000) have the significant impact on the intention
 44

to recycle e-waste. This can mean if they also think it's simple and convenient to
recycle their e-waste, those who strongly believe in the environmental advantages of
e-waste recycling are more likely to indicate a clear intention to do so than people who
have weaker convictions. When convenient e-waste drop-off locations are available,
people who have high self-efficacy in handling obstacles associated with sorting
e-waste such as identifying recyclable items and disassembling electronics, are more
likely to report taking part in e-waste recycling programs than people who have low
self-efficacy. People who have previously recycled a certain item (paper, for example)
and who think recycling will be convenient in the future and have a favorable
environmental impact will be more inclined to participate in recycling activities for
that material in the future than to those with no prior expertise, especially if they have
strong environmental beliefs. Moreover, it has demonstrated that people are more
inclined to engage in these activities if they have greater levels of information and
comprehension regarding recycling e-waste. This emphasizes the value of educating
and raising awareness of ethical e-waste disposal alternatives among families through
education and awareness initiatives.

Social media has become a strong tool for altering people's ideas and habits,
especially those concerning the environment. Numerous studies have shown that social
media has a beneficial impact on pro-environmental attitudes and activities. People
utilize social media to learn about environmental concerns, discover sustainable
activities, and get inspired by others. Seeing friends and relatives engage in
pro-environmental acts might normalize them and make them appear more plausible.
For example, sharing news articles, films, or personal experiences may promote
awareness of environmental issues and inspire action.

Perceived behavioral control being the major predictor of intention to recycle

e-waste with the beta value 0.311. This aligns with other studies exploring the Theory
of Planned Behavior (TPB), which highlights the significant role perceived control
plays in shaping pro-environmental intentions. All the four results were in accordance
with the previous researches (Kumar, A. (2019); Ahanger et al., (2023)). In addition to
the above significant and positive indirect effects, the direct effects of attitude,
consequences awareness, convenience, moral norms, perceived behavioral control,
 45

social influence, social media usage and social norms on recycling behavior were also
positive and significant, thus intention to recycle E-waste was identified as a
complementary mediation of the proposed direct effects.
5.2. Theoretical contributions
The present research has proved the usefulness and applicability of TPB in
determining the consumers' intention as well as behavior towards e-waste recycling. The
extended TPB model was proposed in this study to fill the gap through the inclusion
consequences awareness (CA), convenience (CON), social media usage (SMU).

Convenience (β=0.871, p=0.000) has the most significant impact on perceived

behavioral control. Convenient things feel easy to do, which lowers perceived obstacles
and gives us a stronger sensation of control over the action. For instance, having
recycling bins close to our houses that are easily accessible helps recycling feel more
feasible and easy, increasing our sense of control over engaging in sustainable habits.
However, not everyone has equal access to practical choices, which might exacerbate
already-existing disparities. The unequal access to reachable e-waste recycling choices
raises an intriguing and critical issue to research: How convenience affects e-waste
recycling in different ways, depending on a variety of factors.
5.3. Practical implications
In order to improve e-waste recycling procedures, the study provides possible
insights into customer viewpoints on the obsolescence of electronic products.
Collaboration between producers, legislators, and consumers is necessary to find
effective solutions. This kind of cooperation may be facilitated by sharing consumer
research findings, which will advance the electronics industry's transition to a more
sustainable one. We can make e-waste disposal simple and accessible by providing
convenient drop-off places, take-back programs, and clear product labeling; as well as
accurate and transparent information regarding the recycling process, the destination of
e-waste materials, and the beneficial impact of their activities.

By carefully integrating multiple techniques, we may promote more sustainable

e-waste management practices that are motivated by both intrinsic motivation and
effective legislation. The results of the study may be used to better understand how the
public views e-waste recycling, which can aid in the creation or modification of laws that
 46

support greater involvement and are consistent with society ideals. The study can help
determine which facets of recycling e-waste—convenience, knowledge, or particular
product categories—need greater attention when it comes to policy interventions and
budget allocation. The government should be able to enhance rules and undertake e-waste
recycling initiatives that prioritize customers' intrinsic incentive. Appealing to intrinsic
motivators such as environmental responsibility, personal well-being, and communal
benefit might motivate more involvement in recycling programs than just adhering to
legislation.

Furthermore, encouraging individuals to consider recycling as a positive choice

rather than an imposed requirement can lead to longer-term behavior changes. However,
there are certain issues to consider, such as the complexity and subjective nature of
defining and assessing intrinsic motivators, which necessitates careful consideration of
cultural and social settings. Governments and businesses may use the appeal to intrinsic
motivators to advance objectives that are not always morally or environmentally sound.
The solutions used should be customized to the unique area, taking into account cultural
norms, available resources, and existing recycling infrastructure. Continuous monitoring
and evaluation are critical for determining the efficacy of adopted tactics and adapting
them as needed. Governmental campaigns can make use of a variety of communication
platforms to connect with a larger audience from a range of backgrounds and places.
Adapt communications to target audiences based on their wants, requirements, and
preferred methods of contact. Give people specific actions they may take, such as
information on nearby recycling initiatives, locations for collections, and safe disposal
techniques. For increased reach and engagement, combine social media, neighborhood
gatherings, and educational institutions with conventional media (TV, radio, and print).

Comprehending consumers' perceptions of obsolescence enables manufacturers to

build more durable and repairable devices, hence decreasing the need for frequent
upgrades and the development of e-waste, and to match product revisions with recycling
preferences. Companies may show their dedication to sustainability by offering their
goods responsible end-of-life solutions. This lessens the effect of their products on the
environment and demonstrates their leadership in the sector. Ecologically friendly
techniques are becoming more and more valued by customers. Take-back schemes may
 47

build trust, draw in eco-aware customers, and improve a company's reputation and
customer loyalty. Manufacturer accountability for managing e-waste is mandated by
legislation in several nations. Take-back programs assist companies in adhering to these
rules and averting any penalties or fines. Businesses may save money on disposal
expenses related to landfills and inappropriate recycling by gathering and handling
e-waste appropriately. Recovered resources may occasionally be put to use in new
products, which lowers expenses even further. Take-back program implementation,
however, necessitates careful preparation and carrying out. To deal with them, they can
provide clients with a clear explanation of the program's specifics via a variety of media,
inform them about the value of recycling e-waste and the steps involved in joining the
initiative; join in monitor program participation, examine the types and quantities of
e-waste collected, and provide reports on the financial and environmental advantages.
5.4. Limitations and further research
The study has certain limitations that were identified during the research process as
well as suggested measures for future studies. The study's inclination towards
self-selection by respondents could be considered a limitation, as those who are more
environmentally conscious may be more likely to participate, potentially resulting in an
overrepresentation of such individuals in the sample and influencing the study's
outcomes. The study sample was restricted to individuals, neglecting the noteworthy
contribution of organizations, including educational institutions, hotels, and various
business units, to the generation of e-waste. Subsequent research could explore the return
intentions and behaviors of diverse organizations concerning the recycling of e-waste.

Moreover, the study was constrained to participants with an educational level of high
school or above, potentially introducing a bias as educated individuals often exhibit
heightened awareness and are more socially desirable, possibly influencing the results in
a way that may not be fully representative. Hence, for future investigations, it is advisable
to broaden the sample by employing random selection methods within the population.
This approach aims to provide a more comprehensive overview of attitudes and
behaviors.

In another aspect, the present study does not distinguish between different categories
or types of e-waste. As a result, individuals might perceive mobile phones as more
 48

convenient and economically viable to recycle compared to larger electronic products

such as refrigerators or washing machines because of the compactness of mobile devices.
Similar to the study conducted by Dixit and Badgaiyan (2016) that individuals commonly
drop off their old cell phones with regular household waste, often because of the compact
size of the devices. Therefore, forthcoming research may concentrate on examining
consumers' behavior in disposing of e-waste with regard to the size of electronic items.
This would enable stakeholders to implement suitable measures for the collection of
e-waste. Furthermore, researchers can propose an analysis of the influence of economic
incentives tied to the extent of e-waste management within the envisioned research
framework.

From the research results, relevant policies and regulations can be proposed to
monitor the implementation of individuals and businesses and take appropriate measures
to handle violating agencies. In addition, we should pay more attention to the
dissemination of recycling knowledge and recycling channels. The content of such
dissemination should include details about recyclable e-waste, recycling procedures, and
proper handling of e-waste after the recycling process. Therefore, there is a need for
widespread promotional campaigns by influential people on social networks through the
media as they can help information reach many people to raise their awareness and
beliefs about the advantages of recycling in many different cultures and fields on social
networking platforms.
 49

REFERENCES

Afroz, R.; Masud, M.M.; Akhtar, R.; Duasa, J.B. (2013). Survey and analysis of public
knowledge, awareness and willingness to pay in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia—A case
study on household WEEE management. J. Clean. Prod, 52, 185–193.

Ahanger, S. H., Bashir, I., Shah, A. R., & Parry, M. A. (2023). Assessing Consumers’
Attitude and Intention to Recycle Household Electronic Waste. Vision,
09722629231212275.

Akhtar, R.; Masud, M.M.; Afroz, R. (2014). Household perception and recycling
behavior on electronic waste management: A case study of Kuala-Lumpur, Malaysia.
Malays. J. Sci., 33 (1), 32–41.

Aruta, J. J. B. R. (2022). An extension of the theory of planned behaviour in predicting

intention to reduce plastic use in the Philippines: Cross‐sectional and experimental
evidence. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 25(3), 406-420.

Arı, E., & Yılmaz, V. (2017). Consumer attitudes on the use of plastic and cloth bags.
Environment, Development and Sustainability, 19, 1219-1234.

Bedard, S. A. N., & Tolmie, C. R. (2018). Millennials' green consumption behaviour:

Exploring the role of social media. Corporate Social Responsibility and
Environmental Management, 25(6), 1388-1396.

Chakravarty, S., & Mishra, R. (2019). Using social norms to reduce paper waste:
Results from a field experiment in the Indian Information Technology sector.
Ecological Economics, 164, 106356.

Chan, L., Bishop, B. (2013). A moral basis for recycling: Extending the theory of
planned behavior. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 36, 96-102

Chen, C.-C.; Chen, C.-W.; Tung, Y.-C. Exploring the Consumer Behavior of Intention
to Purchase Green Products in Belt and Road Countries: An Empirical Analysis.
Sustainability 2018, 10, 854.
 50

Claudy, M. C., Garcia, R., & O’Driscoll, A. (2015). Consumer resistance to

innovation—a behavioral reasoning perspective. Journal of the Academy of Marketing
Science, 43, 528-544.

Concari, A., Kok, G., & Martens, P. (2020). A systematic literature review of concepts
and factors related to pro-environmental consumer behaviour in relation to waste
management through an interdisciplinary approach. Sustainability, 12(11), 4452.

Damasio, A.R. (1998). Emotion in the perspective of an integrated nervous system.

Brain Research Review, 26, 83–86

De Fano, D., Schena, R., & Russo, A. (2022). Empowering plastic recycling:
Empirical investigation on the influence of social media on consumer behavior.
Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 182, 106269.

Delcea, C.; Cotfas, L.-A.; Trică, C.; Crăciun, L.; Molanescu, A. (2019). Modeling the
Consumers Opinion Influence in Online Social Media in the Case of Eco-friendly
Products. Sustainability, 11 (6), 1796.

Delcea, C.; Cotfas, L.-A.; Trică, C.; Crăciun, L.; Molanescu, A. Modeling the
Consumers Opinion Influence in Online Social Media in the Case of Eco-friendly
Products. Sustainability 2019, 11, 1796.

Delcea, C.; Crăciun, L.; Ioanăș, C.; Ferruzzi, G.; Cotfas, L-A. (2020).Determinants of
Individuals’ E-Waste Recycling Decision: A Case Study from Romania.
Sustainability, 12 (7), 2753.
Ho, S.T.; Tong DY, K.; Ahmed, E.M.; Lee, C.T. (2010). The determinants of recycling
intention behavior among the Malaysian school students: An application of Theory of
Planned Behaviour. Procedia Soc. Behav. Sci, 9, 119–124.

Dhir, A., Malodia, S., Awan, U., Sakashita, M., & Kaur, P. (2021). Extended valence
theory perspective on consumers' e-waste recycling intentions in Japan. Journal of
Cleaner Production, 312, 127443.
 51

Dixit, S.; Badgaiyan, A. (2016). Towards improved understanding of reverse logistics

– Examining mediating role of return intention. Resources, Conservation and
Recycling, 107, 115-128

Eagly, Alice, H.; Chaiken, Shelly (1998). Attitude Structure and Function. The
Handbook of Social Psychology.

Forti, V., Balde, C. P., Kuehr, R., & Bel, G. (2020). The Global E-waste Monitor 2020:
Quantities, flows and the circular economy potential.

Gonul Kochan, C., Pourreza, S., Tran, H., & Prybutok, V. R. (2016). Determinants and
logistics of e-waste recycling. The International Journal of Logistics Management,
27(1), 52-70.

Greaves, M.; Zibarras, L.D.; Stride, C. (2013). Using the theory of planned behavior to
explore environmental behavioral intentions in the workplace. Journal of
Environmental Psychology, 34, 109–120.

Hajli, M. N. (2014). A study of the impact of social media on consumers. International

journal of market research, 56(3), 387-404.

Harland, P., Staats, H., & Wilke, H. (1999). Explaining Proenvironmental Intention
and Behavior by Personal Norms and the Theory of Planned Behavior. Journal of
Applied Social Psychology, 29 (12), 2505-2528

House, B. R. (2018). How do social norms influence prosocial development? Current

Opinion in Psychology, 20, 87–91.

Kaiser, F. G. (2006). A moral extension of the theory of planned behavior: Norms and
anticipated feelings of regret in conservationism. Personality and Individual
Differences, 41(1), 71-81.

Khan, F., Ahmed, W., & Najmi, A. (2019). Understanding consumers’ behavior
intentions towards dealing with the plastic waste: Perspective of a developing country.
Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 142, 49-58.
 52

Koshta, N., Patra, S., & Singh, S. P. (2022). Sharing economic responsibility:
Assessing end user's willingness to support E-waste reverse logistics for circular
economy. Journal of Cleaner Production, 332, 130057.

Kumar, A. (2019). Exploring young adults’e-waste recycling behaviour using an

extended theory of planned behaviour model: A cross-cultural study. Resources,
Conservation and Recycling, 141, 378-389.

Latané, B. (1981). The psychology of social impact, 36 (4), 343-356

Lin, S. T., & Niu, H. J. (2018). Green consumption: Environmental knowledge,

environmental consciousness, social norms, and purchasing behavior. Business
Strategy and the Environment, 27(8), 1679-1688.

McDonald, S., Ball, R., 1998. Public participation in plastics recycling schemes.
Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 22 (3–4), 123–141..

Miner, K.J.; Rampedi, I.T.; Ifegbesan, A.P.; Machete, F. Survey on Household

Awareness and Willingness to Participate in E-Waste Management in Jos, Plateau
State, Nigeria. Sustainability 2020, 12, 1047.

Mohamad, N. S., Thoo, A. C., & Huam, H. T. (2022). The Determinants of

Consumers’ E-Waste Recycling Behavior through the Lens of Extended Theory of
Planned Behavior. Sustainability, 14(15), 9031.

P. A. M. van Lange; A. W. Kruglanski; E. T. Higgins (2012). The theory of planned

behavior. Handbook of Theories of Social Psychology, 1, 438-459

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.

Poškus, M.S. Predicting Recycling Behavior by Including Moral Norms into the
Theory of Planned Behavior. Psichologija 2015, 52, 22–32.

Schwartz, S. H. (1977). Normative influence on altruism. Advances in Experimental

Social Psychology, 10, 221-279
 53

Sidique, S.F., Lupi, F., Joshi, S.V., 2010. The effects of behavior and attitudes on
drop-off recycling activities. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 54 (3), 163–170.

Sidique, S.F.; Lupi, F.; Joshi, S.V. (2010). The effects of behavior and attitudes on
drop-off recycling activities. Resour. Conserv. Recycl, 54 (3), 163–170.

Sivathanu, D.B. User’s Perspective: Knowledge and Attitude towards E-Waste. Int. J.
Appl. Environ. Sci. 2016, 11, 413–423.

Sujata, M., Khor, K. S., Ramayah, T., & Teoh, A. P. (2019). The role of social media
on recycling behaviour. Sustainable Production and Consumption, 20, 365-374.

Talwar, S., Kaur, P., Kumar, S., Hossain, M., & Dhir, A. (2021). What determines a
positive attitude towards natural food products? An expectancy theory approach.
Journal of Cleaner Production, 327, 129204.

Tandon, A., Dhir, A., Kaur, P., Kushwah, S., & Salo, J. (2020). Behavioral reasoning
perspectives on organic food purchase. Appetite, 154, 104786.

Tonglet, M.; Phillips, P.S.; Read, A.D. Using the Theory of Planned Behaviour to
investigate the determinants of recycling behaviour: A case study from Brixworth,
UK. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2004, 41, 191–214.

Wang, Z., Guo, D., Wang, X., Zhang, B., & Wang, B. (2018). How does information
publicity influence residents’ behaviour intentions around e-waste recycling?.
Resources, conservation and recycling, 133, 1-9.

Yadav, R., & Pathak, G. S. (2017). Determinants of consumers' green purchase

behavior in a developing nation: Applying and extending the theory of planned
behavior. Ecological economics, 134, 114-122.

Yadav, R., Panda, D. K., & Kumar, S. (2022). Understanding the individuals’
motivators and barriers of e-waste recycling: A mixed-method approach. Journal of
Environmental Management, 324, 116303.
 54

APPENDIX A. QUESTIONNAIRE – VIETNAMESE VERSION

BẢNG CÂU HỎI KHẢO SÁT
Hi,
We are a research team at the University of Economics Ho Chi Minh City. We are
studying consumer attitudes and behaviors towards e-waste recycling. Please take
some of your valuable time to help us complete the questionnaire below. We commit
that all information collected is for academic purposes only and is treated
anonymously under strict confidentiality procedures.
PART 1: GENERAL INFORMATION
1. Are you concerned about e-waste recycling?
Yes
No
If the answer is No, thank you for completing the survey here.
If the answer is Yes, please continue to answer further questions.
PART 2: MAIN SURVEY
This section explores your attitudes about your intention to recycle e-waste. Please
read each of the following statements carefully and rank your choices by checking an
appropriate number box between 1 and 7 in the evaluation table below:

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Strongly Disagree Somewhat Neither Somewhat Agree Strongly

disagree disagree agree or agree agree
disagree

Moral norms Strongly disagree ⇒ Strongly

agree

1 I am willing to put extra effort into properly 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

disposing of my e-waste.

2 I would feel guilty if I did not recycle my 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

e-waste correctly.

3 I feel a strong personal obligation to dispose of 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

my e-waste properly.
 55

Social norms Strongly disagree ⇒ Strongly

agree

1 Most people who are important to me would 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

support my proper disposal of e-waste
disposal/recycling behavior

2 Most people who are important to me would 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

want me to dispose of my e-waste properly

3 Most people who matter to me would approve 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

of proper disposal of e-waste
disposal/recycling behavior

Attitudes Strongly disagree ⇒ Strongly

agree

1 E-waste recycling is pleasant 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

2 E-waste recycling is responsible 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

3 E-waste recycling is good 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

4 E-waste recycling is beneficial 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

5 E-waste recycling is rewarding 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

6 E-waste recycling is sensible 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Convenience Strongly disagree ⇒ Strongly

agree

1 There is enough space for me to keep my 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

recycled e-waste at home

2 Recycling my e-waste is convenient 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

3 I have convenient access to a drop-off center 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

for e-waste recycling

4 I have time to recycle my e-waste 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Perceived behavioral control Strongly disagree ⇒ Strongly

agree

1 I know what items of e-waste can be recycled 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

2 I have plenty of opportunities to recycle 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

e-waste
 56

3 The local council provides satisfactory 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

resources for recycling e-waste

4 I know where to take my e-waste for recycling 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

5 I know how to recycle my e-waste 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Consequences awareness Strongly disagree ⇒ Strongly

agree

1 Recycling e-waste conserves energy 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

2 Recycling e-waste preserves natural resources 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

3 Recycling e-waste reduces pollution 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

4 Recycling e-waste saves money 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

5 Recycling e-waste reduces the use of landfills 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

6 Recycling e-waste protects human health 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Social media usage Strongly disagree ⇒ Strongly

agree

1 Posts of links related to e-waste recycling 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

appear in the newsfeed of my social media
accounts

2 Posts of discussions initiated by my friends on 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

social media related to e-waste recycling
appear in the newsfeed of my social media
accounts

3 Posts of commercials related to e-waste 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

recycling appear in the newsfeed of my social
media accounts

4 Posts of videos related to e-waste recycling 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

appear in the newsfeed of my social media
accounts

Social influence Strongly disagree ⇒ Strongly

agree

1 Family/friends/people around me talk about 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

e-waste recycling and/or recommend me to
engage in e-waste recycling
 57

2 Family/friends/people around me would 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

appreciate if I engage in an e-waste recycling
behavior

3 The opinions of family/friends/people around 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

regarding e-waste recycling matters to me

Intention to recycle Strongly disagree ⇒ Strongly

E-waste agree

1 I intend to recycle e-waste regularly 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

2 I intend to drop-off e-waste at a nearby 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

recycling station

3 I intend to return e-waste to the retailer or the 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

manufacturer

Recycling behavior Strongly disagree ⇒ Strongly

agree

1 I donate e-waste 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

2 I resell e-waste 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

3 I store e-waste 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

PART 3: PERSONAL INFORMATION

1. Gender
Male
Female
2. Age
Under 18 years old
18 - 30 years old
30 - 40 years old
Above 40 years old
3. Live at
Ho Chi Minh City
Others
4. Status
Single
Married
Others
5. Education
Secondary/ High school
 58

College/ University
Master
Doctor
Others
6. Monthly income
Under 5,000,000 VND
5,000,000 - 11,000,000 VND
11,000,000 - 16,000,000 VND
16,000,000 - 20,000,000 VND
Above 20,000,000 VND

THANKS FOR SPENDING YOUR TIME!

 59

APPENDIX B. RESPONDENTS DEMOGRAPHIC

60
 61

APPENDIX C. BOOTSTRAPPING RESULTS FOR HYPOTHESIS TESTING

1. Path Coefficients
Mean, STDEV, T-Values, P-Values

Original Sample Standard T statistics P

sample deviation
mean (M) (|O/STDEV|) values
(O) (STDEV)

AT -> IT 0.217 0.218 0.043 5.051 0.000

CA -> IT 0.253 0.256 0.044 5.706 0.000
CON -> PBC 0.871 0.871 0.012 72.510 0.000
IT -> RB 0.743 0.743 0.023 32.512 0.000
MN -> AT 0.547 0.548 0.029 18.779 0.000
PBC -> IT 0.321 0.322 0.046 7.016 0.000
SI -> IT 0.295 0.295 0.043 6.787 0.000
SMU -> IT 0.265 0.266 0.045 5.895 0.000
SN -> AT 0.600 0.601 0.032 18.754 0.000

Confidence Intervals Bias Corrected

Original
Sample
sample Bias 2.5% 97.5%
mean (M)
(O)
AT -> IT 0.217 0.218 0.001 0.128 0.298
CA -> IT 0.253 0.256 0.003 0.163 0.336
CON -> PBC 0.871 0.871 0.000 0.844 0.892
IT -> RB 0.743 0.743 0.000 0.695 0.784
MN -> AT 0.547 0.548 0.000 0.489 0.603
PBC -> IT 0.321 0.322 0.001 0.229 0.409
SI -> IT 0.295 0.295 0.000 0.207 0.377
SMU -> IT 0.265 0.266 0.001 0.179 0.353
SN -> AT 0.600 0.601 0.001 0.535 0.663

2. Total Indirect Effects

Mean, STDEV, T-Values, P-Values
 62

Original Sample Standard

sample mean deviation T statistics P
(O) (M) (STDEV) (|O/STDEV|) values
AT -> RB 0.162 0.162 0.033 4.937 0.000
CA -> RB 0.188 0.190 0.033 5.613 0.000
CON -> IT 0.280 0.281 0.040 6.962 0.000
CON -> RB 0.208 0.209 0.031 6.789 0.000
MN -> IT 0.119 0.119 0.024 5.005 0.000
MN -> RB 0.088 0.089 0.018 4.897 0.000
PBC -> RB 0.239 0.239 0.035 6.848 0.000
SI -> RB 0.219 0.220 0.034 6.367 0.000
SMU -> RB 0.197 0.197 0.034 5.776 0.000
SN -> IT 0.130 0.131 0.027 4.749 0.000
SN -> RB 0.097 0.097 0.021 4.665 0.000

Confidence Intervals Bias Corrected

Original Sample
sample mean Bias 2.5% 97.5%
(O) (M)
AT -> IT -> RB 0.162 0.162 0.000 0.095 0.224
CA -> IT -> RB 0.188 0.190 0.002 0.121 0.253
MN -> AT -> IT 0.119 0.119 0.000 0.72 0.165
PBC -> IT -> RB 0.239 0.239 0.000 0.170 0.308
CON -> PBC -> IT -> RB 0.208 0.209 0.001 0.148 0.268
SI -> IT -> RB 0.219 0.220 0.000 0.152 0.287
SN -> AT -> IT -> RB 0.097 0.097 0.000 0.057 0.137
SMU -> IT -> RB 0.197 0.197 0.000 0.130 0.263
SN -> AT -> IT 0.130 0.131 0.001 0.075 0.184
CON -> PBC -> IT 0.280 0.281 0.001 0.198 0.356
MN -> AT -> IT -> RB 0.088 0.089 0.000 0.053 0.123