Do We Know What We Need To Know? Objective and Subjective Knowledge Effects On Pro-Ecological Behaviors
Do We Know What We Need To Know? Objective and Subjective Knowledge Effects On Pro-Ecological Behaviors
Do We Know What We Need To Know? Objective and Subjective Knowledge Effects On Pro-Ecological Behaviors
The solution of societal problems such as coping with solid waste depends, One example is the emphasis by some cereal manufacturers
in part, on identifying desirable behaviors and developing programs to that their products come in recycled boxes implying that oth-
encourage citizens to act accordingly. This research empirically examines ers don’t. In fact, the majority of cereal boxes have been made
the relationship between objective and subjective knowledge, pro-ecological from recycled materials for years because of the associated
behaviors and related attitudes. Results indicate not only that objective lower costs. In the most extreme case, some marketers have
knowledge is relatively low among a group of environmentally concerned simply employed the use of slogans or symbols designed to
individuals but that it is not significantly related to perceived knowledge lead consumers to believe the product is more “friendly” than
suggesting that persons who believe they are knowledgeable may not, in its own previous forms or its competitors-a practice termed
fact, have the requisite knowledge to make sound ecological decisions. “green washing.” As a result of the latter practices, uninformed
Examination of the effects of each type of knowledge on behaviors indicates consumers may not be able to make wise decisions in their
that objective knowledge is only sign$cantly related to committed recy- effort to reduce waste.
cling behaviors, wherens perceived knowledgeis positively associated with “Since progress toward the solution of environmental prob-
committed recycling, source reduction, and political action behaviors. The lems is likely to depend more on proenvironmental behaviors
results suggest the need for cooperation among marketers, government, than proenvironmental attitudes, the reasons for the weak re-
and environmental-oriented organizations to develop standardized mean- lationship between environmental attitudes and behaviors and
ings for ecological terms nnd symbols for labeling and advertising and to the conditions under which it can be strengthened clearly de-
devise effective educational programs for consumers. serve examination” (Van Liere and Dunlap, 1981, p. 671). As
such, there are four basic goals for this research. The first is
to develop measures of objective and subjective knowledge to
Introduction make sound precycling and recycling-based shopping deci-
opular polls show that consumers are professing in- sions. Precycling (or source reduction) refers to behaviors in-
Newspapers .92
Aluminum cans .92
Glass .80
Plastic containers .81
Paper .58
Cloth or string bag .47
Larger sizes .68
Recycled paper products .63
Refused shopping bag .73
Avoided polystyrene .75
Requested name be removed from mailing lists .47
Attended public hearings/meetings .72
Telephoned or wrote public officials .57
Contributed to environmental organization .54
Participated in environmental organization .70
Note: Loadmgs < .4 were suppressed to fmlitate interpretanon.
in recommended actions. Then they were asked the meaning legal definitions of such terms, (2) examining guidelines pro-
of a variety of symbols and phrases found on packages and in vided by accepted authorities (i.e., Environmental Protection
advertisements. Their answers were the basis for items for Agency) on the environmental impact of consumer choices,
several of the constructs and for alternative answers for the (3) an extensive review of guidelines provided by popular
objective knowledge scale. press sources (Corson et al., 1990; Makower, Elkington, and
Prior research in the areas of energy and environmental Hailes, 1991; The Earth Works Group, 1989, 1990), and (4)
conservation provided a rich source of items as a starting place an examination of phrases, logos, and symbols used on pack-
for the development of specific items for each of the constructs aging and in advertisements to transmit or infer information
(cf., Allen and Dillon, 1979; Gill, Crosby, and Taylor, 1986; about the environmental impact of the products or packaging.
Maloney, Ward, and Braucht, 1975). However, because of the The latter again was used to assess the existence and use of
diversity of issues addressed in this earlier research, applicable cues which may lead consumers to infer that certain products
items were adapted to the specific topic (i.e., concern with the may be “environmentally friendly.” The focus interviews pro-
effects of disposal on landfills) and supplemented with items vided believable incorrect answers. Finally, a solid waste en-
from specific comments from focus interviews. gineer from the Environmental Protection Agency served as a
Measures were developed for both subjective and objective final expert judge of the accuracy of all items. (The final ob-
knowledge of the information necessary to choose products jective knowledge scale is available from the author.)
with consideration for disposal and its impact. The subjective Behavior was measured as the degree to which respondents
measure used was a four-item indicator reflecting perceived performed 15 different behaviors. A range of behaviors were
knowledge of both precycling and recycling issues and the selected from those most commonly recommended by envi-
certainty about choices. ronmental groups and government agencies. The behaviors
The objective measure of knowledge was designed as a mul- fell into three basic types: (1) recycling behaviors, (2) precy-
tiple choice measure that incorporated items assessing both cling or source reduction behaviors, and (3) political actions.
declarative and procedural knowledge. According to Brucks The set of items are shown in Table 1 along with factor analysis
(1985), declarative knowledge is knowledge about concepts, results indicating four factors. The first five items were recy-
objects, and events. This would include specific verbal and cling activities that factor analysis indicated formed two fac-
non-verbal symbols. Procedural knowledge is rules for taking tors. These are labeled convenience and committed recycling.
action based on the declarative knowledge. In developing the Convenience recycling included saving and recycling news-
knowledge scale, items were included to tap both declarative papers and aluminum, two of the most readily recycled prod-
and procedural knowledge for precycling and recycling issues, ucts. The second three items (i.e., recycling glass, plastic and
using words/phrases as well as symbols. In addition, at least paper) generally require more time and effort and therefore
one item used a “meaningless” symbol used by a manufacturer are described as committed recycling activities. The next five
that consumers might use to infer ecological benefits. Thus, behaviors represent precycling activities, or source reduction
the scale assesses the potential for attaching meaning to any activities. The fourth factor, labeled political action, comprises
“ecology-related” information. behaviors more indicative of politically or group-based activ-
The specific items were developed through: (1) a review of ities rather than individual actions. Overall measures for each
46 J Busn Res P. S. Ellen
1994:30:43-52
Table 2. Comparison of Sample to Population on Selected and education than the population as a whole (see Table 2).
Demographtc Variables It is understood that generalizations to the population as a
Sample Population whole are significantly affected by self-selection, particularly
Age 46.13 32.58 among the second sample. However, the primary concern
home $4&Y50 $37,414 here is on assessing knowledge and its impact on pro-
Median years of educanon 16.0 13.16 environmental behaviors. Since participants are more likely
% White 78.8% 79% concerned with the problem and therefore may be more likely
Sour<c CACl Sourcehook of Drmographm and Bujmg Power for Every Zip Code I” rhe
to perform some of the activities, the general purpose of the
USA. 1988
project is not hindered.
Perceived Consumer Effectiveness (Mean = 23.84; SD = 3.60; Range = 4-28; Alpha = .48)
The recycling efforts of one person do make a difference.
Each consumer’s behavior can have an effect on reducing landfill problems.
There is not much that any one individual can do about environmental problems. (REVERSED)
What 1 purchase as a consumer does have an effect on the nation’s landfill problems.
consumers (88.2%) ascribed a meaning to a symbol which has tion differences were for Republicans who indicated higher
no recognized meaning. The symbol used in the test was taken objective knowledge than either other group. The only differ-
from a battery package which included claims about the de- ences in marital status were for convenience recycling and
gree to which the product was mercury-free. Over 50% inter- political action in which married respondents reported higher
preted the symbol to indicate the package was made from incidences.
recycled pulp materials. This supports the contention that Correlations between the two measures of knowledge were
marketers using symbols, phrases, colors and other cues may then examined. Interestingly, there was no significant rela-
lead consumers to erroneously believe that their product/ tionship between perceived and objective knowledge indicat-
package offers certain benefits it does not. ing that a person’s confidence in their ability to make “right”
Differences along demographic lines in objective and sub- choices is not reflective of their objective knowledge (r = .08).
jective knowledge and four types of behavior are shown in Given this result, the effect of each type of knowledge on the
Tables 4, 5, and 6. For age, persons 55 and over indicated less behaviors was examined separately to determine how their
objective and perceived knowledge than other age groups, effects differed.
more recycling of newspaper and aluminum and less source Multivariate analysis of covariance was used to examine the
reduction behavior. Persons with an income under $50,000 effect of objective and subjective knowledge as well as concern
also showed less objective and subjective knowledge as well and PCE on the performance of the sets of behaviors. Median
as significantly less performance across all four types of be- splits were used to form high and low levels of each construct,
havior. Similarly, persons with a high school degree or less Perceptions of the sacrifices, shopping effort and recycling ef-
had less knowledge (both objective and perceived) as well as fort required to behave ecologically were examined as covar-
less committed recycling and less political behavior. Sex dif- iates. (There was no significant interaction between any of the
ferences were found only for source reduction and political covariates and factors.) Since none of the two-way or three-
behaviors with men doing significantly less precycling and way interactions were significant, Table 7 shows only the main
women participating less in political activities. Blacks scored effects and covariate effects while Table 8 provides the cell
lower on objective knowledge as well as the performance of means for each. For objective knowledge, the covariates were
both types of recycling behaviors while the only party affilia- significant overall, indicating their effects on all behavior sets
48 J Busn Res P. S. Ellen
1994:30:43-52
Significant Significant
F Means Contrasts F Means Contrasts
Age 3.89" <35 = 6.76 1-3, 2-3 8.83” <35 = 3.61 l-3.2-3
35-54 = 7.58 35-54 = 3.43
>54 = 3.61 >54 = 3.03
Income 4.72” <50K = 3.87 l-2 4.20” <50K = 3.26 l-2
50K+ = 4.28 50K+ = 3.49
Education 12.10” <College = 3.37 1-2 5.08 <College = 3.13 l-2
College+ = 4.16 College+ = 3.43
Sex .oo Male = 4.04 - .77 Male = 3.43 -
Female = 4.04 Female = 3.33
Ethnic 19.38” Black = 3.17 l-2 .05 Black = 3.41 -
White = 4.23 White = 3.37
Party 4.12” Republican = 4.34 1-2, l-3 1.44 Republican = 3.33 -
Democrat = 3.78 Democrat = 3.51
Independent = 3.81 Independent = 3.29
Marital 1.50 Married = 4.08 - .76 Married = 3.34 -
Not Married = 3.84 Not Married = 3.34
“pi 0 05.
except political action. Specifically, persons perceiving greater While results for concern and PCE were similar to those
sacrifice reported less convenience recycling (t = -2.62, p = found for objective knowledge, the effects of perceived knowl-
0.01) while those viewing recycling effort as greater reported edge were greater than for objective knowledge. Subjective
less convenience (t = -2.48, p = 0.01) and committed re- knowledge positively affected not only committed recycling
cycling (t = -3.25, p < 0.01). Those who saw shopping effort but also reported source reduction and political activism. This
as being greater reported less source reduction behavior (t = suggests that while objective knowledge was only related to
-1.73, p = 0.09). Thus, as expected, persons who perceived one type of behavior, perceived knowledge affected several.
greater personal loss or effort reported performing less of Given the lack of significant relationship between objective
those behaviors. People who reported greater recycling and and perceived knowledge, it seems likely that persons per-
source reduction may perform the behaviors because they do forming these behaviors may believe they have the requisite
not perceive any substantial loss or, after beginning the ac- knowledge to make “good” choices. However, objective
tions, adjust their perceptions of the associated losses to justify knowledge scores do not necessarily indicate this. Although
the behavior. The lack of effect on political action is not totally there is no direct evidence that the actions of those with high
surprising since the specific sacrifices did not address the ef- perceived knowledge are ineffective, there certainly is some
fort/loss associated with such behaviors. basis for concern.
All three main effects were significant. The effect of objec-
tive knowledge, while significant (F = 2.07, p s 0.05). only
affected committed recycling such that those with higher
Implications and Recommendations
knowledge reported greater recycling. The level of concern The results of this research indicate that while the level of
affected both committed recycling, source reduction and po- reported environmental concern and perceived consumer ef-
litical activism with higher concern associated with higher per- fectiveness were relatively high for the respondents, their level
formance of the behaviors. Persons reported higher levels of of objective knowledge was not correspondingly high. In ad-
all four behaviors with higher levels of perceived effectiveness. dition, the level of objective knowledge is not significantly
Results were then considered for the effects of subjective correlated with their level of perceived knowledge. Examining
knowledge (also shown in Table 7). The covariates were again results across a set of different behaviors indicated that objec-
significant but only for convenience and committed recycling. tive knowledge was predictive only of committed recycling
As before, persons feeling greater sacrifice reported less con- while perceived knowledge was an important indicator of
venience recycling (t = -2.53, p = 0.01) and those perceiving committed recycling, source reduction, and political action to
greater recycling effort reported less convenience (t = -2.20, reduce the problems of solid waste.
p = 0.03) and committed recycling (t = -3.16, p c 0.01). While concern and effectiveness were predictive of the per-
Contrary to the previous model, there was no effect of shop- formance of almost all of the behaviors in both analyses, sev-
ping effort on source reduction behaviors. eral conflicting attitudes actually reduced the perceived value
Knowledge Effects on Pro-Ecological Behaviors J Bum Res 49
1994:30:43-52
of performing the behaviors because of the associated personal behaviors. The lack of effects on political action may be be-
loss or effort. As expected, the degree of sacrifice associated cause of the limited extent to which these types of behaviors
with convenience and time-saving products affected the de- were performed as well as the fact that the covariates more
gree of convenience recycling; similarly, the perceived effort closely addressed the losses and efforts associated with pre-
to recycle reduced the extent of committed recycling and the cycling and recycling.
perceived greater effort of shopping reduced source reduction The disparity between perceived knowledge and objective
Multlvariate for objective knowledge .94 3.87” .95 2.98” .97 2.07” .a7 3.08”
Univariate
Convenience recycling 2.13 8.48” 1.43 4.35”
Committed recycling 4.94” 5.83” 7.79” 6.50”
Source reduction 5.16” 3.15” 2.08 3.66”
Political activism 12.76” 3.03h .64 .60
Multivariate for subjective knowledge .95 3.53” .96 2.83” .96 2.62” .90 2.25”
Univariate
Convenience recycling 2.34 7.01” .04 3.67”
Committed recycling 5.13” 7.31” 6.61” 4.13”
Source reduction 6.19 3.74” 3.74” 1.32
Political activism 10.27” 2.20” 3.17h .51
knowledge deserves increased attention. While this research such terms as degradable, compostable, recycled, and recycl-
did not allow for such assessment, it is important to determine able, the states have passed strict legislation and the task force
whether those persons reporting higher perceived knowledge issued its own guidelines. A review of states’ legislation shows
are in fact performing effective behaviors-that is, are they that many now mandate the definition of certain terms/
making “good” purchasing choices and recycling materials phrases (many of which vary by state) along with requiring
correctly. Anecdotal evidence suggests that the “rules” for pur- quotas for products and/or packaging. These specifications in-
chasing and recycling are often complicated so that materials clude recycled content claims which will have to be specific,
are handled inappropriately (i.e., nonrecyclable or mixed pa- disclosing the percentage of recycled materials and include
pers are combined with white paper; nonrecyclable plastic only postconsumer material. This legislation has forced many
materials are combined with recyclable resin products). Such manufacturers to drop “green” claims since legislation varies
actions result in increased costs for handling materials, lost so dramatically and in most cases, locale-specific labeling is
revenues from contamination of materials and, in some cases, impractical (Lawrence, 1991). In other cases, certain pack-
discontinuation of services. aging materials such as polystyrene will be strictly banned
In addition, if persons reporting high perceived knowledge within the next few years except where food and drug regu-
do not show higher levels of objective knowledge of relevant lations offer no acceptable alternative.
terms, symbols, and phrases, what information are they using? To provide consistency, the FTC recently released guide-
The best way to assess this would be through in-store inter- lines for specific or implied environmental claims used in
views with concerned consumers in which they indicate what labelling, advertising, promotional materials and other mar-
they look for in making purchases and deciding how to dis- keting vehicles (Federal Trade Commission, 1992). These
pose of the wastes of consumption. guidelines may preempt other states from setting their own
The low levels of actual knowledge demand action from guidelines and thus ease the difficulties faced by some mar-
several constituencies. For those governmental, marketing, keters in creating proper labeling for their products,
consumer and other groups interested in environmental pro- For marketers who are genuinely concerned with environ-
tection, understanding the motivations and ability to make mental effects, standard definitions would allow them to: (1)
“good” decisions can be used to tailor educational and per- more accurately promote the benefits associated with their
suasive messages. Specifically, this research indicates the need products, and (2) encourage and/or monitor other marketers
for not only improved education but the development of stan- to develop more accurate labels and promotion before gov-
dard definitions that can be conveyed to consumers to im- ernment intervention. The practice of “green washing”-the
prove their ability to make “good’ choices. use of slogans or symbols designed to lead the consumer to
The role of federal government agencies such as the Federal believe the product is more “friendly” than its own previous
Trade Commission, Environmental Protection Agency, and forms or its competitors’-likely results in uninformed con-
Food and Drug Administration in establishing standards has sumers being unable to make “wise” decisions in their effort
been usurped by other groups. A task force of 11 state attor- to reduce waste. Such practices encourage governmental in-
neys general issued Green Report II, warning marketers that tervention
the states won’t wait for other agencies to act (Lawrence, At the current time, there is often substantial disparity be-
1991). While calling for federal government standards for tween claims made by marketers and the “true” meaning of
Knowledge Effects on Pro-Ecological Behaviors J Busn Res 51
1994:30:43-52
Environmental-Lifestyle Trade-Offs? Environment and Behavior 10 Rao, Akshay R., and Monroe, Kent B., The Moderating Effect of Prior
(1)(1978): 37-89. Knowledge on Cue Utilization in Product Eva1uations.J. Consumer
Kinnear, Thomas, Taylor, James R., and Ahmed, Sadrudin, Ecologi- Res. 15 (Z)(September 1988): 253-264.
cally Concerned Consumers: Who Are They?J. Marketing 38 (April Schwartz, Joe, and Miller, Thomas, The Earth’s Best Friends. Am.
1974): 20-24. Demographics (February 1991): 26-35.
Lawrence, Jennifer, State Guides Define Green Terms. Advertising Age Seligman, Clive, Kriss, M., Darley, John M., Fazio, R. H., Becker, L.
(May 27, 1991): 3. J., and Pryor, J. B., Predicting Summer Energy Consumption from
Makower, Joel, Elkington, John, and Hailes, Julia, The Green Con- Homeowner’s Attitudes. J. Appl. Sot. Psychof. 9 (1979): 70-90.
sumer Supermarket Guide, Penguin Books, New York. 1991. Synodinos, Nicolaos E., Environmental Attitudes and Knowledge: A
Comparison of Marketing and Business Students with Other
Maloney, Michael P., and Ward, Michael P., Ecology: Let’s Hear It
Groups. J. Bus. Res. 20 (1990): 161-170.
from the People: An Objective Scale for the Measurement of Ec-
ological Attitudes and Knowledge. Am. Psychol. 28 (July 1973): Taylor, Shelley E., and Brown, Jonathon D., Illusion and Well-Being:
583-586. A Social Psychological Perspective on Mental Health. Psychol. Bull.
103 (2) (1988): 193-210.
Maloney, Michael P., Ward, Michael P., and Braucht, G. N., A Revised
Scale for the Measurement of Ecological Attitudes and Knowledge. The Earth Works Group, 50 Simple Things You Can Do to Save the
Am. Psychol. 30 (1975): 787-790. Earth, Earthworks Press, Berkeley, CA. 1989.
Mayer, Robert, Scammon, Debra and Zick, Cathleen, Turning the The Earth Works Group, The Recycfer’s Handbook, Earthworks Press,
Competition Green: The Regulation of Environmental Claims. Pro- Berkeley, CA. 1990.
ceedings of the 1992 Marketing and Public Policy Conference. Paul N. Van Liere, Kent D. and Dunlap, Riley E., The Social Bases of Envi-
Bloom and Richard G. Starr, Jr., eds., Washington, DC. 1992. pp. ronmental Concern: A Review of Hypotheses, Explanations and
152-165. Empirical Evidence. Public Opinion Q. 4 (1980): 181-197.
Miller, Thomas A. W., and Keller, Edward B., What the Public Van Liere, Kent D., Environmental Concern: Does It Make a Differ-
Thinks. EPAJoumal (March-Apnl 1991): 40-43. ence How It’s Measured? Environment and Behavior 13 (6)(1981):
Olney, T. J., and Bryce, Wendy, Consumer Responses to Environ- 651-676.
mentally Based Product Claims. Advances in Consumer Research. Webster, Frederick E., Jr., Determining the Characteristics of the So-
Rebecca H. Holman and Michael R. Solomon, eds., Association for cially Conscious Consumer. J. Consumer Res. 2 (December 1975):
Consumer Research, Provo, UT. 18 (1991): 693-696. 188-196.