Work in Progress – please do not cite without permission of the author

oikos Ph.D. summer academy 2007 Sustainability, Innovation and Entrepreneurship

The Determinants of Sustainable Consumer Behaviour This is a work in progress. Please do not cite without permission of the author.

Yasmin van Kasteren Business School University of Queensland St Lucia Q4072 Australia

Abstract In consumer societies, individual impact on the environment is largely mediated by consumer behaviour. Consumer behaviour (sustainable or not) is rarely just the result of discrete personal decisions aimed at maximising utility, it is rather the result of complex socio-cultural negotiations about who, and what we are reflecting shared lifestyles and values. Current approaches do not fully capture the difficulty and complexity involved in changing consumer behaviour (Jackson, 2004) and offer only a partial explanation of environmentally responsible behaviour. In this paper I take a critical look at the literature on environmentally responsible behaviour and propose a theoretical understanding of sustainable consumer behaviour focusing on socio-cultural constructs. Specifically, I propose building on the work of Deci and Ryan to link the personal and social dimensions of values and identity to sustainable consumer behaviour and outcomes through the concept of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation.

oikos Ph.D. summer academy 2007 – Sustainability, Innovation and Entrepreneurship 1

Paper van Kasteren

1. Introduction The environmental impact of individuals in a consumer society is predominantly determined by the unintended consequences of consumer choices and behaviour. It is a by-product of the goods and services we purchase, their composition, production and transport, the way in which they are acquired and how we dispose of these at the end of their lifecycle. It is also linked to the enjoyment of these goods and services and the secondary consumption of water, fuel and energy and the pollution arising in the consumption process. Consumption in industrialised countries has been recognised as a major contributor to both global and local environmental problems (UNDESA, 1992). The problem is only set to get worse, with the advent of over a billion “new consumers” from transitional and developing countries with rapidly growing economies all aspiring to western lifestyles (Myers & Kent, 2004). Agenda 21 (UNDESA, 1992), the United Nation’s comprehensive global plan for environmental protection, calls for industrialised societies to develop sustainable patterns of consumption in keeping with the Earth’s carrying capacity. However, consumption is an integral part of the political, economic and cultural fabric of industrial societies. Urbanisation and industrialisation have led to the breakdown of social categories, and the rise of symbolic consumption as a means of creating and developing both individual and social identity (Bauman, 1992; Piacentini & Mailer, 2004) giving rise to a consumer culture linked to the process of ‘choosing self’ (Slater, 1997) and increasing individualisation (Bauman, 2000; Beck & Beck-Gernsheim, 2002). The symbols, practices, and rituals of consumer culture and lifestyles are tangible displays of the values of the society in which we live (Hofstede, 1994; Kahle, 1983; Mitchell, 1983). Despite over 30 years of research in field, there remain many aspects of environmental behaviour that we still don’t fully understand. Why, despite unprecedented awareness of environmental issues, in particular climate change, high levels of concern for the environment (Leiserowitz, Kates, & Parris, 2005, 2006) and postmaterialistic values supportive of environmental behaviour (Inglehart, 1995) have these not translated into mainstream shifts in behaviour (Leiserowitz et al., 2006)? This paper turns to socio-cultural constructs for an understanding of the determinants of sustainable consumer behaviour. An approach which recognizes the difficulty and complexity associated with changing consumer behaviour (Jackson, 2004). The paper starts with a critical look at the current literature on environmental behaviour and goes on to propose an alternative, socio-cultural interpretation based on the key constructs of motivation, values and identity. The paper then discusses each of the three key constructs in turn, linking the personal and social dimensions of values and identity to environmental behaviour and outcomes through the concept of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation.

2. Literature review Environmentally responsible behaviour (ERB) research is cross disciplinary, and is covered by such disciplines as psychology, sociology, marketing and economics. There are three principle approaches to research in the field of ERB focusing on attitudes, values and social dilemmas.

2.1 Attitude Research Attitude research dominates the study of ERB. The theory of reasoned action (Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975) and the theory of planned behaviour (Ajzen, 1991). These theories have been used to predict behaviours such as recycling (Bagozzi & Dabholkar, 1994; Boldero, 1995; Mannetti, Pierro, & Livi, 2004; Taylor & Todd, 1995a), green consumerism (Sparks & Shepherd, 1992) and transport (Heath & Gifford, 2002; FG Kaiser, Woelfing, & Fuhrer, 1999). In the theory of reasoned action, attitude and subjective norms predict behavioural intention, and intention in turn predicts behaviour. The theory 2

oikos Ph.D. summer academy 2007 – Sustainability, Innovation and Entrepreneurship

Work in Progress – please do not cite without permission of the author

of planned behaviour adds a measure of perceived behavioural control as an antecedent of intention to better predict behaviours that are not volitional. However, as a framework for understanding environmental behaviour, there are a number of weaknesses to attitude based research. First, intentions are a necessary but not sufficient determinant of behaviour (Liska, 1984). In environmental behaviour research the correlation between intention and behaviour is not high (Berger, 1997; Mainieri, Barnett, Valdero, Unipan, & Oskamp, 1997; Shrum, Lowrey, & McCarty, 1994). Second, both theories require correspondence of measurement. In other words, measurement of attitudes must be specific to the measurement of behaviour. Similar with findings in other fields, ERB research has shown that general attitudes about the environment are not predictive of specific behaviours (Alwitt & Pitts, 1996; Moisander & Uusitalo, 1994; Stern & Oskamp, 1987; Weigel, 1983). This requirement for correspondence in measurement is limiting for research into general environmental behaviour. Finally, attitudes studies have been criticised because the underlying premise is one of personal utility: On the one hand the utilitarian approach, fails to capture the cultural dimensions of consumer behaviour and in particular symbolic consumption (McCracken, 1986; Sparks & Shepherd, 1992), a critique which the more recent inclusion of identity as an additional construct has mitigated, and on the other hand it is argued that ERB should be viewed as moral or altruistic behaviour, because ERB has collective rather than personal benefits (Davies, Foxall, & Pallister, 2002; Hopper & Nielsen, 1991; Taylor & Todd, 1995b; Thøgersen, 1996). This leads on to the second major stream of research.

2.2 Values research Values research largely views ERB as an expression of altruistic values. Research in the field is predominantly based on Schwarz’s norm activation theory (Schwartz, 1977) whereby values, operationalized as personal norms, create self-expectations for a given behaviour. For values to result in behaviour, values must first be activated (Schwartz, 1973, 1977; Schwartz & Howard, 1981; Verplanken & Holland, 2002). In Schwartz’s model personal norms are said to be activated if there is an awareness of consequences and if there is an ascription of responsibility. The norm activation model has been used to predict behaviour such as recycling (e.g. Bratt, 1999; Hopper & Nielsen, 1991; Vining & Ebreo, 1992), green product attributes (Ebreo, Hershey, & Vining, 1999), and personal transport choice (Matthies, Kloeckner, & Preissner, 2006). The norm activation model itself has a number of limitations. First, the model is based on norms and not values. While altruistic norms and values (Dietz, Fitzgerald, & Schwom, 2005) are strongly correlated, this may be less true of other values. The normative model may be limited in terms of providing an understanding how values which are not normative, guide behaviour. The focus on altruism has been criticised by researchers such as Kaplan and de Young for its negative appeal and limited scope (De Young, 2000; Kaplan, 2000). Furthermore the model does not account for the independent effect of social norms on behaviour (Bardi & Schwartz, 2003; Biel & Thogersen, 2007; Rokeach, 1973; Shoda, 1999). Finally, norm activation is not a sufficient explanation of how values motivate behaviour, the model does not account for value for hierarchy or centrality.

2.3 Social dilemma research The other mainstream approach is social dilemma research. Conceptually, sustainable consumer behaviour can be framed as a social dilemma. In a social dilemma, each individual is better off if they pursue their own self interest but everyone would be worse of if no one co-operated. Water restrictions illustrate the point, while any one individual might enjoy a long shower or bath, collectively everyone would be worse off if no one cooperated in restricting water use. While conceptually very relevant, social dilemma research focuses on testing variables in experimental settings. Variables such as reciprocity, fairness, uncertainty are all relevant to understanding how individuals behave in a social dilemma. Social dilemma research has been applied to water conservaoikos Ph.D. summer academy 2007 – Sustainability, Innovation and Entrepreneurship 3

Paper van Kasteren

tion (Van Vugt, 2001), public transport (Van Vugt, Lange, & Meertens, 1996; Van Vugt & Samuelson, 1999), political behaviour (Joireman, Lasane, Bennett, Richards, & Solaimani, 2001) and electricity usage (Wiener & Doescher, 1994). The research has also led to a focus on structural solutions and the use of incentives and disincentives (Edney, 1980; Fox & Kotler, 1980; Kotler & Andreasen, 1987; Ritchie & McDougall, 1985; Wiener & Doescher, 1994). Structural solutions remain problematic for their reliability, durability, and expense (Dwyer, Leeming, Cobern, Porter, & Jackson, 1993; Katsev & Johnson, 1983; L. McClelland & Canter, 1981) and may even be potentially counterproductive (Frey, 1993; Stern & Fitzpatrick, 1977; Wiener & Doescher, 1991). Structural solutions also foster a reliance on political and technological responses and in doing so divert attention from individual responsibility and behaviour change (Shove, 2003).

2.4 Summary Consumer behaviour (sustainable or not) is rarely just the result of discrete personal decisions aimed at maximising utility, it is rather the result of complex socio-cultural negotiations about who, and what we are reflecting shared lifestyles and values. Current approaches do not fully capture the difficulty and complexity involved in changing consumer behaviour in “consumer societies” (Jackson, 2004). While each of the three approaches adds to the understanding of ERB, they only offer partial explanation. Attitude research is too specific, values research too limiting and social dilemma research very fragmented. Furthermore, despite the magnitude and urgency of this issue, there is currently little empirical research that goes beyond a situational or behaviour specific understanding of the determinants of sustainable consumer behaviour. Moreover, this focus has given credence to the assumption that findings from studies of specific behaviour can be extrapolated to other similar behaviours or contribute to the understanding of a general environmental behaviour. This assumption negates not only fundamental differences between the types of behaviours, but also the specifics of the context in which these different behaviours occur. The overwhelming focus of research on understanding specific behaviours has been criticised for being “inefficient and too slow, measured by the challenges ahead of us” (Thøgersen, 1999, p. 54). Lastly current research approaches is fail to link environmental behaviour to outcomes. ERB is not an end in itself, it is a means of reducing individual environmental impact. The principle focus of research is however on performance of behaviour and not environmental outcomes. Paradoxically, because of the difficulty of measuring actual behavior, outcomes have served as a proxy for behaviour; for example the number of kilos of garbage recycled, or the amount of water consumed are only proxies for recycling and water conserving behaviour. Yet a study on recycling by Oskamp and colleagues (Oskamp, Burkhardt, Schulz, Hurin, & Zelezny, 1998) suggested that different measures of outcomes (frequency, quality and contamination) shed light on different aspects of recycling. Not only is the way in which specific behaviours are performed important to environmental outcomes, but also the range of any one individual’s behaviours. Someone who performs multiple environmentally friendly behaviours is likely to have more positive environmental outcomes then someone who only performs one. The relative effectiveness of specific behaviours in reducing environmental impact is also a consideration. Using public transport is arguably a more environmentally effective behaviour than is recycling. These three considerations of outcomes are largely overlooked in current research.

3 Alternative constructs for considering sustainable consumer behaviour The conceptual model illustrated by Fig.1 facilitates discussion of an alternative approach to understanding sustainable consumer behaviour. It has 3 key constructs, motivation, identity and values.

4

oikos Ph.D. summer academy 2007 – Sustainability, Innovation and Entrepreneurship

Work in Progress – please do not cite without permission of the author

Fig 1 : Conceptual model of sustainable consumer behaviour

3.1 Motivation The rational for the focus on motivation is based on a prime assumption of social dilemmas, namely that because individuals will “rationally seek to maximize their personal welfare they will not act to advance their common or group interest unless there is coercion to force them to do so or unless there is some separate incentive” (Olson, 1965, p. 2). This fundamental assumption tells us two things: First, that acting to maximise personal utility is the default position. In the context of sustainable consumer behaviour this means that environmental complacency is the norm. Second, that in order to motivate individuals to consider collective best interest, some form of motivation is needed for individuals to engage in sustainable consumer behaviour. This motivation might be extrinsic in the form of structural solutions or it might rely on behavioural change and intrinsic motivation.

3.1.1 Intrinsic/extrinsic motivation Intrinsic motivation is defined as doing something for its own sake and for the pleasure, enjoyment or satisfaction derived from the activity whereas extrinsic motivation implies some instrumental value (Ryan & Deci, 2000b) or separable outcome, such as a reward or punishment. Motivation however is rarely either exclusively intrinsic or extrinsic. Deci and Ryan (1985) view motivation as a continuum and identified 4 interim states. The first of these four states, the most extrinsic form of motivation, is external regulation, described as behaviours in response to an external demand or reward. An example of these might be water restrictions or deposits on beverage containers. These behaviours are experienced as controlling or alienating (Ryan & Deci, 2000a). Processes associated with this stage are the salience of the reward or punishment and issues of compliance/reactance (Deci & Ryan, 1985; Ryan & Deci, 2000a). The second state is introjected regulation (Deci & Ryan, 1985), which combines extrinsic and intrinsic motivation. Behaviours in this category are motivated by feelings of guilt or anxiety or by the desire to enhance or maintain self- esteem (Ryan & Deci, 2000a) as for example, guilt responses (FG Kaiser & Shimoda, 1999; Madden, 1995) for failing to recycle properly. The processes involved here are ego involvement or approval of self or others. Regulation is internal but the pressure to act is perceived as external. The third stage, identification, and the fourth stage, integrated regulation are very similar and most closely resemble intrinsic motivation. Identification refers to individuals who have “identified with the importance of a behaviour and ha[ve] thus accepted its regulation as his or her own” (Ryan & Deci, 2000a, p. 62). Integrated regulation (Deci & Ryan, 1985) is when the desired behaviour is fully assimilated but still stems from external sources such as social values which are wholly congruent with other personal values and needs. These two stages might describe individuals who recycle, not because they have to, or because they feel guilty, but because it has become an accepted part of their life. Individuals in the fourth stage may additionally experience pride or satisfaction as a result of their oikos Ph.D. summer academy 2007 – Sustainability, Innovation and Entrepreneurship 5

Paper van Kasteren

recycling behaviour. Recycling, however, no matter how integrated, remains a normative behaviour which has been assimilated. The processes involved here are conscious valuing of the activity and self-endorsement of goals and goal congruence. Understanding the source of motivation in sustainable consumer behaviour is important to environmental outcomes for two reasons. First, research has shown that performance of tasks (Ryan & Deci, 2000a), degree of engagement (Chandler & Connell, 1987) and outcomes (Grolnick, Ryan, & Deci, 1991; Pintrich & De Groot, 1990) vary according to whether the motivating force is intrinsic or extrinsic. That is, individuals who are intrinsically motivated are more engaged, perform better and have better outcomes. Second, the source of motivation is potentially important for understanding motivational spillover effects. Motivational spillover occurs when behaviours share underpinning motivations (Frey, 1993). Increases or decreases in motivation for one behaviour lead to increases or decreases in motivation in other behaviours. So for example, a person who is intrinsically motivated to engage in recycling might also be motivated to engage in other pro-environmental behaviours. This is important for public policy makers because by association if individuals can be motivated to engage in recycling they might be motivated to engage in other environmental behaviours. There is however, little evidence of positive spillover (Balderjahn, 1988; Corral-Verdugo, 1997; Ebreo et al., 1999; Pickett, Kangun, & Grove, 1993; Thøgersen & Ölander, 2003). On the other hand there is evidence for negative spillover. Incentives may be counterproductive, if they crowd out willingness to perform the task for its own sake (Frey, 1993; Stern & Fitzpatrick, 1977; Wiener & Doescher, 1991). Monetary rewards have been found to be counter productive and resulted in the “crowding out” of intrinsic motivation, not only in the sector under consideration but, in other areas as well (Frey, 1993; Frey & OberholzerGee, 1997; James Jr, 2005).

3.2 Values Values are the cornerstone of culture. They can be viewed as an expression of the “desired” (Braithwaite & Scott, 1991; Hofstede, 1994, p. 9; Rohan, 2000) and have been linked to consumer purchases (Kahle, 1996; Reynolds & Olson, 2001) and lifestyles (Kahle, 1983; Mitchell, 1983). They are particularly relevant to understanding the socio-cultural context in which sustainable consumer behaviour occurs. Values are said to guide behaviour (cf. Rokeach, 1973; Schwartz, 1994) though how they do so is not precisely clear (Hitlin & Piliavin, 2004; Verplanken & Holland, 2002). They are a highly abstract concept and hence hard to define, but some of the common themes emerging from the literature are represented by Schwartz and Bilsky’s definition of values whereby “values are (a) concepts or beliefs, (b) about desirable end states or behaviours, (c) that transcend specific situations, (d) guide selection or evaluation of behaviour and events, and (e) are ordered by relative importance" (1987, p. 551). Values are closely related but separable from others concepts such as attitudes and norms. Values are more abstract than attitudes and focus on ideals rather than specific attitude objects (cf. Hitlin & Piliavin, 2004). Though attitudes can be expressive of values, they are more often related to utilitarian priorities (Maio & Olson, 1995). Norms are also expressions of values which express what we “ought to” do (Marini, 2000) in specific situations (Hitlin & Piliavin, 2004). While there is strong correlation between certain norms and values (Dietz et al., 2005), norms are not values, they act differently. Norms exert a pressure to behave in a certain way, whereas values are less prescriptive and only serve to guide behaviour. Values energize, and regulate value-congruent behaviour (Verplanken & Holland, 2002) either explicitly or implicitly (Rokeach, 1973; Williams Jr, 1979). Values are said to motivate behaviour at a cognitive level through cognitive networks which include attitudes and beliefs (Rohan, 2000) but also at an affective level. Feather theorised in his expectancy value theory that individuals are motivated by the affective dimension of values. Values influence how an individual defines a situation, so that some 6

oikos Ph.D. summer academy 2007 – Sustainability, Innovation and Entrepreneurship

Work in Progress – please do not cite without permission of the author

objects or activities are deemed attractive or having positive valence and other situations are deemed aversive or having negative valence. For example a vegetarian would view eating meat with strong negative valence. While values are not the only influences on valences, Feather demonstrated that the valence of alternative actions were related to Schwartz’s value types (1992) and that both value types and valences were related to choice of action (Feather, 1995). The effect of values on behaviour is distal (Hitlin & Piliavin, 2004). The link between values and behaviour can be affected by situational forces (Darley & Batson, 1973; Latané & Darley, 1976; Maio, Olson, Allen, & Bernard, 2001) which can produce thresholds (Campbell & Stanley, 1963) which may only be overcome by particularly strong values (Maio et al., 2001). Consistent with this Feather believed that value strength determines effort, persistence and choice (Feather, 1990, 1992). Maio & Olson (1998) further suggest that value relevant behaviour may be reinforced through the formation of connections in memory between values and value relevant situations (Maio et al., 2001) and or value relevant behaviour (Maio & Olson, 1998) because past behaviour often come to mind when people think about their values. Understanding the role of situational forces in ERB is important because there are many situational barriers to ERB, including convenience, time constraints, costs, lack of knowledge and difficulty. These provide ready excuses for not engaging in ERB (van Raaij, 1995). Rationalisation can be viewed as a defensive reaction if there is an expectancy to act (Schwartz & Howard 1981).

3.2.1 How values work Values are universally present in all human beings (Rokeach, 1973; Schwartz & Bilsky, 1987, 1990) and vary in terms of their importance (Maio & Olson, 1994; Rokeach, 1973; Schwartz, 1992). Values are structured to form hierarchical value systems (Rokeach, 1973; Verplanken & Holland, 2002; Williams Jr, 1979) whereby the more important a value, the more likely it is to influence behaviour. Environmental values include universalism (Karp, 1996; Schultz & Zelezny, 1999), self-transcendence and openness to change (Karp, 1996). The more important these values are in relation to other values, the more likely these values will result in ERB. In addition to being organised in a hierarchy, values are related one to another. Schwartz’s value theory (1992) groups values into 10 motivational categories demonstrating relationships of congruence and conflict. Values conflicting with environmental values include power, tradition (Schultz & Zelezny, 1999), conservation1 (Karp, 1996; Schultz & Zelezny, 1999; Stern, Dietz, Kalof, & Guagnano, 1995), and self-enhancement (Karp, 1996). Behaviours may be multiply determined and values can work in combination or in opposition which may involve trade-offs (Bardi & Schwartz, 2003). For example driving a luxury four wheel drive care may bring the values of self-enhancement and power into conflict with environmental values.

3.2.2 Personal and social value systems Research distinguishes between two types of value systems - personal and social.

3.2.2.1 Personal value systems There are a number of different interpretations of personal values systems. Personal value systems are said to be motivated by physiological, social belonging and “social institutional demands for group welfare and survival” (Schwartz & Bilsky, 1987, p. 551). Others, however, conceptualise personal values as an expression of the “desired” or what individuals want (Hofstede, 1994; Rohan, 2000). A third conceptualisation of personal value systems links core values to identity (Hitlin, 2003). Verplanken and Holland (2002) view personal values as a small subset of values which have the capacity to drive behaviour and which are linked to an individual’s self-identity. Hitlin takes this further, describing these core values as the basis of personal identity (Hitlin, 2003). Verplanken and Holland 1

Refers to Schwartz’s value not environmental conservation. This value is linked with conservatism. oikos Ph.D. summer academy 2007 – Sustainability, Innovation and Entrepreneurship 7

Paper van Kasteren

(2002) make an important distinction between the importance of values and the centrality of values. Central values are important to self-concept and identity whereas other values, resulting from social norms, self-presentation motives or rationalization strategies may be important, but not central. They demonstrated that values motivate value congruent behaviour only if they are central to selfconcept.

3.2.2.2 Social value systems Social value systems, on the other hand, reflect values shared by groups. Values, while largely learned in early childhood (Hofstede, 1994), can also be shaped by personal experience (Williams Jr, 1979). Social values are acquired through learning or shared experience and are a reflection of the social groups and societies in which they are shaped. Social values form the core of cultural differentiation based on the different ways in which values are prioritised across and within cultures (Hofstede, 1994). Social value systems are linked to social identities, whereby group membership and affiliation to social identities can depend on the strength of identification with the values of the group (Tajfel, 1982). Personal and social value systems guide behaviour in similar ways and behavioural decisions may be traced to either system (Rohan, 2000). The lines between social and personal systems are blurred such that personal values may in part be a result of the internalisation of social values (Allport, 1955; Deci & Ryan, 1985; Schwartz & Howard, 1981).

3.2.3 Values as motives Values may also be considered as motives, in that they motivate goal-directed behaviour (Feather, 1995). Verplanken and Holland (2002) also suggest a link between value centrality and the work by McClelland (1989) which distinguishes between implicit and self-attributed motives. Implicit motives, if linked to identity and central values, would result in value consistent behaviours over time, whereas self-attributed motives are situational and attributable to social norms or truisms (Maio & Olson, 1998; Rohan, 2000). Viewed from this perspective, environmental values would motivate a range of value expressive behaviours consistently over time, but only if those values were central to self-identity. On the other hand if the values arise from self-attributed motives which relate to social norms and truisms, then environmental behaviour would be dependent on situational context. In the first instance individual would be motivated to behave consistently with environmental values and might, recycle, compost, catch public transport, buy local organic produce and conserve electricity. In the second instance, because behaviour is more reliant on social norms, that person might recycle but not enact environmental values much more beyond that.

3.2.4 Linking value systems to outcomes Values can be linked to outcomes through motivation. I would argue that the dual nature of values, mirrors the dual nature of motivation, whereby personal values constitute a form of intrinsic motivation and social values constitute an extrinsic form of motivation. While the degree of internalisation of social values varies such that behavioural decisions may be traced to either system (Rohan, 2000) which matches Deci and Ryan’s (1985) conception of a continuum, between extrinsic and intrinsic motivation the source of motivation is an important distinction because it impact outcomes. As we have seen in section 3.I.I above, on task performance and degree of engagement. It is likely that behaviour motivated by personal values and therefore intrinsic motivation is likely to lead to better outcomes then behaviour motivated by social values and a more extrinsic form of motivation. The suggested link between value centrality and implicit motives further implies that environmental values that are tied to self-identity are likely to result in a range of value expressive behaviours on a consistent basis over time. This too has important implications for individual environmental outcomes, because someone who practices many different forms of ERB consistently over time, is likely

8

oikos Ph.D. summer academy 2007 – Sustainability, Innovation and Entrepreneurship

Work in Progress – please do not cite without permission of the author

to have better environmental outcomes than someone with self-attributed motives whose behaviour is situational.

3.3 Identity The inclusion of identity in the study situates environmental behaviour in a social context. Consumer goods have entered discourse in the form of non-verbal communication of identity (Douglas & Isherwood, 1980), whereby taste and lifestyle are how most individuals express their identity (Zukin & Maguire, 2004) both personal and social (Jackson, 2004). The social aspects of sustainable consumer behaviour using identity have been used to predict recycling (Mannetti et al., 2004; Terry, Hogg, & White, 1999) and green consumerism (Sparks & Shepherd, 1992). Theories on identity highlight the existence of multiple, non-exclusive or overlapping identities. I examine the relevance of three conceptually different but linked theories of identity. The two dominant theories, identity theory which is based on roles enacted in daily life, and social identity which focuses on group or social membership plus a third conceptualisation of identity, personal identity, described as the expression of our uniqueness.

3.3.1 Self-identity Identity theory (Burke & Tully, 1977; Stryker, 1968, 1980, 1987) arises from an interactionist approach to identity (Howard, 2000) whereby identity is viewed as a collection of social roles enacted in daily life and in social relations (Burke & Tully, 1977; Stryker, 1968, 1980). The relationship between identity and social context is viewed as an ongoing two-way relationship. Individuals shape their social setting but they also shaped by their social context (Stryker, 1968). In identity theory individuals assume multiple identities in their interaction with others. These multiple identities are associated with the different roles played by each individual in their daily social interaction and are also referred to as role identity. Role identities are hierarchically organised based on salience and degree of commitment to the role (Howard, 2000; Stryker & Burke, 2000) with each role being made up of distinctive components (Stryker, 1968, 1980). Identities at the top of the hierarchy are more central to self (Turner, 1978) and have a greater ability to motivate behaviour (McCall & Simmons, 1978). Identity theory is potentially relevant to understanding role related sustainable consumer behaviours. For roles which are central to the self, behaviours may be performed irrespective of an individual’s positive or negative attitudes to the behaviour (Charng, Piliavin, & Callero, 1988; Terry et al., 1999). So for example a ‘good citizen’ might recycle because it’s part of the role of ‘good citizen’, irrespective of personal attitudes or belief. Studies show self-identity is an important predictor of environmental behaviour.

3.3.2 Social identity In social identity theory (Tajfel & Turner, 1979, 1986), identity is derived in part from membership in social groups or categories. These social identities are structured hierarchically, so that both the salience and the position of the identity in the structure are potentially important for understanding behavioural choice (Deaux, 1993). Groups can be determined by external or internal criteria. External criteria refer to outwardly detectable distinctions as, for example, riding a bike to work denoting a green identity to others (Lindén & Carlsson-Kanyama, 2003). Internal criteria for group association requires an inner awareness of membership and identification with the values of the group (Tajfel, 1982). In this way, when individuals identify with a group, they adopt the group’s norms, which in turn influence their behaviour. Though relatively stable, social identity (Deaux, 1993) can change. Firstly, group boundaries can change as individuals become aware of higher-level categories (Penner, Dovidio, Piliavin, & Schroeder, 2005). Thus global environmental identities are more inclusive of lower-level or more local environmental identities. Second, the passage of time impacts micro-level changes in social identity as indioikos Ph.D. summer academy 2007 – Sustainability, Innovation and Entrepreneurship 9

Paper van Kasteren

viduals also go through periods of transition in their lives which impact their identity (Hormuth, 1990). Social identity may be relevant to understanding how individuals are categorised in terms of environmental behaviours through external criteria. Also social identity has the potential to motivate sustainable consumer behaviour intrinsically by alignment of values or extrinsically by alignment with group norms.

3.3.3 Personal identity Both identity and social identity theorists allow for the existence of a personal identity, described as the core of the self which encapsulates our sense of who we are (Hitlin, 2003) and serves to differentiates us from others (Brewer, 1991). Tajfel (1981) views identity as a continuum between personal and social identity with the relative salience of these identities dependent on the situation. Others describe the difference as based on levels of abstraction (Brewer, 1991), on traits and personality (Luhtanen & Crocker, 1992), and on levels of self-categorisation (Turner, 1985). Deaux (1993) on the other hand, views personal and social identity as intertwined, whereby “personal identity is defined, at least in part, by group membership and social categories are infused with personal meaning” (p.5). Hitlin’s (2003) conceptualisation of personal identity based on core values, provides us with a link between the two constructs of values and identity. For Hitlin, personal identity is based on a system of unique and non-coerced, core personal value constructs. He views personal identity as a stable construct, but one which “shapes- but is also shaped by” an individual’s other identities and behaviour (p.122). Personal identity, with it’s central or core values, influences an individual’s association with other socially construed identities and determines the strength of that association. As Eriksen (1968) puts it: “we becom[e] committed to those identities that best enable us to express out most important self-values” (p.134). In terms of locus of causality personal identity can be conceptualised as a form of intrinsic motivation.

3.3.4 Linking identity to motivation Identity like values has two dimensions, the personal and the social. These are not distinct or separable, and depending on the interpretation, can be viewed as a continuum or coexistence between personal identity and social identities depending on the degree of integration or centrality. As with values, the dual nature of identity can be linked to extrinsic and intrinsic motivation and in turn to outcomes. I would argue that social and self-identity are largely forms of extrinsic motivation more especially those that are not fully integrated or central to self, and that personal identity is a form of intrinsic motivation.

4. Discussion and implications The conceptual model proposed in this paper integrates theories and constructs from psychology to incorporate both individual and social perspectives on sustainable consumer behaviour. The model draws parallels between the social dimensions of values and identity and extrinsic motivation, and the individual dimensions of values and identity and intrinsic motivation. Recognizing all the while that social values can be more or less integrated into personal value systems, as can social identities be more or less central to personal identity, and that motivation is neither purely extrinsic nor intrinsic but some combination of the two. The link between values and identity, and the source of motivation enables the model to predict outcomes because, behaviours which are intrinsically motivated result in better task engagement and performance and potentially also positive spillover effects. The model makes four main contributions. First, the model focuses on socio-cultural considerations of consumer behaviour. This paper situates ERB in industrial societies as mediated by consumer behaviour which is deeply rooted in the cultural fabric of consumer societies. To address the complex-

10 oikos Ph.D. summer academy 2007 – Sustainability, Innovation and Entrepreneurship

Work in Progress – please do not cite without permission of the author

ity and difficulty of changing consumer behaviour, the model incorporates values and identity as two constructs with socio-cultural legitimacy. Second, this model is capable of predicting general behaviour, an approach more commensurate to the challenge ahead. By proposing outcomes as a measure of environmental behaviour, the model circumvents the difficulties associated with measuring behaviour and more especially multiple behaviours, which have hampered research into the development of a general theory for environmental behaviour. Third, this paper makes the important point that engaging in environmental behaviours is not an end in itself, only a means to an end. The effectiveness of particular behaviours in producing environmental outcomes or reducing environmental impact should surely be a concern for researchers and policy makers alike. Performing specific behaviour better, performing behevaiour consistently, performing multiple instead of single behaviours and performing behaviours which have greater environmental impact will all result in better environmental outcomes. Measures of environmental performance, such as ecological footprints developed on the back of research by Rees and others (Rees, 1992; Wackernagel, McIntosh, Rees, & Woollard, 1993) enable a measure of behavioural outcomes which can be integrated with a model capable of predicting general rather than specific behaviour. Fourth, though this is not stated in the literature, I would argue that positive spillover from one behaviour to another occurs only when those behaviours are intrinsically motivated. For example, recycling has strong elements of extrinsic motivation linked to the many structural interventions including, but not limited to, the provision of dedicated bins and separate waste collections, along with the regulation and promotion by local councils and service providers. This cannot be compared with the motivation required for other domestic waste reduction strategies such as reuse and reduce, which must rely on intrinsic motivation. The spillover effect from recycling may be limited because extrinsic motivation is usually targeted to a specific behaviour, and therefore its effects are also limited to that specific behaviour. This argument is supported by the research on implicit and self-attributed motives whereby implicit motives have been linked to value consistent behaviour over time and conversely self-attributed motives are more situational and therefore less related to other behaviours. Positive spillover effects reinforce the importance of understanding the source of motivation and its importance for outcomes, because the more behaviours an individual engages in, the greater the environmental outcomes. This paper adds to the growing body of knowledge on environmental behaviour and the role of individuals in arresting of the continued deterioration of the global environment. This research will inform public policy in the area of sustainable development. Its particular appeal is the attractiveness of policy initiatives capable of addressing a range of behaviours which is likely to be more attractive to policy makers than multiple initiatives targeting specific behaviours (Pickett et al., 1993).

References Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50, 179-211. Allport, G. (1955). Becoming: Basic considerations for a psychology of personality. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Alwitt, L., & Pitts, R. (1996). Predicting purchase intentions for an environmentally sensitive product. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 5(1), 49-64. Bagozzi, R. P., & Dabholkar, P. A. (1994). Consumer recycling goals and their effect on decisions to recycle: A means-end chain analysis. Psychology & Marketing, 11(4), 313. oikos Ph.D. summer academy 2007 – Sustainability, Innovation and Entrepreneurship 11

Paper van Kasteren

Balderjahn, I. (1988). Personality variables and environmental attitudes as predictors of ecologically responsible consumption patterns. Journal of Business Research, 17(1), 51. Bardi, A., & Schwartz, S. (2003). Values and behavior: Strength and structure of relations. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29(10), 1207-1220. Bauman, Z. (1992). Intimations of post modernity. London: Routledge. Bauman, Z. (2000). Liquid modernity. Cambridge: Polity Press. Beck, U., & Beck-Gernsheim, E. (2002). Individualization. London: Sage Publications. Berger, I. E. (1997). The demographics of recycling and the structure of environmental behavior. Environment and Behavior, 29(4), 515-531. Biel, A., & Thogersen, J. (2007). Activation of social norms in social dilemmas: A review of the evidence and reflections on the implications for environmental behaviour. Journal of Economic Psychology, In Press, Corrected Proof. Boldero, J. (1995). The prediction of household recycling of newspapers: The role of attitudes, intentions, and situational factors. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 25(5), 440-462. Braithwaite, V., & Scott, W. (1991). Values. Measures of personality and social psychological attitudes, 1, 661-753. Bratt, C. (1999). The impact of norms and assumed consequences on recycling behavior. Environment and Behavior, 31(5), 630-656. Brewer, M. (1991). The social self: On being the same and different at the same time. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 17, 475-482. Burke, P., & Tully, J. (1977). The measurement of role identity. Social Forces, 55(4), 881-897. Campbell, D., & Stanley, J. (1963). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for research on teaching: American Educational Research Association. Chandler, C., & Connell, J. (1987). Children's intrinsic and internalized motivation: A developmental study of children's reasons for liked and disliked behaviors. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 5, 357-365. Charng, H., Piliavin, J., & Callero, P. (1988). Role identity and reasoned action in the prediction of repeated behaviors. Social Psychology Quarterly, 51(4), 303-317. Corral-Verdugo, V. (1997). Dual realities of conservation behavior: Self reports vs observations of re-use and recycling behavior. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 17, 135-145.

12 oikos Ph.D. summer academy 2007 – Sustainability, Innovation and Entrepreneurship

Work in Progress – please do not cite without permission of the author

Darley, J., & Batson, C. (1973). From Jerusalem to Jericho: A study of situational and dispositional variables in helping behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 27. Davies, J., Foxall, G., & Pallister, J. (2002). Beyond the intention behaviour mythology: An integrated model of recycling. Marketing Theory, 2(1), 29-113. De Young, R. (2000). New ways to promote proenvironmental behavior: Expanding and evaluating motives for environmentally responsible behavior. Journal of Social Issues, 56(3), 509-526. Deaux, K. (1993). Reconstructing social identity. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 19, 4-12. Deci, E., & Ryan, R. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self determination in human behavior. New York: Plenum Press. Dietz, T., Fitzgerald, A., & Schwom, R. (2005). Environmental values. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 30, 335-372. Douglas, M., & Isherwood, B. (1980). The world of goods: Towards an anthropology of consumption. London: Penguin. Dwyer, W., Leeming, F., Cobern, M., Porter, B., & Jackson, J. (1993). Critical review of behavioral interventions to preserve the environment: research since 1980. Environment and Behavior, 25(5), 275-321. Ebreo, A., Hershey, J., & Vining, J. (1999). Reducing solid waste. Linking recycling to environmentally responsible consumerism. Environment and Behavior, 31(1), 107-135. Edney, J. (1980). The commons problem: Alternative perspectives. American Psychologist, 35(1314), 50. Erikson, E. (1968). Identity, youth and crisis. New York: Norton. Feather, N. (1971). Organization and discrepancy in cognitive structures. Psychological Review, 78, 355379. Feather, N. (1975). Values in education and society. New York: Free Press. Feather, N. (1988). Values, valences, and course enrollment: Testing the role of personal values within an expectancy-valence framework. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80(3), 381-391. Feather, N. (1990). Bridging the gap between values and actions: Recent applications of the expectancy-value model. Handbook of Motivation and Cognition: Foundations of Social Behavior, 2, 151192. Feather, N. (1992). Values, valences, expectations and action. Journal of Social Issues, 48, 109-124. Feather, N. (1995). Values, valences, and choice: The influence of values on the perceived attractiveness and choice of alternatives. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68(6), 1135-1151. oikos Ph.D. summer academy 2007 – Sustainability, Innovation and Entrepreneurship 13

Paper van Kasteren

Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention and behavior: An introduction to theory and research. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Fox, K., & Kotler, P. (1980). The marketing of social causes: The first 10 years. Journal of Marketing, 44(4), 24-33. Frey, B. (1993). Motivation as a limit to pricing. Journal of Economic Psychology, 14, 635-664. Frey, B., & Oberholzer-Gee, F. (1997). The cost of price incentives: An empirical analysis of motivation crowding-out. The American Economic Review, 87(4), 746-755. Grolnick, W., Ryan, R., & Deci, E. (1991). Inner resources for school achievement: Motivational mediators of children’s perceptions of their parents. Journal of Educational Psychology, 83(4), 508-517. Heath, Y., & Gifford, R. (2002). Extending the theory of planned behavior: Predicting the use of public transportation. J Appl Soc Psychol, 32, 2154-2189. Hitlin, S. (2003). Values as the core of personal identity: Drawing links between two theories of self. Social Psychology Quarterly, 66(2), 118-137. Hitlin, S., & Piliavin, J. A. (2004). Values: Reviving a dormant concept. Annual Review of Sociology, 30, 359-393. Hofstede, G. (1994). Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind: Intercultural cooperation and its importance for survival. London: Harper Collins. Hopper, J. R., & Nielsen, J. M. (1991). Recycling as altruistic behavior. Normative and behavioral strategies to expand participation in a community recycling program. Environment and Behavior, 23(2), 195-220. Hormuth, S. (1990). The ecology of the self; relocation and self-concept change. Cambridge, UK: Press of the University of Cambridge. Hormuth, S. (1999). Social meaning and social context of environmentally relevant behavior: Shopping, wrapping, and, disposing. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 19, 277-286. Howard, J. (2000). Social psychology of identities. Annual Review of Sociology, 26, 367-393. Inglehart, R. (1995). Public support for environmental protection: objective problems and subjective values in 43 societies. PS: Political Science and Politics, 28(1), 57-72. Jackson, T. (2004). Motivating sustainable consumption (Draft 1 August 2004): Centre for Environmental Strategy, University of Surrey. James Jr, H. (2005). Why did you do that? An economic examination of the effect of extrinsic compensation on intrinsic motivation and performance. Journal of Economic Psychology, 26(4), 549-566. 14 oikos Ph.D. summer academy 2007 – Sustainability, Innovation and Entrepreneurship

Work in Progress – please do not cite without permission of the author

Joireman, J., Lasane, T., Bennett, J., Richards, D., & Solaimani, S. (2001). Integrating social value orientation and the consideration of future consequences within the extended norm activation model of proenvironmental behavior. British Journal of Social Psychology, 40, 133-155. Kahle, L. (1983). Social values and social change: Adaptation to life in America. New York: Praeger. Kahle, L. (1996). Social values and consumer behavior: Research from the list of values. In C. Seligman, J. Olson & M. Zanna (Eds.), The Ontario Symposium: The Psychology of Values (pp. 135-151). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Kaiser, F., & Shimoda, T. (1999). Responsibility as a predictor of ecological behaviour. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 19(3), 243-253. Kaiser, F., Woelfing, S., & Fuhrer, U. (1999). Environmental attitude and ecological behaviour. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 19(1), 1-19. Kallgren, C., Reno, R., & Cialdini, R. (2000). A focus theory of normative conduct: When norms do and do not affect behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26(8), 1002. Kaplan, S. (2000). New ways to promote proenvironmental behavior: Human nature and environmentally responsible behavior. Journal of Social Issues, 56(3), 491-508. Karp, D. (1996). Values and their effect on pro-environmental behavior. Environment and Behavior, 28, 111-133. Katsev, R., & Johnson, T. (1983). A social-psychological analysis of residential electricity consumption: The impact of minimal justification techniques. Journal of Economic Psychology, 3, 267-284. Kotler, P., & Andreasen, A. (1987). Strategic marketing for nonprofit organizations: Prentice-Hall. Latané, B., & Darley, J. (1976). Help in a Crisis: Bystander Response to an Emergency. Morristown, NJ: General Learning. Leiserowitz, A., Kates, R., & Parris, T. (2005). Do global attitudes and behavior support sustainable development? Environment, 47(9), 22-38. Leiserowitz, A., Kates, R., & Parris, T. (2006). Sustainability values, attitudes, and behaviors: A review of multinational and global trends. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 31. Lindén, A., & Carlsson-Kanyama, A. (2003). Environmentally friendly disposal behavior and local support systems: Lessons from a metropolitan area. Local Environment, 8(3), 291-301. Liska, A. (1984). A critical examination of the causal structure of the Fishbein/Ajzen attitude-behavior model. Social Psychology Quarterly, 47(1), 61-74.

oikos Ph.D. summer academy 2007 – Sustainability, Innovation and Entrepreneurship 15

Paper van Kasteren

Luhtanen, R., & Crocker, J. (1992). A collective self-esteem scale: Self-evaluation of one's social identity. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 18, 302-318. Madden, K. (1995). Householder's experience of 'save the world' messages. Australian Journal of Communication, 33(3), 82-102. Mainieri, T., Barnett, E., Valdero, T., Unipan, J., & Oskamp, S. (1997). Green buying: The influence of environmental concern on consumer behavior. Journal of Social Psychology, 137(2), 189-204. Maio, G., & Olson, B. (1994). Value-attitude-behaviour relations: the moderating role of attitude functions. British journal of social psychology, 33, 301-312. Maio, G., & Olson, J. (1998). Values as truisms: Evidence and implications. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 294-311. Maio, G., & Olson, J. M. (1995). Relations between values, attitudes, and behavioral intentions: The moderating role of attitude function. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 31(3), 266-285. Maio, G., Olson, J. M., Allen, L., & Bernard, M. M. (2001). Addressing discrepancies between values and behavior: The motivating effect of reasons,. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 37(2), 104117. Mannetti, L., Pierro, A., & Livi, S. (2004). Recycling: Planned and self-expressive behavior. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 24(2), 227-236. Marini, M. (2000). Social values and norms. Encyclopedia of sociology, 4, 2828–2840. Matthies, E., Kloeckner, C., & Preissner, C. (2006). Applying a modified moral decision making model to change habitual car use: How can commitment be effective? Applied Psychology: An International Review, 55(1), 91-106. McCall, G., & Simmons, J. (1978). Identities and interactions: An examination of human associations of everyday life. New York: The Free Press. McClelland, D. (1989). How do self-attributed and implicit motives differ? Psychological Review, 96(4), p690-702. McClelland, L., & Canter, R. (1981). Psychological research on energy conservation: Context, approaches, methods. In A. Baum & J. Singer (Eds.), Advances in environmental psychology: Vol. 3. Energy conservation: Pyschological perspectives (pp. 1-25). Hillsdale , NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. McCracken, G. (1986). Culture and consumption: A theoretical account of the structure: A theoretical account of the structure and movement of the cultural meaning of consumer Goods. Journal of Consumer Research, 13(1), 71-84. Mitchell, A. (1983). The nine American lifestyles. New York: Warner.

16 oikos Ph.D. summer academy 2007 – Sustainability, Innovation and Entrepreneurship

Work in Progress – please do not cite without permission of the author

Moisander, J., & Uusitalo, L. (1994). Attitude behaviour inconsistency: Limitations of the reasoned action approach in predicting behaviour from proenvironmental attitudes. 19th Annual Colloquium of the International Association for Research in Economic Psychology, Rotterdam, July, 10-13. Myers, N., & Kent, J. (2004). The new consumers: the influence of affluence on the environment. Washington, D.C.: Island Press. Olson, M. (1965). The logic of collective action. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Oskamp, S., Burkhardt, R., Schulz, P., Hurin, S., & Zelezny, L. (1998). Predicting three dimensions of residential curbside recycling: An observational study. Journal of Environmental Education, 29(2), 37-42. Penner, L., Dovidio, J., Piliavin, J., & Schroeder, D. (2005). Prosocial behavior: Multilevel perspectives. Annual Review of Psychology, 56, 365-392. Piacentini, M., & Mailer, G. (2004). Symbolic consumption in teenagers' clothing choices. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 3(3), 251-262. Pickett, G., Kangun, N., & Grove, S. (1993). Is there a general conserving consumer? A public policy concern. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 12(2), 234. Pintrich, P., & De Groot, E. (1990). Motivational and self-regulated learning components of classroom academic performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(1), 33-40. Rees, W. (1992). Ecological footprints and appropriated carrying capacity: what urban economics leaves out. Environment and Urbanization, 4(2), 121. Reynolds, T., & Olson, J. (2001). Understanding consumer decision making - The means ends approach to marketing and advertising strategy. In T. Reynolds & J. Olson (Eds.). Ritchie, J., & McDougall, G. (1985). Designing and marketing energy conservation policies and programs: Implications from a decade of research. Journal of Public Policy and Marketing, 4, 14-32. Rohan, M. J. (2000). A rose by any name? The values construct. Personality & Social Psychology Review, 4(3), 255-277. Rokeach, M. (1973). The nature of human values. New York: The Free Press. Ryan, R., & Deci, E. (2000a). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: Classic definitions and new directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25(1), 54-67. Ryan, R., & Deci, E. (2000b). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55(1), 68-78. Schultz, P., & Zelezny, L. (1999). Values as predictors of environmental attitudes: Evidence for consistency across 14 countries. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 19, 255-265.

oikos Ph.D. summer academy 2007 – Sustainability, Innovation and Entrepreneurship 17

Paper van Kasteren

Schwartz, S. (1973). Normative explanations of helping behavior: A critique, proposal, and empirical test. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 9, 349-364. Schwartz, S. (1977). Normative influences on altruism. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 10, 221-279. Schwartz, S. (1992). Universals in the content and structure of values: Theoretical advances and empirical tests in 20 countries. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology (Vol. 25, pp. 1-65). New York: Academic Press. Schwartz, S. (1994). Beyond individualism/collectivism: New cultural dimensions of values. In U. Kim, H. Triandis, S. Katgitcibasi, S. Choi & G. Yoon (Eds.), Individualism and collectivism: Theory, method, and application (pp. 85-119). thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Schwartz, S., & Bilsky, W. (1987). Toward a universal psychological structure of human values. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 550-562. Schwartz, S., & Bilsky, W. (1990). Towards a theory of the universal content of structure and values: Extensions and cross-cultural replications. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58, 878-891. Schwartz, S., & Howard, J. A. (1981). A normative decision making model of altruism. In J. P. Rushton & R. M. Sorrentine (Eds.), Altruism and helping behavior. Social personality and developmental perspectives (pp. 189-211). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum Associates. Shoda, Y. (1999). A unified framework for the study of behavioral consistency: Bridging Person × Situation interaction and the consistency paradox. European Journal of Personality, 13, 361-387. Shove, E. (2003). Comfort, cleanliness and convenience: The social organization of normality. Oxford: BERG. Shrum, L., Lowrey, T., & McCarty, J. (1994). Recycling as a marketing problem: A framework for strategy development. Psychology & Marketing, 11(4), 393. Slater, D. (1997). Consumer culture and modernity. Cambridge: Polity Press. Sparks, P., & Shepherd, R. (1992). Self-identity and the theory of planned behavior: Assessing the role of identification with "green consumerism." Social Psychology Quarterly, 55(4), 388-399. Stern, P., Dietz, T., Kalof, L., & Guagnano, G. (1995). Values, beliefs and pro-environmental action: Attitude formation toward emergent attitude objects. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 25, 322-348. Stern, P., & Fitzpatrick, E. (1977). Energy behavior: Conservation without coercion. 10-15. Stern, P., & Oskamp, S. (1987). Managing Scare Environmental Resources. In T. Altman & D. Stockols (Eds.), The Handbook of Environmental Psychology (pp. 1044-1088). New York: Wiley. Stryker, S. (1968). Identity salience and role performance: The relevance of symbolic interaction theory for family research. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 30, 558-564. 18 oikos Ph.D. summer academy 2007 – Sustainability, Innovation and Entrepreneurship

Work in Progress – please do not cite without permission of the author

Stryker, S. (1980). Symbolic interactionism: A social structural version. Palo Alto, CA: Benjanim/Cummings. Stryker, S. (1987). Identity theory: Developments and extensions. In K. Yardley & T. Honess (Eds.), Self and identity (pp. 89-104). New York: Wiley. Stryker, S., & Burke, P. (2000). The past, present and future of identity theory. Social Psychology Quarterly, 63, 284-297. Tajfel, H. (1981). Human groups and social categories. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Tajfel, H. (1982). Social psychology of intergroup relations. Annual Review of Psychology, 33, 1-39. Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. (1979). An integrative theory on intergroup conflict. In W. Austin & S. Worchel (Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 33-47). Monterery, CA: Brooks-Cole. Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. (1986). The social identity of intergroup relations. In S. Worchel & W. Austin (Eds.), The psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 7-24). Chicago, IL: Nelson-Hall. Taylor, S., & Todd, P. (1995a). An integrated model of waste management behavior: A test of household recycling and composting intentions. Environment and Behavior, 27(5), 603-630. Taylor, S., & Todd, P. (1995b). Understanding household garbage reduction behavior: A test of an integrated model. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 14(2), 192. Terry, D., Hogg, M., & White, K. (1999). The theory of planned behaviour: Self-identity, social identity and group norms. British Journal of Social Psychology, 38, 225-244. Thøgersen, J. (1996). Recycling and morality: A critical review of the literature. Environment and Behavior, 28(4), 536-558. Thøgersen, J. (1999). Spillover process in the development of a sustainable consumption pattern. Journal of Economic Psychology, 20, 53-81. Thøgersen, J., & Ölander, F. (2003). Spillover of environmentally-friendly consumer behavior. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 23(3), 225-236. Turner, J. (1978). The role and the person. American Journal of Sociology, 84, 1-23. Turner, J. (1985). Social categorization and the self-concept: A social cognitive theory of group behaviour. In E. Lawler (Ed.), Advances in group processes (Vol. 2). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. UNDESA. (1992). Agenda 21: United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Division for Sustainable Development.

oikos Ph.D. summer academy 2007 – Sustainability, Innovation and Entrepreneurship 19

Paper van Kasteren

van Raaij, W. (1995). A hierarchy of excuses for not behaving in a pro-environmental way. Paper presented at the SIFO, Lillehammer. Van Vugt, M. (2001). Community identification moderating the impact of financial incentives in a natural resources dilemma: Water conservation. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25, 735-750. Van Vugt, M., Lange, P., & Meertens, R. (1996). Commuting by car or public transportation? The role of social orientation in real-life social dilemma analysis. Personality And Social Psychology Bulletin, 25(258-278). Van Vugt, M., & Samuelson, C. (1999). The impact of personal metering in the management of natural resource crisis: A social dilemma analysis. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25, 735-750. Verplanken, B., & Holland, R. (2002). Motivated decision making: Effects of activation and selfcentrality of values on choices and behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82(3), 434-447. Vining, J., & Ebreo, A. (1992). Predicting recycling behavior from global and specific environmental attitudes and changes in recycling opportunities. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 20, 265-275. Wackernagel, M., McIntosh, J., Rees, W., & Woollard, R. (1993). How big is our ecological footprint? A Handbook for estimating a community’s appropriated carrying capacity’. Discussion Draft. Weigel, R. (1983). Environmental Attitudes and the Prediction of Behavior. Environmental Psychology: Directions and Perspectives, 257-287. Werner, C. M., & Makela, E. (1998). Motivations and Behaviors that Support Recycling. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 18, 373-386. Wiener, J., & Doescher, T. (1991). A framework for promoting cooperation. Journal of Marketing, 55(2), 38. Wiener, J., & Doescher, T. (1994). Cooperation and expectations of cooperation. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 13(2), 259. Williams Jr, R. (1979). Change and stability in value and value systems. In M. Rokeach (Ed.), Understanding human values : individual and societal (pp. x, 322). New York: Free Press. Zukin, S., & Maguire, J. (2004). Consumers and consumption. Annual Review of Sociology, 30, 173-197.

20 oikos Ph.D. summer academy 2007 – Sustainability, Innovation and Entrepreneurship