The Influence of Norm Perception on Pro-Environmental Behavior: A Comparison between the Moderating Roles of Traditional Media and Social Media
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Research Theory and Hypothesis
2.1. Social Norm Perception and Pro-Environmental Behavior
2.2. Media Exposure and Pro-Environmental Behavior
2.3. Social Norm Perception, Media Composure and Pro-Environmental Behavior
3. Methods
3.1. Data Collection and Sample
3.2. Measurement
3.2.1. Pro-Environmental Behavior (PEB)
3.2.2. Social Norm Perception (SNP)
3.2.3. Traditional Media Usage for Environment Information Acquisition (TME) and Social Media Usage for Environment Information Acquisition (SME)
3.2.4. Other Variables
3.3. Data Analysis Methods and Procedures
4. Results
4.1. Descriptive Statistics
4.2. Hypothesis Testing
4.2.1. The Influence of Media Exposure on the Relationship between Norm Perception and Pro-Environmental Behavior
4.2.2. The Influence of Media Exposure on the Relationship between Different Types of Norm Perception and Pro-Environmental Behavior
4.3. A Summary of the Testing Results of Our Hypotheses
5. Conclusions
5.1. Theoretical Implications
5.1.1. In the Age of Social Media, the Role of Different Media Types in the Formation of Pro-Environmental Behaviors Should Be Re-Evaluated
5.1.2. Interpersonal Communication Holds the Most Significant Effect on Pro-Environmental Behaviors, and Social Media Strengthen This Effect
5.2. Practical Implications
5.2.1. Compared with the Dissemination of Pro-Environment Knowledge through Traditional Media, the Dissemination of Pro-Environment Knowledge through Social Media Has a Greater Effect in Promoting Pro-Environmental Behavior
5.2.2. Reducing the Release of Injunctive Normative Information for Pro-Environmental Behavior in Traditional Media and Increasing Pro-Environmental Information for Promoting Subjective Norm Activation in Social Media Can Promote Pro-Environmental Behavior
5.3. Limitations
Author Contributions
Funding
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Gifford, R.; Nilsson, A. Personal and social factors that influence pro-environmental concern and behaviour: A review. Int. J. Psychol. 2014, 49, 141–157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Bamberg, S.; Möser, G. Twenty years after Hines, Hungerford, and Tomera: A new meta-analysis of psycho-social determinants of pro-environmental behaviour. J. Environ. Psychol. 2007, 27, 14–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fishbein, M.; Ajzen, I. Belief, Attitude, Intention, and Behavior: An Introduction to Theory and Research; Addison-Wesley: Reading, MA, USA, 1975. [Google Scholar]
- Ajzen, I. The theory of planned behavior. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 1991, 50, 179–211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schwartz, S.H. Normative Influences on Altruism, Advances in Experimental Social Psychology; Academic Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 1977; Volume 10, pp. 221–279. [Google Scholar]
- Stern, P.C.; Dietz, T.; Abel, T.; Guagnano, G.A.; Kalof, L. A value-belief-norm theory of support for social movements: The case of environmentalism. Hum. Ecol. Rev. 1999, 6, 81–97. [Google Scholar]
- Han, H. Travelers’ pro-environmental behavior in a green lodging context: Converging value-belief-norm theory and the theory of planned behavior. Tour. Manag. 2015, 47, 164–177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Deng, Y.D.; Guo, L.; Lu, H. A Review of Pro-environmental Behaviors from the Perspective of Two Decision-making Systems. Psychol. Res. 2019, 12, 154. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
- Cialdini, R.B.; Reno, R.R.; Kallgren, C.A. A focus theory of normative conduct: Recycling the concept of norms to reduce littering in public places. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 1990, 58, 1015. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Park, H.S.; Smith, S.W. Distinctiveness and Influence of Subjective Norms, Personal Descriptive and Injunctive Norms, and Societal Descriptive and Injunctive Norms on Behavioral Intent: A Case of Two Behaviors Critical to Organ Donation. Hum. Commun. Res. 2007, 33, 194–218. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chan, K. Mass communication and pro-environmental behaviour: Waste recycling in Hong Kong. J. Environ. Manag. 1998, 52, 317–325. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hynes, N.; Wilsonc, J. I do it, but don’t tell anyone! Personal values, personal and social norms: Can social media play a role in changing pro-environmental behaviours? Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2016, 111, 349–359. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- 2019 WeChat Annual Report. Available online: https://zhuanlan.zhihu.com/p/102069027 (accessed on 30 June 2020).
- Perkins, H.W.; Berkowitz, A.D. Perceiving the Community Norms of Alcohol Use among Students: Some Research Implications for Campus Alcohol Education Programming*. Int. J. Addict. 1986, 21, 961–976. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Berkowitz, A.D. From reactive to proactive prevention: Promoting anecology of health on campus. In Substance Abuse on Campus: A handbook for College and University Personnel; Greenwood Publishing Group: Westport, CT, USA, 1997; pp. 119–139. [Google Scholar]
- Berkowitz, A.D. Working with men to prevent violence against women: Program modalities and formats (Part Two). In Violence against Women Resource Network; 2004; pp. 1–7. Available online: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Alan_Berkowitz2/publication/267699935_Working_with_Men_to_Prevent_Violence_Against_Women_Program_Modalities_and_Formats_October_2004_Working_with_Men_to_Prevent_Violence_Against_Women_Program_Modalities_and_Formats_Part_Two/links/54f0d5fe0cf24eb87941612b/Working-with-Men-to-Prevent-Violence-Against-Women-Program-Modalities-and-Formats-October-2004-Working-with-Men-to-Prevent-Violence-Against-Women-Program-Modalities-and-Formats-Part-Two.pdf (accessed on 29 September 2020).
- Perkins, H.W. College student misperceptions of alcohol and other drug norms among peers: Exploring causes, consequences, and implications for prevention programs. In Designing Alcohol and Other Drug Prevention Programs in Higher Education: Bringing Theory into Practice; U.S. Department of Education: Newton, MA, USA, 1997; pp. 177–206. [Google Scholar]
- Perkins, H.W. The emergence and evolution of the social norms approach to substance abuse prevention. In The Social Norms Approach to Preventing School and College Age Substance Abuse: A Handbook for Educators, Counselors, and Clinicians; 2003; pp. 3–17. Available online: http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.460.5081&rep=rep1&type=pdf (accessed on 29 September 2020).
- Litt, D.M.; Lewis, M.A.; Linkenbach, J.W.; Lande, G.; Neighbors, C. Normative misperceptions of peer seat belt use among high school students and their relationship to personal seat belt use. Traffic Inj. Prev. 2014, 15, 748–752. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Hellstrom, D. State of Minnesota Department of Public Safety Project: The Prevention Collaborative’s Positive Social Norming Campaign. In The Report on Social Norms: Working Paper #7; Paper Clip Communications: Little Falls, NJ, USA, 2004. [Google Scholar]
- Bruce, S. The “A Man” Campaign: Marketing Social Norms to Men to Prevent Sexual Assault. In The Report on Social Norms: Working Paper #5; Paper Clip Communications: Little Falls, NJ, USA, 2002. [Google Scholar]
- Rodrieguez, R.; Kulley, J.; Barrow, J. A social norm intervention for men to prevent sexual assault. In The Report on Social Norms; National Social Norms Center at Michigan State University: East Lansing, MI, USA, 2003; Volume 3. [Google Scholar]
- White, J.; Williams, L.V.; Cho, D. A social norms intervention to reduce coercive behaviors among deaf and hard-of-hearing college students. In The Report on Social Norms: Working Paper; National Social Norms Center at Michigan State University: East Lansing, MI, USA, 2003; Volume 9, p. 4. [Google Scholar]
- Cleveland, M.; Kalamas, M.; Laroche, M. Shades of green: Linking environmental locus of control and pro-environmental behaviors. J. Consum. Mark. 2005, 22, 198–212. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cialdini, R.B.; Kallgren, C.A.; Reno, R.R. A Focus Theory of Normative Conduct: A Theoretical Refinement and Reevaluation of the Role of Norms in Human Behavior. In Advances in Experimental Social Psychology; Academic Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 1991; Volume 24, pp. 201–234. [Google Scholar]
- Nolan, J.M.; Schultz, P.W.; Cialdini, R.B.; Goldstein, N.J.; Griskevicius, V. Normative Social Influence is Underdetected. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 2008, 34, 913–923. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Reno, R.R.; Cialdini, R.B.; Kallgren, C.A. The transsituational influence of social norms. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 1993, 64, 104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ajzen, I. Perceived behavioral control, self-efficacy, locus of control, and the theory of planned behavior 1. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 2002, 32, 665–683. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Agha, S. The impact of a mass media campaign on personal risk perception, perceived self-efficacy and on other behavioural predictors. AIDS Care 2003, 15, 749–762. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mileti, D.S.; Fitzpatrick, C. The Causal Sequence of Risk Communication in the Parkfield Earthquake Prediction Experiment. Risk Anal. 1992, 12, 393–400. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zeng, F.X.; Dai, J.; Wang, Y.Q. Technical risk vs. perceived risk: Communication process and risk society amplification. Mod. Commun. 2015, 3, 40–46. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
- Wåhlberg, A.E.A.; Sjöberg, L. Risk perception and the media. J. Risk Res. 2000, 3, 31–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fischhoff, B. Risk Perception and Communication Unplugged: Twenty Years of Process 1. Risk Anal. 1995, 15, 137–145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Huang, H. Media use, environmental beliefs, self-efficacy, and pro-environmental behavior. J. Bus. Res. 2016, 69, 2206–2212. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Holbert, R.L.; Kwak, N.; Shah, D.V. Environmental Concern, Patterns of Television Viewing, and Pro-Environmental Behaviors: Integrating Models of Media Consumption and Effects. J. Broadcast. Electron. Media 2003, 47, 177–196. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Trivedi, R.H.; Patel, J.D.; Acharya, N. Causality analysis of media influence on environmental attitude, intention and behaviors leading to green purchasing. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 196, 11–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Lee, K. The role of media exposure, social exposure and biospheric value orientation in the environmental attitude-intention-behavior model in adolescents. J. Environ. Psychol. 2011, 31, 301–308. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ho, S.S.; Liao, Y.; Rosenthal, S. Applying the Theory of Planned Behavior and Media Dependency Theory: Predictors of Public Pro-environmental Behavioral Intentions in Singapore. Environ. Commun. 2014, 9, 77–99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liao, Y.; Ho, S.S.; Yang, X. Motivators of pro-environmental behavior: Examining the underlying processes in the influence of presumed media influence model. Sci. Commun. 2016, 38, 51–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gunther, A.C.; Storey, J.D. The influence of presumed influence. J. Commun. 2003, 53, 199–215. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Oakley, I.; Chen, M.; Nisi, V. Motivating sustainable behavior. Ubiquitous Comput. 2008, 174–178. [Google Scholar]
- Mankoff, J.; Fussell, S.R.; Dillahunt, T.; Glaves, R.; Delcourt, C.G.; Johnson, M.P.; Matthews, D.H.; Matthews, H.S.; McGuire, R.; Thompson, R.; et al. StepGreen.org: Increasing energy saving behaviors via social networks. In Proceedings of the Fourth International AAAI Conference on Weblogs and Social Media, Washington, DC, USA, 23–26 May 2010. [Google Scholar]
- Han, W. Online Travel UGC as Persuasive Communication: Explore its Informational and Normative Influence on Pro-Environmental Personal Norms and Behaviour. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK, 2018. [Google Scholar]
- Schultz, P.W.; Nolan, J.M.; Cialdini, R.B.; Goldstein, N.J.; Griskevicius, V. The Constructive, Destructive, and Reconstructive Power of Social Norms. Psychol. Sci. 2007, 18, 429–434. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Yan, G.D.; Kang, J.C.; Xie, X.J.; Wang, G.D.; Zhang, J.P.; Zhu, W.W. Trends in Public Environmental Awareness in China. China Popul. Resour. Environ. 2010, 20, 55–60. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
- Wang, Q.Y.; Luo, D. National Environmental Awareness in the High-speed Economic Growth Period: Based on the Data of Beijing Municipal Environmental Awareness Sampling Survey. China Stat. 2010, 1, 25–26. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
- Kallgren, C.A.; Reno, R.R.; Cialdini, R.B. A Focus Theory of Normative Conduct: When Norms Do and Do not Affect Behavior. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 2000, 26, 1002–1012. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Miller, D.T.; Prentice, D.A. The construction of social norms and standards. In Social Psychology: Handbook of Basic Principles; Higgins, E.T., Kruglanski, A.W., Eds.; The Guilford Press: New York, NY, USA, 1996; pp. 799–829. [Google Scholar]
- Xu, J.; Han, R. The Influence of Place Attachment on Pro-Environmental Behaviors: The Moderating Effect of Social Media. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, 5100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Bratt, C. Consumers’ Environmental Behavior: Generalized, sector-based, or compensatory? Environ. Behav. 1999, 31, 28–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gatersleben, B.; Steg, L.; Vlek, C. Measurement and Determinants of Environmentally Significant Consumer Behavior. Environ. Behav. 2002, 34, 335–362. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dono, J.; Webb, J.; Richardson, B. The relationship between environmental activism, pro-environmental behaviour and social identity. J. Environ. Psychol. 2010, 30, 178–186. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hong, D.Y.; Fan, Y.C.; Xiao, C.Y. Re-examining the Measurement Quality of the Chinese New Environmental Paradigm (CNEP) Scale: An Analysis based on the CGSS 2010 data. Sociol. Stud. 2014, 4, 49–72. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
- Han, R.; Xu, J. A Comparative Study of the Role of Interpersonal Communication, Traditional Media and Social Media in Pro-Environmental Behavior: A China-Based Study. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 1883. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
Items | Range | Mean | SD | Cronbach α | Source | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Pro-environmental behavior | 10 | 0–30 | 13.51 | 3.89 | 0.741 | Hong et al. (2014) |
Social norm perception | 3 | 0–5 | 3.51 | 0.60 | 0.816 | Park and Smith (2007) |
Subject norm perception | 3 | 0–5 | 3.33 | 0.68 | 0.715 | |
Descriptive norm perception | 3 | 0–5 | 3.53 | 0.73 | 0.740 | |
Injunctive norm perception | 3 | 0–5 | 3.68 | 0.73 | 0.736 | |
Traditional media exposure | 5 | 0–4 | 1.8 | 0.8 | 0.777 | Self-development scale |
Social media exposure | 11 | 0–4 | 1.04 | 0.6 | 0.807 | |
Environmental knowledge | 10 | 0–10 | 9.3 | 1.23 | 0.773 | the China General Social Survey 2013 |
Environmental risk perception | 12 | 0–5 | 3.74 | 0.53 | 0.818 | the China General Social Survey 2013 |
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Age | |||||||||
Environmental knowledge | −0.122 ** | ||||||||
Environmental risk perception | −0.070 | 0.223 ** | |||||||
Social norm perception | 0.028 | −0.016 | 0.211 ** | ||||||
Subject norm perception | 0.010 | −0.099 | −0.170 | 0.819 ** | |||||
Descriptive norm perception | 0.032 | −0.011 | 0.192 ** | 0.866 ** | 0.163 ** | ||||
Injunctive norm perception | 0.029 | 0.064 | 0.168 ** | 0.829 ** | 0.228 ** | 0.491 ** | |||
Traditional media exposure | 0.010 | 0.133 ** | 0.115 ** | 0.203 ** | 0.115 ** | 0.163 ** | 0.229 ** | ||
Social media exposure | −0.075 | −0.011 | 0.053 | 0.261 ** | 0.236 ** | 0.194 ** | 0.228 ** | 0.498 ** | |
Pro-environmental behavior | 0.152 ** | −0.116 ** | 0.152 ** | 0.482 ** | 0.431 ** | 0.401 ** | 0.381 ** | 0.070 | 0.235 ** |
M3-1 | M3-2 | M3-3 | M3-4 | M3-5 | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Gender | −0.208 (0.309) | −0.072 (0.303) | −0.044 (0.277) | −0.092 (0.275) | −0.065 (0.275) | |
Age | 0.073 **** (0.020) | 0.058 ** (0.020) | 0.058 *** (0.018) | 0.066 **** (0.018) | 0.063 *** (0.018) | |
Community participation | 0.500 **** (0.048) | 0.497 **** (0.048) | 0.364 **** (0.045) | 0.342 **** (0.046) | 0.347 **** (0.046) | |
Environmental knowledge | −0.288 * (0.125) | −0.245 * (0.114) | −0.210 (0.114) | −0.207 (0.114) | ||
Environmental risk perception | 1.466 **** (0.288) | 0.816 ** (0.271) | 0.818 ** (0.269) | 0.785 ** (0.269) | ||
Independent variable | Social norm perception | 2.498 **** (0.239) | 2.399 **** (0.243) | 2.263 **** (0.516) | ||
Moderating variables | Traditional media exposure | −0.379 * (0.195) | 0.902 (1.086) | |||
Social media exposure | 0.875 *** (0.265) | −1.996 (1.516) | ||||
Interaction variables | Social norm perception × Traditional media exposure | −0.358 (0.302) | ||||
Social norm perception × Social media exposure | 0.783 * (0.406) | |||||
F | 41.016 **** | 31.184 **** | 49.391 **** | 39.042 **** | 31.709 **** | |
Adjusted R2 | 0.179 | 0.216 | 0.346 | 0.357 | 0.359 | |
ΔR2 | 0.184 | 0.039 | 0.130 | 0.013 | 0.004 |
M4-1 | M4-2 | M4-3 | M4-4 | M4-5 | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Gender | −0.208 (0.309) | −0.072 (0.303) | −0.036 (0.277) | −0.084 (0.275) | −0.046 (0.274) | |
Age | 0.073 **** (0.020) | 0.058 ** (0.020) | 0.060 *** (0.018) | 0.067 **** (0.018) | 0.061 *** (0.018) | |
CP | 0.500 **** (0.048) | 0.497 **** (0.048) | 0.368 **** (0.046) | 0.347 **** (0.046) | 0.348 **** (0.046) | |
EK | −0.2881 * (0.125) | −0.213 (0.116) | −0.185 (0.116) | −0.185 (0.116) | ||
ERP | 1.466 **** (0.288) | 0.800 ** (0.271) | 0.803 ** (0.269) | 0.776 ** (0.269) | ||
Independent variables | PSN | 1.197 ** (0.253) | 1.093 **** (0.253) | 0.217 (0.621) | ||
PDN | 0.744 ** (0.250) | 0.746** (0.248) | 0.148 (0.643) | |||
PIN | 0.586 * (0.238) | 0.581* (0.239) | 1.972* (0.566) | |||
Moderating variables | TME | −0.349 (0.197) | 0.947 (1.068) | |||
SME | 0.846 ** (0.267) | −1.211 (1.534) | ||||
Interaction variables | PSN × TME | −0.040 (0.329) | ||||
PDN × TME | 0.467 (0.377) | |||||
PIN × TME | −0.735 * (0.331) | |||||
PSN × SME | 0.964 * (0.487) | |||||
PDN × SME | −0.168 (0.541) | |||||
PIN × SME | −0.192 (0.459) | |||||
F | 41.016 **** | 31.184 **** | 37.421 **** | 31.405 **** | 20.743 **** | |
Adjusted R2 | 0.179 | 0.216 | 0.347 | 0.356 | 0.365 | |
ΔR2 | 0.184 | 0.039 | 0.133 | 0.012 | 0.016 |
Aim | Hypothesis | Model | Result | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | Tests on the relationship between social norm perception and pro-environmental behavior | H1 | NP → PEB | M3-3 | √ |
H1-1 | PSN → PEB | M4-3 | √ | ||
H1-2 | PDN → PEB | M4-3 | √ | ||
H1-3 | PIN → PEB | M4-3 | √ | ||
2 | Tests on the relationship between media exposure and pro-environmental behavior | H2 | ME → PEB | M3-4,M4-4 | √ |
H2-1 | TME → PEB | M3-4 | √ | ||
H2-2 | SME → PEB | M3-4,M4-4 | √ | ||
H2-3 | TME, SME → PEB | M3-4,M4-4 | √ | ||
3 | Tests on the moderating effects of different types of information composure on the relationship between different types of norm perception and pro-environmental behavior | H3 | NP × ME → PEB | M3-5,M4-5 | √ |
H3-1 | NP × TME → PEB | M3-5 | × | ||
H3-2 | NP × SME → PEB | M3-5 | √ | ||
H3-1-1 | PSN × TME → PEB | M4-5 | × | ||
H3-1-2 | PDN × TME → PEB | M4-5 | × | ||
H3-1-3 | PIN × TME → PEB | M4-5 | √ | ||
H3-1-1 | PSN × SME → PEB | M4-5 | √ | ||
H3-1-2 | PDN × SME → PEB | M4-5 | × | ||
H3-1-3 | PIN × SME→ PEB | M4-5 | × |
© 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Han, R.; Cheng, Y. The Influence of Norm Perception on Pro-Environmental Behavior: A Comparison between the Moderating Roles of Traditional Media and Social Media. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 7164. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17197164
Han R, Cheng Y. The Influence of Norm Perception on Pro-Environmental Behavior: A Comparison between the Moderating Roles of Traditional Media and Social Media. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2020; 17(19):7164. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17197164
Chicago/Turabian StyleHan, Ruixia, and Yali Cheng. 2020. "The Influence of Norm Perception on Pro-Environmental Behavior: A Comparison between the Moderating Roles of Traditional Media and Social Media" International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 17, no. 19: 7164. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17197164