Sustainability through anti-consumption:
The impact of values on support for
a plastic bag ban
Dinh Thi My Huong
MSc. Marketing Management
2
Master Thesis
MSc. Marketing Management
Sustainability through anti-consumption:
The impact of values on support for
a plastic bag ban
ByDINH THI MY HUONG University of Groningen Faculty of Economics and Business
Department of Marketing
First Supervisor: Dr. Mathilde van Dijk Second Supervisor: Dr. Anika Schumacher
Jan 14th, 2019
01 Huygenstraat , 9727 JA Groningen Ph: +31 622 374 312
ABSTRACT
The study addresses the question of whether underlying personal values and religious factors can influence consumer support for an anti-plastic policy, specifically a ban on free single-use plastic shopping bags. The findings show that support for the ban is positively associated with altruistic values and environmental values but negatively associated with egoistic values. Furthermore, there is no difference in policy support between three religious affiliations, namely Buddhism, Christianity, and No Religion. Intriguingly, the results give evidence for the moderating role of religiosity on the relationship between Buddhists and policy support, whereby highly religious Buddhists show a greater level of policy support than their less religious counterparts. Besides, the results indicate that females are more likely to support the ban than males. Other socio-demographic factors such as age, education, and income do not influence the acceptance of the policy. The study also provides clear theoretical and managerial implications for researchers and marketers to encourage consumers to engage in an anti-consumption movement.
Keywords: value orientations, religious affiliations, religiosity, policy support, plastic bag
PREFACE
In front of you lies my thesis for the Master Marketing Management at the University of Groningen. When I started this Master course, my focus was on sustainability marketing and anti-consumption. This is why the research is of particular interest, to gain insights into influences of personal values and beliefs on sustainable consumption behaviors, specifically support for anti-plastic policies. Writing this thesis allows me to gain a better understanding of both subjects. I hope this thesis finds several implications for marketers and policymakers to move consumers toward sustainability through anti-consumption.
First of all, I would like to thank Dr. Mathilde van Dijk for her warm support and invaluable feedback during my whole research. I also thank Dr. Anika Schumacher for spending time to read the paper and for being my second supervisor. An additional thank goes to my friends, who motivated me to keep working and took part in the survey. Last, but certain not least, I would like to thank my family, especially my parents, for giving me the possibility and strength to complete my academic path.
I hope you will enjoy reading this report,
With kind regards,
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Abstract 3
Preface 4
1. Introduction 7
2. Theoretical framework 9
2.1 Support for the ban as pro-environmental and sustainable behaviors 10 2.2 Values as determinants of policy support 11
2.2.1 Altruistic values 12 2.2.2 Egoistic values 12 2.2.3 Environmental values 13 2.2.4 Religion 14 3. Methodology 19 3.1 Research Area 19
3.2 Research design and procedures 20 3.4 Measurements of variables 21 3.6 Plan of data analysis 23
4. Results 24
4.1 Descriptive analysis 24
4.1.1 Sample characteristics 24
4.1.2 Consumer behaviors regarding the use of plastic bags 25
4.2 Analysis of Scales 26
4.2.1 Validity test 26
4.3 Multiple Linear Regression Model 27
4.3.1 Assessing assumptions of multiple linear regression 29
4.3.2 Assessing the model fit 29
4.4 Hypotheses tests 30
4.5 Additional analysis 33
5. General discussion 34
5.1 Theoretical implications 35 5.2 Practical Implications 36
6. Limitations and future research 38
7. Conclusion 40
References 41
1. INTRODUCTION
As the world population continues to foster, mankind is accelerating the rate at which human existence becomes a threat to the environment. With an estimation of 8.4 million tonnes of plastic waste ending up in the oceans per year, plastic pollution has become one of the greatest environmental challenges (J.R. Jambeck et al., 2015). The emergence of anti-plastic norms has led to an increase in anti-plastic policies in many cities and countries (Xanthos et al., 2017). These anti-plastic policies have contributed to anti-consumption movements, which are against consumption related to specific brands, product categories or consumption activities (Ozanne, & Ballantine, 2010; Peyer et al., 2016). One of the most feasible and effective anti-plastic policies to make a difference is plastic bag bans (Giacovelli, C., 2018; Zhu, Q., 2011). Furthermore, positive impacts of anti-plastic policies on the environment and society also stimulate sustainable development (Zhu, Q., 2011).
Vietnam is among the top five contributors to over half of the global land-based plastic-waste leakage (Ocean Conservancy report, 2015). Current environmental policy in Vietnam is imposing a “plastic bag” tax from 1,07 euro to 1,79 euro per ton on the production of plastic bags. However, this tax serves as a disincentive for plastic producers and importers but not as a direct mandate for consumers. It was debated that current weak green taxes did not go far enough to protect the environment, and instead can lead to more single-use plastic bags in Vietnam (Vnexpress, 2017). There should be a stricter regulation to combat the worsening plastic pollution in Vietnam (Reuters, 2018).
Recently, particular attention has been paid to the role of values in determining human behaviors. Previous research suggests evidence of the potential impact of altruism values, egoistic values, environmental values on environmental behaviors in general (eg., Stern, 2000; Schultz, P. W., & Zelezny, L.,1999). However, little work has been done to examine the relationships of these value orientations and support for environmental policies (eg., Harring, N. et al, 2018; Serenari, C. et al., 2015). Furthermore, published research so far has neglected to address another potential driver that can affect environmental behaviors: religion (Van Liere and Dunlap, 1980; Sachdeva, S., 2016; Minton, E. A., & Kahle, L. R., 2016). Although religion is the key source of values that significantly influence individuals’ behaviors and consumption (Sheth's, 1983), it is underestimated in both environmentalism and sustainability literature. Thus, this study focuses on the influences of these personal values on consumers’ support for the ban on free single-use plastic shopping bags. The research is conducted in Vietnam—a country where religion is widely regarded as important. For that, the purpose of this study is to answer the main research question:
Can altruistic, environmental and egoistic values and religious factors predict support for a plastic bag ban?
The sub-questions are addressed in the study: 1. What is policy support for a plastic bag ban?
2. What are the impacts of egoistic, altruism and environmental values on consumer support for the ban?
3. What are the differences in three religious affiliations (ie. Buddhist, Christian and No-religion) that can affect consumer response toward the ban?
The main contribution of this study to academic literature is twofold. First, this thesis builds on and further expands previous research in consumer values and environmentalism literature by providing insights into the impact of altruistic, environmental and egoistic values on support for a specific environmental policy. Second, it contributes to research on religion and sustainability by evidencing the role of religion in explaining consumers’ sustainable behaviors. It helps to outline the knowledge of the ways different religious groups (ie. consumer segment) engage in environmentally-friendly behaviors.
Regarding practical relevance, marketers and policymakers can benefit from a better understanding of the role of values in consumer behaviors to develop effective value-based campaigns. Besides, religious groups play a vital role in promoting environmental protection and public campaigns in Vietnam (NRC news, 2017). Religious people should be equipped with more capacity and experience to be at the forefront of the issue (NRC news, 2017). Therefore, it is imperative for policymakers to better cater to religious heterogeneity and for marketers to better target audiences, thereby gaining widespread support.
The remaining sections are organized as follows: the theoretical framework is proposed. Then the methodology of the study is presented. Thereafter, the empirical results of the research, the academic and managerial implications of the research are discussed. Lastly, the limitations of the thesis and suggestions for future research opportunities are given.
2.THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
The effect of religious affiliations on policy support and also the moderating effects of religiosity on this relationship are elucidated. Finally, the conceptual framework is outlined.
2.1 Support for the ban as pro-environmental and sustainable
behaviors
There are two concepts of behaviors that could explain consumers’ support for environmental policy: pro-environmental and sustainable behaviors. Pro-environmental behavior is defined as an action that harms the environment as little as possible or even benefits the environment (Stern, 2000). In that sense, people who attempt to reduce their negative impacts on the environment will elicit pro-environmental behaviors. In addition, policy support could be considered as an indirect pro-environmental behavior, referring to the influence on the individuals’ behavioral friendliness toward the environment through its impact on one entity, for instance, public policies (Kollmuss and Agyeman, 2002).
Sustainable behavior is demonstrated as a deliberate and anticipated action in favor of “conservation and preservation of natural resources as well as individual and social well-being, and safety of present and future human generations” (Corral Verdugo and Pinheiro, 2004, p.10). Compared to pro-environmental behaviors, sustainable behaviors, which require much more behavioral efforts and a high level of control, might bring more long-term positive outcomes. Sustainable consumption addresses two main aspects (Peyer, Balderjahn, Seegebarth, & Klemm, 2016): first, to consume alternative products (eg. environmentally friendly or Fairtrade products); and second, to consume less or not to consume a specific brand or products, which is akin to anti-consumption, a concept that has recently aroused much interests in marketing research (eg., García de Frutos, et al., 2015; Black, I. R., & Cherrier, H.,2010).
for the ban refers to consumers’ acceptance of rules and regulations of the ban, which closely represents pro-environmental behaviors. Second, support for the ban also involves voluntarily long-term behavioural changes toward sustainability, such as voluntarily not consume free plastic shopping bags, consume other plastic products less, or carry their own reusable bags when going shopping.
2.2 Values as determinants of policy support
The term ‘values’ in literature is conceptualized as “the concepts or beliefs about desirable end states or behaviors that transcend specific situations, guide selection or evaluation of behavior and events and are ordered by relative importance” (Schwartz & Bilsky, 1987, p.551). Accordingly, values are often seen as strong predictors of important decision making in one's life and form a guideline of one’s consumption behaviors (Schwartz et al., 2001). Importantly, values are relatively stable and enduring for a long time (Stern, 2000). Strong values can also result in value–congruent behaviour (Verplanken & Holland, 2002). Hence, people who behave in accordance with values also sustain their behavior over time.
In the environmentalism and sustainability literature, the impact of values on various environmental behaviors is evident. People usually involve in environmentally-sustainable actions if they strongly endorse values beyond their own interests, self-transcendent, prosocial, altruistic or biospheric values (Schwartz,1987). Table 1 shows an overview of prior literature regarding the influences of specific personal values on various types of environmental behaviors.
in environmentally-sustainable actions. Consumers endorse egoistic, altruistic, environmental values, and religious beliefs to some degree, which could be potential predictors of support for the ban. The relationships between these values and policy preferences will be discussed in more detail.
2.2.1 Altruistic values
Altruism values refer to feelings and concern for another’s well-being and lack of selfishness (Schwartz, S. H., 1992). Individuals with a strong altruistic orientation feel empathy for others in desperate situations and responsible for alleviating the suffering because the welfare and wellbeing of other human beings are important to them. Since sustainable behaviors often lead to positive outcomes for human beings (e.g., health benefits, green for future generations), individuals who act on their altruistic values will responsibly engage in sustainable consumption.
During the intervention of the plastic bag ban, consumers with strong altruistic value orientations might be able to endure the inconvenience cost in pursuit of the welfare of society and all other individuals. Since these consumers perceive benefits for other people exceeding the costs, they are more likely to show their support for the ban as well as engage in voluntary behavioral changes following the policy implementation. Hence, it is hypothesized as follows:
Hypothesis 1 (H1): Altruistic values are positively associated with support for the ban.
2.2.2 Egoistic values
egoistically-oriented individuals perceive that costs associated with pro-environmental actions outweigh the perceived benefits, they are less likely to behave environmentally-friendly actions.
Consumers with strong egoistic value orientations might be affected by cognitions and focus on increasing costs of money and efforts caused by the policy intervention rather than the environmental benefits of the ban. For that reason, these consumers will be more receptive to the consequences of contextual constraints, thereby exhibiting negative behavioural responses toward the ban. The detrimental impact would accentuate when consumers are required to modify their daily habits of free plastic bag usage such as bring their own bags or pay for reusable bags. Thus, it leads to the following prediction:
Hypothesis 2 (H2): Egoistic values are negatively associated with support for the ban.
2.2.3 Environmental values
Environmental values are defined as “individual and shared community or societal beliefs about the significance, importance, and wellbeing of the natural environment, and how the natural world should be viewed and treated by humans” (Reser & Bentrupperbäumer, 2005, p.141). Environmental values are regarded as beliefs and concerns held by individuals and societies in regard to human relationship with nature. Accordingly, individuals with salient environmental values show more environmental concerns and will mainly base their decision in favour of the ecosystem as a whole.
Hypothesis 3 (H3): Environmental values are positively associated with support for the ban.
2.2.4 Religion
Religion is one of the most influential values that potentially determine many decisions in a consumer’s life (Mathras et al., 2016) and result in sustainable actions (E.A Minton et al., 2015; Leary et al., 2016; White, 1967). For the purpose of this study, two main components of religion are investigated: (1) religious affiliation and (2) religiosity. Religious affiliation is defined as "a commonly held set of beliefs and values that guide external behavior and an internal search for meaning” (Minton and Kahle, 2013, p.293). Given that, religious affiliation refers to religious beliefs of individuals, which determine the underlying mechanisms for decisions and behaviors (Schwartz, S. H., & Bardi, A., 2001). This study focused on three major religious affiliations in Vietnam, namely Buddhism, Christianity, and No-religion.
Accompanying religious affiliation, religiosity is regarded as "the degree to which one holds religious beliefs and values through an internal spiritual connection and external religious practices and behaviors"(Minton and Kahle, 2013, p.293). The strength of relationships between core religious beliefs and consumer behaviors depends upon how strongly individuals commit to their beliefs and practices. A highly-religious individual will be more likely to behave upon their religious beliefs than other values in some specific situation. Hence, taking religiosity into consideration is important.
2.2.4.1 Religious affiliation and its effect on support for a plastic bag ban
White's thesis (1967) insisted that Christianity faiths have significantly contributed to the ecological crisis in view of Christian doctrine in the Bible that says God created nature as a gift for human. Christians hold the beliefs of humans’ superior position to nature, which they treat as a resource to be controlled and transformed. Sarre (1995) further expands on this, indicating that Western religious individuals, in favour of dominance over the physical and natural resources, were unlikely to concern about the environmental issues. Accordingly, Christians might give priority to human welfare through planetary stewardship actions, and thus disregard for environmentally sustainable consumption.
The relationship between Buddhism and the environment has been rarely discussed in prior literature. Buddhism practices emphasize that destroying any part of nature is destroying part of God or other divine beings (Sarre, 1995; Hunt & Penwell, 2008). Buddhists hold a pantheistic approach to nature; that is to see the existence of Gods in and through everything, including nature, animals or plants. Follow the pantheistic view, Buddhists might involve actively in environmentally-friendly behaviors so as to forge their harmonious relationship with nature.
Overall, support for environmental policies is a means to reflect religious beliefs in regard to the environment. Therefore, religious affiliations can induce a positive or negative influence on support for the ban on plastic bags. It is hypothized as follows:
Hypothesis 4 (H4): Religious affiliations influence policy support whereby Buddhists are more supportive of the ban than No-religion and Christians.
2.2.4.2 The moderating effect of religiosity
The extent to which an individual act upon their religious affiliation depends on his or her level of religiosity. Support for environmental policy might vary across the degrees of religiosity. As previously discussed, Buddhists adopt the pantheistic view that God exists in and through all elements of nature (Sarre, 1995). A highly-religious Buddhist might believe that supporting an environmental policy strengthens their connection with their religious belief (ie. God present in and through all elements of nature). Conversely, a less religious Buddhists may focus more on the higher perceived cost of environmentally-friendly behaviors than a desire to respect nature. It is expected that highly religious Buddhists are more supportive of the ban than less religious Buddhists.
Hypothesis 5a (H5): Religiosity moderates the relationship between Buddhists and policy support, whereby highly religious Buddhists are more supportive of the ban than less religious Buddhists.
Hypothesis 5b (H5): Religiosity moderates the relationship between Christians and policy support, whereby highly religious Christians are less supportive of the ban than less religious Christians.
Figure 1 presents the conceptual model to visualize the proposed hypotheses. The control variables including gender, age, income, and education were also introduced.
Figure 1. Conceptual model
3. METHODOLOGY
3.1 Research Area
Vietnamese beliefs (Jamison, 1995). Vietnamese people have remained their practices of traditional beliefs and regions that may influence individuals’ attitudes and behaviours (Hinton et al.,2008). Hence, it is important to consider religious factors within the Vietnamese context. In addition, Vietnam could be a good demonstrator of plastic reduction progress among developing Asian countries, which also have the similar contextual background.
3.2 Research design and procedures
Primary data were collected using self-reported survey questionnaires. The questionnaire comprised of four main sections that touched upon every aspect of the conceptual model. The questionnaire started with a general introduction to the study, where participants could find information about the aim of the study. Afterward, they were asked to evaluate their personal values as well as religious beliefs. Subsequently, the introduction of the plastic bag ban was given. Participants were asked to indicate their levels of policy acceptability and their behavioural changes if the policy is enacted. Next, demographic section and questions about plastic bag usage were given. Lastly, if respondents filled in their email addresses, they could be selected for several rewards.
Before the survey distribution, a cognitive test had been conducted to evaluate the feasibility, ease of comprehension, the applicability of the developed scale, and to reduce response errors. The final version of the questionnaire was refined according to the feedback of three participants. Details of these respondents’ feedback are shown in Appendix A. Since participants were Vietnamese whose first language is not English, the questionnaire had been translated in Vietnamese to get a larger sample size. The translation had been done and reviewed carefully to ensure the accuracy and cohesion with the original English version.
the Snowball sampling method, which is also known as chain referral sampling. A study sample comes through referrals that do not know what kind of interest the research interest (Biernacki and Waldorf, 1981).
3.4 Measurements of variables
Main variables include 4 independent variables and dependent variables in addition to one
moderator. The questionnaire items are shown in Appendix B.
Altruistic values Participants’ altruistic values were measured using the scale as used
by De Groot & Steg (2008). People had to rate the importance of four values (eg. care for others) as “a guiding principle in their lives” (De Groot & Steg, 2008) on a 7-point scale (1
not like me at all to 7 very much like me) based on how much the person in the description
was similar to themselves.
Egoistic values Participants’ egoistic values were measured using the scale as used by
De Groot & Steg (2008). People had to rate the importance of four values (eg. controls over others) as “a guiding principle in their lives” (De Groot & Steg, 2008) on a 7-point scale (1
not like me at all to 7 very much like me) based on how much the person in the description
was similar to themselves.
Environmental values Participants’ environmental values were measured using the
influential framework New Ecological Paradigm (NEP) scale adopted by Dunlap & Van Liere (2000). People had to rate the importance of environmental values based on their opinions about the relationship between humans and the environment. Environmental values were measured using on a 5-point scale (1 strongly disagree to 5 strongly agree).
Religious affiliation was measured by the question “Which of the following religious
However, other minor religious beliefs (eg., Caodaism, Muslim, Hindu) were omitted. Only Buddhism, Christianity, Atheism, and Agnosticism were included in the model. Atheism and Agnosticism were later combined into one group, namely category “No-religion”.
Moderator-Religiosity was measured using subscale taken from the Religious
Commitment Inventory by Worthington et al. (2003). Participants were asked to evaluate their level of one's religious commitment using a 5-point scale (1 'Not at all true of me' to 5 'Totally true of me').
Dependent variables were measured by 6 items, comprising of various distinct
behaviours. Participants were asked to what extent they would support strictly-enforced ban using a 5-point scale (1 definitely not to 5 certainly). Further, they were asked to what extent they were willing to change their behaviours such as not use plastic bags, bring own reusable bags, or pay for reusable bags.
Control variables age, gender, education, and income were controlled in the model.
Age was self-reported in an open question. Gender was self-reported in a multiple choice
question. In regard to education, participants were asked what the highest level of education that they had obtained with no schooling completed as the lowest option and a doctorate degree as the highest option. As for income, participants could choose levels of monthly income by 5 possible options with below 5 million VND as the lowest option and above 20 million VND as the highest option. Due to the sensitivity of income information, the option “Prefer not to answer” was added to the questionnaire.
Recoding variables Some socio-demographic variables were inspected and recoded
‘Bachelor’s Degree and Higher’ group; and other education levels were grouped into ‘Below Bachelor’s Degree’ group. Concerning income, the original ordinal scale in the survey was transferred into an interval scale by assigning a specific value to each group. For example, group income ‘below 5 million dong’ was assigned a value of 2.5; group income ‘from 5 to 10 million dong’ was assigned a value of 7.5’.
Additional variables In order to clarify whether respondents hold religious doctrines,
two statements ‘human dominance over the environment’ from White theory (1967) and ‘living in harmony with the environment’ from Buddhist practices were incorporated in the survey. In addition, an open question asked for participants’ views and perceptions of the introduced plastic bag ban, why they decide to support or not support the ban.
3.6 Plan of data analysis
The reliability and validity analyses were examined to assess sampling adequacy and test whether a factor analysis was suitable for the data. Further, the explanatory factor analysis (EFA) was performed to investigate the underlying dimension of data set. Factor loadings and the communality values were inspected to assess the validity of the variables.
To explore the relations within the defined framework, Multiple Linear Regression was chosen as the modelling approach. Three regression models were introduced to test the regression of the outcome variable on socio-demographic variables, personal values, and religious variables. The model fit and improvement of three regression models was discussed by assessing R2 values and F-value. R2 represented the percentage of the dependent variable
variation in a linear model. The higher R2 values indicated that the model would be a better
fit for the observation. In addition, F-value of ANOVA test was used to check the power of the model in explaining the outcome variable.
or negative path coefficient of a relationship indicated whether an independent variable increases or decreases the magnitude of the dependent variable respectively.
4. RESULTS
4.1 Descriptive analysis
4.1.1 Sample characteristics
In total 387 respondents finished the survey, 69 respondents who failed attention checks were removed. In addition, 16 respondents of religious minorities (eg., Hindu, Muslim, or Caodaism) were filtered out due to inadequate sample sizes, leaving 302 respondents. Table 2 represents the statistic description of the sample. The sample contained n = 302 Vietnamese respondents with the ages ranging from 14 to 65 years old. The gender in the sample comprised of 41.4% males and 58.6% females. The average age of the respondents was 28.30 years (SD = 6.58). The median of the education level was bachelor degree with the highest degree obtained being a Ph.D. degree and above. Regarding income, the level “from 5 million to 10 million” was the most earned monthly income. There were three major religion groups including 37.1% affiliated with Buddhism, 12.9% affiliated with Christianity, and 50% religiously-unaffiliated with No-Religion. Besides, most respondents reported living in urban areas (85.8%), suburban (11.49%) and rural areas (2.6%).
To check the representativeness of the sample, the data were compared to statistics from CIA Factbook 2018. According to the Factbook, the average age of the population is 30.9 years old; the average monthly income of a Vietnamese inhabitant around is 5.5 million, and the gender ratio of male to female is 49,5% to 50.5%. However, there was a lack of reliable statistical sources about education levels and religion. Hence, it could be said that the sample closely represented the Vietnamese population in terms of age, gender, and income.
4.1.2 Consumer behaviors regarding the use of plastic bags
According to the survey, even though 96.7% of respondents were aware of the harms that plastic bags can do to the environmental, most respondents reported to use plastic shopping bags in daily shopping contexts. Table 3 displays the pattern of plastic bag usage, referring to weekly plastic bag consumption, distribution and reasons for using plastic bags. 58.6% of respondents reported consuming 1-5 plastic shopping bags per week, the other 40.4% consumed more than 6 plastic shopping bags per week and 1% stated not consuming any plastic bags. Of 310 respondents, the majority reported receiving free plastic shopping bags in supermarkets (262) and traditional markets (262), followed by grocery stores (241), food
and drink stores (212), and shopping mall (189). The salient reasons for the prevalence of
plastic shopping bags given by respondents were convenience (210), inexpensive (162), followed by low availability of eco-friendly alternatives (139) and daily habits (33).
Table 3 also shows pro-environmental and sustainable behaviours regarding plastic bag recycling and use of eco-friendly alternatives. Of 310 respondents, 175 answered that they reused plastic bags, 168 reported reusing some and throw away, 49 reported throwing away, and only 21 recycled. 45% of respondent reported not owning any reusable bags, while 37.4% owned 1-3 reusable bags and 17.6% owned more than 4 reusable bags. In addition, 89 respondents reported carrying their own bags when going shopping, 45 responded paying for reusable bags while 225 usually took free plastic shopping bags given by checkout staff. Overall, plastic bags are extremely prevalent in Vietnam because of its convenience, low cost, and high availability. Therefore, despite the growing awareness of plastic pollution, consumers devote little efforts to exhibiting environmentally-sustainable behaviors.
4.2 Analysis of Scales
4.2.1 Validity test
To measure the internal validity of the survey questionnaire, the factor analysis with Methods of extraction Principal Components Analysis and Varimax rotation was conducted. The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin’s measure of sampling adequacy had a value of 0.774, which is higher than the acceptable value of 0.6. Furthermore, Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity was significant (χ2(325) = 3558.670, p=0.001). Besides, the extraction communalities were acceptable with all values above a threshold value of 0.4, except for EG2 with a value of 0.394. The data were considered appropriate and ready for factor analysis.
changes. It was then decided to treat all outcome items as 1 factor. Results of the factor analysis can be found in Table 4 (see Appendix C).
4.2.2 Reliability Test
To assess the internal consistency of each scale in the survey, the reliability analysis was conducted. Every factor's Cronbach's alpha was above a minimum value of 0.6, indicating a good internal consistency. Furthermore, the criterion ‘Cronbach’s alpha if certain items of the scales were to be deleted’ was also checked. The findings showed that the Cronbach Alpha would increase if Item AV2 and Item BC2 were deleted. Since factor loadings of AV2 and BC2 in the validity test were above the suggested value of 0.5 and the overall alpha value was good, it was decided to keep AV2 and BC2 in the construct regardless of "Cronbach's Alpha if Item Deleted" value.
Ultimately, the paper kept all items as described in the Methodology section. The results of reliability test can be found in Table 5 (see Appendix C). For further analysis, items measuring the same constructs were computed into new variables, using the mean scores.
4.3 Multiple Linear Regression Model
4.3.1 Assessing assumptions of multiple linear regression
To ensure that the multiple regression analysis was appropriate, assumptions of homoscedasticity, normality, interdependent and multicollinearity were respectively considered and examined. To test the assumption of homoscedasticity, the scatterplot graphs of the standardized values against the standardized residuals obtained were inspected. Since the variation in the residuals scattered around 0 in the graph, the assumption that the variation in the residuals is constant was met (see Appendix D).
For the assumption of normality, the Predicted Probability (P-P) plots were examined. Since the points clustered around a straight line, the residuals were normally distributed (see Appendix D). The Durbin-Watson statistics were examined to test the assumption that residuals are independent. Since the Durbin-Watson values were close to 2 in three models, the assumption that the error terms for different observations are uncorrelated were satisfied (see Appendix E).
Multicollinearity was not an issue in the Model 1 and Model 2 by examining at the VIF scores (see Appendix E). To avoid potentially problematic high multicollinearity with the interaction terms in Model 3, the moderator variable was centered and interaction terms between religious affiliations and religiosity were created (Aiken & West, 1991). Since rescaling moderator has no effects on the coefficient, Std error and significance of interaction terms (Hayes, 2017), the substantive interpretation was unaffected by the scaling of a moderator.
Taken together, there was no violation of assumptions of multiple linear regressions. Therefore, it was appropriate to investigate model fit and hypotheses tests in further analyses.
4.3.2 Assessing the model fit
regression of policy support on personal values and religiosity in addition to socio-demographic variables. Model 3 tested the regression of policy support on the interaction effects between religious affiliations and religiosity on the base of Model 2. To interpret the model fit and model improvements, R2 value and the overall F-test were inspected carefully.
To test whether the overall regression model was a good fit for the data, ANOVA analyses were investigated. The results indicated that Model 1 was not a significant predictor of policy support, F (6,295) = 1.481, p =0.184. Model 2 reached significance, meaning that it successfully explained the outcome variable, F (10,291) = 8.033, p=0.001. Likewise, Model 3 statistically significantly predicted the dependent variable, F (12,289) = 7.084, p=0.001.
To determine how well model fitted, R2 value of three models were examined. Model
1 had R2 value of 0.029, indicating that socio-demographic variables explained 2.9% of the
variability of the dependent variable, policy support. Model 2 had R2 value of 0.216,
suggesting that personal value orientations collectively improved explanatory power to 21.6%. Model 3 had R2 value of 0.227, meaning that adding moderation effects of religious
variables increased predictive power of the model up to 22.7%. Comparing the R2 of Model 1
with the other two models, it was apparent that the explanatory power of Model 2 and 3 was improved in terms of magnitude and Model 3 had the best predictive power among three regression models. Taken together, Model 3 was most appropriate to analyze the main hypotheses.
4.4 Hypotheses tests
In Model 2, the results showed that altruism values had a significant positive effect on the dependent variable (b=0.254, p=0.001), supporting hypothesis 1. Similarly, environmental values had a significant positive effect on the outcome variable (b = 0.326, p=0.001), supporting hypothesis 2. This indicates that if people strongly endorse altruistic values and environmental values, they will elicit a higher level of support for the ban. Conversely, there was a significant negative effect of egoistic values on support for plastic bag ban (b = -0.150, p=0.008), supporting hypothesis 3. It suggests that if people strongly endorse egoistic values, they are less likely to show support for the ban. The analysis revealed insignificant main effects on policy support of category “Buddhists” (b= 0.022, p=0.728) and “Christians” (b =0.021, p = 0.740), rejecting hypothesis 4. Hence, no difference in policy support emerged for category “Buddhists”, “Christians” and “No-Religion”.
p=0.818) but neither of them were significant. Hence, no evidence was found in support of hypothesis 4.
In addition to main hypotheses, the effects of socio-demographic variables on policy support were also investigated. In Model 1, only gender and age had a statistically significant impact on support for a ban on plastic bags. Specifically, there was a negatively signed coefficient of gender (b=-0.156, p=0.009) and positively signed coefficient of age (b=0.109, p=0.086), indicating that females and individuals in the older age were more likely to support the ban than their counterparts. Meanwhile, income and education did not influence consumer support for the ban. However, in Model 2 and 3 when other predictor variables were taken into account, only gender (b=-0.093, p=0.097) had significant predictive powers in the outcome variable. The results revealed that the females had higher involvement in supporting the ban than males did.
Overall, the findings found evidence for hypotheses 1, 2, 3 and 5b. The results, however, did not support hypotheses 4 and 5b. Table 7 summarizes the main findings.
Table 7. Summary of results for the main hypotheses of the paper.
Hypotheses testing Results
Hypothesis 1 (H1): Altruistic values are positively associated with support for the ban.
Accept
Hypothesis 2 (H2): Egoistic values are positively associated with support for the ban.
Accept
Hypothesis 3 (H3): Environmental values are positively associated with support for the ban.
Accept
Hypothesis 4 (H4): Religious affiliations influence policy support whereby Buddhists are more supportive of the ban than No-religion and Christians.
Hypothesis 5a (H5): Religiosity moderates the relation between Buddhism and policy support whereby highly religious Buddhists are more supportive of the ban than less religious Buddhists.
Accept
Hypothesis 5b (H5): Religiosity moderates the relation between Christians and policy support whereby highly religious Christians are less supportive of the ban than less religious Christians.
Reject
4.5 Additional analysis
Christian doctrine and Buddhist practices
Two statements about religious beliefs “human rule over the environment” from the Christian doctrine and “live in harmony with the environment” from the Buddhist practices were asked in the questionnaire. One-way ANOVA analyses were conducted to check whether there was any statistically significant difference in policy support mean of three religious affiliations. After assumptions of normal distribution and homogeneity of variance were met, the results were examined. There was no significant difference in ‘human dominance’ belief among three religious affiliations (MBuddhists=2.00, SD= 1.004 versus
MChristians=2.08, SD=1.085 versus MNo-Religion=2.08, SD=0.977; F(2.299) = 0.219, p = 0.803).
Conversely, the results showed that there was a significant difference in ‘living in harmony with environment’ belief among three religious affiliations (MBuddhists=4.28, SD= 0.750 versus
MChristians=4.00, SD=0.973 versus MNo-Religion=4.01, SD=0.734; F(2.299) = 3.386, p = 0.035).
Accordingly, Buddhists had the highest level of agreement with the statement.
Meanwhile, compared to Christians and No-religious, Buddhists are more strongly associated with the pantheistic view that God exists in every element, including nature.
Reasons for and reasons against the plastic bag ban
To gain more insights about respondents’ views on the policy, participants were asked why they decided to support or oppose the ban in an open question. Of 195 people who gave their answers and opinions, 184 people specified detailed reasons. Obviously, most participants supporting the ban emphasized the importance of environmental benefits (117),
health benefits (69), and future generations (45) to themselves and society. Two respondents
had neutral opinions, answering that “plastic bags are not bad at all if you know how to recycle them” and “If the ban is compulsory, I have no other choice but follow it”. Four respondents specified reasons against the ban. Two respondents displayed their low trust in the governments, mentioning that “the government carried out taxes and recycling programs some years ago, which have led nowhere”. The other opponent said that the increased living
costs due to the ban directly affect their family, who belonged to low-average income groups.
One female respondent said she preferred taxes on plastic shopping bags to the complete ban because taxes would put fewer constraints and push sustainable actions to front of her mind.
In summary, environmental benefits, future generations, health benefits are the main intrinsic motivations to support the ban. On the other hand, trust and financial constraints could be the reasons for objecting to the ban. These reasons against the plastic bag ban provide some insights for potential future research and will be discussed later.
5. GENERAL DISCUSSION
predict support for a ban on free single-use plastic shopping bags? Six main hypotheses were
proposed to examine the influences of egoistic values, altruistic values, environmental values, religious affiliations on policy support; and the moderating role of religiosity on the relationships between religious affiliations and policy support. The results revealed the positive influences of altruistic, environmental values and the negative influences of egoistic values on support for the ban. Evidence was also found in support of hypothesis that a higher level of religiosity among Buddhists leads to a higher level of policy support. Answers to these hypotheses provide several implications for researchers, marketers, and policymakers.
5.1 Theoretical implications
The thesis contributes to the streams of literature dealing with consumer values and sustainability by examining the impact of altruistic, environmental and egoistic values on consumer support for anti-plastic bag policy. Evidence was found in support of hypotheses, which posit that specific personal values can have significant influences on support for the ban. The findings reinforce prior research, suggesting the link between values and pro-environmental behaviors and sustainable behaviors (eg., Joshi, Y., & Rahman, Z., 2015; Poortinga, W., Steg, L., & Vlek, C., 2004).
reason might account for the result is that minority religions (in this case, Christians) can be influenced by a majority religion (in this case, Buddhists) (Yang, F., & Ebaugh, H. R., 2001). The moderating role of religiosity was evident on the relation between Buddhists and support for the ban since the levels of policy support among Buddhists varied according to the degree of religiosity. This finding confirms the expectation that highly religious Buddhists are more likely to support the ban than their less religious Buddhists because they feel strongly committed to their religious belief of ‘living in harmony with the environment’. The results from additional analysis also strengthened this reasoning.
This paper also revealed an unexpected occurrence of socio-demographic variables. Unlike previous research (eg., M. Wiernik, B., S. Ones, D., & Dilchert, S., 2013; Franzen, A., & Meyer, R., 2009), the findings indicated socio-demographic variables did not affect the acceptance of the ban, except for gender though its impact is relatively weak. Some reasons could explain the results. First, the majority of respondents in the sample belonged to the age group of 25-35 and Bachelor degree; therefore, it would be possible that the other groups were not large enough to show the effects of these factors on the outcome variable. Second, most Vietnamese people nowadays have a high awareness of negative environmental impact of plastic bags, supporting an environmental policy thus become much more demanding, irrespective of objective factors such as age, income, and education levels. Third, the constraints (e.g., high cost and time consuming) of the ban and other contextual factors such as the implication of policy were not strong enough, which may reduce explanatory power of socio-demographic variables.
5.2 Practical Implications
value-Public campaigns should tailor their appealing messages to strengthen environmental and altruistic values in the audience and the general population. One potential approach is to frame campaign messages to correspond with values in order to promote public engagement with plastic issues (eg., Corner, A., Markowitz, E., & Pidgeon, N., 2014, Brewer, P. R., & Gross, K., 2005). For example, environmentally – framed message should be focused on the environmental benefits of bringing their own cloth bag while shopping, thereby increasing consumers' perception toward the importance of sustainable behaviors. Another approach is to forgo egoistic values by using less obtrusive egoistic reasons in campaign messages (Shaw, D., Carrington, M., & Chatzidakis, A., 2016). Accordingly, campaign messages should focus on an intangible social reward such as public recognition, rather than financial benefits (eg., monetary rewards), to help reinforce consumers’ decision-making process.
The present findings of the role of religiosity toward policy support on category “Buddhists” raise important questions for social marketers and policymakers: How much investments, if any, should be taken for customizing public campaigns to Buddhist community, especially when 50% of population was Buddhists according to the statistics from this survey? What is the importance of targeting Buddhist on the basis of religiosity criteria? The knowledge of how different consumer groups respond to anti-consumption policies will pave the way for social marketers to better target specific audience segments and thus induce behavioral change (Granzin and Olsen, 1991). A possible approach is to adhere campaign messages to religious standard (eg., emphasizing environmental benefits of the ban that are in line with the Buddhism practices, carefully selecting language). When targeting Buddhist audience, social marketers should consider communicating support for the ban as a means for consumers to follow the Buddhist doctrines of “living harmony with the nature”.
Gwiasda, G. W., 2010). Therefore, highly-religious Buddhists should be chosen as notable activists of environmental policies, who will actively promote Buddhist thoughts among their communities. If appropriate approaches (eg. frequent religious meetings, appropriate campaign customization) focus attention on less religious Buddhists, it is promising that these consumers will also exhibit a greater level of policy support.
6. LIMITATIONS AND FUTURE RESEARCH
This thesis has several limitations that should be addressed. First, the limitation of the research is that there was a lack of credibility and validity in sources of population statistics regarding religious affiliations and education level. Although socio-demographics closely represented the Vietnamese population in terms of age, gender, and income, it could not enable the paper to draw the conclusion solely based on the representativeness of this sample. Second, the results could be affected by social desirability bias. Although respondents’ participation was completely anonymous, it is likely that respondents, regardless of their true feeling and thoughts, probably adhered to socially acceptable responses by giving themselves higher ratings on personal values and greater support of the ban. Future research could employ the widely used Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability (MCSD) Scale to reduce this phenomenon. Respondents who score high on the MCSD scale show high socially desirable bias and thus might be completely eliminated from the survey. This will increase the chances of obtaining more credible results.
into actual behaviors. Hence, it could be useful for future research to use data on consumers’ actual behaviors to ensure higher reliability and validity of the results.
The findings of the thesis provide potential directions for future studies. The current study focuses on investigating the general form of support for anti-plastic bag policies. Future studies might further explore the impacts of these value orientations and religious factors on other distinct forms of anti-consumption in other domains such as anti-mass production or red meat reduction. Furthermore, religion is closely related to ethical issues (Lundmark, 2007) and thus can affect ethical dimensions of consumer behaviour, such as boycotting cruel-cosmetics (ie. cruel-cosmetics that are still tested on animals). Future research could identify the potential impacts of religious factors, especially the moderating effect of religiosity, on ethical aspects of consumer behaviour.
According to the additional analysis, the reasons against support for a plastic bag ban provide some valuable insights. Future research could further explore potential external causes such as trust in the government, which could influence participants’ decision to engage in environmental behaviors. In addition, to what extent values and other contextual factors affect consumers’ support for different types of anti-plastic policies such as taxes, partial bans or complete bans could be an interesting topic.
provide insights into whether major religion (in this case, Christianity) could influence minority (in this case, Buddhism) in regard to sustainable behaviors.
Besides, considering that older individuals with high education and high income attain more knowledge about ecological processes, environmental issues (Franzen and Mayer, 2009), it is certainly possible that these consumers are more likely to engage in pro-environmental behaviour. However, age, income, and education according to our results did not have impacts on policy support. Whether promoting pro-environmental behaviors depend on the audience’s demographic features and to what extent these socio-demographic influence environmental behaviors in Vietnamese contexts represents an interesting question for future research.
7. CONCLUSION
REFERENCES
Aiken, L. S., West, S. G., & Reno, R. R. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Sage.
Arbuckle, M. B., & Konisky, D. M. (2015). The role of religion in environmental attitudes. Social Science Quarterly, 96(5), 1244-1263.
Arnocky, S., Stroink, M., & DeCicco, T. (2007). Self-construal predicts environmental concern, cooperation, and conservation. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 27(4), 255-264.
Biernacki, P., & Waldorf, D. (1981). Snowball sampling: Problems and techniques of chain referral sampling. Sociological methods & research, 10(2), 141-163.
Black, I. R., & Cherrier, H. (2010). Anti‐consumption as part of living a sustainable lifestyle: daily practices, contextual motivations and subjective values. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 9(6), 437-453.
Brewer, P. R., & Gross, K. (2005). Values, framing, and citizens’ thoughts about policy issues: Effects on content and quantity. Political Psychology, 26(6), 929-948.
CIA World Factbook. (2018). “The world fact book”. Access: 18th December 2018
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/vm.html
Corner, A., Markowitz, E., & Pidgeon, N. (2014). Public engagement with climate change: the role of human values. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, 5(3), 411-422.
De Groot, J. (2008). Value orientations to explain environmental attitudes and beliefs: how to measure egoistic, altruistic and biospheric value orientations. Environment and Behavior, 40(3).
Djupe, P. A., & Gwiasda, G. W. (2010). Evangelizing the environment: Decision process effects in political persuasion. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 49(1), 73-86. Dunlap, T.R. (2004). Faith in nature: Environmentalism as religious quest. Seattle, WA:
University of Washington Press.
Franzen, A., & Meyer, R. (2009). Environmental attitudes in cross-national perspective: A multilevel analysis of the ISSP 1993 and 2000. European sociological review, 26(2), 219-234.
Garcia de Frutos, N., Ortega-Egea, J. M., & Martínez-del-Río, J. (2015). Anti-Consumption for Environmental Sustainability: Review and Multilevel Research Directions. In Academy of Management Proceedings (Vol. 2015, No. 1, p. 16304). Briarcliff Manor, NY 10510: Academy of Management.
Greeley, A. (1993). Religion and attitudes toward the environment. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 19-28.
Giacovelli, C. (2018). Single-Use Plastics: A Roadmap for Sustainability.
Granzin, K. L., & Olsen, J. E. (1991). Characterizing participants in activities protecting the environment: A focus on donating, recycling, and conservation behaviors. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 1-27.
Griskevicius, V., Tybur, J. M., & Van den Bergh, B. (2010). Going green to be seen: status, reputation, and conspicuous conservation. Journal of personality and social psychology,
Harring, N., Torbjörnsson, T., & Lundholm, C. (2018). Solving Environmental Problems Together? The Roles of Value Orientations and Trust in the State in Environmental Policy Support among Swedish Undergraduate Students. Education Sciences, 8(3), 124. Hayes, A. F., & Rockwood, N. J. (2017). Regression-based statistical mediation and
moderation analysis in clinical research: Observations, recommendations, and implementation. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 98, 39-57.
Hinton, L., Tran, J. N., Tran, C., & Hinton, D. (2008). Religious and spiritual dimensions of the Vietnamese dementia caregiving experience. Hallym international journal of aging: HIJA, 10(2), 139.
Hunt, J., & Penwell, D. (2008). AMG’s handi-reference world religions and cults. Chattanooga, TN: AMG Publishers.
Jambeck, J. R., Geyer, R., Wilcox, C., Siegler, T. R., Perryman, M., Andrady, A., ... & Law, K. L. (2015). Plastic waste inputs from land into the ocean. Science, 347(6223), 768-771. Jamieson, N. L. (1995). Understanding Vietnam. Univ of California Press.
Joshi, Y., & Rahman, Z. (2015). Factors affecting green purchase behaviour and future research directions. International Strategic management review, 3(1-2), 128-143.
Kollmuss, A., & Agyeman, J. (2002). Mind the gap: why do people act environmentally and what are the barriers to pro-environmental behavior?. Environmental education research,
8(3), 239-260.
Leary, R. B., Minton, E. A., & Mittelstaedt, J. D. (2016). Thou shall not? The influence of religion on beliefs of stewardship and dominion, sustainable behaviors, and marketing systems. Journal of Macromarketing, 36(4), 457-470.
Liere, K. D. V., & Dunlap, R. E. (1980). The social bases of environmental concern: A review of hypotheses, explanations and empirical evidence. Public opinion quarterly,
Lundmark, C. (2007). The new ecological paradigm revisited: Anchoring the NEP scale in environmental ethics. Environmental Education Research, 13(3), 329–347.
Martin, W. C., & Bateman, C. R. (2014). Consumer religious commitment's influence on ecocentric attitudes and behavior. Journal of Business Research, 67(2), 5-11.
Mathras, D., Cohen, A. B., Mandel, N., & Mick, D. G. (2016). The effects of religion on consumer behavior: A conceptual framework and research agenda. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 26(2), 298-311.
Minton, E. A. (2013). ‘Religion and Religiosity’s Influence on Sustainable Consumption Behaviors,’’. Communicating sustainability for the green economy, Lynn R. Kahle and
Eda Gurel-Atay, eds. Armonk, NY: ME Sharpe, 73-87.
Minton, E. A., Kahle, L. R., & Kim, C. H. (2015). Religion and motives for sustainable behaviors: A cross-cultural comparison and contrast. Journal of Business Research,
68(9), 1937-1944.
Minton, E. A., & Kahle, L. R. (2016). Religion and consumer behaviour. Jansson-BoydC. V.
ZawiszaM. J.(Eds.), Routledge International Handbook of Consumer Psychology,
292-311.
Morrison, M., Duncan, R., & Parton, K. (2015). Religion does matter for climate change attitudes and behavior. PloS one, 10(8), e0134868.
M. Wiernik, B., S. Ones, D., & Dilchert, S. (2013). Age and environmental sustainability: a meta-analysis. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 28(7/8), 826-856.
NRConline. (2016). “Religious leaders commit to environmental protection in Vietnam”. Access: 14th October 2018 from:
Ocean Conservancy. (2017). Stemming the Tide: Land-based strategies for a plastic- free ocean. Accessed on 12th September 2018 from:
https://oceanconservancy.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/full-report-stemming-the.pdf
Ozanne, L. K., & Ballantine, P. W. (2010). Sharing as a form of anti‐consumption? An examination of toy library users. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 9(6), 485-498.
Poortinga, W., Steg, L., & Vlek, C. (2004). Values, environmental concern, and environmental behavior: A study into household energy use. Environment and behavior, 36(1), 70-93.
Reser, J. P., & Bentrupperbäumer, J. M. (2005). What and where are environmental values? Assessing the impacts of current diversity of use of ‘environmental’and ‘World Heritage’values. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 25(2), 125-146.
Reuters. (2018). “Drastic plastic: Vietnam beach awash with tide of blue waste”. Access: 20th
September 2018 from: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-environment-day-vietnam/drastic-plastic-vietnam-beach-awash-with-tide-of-blue-waste-idUSKCN1J018X Sachdeva, S. (2016). Religious identity, beliefs, and views about climate change. Oxford
Research Encyclopedia of Climate Science.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228620.013. 335 [36 p.].
Sarre, P. (1995). Towards global environmental values: Lessons from western and eastern experience. Environmental Values, 4(2), 115-127.
Schultz, P. W., & Zelezny, L. (1999). Values as predictors of environmental attitudes: Evidence for consistency across 14 countries. Journal of environmental psychology,
19(3), 255-265.
Schwartz, S. H. (1992). Universals in the content and structure of values: Theoretical advances and empirical tests in 20 countries. In Advances in experimental social
psychology (Vol. 25, pp. 1-65). Academic Press.
Schwartz, S., Melech, G., Lehmann, A., Burgess, S., Harris, M., & Owens, V. (2001). Extending the cross-cultural validity of the theory of basic human values with a different method of measurement. Journal of CrossCultural Psychology, 32, 519–542.
Schwartz, S. H., & Bardi, A. (2001). Value hierarchies across cultures: Taking a similarities perspective. Journal of cross-cultural Psychology, 32(3), 268-290.
Seegebarth, B., Peyer, M., Balderjahn, I., & Wiedmann, K. P. (2016). The Sustainability Roots of Anticonsumption Lifestyles and Initial Insights Regarding Their Effects on Consumers' Well‐Being. Journal of Consumer Affairs, 50(1), 68-99.
Serenari, C., Peterson, M. N., Gale, T., & Fahlke, A. (2015). Relationships between value orientations and wildlife conservation policy preferences in Chilean Patagonia. Human Dimensions of Wildlife, 20(3), 271-279.
Shaw, D., Carrington, M., & Chatzidakis, A. (Eds.). (2016). Ethics and morality in consumption: interdisciplinary perspectives (Vol. 8). Routledge.
Sheth, J. N. (1983). Patronage behavior and retail management. An integrative theory of
patronage preference and behavior, 7-16.
Stern, P. C., & Dietz, T. (1994). The value basis of environmental concern. Journal of social
issues, 50(3), 65-84.
Stern, P. C. (2000). New environmental theories: toward a coherent theory of environmentally significant behavior. Journal of social issues, 56(3), 407-424.
Verplanken, B., & Holland, R. W. (2002). Motivated decision making: Effects of activation and self-centrality of values on choices and behavior. Journal of personality and social
psychology, 82(3), 434.
Vietnamnews. (2016). “Religious groups target climate change”. Access: 14th September
2018 from: https://vietnamnews.vn/environment/295437/religious-groups-target-climate-change.html#qlOCxk7P26lGC2w8.97
Vnexperess. (2017). “Weak green tax can lead to more single-use plastic bags in Vietnam:
business group”. Access: 14th September 2018 from:
https://e.vnexpress.net/news/business/weak-green-tax-can-lead-to-more-single-use-plastic-bags-in-vietnam-business-group-3538048.html
White, L. (1967). The historical roots of our ecologic crisis. Science, 155(3767), 1203-1207. Worthington Jr, E. L., Wade, N. G., Hight, T. L., Ripley, J. S., McCullough, M. E., Berry, J.
W., ... & O'connor, L. (2003). The Religious Commitment Inventory--10: Development, refinement, and validation of a brief scale for research and counseling. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 50(1), 84.
Xanthos, D., & Walker, T. R. (2017). International policies to reduce plastic marine pollution from single-use plastics (plastic bags and microbeads): a review. Marine pollution
bulletin, 118(1-2), 17-26.
Yang, F., & Ebaugh, H. R. (2001). Transformations in new immigrant religions and their global implications. American Sociological Review, 269-288.
Zhu, Q. (2011). An appraisal and analysis of the law of “Plastic-Bag Ban”. Energy Procedia,
APPENDICES
Appendix A. Cognitive test
Three respondents voluntarily participated in the cognitive test using the “thinking aloud” method. These respondents were exposed to the questionnaires in Vietnamese and asked to read the questions and describe everything that comes to their minds while arriving at an answer. They were asked to make comments on difficult terms and phrases or any ambiguity they were faced with. Afterward, the questionnaire was adjusted to make the meaning more clearly. A brief text introducing the switch from Section 1 (personal values) to Section 2 (plastic bag ban) was also added to reduce confusion.
Respondent 1: The first participant read the introduction and then proceeded to
questions about personal values. Then, he read values-related questions aloud and said that they were clear to him. After that, he read the plastic bag ban aloud and then proceeded to questions about plastic bag usage patterns and he thought the messages were clear. When he finished survey questions, he was asked whether the provided information was clear, to which he answered that it was indeed quite clear to him except that he was quite confused about the difference between “as a person” and “as a citizen”. This participant said that other questions in the survey were clear.
Respondent 2: After introduction, the second participant started reading questions
about personal values. Then she read the information about the plastic bag ban. She said that the order of the questions confused her since the questionnaire moved quickly from personal values to the introduction of plastic bag ban. This participant also commented on some wordy sentence but in general, she found the information to be clear.
Respondent 3: The third participant read the introduction and then proceeded to first
(altruism values and egoistic values measured by 1- totally unlike me to 7-totally like me). But he understood that the higher the score was, the more similarly the statement represented himself. He then said the description of plastic bag ban was well-written. After that, he read questions about demographic and plastic bag usage, to which he said it was clear to him.
Appendix B. Questionnaires
Dear participant, thank you for your participation.
As part of my Master’s Thesis at the University of Groningen, this study aims to your opinions about environmental policies. The survey will take appropriately ten minutes. All your responses will be treated confidentially, saved anonymously and will only be used for this study. To thank you, 11 participants will win lucky rewards.
(Please click on the link below to start the survey)
https://rug.eu.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_3OEvBtrbTyl3J3f
If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact me: h.dinh@student.rug.nl. Thanks again for your help and your time!
Best regards, Huong Dinh
B.1 Egoistic values
Please indicate to what extent the following statements describe yourself on a 7-point scale (1
not like me at all to 7 very much like me)
• It is important to me to have authority over others
• It is important to me to have the right to lead or control over others' action
