1
THE FEAR OF SOCIAL SANCTIONS AS A PROPOSED UNDERLYING MECHANISM OF DYNAMIC NORMS
Master Thesis University of Groningen MSc Marketing Management Faculty of Economics and Business
Department of Marketing
June 2020
Teie van der Hoek S2148595 Groningerstraatweg 11
9843 AA Grijpskerk +31 619279003
2
PREFACE
3
ABSTRACT
Today, a lot of sustainable behaviors are not very widely accepted as they contradict with the mainstream norm. Here, dynamic norms may have an important influence in fostering sustainable behavior as they can help to promote counter-normative sustainable behavior. However, the underlying mechanisms of dynamic norms remain unclear. The present study proposed the fear of social sanctions as an underlying explanation of dynamic norms. Consequently, the mediating role of the fear of social sanctions on the relationship between dynamic norms and intention to adopt counter-normative sustainable behavior was tested. In addition, it is proposed that the moderating role of the need for affiliation may further explain the proposed mediating role of the fear of social sanctions. A one-way between subjects design showed that the dynamic norm manipulation did not influence the extent to which participants feared social sanctions. Furthermore, the fear of social sanctions did prevent participants from engaging in counter-normative sustainable behavior: participants who expected social sanctions were less likely to adopt counter-normative sustainable behavior. In addition, the moderating effect of the need for affiliation could not be demonstrated by this study. Finally, the implications of the present study are discussed.
4
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABSTRACT ... 3
INTRODUCTION ... 6
THEORETICAL BACKGROUND ... 9
The mediating role of the fear of social sanctions ... 9
The moderating role of need for affiliation ... 11
CONCEPTUAL MODEL ... 13
METHOD ... 14
Sample and data collection ... 14
Research design ... 14 Materials ... 15 Measures ... 16 Manipulation check ... 17 Procedure ... 17 RESULTS ... 19
Data cleaning and manipulation check ... 19
Main analysis ... 19
The mediating role of the fear of social sanctions ... 19
The moderating role of the need for affiliation ... 20
DISCUSSION ... 22
Discussion of findings ... 22
Limitations and future research ... 25
Implications ... 26
CONCLUSION ... 27
REFERENCES ... 28
APPENDIX A: Questionnaire ... 33
APPENDIX B: Factor and reliability analysis predictor variables and manipulation check ... 39
APPENDIX C: Descriptive statistics predictor variables and manipulation check ... 40
5
APPENDIX E: Results moderated mediation total model ... 42
APPENDIX F: Results moderated mediation dependent variable model ... 43
APPENDIX G: Results interaction effect ... 44
APPENDIX H: Boxplots outliers ... 45
APPENDIX I: Factor and reliability analysis ... 46
APPENDIX J: Assumptions regression analysis ... 48
6
INTRODUCTION
The current worldwide economic activity by humans places an increasing pressure on the global climate, and stresses the ecological boundaries of our planet (Whiteman, Walker & Perego, 2013; IPCC, 2018). Existing research indicates that different types of consumption patterns in various domains such as food, nutrition, mobility, housing or textile consumption have a significant environmental impact (e.g. Tukker, Cohen, Hubacek & Mont, 2010; Ivanova et al., 2015). For example, consumer behavior such as meat consumption and clothing consumption have been rising in the previous years and have been predicted to increase in the coming years (e.g. Ellen MacArthur Foundation, 2017; Godfray et al., 2018). This implies that these current consumption patterns are not sustainable at their current rate, and consequently we should look at sustainable alternatives (e.g. Lim, 2016). Therefore, it is important to promote sustainable consumption behavior in order to reduce the impact on our planet.
Currently, however, it seems that a lot of sustainable behaviors are differing from the norm. Many of the sustainable behaviors that individuals can engage in go against mainstream unsustainable behaviors. For example, unsustainable behaviors such as using disposable coffee cups instead of reusable coffee cups (Ligthart & Ansems, 2007), and buying bottled water instead of drinking tap water (Saylor, Prokopy & Amberg, 2011) can be regarded as mainstream unsustainable behaviors. In specific, social norms have an important influence on keeping in place these mainstream behaviors as they strongly influence the attitudes and behaviors of people toward these behaviors (Cialdini & Goldstein, 2004). Moreover, social norms have the ability to induce conformity to a dominant behavior as displayed by the majority of people (Cialdini & Trost, 1998). However, in the specific case of sustainable behaviors, the prevalent norm is often unsustainable. Therefore, using the current prevalent norm in order to motivate sustainable behaviors may not lead to the desired effect of adopting these sustainable behaviors.
7 in recent years, three in ten people have changed their behavior and begun to eat less meat than they otherwise would” (Sparkman & Walton, 2017, p. 1665). As such, a dynamic norm can inform people about how a behavior performed by a minority group increases or may increase in the future. In particular, this represented behavioral change performed by a minority group can help people to adapt their current behavior to the new behavior (Mortensen et al., 2019). Indeed, Sparkman and Walton (2017) suggest that a dynamic norm can promote positive attitude and change in behavior regarding sustainable behavior. These studies show that behavior demonstrated by a growing minority of people can have the potential to influence the behavior of the majority, which is specifically relevant for promoting counter-normative sustainable behavior.
However, despite the fact that research shows that a dynamic norm can influence the behavior of an unsustainable majority of people, the process of how a dynamic norm influences such behavior remains yet unclear. Considering the potential impact that dynamic norms may have in promoting counter-normative sustainable behavior, it is essential to investigate the underlying mechanisms of dynamic norms. For instance, gaining knowledge about the underlying mechanisms of dynamic norms may identify how the behavior of the current unsustainable majority can be influenced. As a result, this would provide policymakers or marketeers with the necessary knowledge to promote such sustainable behavior more effectively. Therefore, this study aims to give better insight into the potential underlying mechanisms of dynamic norms. Hence, the purpose of this study is to further investigate the theoretical concept of dynamic norms. In particular, this study adds to existing literature by investigating how dynamic norms exert influence. As a result, the following research question has been composed:
What is an underlying mechanism that makes dynamic norms effective for promoting counter-normative sustainable behavior?
9
THEORETICAL BACKGROUND
The mediating role of the fear of social sanctions
In order to examine the underlying mechanisms of dynamic norms, it is essential to highlight the manner in which norms influence behavior. Social norms have an influence on behavior through either normative influence or informational influence, and provide people with information about what is accepted and what is liked by other people (Deutsch & Gerard, 1955). Moreover, Szmigin and Piacentini (2018) emphasize that normative influence leads to conformity because an individual wants to fit in with the group or is afraid of being rejected by the group, whereas informational influence induces conformity through ambiguity or lack of knowledge about what is the appropriate thing to do. Consequently, it can be concluded that individuals conform to certain behavior either because they are afraid of being socially sanctioned or because they fear to be doing something which is inappropriate.
In specific, a dynamic norm may influence behavior by challenging both the need for accuracy and the need for affiliation of the current mainstream norm. Confronting people with a dynamic norm may lead people to reconsider their assumptions about what is accepted and what is liked by others, and therefore influences the perceived barriers to change their behavior (Sparkman & Walton, 2019). However, counter-normative sustainable behavior might be specifically susceptible for normative influence. Existing research shows that engaging in such sustainable behaviors heavily relies on considerations about what is approved through the expectations of others (e.g. Lindenberg & Steg, 2007; De Groot, Abrahamse & Jones, 2013). As such, individuals engaging in this type of behavior may especially be sensible for the social sanctioning mechanism as exerted through normative influence.
10 Brough, Wilkie, Ma, Isaac & Gal, 2016), and may have to face negative judgement by others (Shang & Peloza, 2016). Consequently, people may put themselves at the risk of social sanctions when choosing to act sustainably in contrast to the mainstream norm. Therefore, the fear of social sanctions can pose a significant barrier to people who want to act sustainably but also look at other people to guide their actions.
Then, the specific characteristics of a dynamic norm may exert a strong influence on these anticipated social sanctions. A dynamic norm puts an emphasis on an ongoing increase in a minority behavior (Sparkman & Walton, 2019). In particular, it focuses on communicating the salience of the growing minority showing a counter-normative sustainable behavior to individuals belonging to a majority group (Sparkman & Walton, 2017). As such, this signals to people that the current assumptions of the mainstream unsustainable behavior may not hold any longer. This information may have profound consequences for individuals who are currently part of the majority group and engaging in unsustainable behavior. For example, such visible increase of a minority group displaying counter-normative behavior may signal to other people that the chances of being socially sanctioned for such behavior may be lower. Rather than upholding the status quo of socially sanctioned counter-normative sustainable behavior, the information provided by the dynamic norm may challenge expectations of individuals about the likelihood of counter-normative sustainable behavior being socially sanctioned.
For instance, a dynamic norm indicating that in recent years the number of vegetarians in the Netherlands has risen to 5 percent (Voedingscentrum, 2020), may signal that the norm concerning meat consumption is changing. As such, individuals may perceive the chances of being socially sanctioned for being a vegetarian as less likely compared to the previous status quo (in which the percentage of vegetarians in the Netherlands did not increase). Consequently, this may lead to observers of the dynamic norm challenging the current assumptions of the likelihood that counter-normative sustainable behavior will be socially sanctioned. In similar fashion, research shows that there is an indication that individuals are more eager to conduct counter-normative behavior once they perceive the importance of a mainstream norm to be less (Popa, Phillips & Robertson, 2014). Subsequently, it can be reasoned that the dynamic norm may take away previously expected social sanctions concerning counter-normative sustainable behavior. Thus, it is expected that individuals exposed to a dynamic norm may experience less fear of social sanctions.
11 of social sanctions would negatively influence the intention to adopt counter-normative sustainable behavior. Furthermore, it is expected that a dynamic norm has a negative influence on the fear of social sanctions such that it would decrease the fear of social sanctions. Therefore, the following hypothesis is formulated:
H1: The fear of social sanctions mediates the relationship between a dynamic normative
message and the intention towards sustainable counter-normative sustainable behavior.
The moderating role of need for affiliation
Since it is expected that the fear of social sanctions acts as an underlying mechanism of dynamic norms, it is essential to consider that the fear of social sanctions may differ among individuals. For example, someone who cares a lot about the opinion of others about his or her behavior may feel a stronger fear of social sanctions in comparison to someone who does not value judgement of others. As such, given the presumed mediating role of the fear of social sanctions, it follows that this would also influence the extent to which individuals are susceptible for the dynamic norm. Therefore, it is important to distinguish between the relevance of the fear social sanctions for different individuals.
Indeed, research highlights the importance of individual differences in normative influence. For instance, empirical evidence shows that effect of normative influence can vary among individuals (e.g. Wooten & Reed, 2004; Poskus, 2017). In particular, here, the need for affiliation can provide an explanation as it strongly impacts the way people form their relationships (Leary, 2010; Steinel et al., 2010). The need for affiliation refers to a concern to establish and maintain close relationships with other people (Veroff & Veroff, 1980; Leary & Hoyle, 2009). In specific, individuals with a high need for affiliation place significant value on their social interactions, value peace and try to avoid conflict, and put distinctive effort into maintaining positive and harmonious interpersonal relationships (Sokolowski, 2008; Weinberger, Cotler & Fishman, 2010). Moreover, signals of rejection or hostility are experienced as unpleasant (Sokolowski, 2008).
12 harmonious relationships (Weinberger et al., 2010). As such, it is expected that individuals with a high need for affiliation will be strongly affected by the fear for social sanctions. And, therefore, it may be expected that these individuals in specific have a strong motivation to not perform sustainable behavior which goes against the mainstream norm. In contrast, individuals with a low need for affiliation may not perceive social sanctions as severe as individuals with a high need for affiliation. Subsequently, it is expected that those individuals will not be influenced that heavily by the fear of social sanctions. Moreover, taking into account the fear of social sanctions as a proposed underlying mechanism of dynamic norms, it is expected that individuals who are more sensitive to the fear of social sanctions may also be more sensitive to a dynamic norm.
Concluding, based on the abovementioned it is hypothesized that the need of affiliation acts as a moderating variable on the previously presumed mediating relationship. As a result, it is expected that individuals with a high need for affiliation would be more sensitive to a dynamic norm. In contrast, individuals with a low need for affiliation would be less sesitive to a dynamic norm. Consequently, the following hypothesis is drawn:
H2: Need for affiliation acts as a moderator on the proposed mediating role of fear of social
13
CONCEPTUAL MODEL
To summarize, the present study investigates the mediating effect of the fear of social sanctions on the relationship between a dynamic normative message and the intention to adopt counter-normative sustainable behavior. In addition, the moderating effect of the need for affiliation on the proposed mediating relationship is examined. As such, it is expected that the fear of social sanctions has a direct negative effect on the intention to adopt counter-normative sustainable behavior. In other words, this study expects that people who experience fear of social sanctions for engaging in counter-normative sustainable behavior will have a lower intention to adopt such a behavior. Furthermore, it is predicted that a dynamic normative message has a direct negative effect on the fear of social sanctions. Here, the expectation is that people who are exposed to a dynamic normative message experience a lower fear of social sanctions. As a result, the fear of social sanctions is expected to act as a mediator variable between the relationship of a dynamic normative message on the intention to adopt counter-normative sustainable behavior. Last, this study proposes that the need for affiliation may help explain the mediating role of the fear of social sanctions. In particular, it is expected that for individuals with a high need for affiliation the effect of a dynamic normative message will be stronger compared to individuals with a low need for affiliation. Figure 1 illustrates the hypothesized relationships between the interested variables.
14
METHOD
The goal of the present study was to examine the mediating effect of the fear of social sanctions on the relationship between a dynamic normative message and the intention to adopt counter-normative sustainable behavior was investigated. Additionally, the moderating role of the need for affiliation on the proposed mediated was examined. In order to investigate the abovementioned relationships, this study used an online setting in which participants were exposed to a manipulated text as a means to represent the experimental conditions. It was chosen to gather data through an online questionnaire, since it allows for an effective way to collect a relatively large amount of data in a short time span. The complete questionnaire was attached in Appendix A.
Sample and data collection
The sample size was calculated using the statistical power analysis software G*Power. Here, a standard error of .05, a standard power of .95, and a medium effect size of .15 was assumed based on the work of Sparkman and Walton (2017). A total sample size of at least 129 participants was needed in order to meet the abovementioned criteria.
The questionnaire was distributed in the period of the 26th of April and the 10th of May 2020. During this period participants were approached through social media channels such as Facebook and WhatsApp using a link to the survey. Since there were strict regulations in place concerning social distancing as result of a pandemic, directly contacting participants in the field was not a feasible option. Therefore, the decision was made to only use online channels to distribute the questionnaire. This method resulted in a total sample size of 327 respondents.
Research design
15 this helped to control that the variations in the experimental conditions were the result of manipulation rather than external factors. In addition, no control group was included since this study focused on differences between experimental conditions rather than comparing to a benchmark.
Materials
The independent variable was manipulated by constructing and presenting two descriptive normative messages: a static and a dynamic normative message. These normative messages were designed to draw attention to a specific aspect of the norm. In specific, second-hand clothing consumption was chosen to represent a sustainable behavior in these normative messages since it is considered to be a sustainable alternative to buying new clothes (The Waste and Resource Action Programme, 2015). Moreover, consuming second-hand clothing is considered to be a behavior in which a growing minority of people seem to engage in (e.g. ThredUP, 2019). As such, consuming second-hand clothing particularly reflects a domain in which the fear of social sanctions plays a role and therefore is a suitable application for a dynamic normative message.
Furthermore, a reference group was included in the normative messages since people use reference groups as a means for comparison and guidance when forming their beliefs, attitudes, and behaviors (Szmigin & Piacentini, 2018). In specific, empirical research has demonstrated how reference groups have an important influence in how normative information is perceived (e.g. Neighbors et al., 2008). Both experimental conditions as used in the experiment are illustrated below. Participants which were allocated to the static norm condition read the following message:
16 In contrast, participants which were allocated to the dynamic norm condition read the following message:
Figure 3. Dynamic normative message.
Measures1
Fear of social sanctions. Since there is not a widely accepted and validated scale for the fear
of social sanctions, statements that would capture the essence of the construct were created. Through means of theoretical concepts, statements such as “I would be judged for wearing second-hand clothing”, “I would be liked less by my friends if I wear second-hand clothing”, and “I feel it's embarrassing to wear second-hand clothing” were constructed. The entire developed scale for fear of social sanctions was included in Appendix A. A seven-point Likert-scale was used, and respondents were able to indicate their answers from 1 = “Strongly disagree” to 7 = “Strongly agree” (M = 2.14, SD = 1.05, α = .90).
Need for affiliation. The moderation variable need for affiliation was measured by adopting
the Need to Belong Scale from Leary, Kelly, Cottrell and Schreindorfer (2013). The Need to Belong Scale was used since it captured best the concept of need for affiliation as used in this study, and the concept of belonging is used interchangeably with need for affiliation (e.g. Veroff & Veroff, 1980). This scale was developed using factor analysis, (Leary et al., 2013). Sample items included: “I want other people to accept me”, “My feelings are easily hurt when I feel that others do not accept me”, “I try hard not to do things that will make other people avoid or reject me”, and “I find that I often look to certain other people to see how I compare to others”.
17 A five-point Likert-scale was used, and participants were able to answer ranging from 1 = “Not at all true” to 5 = “Completely true” (M = 3.39, SD = 0.59, α = .73).
Intention to adopt normative sustainable behavior. Intention to adopt
counter-normative sustainable behavior was measured through adopting Ajzen’s (1991) scale. Participants indicated their intention to buy second-hand clothing by answering three statements. Items included “I will make an effort to buy second-hand clothing rather than new clothing in the upcoming three months.”, “I intend to buy second-hand clothing in the upcoming three months.”, and “I plan to buy second-hand clothing in the upcoming three months.”. A seven-point Likert-scale was used in order to examine respondents’ intention to buy second-hand clothing. Respondents indicated their agreement the posted statements: a score of 1 reflected “Strongly disagree”, whereas score of 7 indicated “Strongly agree” (M = 3.39, SD = 1.78, α = .92).
Manipulation check2
In order to test the validity of the experiment, a manipulation check was constructed to control whether participants were influenced by the normative message in the experiment. Since there was no existing manipulation check, two statements were developed to use as a manipulation check. These statements referred to the characteristics of the dynamic normative message, and as such included aspects of the dynamic normative message. The first statement was “More Dutch people are increasing their second-hand clothing consumption compared to ten years ago.”. This statement reflected the increasing aspect of the norm. The second statement was “Despite it is still being a minority, second-hand clothing consumption is increasing in number among Dutch people.”. This statement checked whether the normative behavior was seen as a minority behavior. The statements were measured using a seven point Likert-scale, with a score of 1 reflecting “Strongly disagree”, whereas score of 7 indicated “Strongly agree” (α = .79).
Procedure
Before starting the actual questionnaire, respondents were asked whether they agreed with the terms of the research. Moreover, it was indicated that their answers would be processed anonymously, and that there were no correct or wrong answers. In addition, participants were told they were able to win a gift card for a vintage clothing shop if they would be willing to
19
RESULTS
Data cleaning and manipulation check3
The data was inspected and filtered using exclusion criteria before conducting the data analysis. First, to ensure that non-completed responses were included in the analysis respondents who did not complete the entire survey (N = 54) were excluded from the sample. Next, respondents who completed the survey within 3 minutes (N = 33) were excluded since it was not feasible to comprehend and complete the questionnaire within that specific time frame. Consequently, the final sample existed of 230 people with 116 participants in the static norm condition and 114 participants in the dynamic norm condition. Last, an independent t-samples test was used to examine the difference in manipulation between both groups. Participants in the dynamic norm condition were more likely to believe that the social norm was dynamic (M = 5.63, SD = 1.19) than participants in the static norm condition (M = 4.92, SD = 1.34), t(225.73) = -4.25, p < .0014. Therefore, it can be concluded that the manipulation through the use of the dynamic
normative message was successful.
Main analysis5
In order to test the composed hypotheses, PROCESS macro for SPSS was run (Hayes, 2013). In specific, model 14 of PROCESS macro was used to examine the relationships proposed in the hypotheses. To test the hypothesized relationships, the model created 95% bootstrap confidence intervals for the indirect effects using 5,000 bootstrap samples.
The mediating role of the fear of social sanctions
The presumed mediating role of the fear of social sanctions on the relationship between a dynamic normative message and the intention to adopt counter-normative sustainable
behavior was investigated through the PROCESS macro of Hayes (2013). Four specific paths
3 Before conducting the main analysis, the data was checked for outliers. A boxplot revealed 3 outliers for the mediation variable, whereas a boxplot for the moderation variable showed 1 outlier. However, excluding these outliers in the main analysis did not skew the results. Consequently, these cases were not excluded from the final sample. The boxplots used for detecting the outliers can be found in Appendix H.
4 The results of the interdependent samples t-test can be found in Appendix C, table 5.
20 analyzed the mediation effect (Hayes, 2013). These results are showed below and presented in Appendix E, table 7.
First, the results did not reveal a significant negative relationship between a dynamic normative message and the fear of social sanctions (a-path), R² = .0005, F(1,228) = .109, p = .741. Subsequently, it can not be concluded that a dynamic normative message negatively influences the fear of social sanctions, b = -.015, SE = .046, p = .741.
Second, the results showed a significant, negative main effect of the fear of social sanctions on the intention to adopt counter-normative sustainable behavior (b-path), R² = .062,
F(4,225) = 4.62, p < .01. Therefore, there is a direct relationship between the fear of social
sanctions and the intention to adopt counter-normative sustainable behavior, b = -.40, SE = .097, p < .01.
Third, the results did not show a direct effect of a dynamic normative message on the intention to adopt counter-normative sustainable behavior (c-path), b = -.09, SE = .077, p = .26. Based on the abovementioned, it can be concluded that mediation did not occur. Consequently, hypothesis 1 can not be accepted. The results of the mediation analysis are visualized down below in figure 4.
Figure 4. Results mediation analysis.
The moderating role of the need for affiliation
21 The confidence intervals surrounding the interaction effect of the need for affiliation did span zero, meaning that no significant interaction effect has been found at low levels of need for affiliation (b = .0060, 95% Confidence Interval: -.0297 to .0480), moderate levels of need for affiliation (b = .0062, 95% Confidence Interval: -.0304 to .0474), and high levels of need for affiliation (b = .0063, 95% Confidence Interval: -.0330 to .0493).
Since the confidence intervals include zero, the results show no evidence of a significant interaction effect with a 95% confidence interval. Consequently, the intention to adopt counter-normative sustainable behavior did not significantly differ for individuals with a high need for affiliation as compared to individuals with a low need for affiliation. Therefore, hypothesis 2 is not supported. An overview of the previously composed hypotheses and their conclusions is listed below in table 10.
Table 10. Overview of hypotheses and their conclusions
Hypothesis Results
1. The fear of social sanctions mediates the relationship between a dynamic normative message and the intention towards sustainable counter-normative sustainable behavior.
Not accepted.
2. Need for affiliation acts as a moderator on the proposed mediating role of fear of social sanctions, such that individuals with a high need for affiliation are more sensitive to a dynamic norm. In contrast, individuals with a low need for affiliation are less sensitive to a dynamic norm.
22
DISCUSSION
Nowadays, many sustainable behaviors go against mainstream unsustainable behaviors. As such, the prevalent norm is often unsustainable and does not contribute to an increase in sustainable behavior. Consequently, dynamic norms are effective for promoting counter-normative sustainable behavior since they stimulate change in behavior of people who engage in unsustainable mainstream behavior (Sparkman & Walton, 2019; Loschelder, Siepelmayer, Fischer & Rubel, 2019). However, the underlying mechanisms that make dynamic norms effective for behavior change remain unclear. This study proposed and examined the fear of social sanctions as an underlying mechanism for the effect of dynamic norms on behavior. Consequently, a conceptual model was introduced which used the fear of social sanctions as a mediating variable in the relationship between a dynamic normative message and the intention to adopt counter-normative sustainable behavior. To investigate the relationships composed in the conceptual model, the current study used a one-way between subjects design.
Discussion of findings
23 might have negatively affected the extent to which participants were influenced by the normative message.
Furthermore, this study did not find support for an effect of the dynamic normative message on the fear of social sanctions, such that the dynamic normative message would decrease the fear of social sanctions. The present study replicated the study of Sparkman and Walton (2017). Whereas Sparkman and Walton (2017) used meat consumption, this study used second-hand clothing in the normative message that participants read. Here, it can be questioned how effective the use of second-hand clothing as a means of sustainable behavior was. The results showed that on average participants showed relatively little fear of social sanctions toward wearing second-hand clothing, and a lot of participants indicated to have relatively low intention to buy second-hand clothing6. One explanation for this could be that second-hand clothing is not salient enough for people to be a considerable option. Indeed, research shows that second-hand clothing is a niche and is adopted by specific groups of people (for instance millennials and women; ThredUP, 2019). This might have led to a low involvement of participants with the behavior of buying second-hand clothing, and as such might have affected the results. Furthermore, the behavior of buying second-hand clothing is not merely influenced by the opinions of others, as the fear of social sanctions focused on. Individuals can use different motivations for buying second-hand clothing, such as economic, hedonic, and environmental motivations (e.g. Guiot & Roux, 2010; Ferraro, Sands & Brace-Govan, 2016). In particular, buying second-hand clothing seems to be a behavior motivated by symbolic values such as displaying individual style and portraying uniqueness (e.g. Laitala & Klepp, 2018). Therefore, the behavior of buying second-hand clothing might not have been perceived as a distinct behavior that strongly evokes a fear of social sanctions.
Moreover, the results show that the fear of social sanctions influences the intention to adopt counter-normative sustainable behavior. In particular, participants who expected social sanctions were less likely to adopt counter-normative sustainable behavior. This finding is in line with existing research about the effects of social sanctioning mechanisms. For example, Van Kleef et al. (2015) highlight the profound negative consequences that individuals experience for norm-violating behavior. Furthermore, research has illustrated that engaging in counter-normative sustainable behavior puts individuals at risk of social sanctions (e.g. Minson & Monin, 2012; Zane, Irwin & Reczek, 2016). As such, this finding adds by showing that fearing these type of social sanctions actually. may have a negative effect on adopting
24 normative sustainable behavior. However, it is important to highlight that this study merely considered the negative aspects of counter-normative behavior. It can be questioned whether displaying such behavior only has negative aspects for an individual. Indeed, research points out that counter-normative behavior can be seen as power or status enhancing (Van Kleef, Homan, Finkenauer, Gündemir & Stamkou, 2011; Van Kleef, Homan, Finkenauer, Blaker & Heerdink, 2012). Consequently, this would suggest that individuals may be motivated to engage in counter-normative behavior. Moreover, the variables intention to adopt counter-normative sustainable behavior and fear of social sanctions show a significant negative correlation between them7. So, theoretically this means that the effect found could also be reversed: intention to adopt counter-normative sustainable behavior negatively influencing the fear of social sanctions. Therefore, caution should be taken when interpreting and generalising this finding.
Last, the results provide no support for the moderating effect of the need for affiliation. In specific, the present study expected that when individuals have a high need for affiliation, they would have a stronger fear of social sanctions and therefore would be more susceptible to a dynamic normative message. In contrast, a low need for affiliation was expected to result in a lower fear of social sanctions and, subsequently, would lead individuals to be less sensitive to a dynamic normative message. The results did not show evidence to support this expectation. However, in the current study results did show differences in the need for affiliation, although they appear to be small8. Theoretically, it remains reasonable that individuals differences may provide a further examination of the concept fear of social sanctions. Indeed, research shows indications that individuals not only can have negative perceptions of anticipating social sanctions. For example, some people may experience challenging the norm of the group as exciting or arousing. Moreover, individuals can derive power or status from displaying counter-normative behavior (Van Kleef et al., 2011; Van Kleef et al., 2012). Consequently, it could be that other moderation variables may be used to better explain such differences. For example, a theoretically similar concept to the need for affiliation might be the need for relatedness as proposed by the self-determination theory (Ryan & Deci, 2017). Here, the need for relatedness refers to the desire to have satisfying relationships with others (Ryan & Deci, 2017). As such, it might also have the potential to influence the fear of social sanctions. However, the need for relatedness does not completely correspond with the need for affiliation, and therefore it might be a potentially suitable moderation variable.
25
Limitations and future research
The current study has taken caution in its setup in order to draw reliable conclusions. However, certain limitations have to be taken into consideration. These limitations could serve as a guidance for future research.
First, one specific limitation concerns the set up of the experiment used in this study. Whereas Sparkman and Walton (2017) conducted a pilot study before running their actual experiment, this study did not conduct such a pilot study. Doing such a pilot study would have given the opportunity to reduce certain flaws or mistakes in both the experiment and the questionnaire. For instance, a pilot study could have tested the credibility of the source and percentage used in the normative message. In particular, this might have been important considering the fact that second-hand clothing was used as a counter-normative sustainable behavior in this study. In addition, a pilot study could also have tested the designed scale for the fear of social sanctions. Whereas the scale showed internal consistency, it can not be concluded whether the designed items effectively captured the essence of the concept. Conducting a pilot study would have allowed for pre-testing the designed scale, and to checking whether adjustment would have been necessary.
Furthermore, this study used a reference group in order to increase the relevance and the persuasiveness of the normative message. In particular, the reference group of Dutch people was used. However, this reference group might have been too generic for participants to identify with. The importance of a relevant reference group for the specific sample is important. The likelihood of people conforming to the reference group increases when they are more likely to identify with that group (Neighbors et al., 2008). Therefore, future research could look at using reference groups specifically relevant for the chosen sample.
26
Implications
27
CONCLUSION
28
REFERENCES
Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human
Decision Processes, 50(2), 179-211
Blumberg, B. F., Cooper, D. R., & Schindler, P. S. (2014). Business research methods (4th ed.). London: McGraw-Hill Education.
Brough, A. R., Wilkie, J. E. B., Ma, J., Isaac, M. S., & Gal, D. (2016). Is eco-friendly unmanly? The green-feminine stereotype and its effect on sustainable consumption. Journal
of Consumer Research, 43(4), 567-582.
Cialdini, R. B., & Trost, M. R. (1998). Social influence: Social norms, conformity, and compliance. In D. T. Gilbert, S. T. Fiske, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology (4th ed., Vol. 2, pp. 151– 192). Boston: McGraw-Hill.
Cialdini, R. B. (2003). Crafting normative messages to protect the environment. Current
Directions in Psychological Science, 12(4), 105–109.
Cialdini, R. B., & Goldstein, N. J. (2004). Social influence: Compliance and conformity.
Annual Review of Psychology, 55(February), 591–621.
De Groot, J., Abrahamse, W., & Jones, K. (2013). Persuasive normative messages: The influence of injunctive and personal norms on using free plastic bags. Sustainability, 5(5), 1829–1844.
Deutsch, M., & Gerard, H. B. (1955). A study of normative and informational social influence upon individual judgment. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 51, 629– 636.
Ellen MacArthur Foundation. (2017). A new textiles economy: Redesigning fashion’s future. Retrieved from: http://www.ellenmacarthurfoundation.org/publications
29 Godfray, H. C. J., Aveyard, P., Garnett, T., Hall, J. W., Key, T. J., Lorimer, J., Pierrehumbert, R. T., Scarborough, P., Springmann, M., & Jebb, S. A. (2018). Meat consumption, health, and the environment. Science, 361(6399).
Granfield, R. (2002). Can you believe it? Assessing the credibility of a social norms campaign. Report on Social Norms, 2, 1–8.
Griskevicius, V., Cialdini, R., & Goldstein, N. J. (2008). Social norms: An underestimated and underemployed lever for managing climate change. International Journal of
Sustainability Communication, 3, 5-13.
Guiot, D., & Roux, D. (2010). A second-hand shoppers' motivation scale: Antecedents, consequences, and implications for retailers. Journal of Retailing, 86(4), 355–371.
Hayes, A. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process
analysis: A regression-based approach. New York, NY: Guilford.
IPCC. (2018). Special report on global warming of 1.5 °C (SR15). Retrieved from:
http://www.ipcc.ch/report/sr15/
Ivanova, D., Stadler, K., Steen-Olsen, K., Wood, R., Vita, G., Tukker, A., & Hertwich, E. G. (2015). Environmental impact assessment of household consumption. Journal of Industrial
Ecology, 20, 526-536.
Laitala, K., & Klepp, I. G. (2018). Motivations for and against second-hand clothing acquisition. Clothing Cultures, 5(2), 247-262.
Leary, M. R., & Hoyle, R. H. (2009). Handbook of individual differences in social behavior. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Leary, M. R. (2010). Affiliation, acceptance, and belonging: The pursuit of interpersonal connection. In: Fiske, S. T., Gilbert, G. T., & Gardner, L. (Eds.), Handbook of Social
Psychology (pp. 864-897). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons Inc.
Leary, M. R., Kelly, K. M., Cottrell, C. A., & Schreindorfer, L. S. (2013). Construct validity of the need to belong scale: Mapping the nomological network. Journal of Personality
Assessment, 95(6), 610-625.
30 Ligthart, T. N., & Ansems, A. M. M. (2007) Single use cups or reusable (coffee) drinking systems: an environmental comparison. Technical Report 2006-A-R0246(E)/B. TNO Built Environment and Geosciences, Delft.
Lim, W. M. (2016). A blueprint for sustainability marketing: Defining its conceptual boundaries for progress. Marketing Theory, 16(2), 232–249.
Lindenberg, S., & Steg, L. (2007). Normative, gain and hedonic goal frames guiding environmental behavior. Journal of Social Issues, 63, 117–137.
Loschelder, D. D., Siepelmeyer, H., Fischer, D., & Rubel, J. A. (2019). Dynamic norms drive sustainable consumption: Norm-based nudging helps café customers to avoid disposable to-gocups. Journal of Economic Psychology.
Malhotra, N. K., Hall, J., Shaw, M., & Oppenheim, P. (2009). Marketing research: An
applied orientation. Pearson Education Australia.
Minson, J. A., & Minoin, B. (2012). Do-gooder derogation: Disparaging morally motivated minorities to defuse anticipated reproach. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 3(2), 200-207.
Mortensen, C. R., Neel, R., Cialdini, R. B., Jaeger, C. M., Jacobson, R. P., & Ringel, M. M. (2019). Trending norms: A lever for encouraging behaviors performed by the minority. Social
Psychological and Personality Science, 10(2), 201-210.
Neighbors, C., O'Connor, R. M., Lewis, M. A., Chawla, N., Lee, C. M., & Fossos, N. (2008). The relative impact of injunctive norms on college student drinking: the role of the reference group. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 22(4), 576.
Park, H. S., Smith, S. W., Klein, K. A., Martell, D. (2011). College students' estimation and accuracy of other students' drinking and believability of advertisements featured in a social norms campaign. Journal of Health Communication, 16, 504-518.
Popa, M., Phillips, B. J., & Robertson, C. (2014). Positive outcomes of social norm transgressions. Journal of Consumer Behavior, 5, 351–363.
31 Poskus, M. S. (2017). Normative influence of pro-environmental intentions in adolescents with different personality types. Current Psychology, 39: 263-276.
Rose, G.M., Shoham, A., Kahle, L.R., & Batra, R. (1994). Social values, conformity, and dress. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 24(17), 1501-1519.
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2017). Self-determination theory: Basic psychological needs in
motivation, development, and wellness. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Saylor, A., Prokopy, L. S., & Amberg, S. (2011). What’s wrong with the tap? Examining perceptions of tap water and bottled water at Purdue University. Environmental Management,
48, 588-601.
Shang, J., & Peloza, J. (2016). Can ‘real’ men consume ethically? How ethical consumption leads to unintended observer inference. Journal of Business Ethics, 139(1), 129–45.
Sokolowski, K. (2008). Social bonding: Affiliation motivation and intimacy motivation. In: Heckhausen, J., & Heckhausen, H. (Eds.), Motivation and action (pp. 184-201). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
Sparkman, G., & Walton, G. M. (2017). Dynamic norms promote sustainable behavior, even if it is counternormative. Psychological science, 28(11), 1663-1674.
Sparkman, G., & Walton, G. M. (2019). Witnessing change: Dynamic norms help resolve diverse barriers to personal change, Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 82, 238–252.
Steinel, W., Van Kleef, G. A., Van Knippenberg, D., Hogg, M. A., Homan, A. C., Moffitt, G. (2010). How intragroup dynamics affect behavior in intergroup conflict: The role of group norms, prototypicality, and need to belong. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 13(6), 779-794.
Szmigin, I., & Piacentini, M. (2018). Consumer behaviour (2nd ed). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
The Waste and Resource Action Programme (WRAP). (2015). Clothing Durability Report. Retrieved from: https://www.wrap.org.uk/content/extending-life-clothes
32 ThredUP. (2019). Fashion resale market and trend report. Retrieved from:
https://www.thredup.com/resale?tswc_redir=true
Tukker, A., Cohen, M. J., Hubacek, K., & Mont, O. (2010). The impacts of household consumption and options for change. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 14, 13–30.
Van Kleef, G. A., Homan, A. C., Finkenauer, C., Gündemir, S., & Stamkou, E. (2011). Breaking the rules to rise to power: How norm violators gain power in the eyes of others.
Social Psychological and Personality Science, 2(5), 500-507.
Van Kleef, G. A., Homan, A. C., Finkenauer, C., Blaker, N.M., & Heerdink, M.W. (2012). Prosocial norm violations fuel power affordance. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48, 937-942.
Van Kleef, G. A., Wanders, F., Stamkou, E., & Homan, A. C. (2015). The social dynamics of breaking the rules: Antecedents and consequences of norm-violating behavior. Current
Opinion in Psychology, 6, 25-31.
Veroff, J., & Veroff, J.B. (1980). Social incentives: A life span developmental approach. Academic Press, New York, NY.
Voedingscentrum. (2020). Vegetarisch, veganistisch en flexitarisch eten. Retrieved from: https://www.voedingscentrum.nl/encyclopedie/vegetarisme-veganisme.aspx
Weinberger, J., Cotler, T., & Fishman, D. (2010). The duality of affiliative motivation. In: Schultheiss, O. C., & Brunstein, J. C. (Eds.), Implicit motives (pp. 71-88). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Whiteman, G., Walker, B., & Perego, P. (2013). Planetary boundaries: Ecological
foundations for corporate sustainability. Journal of Management Studies, 50(2): 307-336.
Wooten, D. B., & Reed, A. (2004). Playing it safe: Susceptibility to normative influence and protective self-presentation. Journal of Consumer Research, 31(3): 551-556.
Zane, D. M., Irwin, J. R., & Reczek, R. W. (2016). Do less ethical consumers denigrate more ethical consumers? The effect of willful ignorance on judgments of others. Journal of
33
APPENDIX A: Questionnaire Introduction
Dear participant,
Thank you for your interest in this study. The information listed on this page is to help you decide to participate in this study or not.
Participation in this study will take around 10 minutes. Please do know that all data gathered by this survey will be handled anonymously, and that all answers will be treated
confidentially. The information collected by this study will be used for research purposes only. As soon as you start the questionnaire, you can choose to quit at any point.
By clicking "Next" you state that you have read the information listed above, and that you agree with the conditions of this study.
Thank you for choosing to participate in this study. Your honest input is very much valued! This survey has four parts, and aims to investigate individual motivations related to second-hand clothing consumption. We want to find out how sustainable behavior can be promoted. If you have any concerns, issues, or questions related to this study, please feel free to send an email to t.t.t.van.der.hoek@student.rug.nl
Thank you for your time and cooperation!
Participating in this study means having a chance to win one of the three 35€ giftcards for a vintage clothing store in Groningen. If you would like to win one of these giftcards, please do indicate this at the end of this study.
This is the first part of the research.
This contains one question as an introduction, which will help to get an insight into actual clothing consumption behavior.
In the past few months, how often did you buy clothes?
34
Static norm condition
On the next page you will read a short text. It is important that you read this text carefully, and remember the content of this text as you need it to answer follow-up questions related to this text.
Static normative message toward second-hand clothing
Please carefully read the following text before continuing with the next set of questions.
Recent research by ThredUp (2019), known as the world's largest marketplace for hand clothing, has shown that 30% of Dutch people actively make an effort to buy second-hand clothes rather than buying new clothes. That means that 3 out of 10 Dutch people consume more second-hand clothes than they usually would.
o I have read the text.
Intention to adopt counter-normative sustainable behavior
This is the second part of the research.
Here, you will be asked questions about how you feel about consuming second-hand clothing. Please indicate to what extent you agree to the following statements.
1. I will make an effort to buy second-hand clothing rather than new clothing in the upcoming three months.
2. I intend to buy second-hand clothing in the upcoming three months. 3. I plan to buy second-hand clothing in the upcoming three months Answer options:
o Strongly disagree (1) o Disagree
o Somewhat agree
o Neither agree or disagree o Somewhat disagree o Disagree
35
Dynamic norm condition
On the next page you will read a short text. It is important that you read this text carefully, and remember the content of this text as you need it to answer follow-up questions related to this text.
Dynamic normative message toward second-hand clothing
Please carefully read the following text before continuing with the next set of questions.
Recent research by ThredUp (2019), known as the world's largest marketplace for second-hand clothing, has shown that, in the previous 10 years, 30% of Dutch people have started to make an effort to buy second-hand clothes rather than buying new clothes. That means that, in recent years, 3 out of 10 Dutch people have changed their behavior and begun to consume more second-hand clothes than they usually would.
o I have read the text.
Intention to adopt counter-normative sustainable behavior
This is the second part of the research.
Here, you will be asked questions about how you feel about consuming second-hand clothing. Please indicate to what extent you agree to the following statements.
1. I will make an effort to buy second-hand clothing rather than new clothing in the upcoming three months.
2. I intend to buy second-hand clothing in the upcoming three months. 3. I plan to buy second-hand clothing in the upcoming three months Answer options:
o Strongly disagree (1) o Disagree
o Somewhat agree
o Neither agree or disagree o Somewhat disagree o Disagree
36
Fear of social sanctions toward second-hand clothing
This is the third part of the research.
This part will ask questions about how you feel about wearing second-hand clothing. Please indicate to what extent you agree to the following statements.
1. I would be judged for wearing second-hand clothing.
2. I would be liked less by my friends if I wear second-hand clothing.
3. The opinion of others about me would change negatively if I wear second-hand clothing.
4. I feel it's embarrassing to wear second-hand clothing.
5. My friends would make a derogating comment about me wearing second-hand clothing. Answer options:
o Strongly disagree (1) o Disagree
o Somewhat agree
o Neither agree or disagree o Somewhat disagree o Disagree
o Strongly agree (7)
Need for affiliation
This is the fourth and final part of the research.
This part will focus on questions about individual differences, and will ask you about what you think is important in social relationships.
Please indicate how you feel about the following statements.
1. If other people don't seem to accept me, I don't let it bother me.
2. I try hard not to do things that will make other people avoid or reject me. 3. I seldom worry about whether other people care about me.
4. I need to feel that there are people I can turn to in times of need. 5. I want other people to accept me.
6. I do not like being alone.
7. Being apart from my friends for long periods of time does not bother me. 8. I have a strong “need to belong.”
37 10. My feelings are easily hurt when I feel that others do not accept me.
Answer options: o Not at all (1) o Slightly o Moderately o Very o Extremely (5) Manipulation check
Please recall the text you read at the start of this research. To what extent do you agree to the following statements?
1. More Dutch people are increasing their second-hand clothing consumption compared to ten years ago.
2. Despite it is still being a minority, second-hand clothing consumption is increasing in number among Dutch people.
Answer options:
o Strongly disagree (1) o Disagree
o Somewhat agree
o Neither agree or disagree o Somewhat disagree o Disagree
o Strongly agree (7)
Thank you message and choice for giftcard
If you read this message it means you have completed the questionnaire. Thank you! Your participation in this study has a big contribution in completing my Master's thesis.
In order to show my appreciation for your time and cooperation, I would like to give away three giftcards worth 35€ for a vintage clothing store in Groningen. If you would like to win one of these, please indicate this down below.
38 o No
Fill in email for giftcard
Please write down your email address in the answer box below in order to win one of the giftcards.
Please do know that your email address will only be used to contact you in case you have won one of the giftcards, and all addresses will be deleted afterwards. Winners will be randomly picked after this survey has been closed.
If you are one of the winners, I will contact you as soon as possible!
39
APPENDIX B: Factor and reliability analysis predictor variables and manipulation check
Table 1. Factor analysis and reliability analysis predictor variables (N = 230).
Number of items
KMO Bartlett’s test of sphericity Cronbach’s alpha Fear of social sanctions 5 .86 p < .01*** α = .90 Need for affiliation 10 .78 p < .01*** α = .73 Intention to adopt counter-normative sustainable behavior 3 .54 p < .01*** α = .92 Note: ***significant at p < 0.01
Table 2. Factor analysis and reliability analysis manipulation check (N = 230).
Number of items
40
APPENDIX C: Descriptive statistics predictor variables and manipulation check
Table 3. Descriptive statistics for predictor variables.
N Minimum Maximum Mean SD
Intention to adopt counter-normative sustainable behavior 230 1 7 3.39 1.78 Fear of social sanctions 230 1 6 2.14 1.05 Need for affiliation 230 1.50 4.60 3.39 0.59
Table 4. Descriptive statistics for experimental conditions. Experimental group Fear of social sanctions Need for affiliation Intention to adopt counter-normative sustainable behavior
N Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD
Static norm condition 116 2.12 0.99 3.00 0.57 3.26 1.81 Dynamic norm condition 114 2.17 1.11 3.18 0.61 3.52 1.74
Table 5. Descriptives manipulation check using t-test for equality of means.
Static norm condition Dynamic norm
41
APPENDIX D: Results Pearson correlation test
Table 6. Pearson correlations coefficients between the main variables of the conceptual
model (N = 230). Intention to adopt counter-normative behavior Fear of social sanctions
Need for affiliation
Intention to adopt counter-normative behavior - - - Fear of social sanctions -.236*** - -
Need for affiliation .025 .035 -
42
APPENDIX E: Results moderated mediation total model
Table 7. Results moderated mediation analysis: total model (N = 230).
Variable relationships B SE p 95% CI R² F (4,225)
Outcome variable:
Intention to adopt counter-normative sustainable behavior Model summary <.01** .062 4.62 Descriptive normative message -.09 .077 .26 [-.241, .065]
Fear of social sanctions -.40 .097 <.01** [-.595, -.210]
Need for affiliation .07 .21 .75 [- .346, .481]
Interaction effect .02 .167 .91 [-.350, .310]
43
APPENDIX F: Results moderated mediation dependent variable model
Table 8. Results moderated mediation analysis: dependent variable model (N = 230).
Variable relationships B SE p 95% CI R² F (1,228)
Outcome variable: Fear
of social sanctions
Model summary .741 .0005 .109
Descriptive normative message
-.015 .046 .741 [-.107, .076]
44
APPENDIX G: Results interaction effect
Table 9. Interaction effect of need for affiliation on intention to adopt counter-normative
sustainable behavior (N = 230).
Intention to adopt counter-normative sustainable behavior
Need for affiliation B Confidence level of
95% for confidence intervals
Low (-.5942) .0060 -.0297 to .0480
Moderate (.0000) .0062 -.0304 to .0474
High (.5942) .0063 -.0330 to .0493
45
APPENDIX H: Boxplots outliers
Figure 5. Boxplot for outliers mediator variable fear of social sanctions.
46
APPENDIX I: Factor and reliability analysis
Factor analysis was conducted in order to test whether the items of the variables measured the underlying dimensions of the constructs in an adequate way. In specific, Malhotra (2009) indicates that several factors are important to examine when conducting factor analysis. Moreover, reliability analysis was used to test the validity of the scales. The importance of these analyses for the measures used in this study will be discussed below, and the results of these analyses will be presented below as well.
Malhotra (2009) indicates that the KMO-statistic must be .50 or higher, because lower values indicate that further factor analysis is not recommended. Second, Bartlett's test of sphericity should show a significant p-value as insignificant p-values suggest that proceeding with the same data is not useful for the analysis (Malhotra, 2009). In particular, a significant p-value is considered to be .05 or lower (Malhotra, 2009). Next, the communalities were analyzed in order to demonstrate the variance of each parameter of the construct compared to the number of items of the construct (Malhotra, 2009). These communalities should be all higher than .40 since lower values suggest that certain items do not fit with the construct. In the specific case of communalities lower than .40, items should be excluded from the scale and further analysis (Malhotra, 2009). Last, reliability analysis was conducted to investigate whether the scales provided internal consistency. Here, Cronbach’s alpha was used to check for internal consistency. In order to have a scale with sufficient internal consistency, Cronbach’s alpha should be above .60 (Malhotra, 2009).
First, the KMO-statistic (.54) and the statistically significant result of Bartlett's test of sphericity (p < .01) allowed factor analysis for the construct intention to adopt counter-normative sustainable behavior. In addition, the communalities showed that the value of each item was above .40., whereas Cronbach’s alpha (α = .92) indicated that the developed scale was reliable. As a result, intention to adopt counter-normative sustainable behavior was used as one construct containing 3 items. Next, the KMO-statistic (.86) and the statistically significant result of Bartlett's test of sphericity (p < .01) allowed factor analysis for the construct fear of social sanctions. Furthermore, the communalities showed that the value of each item was above .40., whereas Cronbach’s alpha (α = .90) indicated that the developed scale was reliable. As a result, fear of social sanctions was used as one construct containing 5 items.
48
APPENDIX J: Assumptions regression analysis
