Differences in Perception and Engagement of Sustainable Behavior and the Effects of Gender

Abstract

As awareness of human-made environmental harm is increasingly acknowledged, going green is becoming more popular. Behavioral research is increasingly focused on how individuals are influenced to consume consciously and behave in environmentally sustainable ways. In this article, a comparison is made between people's perceptions of sustainable behavior and their own engagement in such activities. Generation Z students were surveyed about their perception of social norms and personal engagement across various green behaviors. The differences in perception of others' sustainable behavior and students' own engagement in sustainable activities were analyzed. The effect of gender on the students' perception and behavior was also examined. The results indicate that there are significant differences between perception and behavior in some facets of sustainability but not in others. Gender was not found to be a significant factor. The framework of the analysis as presented may be useful in social marketing, specifically in targeting sensitivities to and action for sustainable practices.

Introduction

Climate change is characterized as the most significant threat to our species, as the effects of global warming have become increasingly visible (NASA, 2017). The two main causes of climate change, the burning of fossil fuels and environmental degradation, are worsening in many ways. For example, cities are now generating nearly 1.3 billion tons of waste per year and this is set to double by 2025 (Hoornweg & Bhada-Tata, 2012). Despite the reduction in the rate of deforestation, the Earth has lost 129 million hectares of forest since 1990, an area roughly the size of South Africa (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, 2015). In spite of the global awareness of environmental degradation, there has been no significant action to resolve this challenge. Some studies show that this environmental paralysis is caused by the daunting nature of the problem and a lack of clarity about how small, daily individual actions can make a real, impactful contribution to the solution (Fowler & Close, 2012).

A person's daily actions are dictated by their personal and social identities. Everyone seeks a balance between individualization and belonging, and does sacrifice, to some degree, personal beliefs for the sake of group acceptance (Asch, 1956). Group behavior, once institutionalized in society, generates social norms that have the power to motivate similar behavior. Individuals often use others' behavior as a yardstick to judge their own behavior (Schultz et al., 2007) and adjust accordingly. Marketers have tried to influence people to a normative state by communicating that others are doing the same (Brewer, 1991). Some studies indicate that group pressure can influence opinions and spur both positive and negative actions, such as the experiments of Milgram (1964).

Researchers are using social norm interventions to manipulate sustainable behavior. For example, Cialdini et al. (1990) examined littering norms and observed that subjects littered more in an already-littered environment. In a field study on environmental conservation in hotels, Goldstein et al, (2008) found that when guests were presented with a message informing them of towel reuse of other guests, they reused towels more frequently. In a study of Californians' energy conservation, Nolan et al. (2008) found that information about neighbors' energy conservation behavior had the greatest behavioral impact. However, the literature lacks studies that focus on differences in people's perception of other people's sustainable behavior and their own engagement in sustainable practices.

Various norms are communicated by each of the influences present in an individual's life. Though unspoken, they are usually understood and their adherence produces social rewards while their violation generally results in social penalties (Gockeritz et al., 2010, p. 515; Rettie et. al, 2012). Research suggests that individual behavior is guided most by “relevant reference groups” such as gender, race, and marital status (Rettie et. al, 2012, p. 424). Investigating reference group norms to find out which individuals or groups are communicating a norm and its relative effectiveness can lead to insights that could enable honing the sustainability message.

Many works in the literature show the effect of gender on group behavior. Barker (2009) found that females were more likely to use and positively experience social networking. Potenza et al. (2006) found that men are more prone to engage in different forms of gambling behavior at younger ages than women. Eagly and Karau (1991) investigated how gender influences the choice of leaders in any group. They found that male leaders are preferred when specialized skills are needed, and female leaders are preferred when socially facilitative skills are needed. Shin et al. (2020) have found that gender does not have a strong effect on the perception and purchase of state-branded food items. Lewis et al. (2019) found that in STEM related group projects, gender did not have any significant effect in situations where brief interventions involving videos of other technical group discussions were provided.

In addition, the literature includes studies of the effects of gender, race, and ethnicity on sustainable behavior. Several of these studies compared White and non-White males and females in their perceptions about environmental risk and found that White men tended to differ from every other group (Flynn et. al, 1994; Marshall et. al, 2006). In general, it was observed that women possess greater scientific knowledge and concern regarding climate change than men (Goyal & Grewal, 2017; McCright, 2010). There have also been studies showing that organizational climate change campaigns can be more or less effective for men and women (Külcür et. al, 2019; MacGregor, 2010). Irianto (2015) studied the factors affecting peoples' perception of organic food and concluded that women generally pay more attention to health and environment, and thus are more likely to purchase organic food. Vicente-Molina et. al (2018) have found that though women with science education are more likely to show pro-environmental behavior, men are more open to adapting to more pro-environmental habits after being exposed to programs that promote such behavior.

This study examined the differences in people's perception of other people's sustainable behavior and their own engagement in sustainable activities. The observations were refined by examining the role of gender on such differences. This article describes the study, where the objective was to answer to the following research questions: 1.

What are the perceptions of green activities?

a. Is there a difference by gender?

How frequently does one engage in those same green activities?

a. Is there a difference by gender?

Does the perception of an activity impact the engagement in that activity?

a. Is there a difference between male and female perceptions and their engagement in an activity?

The study used a primary data collection method in which data was collected through a survey of college students in generation Z (people born between the mid-1990s and the early part of the 2020s). This demographic is of particular interest with respect to sustainability because the majority of them believe that climate change is real, is one of the most important issues facing the world, and is caused by human actions (Dabija et. al, 2018). Given that this demographic will soon make up to 30 million of the American workforce (Cho et. al, 2018) and contribute to human consumption and greenhouse gas emissions in the coming decades, marketeers working in the sustainability domain must have special focus on this demographic.

Materials and Methods

Sample of the Study

The study was conducted at a small Catholic liberal arts institution in Northwest Pennsylvania with an enrollment of about 2,800 students. The university has a commitment to sustainability and has incorporated sustainability parameters into the mission of the institution. The sample consisted of 155 females and 61 males, between the ages of 18 and 59; the mean age was 21.4.

Data Collection Method

The sample of students was obtained through a survey sent to all 2,774 university students via e-mail. A link in the e-mail directed students to the online version of the survey generated through SurveyMonkey^®. Nearly 30 percent opened the original email (n=805), and out of those who opened the email, around 27 percent (n=216) filled out the survey.

Data Analysis Procedure

A cross-sectional survey design was selected and adapted, with permission, from an instrument used by Rettie et al. (2012) that examines the marketing of sustainable behaviors in an effort to encourage social normalization. Twenty questions were taken from an original 25 questions related to a survey conducted by Rettie et al. (2012). The final survey instrument consisted of 40 questions. (See Supplementary Appendix SA1 for a full listing of all questions).

Due to the number of sustainable activities tested (20), a Q sort was used to organize the activities into categories based on salient characteristics; the intent was to make the data more manageable and insights more meaningful. To establish face validity, the three independent researchers placed individual activities into groups and then divided the activities into four distinct categories: shopping decisions, reduction of energy and water use, waste reduction, and transportation (see Table 1). Each of the new constructs consisted of the mean scores of all the individual variables within the construct. Independent sample t tests were used to examine the differences between males and females for these constructs, while a paired sample t test was used to examine the difference between perception and engagement means.

Table 1.

Categorized Green Activities

Shopping Decisions	Reduction of Energy and Water Use	Waste Reduction	Transportation
Bringing grocery bags to shops	Replacing light bulbs with more energy-efficient bulbs	Subscribing to e-statements vs. paper mail	Using public transport
Buying local goods	Taking shorter showers	Printing double sided	Carpooling
Buying food with limited packaging	Turning off lights when leaving a room	Using a reusable water bottle	Biking/walking vs. driving short distances
Purchasing products with fewer chemicals	Unplugging electronics when not in use	Repairing broken items vs. replacing them
Eating less meat	Turning off water when brushing teeth	Recycling
	Washing clothing in cold water

One sustainable activity—using reusable coffee cups versus disposable—was removed due to a face validity assessment.

Results and Discussion

The following sections describe the research questions, the statistical test used to answer the questions, and the results for each analysis. Given that perception was based on a 6-point response and engagement was based on a 5-point scale, all answers were normalized to a 30-point scale for the analysis to assist in comparing perceptions and engagement.

Perception: Research Question 1 and 1a

What are the perceptions of green activities?

a. Is there a difference by gender?

The survey question: To what extent do you think that the following activities/behaviors are normal (what people generally do)? attempted to measure respondents' perceived social normalization of 19 green behaviors sorted into four sustainable behavior categories. Answer choices were assigned the following values: not at all normal (6), not normal (12), neither normal or abnormal (18), normal (24), and very normal (30). Frequencies were run for individual activities within the categories as well as overall categories (see Table 2).

Table 2.

Overall Perceptions of Green Behavior and Perceptions by Gender

Green Behavior Category Perception	Overall	Females (SD)	Males (SD)	P
	Mean (SD)
Shopping Decisions	18.75	19.29 (4.33)	17.37 (3.76)	.003
Waste Reduction	22.42	22.81 (3.60)	21.42 (3.01)	.000
Reduction of Energy and Water Use	20.65	20.85 (4.47)	20.13 (3.00)	ns
Transportation	20.80	20.73 (5.60)	20.93 (5.04)	ns
Total Perception	20.66 (3.40)	20.92 (3.59)	19.98 (2.79)	.045

Overall perceptions of social normalization for the four green behavior categories are displayed in Table 2. Means were calculated by taking the average of the variables within each of the four overall categories. Participants were asked: To what extent do you think that the following activities/behaviors are normal (what people generally do)?

An independent sample t test was used to examine the difference between male and female perceptions of green behavior. Shopping decisions and waste reduction both revealed higher scores for females than males. Transportation and reduction of energy and water use revealed no significant difference. This makes sense because shopping decisions and waste reduction appear to be activities controlling the intake and disposal of goods, which has historically been dominated by women in a typical household (Thompson et al., 1990). However, transportation and energy consumption are shared household activities (Sivak, 2013).

Engagement: Research Question 2 and 2a

How frequently does one engage in those same green activities?

a. Is there a difference by gender?

The survey question: Generally speaking, how often do you engage in the following activities/behaviors? attempted to measure respondents' engagement in 19 green behaviors. Responses were coded on a 30-point scale and answer choices were assigned the following values: never (5), rarely (10), occasionally (15), frequently (20), very frequently (25), and all the time (30). Frequencies were run for individual activities and overall categories (see Table 3).

Table 3.

Overall Engagement in Green Behavior

Green Behavior Category Engagement	Overall	Females (SD)	Males (SD)	P
	Mean (SD)
Shopping Decisions	16.12 (4.85)	16.86 (4.33)	14.22 (3.76)	.000
Waste Reduction	20.97 (4.05)	21.43 (4.11)	19.78 (3.68)	.008
Reduction of Energy and Water Use	20.03 (4.60)	20.37 (4.72)	19.14 (4.16)	ns
Transportation	17.09 (5.62)	16.90 (5.42)	17.56 (6.11)	ns
Total Engagement	18.55 (3.39)	18.89 (3.56)	17.67 (2.76)	.009

Overall engagement means for the four sustainable categories are displayed in Table 3. Means were calculated by combining factors in each category to create a new item (i.e., category). Thus, means for each category are an average of means of all items within that category. Participants were asked: Generally speaking, how often do you engage in the following activities/behaviors?

An independent sample t test was used to examine the difference between male and female engagement in green behavior (Table 3). Similar to the results with perceptions, females reported greater engagement in sustainable behaviors for shopping decisions and waste reduction. In addition, the overall engagement revealed a higher score for females than males. However, as with the data on perceptions, males and females showed no differences in categories for reduction of energy and water use and transportation.

Differences in Perception and Engagement by Demographics: Research Question 3 and 3a

Does perception of an activity impact engagement in that activity?

a. Is there a difference between male and female perceptions versus engagement in an activity?

A paired sample t test was conducted to see if there were differences between perception means and engagement means for each of the four green categories. Means and standard deviations are displayed in Table 4. The overall perception score (20.65) was higher than the overall engagement score (18.55) and significant at the .000 level. In addition, three of the individual areas were significant at the .000 level. A difference existed between perception and engagement of shopping decisions, waste reduction, and transportation. Perception and engagement for reduction of energy and water use were the only means that were not statistically different. Also notable was that in each category, the perception means were higher than the engagement means. As shown in Table 4, there is a difference in perception versus engagement overall which is significant at the .001 level.

Table 4.

Paired Sample t Test for Perceptions and Engagement in Green Behavior

Green Behavior Category	Perception Mean (SD)	Engagement Mean (SD)	P
Shopping Decisions	18.71 (4.22)	16.12 (4.85)	.000
Waste Reduction	22.42 (3.51)	20.97 (4.05)	.000
Reduction of Energy and Water Use	20.62 (4.09)	20.03 (4.60)	ns
Transportation	20.87 (5.36)	17.09 (5.62)	.000
Total	20.65 (3.41)	18.55 (3.39)	.000

Given that there were differences in gender in the first two research questions, the researchers checked to see if there was a difference between perception and engagement while controlling for gender and determined that there were no significant differences in the paired sample t test when controlling for gender. Furthermore, the researchers found no interactive effect of gender on perception versus engagement.

Discussion

In this study, the researchers strived to better understand the social component of sustainable actions by examining the perception and actual adoption of a diverse array of green behaviors in a university population. The questionnaire was administered to determine if perception of others' sustainable or unsustainable actions influences individual green behavior, if some reference groups have more influence on green behavior than others, and if gender plays a role in behaving sustainably.

The results of the study were mixed: There was no significant difference in the construct “reduction of energy and water use” or “transportation” for either perception or engagement. There were, however, differences in “shopping,” and “waste reduction.” The reason for the mixed results may be related to a disparity in the proportion of males and females (155 females, 61 males). The results and implications of this study will help marketing professionals working in the area of sustainable behavior hone their efforts to better influence green practices in society. The implications will also help such marketing efforts to be gender sensitive. The shortcomings of this research are the relatively small dataset and the disparity of proportion of males and females.

Future extension of this research should consider a larger sample, and the proportions of the male/female participants need to be equalized. Also, age groups need to be stratified. Finally, since the time frames and the governmental and societal influence changed since the start of the research, an external influence will enable future researchers to compare the two studies. The goal of the future study is to observe not only gender but age differences for each of the categories of green behavior, and also to observe these differences given the external influence of societal perception and governmental policy toward green behavior.

Footnotes

Institutional Review Board Statement

Ethical review and approval were provided by Mercyhurst University Institutional Review Board ().

Funding Information

There was no funding for the project.

Author Disclosure Statement

No competing financial interests exist

Supplementary Material (online)

References

Asch

(1956). Studies of independence and conformity: A minority of one against a unanimous majority. Psychological Monographs, 70(9), 1-70.

Barker

(2009). Older adolescents' motivations for social network site use: The influence of gender, group identity, and collective self-esteem. Cyberpsychology & Behavior, 12(2), 209-213.

Brewer

(1991). The social self: On being the same and different at the same time. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 17(5), 475-482.

Cho

, Bonn

M. A.

, & Han

S. J.

(2018). Generation Z's sustainable volunteering: Motivations, attitudes and job performance. Sustainability, 10(5), 1400.

Cialdini

, Reno

, & Kallgren

(1990). A focus theory of normative conduct: Recycling the concept of norms to reduce littering in public places. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58(6), 1015–1026.

Dabija

D. C.

, Postelnicu

, & Dinu

(2018). Cross-generational investigation of ethics and sustainability. Insights from Romanian retailing. In Current Issues in Corporate Social Responsibility (pp. 141-163). Springer, Cham.

Eagly

A. H.

, & Karau

S. J

. (1991). Gender and the emergence of leaders: A meta-analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60(5), 685.

Flynn

, Slovic

, and Mertz

C. K.

(1994). Gender, race, and perception of environmental health risks. Risk Analysis, 14, 1101–1108.

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. (2015). Global forest resources assessment. http://www.fao.org/3/i4808e/i4808e.pdf

10.

Fowler

III

, A., & Close

. (2012). It ain't easy being green. Journal of Advertising, 41(4), 119-132.

11.

Gockeritz

, Schultz

, Rendon

, Cialdini

, Goldstein

, et al. (2010). Descriptive normative beliefs and conservation behavior: The moderating roles of personal involvement and injunctive normative beliefs. European Journal of Social Psychology, 40, 514-523.

12.

Goldstein

, Cialdini

, & Griskevicius

(2008). A room with a viewpoint: Using social norms to motivate environmental conservation in hotels. Journal of Consumer Research, 35, 472-482. doi: 10.1086/586910

13.

Goyal

, & Grewal

H. S

. (2017). Impact of environmental awareness on environmental attitudes—A comparative study of males and females in Uttarakhand, India. Indian Journal of Health & Wellbeing, 8(12), 1468-1471.

14.

Hoornweg

, & Bhada-Tata

(2012). What a Waste: A Global Review of Solid Waste Mmanagement. World Bank.

15.

Irianto

(2015). Consumers' attitude and intention towards organic food purchase: An extension of theory of planned behavior in gender perspective. International journal of management, economics and social sciences, 4(1), 17-31.

16.

Külcür

, Buckingham

, & Ansell

(2019). Exposing the lack of gender in climate change campaigns: Evidence from the UK and Turkey. Dokuz Eylül, University Journal of Graduate School of Social Sciences, 21(3), 923–942.

17.

Lewis

N. A.

, Sekaquaptewa

, & Meadows

L. A

. (2019). Modeling gender counter-stereotypic group behavior: A brief video intervention reduces participation gender gaps on STEM teams. Social Psychology of Education, 22(3), 557-577.

18.

MacGregor

(2010). Gender and climate change: From impacts to discourses. Journal of the Indian Ocean Region, 6(2): 223-238.

19.

Marshall

B. K.

, Picou

J. S.

, Formichella

, & Nicholls

(2006). Environmental risk perceptions and the white male effect: Pollution concerns among deep-south coastal residents. Journal of Applied Sociology, 23(4): 31–49.

20.

McCright

A. M.

(2010). The effects of gender on climate change knowledge and concern in the American public. Population and Environment, 32, 66–87.

21.

Milgram

(1964). Group pressure and action against a person. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 69(2), 137-143.

22.

National Aeronautics and Space Administration. (2017). The effects of climate change. Global Climate Change. Vital Signs of the Planet. https://climate.nasa.gov/effects/

23.

Nolan

, Schultz

, Cialdini

, Goldstein

, & Griskevicius

(2008). Normative social influence is underdetected. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34, 914-923.

24.

Potenza

M. N.

, Maciejewski

P. K.

, & Mazure

C. M

. (2006). A gender-based examination of past-year recreational gamblers. Journal of Gambling Studies, 22(1), 41-64.

25.

Rettie

, Burchell

, & Riley

(2012). Normalising green behaviours: A new approach to sustainability marketing. Journal of Marketing Management, 28(3-4), 420-444.

26.

Schultz

P. W.

, Nolan

, Cialdini

R. B.

, Goldstein

N. J.

, & Griskevicius

(2007). The constructive, destructive, and reconstructive power of social norms. Psychological Science, 18(5), 429-434.

27.

Shin

Y. H.

, Jung

S. E.

, Im

, & Severt

(2020). Applying an extended theory of planned behavior to examine state-branded food product purchase behavior: The moderating effect of gender. Journal of Foodservice Business Research, 23(4), 358-375.

28.

Sivak

(2013). Female drivers in the United States, 1963–2010: From a minority to a majority? Traffic Injury Prevention, 14(3), 259-260.

29.

Thompson

C. J.

, Locander

W. B.

, & Pollio

H. R

. (1990). The lived meaning of free choice: An existential-phenomenological description of everyday consumer experiences of contemporary married women. Journal of Consumer Research, 17(3), 346-361.

30.

Vicente-Molina

M. A.

, Fernández-Sainz

, & Izagirre-Olaizola

(2018). Does gender make a difference in pro-environmental behavior? The case of the Basque Country university students. Journal of Cleaner Production, 176, 89–98.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.02 MB