Factors Influencing the Attitude Toward Anti-Littering Behavior

Abstract

Guided by the health belief model (HBM), the present study attempts to assess the influence of three major constructs of HBM namely perceived threat, perceived barriers, and perceived benefits on the attitude toward anti-littering behavior. In total, 750 individuals were interviewed at 34 locations across the states of New Delhi and Punjab in a field survey. Empirical research had been conducted through confirmatory factor analysis in AMOS 21.0 to classify the predictors of the four constructs according to their relative significance using the natural gaps in standardized regression weight values. Subsequently, path analysis has been used to test a series of hypotheses concerning the direct effects of perceived threat, perceived barriers, and perceived benefits on attitude toward anti-littering behavior. The findings of the study reveal that perceived barriers and perceived benefits have a significant influence on the attitude, whereas perceived threat does not have a significant influence on the attitude.

Keywords

perceived threat perceived benefits perceived barriers anti-littering behavior anti-littering attitude health belief model behavior change

Introduction and Background

Littering is a by-product of one’s way of life existing in various countries that harms the health, environment, economy, and aesthetics of the world (Ojedokun and Balogun 2011) Various studies define litter as anything ranging from domestic to commercial waste such as plastic, broken glass which is not disposed of properly (Schnelle et al. 1980; Schultz et al. 2013; Stokols and Altman 1987). Littering behavior constitutes incorrect disposal of handheld waste in public places that cause pollution (Hansmann and Scholz 2003; Ojedokun 2015). In contrast, anti-littering behavior is an act of active nonlittering in which an individual carries litter with him until it is disposed of properly in a trash can (Cialdini, Reno, and Kallgren 1990).

Littering is not only an environmental problem but also poses aesthetic, social, and economic concerns (Finnie 1973; Schultz et al. 2013). It is an unpleasant and ugly sight (Pandey 1990). Litter acts as a breeding ground for various bacteria that can lead to various diseases (Fuggle and Rabie 2009). Therefore, the issue of littering needs to be resolved to mitigate the adverse impact of littering on health, society, and the environment (Lewis, Turton, and Sweetman 2009).

Littering and waste management, with increasing population, has become a major problem in India. The megacities resulted due to the globalization of the economy, technology, and culture; generate a very high amount of waste per capita. There is no specific data available for littering in India but approximately 127,486 tons per day solid waste was generated in India in the year 2011–2012 (Central Pollution Control Board 2012). The major obstacles that the country is facing in dealing with littering are infrastructure and administrative. The litter bins in India remain mostly full and the individuals generally either carry the litter to the next bin or throw it. The lack of adequate infrastructure and limited awareness of the environment along low intrinsic motivation lead to an increase in littering in the country. The obliviousness on the part of citizens toward the negative effects of littering is also a major barrier to anti-littering behavior. The government has started a campaign named Swachh Bharat Abhiyan (Clean India Mission) to raise awareness about the issue and has also imposed fines to deal with the problem, but these approaches have not been successful in alleviating the littering problem. The failure of the campaigns suggests that littering is an attitudinal problem and it requires influencing the individual’s attitude to solve this issue. Various studies have also suggested that attitudes toward anti-littering behavior can induce behavior change in attitudinal issues like littering (Ojedokun 2015; Schmuck and Vlek 2003).

Health belief model (HBM) is the most popular model in predicting preventive health behaviors. However, various studies have revealed that there is a striking similarity between health behaviors and behavior to conserve the environment. In both cases, the desired behavior is performed to prevent a negative outcome (bad health or environmental degradation). Hence, it can be proposed that HBM may prove to be a useful model to predict pro-environmental behaviors such as anti-littering behavior (Lindsay and Stratham 1997).

The present study is the first to empirically examine the influence of perceived threat, perceived barriers, and perceived benefits on the attitude toward anti-littering behavior in the Indian context that contributes to the uniqueness of the research and hence adds to the growing literature on littering behavior. Furthermore, the findings of the present research provide significant recommendations for combating the perceived barriers and increasing the perceived benefits to guide sociologists in reducing the social problem of littering.

Literature Review

The HBM conceptualized by Rosenstock (1974) is one of the most often used models in health behaviors (Glanz, Rimer, and Lewis 2002). The HBM contains several primary concepts that explain why an individual will choose to adopt the desired behavior. The model proposes that perceived threat, perceived benefits, and perceived barriers directly influence cues to action. However, various research studies in the past have suggested that attitude is the best predictor of behavior. The perceived threat, barriers, and benefits are antecedents to this key concept that overwhelm all other variables in predicting the intention to adopt desired behavior (Becker et al. 1977; Oliver and Berger 1979). The linkage between perceived threat, perceived benefits, and attitude has been empirically found in other studies as well (Han and Cudjoe 2020; Huang 1993; Jarvenpaa, Tractinsky, and Vitale 2000; Lange et al. 2014; Liobikienė and Bernatonienė 2017; Luthra et al. 2015; Moser 2015; Zhang, Bai, and Shang 2018).

The central assumption of the Theory of Planned Behavior is that the behavior follows attitude (Ajzen 1991). It was also acknowledged by Schmuck and Vlek (2003) that attitude is an essential condition to build an environmentally responsible society. A deep understanding of attitude toward littering and its antecedents will help in incorporating the feelings, perceptions, and beliefs of the individuals in designing effective social marketing strategies to prevent littering. Various scholars have suggested focusing on individual attitudes to successful behavior change in issues like littering (Ojedokun 2009; Schmuck and Vlek 2003). Therefore, it is necessary to examine the factors that influence the attitude toward anti-littering behavior.

Attitude can be defined as a “psychological tendency that is expressed by evaluating a particular entity with some degree of favor or disfavor” (Eagly and Chaiken 2005). The attitude comprises three major elements: cognitive, affective, and behavioral (Eagly and Chaiken 1993; Fishbein and Ajzen 1975). The cognitive element is the rational association that individuals develop between the attitude object and its attributes (Fishbein and Ajzen 1975). The affective element of attitude includes the emotional aspects and the psychological responses associated with feelings (Schimmack and Crites 2005). The behavioral element includes the overt responses toward an attitude object. The evaluative response mentioned in the definition of attitude is derived from the accessible belief prevailing in an individual related to the attitude object. The beliefs of an individual are formed from the various experiences and impressions during his lifetime. The individuals develop various beliefs during their lifetime but only salient beliefs contribute to the formation of attitude toward the respective behavior. It was demonstrated in previous research that approximately five to nine salient beliefs lead to the formation of the attitude of an individual toward any behavior or object (Fishbein and Ajzen 1975). Once the beliefs about an attitude object are formed, the attitudes are automatically formed by accessing those beliefs from the memory (Eagly and Chaiken 1993). The stronger the beliefs about an attitude object are and the more favorable or unfavorable those beliefs are, the more is the contribution to the attitude toward that attitude object (Ajzen and Fishbein 2000).

Individuals may have a positive or negative attitude toward the behavior after analyzing the perceived benefits, costs, and barriers involved in performing that behavior (Ajzen 1991). An individual’s attitude toward littering behavior may determine whether a person is going to indulge in littering behavior or not (Ojedokun 2015). The theory of planned behavior is based on the assumption that attitude is consistent with the behavior and one needs to influence the attitude to induce behavior change. Ojedokun and Balogun (2011) have established in their study that psychological variables such as perceived barriers, perceived benefits, and perceived threat are more effective in predicting attitude toward littering behavior than sociocultural variables.

The construct of threat appraisal consists of the perceived susceptibility of the threat and perceived severity/seriousness of the threat. Perceived susceptibility is the perception of the risk of a hazard or an illness (Janz, Champion, and Strecher 2002). Perceived severity is an individual’s perception of how serious and severe can be a medical condition or hazard as a consequence of the specific behavior (Janz et al. 2002). Various researchers in the past have used the concept of perceived threat in their social marketing frameworks to predict behavior change. The perceived threat has emerged as a possible factor in predicting pro-environmental behaviors (Vining and Ebreo 2002). Environmental issues such as littering can be framed as a threat to the environment, health, quality of life, or anything of value to individuals using threat perception frameworks. Baldassare and Katz (1992) found that individuals who perceive environmental problems as a personal threat to their well-being and health are more likely to engage in pro-environmental behaviors.

The possible hazards of littering may include health hazards, psychological problems, as well as an increase in social crimes. Keizer, Lindenberg, and Steg (2008) have proved experimentally that litter leads to a rise in social crimes like theft. Litter, such as discarded plastic, styrofoam, glass, and paper, gives rise to both direct and indirect health hazards that are caused by the bacteria, mosquitoes, rats, and other pests attracted to the litter (Schultz et al. 2013). Littering is also perceived as a source of various infections and injuries. The toxic contents of the bottles or tins discarded as litter and pathogens attached to discarded needles pose a serious threat to human health (Armitage and Rooseboom 2000). Litter acts as a breeding ground for various bacteria that can lead to various diseases (Fuggle and Rabie 2009).

Perceived benefits refer to the belief of an individual that the desired behavior is effective in reducing the risks associated with faulty behavior (Janz et al. 2002). The higher the perceived benefits are, the more motivated an individual will be to engage in pro-environmental behavior (Stern 2000). The major perceived benefit is an understanding that the threats of littering will reduce by engaging in anti-littering behavior. The research in Australia on the people who were observed littering suggested that there is no association between the impacts of littering and changing littering behavior (Curnow, Streker, and Williams 1997). A study in Singapore has revealed that women perceive that they can set a good example for children by changing their littering behavior (Singapore National Environment Agency 2011). A major benefit that is perceived is a tidy, presentable area, and pride in the neighborhood and social circle (Lyndhurst 2012). A study in Britain revealed that people are willing to change their behavior because then they can take pride in the community and general environment where they live and it would elevate their image in the social circle (Environmental Campaigns Ltd [ENCAMS] 2007). The past research has highlighted a major difference between the perceived barriers and perceived benefits that the perceived barriers affect people on a personal level, whereas perceived benefits of littering are public and affect the whole society (Pieters 1989; Pieters and Verhallen 1986; Thogersen 1994).

Perceived barriers refer to the obstructions an individual faces while performing a recommended desired behavior (Janz et al. 2002). These barriers are the psychological and physical costs an individual incurs in performing the desired behavior (Janz et al. 2002). The greater the perceived barriers are, the greater are the chances of an individual believing that the barriers outweigh the perceived benefits; hence, will be less motivated to engage in pro-environmental behavior (Steg and Vlek 2009). A variety of barriers may demotivate an individual from engaging in anti-littering behavior. A survey in Singapore reveals that the citizens who litter feel that they are not responsible to keep the shared spaces clean (Singapore National Environment Agency 2011). Hence, individuals are not keen to change their littering behavior if their responsibility is diminished. The lack of awareness about the serious impacts of littering also acts as a barrier to the proper disposal of waste. A research in Australia noted that the litterers were ignorant of the impacts of littering and did not consider littering to be a serious environmental concern (Curnow and Spehr 2011). The root cause of the littering behavior is the inherent desire of individuals to remove unwanted, dirty, and unclean items from their space and push them into other’s spaces (Alice Ferguson Foundation 2011). This attitude acts as a barrier in changing littering behavior as they find it inconvenient to carry the unclean and icky things with them till they find a bin to discard them (Curnow et al. 1997). Laziness was reported among the top three barriers to change littering behavior in various studies carried out in the United States, Australia, and Britain (Curnow et al. 1997; Keep Britain Tidy 2009; Keep Los Angeles Beautiful 2009). The norms prevailing in an individual’s network can be a huge barrier in changing one’s littering behavior. One may indulge in littering just to avoid the embarrassment they might face if they go out of the way to dispose of the litter (ENCAMS 2004). A majority of people litter because of forgetfulness and force of habit as littering is their default behavior. Seven percent of people in Singapore revealed that littering is a way of life for them and they litter because this behavior is a habit for them (Singapore National Environment Agency 2011). Janz and Becker (1984) demonstrated in their research that the perceived barrier is the most significant factor in influencing behavior. The past research on recycling behavior has also emphasized the crucial role of the perceived barriers in influencing the behavior (Gamba and Oskamp 1994; Howenstine 1993; Lansana 1992; Porter, Leeming, and Dwyer 1995).

Research Methodology

Relationship between Perceived Threat, Perceived Barriers, Perceived Benefits, and Attitude toward Anti-Littering Behavior

Building on the original HBM, the model considers perceived threat, perceived benefits, and perceived barriers direct predictors of the behavior (Rosenstock 1974). However, its major limitation is considering these constructs directly leading to the desired behavior (Werle 2011). The past research studies prove that attitude is a better predictor of behavior, and perceived threat, perceived barriers, and perceived benefits are its antecedents (Becker et al. 1977; Oliver and Berger 1979). Huang (1993) and Jarvenpaa et al. (2000) also concluded that perceived threat and perceived benefits have a significant influence on the attitude. In addition, Yazdanpanah, Komendantova, and Ardestani (2015) identified in their research that perceived benefits have a direct influence on the attitude toward accepting sustainable energy technology. Furthermore, various research studies conducted on examining pro-environmental behaviors revealed that the perceived benefits and barriers have a direct influence on the intention to adopt the behavior (Han and Cudjoe 2020; Lange et al. 2014; Liobikienė and Bernatonienė 2017; Luthra et al. 2015; Moser 2015; Zhang et al. 2018). Previous research has also demonstrated that perceived threat has a significant influence on the attitude toward environmental behaviors (Milfont, Duckitt, and Wagner 2010; Pahl et al. 2005; Walsh-Daneshmandi and MacLachlan 2000). Rosenstock (1990) added another factor namely self-efficacy in the recent studies describing the HBM, but no association between self-efficacy and attitude was found in the past literature. Hence, self-efficacy was not included in the current study.

Therefore, in light of the relationships discussed above, the following hypotheses are proposed (Figure 1):

Hypothesis 1 (H1): The perceived threat has a significant influence on the attitude toward anti-littering behavior.

Hypothesis 2 (H2): The perceived benefits have a significant influence on the attitude toward anti-littering behavior.

Hypothesis 3 (H3): The perceived barriers have a significant influence on the attitude toward anti-littering behavior.

Figure 1.

Proposed model.

Research Objectives

To assess the relative significance of the considerations of perceived threat, perceived benefits, perceived barriers, and attitude toward anti-littering behavior.

To analyze the impact of perceived threat, perceived barriers, and perceived benefits on attitude toward anti-littering behavior.

Data Collection and Sample

A quantitative approach was employed for this research study using a questionnaire as the survey instrument. The questionnaire was then administered to 750 respondents over a period of eight months. The study was conducted in two states, Punjab and Delhi, to cover a good range of lifestyle, geography, and culture of the society. Delhi was selected because it is the capital of India and representative of the whole country. In addition, due to the presence of various central institutions and high employment opportunities, people of different provinces reside here. The reason to include the state of Punjab in the study was that it is the most immediate environment. The sample size for this research was calculated based on the population of both states. The population of Punjab was projected at 27,700,000 and Delhi was projected at 16,787,941 according to the Census of India, 2011. The sample size is 750 (370 from Delhi and 380 from Punjab) with a five percent margin error and a 95 percent confidence interval. As informed by Zikmund (2002), the sample size is calculated using the method of the estimated proportion of the population and standard margin error. A total of 938 respondents were approached out of which 750 agreed to give responses at a completion rate of 0.8. The geographical locations within Delhi and Punjab were selected randomly. The target research sites with a high incidence of littering such as educational institutions, retail stores, medical hospitals, railway stations, bus stands, general market areas, religious places, and fairs were selected based on judgment sampling. Thereafter, out of the pool of sites identified earlier, the specific sites to conduct the survey were chosen based on the random sampling technique. In total, the survey was conducted in 14 sites in New Delhi and 20 sites in Punjab. The respondents were selected randomly from the target research sites between 11 AM and 8 PM as this is the peak time when the incidents of littering behavior are maximum. Furthermore, in-depth interviews were conducted based on a common interview schedule including multiitem statements.

Measures

There are four major constructs in the present study. All these constructs have been measured by multiitems on a five-point Likert scale (1 = strongly agree to 5 = strongly disagree). In total, 35 items were designed under these four constructs by referring to past studies (Champion 1984; Leijdekkers et al. 2015; Lindsay and Stratham 1997; Ojedokun 2015). The scale to measure attitude was taken from the past study conducted by Ojedokun (2015) in which he developed and validated the littering attitude scale.

Results

The complete results have been divided into two subsections: measurement model and structural model. The data collected have been analyzed through confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) concerning the first objective. Subsequently, the results of the structural model have been presented to assess the influence of the three constructs on the attitude toward anti-littering behavior. The confirmatory factor analysis and structural equation modeling (SEM) analysis have been conducted in AMOS 21.0 software.

Results of the Measurement Model

The results of the measurement model (Figure 2) have been presented to check the validity and reliability of the four constructs and to identify the items that are significant in measuring the respective constructs. The standard regression weights obtained from CFA output that were above/equal to 0.4 were only accepted (Bagozzi and Baumgartner 1994). The combined Standard Regression Weight (SRW) score for each construct is the average of the SRW scores of all the considerations of that construct (Table 1). The combined score greater than/equal to 0.4 indicates the significance and presence of the respective construct. Considering the natural gaps between the SRWs obtained from CFA analysis, the considerations of all the antecedents of the attitude toward anti-littering behavior have been categorized into “most significant” (SRW ≥ 0.8), “very significant” (SRW ≥ 0.7 and <0.8), “significant” (SRW ≥ 0.6 and < 0.7), and “less significant” (SRW ≥ 0.5 and < 0.6) as reported in Table 2. The factor loadings of all the items of the four constructs have been found more than 0.4 as recommended by Bagozzi and Baumgartner (1994). The combined CFA scores signify the prevalence of positive attitude toward anti-littering, perceived threats, perceived benefits, and perceived barriers.

Table 1.

Combined CFA Scores.

Construct	Combined CFA score (CS)
Attitude	0.683*
Perceived threat	0.714*
Perceived benefits	0.745*
Perceived barriers	0.711*

Note. CFA = confirmatory factor analysis.

Significant at 1 percent level of significance.

Table 2.

Relative Importance of Different Considerations of Antecedents to Attitude.

Most significant	SRW	Very significant	SRW	Significant	SRW
PB2—I can keep my surroundings clean and beautiful by not indulging in anti-littering behavior.	0.846	PBR7—I find it embarrassing to dispose of the waste properly in front of my peer group.	0.774	PB4—It will elevate my pride in the social circle if I will indulge in anti-littering behavior.	0.698
PBR5—I find the dustbins too unhygienic to open them to dispose of the litter.	0.824	PT3—The enormously littered surroundings make it likely that I will get an infection.	0.758	PT1—My chances of getting diseases by pathogens breeding on litter are great.	0.694
		PT2—I worry about the diseases that can spread due to increasing litter levels.	0.727	PB1—Disposing the waste properly will help in reducing the health threats associated with litter.	0.692
		PBR4—Littering is a habit for me.	0.706	PT4—The thought of serious injuries and infections due to increased litter in my surroundings scares me.	0.687
		PT5—I am afraid to think about the diseases spread by rising levels of litter in the environment.	0.704	PBR6—I feel lazy to walk to the dustbin to dispose of the waste properly.	0.683
		PBR3—It is inconvenient to walk to the far located dustbins to dispose of the waste properly.	0.702	PBR1—I find it icky to keep the litter with me till I find the dustbin to dispose it.	0.658
				PBR8—It is the responsibility of municipal bodies to keep public places free of litter.	0.635

Note. Standard Regression Weights (SRW) have been extracted from confirmatory factor analysis output in AMOS 21.0. Root mean square error of approximation = 0.047, normed fit index = 0.98, Tucker–Lewis index = 0.98, comparative fit index = 0.99; χ²/df = 2.64.

Figure 2.

Measurement model.

Most significant considerations

The most significant considerations are “I can keep my surroundings clean and beautiful by not indulging in anti-littering behavior” (PB2: SRW = 0.846, p < .01) and “I find the dustbins too unhygienic to open them to dispose of the litter” (PBR5: SRW = 0.824, p < .01).

Very significant considerations

As presented in Table 2, the very significant considerations are “I find it embarrassing to dispose of the waste properly in front of my peer group” (PBR7: SRW = 0.774, p < .01), “The enormously littered surroundings make it likely that I will get an infection” (PT3: SRW = 0.758, p < .01), “I worry about the diseases that can spread due to increasing litter levels” (PT2: SRW = 0.727, p < .01), “Littering is a habit for me” (PBR4: SRW = 0.706, p < .01), “I am afraid to think about the diseases spread by rising levels of litter in the environment” (PT5: SRW = 0.704, p < .01), and “It is inconvenient to walk to the far located dustbins to dispose of the waste properly” (PBR3: SRW = 0.702, p < .01).

Significant considerations

The significant considerations include “It will elevate my pride in the social circle if I will indulge in anti-littering behavior” (PB4: SRW = 0.698, p < .01), “My chances of getting diseases by pathogens breeding on litter are great” (PT1: SRW = 0.694, p < .01), “Disposing of the waste properly will help in reducing the health threats associated with litter” (PB1: SRW = 0.692, p < .01), “The thought of serious injuries and infections due to increased litter in my surroundings scares me” (PT4: SRW = 0.687, p < .01), “I feel lazy to walk to the dustbin to dispose of the waste properly” (PBR6: SRW = 0.683, p < .01), “I find it icky to keep the litter with me till I find the dustbin to dispose it of” (PBR1: SRW = 0.658, p < .01), and “It is the responsibility of municipal bodies to keep the public places free of the litter” (PBR8: SRW = 0.635, p < .01).

Most significant consideration of attitude toward anti-littering behavior

As shown in Table 3, the most significant considerations of anti-littering attitude are “One should not bother about it if it doesn’t affect one’s life” (A2: SRW = 0.802, p < .01), “I can participate in removing litter” (A10: SRW = 0.783, p < .01), “Litter is considered only a problem if it hurts one’s well-being” (A14: SRW = 0.778, p < .01), “Will carry my litter to the nearest bin if the bin is full” (A4: SRW = 0.777, p < .01), “I believe litter does not hurt anyone” (A5: SRW = 0.759, p < .01), and “Seeing someone littering upsets me” (A8: SRW = 0.753, p < .01).

Table 3.

Relative Importance of Considerations of Attitude.

Most significant	SRW	Very significant	SRW	Significant	SRW
A2—One should not bother about it if it doesn’t affect one’s life.	0.802	A11—It is ok to throw litter if the bin is full.	0.746	A12—I feel uncomfortable if I am in littered surrounding.	0.635
A10—I can participate in removing litter from the community.	0.783	A3—I don’t worry about littered surroundings.	0.719	A13—I feel angry when I see people littering.	0.629
A14—Litter is considered only a problem if it hurts one’s personal well-being.	0.778	A18—Litter is only considered a problem if it hurts other’s well-being.	0.690	A20—If I have time or money, I will devote it to remove litter from the community.	0.621
A4—Will carry my litter to the nearest bin if the bin is full.	0.777	A17—Litter ruins the environment.	0.659	A9—I am not comfortable in littered surrounding.	0.620
A5—I believe litter does not hurt anyone.	0.759	A7—Seeing litter in drainage upsets me.	0.650	A19—Throwing small items on the ground is not littering.	0.617
A8—Seeing someone littering upsets me.	0.753			A21—I will report a person if I see him littering.	0.609
				A15—Any member caught littering must be punished.	0.574
				A22—When I see people littering, I will tell them that public places are an extension of their homes.	0.551

Very significant considerations of anti-littering attitude

The very significant considerations of anti-littering attitude are “It is ok to throw litter if the bin is full” (A11: SRW = 0.746, p < .01), “I don’t worry about littered surrounding” (A3: SRW = 0.719, p < .01), “Litter is only considered a problem if it hurts other’s well-being” (A18: SRW = 0.690, p < .01), “Litter ruins the environment” (A17: SRW = 0.659, p < .01), and “Seeing litter in drainage upsets me” (A7: SRW = 0.650, p < .01).

Significant considerations of attitude toward anti-littering behavior

As presented in Table 3, the significant considerations of anti-littering attitude include “I feel uncomfortable if I am in the littered surrounding” (A12: SRW = 0.635, p < .01), “I feel angry when I see people littering” (A13: SRW = 0.629, p < .01), “If I have time or money, I will devote it to remove litter from the community” (A20: SRW = 0.621, p < .01), “I am not comfortable in the littered surrounding” (A9: SRW = 0.620, p < .01), “Throwing small items on the ground is not littering” (A19: SRW = 0.617, p < .01), “I will report a person if I see him littering” (A21: SRW = 0.609, p < .01), “Any member caught littering must be punished” (A15: SRW = 0.574, p < .01), and “When I see people littering, I will tell them that public places are an extension of their homes” (A22: SRW = 0.551, p < .01).

The construct reliability of all the four constructs has been checked by composite reliability, and the internal consistency of all the constructs has been checked by Cronbach alpha (Table 4). The convergent validity has been checked by average variance extracted (AVE), and the discriminant validity has been checked by squared correlations. The composite reliability of all the constructs has been found more than 0.6 as suggested by Bagozzi and Yi (1988). The value of Cronbach alpha for all the constructs has been found more than or equal to 0.7 as per the recommended limit (Roberts and Wortzel 1979). The AVE of all the constructs has been observed more than or equal to 0.5 that confirms the convergent validity (Fornell and Larcker 1981). The squared correlations of all the constructs have been observed less than the AVE values that confirm the discriminant validity of the constructs (Table 5) (Fornell and Larcker 1981).

Table 4.

Reliability and Validity Analysis.

Constructs	Cronbach’s alpha	Composite reliability	AVE
Attitude toward anti-littering behavior	0.9	0.9	0.5
Perceived barriers	0.9	0.8	0.5
Perceived benefits	0.8	0.7	0.6
Perceived threat	0.8	0.8	0.5

Note. AVE = average variance extracted.

Table 5.

Discriminant Validity.

Constructs	Attitude toward anti-littering behavior	Perceived threat	Perceived benefits	Perceived barriers
Attitude toward anti-littering behavior	0.5
Perceived threat	0.003	0.5
Perceived benefits	0.10	0.03	0.6
Perceived barriers	0.15	0.03	0.13	0.5

Note. AVE values in the diagonal and squared correlations off-diagonal. AVE = average variance extracted.

Results of the Structural Model

Having confirmed the validity and reliability of all the four constructs, the structural relationships between these latent constructs were assessed with SEM (Figure 3) (Table 6). Table 7 presents the significant and insignificant path coefficients for all the proposed hypotheses (Figure 4).

Table 6.

Fit Indices for the Fitted SEM Model.

Model fit criteria	Observed value	Accepted levels	Literature support
χ²/df	2.64	Values < 3 suggest good fit	Schreiber et al. (2006)
NFI	0.986	Values ≥ 0.9 suggest good fit	Hu and Bentler (1999)
CFI	0.991	Values ≥ 0.9 suggest good fit	Hooper, Coughlan, and Mullen (2008)
TLI	0.989	Values ≥ 0.9 suggest good fit	Schreiber et al. (2006)
RMSEA	0.047	Values ≤ 0.05 suggest good fit	Hu and Bentler (1999)

Note. SEM = structural equation modeling; NFI = normed fit index; CFI = comparative fit index; TLI = Tucker–Lewis index; RMSEA = root mean square error of approximation.

Table 7.

Path Analysis.

Proposed hypothesis	Proposed relationship	β	Critical ratio	p value	Results
H1	PT → A	.017	0.451	.65	Not Supported
H2	PB → A	.245	5.339*	***	Supported
H3	PBR → A	−.320	−8.497*	***	Supported

Note. PT = perceived threat; A = attitude toward anti-littering behavior; PB = perceived benefits; PBR = perceived barriers.

Significant at 1 percent level. ***p < .001.

Figure 3.

Structural equation model.

Figure 4.

Final model.

The direct link of the perceived threat to attitude has been found insignificant. Hence, H1 has been rejected. The construct of perceived barriers has the highest influence on the attitude toward anti-littering behavior. The SEM results indicate that this construct has a significant negative influence on the attitude toward anti-littering behavior. Hence, H3 has been accepted. The results also indicate that there is a significant positive relationship between the constructs of perceived benefits of changing littering behavior and attitude toward anti-littering behavior. Hence, H2 has been accepted.

Discussion

Overall, there is a positive attitude toward not littering. There is also a significant prevalence of perceived barriers, perceived threats, and perceived benefits concerning anti-littering behavior. In HBM, perceived threat, perceived benefits, and perceived barriers are direct predictors of the behavior (Rosenstock 1974). However, different past studies have suggested attitude as the best predictor of the behavior, and perceived threat, barriers, and benefits are antecedents to this key concept that overwhelm all other variables (Becker et al. 1977; Oliver and Berger 1979). The most important finding of the present study is that the perceived barriers have the greatest influence on the attitude toward anti-littering behavior. This result is consistent with the findings from the previous studies on health behaviors that consider perceived barrier as one of the most significant factors to determine behavior (Gamba and Oskamp 1994; Howenstine 1993; Janz and Becker 1984; Lansana 1992; Porter et al. 1995). The negative value of the critical ratio reveals an inverse relationship between perceived barriers and anti-littering attitude.

The perceived benefits also have a significant positive influence on the attitude toward anti-littering behavior. However, its relatively less influence on the attitude toward anti-littering behavior highlights a major difference between health and pro-environmental behaviors. In the case of health behavior, there is a one-to-one link between the action an individual takes and the benefits they get, whereas that is not the case in pro-environmental behaviors. The studies on pro-environmental behaviors such as recycling emphasize that the perceived barriers are felt by an individual on a personal level but the perceived benefits are societal (Pieters 1989; Pieters and Verhallen 1986; Thogersen 1994). According to construal level theory, there should be consistency between the construal level and psychological distance (Trope and Liberman 2003). The individuals might experience tensions due to the distal perception of benefits and low temporal distance of the barriers perceived by them. In short, there is an inconsistency between the abstract construal of perceived benefits (caused due to the high temporal distance of future perceived benefits) and the low psychological distance of the perceived barriers that result in dissonance. On the same lines, Liberman and Trope (1998) also suggested that abstract construal emphasizes the desirability of environmental sustainability and concrete construal emphasizes the feasibility of achieving environmental sustainability. These inconsistencies between the proximal and distal perspectives act as a barrier to forming a positive attitude toward anti-littering behavior.

The perceived threat of negative impacts of littering does not have a significant influence on the attitude toward anti-littering behavior. This finding is quite surprising as the significant CFA score of perceived threat reveals that this concept significantly exists. In addition, this finding disconfirms the arguments of Baldassare and Katz (1992) that perceived threat significantly predicts environmental behavior. However, this finding is in conformance with the past research in Australia on the people who were observed littering that suggested no association between impacts of littering and changing littering behavior (Curnow et al. 1997). The failure of perceived threat to have a significant influence reveals the psychological process behind the attitude formation of an individual. It was suggested by Janz and Becker (1984) that the failure of the perceived threat to have a significant influence could be due to their inability in understanding the seriousness of the threat when the individuals are asymptomatic, the hazards and health threats are long term, and when they have little experience with the perceived diseases and medical conditions. In the Indian context, there has not been an outbreak of any serious disease due to littering so far and the individuals have yet to experience any serious symptoms of the diseases caused by the existing litter.

The CFA results reveal that the “most significant” predictors of anti-littering attitude are “one should not bother about it if it doesn’t affect one’s life,” “I can participate in removing litter,” “Litter is considered only a problem if it hurts one’s well-being, “Will carry my litter to the nearest bin if the bin is full,” “I believe litter does not hurt anyone,” and “Seeing someone littering upsets me.” These predictors are highly relevant in the Indian context as these reflect a lot on the indifferent anti-littering attitude of the individuals that one should not bother about the litter until it is affecting one’s life. The “most significant” predictor of perceived threat is “The enormously littered surroundings make it likely that I will get an infection.” The results of the measurement model highlight that the most significant predictors of perceived barriers are “I find the dustbins too unhygienic to open them to dispose of the litter” and “I find it embarrassing to dispose of the waste properly in front of my peer group.” It has been observed in the present study that the most significant barrier is the unhygienic state of the trash bins. The results reveal that the most significant predictor of perceived benefits is “I can keep my surroundings clean and beautiful by not indulging in anti-littering behavior.” This is the benefit that is most closely related to individuals while the rest of the benefits are societal benefits. This further signifies that the individuals respond more to the individual benefits and hence the campaigns need to introduce individual benefits to influence their attitude positively.

Conclusions

To conclude, the findings of the study highlight that the perceived barriers and perceived benefits significantly influence the attitude toward anti-littering behavior. This study also reflects that the perceived barriers have a greater and negative impact as compared with the perceived benefits in influencing the attitude toward anti-littering behavior. In the Indian context, the perceived barriers to anti-littering behavior such as unhygienic and overfull trash receptacles, prevalent norms favoring littering, long distance to the nearest trash bins are considerably high than various developed nations that justify the impact of barriers. The impact of perceived benefits can be further increased either by convincing people to seek their individual benefits out of larger social benefits and by introducing social reinforcements such as social rewards for indulging in anti-littering behavior (Lindsay and Stratham 1997). The positive feeling an individual gets when they receive a valued outcome can be referred to as social rewards (Berkman, Livingston, and Kahn 2017). The current study also reveals that the threats of littering are significantly perceived by the individuals. But the perceived threat does not have a significant influence on the attitude toward anti-littering behavior. There exists high littering despite its threat perception signifies that threat does not necessarily translate into developing a positive attitude toward anti-littering behavior. Littering is a serious issue that requires constant attention and more research is required in this contemporary era of consumerism and urbanization especially in developing nations. While this issue defies short-term and easy solutions, research for holistic approaches to solving this problem must continue.

Implications

The findings of the present study provide empirical insights into behavior change theory and practice. First, to the best of the author’s knowledge, the current study in terms of theory building appears to be the first to explore the influence of the constructs of HBM on the attitude and not behavior in the context of anti-littering behavior. A major limitation of the HBM is the assumption that its constructs will lead directly to the desired behavior (Werle 2011). Various research studies in the past have suggested that the construct attitude is strongly associated with the behavior. It is worth noting that although various studies have empirically proven the significant influence of perceived threat on environmental behavior (Pahl et al. 2005; Milfont et al. 2010; Walsh-Daneshmandi and MacLachlan 2000), the influence of perceived threat, benefits, and barriers on attitude was missing. The present study manifests the impact of the significant influence of perceived barriers and perceived benefits in building a positive attitude that is missing in the HBM. Future studies may be carried out to assess the mediation effect of attitude on anti-littering behavior. It was confirmed in a study conducted by Milfont (2007) that perceived threat has a significant relationship with environmental attitude. However, Kim and Choi (2003) suggested that determinants might have a varied influence on specific environmental behaviors. Hence, at the conceptual level, the current study responds to the call of Kim and Choi (2003) to examine the influence of the factors on different specific pro-environmental behaviors separately.

Practically, perceived barriers have proven to be the most important determinant in predicting attitude toward anti-littering behavior. Combating these barriers is an essence to influence positively the attitude toward anti-littering behavior. According to the findings of this study, decreasing the perceived barriers and increasing the perceived benefits may offer great potential to alter attitudes toward anti-littering behavior. The study can be extended to other behavioral issues such as road safety and energy saving. Based on the results of the present study, there can be three major recommendations for social marketing practitioners for designing anti-littering interventions. First, proper waste disposal can be facilitated by improving the state of the trash bins and making them more hygienic and attractive. Second, individual reinforcements can be introduced to make the anti-littering interventions more successful. According to the Linguistic Categorization Model (Semin and Fiedler 1988), the messages can be framed using more proximal communication terminology through the use of more concrete terms while highlighting the benefits of engaging in anti-littering behavior. The interventions can focus on tangible results highlighting the benefits for the environment to reduce the hypotheticality of the perceived benefits of engaging in anti-littering behavior. The convenience of engaging in anti-littering behavior is pertinent for successful behavior change. In addition to making anti-littering as easy as possible, interventions can also frame the communication messages on avoiding or minimizing the most significant barriers and make the anti-littering behavior more motivating. A large-scale campaign Swach Bharat Abhiyan was launched in India to make sure that the citizens have access to basic amenities such as cleaner surroundings and hygiene (Swain and Pathela 2016), but this campaign is focused more on sanitation than on littering behavior. The present study indicates the determinants that have a significant influence on building a positive attitude toward anti-littering behavior. This can be leveraged by the government and policymakers to form policy interventions concerning anti-littering behavior.

Limitations and Future Research Directions

Future research directions are suggested based on the limitations of the current study. The first limitation of the study is that the study is limited to only two states: Punjab and Delhi. The research can be performed in other geographical areas in India to generalize the findings. Second, the influence of the demographics has not been studied in the current research. The model can be further extended to manifest whether attitude mediates between its antecedents and behavior or not. Future studies can include the demographic variables in the research to understand the variation in tendencies. To fully understand the impact of perceived threat in this context, the subcomponents of perceived threat (severity and susceptibility) should be measured separately and studied in-depth.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Ranjit Kaur

Author Biographies

Jagwinder Singh is serving as associate professor in Department of Humanities and Management at Dr B R Ambedkar National Institute of Technology Jalandhar. He has total teaching experience of more than 22 years. He has published research articles in internationally reputed journals. His research interest areas include consumer behavior, consumer experience management, educator management, rural marketing, branding, and social marketing.

Ranjit Kaur is a research scholar in the Department of Humanities and Management, Dr B R Ambedkar National Institute of Technology, Jalandhar, India. She is pursuing a doctoral thesis in the area of social marketing. Her research interests are social marketing, behavior change, and littering behavior.

References

Ajzen

1991. “The Theory of Planned Behavior.” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 50:179–211.

Ajzen

Fishbein

2000. “Attitudes and the Attitude-behavior Relation: Reasoned and Automatic Processes.” European Review of Social Psychology 11:1–33.

Alice Ferguson Foundation. 2011. “Understanding District Citizens and Business Community Attitudes Towards Litter and Responses to Anti-litter Messaging and Strategies. Non-engineering Solutions for Trash Reduction in the Anacostia Watershed.” Retrieved April 30, 2021 (https://doee.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/ddoe/publication/attachments/AFF%20FINAL%20REPORT%2011-1-11.pdf).

Armitage

Rooseboom

2000. “The Removal of Urban Litter from Stormwater Conduits and Streams: Paper 1—The Quantities Involved and Catchment Litter Management Options.” Water SA 26(2):181–87.

Bagozzi

R. P.

Baumgartner

1994. “The Evaluation of Structural Equation Models and Hypothesis Testing.” Pp. 386–422 in Principles of Marketing Research, edited by Bagozzi

Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.

Bagozzi

R. P.

1988. “On the Evaluation of Structural Equation Models.” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 16(1):74–94.

Baldassare

Katz

1992. “The Personal Threat of Environmental Problems as Predictor of Environmental Practices.” Environment and Behavior 24(5):602–16.

Becker

Maiman

Kirscht

Haefner

Drachman

1977. “The Health Belief Model and Prediction of Dietary Compliance: A Field Experiment.” Journal of Health and Social Behavior 18(4):348–66.

Berkman

E. T.

Livingston

J. L.

Kahn

L. E.

2017. “Finding the “Self” in Self-regulation: The Identity-value Model.” Psychological Inquiry 28:77–98.

10.

Central Pollution Control Board. 2012. “Status Report on Municipal Solid Waste Management.” New Delhi. Retrieved April 30, 2021 (https://silo.tips/download/status-report-municipal-solid-waste-management).

11.

Champion

1984. “Instrument Development for Health Belief Model Constructs.” Advances in Nursing Science 6(3):73–85.

12.

Cialdini

R. B.

Reno

R. R.

Kallgren

C. A.

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):1015–26.

13.

Curnow

R. C.

Spehr

K. L.

2011. “Matching APCC Litter Data Collection Requirements.” A Community Change report to the Australian Packaging Covenant, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.

14.

Curnow

R. C.

Streker

Williams

1997. “Understanding Littering Behaviour: A Review of the Literature.” A Community Change report to the Beverage Industry Environment Council, now the Packaging Stewardship Forum, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.

15.

Eagly

A. H.

Chaiken

1993. The Psychology of Attitudes. Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.

16.

Eagly

A. H.

Chaiken

2005. Attitude Research in the 21st Century: The Current State of Knowledge. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

17.

Environmental Campaigns Ltd. 2004. Gum Droppers’ Segmentation Study. Wigan, England: Environmental Campaigns Ltd.

18.

Environmental Campaigns Ltd. 2007. I’m Just a Teenage Dirt Bag, Baby! Wigan, England: Environmental Campaigns Ltd.

19.

Finnie

W. C.

1973. “Field Experiments in Litter Control.” Environment and Behavior 5:123–44.

20.

Fishbein

Ajzen

1975. Belief, Attitude, Intention and Behavior: An Introduction to Theory and Research. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

21.

Fornell

Larcker

D. F.

1981. “Evaluating Structural Equation Models with Unobservable Variables and Measurement Error.” Journal of Marketing Research 18(1):39–50.

22.

Fuggle

R. F.

Rabie

M. A.

2009. Environmental Management in South Africa. Cape Town, South Africa: Juta.

23.

Gamba

R. J.

Oskamp

1994. “Factors Influencing Community Residents’ Participation in Commingled Curbside Recycling Programs.” Environment and Behavior 26:587–612.

24.

Glanz

Rimer

Lewis

2002. Health Behavior and Health Education: Theory, Research, and Practice. San Francisco, CA: John Wiley.

25.

Han

Cudjoe

2020. “Determinants of Energy-saving Behavior of Urban Residents: Evidence from Myanmar.” Energy Policy 140:111405.

26.

Hansmann

Scholz

R. W.

2003. “A Two-step Informational Strategy for Reducing Littering Behavior in a Cinema.” Environment and Behavior 35:752–62.

27.

Hooper

Coughlan

Mullen

2008. “Structural Equation Modeling: Guidelines for Determining Model Fit.” The Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods 6(1):53–60.

28.

Howenstine

1993. “Market Segmentation for Recycling.” Environment and Behavior 25:86–102.

29.

L. T.

Bentler

P. M.

1999. “Cutoff Criteria for Fit Indexes in Covariance Structure Analysis: Conventional Criteria versus New Alternatives.” Structural Equation Modeling 6:1–55.

30.

Huang

C. L.

1993. “Simultaneous-equation Model for Estimating Consumer Risk Perceptions, Attitudes, and Willingness-to-pay for Residue Free Produce.” Journal of Consumer Affairs 27(2):377–88.

31.

Janz

N. K.

Becker

M. H.

1984. “The Health Belief Model: A Decade Later.” Health Education Quarterly 11:1–47.

32.

Janz

N. K.

Champion

V. L.

Strecher

V. J.

2002. “The Health Belief Model.” Pp. 45–66 in Health Behavior and Health Education: Theory, Research, and Practice, 3rd ed., edited by K.

Glanz

Rimer

Lewis

San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

33.

Jarvenpaa

Tractinsky

Vitale

2000. “Consumer Trust in an Internet Store.” Information Technology and Management 1(1):45–71.

34.

Keep Britain Tidy. 2009. “Vehicle Litter Research Report - 2009.” Retrieved April 30, 2021 (https://www.yumpu.com/en/document/view/26689342/vehicle-litter-research-report-2009-keep-britain-tidy).

35.

Keep Los Angeles Beautiful. 2009. “Littering and the iGeneration: City-wide Intercept Study of Youth Litter Behavior in Los Angeles.” Retrieved April 30, 2021 (https://www.yumpu.com/en/document/view/28196175/littering-and-the-igeneration-clean-up-south-africa).

36.

Keizer

Lindenberg

Steg

2008. “The Spreading of Disorder.” Science 322:1681–85.

37.

Kim

Choi

2003. “Antecedents of Pro-environmental Behaviors: An Examination of Cultural Values, Self-efficacy, and Environmental Attitudes.” Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the International Communication Association, San Diego, CA, May 27.

38.

Lange

Brückner

Kröger

Beller

Eggert

2014. “Wasting Ways: Perceived Distance to the Recycling Facilities Predicts Pro-environmental Behavior.” Resources, Conservation & Recycling 92:246–54.

39.

Lansana

F. M.

1992. “Distinguishing Potential Recyclers from Non-recyclers: A Basis for Developing Recycling Strategies.” Journal of Environmental Education 23:16–23.

40.

Leijdekkers

Marpaung

Y. M.

Meesters

Naser

A.-K.

Penninx

Rookhuijzen

M. V.

Willems

2015. “Effective Interventions on Littering Behaviour of Youngsters.” This Report (Product) Is Produced by Students of Wageningen University as Part of Their MSc Programme. Retrieved April 30, 2021, https://www.wur.nl/upload_mm/9/2/6/4beb526f-d6cc-4ac9-8bee-636a53de7068_Effective%20interventions%20on%20littering%20behaviour%20of%20youngsters%20(Final%20report%20ACT-group%201530).pdf.

41.

Lewis

Turton

Sweetman

2009. Litterbugs; How to Deal with the Problem of Littering. London, England: Policy Exchange.

42.

Liberman

Trope

1998. “The Role of Feasibility and Desirability Considerations in Near and Distant Future Decisions: A Test of Temporal Construal Theory.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 75:5–18.

43.

Lindsay

Stratham

1997. “Predictors of Recycling Behavior: An Application of a Modified Health Belief Model.” Journal of Applied Social Psychology 27(20):1799–1823.

44.

Liobikienė

Bernatonienė

2017. “Why Determinants of Green Purchase Cannot be Treated Equally? The Case of Green Cosmetics: Literature Review.” Journal of Cleaner Production 162:109–20.

45.

Luthra

Kumar

Garg

Haleem

2015. “Barriers to Renewable/Sustainable Energy Technologies Adoption: Indian Perspective.” Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 41:762–76.

46.

Lyndhurst

2012. Rapid Evidence Review of Littering Behaviour and Anti-litter Policies. London, England: Zero Waste Scotland.

47.

Milfont

T. L.

2007. “Psychology of Environmental Attitudes: A Cross-cultural Study of Their Content and Structure.” Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand.

48.

Milfont

T. L.

Duckitt

Wagner

2010. “A Cross-cultural Test of the Value–Attitude–Behavior Hierarchy.” Journal of Applied Social Psychology 40(11):2791–2813.

49.

Moser

2015. “Thinking Green, Buying Green? Drivers of Pro-environmental Purchasing Behavior.” Journal of Consumer Marketing 32(3):167–75.

50.

Ojedokun

2015. “The Littering Attitude Scale (LAS): Development and Structural Validation Using Data from an Indigenous (Nigerian) Sample.” Management of Environmental Quality 26(4):552–65.

51.

Ojedokun

Balogun

S. K.

2011. “Psycho-sociocultural Analysis of Attitude Towards Littering in a Nigerian Urban City.” Ethiopian Journal of Environmental Studies and Management 4(1). Retrieved April 30, 2021 (https://www.ajol.info/index.php/ejesm/article/view/67204).

52.

Oliver

R. L.

Berger

P. K.

1979. “A Path Analysis of Preventive Health Care Decision Models.” Journal of Consumer Research 6(2):113–22.

53.

Pahl

Harris

P. R.

Todd

H. A.

Rutter

D. R.

2005. “Comparative Optimism for Environmental Risks.” Journal of Environmental Psychology 25:1–11.

54.

Pandey

1990. “The Environment, Culture, and Behavior.” Pp. 254–77 in Applied Cross-Cultural Psychology, edited by R.

Brislin

. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

55.

Pieters

1989. Attitudes and Behavior in a Source Separation Program: A Garbology Approach. Delft, The Netherlands: Euborn.

56.

Pieters

Verhallen

1986. “Participation in Source Separation Projects: Design Characteristics and Perceived Cost and Benefits.” Resources and Conservation 12:95–111.

57.

Porter

B. E.

Leeming

F. C.

Dwyer

W. O.

1995. “Solid Waste Recovery: A Review of Behavioral Programs to Increase Recycling.” Environment and Behavior 27:122–52.

58.

Roberts

M. L.

Wortzel

L. H.

1979. “New Life-style Determinants of Women’s Food Shopping Behavior.” Journal of Marketing 43(3):28–39.

59.

Rosenstock

I. M.

1974. “The Health Belief Model and Preventive Health Behavior.” Health Education Monographs 2:354–68.

60.

Rosenstock

I. M.

1990. “The Health Belief Model: Explaining Health Behavior through Expectancies.” Pp. 39–62 in Health Behavior and Health Education, edited by K.

Glanz

Lewis

Rimer

San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

61.

Schimmack

Crites

S. L.

2005. “The Structure of Affect.” Pp. 397–435 in The Handbook of Attitudes, Albarracín

Johnson

Zanna

Albarracín

Johnson

Zanna

Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

62.

Schmuck

Vlek

2003. “Psychologists Can Do Much to Support Sustainable Development.” European Psychology 8(2):66–76.

63.

Schnelle

J. F.

Mcnees

Thomas

M. M.

Beagle

G. P.

1980. “Prompting Behavior Change in the Community Use of Mass Media Techniques.” Environment and Behavior 12(2):157–66.

64.

Schreiber

Nora

Stage

Barlow

King

2006. “Reporting Structural Equation Modeling and Confirmatory Factor Analysis Results: A Review.” The Journal of Educational Research 99:323–38.

65.

Schultz

P. W.

Bator

R. J.

Large

L. B.

Bruni

C. M.

Tabanico

J. J.

2013. “Littering in Context: Personal and Environmental Predictors of Littering Behavior.” Environment and Behavior 45:35–59.

66.

Semin

G. R.

Fiedler

1988. “The Cognitive Functions of Linguistic Categories in Describing Persons: Social Cognition and Language.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 54(4):558–68.

67.

Singapore National Environment Agency. 2011. Towards a Cleaner Singapore: Sociological Study on Littering in Singapore. Singapore: Singapore National Environment Agency.

68.

Steg

Vlek

2009. “Encouraging Pro-environmental Behavior: An Integrative Review and Research Agenda.” Journal of Environmental Psychology 29:309–17.

69.

Stern

P. C.

2000. “New Environmental Theories: Toward a Coherent Theory of Environmentally Significant Behavior.” Journal of Social Issues 56:407–24.

70.

Stokols

Altman

1987. Handbook of Environmental Psychology. New York: John Wiley.

71.

Swain

Pathela

2016. “Status of Sanitation and Hygiene Practices in the Context of “Swachh Bharat Abhiyan” in Two Districts of India.” International Journal of Community Medicine and Public Health 3(11):3140–46.

72.

Thogersen

1994. “A Model of Recycling Behavior: With Evidence from Danish Source Separation Programmes.” International Journal of Research in Marketing 11:145–63.

73.

Trope

Liberman

2003. “Temporal Construal.” Psychological Review 110:403–21.

74.

Vining

Ebreo

2002. “Emerging Theoretical and Methodological Perspectives on Conservation Behavior.” Pp. 551–58 in Handbook of Environmental Psychology, edited by Bechtel

R. B.

Churchman

Bechtel

Churchman

New York: John Wiley.

75.

Walsh-Daneshmandi

MacLachlan

2000. “Environmental Risk to Self: Factor Analysis and Development of Subscales for the Environmental Appraisal Inventory (EAI) with an Irish Sample.” Journal of Environmental Psychology 20:141–49.

76.

Werle

2011. “The Determinants of Preventive Health Behavior: Literature Review and Research Perspectives.” Retrieved April 30, 2021 (https://ideas.repec.org/p/hal/gemwpa/hal-00638266.html).

77.

Yazdanpanah

Komendantova

Ardestani

2015. “Governance of Energy Transition in Iran: Investigating Public Acceptance and Willingness to Use Renewable Energy Sources through Socio-psychological Model.” Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 45:565–73.

78.

Zhang

Bai

Shang

2018. “Is Subsidized Electric Vehicles Adoption Sustainable: Consumers’ Perceptions and Motivation Toward Incentive Policies, Environmental Benefits, and Risks.” Journal of Cleaner Production 192:71–79.

79.

Zikmund

2002. Business Research Methods. Fort Worth, TX: The Dryden Press.