Influencing the Intention to Adopt Anti-Littering Behavior: An Approach With Modified TPB Model

Abstract

Background: Littering has been identified as a major issue in India that has negative impacts on the environment as well as public health. Focus of the article: Guided by the Theory of Planned Behavior, this empirical study determines the influence of three major concepts namely attitude, subjective norms, and self-efficacy on the intention to adopt anti-littering behavior. Research Hypotheses: The hypotheses stipulate that attitude, subjective norms, and self-efficacy have a significant influence on the intention to perform anti-littering behavior. Methods: In total, 750 individuals were interviewed at 34 locations across the states of New Delhi and Punjab (India) in a field survey. The data have been analyzed through confirmatory factor analysis in AMOS 21.0 to classify the considerations of the antecedents of the intention 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 attitude, subjective norms, and self-efficacy on the intention to adopt anti-littering behavior. Results: The findings of the study revealed that all three constructs; attitude, subjective norms, and self-efficacy have a significant influence on the intention to adopt anti-littering behavior. Subjective norms influence intention to the highest extent closely followed by attitude. Recommendations for Research/Practice: Social marketers are recommended to target subjective norms and attitude while designing social marketing interventions to promote anti-littering behavior. Limitations: One limitation of this study is the existing gap between self-reported behavioral intention and actual behavior.

Reasons for littering: Social constructions from lower income communities in South Africa

“…What is significant from the results of Ojedokun and Balogun 4 and Singh and Kaur 47 is that the socially constructed belief of a person in themself and their abilities will facilitate the person to take responsibility for their own behaviour and actions, including towards the environment. 46 Theme 2: Those who litter have no respect and care for self, others and the environment This theme confirms the results by Ojedokun and Balogun 4 and Singh and Kaur 47 (mentioned in the previous discussion) that people with a disregard for self, others and the environment will take less responsibility for their own environment -the responsibility will be assigned to other persons or institutions. In this study, participants highlighted the following traits as reasons for littering: 'They have no self-respect for themselves and other people'; 'They do not care about the environment'; 'They do not care about the community.…”

Hikers’ pro-environmental behavior in national park: Integrating theory of planned behavior and norm activation theory

“…First, the results revealed that both the TPB model and NAM model displayed explanatory capacity on hikers' PEB in Wuyishan National Park in China. Scholars from a variety of disciplines have regularly evaluated the suitability of utilizing TPB or NAM models to explain PEB (Han, 2015(Han, , 2021Alzubaidi et al, 2021;Aziz et al, 2021;Singh and Kaur, 2021;Cao et al, 2022;Kang, 2022;Long et al, 2022;Song et al, 2022;Zheng et al, 2022).…”

“…To achieve a more sustainable society, encouraging hikers to participate in a variety of PEB can subsequently increase favorable environmental outcomes and lessen the severity of global environmental challenges (Goh, 2020;Udall et al, 2020;Choi and Kim, 2021;Esfandiar et al, 2022). Previous studies about PEB have generally focused on personal factors regarding tourists, such as their attitude (ATT), subjective norm (SN), and perceived behavioral control (PBC) mechanisms as well as the environmental behavioral intention of theory of planned behavior (TPB) (De Leeuw et al, 2015;Han, 2020;Meng et al, 2020;Yuriev et al, 2020;Alzubaidi et al, 2021;Aziz et al, 2021;Fenitra et al, 2021;Panwanitdumrong and Chen, 2021;Singh and Kaur, 2021;Zhang et al, 2021;Loureiro et al, 2022;Zheng et al, 2022); awareness of consequences (AC), ascription of responsibility (AR), and personal norm (PN) of the norm activation theory (NAM) (Meng et al, 2020;Alzaidi and Iyanna, 2021;Bai and Zhang, 2021;O'Connor and Assaker, 2021;Han et al, 2021;Cao et al, 2022;Jeon et al, 2022;Kang, 2022;Long et al, 2022;Loureiro et al, 2022;Song et al, 2022;Zhang et al, 2022). However, there are many influencing factors of personal PEB, and there are complex interrelationships, there are both have direct and indirect effects (Han, 2021).…”

Problem awareness does not predict littering: A field study on littering in the Gambia

“…Nevertheless, the omission of SE and OE is a limitation because previous research found them it to be influential (e.g. Joanes, 2019;Nordlund et al, 2018Nordlund et al, , 2016Singh & Kaur, 2021;Steg & De Groot, 2010). However, our decision to focus on AC and AR was made not only because of limitations of time and the complexity of this research project, but more importantly to meet the pioneering character of the work.…”