Under Construction @ Keele 2016 Volume 2 Issue 2 | Page 25
16
Finally, in all the cases where significant differences were found between the groups
regarding their willingness to purchase recycled products, moral norms mediated the
relationship (H7). This supports the notion that our values influence our behaviour
indirectly.16 Furthermore, the analysis highlighted that individuals who scored ‘high’ on STV,
opportunistic Oscars and selfless Susans, also scored higher regarding their moral norm to
recycle, which predicted a higher willingness to buy recycled products. Conversely, those
groups that scored ‘low’ on STV, egocentric Edwards and non-engaging Ninas, scored lower
regarding their moral norms to recycle, which predicted a lower willingness to buy recycled
products (see figure 2).
Figure 2. Diagram to show the predictive relationship between the groups, moral norms and proenvironmental behaviour. Arrows indicate the direction of the prediction.
Discussion
The current research specifies four groups of individuals based upon their regard for STV
and SEV. The findings indicate that these four groups actually behave in two different ways:
Individuals in both the self-enhancers group and the non-engagers group purchase
significantly less recycled products than individuals in both the value-opportunists group and
the selfless contributors group. A key difference between the two sets of groups appears to
be their regard for STV, with the latter two groups regarding STV as more important than the
former two groups. This finding is in accordance with previous research that states STV are
16
To give some indication of the strength of the relationships found, the effect size (β) found from the
statistically significant comparisons, and the standard error (SE) found from the statistically significant
comparisons are provided: Total effects: β= .723 SE= .286. Indirect effects (mediator: moral norms):
β= .211 SE= .101. Generally, 0.2 is considered a ‘small’ effect, 0.5 a ‘medium’ effect and 0.8 a ‘large’
effect.