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.