Content uploaded by Caroline D. Ditlev-Simonsen
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Caroline D. Ditlev-Simonsen on Apr 14, 2016
Content may be subject to copyright.
1
C. Ditlev-Simonsen Science Based Activism
This is a preprint version of a paper that has appeared as:
Ditlev-Simonsen, C (2015) The Gap between Attitude and Behavior in Environmental
Protection – the Case of Norway. In Stoknes, PE and Eliassen, KA (Eds.) Science Based
Activism, ISBN 978-82-450-1866-0, Bergen; Norway, Fagbokforlaget
For reference to this document, please use the above information.
2
C. Ditlev-Simonsen Science Based Activism
8. The Gap Between Attitude and
Behavior in Environmental Protection
– Case Norway
By Caroline Ditlev-Simonsen
Are members of the public “science-based activists”? To what extent does
improving science-based knowledge actually translate into changed behavior in
market democracies? When behavior fails to follow knowledge, dissonance
increases. This study looks into the issue of blame: Who does the public blame
for the perceived and real gap?
Introduction
The world’s combined consumption of resources has only continued to grow
since the release of the Brundtland Report, “Our Common Future,” over a
quarter-century ago. Today, 1.5 Earths would be required to meet the demands
humanity makes on nature each year (WWF 2014).
People commonly say they are concerned about the environment, prefer
environmentally friendly products and are even willing to pay more for them.
However, most of us choose the least expensive option when we are shopping
(Devinney et al. 2006). The gap between how people believe we should behave
and how we actually behave is a central factor in understanding why we are on
the wrong path. What is behind this gap? And what can we do to change the
pattern? These questions need further exploration.
This chapter is structured as follows: The next section looks at what we know
about the gap between attitude and behavior and connects this understanding to
an individual’s moral and theoretical perspectives, with a focus on neutralization
theory. Section 3 describes five areas – waste disposal, energy conservation, use
of public transportation, use of water-saving showerheads, and purchase of
organic foods – and presents cases that delineate and document the gap between
attitude and behavior. In section 4 we present a survey conducted in three larger
companies, asking who the respondents believe are to blame for this gap. Section
5 discusses the findings and establishes a foundation for proposals to reduce the
gap.
3
C. Ditlev-Simonsen Science Based Activism
Research was conducted in Norway, which is an interesting case because the
standard of living in the country is one of the highest in the world – a standard
many people elsewhere in the world would like to attain. Determining the
attitudes and behavior of citizens with this level of welfare might be a good
indicator of where other societies are heading. Norway’s high standard of living
is also reflected in consumption: It has one of the 20 largest ecological footprints
in the world. If everyone on Earth lived like an average Norwegian, we would
need more than two Earth-sized planets to support them (WWF 2010).
1) Perspectives on issues (de)linking attitude and behavior?
The industrial world’s unsustainable development has led to increased interest
in companies’ social responsibility, or Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR).
Companies are perceived by many as the major threat to sustainable
development because of pollution and their resource use (Carroll 1999).
Companies have responded by taking on social responsibility activity and
reporting (Ditlev-Simonsen 2010). Customer and governmental demands for
social responsibility among companies have increased significantly, but
individuals have not focused on their own environmental and social
responsibility with the same intensity. On the contrary, in many ways it seems as
if the social and ecological morality of the individual has deteriorated.
The morality of the individual
The morality of the individual is closely connected to his or her consumer
behavior. A range of studies have documented that social and ecological morality
at the level of the individual is on the decline.
For example, according to opinion polls conducted by insurance companies
seeking to measure the development of insurance morality among Norwegians
over the past five years, only 70 percent of respondents in all age groups
consider adding a little on top of a claim to be “swindling” the insurance
company, as opposed to 81 percent in 2005 (NTB 2007). As many as 16 percent
of Norwegian employees surveyed in another study believed it is acceptable to
use bribes in the form of cash to expand or maintain an activity (Gedde-Dahl
2009).
In studies conducted in other countries, we see a gap between attitude and
behavior. Though 75 percent of Americans regard themselves as
environmentalists, such social norms do not easily translate into behavioral
changes that impacts consumers’ choices (Osterhus 1997, Chatzidakis, Hibbert,
and Smith 2006). Consumers’ social and ecological morality stops at the wallet;
they say they care about the environment, but when standing in the shopping
aisle they will most likely opt for the cheapest product (Devinney et al. 2006).
Companies that strategize based on market research that shows an increased
demand for environmental products have in many cases suffered losses when
4
C. Ditlev-Simonsen Science Based Activism
people don’t follow up on what they say. In one international study, 50 percent of
those asked replied that they were willing to pay more for organic,
environmentally friendly or fair-trade products, while another study concluded
that the market for ethical products was close to 30 percent. In reality, the
market was only a fraction of what the surveys indicated (Devinney et al. 2006).
Other studies confirm that people are not willing to pay an ”environmental
premium” for green or other environmentally friendly products unless there is
some economic benefit to doing so (Michaud and Llerena 2011).
The major problem in achieving sustainable development is that consumption in
the developed world is too great. Ironically, the people who exhibit such non-
sustainable consumption are those who best understand that it is not
sustainable. Every year a significant number of surveys are conducted to
examine attitudes about and fears of environmental catastrophes. The results
indicate that respondents are concerned about the environment but do not act
on these concerns. Thus we see a large gap between what people believe should
be done with regard to the environment and what they actually do.
Cognitive dissonance
How do we explain this gap between attitude and behavior? In behavioral
psychology, the concept of “cognitive dissonance” is used to describe situations
in which a person does not behave in harmony with what he or she believes is
appropriate or perceives as proper behavior. Smoking is a typical example:
Nearly everyone today knows that smoking is detrimental to health. Nonetheless,
many who smoke continue to do so. Even more surprisingly, many young people
start to smoke. Most of those who continue to smoke have ready excuses, ranging
from “I’m not able to quit” to “The air’s so polluted in the city anyway, it makes
no difference.” Another aspect of cognitive dissonance is the difference between
what we actually do and what we think we are doing.
Behavioral scientists have found that we believe we behave better and more
properly than we actually do (Banaji, Bazerman, and Chugh 2003). A similar
study – of Norwegians’ self-perception – revealed that three of four men believe
they drive better than the average driver (NTB 2009).
Having documented the gap between words and action, how do we explain this
cognitive dissonance? The neutralization theory offers a good framework
(Chatzidakis, Hibbert, and Smith 2006).
The neutralization theory
Sykes and Matza are recognized as the developers of the neutralization concept.
Their theory grew out of an attempt to explain juvenile delinquency (Sykes and
Matza 1957). At the time – over 50 years ago – researchers already agreed that
what pushed youth into criminality was not physical issues or illnesses, but
rather processes and social interaction. Sykes and Matza suggested the following
five major neutralization techniques:
5
C. Ditlev-Simonsen Science Based Activism
The Denial of Responsibility
The Denial of Injury
The Denial of the Victim
The Condemnation of the Condemners
The Appeal to Higher Loyalties
This justification has been used in many different contexts, but surprisingly little
in the study of consumer behavior (Chatzidakis, Hibbert, and Smith 2007). In
2006, Chatzidakis et al. proposed that neutralization theory could also explain
the gap between ethical conviction and unethical behavior (Chatzidakis, Hibbert,
and Smith 2006).
When applied to ethics and environmentalism, neutralization justifications tend
to blend into each other and are difficult to separate. They might be better used
to interpret and categorize an individual’s statements. The goal of this study is
not to just look at what justifications people use to explain the gap between
attitude and behavior, but more specifically, who people blame in seeking to
explain them. This approach should provide a better point of departure for
establishing initiatives to reduce the gap.
Which actors are held responsible for the gap between attitude and
behavior?
This study focuses on the degree to which blame for the gap is placed on each of
the three central actors in society, illustrated in Fig. 1: the individual
(themselves), the society (people around them) and the authorities. We have
chosen not to include companies because in most cases, companies supply what
the market demands (such as low-flow showerheads) – what individuals
collectively want – and therefore base their activities on the demands of the
three central actors. Furthermore, authorities are the supplier in several of the
five areas explored in this study (waste sorting and public transportation, for
example). We will look more closely at companies’ relationship to
environmentally friendly behavior in the last chapter, where findings are
discussed.
6
C. Ditlev-Simonsen Science Based Activism
Fig. 1: Who has responsibility for the gap between attitude and behavior?
Blame themselves
The idea that an individual has a sense of right and wrong – a kind of golden
mean (virtue) – was proposed over 2,000 years ago by Aristotle. The philosophy
is based on the idea that, through continuous training, people can develop a
capacity to do what is right. A somewhat less “noble” path to proper behavior is
related to ethical duty, which is again related to legitimacy. We must (or must
not) do certain things that are not directly connected to laws and regulations if
we want our behavior to be viewed as acceptable or legitimate. A typical and
practical Norwegian example: not eating with your hands when the table is set
with a knife and fork, or not picking your nose in public. There is nothing
unlawful about these behaviors; they are “just not done.” We voluntarily place
constraints on our behavior that are above and beyond the law.
At the same time, it is acceptable to break certain statutory rules, such as
crossing the street against a red light or exceeding the speed limit. This balance
brings into play the concepts of duty and virtue, which can help explain
individuals’ behavior. With respect to the five cases in this study, then, what kind
of moral responsibility does the individual have? To what extent does one have a
duty to behave in an environmentally friendly way?
The golden rule – do unto others as you would have them do unto you – is a
principle of reciprocity found in most religions. The five cases presented in this
study all have to do with such a principle. People believe that one should
participate in source separation, energy economization and public
transportation, and that one should use water sparingly and buy
environmentally friendly products. Nevertheless, individuals will find ways to
justify not doing so – and this is also acceptable.
The question, then, is to what extent the individual should be held responsible
for not behaving in an environmentally friendly way. To what extent does the
Authorities
Society/
others
Individuals/
Themselves
7
C. Ditlev-Simonsen Science Based Activism
individual have a moral obligation to behave in such a manner? To what extent is
environmental concern something that should come from within as opposed to
from without – that is, from society?
Blame society (others)
People are, to a great extent, group-oriented. As herd animals (Naturen 2008) we
follow those around us, which becomes a societal norm. Even when we try to
separate ourselves from our fellow humans – to be unique – we become more
alike. We follow trends and fashions in behavior as well as in clothes and other
consumer products. For example, using a cycling or downhill helmet is not
required by law (as opposed to using seatbelts, which is), but more people are
using them. This is a trend. Research shows that we allow ourselves be
influenced by society even without knowing it (Goldstein, Cialdini, and
Griskevicius 2008).
In the past 30 years it has become increasingly fashionable to behave in an
environmentally friendly way. The strong growth in electric cars is an example.
In years past, driving around in a big, gas-guzzling American car was something
of a status symbol. Today many Norwegians would consider it embarrassing to
do so.
We know we are influenced by our surroundings. But how important is it for our
surroundings to set a good example – with respect to addressing environmental
concerns – and when will this change our behavior? To what extent should
society be held accountable for individuals who don’t behave in an
environmentally friendly way? To what extent do the people around us set the
standard for what is proper behavior?
Blame the authorities
Government authorities are a third actor, beyond the individual and society. The
government is responsible for safeguarding collective benefits related to the
environment. For example, government has changed consumption patterns
through stricter regulations and pricing mechanisms. Previously, people could
dump refuse in the sea and put whatever they wanted in waste containers, but
regulations governing special waste and pricing of waste removal have changed
these behaviors. Fees and taxes on cars and fuel have led to more energy-
efficient cars. At the same time, if initiatives such as these result in higher prices
for resources and extra work for consumers, people may react negatively to
them.
How much responsibility does the government have when individuals do not
behave in an environmentally friendly manner? To what extent do authorities set
the standard for proper behavior?
2) The development of cases – Five cases that describe the gap
between attitude and behavior
8
C. Ditlev-Simonsen Science Based Activism
In this chapter we present five cases that were developed to describe and
illustrate the gap between attitude and behavior. The cases are based on daily
activities that everyone can relate to and involve common resources. They are
fairly typical for environmentally friendly behavior. Also, they are not associated
with any immediate positive consequence for the individual. Instead, the
opposite is true: Source sorting waste involves more work. In the short term, it is
more expensive to install a central heating system. Using public transportation is
usually more expensive, time-consuming and less comfortable than using your
own car. Low-flow showerheads provide less water pressure and less warmth in
the shower. Ecological food is more expensive and the selection is limited.
Individuals who change their behavior in these areas to be more
environmentally friendly contribute positively to our environment, but it will
“cost” them in the short run in the form of inconvenience, constraints or
increased expense.
The size of the gap between attitude and behavior, and the environmental effects,
vary among the different cases..While using collective transportation instead of a
private car has a major impact on the environment, low-flow showerheads have
a limited impact. The diversity and widely varying environmental effects of these
cases makes it even more interesting to compare them with a common format
using the same procedures.
Case 1: Waste sorting (WasteSort)
In 2010, Norwegians threw away an average of 424 kg of waste (SSB 2011). The
amount of waste – both the total amount and the amount per person – has grown
continuously since measurements were first taken. Norwegians threw away 70
percent more waste in 2010 than they did in 1995, for example. Twenty years
ago, most waste was sent to waste disposal sites. Since 1995, material recovery
and biological processing has grown: from approximately 35 percent to 50
percent (Miljøstatus Norge 2011). Source sorting is essential for recycling
material, but requires both time and energy on the part of households. According
to a survey conducted by the Agency for Waste Management, 63 percent of
respondents in Oslo, the capital of Norway, felt that source sorting is one of the
most important and effective ways they could contribute to improving the
environment. Nonetheless, only 40 percent of households where source sorting
had been implemented actually participated in the expanded program. The first
case addresses source sorting and documents the gap between attitude and
behavior:
Sixty-three percent of Oslo residents believe it is very important that
individual households source sort their waste. At the same time, only 40
percent participate in the expanded program for source sorting.
Case 2: Energy economization (EnergySave)
Energy consumption in Norwegian households is among the highest in the world.
Only Iceland uses more energy per person (Bakken 2012). Possibilities for
further development of hydroelectric energy are limited, so importing coal-fired
energy and constructing gasworks are being discussed as ways to meet demand
9
C. Ditlev-Simonsen Science Based Activism
for energy in Norway. Over 60 percent of Norwegians asked say that, in light of
new information about the human contribution to global warming, they will
reduce their energy consumption (Elden 2005). At the same time, according to
the Norwegian Water Resources and Energy Directorate, interest in energy-
saving initiatives is lukewarm.
Central heating systems help reduce electrical consumption because customers
can choose sources of energy that are more environmentally friendly than
electricity, such as heat pumps, solar heating and earth heat (Hansen and Bjåland
2000). The second case, then, addresses energy economization:
Over 60 percent of those asked say that, in light of new information about the
human contribution to global warming, they will reduce their energy
consumption. Central heating systems help reduce electricity consumption.
Nonetheless, only 25 percent of recently completed houses have central heating
systems with floor heating.
Case 3: Use of public transportation (PubTransp)
Automobiles currently account for 20 percent of the world’s CO2 emissions, and
the use of cars continues to grow. Eighty-five percent of all households in
Norway have access to a car (Mikkelsen 2008). More than half of Norwegians say
they will reduce their energy consumption, and 67 percent of the population is
concerned about doing something personally to protect the environment and
natural resources (NSB 2011). Taking a train instead of driving or flying can
substantially reduce negative impacts on the environment. Traveling by train
uses considerably less energy than traveling by car or plane
(www.kollektivkampanjen.no). The third case addresses public transportation:
Sixty-seven percent of Norwegians are concerned about doing something
personally to protect the environment and natural resources. Nonetheless, only 4
percent choose a train when they travel.
Case 4: Use of low-flow showerheads (ShowerS)
Today, a daily bath or shower is normal in Norway. A bath uses approximately
200 liters of water (7kWh energy). A five-minute shower uses only half that
amount: 100 liters. Low-flow showerheads can reduce this amount even further,
by half (Enøksenteret 1999).
Energy consumption can be significantly reduced, therefore, by using low-flow
showerheads. Makers of showerheads have worked to develop better low-flow
technology that save water without – according to the manufacturers –
sacrificing the pleasure of the shower. Still, sales of low-flow showerheads have
not taken off. The fourth case addresses low-flow showerheads:
Over 60 percent of those asked say that, in light of new information regarding
the human contribution to global warming, they will reduce their energy
consumption. Nonetheless, low-flow showerheads account for only 25 percent
of sales in the private market (despite increased marketing efforts).
10
C. Ditlev-Simonsen Science Based Activism
Case 5: Ecological products (EcoFood)
Ecological agriculture is founded on the principles of health, ecology, fairness
and caution. Ecological foods are characterized by minimal use of additives,
attention to the welfare of livestock, and no use of chemical sprays
(matportalen.no). Norwegians are not concerned about ecological foods,
however, so some producers are considering giving up their ecofoods (NTB
2011).
Authorities prefer higher production of ecological food in Norway, so the
Ministry of Agriculture and Food has set a goal that, by 2020, 15 percent of
production and consumption will be ecological (Landbruks- og
matdepartementet 2009). However, ecological foods are on average 40 percent
more expensive than conventional foods. While 3 percent of what farmers
produce today is ecological, consumers buy only 1 percent ecological (Svartdal
2007). The fifth case addresses ecological products:
Forty-four percent of respondents say they are willing to pay more for
environmentally and socially responsible products. The government has set a
goal that, by 2020, 15 percent of food sales will consist of ecological products.
While 3 percent of what farmers produce is ecological, only 1 percent of the
food we buy is ecological (the remaining 2 percent is a mix of standard foods).
Based on these five cases and following the neutralization theory presented in
Chapter 2, we will explore what people believe to be the reason for these gaps
between attitude and behavior.
3) Testing the cases – Survey of who is responsible for the gap
Based on the cases above, this chapter will explore who people blame for the gap
between attitude and behavior, in order to explain it.
Methods and data
To investigate how the average Norwegian explains the gap between attitude
and behavior, we contacted three large Norwegian companies with a combined
workforce of 14,000 employees. We had access to a randomly selected group of
120 to 220 employees from each company, for a total of 540 people, with a
response rate of 54 percent.
Two challenges are associated with a survey of such sensitive areas as attitudes
and behavior. First, respondents tend to glorify their behavior in their answers.
Also, they tend to give answers that are socially but not always factually correct,
called an SDR, or “socially desirable response” (Chung & Monroe 2003, Zerbe &
Paulhus 1987). To minimize the possibility of SDRs in this study, we avoided
asking respondents to evaluate themselves. Instead, we asked them to assess
what they think most people believe is responsible for the gap between attitude
11
C. Ditlev-Simonsen Science Based Activism
and behavior in the five areas we were investigating. This procedure, called
“proxy,” is recommended for reducing response bias (Paulhus 1991).
We did not ask about gender, income, age, education or other demographic
variables in the questionnaire. The reason for this is twofold. First, previous
studies have shown that these parameters have little impact on ethical behavior,
which is integrated into an individual’s psyche independent of demographic
variables (Devinney et al. 2006). Also, excluding demographic questions helps
reinforce anonymity. Thus respondents were less likely to filter their answers in
accordance with SDR.
On the questionnaire, respondents were asked to cross off, in order, who they
blamed for the gap between attitude and behavior: 1) themselves, 2) society or
3) authorities. Respondents were asked to rank these alternatives on a scale of 1
to 5 (1 = irrelevant, 5 = very relevant). An additional sentence was provided to
explain the alternatives. The questionnaire was anonymous and distributed
electronically.
Results
The results of the survey are presented in Fig. 2. Attachment 1 includes the
statistical analysis, which shows that the distribution of blame within each of the
five areas is statistically significant (0.005 level), with one exception. The
combined findings show that people blame all three of the actors (themselves,
society and authorities), but to varying degrees.
Fig. 2: Whom the respondents believe people blame in order to explain the gap in the five
cases, on a scale of 1 to 5 (1 = irrelevant, 5 = very relevant).
On the whole, respondents blamed authorities for the gap between attitude and
behavior. Thus, people believe that authorities should step in to reduce the gap.
Authorities are regarded as having the greatest responsibility in the area of
0
0,5
1
1,5
2
2,5
3
3,5
4
4,5
5
WasteSort EnergySave PubTransp ShowerS EcoFood
Themselves Society Authorities
12
C. Ditlev-Simonsen Science Based Activism
public transportation (more frequent departures with fewer delays), followed by
responsibility for generating initiatives for energy economization (mandatory
and less expensive), ecological food (lower prices and better choices) and, finally,
waste management (simpler and more practical).
Using low-flow showerheads was the only area where respondents felt people
have the most responsibility; i.e. where they blamed themselves. This can be
explained by the fact that authorities are limited in what they can do to make
people switch to low-flow showerheads.
With respect to waste management and energy economization, results indicate
that society places second, after authorities, in terms of blame assigned. One
possible interpretation is that if it were more common to source sort and engage
in energy economization, more people would do it. An example seems to bear
this out: The sorting ratio is greater in single-unit dwellings that have their own
waste containers than it is in housing cooperatives with a shared container.
In the areas of public transportation, low-flow showerheads and ecological foods,
placing the blame on society – i.e., trends in the population – comes in third.
Here, it is assumed we are less influenced by herd mentality.
For waste sorting and energy economization, self-blame comes in third, which
means that in these areas respondents believe people blame themselves the
least. With respect to public transportation and purchase of ecological foods, self-
blame comes in second (public transportation significance p < 0.20), which
suggests that people take more responsibility for behaving properly.
Conclusion
The cases presented here show that people recognize environmental challenges
and believe we should adapt our behavior to achieve sustainable development.
At the same time, the study shows that people do not always behave as they feel
they should. In five cases – waste disposal, energy conservation, use of public
transportation, use of water-saving showerheads, and purchase of organic foods
– we found that different actors are assigned varying degrees of responsibility
for this gap, though the primary blame is placed on authorities. The study found
that people do not believe encouraging individuals to voluntarily behave in an
environmentally friendly manner will lead to a major shift in consumer behavior.
People know what environmentally friendly behavior is about, but they are not
inclined to voluntarily take on the negative consequences, such as more work,
less freedom, unpleasantness and increased costs.
The study found that people are open to intervention by authorities to facilitate
sustainable development. This finding might reflect individuals trying to excuse
their own inactions, or provide an impetus for authorities to engage in
sustainability regulations.
13
C. Ditlev-Simonsen Science Based Activism
An interesting avenue for further study would be to conduct the same study in
countries with different standards of living and political settings.
We would like to extend our gratitude to the UNI Foundation for supporting this
study through donations.
14
C. Ditlev-Simonsen Science Based Activism
Bibliography
Bakken, Jenny Dahl. 2012. "Nordmenn bruker mest strøm i verden." Nationen,
04.04.2012, http://www.nationen.no/tunmedia/nordmenn-bruker-mest-strom-i-
verden/ Accessed November 21, 2014.
Banaji, Mahzarin R., Max H. Bazerman, and Dolly Chugh. 2003. "How (Un)Ethical
Are You?" Harvard Business Review no. 81 (12):56-64.
Carroll, Archie B. 1999. "Corporate social responsibility." Business & Society no. 38
(3):268.
Chatzidakis, Andreas, Sally Hibbert, and Andrew Smith. 2006. ""Ethically
Concerned, yet Unethically Behaved": Towards an Updated Understanding of
Consumer's (Un)ethical Decision Making." Advances in Consumer Research
no. 33 (1):693-698.
Chatzidakis, Andreas, Sally Hibbert, and Andrew P. Smith. 2007. "Why people don't
take their concerns about fair trade to the supermarket: The role of
neutralisation." Journal of Business Ethics no. 74:90-100.
Devinney, Timothy, Patrice Auger, Gina Eckhardt, and Thoma Birtchnell. 2006. "The
Other CSR." Stanford Social Innovation review no. Fall
2006:www.ssireview.org.
Ditlev-Simonsen, Caroline D. 2010. "Historical Account of Key Words in Non-
Financial Report Titles." Issues in Social & Environmental Accounting no. 4
(2):136-148.
Enøksenteret. 2012. Enøk i hjemmet - bad eller dusj,
http://www.husogheim.no/1/1_58.html 1999 [cited February 27 2012].
Gedde-Dahl, siri. 2009. "Ok med bestikkelser, 23.05.2009, side 16." Aftenposten.
Goldstein, Noah J., Robert B. Cialdini, and Vladas Griskevicius. 2008. "A Room with
a Viewpoint: Using Social Norms to Motivate Environmental Conservation in
Hotels." Journal of Consumer Research no. 35 (3):472-482.
Hansen, Asle, and Nils Bjåland. 2000. "Spar penger: Vann i gulvet, 18.10.2000." VG.
Landbruks- og matdepartementet. 2009. Handlingsplan for å nå målet om 15 pst.
økologisk produksjon og forbruk i 2020 Økonomisk, agronomisk –
økologisk!
Michaud, Céline, and Daniel Llerena. 2011. "Green consumer behaviour: an
experimental analysis of willingness to pay for remanufactured products."
Business Strategy & the Environment no. 20 (6):408-420.
15
C. Ditlev-Simonsen Science Based Activism
Mikkelsen, Gunnar S. 27.02.2012. Bedre veier NÅ!
http://www.bedreveier.org/persontrafikk.html 200827.02.2012].
Miljøstatus Norge. 27.02.2012. Avfall og gjenvinning,
http://www.miljostatus.no/tema/Avfall/Avfall-og-gjenvinning/
201127.02.2012].
Naturen. 2008. "Vi er flokkdyr." Illustrert vitenskap,
http://illvit.no/naturen/levesteder/vi-er-flokkdyr no. 15:40-47.
NSB. 2011. Personlig kommunikasjon, October 31, 2011.
NTB. 2007. "Flere godtar forsikringssvindel,
http://www.dn.no/forsiden/naringsliv/article1197267.ece." (08.10.2007 ).
NTB. 2009. "Bilister tror for godt om seg selv
http://www.abcnyheter.no/nyheter/090714/bilister-tror-godt-om-seg-selv."
ABC nyheter, 14.07.2009.
NTB. 2011. "Nortura vurderer å gi opp økomat, 03.08.2011." Aften, 10.
Osterhus, Thomas L. 1997. "Pro-social consumer influence strategies: When and how
do they work?" Journal of Marketing no. 61 (4):16.
Paulhus, Delroy L. 1991. "Measurement and Control of Response Bias." In Measures
of personality and social psychological attitudes, edited by J.P. Robinson, P.R.
Shaver & L.S. Wrightsman, 17-59. San Diego, CA: Academic Press, Inc.
SSB. 2012. Mindre avfall til deponi, http://www.ssb.no/emner/01/05/10/avfkomm/
2011 [cited February 27 2012].
Svartdal, Tormod. 2012. Økologisk mat - for dyrt?, www.naturvernforbundet.no 2007
[cited 09.09 2012].
Sykes, Gresham M, and David Matza. 1957. "Technizues of Neutralization: A theory
of Delinquency." American Sociological Review no. 22 (6 (Dec.)):664-670.
WWF. 2012. Living Planet Report.
http://www.wwf.no/dette_jobber_med/norsk_natur/naturmangfold/okologisk_f
otavtrykk/ 2010 [cited February 29 2012].
WWF. 2014. Living Planet Report 2014. edited by
http://wwf.panda.org/about_our_earth/all_publications/living_planet_report/.
16
C. Ditlev-Simonsen Science Based Activism
17
C. Ditlev-Simonsen Science Based Activism
Attachment 1
Paired Samples Test
Paired Differences
t
df
Sig. (2-
tailed)
Mean
Std.
Deviation
Std. Error
Mean
95% Confidence
Interval of the
Difference
Lower
Upper
Pair 1
WasteSort1 - WasteSort3
-1,08571
1,75695
,11225
-1,30681
-,86462
-9,672
244
,000
Pair 2
WasteSort2 - WasteSort3
-,64490
1,46280
,09345
-,82898
-,46082
-6,901
244
,000
Pair 3
WasteSort1 - WasteSort2
-,44262
1,86167
,11918
-,67738
-,20786
-3,714
243
,000
Pair 4
EnergySave1 -
EnergySave3
-2,20408
1,52277
,09729
-2,39571
-2,01245
-22,656
244
,000
Pair 5
EnergySave2 -
EnergySave3
-1,70445
1,40762
,08956
-1,88087
-1,52804
-19,030
246
,000
Pair 6
EnergySave1 -
EnergySave2
-,49187
1,40478
,08957
-,66829
-,31545
-5,492
245
,000
Pair 7
PubTransp1 - PubTransp3
-1,99603
1,54739
,09748
-2,18801
-1,80406
-20,477
251
,000
Pair 8
PubTransp2 - PubTransp3
-2,15385
1,42873
,09091
-2,33290
-1,97479
-23,693
246
,000
Pair 9
PubTransp1 - PubTransp2
,13765
1,63215
,10385
-,06690
,34220
1,325
246
,186
Pair 10
ShowerS1 - ShowerS3
,37052
2,07898
,13122
,11207
,62896
2,824
250
,005
Pair 11
ShowerS2 - ShowerS3
-,64919
1,18438
,07521
-,79732
-,50106
-8,632
247
,000
Pair 12
ShowerS1 - ShowerS2
1,02823
1,78705
,11348
,80472
1,25173
9,061
247
,000
Pair 13
EcoFood1 - EcoFood3
-1,52174
1,51334
,09514
-1,70912
-1,33436
-15,994
252
,000
Pair 14
EcoFood2 - EcoFood3
-1,86853
1,46787
,09265
-2,05100
-1,68605
-20,167
250
,000
Pair 15
EcoFood1 - EcoFood2
,33865
1,52606
,09632
,14894
,52836
3,516
250
,001
Explaining example:
WasteSort1= Blame one self, WasteSort 2=Blame society, WasteSort3=Blame authorities
