Journal of Consumer Behaviour

J. Consumer Behav. 6: 32–47 (2007)

Published online in Wiley InterScience
(www.interscience.wiley.com) DOI: 10.1002/cb.206

Consumer recycling: Role of

incentives, information,
and social class
Easwar S. Iyer 1* and Rajiv K. Kashyap 2
1
Isenberg School of Management, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA 01003, USA
2
Department of Marketing and Management, Cotsakos College of Business,
William Paterson University, Wayne, NJ, USA

More and more communities have instituted recycling programs and consumer recycling
is no longer a new fad; it is here to stay. However, consumer commitment to recycling and
participation rates have leveled off. Whereas lack of access to recycling facilities was cited
as a key inhibitor to participation in the early days of recycling, that is generally not the
case anymore. Thus there is an imperative to revisit consumer recycling by focusing on
behavioral issues that reflect today’s context. In this study we review the past literature
and propose a comprehensive model of consumer recycling. We identify two intervention
mechanisms – incentives or information – that are believed to increase recycling
participation. We, then, describe a longitudinal field experiment to evaluate the relative
merits of these intervention programs. We conclude that either intervention program is
effective, although informational programs appear to have more long-term effects than
incentive programs. We also create a new measure of social class, one that includes other
influential actors’ characteristics, and show its relationship to recycling attitudes and
behaviors.
Copyright # 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Introduction looning to 200 million tons in 1990 (Oskamp

The visible technical and economic successes
in the 20th century have enhanced standards
of living, while simultaneously placing a heavy
toll on our natural environment (Carson,
1962). One such impact can be seen in the
generation of household waste, which, in the
U.S.A., was only 7 million tons in 1960,
jumping to 160 million tons in 1989 (U.S.
House of Representatives, 1989), before bal-
*Correspondence to: Easwar S. Iyer, Isenberg School of
Management, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA
01003, USA.
E-mail: iyer@mktg.umass.edu
et al., 1991). In 2001, it was estimated to be
229 million tons (www.epa.gov); this works
out to 4.4 pounds of waste per person per day,
up from 2.7 pounds per person per day in
1960. Landfilling has been the traditional
solution, but for a number of reasons its
appeal continues to erode. Household recy-
cling is an increasingly popular solution, but to
extract its full benefits we need a thorough
understanding of technical and behavioral
issues. In this study we focus exclusively on
the behavioral aspects and try to answer
the central question: How can we get more
people to recycle more frequently and how

Copyright # 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, Jan.–Feb. 2007
DOI: 10.1002/cb
Consumer recycling
can we help them sustain these behaviors?
Our report is sequenced as follows: first, we
review the literature and present a conceptual
model of recycling behavior; second, we
discuss our choice of independent factors
and derive hypotheses; third, we describe
our longitudinal field experiment; fourth, we
present our results; fifth, and finally, we
discuss our findings’ implications and offer
some recommendations.
Factors influencing recycling
Researchers from many disciplines have stu-
died recycling and depending on their dis-
cipline’s orientation, they have selectively
focused on some factors to explain why
people recycle. For instance, economist
tended to study the role of incentives,
particularly monetary incentives, whereas
social psychologists preferred to see how
motivational appeals, especially altruism or
guilt, influenced this behavior. This has
resulted in a wide and disparate array of
factors without any comprehensive theoretical
model of recycling behaviors. Based on a
meta-analysis of 67 published empirical stu-
dies, Hornik et al. (1995) theorized that there
were four antecedent factors, that is, extrinsic
incentives, intrinsic incentives, external facil-
itators, and internal facilitators, which influ-
enced recycling behaviors. The modest dis-
tinction between incentives and facilitators led
Kashyap and Iyer (2001) to abbreviate and
group all the antecedents into two, that is,
internal and external motivators. For our
current research, we have adapted this
version, but included a third factor, that is,
individual characteristics. In summary, we
postulate that internal motivators, external
motivators, and individual characteristics (see
Figure 1) collectively influence recycling
intentions and behaviors.
Internal motivators
These include an individual’s environmental
values, beliefs, and attitudes. Given the failure
Copyright # 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
33
Figure 1. Factors influencing recycling behavior.
to discriminate recyclers from nonrecyclers
based on their general environmental attitudes
(Gray 1985; Vining and Ebreo, 1990; Oskamp
et al., 1991; Derksen and Gartrell, 1993;
Gamba and Oskamp, 1994), the link to
recycling values, beliefs, and attitudes is
tenuous. The partial overlapping of the
domains of environmental and recycling
attitudes led Kashyap and Iyer (2001) to
suggest that recycling attitudes are influenced
by factors other than just environmental
attitudes.
Bratt (1999) has offered two reasons for
recycling behavior not being strongly related
to general environmental behaviors. In one,
consumers are hypothesized to compartmen-
talize their behaviors into various sectors, that
is, energy, transportation, recycling, etc.
Behaviors in one sector do not necessarily
have an impact on attitudes or behaviors in
other sectors because they are only sector
specific. In the second, consumers are postu-
lated to behave in a manner that compensates
their excesses in one domain with a deficit in
another domain. Cycling to work instead of
driving, and yet not bothering to recycle might
be an example of compensation.
More recently, McCarty and Shrum (2001)
modeled the influence of three values –
individualism, collectivism, and locus of con-
trol – on recycling behaviors. Specifically they
found that individualism negatively influenced
recycling behavior because that relationship
was mediated by the perceived inconvenience
of recycling. On the other hand, collectivism
positively influenced recycling behaviors since
Journal of Consumer Behaviour, Jan.–Feb. 2007
DOI: 10.1002/cb
34
that relationship was mediated by the per-
ceived importance of recycling. Since people
can simultaneously hold individualistic and
collectivistic values, communicating the need
to recycle becomes a challenge.
External motivators
These include all the external agents that can
be theoretically or empirically linked to
recycling attitudes, intentions, and behaviors.
Access to recycling facilities (Curlee, 1986) and
the setting in which recycling behavior is
either promoted or occurs have been shown to
influence recycling propensity. Berger and
Kanetkar (1996) found that recycling in the
workplace influenced household recycling
behaviors. Similarly, Kashyap and Iyer (2001)
documented a significant relationship between
home-based recycling and attitude toward
recycling. Laws and regulations are influential
external agents that increase the pressure
upon an individual to recycle (Business Week,
1989, p.154). Societal norms and peer or
community pressure are other external agents
that increase an individual’s motivation to
recycle (Granzin and Olsen, 1991; Lord, 1994;
Taylor and Todd, 1995). The second most
important reason for recycling was the per-
ceived pressure from neighbors (Gamba and
Oskamp, 1994), thus validating the success of
publicly visible curbside programs (Reid et al.,
1976; Humphrey et al., 1977).
Various forms of monetary incentives serve
as external motivators of recycling behaviors.
Prizes (Luyben and Bailey, 1979) and lotteries
(Diamond and Loewy, 1991) have been
shown to positively influence recycling rates,
although their long-term impact is unknown.
The role of information as an agent of
influence is less well studied, although the
importance of consumer knowledge is well
established (Ellen, 1994; Diamantopoulos
et al., 2003). Even in the few studies that
manipulated information, it was generally
restricted to information about the existence
of a recycling program (Hopper and Nielson,
1991; Porter et al., 1995) as opposed to
Copyright # 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Easwar S. Iyer and Rajiv K. Kashyap
information on the benefits of recycling. On
the other hand, information that increases a
consumer’s knowledge about recycling and its
potential impact must positively influence
recycling attitudes and behaviors. This has
received no attention in the literature.
Individual characteristics
We mean to include an individual’s demo-
graphic identifiers and cognitive capabilities.
Except gender, most of the demographic
characteristics seem to be unrelated to recy-
cling behaviors (Mohai and Twight, 1987;
Stern et al., 1993; Berger, 1997). Many
researchers have reported the vital role of
education in determining whether one
recycles or not (Ostman and Parker, 1988;
Vining and Ebreo, 1990, 1992; Lansana, 1992;
Lakhan and Lavalle, 2002). Recyclers seem to
have superior knowledge and awareness of
recycling programs (Tasady, 1991), suggesting
their importance in influencing recycling
behaviors.
Roberts (1996, p. 82) suggests that demo-
graphics, taken collectively, account for less
than 8 per cent of the variance in socially
responsible consumer behavior. Part of the
reason could be because ‘all aspects of the
environmental consciousness construct’ may
not have been investigated (Diamantopoulos
et al., 2003, p. 467). In other words,
environmental consciousness is complex and
comprehensive construct, and to better study
its antecedents, we need to specify and
measure all its aspects. Besides the complexity
of the construct of recycling, single demo-
graphic indicators are too limited in their
predictive scope. In fact, many decades ago,
Coleman (1960) and Schaninger (1981),
among others, argued that multi-item
indicators like social class have greater pre-
dictive power than single item measures like
income. Thus, we feel that a more compre-
hensive measure, one that includes multiple
socio-demographic measures such as social
class, will have better predictive power
(Heath, 1998).
Journal of Consumer Behaviour, Jan.–Feb. 2007
DOI: 10.1002/cb
Consumer recycling
Independent factors used in our
study – incentives and information
Incentives
In the broadest of senses, the term ‘incentives’
can be used to include positive rewards
(incentives) or negative rewards (disincen-
tives); the rewards themselves can be monet-
ary or psychological in nature. Prizes and
lotteries are examples of positive monetary
rewards whereas tax would exemplify a
negative monetary reward. Similarly, recog-
nition would be an example of a positive
psychological reward whereas sanctions or
rebukes would be negative psychological
rewards. We limit our review to positive
monetary rewards.
The importance of monetary incentives in
trash management is well established (Burgess
et al., 1971; Clark et al., 1972). In the 1971
study, children at a movie theater were
exposed to different litter-reduction treat-
ments that included free litterbags, an instruc-
tional movie, extra trashcans placed more
conspicuously, or an incentive. Even modest
rewards, such as the 10 cents or a free movie
ticket, led to a two- to-threefold increase in the
amount of litter collected. The 1972 sequel
done at a campground produced identical
results. Luyben and Bailey (1979) structured
the monetary reward to increase with the
poundage of recycled paper brought to the
center and found that rewards had a signifi-
cantly greater impact on recycling than just
providing additional access to recycling.
What is the best way to offer a monetary
reward? Is a definite reward of $1 better or
worse than 1/8 chance of winning $8? In spite
of an identical expected value, Diamond and
Loewy (1991) found that probabilistic rewards
led to more attitude change than definite
rewards. Are individual rewards better than
group rewards? Geller et al. (1975) compared
two types of incentives: a raffle for individuals
versus a contest for the entire group. Whereas
the amount of recycled paper increased in
both conditions, it was significantly higher in
the raffle condition as compared to the contest
condition. Diamond and Loewy (1991) found
Copyright # 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
35
similar results, suggesting that individual
rewards may be a stronger motivator than
group rewards.
Is the monetary cost of the incentives
justified through increase recovery? In the
only study known to us, Porter et al. (1995)
estimated that only 30 per cent of the cost of
intervention is recovered. Whether more of
the costs will be recovered over a longer
period or other forms of intervention will
prove to be more cost effective is unknown.
Employing another form of intervention and
using a longitudinal design, we hope to shed
some light on these questions.
Information
Information can mean two related concepts,
that is, communication or knowledge. When
used to mean ‘communication,’ the success of
an informational intervention depends on the
interplay among content, media, and format.
We are more interested in ‘information as
knowledge’ and its role in influencing recy-
cling behaviors.
Written and verbal informational prompts
have been employed to increase recycling
behaviors. Jacobs et al. (1984) found that
informational brochures delivered to individ-
ual households increased participation rates by
6 per cent. More recently two studies used the
informational interventions in the form of
block leaders, although they differed in their
findings. In one such study, block leaders
disseminated information and as a result
increased the number of households partici-
pating by 16 per cent (Burn, 1991). In a
companion study, Hopper and Nielson (1991)
found the ‘block leader’ approach to infor-
mation dissemination to be only marginally
better than an informational brochure. These
discrepant findings were attributed to the
differing socio-economic status in the two
studies (Everett and Peirce, 1991–1992).
Information can enhance declarative
knowledge, that is, what is involved in
recycling, or procedural knowledge, that is,
how to recycle (Gagne et al., 1993). In a recent
study, women with diabetes were placed in
Journal of Consumer Behaviour, Jan.–Feb. 2007
DOI: 10.1002/cb
36
various treatment conditions (Miller et al.,
1999). In one condition, subjects participated
in a 90-minute information session once a
week for 9 weeks. Compared to a control
group, these subjects had greater declarative
and procedural knowledge; as a result they
were more confident in using food label
information. Likewise, we expect that provid-
ing individuals with information on what is
recycling (declarative knowledge) and how to
recycle (procedural knowledge) will modify
their attitude toward recycling and future
recycling behaviors. We also predict that the
changes resulting from an information inter-
vention will last longer than those resulting
from an incentive intervention. In other words,
the wear out that follows any intervention will
be much less in case of information-based
intervention programs.
Summary of hypothesis
H1: Providing incentives will positively
influence recycling behaviors and recy-
cling output.
H2: Providing information about recycling
will positively influence recycling beha-
viors and recycling output.
H3: Providing information, as compared
to offering incentives, will have a longer
lasting impact on recycling behaviors and
recycling output.
H4: Social class will influence recycling
behaviors.
Methodology: a longitudinal field
experiment
Design
Our study’s design is best described as a
longitudinal field experiment lasting over
4 months. Two residence hall clusters at two
Copyright # 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Easwar S. Iyer and Rajiv K. Kashyap
different locations on the campus of a large
university served as our experimental sites.
These clusters were identified based upon
their similarity in size and composition of the
residents. There were four measurement
periods – baseline, 1st wave, 2nd wave, and
3rd wave – when weights of recycled paper,
glass, and the amount of contamination were
recorded; these were used as measures of
recycling output. We also distributed a survey
at both sites. Selected items from the survey
were used to measure social class, environ-
mental attitude and behavior, and recycling
attitude and behavior.
Our design had five strengths. First, unlike
most of the prior research (see Roberts, 1995,
1996; Diamantopoulos et al., 2003 for review
of past studies), we measured actual recycling
output. Second, we triangulated by including
traditional self-reported measures of attitudes
and behaviors as well. Third, the longitudinal
design allowed us to track recycling output
over time. Fourth, our experimental design
enabled us to study the relative impact of
incentives and information. Fifth, and finally,
by conducting a field experiment, we
enhanced the ‘realness’ of our study. There
are two limitations. First, the intervention and
recycling output measures applied at the
group level. Second, being a field study, we
had no control over extraneous factors that
could have influenced our results. On balance
our design allowed us to compare the relative
merits of incentives and information over
time.
Intervention
The two external motivators, that is, incentives
and information, represented our experimen-
tal interventions. After baseline measures were
recorded over a 2-week period, at one site
we publicly announced sponsoring a party for
the residence hall that had the highest amount
of recycled materials over 4 months. We will
refer to this site as the ‘Incentive Site.’ At the
same time, in the other site, we began an
information dissemination program focused on
Journal of Consumer Behaviour, Jan.–Feb. 2007
DOI: 10.1002/cb
Consumer recycling
increasing the declarative and procedural
knowledge of participants at this site. The
program included thrice-a-week demon-
strations on recycling and once-a-week mailbox
inserts on the how and why to recycle. We will
call this as the ‘Information Site.’ The inter-
ventions lasted for two more time periods that
we have already referred to as 1st and 2nd
waves.
Measures
We used four dependent measures at the
individual level – recycling attitudes, recycling
behaviors, environmental attitudes, and
environmental behaviors. We also had four
dependent measures at the group level –
recycling output for paper and glass, and
contamination for paper and glass. We
included demographic measures used to
identify social class; this was our independent
variable.
We measured individual level recycling
attitudes using 10 items and individual level
recycling behaviors using 5 items. Individual
level environmental attitude was measured
using 15 items and individual level environ-
mental behavior was measured using 13 items.
The dependent measures that resulted by
summing the seven-Likert scale, had relia-
bilities ranging from 0.88 to 0.95. Recycling
output was measured in terms of the amount
of recycled paper collected in the blue bins and
recycled glass collected in the red bins at each
site. The bins at the two experimental sites
bore a special hidden marking, not noticeable
to the participants, but known only to the staff.
Bins from the experimental sites were taken to
the processing facility where, at first, any
contamination was separated and kept aside
for further future analysis. The remaining
contents were weighed to the nearest pound;
this constituted recycling output. Spot checks
revealed no errors in this measurement. Next
the already separated contaminants were
weighed to the nearest one-half pound. This
represented contamination; there was one
measure for recycled paper and one for
recycled glass.
Copyright # 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
37
Traditionally social class measures include
three inputs: family income, education, and
occupation of only the respondent. We
expanded our measure to include parents’
scores on education and occupation as well.
Thus, in all, five ordinal scales – household
income, level of both parent’s education, and
parent’s occupations1 – were summed; the
minimum score was 6 and the maximum was
32 (See Appendix for details). This score was
used to categorize an individual’s social class.
Results
Sample profile
The Information site consisted of two resi-
dence halls accommodating 633 students,
made up of 341 males (54%) and 292 females
(46%). The Incentive site also contained two
residence halls with a total of 806 students
made up of 458 males (57%) and 348 females
(43%). Students at both sites were between 20
and 23 years of age. Overall, the two sites were
well matched on age and gender.
Overview of analysis
Recycling output was measured in terms of the
poundage of paper and glass collected in
recycling bins at sites. There were four
measurement periods: baseline, 1st wave,
2nd wave, and 3rd wave; each measurement
period consisted of 2 consecutive weeks. The
2-week window helped avoid unusual swings
in the poundage that may have been caused by
parties, shorter workweeks or extended week-
ends, and so forth. We focused on four
comparisons:
1. Inter-period comparisons of the volume of
recycled paper and glass between the treat-
ment sites (Table 1)
2. Comparisons of recycled paper and glass
relative to baseline at both treatment sites
(Figures 2 and 3)
1
We have treated occupation as an interval variable as has
been done by others in the past (Travis and Kohli, 1995).
Journal of Consumer Behaviour, Jan.–Feb. 2007
DOI: 10.1002/cb
38 Easwar S. Iyer and Rajiv K. Kashyap

Table 1. Pounds of recycled paper and glass at information and incentive sites

Information Site Incentive Site

Paper % Da Glass % Da Total % Da lbs/Student Paper % Da Glass % Da Total % Da lbs/Student

Baseline 147 NA 388 NA 535 NA 0.85 250 NA 318 NA 568 NA 0.70

1st wave 481 227.2 459 18.3 940 75.7 1.48 441 76.4 444 39.6 885 55.8 1.10
2nd wave 505 5.0 476 3.7 981 4.4 1.55 512 16.1 484 9.1 996 12.5 1.24
3rd wave 367 27.3 463 2.7 830 15.4 1.31 545 6.5 185 61.8 730 26.7 0.91

NA: Not Applicable.

a
Inter-period comparisons.

3. Comparisons of total contamination and
contamination rates at both sites (Table 2)
4. Social class differences and its impact on
recycling attitude and behavior (Tables 3
and 4)
Inter-period comparison of recycling
output between treatment sites
The interventions had positive effects at both
sites, thus supporting H1 and H2. At the
Information site, the amount of recycled
materials increased dramatically from 535 lbs
(0.85 lb per student) during the baseline to
940 lbs (1.48 lbs per student) in the first wave,
an increase of over 75per cent. The increase
(55.8%) at the Incentive site was similar,
growing from 568 lbs (0.7 lb per student)
during baseline to 885 lbs (1.1 lb per student)
at the first wave. It is interesting to note that
both the volume of paper and glass recycled
showed a remarkable increase at both sites. At
the Information site, the volume of paper more
than doubled (227.2% increase) from 147 lbs at

Figure 2. Recycled paper and glass at education site.

Copyright # 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, Jan.–Feb. 2007
DOI: 10.1002/cb
Consumer recycling 39

Figure 3. Recycled paper and glass at incentive site.

Table 2. Pounds of contamination and contamination rates at information and incentive sites

Site/Time Paper (lbs) Rate (%) Glass (lbs) Rate (%) Total (lbs) Rate (%)

Information
Baseline 2 1.36 8 2.06 10 1.87
1st wave 11 2.29 16 3.49 27 2.87
2nd wave 5 0.99 21 4.41 28 2.85
3rd wave 8 2.18 8 1.73 16 1.93
Incentive
Baseline 2.5 1.00 6.5 2.04 9 1.58
1st wave 7 1.59 8 1.80 15 1.69
2nd wave 7 1.37 12 2.48 19 1.91
3rd wave 5 0.92 7 3.78 12 1.64

Table 3. Effects of gender and social class on environmental and recycling attitudes and behaviors

Source F values

df Environmental attitude Environmental behavior Recycling attitude Recycling behavior

Effects
Gender 1 7.062 14.036 3.210 4.605
Social class 2 1.293 0.829 3.087 3.651


p < 0.10;

p < 0.05;

p < 0.01.

Copyright # 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, Jan.–Feb. 2007
DOI: 10.1002/cb
40 Easwar S. Iyer and Rajiv K. Kashyap

Table 4. Comparison of means and standard deviations for lower, middle, and high social class groups

N Mean SD SE Min Max

Environmental attitude
Lower 35 87.74 10.05 1.75 65 105
Middle 132 84.17 13.71 1.22 46 105
Upper 38 82.79 15.72 2.55 25 105
Total 205 84.53 13.59 0.95 25 105
Environmental behavior
Lower 35 49.94 10.94 1.90 21 68
Middle 132 46.86 15.88 1.39 13 84
Upper 38 45.26 17.08 2.77 14 91
Total 205 47.09 15.39 1.07 13 91
Recycling attitude
Lower 35 63.23 6.40 1.10 46 70
Middle 132 59.89 11.19 0.94 16 70
Upper 38 56.71 13.50 2.19 11 70
Total 205 59.87 11.14 0.78 11 70
Recycling behavior
Lower 35 29.17 4.99 0.86 19 35
Middle 132 26.34 5.94 0.52 5 35
Upper 38 26.44 4.94 0.80 15 35
Total 205 26.84 5.69 0.40 5 35

baseline to 481 lbs at first wave. At the
Incentive site, the increase was not as
dramatic, but the volume of paper grew
(76.4%) from 250 to 441 lbs. The volume of
glass increased from 388 to 459 lbs at the
Information site (18.3%) and from 318 to
444 lbs at the Incentive site (39.6%).
Total volume of recycled materials contin-
ued to grow modestly at both sites during the
second period. At the Information site, the
volume increased (4.4%) from 940 to 981 lbs
during the second wave. At the Incentive site,
the increase was larger (12.5%), going from
885 to 996 lbs. On a per student basis this
corresponded to an increase from 1.48 to
1.55 lbs at the Information site and from 1.10 to
1.23 lbs at the Incentive site. The volume of
paper recycled increased at both sites, as did
the volume of glass. Specifically, recycled
paper went up (5.0%) at the Information site
from 481 to 505 lbs while the Incentive site
recorded a higher increase (16.1%) growing
from 441 to 512 lbs. Recycled glass showed a
smaller increase (3.7%) at the Information site
going from 459 to 476 lbs but continued to
grow at a strong rate (12.5%) from 444 to
484 lbs at the Incentive site.
During the third wave, volume of recycled
materials dropped off at both sites. However
the decrease at the Information site (15.4%)
was smaller relative to the Incentive site,
which showed a significant decrease (26.7%)
in volume of materials recycled. At the
Information site, the amount of paper recycled
declined (27.3%) from 505 to 367 lbs while the
amount of glass recycled decreased marginally
(2.7%) from 476 to 463 lbs. In terms of total
poundage, the amount of recycled material per
student dropped from 1.55 to 1.31 lbs. At
the Incentive site, recycled paper increased
while glass decreased significantly. Volume of
recycled paper showed a modest increase
(6.5%) from 512 to 545 lbs. The volume of glass
recycled was significantly lower (61.8%)
going from 484 to 185 lbs. Recycling volume
per student dropped from 1.24 to 0.91 lb.
Changes in recycling output in
comparison to baseline
Compared to baseline measures, the growth in
recycling poundage at both sites was extre-
mely noteworthy. Consider that by the end of

Copyright # 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, Jan.–Feb. 2007
DOI: 10.1002/cb
Consumer recycling
the experiment, total poundage had increased
by over 46 per cent in the Information site and
by over 28.5 per cent at the Incentive site.
Total recycled materials grew by 65 per cent at
the Information site from baseline to first wave
and by over 55 per cent at the Incentive site.
The increase was comprised of a 227 per cent
increase in recycled paper and a modest
increase of 18 per cent in recycled glass at
the Information site. Correspondingly, the
Incentive site recorded a relatively moderate
increase of over 76 per cent in recycled paper
and close to 40 per cent in recycled glass.
During the second wave, recycled materials
continued to grow by over 72 per cent at the
Information site and over 75 per cent at the
Incentive site. At the Information site this
consisted of an increase of over 243 per cent
in recycled paper and nearly 23 per cent in
recycled glass. By comparison, the increase in
recycled paper (104.8%) and glass (52.2%) was
lower at the Incentive site. In the third wave,
which was 4 weeks after the treatments had
been discontinued at both sites, the volume of
materials recycled was higher than the baseline
volume, but lower than the increase recorded
during the second wave. Increase in recycled
paper was almost 150 per cent over baseline at
the Information site and 118 per cent at the
Incentive site. Increase in recycled glass was
over 19 per cent at the Information site, but
actually dropped by 42 per cent relative to
baseline at the Incentive site. These support
H3 in all but one case.
Changes in contamination rates
Next, we focused on the differences in total,
paper, and glass contamination rates at both
sites. During the baseline period, the total
contamination rate at the Information site
(1.87%) was higher than at the Incentive site
(1.58%). The growth in volume of materials
recycled during the experiment was accom-
panied by an increase in total contamination
rates at both sites. At the Information site, the
rate increased from to 2.87 per cent during first
wave, falling slightly to 2.85 per cent during
Copyright # 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
41
the second wave, and finally fell to 1.93 per
cent in the third wave. At the Incentive site, the
increase in the total contamination was much
more gradual; it was 1.69 per cent during the
first wave, climbing to 1.91 per cent during the
second wave, before easing off to 1.64 per cent
during the third wave. Between baseline and
the third wave, increase in total contamination
rates at both sites was negligible (0.05%).
The paper contamination rate at the
Information site grew from 1.36 to 2.18 per
cent by the end of the third wave. In the
interim, the rate increased to 2.29 per cent
during the first wave, followed by a substantial
drop to 0.99 per cent during the second
wave. At the Incentive site, the paper
contamination rate was 1.0 per cent to start
with at baseline. The rate dropped to 0.92 per
cent by the time the experiment was con-
cluded. In between, the rate grew to 1.59
per cent during the first wave and then fell to
1.37 per cent during the second wave. The
glass contamination rates at the Information
site (2.06%) and the Incentive site (2.04%)
were approximately equal during baseline.
However, at the Information site, following a
rapid increase during the first wave (3.49%)
and second wave (4.41%), the rate dropped
rapidly to below baseline (1.73%) by the
end of the experiment. Correspondingly, at
the Incentive site, the glass contamination
rate dropped to 1.80 per cent during the first
wave, rose to 2.48 per cent during the second
wave, and continued to climb to 3.78 per cent
during the third wave.
Social class and recycling/
environmental attitudes and behaviors
Items used to construct the social class scale
are reproduced in Appendix. Our measure of
social class includes family income and the
education and occupation of both parents. The
summed scales ranged from 6 to 32. We got
205 (14.25%) completed and usable surveys
from both sites; these were used in this
analysis. Based on the 75th, 50th, and 25th
percentiles on the summed social class scale,
we categorized our sample into three social
Journal of Consumer Behaviour, Jan.–Feb. 2007
DOI: 10.1002/cb
42
classes, upper (n ¼ 38), middle (n ¼ 132), and
lower classes (n ¼ 35); the cutoff scores were
15 (lower class) and 25 (middle class).
In order to investigate the effects of social
class on environmental and recycling attitude
and behavior, we employed a multivariate
analysis of variance. Since gender is the only
demographic variable known to be strongly
related to recycling attitude and behavior,
we did the analysis with gender and social
class as the two independent variables, even
though our primary interest was only in social
class. As mentioned earlier, our four depen-
dent measures were environmental attitude,
environmental behavior, recycling attitude,
and recycling behavior. We have already
provided details on the number of items used
and the manner in which these measures were
constructed.
Results of this analysis are presented in
Table 3. It is interesting to note that, as
expected and consistent with past findings,
gender had a strong significant effect on
environmental attitude (F ¼ 7.06, p < 0.01),
environmental behavior (F ¼ 14.04, p < 0.01),
and recycling behavior (F ¼ 4.61, p < 0.05),
although surprisingly its effect on recycl-
ing attitude (F ¼ 3.21, p < 0.10) was weak.
Specifically, women had more favorable atti-
tudes toward the environment and recycling
and were more likely to engage in environ-
mentally friendly and recycling behaviors; this
underscores a well-established relationship.
However, social class had a significant effect
only on recycling attitude (F ¼ 3.09, p < 0.05)
and recycling behavior (F ¼ 3.651, p < 0.05),
but not environmental attitude or environ-
mental behavior. Lower social class subjects
held significantly more favorable environmen-
tal and recycling attitudes than middle or
upper class respondents and were more likely
to engage in environmentally friendly and
recycling behaviors. Similarly, middle class
respondents showed more favorable environ-
mental and recycling attitudes and were more
inclined to engage in recycling behaviors than
upper class respondents.
Pursuant to the unexpected direction of
results we tabulated scores on all dependent
Copyright # 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Easwar S. Iyer and Rajiv K. Kashyap
measures, that is, environmental attitude,
environmental behavior, recycling attitude,
and recycling behavior. The mean scores on
all the four dependent measures for upper,
middle, and lower classes are reported in
Table 4. We found a similar pattern for
environmental attitude, environmental beha-
vior, and recycling attitude. Highest mean
scores were observed for the lower social class
group, followed by the middle class, and then
the upper class. In the case of environmental
attitude, the scores were 87.74 for the lower
class, 84.17 for the middle class, and 82.79 for
the upper class. For environmental behavior,
the mean scores were 49.94 (lower), 46.86
(middle), and 45.26 (upper). For recycling
attitude, the mean scores were 63.23 (lower),
59.89 (middle), and 56.71 (upper). For recy-
cling behavior, the highest mean score was
observed for the lower class (29.17), the
second highest mean score was observed for
the upper class (26.44), and the lowest score
was for the middle class (26.34). It is clear that
recycling attitude and behavior varies inversely
with social class. Although we are not fully able
to explain this result, we presume it to imply
that the norms and influence of other family
members might be an underlying factor that
varies with social class. This would be a matter
for further exploration.
Conclusion and implications
Taken collectively our findings have signifi-
cantly added to our understanding of con-
sumer recycling. Here below we offer six
conclusions and their implications before
closing this section with a few recommen-
dations.
Role and value of intervention
First, interventions are vital to encourage
recycling. Even though recycling has received
unprecedented publicity and support, it is still
in its infancy from a consumer behavior
perspective. By this we mean that recycling
may not yet have become central and
embedded in most of the consumers’ beha-
Journal of Consumer Behaviour, Jan.–Feb. 2007
DOI: 10.1002/cb
Consumer recycling
vioral scripts. Thus, frequent interventions are
needed to remind consumers about recycling
and its importance in conserving resources. In
the past, researchers have studied the impact
of message content, format, or media on
consumers’ recycling attitudes and behaviors.
Our study also suggests that message fre-
quency is an important consideration. Con-
ceivably in 10–20 years from now, recycling
may have become a part of every consumer’s
scripted and habitual behaviors. If so, inter-
ventions may be needed at a much-reduced
frequency or may not be needed at all, but until
then frequent interventions are needed to
motivate consumers.
Incentives or information
Second, offering incentives appears to have
an immediate and dramatic effect on
recycling behaviors. The increase in output,
especially paper, was remarkable and mani-
fested within a few weeks of announcing the
incentive, strongly implying that people
adhere to the ‘rational incentive based’ model
of behavior. The added cost of running an
incentive based program may not be fully
offset by the increased recycling output
(Porter et al., 1995). Nonetheless, offering
incentives is an excellent way to instill this
new behavior, especially if the goal is to boost
short-term output. It was interesting to find a
marked decrease in recycling rates of glass at
the incentive site after the intervention was
discontinued. This suggests that subjects
exposed to the incentive treatment might
have been alerted to the possibility of another
recycling-related incentive, that is, reimburse-
ments for recycling bottles and cans. Such
second-order effects have rarely been men-
tioned in the literature and provide another
fruitful avenue for future research.
Third, disseminating information that
increases consumers’ knowledge has a more
lasting effect on recycling output than offer-
ing incentives. This is clearly evident from the
fact that even after the interventions were
withdrawn, recycling output at the Infor-
mation site was considerably higher than that
Copyright # 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
43
at the Incentive site. This is suggestive of a
‘rational knowledge based’ model of human
behavior. The effectiveness of information-
based intervention may be longer lasting
because it tends to influence a more funda-
mental driver of consumer behavior, that is,
values and beliefs. However, since our incen-
tive was structured as a group benefit, we
cannot comment on how individually oriented
incentives would work. At the very least
consumer value orientation, for example,
individualistic versus collectivistic (see
McCarty and Shrum, 2001) needs to be
included in future studies. And lastly, it is
not clear if the added costs incurred in
disseminating information – akin to incentives
– will be offset by the increased output.
Gender
Fourth, gender has an important role. Simply
stated, women are more environmentally
friendly than men. Whether it is because
women are ‘inherently’ closer to nature or
because they are more closely involved in
managing the day-to-day household activities is
unclear; that they are more environmentally
friendly is definite. We highlight this finding,
not because it is new, novel or counter
intuitive, but only because it strongly reaffirms
extant knowledge. Clearly women need to be
significantly involved in any program that
promotes recycling. For instance, in the home
setting, any promotional or educational
message should be targeted at women. More-
over, media appropriate to women have to be
selected in order to maximize the impact of
any promotional message.
Social class
Fifth, social class is significant, although its
influence is intriguing and warrants close
scrutiny. We will discuss the fact that social
class, measured in a novel manner, influences
recycling, and follow that with a discussion on
how it influences recycling.
Single demographic measures are weak
predictors of recycling attitudes and beha-
viors (Roberts, 1996; Diamantopoulos et al.,
Journal of Consumer Behaviour, Jan.–Feb. 2007
DOI: 10.1002/cb
44
2003), suggesting that composite measures,
such as social class, might have greater
predictive power. Thus, we included edu-
cation and occupation of both parents besides
family income to create a composite measure
of social class. The significance of our social
class measure suggests that family members,
and by extension, others in the social, work,
or peer groups, can be effective sources of
influence. We would recommend that
waste managers, in their efforts to motivate
individual recycling behavior, expand their
focus to include members of the extended
family as well.
Berger (1997) has argued that socio-
economic factors may positively influence
recycling behavior only because affluent
neighborhoods tend to have easier access to
recycling. However, our findings are contrary
to this expectation. Why is it the case? We do
not have a clear answer but can provide three
speculative explanations. We call the first one
the ‘economic payoff’ hypothesis. The logic
goes as follows. Recycling bottles and cans
involves a financial incentive; this incentive,
being stronger for consumers in a lower social
class, they are more likely to recycle glass
bottles and cans. Eventually, by force of habit
and routinization, they begin to recycle other
materials as well. If our economic payoff
hypothesis is true, it speaks to the significance
of the ‘bottle deposit’ bill that was enacted into
legislation more than a decade ago. Our second
explanation, termed ‘defensive NIMBY,’ has
the following logic. Most landfills and incin-
erators tend to be located in poorer commu-
nities, and since recycling is a way to diminish
landfilling and incineration, by actively recy-
cling, lower social class consumers can fore-
stall siting landfills or incinerators in their
communities. Thus, for them, recycling is a
defensive maneuver that will prevent invasion
of their ‘backyard.’ We base our third expla-
nation on ‘overacculturating.’ Our data were
gathered at a state university, which tends to
be very ‘middle class’ in its composition and
values. Those in the lower class, we speculate,
were attempting to ‘fit in,’ leading to the
results we observed.
Copyright # 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Easwar S. Iyer and Rajiv K. Kashyap
Environmental attitude/behavior and
recycling attitude/behavior
Sixth, recycling attitudes and behaviors are
only weakly correlated to environmental
attitudes and behaviors. We found that
social class was a significant determinant of
only recycling attitudes and behaviors and
not of environmental attitudes and behaviors.
What does that imply? For one, trying to
engender a more favorable attitude toward
recycling by exclusively appealing to one’s
environmental concerns may be insufficient
and inappropriate. Second, it suggests that
environmentally friendly behaviors may
include an array of behaviors that may not
necessarily include recycling behaviors. For
some consumers avoiding consumption,
thereby precluding the need to recycle,
may be the signature to being environmen-
tally friendly. A third reason could be that
consumers do not see their individual recy-
cling having any significant effect on the
global environmental problems. Clearly
there is a need to better understand the
linkage between recycling attitude/behavior
and environmental attitude/behavior.
Recommendations
Our study has demonstrated the significant
value of intervention programs. Incentives
are a fine way to motivate people to adopt a
new behavior, but information needs to be
disseminated in order to help sustain the
newly learned behavior. Thus, we could
speculate that programs aimed at promoting
recycling might have to include incentives
and information. If so, how do we allocate
resources between incentives and infor-
mation? Although not directly addressed in
our study, we feel that a flexible policy, one
that is initially biased toward incentives but
gradually shifts toward information cam-
paigns in the later stages, might be an optimal
choice. The rate at which resources are
shifted needs to be based on monitoring key
outcomes, such as number of new recyclers,
values, and beliefs of recyclers, etc. A flexible
Journal of Consumer Behaviour, Jan.–Feb. 2007
DOI: 10.1002/cb
Consumer recycling 45

combination of incentives and information, responsible investing, environmentalism, and

whose relative weights reflect critical bench-
marked outcomes, may be the most effective
and efficient way to introduce recycling in
the short run and sustain continued participa-
tion in the long run; this can be the subject of
future research.
Biographical notes
Easwar S. Iyer (Ph.D. University of Pitts-
burgh) is Associate Professor of Marketing
and Head of the Marketing Department at
the Isenberg School of Management, Univer-
sity of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA, USA. He is
very interested in environmental issues as they
apply to business practices and has written
extensively on various aspects of that topic
such as environmental management, environ-
mental alliances, green advertising, socially
responsible consumer behavior, among others.
Rajiv K. Kashyap (Ph.D. University of Mass-
achusetts Amherst) is Associate Professor and
Chair, Department of Marketing and Manage-
ment, William Paterson University, NJ. His
current research interests include socially
Appendix
Social class measures
marketing strategy. His research has been pub-
lished in the Journal of Marketing, Journal of
Applied Social Psychology, Academy of Man-
agement Learning and Education, Academy of
Marketing Science Review, and elsewhere.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to acknowledge the
assistance and cooperation of John Pepi at
the Physical Plant Waste Management facility
at the University of Massachusetts. They
would also like to thank two anonymous
reviewers and the editor for their guidance
and suggestions.
References
Berger I. 1997. The demographics of recycling and
the structure of environmental behavior.
Environment and Behavior 28(4): 515–531
(July).
Berger I, Kanetkar V. 1996. Increasing environmen-
tal sensitivity via workplace experiences. Jour-
nal of Public Policy and Marketing 14(2):
205–215.
Bratt C. 1999. Consumers’ environmental behavior:
generalized, sector-based or compensatory? Envir-
onment and Behavior 31(1): 28–44 (January).
Burgess RL, Clark RN, Hendee JC. 1971.
An experimental analysis of anti-litter procedures.

My family income is & <$29 k & $39–39 k & $40–49 k

& $50–74 k & $75–100 k & >$100 k
Which of the following describes your parents’ present or past occupation?
Father Mother
Homemaker & &
Steadily employed, for example, custodian & &
Assembly line worker, bus drive, sales clerk & &
Police, fire fighter, skilled craftsman, office worker & &
Owner of small firm, technician, civil servant & &
Middle manager, school teacher, registered nurse & &
Owner medium size firm, dentist, engineer, professor & &
Doctor, lawyer, owner large business & &
Which of the following describes your parents’ education?
My mother’s highest study level & No high school & High school & Some college
& Undergraduate degree & Graduate degree
My father’s highest study level & No high school & High school & Some college
& Undergraduate degree & Graduate degree

Copyright # 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, Jan.–Feb. 2007
DOI: 10.1002/cb
46
Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis 2(Summer):
71–75.
Burn SM. 1991. Social psychology and the stimu-
lation of recycling behaviors: the block leader
approach. Journal of Applied Social Psychology
21 611–629.
Business Week. 1989. Snap, Crackle, Stop, Septem-
ber 25, p. 154.
Carson R. 1962. The Silent Spring. Fawcett Publi-
cations: Greenwich CT.
Clark RN, Burgess RL, Hendee JC. 1972. The devel-
opment of anti-litter behavior in a forest
campground. Journal of Applied behavior
Analysis 1(Spring): 1–5.
Coleman RP. 1960. The significance of social stra-
tification in selling. In Marketing: A Maturing
Discipline, Bell ML (ed.). American Marketing
Association: Chicago; 171–184.
Curlee RT. 1986. The Economic Feasibility of
Recycling. Praeger: New York.
Derksen L, Gartrell J. 1993. The social context of
recycling. American Sociological Review 58:
434–442.
Diamantopoulos A, Schlegelmilch BB, Sinkovics
RR, Bohlen GM. 2003. Can socio-demographics
still play a role in profiling green consumers? A
review of the evidence and an empirical investi-
gation. Journal of Business research 56:
465–480.
Diamond WD, Loewy BZ. 1991. Effects of probabil-
istic rewards on recycling attitudes and behavior.
Journal of Applied Social Psychology 21:
1590–1607.
Ellen PS. 1994. Do we know what we need
to know? Objective and subjective knowl-
edge effects on pro-ecological behaviors.
Journal of Business Research 30(May): 43–
52.
Everett JW, Peirce JJ. 1991–1992. Social networks,
socioeconomic status, and environmental collec-
tive action: residential curbside block leader
recycling. Journal of Environmental Systems
21: 65–84.
Gagne ED, Yekovich CW, Yekovich FR. 1993. The
Cognitive Psychology of School Learning (2nd
edn). Harper Collins: New York.
Gamba RJ, Oskamp S. 1994. Factors influencing
community residents’ participation in com-
mingled curbside recycling programs. Environ-
ment and Behavior 26: 587–612.
Copyright # 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Easwar S. Iyer and Rajiv K. Kashyap
Geller ES, Chaffee JL, Ingram RE. 1975. Promoting
paper recycling on a university campus.
Journal of Environmental Systems 5(1): 39–57.
Granzin KL, Olsen JE. 1991. Characterizing partici-
pants in activities protecting the environment: a
focus on donating, recycling and conservation
behaviors. Journal of Public Policy and Market-
ing 10(2): 1–27.
Gray D. 1985. Ecological Beliefs and Behaviors:
Assessment and Change. Greenwood: Westport,
CT.
Heath RP. 1998. The new working class. American
Demographics 20(1): 51–55 (January).
Hopper JR, Nielson JM. 1991. Recycling as altruistic
behavior: normative and behavioral strategies to
expand participation in community recycling
programs. Environment and Behavior 23: 195–
220.
Hornik J, Cherian J, Madansky M, Narayana C. 1995.
Determinants of recycling behavior: a synthesis
of research results. The Journal of Socio-
Economics 24(1): 105–128 (Spring).
Humphrey C, Bord R, Hammond M, Mann S. 1977.
Attitudes and conditions for cooperation in a
paper recycling program. Environment and
Behavior 9: 107–124.
Jacobs HE, Bailey JS, Crews JI. 1984. Development
and analysis of community-based resource recov-
ery program. Journal of Applied Behavior
Analysis 17(2): 127–145 (Summer).
Kashyap RK, Iyer ES. 2001. Attitudes and behaviors
of college students in regards to the environment
and recycling. In Developments in Marketing
Science (Vol. 24), Moore M, Moore R (eds).
Academy of Marketing Science; 71–79.
Lakhan VC, Lavalle PD. 2002. Use of loglinear
models to assess factors influencing concern
for the natural environment. Environmental
Management 30(1): 77–87.
Lansana FM. 1992. Distinguishing potential recy-
clers from nonrecyclers: a basis for developing
recycling strategies. Journal of Environmental
Education 23: 16–23.
Lord KR. 1994. Motivating recycling behavior: a
quasiexperimental investigation of message and
source strategies. Psychology and Marketing
11(4): 341–358.
Luyben PD, Bailey JS. 1979. Newspaper recycling:
the effects of rewards and proximity of containers.
Environment and behavior 11: 539–557.
Journal of Consumer Behaviour, Jan.–Feb. 2007
DOI: 10.1002/cb
Consumer recycling
McCarty JA, Shrum LJ. 2001. The influence of
individualism, collectivism, and locus of control
on environmental beliefs and behavior. Journal
of Public Policy & Marketing 20(Spring):
93–104.
Miller CK, Jensen GL, Achterberg C. 1999. Evalu-
ation of food label nutrition intervention for
women with type 2 diabetes mellitus. Journal
of American Dietetic Association 99(3):
323–328.
Mohai P, Twight B. 1987. Age and environmental
concern: an elaboration of the buttel model using
national survey evidence. Social Science Quar-
terly 68: 798–815.
Oskamp S, Harrington MJ, Edwards TC, Sherwood
DL, Okuda SM, Swanson DC. 1991. Factors
influencing household recycling behavior.
Environment and Behavior 23(4): 494–519.
Ostman RE, Parker JL. 1988. Impact of education,
age, newspapers, and television on environmen-
tal knowledge, concerns, and behaviors. Journal
of Environmental Education 19: 3–9.
Porter BE, Leeming FC, Dwyer WO. 1995. Solid
waste recovery: a review of behavioral programs
to increase recycling. Environment and Beha-
vior 27(March): 122–152.
Reid D, Luyben P, Rawers R, Bailey J. 1976. News-
paper recycling behavior: the effects of prompt-
ing and proximity of containers. Environment
and Behavior 8: 471–481.
Roberts JA. 1995. Profiling levels of socially respon-
sible consumer behavior: a cluster analytic
approach and its implications for marketing.
Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice
3(4) (Fall): 97–117.
Copyright # 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
47
Roberts JA. 1996. Will the real socially responsible
consumer please step forward? Business
Horizons 39(1) (January–February): 79–
83.
Schaninger C. 1981. Social class versus income
revisited: an empirical investigation. Journal of
Marketing Research 18(May): 192–208.
Stern P, Dietz T, Kalof L. 1993. Value orientations,
gender, and environmental concern. Environ-
ment and Behavior 25: 322–348.
Tasady L. 1991. Shopping for a Better Environ-
ment. Meadowbrook Press: New York.
Taylor S, Todd P. 1995. Understanding household
garbage reduction behavior: a test of an inte-
grated model. Journal of Public Policy and
Marketing 14(Fall): 192–204.
Travis R, Kohli V. 1995. The birth order factor:
ordinal position, social strata, and educational
achievement. The Journal of Social Psychology
135(4): 499–507.
U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on Agri-
culture. 1989. Recyclable Materials Science and
Technology Act of 1989, Hearing before the 101st
Congress, 1st session on H.R. 500, #101-49.
Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
Vining J, Ebreo A. 1990. What makes a recycler? A
comparison of recyclers and nonrecyclers.
Environment and Behavior 22: 55–73.
Vining J, Ebreo A. 1992. Predicting recycling beha-
vior from global and specific environmental atti-
tudes and changes in recycling opportunities.
Journal of Applied Social Psychology 22:
1580–1607.
www.epa.gov2004. Municipal Solid Waste: Basic
Facts.
Journal of Consumer Behaviour, Jan.–Feb. 2007
DOI: 10.1002/cb