| |

Received: 18 June 2018    Revised: 9 May 2019    Accepted: 14 June 2019

DOI: 10.1111/jasp.12618

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

A social dilemma perspective on recycling

Ada L. Y. Lee1 | Gerard P. Prendergast2  | Frederick H. K. Yim2 | Lawrence Choi3

1
Department of Business
Administration, School for Higher and Abstract
Professional Education, Hong Kong Recent research on social responsibility has largely focused on firms, with only lim‐
2
Department of Marketing, Hong Kong
ited research into individual behavior. Recycling is socially responsible behavior which
Baptist University, Hong Kong
3
Department of Management, The Hang
poses a difficult choice for consumers because it benefits society as a whole in the
Seng University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong long term but involves a personal cost and does not benefit the individual consumer

Correspondence
Gerard P. Prendergast, Department of
Marketing, Hong Kong Baptist University,
Kowloon Tong, Hong Kong.
Email: gerard@hkbu.edu.hk
directly. Previous studies of recycling, however, have only partly explained consum‐
ers’ recycling choices. Addressing this gap, this research applied a social dilemma
perspective in qualitative and quantitative consumer studies. The findings from the
studies demonstrated a positive relationship between a consumer's expectation that
others will recycle and his own participation. A social value orientation was found to
have a significant moderating effect on this relationship.

1 |  I NTRO D U C TI O N 1. An individual makes a noncooperative decision whose outcome

Governments and companies are increasingly concerned about en‐
vironmental and societal issues, particularly in relation to the dis‐
posal of waste materials. Geyer, Jambeck, and Law (2017) calculated
the total volume of all plastic ever produced at 8.3bn tones. Of this,
some 6.3bn tones is now waste—and 79% of that is in landfill or the
natural environment. However, while many individuals understand
that recycling is good for the environment and society, they may be
reluctant to recycle if it is inconvenient. This typifies the decisions
consumers face with respect to socially responsible behavior—are
they willing to do something to benefit society even if it involves
personal cost? Moreover, what factors are affecting their willingness
to perform socially responsible behaviors?
The essence of social dilemmas is the conflict between individual
interest and group interest (Hardin, 1968; Orbell & Dawes, 1981).
Going back as far as 10,000 years, humans were dependent on each
other for survival. Identifying who was trustworthy and who was
deceitful could turn into a selective advantage (Barkow, Cosmides,
& Tooby, 1992), while the presence of cheats has been confronting
social dilemmas for a long time. The concept of “mixed motives” (Van
Lange, Balliet, Parks, & Van Vugt, 2014, p. 13), with people trying to
maximize their own gain and minimize their own pain, underpins so‐
cial dilemmas as well. According to Van Lange (Van Lange, Joireman,
Parks, & Van Dijk, 2013), social dilemmas typically arise in the fol‐
lowing three situations:
is in his own best interest regardless of the decisions made
by others;
2. A noncooperative decision is taken that has a negative effect on
the interests of others;
3. The harmful effects created by a collective choice favoring non‐
cooperation are greater than the benefits individuals receive from
their noncooperative decisions.
Such situations entail a relationship between individual motives and
cooperative interests of the collective. In general, a choice for collec‐
tive cooperation needs short‐term individual sacrifice to benefit soci‐
ety in the long term (Sen, Gurhan‐Canli, & Morwitz, 2001).
The lack of recycling can possibly be explained by a rooted as‐
sumption that each person is locked into a system that compels him/
her to pursue his/her best interest, while neglecting the harm to the
common. This assumption is based on the calculation of gain and loss
of performing recycling (Hardin, 1968). Although recycling should be
a responsibility that is borne by everyone in the society, the older
generation does not seem inclined to recycle. Most of them grew
up in a nonoptimal environment, so not performing recycling was
not regarded as an unethical behavior (Fletcher, 1966). The evolu‐
tion of social norms and public policies can be a motivator for col‐
lective actions, like recycling (Ostrom, 2010), but still, we are not
seeing recycling as a prevalent phenomenon, especially in Hong
Kong. Consumer recycling has become an important environmental

J Appl Soc Psychol. 2019;49:585–595. © 2019 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. |  585

wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/jasp  
 |
586       LEE et al.
and societal issue which has been widely discussed in Hong Kong.
The Hong Kong government has stepped up its investment in recy‐
cling (Cheung, 2014). In keeping with that effort, researchers have
become interested in examining consumer recycling behavior from
the social dilemma perspective. To consumers, recycling does not di‐
rectly benefit them as individuals and involves a personal cost, while
benefiting society as a whole (Smith, Haugtvedt, & Petty, 1994). In
choosing whether or not to recycle consumers must decide whether
to sacrifice their short‐range self‐interest (e.g., wasting time to cat‐
egorize the rubbish and put it into the proper recycle bin) for the
long‐range well‐being of society (e.g., reducing the use of natural re‐
sources). Recycling thus has the characteristics of a social dilemma,
in which there is a conflict between pro‐self and pro‐social behavior
(Komorita & Parks, 1994).
Using qualitative and quantitative methodologies, the central
purpose of this paper is to offer further explanation of the phenom‐
enon of recycling through the view of recycling being a social di‐
lemma. Perceived efficacy (PE), the belief in self‐abilities in achieving
a desired outcome, is crucial in the case of a social dilemma. Higher
self‐efficacy is found to reinforce one's contribution to collective
actions (Kerr, 1989), strengthen one's willingness to protect the en‐
vironment (Doran, Hanss, & Larsen, 2015), and promote one's in‐
tention to engage in sustainable consumption behaviors (Gupta &
Ogden, 2009). We predict that individuals who perceive themselves
as being capable of performing recycling behavior are more likely
to recycle waste than people who are only motivated by the over‐
all expectation of cooperation. In addition to PE, researchers have
exerted considerable effort in examining how social values shape
socially responsible behaviors (Cojuharenco, Cornelissen, & Karelaia,
2016; Gupta & Ogden, 2009). We predict that social value orienta‐
tion (SVO), the disposition, and attitude that individuals exhibit when
facing a social dilemma, may also play a role in explaining consumers’
recycling behavior. In the present study, we endeavor to examine
these two constructs (PE and SVO) as moderators of the relationship
between the expectation that others will participate in recycling and
recycling intention. The choice of these two moderators is grounded
in Sen's model and their recommendation for future research (Sen
et al., 2001).
2 |  TH EO R E TI C A L FR A M E WO R K
This study applied a social dilemma perspective to recycling in an
attempt to extend the decision model developed by Sen and his col‐
leagues (Sen et al., 2001). They proposed that individuals may re‐
spond differently to situations based on their PE. In addition, per
their recommendations, we incorporate one more individual‐level
variable, SVO, to provide a “better understanding of cooperation”
(Sen et al., 2001, p. 412), specifically in recycling. This study inves‐
tigated the role of those two variables within the framework of a
social dilemma perspective. Sen suggested that the perspective
his group developed can be applied to the consumption of pub‐
lic utilities. Recycling is closely related to both public policy and
strategies of private organizations (Biswas, Licata, McKee, Pullig, &
Daughtridge, 2000; Granzin & Olsen, 1991). Nonetheless, previous
recycling studies have used theories such as the theory of interper‐
sonal behavior (Ittiravivongs, 2012), the means‐end chain theory
(Bagozzi & Dabholkar, 1994), the theory of planned behavior (Biswas
et al., 2000; Tonglet, Phillips, & Read, 2004; Wan, Shen, & Yu, 2014;
Werder, 2002) or the norm activation model (Wan et al., 2014).
Those theories, however, only partly explain recycling behavior. This
study set out to explain recycling behavior through the lens of so‐
cial dilemma perspective supported by fieldwork among Hong Kong
citizens. Previous studies in this area (Sen et al., 2001; Van Lange et
al., 2013) used experiments conducted at universities with students
as the participants. Such studies tend to have good internal validity,
but their external validity has been rather low. By conducting field
research, this study set out to improve the external validity and gen‐
eralizability of the findings.
It is important to note too that previous studies in this area have
usually been focused on corporate social responsibility (e.g., Aguinis
& Glavas, 2012). There is, however, growing scholarly interest in in‐
dividuals’ socially responsible consumption (SRC) (Green, Tinson, &
Peloza, 2016; Schlaile, Klein, & Bock, 2016). In addition, social di‐
lemma perspective is psychological, and Clayton and his team point
out that there is compelling research interest in the relationship
between humans and the environment from the psychological per‐
spective (Clayton et al., 2016). Social dilemma perspective directly
addresses the relationship between humans and the environment in
the context of recycling.
SRC refers to consumer behavior that is focused on social re‐
sponsibility at the individual level. The concept of SRC can be traced
back to Anderson's article “The Socially Conscious Consumer”
(Anderson & Cunningham, 1972) which initiated a discussion of con‐
sumer behavior in response to corporate actions related to social
issues. According to Webster (1975), socially conscious consumers
consider the social effect of their personal consumption or use their
purchasing power to achieve social change. This assertion is based
on the psychological aspect of social involvement, and he argues
that they are highly concerned about social problems, actively in‐
volved in community issues, and believe that they can make a dif‐
ference to their community. According to Roberts (1995) socially
responsible consumers will purchase products and services that
have a perceived positive influence on the environment. They might
also patronize those businesses that take positive actions toward
social responsibility in terms of environmental or other social con‐
cerns. Sen and his colleagues have suggested using a social dilemma
perspective to examine consumers’ reactions to shortages because
it involves conflict between individual and group needs (Sen et al.,
2001). Recycling is a reaction to an anticipated shortage of natural
resources.
In scholarly discourse the term recycling normally refers to “the
process of putting otherwise disposable products to reuse” (Rao,
1994, p. iii). It usually involves three steps: (1) collection of used
items, (2) their treatment, and (3) turning the materials into new
products. The consumer's main role is usually at the collection stage.
LEE et al.
Normally, the second and third steps are handled by organizations.
Recycling can be viewed as a social dilemma because:
1. Not recycling is more convenient, benefiting consumers’ short‐
term self‐interest.
2. Such pursuit of immediate self‐interest creates a negative effect
on the interests of the general public (such as pollution).
3. The pursuit of short‐term gain by all of the citizens would harm
society in the long run.
The benefits of reducing waste and avoiding pollution only appear over
the long term. People may not see any immediate benefits to society.
Thus, they may be more concerned with the short‐term benefits for
themselves (i.e., convenience). That could lead to undesirable outcomes
for the public. If, however, people are enjoined to practice recycling
then that pressure could create a social dilemma. It could be partic‐
ularly difficult for them to behave in socially responsible ways if that
has not previously been their habit (Ittiravivongs, 2012). It is, therefore,
important to understand how people behave in such situations.
In studying social responses, it is helpful to examine how vari‐
ous group characteristics affect individual's decision to cooperate.
The term “reference group” refers to people who significantly influ‐
ence the attitudes and behavior of others (Bearden & Etzel, 1982;
Dawson & Chartman, 2001). According to Blackwell, Miniard, and
Engel (2012), reference groups can be primary or secondary, formal
or informal, and aspirational or dissociative. In addition, reference
groups can create normative influence and/or informational influ‐
ence. Various studies have shown that people's consumption deci‐
sions are often heavily affected by their reference groups (Childers
& Rao, 1992). However, there has been limited discussion of group
influence on individuals’ decisions to cooperate. Reference groups
would be expected to influence people's choices about SRC and spe‐
cifically about whether or not to recycle.
Scholars have demonstrated a strong positive link between
people's expectations about overall cooperation and their own par‐
ticipation (Klandermans, 1992; Van Lange et al., 2013). People are
more likely to cooperate when they anticipate widespread cooper‐
ation from others. They should also be affected by their reference
groups and feel a need to comply with social norms (Blackwell et al.,
2012). Studies have demonstrated that environmental conservation
is higher when consumers are provided information of how others
behave (e.g., Goldstein, Cialdini, & Griskevicius, 2008), highlighting
the social nature of environmental issues. This study tested these
theories in the recycling context, predicting that consumers' willing‐
ness to participate in recycling should increase with their expecta‐
tions of overall participation.
H1: There is a positive relationship between the expecta‐
tion that others will participate in recycling and the likeli‐
hood of personal participation in recycling
A self‐perception of efficacy is defined as the belief in one's
ability to produce the results that one wants (Bandura, 1977;
|
      587
Perkins, Parzynski, Mercincavage, Conklin, & Fonte, 2012; Wood
& Bandura, 1989). PE refers to the perception that one can con‐
tribute significantly to the achievement of a goal (Sen et al., 2001).
In the recycling context, consumers’ self‐perceptions of efficacy
are likely to interact with their expectations of overall group par‐
ticipation. When consumers have a weak sense of efficacy (i.e.,
they feel that they can contribute little or nothing to the recycling
outcome), they will be more likely to use other people's behavior
as a benchmark for their own recycling behavior. So, the likelihood
of their recycling depends heavily on their expectations for the
overall participation of others (Sen et al., 2001). When consumers
have a strong sense of personal efficacy (i.e., they feel they can
make a difference to the recycling outcome), they are not likely to
depend on others’ behavior in making their own judgments. Their
expectation of others’ participation may then be less influential
(Wiener, 1993).
H2: The positive effect of expectations of overall partic‐
ipation in recycling on the likelihood of personal partici‐
pation in recycling will be stronger among persons whose
self‐perceptions of efficacy are weak.
SVO refers to people's disposition or attitude when they face
a social dilemma. It affects people's ways of thinking and often
accounts for their behavior in interpersonal decision‐making (De
Dreu & Boles, 1998). Some people tend to evaluate a situation
in terms of their own benefits and maximize their own interests
(a pro‐self orientation). Some others tend to view a situation in
terms of the collective interest (a pro‐social orientation). Those
with a strong pro‐social orientation will try to maximize the inter‐
ests of society even if it entails compromising their own interests
(Van Lange, Van Vugt, Meertens, & Ruiter, 1998). This applies too
to their ways of approaching social dilemmas. Some people tend
to base their decisions on self‐interest whereas others take more
account of collective well‐being. Previous studies have devel‐
oped SVO models to measure the magnitude of concern people
have for specific patterns of outcomes for themselves and oth‐
ers (Murphy, Ackermann, & Handgraaff, 2011; Van Lange, Agnew,
Harinck, & Steemers, 1997). Much research has focused on com‐
paring individuals with pro‐social orientation and pro‐self‐orien‐
tation (Kuhlman & Marshello, 1975; McClintock & Liebrand, 1988;
Parks, Henager, & Scamahorn, 1996; Van Lange & Kuhlman, 1994).
And SVO has been commonly studied as an independent variable
(Cameron, Brown, & Chapman, 1998; McClintock & Liebrand,
1988; Van Lange et al., 1997), while limited research considered
SVO in a moderating role. This study hypothesized a moderating
effect for SVO in the relationship between expectations of over‐
all participation and the likelihood of personal participation in re‐
cycling. Pro‐social individuals' SVO might be those who are less
influenced by others' participation in recycling and more likely
to depend on their own moral judgment. They will participate in
recycling regardless of what others are doing. Pro‐self individu‐
als, however, might be influenced by others’ recycling behavior
 |
588       LEE et al.
when there is a large number of people doing so, because they
feel forced to.
H3: The positive effect of expectation for overall partic‐
ipation on the likelihood of personal participation in re‐
cycling will be stronger for those with a weaker pro‐social
orientation than for those who have a stronger pro‐social
orientation.
The model shown in Figure 1 is an extension of that proposed by Sen
(Sen et al., 2001). It is designed to test the proposed hypotheses con‐
cerning recycling behavior. The model assumes that consumers are ra‐
tional, which would minimize the risk of any reverse causality.
3 |  R E S E A RC H D E S I G N
Interpretivism focuses on understanding what is happening in a given
context by using an inductive and personal research process. The inter‐
pretivist researcher seeks to deeply understand and interpret how and
why different people have different ways of experiencing a situation. The
research starts without hypotheses and is typically more open‐ended.
Such a research philosophy is most appropriate for situations in which
there is either limited information or a great deal of uncertainty. This
contrasts with positivism which is based on empirical testing for theory
justification. Positivism stresses explicit theories and hypotheses and
uses a more deductive and nonpersonal process. The positivist philoso‐
phy is most appropriate when a robust body of knowledge exists to fa‐
cilitate hypothesizing. The choice between interpretivist and positivist
philosophies, therefore, will depend on how the problem is conceptual‐
ized, and influences how the data are gathered and analyzed.
For this research, a mixed‐methods approach was used, combin‐
ing a qualitative (interpretivist) phase and a quantitative (positivist)
phase.
3.1 | Qualitative phase
The purpose of the qualitative phase was to gain a deeper under‐
standing of recycling experiences in Hong Kong, and then to use this
F I G U R E 1   Theoretical framework
understanding to complement and inform the quantitative phase. The
core research questions addressed by the qualitative phase were:
• What is the experience of recycling?
• How does the context or situation (e.g., the people they are with,
the time, or the location) influence the recycling experience?
Within the array of qualitative approaches to inquiry available, the
phenomenological line of inquiry was selected. This is because phe‐
nomenology focuses on describing and explaining a phenomenon
by studying and interpreting the lived experiences of individuals
(Moustakas, 1994) in context. Welman and Kruger (1999, p. 86) wrote,
“the phenomenologists are concerned with understanding social and
psychological phenomena from the perspectives of people involved.”
Other qualitative methods (such as narrative, case study, grounded
theory, and ethnography) are not as focused on the essence of an
experience, and as such are not able to answer the research ques‐
tions of the qualitative phase as well as a phenomenological method.
Phenomenology is inductive and investigates the most basic and deep‐
est truths through the experiences of people.
As Creswell (2007) suggests, selected participants for phenom‐
enological studies should have had some experience in the particular
phenomenon that the researchers want to explore to enable the par‐
ticipants to share their feelings about the phenomenon. Following this
logic, our phenomenological study focused on individuals who had pre‐
vious recycling experience (self‐described). Purposeful sampling was
used to select 20 such qualified respondents. In‐depth interviews were
conducted with them in Chinese (following an English to Chinese trans‐
lation‐back‐translation process of the interview protocol and consent
form). The interview protocol was pre‐tested before it was implemented.
The interviews were conducted in a natural setting and each
interview was continued until no new themes emerged. After ob‐
taining the consent of the participants, the researcher asked the
participants some demographic questions. Then, participants were
asked to verbally respond to core questions related to:
• The experience of recycling
• How the context or situation (i.e., those around them, the time, or
the location) influences the experience of recycling
LEE et al.
Among the 20 participants in the phenomenological study, 11 were
male and 9 were female. All of the interviews were tape‐recorded and
transcribed verbatim.
In analyzing the data, the scripts analysis procedure proposed
by Creswell (2007) was followed. The researcher went through the
scripts line by line. The most significant statements from each in‐
terview transcript were identified. Meanings were then formulated
from these statements, and the formulated meanings were clustered
into key themes. The themes were classified into both textual de‐
scriptions (descriptions of what the participants experienced) and
structural descriptions (descriptions of the contexts or settings
that influenced the participants’ experiences). The results were in‐
tegrated into a more in‐depth composite, describing the recycling
phenomenon. This approach to data analysis is analogous to that of
Braun and Clarke (2006). Braun and Clarke (2006) distinguish be‐
tween semantic themes and latent themes, which are not entirely
different from the manner in which we clustered significant state‐
ments into key themes. What does distinguish our data analysis ap‐
proach from Braun and Clarke (2006), however, is our classification
of themes into textual and structural descriptions (and then combin‐
ing textual and structural descriptions into a composite), to concur
with the purpose of a phenomenological line of inquiry. To validate
our interpretations of the data, we used the “member checking”
technique, in which the interpretations of the data were sent back to
all of the participants to check whether the researcher's interpreta‐
tions of their remarks were accurate.
3.2 | Quantitative phase
With the qualitative foundation, as well as insights from the lit‐
erature, the research proceeded to the quantitative phase. Guided
by the positivist philosophy, structured mall intercept interviews
(Sudman, 1980) were conducted to collect quantitative data to test
the hypotheses. Face‐to‐face interviews were conducted in 27 se‐
lected shopping malls in various districts of Hong Kong. Every third
passer‐by was intercepted, and 332 agreed to complete the ques‐
tionnaire. If the respondent could not speak Cantonese but he/she
could speak English or Mandarin and he or she was a Hong Kong citi‐
zen, the interviewer still conducted the interview. The respondents
knew that the survey was about recycling before deciding to accept
or refuse the interview.
Among the 332 respondents, around 47% of respondents were
male (n = 155) and 53% were female (n = 177). Forty percent of re‐
spondents were 20–29, with the others 18 or 19 (16.9%), 30–39
(21.1%), 40–49 (12.0%), 50–59 (8.4%), or 60–69 (1.8%), with two
respondents (.3%) in their seventies. Around 55% of respondents
claimed to have completed tertiary education, 40.1% claimed a sec‐
ondary school education, and 4.5% had only primary‐level education.
Approximately 60% of the respondents claimed to earn a monthly
income of HK$10,000 or more. During the data analysis, gender, age,
education level, income, and location were treated as controls to as‐
sess any possible relationship with the two moderating variables.
|
      589
3.2.1 | Independent variable: Expectation of overall
participation
The first parts of the questionnaire addressed the respondent's ex‐
pectations about overall participation in recycling. This construct was
modified from the scales that were proposed by Sen and his associ‐
ates (Sen et al., 2001). A single‐item ratio scale was used to measure
the “expectations of overall participation in recycling” of respondents
as a percentage (e.g., What do you think is the percent of Hong Kong
citizens that participated in recycling in the past months?).
3.2.2 | Dependent variable: Likelihood of personal
participation in recycling
The likelihood of personal participation in recycling was assessed with
5 items, again borrowed from Sen and his colleagues (e.g., What is
your intention to recycle in HK?). Each item used a 7‐point response
scale ranging from 1 (definitely will not participate/very negative/not
at all favorable/very bad idea/not at all useful) to 7 (definitely will par‐
ticipate/very positive/very favorable/very good idea/very useful). The
Cronbach's Alpha of this scale was .89. Rating a higher score in the
scale reflects a greater likelihood to participate in recycling.
3.2.3 | Moderator variable: Degree of PE
The self‐perceived degree of efficacy also followed the measurement
technique of Sen's group with a single‐item (“The participation of each
additional person in recycling will have a significant effect on the suc‐
cess of recycling in Hong Kong”), measured on a 7‐point scale ranging
from 1(strongly disagree); to 7 (strongly agree) (e.g.). Some researchers
(Scarpello & Campbell, 1983; Wanous, Reichers, & Hudy, 1997) sug‐
gest that the reliability of single‐item measurement is reasonable and
acceptable, and there is no empirical evidence indicating that it is not.
In fact, in some cases a single‐item measure is preferable to a scale (cf.
Jones & Shah, 2016).
3.2.4 | Moderator variable: SVO
A SVO test was used to categorize the respondents into a pro‐so‐
cial and a pro‐self group according to their level of SVO. The meas‐
urement scale of Van Lange (Van Lange et al., 1997) was adopted,
consisting of nine items. The respondents were asked to imagine
themselves paired with another person whom they did not know.
They were then asked to distribute money between themselves and
the other person in various situations.
4 | R E S U LT S
4.1 | Qualitative study results
By analyzing the transcripts, 142 significant statements and 8
themes were identified. The themes were classified into either
 |
590       LEE et al.
textual description (participants’ common experience of recy‐
cling) or structural description (contexts or settings which the
respondents said influence their recycling behavior). The themes
suggested that most participants who (claimed to) recycle did so
because they wanted to do something for the benefit of society
or the world. They might feel guilty if they did not recycle. The
participants also claimed that they were willing to sacrifice their
own time and effort to do more for recycling. They professed
to believe that they could help to build a better world. Many re‐
spondents said they decided to recycle on their own. They did not
discuss their recycling decisions with others in advance. Most felt
that the recycling facilities in their living environment encouraged
their recycling behavior. Some even revealed that if there were no
recycling facilities, they would not recycle. Some who had studied
or traveled abroad said that experiencing the recycling practices
of their host countries had affected their subsequent recycling be‐
havior. When they returned to Hong Kong, they tried to recycle.
In addition, some participants reported that the recycling promo‐
tions of the Hong Kong government, the media or other organiza‐
tions motivated their recycling behavior. They felt that in recent
years there had been more promotion of recycling, and that the
government had spent more money to promote recycling habits.
They felt that the media and other environmentally friendly or‐
ganizations had also begun to discuss recycling more. In their view,
all of these influences had created a positive atmosphere encour‐
aging recycling.
Some of the participants in the phenomenological study noted
that their family members’ and friends’ recycling behavior had af‐
fected their intention to recycle because they often interacted with
them in their daily lives. Others mentioned that their working envi‐
ronment or companies had similarly affected their recycling behavior.
Most of the respondents (83.7%) professed to recycle at least
once every month. Within that group, 6.3% claimed to recycle daily,
29.5% every week and 47.9% every month. 4.2% said they did not re‐
cycle and 12% said they recycled irregularly (either daily or weekly).
The findings from this qualitative study re‐confirmed the choice
of social dilemma perspective as a basis for the quantitative research
(since many participants expressed the feeling that they faced what
they termed a dilemma when they found the situation inconvenient
for recycling), and aided in fine‐tuning the questionnaire used in the
quantitative research.
Variables Mean SD 1 2
1. The expectation of overall 29.98 17.93
participation
2. Degree of perceived efficacy 5.28 1.26 .10
3. Social value orientation .66 .47 .06
4. Likelihood of personal partici‐ 5.23 1.09 .12*  .50**  .27**
pation in recycling
Note: N = 332. p values are based on two‐tailed tests.
*p < .05; **p < .01.
4.2 | Quantitative study results
Table 1 reports the descriptive statistics, such as means, standard
deviations, and correlations among the variables. The correlation
among variables ranged from .06 to .5.
4.2.1 | Hypothesis testing
The present study employed Mplus 7 to run the regression analysis,
testing the hypotheses. “The likelihood of personal participation in
recycling” was set as the dependent variable. “Expectation of overall
participation” and its interactive terms with “degree of perceived ef‐
ficacy” and “social value orientation,” were set as predictors. Five
demographic variables, namely gender, age, education, income and
location were added as control variables.
Hypothesis 1 proposes a positive relationship between the expec‐
tation of others participating in recycling (PR) and the likelihood of
one's own participation. Referring to step1 of Table 2, simple linear
regression testing the relationship between expectation of overall par‐
ticipation and likelihood of personal participation in recycling showed
them to be positively related, B = .14, SE = .05, p < .01, 95% CI = [.03,
.24].Thus, Hypothesis 1 was supported.
Hypotheses 2 to 3 proposed the moderating roles for degree of
PE, and SVO in the observed relationship between expectation of
overall participation and likelihood of personal participation in recy‐
cling. Hierarchical moderated regression was used in testing these
two hypotheses. The standardized result, standard errors and 95%
confidence interval are reported in Table 2.
Hypothesis 2 predicts that stronger “perceived efficacy” should
weaken the relationship between expectation of overall partici‐
pation and likelihood of personal participation in recycling. Lower
“perceived efficacy” should strengthen it. However, referring to
Table 2, the step 3 of model 1 indicated that the product between
the expectation of overall participation and the degree of perceived
self‐efficacy, did not show a significant moderating effect on the
likelihood to participate in recycling, B = .22, SE = .23, n.s., 95%
CI = [−.23, .68].
Hypothesis 3 made a similar prediction about SVO. Weaker
pro‐social orientation was expected to strengthen the relation‐
ship between expectation of overall participation and likelihood
of personal participation in recycling. To test Hypothesis 3, the
TA B L E 1   Means, standard deviations,
3 4
and correlations among variables
.19** 
 
LEE et al. |
      591

TA B L E 2   Result of modeling analyses

Dependent variable—Likelihood of participation in recycling

Model 1 & Model

2 Model 1 Model 2

Step 1 Step2 Step 3 Step 2 Step 3 Model 3

Intercept 4.85 (.27) [4.32, 2.76 (.33) [2.12, 3.07 (.46) [2.17, 4.51 (.28) [3.96, 4.3 (.29) [3.74, 2.84 (.45) [1.96,
5.37] 3.39] 3.96] 5.05] 4.89] 3.72]
Control variables
Gender −.16**  (.05) [−.26, −.15** (.05) [−.24, −.15**  (.05) [−.24, −.16**  (.05) [−.26, −.17**  (.05) [−.27, −.16**  (.05)
−.05] −.06] −.05] −.06] −.07] [−.25, −.07]
Age .05 (.07) [−.08, .17] .02 (.06) [−.09, .13] .03 (.06) [−.09, .14] .06 (.06) [−.07, .18] .06 (.06) [−.07, .18] .03 (.06) [−.08,
.14]
Education .03 (.06) [−.09, .14] .06 (.05) [−.05, .16] .06 (.05) [−.05, .16] .03 (.06) [−.08, .14] .03 (.06) [−.09, .14] .05 (.05) [−.05,
.15]
Income .02 (.06) [−.10, .14] .001 (.05) [−.10, .001 (.05) [−.10, 0 (.06) [−.11, .11] −.01 (.06) [−.12, −.02 (.05) [−.12,
.10] .10] .10] .08]
Location −.09 (.06) [−.20, −.04 (.05) [−.13, −.03 (.05) [−.13, −.09 (.05) [−.19, −.1 (.05) [−.20, .01] −.04 (.05) [−.14,
.02] .06] .06] .02] .05]
Main effects
PR .14**  (.05) [.03, .08 (.05) [−.01, .17] −.12 (.21) [−.53, .12*  (.05) [.02, .23] .28**  (.09) [.1, .46] −.01 (.21) [−.42,
.24] .30] .40]
PE .49**  (.04) [.40, .41**  (.09) [.24, .36**  (.09) [.19,
.57] .59] .53]
SVO .26**  (.05) [.16, .44**  (.10) [.24, .36**  (.09) [.18,
.36] .63] .53]
Interacting effects
PR × PE .22 (.23) [−.23,.68] .27 (.23) [−.17,
.71]
PR × SVO −.26*  (.13) [−.51, −.27*  (.11)
−.01] [−.49, −.04]

F‐Value 2.94 17.88 15.76 6.22 6.00 15.28

2
R .05 .28 .28 .12 .13 .32

Note: N = 332, Standardized B coefficients, (standard errors), and [95% confidence intervals] are reported.
*p < .05; **p < .01

participants were categorized into pro‐social and pro‐self‐groups 5 | D I S CU S S I O N

using the SVO variable based on the 9 questions. Respondents
were classified when they made 6 or more consistent choices. Step
3 of Model 2 in Table 2 indicates a significant moderating effect,
B  =  −.26, SE  =  .13, p  <  .05, 95% CI  =  [−.51, −.01] (see Figure 2).
So, Hypothesis 3 is supported. Lastly, Model 3 in Table 2 involved
all constructs and interaction terms of the model. The results
are consistent with the separate path analyses, except the di‐
rect relationship between PR and the likelihood of participating
in recycling, B  =  −.01, SE  =  .21, n.s., 95% CI  =  [−.42, .40], which
turns insignificant in the full model, again providing support to the
hypotheses.
Table 3 summarizes the hypotheses testing. The central re‐
lationship of Hypothesis 1 was supported. Among the two pro‐
posed moderators, only SVO exhibited a significant moderating
influence.
5.1 | Theoretical implications
This study was undertaken to understand Hong Kong people's propen‐
sity to recycle in the hope of generating insights of theoretical and prac‐
tical value. Both qualitative and quantitative methods were applied. In
the qualitative study, most of the participants who said they recycle
explained that they wanted to do something for the society's benefit
and might feel guilty if they did not recycle. They expressed a commit‐
ment to sacrifice their time and effort for recycling. Furthermore, they
shared a motivation to recycle on their own, though most felt that
the availability of recycling facilities affects their willingness to recycle.
They did not discuss their recycling decisions with others in advance.
Some who had studied or traveled abroad said that participating in
recycling in other countries had affected their recycling behavior. In
 |
592       LEE et al.
F I G U R E 2   The interaction between PR and SVO as a moderator
of the relationship between PR and the likelihood of personal
participation in recycling (Step 3 of Model 2 in Table 2) [Color figure
can be viewed at wileyonlinelibrary.com]
TA B L E 3   Summary of hypothesis testing
Hypothesis Results Supported/Rejected
H1 β = .14; SE = .05; p < .01 Supported
H2 n.a. Rejected
H3 β=−.26; SE = .13; p < .05 Supported
addition, some participants found that the recycling promotions of
the Hong Kong government, the media or other organizations moti‐
vated their recycling behavior. Finally, some participants reported that
the recycling practices of their family members and friends or in their
working environment affected their intention to recycle. The qualita‐
tive study provided a deeper understanding of recycling experiences
in Hong Kong, confirmed that recycling is seen by consumers as rep‐
resenting a social dilemma, and built a foundation that complemented
the quantitative study.
In the quantitative study, hierarchical regression analyses sup‐
ported the idea that an expectation that others will recycle is pos‐
itively related to one's own intention to recycle. A SVO was found
to be a significant predictor of participation in recycling. It tends to
influence the relationship between one's expectation that others will
recycle and one's own intention to do so. It may be that people with
a more pro‐social orientation tend to more seriously evaluate the
morality of the question and perhaps value cooperation more highly
(Kelley & Stahelski, 1970; Van Lange, 1999). If they find others behave
competitively, they might change to behave less cooperatively. As Van
Lange (1999, p. 347) has suggested, pro‐social individuals will behave
in a less forgiving manner. Conversely, a weaker pro‐social orientation
could strengthen the relationship between the expectation of others’
participation and one's own intention to recycle, since more pro‐self‐
individuals might be more easily influenced by others when it comes
to recycling. PE, however, did not have a significant moderating effect,
which is in contrast to previous studies. Perhaps this is because PE
was tested in western contexts, but this study was conducted in Hong
Kong and the eastern cultural setting presumably affected the results.
Much of the previous research on recycling has neglected the
social dilemma perspective. As Smith et al. (1994) have suggested,
recycling involves a social dilemma for consumers as socially respon‐
sible behavior that benefits society but has a personal cost. This
study has contributed to the discussion by demonstrating that a so‐
cial dilemma perspective can be used to examine recycling behavior.
It has been the first study to apply a social dilemma perspective to
explain and predict recycling behavior, extending the social dilemma
model developed by Sen and his associates to a recycling context. In
the process, a new moderator, SVO, was found to provide a bound‐
ary condition to social dilemma perspective.
These results also shed some light on SRC at the level of the indi‐
vidual. Previous studies have mostly focused on the social responsi‐
bility of organizations (Aguinis & Glavas, 2012). Scholars have pressed
for further studies of the relationship between humans and the envi‐
ronment from a psychological perspective so as to better understand
human behavior and contribute to social well‐being (Clayton et al.,
2016). The study of recycling is related to collective environmental
benefits such as the conservation of natural resources. As such, this
study of recycling from the social dilemma perspective contributes to
scholarly understanding of the human‐environment relationship.
Finally, this study makes a significant methodological contribution
in examining social dilemma perspective. Previous studies (Sen et al.,
2001; Van Lange, 1999; Van Lange et al., 2013, 1998) used an experi‐
mental approach conducted in universities with student samples. This
study was conducted in a more natural setting with participants se‐
lected in the field, which helps to enhance the results’ external validity.
The research results are more generalizable to similar societal settings
(Hair, Anderson, Tatham, & Black, 2006; Sekaran & Bougie, 2009).
5.2 | Practical implications
The results of this study should be particularly important for govern‐
ments and marketers. The results clearly indicate that if the expecta‐
tion that others will recycle could be strengthened it would enhance
people's intentions to recycle. Public policy makers could find ways
of doing so with the help of skillful marketers. For example, the Hong
Kong government is currently promoting a “less‐waste” campaign to re‐
duce solid waste. Marketers might consider using a spokesperson such
as a celebrity to promote such campaigns. The government and private
organizations could make it more convenient for consumers to recycle
by, for example, increasing the number of recycling facilities. Marketers
should consider designing packaging which is easy to recycle. All in
all, the promotion focus should be to heighten consumers’ expecta‐
tions that recycling is a pervasive phenomenon that is common among
society members. In any case, recycling needs to be promoted on a
long‐term, continuous basis. If more momentum for overall participa‐
tion in recycling could be generated, the intention to participate should
gradually propagate throughout society. The moderating role found for
SVO suggests a second practical implication. More events promoting
LEE et al.
recycling could be carried out and focused on those who have a rela‐
tively weak pro‐social orientation, since they are more easily influenced
by others about recycling. If they were reached by more frequent pro‐
motional messages, they might be motivated to recycle. The more fre‐
quent the promotions, the greater their intention to recycle might be.
The study's results also suggest that more pro‐social people
seem to be more concerned about morality and fairness when con‐
sidering recycling. Marketers need to consider this in their position‐
ing of recycling behavior. Public policy makers must keep in mind
that this group of consumers has a strong desire for equality and
fairness in recycling. Thus, public policy makers may choose to em‐
phasize cooperation and equality in their positioning of recycling to
stimulate recycling among this group.
6 | LI M ITATI O N S A N D FU T U R E R E S E A RC H
D I R EC TI O N S
Although this study has generated a number of important theoretical
contributions and practical implications, the scales used were origi‐
nally developed in the West. Further refinement of the measures might
make them more suitable for studies in Asia. Second, this study applied
a cross‐sectional research design, aiming to measure established rela‐
tionships. Relationships can change over time and causality cannot be
determined unambiguously. Third, while the sample was large enough
to robustly test the hypothesized relationships, the respondents
knew that the survey was about recycling before deciding to accept
or refuse the interview, possibly resulting in some self‐selection bias.
Despite these limitations, the findings of this study make a significant
contribution to understanding consumer recycling behavior (at least in
Hong Kong) and offer a platform for future research.
Future research could build on this study by adding other variables
to test for moderating or mediating effects. Sen has suggested feelings
of personal responsibility (Sen et al., 2001). Researchers might also
consider other situations with similar trade‐offs, such as organ dona‐
tion, offering one's seat to others in need, and energy conservation. In
addition, a longitudinal design could be used to monitor relationship
changes rather than only measuring established relationships. Future
studies might also profitably test this model in other non‐Western cit‐
ies, for example in mainland China. And finally, it must be acknowl‐
edged that this study's sample was skewed toward those who were
younger and with more than average education. They may not be the
ones who make household recycling decisions. Further studies could
be based on a sample that more closely mirrors the distribution of
household responsibilities.
C O M P L I A N C E W I T H E T H I C A L S TA N DA R D S
Ada L.Y. Lee, Gerard P. Prendergast, Frederick H.K. Yim, and Lawrence
Choi declare that this manuscript has not been published in any lan‐
guage before and is not being considered concurrently for publication
elsewhere. The research reported in the manuscript was conducted
|
      593
in accordance with general ethical guidelines in psychology, and in‐
formed consent was obtained from all individual participants included
in the study. All authors have contributed significantly, and all authors
are in agreement with the content of the manuscript. Finally, this re‐
search was self‐funded, and there are no relationships that may pose
conflict of interest for any of the authors.
ORCID
Gerard P. Prendergast  https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3900-2850
REFERENCES
Aguinis, H., & Glavas, A. (2012). What we know and don't know about cor‐
porate social responsibility: A review and research agenda. Journal of
Management, 38(4), 932–968. https​://doi.org/10.1177/01492​06311​
436079
Anderson, W. T., Jr., & Cunningham, W. H. (1972). The socially con‐
scious consumer. Journal of Marketing, 36(July), 23–31. https​://doi.
org/10.2307/1251036
Bagozzi, R. P., & Dabholkar, P. A. (1994). Consumer recycling goals and
their effect on decision to recycle: A means‐end chain analysis.
Psychology and Marketing, 11(4), 313–341. https​://doi.org/10.1002/
mar.42201​10403​
Bandura, A. (1977). Self‐efficacy: Toward a unifying of behavioural
change. Psychological Review, 84(2), 191–215. https​ ://doi.
org/10.1037/0033-295x.84.2.191
Barkow, J., Cosmides, L., & Tooby, J. (1992). The adapted mind. New York,
NY: Oxford University Press.
Bearden, W. O., & Etzel, M. J. (1982). Reference group influence on
product and brand purchase decisions. Journal of Consumer Research,
9(September), 183–194. https​://doi.org/10.1086/208911
Biswas, A., Licata, J. W., McKee, D., Pullig, C., & Daughtridge, C.
(2000). The recycling cycle: An empirical examination of consumer
waste recycling and recycling shopping behaviours. Journal of
Public Policy & Marketing, 19(1), 93–105. https​ ://doi.org/10.1509/
jppm.19.1.93.16950​
Blackwell, R. D., Miniard, P. W., & Engel, J. F. (2012). Consumer behaviour.
Singapore: Cengage Learning.
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychol‐
ogy. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3, 77–101. https​ ://doi.
org/10.1191/14780​88706​qp063oa
Cameron, L. D., Brown, P. M., & Chapman, J. G. (1998). Social value ori‐
entations and decisions to take proenvironmental action. Journal of
Applied Social Psychology, 28, 675–697.
Cheung, C. F. (2014, April 11). Recycling firms to get up to HK$5 million
to divert waste from landfills. South China Morning Post. Retrieved
from http://www.scmp.com
Childers, T., & Rao, A. R. (1992). The influence of familial and peer‐
based reference groups on consumer decisions. Journal of
Consumer Research, 19(September), 191–211. https​ ://doi.org/
10.1086/209296
Clayton, S., Devine‐Wright, P., Swim, J., Bonnes, M., Steg, L., Whitarsh,
L., & Carrico, A. (2016). Expanding the role for psychology in address‐
ing environment challenges. American Psychologist, 71(3), 199–215.
https​://doi.org/10.1037/a0039482
Cojuharenco, I., Cornelissen, G., & Karelaia, N. (2016). Yes, I can: Feeling
connected to others increases perceived effectiveness and socially
responsible behavior. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 48, 75–86.
https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2016.09.002
Creswell, J. W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing
among five approaches (2nd ed.). London, UK: Sage.
 |
594       LEE et al.
Dawson, E. M., & Chartman, E. A. (2001). Reference group theory with
implications for information studies: A theoretical essay. Information
Research, 6(3), 105–120.
De Dreu, C. K. W., & Boles, T. L. (1998). Share and share alike or win‐
ner take all: The influence of social value orientation upon choice
and recall of negotiation heuristics. Organizational Behaviour and
Human Decision Processes, 76(3), 253–276. https​://doi.org/10.1006/
obhd.1998.2806
Doran, R., Hanss, D., & Larsen, S. (2015). Attitudes, efficacy beliefs,
and willingness to pay for environmental protection when travel‐
ling. Tourism and Hospitality Research, 15(4), 281–292. https​://doi.
org/10.1177/14673​58415​580360
Fletcher, J. (1966). Situation ethics: The new morality. Philadelphia, PA:
Westminster Press.
Geyer, R., Jambeck, J. R., & Law, K. L. (2017). Production, use, and fate of
all plastics ever made. Science Advances, 3(7), e1700782. https​://doi.
org/10.1126/sciadv.1700782
Green, T., Tinson, J., & Peloza, J. (2016). Giving the gift of goodness: An
exploration of socially responsible gift‐giving. Journal of Business
Ethics, 134(1), 29–44. https​://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-014-2076-0
Goldstein, N. J., Cialdini, R. B., & Griskevicius, V. (2008). A room with a
viewpoint: Using social norms to motivate environmental conserva‐
tion in hotels. Journal of Consumer Research, 35(3), 472–482. https​://
doi.org/10.1086/586910
Granzin, K. L., & Olsen, J. E. (1991). Characterizing participants in activi‐
ties protecting the environment: A focus on donating, recycling, and
conservation behaviors. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 10(2),
1–27. https​://doi.org/10.1177/07439​15691​01000201
Gupta, S., & Ogden, D. T. (2009). To buy or not to buy? A social dilemma
perspective on green buying. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 26(6),
378–393. https​://doi.org/10.1108/07363​76091​0988201
Hair, J. F., Anderson, R., Tatham, R., & Black, W. (2006). Multivariate data
analysis. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson/Prentice Hall Inc.
Hardin, G. (1968). The tragedy of commons. Science, New Series,
162(3859), 1243–1248. https​://doi.org/10.4324/97804​29493744
Ittiravivongs, A. (2012). Recycling as habitual behaviour: The impact
of habit on household waste recycling behaviour in Thailand. Asian
Social Science, 8(6), 74–81. https​://doi.org/10.5539/ass.v8n6p74
Jones, S. L., & Shah, P. P. (2016). Diagnosing the locus of trust: A temporal
perspective for trustor, trustee, and dyadic influences on perceived
trustworthiness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 101(3), 392–414.
https​://doi.org/10.1037/apl00​0 0041​
Kelley, H. H., & Stahelski, A. J. (1970). Social interaction basis of coopera‐
tors' and competitors' beliefs about others. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 16(1), 66–91. https​://doi.org/10.1037/h0029849
Kerr, N. L. (1989). Illusions of efficacy: The effects of group size on perceived
efficacy in social dilemmas. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology,
25(4), 287–313. https​://doi.org/10.1016/0022-1031(89)90024-3
Klandermans, B. (1992). Persuasive communication: Measures to over‐
come real‐life social dilemma. In W. B. G. Liebrand, D. M. Mssick, &
H. A. M. Wilke (Eds.), A social psychological approach to social dilemma
(pp. 307–318). New York, NY: Pergamon.
Komorita, S. S., & Parks, C. D. (1994). Social dilemmas. Dubuque, IA:
Brown & Benchmark.
Kuhlman, D. M., & Marshello, A. (1975). Individual differences in game
motivation as moderators of preprogrammed strategy effects in
prisoner's dilemma. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 32(5),
922–931. https​://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.32.5.922
McClintock, C. G., & Liebrand, W. B. G. (1988). The role of interde‐
pendence structure, individual value orientation and other's strat‐
egy in social decision making: A transformational analysis. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 55(3), 396–409. https​ ://doi.
org/10.1037/0022-3514.55.3.396
Moustakas, C. (1994). Phenomenological research methods. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Murphy, R. O., Ackermann, K. A., & Handgraaff, M. J. J. (2011). Measuring
social value orientation. Judgment and Decision Making, 6(8), 771–781.
https​://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1804189
Orbell, J., & Dawes, R. (1981). Social dilemma. In G. Stephenson & J. H.
Davis (Eds.), Progress in applied social psychology (Vol. 1). Chichester,
England: Wiley.
Ostrom, E. (2010). Collective action and the evolution of social norms.
Journal of Economic Perspectives, 14(3), 137–158. https​ ://doi.
org/10.1257/jep.14.3.137
Parks, C. D., Henager, R. F., & Scamahorn, S. D. (1996). Trust and reac‐
tions to messages of intent in social dilemmas. The Journal of Conflict
Resolution, 40(1), 134–151. https​://doi.org/10.1177/00220​02796​
04000​1007
Perkins, K. A., Parzynski, C., Mercincavage, M., Conklin, C. A., & Fonte,
C. A. (2012). Is self‐efficacy for smoking abstinence a cause of, or
a reflection on smoking behavior change? Experimental and Clinical
Psychopharmacology, 20(1), 56–62. https​://doi.org/10.1037/
a0025482
Rao, U. H. (1994). Guest editorial: Psychology, marketing & recycling.
Psychology and Marketing, 11(4), iii–iv.
Roberts, J. A. (1995). Profiling levels of socially responsible consumer
behavior: A cluster analytic approach and its implications for market‐
ing. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 3(4), 97–117. https​://doi.
org/10.1080/10696​679.1995.11501709
Schlaile, M. P., Klein, K., & Bock, W. (2016). From bounded morality to con‐
sumer social responsibility: A transdisciplinary approach to socially
responsible consumption and its obstacles. Journal of Business Ethics,
149(3), 561–588, https​://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-016-3096-8
Scarpello, V., & Campbell, J. P. (1983). Job satisfaction: Are all the parts
there? Personnel Psychology, 36, 577–600.
Sekaran, U., & Bougie, R. (2009). Research methods for business: A skill
building approach (5th ed.). West Sussex, UK: John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Sen, S., Gurhan‐Canli, Z., & Morwitz, V. (2001). Withholding consump‐
tion: A social dilemma perspective on consumer boycotts. Journal of
Consumer Research, 28(3), 399–417. https​://doi.org/10.1086/323729
Smith, S. M., Haugtvedt, C. P., & Petty, R. E. (1994). Attitudes and re‐
cycling: Does the measurement of affect enhance behavioral
prediction? Psychology & Marketing, 11(4), 359–374. https​ ://doi.
org/10.1002/mar.42201​10405​
Sudman, S. (1980). Improving the quality of shopping center sam‐
pling. Journal of Marketing Research, 17(4), 423. https​ ://doi.
org/10.2307/3150496
Tonglet, M., Phillips, P. S., & Read, A. D. (2004). Using the theory of
planned behaviour to investigate the determinants of recycling be‐
haviour: A case study from Brixworth, UK. Resources, Conservations
and Recycling, 41(3), 191–214. https​ ://doi.org/10.1016/j.resco​
nrec.2003.11.001
Van Lange, P. A. M. (1999). The pursuit of joint outcomes and equality in
outcomes: An integrative model of social value orientation. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 77(2), 337–349. https​ ://doi.
org/10.1037/0022-3514.77.2.337
Van Lange, P. A. M., Agnew, C. R., Harinck, F., & Steemers, G. E. M.
(1997). From game theory to real life: How social value orientation
affects willingness to sacrifice in ongoing close relationships. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 73(6), 1330–1344. https​://doi.
org/10.1037/0022-3514.73.6.1330
Van Lange, P. A. M., Balliet, D., Parks, C. D., & Van Vugt, M. (2014). Social
dilemmas: The psychology of human cooperation. Oxford, UK: Oxford
University Press.
Van Lange, P. A. M., Joireman, J., Parks, C. D., & Van Dijk, E. (2013). The
psychology of social dilemmas: A review. Organizational Behaviour
and Human Decision Processes, 120(2), 125–141. https​ ://doi.
org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2012.11.003
Van Lange, P. A. M., & Kuhlman, D. M. (1994). Social value orientations
and impressions of partner's honesty and intelligence: A test of
LEE et al.
the might versus morality effect. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 67, 126–141.
Van Lange, P. A. M., Van Vugt, M., Meertens, R. M., & Ruiter, R. A. (1998). A
social dilemma analysis of commuting preferences: The roles of social
value orientation and trust. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 28(9),
796–820. https​://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.1998.tb017​32.x
Wan, C., Shen, G. Q., & Yu, A. (2014). The role of perceived effectiveness
of policy measures in predicting recycling behavior in Hong Kong.
Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 83(February), 141–151. https​://
doi.org/10.1016/j.resco​nrec.2013.12.009
Wanous, J. P., Reichers, A. E., & Hudy, M. J. (1997). Overall job satis‐
faction: How good are single-item measures? Journal of Applied
Psychology, 82, 247–252.
Webster, F. E., Jr. (1975). Determining the characteristics of the socially
conscious consumer. Journal of Consumer Research, 2(3), 188–196.
https​://doi.org/10.1086/208631
Welman, J. C., & Kruger, S. J. (1999). Research methodology for the business
and administrative sciences. Johannesburg, South Africa: International
Thompson.
|
      595
Werder, O. (2002). Understanding values and attitudes toward recycling:
Predictions and implications for communication campaigns. University
of Florida, UMI Dissertations Publishing.
Wiener, J. L. (1993). What makes people sacrifice their freedom
for the good of their community. Journal of Public Policy and
Marketing, 12(Fall), 244–251. https​://doi.org/10.1177/07439​156
91​01200209
Wood, R., & Bandura, A. (1989). Impact of conceptions of ability on
self‐regulatory mechanisms and complex decision making. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 56(3), 407–415. https​ ://doi.
org/10.1037/0022-3514.56.3.407
How to cite this article: Lee ALY, Prendergast GP, Yim FHK,
Choi L. A social dilemma perspective on recycling. J Appl Soc
Psychol. 2019;49:585–595. https​://doi.org/10.1111/jasp.12618​