Análisis de la Compañía-Marca

The traditional “rational” choice approach to behaviour asserts “that behaviour is the outcome of rational deliberations in which individuals seek to maximise their own expected

„utility‟” (Jackson, 2005 p27). In other words, individuals make reasoned choices based on the expected costs and benefits of different actions (Martiskainen, 2007). Thus, it is assumed that an individual will choose actions that provide the greatest value or least cost to themselves (e.g. in terms of financial benefit, effort, comfort, etc) (Jackson, 2005; Steg and Vlek, 2009). This process has lead to rational choice models often being referred to as „expectancy value models‟ (Jackson, 2005).

Although economic and other cost factors are clearly important determinants of individuals‟

behaviour, rational choice theory has received criticism due to its assumption that all individuals have the time and information necessary to make rational decisions and that individuals are only concerned with their own self-interest (Kollmus and Agyeman, 2002;

Jackson, 2005; Martiskainen, 2007). In light of such criticism, a number of theories attempted to alter rational choice theory with the inclusion of other behavioural factors.

63 3.5.2 Attitudes, beliefs and values

Attitude can be defined as “a general evaluation reaction towards an object, a person, an issue, a behavior or other entity” (Staats, 2003 p171) and a belief as “any proposition that is accepted to be true” (Colman, 2001 p84). Thus, attitudes differ from beliefs, because they involve the process of evaluation (i.e. positive or negative). In the 1970s attitude was found to correlate with both conservation behaviour (e.g. feelings of obligation, the

importance of energy conservation to society) and with unwillingness to conserve energy (e.g. comfort, health) (Lutzenhiser, 1993; Becker, Seligman, Fazio and Darley, 1981). A succession of more systematic studies attempted to model the underlying processes that were believed to influence conservation behaviour. These early studies often used Fishbein and Ajzen‟s Theory of Reasoned Action (TRA) (shown in Figure 3-1), which contends that individuals behave in response to their beliefs about the outcomes of their behaviour and the value that they connect to the outcomes (Lutzenhiser, 1993). Thus, the TRA is founded on „expectancy value theory‟ (i.e. people expect certain value (or utility) from the outcomes of their behaviour) (Martiskainen, 2007).

Figure 3-1 Fishbein and Ajzen‟s Theory of Reasoned Action (Jackson, 2005 p46)

In the TRA an individual‟s beliefs about and evaluation of the outcomes of a given behaviour result in an attitude towards the behaviour. This influences an individual‟s intention to act in particular way (Darnton, 2008b). Intention is the key determinant of

64

behaviour and is “the deliberate plan to perform the behaviour” (Staats, 2003 p174).

Intention is also influenced by an individual‟s subjective norm (Staats, 2003). The

subjective norm is the individual‟s perception of whether people who are of importance to the individual (e.g. friends, family, peers etc) think he/she should or should not perform the behaviour (Jackson, 2005).

The TRA assumes that one‟s intention is a consistent indicator of actual behaviour.

However, behaviour often occurs when individuals do not have complete volitional control (i.e. the willingness or the choice) (Jackson, 2005). Ajzen‟s (1991) Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB) attempts to deal with situations where there is incomplete volitional control. The TPB (shown in Figure 3-2) includes the construct of perceived behavioural control (PBC), which can be defined as an individual‟s belief of how easy or difficult it is to perform the behaviour. Thus, the TPB contends that the development of an attitude, the influence of the subjective norm and the perceived degree of control to perform the

behaviour, form an intention that can be used to predict actual behaviour (Jackson, 2005).

Figure 3-2 Ajzen‟s (1991) Theory of Planned Behaviour (Jackson, 2005 p49)

65

The TPB has been used widely in environmental psychology research, but many studies have measured the relationships between attitudes, intention and perceived behavioural control rather than actual behaviour (Jackson, 2005; Martiskainen, 2007). This has led to criticism of the TPB, because environmental attitudes often have a small impact on actual pro-environmental behaviour (Kollmuss and Agyeman, 2002) and there is often a

difference between what people say and what they actually do (Darnton, 2008b). The TPB‟s inherent assumption that individuals are rational has led to further criticism (Jackson, 2005; Martiskainen, 2007).

Nevertheless, TPB has been successful in explaining the role of attitudes and beliefs for a number of types of environmental behaviour and findings from intervention studies have supported this view (Steg and Vlek, 2009). For example, Brandon and Lewis (1999) found that, although “environmental attitudes had no statistically significant effect on previous (historic) consumption” (Brandon and Lewis, 1999 p83), people with pro-environmental attitudes (who had not previously engaged in conservation actions) were more inclined to alter their energy behaviour.

Within TRA and TPB is the notion that an individual‟s value of a behavioural outcome can influence the behaviour process. Stern et al. (1995) argue that deep-seated values and worldviews play an over-arching role in peoples‟ behaviour. Values are conceptualised “as broad-based dispositions which are constructed earlier in life than beliefs and attitudes;

they are also more stable over time” (Darnton, 2008 p14). Worldviews are wide-ranging belief-systems, which give people their general outlook on reality and influences what an individual values to be important (Gardner and Stern, 2002). These values and

worldviews are seen as filters, for new information, that facilitate the development of congruent attitudes and beliefs that consequently determine behaviour (Poortinga, Steg, Vlek, 2004). Studies that have examined the value-basis of environmental beliefs and behaviour, have generally found that the more strongly individuals possess altruistic, social, self-transcendent or biospheric values, the more likely they are to display pro-environmental behaviours (Steg and Vlek, 2009). Thus, values are partly responsible for shaping behavioural motivation (Kollmuss and Agyeman, 2002).

66 3.5.3 Morality and normative influence

Connected to values is the idea of moral and normative influence. Although the TRA and TPB incorporate normative influences to some degree (through subjective norm), it has been suggested that this aspect “exhausts neither the range of normative influences nor the importance of altruistic or moral values in individual behaviour” (Jackson, 2005). A number of energy and environmental studies have investigated the influence of moral and normative concerns using Schwartz‟s (1977) norm-activation model (NAM) or Stern‟s (2000) value-belief-norm theory of environmentalism (VBN) (Steg and Vlek, 2009). The NAM (shown in Figure 3-3) contends that personal norms (i.e. personal belief about the morality of the behaviour) are the only determinant of environmental behaviour. Personal norms are subject to an individual‟s awareness of consequences and ascription of

responsibility, which also moderate the link between the personal norm and the behaviour.

In other words, the relationship between the personal norm and behaviour is stronger when an individual is aware of the negative consequences of not engaging in the behaviour and where the individual accepts responsibility for these consequences (Jackson, 2005).

Figure 3-3 Schwartz‟s norm-activation model (Jackson, 2005 p55)

The VBN model (shown in Figure 3-4) contends that pro-social attitudes and personal moral norms are the predictors of pro-environmental behaviour (Jackson, 2005;

Martiskainen, 2007). The VBN model “links value theory, norm-activation theory, and the New Environmental Paradigm (NEP) perspective through a causal chain of five variables

67

leading to behaviour” (Stern, 2000 p412). The theory assumes that acceptance of the NEP (a set of pro-environmental values and worldview (Gardner and Stern, 2002)) results in a level of awareness of the consequences antecedent in the NAM. The degree of acceptance of the NEP correlates positively with biospheric and altruistic values, and negatively with egoistic values (Jackson, 2005). Accordingly, the acceptance of the NEP correlates positively with the awareness of the consequences of an individual‟s actions.

This leads to an awareness of responsibility to reduce those consequences and a personal norm is developed to partake in pro-environmental behaviour (Jackson, 2005; Stern, 2000).

Figure 3-4 Stern‟s (2000) value-belief-norm theory of environmentalism (Stern, 2000 p412)

Studies that have used NAM and VBN have been able to link norms to low cost

environmental behaviours and “good intentions” (e.g. willingness to change behaviour and accept policy change) (Steg and Vlek, 2009). Although such behaviours may be seen as relatively unimportant, they may enable significant infrastructural changes to be made, such as the acceptance of fuel taxes or more stringent building codes (Kollmuss and Agyeman, 2002). However, a problem for value models is that there appears to be a

“relatively weak correlation between personal norms and indicators of pro-environmental behaviour” (Jackson, 2005 p58). Although this does not negate the importance of moral values to environmental behaviour, it does suggest that other factors may improve the explanation of behavioural variance (Jackson, 2005).

68 3.5.4 Affective influence and symbolism

The influence of factors, such as morals and norms, moves the understanding of

behaviour away from rational theory. NAM argues that the awareness of consequences is a feeling of moral obligation, which suggests an emotional involvement. Thus, affect (i.e.

emotions) appears to be an important determinant of behaviour (Darnton, 2008b). Pooley and O‟Connor (2000) found that affect was a significant predictor of attitudes toward a range of environmental issues and Kollmuss and Agyeman (2002) highlight that emotions help shape beliefs, values, and attitudes towards the environment. Lindenburg and Steg (2007) argue that emotional reactions to environmental problems appear to relate to environmental behaviour and highlight that individuals are more likely to engage in pro-environmental behaviour, when they derive pleasure and satisfaction. For instance, Ojala (2008) found that a “mix of negative emotions (worry) and positive emotions (hope and joy) about the environmental problems was positively related to recycling” (Ojala, 2008 p777).

Jackson states that “consumers build affective relationships with products and respond at an emotional level to decisions about what to buy and how to behave” (Jackson, 2005 pvii). This affective relationship may link to the degree of symbolism involved in the adoption and use of material goods. Lutzenhiser (1993) highlights that a cluster of studies suggested that, in addition to their functional use, household appliances can have

collective meanings and must conform to status expectations. Consequently, affective factors and symbolism may often override the cognitive processes that influence behaviour (Darnton, 2008b). This may be of particular importance to the purchase and use of ICE appliances, because many ICE appliances are inherently focussed on the provision of pleasure (i.e. entertainment) and some ICE appliances have been found to possess a degree of social symbolism (Gram-Hanssen, 2005).