Residence hall residents indicated their attitudes about recycling and their perceptions of whether friends and family believed they should recycle at the beginning and toward the end of a semester. They also reported their recycling behavior at the end of the semester. Attitudes, but not subjective norms, predicted behavior, and participants became more similar to their fellow group members in attitudes and behavior over time. Attitudes and fellow group member behavior best predicted recycling, supporting the theory of reasoned action, dynamic social impact theory, and their integration.
AjzenI. (1985). From intentions to actions: A theory of planned behavior. In KuhlJ.BeckmannJ. (Eds.), Action-control: From cognition to behavior (pp. 11-39). Heidelberg, Germany: Springer.
2.
AjzenI. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50, 179-211. doi:10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-T
3.
AjzenI.FishbeinM. (1980). Understanding attitudes and predicting social behavior. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
4.
ArmitageC. I.ConnerM. (2001). Efficacy of the theory of planned behaviour: A meta-analytic review. British Journal of Social Psychology, 40, 471-499. doi:10.1348/014466601164939
5.
BergerI. (1997). The demographics of recycling and the structure of environmental behavior. Environment & Behavior, 29, 515-531. doi:10.1177/001391659702900404
6.
BolderoJ. (1995). The prediction of household recycling of newspapers: The role of attitudes, intentions, and situational factors. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 25, 440-462. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.1995.tb01598.x
7.
BourgeoisM. J.BowenA. M. (2001). Self-organization of alcohol-related attitudes and beliefs in a campus housing complex: An initial investigation. Health Psychology, 20, 434-437. doi:10.1037/0278-6133.20.6.434
8.
BowenA. M.BourgeoisM. J. (2001). The contribution of pluralistic ignorance, dynamic social impact, and contact theories to attitudes toward lesbian, gay, and bisexual college students. Journal of American College Health, 50, 91-96. doi:10.1080/07448480109596012
9.
CarrusG.PassafaroP.BonnesM. (2008). Emotions, habits and rational choices in ecological behaviours: The case of recycling and use of public transportation. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 28, 51-62.
10.
CialdiniR. B.RenoR. R.KallgrenC. A. (1990). A focus theory of normative conduct: Recycling the concept of norms to reduce littering in public places. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58, 1015-1026. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.58.6.1015
11.
CrawfordT. J.BoyerR. (1985). Salient consequences, cultural values, and childbearing intentions. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 15, 16-30. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.1985.tb00891.x
12.
CullumJ. (2003). Culture from chaos: The formation of social norms from the dynamic self-organization of individuals’ attitudes (Unpublished master’s thesis). University of Northern Iowa, Cedar Falls, IA.
13.
CullumJ.HartonH. C. (2007). Cultural evolution: Interpersonal influence, issue importance, and the development of shared attitudes in college residence halls. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 33, 1327-1339.
14.
deGrootJ.StegL. (2007). General beliefs and the theory of planned behavior: The role of environmental concerns in the TPB. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 37, 1817-1836. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.2007.00239.x
15.
DerksenL.GartrellJ. (1993). The social context of recycling. American Sociological Review, 58, 434-442. doi:10.2307/2095910
16.
DiamondJ. (2005). Collapse. New York, NY: Viking.
17.
EwingG. (2001). Altruistic, egoistic, and normative effects on curbside recycling. Environment & Behavior, 33, 733-764. doi:10.1177/00139160121973223
18.
FishbeinM.AjzenI. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention, and behavior: An introduction to theory and research. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
19.
GambaR.OskampS. (1994). Factors influencing community residents’ participation in commingled curbside recycling programs. Environment & Behavior, 26, 587-612. doi:10.1177/0013916594265001
20.
GoldenharL. M.ConnellC. M. (1992-1993). Understanding and predicting recycling behavior: An application of the theory of reasoned action. Journal of Environmental Systems, 22, 91-103.
21.
GreveW. (2001). Traps and gaps in action explanation: Theoretical problems of a psychology of human action. Psychological Review, 108, 141-184.
22.
GuagnanoG. A.SternP. C.DietzT. (1995). Influences on attitude-behavior relationships: A natural experiment with curbside recycling. Environment & Behavior, 27, 699-718.
23.
GuerinD.CreteJ.MercierJ. (2001). A multilevel analysis of the determinants of recycling behavior in European countries. Social Science Research, 20, 195-218. doi:10.1006/ssre.2000.0694
24.
HarlandP.StaatsH.WilkeH. A. M. (1999). Explaining proenvironmental intention and behavior by personal norms and the theory of planned behavior. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 29, 2505-2528. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.1999.tb00123.x
25.
HarlandP.StaatsH.WilkeH. A. M. (2007). Situational and personality factors as direct or personal norm mediated predictors of pro-environmental behavior: Questions derived from norm-activation theory. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 29, 323-334. doi:10.1080/01973530701665058
26.
HartonH. C.BourgeoisM. J. (2004). Cultural elements emerge from dynamic social impact. In SchallerM.CrandallC. (Eds.), The psychological foundations of culture (pp. 41-75). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
27.
HartonH. C.BullockM. (2007). Dynamic social impact: A theory of the origins and evolution of culture. Social & Personality Psychology Compass, 1, 521-540. doi:10.1111/j.1751-9004.2007.00022.x
28.
HartonH. C.GreenL. R.JacksonC.LatanéB. (1998). Demonstrating dynamic social impact: Consolidation, clustering, correlation, and (sometimes) the correct answer. Teaching of Psychology, 25, 31-34. doi:10.1207/s15328023top2501_9
29.
HausteinS.HuneckeM. (2007). Reduced use of environmentally friendly modes of transportation caused by perceived mobility necessities: An extension of the theory of planned behavior. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 37, 1856-1883. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.2007.00241.x
30.
HornikJ.CherianJ.MadanskyM.NarayanaC. (1995). Determinants of recycling behavior: A synthesis of research results. Journal of Socio-Economics, 24, 105-127. doi:10.1016/1053-5357(95)90032-2
31.
KingG. W. (1975). An analysis of attitudinal and normative variables as predictors of intentions and behavior. Speech Monographs, 42, 237-244. doi:10.1080/03637757509375899
32.
KoestnerR.HoulfortN.PaquetS.KnightC. (2001). On the risks of recycling because of guilt: An examination of the consequences of introjection. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 31, 2545-2560. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.2001.tb00190.x
33.
LarsenK. S. (1995). Environmental waste: Recycling attitudes and correlates. Journal of Social Psychology, 135, 83-89.
34.
LatanéB. (1981). The psychology of social impact. American Psychologist, 36, 343-356. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.36.4.343
35.
LatanéB. (1996). Dynamic social impact: The creation of culture by communication. Journal of Communication, 46, 13-25. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.1996.tb01501.x
36.
LatanéB.BourgeoisM. J. (1996). Experimental evidence for dynamic social impact: The emergence of subcultures in electronic groups. Journal of Communication, 46, 35-47. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.1996.tb01503.x
37.
LatanéB.BourgeoisM. J. (2000). Dynamic social impact and the consolidation, clustering, correlation, and continuing diversity of culture. In TindaleR. S.HoggM. (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology volume 4: Group processes (pp. 235-258). London, England: Blackwell.
38.
LudwigT.GrayT.RowellA. (1998). Increasing recycling in academic buildings: A systematic replication. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 31, 683-686. doi:10.1901/jaba.1998.31-683
39.
MargaiF. (1997). Analyzing changes in waste reduction behavior in a low-income urban community following a public outreach program. Environment & Behavior, 29, 769-792. doi:10.1177/0013916597296003
40.
MartinezM.ScicchitanoM. (1998). Who listens to trash talk? Education and public media effects on recycling behavior. Social Science Quarterly, 79, 287-300.
41.
McKinneyM. L.SchochR. M.YonavjakL. (2007). Environmental science. Sudbury, MA: Jones and Bartlett.
42.
NowakA.SzamrejJ.LatanéB. (1990). From private attitude to public opinion: A dynamic theory of social impact. Psychological Review, 97, 362-376. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.97.3.362
43.
OregS.Katz-GerroT. (2006). Predicting proenvironmental behavior cross-nationally: Values, the theory of planned behavior, and value-belief-norm theory. Environment & Behavior, 38, 462-483. doi:10.1177/0013916505286012
44.
OskampS. (1995). Applying social psychology to avoid ecological disaster. Journal of Social Issues, 51, 217-238. doi:10.1111/j.1540-4560.1995.tb01356.x
45.
OskampS. (2000). Psychological contributions to achieving an ecologically sustainable future for humanity. Journal of Social Issues, 56, 373-390. doi:10.1111/0022-4537.00173
ParkH. S.LevineT. R.SharkeyW. F. (1998). The theory of reasoned action and self-construals: Understanding recycling in Hawaii. Communication Studies, 49, 196-208.
48.
PomazalR. J.JaccardJ. J. (1976). An informational approach to altruistic behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 33, 317-326. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.33.3.317
49.
RenoR.CialdiniR.KallgrenC. A. (1993). The trans-situational influence of social norms. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64, 104-112. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.64.1.104
50.
SchultzP. W. (1999). Changing behavior with normative feedback interventions: A field experiment on curbside recycling. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 21, 25-36.
51.
SchultzP. W.NolanJ. M.CialdiniR. B.GoldsteinN. J.GriskeviciusV. (2007). The constructive, destructive, and reconstructive power of social norms. Psychological Science, 18, 429-434. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2007.01917.x
52.
SchultzP. W.OskampS.MainieriT. (1995). Who recycles and when? A review of personal and situational factors. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 15, 105-121. doi:10.1016/0272-4944(95)90019-5
53.
SchwartzS. H. (1977). Normative influences on altruism. In BerkowitzL. (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 10, pp. 221-279). New York, NY: Academic Press.
54.
SheppardB. H.HartwickJ.WarshawP. R. (1988). The theory of reasoned action: A meta-analysis of past research with recommendations for modifications and future research. Journal of Consumer Research, 15, 325-343. doi:10.1086/209170
55.
SternP. C.DietzT.AbelT.GuagnanoG. A.KalofL. (1999). A value-belief-norm theory of support for social movements: The case of environmental concern. Human Ecology Review, 6, 81-97.
56.
TaylorS.ToddP. (1995). An integrated model of waste management behavior: A test of household recycling and composting intentions. Environment & Behavior, 27, 603-630. doi:10.1177/0013916595275001
57.
ThogersenJ. (1996). Recycling and morality: A critical review of the literature. Environment & Behavior, 28, 536-538. doi:10.1177/0013916596284006
58.
United Nations. (2007). Global environmental outlook. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
59.
ValleP. O. D.RebeloE.ReisE.MenezesJ. (2005). Combining behavioral theories to predict recycling involvement. Environment & Behavior, 37, 364-396. doi:10.1177/0013916504272563
60.
van den PutteB. (1993). On the theory of reasoned action (Doctoral dissertation). Universiteit van Amsterdam, Netherlands.
61.
ViningJ.EbreoA. (1992). Predicting recycling behavior from global and specific environmental attitudes and changes in recycling opportunities. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 22, 1580-1607. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.1992.tb01758.x
62.
WernerC.TurnerJ.ShipmanK.TwitchellF. (1995). Commitment, behavior, and attitude change: An analysis of voluntary recycling. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 15, 197-208. doi:10.1016/0272-4944(95)90003-9
