Evidence from past pro-environmental programs suggests that the invalidation of individuals’ expectations could lead them to drop out of a given program. The aim of this research is to evaluate the impact of the invalidation of expectations on individuals’ commitment to a waste-sorting program. We focused on the hierarchy that may exist among these expectations by drawing on the dichotomy between central and peripheral cognitions proposed within the framework of the theory of social representations. In this perspective, expectations are the result of a body of socially constructed knowledge and can be characterized either by a central (essential) or peripheral (non-essential) status. Results show that withdrawing from the program is significantly more frequent when the experimenter invalidates a central cognition than when he invalidates a peripheral one. This moderating effect highlights the importance of taking into account representations with a view to explaining or preventing withdrawal from pro-environmental programs.
AbricJ.-C. (1993). Central system, peripheral system: Their functions and roles in the dynamic of social representations. Papers on Social Representations, 2, 75-78.
2.
AbricJ.-C. (1994). L’organisation interne des représentations sociales: Système central et système périphérique [The internal organization of social representations: central system and peripheral system]. In GuimelliC. (Ed.), Structures et transformations des représentations sociales (pp. 73-84). Neuchâtel, Switzerland: Delachaux et Niestlé.
3.
AbricJ.-C. (2001). L’approche structurale des représentations sociales: développements récents [The structural approach to social representations: recent developpements]. Psychologie et Société, 4, 81-103.
4.
AbricJ.-C. (2003). Méthodes d’étude des représentations sociales [Methods of study of social representations]. Ramonville Saint-Agne, France: Erès.
5.
BemD. (1972). Self-perception theory. In BerkowitzL. (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (pp. 1-62). New York, NY: Academic Press. doi:10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60024-6
BucciolA.MontinariN.PiovesanM.ValmasoniL. (2013). Measuring the impact of economic incentives in waste sorting. In D’AmatoA.MazzantiM.MontiniA. (Eds.), Waste management in spatial environments (pp. 28-42). London, England: Routledge.
8.
BurnS. M. (1991). Social psychology and the stimulation of recycling behaviors: The block leader approach. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 21, 611-629. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.1991.tb00539.x
9.
BurnS. M.OskampS. (1986). Increasing community recycling with persuasive communication and public commitment. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 16, 29-41. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.1986.tb02276.x
10.
CarpenterC. J. (2013). A meta-analysis of the effectiveness of the “but you are free” compliance-gaining technique. Communication Studies, 64, 6-17.
11.
ChuP. Y.ChiuJ. F. (2003). Factors influencing household waste recycling behavior: Test of an integrated model. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 33, 604-626.
12.
CialdiniR. B. (2003). Crafting normative messages to protect the environment. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 12, 105-109. doi:10.1111/1467-8721.01242
13.
CialdiniR. B.CacioppoJ. T.BassettR.MillerJ. A. (1978). Low-ball procedure for producing compliance: Commitment then cost. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36, 463-476. doi:10.1037//0022-3514.36.5.463
14.
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
15.
DanyL.UrdapilletaI.Lo MonacoG. (2015). Free associations and social representations: Some reflections on rank-frequency and importance-frequency methods. Quality & Quantity, 49, 489-507. doi:10.1007/s11135-014-0005-z
16.
Di GiacomoJ. P. (1981). Aspects méthodologiques de l’analyse des représentations sociales [Methodological aspects of the analysis of social representations]. Cahiers de Psychologie Cognitive, 1, 397-422.
17.
DupréM. (2013). Représentations sociales du tri sélectif et des déchets en fonction des pratiques de tri [Sorting practices and social representations of waste and recycling]. Les Cahiers Internationaux de Psychologie Sociale, 98, 173-209.
18.
DupréM. (2014). The comparative effectiveness of persuasion, commitment and leader block strategies in motivating sorting. Waste Management, 34, 730-737.
19.
DurR.VollaardB. (2015). The power of a bad example: A field experiment in household garbage disposal. Environment and Behavior, 47, 970-1000.
20.
El-FadelM.FindikakisA. N.LeckieJ. O. (1997). Environmental impacts of solid waste landfilling. Journal of Environmental Management, 50, 1-25. doi:10.1006/jema.1995.0131
21.
EverettJ. W.PeirceJ. J. (1993). Curbside recycling in the USA: Convenience and mandatory participation. Waste Management & Research, 11, 49-61.
22.
FlamentC. (1995). Approche expérimentale de type psychophysique dans l’étude d’une représentation [Psychophysical experimental approach of the study of a representation]. Cahiers Internationaux de Psychologie Sociale, 28, 67-76.
23.
FlamentC.& RouquetteM.-L. (2003). Anatomie des idées ordinaires [The anatomy of common ideas]. Comment étudier les représentations sociales. Paris, France: Armand Colin.
24.
FraïsseC.StewartI. (2002). Basic cognitive schemes: An application concerning the social representation of alternative medicine. European Review of Applied Psychology, 52(3-4), 281-292.
25.
GarrodG.WillisK. (1998). Estimating lost amenity due to landfill waste disposal. Resources, Conservation & Recycling, 22, 83-95.
26.
GirandolaF. (2005). Action and commitment theory. In AlexandreV.GasparskiW. (Eds.), French and other perspectives in praxeology (pp. 117-130). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.
27.
GirandolaF.RoussiauN. (2003). L’engagement comme source de modifications à long terme [Commitment as a source of long term modifications]. Les Cahiers Internationaux de Psychologie Sociale, 57, 83-101.
28.
Gruev-VintilaA.RouquetteM. L. (2007). Social thinking about collective risk: How do risk-related practice and personal involvement impact its social representations?Journal of Risk Research, 10, 555-581.
29.
GuéguenN.JouleR. V.Halimi-FalkowiczS.PascualA.Fischer-LokouJ.Dufourcq-BranaM. (2013). I’m free but I’ll comply with your request: Generalization and multidimensional effects of the “evoking freedom” technique. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 43, 116-137.
30.
GuéguenN.PascualA. (2000). Evocation of freedom and compliance: The “but you are free of . . . ” technique. Current Research in Social Psychology, 5, 264-270.
31.
GuéguenN.PascualA. (2014). Low-ball and compliance: Commitment even if the request is a deviant one. Social Influence, 9, 162-171. doi:10.1080/15534510.2013.798243
32.
GuéguenN.PascualA.DagotL. (2002). Low-ball and compliance to a request: An application in field setting. Psychological Reports, 91, 81-84. doi:10.2466/PR0.91.5.81-84
33.
GuerinD.CreteJ.MercierJ. (2001). A multilevel analysis of the determinants of recycling behavior in the European countries. Social Science Research, 30, 195-218. doi:10.1006/ssre.2000.0694
34.
GuimelliC. (1998). Differentiation between the central core elements of social representations: Normative vs. functional elements. Swiss Journal of Psychology, 57, 209-224.
35.
GuimelliC.RateauP. (2003). Mise en évidence de la structure et du contenu d’une représentation sociale à partir du modèle des schèmes cognitifs de base (SCB): La représentation des études [Highlighting the structure and the content of a social representation with the basic cognitive schemes model (BCS): The representation of studies]. Nouvelle Revue de Psychologie Sociale, 2, 158-169.
36.
GuimelliC.RouquetteM. L. (1992). Contribution du modèle associatif des schèmes cognitifs de base à l’analyse structurale des représentations sociales [Contribution of the basic cognitive schemes model to the structural analysis of social representations]. Bulletin de Psychologie, 45(405), 196-202.
37.
HoornwegD.& Bhada-TataP. (2012) . What a waste: A global review of solid waste management. Urban Development and Local Government Unit, World Bank. Retrieved from https://www.wdronline.worldbank.org/handle/10986/17388
38.
HornikJ.CherianJ.MadanskyM.NarayanaC. (1995). Determinants of recycling behavior: A synthesis of research results. The Journal of Socio-Economics, 24, 105-127. doi:10.1016/1053-5357(95)90032-2
39.
JouleR.-V. (1987). Tobacco deprivation: The foot-in-the-door technique versus the low-ball technique. European Journal of Social Psychology, 17, 361-365. doi:10.1002/ejsp.2420170311
40.
JouleR.-V.BeauvoisJ.-L. (1998). La soumission librement consentie [The freely agreed submission]. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.
41.
JouleR. V.GirandolaF.BernardF. (2007). How can people be induced to willingly change their behavior? The path from persuasive communication to binding communication. Social & Personality Psychology Compass, 1, 493-505.
42.
KanjiG. K. (1999). 100 statistical tests. London, England: Sage.
43.
KaterelosI. (2003). Représentation sociale de la drogue chez les jeunes Grecs [The social representation of drugs among young Greeks]. Psychotropes, 9(1), 77-93.
44.
KieslerC. A. (1971). The psychology of commitment: Experiments linking behavior to belief. New York, NY: Academic Press.
45.
KieslerC. A.SakumuraJ. (1966). A test of a model for commitment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 3, 349-353. doi:10.1037/h0022943
46.
KinnamanT. C.FullertonD. (2000). Garbage and recycling with endogenous local policy. Journal of Urban Economics, 48, 419-442. doi:10.1006/juec.2000.2174
LewinK. (1947). Group decision and social change. In NewcombT.HartleyE. (Eds.), Readings in social psychology (pp. 197-211). New York, NY: Holt.
49.
LheureuxF.Lo MonacoG. (2011). Hiérarchie intra-noyau et négociabilité des éléments centraux d’une représentation sociale [Intra-core hierarchy and negotiability of the central elements of a social representation]. Les Cahiers Internationaux de Psychologie Sociale, 91(3), 215-232.
50.
Lo MonacoG.LheureuxF.Halimi-FalkowiczS. (2008). Le test d’indépendance au contexte (TIC): Une nouvelle technique d’étude de la structure représentationnelle [Test of context independance (TCI) and structure of social representations]. Swiss Journal of Psychology, 67, 119-123.
51.
LuybenP. D.BaileyJ. S. (1979). Newspaper recycling: The effects of rewards and proximity of containers. Environment and Behavior, 11, 539-557. doi:10.1177/0013916579114006
52.
MazzantiM.ZoboliR. (2008). Waste generation, waste disposal and policy effectiveness: Evidence on decoupling from the European Union. Resources, Conservation & Recycling, 52, 1221-1234.
53.
McKenzie-MohrD.LeeN.SchultzW.KotlerP. (2011). Social marketing to protect the environment: What works. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. doi:10.4135/9781483349466
54.
MolinerP. (1989). Validation expérimentale de l’hypothèse du noyau central des représentations sociales [Experimental validation of the hypothesis of the central core of social representations]. Bulletin de Psychologie, 41, 759-762.
55.
MolinerP. (1992). La représentation sociale comme grille de lecture [Social representations as a grid of analysis]. Aix-en-Provence, France: Presses Universitaires de Provence.
56.
MolinerP.RateauP.Cohen-ScaliV. (2002). Les représentations sociales: pratique des études de terrain [Social representations: performing field studies]. Rennes, France: Presses Universitaires de Rennes.
57.
MoscoviciS. (2008). Psychoanalysis: Its image and its public. Cambridge, UK: Polity press.
58.
OjalaM. (2008). Recycling and ambivilance: Quantitative and qualitative analyses of household recycling among young adults. Environment and Behavior, 40, 777-797. doi:10.1177/0013916507308787
PallakM. S.CummingsW. (1976). Commitment and voluntary energy conservation. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 2, 27-30. doi:10.1177/014616727600200105
61.
PardiniA. U.KatzevR. D. (1983). The effect of strength of commitment on newspaper recycling. Journal of Environmental Systems, 13, 246-254. doi:10.2190/6PN9-MXFP-3BFF-CHHB
62.
PelletierL. G.SharpE. (2008). Persuasive communication and proenvironmental behaviours: How message tailoring and message framing can improve the integration of behaviours through self-determined motivation. Canadian Psychology, 49, 210-217. doi:10.1037/a0012755
63.
PerrinD.BartonJ. (2001). Issues associated with transforming household attitudes and opinions into materials recovery: A review of two kerbside recycling schemes. Resources, Conservation & Recycling, 33, 61-74. doi:10.1016/S0921-3449(01)00075-1
64.
PiermattéoA.Lo MonacoG.MoreauL.GirandolaF.& TavaniJ.-L. (2014). Context variations and pluri-methodological issues concerning the expression of a social representation: The example of the Gypsy Community. The Spanish Journal of Psychology, 17, E85.
65.
PietersR. G. (1991). Changing garbage disposal patterns of consumers: Motivation, ability, and performance. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 10, 59-76.
66.
RateauP. (2002). Procédure de substitution et nature des éléments des représentations sociales [Substitution procedure and nature of social reprentations’ elements]. Les Cahiers Internationaux de Psychologie Sociale, 54(2), 62-70.
67.
RateauP.MolinerP.GuimelliC.AbricJ.-C. (2011). Social representation theory. In Van LangeP. A. M.KruglanskiA. W.HigginsE. T. (Eds.), Handbook of theories of social psychology (pp. 477-487). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. doi:10.4135/9781446249222.n50
68.
RobertsJ. A. (1996). Green consumers in the 1990s: Profile and implications for advertising. Journal of Business Research, 36, 217-231. doi:10.1016/0148-2963(95)00150-6
69.
RouquetteM. L.RateauP. (1998). Introduction à l’étude des représentations sociales [Introduction to the study of social representations]. Grenoble, France: Presses Universitaires de Grenoble.
70.
SokkaL.AntikainenR.KauppiP. E. (2007). Municipal solid waste production and composition in Finland. Changes in the period 1960-2002 and prospects until 2020. Resources, Conservation & Recycling, 50, 475-488.
71.
SouchetL.GirandolaF. (2013). Double foot-in-the-door, social representations, and environment: Application for energy savings. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 43, 306-315.
72.
StegL.VlekC. (2009). Encouraging pro-environmental behaviour: An integrative review and research agenda. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 29, 309-317. doi:10.1016/j.jenvp.2008.10.004
73.
ThalerR. H.SunsteinC. R. (2008). Nudge: Improving decisions about health, wealth, and happiness. London, England: Yale University Press.
74.
TongletM.PhillipsP. S.ReadA. D. (2004). Using the theory of planned behaviour to investigate the determinants of recycling behaviour: A case study from Brixworth, UK. Resources, Conservation & Recycling, 41, 191-214. doi:10.1016/j.resconrec.2003.11.001
75.
WagnerW.ValenciaJ.ElejabarrietaF. (1996). Relevance, discourse and the “hot” stable core of social representations: A structural analysis of word associations. British Journal of Social Psychology, 35, 331-351.
76.
WanC.ShenG. Q.YuA. (2014). The moderating effect of perceived policy effectiveness on recycling intention. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 37, 55-60. doi:10.1016/j.jenvp.2013.11.006
77.
ZbindenA.SouchetL.GirandolaF.BourgG. (2011). Communication engageante et représentations sociales: une application en faveur de la protection de l’environnement et du recyclage [Binding communication and social representations: An application for the environment protection and recycling]. Pratiques Psychologiques, 17, 285-299.
