Current Research in Ecological and Social Psychology 4 (2023) 100098

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Current Research in Ecological and Social Psychology

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/cresp

Reducing single-use plastic on college campuses: Theory of planned

behavior-based brief interventions
Heather Barnes Truelove a,∗, Erin Largo-Wight b, Amy N.S. Siuda c, Shannon Gowans d,
Hollie Minichiello a, Juliette Hill e
a
Department of Psychology, University of North Florida, 1 UNF Drive, Jacksonville, FL 32224, USA
b
Department of Public Health and the Institute of Environmental Research and Education, University of North Florida, Jacksonville, FL, USA
c
Department of Marine Science, Eckerd College, St. Petersburg, FL, USA
d
Department Marine Science and Biology, Eckerd College, St. Petersburg, FL, USA
e
Department of Public Health of North Florida, Jacksonville, FL, USA

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Keywords: Single-use plastic has devastating impacts on the natural environment and scalable theory-based interventions
Theory of planned behavior are urgently needed to curb plastic consumption. The purpose of this study is to test the impact of two brief
Single-use plastic plastic reduction interventions on consumption on college campuses and whether these effects will be mediated
Perceived behavioral control
by changes in the extended Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB) model consisting of attitudes, subjective norms,
Descriptive norms
perceived behavioral control, moral norms, descriptive norms, and self-identity. 375 undergraduate students
Brief interventions
Commitment (77% female) from two colleges in the southeastern US completed baseline measures of plastic consumption
beliefs and behavior in line with the extended TPB model. Participants were then randomized into one of three
groups - control group (n = 152), app intervention group (who tracked plastic behavior on a mobile phone app
for a week and received TPB-based daily messages via push notifications; n = 89), or pledge intervention group
(who made a pledge to reduce plastic for a week and received TPB-based daily messages via email; n = 134).
All participants completed the survey again after the intervention week. Results showed that the extended TPB
model along with the intervention condition significantly predicted changes in plastic behavior over the week,
(R2 = 0.24, p < .001). Additionally, mediation analysis revealed that the pledge group (compared to the control
group) reported a significant decrease in plastic consumption over the week-long intervention, with indirect
effects via changes in attitudes, perceived behavioral control, and descriptive norms. The app group (compared
to the control group) decreased plastic consumption less and showed no change to the extended TPB constructs.
Results suggest that plastic reduction interventions that influence the extended TPB constructs can be expected
to have corresponding changes in plastic consumption behavior.

1. Introduction negative consequences for human health and the natural environment
(Barnes et al., 2009).
1.1. The problem of plastic pollution Interventions to reduce single-use plastic consumption are urgently
needed. As is the case with many environmental issues, the problem of
Plastic consumption has skyrocketed over the past 70 years and plastic pollution is inherently a result of human behavior. Humans use
is continuing to increase (Geyer et al., 2017). Although there are single-use plastic in their everyday activities, so reducing the demand
many benefits of plastic, disposal remains a significant problem for plastic requires changing human behavior. Interventions to reduce
(Thompson et al., 2009). Only a small amount of plastic waste is di- use of single-use plastic that incorporate an understanding of the mo-
verted for recycling (Geyer et al., 2017) and of that, much plastic ends tivators of behavior are likely to be most successful (Heidbreder et al.,
up in landfills due to recycling contamination or economic infeasibility. 2019; Jia et al., 2019). Additionally, interventions that have the poten-
Thus, the vast majority of plastic waste is in landfills or littered in the tial to be scaled up to large swaths of the public are particularly at-
natural environment (Geyer et al., 2017), particularly impacting the ma- tractive. Although the implementation of plastic consumption bans has
rine environment (Jambeck et al., 2015; Lavers and Bond, 2017), with begun, these take a long time to develop and can sometimes lead to

∗
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: [email protected] (H.B. Truelove).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cresp.2023.100098
Received 28 September 2022; Received in revised form 10 February 2023; Accepted 23 March 2023
2666-6227/© 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)
H.B. Truelove, E. Largo-Wight, A.N.S. Siuda et al. Current Research in Ecological and Social Psychology 4 (2023) 100098

public backlash (Heidbreder et al., 2019). Voluntary behavior change (Carrus et al., 2009; Largo-Wight et al., 2012; Passafaro et al., 2019),
interventions, such as those that involve brief interventions or nudges, and green electricity purchasing (Litvine and Wüstenhagen, 2011). Fur-
show promise in reducing plastic consumption, as larger and more com- thermore, descriptive norms were found to more strongly relate to inten-
prehensive policies are developed (Truelove et al., 2022). This paper tions among younger participants (Rivis and Sheeran, 2003), suggesting
describes the results of a theory-based behavior change brief interven- that research on adolescents and young adults should incorporate de-
tion to reduce consumption of single-use plastic on college campuses. scriptive norm measures. Additionally, the closer the referent group is
spatially, the more perceived descriptive norms related to behavioral in-
1.2. The theory of planned behavior tentions to recycle (Carrus et al., 2009; Passafaro et al., 2019) and towel
reuse when staying in a hotel (Goldstein et al., 2008). This suggests that
The Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB) (Ajzen, 1991; Ajzen and university students may be especially receptive to perceived descriptive
Fishbein, 2005; Fishbein, 2000) is one of the most widely used norms of fellow students on campus.
theories to predict individual pro-environmental behavior (see There have also been calls to add personal norms, or moral norms, in
Truelove et al. (2019) for an overview of social psychological theories models predicting pro-environmental behavior (Niemiec et al., 2020).
commonly applied to pro-environmental behavior). The major tenants Personal norms are feelings of moral obligations to perform a partic-
of the TPB are that attitudes toward the behavior (positive or nega- ular behavior (Schwartz, 1977) and are the centerpiece of the Value
tive evaluations of the behavior), subjective norms (beliefs that im- Belief Norm Theory (Stern et al., 1999), which has been shown to
portant others believe the person should perform the behavior), and successfully explain pro-environmental behavior (Kaiser et al., 2005).
perceived behavioral control (PBC; beliefs about the ease of carry- Some work has added personal norms to the TPB and it has been
ing out the behavior) directly relate to intention to perform the be- a predictor of pro-environmental behavior, including recycling inten-
havior (Ajzen, 2002; Ajzen and Fishbein, 2005). Intention and PBC, tions (Botetzagias et al., 2015; Largo-Wight et al., 2012) and intentions
to the extent that it reflects actual control, directly predict behavior and behavior related to reducing meat consumption, avoiding driving,
(Ajzen and Fishbein, 2005). Behavioral beliefs, normative beliefs, and and using efficient light bulbs (Harland et al., 1999). However, per-
control beliefs underlie attitudes, subjective norms, and PBC, respec- sonal norms did not predict bus ridership or intentions (Heath and Gif-
tively (Ajzen and Fishbein, 2005). The TPB has been used to predict ford, 2002) or add much predictive power to the TPB model in predict-
a wide range of pro-environmental behaviors, including recycling in- ing a composite of pro-environmental behavior intentions (de Leeuw
tentions and behavior (Botetzagias et al., 2015; Carrus et al., 2009; et al., 2015). Additionally, several studies have had difficulty sepa-
Chan and Bishop, 2013; Largo-Wight et al., 2012; Passafaro et al., 2019; rating the two constructs of attitude and personal norm due to mul-
Terry et al., 1999), eco-friendly travel intentions and behavior (de Groot ticollinearity (Chan and Bishop, 2013; Graham-Rowe et al., 2015;
and Steg, 2007; Harland et al., 1999; Heath and Gifford, 2002), green Kaiser, 2006; Lam and Chen, 2006). However, a meta-analysis of pro-
electricity purchases (Litvine and Wüstenhagen, 2011), eco-friendly environmental behavior predictors found that personal norms relate
food intentions and behaviors (Graham-Rowe et al., 2015; Harland et al., to pro-environmental behavior intention as strongly as two of the
1999; Sparks and Shepherd, 1992), and environmental activism inten- main TPB components, attitude and PBC (Bamberg and Möser, 2007).
tions (Fielding et al., 2008), as well as general pro-environmental in- An additional meta-analysis showed that personal norms related more
tentions and behavior (Carfora et al., 2017; de Leeuw et al., 2015; strongly than subjective norms, but not as strongly as attitude or PBC
Kaiser et al., 2005). (Klöckner, 2013).
Further, other work has argued for the inclusion of self-identity to the
1.3. Expanded TPB TPB (Fekadu and Kraft, 2001). Social identity and self-perception the-
ories argue that people derive their personal identities based on their
Although the TPB has been successful in predicting a wide array group memberships and act in line with their identities (Bem, 1972;
of pro-environmental behaviors, several constructs have been added Tajfel and Turner, 2004). Environmental self-identity is the extent
based on their theorized relationship to pro-environmental behavior to which one sees themselves as the type of person who acts pro-
and empirical results from TPB studies. For example, in tests of the environmentally (Whitmarsh and O’Neill, 2010). When added to the
TPB, subjective norm has often been found to be the weakest pre- TPB, environmental self-identity predicted intention to buy organic pro-
dictor of pro-environmental behavior, including in studies predicting duce (Sparks and Shepherd, 1992), to participate in environmental ac-
general measures of pro-environmental behavior (de Leeuw et al., tivism (Fielding et al., 2008), and to recycle (Largo-Wight et al., 2012;
2015; Harland et al., 1999), recycling intentions (Botetzagias et al., Terry et al., 1999).
2015; Chan and Bishop, 2013), and organic vegetable consumption
intentions (Sparks and Shepherd, 1992). Furthermore, a recent meta- 1.4. Expanded TPB and plastic consumption
analysis shows that subjective norms are weaker predictors of pro-
environmental behaviors compared to personal norms and descriptive Although much research has used the TPB or TPB-related models to
norms (Niemiec et al., 2020). predict pro-environmental behavior, only a handful of studies has tested
In light of these findings, several authors have argued for expand- the theory in predicting plastic consumption. In one study testing the full
ing the social norm component of the TPB (Armitage and Conner, 2001; TPB, attitude, subjective norm, and PBC predicted intention to use plas-
Rivis and Sheeran, 2003) and measuring multiple types of norms when tic bags (Sun et al., 2017). In another study on bag use in hypermarkets,
predicting pro-environmental behavior (Niemiec et al., 2020). Injunc- PBC predicted intention and behavior related to bringing reusable bags,
tive norms refer to what others believe ought to be done in a particu- while a combined attitude-personal norm variable predicted intention
lar situation, while descriptive norms refer to what others actually do to refuse plastic bags (Lam and Chen, 2006). In another study testing
(Cialdini et al., 1990). Much research has shown that both injunctive and parts of the TPB, intentions to reduce water bottle consumption were
descriptive norms influence pro-environmental behavior (Niemiec et al., related to behavioral and control beliefs, the precursors of attitude and
2020; Schultz et al., 2007). The subjective norm component of the TPB subjective norm (van der Linden, 2015). A study on plastic consump-
covers the injunctive norm in that both are concerned with perceptions tion outside the TPB framework found that environmental self-identity
of what other people think should be done (Rivis and Sheeran, 2003). related to straw use behaviors and recycle and reuse behaviors, which in-
However, the TPB does not include descriptive norms. The addition of cluded reducing consumption of single-use plastic items like bags, cups,
descriptive norms has been shown to add predictive value to TPB in and take-away containers (Truelove and Nugent, 2020). Thus, the liter-
pro-environmental behaviors, such as predicting bus ridership and in- ature so far provides some evidence that TPB constructs may predict be-
tentions (Heath and Gifford, 2002), recycling behavior and intentions havior related to single-use plastic consumption. However, no research

2
H.B. Truelove, E. Largo-Wight, A.N.S. Siuda et al. Current Research in Ecological and Social Psychology 4 (2023) 100098

could be located that included personal norms, descriptive norms, and constructs, served as a mediator of the relationship between the exper-
self-identity as additional variables in TPB models predicting single-use imental manipulation and behavior (Carfora et al., 2018; Carfora et al.,
plastic consumption, which is one of the strategies of the present study. 2017b). However, research in the health domain has found some evi-
dence that interventions indirectly influence intention and behavior via
1.5. TPB and experimental interventions increasing TPB constructs (Norman et al., 2018; Sniehotta, 2009). Thus,
more work is needed to test the effectiveness of interventions targeting
In addition to applying the TPB to predict behavior, the TPB TPB constructs in changing plastic consumption directly and indirectly
can be used as a framework for intervention design where interven- via changing the expanded TPB constructs, which is one of the goals of
tions are crafted to target various structures of the TPB (Ajzen, 2014; this present study.
Steinmetz et al., 2016). TPB-based interventions have been shown to
be effective in changing a wide range of beliefs, behavior, and in- 1.6. Present study
tentions (Anderson et al., 2013; Norman et al., 2018; Parker et al.,
1996; Parrott et al., 2008; Sniehotta, 2009; Steinmetz et al., 2016), and In the present study, participants from a mid-sized public university
are among the most effective theory-based interventions (Webb et al., and a small private college in the southeastern US completed baseline
2010). surveys assessing expanded TPB constructs related to the consumption
Some work has involved brief interventions focused specifically on of single-use plastic items. Participants were then randomly assigned
persuasive messages to reduce plastic consumption designed in line with to one of two treatment groups asked to reduce consumption of single-
the TPB constructs of subjective norm, attitude, and PBC. In one study, use plastic for a week or to a control group that was not asked to reduce
a persuasive message encouraging reducing plastic bag use at the gro- their consumption. One intervention group was asked to track their daily
cery was most effective when it included injunctive normative elements plastic consumption via a mobile phone application (app group) and
(de Groot et al., 2013). In another study, providing participants with one group made an online pledge to reduce their plastic consumption
information about the environmental effects and social norms of plastic (pledge group). Persuasive messages designed to increase beliefs in line
water bottles related to the reduction of intentions to purchase bottled with the TPB were shared with both intervention groups daily via push
water compared to a control condition (van der Linden, 2015). In an- notification (app group) or email (pledge group). At the end of the in-
other study testing the TPB, attitudes and PBC, but not subjective norm, tervention week, all participants completed the same measures as Time
predicted plastic consumption intentions after viewing plastic reduction 1.
messages (Muralidharan and Sheehan, 2016). In a more robust test of a The present study aims to fill several gaps in the literature. First, we
TPB-designed intervention on energy consumption, Litvine and Wüsten- focus exclusively on consumption of single-use plastic and investigate
hagen (2011) created messages that targeted each of the three main TPB multiple plastic items, adding to the literature that has included plastic
constructs (attitude, PBC, and subjective norm) related to green electric- consumption as a part of broader measures of pro-environmental behav-
ity. The participants who were most likely to switch to green electricity iors or studies that have focused on only one or two plastic consumption
after the experiment were those who received messages specifically tar- behaviors (Kaiser and Wilson, 2000; Lam and Chen, 2006; Sun et al.,
geting attitudes or those that targeted attitudes, subjective norm, and 2017; Truelove and Gillis, 2018; Truelove and Nugent, 2020; van der
PBC during the intervention (Litvine and Wüstenhagen, 2011). To have Linden, 2015). Second, we add to the literature by examining exten-
the best chance of success, TPB-based interventions should include per- sions to the TPB (i.e., moral norms, descriptive norms, and self-identity)
suasive messages that target multiple TPB constructs. in predicting change in plastic consumption, and building upon stud-
In addition to persuasive messages specific to each TPB construct, ies that have focused on the main TPB constructs of attitude, subjective
past findings also suggest that brief interventions that target multiple norm, and PBC (Muralidharan and Sheehan 2016; c.f., Sun et al. 2017).
behavior change strategies may be maximally effective (Webb et al., Third, we investigate two experimental interventions compared to a true
2010). A relatively low-cost and practical intervention often used by pro- control group, heeding the call of Lokhurst et al. (2013) to compare
environmental campaigns involves participants making commitments or commitment interventions to other interventions. Fourth, we examine
pledges to engage in more environmentally friendly behaviors. Meta- the ability of the interventions to indirectly influence behavior change
analysis has shown that pledge interventions are effective in increas- through changing the targeted TPB constructs in line with suggestions to
ing pro-environmental behavior compared to control groups, and that explore the role of the TPB components as mediators of the intervention-
interventions that involve a pledge in combination with other targeted behavior change relationship (Hardeman et al., 2002).
persuasive strategies may lead to even more behavior change during the Based on the research reviewed above, we forward our hypothe-
intervention (Jacobs et al., 2021; Lokhorst et al., 2013). Additionally, sized theoretical model (Fig. 1) and the following hypotheses. First, we
app interventions, where participants track their pro-environmental be- hypothesize that changes in the extended TPB constructs will explain
havior via a mobile application has grown in recent years (D’Arco and significant variance in changes in single-use plastic consumption (H1).
Marino, 2022). Those who report using sustainability apps in their daily Second, we expect that the intervention conditions (compared to the
life, score higher on pro-environmental beliefs than those who do not control conditions) will directly decrease plastic consumption over the
(D’Arco and Marino, 2022). Additionally, app users show stronger corre- week (H2). Finally, in line with previous research in the health domain
lations between environmental beliefs and behavior than non-app users (Norman et al., 2018; Sniehotta, 2009), we hypothesize that the inter-
(D’Arco and Marino, 2022). Several recent experimental studies have vention conditions, compared to the control conditions, will indirectly
tested the effectiveness of app interventions combined with supplemen- decrease plastic consumption via changing the expanded TPB constructs
tary communication methods for participants such as text messages or (H3).
SMS (Webb et al., 2010). These methods have demonstrated success-
ful behavior change. For example, participants who tracked their water 2. Method
intake behavior using an online app and who received daily persua-
sive text messages focusing on anticipated negative regret as part of 2.1. Participants and procedures
the intervention, increased short term behavior compared to controls
(Carfora et al., 2018). In another study on meat consumption, partici- The following procedures were approved by the Institutional Review
pants exposed to a similar intervention showed changes in attitudes, in- Board (IRB) at the authors’ universities and participants were treated in
tentions, and behavior, but not PBC or subjective norms (Carfora et al., accordance with ethical standards for research on human subjects. Un-
2017b). In both studies, only the construct targeted in the daily mes- dergraduate students from one mid-sized public university and one pri-
sages (i.e., anticipated negative regret), and not the non-targeted TPB vate college in the southeastern US served as participants for this study.

3
H.B. Truelove, E. Largo-Wight, A.N.S. Siuda et al. Current Research in Ecological and Social Psychology 4 (2023) 100098

Fig. 1. Hypothesized theoretical model of

change in single-use plastic consumption.
PBC = Perceived Behavioral Control.

Our recruitment consisted of emailing a census of sophomores, juniors, the interventions. Participants also answered questions related to plas-
and seniors (at the private college) and a random sample of sophomores, tic knowledge, policy support, and general environmental beliefs and
juniors, and seniors (at the public university) with an invitation to par- behavior, which were not analyzed as part of the present study.
ticipate in a one-week long project on single-use plastic consumption.
Potential participants were emailed a link to an informed consent 2.1.2. Brief interventions description
statement. Those who consented to participate were routed to begin The app condition consisted of multiple behavior change strategies
Survey 1. Five hundred and ninety participants completed Survey 1 and over the course of a week: tracking single-use plastic consumption and
were then randomized to the control condition (n = 198) or one of two refusal in an iPhone app created for this study that included injunctive
intervention conditions — app condition (n = 192) or pledge condition normative emoticons, daily reminders to upload data, and TPB-based
(n = 200). Participants in the intervention conditions then completed messages shared via push notifications, as well as a request to reduce
their one-week intervention. Following the intervention, all participants plastic consumption delivered within the context of the email that pro-
were emailed a link to Survey 2, of which 423 completed the second vided instructions for using the app and submitting data. In line with
survey. Participants were incentivized with a $10 electronic gift card injunctive normative research showing that happy and sad emoticons
for completing Survey 1 and a $10 gift card for completing Survey 2. indicate the expected behavior leading to pro-environmental behavior
At the conclusion of each survey, participants were thanked for their changes (Schultz et al., 2007), each time participants recorded using a
participation and provided instructions on how to obtain their incentive. single-use plastic item within the app, they clicked a sad face emoti-
We excluded 48 participants from the intervention groups who were con and each time they recorded refusing a single-use plastic item, they
not engaged in their conditions (i.e., participants assigned to the pledge clicked a happy face emoticon (See Supplemental). The single-use plas-
group who did not make the pledge (n = 12) and participants assigned tic items listed on the app were the same as those listed in the survey.
to the app group who did not download and open the app (n = 36)). The TPB-based messages were sent as push notifications within the app
Therefore, the final sample consisted of 375 participants (control con- each morning during the intervention and encouraged plastic refusal by
dition: n = 152, app condition: n = 89, and pledge condition: n = 134), targeting the main constructs of the TPB (See Supplemental). Notably,
with a 64% overall retention rate. Retention rates for each condition the app group was not asked to make a pledge to reduce their plastic
was as follows: 77% for the control group, 46% for the app group, and consumption over the coming week.
67% for the pledge group. The pledge intervention involved participants making a pledge to
The average age of our sample was 21.3 years old (SD = 3.44). Most reduce their plastic consumption over the coming week by agreeing to
of our sample identified as female (76.8%), with 21.3% male and 1.9% the following statement in an online survey: “I commit to reducing my
other gender. The majority of our sample identified as White (80.3%), single-use plastic consumption over the next week.” Additionally, the
with the remaining identifying as Asian (8.0%), Black or African Amer- pledge group was sent the same daily TPB-based messages as the app
ican (6.1%), or Other (5.3%). The majority (89.6%) of our sample iden- group via email each morning. Notably, the pledge group was not asked
tified as non-Hispanic. to track their plastic consumption behavior over the week.

2.1.1. Survey materials 3. Results

The Wave 1 and Wave 2 behavioral survey asked TPB-related ques-
tions about ten single-use plastic items: snack wrappers, straws, cups, 3.1. Attrition analyzes
lids, take out containers, bags, utensils, bottles, masks, and hygiene
products. Specifically, the questions assessed participants’ behavior, in- We assessed attrition bias by comparing those who completed both
tentions, attitudes, subjective norms, PBC, descriptive norms, moral Time 1 and Time 2 with those who dropped out of the study on their
norms, and self-identity relating to each plastic item (Table 1). Thus, scores on Time 1 extended TPB constructs and demographics. Com-
the TPB constructs were conceptualized as aggregates (average) of all pleters did not differ from non-completers on any of the Time 1 TPB
plastic items, in line with previous research on pro-environmental be- constructs. Women were more likely to complete than men (67% vs.
havior (Kaiser et al., 2005). In Wave 2 participants in the experimental 53%; X2 (1) = 9.428, p = .002) and students from the private college
groups also answered questions about their self-reported adherence to were more likely to complete than those from the public university (89%

4
H.B. Truelove, E. Largo-Wight, A.N.S. Siuda et al. Current Research in Ecological and Social Psychology 4 (2023) 100098

Table 1
TPB Constructs and Expanded TPB Constructs Measures.

Measure Question Stem Response Scale

(1–7)

Behavior In the past week, how many times have you used each of the following plastic items? 0–6+
(𝛼 T1 = 0.735, 𝛼 T2 = 0.779)
Attitude I think reducing my use of plastic ____ over the next week is: Very Bad-
(𝛼 T1 = 0.865, 𝛼 T2 =0.882) Very Good
Subjective Norm Most people who are important to me think I should reduce my use of plastic ____ Strongly Disagree- Strongly Agree
(𝛼 T1 = 0.966, 𝛼 T2 =0.966) over the next week.

Perceived Behavioral Control My reduction of plastic ____ over the next week is: Very Difficult-
(𝛼 T1 = 0.779, 𝛼 T2 =0.796) Very Easy
Descriptive Norm In the past week, most people on campus have used plastic ____ which number of 0–6+
(𝛼 T1 = 0.871, 𝛼 T2 =0.896) times?
Moral Norm I have a strong moral obligation to reduce my use of plastic ____ over the next week. Strongly Disagree- Strongly Agree
(𝛼 T1 = 0.951, 𝛼 T2 =0.958)
Self-identity Reducing my use of plastic ____ over the next week is an important part of who I am. Very Unlikely-
(𝛼 T1 = 0.969, 𝛼 T2 =0.966) Very Likely
Intention I intend to reduce my use of plastic ____ over the next week. Very Unlikely-
(𝛼 T1 = 0.919, 𝛼 T2 =0.919) Very Likely
Note. The blank was filled with the plastic items including: snack wrappers, straws, cups, lids, take out containers, bags, utensils, bottles, masks, and
hygiene products. Time 1 questions referred to the timeframe of the next week and Time 2 questions referred to the next three months.

vs. 59%; X2 (1) = 57.613, p < .001). There were no differences for race or hoc tests. For Time 2 subjective norms, PBC, descriptive norms, and self-
age. Those in the control group were more likely to remain in the study identity, homogeneity could be assumed and Tukey tests are reported
than those in the pledge group and the app group (X2 (2) = 40.475, for the pairwise comparisons. Results showed that there were signifi-
p < .001). cant differences between the groups for Time 2 behavior, attitude, moral
norms, self-identity, and intentions, but not subjective norms, PBC, or
3.2. Randomization check descriptive norms (Table 2). Posthoc tests showed that the pledge group
scored higher than the control group on Time 2 attitudes, subjective
We compared the app, pledge, and control groups to confirm that norms, moral norms, self-identity, and intentions to reduce plastic con-
they were not different on key variables at baseline, including the TPB sumption and lower than the control group on plastic consumption be-
constructs and demographics. One-way ANOVAs revealed that Time 1 havior, demonstrating that the pledge group was effective at influencing
scores on the TPB and extended TPB constructs did not differ between most of the Time 2 TPB-related constructs. The pledge group also scored
the conditions (Table 2, Top Panel). Tukey multiple comparison tests lower than the app group on Time 2 behavior and higher than the app
confirmed that all of the bias-corrected and accelerated 95% confidence group on Time 2 moral norms, self-identity, and intentions. None of the
intervals based on 1000 bootstrap samples for all comparisons contained pairwise comparisons between the app group and the control group were
0, providing further evidence that the Time 1 TPB scores were not dif- significant, suggesting that the app intervention was not more effective
ferent between the three groups. Additionally, the groups did not differ than the control group in influencing the Time 2 TPB-related constructs.
in terms of demographics [gender: X2 (2) = 0.082, p = .960; race: X2 Next, we tested whether the experimental conditions differed from
(6) = 0.884, p = .990; university: X2 (2) = 3.756, p = .153; age: Welch1 the control condition in changes in the TPB-related outcomes over time.
F(2, 228.009) = 2.677, p = .071]. Thus, the randomization was consid- We used one-way ANOVAs with experimental group as the indepen-
ered successful. dent variable and the difference scores between Time 1 and Time 2
as the dependent variables, with bootstrapping 1000 samples and bias-
3.3. Descriptive statistics corrected and accelerated 95% confidence intervals around the mean
differences between conditions for the Tukey pairwise comparisons. Re-
The means for each group on the TPB-related constructs measured sults showed that there were significant differences between the groups
at Time 2 are presented in Table 2 (Middle Panel). As can be seen, mean for changes in behavior, attitude, descriptive norm, moral norm, self-
scores on the TPB-related constructs were above the midpoint, with 1-2 identity, and intentions, but not PBC or subjective norms (Table 2, Bot-
pieces of plastic consumption reported on average across the categories. tom Panel). Pairwise comparisons showed that the pledge group in-
We tested whether the experimental conditions differed from the control creased more than the control group in attitudes, subjective norms, PBC,
condition on the Time 2 TPB-related outcomes using one-way ANOVAs moral norms, self-identity, and intentions to reduce plastic consumption
with bootstrapping 1000 samples and bias-corrected and accelerated and decreased more than the control group in plastic consumption be-
95% confidence intervals around the mean differences between condi- havior and perceived descriptive norms for using plastic, demonstrating
tions for the pairwise comparisons. The assumption of homogeneity of that the pledge was effective at changing the TPB-related constructs. The
variance was violated for Time 2 behavior, attitude, moral norms, and pledge group also reduced plastic consumption more than the app group
intention, therefore the Welch F-ratio is reported for those outcomes (which showed no change over the week) and increased self-identity
and the pairwise comparisons are reported for the Games-Howell post and intention more than the app group. The app group did not differ
from the control group on any of the TPB constructs except for plastic
1
Note that the robust Welch test was run for age because the homogeneity
consumption behavior, where the control group decreased consumption
of variances assumption was violated per the Levene’s test, p = .006. Although more than the app group.
the Welch test for the effect of condition on age was nonsignificant, the Brown-
Forsythe robust test was significant, F(2, 345.541) = 3.373, p = .035. Due to the 3.4. Correlations
conflicting results for the two robust tests, we ran the main regression analyses
testing our hypotheses with and without controlling for age and the results were We ran correlations between changes in single-use plastic consump-
unchanged. We presented the results without controlling for age to simplify tion and changes in the expanded TPB constructs (Table 3). Decreases in
presentation. plastic consumption were related to increased changes in attitudes, PBC,

5
H.B. Truelove, E. Largo-Wight, A.N.S. Siuda et al. Current Research in Ecological and Social Psychology 4 (2023) 100098

Table 2
Means (SD) for TPB-related constructs by group for Time 1, Time 2, and Change Scores.

T1 Control Group App Group Pledge Group ANOVA Results

Measure M SD M SD M SD F sig

T1 Behavior 3.10a 1.09 3.09a 0.96 3.24a 1.23 0.71 .493

T1 ATT 5.69a 1.12 5.72a 1.20 5.64a 1.17 0.14 .872
T1 SN 3.79a 1.96 3.79a 1.78 3.92a 1.78 0.19 .824
T1 PBC 5.27a 1.17 5.17a 1.09 5.14a 1.14 0.53 .589
T1 DN 5.37a 1.27 5.33a 1.14 5.49a 1.20 0.55 .577
T1 MN 5.31a 1.61 5.26a 1.44 5.47a 1.46 0.61 .543
T1 SI 4.58a 1.96 4.69a 1.70 4.63a 1.89 0.11 .898
T1 Intention 5.44a 1.48 5.56a 1.32 5.46a 1.41 0.19 .824

T2 Control Group App Group Pledge Group ANOVA Results

Measure M SD M SD M SD F sig

T2 Behavior 2.82a 1.06 3.09a 1.03 2.27b 0.83 23.69∗ <0.001

T2 ATT 5.71a 1.16 5.85a,b 0.97 6.04b 0.89 3.88∗ 0.022
T2 SN 4.18a 1.80 4.36a,b 1.74 4.67b 1.67 2.87 0.058
T2 PBC 5.13a 1.13 5.07a 0.97 5.29a 1.07 1.27 0.283
T2 DN 5.31a 1.26 4.98a 1.25 5.01a 1.36 2.67 0.070
T2 MN 5.35a 1.59 5.50a 1.41 5.98b 1.16 8.43∗ <0.001
T2 SI 4.84a 1.70 4.91a 1.70 5.44b 1.45 5.61 0.004
T2 Intention 5.58a 1.31 5.50a 1.34 6.05b 0.97 9.01∗ <0.001

Change Control Group App Group Pledge Group ANOVA Results

Score M SD M SD M SD F sig

Δ Behavior -.27b 1.05 .00a 0.98 -.97c .99 28.49 <0.001

Δ ATT .02a 1.21 .13a,b 1.13 .40b 1.21 3.83 0.023
Δ SN .39a 1.76 .57a,b 1.55 .76b 1.51 1.84 0.161
Δ PBC -.14a 1.12 -.09a,b 1.05 .15b 1.08 2.84 0.060
Δ DN -.06a 1.28 -.35a,b 1.10 -.48b 1.01 5.00 0.007
Δ MN .04a 1.57 .24a,b 1.26 .51b 1.34 3.96 0.020
Δ SI .26a 1.39 .22a 1.48 .81b 1.45 6.75 0.001
Δ Intention .13a 1.26 -.06a 1.32 .59b 1.33 7.75 0.001
∗
Welch’s F-test with pairwise comparisons made using Games-Howell multiple comparison because Levene’s test was significant at p
< .05.
Note. Row means that do not share subscript differ in multiple comparison (Tukey) test using bias-corrected and accelerated boot-
strapped 95% confidence intervals.
n = 152 (Control group), n = 89 (app group), n = 134 (pledge group).
ATT = Attitude. SN = Subjective Norms. PBC = Perceived Behavioral Control. DN = Descriptive Norms. MN = Moral Norms. SI = Self-
Identity.

Table 3
Correlations among predictors.

Measures Δ Consumption Δ Attitudes Δ Subjective Δ PBC Δ Moral Norms Δ Descriptive Δ Self-Identity

Behavior Norms Norms

Δ Attitudes -0.273∗∗∗
Δ Subjective -0.086 0.181∗∗∗
Norms
Δ PBC -0.304∗∗∗ 0.375∗∗∗ .052
Δ Moral Norms -0.118∗ 0.156∗∗ 0.258∗∗∗ .209∗∗∗
Δ Descriptive .171∗∗ -0.044 -0.037 -0.052 .022
Norms
Δ Self-Identity -0.175∗∗ .151∗∗ .123∗ .268∗∗∗ 0.340∗∗∗ -0.041
Δ Intentions -0.143∗∗ .302∗∗∗ 0.202∗∗∗ .336∗∗∗ 0.502∗∗∗ 0.058 .340∗∗∗

N = 375.
∗∗∗
p < .001. ∗ ∗ p < .01. ∗ p < .05.
Note. Descriptive Norms refer to perceptions of others’ plastic consumption, while all other TPB-related constructs refer to beliefs about
plastic reduction.
PBC = Perceived Behavioral Control.

moral norms, self-identity, and intentions related to reducing plastic. 3.5. Regression predicting changes in plastic consumption
Decreases in plastic consumption were also related to decreased percep-
tions of descriptive norms about plastic consumption. Subjective norms We tested our main hypotheses about whether the interventions
changes were not significantly correlated with plastic consumption de- changed plastic consumption and whether those changes were mediated
creases. Changes in the TPB constructs were generally weakly to moder- by changes in the extended TPB constructs. We ran a regression with the
ately positively intercorrelated, except for changes in descriptive norms experimental conditions as predictors of changes in plastic consump-
which did not relate to any of the other constructs. Additionally, changes tion behavior (with the control group as the comparison group), with
in subjective norms were not significantly correlated with changes in changes in the expanded TPB constructs as parallel mediators, using
PBC. PROCESS v. 3.5 Model 4 in IBM SPSS v. 27 with bias-corrected (Huber-

6
H.B. Truelove, E. Largo-Wight, A.N.S. Siuda et al. Current Research in Ecological and Social Psychology 4 (2023) 100098

Table 4
Regression Predicting Change in Plastic Consumption Behavior.

Predictor coeff se(HC0) t p Boot LLCI Boot ULCI

Constant -0.281 0.081 -3.460 0.001 -0.450 -0.124

Pledge Condition∗ -0.509 0.119 -4.262 <0.001 -0.741 -0.272
App Condition∗ 0.335 0.126 2.661 .008 0.096 0.591
Δ Attitudes -0.135 0.051 -2.652 .008 -0.237 -0.035
Δ Subjective Norms -0.012 0.031 -0.379 .705 -0.076 0.050
Δ PBC -0.195 0.079 -2.479 .014 -0.350 -0.039
Δ Moral Norms -0.007 0.034 -0.194 .846 -0.071 0.064
Δ Descriptive Norms 0.119 0.041 2.878 .004 0.034 0.200
Δ Self-Identity -0.027 0.033 -0.813 .417 -0.097 0.035
∗
Control group is comparison for condition. PBC = Perceived Behavioral Control.

Fig. 2. Standardized direct effects in hypothe-

sized model. Dashed lines are not significant at
p < .05. PBC = Perceived Behavioral Control.

White) standard errors and 95% confidence intervals based on 5000 course of the week via increasing beliefs that reducing plastic consump-
bootstrap samples. The model predicting changes in plastic consump- tion was good and easy and decreasing perceptions that others are con-
tion behavior was significant, F(HC0) (8, 366) = 14.948, p < 0.001, suming plastic. None of the relative indirect effects for the app condition
explaining 24.2% of the variance in plastic consumption changes. Both (compared to the control condition) were significant.
experimental conditions were significant predictors of changes in behav- Finally, we examined the total effect, the sum of the indirect effect
ior (Table 4; Fig. 2). The pledge group (compared to the control group) and the direct effect, of the experimental interventions on plastic con-
showed greater reductions in plastic consumption behavior, while the sumption. Overall, the total effect of the pledge condition compared
app group (compared to the control group) showed increased plastic to the control condition on changes in plastic consumption was signifi-
consumption behavior. The TPB variables of attitude change and PBC cant, with the pledge leading to a greater reduction in plastic consump-
change were both significant predictors of changes in behavior, with in- tion over time compared to the control group (Effect = -0.691 [-0.927,
creases in positive attitudes toward reducing plastic consumption and -0.454], p < .001). The total effect of the app condition compared to
perceptions of ease of reducing plastic consumption corresponding with the control condition was also significant, but in the opposite direction,
more reductions in plastic consumption. The only TPB extension con- meaning that being in the app group reduced consumption less than
struct that was significant was the change in descriptive norms, with in- being in the control group (Effect = 0.274 [.011, 0.536], p = .041).
creases in perceptions that others are using plastic corresponding with
increases in own consumption of plastic. Changes in subjective norms, 4. Discussion
moral norms, or self-identity were not predictive of changes in behavior
after controlling for the other variables in the model. 4.1. TPB predicting plastic consumption
In addition to the direct effects of the experimental intervention on
changes in plastic consumption, the experimental groups also had in- The present study examined the effectiveness of two interventions
direct effects through changes in some of the TPB constructs and the on reducing plastic consumption on college campuses. We found sup-
expanded TPB constructs (Table 5; See Supplemental). Specifically, the port for our hypothesis (H1) that changes in the expanded TPB con-
pledge (compared to the control group) indirectly influenced plastic con- structs would significantly predict changes in single-use plastic con-
sumption behavior changes via changing attitudes, PBC, and descriptive sumption. The model overall explained almost a quarter of the variance
norms. In other words, participating in the pledge group (compared to in plastic consumption changes. Attitudes, PBC, and descriptive norms
the control condition) led to reductions in plastic consumption over the changes were significant predictors. In terms of the main TPB constructs,

7
H.B. Truelove, E. Largo-Wight, A.N.S. Siuda et al. Current Research in Ecological and Social Psychology 4 (2023) 100098

Table 5
Indirect effects of Experimental Conditions on Change in Plastic Consumption Behavior via TPB
Constructs.

Mediator Condition∗ Effect Boot SE Boot LLCI Boot ULCI

Δ Attitudes
Pledge -0.052 0.027 -0.111 -0.006
App -0.015 0.023 -0.067 0.026
Δ Subjective Norms
Pledge -0.004 0.014 -0.036 0.020
App -0.002 0.010 -0.028 0.014
Δ PBC
Pledge -0.058 0.039 -0.151 -0.002
App -0.010 0.031 -0.081 0.047
Δ Moral Norms
Pledge -0.003 0.017 -0.042 0.029
App -0.001 0.010 -0.028 0.013
Δ Descriptive Norms
Pledge -0.050 0.024 -0.101 -0.009
App -0.034 0.023 -0.086 0.002
Δ Self-Identity
Pledge -0.015 0.020 -0.063 0.017
App 0.001 0.008 -0.018 0.018
∗
Control group is the comparison for condition. PBC = Perceived Behavioral Control.

attitude and PBC were significant predictors, though subjective norms 4.2. Direct effect of intervention on plastic consumption behavior
was not. Our finding that subjective norms was not a significant pre-
dictor of behavior, fits in line with previous research, finding subjective We found only partial support for H2 that both intervention con-
norms to be one of the weakest TPB predictors of pro-environmental ditions would reduce plastic consumption behavior compared to the
behavior (Botetzagias et al., 2015; de Leeuw et al., 2015). control condition, in that only the pledge was effective. As expected,
Previous work has suggested that descriptive norms, moral norms, the pledge condition showed greater reductions in single-use plas-
and self-identity can add predictive utility to the TPB in predicting tic consumption over the week compared to the control condition.
pro-environmental behavior (Fekadu and Kraft, 2001; Niemiec et al., This finding aligns with previous research showing the effectiveness of
2020). Our results confirm previous research on descriptive norms and pledges and commitments to improve environmentally-friendly behav-
pro-environmental behavior (Largo-Wight et al., 2012; Passafaro et al., ior (Lokhorst et al., 2013).
2019; Rivis and Sheeran, 2003), showing that changes in perceptions In contrast, the app condition participants reduced single-use plas-
of others’ plastic consumption predicts one’s own plastic consumption tic consumption behavior less than the control condition over the
changes. course of week. This is contrary to expectations and previous literature
Our results relating to self-identity did not fit with previous re- (Carfora et al., 2017b). One potential explanation for this effect could be
search, which has found that increases in environmental self-identity that participants in the app condition were more aware of their plastic
predict increases in pro-environmental behavior (Fielding et al., 2008; consumption behavior as they were recording it within the app, lead-
Sparks and Shepherd, 1992; Terry et al., 1999). One potential reason ing to more accurate reports of their behavior at Time 2 compared their
for this could be related to measurement conceptualization as other own reports for Time 1 or to the other groups at Time 2. In support of
studies often measure self-identity at the general environmental level this idea, testers during app development often reported surprise that
and this study measured self-identity specifically related to single-use their tracked single-use plastic consumption was greater than their as-
plastic reduction. Additionally, the response scale used in this study of sumed consumption. The self-monitoring of behavior through the app
“likely” to “unlikely” may not have been clear to participants. How- could have also highlighted the difficulty of reducing plastic consump-
ever, Heidbreder et al. (2020) found that although general environmen- tion and also made participants more attuned to the social environment
tal self-identity related to plastic consumption at baseline, identity did related to plastic consumption. However, this interpretation is unlikely
not relate to plastic consumption following a plastic reduction interven- considering the findings that the app and control group did not differ on
tion. Future work should continue to include self-identity in studies on any of the TPB-related constructs at Time 2, indicating that app partic-
plastic consumption to further examine the effect of identity changes on ipants were not more likely to report higher descriptive norms for con-
plastic consumption changes. suming plastic nor lower PBC beliefs than control participants at Time
Moral norm changes also did not predict changes in plastic con- 2. Another potential explanation could be that the process of download-
sumption behavior, contrary to expectations based on previous re- ing and using the app was perceived as controlling to the participants,
search in the pro-environmental behavior domain (Botetzagias et al., leading to reactance and boomerang effects (Miron and Brehm, 2006).
2015; Harland et al., 1999). Some previous research that has found
a lack of relationship between moral norms and pro-environmental 4.3. Indirect effects of intervention on plastic consumption behavior
behavior has identified very high correlations between moral norms
and attitudes (Chan and Bishop, 2013; Graham-Rowe et al., 2015), We found partial support for H3. The pledge intervention was effec-
which could explain the lack of independent contribution. This mul- tive in decreasing perceived descriptive norms of plastic consumption,
ticollinearity was not the case in our study. However, it could be that while increasing the expanded TPB constructs of attitudes, PBC, moral
college aged participants do not view single-use plastic consumption norms, and self-identity related to plastic reduction. This set of results
as a moral issue in the same way as other pro-environmental behav- provide support for the use of the expanded TPB in guiding the devel-
iors such as meat consumption. Future research should explore the opment and evaluation of behavior change interventions. The pledge
role of moral norms in predicting specific types of pro-environmental intervention increased several of the expanded TPB constructs, which
behavior. theoretically underlie behavior change. Our results further showed that

8
H.B. Truelove, E. Largo-Wight, A.N.S. Siuda et al. Current Research in Ecological and Social Psychology 4 (2023) 100098

the pledge intervention had indirect effects on plastic reduction by in- (Carfora et al., 2017), perhaps focusing on the TPB constructs shown in
creasing positive attitudes about plastic reduction, increasing beliefs this work to be most influential on predicting plastic consumption.
that plastic reduction is easy, and reducing perceptions that others are Our results show that a commitment intervention in combination
consuming plastic. Thus, this study is one of the first to demonstrate with TPB-based messaging is a promising avenue for reducing plastic
that an intervention can change pro-environmental behavior directly consumption on college campuses. We found that this intervention was
and also indirectly by changing the underlying TPB beliefs. successful in two colleges in the southeastern United States. Future re-
On the other hand, the app intervention did not change the TPB- search should test this intervention across colleges more widely, includ-
related constructs, indicating that participating in the app intervention ing schools in different regions of the world and those with more diverse
did not change beliefs about plastic reduction over the course of a one- student bodies. Additionally, research should test the effect across dif-
week period. Impacts of app use on change in TPB-related constructs ferent types of organizations, cultures, age groups, and countries to test
may be more dependent on the functionality of the actual app, which the boundary conditions around the pledge effect. Furthermore, work
will be context specific (Largo-Wight et al., 2013). In this study, the is needed to further tease out the parts of the intervention that were
process to download and use the app was complex, which is reflected in most effective. Both intervention groups were provided with TPB-based
the retention rate for the app group being much lower than the control messages daily, with the pledge group receiving them via email and the
condition. Because the conditions were randomized and not different app group receiving them via push notifications. Further research could
on tested variables at Time 1 and because the incentive structure was explore whether mode of delivery of TPB-based messages impact their
the same for all conditions, the higher percentage in drop off in the effectiveness. Future research should also explore the effectiveness of
app group suggests the app intervention was harder to complete. Future this brief intervention when incentives are not provided and when data
researchers should refine plastic consumption tracking apps and further are collected anonymously. Finally, future research should measure ob-
explore the impact of behavior monitoring guided by expanded TPB served behavior in addition to self-reported behavior.
messaging.
4.5. Implications

4.4. Limitations and future research Our results suggest that an online pledge coupled with emailed mes-
sages encouraging plastic reduction in line with the expanded TPB can
One major contribution of the present study is that it is one of the reduce plastic consumption, at least over the short term, among a pop-
first to examine the effect of an intervention in changing TPB-related ulation that is typically away from home for the first time and respon-
variables and changing self-reported behavior over time. Some work sible for their own purchasing decisions. Considering that behavioral
has examined the effect of interventions on pro-environmental behav- changes made during such a shift in lifestyle are more likely to per-
ior via TPB constructs measured at Time 2, controlling for past behavior sist (Verplanken and Roy, 2016), encouraging these new consumers to
at Time 1 (Carfora et al., 2017a). However, our present analysis that reduce single-use plastic consumption has the potential to lead to a life-
controls for all variables at Time 1 extends this work to show that inter- time of behavior change. The results are especially promising because
ventions change TPB constructs over time and that those changes can this is a relatively easy and low-cost intervention that could be imple-
effect changes in behavior. Our intervention only lasted one week, and mented on a wide scale across college campuses to promote meaningful
research is needed evaluating the lasting effectiveness of interventions change.
beyond one week. Future research should explore the longer-term effects
of both interventions. In addition, future research focused on adherence
to the interventions and functionality of the behavioral monitoring app Ethics and informed consent statement
should be pursued.
We designed our study as a test of the TPB, which captures many of The project was conducted in line with ethical standards for research
the known predictors of pro-environmental behavior (Klöckner, 2013). with human subjects and was approved by the Eckerd College Institu-
At the same time, our study does not address other variables from tional Review Board (Proposal # 02-03,030,211). All participants pro-
other pro-environmental behavior theories such as values (Stern et al., vided informed consent electronically.
1999), habit (Verplanken and Whitmarsh, 2021), structural compo-
nents/physical environment (Varotto and Spagnolli, 2017), and per- Declaration of Competing Interest
ceived threat (Rogers and Prentice-Dunn, 1997). Future work should
continue to design and test interventions in line with theory, with ex- The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
panded theoretical approaches that bridge multiple social science disci- interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
plines. the work reported in this paper.
This study conceptualized plastic consumption as a class of be-
haviors related to use of multiple plastic items (Heidbreder et al., Data availability
2020), whereas previous TPB research on pro-environmental behavior
has often operationalized the behavior of interest more broadly, such Data will be made available on request.
as recycling household waste (Passafaro et al., 2019; Tonglet et al.,
2004), reducing food waste (Graham-Rowe et al., 2015), saving en- Acknowledgments
ergy (Gao et al., 2017), and pro-environmental behavior (de Leeuw
et al., 2015; Gkargkavouzi et al., 2019). Thus, unlike previous re- This work was supported by NOAA Marine Debris Program Award
search that has often used multiple items to assess each TPB construct, # NA20NOS9990151. The content is solely the responsibility of the au-
our study utilized single-item measures, aggregated at the behavior thors and does not necessarily reflect the views of NOAA. We thank Kelly
level (Heidbreder et al., 2020; Kaiser et al., 2005), due to concerns Debure, Ph.D. and Yuhan Burgess for developing the app used in this
about survey length and participant fatigue. Although single-item mea- project and Jesse Sherry, Ph.D. for contributions to project design. We
sures of constructs have been used in the past in the TPB literature thank Jacqueline MacNeil for assistance with delivery of the surveys as
(Çoker and van der Linden, 2020; Harland et al., 1999), multiple-item well as Skyler Paoli, Renee Veldman, and Makayla Doran for assistance
measures are preferred to reduce the potential for measurement error. with preparation of the instructional materials for the app intervention.
Future research should aim to include multiple item-measures for mul- We want to acknowledge the support from the Institute of Environmen-
tiple sub-behaviors within the plastic consumption behavioral domain tal Research and Education at the University of North Florida.

9
H.B. Truelove, E. Largo-Wight, A.N.S. Siuda et al. Current Research in Ecological and Social Psychology 4 (2023) 100098

Supplementary materials Gkargkavouzi, A., Halkos, G., Matsiori, S., 2019. Environmental behavior in a
private-sphere context: integrating theories of planned behavior and value be-
lief norm, self-identity and habit. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 148 (2018), 145–156.
Supplementary material associated with this article can be found, in doi:10.1016/j.resconrec.2019.01.039, November.
the online version, at doi:10.1016/j.cresp.2023.100098. Goldstein, N.J., Cialdini, R.B., Griskevicius, V., 2008. A Room with a viewpoint: using
social norms to motivate environmental conservation in hotels. J. Consum. Res. 35
(3), 472–482. doi:10.1086/586910.
References Graham-Rowe, E., Jessop, D.C., Sparks, P., 2015. Predicting household food waste reduc-
tion using an extended theory of planned behaviour. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 101,
Ajzen, I., 1991. The theory of planned behavior. Org. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 50, 194–202. doi:10.1016/j.resconrec.2015.05.020.
179–211. doi:10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-T. Hardeman, W., Johnston, M., Johnston, D., Bonetti, D., Wareham, N., Kin-
Ajzen, I., 2002. Perceived behavioral control, self-efficacy, locus of control, and month, A.L., 2002. Application of the theory of planned behaviour in behaviour
the theory of planned behavior. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 80 (6), 2918–2940. change interventions: a systematic review. Psychol. Health 17 (2), 123–158.
doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.2002.tb00236.x. doi:10.1080/08870440290013644a.
Ajzen, I. (2014). Behavioral interventions based on the theory of planned behavior. Harland, P., Staats, H., Wilke, H.A.M., 1999. Explaining proenvironmental intention and
http://www.people.umass.edu/aizen/pdf/tpb.intervention.pdf. behavior by personal norms and the theory of planned behavior. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol.
Ajzen, I., Fishbein, M., Albarracin, D., Johnson, B.T., Zanna, M.P., 2005. The influence of 29 (12), 2505–2528. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.1999.tb00123.x.
attitudes on behavior. In: The Handbook of Attitudes. Erlbaum, pp. 173–221. Heath, Y., Gifford, R., 2002. Extending the theory of planned behavior: predict-
Anderson, C.N., Noar, S.M., Rogers, B.D., 2013. The persuasive power of oral ing the use of public transportation. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 32 (10), 2154–2189.
health promotion messages: a theory of planned behavior approach to doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.2002.tb02068.x.
dental checkups among young adults. Health Commun. 28 (3), 304–313. Heidbreder, L.M., Bablok, I., Drews, S., Menzel, C., 2019. Tackling the plastic problem: a
doi:10.1080/10410236.2012.684275. review on perceptions, behaviors, and interventions. Sci. Total Environ. 668, 1077–
Armitage, C.J., Conner, M., 2001. Efficacy of the theory of planned behaviour: a meta-an- 1093. doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.02.437.
alytic review. Br. J. Soc. Psychol. 40, 471–499. Heidbreder, L.M., Steinhorst, J., Schmitt, M., 2020. Plastic-free July: an experimental
Bamberg, S., Möser, G., 2007. Twenty years after Hines, Hungerford, and Tomera: a new study of limiting and promoting factors in encouraging a reduction of single-use plas-
meta-analysis of psycho-social determinants of pro-environmental behaviour. J. Env- tic consumption. Sustainability 12 (11). doi:10.3390/su12114698, (Switzerland).
iron. Psychol. 27 (1), 14–25. doi:10.1016/j.jenvp.2006.12.002. Jacobs, T.P., Gottschalk, L.L., Dandignac, M., Mcconnell, A.R., 2021. Making pledges more
Barnes, D.K.A., Galgani, F., Thompson, R.C., Barlaz, M., 2009. Accumulation and frag- powerful: effects on pro-environmental beliefs and conservation behavior. Sustain-
mentation of plastic debris in global environments. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. ability 13, 9894.
364, 1985–1998. doi:10.1098/rstb.2008.0205. Jambeck, J., Geyer, R., Wilcox, C., Siegler, T.R., Perryman, M., Andrady, A., Narayan, R.,
Bem, D.J., Berkowitz, L., 1972. Self-perception theory. In: Advances in Experimental Social Law, K.L., 2015. Plastic waste inputs from land into the ocean. Science 347 (6223),
Psychology, 6. Academic Press, pp. 1–62. 768–771. doi:10.1126/science.1260352.
Botetzagias, I., Dima, A.F., Malesios, C., 2015. Extending the theory of planned behavior Jia, L., Evans, S., van der Linden, S., 2019. Motivating actions to mitigate plastic pollution.
in the context of recycling: the role of moral norms and of demographic predictors. Nat. Commun. 10 (1), 9–11. doi:10.1038/s41467-019-12666-9.
Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 95, 58–67. doi:10.1016/j.resconrec.2014.12.004. Kaiser, F.G., 2006. A moral extension of the theory of planned behavior: norms and
Carfora, V., Caso, D., Conner, M., 2017a. Correlational study and randomised controlled anticipated feelings of regret in conservationism. Pers. Individ. Dif. 41 (1), 71–81.
trial for understanding and changing red meat consumption: the role of eating iden- doi:10.1016/j.paid.2005.11.028.
tities. Soc. Sci. Med. 175, 244–252. doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2017.01.005. Kaiser, F.G., Hubner, G., Bogner, F.X., 2005. Contrasting the theory of planned behavior
Carfora, V., Caso, D., Conner, M., 2017b. Randomised controlled trial of a text messaging with the value-belief-norm model in explaining conservation behavior. J. Appl. Soc.
intervention for reducing processed meat consumption: the mediating roles of antici- Psychol. 35 (10), 2150–2170. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.2005.tb02213.x.
pated regret and intention. Appetite 117, 152–160. doi:10.1016/j.appet.2017.06.025. Kaiser, F.G., Wilson, M., 2000. Assessing people’s general ecological behavior: a cross-cul-
Carfora, V., Caso, D., Palumbo, F., Conner, M., 2018. Promoting water intake. The per- tural measure. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 30, 952–978.
suasiveness of a messaging intervention based on anticipated negative affective reac- Klöckner, C.A., 2013. A comprehensive model of the psychology of environ-
tions and self-monitoring. Appetite 130, 236–246. doi:10.1016/j.appet.2018.08.017, mental behaviour-a meta-analysis. Glob. Environ. Chang. 23 (5), 1028–1038.
August. doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2013.05.014.
Carfora, V., Caso, D., Sparks, P., Conner, M., 2017. Moderating effects of pro- Lam, S.P., Chen, J.K., 2006. What makes customers bring their bags or buy bags from
environmental self-identity on pro-environmental intentions and behaviour: a multi- the shop? A survey of customers at a Taiwan hypermarket. Environ. Behav. 38 (3),
behaviour study. J. Environ. Psychol. 53, 92–99. doi:10.1016/j.jenvp.2017.07.001. 318–332. doi:10.1177/0013916505278327.
Carrus, G., Bonnes, M., Fornara, F., Passafaro, P., Tronu, G., 2009. Planned behavior and Largo-Wight, E., Bian, H., Lange, L., 2012. An empirical test of an expanded version of
“local” norms: an analysis of the space-based aspects of normative ecological behavior. the theory of planned behavior in predicting recycling behavior on campus. Am. J.
Cogn. Process. 10 (2), 198–200. doi:10.1007/s10339-009-0292-9, SUPPL. Health Educ. 43 (2), 66–73. doi:10.1080/19325037.2012.10599221.
Chan, L., Bishop, B., 2013. A moral basis for recycling: extending the theory of planned Largo-Wight, E., De Longpre Johnston, D., Wight, J., 2013. The efficacy of a theory-based,
behaviour. J. Environ. Psychol. 36, 96–102. doi:10.1016/j.jenvp.2013.07.010. participatory recycling intervention on a college campus. J. Environ. Health 76 (4),
Cialdini, R.B., Reno, R.R., Kallgren, C.A., 1990. A focus theory of normative conduct: re- 26–31.
cycling the concept of norms to reduce littering in public places. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Lavers, J.L., Bond, A.L., 2017. Exceptional and rapid accumulation of anthropogenic debris
58 (6), 1015–1026. doi:10.1037//0022-3514.58.6.1015. on one of the world ’ s most remote and pristine islands. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 114
Çoker, E.N., van der Linden, S., 2020. Fleshing out the theory of planned of behav- (23), 6052–6055. doi:10.1073/pnas.1619818114.
ior: meat consumption as an environmentally significant behavior. Curr. Psychol. Litvine, D., Wüstenhagen, R., 2011. Helping “light green” consumers walk the talk: results
doi:10.1007/s12144-019-00593-3. of a behavioural intervention survey in the Swiss electricity market. Ecol. Econ. 70
D’Arco, M., Marino, V., 2022. Environmental citizenship behavior and sustainability apps: (3), 462–474. doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2010.10.005.
aan empirical investigation. Transf. Gov. People Process Policy 16 (2), 185–202. Lokhorst, A.M., Werner, C., Staats, H., van Dijk, E., Gale, J.L., 2013. Commit-
doi:10.1108/TG-07-2021-0118. ment and behavior change: a meta-analysis and critical review of commitment-
de Groot, J.I.M., Abrahamse, W., Jones, K., 2013. Persuasive normative messages: the making strategies in environmental research. Environ. Behav. 45 (1), 3–34.
influence of injunctive and personal norms on using free plastic bags. Sustainability doi:10.1177/0013916511411477.
5 (5), 1829–1844. doi:10.3390/su5051829, (Switzerland). Miron, A.M., Brehm, J.W., 2006. Reactance theory - 40 years later. Z. Fur Sozialpsychol.
de Groot, J.I.M., Steg, L., 2007. General beliefs and the theory of planned behavior: the 37 (1), 9–18. doi:10.1024/0044-3514.37.1.9.
role of environmental concerns in the TPB. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 37 (8), 1817–1836. Muralidharan, S., Sheehan, K., 2016. Tax and ‘“fee”’ message frames as inhibitors of plastic
doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.2007.00239.x. bag usage among shoppers: a social marketing application of the theory of planned
de Leeuw, A., Valois, P., Ajzen, I., Schmidt, P., 2015. Using the theory of planned be- behavior. Soc. Mar. Q 22 (3), 200–217. doi:10.1177/1524500416631522.
havior to identify key beliefs underlying pro-environmental behavior in high-school Niemiec, R.M., Champine, V., Vaske, J.J., Mertens, A., 2020. Does the impact of norms
students: implications for educational interventions. J. Environ. Psychol. 42, 128–138. vary by type of norm and type of conservation behavior? A meta-analysis. Soc. Natl.
doi:10.1016/j.jenvp.2015.03.005. Resour. 33 (8), 1024–1040. doi:10.1080/08941920.2020.1729912.
Fekadu, Z., Kraft, P., 2001. Self-identity in planned behavior perspective: past behavior Norman, P., Cameron, D., Epton, T., Webb, T.L., Harris, P.R., Millings, A., Sheeran, P.,
and its moderating effects on self-identity-intention relations. Soc. Behav. Pers. 29 2018. A randomized controlled trial of a brief online intervention to reduce alco-
(7), 671–686. hol consumption in new university students: combining self-affirmation, theory of
Fielding, K., Mcdonald, R., Louis, W., 2008. Theory of planned behaviour, identity and planned behaviour messages, and implementation intentions. Br. J. Health Psychol.
intentions to engage in environmental activism. J. Environ. Psychol. 28 (4), 318–326. 23 (1), 108–127. doi:10.1111/bjhp.12277.
doi:10.1016/j.jenvp.2008.03.003. Parker, D., Stradling, S.G., Manstead, A.S.R., 1996. Modifying beliefs and attitudes to ex-
Fishbein, M., 2000. The role of theory in HIV prevention. AIDS Care 12 (3), 273– ceeding the speed limit: an intervention study based on the theory of planned behav-
278. doi:10.1080/09540120050042918, Psychological and Socio-Medical Aspects of ior. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 26 (1), 1–19. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.1996.tb01835.x.
AIDS/HIV. Parrott, M.W., Tennant, L.K., Olejnik, S., Poudevigne, M.S., 2008. Theory of planned be-
Gao, L., Wang, S., Li, J., Li, H., 2017. Application of the extended theory of planned havior: implications for an email-based physical activity intervention. Psychol. Sport
behavior to understand individual’s energy saving behavior in workplaces. Resour. Exerc. 9 (4), 511–526. doi:10.1016/j.psychsport.2007.07.002.
Conserv. Recycl. 127, 107–113. doi:10.1016/j.resconrec.2017.08.030, April. Passafaro, P., Livi, S., Kosic, A., 2019. Local norms and the theory of planned behavior:
Geyer, R., Jambeck, J.R., Law, K.L., 2017. Production, use, and fate of all plastics ever understanding the effects of spatial proximity on recycling intentions and self-reported
made. Sci. Adv. 3 (7), e1700782. doi:10.1126/sciadv.1700782. behavior. Front. Psychol. 10, 1–11. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00744, MAR.

10
H.B. Truelove, E. Largo-Wight, A.N.S. Siuda et al. Current Research in Ecological and Social Psychology 4 (2023) 100098

Rivis, A., Sheeran, P., 2003. Descriptive norms as an additional predictor in the theory of Truelove, H.B., Gillis, A.J., 2018. Perception of pro-environmental behavior. Glob. Envi-
planned behaviour: a meta-analysis. Curr. Psychol. 22 (3), 218–233. ron. Chang. 49, 175–185. doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2018.02.009, February.
Rogers, R.W., Prentice-Dunn, S., Gochman, D.S., 1997. Protection motivation theory. In: Truelove, H.B., Nugent, M.R., 2020. Straw wars: pro-environmental spillover following
Handbook of Health Behavior Research 1: Personal and Social Determinants. Plenum a guilt appeal. J. Environ. Psychol. 72, 101521. doi:10.1016/j.jenvp.2020.101521,
Press, pp. 113–132. October.
Schultz, P.W., Nolan, J.M., Cialdini, R.B., Goldstein, N.J., Griskevicius, V., 2007. The con- Truelove, H.B., Raimi, K.T., Carrico, A.R., 2022. Curbing Single-Use Plastic with Behaviour
structive, destructive, and reconstructive power of social norms. Psychol. Sci. 18 (5), Change Interventions. Nature Reviews Earth & Enviroment, in press.
429–434. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2007.01917.x. Truelove, H.B., Schultz, P.W., Gillis, A.J., O’Doherty, K.C., Hodgetts, D., 2019. Using social
Schwartz, S.H., Berkowitz, L., 1977. Normative influences on altruism. In: Advances in psychology to protect the environment. In: The SAGE Handbook of Applied Social
Experimental Social Psychology, 10. Academic Press, pp. 221–279. Psychology. Sage Publications, pp. 490–514. doi:10.4135/9781526417091.n24.
Sniehotta, F., 2009. An experimental test of the theory of planned behavior. Appl. Psychol. van der Linden, S., 2015. Exploring beliefs about bottled water and intentions to reduce
Health Well Being 1 (2), 257–270. doi:10.1111/j.1758-0854.2009.01013.x. consumption: the dual-effect of social norm activation and persuasive information.
Sparks, P., Shepherd, R., 1992. Self-identity and the theory of planned behavior: assessing Environ. Behav. 47 (5), 526–550. doi:10.1177/0013916513515239.
the role of identification with “green consumerism. Soc. Psychol. Q 55 (4), 388–399. Varotto, A., Spagnolli, A., 2017. Psychological strategies to promote household recycling.
Steinmetz, H., Knappstein, M., Ajzen, I., Schmidt, P., Kabst, R., 2016. How effec- A systematic review with meta-analysis of validated field interventions. J. Environ.
tive are behavior change interventions based on the theory of planned behav- Psychol. 51, 168–188. doi:10.1016/j.jenvp.2017.03.011.
ior?: a three-level meta analysis. Z. Fur Psychol. J. Psychol. 224 (3), 216–233. Verplanken, B., Roy, D., 2016. Empowering interventions to promote sustainable lifestyles:
doi:10.1027/2151-2604/a000255. testing the habit discontinuity hypothesis in a field experiment. J. Environ. Psychol.
Stern, P.C., Dietz, T., Abel, T., Guagnano, G.A., Kalof, L., 1999. A value belief norm theory 45, 127–134. doi:10.1016/j.jenvp.2015.11.008.
of support for social movements: the case of environmental concern. Hum. Ecol. Rev. Verplanken, B., Whitmarsh, L., 2021. Habit and climate change. Curr. Opin. Behav. Sci.
6 (2), 81–97. doi:10.2307/2083693. 42, 42–46. doi:10.1016/j.cobeha.2021.02.020.
Sun, Y., Wang, S., Li, J., Zhao, D., Fan, J., 2017. Understanding consumers’ intention to Webb, T.L., Joseph, J., Yardley, L., Michie, S., 2010. Using the Internet to promote health
use plastic bags: using an extended theory of planned behaviour model. Natl. Hazards behavior change: a systematic review and meta-analysis of the impact of theoretical
89 (3), 1327–1342. doi:10.1007/s11069-017-3022-0. basis, use of behavior change techniques, and mode of delivery on efficacy. J. Med.
Tajfel, H., & Turner, J.C. (2004). The social identity theory of intergroup behavior. Internet Res. 12 (1), 1–18. doi:10.2196/jmir.1376.
Terry, D.J., Hogg, M.A., White, K.M., 1999. The theory of planned behaviour: self-identity, Whitmarsh, L., O’Neill, S, 2010. Green identity, green living? The role of
social identity and group norms. Br. J. Soc. Psychol. 38, 225–244. pro-environmental self-identity in determining consistency across diverse
Thompson, R.C., Moore, C.J., Saal, F.S., Swan, S.H., 2009. Plastics, the environment and pro-environmental behaviours. J. Environ. Psychol. 30 (3), 305–314.
human health : current consensus and future trends. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. doi:10.1016/j.jenvp.2010.01.003.
364, 2153–2166. doi:10.1098/rstb.2009.0053.
Tonglet, M., Phillips, P.S., Read, A.D., 2004. Using the theory of planned behaviour to
investigate the determinants of recycling behaviour: a case study from Brixworth,
UK. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 41 (3), 191–214. doi:10.1016/j.resconrec.2003.11.001.

11