Abstract
There exist people whose behaviors do not match their pro-environment attitude. The purpose of this article is to examine the behavioral mechanism of these people who do not participate in recycling efforts despite their pro-environment attitude. This article focuses on two types of recycling : recycling of glass and can, which is of low practical cost, and recycling of milk-carton, which is of high practical cost.
The argument in this paper develops from the study of Diekmann and Preisendöfer (1998). Their empirical analyses propounded three cognitive justification strategies based on the fact that individual actors are likely to harmonize the discrepancy between their attitude towards the environment and their behavior. These strategies are called “attention-shifting strategy, ” “high-cost strategy, ” and “subjective-rationality strategy.” However, these strategies should be modified partly. Thus, this paper proposes the addition of a new strategy : “behavior-despise strategy.” To develop the four justification strategies, we propose an expectation utility model based on rational choice theory and interpret the strategies in the framework of the modified model.
Using a questionnaire survey conducted in the city of Sendai, we empirically tested the justification strategies to study the behavioral trends of individuals in the city. It was found that individuals who exhibit such discrepancy in their behaviors are less likely to adopt the behavior-despise strategy. However, the high-cost and subjective-rationality strategies are more likely to be observed among them. As for the attention-shift strategy, it was partially proven.
