what does the term recycling mean when applied to identity construction models?

Introduction

Communist china having the highest population in the world non surprisingly produces one of the largest if not the largest amounts of solid waste matter. Promoting the reduction of solid waste product sources and recycling to minimizes the negative bear on on the environs is the advocated dark-green urban development model. Recycling is "the procedure of collecting and processing materials that would otherwise be thrown away equally trash and turning them into new products"^ane. Governments and environmental public welfare organizations take invested many resources in cultivating, publicizing and promoting people'south recycling behavior, such every bit recycling facilities installed in public places, household waste classification and recycling policies, school instruction program and ubiquitous public service commercials, and propagandas. Many businesses take besides launched second-paw goods recycling deduction plans (such every bit old clothes recycling plan by H&Yard) and idle appurtenances circulation market place (such as Taobao online idle goods marketplace).

Resource recycling is an important hateful to achieve sustainable development. Even so, the chief focus on the work so far has been on factors affecting recycling behavior (e.g., Tonglet et al., 2004; Schultz et al., 2007; Goldstein et al., 2008; Trudel et al., 2016; Wang et al., 2016; Echegaray and Hansstein, 2017; Wan et al., 2017). These studies focused on garbage charges, identity exposure, information presentation, commodity appearance, private attitudes, level of education, and other factors related to recycling habits. The insights from the these studies can assistance policymakers educate and persuade the public to participate in recycling activities, though the long term overall effect of these efforts is questionable. The basic assumption underlying such research is that garbage recycling is an effective way to prevent pollution, save free energy, and save natural resources (Troschinetz and Mihelcic, 2009; Varotto and Spagnolli, 2017). Nevertheless, an initial sustainable act may lead the individual to perform unsustainable behaviors (Meijers et al., 2013), and then peoples' recycling efforts may increment their levels of future consumption, thus increasing overall resource use. For example, consumers who recycled their used dress may feel that buying new clothes is more adequate. If the potential negative consequences of recycling (such equally promoting waste) cannot be avoided, it volition be hard for policymakers to maximize the benign furnishings of recycling (Ma et al., 2019). Therefore, information technology is very of import to study the subsequent resource saving beliefs related to involvement in waste recycling.

The aftermath of recycling behavior has received limited investigation and the questions whether it encourages saving or wasteful behavior remains to be answered. Social psychology studies suggest that humans have motivation for consequent behaviors (Beaman et al., 1983; Burger, 1999; Mullen and Monin, 2016). The theory of cocky-perception suggests that people will infer their attitudes, beliefs and self-characterizations according to their previous behavior, and then make choices consistent with self-concept. Past environment sustainable beliefs leads to the perception that "I am a pro-environmental person," and this perception promotes the subsequent emergence of similar behavior (Bénabou and Tirole, 2011). Studies have found that moral behavior promotes subsequent moral behavior (Gneezy et al., 2012), and greenish consumption promotes green consumption or ecology beliefs (Cornelissen et al., 2013; Summers et al., 2016). On the other hand, a large amount of literature illustrated only the contrary, i.east., when individuals took sustainable behavior before, they will reduce their sustainable beliefs or engage in unsustainable behavior after. For example, later on consuming green products, the possibility of purchasing the dark-green products in the future decreases (Mazar and Zhong, 2010). Compared with ordinary cars, hybrid cars drivers use cars more frequently, drive more mileage (Sun and Trudel, 2017), and have more traffic violations and accidents (Woodyard, 2009). Private support for green funds is lower afterward garbage recycling (Truelove et al., 2016). When economic incentives were used to encourage household waste material recycling, the consumption of electricity in the aforementioned household increased (Xu et al., 2018).

A recent study on how recycling behavior affects futurity consumption comes from Ma et al. (2019) who investigated the negative consequences of recycling beliefs. Although previous studies have given alien conclusions, their results provide evidence to back up the prediction that recycling activities indeed increase future resource consumption. This upshot is mediated by ii mechanisms, i.e., pride feeling and environmental cocky-identity, that decrease negative emotions from wasting behaviors. Feelings of pride, every bit a self-conscious emotion, play an of import office in self-regulation. Environmental self-identity, the degree to which individuals regard themselves as environmentalists (Whitmarsh and O'Neill, 2010; Werff et al., 2013, 2014) were plant to decrease negative self-attributions associated with wasteful consumption (Bolton et al., 2006; Ma et al., 2019). Furthermore, they indicated that the consideration of future consequences negatively moderates the effects of recycling efforts on pride feeling and ecology self-identity. Based on the above evidence, we tend to assume that individuals' recycling efforts would reduce their saving beliefs. Unfortunately, few studies have examined the relationship between recycling efforts and resource saving behavior. Existing studies accept either only focused a specific consumption behavior (such as using paper cups or flake paper) in an experimental inquiry state of affairs (Catlin and Wang, 2013; Sun and Trudel, 2017) or taken a proxy variable of resource saving, such as average monthly expenditure (Ma et al., 2019), which provided limited insights into the understanding of resources saving behaviors.

In this enquiry, we empirically investigate these problems based on survey data from college students in China, using structural equation modeling. We argue that resources saving behavior is a set of behaviors rather than a unmarried action and saving behaviors could be classified into two types, i.e., costly and costless saving behaviors. From a viewpoint of development, the perceptions of the costs of saving behaviors might play a substantial function for different individuals (Poškus, 2017). It is suggested that the self-oriented attitude reflecting personal gain may take unlike furnishings on environmental beliefs than social-oriented attitude reflecting altruism. Although individuals sometimes show socially desirable behaviors such as carrying a reusable shopping bag and try to amend their social status at the cost of losing resources (plush signaling), at other times, they may be reluctant to pay a cost to save resource, so equally to maintain their personal advantages (Gintis et al., 2001; McAndrew, 2002; Millet and Dewitte, 2007; Bereczkei et al., 2010). Therefore, the individual'due south resource saving behaviors may non only be affected by the previous recycling behavior in terms of moral cocky-regulation, but also the costliness of recycling behavior can non be ignored. The current study's framework are based on the Ma et al. (2019)'s report, and farther extends it by examining two types of saving behaviors, which shows different consequences. In addition, we investigated the role of recycling cost when examining the effect of recycling efforts on pride feeling and environmental self-identity.

Hypothesis

To investigate the relationship betwixt recycling efforts and subsequent saving beliefs, nosotros used Ma et al. (2019) conceptual framework with modification of adding recycling costliness as a moderator. Furthermore, nosotros used a ready of saving behaviors to supervene upon the single indicator (i.e., monthly living expenses) used by Ma et al. (2019), and institute that the construction of saving beliefs evidence ii dimensions. Ma et al. (2019) proposed that recycling efforts can increase peoples' consumption level, which is mediated by feelings of pride and environmental cocky-identity that tin can reduce negative emotions from resource wasteful behaviors. Firstly, as the report is based on the Ma et al. (2019) framework, nosotros wanted to confirm the relationships observed in the original study and explore the relationships between recycling efforts, environmental self-identity, and pride feeling.

H1. Recycling efforts positively affect environmental self-identity.

H2. Recycling efforts positively affect pride feeling.

H3. Pride feeling positively affect environmental self-identity.

Further, we predict that the impact of recycling efforts on saving behavior depends on the costliness of saving behavior, that is, whether information technology is costly or costliness for individuals. Recycling efforts promote gratis saving behavior, but they inhibit costly saving behavior, which is mediated past pride feeling, and environmental self-identity. In addition, we predict that the price of recycling activities will moderate the furnishings of recycling efforts. Below, nosotros hash out each concept in more detail and present our hypotheses.

The findings from empirical inquiry consistently suggested that in that location is a positive correlation between ecological affect referring to the degree of emotionality an individual is fastened to environmental issues and ecological behavior (e.g., green purchase; Chan and Lau, 2000). He et al. (2013) plant that ecological emotion (such as pride, cherishing) played a mediating role in the positive impact of green knowledge (i.e., knowledge nearly green products) on green behavior. Dominicus and Trudel (2017) argued negative emotions experienced during resource wasting behavior tin be reduced by positive emotions arousing from the post-obit recycling or resource saving activities. Thus, pride feelings are probable to decrease resource saving by reducing the negative emotions of wasteful behavior (Ma et al., 2019). Too, based on social exchange theory'due south rank equilibrium norm (Cropanzano and Mitchell, 2005), individuals' feeling of pride arousing from their recycling efforts, makes them feel more entitled to make less other environmentally responsible decisions, such as feel comfy almost using more resources (Ma et al., 2019). Therefore, we advise:

H4. Pride feeling negatively bear on saving behaviors.

Previous work on social cognition based on the concept that individuals have dissimilar identities (Reed, 2002; DeMarree et al., 2005) has proved that individuals' prior behaviors can stimulate a certain self-concept and influence their subsequent behaviors. The moral licensing outcome showed that previous moral beliefs might actuate and promote a positive self-concept, thus allowing consumers to make more of self-indulgent choices later on (Khan and Dhar, 2006; Merritt et al., 2010). Following this, an increased feeling of ecology self-identity could human action every bit one of the factors for decreasing negative emotions from wasteful beliefs (Bolton and Alba, 2012; Lord's day and Trudel, 2017). Empirical enquiry in the consequence of moral licensing found like evidence. For example, people who see themselves equally typical recyclers are more than likely to recycle than those who do non perceive themselves equally recyclers (Mannetti et al., 2004), garbage recycling leads to lower green fund support (Truelove et al., 2016). In this research context, recycling efforts also have the potential to actuate and confirm environmental cocky-identity, which can be a "get out of jail costless card," making high levels of consumption more adequate (Whitmarsh and O'Neill, 2010; Ma et al., 2019). Therefore, engaging in recycling could boost environmental self-identity, which decreased the negative self-attribution associated with wasteful consumption (Ma et al., 2019) and, thus decreased the likelihood of saving behaviors.

H5. Ecology self-identity negatively affects saving behaviors.

Recycling activeness is a collection of multiple actions rather than a single behavior, many of which require individuals to accept some costs, including financial costs (such as purchasing recycling equipment), physical costs (going to a specific recycling bespeak), and mental burdens (garbage sorting), etc. Sunday and Trudel (2017). Gneezy et al. (2012) proposed that the costliness of initial pro-social behavior is a key moderator of moral consistency between a sequence of behaviors. Costly pro-social beliefs signals a pro-social identity, leading to moral consistency of sequential behaviors, whereas costless behavior does non, leading to no moral consistency. In their experiment, compared to the control condition, participants lied significantly less in the costly condition and significantly more in the costless status. Participants in the costly condition also rated themselves as more than helpful and less selfish than participants in either of the other two conditions, and the difference in truth-telling between the costly and the gratis atmospheric condition was mediated by this self-rating of pro-social identity.

Accordingly, costly recycling behavior is more diagnostic about oneself, leading people to cover the value indicated past that behavior (Burger, 1999; Gneezy et al., 2012). Individuals who accept the higher cost of recycling, which can bear witness that they are a person who abides by social norms, thus strengthening their environmental identity. In addition, if the recycling was plush, it means that consumers contributed more efforts for recycling, which will be converted into more moral credits or improve the quality of moral credentials (a machinery of moral licensing). In the model congenital by Sun and Trudel (2017), higher recycling price (for example, putting the recycling bin farther away in the field experiment) would produce stronger positive emotions. Thus, nosotros hypothesize the following:

H6. Recycling cost positively moderates the effect of recycling efforts on ecology cocky-identity.

H7. Recycling cost positively moderates the result of recycling efforts on pride feeling.

Nosotros constructed a conceptual model to better present the relationships between each constructs (Figure 1).

www.frontiersin.org

Effigy 1. Conceptual model.

Empirical Study

The subjects of this study were higher students majoring in economic science and management from Shaanxi University of Engineering in China. Respondents who completed the questionnaire were rewarded with coin of x RMB. A total of 442 questionnaires were sent out during the class and 436 valid sample was obtained. Among them, there were 135 males and 301 females. 58% of the population grew upwardly in rural areas and 42% in urban areas. The M _age was 19.13 (SD = 1.02). Though the females are much more than males in our sample, we included control variables for gender (male person/female person), and growing background (rural/city), to capture unobservable differences.

We adopt PLS-SEM (partial least squares structural equation modeling) for our data assay. Using PLS is advisable considering it does non assume normal distributions and allows for analyses with small samples (Hair et al., 2011). Besides, SmartPLS 3.0 tin can provide consistent results when all constructs are reflective (Dijkstra and Henseler, 2015). If properly used, PLS-SEM tin provide more robust estimations of structural models than tin covariance-based SEM (Reinartz et al., 2009). Using SmartPLS iii.0 software, a two-stage belittling procedure was applied to clarify the data (Hair et al., 2011). Firstly, nosotros assessed the reliability and validity of the measurement model and then examined the parameters and the explanatory ability of the structural model. The significance of the model estimates was based on a bootstrapping procedure with 5,000 samples.

Measure

The questionnaire included five constructs: recycling efforts, environmental cocky-identity, pride feeling, saving behaviors, and recycling price. Nosotros used scales from prior research to measure the offset three constructs (Ma et al., 2019; See Tabular array 1) and developed the scales to measure saving behaviors and recycling costs.

www.frontiersin.org

Table ane. Constructs and measure.

Recycling Efforts, Environmental Self-Identity and Pride Feeling

Recycling efforts was adapted from Ramayah et al. (2012) and Wang et al. (2016), ecology cocky-identity was adjusted from Truelove et al. (2016), and pride feeling was adjusted from Harth et al. (2013). The three constructs as well as the measurement too had been used in Chinese consumer context by Ma et al. (2019). To evaluate the psychometric adequacy of the constructs in this study, confirmatory factor analysis were conducted. The gene loadings for each construct are shown in Tabular array 1. All factor loadings are meaning (p < 0.001), ranging from 0.695 to 0.955. According to Table two, Cronbach's alphas for the main constructs are 0.843 or above, and composite reliability ranges from 0.895 to 0.956 (Table 2), both of which exceed the criterion of 0.7, suggesting that all of these measures are reliable. Convergent validity was assessed using the average variance extracted (AVE) from the constructs. All constructs range from 0.641 to 0.915 in AVE, well above the recommended value of 0.50. According to Fornell and Larcker (1981), the AVE of each construct exceeds its squared correlation to any other construct, assuring the discriminant validity of the constructs. Further, the variance inflation factors of all constructs are lower than the recommended value of 5 (the maximum is 3.228), demonstrating that multicollinearity is non a threat in this research.

www.frontiersin.org

Table 2. Clarification statistics and reliability of measures.

Saving Beliefs and Recycling Toll

This written report developed a pool of items to mensurate saving behavior and recycling costliness since there are no existing scales to employ. We tested the initial detail pool in qualitative interviews with 20 undergraduate students at a university in Guiyang, Mainland china. The concluding survey instrument was developed by selecting and modifying the items according to feedback from the interviews. The items are shown in the Tables 3, 4, respectively. Prior to reply, the respondents read: to what extent are the following statements consistent with your actual situation? The main constructs were measured with a 7-signal Likert scale (one = very inconsistent, 7 = very consistent). To ensure the validity of the scale, exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was carried out on the two newly designed measures, namely, saving behavior and recycling cost.

www.frontiersin.org

Table 3. Results of exploratory factor analysis of saving behaviour.

www.frontiersin.org

Table 4. Exploratory factor assay of recycling cost.

Measure of saving beliefs

Exploratory factor analysis extracted two factors and explained 45.563% of the total variance. Co-ordinate to the semantic content of measurement items, they are named as costless saving behavior (including 4 items) and costly saving behavior (including ii items; see Table 3).

In terms of costliness, in that location are differences in the difficulty of people'southward saving behaviors. Costless saving behaviors are easy to implement, which require not much physical, mental or psychological cost, such as turning off the lights after use. On the contrary, the costly saving beliefs is not as like shooting fish in a barrel to have, because it volition bring a certain physical or psychological toll. For examples, carrying a shopping bag not just brings trouble but may too appears foreign especially for young people. Although wearing worn-out socks is a effort of saving resource, information technology may detract from one'due south self-concept and therefore produce a psychological cost. In fact, the sample on the whole scored higher on complimentary saving beliefs (M = half dozen.22, SD = 1.218) and lower on costly saving behavior (M = three.982, SD = 1.997), indicating that there are substantial differences between the two dimensions of saving behavior for the higher students. Considering this fact, it is necessary to distinguish the two types of saving behavior when testing the hypotheses.

Measure out of recycling cost

Equally shown in Tabular array 4, EFA extracted i factor and explained 52.466% of the total variance. The gene loads of all items ranged from 0.544 to 0.818, which was greater than the recommended value of 0.4. Cronbach a coefficient is 0.681, which is greater than the recommended value of 0.6. Drawing on Sun and Trudel (2017), recycling efforts is associated with financial price (eastward.grand., purchasing of expensive recycling equipment or recycling depot fees), physical toll (e.m., walking some distance to recycle), and mental cost (e.g., sorting trash and using multiple bins). In our scale, recycling cost mainly covers the time, energy and money paid by individuals in implementing recycling behavior. The 4th detail measures the difficulty of recycling as a whole.

Hypotheses Testing

Structural Model

Since two different factors are obtained with regard to saving behavior, the influence paths between variables are tested by estimating structural equation models for two kinds of saving beliefs, respectively. R ² level and significance of the path coefficients were used as the primary evaluation criteria for the structural model (Hair et al., 2011). The assay started past investigation whether the results of the Ma et al. (2019) study still holds when introduced outcome variables of costless saving beliefs and costly saving behavior.

Costless Saving Behavior as a Dependent Variable

Taking the free saving behavior every bit the dependent variable of the structural equation model In H1, following the Ma et al. (2019) written report, we tested and evidenced that recycling efforts positively affect environmental self-identity (b = 0.174, t = 4.051, and p < 0.001). In addition, environmental cocky-identity significantly positively affects gratis saving beliefs, reflecting a outcome of reinforcement, and then H5 is rejected (b = 0.425, t = 6.800, and p < 0.05). The path coefficients prove that the path betwixt recycling efforts and pride feeling is positive and significant (H2; b = 0.396, t = 9.434, and p < 0.001). The path coefficient indicates that the effect of pride feeling assistance to heave environmental self-identity (b = 0.490, t = 10.759, and p < 0.001), which supports H3. The consequence of pride feeling on costless saving behavior, yet, is not significant (H4; b = 0.091, t = 1.534, and p = 0.125). Males have more costless saving behaviors than females (b = 0.167^∗∗∗, t = 4.003, and p < 0.001), just there is no gender deviation in costly saving behaviors (b = -0.081^∗∗∗, t = 1.556, and p > 0.1). No matter in rural or urban areas, the growth groundwork has no significant touch on on saving behaviors (b = -0.075^∗∗∗, t = 1.784, and p > 0.05).

The model explains 33.8 pct of the variance in ecology cocky-identity (adjusted R ⁱⁱ = 0.335), 15.7 percent of the variance in pride feeling (adapted R ² = 0.155), and 28.6 per centum of the variance in saving behavior (adjusted R ² = 0.280). The fit of the structural model is good, with a standard root mean-foursquare remainder = 0.040, which is lower than the benchmark of 0.05.

Costly Saving Behavior as a Dependent Variable

Taking the costly saving behavior as the dependent variable of the structural equation model. Surprisingly, all the results are consistent with the costless saving behavior model except for the H5. That is, environmental cocky-identity marginally significantly negatively affects costly saving behavior, reflecting an opposite licensing outcome compared to the commencement model (b = -0.139,t = i.846, and p < 0.i).

The model explains 34.0 percent of the variance in environmental self-identity (adjusted R ² = 0.337), 15.seven percent of the variance in pride feeling (adjusted R ² = 0.155), and iv.9 percent of the variance in resource consumption (adapted R ² = 0.042). The fit of the structural model is good, with a standard root hateful-square residual = 0.044 which is lower than the benchmark of 0.05.

Testing Recycling Cost every bit a Moderator

We have built on the proposed Ma et al. (2019) conceptual model by introducing recycling toll variable. Farther assay will investigate the moderating effects of this variable has on pride feeling (H7) and ecology cocky-identity (H6).

Recycling Cost equally a Moderator of Effect of Recycling Efforts on Pride Feeling

We tested the moderating event of recycling cost on pride feeling. The interaction betwixt recycling efforts and recycling price has a negative effect on pride feeling (b = -0.061, t = -3.361, and p < 0.001), which is the opposite of hypothesis H7. This result demonstrates that recycling cost negatively moderates the relationship between recycling efforts and pride feeling. When the cost of recycling is higher, the positive human relationship between recycling endeavor and pride feeling is weaker, that is, the recycling endeavor causes less pride feeling. This ways that if the individuals realized that they have spent more than fourth dimension, physical and mental energy in recycling activities, they may feel very troublesome rather than feel priding. On the contrary, if they don't feel whatsoever problem at all, they will experience more proud.

Recycling Cost every bit a Moderator of Issue of Recycling Efforts on Environmental Self-Identity

We tested the moderating effect of recycling cost on environmental cocky-identity. The interaction between recycling efforts and recycling cost has no meaning effect on environmental self-identity (b = -0.008, t = 0.179, and p = 0.858), which cannot support H6. This shows that the cost of recycling does not moderate the bear on of recycling efforts on environmental cocky-identity. Whether the cost of recycling is high or low, recycling efforts accept the same positive impact on environmental identity. This is non consistent with the original assumption, the possible reason is that the recycling toll is not actively accepted past the consumers, and so it can not enhance environmental self-identity. Effigy 2 provides summary results for all of the hypotheses.

www.frontiersin.org

Effigy 2. Results of hypotheses testing. Notation.*p < 0.1 and ***p < 0.01. ¹corrsponding to costless saving behavior, ^twocorrsponding to costly saving behavior. The figure synthesizes the path coefficients of two structural equation models with dissimilar dependent variables. Since the aforementioned sample data is used, the path coefficients corresponding to H1, H2, and H3 are the aforementioned, while the path coefficients corresponding to H4 and H5 are unlike.

Discussion

This survey research provides evidence that individuals' recycling efforts tin increase their free saving behaviors, while decrease their subsequent costly saving behaviors. We demonstrate that the efforts to recycle can influence subsequent resource saving past activating a positive pro-environmental self-identity, which gives individuals a license to take less costly saving behaviors, and at the same fourth dimension, gives individuals a motive to take more than gratis saving behaviors. Research based on Construal Level Theory shows consumers salvage more when the saving goal is construed at a high level and tend to perceive specific goals equally more than difficult (Ülkümen and Cheema, 2011). Consumers usually don't care nearly the costless saving behaviors in their daily life, which means that their psychological distances of these saving activities are afar, so they will construal these saving activities in a more abstract way. But for costly saving behaviors, such as those requiring some physical or mental effort, consumers will exist more concerned with them and thus take a closer psychological distance, and so they will construal them in a more concrete way. In one discussion, costliness is a key gene for individuals to make choices that are inconsistent or consequent with their prior recycling behaviors. In addition, we find that recycling cost negatively moderates the relationship between recycling efforts and pride feelings. It is worth noting that nosotros conducted the same enquiry on 224 college students in some other academy located far away, and the results still support this conclusion, which shows the robustness of the research conclusion.

Contributions

The current report builds and extends the proposed conceptual model of recycling efforts and saving behavior proposed by Ma et al. (2019). The substantial changes introduced by the current study are the two-dimensional outcome of saving behavior and the moderating variable of recycling costs. The findings of this study therefore contribute to the existing literature in iv ways.

Kickoff of all, nosotros find that resource saving behavior is not a 1-dimensional construct but tin can exist divided into two types in terms of its costliness. As far every bit we know, in that location is no enquiry to explore the nature of beliefs toward resource saving or waste product, neither to develop the measures to capture such behavior. Take an example, Ma et al. (2019) only takes the boilerplate monthly consumption (livelihood expenditure) as the measure of resources consumption level. The findings of this written report provide directional guidance and verified measurement methods for investigating residents' resource saving beliefs.

2nd, co-ordinate to existing evidence (Ma et al., 2019), we presume that individuals who are highly involved in recycling activities will be less resource-efficient, that is, they will consume more resources. However, the inquiry results testify that recycling efforts promote gratis saving behavior and inhibit costly saving behavior. For costly saving behaviors, individuals might feel immune to relax moral requirements based on the moral licensing model (Mullen and Monin, 2016) due to the previous efforts on recycling activities. Therefore, their attitudes are more cocky-oriented in that they might have a negative appraisal of plush saving behaviors considering they are unpleasant to them (Fishbein and Ajzen, 2010; Poškus, 2017). Equally a result, the behavior willingness toward costly saving behaviors is declined. On the contrary, costless behaviors are easy to implement, equally well as comply with social norms, which resulted in a positive appraisement and stronger intentions to take. This finding reconciles existing studies on the conflicting conclusion on moral spillover effects in environmental behaviors. For example, Thøgersen (1999) and Thøgersen and Noblet (2012) suggested the positive spillover effects, i.e., continuation to appoint in recycling later initial recycling activities. Other studies, however, pointed toward the negative spillover effects (Catlin and Wang, 2013; Nilsson et al., 2017; Ma et al., 2019). The results of this study explore the spillover effect of recycling and saving behavior and thus enrich the understanding of individual sustainable behavior dynamics.

Third, this study examines the affect path of recycling efforts on saving behavior. We find that both positive and negative spillovers are mediated by pride feeling and environmental cocky-identity, which is consistent with Ma et al. (2019). Furthermore, the pro-ecology identity tin can exist, in fact, boosted by recycling behavior. This identity thus can result in greater appointment of costless recycling at the aforementioned time decreasing the appointment in costly saving behaviors. The opposing view of the moral licensing effect on recycling beliefs (Catlin and Wang, 2013; Sun and Trudel, 2017) are more than in line with the electric current study findings and farther explores the psychological mechanism of the effect. At the same fourth dimension, this study has taken a nifty footstep forrard on the footing of Ma et al. (2019). Their research adopted average monthly consumption (livelihood expenditure) as the proxy variable of resource consumption and finds the positive spillover result of recycling efforts on resource consumption. In this study, six common resource saving behaviors of college students were taken every bit dependent variables and revealed the divergent effects of recycling efforts on differential saving behaviors.

Forth, this study finds evidence for the moderating effect of recycling toll between recycling efforts and pride feeling. However, the direction of moderation is just contrary to our prediction, i.eastward., when the cost of recycling is higher, the pride of recycling endeavour is lower than that of lower recycling cost. This effect is too inconsistent with Sun and Trudel (2017), in whose utilitarian model information technology is believed that pro-environmental behaviors with high costs will bring stronger positive emotions. We have carefully examined the enquiry data to confirm that the research results are reliable. Furthermore, we interviewed some of the respondents to sympathise why such unexpected results occurred. Finally, we retrieve that an important feature of our college students' sample leads to this result, that is, they practise not e'er accept the initiative to recycle resources in their daily life, or even feel very troublesome in many situations. Because there are many social norms in China's powerful collectivism culture, even if many people are non willing to spend a lot of efforts to recycle wastes, they still take to practise recycling under the social pressure. Every bit a event, nosotros contend that whether recycling costs enhance or weaken the positive emotions from recycling efforts depends on whether individuals actively or passively take the recycling costs. The respondents in this written report might accept to implement costly recycling beliefs under social force per unit area. Therefore, they felt troubles, reluctance and other negative emotions, which offset feeling of pride. Accept the same example from Sun and Trudel (2017), putting the recycling bin farther away might produce stronger positive emotions for some people who has a society-oriented mental attitude, but might produce stronger negative emotions for ane who who has a self-oriented attitude, therefore dislikes walking and then far to recycle. For the same reason, costly recycling beliefs is not able to diagnostic near oneself (Burger, 1999; Gneezy et al., 2012). Because recycling isn't an inner initiative, individuals who passively accept the higher cost of recycling cannot prove that they are a pro-environmental person, thus can not strengthening their environmental self-identity. As a result, at that place is no significant moderating effect of recycling cost between recycling efforts and environmental self-identity. Anywhere, this is a problem worthy of further report.

Direction Implications

The above research reveals that many people want to improve their environmental identity, but are unwilling to pay the price. People are willing to take like shooting fish in a barrel-to-implement environmentally sustainable behaviors in order to go a good sense of self. However, when in that location is a cost to pay, past pro-ecology behavior such every bit recycling efforts may be used equally a reason for self-alibi. According to the economic theory, information technology is man nature to maximize gains and to minimize loses (Camerer, 1997). Therefore, it is unrealistic to insist for people to be selfless and pay personal costs for the environment.

The increased use of modern technologies past government could have impacts on increasing saving beliefs and decrease costs of recycling. Although loftier recycling cost tin can directly reduce current consumption, it also brings a lot of trouble to daily life. For example, in July 2019 in Shanghai, China, the commencement implementation of the compulsory classification policy of domestic waste profoundly constrains the consumption beliefs of residents. In society to avoid annoying garbage nomenclature, many people reduce the frequency of taking-out food ordered online, or abandon some food that is difficult to classify, such as pearl milk tea. Although this policy can promote consumption reduction, it can besides lead to negative emotions, which may reduce the pride feeling and environmental identity brought by recycling behavior, and then may inhibit some low-cost saving behaviors, such as saving water and electricity when staying in hotels. In order to reduce the cost of classified recycling, the authorities tin can increase training guidance on how to allocate garbage and support the establishment of professional recycling intermediaries. In improver, the government should invest more in the recycling infrastructure and make information technology easier to recycle by using intelligent and internet-based means, such as making it easy for people to detect the recycling sites of toxic waste material through a mobile app.

On the other paw, the policy measures to reduce the costliness of saving can start with publicizing and popularizing the cognition of saving, such as telling people the tips of saving resources through celebrities or web-casters, which is more persuasive. In addition, guiding people to establish the value of "I am thrifty and proud" and advocating "minimalist lifestyle" can reduce the psychological toll of some economizing behaviors, such as wearing old clothes and shoes.

Limitations and Directions for Further Research

This study provides insights into recycling and resource saving, although it inevitably has some limitations that tin can exist addressed through future inquiry. First, the self-report data by nature pose certain problems. We encourage time to come inquiry to explore further relevant enquiry bug using field studies or large data. Second, for understandable and common reasons, the object of this study is college students, and the conclusions should not be extended to other groups before existence verified. Third, the measure of saving beliefs is nevertheless a preliminary exploratory piece of work, and information technology is valuable to improve it in the time to come. Along, we cannot appraise all the moderating variables between recycling behaviors and resource saving (e.g., social pressure, environmental values), which is a promising manner for farther enquiry. Finally, since the research is carried out in the Chinese cultural context, while the conclusions obtained are instructive for the Chinese context, we demand to be vigilant about the adaptability of the conclusions in whatever other cultural context.

Data Availability Statement

The original contributions presented in the report are included in the article/supplementary material, farther inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author/s.

Ideals Statement

The studies involving human participants were reviewed and approved by Academic Commission of Centre for Beliefs and Decision Shaanxi University of Engineering science. Written informed consent for participation was non required for this report in accordance with the national legislation and the institutional requirements.

Author Contributions

SS and SW: conceptualization. YW: data curation. JX: formal analysis. SW and SS: investigation. JX: methodology. SS: project assistants. SS and YZ: supervision. YW: writing – original draft. YZ: writing – review and editing. All authors contributed to the article and approved the submitted version.

Funding

This study was funded past the Major Project of National Social Science Foundation of China (No. 19ZDA107), Scientific Research Project of Guizhou University of Finance and Economics (No. 2020XZD03), and Youth Innovative Talents Project of Harbin University of Commerce (No. 2020CX16).

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absenteeism of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of involvement.

Acknowledgments

Nosotros thank Doctor Iveta Eimontaite from The University of Sheffield for her contributions in writing. We appreciate the efforts from 2 reviewers as well as the editor for their comments and suggestions.

Footnotes

^ https://world wide web.epa.gov/recycle/recycling-basics

References

Beaman, A. L., Cole, C. M., Preston, K., Klentz, B., and Steblay, N. K. (1983). Fifteen years of foot-in-the door inquiry: a meta-analysis. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 9, 181–196. doi: 10.1177/0146167283092002