Download
what makes people not throwing goods away when they want to get rid of them n.
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
What makes people not throwing goods away when they want to get rid of them ? PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
What makes people not throwing goods away when they want to get rid of them ?

What makes people not throwing goods away when they want to get rid of them ?

123 Vues Download Presentation
Télécharger la présentation

What makes people not throwing goods away when they want to get rid of them ?

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript

  1. Whatmakes people not throwinggoodsawaywhentheywant to getrid of them? An application to books, clothes and mobile phones Elisabeth BOUTRY-ROBINOT – University of Savoie & Florence de FERRAN – University of La Rochelle 42th EMAC – 7 juin 2013 - Istanbul

  2. Context • Limits of ourway to use resources • What people do whentheywant to getrid of an object? • Project funded by Ademe

  3. Context • What people do whentheywant to getrid of an object ? • Throwitaway • Disposalbehaviors : donation (Sargeant, 1999; Bergadaa, 2006), resale (Williams & Paddock, 2003), ecologicalbehaviors (Jacoby, Chesnut & Fisher, 1978) • Determinants of each types of behaviors have been reviewed….but why people will chose a behaviorinstead of another

  4. Theoretical background • Framework of the extended model of a goal-directedbehavior, EMGB (Bagozzi & Dholakia, 1999; Perugini & Conner, 2000) → The goal : getrid of an object • The EMGB model wasenrichedafter a qualitative phase

  5. Conditions of the object PastBehavior Attitudes Environmental Concern Knowledge of diffbehavior Attachment to the object GOAL Behaviors Perceivedpolluting nature of Object Social Norms Expectedbenefits of the behavior PEC

  6. Methodology • 3 productsconsideredregarding the economic and symbolic value : clothes, books and mobile phones. • 597 questionnaires werecollected on a quota basis on Internet (i.e. 199 per object) • Measures of the variables • Logisticregressionconsidering «throwingaway » as the referencebehavior

  7. Main results • Logisticregression fit quitewell (R²clothes: 0,84/R²books: 0,81/R²phone: 0,89)

  8. Main results • Logisticregression fit quitewell (R²clothes: 0,84/R²books: 0,81/R²phone: 0,89) • No common explicative variables to all behaviors and productsstudied !.... but, the good condition of the object and the usefulness dimension of the attitude usuallyplay a role in adopting a responsiblebehavior • Attachment to the object and knowledge of the differentbehaviorsdon’tplayanyrole… as well as environmentalconcern, social norms and pastbehaviors

  9. Conclusion • A differentway to studyresponsiblebehavior by lookingatwhat lead to chose a responsible versus a non responsiblebehavior • On a managerialview : communicate on the usefulness of the behavior and the product • Furtherresearchesneed to beconducted to find out additionaldeterminants • A deeper qualitative methodologycouldreveal the roleplayed by variables such as attachment to the object • An experimentationcouldallows us to mesure the impact of public policies on thosebehaviors