Next Article in Journal
Post-Earthquake Restoration Simulation Model for Water Supply Networks
Previous Article in Journal
Assessment of Cultivated Land Productivity and Its Spatial Differentiation in Dongting Lake Region: A Case Study of Yuanjiang City, Hunan Province
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 10
Issue 10
10.3390/su10103617
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Impact of Information Intervention on the Recycling Behavior of Individuals with Different Value Orientations—An Experimental Study on Express Delivery Packaging Waste

by
Feiyu Chen
†,
Hong Chen
*,†,
Jiahui Yang
,
Ruyin Long
* and
Qianwen Li
School of Management, China University of Mining and Technology, Da Xue Road 1, Xuzhou 221116, China
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
†
These authors contributed equally to this work.
Sustainability 2018, 10(10), 3617; https://doi.org/10.3390/su10103617
Submission received: 19 September 2018 / Revised: 8 October 2018 / Accepted: 9 October 2018 / Published: 10 October 2018
(This article belongs to the Section Environmental Sustainability and Applications)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Changing residents’ recycling behavior at the source of waste generation is a fundamental way to solve the environmental and resource problems caused by express delivery packaging waste. Information intervention is a common means to help transform individual environmental protection behavior. In this study, behavioral experiments were used to examine the changes in individual express packaging waste recycling behaviors under the intervention of written and pictorial information. Differences in information processing and behavior decision-making among individuals (N = 660) categorized as self-interested, pro-relation, or pro-social were analyzed. Results showed that (1) recycling behavior is divided into persuasive, purchasing, disposal, and civil behavior. (2) Recycling behavior is differs significantly due to an individual’s education background, state of health, and interpersonal relationships. (3) Both written and pictorial information can positively change an individual’s recycling behavior, and their effectiveness is not significantly different. (4) Pictorial information has a stronger impact on purchasing behavior than written information. (5) Feedback from written information cannot effectively promote the overall recycling behavior of self-interested groups, but it can improve the overall recycling behavior of pro-relationship groups and pro-social groups. (6) Information intervention cannot effectively impact civil behavior, even among pro-social individuals. The research provides an important theoretical reference and practical basis for improving individual recycling behavior at its source.

1. Introduction

Data from China’s National Post Office and the Beijing Printing Institute show that in recent years, China’s express delivery volume has exceeded 2 billion pieces, generating a total of about 4 million tons of packaging waste (SPBPRC, 2018) [1]. However, the express packaging recycling rate is less than 20%, and express packaging waste has caused serious harm to the urban ecological environment (Duan et al., 2017) [2]. How to solve the pollution problem caused by express delivery packaging waste and realize the reuse of resources has become an important issue in the field of resources and environmental management. The separation at source and the recycling of waste is the basic premise underlying pollution reduction and effective recycling, and both actions determine whether the whole process of waste recovery and reduction can be effectively carried out (Andrews et al., 2013; Chen et al., 2018) [3,4]. Effective guidance for and intervention in an individual’s express packaging waste recycling behavior is of great significance to the realization of “cleanliness” and “resource recovery” of express packaging waste.
Information intervention is a common type of intervention to promote the transformation of individual environmental behavior (Steg, 2008; Geng et al., 2016) [5,6]. Though the external information transmission and feedback constantly stimulate the individual, the individual’s cognition for the environment will be altered, so that attitudes and willingness change to some extent, which ultimately promotes the formation of targeted behavior (Bamberg and Schmidt, 2003) [7]. Due to the rapid development of the information society, diverse information presentation forms and carriers have appeared, and some scholars have analyzed the differences in the impact of different information presentation forms and carriers on individual behaviors. Research on information intervention mainly examines television, newspapers, brochures, symposia, face-to-face interviews, and other communication modes or carriers (Völlink and Meertens, 2010; Howell, 2014; Young et al., 2016) [8,9,10] as means to publicize the pros and cons of environmental behaviors and non-environmental behaviors, as well as related environmental knowledge. However, in the field of resources and environment, few scholars have studied the differences between graphical/pictorial and written information interventions. These are the two main forms of information presentation, and embody significant differences in the intuition and abstractness of information presentation, which will have different effects on the individual’s initial cognition and psychological interpretation mechanism (Marlow and Jansson-Boyd, 2011; Yang and Zhu, 2016) [11,12]. Therefore, it is of great significance to explore the difference between pictorial and written information interventions in terms of their effect on recycling behavior.
Notably, according to behavioral change theory, although individuals’ behavior is determined by their cognition, it is also affected by key factors such as conceptualization and motivation (Prochaska et al., 2008) [13]. Through the constant feedback intervention of information, although the individual’s cognition of resources and environment can be changed, different behaviors will eventually occur due to differences in individuals’ values and behavioral motivation. This is consistent with the view of Locke (2000) [14] and Courbalay et al. (2015) [15], who also believe that individual behavior is jointly determined by cognition and values. In the process of information intervention on express delivery packaging waste recycling behavior, different values may also have an impact on individual recycling behavior.
Accordingly, the objectives of this study were to explore (through behavioral experiments) the change in individual express packaging waste recycling behavior under the intervention of graphical/pictorial and written information, and to examine the difference of individual behavior change after the intervention of information within the framework of different personal value orientations. The research is expected to provide an effective theoretical reference and practical basis for improving the recycling behavior of individuals at the source of waste generation, and for promoting the environmentally sustainable and resource-based treatment of express packaging waste.

2. Literature Research

2.1. Relevant Studies on the Impact of Information on Waste Recycling Behavior

The rational choice theory holds that information is the prerequisite for individuals to form an environmental attitude. Individual environmental behavior is a reasonable decision on the basis of receiving information. Once the new information is accepted, it will change the cognitive basis of an individual’s behavior, then change the person’s attitude and intention, and finally lead to the change of environmental behavior (Bamberg and Schmidt, 2003; Lorenzoni et al., 2007) [7,16]. In the current field of environmental management, information intervention research generally includes two modes of information dissemination. One is the popular mode of communication through Internet-based media, television, and newspapers (Winett et al., 2013; Völlink and Meertens, 2010; Young et al., 2016) [8,10,17]. For example, Young et al. (2016) [10] used retailers’ Facebook® pages, electronic magazines, and other media to interact with consumers and intervene to provide information, and explored the impact of information intervention in different media forms on individual food waste behaviors. The other popular mode of communication is through individualized brochures, symposia, face-to-face interviews, and other means of small (highly focused) information dissemination methods (Geller, 1981; McMakin et al., 2002; Howell, 2014) [9,18,19]. For example, Geller (1981) [18] organized several educational workshops on energy utilization and measured their effects on energy saving. Information on energy conservation measures was provided at the seminars, and each participant also was given a control device and a brochure containing energy conservation information. The research demonstrated that the workshops effectively changed the attitude and intention of individuals towards energy utilization.
However, scholars do not agree on whether information intervention is the key factor in determining individual environmental protection behavior. Staats and Hartig (2004) [20] studied the impact of the combined use of information supply, social interaction, and feedback on household behavior. Through a 3-year longitudinal tracking study, they found that project participants in an ecological group (150 people) changed half of the 38 family behaviors investigated, resulting in corresponding reductions in four types of specific measures of resource use. However, these results are not consistent with those of McMakin et al. (2002) [19], who explored the effect of customized information on household energy saving. By intervening with information for residents in two military facilities who did not have to pay their own utility costs, the researchers showed that the energy saving among the experimental group receiving information was no better than that of the control group that received no information. Similarly, Young et al. (2016) [10] found that participants who received social media and e-newsletter interventions, as well as the control group that did not receive information, all showed significant self-reported reductions in food waste and pointed out that social media does not seem to sufficiently replicate the effect of “face-to-face” interaction. Wang et al. (2018) [21] found that information disclosure could not directly affect residents’ behavioral intention to recycle e-waste, but it could indirectly affect residents’ intention through two intermediary variables: personal norms and recycling attitude.
Although the results about the impact of information intervention are inconsistent, most scholars believe that the information intervention is longer lasting and a more conducive stimulus to the formation of autonomous environmental awareness and environmental attitudes than are other measures. Furthermore, information to promote the spontaneous transition of environmental behavior, as well as the effect of small-scale public information intervention, is more effective than other types.

2.2. Relevant Studies on the Structural Dimensions of Waste Recycling Behavior

Most of the existing research on waste recycling behavior focuses on the influencing factors, and there are few studies on the conceptual structure of behavior itself. Waste recycling behavior is a special and specific environmental behavior, the dimensions of which can be gleaned from the relevant research on environmental behavior structure. In the past, scholars have divided environmental behavior structure based on research needs; consequently, there is no unified structural model. Sia et al. (1986) [22] made a detailed study of environmental behavior from five aspects of persuasion, consumption behavior, daily ecological management, legal action, and political action according to the expression form of behavior. Thapa (2010) [23] believed that environmental behaviors included political action, resource recycling, environmental education, green consumption, and community activities. Similarly, based on the expression form of behavior, Smith-Sebasto and D’Costa (1995) [24] divided environmental behavior into six categories: citizen behavior, education behavior, financial behavior, legal behavior, practical behavior, and persuasion behavior. Lee et al. (2013) [25] further refined the structural dimension of environmental behaviors and constructed a seven-factor structure of responsible environmental behaviors from the perspective of community tourists, i.e., civil behaviors, financial behaviors, physical behaviors, persuasion behaviors, sustainable behaviors, pro-environment behaviors, and environmentally friendly behaviors. Chen et al. (2017) [26] based on the spatial domain of behavior, made a systematic analysis of environmental behavior from domestic, workplace, and public environments. Further, they divided the environmental behavior exhibited in different spaces into basic environmental behavior, decision-making environmental behavior, interpersonal environmental behavior, and civil environmental behavior.
Although the structural division of environmental behavior is not uniform, the relevant literature indicates that all scholars have refined the category of environmental behavior according to the behavior form characteristics. In the structural division, these characteristics are mainly embodied in two aspects: an individual’s own behavior and behavior that drives others to participate in environmental protection actions. Personal behavior mainly includes daily consumption, management, and other behaviors. Promoting others’ participation in environmental action mainly includes persuading others, advising relevant departments, and participating in supervision. This classification (or structure) provides a reference for the design of measurement scales and the division of the structural category for express packaging waste recycling behavior.

2.3. Relevant Studies on Value Orientation and Its Influence on Individual Waste Recycling Behavior

Values are the lowest and most critical psychological characteristics of an individual and refer to the goals or standards that play a guiding role in a person’s life. Values are generally regarded as the main factors influencing the formation of certain attitudes and behaviors (Kristiansen and Zanna, 1994) [27]. Generally speaking, in an individual’s daily activities, values are mainly reflected in the tendency towards egoism, which is also consistent with the view assumed by rational people. However, Freud et al. (1993) [28] pointed out that people often impose restrictions (which were termed “civilized” tendencies) to satisfy themselves. Scholars regard this concern for one’s family, friends, or country as altruistic rather than self-interested (Fehr and Fischbacher, 2003) [29], and this belief has led to the emergence of the theory of altruistic behavior, which is broadly defined as providing time, resources, or the ability to help others. Based on this definition, the individual behavior mechanism model of “self-regarded and altruistic” is generally accepted by scholars, and the more developed and cooperative human society is, the more often this behavior mechanism is exhibited.
In the field of resources and environment, the value-basis theory (which is based on environmental awareness) holds that ecological values directly or indirectly influence the formation of individual ecologically centered environmental attitudes (Thompson and Barton, 1994) [30]. Schwartz (1992, 1994) [31,32] applied the individual value system to a study of residents’ environmental behavior and found that individuals with socially altruistic values or self-transcendence values were more willing to sacrifice some personal interests, more likely to engage in altruistic behavior and exhibit environmentally friendly behavior, and needed to cooperate with others more, compared to persons showing individualism or possessing self-enhancing values. Similar conclusions have been verified by Stern et al. (1995) [33] and Stern et al. (1998) [34]. Many other studies have also confirmed that values influence consumption behaviors, energy management behaviors, political behaviors, and environmental citizenship behaviors of environmentally oriented residents. McCarty and Shrum (2001) [35] believed that residents with collectivist values are more cooperative than individualists. Barr (2003) [36] studied residents’ waste recycling behaviors and determined that environmental values, psychological variables, situational variables, and other factors jointly influence environmental behaviors.
Environmental values significantly influence three kinds of household waste recycling behaviors: recycling, reuse, and reduction. Howell (2014) [9] investigated the urban residents in the United Kingdom and found that social altruistic values were the main factor influencing adoption of a low carbon lifestyle. Ecological values were also an influencing factor, but concern for the environment was not the main motivation for changing the original way of life; rather, respondents’ lifestyle changes were more due to attaching importance to human interests. Therefore, scholars think that altruistic values have a more significant effect on the behavior associated with low carbon lifestyles than do environmental concerns. Chen et al. (2017) [37] also pointed out in their study of negative environmental behaviors that spontaneous behaviors are derived from an individual’s inherent value orientation. Han (2015) [38] and Liu et al. (2018) [39] further verified the influence of values on individuals’ pro-environment behaviors through the “Value-Belief-Norm” Theory.
In general, individual values based on self-interest and altruism have been used widely in the field of resources and environment to analyze the internal psychological mechanism of individuals in the selection of environmental behavior. At the same time, some scholars define individual criteria and standards exhibited in constructing an ecological environment as “ecological values” and have conducted in-depth studies on them. Most studies have found that individual values have a significant predictive role in environmental behavior.
Based on the foregoing analysis of relevant scientific literature, this study was designed to explore the differences in behavior responses to information intervention of individuals with different value orientations.

3. Experimental Design and Implementation

In this study, random intervention experiment was used to explore the impact of information intervention on the recycling behavior of individuals with different value orientations. The operation steps of random intervention experiment can be summarized as “three steps”: conducting baseline investigation, conducting intervention experiment, and evaluation survey (Steg, 2008; Bamberg and Schmidt, 2003) [5,7]. By comparing the differences of the same samples before receiving information intervention and after it, the effectiveness of different types of information intervention can be tested and observed.

3.1. Experimental Subjects and Tools

Jiangsu Province has the fastest economic development of all Chinese provinces and a higher than average level of urbanization and consumption of resources. The express service package delivery volume in Jiangsu is among the highest three in the country every year. As a “demonstration area to solve the constraints of resources and environment in China”, Jiansu proposed a low carbon, green, and sustainable strategic framework in 2010 (Chen et al., 2017) [40]. Xuzhou City is located in the north of Jiangsu Province. In recent years, the growth rate of express service package deliveries in Xuzhou has exceeded 80% and ranked first in Jiangsu (JPPO, 2018) [41]. Thus, express package deliveries to Xuzhou City residents are indicative of how this volume may increase elsewhere. Consequently, Xuzhou City residents were selected as the subjects for this research. To ensure the rationality of the sample group distribution and prevent the spread of information between the experimental group and the control group, participants were selected from randomly distributed locations in more than 100 communities in the Gulou District, Yunlong District, Quanshan District, Tongshan District, and Jiawang District of Xuzhou.
The total number of mobile phone users in China reached 1.47 billion in June 2018, and the number of mobile Internet users reached 1.06 billion (MII, 2018) [42]. WeChat is the most popular instant messaging service in China. With more than 1 billion active users monthly, WeChat has become an indispensable part of Chinese daily life. In addition, as a relatively new type of media conduit, the mobile Internet has broken through the traditional restrictions associated with communication only at fixed locations. Through the mobile Internet, information intervention can be made during individuals’ normal daily routines in ways that are convenient and low-cost, and will not impose pressure brought by the expectations and norms of others. Research on the use of mobile phone-based new media for information intervention is also increasing (Brazil & Caulfield, 2013; Geng et al., 2016) [6,43]. Therefore, in this study, the WeChat mobile platform was used to conduct information intervention experiments.

3.2. Design of Survey Scales and Information Intervention Materials

Two survey scales, namely, the value orientation scale and the urban residents’ waste recycling behavior scale, were developed. On the basis of literature research and interviews with experts, a related measurement scale (Wang, 2016) [44] was adapted for the national conditions of China to measure the orientation of individual values regarding the attribute of group interests from the aspects of the individuals’ concern for themselves, family, friends, and social groups. Combined with the relevant characteristics of the recycling process of express packaging waste, the waste recycling behavior scale was designed from the perspective of individual daily use selection, post-use disposal, use of persuasion, and civic behavior.
To test the feasibility of the scales, a preliminary survey was conducted in September 2017. A representative sample of potential respondents was identified by the pre-stratification method based on the individual’s age, gender, and income. Next, 232 questionnaires of urban residents in Xuzhou were randomly collected by means of a network survey, among which 205 were valid. The reliability and validity of the scales were analyzed, and the final survey scales (and questionnaire) were formed after modifying the survey questions based on the preliminary survey.
“Before” and “After” questionnaires were developed to survey respondents before and after information intervention, respectively. The “Before” questionnaire consisted of three parts. The first part addressed basic information about the respondent, including sex, age, education, monthly income, state of health, online shopping frequency, interpersonal relationship quality, and the last digits of the respondent’s mobile phone number (for identification and differentiation). The remaining two parts were comprised of the value orientation scale (11 items) and the waste recycling behavior scale (14 items) to measure the value orientation of the respondent and the initial characteristics of the respondent’s participation in waste collection, respectively. A 5-point Likert scale was used to evaluate waste disposal behavior, and all scores were self-assessed by the respondents. For example, the statement “put the recyclable express packaging (such as recycling waste paper box, waste paper bag, etc.) in the designated garbage can/garbage truck” was designed to measure the disposal aspect of an individual’s waste recycling behavior. In the Likert scoring, “1” meant “completely non-conforming”, “2” meant “not too conforming”, “3” meant “general”, “4” meant “more consistent”, and “5” meant “fully conforming”. The “After” questionnaire consisted of only two parts. The value orientation scale that was used in the “Before” questionnaire was omitted from the second questionnaire.
Information intervention materials mainly concerned the aspects of resource conservation, physical health, living environment, economic income, emotional satisfaction, etc., and were developed based on literature research (such as Wang, 2016) [44] and expert consultation. In the design of the intervention materials, two different forms of presentation were adopted: written (text-based) and pictorial (picture-based). Both presentation forms were consistent in content.

3.3. Experiment Implementation

The study consisted of an information intervention experiment conducted from March to May 2018. The experimental implementation process is shown in Figure 1 and described in subsequent sub-sections.

3.3.1. Questionnaire Testing and Participant Selection and Grouping

First, communities in each region of Xuzhou were selected. Then, families in each community were randomly selected and visited by the research team. Family representatives (one family member per sample family) were asked to complete the baseline face-to-face questionnaire survey in return for a small free gift. The questionnaire answers were self-assessed and mainly designed to measure the respondent’s basic characteristics, value orientation, and express packaging waste recycling behavior. Before conducting the survey, a member of the research team explained the purpose of the survey and informed participants that the survey results would be used only for scientific research and personal information would be kept confidential; the importance of carefully and truthfully filling out the questionnaire was emphasized. After the questionnaire had been completed, the research team asked whether the respondent (family) was willing to utilize WeChat to participate further in the experiment, and the team explained that information packets would be issued to them, followed by a final questionnaire. Ultimately, 889 respondents completed the baseline questionnaire, and 757 persons expressed willingness to participate in the experiment through the WeChat service. The entire baseline survey was conducted from 2 March 2018 to 1 April 2018.
Next, a reliability/validity test and factor analysis were conducted based on data collected in the “Before” survey. The calculated “Cronbach a” coefficients (0.877 for orientation scale and 0.856 for the waste recycling behavior scale) were both high and indicated the questions were reliable. In the validity test, the KMO values of both scales exceeded 0.9; furthermore, the significance level of the Bartlett spherical test was 0.000, indicating that both scales were valid and suitable for factor analysis.
SPSS 21.0 software (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY, USA) was used to conduct exploratory factor analysis on the scales. Using principal component analysis, the orthogonal rotation method with maximum variance was selected, and the extraction criteria of factors with eigenvalues greater than 1 were used to analyze the value orientation and waste recycling behaviors. The total variance contribution rates were 67.318% and 69.635% for the value orientation and waste recycling behavior scales, respectively, with high explanatory rate. The results of the factor loading of orthogonal rotation with maximum variance are given in Table 1 and show that the 11 items comprising the values orientation scale were distributed in three principal factors.
Based on the item’s basic content and related literature, the original altruism value orientation was divided into “pro-relation value” and “pro-social value”, thus forming the three-dimensional structure of value orientation, namely, egoistic value orientation, the pro-relation value orientation, and the pro-social value orientation. In practice, self-interested individuals tend to put their own interests and values ahead of all others, whereas pro-relation individuals tended to put the interests and values of family, relatives, and friends in first place. Pro-social individuals tended to put the interests and values of social development, health, and stability as their top priority.
The 14 items of the express package waste recycling behavior scale were well distributed among four primary factors. Based on the content of items and the related literature, recycling behavior was divided into four kinds: persuasive behavior, purchasing behavior, disposal behavior, and civil behavior. Persuasive behavior refers to persuading other people to participate in waste recycling behavior. Purchasing behavior refers to the behavior that requires the use of green, recyclable express parcel packaging during online shopping. Disposal behavior refers to separation and recycling actions. Civil behavior refers to the suggestion and supervision of relevant government departments and public welfare activities for better recycling and utilization of express packaging waste.
Based on the factor division of value orientation, respondents were placed into one of three categories, namely, egoism group (A), pro-relationship group (B), and pro-social group (C). Then, each group was subdivided into three sub-groups, and respondents were assigned to each sub-group randomly, yielding a total of 9 groups of respondents (A1, B1, C1, A2, B2, C2, A3, B3, and C3). Collectively, groups A1, B1, A2, B2, A3, and B3 were the “experimental group” that received information intervention, and groups C1, C2, and C3 were the “control group” that did not receive information intervention.

3.3.2. Information Intervention and Process Control

According to the grouping of participants, nine different WeChat groups were established. The previously prepared intervention information was then sent to the experimental groups at random. Participants in groups A1, A2, and A3 were sent written information; those in groups B1, B2, and B3 were sent pictorial information; and participants in the control groups C1, C2, and C3 were not provided any information. The information was sent five times, once every two days. No information was transmitted for the next week.
Considering that individuals with different value orientations pay attention to different types of information, the intervention information addressed four topics. The first and second information interventions both emphasized that classifying and recycling express delivery packaging waste can save natural resources. The third and fourth messages emphasized that sorting and recycling of express delivery packaging waste can improve the living environment and health conditions. The fifth message highlighted the economic benefits of sorting and recycling express delivery packaging waste.

3.3.3. Post Information Intervention Assessment

The experimental intervention process lasted from 15 April 2018 to 1 May 2018, and the “After” questionnaire survey was conducted on 2 May 2018. All participants completed the questionnaire online via WeChat. As briefly indicated in Section 3.3.1, the “After” questionnaire consisted of two parts. The first part was the basic demographic information about the respondent. The second part measured the change in express delivery packaging waste recycling behavior of the participants and was in accordance with the scale of the waste recycling behavior in the baseline survey used in the “Before” questionnaire. A total of 660 valid questionnaires were collected after discounting previous responses from participants who quit the experiment for various reasons. Similar to the pre-intervention questionnaire analysis, a reliability and validity test was conducted on the collected survey data. The “Cronbach a” coefficient of the value orientation scale was 0.852, indicating the reliability and stability reached a high level. In terms of validity, the KMO value of the value orientation scale was 0.902, and the significance level of the Bartlett spherical test was 0.000. The validity of the scale data was also tested, and the sample data was scientific and reasonable.

4. Data Analysis

4.1. Differential Analysis of Recycling Behavior among Individuals with Different Demographic Characteristics

An independent samples t-test and one-way ANOVA were used to explore the differences in recycling behavior among individuals with different demographic characteristics (sex, age, education, monthly income, state of health, online shopping frequency, and interpersonal relationship characterization). The results presented in Table 2 show that individual express packaging waste recycling behavior was significantly different for participants with different education backgrounds, states of health, and interpersonal relationship characterizations, but there was no significant difference due to sex, age, monthly income, and online shopping frequency (data not shown). In the dimensions of recycling behavior, persuasive behavior, purchasing behavior, and civil behavior were significantly different among individuals with different educational backgrounds. Disposal behaviors were significantly different among participants with different states of health. Persuasive behaviors and disposal behaviors were significantly different among individuals with different interpersonal relationships.
By comparing the average values of responses and cross analysis, and combining these with MATLAB software mapping (R2016b, The MathWorks, Natick, MA, USA), the distribution of individual express delivery packaging waste recycling behavior was visualized (Figure 2). The mean scores for recycling behavior, persuasive behavior, purchasing behavior, and civil behavior changed with the increase of education background and exhibited an inverted U-shaped pattern. Individuals with junior college and bachelor degrees were more active (had higher scores) in sorting and recycling express packaging waste that those with less or more formal education. As the state of participants’ health improved, the scores of recycling behavior and waste disposal behavior also increased, indicating that healthy individuals were more inclined to classify and recycle the express packaging waste than those in poorer health. In addition, as the quality of interpersonal relationships increased, the scores for recycling behavior, persuasive behavior, and disposal behavior increased constantly, reflecting that individuals with a good interpersonal atmosphere tended to participate in and drive the sorting and recycling of express packaging waste.
Under the combined influence of bivariate variables, the lowest scores of recycling behavior were distributed among participants that had poor health and senior high school or technical secondary school education, those with a junior high school education or below and good quality interpersonal relationships, and those with poor health and poor interpersonal relationships. On the whole, participants with poor health and a low level of education were less involved in the separation and recycling of express packaging waste, but the interpersonal relationship did not play a decisive role in the common influence of the two variables.

4.2. Analysis of Recycling Behavior Changes Based on the Information Intervention Format

Ignoring individual value orientations, the difference-in-differences analysis and t-test were used to analyze waste recycling behavior before and after information intervention in the experimental groups and the control groups. The results are shown in Table 3. In the control groups, there was no significant difference in individual waste recycling behavior before and after information intervention (Figure 3), nor was there a significant change in persuasive behavior, purchasing behavior, disposal behavior, or civil behavior. The recycling behavior of individuals in the experimental groups that received text information intervention (Information Format A) showed a significant positive change after the information intervention (+0.16). Purchasing behavior and disposal behavior scores also significantly increased, although there was no significant increase in persuasive behavior and civil behavior. The recycling behavior of individuals in the groups that received pictorial information (Information Format B) showed significant positive change after the information intervention (+0.24). Scores for persuasive behavior, purchasing behavior, and disposal behavior significantly increased, and although the civil behavior score also increased, the change was not significant. These results showed that information intervention can effectively influence an individual’s express delivery packaging waste recycling behavior, mainly in the aspects of persuasive behavior, purchasing behavior, and disposal behavior.
The effects of different formats of information containing the same content were compared using a t-test; the results are shown in Table 2. Although the recycling behavior of individuals in the Information B group (pictorial information) was higher (+0.08) than that of the Information A group (text information), the difference was not significant (p > 0.05), indicating that both information formats had the same impact on recycling behavior. Among the dimensions of recycling behavior, increased scores for persuasive behavior, disposal behavior, and civil behavior also were not significantly different under the influence of information format, but purchasing behavior scores of the participants receiving pictorial information were significantly higher (+0.025) than those of participants receiving text information.

4.3. Analysis of Recycling Behavior Changes Based on Value Orientation

The difference-in-differences test and the t-test were used to analyze the behavior changes of individuals with different value orientations in response to information intervention. The results presented in Figure 4 show that in the egoistic (self-interest) group, the pro-relation (relatives-interest) group, and the pro-social (social-interest) group, the change in waste recycling behavior of the control participants (those that received no information) was not significant, and their scores for persuasive behavior, purchasing behavior, disposal behavior, and civil behavior showed no significant changes.
In the egoism group, the participants that received text information (Information A group) showed no significant difference in individual recycling behavior scores after the information intervention; however, their purchasing behavior and disposal behavior scores increased significantly. The persuasive behavior and civil behavior scores of Information A group participants also increased after intervention, but the change was not significant. These results reflect that text information could not affect the overall packaging waste recycling behavior of the egoistic group but did improve their purchasing behavior and disposal behavior. In the Information B group (receiving pictorial information), recycling behavior scores increased significantly after the information intervention, as did purchasing behavior and disposal behavior scores; however, the increases in persuasive behavior and civil behavior scores were not significant. These results indicated that pictorial information effectively improved the overall recycling behavior of the egoism group, especially their purchasing behavior and disposal behavior.
In the pro-relation group, the individual waste recycling scores of all participants that received information by text (Information A group) and by pictures (Information B group) significantly increased after information intervention, and the changes were mainly manifested in persuasive behavior, purchasing behavior, and disposal behavior (i.e., civil behavior did not change significantly). These results showed that either text information or pictorial information could effectively improve the overall recycling behavior of pro-relation participants, especially their persuasive behavior, purchasing behavior, and disposal behavior.
Likewise, in the pro-social group, the individual waste recycling scores of all participants that received text (Information A group) and pictures (Information B group) significantly increased after information intervention, and the change was mainly manifested in persuasive behavior, purchasing behavior, and disposal behavior (civil behavior did not change significantly). Thus, as for pro-relation participants, both text information and pictorial information effectively improved the overall recycling behavior of pro-social participants, especially their persuasive behavior, purchasing behavior, and disposal behavior.

5. Discussion

5.1. Differences in Individual Demographic Characteristics of Participants and Their Express Packaging Waste Recycling Behavior

According to the difference-in-differences analysis and comparison of mean recycling behavior scores among individuals, the scores of recycling behavior, persuasive behavior, purchasing behavior, and civil behavior changed with the increase of education level and showed an “inverted U-shaped” trend. Thus, it was not the most well-educated participants that were the most active in participating in and promoting the sorting and recycling of express packaging waste. This result indicated that although individuals with master’s and/or doctoral degrees had higher education experience than other participants, this advanced education apparently had not improved their level of environmental literacy. This finding is in line with the current training and evaluation system of Chinese graduate students (Zhang and Lu, 2016) [45], in which more attention is placed on the research and innovation ability of graduate students, and less attention is given to the cultivation of environmental literacy and environmental awareness. In addition, people who receive higher education will have a relatively higher income (Gregorio and Lee, 2002) [46] and a better living environment. According to the theory of pollution exposure, groups with a good living environment have a lower perception of pollution of express packaging waste in their daily life (Sun et al., 2017) [47]. Furthermore, they have a lower perception of living comfortable benefits for the recycling of express packaging waste, which leads to non-urgent and passive participation in express packaging waste recycling activities.
Packaging waste recycling behavior, especially disposal behavior, also increased as the reported state of health of participants improved. This phenomenon is of great concern, because it indicates that individuals in poor health were less likely to classify and recycle express packaging waste. Express packaging waste has attributes that pollute the living environment and endanger residents’ health (Duan et al., 2017; Liu, 2018) [2,48]. Thus, the appropriate management of express delivery packaging waste is of great significance to the health of individuals and families. People in poor health are reluctant to properly dispose of the express packaging waste, which will make their living environment more polluted and could further endanger their health, forming a vicious circle.
As interpersonal relationship quality improved, the scores for recycling behavior, persuasive behavior, and disposal behavior also increased. On the one hand, Chen et al. (2018) [4] pointed out that the intervention of inter-individual behavior will have interpersonal costs. Individuals with good interpersonal relationships have lower interpersonal barriers in persuading and motivating people around them to participate in the sorting and recycling of express delivery packaging waste, and their “cost consumption” associated with intervention will be lower than for people with poor interpersonal relationships. Therefore, persuasive behavior is more likely to occur among people with good quality interpersonal relationships. On the other hand, current government regulations and the overall social atmosphere are promoting approved environmentally friendly behavior (Ferris et al., 2009) [49]. Thus, under the influence of group norms, individuals worried that they might create bad impressions will carry out disposal behavior in order to maintain a good relationship with other groups and meet social expectations.

5.2. Effects of Different Forms of Information Intervention on Individual Recycling Behavior

Analysis of the differences in behavioral performance of the experimental groups and the control group showed that information interventions consisting of text, as well as pictures, could significantly influence recycling behavior. According to the theory of approach-avoidance, an individual’s behavior and attitude will be affected by their perception of the result of their behavior. Thus, research shows that it is reasonable to guide recycling behavior in the form of information feedback from the perspectives of promoting resource conservation, improving physical health, improving living environment, increasing economic income, and satisfying personal emotion. In addition, the continuous feedback of information will also increase individuals’ awareness of the problems associated with express delivery packaging waste. The promotion of cognition will inevitably lead to reasonable, expected behavior (Wossink and Wenum, 2003) [50], and environmental cognition has a positive promoting effect on individual environmental behavior (Peter and Viraraghavan, 2005; Cooke and Vermaire, 2015) [51,52]. Therefore, appropriate and reasonable information feedback can effectively intervene to influence individual recycling behavior.
However, in this study the results showed that the recycling behavior of individuals that received pictorial information was higher than that of participants receiving text information, although the differences were not statistically significant. This finding was inconsistent with the common intuitive impression. A possible explanation is that pictures are more vivid and intuitive than texts and can help individuals read information quickly; furthermore, some scholars believe that pictures are more likely to promote positive emotions and positive behaviors than texts (Marlow and Jansson-Boyd, 2011; Yang et al., 2010; Childers, 2010) [11,53,54]. However, in this study pictures and texts were consistent in content. Prolonged information feedback will help individuals fully understand both pictorial and written information, and thus the two formats have a converging effect on behavior change.
Interestingly, among the dimensions of packaging waste recycling behavior, the scores for individual purchasing behavior were significantly higher after the intervention of pictorial information than from text information. In other words, pictorial information can affect individuals’ purchasing behavior of express packaging more strongly than written information. Regarding consumption, vivid and visualized information using pictures is more helpful in improving consumers’ evaluation of products than words alone (James and Esther, 2001) [55]. In addition, consumers with high purchasing ability are more affected by pictures due to their interpretation level (Yang and Zhu, 2016) [12]. Express delivery packaging is low-cost and readily available, and its purchase is easy. Therefore, information interventions using pictures is more influential on purchasing behavior than text.

5.3. Impact of Information Intervention on Individual Recycling Behavior of People with Different Value Orientations

The behavioral performance analysis showed that text information could not effectively change the overall recycling behavior of participants in the egocentric group but could improve the overall recycling behavior of participants in the pro-relation group and pro-social group. The separation and recycling of express packaging waste is a problem of public resources and environmental pollution, and such problems have the characteristics of positive externality (Chen et al., 2018; Pan et al., 2014) [4,56], which will induce egocentric persons to avoid their own recycling costs and exhibit hitching behavior (Abbey and Doukas, 2012; Garcia et al., 2005) [57,58]. In the context of this study, participants in the egoistic value groups were more concerned about whether they personally would gain benefits from a particular behavior than whether others would benefit. Consequently, participants in the egoistic values group had a lower willingness to participate in the sorting and recycling of express packaging waste and were more willing to sit back and enjoy the success resulting from the efforts of other people.
Notably, although the scores for civil behavior in the groups of all value orientations increased after information intervention, the change was not significant. That is to say, information intervention did not effectively impact the civil behavior of individuals, even those with pro-social values. This result indicated that reliance solely on information intervention as a means to increase an individual’s citizenship behavior was ineffective, especially among Chinese citizens that have higher recessive values of environmental behavior (Chen et al., 2017) [26]. Driving the exhibition of environmental citizenship behavior must fundamentally awaken citizens’ awareness of environmental protection and improve their consciousness of rights and participation. Achieving these objectives will require more specialized information intervention or measures.

5.4. Limitation

In this study, empirical research was conducted by the means of random intervention experiment, and all links in the experimental process were controlled seriously as much as possible in order to make the experimental samples’ distributions reasonable, the measure scale and experimental material scientific, and the WeChat information intervention effective. Although WeChat is a significant means of reaching people in terms of information intervention, people may pay attention differently to information provided by different means, such as receiving information from brochures, web pages, and other means of intervention. Information interventions in these aspects need to be considered more in future studies.

6. Conclusions and Suggestions

This study evaluated the effect of information intervention on how participants managed express delivery packaging waste. Participants were randomly selected, and on the basis of a factor analysis of value-orientation data collected in a baseline survey, combined with literature research, were divided into egoistic, pro-relation, and pro-social groups. Likewise, their recycling behaviors were classified as persuasive behavior, purchasing behavior, disposal behavior, and civil behavior. On this basis, the impact of individual demographic characteristics on participant’s recycling behavior of express packaging waste was analyzed through behavioral experiments that measured participants’ response to information interventions using text and pictures. Furthermore, the information intervention experiments clarified individual differences in information processing and behavior decision-making in the process of information intervention by participants with different value orientations. The results showed that:
(1)
Recycling behavior is significantly different due to an individual’s demographic characteristics. Specifically, the recycling behavior of individuals showed an “inverted U-shaped” change trend as their level of education increased. Individuals with junior college and bachelor-level university degrees are more active in sorting and recycling express packaging waste than are individuals with either less or more formal education. In addition, as their state of health and quality of interpersonal relationships improves, individuals were more willing to classify and recycle packaging waste as well as encourage others to do so. This finding indicated that individuals with poor health status and poor interpersonal relationships need more attention and intervention to promote their packaging waste recycling behavior.
(2)
Both text information and pictorial information significantly influenced the recycling behavior of participants. Although the scores for recycling behavior of individuals receiving picture information was higher than of those receiving text information, the difference was not statistically significant.
(3)
Interestingly, among the dimensions of recycling behavior, the scores for individual purchasing behavior were significantly increased after the pictorial information intervention and were significantly higher than the scores for participants receiving text information. In other words, information in the format of pictures can affect individuals’ purchasing behavior of express packaging more than text information.
(4)
Among different value orientation groups, text information cannot effectively change the overall recycling behavior of egocentric groups but can improve the overall recycling behavior of pro-relation groups and pro-social groups.
(5)
Notably, information intervention does not have an impact on individuals’ civil behavior, even on that of individuals with pro-social values, indicating the difficulty of awakening individual citizenship behavior by relying on information interventions.
This study provides an effective theoretical reference and practical basis for improving the recycling behavior of individuals at the source of waste generation and promoting the appropriate and resource-oriented treatment of express delivery packaging waste. Based on the conclusions, the following suggestions were proposed to promote recycling behavior of individuals:
(1)
A targeted guidance strategy based on individual’s demographic characteristics. The results showed that recycling behavior had a lower score in the groups with a junior high school education or below and master’s education or above, which were in a poor state of health and experienced poor interpersonal relationships. Therefore, the government needs to target and guide such “special” groups urgently. Specifically, the government can trigger individual recognition and attention to express packaging waste recycling by opening up socialized information dissemination channels and personalizing and customizing information dissemination and feedback. For example, establish individual classified information data and conduct targeted feedback in target groups through social networks (WeChat public platform, etc.) and, through the dynamic release of concern, increase the economic and health benefits from daily express packaging waste, and then improve recycling behavior.
(2)
A two-layer information interaction intervention strategy. The study concluded that due to the heterogeneity of individual value orientation, the degree of individual behavior change would differ according to the information of the intervention. This requires that the characteristics of individual psychological heterogeneity, especially the differences in value preference, must be taken into account in the content design and form selection of intervention information. Avoid the inhibition effect of the interaction between the situational information and the psychological information and induce the interaction promotion effect of the two-layer information. For example, in the induction of individual purchasing behavior, information in the form of pictures can be preferentially selected to stimulate and intervene in residents’ consumption. Through repeated information feedback and stimulation, individuals’ recycling behavior can be strengthened, and then the recycling behavior will be sustained and stable.
(3)
Endogenous environmental awareness actuation strategy. It is found that civil behavior cannot be effectively guided by simple information feedback. Driving the occurrence of civil behavior of express packaging waste needs to arouse citizens’ awareness of environmental protection, rights, and participation. In terms of policy intervention, it can start from the perspective of residents’ perception of psychological empowerment of express package waste recycling. Through specific information intervention measures, the residents’ perception of meaning, competence, choice, and the impact of express package waste recycling can be enhanced, and residents’ psychological empowerment experience can be increased, thus promoting their endogenous awareness of citizens and environmental protection.

Author Contributions

H.C. and R.L. came up with the original idea for this article; F.C. designed the theoretical model, collected the data, and wrote the paper; other authors polished the article. All authors read and approved this version.

Funding

The Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities (2017XKZD12), the Social Science Fund of Jiangsu Province (18GLB015), the Think Tank of Green Safety Management and Policy Science (2018 “Double First-Class” Initiative Project for Cultural Evolution and Creation of CUMT 2018WHCC03).

Acknowledgments

This study was supported by the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities (2017XKZD12), the Social Science Fund of Jiangsu Province (18GLB015), and the Think Tank of Green Safety Management and Policy Science (2018 “Double First-Class” Initiative Project for Cultural Evolution and Creation of CUMT 2018WHCC03).

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. State Post Bureau of People’s Republic of China (SPBPRC). The China’s Express Delivery Volume Will Reach 50 Billion in 2020. Available online: http://www.spb.gov.cn/ztgz/gjyzjzt/gwycwhy/xgbd/201512/t20151217_696037.html (accessed on 18 September 2018).
  2. Duan, H.; Li, J.; Liu, G. Developing countries: Growing threat of urban waste dumps. Nature 2017, 546, 599. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Andrews, A.; Gregoire, M.; Rasmussen, H.; Witowich, G. Comparison of recycling outcomes in three types of recycling collection units. Waste Manag. 2013, 33, 530–535. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Chen, F.; Chen, H.; Guo, D.; Han, S.; Long, R. How to achieve a cooperative mechanism of MSW source separation among individuals—An analysis based on evolutionary game theory. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 195, 521–531. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Steg, L. Promoting household energy conservation. Energy Policy 2008, 36, 4449–4453. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Geng, J.; Long, R.; Chen, H. Impact of information intervention on travel mode choice of urban residents with different goal frames: A controlled trial in Xuzhou, China. Transp. Res. Part A Policy Pract. 2016, 91, 134–147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Bamberg, S.; Schmidt, P. Incentives, morality, or habit? Predicting students’ car use for university routes with the models of Ajzen, Schwartz, and Triandis. Environ. Behav. 2003, 35, 264–285. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Völlink, T.; Meertens, R. The effect of a prepayment meter on residential gas consumption. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 2010, 40, 2556–2573. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Howell, R.A. Investigating the long-term impacts of climate change communications on individuals’ attitudes and behavior. Environ. Behav. 2014, 46, 70–101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Young, W.; Russell, S.V.; Robinson, C.A.; Barkemeyer, R. Can social media be a tool for reducing consumers’ food waste? A behaviour change experiment by a UK retailer. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2016, 117, 195–203. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Marlow, N.; Jansson-Boyd, C.V. To touch or not to touch; that is the question. Should consumers always be encouraged to touch products, and does it always alter product perception. Psychol. Mark. 2011, 28, 256–266. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Yang, Y.; Zhu, Y. Effects of online pictorial versus verbal reviews of experience product on consumer’s judgment. Acta Psychol. Sin. 2016, 48, 1026–1036. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Prochaska, J.O.; Redding, C.A.; Evers, K.E. The transtheoretical model and stages of change. Health Behav. Health Educ. 2008, 22, 97–121. [Google Scholar]
  14. Locke, E. Motivation, cognition, and action: An analysis of studies of task goals and knowledge. Appl. Psychol. 2000, 49, 408–429. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Courbalay, A.; Deroche, T.; Prigent, E.; Chalabaev, A.; Amorim, M.-A. Big Five personality traits contribute to prosocial responses to others’ pain. Pers. Indiv. Differ. 2015, 78, 94–99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Lorenzoni, I.; Nicholson-Cole, S.; Whitmarsh, L. Barriers perceived to engaging with climate change among the UK public and their policy implications. Glob. Environ. Chang. 2007, 17, 445–459. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Winett, R.A.; Leckliter, I.N.; Chinn, D.E.; Stahl, B.; Love, S.Q. Effects of television modeling on residential energy conservation. J. Appl. Behav. Anal. 2013, 18, 33–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Geller, E.S. Evaluating energy conservation programs: Is verbal report enough? J. Consum. Res. 1981, 8, 331–335. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. McMakin, A.H.; Malone, E.L.; Lundgren, R.E. Motivating residents to conserve energy without financial incentives. Environ. Behav. 2002, 34, 848–863. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Staats, H.; Hartig, T. Alone or with a friend: A social context for psychological restoration and environmental preferences. J. Environ. Psychol. 2004, 24, 199–211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Wang, Z.; Guo, D.; Wang, X.; Zhang, B.; Wang, B. How does information publicity influence residents’ behaviour intentions around e-waste recycling? Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2018, 133, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Sia, A.P.; Hungerford, H.R.; Tomera, A.N. Selected predictors of responsible environmental behavior: An analysis. J. Environ. Educ. 1986, 17, 31–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Thapa, B. The mediation effect of outdoor recreation participation on environmental attitude-behavior correspondence. J. Environ. Educ. 2010, 41, 133–150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Smith-Sebasto, N.J.; D’Costa, A. Designing a Likert-type scale to predict environmentally responsible behavior in undergraduate students: A multistep process. J. Environ. Educ. 1995, 27, 14–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Lee, T.H.; Jan, F.H.; Yang, C.C. Conceptualizing and measuring environmentally responsible behaviors from the perspective of community-based tourists. Tour. Manag. 2013, 36, 454–468. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Chen, H.; Chen, F.; Huang, X.; Long, R.; Li, W. Are individuals’ environmental behavior always consistent?—An analysis based on spatial difference. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2017, 125, 25–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Kristiansen, C.M.; Zanna, M.P. The rhetorical use of values to justify social and intergroup attitudes. J. Soc. Issues 1994, 50, 47–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Freud, E.; Kidron, D.; Gornish, M.; Barak, R.; Golinski, D.; Zer, M. The value of precise preoperative localization of colonic arteriovenous malformation in childhood. Am. J. Gastroenterol. 1993, 88, 443–446. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  29. Fehr, E.; Fischbacher, U. The nature of human altruism. Nature 2003, 425, 785. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  30. Thompson, S.C.G.; Barton, M.A. Ecocentric and anthropocentric attitudes toward the environment. J. Environ. Psychol. 1994, 14, 149–157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Schwartz, S.H. Universals in the content and structure of values: Theoretical advances and empirical tests in 20 countries. Adv. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 1992, 25, 1–65. [Google Scholar]
  32. Schwartz, S.H. Are there universal aspects in the structure and contents of human values? J. Soc. Issues 1994, 50, 19–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Stern, P.C.; Kalof, L.; Dietz, T.; Guagnano, G.A. Values, beliefs, and pro-environmental action: Attitude formation toward emergent attitude objects. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 1995, 25, 1611–1636. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Stern, P.C.; Dietz, T.; Guagnano, G.A. A brief inventory of values. Educ. Psychol. Meas. 1998, 58, 984–1001. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. McCarty, J.A.; Shrum, L.J. The recycling of solid wastes: Personal values, value orientations, and attitudes about recycling as antecedents of recycling behavior. J. Bus. Res. 1994, 30, 53–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Barr, S. Strategies for sustainability: Citizens and responsible environmental behavior. Area 2003, 35, 227–240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Chen, F.; Chen, H.; Guo, D.; Long, R. Analysis of undesired environmental behavior among Chinese undergraduates. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 162, 1239–1251. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Han, H. Travelers’ pro-environmental behavior in a green lodging context: Converging value-belief-norm theory and the theory of planned behavior. Tour. Manag. 2015, 47, 164–177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Liu, X.; Zou, Y.; Wu, J. Factors influencing public-sphere pro-environmental behavior among Mongolian college students: A test of value–belief–norm theory. Sustainability 2018, 10, 1384. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Chen, F.; Chen, H.; Huang, X.; Long, R.; Lu, H.; Yue, T. Public response to the regulation policy of urban household waste: Evidence from a survey of Jiangsu Province in China. Sustainability 2017, 9, 1034. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Jiangsu Province Post Office (JPPO). Statistical Bulletin of the Development of Postal Industry in Jiangsu Province. Available online: http://js.spb.gov.cn/xytj/tjxx/ (accessed on 18 September 2018).
  42. Ministry of Industry and Information (MII). Available online: http://www.miit.gov.cn/n1146295/n1146592/n1146764/n6026279/index.html (accessed on 18 September 2018).
  43. Brazil, W.; Caulfield, B. Does green make a difference: The potential role of smartphone technology in transport behavior. Transp. Res. Part C 2013, 37, 93–101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Wang, J. Experimental Study on the Impact of Consumption Carbon Emission Reduction Policies; Sci. Press: Beijing, China, 2016. [Google Scholar]
  45. Zhang, Y.; Lu, X. Reform and innovation of graduate education mode in China. China High. Educ. Res. 2016, 20, 45–46. [Google Scholar]
  46. Gregorio, J.D.; Lee, J. Education and income inequality: New evidence from cross-country data. Rev. Income Wealth 2002, 48, 395–416. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Sun, C.; Kahn, M.E.; Zheng, S. Self-protection investment exacerbates air pollution exposure inequality in urban China. Ecol. Econ. 2017, 131, 468–474. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Liu, W. Thoughts of promoting China’s express packaging legislation. Acad. J. Zhongzhou 2018, 3, 62–66. [Google Scholar]
  49. Ferris, G.R.; Rogers, L.M.; Blass, F.R.; Hochwarter, W.A. Interaction of job-limiting pain and political skill on job satisfaction and organizational citizenship behavior. J. Manag. Psychol. 2009, 24, 584–608. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Wossink, G.A.A.; Wenum, J.H.V. Biodiversity conservation by farmers: Analysis of actual and contingent participation. Eur. Rev. Agric. Econ. 2003, 30, 461–485. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Peter, A.L.; Viraraghavan, T. Thallium: A review of public health and environmental concerns. Environ. Int. 2005, 31, 493–501. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  52. Cooke, S.J.; Vermaire, J.C. Environmental studies and environmental science today: Inevitable mission creep and integration in action-oriented transdisciplinary areas of inquiry, training and practice. J. Environ. Stud. Sci. 2015, 5, 70–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Yang, X.; Zhang, J.; Peracchio, L.A. Understanding the impact of self-concept on the stylistic properties of images. J. Consum. Psychol. 2010, 20, 508–520. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Childers, T.L. Memory for the visual and verbal components of print advertisements. Psychol. Mark. 2010, 3, 137–149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. James, R.C.; Esther, T. The effects of progressive levels of interactivity and vividness in web marketing sites. J. Advert. 2001, 30, 65–77. [Google Scholar]
  56. Pan, F.; Xi, B.; Wang, L. Evolutionary game analysis of environmental regulation strategy between local governments. China Popul. Resour. Environ. 2014, 24, 97–102. [Google Scholar]
  57. Abbey, B.S.; Doukas, J.A. Is technical analysis profitable for individual currency traders? J. Portf. Manag. 2012, 39, 142–150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Garcia, S.M.; Tor, A.; Bazerman, M.H.; Miller, D.T. Profit maximization versus disadvantageous inequality: The impact of self-categorization. J. Behav. Decis. Mak. 2005, 18, 187–198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Sustainability 10 03617 g001 550
Figure 1. Design of information intervention experiment.
Figure 1. Design of information intervention experiment.
Sustainability 10 03617 g001
Sustainability 10 03617 g002 550
Figure 2. Cross influence of different demographic characteristics on recycling behavior: education and state of health (a), education and interpersonal relationship quality (b), and sate of health and interpersonal relationship quality (c).
Figure 2. Cross influence of different demographic characteristics on recycling behavior: education and state of health (a), education and interpersonal relationship quality (b), and sate of health and interpersonal relationship quality (c).
Sustainability 10 03617 g002
Sustainability 10 03617 g003 550
Figure 3. Comparison of mean scores for express delivery packaging waste recycling behavior before and after information intervention: persuasive behavior (a), purchasing behavior (b), disposal behavior (c), civil behavior (d), and recycling behavior (e). Information A = group receiving text information, Information B = group receiving pictorial information, and Control = group receiving no information.
Figure 3. Comparison of mean scores for express delivery packaging waste recycling behavior before and after information intervention: persuasive behavior (a), purchasing behavior (b), disposal behavior (c), civil behavior (d), and recycling behavior (e). Information A = group receiving text information, Information B = group receiving pictorial information, and Control = group receiving no information.
Sustainability 10 03617 g003
Sustainability 10 03617 g004 550
Figure 4. Distribution of mean differences in express delivery packaging waste recycling behavior between experimental groups and the control group before and after information intervention. Note: “*” significant at p < 0.05, “**” significant at p < 0.01, and “***” significant at p < 0.001. Information A = group receiving text information, Information B = group receiving pictorial information, and Control = group receiving no information.
Figure 4. Distribution of mean differences in express delivery packaging waste recycling behavior between experimental groups and the control group before and after information intervention. Note: “*” significant at p < 0.05, “**” significant at p < 0.01, and “***” significant at p < 0.001. Information A = group receiving text information, Information B = group receiving pictorial information, and Control = group receiving no information.
Sustainability 10 03617 g004
Table
Table 1. Orthogonal rotation component matrix of the value orientation and waste recycling behavior scales.
Table 1. Orthogonal rotation component matrix of the value orientation and waste recycling behavior scales.
Value OrientationWaste Recycling Behavior
Component Component
123 1234
Item 40.8130.1560.006Item 30.7230.2040.0190.082
Item 20.7380.3200.010Item 20.6180.1610.0300.215
Item 10.6520.4420.031Item 10.6170.1130.1540.182
Item 30.6500.2230.040Item 40.0190.7700.0080.139
Item 70.2980.7700.086Item 60.2800.6760.0710.209
Item 50.2480.7440.163Item 50.3090.6700.1720.235
Item 70.0750.7190.097Item 100.2090.1180.7250.026
Item 90.1900.0330.816Item 80.2270.0200.7160.228
Item 110.0570.1520.674Item 70.2460.0210.7050.203
Item 80.0330.0620.619Item 90.2980.0990.7030.177
Item 100.0240.0130.601Item 130.2670.3470.1220.721
Item 110.2420.3950.1190.698
Item 120.1560.1010.1120.675
Item 140.1010.2400.2060.606
Table
Table 2. Differences in individual recycling behaviors as a function of different demographic characteristics.
Table 2. Differences in individual recycling behaviors as a function of different demographic characteristics.
Social Demographic VariablesRecycling Behavior
(M ± SD)		Persuasive Behavior
(M ± SD)		Disposal Behavior
(M ± SD)		Civil Behavior
(M ± SD)
Education backgroundJunior high school or below3.03 ± 0.843.00 ± 0.90/2.58 ± 1.08
Senior high school or technical secondary school3.34 ± 0.813.47 ± 0.81/2.63 ± 0.87
Junior college3.56 ± 0.923.55 ± 0.99/3.16 ± 1.20
Bachelor3.43 ± 0.763.59 ± 0.76/3.12 ± 0.96
Masters or above3.15 ± 0.793.29 ± 0.94/2.78 ± 0.88
F 2.56 *2.60 */2.63 *
State of healthPoor3.01 ± 0.95/3.25 ± 1.09/
Average3.09 ± 0.78/3.39 ± 0.78/
Good3.34 ± 0.75/3.70 ± 0.72/
Excellent3.54 ± 0.92/3.86 ± 1.00/
F2.66 */2.88 */
Interpersonal relationshipPoor2.94 ± 0.803.00 ± 0.863.57 ± 0.82/
Average3.26 ± 0.713.27 ± 0.773.61 ± 0.66/
Good3.26 ± 0.743.40 ± 0.803.75 ± 0.77/
Excellent3.57 ± 0.943.69 ± 0.983.96 ± 0.93/
F2.68 *2.61 *3.79 **/
Note: “/”means no significant difference, “*” indicates significant at the 0.05 level, and “**” indicates significance at the 0.01 level.
Table
Table 3. Differential test of individual recycling behavior before and after different forms of information intervention.
Table 3. Differential test of individual recycling behavior before and after different forms of information intervention.
VariableDifference
(2)–(1)		Difference
(5)–(4)		Difference
(8)–(7)		Difference
(6)–(3)		Difference
(9)–(3)		Difference
(9)–(6)
(3)
(p-value)		(6)
(p-value)		(9)
(p-value)		(10)
(p-value)		(11)
(p-value)		(12)
(p-value)
Persuasive behavior+0.01 (0.704)+0.09 (0.192)+0.18 (0.033)+0.08 (0.234)+0.17 (0.038)+0.09 (0.192)
Purchasing behavior−0.08 (0.234)+0.24 (0.010)+0.49 (0.001)+0.32 (0.002)+0.57 (0.000)+0.25 (0.005)
Disposal behavior0.00 (1.000)+0.24 (0.010)+0.17 (0.038)+0.24 (0.010)+0.17 (0.038)−0.07 (0.296)
Civil behavior−0.01 (0.704)+0.06 (0.385)+0.11 (0.146)+0.07 (0.296)+0.12 (0.102)+0.05 (0.498)
Recycling behavior−0.01 (0.704)+0.16 (0.042)+0.24 (0.010)+0.17 (0.038)+0.25 (0.005)+0.08 (0.234)
Note: (1), (4), and (7) refer to mean values of the control group, information A group (text) and information B group (pictures), respectively, before information intervention; (2), (5), and (8) refer to mean values of the control group, information A group, and information B group, respectively, after information intervention.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Chen, F.; Chen, H.; Yang, J.; Long, R.; Li, Q. Impact of Information Intervention on the Recycling Behavior of Individuals with Different Value Orientations—An Experimental Study on Express Delivery Packaging Waste. Sustainability 2018, 10, 3617. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10103617

AMA Style

Chen F, Chen H, Yang J, Long R, Li Q. Impact of Information Intervention on the Recycling Behavior of Individuals with Different Value Orientations—An Experimental Study on Express Delivery Packaging Waste. Sustainability. 2018; 10(10):3617. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10103617

Chicago/Turabian Style

Chen, Feiyu, Hong Chen, Jiahui Yang, Ruyin Long, and Qianwen Li. 2018. "Impact of Information Intervention on the Recycling Behavior of Individuals with Different Value Orientations—An Experimental Study on Express Delivery Packaging Waste" Sustainability 10, no. 10: 3617. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10103617

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop