Download Is Cultural Assimilation Related to Environmental Attitudes and

ASSOCIATION FOR CONSUMER RESEARCH
Labovitz School of Business & Economics, University of Minnesota Duluth, 11 E. Superior Street, Suite 210, Duluth, MN 55802
Is Cultural Assimilation Related to Environmental Attitudes and Behaviors?
Jyotsna Mukherji, Texas A&M International University
ABSTRACT - Research in environmentalism (Lynch 1993 and Schultz, Unipan, and Gamba 2000) suggests that culture is an
important determinant of environmental attitudes. This paper applies ethnic-assimilation theory to analyze intra-cultural differences
within the Hispanic cultural group. Results indicated that acculturation was negatively related to environmental attitudes like
importance, effort, and inconvenience. These results are contrary to conventional thinking, which posits that environmental concerns
are post-materialistic concerns associated with higher levels of economic development and immigrants; especially those coming from
developing societies are not likely to have these concerns. These findings also suggest that the design of environmental strategies for
ethnic groups must recognize the importance of acculturation and not treat cultural groups as one composite entity.
[to cite]:
Jyotsna Mukherji (2005) ,"Is Cultural Assimilation Related to Environmental Attitudes and Behaviors?", in NA - Advances in
Consumer Research Volume 32, eds. Geeta Menon and Akshay R. Rao, Duluth, MN : Association for Consumer Research,
Pages: 415-421.
[url]:
http://www.acrwebsite.org/volumes/9111/volumes/v32/NA-32
[copyright notice]:
This work is copyrighted by The Association for Consumer Research. For permission to copy or use this work in whole or in
part, please contact the Copyright Clearance Center at http://www.copyright.com/.
Is Cultural Assimilation Related to Environmental Attitudes and Behaviors?
Jyotsna Mukherji, Texas A&M International University
ABSTRACT
Research in environmentalism (Lynch 1993 and Schultz,
Unipan, and Gamba 2000) suggests that culture is an important
determinant of environmental attitudes. This paper applies ethnicassimilation theory to analyze intra-cultural differences within the
Hispanic cultural group. Results indicated that acculturation was
negatively related to environmental attitudes like importance, effort, and inconvenience. These results are contrary to conventional
thinking, which posits that environmental concerns are post-materialistic concerns associated with higher levels of economic development and immigrants; especially those coming from developing
societies are not likely to have these concerns. These findings also
suggest that the design of environmental strategies for ethnic
groups must recognize the importance of acculturation and not treat
cultural groups as one composite entity.
INTRODUCTION
The US society faces the challenges associated with receiving
newcomers who represent a plurality of ethnic, linguistic, and racial
groups (Glazer 1997; Taylor and Lambert 1996). An element of this
plurality is the concern that different ethnic groups who migrate to
this country may come from cultures in which certain pro-environment behaviors are not common as they are in the US. It is suggested
that environmentalism has become an important part of American
culture and performing certain pro-environmental behaviors is a
form of cultural praxis or ritual forms of participation in civic life
(McCarthy 1996).
In 1997/1998, the Sierra Club policy debate drew attention to
the influence of the immigration on environmental issues
(Zuckerman 1999). At the heart of this debate was the concern that
population pressure due to immigration would contribute to environmental degradation and the growing consumption of natural
resources. It was argued that immigrants from poor countries would
have less concern for the environment. More recently, Huntington
in his new book “Who are we” writes that the new immigrants
(especially from Mexico) have little interest in assimilating and feel
comfortable within their own culture (as quoted in “The Americano
Dream” by Brooks 2004), thus contributing to the debate of
Hispanic assimilation.
Why would immigrants’ environmental attitudes and behavior be different from native –born residents? A post-materialist
thesis argues that the higher standards of living of industrialized
nations permitted the development of environmental concerns, and
that individuals from poorer nations were likely to be preoccupied
with issues of economic security rather than to issues of quality-oflife concerns such as the environment (Pfeffer and Stycos 2002).
When material well-being is sustained for several years, second and
third generations can give priority to post-materialistic values such
as environmentalism. This argument leads one to suggest that
acculturation into the host culture is positively related to environmental attitudes and behaviors.
There are competing views regarding the above assertion. The
post-materialistic thesis argues that environmentalism and qualityof-life issues are possible in societies where economic security has
been achieved. Thus, immigrants from poor countries are likely to
have less concern than US residents. Assimilation in the mainstream culture would enable immigrants to adopt environmental
attitudes and behavior representative of a post-materialistic culture.
The competing argument is that poor environmental conditions in
the immigrants’ home countries would have sensitized them to
environmental awareness, thus there would be no difference between immigrants and US residents’ environmental attitudes and
behaviors (Martinez-Alier and Hershberg 1992).
This paper applies the ethnic-assimilation theory to explore
differences within the Hispanic group in their environmental attitudes and behaviors. Specifically, we argue that there may be as
much cultural diversity within an ethnic group that it makes it
necessary to explore other variables like levels of acculturation
rather than rely on ethnicity. We conclude by offering suggestions
for social marketing strategies designed to impact pro-environmental attitudes and behaviors especially among Hispanic consumers
with varying levels of acculturation.
Cultural Assimilation
Keefe and Padilla (1987, p. 18) have defined assimilation as
the “social, economic, and political integration of an ethnic minority group into mainstream society.” According to Gordon (1964),
assimilation is a seven-step process beginning with acculturation or
behavioral assimilation and ending with civic assimilation or the
absence of value and power conflict. Acculturation occurs when an
ethnic group’s cultural patterns change to those of the host society.
This process is labeled ‘Anglo-conformity’ to distinguish it from
other models of assimilation namely the ‘melting-pot’ metaphor or
cultural pluralism (McLemore 1991). Keefe and Padilla (1987)
suggest that Gordon’s description of the assimilation process i.e.,
Anglo-conformity, may not reflect the assimilation process of
Hispanics for whom assimilation may not always lead to a complete
replacement of one culture by another. What may happen is that
different parts of a culture are transferred with varying degrees of
success and speed (Yinger 1981) with material culture being
relatively easy to share and the adoption of a host culture’s values
being a slower process (Shaull and Gramann 1998).
An understanding of the acculturation process of immigrants
would be valuable to domestic and international marketers operating in such culturally heterogeneous societies.
According to the US Census (2000), the percentage of foreignborn persons is 13.9 % for Texas as compared to 11.1% for the US
as a whole. Further, in Texas 31.2% speak a language other than
English at home compared to 17.9% in the US. Clearly while the US
society is becoming diverse and multi ethnic, in states like Texas
diversity is more predominant. According to Surro (1999), nearly
half of all immigrants today-legal and illegal-come from Spanishspeaking countries. Based on their high birth rates, the US Census
Bureau predicts that native and foreign-born Latinos will account
for more than 40% of US population growth in the next decade,
compared to less than 25% for non-Hispanic whites. Unfortunately,
the melting pot metaphor does not help much in understanding this
group’s acculturation process.
Investigation of the role of acculturation on consumer behavior had resulted in an impressive body of research (Golden, et. al.
1996). Studies have typically focused on changes in behavior
patterns of Hispanics in areas such as food, dress, and information
search (Webster 1994). Another stream of research has focused on
strategies for reaching Hispanic consumers through efficient segmentation. Segal and Sosa (1983) suggested strategies based on
media preferences and O’Guinn and Mayer (1984) suggested
language use as an effective segmentation variable. A third stream
of research has compared Hispanic and Anglo consumers and found
415
Advances in Consumer Research
Volume 32, © 2005
416 / Is Cultural Assimilation Related to Environmental Attitudes and Behaviors?
significant differences in intergenerational influences (Hoyer and
Deshpande 1982) and brand loyalty (Donthu and Cherian 1992).
Environmental attitudes are influenced by culture. Lynch
(1993) suggested that there are differences in Anglo and Latino
environmental views. For example, Anglo environmentalism is
characterized by a reliance on technical solutions while Latino
environmentalism relies on communal solutions. Anglos and Latinos
differ in their views of the wilderness; Anglos view the wilderness
to be pristine and Latino environmentalism is described as “humanin-nature” view. “Humans are seen as an integral part of nature
rather than as protectors or consumers” (Schlutz, et al. 2000, p. 23.).
Finally, Carr and Williams (1993) reported a relationship between
assimilation and views on “showing respect for the forest.” U.S.
born Hispanics interpreted “respect for the forest” to mean specific
behaviors such as “not littering” and picking up trash, while
respondents born in Mexico mentioned respect in more abstract
terms and as an extension of respect for one’s home. The implication of these findings is that there is variation not only between
ethnic groups, but also within an ethnic group and one potential
source of this variation could be explained by the degree of cultural
assimilation.
Recycling Attitudes
Environmental issues have attracted the attention of researchers in the social sciences and marketing (Berger 1997 and Pieters et
al. 1998). Marketers have researched recycling issues in an effort at
understanding consumer motivations underlying the purchase of
environmentally friendly products and services (Bagozzi and
Dabholkar 1994), exploring the relationship between general psychological constructs and environmental behavior (Biswas et al.
2000; Dietz, et al. 1998), and identifying the antecedents of postpurchase/post-consumption behavior (Alwitt and Pitts 1996 and
Shrum, McCarty, and Lowrey 1995). Interestingly, most of the
research has been on Anglo consumers and with only a small
number of studies focusing on African Americans and Hispanics
(Howenstine 1993 and Golden, Frels, Vincent, and Santos 1996).
Psychological constructs such as attitude and beliefs are
important and often researched antecedents because they are more
amenable to influence and thus actionable. A well-known attitude
in the ecological literature is the concern for environmental problems and a perception of their severity. Ecologically conscious
consumers believe that current environmental conditions are deteriorating and represent serious problems facing the security of the
world, whereas consumers who are less sensitive to ecological
issues perceive that environmental problems in the long run will
resolve themselves (Banerjee and McKeage 1994). Environmental
attitudes are conceptualized as abstract orientations and it is argued
that recycling behaviors are influenced by more specific psychological constructs such as beliefs related to recycling. Laroche, et
al., (2001), found that the two beliefs that are most consistently
related to recycling are a general attitude or belief about the
importance of recycling, and a specific belief about the inconvenience of recycling. Importance, with respect to the environment,
can be defined as the degree to which one relates recycling to being
environmentally conscious. This construct also relates to the benefits of engaging in behaviors that could have possible long-term
outcomes such as reduction in number of landfills.
Inconvenience refers to how inconvenient it is perceived by
the individual to behave in an ecologically compatible fashion. For
example, one may think that recycling is important, but one does not
recycle because it takes too much time or requires extra space.
Inconvenience of recycling relates to costs or the difficulty associated with performing environmental behaviors. Included are perceptions of how easy or hard it is to perform the recycling behavior.
Effort is defined as the degree of difficulty in executing the
behavior. The amount of effort required for a behavior functions as
an impediment to action (Bagozzi et. al. 1990). Although decreased
perceptions of difficulty have been generally associated with increased environmental behavior, mixed results have been reported
in the literature (Oskamp et al. 1991).
Hypotheses
The above discussion on cultural assimilation, acculturation,
and environmental attitudes suggests that the process of acculturation is thought to help immigrants learn the behavioral expectations
of American culture (e.g. recycling attitudes and behaviors), Padilla
(1980) calls this immigrant environmental acculturation. Since the
research on Hispanic culture and environmentalism has competing
viewpoints, I choose to explore the influence of levels of acculturation on environmental attitudes through non-directional hypothesis:
Acculturation, Attitudes, and Recycling Behaviors
H1: There are differences in attitudes toward environmental
concern among Hispanics with different acculturation
levels.
H2: There are differences in attitude toward importance of
recycling among Hispanics with different acculturation
levels.
H3: There are differences in attitudes toward inconvenience
of recycling among Hispanics with different acculturation
levels.
H4: There are differences in attitudes toward recycling effort
among Hispanics with different acculturation levels.
H5: There are differences in recycling behavior among
Hispanics with different acculturation levels.
RESEARCH DESIGN
Sample and Procedure
The survey was administered in person to a convenience
sample of 262 residents of a mid-size city on the U.S. side of the
Mexico-US border. Students were recruited as principal investigators and they conducted the survey. Malls and grocery stores in
different parts of the city were chosen as locations to conduct the
interviews. The choice of locations enabled us to have a fair
representation of most of the geographical locations of the city. The
questionnaire was translated into Spanish and back translated to
check for consistency. The interviewers, depending on the language requirements of the respondents, used both versions of the
questionnaire. Respondents needed to be one of the heads of
household and over 18 years of age. The sample was 77% female
and 23% male; 20% were high school graduates, 72% were college
graduates and 8% had a master’s degree. 34% reported income less
than $25,000, 40% were in the $25,000 to $50,000 range and 26%
reported earning more than $50,000. The demographics of the
sample reflect the area, which is among the ten poorest counties in
the country.
Measurement Purification
All measures were assessed through confirmatory factor analysis using LISREL 8 with item correlations as input (Joreskog and
Sorbom 1996). An iterative approach was adopted to arrive at the
final measurement model with items that did not meet the qualifying criteria being deleted. For example, items with low or extremely
high factor loadings and those with high modification indices were
deleted. The measurement model performed well: standardized
Advances in Consumer Research (Volume 32) / 417
TABLE 1
Measurement Model Details
Composite
Reliability
Environmental Concern (Schultz and Oskamp,
1996))
1. Environmental problems are of great concern
to me
2. Environmental problems are not that
important to me (R)
3. Things will balance out (R)
4. I’ d rather do other work (R)
Importance (McCarty and Shrum, 1994)
1. Recycling will save land
2. Recycling will reduce pollution
3. Recycling is important to save resources
Cronbach
Alpha
Average
Variance
Extracted
Factor Loading
.542
.646
.77
.82
.76
.81
.46
.696
.814
.54
.567
.793
.871
Inconvenience (McCarty and Shrum, 1994)
1. Recycling is inconvenient
2. Recycling is too much trouble
3. I hate to sort materials
.82
.83
.61
.721
.789
.827
Effort (Effort, 1994)
1. Recycling requires a lot of extra time
2. Recycling requires a lot of extra space
.87
.87
.77
.899
.853
.55
.634
.837
.547
Recycling Behavior (McCarty and Shrum, 1994)
1. I recycle aluminum cans
2. I recycle paper and newspapers
3. I recycle glass
.72
factor loadings ranged from .55 to .90 with t-values greater than
6.32 (Ford, MacCallum and Tait 1986). The construct reliabilities
ranged from .70 to .87 exceeding the recommended minimum of .60
and the average variance extracted (AVE) was greater than .40 for
all of the study constructs. Thus, all of the constructs exhibited good
internal consistency and reliability (Bagozzi and Yi 1988). The
final measurement model exhibited satisfactory fit. The chi-square
value for the measurement model was significant (X294=155.430,
p< .000). Since chi-square statistic is sensitive to sample size we
examined other fit indices. The root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) was .06; the goodness-of-fit (GFI) and adjusted
goodness-of-fit (AGFI) indices were .89 and .85 respectively;
Bentler’s comparative fit index (CFI) was .94; and the non-normed
fit index (NNFI) was .93. All the above fit indices are within
acceptable ranges (Byrne 1998). Given the relatively small sample
size, we found the fit indices quite satisfactory for the number of
parameters being tested. Finally, two tests of discriminant validity
were performed for all study constructs. First, the mean AVE for
each construct pair was compared with the squared phi estimate
(maximum likelihood estimate of correlation) for the pair. All pairs
of constructs with the exception of inconvenience and effort had
mean AVEs larger than the squared phi estimate (Fornell and
Larcker 1981). Second, confidence interval tests were conducted
(Anderson and Gerbing 1988). When a confidence interval constructed around the correlation estimate between two constructs
does not include 1.0, then discriminant validity is demonstrated. In
this study, all factor correlations demonstrated discriminant valid-
.70
ity. Details of the various measurement items and constructs used,
and their operationalization are summarized in Table 1. The mean,
standard deviation, and correlation values of the latent variables are
given in Table 2.
Measures
Environmental concern is a four-item scale that has been
adapted from previous research (Ellen 1994). Respondents were
asked to express their disagreement or agreement to items such as:
“ compared to other things in my life, environmental problems are
not that important to me.” The items for the importance and
inconvenience constructs were taken from McCarthy and Shrum,
(1994). Recycling effort (Ellen 1994) was measured by asking
respondents if recycling required a lot of extra time. Responses for
all the above scales were measured on nine-point Likert scales
anchored by strongly disagree=1 to strongly agree =9. Recycling
behavior (Biswas et. al 2000) was measured by asking respondents
to indicate the extent to which they recycled aluminum cans,
newspapers and magazines, and glass (never recycle=1 to always
recycle=9). Acculturation was measured by asking respondents to
answer the question “What language is mostly spoken in the
home?” The response choices were English, Spanish, and English
and Spanish equally (Webster 1994). English language use, which
measures functional integration into the United States mainstream,
is recognized as one of the most powerful indicators of acculturation (Betancourt and Lopez 1993). Demographic variables requested were age, gender, education, and income.
418 / Is Cultural Assimilation Related to Environmental Attitudes and Behaviors?
TABLE 2
Means, Standard Deviations, and Correlation Matrix
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
Mean
S. D.
Environmental Concern (1)
6.45
1.74
1.000
Importance of Environment (2)
7.88
1.38
.465(**)
1.000
Inconvenience (3)
3.68
2.13
-.542(**)
-.354(**)
1.000
Effort (4)
4.07
2.37
-.528(**)
-.348(**)
.800(**)
1.000
Recycling Behavior (5)
4.46
2.25
.285(**)
.244(**)
-.437(**)
-.425(**)
(5)
1.000
** Correlations are significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed)
n=262
TABLE 3
MANCOVA Results for Dependent Variables
F-Values
Source of
Variation
Environmental
Concern
Importance
Inconvenience
Effort
Recycling
Behavior
.081
4.732b
10.848c
10.572c
4.683b
Education
.542
.042
7.541b
4.392b
8.198a
Income
2.703
1.322
.384
13.559c
5.723b
Main Effect
Acculturation
Covariates
ap<.05
bp<.01
cp<.001
Findings
Multivariate analysis of covariance (MANCOVA) for a single
factor was used to examine the hypothesis. MANCOVA was used
because of multiple dependent variables, and to control or partial
out the effects of certain covariates like education and income.
Further, all the dependent variables were correlated significantly
with p values<.01. For example, the correlation between environmental concern and importance of environment was .454, (p<.000),
and between effort and length of recycling the correlation was –.310
(p<. 000). Wilks’ lambda results indicated significant main effects
for the acculturation construct (F=4.762, p<.000). The effects of
education (Wilks’ λ5.000 =.892, F=6.039, p<.000) and income
(Wilks’ λ5.000 =.924, F=4.094, p<.001) were also significant.
Multivariate and univariate results of the analyses are reported in
Table 3.
The overall F-tests for all dependent variables except environmental concern was significant (p<.01). Further, the education
covariate was significant for inconvenience and recycling behavior
at p<.00, and for effort at p<.05 level of significance. The income
covariate was also significant for inconvenience (p<.000) and
effort (p<.01). Thus education moderated the effect of inconvenience, effort, and behavior, while income moderated the effect of
inconvenience and effect. An analysis of the univariate results
shows support for all hypotheses except H1.
Results
This research had posited that acculturation levels would
influence environmental attitudes and recycling behaviors among
Hispanic respondents. MANCOVA results provide support for
H2–H5. H2 had posited that there would be differences among
Hispanics with different acculturation levels and their attitudes
toward the importance of recycling. Cell means in Table 4 reveal
that the English only group was statistically different from the
Spanish only and the bi-lingual group. H3 had stated that there
would be differences among Hispanics with different acculturation
levels and their attitudes toward inconvenience of recycling and H4
had stated that there would be differences among Hispanics with
different acculturation levels and their attitudes toward recycling
effort. Cell means in Table 4 show that for both H3 and H4 the
English only group is statistically different from the Spanish only
and the bi-lingual group. Finally, H5 had stated that English only,
bi-lingual, and Spanish only groups would be different in their
recycling behavior. Cell means shows partial support for this
hypothesis since the English only group is statistically different
from the bi-lingual group but not from the Spanish only group.
Discussion
Our analysis of the influence of acculturation on environmental attitudes and recycling behaviors revealed that the level of
Advances in Consumer Research (Volume 32) / 419
TABLE 4
Cell Means for Acculturation1
Englisha
(n= 54)
Spanishb
(n=62)
Both English and
Spanishc
(n=54)
F-Value
6.29
6.09
6.44
.081 (.922)
Importance of Environment
7.49bc
8.12a
8.02a
4.732 (.010)
Inconvenience
4.47bc
2.93a
3.60a
10.848 (.000)
Effort
5.02bc
3.43a
3.78a
10.572 (.003)
Recycling Behavior
3.92c
4.47
4.93a
4.683 (.010)
Environmental Concern
1– significantly different at p<.05 where a=English is spoken, b=Spanish is spoken, c=English and Spanish are spoken
acculturation did influence attitudes and behaviors. For example,
the most acculturated group (English only) had the lowest scores on
the environmental attitudes and recycling behavior scales. This
group did not think recycling was important for the environment.
Further, this group felt that recycling was inconvenient and required a lot of effort. The most acculturated group (English only)
was statistically different from the least acculturated group (Spanish only), and the bi-lingual group with regard to all the above
scales. Our analysis shows that the least acculturated group (Spanish only) had the most positive attitudes toward the environment;
they did not think recycling was inconvenient nor did it require
effort.
The results of this study are in line with research in environmentalism (Lynch 1993 and Schultz, et. al. 2000) that suggests that
culture is an important determinant of environmental attitudes.
These authors found that less acculturated Latino immigrants
scored higher on the New Environmental Paradigm than more
acculturated Latino immigrants. As an explanation, Lynch (1993)
suggests that Latino environmentalism is characterized by a greater
perception of the interrelatedness of humans with the natural
environment. This suggestion may be surprising given the environmental degradation in countries like Mexico. However, Schultz, et.
al., (2000) explain that the differences in environmental attitudes
between more and less acculturated Mexican immigrants is because
of the salience of the environmental problems. Concern for these
problems among more acculturated Hispanic immigrants may
decline over time since environmental degradation is less of an
issue in the United States. Consistent with research by Schultz and
colleagues our study too failed to find a positive relationship
between acculturation and recycling behavior. Results show that
low acculturated and bi-lingual respondents are statistically different from high acculturated respondents on importance, inconvenience, and effort related attitudes.
Public Policy Implications
The importance of these findings to marketing and public
policy is to emphasize the concept of acculturation when exploring
attitudes and behaviors among ethnic groups such as Hispanics.
Recognition of intra-group diversity means that it is not useful to
design environmental strategies that would suit all members of an
ethnic group. A managerial implication of this finding is the need
to deliver communications in both Spanish and English in order to
reach Hispanics of all acculturation levels. Policy officials need to
understand the negative acculturation hypothesis (Vincent and
Guinn 2003), which states that in some areas such as health,
acculturation may lead to the adoption of behaviors like smoking
and consuming fatty foods. Negative acculturation could be an
explanation for low scores on environmental attitudes and behavior
scales of the most acculturated group. For acculturated Hispanics
(those who have the least favorable environmental attitudes), a
possible strategy could be one that involves promoting positive
environmental attitudes of his/her ethnic group in order to help
neutralize the less positive socializing influence he/she experiences
in American culture. If successfully engaged, the traditional Hispanic environmental values might help more acculturated Hispanics to readopt the positive environmental attitudes reflected by low
acculturated Hispanics.
Finally, it is possible that the differences in environmental
attitudes observed in this study could be due to the salience of
environmental problems in the United States. Because of less
salience, concern for these issues may decline over time. This
decline in concern for the environment and environmental issues
could be a problem since positive attitudes are important antecedents to pro-environmental behaviors.
Limitations
This study has some limitations that must be considered when
drawing conclusions from the results. First, the focus of this study
is narrow; we concentrated on a limited set of psychological
constructs. Future work could include constructs like social norms
and normative feedback, as well as the role of incentives. In this
study we choose recycling of household garbage as the proenvironmental behavior, however, future research could include
other behaviors such as conservation behaviors and purchase of
green products as examples of pro-environmental behaviors. The
results of this study can be generalized only to Hispanics living
along the US-Mexico border since the sample was not chosen
randomly. One should exercise caution in generalizing to all
Hispanics especially those who are not from Mexico. This study
demonstrated the need to include the acculturation level of members of ethnic groups when investigating their attitudes and behaviors. As this study demonstrates, acculturation does have an influence and contrary to popular sentiment acculturation into the
American culture may not lead to positive environmental attitudes.
420 / Is Cultural Assimilation Related to Environmental Attitudes and Behaviors?
REFERENCES
Anderson E. and Gerbing, H. (1988), “Some Methods for
Respecifying Measurement Models to Obtain
Unidimentional Construct Measurement”, Journal of
Marketing Research, 19, November, 453-460.
Alwitt, Linda F. and Robert E. Pitts (1996), “Predicting Purchase
Intentions for an Environmentally Sensitive Product,”
Journal of Consumer Psychology, 5 (1), 49-64.
Bagozzi, Richard P., Youjae Yi, and J. Baumgartner (1990),
“The Level of Effort Required for Behavior as a Moderator
of the Attitude-Behavior Relation,” European Journal of
Social Psychology, 20, 25-59.
Bagozzi, Richard P. and Pratibha A. Dabholkar (1994),
“Consumer Recycling Goals and Their Effect on Decisions
to Recycle: A Means-End Chain Analysis,” Psychology and
Marketing, 11 (July/August), 313-40.
Banerjee, B. and McKeage, K. (1994), “How Green Is My
Value: Exploring The Relationship Between Environmentalism And Materialism,” in Advances in consumer research,
Vol 21, ed. C.T. Allen and D.R. John, Provo, UT: Association for Consumer Research, 147-152.
Berger, Ida E. (1997), “The Demographics of Recycling and the
Structure of Environmental Behavior,” Environment and
Behavior, 29 (July), 515-31.
Berry, J.W. (1990), “Psychology of acculturation”, in CrossCultural Perspectives, Proceedings of the Nebraska
Symposium of Motivation, ed. Berman, JJ., University of
Nebraska Press, Lincoln, NE, 201-34.
Betancourt, H. and S. C. Lopez (1993), “The Study of Culture,
Ethnicity, and Race in American Psychology,” American
Psychologist, 48(4), 629-637.
Biswas, A., Licata, J. W., McKee, D., Pullig, C. and Daughtridge
C. (2000), “The Recycling Cycle: An Empirical Examination
of Consumer Waste Recycling and Recycling Shopping
Behaviors,” Journal of Public Policy and Marketing, 19,
Spring, pp. 93-105.
Brooks, David, “The Americano Dream,” in New York Times,
2-24-04
Byrne, Barbara, M. (1998). Structural Equation Modeling with
LISREL, PRELIS, and SIMPLIS: Basic Concepts, Applications, and Programming. NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates,
Inc.
Donthu N. and J. Cherian (1992), “Hispanic Coupon Usage: The
Impact of Weak and Strong Ethnic Identification,” Psychology and Marketing, 9, 501-510.
Dietz, T., Stern, P.C., and Guagnano, G. (1998), “Social
Structural and Social Psychological Bases of Environmental
Concern”, Environment and Behavior, Vol. 30, July, 450-71.
Ellen, P. S. (1994), “Do we Know what we need to know?
Objective and Subjective Knowledge Effects on ProEnvironmental Behaviors,”Journal of Business Research,
Vol. 30, pp.43-52.
Ford, JK, MacCallum, RC, and Tait, M. (1986), “The Application Of Exploratory Factor Analysis In Applied Psychology:
A Critical Review And Analysis”, Personnel Psychology,
Vol. 39, 291-314.
Fornell, C. and D.F. Larcker (1981), “Evaluating Structural
Equation Models with Unobservable Variables and Measurement Error,” Journal of Marketing Research, 18 (February),
39-50.
Glazer, N. (1997), We are all Multiculturalists Now, Cambridge,
MA: Harvard University Press.
Gordon, M. M. (1964), Assimilation in American life, New
York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Huntington, Samuel, “The Hispanic Challenge,” from http://
www. foreignpolicy.com
Howenstine, E. (1993), “Market Segmentation for Recycling”,
Environment and Behavior, Vol. 25, January, pp.86-102.
Hoyer Wayne, D. and Rohit Deshpande (1982), “Cross-Cultural
Influences on Buyer Behavior: The Impact of Hispanic
Ethnicity,” in Proceedings of the AMA Educators Conference, ed. Bruce J. Walker, et. al., Chicago, American
Marketing Association, 89-92.
Joreskog, K.G. and D. Sorbom (1996), LISREL 8: User’s
Reference Guide, Scientific Software International, Chicago.
Keefe, S. F. and A. M. Padilla (1987), Chicano Ethnicity,
Albuquerque, MN: University of New Mexico Press.
Laroche, M., Bergeron J., and Barbaro-Forleo, G. (2001),
“Targeting Consumers Who Are Willing To Pay More For
Environmentally Friendly Products,” Journal of Consumer
Marketing, 18 (6), 503-520.
Lynch, B. D. (1993), “The Garden and the Sea: U. S. Latino
Environmental Discourses and Mainstream Environmentalism,” Social Problems, 40, 108-124.
Martinez-Alier, J. and E. Hershberg (1992), “Environmentalism
and the Poor: The Ecology of Survival,” Items (Social
Science Research Council) 46(1), 1-5.
McCarthy, E. Doyle (1996) Knowledge as Culture: The New
Sociology of Knowledge. Routledge, London.
McCarty, John A. and L.J. Shrum (1994), “The Recycling of
Solid Wastes: Personal and Cultural Values and Attitudes
About Recycling as Antecedents of Recycling Behavior,”
Journal of Business Research, 30 (May), 53-62.
O’Guinn, Thomas C. and Timothy P. Meyer (1984), “Segmenting the Hispanic Market: The Use of Spanish-Language
Radio.” Journal of Advertising Research, 23 (Dec/Jan), 9-16
Oskamp, S., Harrington, M., Edwards, T., Sherwood, D. L.,
Okuda, S. M, and Swanson, D. C. (1991). Factors influencing household recycling behavior. Environment and
Behavior, 23, 494-519.
Padilla, Amado, (1980), “The Role of Cultural and Ethnic
Loyalty in Acculturation,” in Accultuartion: Theory, Models,
and Some New Findings, ed. A. Padilla, Boulder, CO:
Westview Press, 47-84.
Pfeffer, M. J. and J. M. Stycos (2002), “Immigrant Environmental Behaviors in New York City,” Social Science Quarterly,
83 (1), 64-81.
Schultz, P. W., J. B. Unipan, and R. J. Gamba, (2000), “Acculturation and Ecological Worldview Among Latino Americans,” The Journal of Environmental Education, 31(2), 2227.
Segal, M. N. and L. Sosa (1983), “Hispanic Market Segmentation for Effective Marketing,” California Management
Review, 26, 1340-134.
Shaull, Sandra and James H. Gramann (1998), “The Effects of
Cultural Assimilation on the Importance of Family-Related
and Nature-Related Recreation Among Hispanic Americans,” Journal of Leisure Research, 30(1), 47-63.
Shrum, L.J., Tina M. Lowrey, and John A. McCarty (1994),
“Recycling as a Marketing Problem: A Framework for
Strategy Development,” Psychology and Marketing, 11 (4),
393-416.
Surro, R. (1999), “Recasting The Melting Pot,” American
Demographics, 21 (3), 30-33.
Taylor, D. M., and Lambert, W. E. (1996), “The Meaning Of
Multiculturalism In A Culturally Diverse Urban American
Area,” The Journal of Social Psychology, 136, 727-740
Advances in Consumer Research (Volume 32) / 421
The Texas Challenge in the 21st. Century: Implications of
Population Change for the Future of Texas from http://
txsdc.tamu.edu.
Vincent, Vern, and B. Guinn (2003), “Assessment of a Colonia
Language Intervention on Hispanic Immigrant Acculturation
and Employment Status,” Texas Journal of Rural Health,
21(2), 5-12.
Webster, Cynthia (1994), “Effects Of Hispanic Ethnic Identification On Marital Roles In The Purchase Decision Process,”
Journal of Consumer Research, 21 (2), 319, 13
Zuckerman, B. (1999), “The Sierra Club Immigration Debate:
National Implications,” Population and Environment, 20 (5),
401-412.