Download The impact of environmental public policy tools on behavior decision

The impact of environmental public policy tools on
behavior decision process
Author: Mr. ALAUX Christophe: Professor, Doctor in sciences of management, IMPGT,
University Paul Cezanne (Aix-Marseille III), CERGAM.
Email: [email protected]
Abstract
Most of public policies aim to change behaviors. Indeed, their performance manly
depends on their capacity to make effective change in habits of people. In this view,
marketing has often been used as a “tool box” that was available to influence behaviors of
public policy targets as it was done with companies’ targets. However, marketing could also
be very helpful for public performance if it was more focused on the comprehension of
consumer behavior. Thus, some researches were developed in order to improve the
development and evaluation of the impact of public policy instruments on consumer decisionmaking process, notably for pro environmental behaviors.
Key words: public marketing, behavior decision process, pro environmental behaviors,
public policy instruments.
1
Recent reforms in public administration shown that public organization and public
policies they manage should give the proofs of their usefulness and their performance to carry
on existing. Indeed, most of them have to face with a legitimacy that focuses on the
effectiveness of their « outputs » instead of their inputs (Scharpf, 1999). The introduction of
principles and tools from business organizations would be the consequence of this feeling of
vulnerability and this quest for performance (Verrier et al., 1997). Marketing and its tools
were first concerned by this transfer in not for profit organizations with their extension
suggested by Philip Kotler in 1969 (Kotler et Levy, 1969).
Nevertheless, the marketing approach can’t be thought in a unilateral way as a transfer
from private to public sector. Although both logics of impact on behaviors (marketing and
public policies) are quite similar, the generic concept of marketing couldn’t be directly
transferred in the public sector. A lot of debates were concerned by the question of
appropriateness of marketing approach and its tools in public sector (Graham, 1994; Walsh,
1994; Butler et Collins, 1995; Kaplan et Haenlein, 2009).
According to our vision, marketing could more helpful for public performance if it focuses
on consumer behavior. Some authors have emphasized the importance of developing research
on consumer decision-making process to improve the development and evaluation of the
impact of public policy instruments (Wilkie et Gardner, 1974). For example, informational
approaches on nutritional characteristics of food products frequently present problems of
interpretation by the consumer (Jacoby et al., 1977). It is necessary to deepen the
understanding of this information to improve the effectiveness of public policy. However,
research combining the impact of public policies on consumption activities have mainly
focused on the communication deterrence, coercion, legal, product certification and other
issues involving consumer protection. So there is very little systematic empirical or theoretical
research on this topic. From this point of view, instead of dealing with appropriateness of
marketing in a specific public sector, it would be more useful to take advantage from
researches in marketing to use them in order to increase the impact and effectiveness of public
policies by improving the quality of public policies tools to be used. It would lead to deepen
the rational logic of impact of public policy tools towards a more comprehensive
understanding of their impacts on a complex consumer decision process.
We’ll first make a presentation of the rationale logic of impact for public policy tools.
Then, we’ll discuss how the knowledge of psycho sociological determinants of behaviors can
be helpful to understand the impact of categories of instruments of environmental public
2
policy tools. The last section will present a variety of conceptual frameworks that helps to
understand the impact of public policy tools on behavior decision process in order to improve
the effectiveness of environmental public policies.
The rationale logic of impact for
public policy tools
Section 1.
The models of public policy impact focus on the assumptions of rationality of the
consumer on which they are based. In the perception of consumer behavior, the rational
choice theory is in fact focused on cognitive components of decision making that will guide
the evaluations of consumers in their decision making.
In the causal model of public policies, attitudes and behaviors are both consequences
of the instruments used but also the causes of the social ends aimed by public policies. They
are located at an intermediate level between the instruments ("outputs") and the final effects
("outcomes"); hence the designation of "intermediate outcomes" in between. The logic of
impact for public policies is also a hypothesis about patterns of behavioral response of
targeted audiences. In this regard, "the rational choice model is a guide to most public policy"
(Jackson, 2005); p.6). Then, they formulate hypotheses that focus on primarily cognitive
processes and rational decision making (A.P.S.C., 2007).
1.1 - Categories of public policy instruments and behavioral
assumptions
In the causal approach of impact, public policy instruments have been studied as independent
variables that produce different effects depending on the mix of tools and instruments used in
the context of public policy. For citizens, these instruments are often the most visible
manifestation of public interventions. They never are reduced to a residual component of
policy, but rather as one of their main components (Varone, 2001).
When these instruments are intended to guide environmental significant behavior, they can be
categorized in a more specific manner than the proposed generic classifications such as
Hood’s ones (Hood, 1983).
By adapting a generic approach to categorization focusing on the effects of behavioral
instruments, a report from the DEFRA distinguished four categories of environmental
3
instruments (Collins et al., 2003). The legislation is a first category including standards and
bans. The second category of economic instruments aims at increasing the price of having a
negative environmental impact and lowering the products with positive environmental
impact. Their objective is to "change polluting behaviors with the price mechanism, using
uniform financial incentives at the margin" (Bureau, 2005); p.89). The third category includes
instruments for delivery of information to enable individuals to make well informed choices
(eco-labels). The fourth category includes marketing strategies of influence which are
designed to develop emotional and behavioral attitudes leading to the adoption of the good
conduct (persuasive campaigns, awareness campaigns).
This classification, however, can be deepened by including additional instruments or by
specifying the instruments infrastructure and tools that aim to facilitate the adoption of these
behaviors by building infrastructure and delivery of services to the population (sewage
treatment plant , waste collection) (Larrue, 2000).
This categorization is thus based on assumptions about the types of behaviors that seek to
influence public policies (Ingram et Schneider, 1990). The five categories are authority tools,
incentive tools, capacity tools, symbolic or hortatory tool and learning tools. These tools are
well adapted to the assumptions about the behavior of target groups. Their choices also
depend on the social representation of these groups, as well as the power available to them
(Schneider et Ingram, 1993). The contribution of this categorization is to create a separate
category for symbolic tools. These latter are distinguished from the "realistic tools” which
include public expenditures, expression of authority and military force (Hood, 2007).To
analyze the Swiss climate policy, Perret proposed to identify these symbolic instruments
according to their effects on behaviors. Thus, he distinguished virtuous, emotional and
exemplary communication strategies (Perret, 2006). This distinction is particularly relevant to
environmental issues as the effectiveness of information campaigns aimed at improving the
knowledge of good behavior is much greater than that of the country disseminating
environmental information too general (Vedung, 1999).
So we can identify eight ideal types of instruments, namely the traditional instruments
of generic approaches (legislation, economic instruments, instruments infrastructure), the
precise communicative and influence instruments (instruments virtuous communicative,
emotional, informational, exemplary). This classification covers a wide range of instruments
applied to environmental public policies.
4
Depending on the behaviors that public policies seek to influence, some tools would be more
or less adapted. According to their motivations, people would be more ready to change their
behaviors with specific individual or mixes of instruments. This marketing perspective of
public policy suggests focusing on the study of behavior before implementing the instruments
of public action (Kollmuss et Agyeman, 2002).
With the exception of Ingram and Schneider (1990), traditional approaches did not include
real generic assumptions about behaviors subject public policy even if they seem to be
essential to identify the impact of instruments on the behavior of target groups. Some models
were proposed to understand these impacts that focus on the rationality of behaviors.
1.2 - Models of public policy impact on consumers
Traditionally, marketing researches aim at understanding the impact of marketing
strategies on consumer’s behavior and decision process. From this perspective, public policies
are seen as external constraints or opportunities. However, although profit orientation of a
company differs from political authorities objectives, their actions contribute jointly to impact
the consumer's decision process (Prakash, 2002; Hastings, 2003).
A simplified model based on which market research suggests that public policy creates
a set of rules which impact the behaviors of companies. These latter integrate these rules into
their production and their promotion policy, which in turn impact the consumer (Burger et
Venkatesh, 1982). Thus, there is a feedback loop between consumers, companies and
governments that corresponds to the four stages of the initial model for the impact of public
policies on consumers (Figure 1). For example, regarding the use of seat belts, the
government is trying to force consumers to use these belts. The public policy measures are
thus passed on to consumers, especially through the mass media (1). Consumer reactions in
terms of claims and types of communication are transmitted to the Government (2). It may
modify its original intentions before implementing a set of rules that will target companies
(3). They will then adapt their strategies. For example, they may consider making automatic
seat belts in vehicles, which will ensure the final adoption of desired behavior (4).
Figure 1: intial paradigm public policy-consumer (Source: Burger & Venkatesh 1982)
5
2
Public policies
3
Companies
Consumers
4
1
This initial
paradigm suits to regulatory and
fiscal approaches that
aim
to
ensure the
conformation of companies and consumer (Scholz, 1998; Frey et Jegen, 2001a; Braithwaite
et al., 2007). Very parsimonious, this model could be deepened by studying the impact of
public policies on consumer decision making process.
A more complex model than the initial model is based on circular flows driven by public
policy. Through these instruments, government seeks to have an impact on the cognitive
structure of
consumers. These instruments affect the
attitudes
and beliefs of
consumers
and, thereby, their purchasing behavior (Figure 2).
Figure 2: Emergent paradigm public policy-consumer
Logic of
Public
policies
Behavior
impact
1
of public
2
Attitude
of
of
consumers
3
consumers
policies
4
4
Segments
Indicators of
5
demand
The segmentation of this model shows that different groups of consumers adopt different
behaviors according to the segment they belong to. Then, the consumer’s response can be
integrated as an indicator which will then be evaluated and integrated with the following
6
policy. This type of survey is also frequently used to design of public policies (Hastak et al.,
2001). Thus the model can be seen as a stimulus-response model where governments send
stimuli to consumer segments over a period of time. Such studies, however, can’t be achieved
prior to the implementation of all public policies designed to influence consumer behavior.
Decisions regarding the choice of alternative instruments are based more often on
assumptions and intuitions on consumer behavior. The assumptions on which they are based
are the model of rational choice of the consumer who is also the basis of the instruments used
by public policies (Jackson, 2005; A.P.S.C., 2007).
However, for pro environmental behaviors, rational determinants are not sufficient to explain
the complexity of these behaviors. Thus, the study of environmental policy tools by
environmental psychologists focused on environmental significant behaviors with a deeper
understanding of their impacts. Their purpose is to deepen the understanding of the impact of
different instruments on consumer behavior that has a significant environmental impact. It
integrates the rational behavior but also extends to other approaches, including normative and
affective determinants.
Section 2. The effects of environmental policy
tools on environmental significant behavior
Other classifications have suggested classifying these instruments as functions of behavioral
objectives they seek in order to reduce environmental impacts of behaviors. These
parsimonious approaches developed in social psychology have proposed typologies of
instruments adapted to significant environmental behavior. They focus on the impact of
instrument categories based on criteria related to psychosocial determinants of these
behaviors. They enable and expand the instrumental approaches which were based almost
exclusively
on
behavioral
assumptions
under
7
the
model
of
rational
choice.
2.1 - Parsimonious instruments
environmental behaviors
classifications
for
pro-
A primary distinction has been made between incentives / disincentives ("pull" /
"push") (Geller, 2002). The incentive to engage in behaviors associated with low CO2
emissions ("pull") is opposed to the penalization of behaviors associated with high emissions
of CO2 ("push"). To influence the behavior of choosing a mode of transport, the instruments
“push” will aim to increase fuel prices, to develop urban tolls, to communicate on the
consequences of the bad behavior of transport, while the instruments “pull” propose
alternatives to the behavior with high carbon impact with public transport improvements or
grants for “good” behavior "clean". This distinction "push" / "pull" focuses on the effects of
incentives or disincentives without making a distinction between the resources of
governmental tools.
There can also be instruments that address efficiency or "curtailment" behaviors (Gardner et
Stern, 2002). Thus, compared to the behavior of buying a car with low carbon emissions, we
will distinguish efficiency measures designed to amend the purchasing behavior (tax or
subsidy on purchase of a vehicle according to its polluting) and measures designed to amend
parsimonious use of the vehicle in a more environmentally friendly (congestion charges, fuel
taxes, ...). So while all these are examples of economic incentives and disincentives, they will
be classified in two categories of instruments depending on the type of behavior they seek to
influence. These behavioral approaches help to define the objectives of the instruments and
the impact they have on psychological determinants of behavior.
2.2 - The motivational instruments of environmental public
policies
One of the first typologies of methods of intervention in environmental matters has
been proposed by Geller (Geller et al., 1990). There are three types of approaches to effective
change in behavior: a process of communication / education, antecedents’ activators and an
approach focusing on the consequences of adopting the behavior. Within these three
categories, twenty-four sub-categories correspond to specific strategies of interventions to
influence behavior change. This distinction between antecedent/consequence instruments is
very similar to the distinction between informational /structural tools (Messick et Brewer,
1983) or psychological/structural tools (Vlek, 1996). All these classifications aim to
8
distinguish a first category of instruments that seek to influence the attitudes and intrinsic
motivation (informational, psychological, background). The second category of instruments
focuses on extrinsic motivations which are external to the final behavior (structural,
consequence).Regulatory and economic instruments are
generally in the second
category. However, a communication campaign designed to inform citizens of the
establishment of a subsidy for the purchase of energy efficient appliances can also be seen as
an instrument of this second category. Indeed, this instrument does not intend to alter the
intrinsic motivation but rather plays the role of an external element which would change the
plan to adopt the behavior.
Finally, most of classifications of motivation based instruments can be grouped into two
categories whether they intend to act on intrinsic or extrinsic motivations (Frey, 1999). This
distinction in the first category includes instruments identified in the categories of
backgrounds, informational and predisposition. In the second category, it includes instruments
categories of consequences, and structural capacity. This distinction has been particularly
relevant to understand the support of consumers to environmental policy to the purchase of
low carbon emissions vehicles (Coad et al., 2009).
Hornik used these categories of instruments that were designed to encourage or facilitate the
adoption of recycling behavior (Hornik et al., 1995). He proposed four categories of
instruments, distinguishing the location and types of effects caused by the instruments of
public action (Table 1).
Table 1: Four classes of variables used in recycling studies (Source: (Hornik
9
et al., 1995)
More accurate classifications have attempted to distinguish the instruments according
to
their specific
effects
on psychosocial determinants
of
behavior.
Green
and
Kreuter have identified three categories of factors that affect differently the behavior in
a "PRECEDE-PROCEED " model (Green et Kreuter, 1999). Predisposing factors are the
internal history of behavior. While capacity factors are the antecedents of external behavior.
Last category of reinforcing factors focuses on the consequences of the action with positive or
negative feedback, as well as support post-action. Based on these three categories, the effects
of instruments (judicial, economic, communicative and physical) have been evaluated
for their impact on psycho sociological determinants of behaviors (Table 2). More precisely,
this study assessed the degree of impact of different kind of instruments on these three major
categories of factors that are determinants for behavior (Egmond et al., 2006).
10
Table 2: Instruments table : instruments and determinants of behaviors (Source : (Egmond et al., 2005)
The categorization proposed by Egmond helps to understand the effects produced by the
instruments on the determinants of behavior. Indeed, it provides a theoretical basis for
selecting the instruments according to the objectives sought by public policies to impact
behaviors.
11
The conceptual model of the impact of instruments of public action on pro-environmental
behavior should incorporate this distinction. Thus, it permits to analyze the impact of attitude
toward these two categories of instruments on the main determinants of behavior.
Models of impact: the instruments of
public policies on psychosocial
determinants of environmental significant
behavior
Section 3.
Researchers showed that the psychological instruments act on the psychosocial
determinants of attitude, while the structural instruments directly affect behavior.
Thus, political and administrative authorities must have at their disposal these conceptual
frameworks in order to compare the effects of different types of instruments. These
approaches, focused on the effects of instruments can be connected to the logic of
performance of public policies which is characterized by a reflection on their goals, their
resources and their effects. Indeed, “meso" performance of public policy mostly depends on
the effects generated by the instruments on behaviors and their determinants (Bouckaert et
Halligan, 2008). Thus, these effects are found directly related to the conduct engaged in by
citizens, whether in the public sphere (behaviors citizens waste segregation, recycling) or in
the private sphere (consumer behavior) (Stern, 2000).
This dependence of the effectiveness of public policy with behaviors it logically led to the
development of social marketing approaches in the public sector which combine the logic of
instrumental impact while taking into account the determinants of behavior (Kotler et Levy,
1969; Andreasen, 1993). These social marketing approaches should be deepened with a focus
on the specificity of public policy instruments and their impacts on individual decision
process (De Groot, 2008).
12
3.1 - Conceptual frameworks for the impact of contextual
public policies on psycho sociological determinants
Three main approaches combine the impact of instruments on the decision process of
individuals. They are particularly interested in their impact on intrinsic motivation. They are
also interested in models of decision making that can be tested to understand how the impact
can occur. These approaches proposed to focus on the process of motivations that depends on
the degree of autonomy or control related to intrinsic or extrinsic motivations found in the
theory of self-determination (Ryan et Deci, 2000). The extrinsic motivation can be defined as
"external motivations to the person" while intrinsic motivations are the "internal motivations
of the person" ((Frey et Jegen, 2001b). p.591). Specifically, “when a person is intrinsically
motivated to perform an activity, then it receives no apparent reward except the activity itself”
(Deci, 1971). p.105). This distinction has clarified the location of effects of instruments
(internal and external), and also the type of effect considered: incentive or facilitator (Hornik
and al., 1995). These approaches combine internal motivational factors (intrinsic) and
motivational factors external (extrinsic). Thus, they seem relevant in the context of improving
the understanding of the impact of policy instruments that seek to influence these two types of
motivations (Moller et al., 2006; Coad et al., 2009). The interaction between the personal
motivational variables and situational background variables must be considered as levels of
individual motivation which are impacted by weak or strong contextual variables facilitating
or inhibiting pro-environmental behavior (Corraliza et Berenguer, 2000).
3.1.1 -
Model of intrinsic/extrinsic motivations
Recently, an integrated approach to the impact of the instruments of public action on
the intrinsic and extrinsic motivation has been proposed (Étienne, 2010). It relies on the
distinction between these two types of motivations that may be impacted differently by the
instruments of public action (Figure 3).
13
Figure 3: The model of impact of public policies on motivations of behaviors (Adapted from Etienne, 2010,
p.511)
Crowding-in
Effect
Intrinsic
Motivation
Crowding-out
Instruments of
Effect
Behavior
public policies
Price Effect
Extrinsic
Motivation
In traditional economic logic, extrinsic rewards related to the “price effect” are supposed to
control the behavior. Thus, if intrinsic motivations are not sufficient to promote the adoption
of behavior, they must be complemented by financial incentives and / or legal instruments
from public policies (Coad et al., 2009). These rewards should increase the likelihood that the
behavior is adopted. However, this effect lasts until the reward was associated with the
behavior in question and declined when they disappeared (Deci et al., 1999). It helps to
explain the short-term effectiveness of economic instruments which do not really promote
long term changes in behavior.
However, other psychological studies have also shown that these extrinsic motivations may
have a negative effect on intrinsic motivation. Indeed, they might modify the level of
motivation and the locus of control for individuals. Thus, an individual intrinsically motivated
to perform an action could see his intrinsic motivation decrease due to a phase in which an
external motivation has stimulated the realization of this action (Festinger, 1967; De Charms
et Decharms, 1968). The experimental methods used to study the relationship between these
two types of motivations have sometimes equivocal results (Deci, 1971). They suggest new
perspectives for the assumed linear causal relationship between financial extrinsic
14
motivations, frequently used as instruments of public policy and the sustainable adoption of
certain behaviors covered by the policy.
3.1.2 -
The
combined
effect
of contextual
factors
and psychosocial determinants: the ABC model
Guagnano and Stern were the first to emphasize the need to study the interaction
between contextual factors and psychosocial factors in understanding behavior. They have
proposed an ABC model that integrates these different dimensions (Guagnano et al., 1995;
Stern, 2000). In this model, behavior is the consequence of interactions between
internal (attitudes,
norms, susceptibility ...) and
external
factors (social, financial
incentives, legal or institutional barriers, etc.).
The causal relationship between attitudes and behavior can be influenced by the
strength of these contextual factors. These two factors draw a two-dimensional space in
which the adoption of a pro-environmental behavior can be explained (Figure 4). In this
space,
negative
attitudes in
a
supportive
environment can
induce the desired
behavior (upper quadrant Southeast). Conversely, positive attitudes in a context too may
inhibit negative behavior
(lower
implications are many because
it
part of
implies
the
that the
dial Northwest). The
policy
effectiveness of psychological
instruments to influence the attitudes and behavior depends on the strength of these external
factors (Stern, 1999). In this view, structural instruments are contextual factors with degrees
of effectiveness will also depend on internal attitudes of each individuals. Thus, their impact
will therefore be perceived differently depending on pre-existing attitudes.
15
Figure 4: ABC model (Guagnano et al., 1995; Stern, 2000) (adapted from (Boulanger et Lussis, 2005)
Attitudes
Positive
Attitudes
positives
Negative
Conditions
externes
external
négatives
conditions
Positive
external
conditions
Attitudes
Negative
négatives
Attitudes
The contribution of the ABC model in understanding the impact of the instruments of
public action is essential. Indeed, it provides a framework to explain disconnections identified
in the effectiveness of public policies. The impacts of instruments will depend on factors that
are not necessarily controlled by the causal logic of public action: different attitudes, different
perceptions of psychological and structural instruments. Therefore, their impact on the
relationship between these attitudes and behaviors may vary around effects that are more or
less direct or indirect mediators or moderators (Thogersen et Olander, 2004; Steg et Vlek,
2009).
3.1.3 -
The
moderating
effect of
contextual
factors on
behavior:
MOA
model
("Motivation-Opportunity-ability model: MOA)
was
proposed
by Olander and Thogersen. It focused on the moderating effect of external factors that can
facilitate the adoption of behaviors (Ölander & Thogersen, 1995). This model is a
combination of the theory of planned behavior and the theory of interpersonal behavior that
underlie the motivation to behavior.
The overall
opportunities in
motivation is moderated
a model
by variables internal capacity and external
of motivation-opportunity-ability (Figure
5). These are external
opportunities including the impact of moderator instruments of public action. Empirical
evidence from the model helped to measure the effect of free temporary free travel card on the
16
behavior of public transportation use (Thogersen, 2009). In this experimental research, the
moderating effect of the economic instrument was shown on the variable of intention to act.
Figure 5: Motivation-Opportunity-Ability Model (source: Ollander et Thogersen, 1995, adapted from
Egmond et Bruel, 2007)
MOA model has also been adapted to consumer behavior based on societal factors and
needs ("Needs") and not on the motivations. This NOA model ("needs-opportunitiesabilities: NOA) has made it possible to study pro-environmental behavior of households
from five
categories
of needs
identified:
housing, personal
hygiene, food
and food
preparation, leisure and transport (Gatersleben & Vlek, 1998). This approach is particularly
relevant because it takes into account the fact that most consumer behavior that
have an environmental impact are also behaviors that affect the quality of life of individuals.
Following, this moderating effect of public policies’ instruments on consumer decision
process,
Triandis’ model
of
interpersonal
behaviors
also
includes facilitating
conditions as moderating variables between the intention to act and behavior (Triandis, 1977)
(Figure 6). The impact of these instruments is very similar to that proposed by the MOA
model (Egmond et Bruel, 2007). This model is also very relevant for explaining proenvironmental behaviors because it includes not only rational, but also social, affective
motivations, as well as habits which are the main determinants of pro environmental
behaviors (Stern, 2000; Steg & Vlek, 2009).
17
Figure 6: Model of inter-personal behavior (source: Triandis 1977), adapted from Egmond et Bruel, 2007]
These conceptual frameworks for the impact of public policy on decision process
mainly focus on the internal determinants of behaviors. Few studies intend to suggest a
conceptual framework that includes the specific effects of public policy tools on this decision
process.
3.2 - Model of impact: attitude towards public
policies instruments on individual decision
process
Environmental public policy tools aim to impact consumer behavior. Nevertheless, the
causal relationship system between the implementation of a public policy and behavior is full
of disconnections. Thus, it should be deepen with the combined analysis of public policies
and consumer decision process. Indeed, this latter also depends on others psychosocial
determinants towards behavior and other contextual forces. The impact of public policy tools
need to be distinguished among them. A study on the French environmental public policy
aimed at acquiring low-carbon emission cars focuses on understanding the impact of public
policy tools on consumer buying decision process (Alaux, 2011). Indeed, the attitude towards
public policy tools affects consumer decision process. It results that the impact is not so direct
but it moderates the relationship between the main determinants of behavior (Figure 7). These
moderation effects depend on the psychological or structural nature of the public policy tools
18
which impacts specific relationships of the consumer decision process. In the environmental
public policy that was studied, some instruments were related to psychological dimension
(communication campaign, eco labeling information) and some were related to structural
dimension (subsidy/tax according to the level of CO2 emissions, subsidy for substituting an
old car with a new low carbon emission car).
The impact of the instruments on the behavior and psychosocial determinants of such
behavior aims to understand how the attitude towards instruments can impact the process of
adopting a target behavior by public policy. By focusing on these contextual factors (the
instruments used by public policy), the results show the moderating impact of environmental
public policy tools on the psychosocial factors of behavior: beliefs, attitude, personal norms,
habits and intention to act, as well as the mediating effect of attitude in the relationship
between environmental personal norms and the intention to buy a low carbon emission cars.
Figure 7: Model of attitude towards public policy tools and consumer decision process (Source: Alaux, 2011)
Attitude towards governmental
ecological communication
campaign
Attitude towards
Attitude towards
subsidy/tax
subsidy
(ecological
(substitution of an
bonus/malus)
old car)
Environmental
personal norms
-
-
-
Intention to
Buying
buy
behavior
Beliefs
associated to
the
Attitude towards
buying behavior
characteristics
Buying habits
of the produst
19
Conclusion
According to Steg and Vlek, the study of the impact of the instruments of public action
on behavior offers four alternatives (Steg and Vlek, 2009).
The first suggest analyzing the direct impact of the instruments of public action on the
motivations leading to the adoption of behavior for the target behavior.
A second alternative proposes to consider that the psychosocial factors have a mediating role
in the impact that the instruments have on behavior (Etienne Model, NOA model).
A third alternative considers that the contextual factors of the instruments of public action
have a moderating effect on the relationship between intention to adopt the behavior and
actual behavior (Triandis model, MOA model).
The final alternative considers the moderating effect of contextual factors which are perceived
as an independent predictor that interacts with factors of attitudes to determine the likelihood
of adopting a target behavior (ABC model, Alaux Model,). This approach helps to consider
the broader impacts of public policy tools on the overall relationship of the decision process.
These four alternatives hold as a framework for analysis of internal and external
motivational factors such as the instruments of public action on behaviors. The accuracy of
these frameworks depend s on the nature of behavior, as well as the cultural context of public
policy. They should be adapted to focus on the comprehension of different public policies
instruments on individual decision process leading to the adoption of behavior that are
targeted by public policies. Thus, it could improve the effectiveness of public policies
performance with the use of consumer behavior and marketing knowledge in public sector.
20
References
A.P.S.C., 2007. Changing behaviour: a public policy perspective. Australian Public Service
commission.
Alaux C. 2011, The impact of environmental public policies tools on consumer decision
process: the buying of low carbon emission cars, Phd/Doctorate in sciences of
management, University of Aix-Marseille III, IMPGT.
Andreasen, A.R., 1993. A social marketing research agenda for consumer behavior
researchers. Advances in consumer research 20, 1.
Bouckaert, G., Halligan, J., 2008. Managing performance: international comparisons.
Routledge.
Boulanger, P.-M., Lussis, B., 2005. LES BARRIERES INTERNES A L’EFFICACITE
ENERGETIQUE :L’APPORT DE LA PSYCHOLOGIE SOCIALE.
Braithwaite, V., Murphy, K., Reinhart, M., 2007. Taxation threat, motivational postures, and
responsive regulation. Law & Policy 29, 137–158.
Bureau, D., 2005. Economie des instruments de protection de l’environnement. Revue
Française d’Économie 19, 83–110.
Burger, P.C., Venkatesh, A., 1982. FCC policy on CB radio: Impact on consumer decision
making. Telecommunications Policy 6, 62-66.
Butler, P., Collins, N., 1995. Marketing public sector services: concepts and characteristics.
Journal of Marketing Management 11, 83–96.
De Charms, R., Decharms, R., 1968. Personal causation. Academic Press New York.
Coad, A., De Haan, P., Woersdorfer, J.S., 2009. Consumer support for environmental
policies: an application to purchases of green cars. Ecological Economics 68, 2078–
2086.
Collins, J., Thomas, G., Willis, R., Wilsdon, J., 2003. Carrots, sticks and sermons: influencing
public behaviour for environmental goals. Demos/Green Alliance Report for DEFRA
(London: Demos, 2003).
Corraliza, J.A., Berenguer, J., 2000. Environmental values, beliefs, and actions: A situational
approach. Environment and Behavior 32, 832.
Deci, E.L., 1971. Effects of externally mediated rewards on intrinsic motivation. Journal of
personality and Social Psychology 18, 105–115.
Deci, E.L., Koestner, R., Ryan, R.M., 1999. A meta-analytic review of experiments
examining the effects of extrinsic rewards on intrinsic motivation. Psychological
bulletin 125, 627–668.
Egmond, C., Bruel, R., 2007. Nothing is as practical as a good theory.
Egmond, C., Jonkers, R., Kok, G., 2005. A strategy to encourage housing associations to
invest in energy conservation. Energy policy 33, 2374–2384.
Egmond, C., Jonkers, R., Kok, G., 2006. One size fits all? Policy instruments should fit the
segments of target groups. Energy Policy 34, 3464–3474.
Étienne, J., 2010. La conformation des gouvernes. Revue française de science politique 60,
493–517.
Festinger, L., 1967. The effect of compensation on cognitive processes, dans: McKinsey
Foundation Conference on Managerial Compensation, Tarrytown, New York.
Frey, B.S., 1999. Morality and rationality in environmental policy. Journal of Consumer
Policy 22, 395–417.
Frey, B.S., Jegen, R., 2001a. Motivational interactions: Effects on behaviour. Annales
d’Economie et de Statistique 131–153.
21
Frey, B.S., Jegen, R., 2001b. Motivation crowding theory. Journal of Economic Surveys 15,
589–611.
Gardner, G.T., Stern, P.C., 2002. Environmental Problems and Human Behavior, 2e ed.
Pearson Custom Publishing.
Gatersleben, B., Vlek, C., 1998. Household consumption, quality of life, and environmental
impacts: a psychological perspective and empirical study, dans: Noorman, K.J.,
Uiterkamp, T.S. (Éd.), Green Households? Domestic Consumers, Environment, and
Sustainability. p. 141-183.
Geller, E.S., Berry, T.D., Ludwig, T.D., Evans, R.E., Gilmore, M.R., Clarke, S.W., 1990. A
conceptual framework for developing and evaluating behavior change interventions
for injury control. Health Education Research 5, 125.
Geller, E.S., 2002. The challenge of increasing pro environmental behavior, dans: Handbook
of environmental psychology. R. B. Bechtel, & A. Churchman, p. 541–553.
Graham, P., 1994. Marketing in the public sector: Inappropriate or merely difficult? Journal of
Marketing Management 10, 361–375.
Green, L.W., Kreuter, M.W., 1999. Health promotion planning: an educational and ecological
approach. Mayfield Pub. Co.
De Groot, J.I.M., 2008. Mean or green? Value orientations, morality and prosocial behaviour.
Guagnano, G.A., Stern, P.C., Dietz, T., 1995. Influences on attitude-behavior relationships: A
natural experiment with curbside recycling. Environment and behavior 27, 699.
Hastak, M., Mazis, M.B., Morris, L.A., 2001. The role of consumer surveys in public policy
decision making. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing 20, 170–185.
Hastings, G., 2003. Competition in social marketing. Social Marketing Quarterly 9, 6–10.
Hood, C., 1983. The tools of government. Macmillan.
Hornik, J., Cherian, J., Madansky, M., Narayana, C., 1995. Determinants of recycling
behavior: A synthesis of research results. The Journal of Socio-Economics 24, 105–
127.
Ingram, H., Schneider, A., 1990. Behavioral Assumptions of Policy Tools. Journal of Politics
52, 510–29.
Jackson, T., 2005. Motivating Sustainable Consumption: a review of evidence on consumer
behaviour and behavioural change. Centre for Environmental Strategy: University of
Surrey.
Jacoby, J., Chestnut, R.W., Silberman, W., 1977. Consumer Use and Comprehension of
Nutrition Information. The Journal of Consumer Research 4, 119-128.
Kaplan, A.M., Haenlein, M., 2009. The increasing importance of public marketing:
Explanations, applications and limits of marketing within public administration.
European Management Journal 27, 197–212.
Kollmuss, A., Agyeman, J., 2002. Mind the gap: why do people act environmentally and what
are the barriers to pro-environmental behavior? Environmental Education Research 8,
239–260.
Kotler, P., Levy, S.J., 1969. Broadening the Concept of Marketing. The Journal of Marketing
33, 10-15.
Larrue, C., 2000. Analyser les politiques publiques d’environnement. Harmattan.
Messick, D.M., Brewer, M.B., 1983. Solving social dilemmas. Review of personality and
social psychology 4, 11–44.
Moller, A.C., Ryan, R.M., Deci, E.L., 2006. Self-Determination Theory and Public Policy:
Improving the Quality of Consumer Decisions Without Using Coercion. Journal of
Public Policy & Marketing 25, 104-116.
Ölander, F., Thogersen, J., 1995. Understanding of consumer behaviour as a prerequisite for
environmental protection. Journal of Consumer Policy 18, 345–385.
22
Perret, S., 2006. L’acceptabilité des instruments économiques dans le domaine de la politique
climatique en Suisse Résultats préliminaires.
Prakash, A., 2002. Green marketing, public policy and managerial strategies. Bus. Strat. Env.
11, 285-297.
Ryan, R.M., Deci, E.L., 2000. Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivations: Classic Definitions and
New Directions* 1. Contemporary educational psychology 25, 54–67.
Scharpf, F.W., 1999. Governing in Europe: effective and democratic? Oxford University
Press.
Schneider, A.L., Ingram, H., 1993. Social construction of target populations: Implications for
politics and policy. American Political Science Review 87, 334–347.
Scholz, J.T., 1998. Trust, taxes and compliance. Trust and governance 135–166.
Steg, L., Vlek, C., 2009. Encouraging pro-environmental behaviour: An integrative review
and research agenda. Journal of Environmental Psychology 29, 309–317.
Stern, P.C., 1999. Information, incentives, and proenvironmental consumer behavior. Journal
of Consumer Policy 22, 461–478.
Stern, P.C., 2000. New Environmental Theories: Toward a Coherent Theory of
Environmentally Significant Behavior. Journal of Social Issues 56, 407-424.
Thogersen, J., 2009. Promoting public transport as a subscription service: Effects of a free
month travel card. Transport Policy 16, 335–343.
Thogersen, J., Olander, C.F., 2004. The ABC of recycling. Imprint 2004, 06–15.
Triandis, H.C., 1977. Interpersonal behavior. Brooks/Cole Pub. Co.
Varone, F., 2001. Les instruments de la politique énergétique: analyse comparée du Canada et
des États-Unis. Canadian Journal of Political Science/Revue canadienne de science
politique 34, 3–28.
Vedung, E., 1999. Constructing effective Government information campaigns for energy
conservation and sustainability: Lessons from Sweden. International Planning Studies
4, 237–251.
Verrier, P.-É., Santo, V.-M., sais-je?, Q., 1997. Le Management public. Presses Universitaires
de France - PUF.
Vlek, C.A.J., 1996. Collective risk generation and risk management: the unexploited potential
of the social dilemma paradigm., dans: Frontiers in Social Dilemma Research.
Liebrand, W.B.G., Messick, D.M. (Eds.), p. 11–38.
Walsh, K., 1994. Marketing and public sector management. European Journal of Marketing
28, 63–71.
Wilkie, W.L., Gardner, D.M., 1974. The role of marketing research in public policy decision
making. The Journal of Marketing 38–47.
23