Proscription and its impact on anti-consumption behaviour and attitudes: the case of plastic bags

Journal of Consumer BehaviourJ. Consumer Behav. 9: 470–484 (2010)

(wileyonlinelibrary.com) DOI: 10.1002/cb.335
Published online in Wiley Online Library
Proscription and its impact onanti-consumption behaviour andattitudes: the case of plastic bagsAnne Sharp*, Stine Høj and Meagan WheelerEhrenberg-Bass Institute for Marketing Science, University of South Australia, GPO Box 2471,

Adelaide, Australia

� T

*CorInstitraliaE-ma

Cop

his paper empirically examines whether proscription of a habitual consumption item

can act as a mechanism to develop anti-consumption behaviour and attitudes. The paper

tracks a legislated retail ban on single-use polyethylene plastic bags, analysing 1167

interviews with shoppers before the ban’s announcement, during a 4-month phasing-out

period (and demarketing campaign), and when the ban was in full effect. Two hundred

and fifty three interviews are repeated with the same individuals to allow identification of

individual-level attitudinal and behavioural change.

A
nti-consumption is typically conceptualised as a phenomenon based on choice. This
research investigates how shoppers react when forced into anti-consumption behaviour,

and how supportive voluntary anti-consumers are of others being made to change.

G
rouping shoppers according to their level of voluntary anti-consumption of plastic bags
before the ban, the analysis finds that shoppers who voluntarily showed anti-consumption

behaviour were the only group showing any voluntary shift in anti-consumption

behaviours during the phasing-out period. These shoppers are supportive of forcing

others to show anti-consumption, while the level of behavioural and attitudinal resistance

from shoppers that showed little or no voluntary anti-consumption is low. These findings

support the use of proscription to achieve anti-consumption behaviours, however,

proscription does not necessarily engender full anti-consumption attitudes.

T
his study adds to knowledge on anti-consumption and shopper resistance to proscriptive
interventions designed to reduce socially undesirable behaviours. It provides further

evidence that demarketing campaigns, without accompanying negative reinforcers, may

be insufficient to achieve widespread behavioural change alone.

Copyright # 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

respondence to: Dr Anne Sharp, Ehrenberg-Basstute for Marketing Science, University of South Aus-, GPO Box 2471, Adelaide, Australia.il: [email protected]

yright # 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J

Introduction

Grocery shopping is a low-involvement, habit-ual activity (Winter and Rossiter, 1989;McDonald and Ehrenberg, 2002) with theuse of free, single-use plastic bags to packand transport purchased goods being an

ournal of Consumer Behaviour, Nov.–Dec. 2010

DOI: 10.1002/cb

Case of plastic bags proscription and anti-consumption 471

entrenched shopper behaviour since the early1980s. Plastic bags have such common usagemainly because they are strong and convenient(Hayabuchi et al., 2005). Globally, betweenfour and five trillion plastic bags are producedeach year (Ellis et al., 2005). In Australia alone,6.9 billion new plastic bags are consumedannually, with only 3 per cent of these bagsbeing recycled and up to 80 million becominglitter (Smith, 2004; Wan, 2007). Plastic bagsfrom supermarkets now account for over halfof all the new plastic bags used in Australia(Smith, 2004), with an estimated average usagerate of 10 bags per week, per shopper (Jamesand Grant, 2006). This makes the retail contextan obvious starting point for interventions toreduce plastic bag usage, and in 2009 the stateof South Australia banned single-use polyethy-lene plastic bags altogether from the retailenvironment. The ban was preceded by a 4-month phasing-out period, used to run asignificant demarketing campaign educatingretailers about the impending ban and encoura-ging shoppers to adopt the new behaviour oftaking their own shopping bags. During thisphasing-out period retailers could still providefree plastic bags, but they also had to offer paid-for alternatives such as compostable plasticbags and ‘green’ bags designed for multipleuse. On 4 May 2009, the ban came into fulleffect and free single-use plastic bags could nolonger be offered, with shoppers having to payfor any store-provided bags if they forgot tobring their own.

Rarely have anti-consumption interventionsbeen so proscriptive, particularly on such awide scale. Efforts to reduce consumption todate have more typically been concentrated onenvironmental taxes in the areas of air, water,energy and waste (Convery et al., 2007). Thisleaves a gap in the literature as to howshoppers will respond to a proscription toachieve anti-consumption outcomes. Yet thegreatest impact in addressing environmentalproblems usually requires large-scale and long-term changes in people’s behaviours, oftenmeaning intervention at a public policy level(Geller, 1989). This paper goes some waytowards addressing this gap.

Copyright # 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J

Prior to the ban, shoppers could exhibitthree types of shopping bag behaviour. Someshowed full voluntary anti-consumption beha-viour, taking their own bags shopping. Othersshowed partial anti-consumption behaviour,inconsistently taking their own bags andrelying at least partially on store-providedbags. The remainder showed no anti-consump-tion behaviour and were completely reliant onstore-provided bags. This paper examines theattitudes and behaviours of shoppers acrossthe spectrum of pre-ban behaviours, as theproscription came into effect. Prior researchon plastic bags is reviewed, illustrating thecase for why they are becoming a focusfor intervention strategies. Anti-consumption,resistance, and demarketing literature isemployed as background from which tounderstand the behavoural and attitudinalresponses that might be seen in response toa proscription in this context.

Anti-consumption is conceptualised as aconsumer-based phenomenon and one basedon choice (Cherrier, 2008). A key contributionof this research is to examine if anti-consump-tion can be forced at a category-wide level. Theresearch explores new territory through provid-ing insight not only into how shoppers reactwhen forced into anti-consumption behaviour,but also how supportive voluntary anti-consu-mers are of others being made to change.

The proscription on plastic bags

In 2006, the state of South Australia took thedecision to ban altogether, from the retailenvironment, single-use polyethylene plasticbags with handles, less than 35 microns thick.The ban applied to all retailers and take-awayfood outlets and, once implemented, therewere on-the-spot fines for retailers of $AU315for breach of these regulations. South Australiawas the first, and still is the only, Australianstate to impose a proscription. It was estimatedthat there would be almost 400 million fewerplastic bags per year in South Australia as aresult of this ban (Zero Waste SA, 2008b).

Compostable plastic bags that meet theAustralian Standard AS 4736–2006, barrier


DOI: 10.1002/cb

472 Anne Sharp et al.

bags, paper bags, boutique-style bags and bagsdesigned for multiple use such as ‘green bags’can all be offered under the ban. These bags aretypically charged to the consumer. Compo-stable bags start at around five cents and greenbags cost up to around three dollars. Under theban, a shopper can show anti-consumptionbehaviour by taking his or her own bagsshopping. If they do not take their own bags,they can show a willingness to be compliant inthe future through investing in ‘green’ reusablebags; or alternatively they can treat the banmore as a levy by paying for single-use plasticbags – but ones that are compostable.

The proscription occurred in stages. On 1January 2009, a 4-month phasing-out periodbegan, with the complete ban coming intoeffect on 4 May 2009. During the phasing-outperiod, retailers had to offer alternative bagsfor purchase so that shoppers had a choice toavoid the banned plastic bags if they wereusing store-supplied bags. During these4 months Zero Waste SA, the governmentagency charged with implementing the ban,ran a significant demarketing campaign. Thecampaign required retailers to display signs atevery register reminding consumers aboutthe ban. An official retailer kit was sent tobusinesses, and a telephone hotline andwebsite established. Additionally, a shoppercampaign raised awareness of and reasons forthe ban and reminded shoppers to take theirown bags shopping. The shopper campaignran across press, radio, television and outdoor,with an overall budget in the vicinity of$AU800 000.

Prior research on plastic bags

Low recycling and reusage rates plague allrecyclable plastics, but plastic bags in particu-lar (Spokas, 2008). Plastic bags are producedfrom non-renewable resources such aspetroleum, ethylene and coal (EnvironmentProtection and Heritage Council, 2002; Wan,2008). ‘Green bags’ require about four and ahalf times less energy to produce and havethree times less impact on greenhouse gasemissions. Even compostable bags consume


less than one-third of the energy of polyethy-lene plastic bags to decompose (Zero WasteSA, 2008a).

Voluntary anti-consumption behaviour ofstore-provided plastic bags is low, withHayabuchi et al. (2005) observing, at best, a25 per cent level of voluntary shopper refusalto take store-provided bags. But given thestrong rationale for their reduced usage, a widerange of tactics has been adopted internation-ally to discourage consumption. Ireland,China, New Zealand, Italy, Hong Kong, India,Bangladesh, Taiwan and Rwanda are amongcountries that have been at least partiallysuccessful in reducing consumption of plasticbags through plastic bag taxes, minimumthickness rules, demarketing, outright bans,encouraging retailers to charge for plastic bagsand educating consumers to use alternativessuch as ‘green’ bags (Clean Up the World,2007).

Despite the increased focus in this area,surprisingly little academic research has beenconducted to evaluate the effects of suchpolicies. The 2002 introduction of a 15 euro-cent tax in Ireland is one of the fewinvestigated, examining the levy from aneconomic perspective (Convery et al., 2007).While the levy was shown to be effective interms of actual reduced usage of bags, theevaluation focus was the impact on retailers.While acknowledging the restricted nature oftheir shopper sample, the authors draw the keyconclusions that respondents were very muchin favour of the levy – virtually all indicatedthey felt its impact on the environment waspositive. However, these issues were notexamined based on the whether the respon-dents were or were not engaged in theconsumption of plastic bags prior to the levy,and the level of voluntary anti-consumptionwas not reported.

Other work by Cherrier (2006) on voluntaryanti-consumption of plastic bags observed thatthere appeared to be no clear gender or agespecific profile for ‘green bag’ shoppers,suggesting that this segment cannot bedistinguished demographically. The author’sexistential phenomenological interviews


DOI: 10.1002/cb


established that these shoppers displayedenvironmental consciousness and that therepetition of taking their own shopping bagshad led to greater reflection on the environ-mental impact of plastic bag consumption.This finding suggests that moral avoidance isthe key driver of anti-consumption behaviourfor plastic bags, because of their ideologicalincompatibility with the individual’s heldbeliefs (Lee et al., 2009). This raises thequestion of whether proscription can beeffective in creating attitudes that are consist-ent with the forced anti-consumption beha-viour that such a move brings.

Clearly there are good reasons to encourageshoppers not to use plastic bags, but achievingthis is a significant challenge given that thebehaviours are entrenched and habitual, andplastic bags are provided free of charge.

Conceptualisation of the study

Anti-consumption

Consumption is a behaviour that generally pro-vides consumers with satisfaction of self-needsand comfort, and assists them in constructingtheir self-identity (Ewen, 1988; Zavestoski,2002; Lee et al., 2009). Anti-consumers are lesslikely than others to use consumption to satisfythese needs (Zavestoski, 2002) and insteadcultivate non-materialistic sources of satisfac-tion and meaning (Etzioni, 1998).

The anti-consumption movement has seenconsiderable advancements in the last fewdecades, fuelled by increasing concerns for theenvironment, over-consumption and extensiveadvertising (Craig-Lees and Hill, 2002). Someanti-consumers downshift or significantlyreduce their overall level of material consump-tion, in return for a simpler life (Etzioni, 1998;Huneke, 2005). Others may only reject certainproduct categories or brands (Iyer and Muncy,2009). Regardless of the extent of the change,one of the main qualities of an anti-consumer isthat they choose to become an anti-consumervoluntarily. Zavestoski (2002) explains anti-consumption as the distaste, resistance orresentment to consumption, suggesting that it


is not merely a behavioural phenomenon butalso an attitudinal one (Cherrier, 2008). Inother words, for consumers to become anti-consumers they need to hold attitudes that arein line with their anti-consumption behaviours(Iyer and Muncy, 2009).

Little is known about how consumers willreact when forced to adopt anti-consumptionbehaviours, even when there may be convin-cing environmental and economic argumentsfor the change. It is unclear whether shoppersforced to cease consumption of plastic bagswill develop attitudes congruent with this newbehaviour, or whether they will simply bebehaviourally compliant.

Furthermore, while it might be expectedthat shoppers voluntarily engaged in anti-consumption prior to the ban will be mostsupportive of its implementation, this is alsounknown. In their study on boycotting,Kozinets and Handelman (1998) describeanti-consumption behaviour as a means tostand out from the crowd; an activity valued forits ability to convey uniqueness and define apersonal morality. It may be that voluntary anti-consumers will disapprove of their chosenbehaviour being forced upon others, deprivingit of its power of self-expression.

There have been pleas to replace ‘armchairtheorising’ with actual research to evaluate theeffect of interventions encouraging anti-consumption, to help policy makers betterunderstand and influence this behaviour(Stern, 1999; Zavestoski, 2002).

The potential for shopper resistance

Resistance is seen as a normal human responseto change (Carrigan et al., 2004). The overtmarketing of a social objective, such as reducingplastic bag usage, gives rise to the opportunityfor consumer resistance (Geller, 1989) with suchactions potentially being viewed as ‘manipula-tive’ or Orwellian (Kotler and Zaltman, 1971). Awidespread forced change in behaviour cancultivate perceptions of domination and causethe most resentment (Stern, 1999; Cherrier,2006; Wall, 2007), particularly when thebehaviour in question is habitual (Carrigan


DOI: 10.1002/cb


et al., 2004). All these aspects are present in theplastic bag ban. The proscription is, therefore,likely to result in some consumer resistance,potentially in the form of voter backlash (Wall,2005), making it vital for policy makers tounderstand the impact.

There is some prior evidence of shopperresistance to plastic bag reduction initiatives,but the findings are limited and mixed. WhileConvery’s (2007) research indicates consumersupport, in New Zealand, a voluntary 5 centretailer levy on plastic bags was reversed just4 weeks after introduction when it met ‘signi-ficant consumer resistance’ (Weekend Herald,2009). Media commentators in Australia, priorto the South Australian ban, reacted negativelytowards it and alluded to expected shopperresistance (e.g. Razer, 2009; Abraham, 2009).

With the ban in effect, the main way shop-pers are behaviourally empowered to showresistance is in their choice to bring their ownbags or to buy from a retailer. They also have asecondary choice in what type of bag they buyfrom a retailer when they do not bring theirown – whether they buy a ‘green bag’, signal-ling an intention to become behaviourallycompliant on subsequent shopping trips, oropt for single-use compostable plastic. Under-standing these choices will give insight intowhether the proscription achieves its anti-consumption aim or whether shoppers are stillopting for plastic, but now just paying for it.Additionally, resistance can be shown attitud-inally through holding attitudes that are not inline with the cessation in behaviour. Thiswould be exhibited as not supporting the banand not feeling it is having any impact. Such alack of moral avoidance underlying observedbehaviours would contrast the findings ofCherrier (2006) and suggest anti-consumption,in the full sense of the word, cannot be created.

Interventions and the role of

demarketing

Demarketing involves using marketing toolssuch as increasing prices, reducing distributionoutlets or stock, educational programs and/orreducing services (Kotler and Levy, 1973) to


help shape and change shopper demand. Theconcept has extended from its original productcontext to include situations where externalagencies, such as government, seek to elimin-ate undesirable consumer demand (Wall, 2005;Wall, 2007; Shiu et al., 2009).

To date, demarketing has been most notablyapplied to public programs in relation tosmoking cessation, reducing binge drinkingand reducing private car usage. Many demar-keting programs have been information inten-sive, often failing to change behaviour (McKen-zie-Mohr, 2000). As such, direct bans onbehaviours have been found to be equally, ifnot more, effective than any mix of demarket-ing measures alone (Wall, 2005).

Nevertheless, in the context of taking ownshopping bags, the importance of continuousenvironmental education campaigns for encour-agement and habituation of new behaviours hasbeen noted (Hayabuchi et al., 2005). The 2009voluntary retailer levy on plastic bags in NewZealand was not accompanied by a demarketingcampaign of any magnitude. Such a programmay have led to different outcomes in terms ofshopper resistance and the decision to reversethe levy. In this respect, it is important tounderstand how demarketing activities arereceived and their impact on developing anti-consumption behaviours and attitudes.

The effectiveness of the demarketing cam-paign in achieving voluntary compliance dur-ing the phasing-out period, when plastic bagsare still supplied free of charge, can identify thespeed at which anti-consumption behaviouris adopted and whether it is achieved withoutthe need for negative reinforcements. Accord-ingly, this research looks at the level ofawareness and advertising recall of the demar-keting campaign, and identifies the level ofshopper resistance (both behavioural andattitudinal) during the phasing-out period.

Data and methods

Research design, respondent selection

and data collection procedures

The first research stage consisted of 510, 12-minute telephone interviews conducted


DOI: 10.1002/cb


before the ban was passed as legislation and4 months before the phasing-out began. Thisstage serves as a benchmark for behaviours andattitudes. The second research stage consistedof 403, 10-minute telephone interviews con-ducted 2 months into the phasing-out period.The data from this stage are used to evaluatethe demarketing campaign and to determinethe level of voluntary compliance with the banin the absence of negative consequences. Thethird stage comprised 502, 14-minute tele-phone interviews, conducted 2 months afterthe ban had come into full effect. This stage isused to examine research questions relating tothe full effect of the ban when negativeconsequences for non-compliance are in effectand also to assess change in behaviour andattitudes over time.

Data were collected using a quality accre-dited, commercial telephone interviewing fieldteam. Respondents were randomly recruitedfrom the electronic White Pages and screenedfor undertaking a minimum of half theirhousehold’s grocery shopping (or being themain household shopper), to ensure that onlyshoppers on whom the ban would have adirect effect were included. All respondentslived in the state of South Australia where theban was implemented. The sample wasrepresentative in terms of the regional andmetropolitan spread of the population. Refusalrates at each stage were at standard telephonefieldwork levels, suggesting that the samplewas a good representation of shoppers and notskewed to voluntary anti-consumers.

Stage 2 interviews were conducted with adifferent sample of randomly chosen respon-dents. For stage 3, the research design had alongitudinal element, with half of the samplefrom stage 1 being re-interviewed at stage 3.This re-interviewing allowed for the identifi-cation of real attitudinal and behaviouralchanges. Non-response bias amongst the re-contacts was unlikely as evidenced by aresponse rate of over 60 per cent in thefollow-up interviews (Gendall, 2000) and bytheir pre-intervention bag usage behaviourprofile matching that of the overall benchmarksample. The other 254 stage 3 interviews were


with a new cohort of randomly recruitedrespondents. Their results were comparedwith the re-interviewed respondents to ensureconditioning was not an issue and to be able toexamine issues of awareness amongst thegeneral shopper population.

Instrument design and analysis

Respondents were asked to generalise abouttheir own behaviour in terms of how manytimes out of 10 they would undertake abehaviour of interest. They were also askedabout their last shopping trip behaviour so thatspecific (and perhaps more accuratelyrecalled) as well as general behaviours couldbe established.

Key attitudinal measures included therespondent’s support for the ban, which wasasked at each stage of the research. In the thirdresearch stage, respondents were also asked ifthey felt the ban was having an impact, withresponses recorded on a yes/no/unsure basis.

To obtain a level of sensitivity in the data,eleven-point (0 to 10) scales were used formany of the response sets. In these cases, ‘0’was attributed the verbal anchor of ‘never’ forbehaviours, ‘not at all supportive’ for supportstatements and ‘completely disagree’ foragreement questions. ‘10’ was attributed theverbal anchor of ‘always’ for behaviours,‘completely supportive’ for support state-ments and ‘completely agree’ for agreementquestions. Details of the behavioural andattitudinal measures can be found inAppendix 1.

Analysis was conducted using SPSS 17, withdescriptive statistics, such as frequencies andmeans, being primarily used to address theresearch questions relating to each stage of theban. Multivariate analyses of cross tabulations,ANOVAs, and independent two-sample t-testswere used for the independent cross-sectionaldata set analyses. Paired t-tests were used inanalysis of the longitudinal data from the samerespondents to also identify significant changebetween the benchmark and stage 3 researchresults.


DOI: 10.1002/cb


Results and discussion

Benchmark behaviours and attitudes

Anti-consumption behaviour for this categorywas familiar to many shoppers prior to the ban,with 60 per cent of respondents claiming to‘generally take their own bags shopping’, 22per cent saying they used a mix of their ownand store provided bags and only 18 per centclaiming exclusive use of store-providedplastic bags. This generalised behaviour claimdefines the three anti-consumption segments.

The partial or complete anti-consumptionbehaviour was entrenched, with 76 per cent ofrespondents who said they took their ownbags to meet all or some of their shoppingneeds claiming to have done so for over a year.But if approximately eight in 10 shoppers weretaking their own bags consistently, therewould have been no need for a ban. Theestimate is also significantly higher than the 25per cent incidence observed in prior research(Hayabuchi et al., 2005), although this obser-vation was made in Japan where retailconditions are different. This raises the ques-tion of respondents over-claiming their beha-viour, or alternatively, response bias. Certainlyover-claiming is likely, given it is a behaviourfor which exhibiting anti-consumption issocially desirable, and that standard responserates seen for the fieldwork suggestingresponse bias is not driving the result.

Further detailed questioning revealed far lesswidespread and more inconsistent use of ownbags, supporting the idea of over-claiming.Overall, 80 per cent of all respondents saidthat, in a typical week, they would use at leastsome store-supplied plastic bags. On average,shoppers who said they used their own bags toshop at least some of the time, estimated thatthey forgot their own bags on 2.4 out of 10shopping trips. Similarly, these shoppers alsoestimated that they failed to take enough bagsto carry all their groceries on 2.7 out of 10 trips.So, while the level of claimed own-bagshopping was high, it appears that manyshoppers still ended up with plastic checkoutbags due to unintended lapses in anti-consumption behaviour. Further support


comes from an examination of the respon-dent’s last supermarket shopping trip. Only45 per cent of the sample required no storebags on their last trip, 33 per cent were entirelyreliant on store bags and 22 per cent used both.The one-third of the sample using plastic bagsexclusively is higher than the 18 per cent whoearlier claimed that they generally use thisoption and provides a more realistic picture ofactual rather than generalised behaviour.These findings indicate that, while there wasa group of shoppers that voluntarily demon-strated anti-consumption of plastic bags, theproscription would still have mass-marketimpact on over half of all shoppers, makingsuch a campaign relevant.

In terms of being able to demographicallyidentify the voluntary anti-consumption seg-ment of shoppers, there appeared to be a skewto females. Only 15 per cent of females claimedto ‘generally use plastic bags’ compared to32 per cent of males (x2¼ 24, df¼ 4,p< 0.001). Furthermore, a higher proportionof females said they had taken their own bagson the last shopping trip (64%) compared tomales (44%; x2¼ 19, df¼ 3, p< 0.001). How-ever, the shopper population is skewed tofemales. It could be that the males in thesample had less responsibility for shoppingand so would be less entrenched in thebehaviour of taking their own bags. Certainlythe female shoppers in the sample hadhigher claimed responsibility for householdshopping with 84 per cent claiming they did‘90–100 per cent’ compared to just 53 per centof males (x2¼ 63, df¼ 6, p< 0.001). Whenshopper responsibility was controlled for byjust considering the ‘90–100 per cent’ respon-sible shoppers, the gender effects are, how-ever, still significant in the behaviour of takingown bags shopping on their last trip (67%females compared to 38% males, x2¼ 20,df¼ 3, p< 0.001).

In support of the exploratory work ofCherrier (2006), age did not have a significantrelationship with anti-consumption behaviourfor either general behaviour claims or last tripbehaviour. Other potential demographic iden-tifiers examined were household structure,


DOI: 10.1002/cb


household pre-tax income, respondent’s high-est completed education level, work status andmetropolitan versus regional location. None ofthese demographics were identifiers of thevoluntary anti-consumers.

Claimed awareness of the ban prior tolegalisation being passed was high at 95 percent and with half of the respondents sayingthey had been aware of the impending ban for10 months or longer. However, of thoseaware of the ban, 75 per cent were unsureof when the phasing-out was to begin and only16 per cent could name the correct start dateof the ban. This again indicates scope for thedemarketing campaign to educate, but high-lights that shoppers using plastic bags werealready aware of the need to change theirbehaviour.

The overall mean support score for the banwas 8.2 out of 10, indicating high levels ofsupport for the ban and low levels of customerresistance. Shoppers voluntarily engaged inanti-consumption behaviour prior to the banwere most supportive. Shoppers generallyclaiming to take their own bags shopping(n¼ 298) gave a support score of 8.9,compared to 6.0 for those who said they usedstore bags exclusively (n¼ 87) and 7.7 forthose who used a mix of both store providedand own bags (n¼ 109, F¼ 22, df¼ 4, 490,p< 0.001). This provides evidence that anti-consumers will be supportive of others beingforced to adopt their behaviour, even thoughthey themselves may adopt it in pursuit ofuniqueness or self-expression (Kozinets andHandelman, 1998).

Interestingly, amongst those showing novoluntary anti-consumption behaviour, only22 per cent gave a support score of three orlower for the ban, while 49 per cent gave ascore of 7 or above, with 22 per cent ‘neutral’.It appears that the majority of consumers werelargely supportive of being forced into anti-consumption behaviour.

Amongst those who did not support the ban(those giving a support score of three orlower), key reasons for their views did notinclude the proscriptive nature of the ban.Perhaps the ban is not thought to impinge on


consumer freedoms to the extent that it wouldbe perceived as domination or an unfair use ofpower, or the environmental rationale behindthe ban was a strong appeal against anyexpected personal inconvenience.

The phasing-out and demarketing

campaign

Two months into the phasing-out period,awareness of the ban was almost total, andseven in 10 respondents said they were awareof the demarketing campaign. However, uponfurther questioning 40 per cent of theserespondents were unable to describe any ofthe campaign’s advertising executions. Ofthose who could, the most commonly recalledadvertising was for retailer displays (referTable 1). The other media had much lowerlevels of recall, highlighting the importance ofa call-to-action close to the point wherebehaviour change is required. Across thewhole sample, 42 per cent of respondentscould recall, without prompting, at least oneadvertising execution. Approximately nine outof 10 respondents who recalled the detail of atleast one advertisement were already takingtheir reusable bags shopping with them. Thistendency for people to possess heightenedawareness for communications portrayingbehaviours they are already engaged in isnoted in marketing literature – people have ahigher tendency to notice advertisements forbrands they already buy (Sharp et al., 2001;Romaniuk and Wight, 2009). The findinghighlights the challenge communication cam-paigns face to move beyond ‘preaching to theconverted’ and reach new audiences.

Awareness of the campaign rose when aideddescriptions of each advertising executionwere read to those who could not describethem unaided (refer Table 1). Overall, 84 percent of the sample recalled at least one specificadvertising execution either unprompted oraided. There was no difference in promptedrecall between the different shopper seg-ments, with awareness high across the board.

In terms of voluntary behavioural compli-ance, there was no significant change from pre-


DOI: 10.1002/cb

Table 1. Recall of demarketing campaign (promptedand aided recall)

Unpromptedrecall

Aidedrecall

n % n %

Retailer in-storedisplays

88 31 275 68

Newspaper 41 15 142 35Television 43 15 141 35Radio 26 9 72 18Outdoor 4 1 67 17None of these 111 40 — —Total >100 >100


ban claimed behaviour, with 63 per cent ofshoppers saying they ‘generally took their ownbags shopping’ and 68 per cent saying they haddone so on their last trip. The segment ofshoppers who said they were reliant on store-provided bags during the phasing-out claimedto receive plastic bags on their last trip in 93per cent of cases. This is the same level as seenfor this segment in the benchmark stage.Those who said they used a mix of store-provided and own bags also showed the sameresistance to voluntary compliance, with nosignificant change in their receiving at leastsome plastic on their last trip. The anti-consumer segment, however, reduced theirlevel of accepting a plastic bag on their last tripfrom 38 per cent acceptance in the benchmarkto just 18 per cent during the phasing-out(t¼ 5.3, df¼ 1, p< 0.001). This suggests thatthose already showing the voluntary compli-ance before the ban were those most respon-sive to the demarketing campaign, makingtheir lapses in own-bag behaviour even fewer.

To further investigate shoppers’ behaviouralresistance to the demarketing campaign, thechoices of those who took their own bagsshopping but sometimes forgot or did not takeenough (68% of the sample) were examined. In65 per cent of cases, these respondents stillchose to accept free plastic bags. It appearsthat the demarketing campaign was notsufficient, at least in the first instance, toeffect behavioural change. This is consistent


with previous findings on the effectiveness ofinformational campaigns (McKenzie-Mohr,2000).

Attitudinally, overall shopper support forthe ban fell slightly but significantly inthe phasing-out period, with the averagesupport score dropping from 8.2 to 7.7(t¼ 2.1, df¼ 893, p< 0.04). Again, the patternof higher support was seen from shoppersalready showing voluntary anti-consumption(mean of 8.6), compared to those solely usingstore provided bags (mean 5.2) or a mix of ownand store bags (mean 7.0, F¼ 34, df¼ 2, 398,p< 0.001). The drop in mean score fell acrossall the segment groups, and was not particu-larly driven by any one group, perhapsreflecting higher salience amongst the seg-ments where effort would be needed tochange behaviour under the ban, even if itwas just to improve the consistency withwhich they took their own bags.

Ban in effect and resultant

anti-consumption

Once the proscription was effective, beha-vioural compliance rose sharply with 95 percent claiming generally to take their own bags,compared to approximately 60 per cent in thebenchmark and phasing-out periods.

The newness of behaviour for many respon-dents was seen in their claimed last-tripbehaviour. Examining just the respondentswho were interviewed both pre- and post-ban, 94 per cent claimed to take their ownshopping bags on their last shop compared to a60 per cent incidence at the benchmark phase.The behaviour of taking own bags was alsomore prevalent and consistent with incidencesof forgetting to take bags decreasing from 2.2to 1.1 trips in ten (t¼ 6.3, df¼ 202, p< 0.001)and not taking enough decreasing from1.8 to 0.9 trips for the re-interviewed respon-dents (t¼ 4.8, df¼ 202, p< 0.001). The pro-scription therefore achieved behavioural anti-consumption.

Again, the choices of shoppers who forgot totake bags or did not take enough (two-thirds of


DOI: 10.1002/cb

Table 2. Changing attitudinal support for the ban (re-interviewed respondents)

Pre-ban Post-bann Mean Mean

Voluntary anti-consumption 154 9.1 9.0�

Completely reliant onplastic bags

37 5.7 6.7��

Some own bag andsome plastic

61 7.6 8.2��

Total 252 8.2 8.5

�t¼�0.6, df¼ 153, p¼ 0.51.��

t¼ 1.7, df¼ 36, p¼ 0.11.��

t¼ 2.4 df¼ 60, p¼ 0.02.


all respondents post-ban) were investigated. Inthis scenario, 29 per cent said that they try tocarry the groceries or to use the trolley instead,thereby avoiding a bag purchase of any kind.Twenty seven per cent bought more ‘greenbags’, 18 per cent bought compostable plasticbags, while only 8 per cent changed shoppingbehaviour by buying fewer things (4%) oroverfilling their existing bags (4%). Theremaining respondents had not yet confrontedthe situation. This shows that behaviouralcompliance, in terms of avoiding bag use orpurchasing reusable bags – although morewidespread than in the phasing-out period – isstill not universal. A segment of shoppers areopting to pay for old behaviours (purchasingsingle-use bags) in a significant number ofinstances when the choice is put to them.Examining just the re-interviewed respon-dents, those opting to buy compostable plasticbags could not be identified from their pre-bansegment membership. It does not appear that asegment exists that refuses to adapt behaviou-rally to the proscription.

Attitudinal support was effectively unchangedfrom benchmark levels for the new sample ofrespondents that were only interviewed post-ban (mean 8.3, t¼ .8, df¼ 746, p¼ 0.5).

Overall, the re-interviewed respondentsincreased their support for the ban slightlyonce it was in effect. This is shown in Table 2with an increase in the overall re-interviewedsample mean from 8.2 to 8.5 (t¼ 1.4, df¼ 251,p¼ 0.15).

Between the segments, we still see thepattern of the segment that was not voluntarilycompliant pre-ban being less supportive of theban than the voluntarily compliant pre-bangroup. The support from shoppers that hadshown voluntary anti-consumption behaviourwas almost completely stable at 9.0 at thebenchmark and 9.1 post-ban (p¼ 0.51). How-ever, the shoppers that were not compliant inthe absence of the ban show significantchange. The group of shoppers that werecompletely reliant on store provided bagsbefore the ban, as well as those that had shownpartial anti-consumption, both increased theirsupport for the ban once it was in effect (gains


of 1.0 and 0.7 scale points, respectively). Toidentify what was driving these increases inmean scores, individual-level score changeswere examined for these two shopper groups.Over half the respondents in the groups (54%)were stable in their ratings between inter-views. For those that did change, the changewas three or fewer scale points for over70 per cent of the respondents, on the 11-pointscale. In terms of change direction, 41 per centwho changed scores between interviewsdecreased their ratings, while 59 per centincreased. This reveals that just a few individ-uals radically changing their score did not drivethe increase in ratings. It also shows that therewas a small pocket of respondents attitudinallyresistant to the enforced behaviour change,through their decreased level of support, butthe majority who were forced into a beha-vioural change made no attitudinal adjustment.

Further post-ban data found that forcingpeople into anti-consumption behaviour doesnot see a corresponding increased linkbetween the anti-consumption behaviourand a greater cause, even in the presence ofa demarketing campaign. Those forced intoanti-consumption were attitudinally less con-vinced that the ban was having an effect thanthose who undertook the behaviour volunta-rily. Almost nine in 10 of the respondents thatshowed voluntary anti-consumption behaviourat the initial interview felt the ban was havingan impact compared to only around seven in


DOI: 10.1002/cb


10 (68%) who were exclusively reliant onplastic before the ban. Those with partialreliance on plastic sat somewhere between theother two segments (77%) for feeling the banwas having a positive impact.

These results suggest several learnings foranti-consumption. The first is that, at least inthis context, experiencing the forced adoptionof anti-consumption behaviour results in eithera stable or more positive attitude towards theenforcement than just the threat of it, for themajority of respondents. A potential expla-nation for this is that the imagined behaviourchanges were greater than the actual changesexperienced, resulting in a readjustment ofattitudes. Alternatively, the finding that peoplebecome more attitudinally supportive of theban suggests a shift towards ‘real’ anti-consumption (i.e. attitudes fall in line withthe behaviour). But the findings on theperceived impact of the ban (or lack thereof)suggest something additional – that the ban hasnot led to people being as attitudinallyinvolved in the anti-consumption as if theyhad come to the decision themselves. Thiscould come down to the distinction betweenattitudes towards the actual behaviour (e.g.people see it is not that hard to take your ownbags, so support for the ban increases); andattitudes towards the object of anti-consump-tion (i.e. the moral avoidance/ideologicalincompatibility with beliefs) which are thedrivers of true anti-consumption (Lee et al.,2009).

Conclusions and future directions

This paper has examined voluntary anti-consumers driven by internal personal motiv-ations and contrasted them against peopleforced into anti-consumption behaviour by anexternal government proscription.

The results confirm previous exploratoryfindings that the segment of voluntary anti-consumers cannot be identified demographi-cally. Gender was the only variable signifi-cantly related to group membership. It appearsthat females are more pre-disposed to taking


their own bags shopping. A potential expla-nation for this is that ‘green’ shopping bagsoften come in a compact form so that they canbe stored in a handbag – an option not availableto many men.

The social demarketing campaign accom-panying the proscription was shown to havehigh cut-through, with messages that wereclosest to the point of action (the cash register)achieving the best recall. The campaign as awhole had the highest unprompted recallamongst those already exhibiting the desiredbehaviour, highlighting the continued chal-lenge for marketing communications to gaincut-through with the wider audience.

During the phasing-out period, levels ofcompliant behaviour remained close to pre-intervention levels with no increase in volun-tary anti-consumption of plastic bags. This wasseen both in the proportion of shoppers takingtheir own bags, and the tendency for shopperswho forgot their bags to accept single-useplastic bags. The implication is that people areunlikely to adopt voluntary anti-consumptionbehaviour for habitual and frequent behaviour,in the absence of negative reinforcers. Thissupports the notion that marketing communi-cations alone are not enough and that forsome changes to be effected, public policy isrequired (Geller, 1989).

Anti-consumption forces people to changetheir perspectives and focus (Lee et al., 2009).The shoppers who were forced to change theirbehaviour were found, on the whole, to beattitudinally supportive, showing a slight risein mean support for the proscription betweenits announcement and when it came into force.This suggests that shoppers might be resistantto the idea of a ban when they have not yetexperienced its effects, but will be lessresistant once they adjust to it. That said,there existed a small pocket of respondentswhose support scores for the ban droppedwith its introduction. Furthermore, a third ofthe respondents forced into anti-consumptiondid not believe their changed behaviour washaving any impact on the environment. Theseshoppers may be behaviourally compliant, butwould not be classified as anti-consumption


DOI: 10.1002/cb


shoppers as their attitudes have not shifted inline with the cessation of consumption. Ifpeople are to become anti-consumers throughholding attitudes that are in line with theirbehaviours (Iyer and Muncy, 2009), then thisresearch suggests that proscription does notachieve this, at least not fully.

Of interest is that shoppers already exhibit-ing anti-consumption behaviour are, in themain, supportive of others being forced to alsostop consumption. This is an interestingfinding and shows that any moral, self-expressive or differentiating grounds for theirbehaviour (Kozinets and Handelman, 1998)did not lead them to be unsupportive of theanti-consumption being imposed rather thanopted in to.

This paper adds to the knowledge on anti-consumption and shopper resistance to gov-ernment efforts to reduce socially undesirablebehaviours through proscriptive interventions.This knowledge is useful to anti-consumptionlobbyists, who need to understand how andwhy individuals resist particular consumption(or anti-consumption) practices, who thoseindividuals are and the attitudes they holdtowards their participation (Cherrier, 2008).Our findings show that government-initiated,mass social demarketing approaches cancontribute to anti-consumption, even whenconsumers may not personally enjoy thebenefits of their sacrifices. Policy makersconsidering a retail ban on single-use plasticbags need not fear significant behavioural orattitudinal resistance from shoppers. However,this paper has also established that a com-munications program alone may not beenough to achieve anti-consumption beha-viours, without the added use of negativereinforcers such as the requirement to pay forconsumption. Additionally, a forced behaviourchange will not necessarily be accompanied bya shift in attitudes. In this sense, anti-consumption is not achieved fully, merelybehavioural compliance; but perhaps this isenough.

There is scope for future research toexamine the reaction of proscription in othercontexts such as: the outright ban of plastic


bags in other countries or states; consumerattitudes towards plastic bag bans in theabsence of a demarketing campaign; andconsumer resistance to the forced anti-con-sumption of other environmentally harmful orself-harming products.

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to gratefully acknowledgethe research partnership, the University ofSouth Australia has with Zero Waste SA. Thisresearch would not have been possible with-out their financial support and informationsharing. In particular, Vaughan Levitzke andMarcia Hewitt from Zero Waste SA and RaphaelMurphy from the agency beatwave.com.au arethanked for championing this research andbeing committed to disseminating its findings.

Biographical notes

Anne Sharp is a Senior Research Fellow at theEhrenberg-Bass Institute for Marketing Scienceat the University of South Australia. She headsthe Sustainable Marketing research of the Insti-tute and has a particular interest in evaluatinggovernment interventions encouraging beha-viour change for improved environmental out-comes.

Stine Høj is a Research Associate at theEhrenberg-Bass Institute for Marketing Scienceat the University of South Australia. Herresearch interests are marketing efforts aimedat the promotion of environmentally sustain-able behaviours, with a focus on food wastebehaviours.

Meagan Wheeler is a Research Associateat the Ehrenberg-Bass Institute for MarketingScience at the University of South Australia.The majority of her research focuses on theeffects of sustainable marketing on consumerbehaviour.

References

Abraham M. 2009. Get a handle on it city messen-

ger; 6, 20 May.


DOI: 10.1002/cb


Carrigan M, Szmigin I, Wright J. 2004. Shopping for

a better world? An interpretive study of the

potential for ethical consumption within the

older market. Journal of Consumer Marketing

21(6): 401–417.

Cherrier H. 2006. Consumer identity and moral

obligations in non-plastic bag consumption: a

dialectical perspective. International Journal

of Consumer Studies 30(5): 515–523.

Cherrier H. 2008. Anti-consumption discourses and

consumer-resistant identities. Journal of

Business Research 62(2): 181–190.

Clean Up The World. 2007. Plastic bag bans around

the world. Available at: http://www.cleanup.org.

au/PDF/au/cua-world-update-on-plastic-bags-as-

at-120207.pdf [Accessed on 27 September 2010].

Convery F, McDonnell S, Ferreira S. 2007. The most

popular tax in Europe? Lessons from the Irish

plastic bags levy. Environmental and Resource

Economics 38(1): 1–11.

Craig-Lees M, Hill C. 2002. Understanding voluntary

simplifiers. Psychology & Marketing 19(2): 187–

210.

Ellis S, Kantner S, Saab A, Watson M. 2005. Plastic

Grocery Bags: The Ecological Footprint. Vipirg:

Victoria, BC.

Environment Protection and Heritage Council.

2002. Plastic Shopping Bags in Australia:

National Plastic Bags Working Group Report

to the National Packing Covenant Council.

Adelaide: Environment Protection and Heritage

Council.

Etzioni A. 1998. Voluntary simplicity: characteriz-

ation, select psychological implications, and

societal consequences. Journal of Economic

Psychology 19(5): 619–652.

Ewen S. 1988. All Consuming Images: The Politics

of Style in Contemporary Culture. Basic Books:

New York.

Geller ES. 1989. Applied behavior analysis and

social marketing: an integration for environmen-

tal preservation. Journal of Social Issues 45(1):

17–36.

Gendall P. 2000. Responding to the problem of

nonresponse. Australasian Journal of Market

Research 8(1): 3–17.

Hayabuchi Y, Enomoto Y, TYamasue E, Okumura

H, Ishihara K, Year N. The role of environmental

education and social system on the plastic bag

problem. In Proceedings of 3rd Conference on


the Public Sector, Ljubljana, Slovenia, 30 June–2

July 2005; 29–41.

Huneke ME. 2005. The face of the un-consumer: an

empirical examination of the practice of volun-

tary simplicity in the United States. Psychology &

Marketing 22(7): 527–550.

Iyer R, Muncy JA. 2009. Purpose and object of anti-

consumption. Journal of Business Research

62(2): 160–168.

James K, Grant T. Year LCA of degradable plastic

bags. In Australian Life Cycle Assessment Con-

ference: Sustainability Measures for Decision

Support, April 2006, Sydney.

Kotler P, Levy SJ. 1973. Buying is marketing too.

Journal of Marketing 37(1): 54–59.

Kotler P, Zaltman G. 1971. Social marketing: an

approach to planned social change. The Journal

of Marketing 35(3): 3–12.

Kozinets RV, Handelman J. 1998. Ensouling con-

sumption: a netnographic exploration of the

meaning of boycotting behavior. Advances in

Consumer Research 25(1): 475–480.

Lee M, Motion J, Conroy D. 2009. Anti-consumption

and brand avoidance. Journal of Business

Research 62(2): 169–180.

McDonald C, Ehrenberg ASC. 2002. Personal Buy-

ing is Like ‘Family’ Shopping. Report 12 for

Corporate Members. Ehrenberg-Bass Institute

for Marketing Science: Adelaide.

McKenzie-Mohr D. 2000. Fostering sustainable

behavior through community-based social

marketing. American Psychologist 55(5): 531–

537.

Razer H. 2009. Bag Lady, The Big Day Out, August,

13.

Romaniuk J, Wight S. 2009. The influence of brand

usage on responses to advertising awareness

measures. International Journal of Market

Research 51(2): 203–218.

Sharp B, Beal V, Romaniuk J. 2001. First steps

towards a marketing empirical generalisation:

brand usage and subsequent advertising recall.

In Australia & New Zealand Academy of Mar-

keting Conference 2001, Sylvie Chetty Brett

Collins (ed.). Massey University: Albany, New

Zealand.

Shiu E, Hassan LM, Walsh G. 2009. Demarketing

tobacco through governmental policies – the 4ps

revisited. Journal of Business Research 62(2):

269–278.


DOI: 10.1002/cb


Smith S. 2004. Plastic Bags. Sydney: NSW Parlia-

mentary Library Research Service.

Spokas K. 2008. Plastics – still young, but having a

mature impact. Waste Management 28(3): 473–

474.

Stern PC. 1999. Information, incentives, and

proenvironmental consumer behavior. Journal

of Consumer Policy 22(4): 461–478.

Wall A. 2005. Government demarketing:

different approaches and mixed messages.

European Journal of Marketing 39(5/6): 421–

427.

Wall AP. 2007. Government ‘demarketing’ as

viewed by its target audience. Marketing

Intelligence & Planning 25(2): 123–135.

Wan TS. 2007. Reducing Polyethylene Usage.

Department of Material Science and Engineering:

Toronto.


Wan TS. 2008. Governing Polyethylene Reductions.

Department of Material Science and Engineering:

Toronto.

Weekend Herald. 2009. 5 September, A29: New

Zealand.

Winter FL, Rossiter JR. 1989. Pattern-matching pur-

chase behavior and stochastic brand choice: a

low involvement model. Journal of Economic

Psychology 10: 559–585.

Zavestoski S. 2002. The social-psychological

bases of anticonsumption attitudes. Psychology

& Marketing 19(2): 149–165.

Zero Waste SA. 2008a. Frequently Asked Questions.

Available at: http://byobags.com.au/About.mvc/

FAQ/102 [Accessed on 2nd December 2009].

Zero Waste SA. 2008b. Plastic bag ban. Available

at: http://www.zerowaste.sa.gov.au/About.mvc/

PlasticBags [Accessed on 2nd December 2009].


DOI: 10.1002/cb

Appendix 1

Table 3 Key attitudinal and behavioural measures in telephone interviews

Construct Measure used Response set

Ban support The plastic bag ban covers single use, light-weight polyethyleneplastic bags generally used by supermarkets and takeaway foodoutlets. I would like to know how supportive you are of thisban. I would like you to answer on a ‘0’ to ‘10’ scale where ‘0’ is‘not at all supportive of the phasing out’ and ‘10’ is ‘completelysupportive of the phasing out’ and ‘5’ is ‘neither supportive norunsupportive’. You can also choose any number in between.So your level of support for the plastic bag ban would be. . .

0 – not at all supportive12345 – neither nor678910 – Completely supportive

Ban impact Do you feel the ban is having an impact? Yes an impactNo impactUnsure/refused

Generalized bagbehaviour

When you are grocery shopping, do you take your own shop-ping bags or use ones from the store?

Take ownUse ones from storeBothIt varies

Last tripbehaviour

Thinking about just your last trip to the supermarket, did youtake your own shopping bags or use ones from the shop?

Took ownUsed shop onesBit of both

Forgetting ownbags

How many times do you think you forget to take your own bagsgrocery shopping? In ten grocery shopping trips, how manytimes would this happen to you?

NoneOnceTwiceThree timesFour timesFive timesSix timesSeven timesEight timesTen times

Not taking enoughown bags

And how many shopping trips do you not take enough ofyour own bags to carry all your groceries in? Out of tengrocery-shopping trips, how many times would you find thatyou haven’t taken enough of your own bags?

NoneOnceTwiceThree timesFour timesFive timesSix timesSeven timesEight timesTen times

Choices when notenough bags

When you forget your own bags or don’t take enough, what doyou generally do?

Buy more green bagsBuy alternative bagsGo without/trolley/carryOverfill existing bagsOther

Copyright # 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, Nov.–Dec. 2010

DOI: 10.1002/cb


Proscription and its impact on anti-consumption behaviour and attitudes: the case of plastic bags

Documents

Transcript of Proscription and its impact on anti-consumption behaviour and attitudes: the case of plastic bags