See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/357012886

Media and Social Norms: Exploring the Relationship between Media and
Plastic Avoidance Social Norms

Article  in  Environmental Communication A Journal of Nature and Culture · December 2021

DOI: 10.1080/17524032.2021.2010783

CITATIONS READS

0 247

1 author:

Kim Borg
Monash University (Australia)
27 PUBLICATIONS   213 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

The BWA Method View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Kim Borg on 15 December 2021.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

MEDIA AND SOCIAL NORMS

This is an Accepted Manuscript of an article published by Taylor & Francis in

Environmental Communication on 13 December 2021, available online:
http://www.tandfonline.com/10.1080/17524032.2021.2010783.

Media and Social Norms: Exploring the Relationship between Media and Plastic
Avoidance Social Norms

Kim Borg

BehaviourWorks Australia, Monash Sustainable Development Institute, Monash University,

Clayton, Australia

8 Scenic Boulevard, Clayton, 3800, Victoria, Australia.

e: kim.borg@monash.edu; p: +61 3 9905 9854

Kim Borg is a Research Fellow at BehaviourWorks Australia. She specialises in social research

methods and has worked across a variety of social and behavioural research areas including driving,

public health, digital inclusion, and environmental behaviour.

Data availability: Data can be made available upon request to the author.

Funding: This research was completed as part of a PhD undertaken at Monash University, supported

by the Australian Government Research Training Program, the Victorian Department of Environment,

Land, Water, and Planning, and Sustainability Victoria.

Acknowledgements: I would like to acknowledge the survey participants for their time and insights,

the data collection agency, Dynata, and Dr Lucy Busija for advising on the statistical analysis. I would

also like to thank Professor Jo Lindsay and Dr Jim Curtis for their invaluable support and guidance.

Declaration of interest: I confirm that there are no known conflicts of interest associated with this

work.
MEDIA AND SOCIAL NORMS 1

Abstract

Compared to the influence of social norms on pro-environmental behaviour, we know

much less about the processes that influence perceptions about social norms. This study

explores the relationship between media exposure and social norms in the context of single-

use plastic avoidance. Structural equation modelling was used to determine how exposure to

news, documentaries, and social media were related to key constructs from the theory of

normative social behaviour – including perceived descriptive and injunctive norms and

outcome expectations related to perceived self- and environmental benefits of avoidance.

News exposure was positively related to injunctive norms. Social media exposure was

negatively related to descriptive and injunctive norms and positively related to perceived

benefits. Documentary exposure was positively related to descriptive norms and perceived

benefits. The theoretical and practical implications of these findings are discussed.

Keywords: Mass media; social media; social norms; theory of normative social behaviour;

single-use plastic
MEDIA AND SOCIAL NORMS 2

Media and Social Norms: Exploring the Relationship between Media and Plastic
Avoidance Social Norms

Social norms are the unwritten social rules which guide and constrain our actions

based on the common and acceptable behaviours of others (Cialdini, Kallgren, & Reno, 1991;

Cialdini, Reno, & Kallgren, 1990; Kallgren, Reno, & Cialdini, 2000). However, as argued by

Rettie, Burchell, and Barnham (2014, p. 14), “conceptions of whether behaviours are normal

are not based on accurate information about what most people do but on ideas and images

shaped in childhood and by the media, word of mouth and advertising”. In other words, the

actual prevalence of a particular behaviour is not necessarily known to an individual. Instead,

it is our subjective perceptions of others that influence our behaviour (Tankard & Paluck,

2016).

There is extensive evidence that social norms are an important driver of many

environmental behaviours (for a review see Farrow, Grolleau, & Ibanez, 2017). For example,

in a review of perceptions and behaviours related to single-use plastics, Heidbreder, Bablok,

Drews, and Menzel (2019) found that, in addition to habits, plastic consumption was

primarily influenced by social norms. However, compared to the influence of social norms on

behaviour, we know much less about the processes that influence these perceptions (Walter,

Murphy, Frank, & Ball-Rokeach, 2019). This is significant because norms are not static, they

are socially negotiated, context dependent, and malleable, changing to fit the time and place

(Rimal & Lapinski, 2015). By promoting behaviours like plastic avoidance as normal among

the wider public, practitioners and policymakers could potentially encourage large-scale

behaviour change which is required to address global environmental challenges like plastic

pollution (Löhr et al., 2017).

According to Mead, Rimal, Ferrence, and Cohen (2014), social norm perceptions are

shaped through social exposure from the physical, social, and symbolic environments. While

our social reality is largely based on the social environment and the people we interact with
MEDIA AND SOCIAL NORMS 3

regularly (Shepherd, 2017), the symbolic environment can also influence social norm

perceptions but among a much larger audience. This is because the symbolic environment

includes media and marketing (Mead et al., 2014).

Using social norm messaging in the media to influence consumer behaviour is by no

means new. For decades, TV advertisers have been selling goods by depicting large crowds

of people buying a particular product so that it appears desirable to others (Cialdini et al.,

1991). However, less is known about the incidental effects of media exposure in promoting

(or even deterring) social norms related to environmental issues, such as plastic consumption.

Numerous theories have been proposed to understand pro-environmental behaviours –

such as the Theory of Planned Behaviour (Ajzen, 1991) and the Value-Belief-Norm theory

(Stern, Dietz, Abel, Guagnano, & Kalof, 1999). While such theories can be useful for

predicting behaviour, they are less useful for understanding the complex relationship between

determinants, such as social norms. To better understand the norm-behaviour relationship,

Rimal and Real (2005) proposed the theory of normative social behaviour (TNSB).

According to the TNSB, behavioural intentions are influenced by perceived descriptive

norms, but this relationship is moderated by other factors, such as perceived injunctive norms

and outcome expectations (i.e. the anticipated benefits of engaging in a behaviour) (Lapinski

& Rimal, 2005; Rimal & Real, 2005). While a central assumption of the TNSB is that social

norms are a product of communication (Rimal & Lapinski, 2015), such factors are not

explicitly included in the theory.

The aim of the current paper was to explore the relationship between media exposure

and key constructs from the TNSB related to single-use plastic avoidance. This paper builds

on previous research which applied the TNSB to plastic avoidance by testing the direct and

moderating effects of TNSB constructs on behavioural intentions and past behaviour s The

authors found that descriptive norms were a strong predictor of avoidance and that, in
MEDIA AND SOCIAL NORMS 4

addition to moderating the norm-behaviour relationship, injunctive norms and outcome

expectations directly predicted avoidance, whereas group identity and behavioural identity

did not (Borg, Curtis, et al., 2020). Building on these findings, the current paper focuses on

the relationship between media exposure and descriptive norms, injunctive norms, and

outcome expectations.

The Anti-Plastic Movement

Between 19 and 23 million tonnes of plastic waste enter aquatic ecosystems each year

(Borrelle et al., 2020). Plastic negatively impacts animals (through entanglement, ingestion,

and starvation), human health (through the build-up and release of toxins), and has high costs

associated with accumulation and disposal (Ritch, Brennan, & MacLeod, 2009). The good

news is that we are in the middle of a global trend away from single-use plastics, driven by

awareness of the plastic pollution crisis and a social movement underpinned by advocacy,

social media, and community-level and global efforts (Vince & Stoett, 2018).

Evidence for this movement can be seen in the spread of plastic reduction policies

across the world (Wagner, 2017; Xanthos & Walker, 2017). In Australia, for example, only

one state had banned single-use plastic bags in 2009 but by the end of 2018, almost every

state had banned or committed to banning bags at the state level (State Government of

Victoria, 2018b). Around the same time, the two largest Australian supermarket chains

phased out free lightweight plastic bags (Dulaney, 2017), triggering an observable shift in

social norms (Borg, Lindsay, & Curtis, 2020).

Further evidence of the anti-plastic movement can be seen in the increase in media

attention related to plastic waste. This includes news reports on the introduction of new

policies (BBC News, 2018; Dulaney, 2017; Knapton, 2018); reports on the environmental

impacts of plastic waste (e.g. Ellis-Petersen, 2019; Watts, 2019); as well as high-profile
MEDIA AND SOCIAL NORMS 5

documentary series (e.g. BBC’s Blue Planet II1 and the Australian Broadcasting

Corporation’s (ABC) War on Waste2) and films (e.g. A Plastic Ocean3 and Drowning in

Plastic4).

In addition to raising awareness of the problem, this media coverage has the potential

to contribute to tangible change. After Blue Planet II was released in the UK internet searches

for ‘plastic recycling’ and visits to marine conservation websites increased substantially

(Hayns-Worthington, 2018). Similarly, after the release of War on Waste in Australia, there

was a significant increase in reusable coffee cup purchases and soft plastics recycling

(Collins, 2017). While these examples demonstrate some of the more explicit ways that

media may be contributing to the anti-plastic movement, the question remains as to whether

this attention is also influencing audiences’ social norm perceptions and, if it is, whether

media is cultivating perceptions of plastic use or avoidance as the norm.

Social Norms & Media Effects

In sociology, social norms are recognised as the explicit and implicit rules regarding

what ‘ought to be done’; whereas, in social psychology, social norms refer to the common

behaviours of a group (Burchell, Rettie, & Patel, 2013). In the behavioural sciences more

broadly, both types of norms are recognised as having discrete influences on behaviour –

injunctive norms (what others approve and disapprove of) and descriptive norms (what others

are doing) (Cialdini et al., 1991; Cialdini et al., 1990; Kallgren et al., 2000). Previous

research has found that perceptions about others’ behaviour generally has a stronger and

more direct relationship with behaviour than perceptions about other’s approval/disapproval

1 https://www.imdb.com/title/tt6769208
2 https://www.imdb.com/title/tt7450130
3 https://www.imdb.com/title/tt5203824
4 https://www.imdb.com/title/tt9030688
MEDIA AND SOCIAL NORMS 6

(Farrow et al., 2017). For example, in testing the relationship between TNSB constructs and

plastic avoidance, Borg, Curtis, et al. (2020) found that while injunctive norms (and outcome

expectations) contributed significantly to avoidance intentions, the strongest predictor was

descriptive norms. In part, this difference is due to the activation of separate motivational

drivers – i.e. demonstrating effective and adaptive actions vs. the promise of social reward or

punishment (Cialdini et al., 2006). However, the question remains as to how these

perceptions form and change over time.

Several authors have proposed expanding the TNSB to include the influence of

communication on social norms. For example, Mead et al. (2014, p. 141) proposed

investigating “the extent to which social exposure affects each of [the TNSB] variables”.

Geber, Baumann, and Klimmt (2019) explored the relationship between interpersonal

communication and social norms (but not outcome expectations) related to risk taking –

finding that interpersonal communication only accounted for about 10% of the variance in

perceptions. Mabry and Mackert (2014) also proposed extending the TNSB to include

communication, but they suggested exploring the role of media effects on descriptive norms

as well as moderators of the norm-behaviour relationship. However, empirical research which

tests their proposal is lacking – a gap the current study sought to address.

There is extensive evidence that media can influence social norm perceptions related

to health and prosocial behaviours. This includes undesirable behaviours, such as risky sexual

behaviour among college students (Chia & Gunther, 2006). However, media can also

promote desirable social norms. For example, Arias (2019) found that exposure to a soap

opera decreased perceived social acceptance of violence against women in Mexico. Similarly,

Paluck (2009) found that a radio series in Rwanda did not influence listeners’ own prejudicial

attitudes but it did influence their perceptions about others’ attitudes (i.e. injunctive norms).

While these studies demonstrate that social norms can be influenced by media exposure, no
MEDIA AND SOCIAL NORMS 7

such research has explored this concept in relation to an environmental behaviour such as

plastic avoidance. This is significant because the recent increase in plastic-related policies

and media content raises questions around if and how media are influencing plastic avoidance

social norms, and by extension behaviour.

Social cognitive theory and cultivation theory provide the clearest theoretical links

between media exposure and the TNSB (Lapinski & Rimal, 2005). As recognised by social

cognitive theory, “a vast amount of information about human values, styles of thinking, and

behavior patterns is gained from the extensive modeling in the symbolic environment of the

mass media” (Bandura, 2009, p. 98). This has important implications for the potential

influence of media on TNSB constructs, as the symbolic environment does not just provide

information about others’ behaviours (descriptive norms) but also about the potential

consequences of those actions (Bandura, 2009) – including the potential social consequences

(injunctive norms). This suggests that media exposure could influence multiple variables

within the TNSB. Additionally, cultivation theory posits that the more individual’s consume

media content the more their perceptions of reality will reflect the mediated world (Shrum,

O'Guinn, Semenik, & Faber, 1991). Taken together, this suggests that the more individuals

are exposed to media content, the more their perceptions about descriptive and injunctive

norms will reflect those portrayed in the media. According to the TNSB, this exposure could

then influence individual-level behaviours either directly or via moderation effects.

One limitation of cultivation research is that it has historically focused on traditional

media – one-way communication involving traditional technologies (e.g. newspapers, TV,

and film) – where exposure to the entire media system is measured and aggregated (Shehata

& Strömbäck, 2018). This approach fails to account for the effect of different types of media,

such as information-based media (e.g. news and documentaries) and entertainment-based

media (e.g. dramas, comedies, and other fiction). This is significant because viewing more
MEDIA AND SOCIAL NORMS 8

news and nature documentaries has been linked with engaging in more pro-environmental

behaviours, whereas viewing more entertainment-based content has not been associated with

such behaviours (Holbert, Kwak, & Shah, 2003; Huang, 2016).

While the role of social norm perceptions in this relationship has not been specifically

examined, it is likely that audiences’ perceptions of pro-environmental social norms, such as

plastic avoidance, would vary depending on their media consumption patterns. Although

extensive research on the portrayal of plastic avoidance social norms in media is limited,

there is some evidence that different media types portray the issue differently. For example,

in response to the supermarket plastic bag bans in Australia, news media initially focused on

opinions expressing support for the bans but later switched to negative opinions and

behaviours of consumers who were struggling to adapt (Borg, Lindsay, et al., 2020). In

contrast, social media users were consistently supportive of the bans, often expressing

disapproval of complaining about them (Borg, Lindsay, et al., 2020). This suggests that those

who consumed more social media content would have been more likely to perceive

avoidance as accepted by others compared to those who consumed more news content where

the message was less consistent.

Cultivation research, and media effects research in general, have focused less on new

media technologies (digital two-way communication platforms), such as social media.

However, the role of new media in society is becoming increasingly important. Where people

once turned to traditional media to get their news, now most people seek information from

online sources (Schäfer & Schlichting, 2014). Many people are even using social media for

accessing (or are incidentally exposed to) news content (Braun & Gillespie, 2011; Fletcher &

Nielsen, 2018). This has important implications for the relationship between media effects

and social norms as recent studies have found that social media can easily influence social

norm perceptions and behaviour among users (Carpenter & Amaravadi, 2016; Spartz, Su,
MEDIA AND SOCIAL NORMS 9

Griffin, Brossard, & Dunwoody, 2015). This suggests that social media exposure related to

plastic avoidance may also be affecting social norm perceptions.

It is likely that increased exposure to media content about plastic is associated with

plastic avoidance social norm perceptions. However, the direction of this relationship is less

clear as there is limited research on how behaviours and opinions related to plastic avoidance

are depicted across different media formats. Drawing from previous research on the positive

relationship between pro-environmental behaviours and information-based media (Holbert et

al., 2003; Huang, 2016) and the generally supportive plastic avoidance social norms

identified in news and social media related to the Australian supermarket plastic bag bans

(Borg, Lindsay, et al., 2020), the first three hypotheses in the current study were:

• H1. News exposure is positively related to plastic avoidance (a) descriptive

norms and (b) injunctive norms;

• H2. Documentary exposure is positively related to plastic avoidance (a)

descriptive norms and (b) injunctive norms; and

• H3. Social media exposure is positively related to plastic avoidance (a)

descriptive norms and (b) injunctive norms.

Outcome Expectations & Media Effects

In addition to providing information about others’ behaviours (descriptive norms) and

social consequences (injunctive norms), social cognitive theory also recognises that the

symbolic environment provides information about behavioural consequences (Bandura,

2009). This implies that, in addition to influencing social norm perceptions, media exposure

also likely influences outcome expectations related to plastic avoidance. This is significant

because the perceived self and environmental benefits of avoidance were identified in

previous TNSB research as predictors of plastic avoidance as well as moderators of the norm-

avoidance relationship (Borg, Curtis, et al., 2020).

MEDIA AND SOCIAL NORMS 10

Much of what we know and believe about the environment, including how we value

and relate to the environment, comes from the media (Hansen, 2011). Empirical support for

this argument can be seen in research from Lee (2011) where media exposure had a positive

relationship with biospheric values, which in turn predicted environmental attitudes and

behaviour. This is particularly relevant in the case of environmental documentaries. As found

by LaMarre and Landreville (2009), documentaries not only increase knowledge but they can

increase emotional engagement about the issue in question. Given that there is generally a

consistent relationship between media coverage of an environmental issue and pro-

environmental attitudes (Holbert et al., 2003), it is likely that exposure to media content about

plastic waste (from different sources) is also associated with positive perceptions about the

benefits of plastic avoidance. Therefore, the final hypotheses of the current study were:

• H4. News exposure is positively related to perceptions about the (a) self- and (b)

environmental benefits of plastic avoidance;

• H5. Documentary exposure is positively related to perceptions about the (a) self-

and (b) environmental benefits of plastic avoidance; and

• H6. Social media exposure is positively related to perceptions about the (a) self-

and (b) environmental benefits of plastic avoidance.

Figure 1 presents the proposed media model and its relationship to the TNSB – where

the study hypotheses are represented by black arrows. Given the current study builds on

previous research which has already tested the TNSB in the context of plastic avoidance

(Borg, Curtis, et al., 2020), only constructs hypothesised to be associated with media

exposure (descriptive norms, injunctive norms, and perceived benefits) are included in the

current research.

[INSERT FIGURE 1 HERE].

MEDIA AND SOCIAL NORMS 11

Materials and Methods

Research Design

Data for this research came from a larger study involving a sample of n=1,001

Victorian adults who completed an online survey in July 2019. Respondents were randomly

selected by a research company from their panel of members and emailed an invitation to

complete the survey with quotas set for age (Msample=46.7; Mpopulation=46.9), gender (female:

52% sample; 51% population), and geographic location (greater capital city: 73% sample;

76% population) so that the sample broadly reflected the Victorian population.

Participants were asked about their perceptions relating to four single-use plastic

items in specific behavioural contexts: single-use plastic bags when shopping; plastic straws

when buying a drink at a café, restaurant or bar; disposable coffee cups when buying a hot

beverage; and plastic take-away containers when buying take-away food. These items were

chosen because of their prevalence in litter clean-ups around Australia (Keep Australia

Beautiful, 2017), as well as their alignment with items of concern to the Victorian community

(State Government of Victoria, 2018a).

If respondents did not participate in the underlying activity where they could choose

to use or avoid the single-use item in question they were not asked subsequent questions. For

example, if someone does not drink hot beverages they would not have the opportunity to

choose between using or avoiding a disposable cup when buying a hot beverage. To avoid the

issue of missing data, only those who answered all relevant questions were included in the

analysis for the current paper. The final sample was n = 682: 54% were women, 78% lived in

the greater capital city area, and the mean sample age was 44.2 years. The research was

approved by the author’s University Human Research Ethics Committee (MUHREC).

MEDIA AND SOCIAL NORMS 12

Measures

Perceived Descriptive Norms

Respondents were asked to estimate what percentage of time they believed most

Victorians used the four single-use plastic items during the previous month; where 0 =

Always avoided the plastic item and 100 = Always used the plastic item. This question was

designed to mirror the behavioural intentions measure from the larger survey, adapted from

Lapinski, Maloney, Braz, and Shulman (2013), by focusing on ‘most others’ behaviour rather

than their own. Responses were reverse coded to create a measure of perceived prevalence of

plastic avoidance.

Perceived Injunctive Norms

Perceptions about injunctive norms were measured by asking respondents about

whether most people in Victoria would approve or disapprove of the four target

behaviours/items (adapted from Real & Rimal, 2007). Respondents rated their perceptions

from 1 = Strongly disapprove to 7 = Strongly approve. Responses were reverse coded to

create a measure of perceived disapproval of plastic use.

Perceived Benefits

In previous TNSB research relating to alcohol consumption, outcome expectations

have been operationalised as perceived benefits to oneself and anticipatory socialisation

(Real & Rimal, 2007; Rimal, 2008). In the context of plastic avoidance, outcome

expectations were also operationalised as perceived benefits to the self (‘If I avoid [item],

then I will feel good’). However, given that plastic avoidance is not a communal activity

compared to alcohol consumption, anticipatory socialisation was replaced with perceived

benefits to the environment (‘If I avoid [item], then the environment will benefit’). Items were

rated on a scale from 1 = Strongly disagree, to 7 = Strongly agree.

MEDIA AND SOCIAL NORMS 13

News Exposure

Modelled after the measure of ‘global warming media use’ employed by Huang

(2016), two items were used to measure media exposure from different sources: frequency of

use and exposure to plastic-related content. First, to measure news exposure, respondents

were asked how often they used various types of news outlets – e.g. newspapers, TV news, or

online news (1 = Never to 6 = Daily) (adapted from Holbert et al., 2003; Shehata &

Strömbäck, 2018). Next, they were asked how often they had seen news stories about plastic

waste (1 = Never to 5 = Very often) – adapted from Huang (2016).

Documentary Exposure

Two items were also used to measure documentary exposure, incorporating use and

plastic-related content. Frequency of use was measured in a similar manner to news but on a

yearly rather than weekly scale (from 1 = Never to 6 = At least once a week). Exposure to

documentaries about plastic was measured by asking respondents about their familiarity with

specific documentaries which had been released in Australia in recent years: War on Waste,

Blue Planet II, A Plastic Ocean, and Drowning in Plastic, from 1 = Never heard of it, to 4 =

Have seen all episodes/the whole movie.

Social Media Exposure

Finally, social media exposure was measured in the same manner as news – modelled

after the approaches used by Huang (2016) and Shehata and Strömbäck (2018). First,

respondents were asked how often they used social media (1 = Never to 6 = Daily). Next,

they were asked how often they had seen social media content about plastic waste (from 1 =

Never to 5 = Very often).

Analyses

Structural equation modelling was employed to test the hypotheses using AMOS 25.0.

Parameters were estimated using maximum likelihood procedure. The model was evaluated
MEDIA AND SOCIAL NORMS 14

using multiple model fit indices including model chi-square (ꭓ2), comparative fit index (CFI),

root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA), and standardised standardized root mean

square residual (SRMR). Three exogenous variables were specified for the model: social

media exposure, news exposure, and documentary exposure – representing latent constructs

from ‘media use’ and ‘exposure to plastic-related content’ across the three mediums. The

exogenous variables were then specified as predictors of the four dependent variables –

descriptive norms, injunctive norms, self-benefits, and environmental benefits. The

dependent variables also represented latent constructs which were defined by the four

items/behaviours (bags, straws, cups, and containers) – see Supplementary Material for CFA

results for the dependent and independent variables. Given that self- and environmental

benefits represented perceived benefits of avoidance, these were allowed to covary.

Results

Descriptive Statistics

Table 1 presents the descriptive statistics (mean and standard deviation) for the four

items (bags, straws, cups, and containers) across the dependent variables (descriptive norms,

injunctive norms, self-benefits, and environmental benefits), alongside the composite

reliability (Cronbach’s alpha, α) of the constructs – which were all above 0.70.

[INSERT TABLE 1 HERE]

Table 2 presents the correlation matrix and descriptive statistics (mean and standard

deviation) for the latent dependent variables (descriptive norms, injunctive norms, self-

benefits, and environmental benefits) and the independent variables (social media exposure,

news exposure, and documentary exposure). As anticipated, there was a strong correlation

was between self- and environmental benefits (r=.741, p<.01). There were also significant,

albeit small (r<.300), correlations between the latent dependent variables and the independent

variables. Social media use and exposure to plastic-related social media content had small
MEDIA AND SOCIAL NORMS 15

negative correlations with descriptive and injunctive norm perceptions (p<.01). All

independent variables, except for news use, correlated positively with self-benefits and

environmental benefits (p<.05). Within media exposure there was also a strong positive

correlation between familiarity with A Plastic Ocean and familiarity with Drowning in

Plastic (r=.633, p<.01) and between exposure to plastic-related social media content and

exposure to plastic-related news content (r=.529, p<.01).

[INSERT TABLE 2 HERE]

Testing the Model & Hypotheses

The proposed model did not provide an adequate model-fit (χ2=1572.14, df=261,

p<.05, CFI=0.87, RMSEA=0.09, SRMR=0.09). However, modification indices suggested

adding error variances between plastic bags and plastic straws (across the four dependant

variables) and between familiarity with A Plastic Ocean and familiarity with Drowning in

Plastic would improve the model-fit. Re-estimating the model with these additional

constraints resulted in an acceptable fit to the data (χ2=1277.15, df=256, p<.05, CFI=0.90,

RMSEA=0.07, SRMR=.08) – see Figure 2.

[INSERT FIGURE 2 HERE]

The final model explained 5% of the variance in descriptive norms, 9% of the

variance in injunctive norms, 14% of the variance in self-benefits, and 6% of the variance in

environmental benefits.

Table 3 presents the standardised (β) and unstandardised (B) regression weights and

p-values for the tested relationships in the final model. News exposure was not significantly

related to descriptive norms (H1a not supported) and was positively associated with

injunctive norms (H1b supported). In contrast, documentary exposure was positively related

to descriptive norms (H2a supported) but not injunctive norms (H2b not supported).

Additionally, social media exposure was negatively related to descriptive and injunctive norm
MEDIA AND SOCIAL NORMS 16

perceptions (H3a and H3b not supported). Finally, news exposure was not related to

perceived self- or environmental benefits (H4a and H4b not supported), whereas

documentary exposure and social media exposure were positively related to perceived self-

and environmental benefits (H5a, H5b, H6a and H6b supported).

[INSERT TABLE 3 HERE]

Discussion

The current study explored the relationship between media exposure and key

constructs in the TNSB, in relation to single-use plastic avoidance. Overall, the media model

explained a small but significant amount of the variance in perceived social norms and the

perceived benefits of plastic avoidance. However, the relationship between each medium and

the four dependent variables was not necessarily positive. The theoretical and practical

implications of these findings are discussed below.

Media & the Theory of Normative Social Behaviour

Findings from the current study indicate that increased media exposure is more likely

to cultivate perceptions that plastic avoidance is beneficial rather than perceptions that plastic

avoidance is common and acceptable. In other words, media exposure is more closely related

to perceived benefits (moderators of the norm-behaviour relationship, as proposed by the

TNSB) compared to social norm perceptions. This may represent a potential missed

opportunity in the media agenda for promoting the emerging plastic avoidance movement

(Vince & Stoett, 2018). Media can set agendas among the public and even between mediums

(Vonbun, Königslöw, & Schoenbach, 2016). Additionally, previous research has

demonstrated that specific media content can have a direct influence on social norm

perceptions (Arias, 2019; Paluck, 2009). Taken together, this suggests that if media

messaging across multiple channels focused on the emerging plastic avoidance movement,
MEDIA AND SOCIAL NORMS 17

communicators could potentially encourage avoidance by promoting both the benefits and

emerging avoidance social norms among a relatively large audience.

The small amount of explanation provided by the media model may also indicate that

the symbolic environment of the media is only one piece of the social norms puzzle. As

suggested by Mead et al. (2014), it is likely that more influential cues about social norms

come from the social rather than the symbolic environment. This may explain why social

media exposure had the strongest association with injunctive norms perceptions. As found by

Witzling, Shaw, and Trechter (2019) in relation to local food purchasing, the social

environment was the strongest predictor of descriptive and injunctive norm perceptions,

while the physical and symbolic environments provided significant but small contributions to

descriptive norms only.

It is interesting to note that Witzling et al. (2019) also found that social media was

related to injunctive norm perceptions but only among people who were less familiar with the

behaviour in question. This suggests that media exposure may not influence everyone in the

same way. Those who already avoid single-use plastics may be less influenced by media

compared to those who are not avoiding plastics. While out of scope for this paper, future

research is recommended to determine how different types of consumers are influenced by

plastic-related media content. Such an approach could then be used to develop more targeted

media messaging in the future.

Contribution of Different Media Types

The different contribution of each media type also warrants further discussion. The

limited contribution of news exposure to the model may reflect an inconsistency in news

media messaging. As mentioned previously, while Borg, Lindsay, et al. (2020) found that

plastic avoidance messaging was common overall, the dominant messaging in news media

varied over time – shifting from bag avoidance as beneficial and normal, to focusing on
MEDIA AND SOCIAL NORMS 18

instances of people struggling to adjust or resisting the ban (the undesirable norm).

Alternatively, the limited contribution of news may be indicative of the general decline in

confidence and trust in news media (Gronke & Cook, 2007) and the shift in information-

seeking away from traditional mediums (such as newspapers) towards online mediums (such

as social media) (Schäfer & Schlichting, 2014; Shehata & Strömbäck, 2018).

While the social nature of social media likely enhances the influence of the symbolic

environment on social norm perceptions, findings from the current study indicate that this

influence may be harming the anti-plastic movement because plastic avoidance is not being

promoted as the norm. The stronger influence of social media on social norm perceptions is

likely related to the readily available information about peer exposure and social reactions.

That is, the more people we believe have been exposed to a media message, the more likely it

will affect our perceptions about others (Perloff, 2009). Previous studies have found that

social media engagement, such as the number of comments, views, or ‘likes’, can influence

perceptions about the importance of an issue to others as well as individual behaviours

(Carpenter & Amaravadi, 2016; Spartz et al., 2015).

The positive relationship between documentaries on outcome expectations reflects the

historical role of documentaries as an educational tool (Fitzsimmons & Osburn, 1968). In

contrast, the positive relationship between documentaries and descriptive norms seems to

reflect the recent shift in filmmaking, where documentaries are also designed to encourage

audiences to change their thoughts, feelings, and behaviours (Fox, 2018). However, this

finding may also be evidence of a reinforcing spiral – a concept proposed by Slater (2007) to

describe the effect of selective media attention, where selection can also be the product of

previous exposure.

Recent media effects literature now generally accepts that the influence of media is

not a linear concept: we are more likely to seek out content that aligns with our interests, and
MEDIA AND SOCIAL NORMS 19

media content is more likely to reinforce rather than change our existing attitudes

(Macnamara, 2003). It is possible that those who already believe plastic avoidance is

common and who avoid plastic often, are also drawn to content which strengthens their

existing behaviours and beliefs, such as plastic-related documentaries. Given the aim of the

current study was to explore the relationship between media exposure and key constructs

from the TNSB, motivation for consuming media content was not measured. Future research

which accounts for not only what content audiences consume but why they consume different

content related to single-use plastics is recommended to further develop this field.

Limitations

In addition to the issue of selective media attention described above, there were

several methodological limitations worthy of discussion. First, while differentiating between

different types of media is a strength of the current study, the lack of existing research on

how media portrays plastic-related social norms represents a limitation. The role of media in

shaping public perceptions of plastic avoidance social norms depends on how the issue is

portrayed – e.g. focusing on the scale of the plastic waste problem could normalise plastic

use, whereas focusing on the uptake of reusable alternatives could normalise avoidance. This

may explain why null and negative relationships were identified between certain media types.

Second, the research relied on self-report survey data which is subject to a number of

shortcomings, including social desirability and recall error (Furnham, 1986). As such, survey

data may not represent and individual’s true perceptions or media consumption patterns.

Third, while the results suggest relationships between the tested variables, the use of cross-

sectional data does not allow for causal testing. Future research utilising experimental

methods and random assignment of media exposure is recommended to address these gaps.

Fourth, entertainment-based media formats were excluded from the study. While it is

possible that entertainment-based media could influence audience perceptions, previous

MEDIA AND SOCIAL NORMS 20

research has found that viewing more entertainment-based media content is not associated

with pro-environmental behaviours (Holbert et al., 2003). This is likely related to the

significant lack of environmental themes in prime-time content (Shanahan, McComas, &

Deline, 2015), alongside the tendency for audiences to seek out entertainment-based content

for leisure purposes (Vorderer & Hartmann, 2009), rather than a means for organising their

thoughts on issues – for which they typically turn to information-based content (Knobloch-

Westerwick, 2015). Therefore, it is unlikely that entertainment media is contributing to

perceptions concerning plastic avoidance.

Finally, a limited number of variables were used to measure media exposure (two

items per construct). While the factor loadings for the two-item constructs were all above 0.5,

in structural equation modelling, it is generally recommended that three to four items are used

to measure latent constructs to identify better solutions with more accurate estimates and

better reliability (Marsh, Hau, Balla, & Grayson, 1998). Additionally, the measure for social

media use was somewhat simplistic, given the variety of social media platforms available and

the upper limit of ‘daily use’ in the survey. However, Marsh et al. (1998) note that the

number of items in structural equation modelling is of most relevance when the sample size is

small (n<100). Given that the sample in the current study was relatively large (n=682) and

the fit indices were adequate in the final model, it appears that the number of items was

satisfactory for the media model. However, future research which employs more

sophisticated measures of media exposure – particularly social media exposure – is

recommended.

Future Research

The findings from this study raise additional questions about the intersection between

documentaries and social media. In recent years, social media has often been used as a tool to

disseminate and promote documentaries and their messages. For example, the film Blackfish
MEDIA AND SOCIAL NORMS 21

(2013) attracted almost 70,000 tweets the night that it was released and has been attributed to

a consistent drop in visitors and revenue at SeaWorld (Brammer, 2015). Wright et al. (2015)

argue that this came down to the film’s emotional messaging and the distributor’s decision to

capitalise on the growing popularity of social media. However, there is still the question of

whether documentary content shared on social media could also have a direct effect on

viewers’ perceptions.

For example, a clip from Drowning in Plastic of a baby bird regurgitating pieces of

plastic has been viewed almost 30 million times and shared over 500,000 times since May

20195. Future research could build on findings from the current study by specifically testing

if such clips from plastic-related documentaries, shared via social media, influence social

norm perceptions and the perceived benefits of avoidance. Such research would also address

issues of selective media attention, use of cross-sectional data, and self-reported media

consumption in the current study. By bringing elements of the symbolic environment into the

social world, such research could provide valuable insights regarding the relationship

between media exposure and social norms in the new media landscape.

Conclusion

The current study provides several important insights regarding the extent to which

exposure from different media sources (the symbolic environment), including social media

(the symbolic/social environment), relates to key constructs from the TNSB. The media

model contributed to a significant, albeit small, amount of the variance in plastic avoidance

descriptive and injunctive norm perceptions, and the self- and environmental benefits of

avoidance. Importantly, the relationship between media exposure and social norms was not

always positive. This highlights that although media exposure is associated with social norm

5 https://www.facebook.com/oceanmagazin/posts/2487067594650441
MEDIA AND SOCIAL NORMS 22

perceptions, more could be done to elevate the current anti-plastic movement. Given that

social norm perceptions are an important predictor of avoidance, and most people believe

others avoid plastic less often than themselves (Borg, Curtis, et al., 2020), consistent media

messaging could encourage behaviour change simply by highlighting that avoidance is more

common than we might realise. This would demonstrate to a large audience that not only is

plastic avoidance becoming normal, but that behaviour change is possible.

MEDIA AND SOCIAL NORMS 23

References

Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human

Decision Processes, 50(2), 179-211. doi: 10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-T

Arias, E. (2019). How does media influence social norms? Experimental evidence on the role

of common knowledge. Political Science Research and Methods, 7(3), 561-578. doi:

10.1017/psrm.2018.1

Bandura, A. (2009). Social cognitive theory of mass communication. In J. Bryant & M. B.

Oliver (Eds.), Media effects: Advances in theory and research (3 ed., pp. 110-140).

New York, United States: Routledge.

BBC News. (2018, 2018, October 24). Single-use plastics ban approved by European

parliament, BBC News. Retrieved from https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-

45965605

Borg, K., Curtis, J., & Lindsay, J. (2020). Social norms and plastic avoidance: Testing the

theory of normative social behaviour on an environmental behaviour. Journal of

Consumer Behaviour. doi: 10.1002/cb.1842

Borg, K., Lindsay, J., & Curtis, J. (2020). When news media and social media meet: How

Facebook users reacted to news stories about a supermarket plastic bag ban New

Media & Society. doi: 10.1177/1461444820956681

Borrelle, S. B., Ringma, J., Law, K. L., Monnahan, C. C., Lebreton, L., McGivern, A., . . .

Hilleary, M. A. (2020). Predicted growth in plastic waste exceeds efforts to mitigate

plastic pollution. Science, 369(6510), 1515-1518. doi: 10.1126/science.aba3656

Brammer, R. (2015). Activism and antagonism: The 'Blackfish' effect. Screen Education(76),

72-79
MEDIA AND SOCIAL NORMS 24

Braun, J., & Gillespie, T. (2011). Hosting the public discourse, hosting the public: When

online news and social media converge. Journalism Practice, 5(4), 383-398. doi:

10.1080/17512786.2011.557560

Burchell, K., Rettie, R., & Patel, K. (2013). Marketing social norms: Social marketing and

the ‘social norm approach’. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 12(1), 1-9. doi:

10.1002/cb.1395

Carpenter, C. J., & Amaravadi, C. S. (2016). A big data approach to assessing the impact of

social norms: Reporting one’s exercise to a social media audience. Communication

Research, 46(2), 236-249. doi: 10.1177/0093650216657776

Chia, S. C., & Gunther, A. C. (2006). How media contribute to misperceptions of social

norms about sex. Mass Communication & Society, 9(3), 301-320. doi:

10.1207/s15327825mcs0903_3

Cialdini, R. B., Demaine, L. J., Sagarin, B. J., Barrett, D. W., Rhoads, K., & Winter, P. L.

(2006). Managing social norms for persuasive impact. Social Influence, 1(1), 3-15.

doi: 10.1080/15534510500181459

Cialdini, R. B., Kallgren, C. A., & Reno, R. R. (1991). A focus theory of normative conduct:

A theoretical refinement and reevaluation of the role of norms in human-behavior.

Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 24, 201-234. doi: 10.1016/S0065-

2601(08)60330-5

Cialdini, R. B., Reno, R. R., & Kallgren, C. A. (1990). A focus theory of normative conduct:

Recycling the concept of norms to reduce littering in public places. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 58(6), 1015-1026. doi: 10.1037/0022-

3514.58.6.1015

Collins, R. (2017). The positive results of the war on waste. Retrieved from

https://recyclingnearyou.com.au/news/display/1290
MEDIA AND SOCIAL NORMS 25

Dulaney, M. (2017, 14 Jul 2017). Coles to follow Woolworths' lead and phase out plastic

bags around the country, ABC News. Retrieved from

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-07-14/woolworths-to-phase-out-plastic-bags-

around-the-country/8709336

Ellis-Petersen, H. (2019). Dead whale washed up in Philippines had 40kg of plastic bags in

its stomach, The Guardian. Retrieved from

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/mar/18/dead-whale-washed-up-in-

philippines-had-40kg-of-plastic-bags-in-its-stomach

Farrow, K., Grolleau, G., & Ibanez, L. (2017). Social norms and pro-environmental behavior:

A review of the evidence. Ecological Economics, 140, 1-13. doi:

10.1016/j.ecolecon.2017.04.017

Fitzsimmons, S. J., & Osburn, H. G. (1968). The impact of social issues and public affairs

television documentaries. Public Opinion Quarterly, 32, 380-397. doi:

10.1086/267622

Fletcher, R., & Nielsen, R. K. (2018). Are people incidentally exposed to news on social

media? A comparative analysis. New Media & Society, 20(7), 2450-2468. doi:

10.1177/1461444817724170

Fox, B. (2018). From media to movement: Distribution, outreach, and engagement

Documentary media: History, theory, practice (2 ed., pp. 251-274). New York,

United States: Routledge.

Furnham, A. (1986). Response bias, social desirability and dissimulation. Personality and

individual differences, 7(3), 385-400

Geber, S., Baumann, E., & Klimmt, C. (2019). Where do norms come from? Peer

communication as a factor in normative social influences on risk behavior.

Communication Research, 46(5), 708-730. doi: 10.1177/0093650217718656

MEDIA AND SOCIAL NORMS 26

Gronke, P., & Cook, T. E. (2007). Disdaining the media: The American public's changing

attitudes toward the news. Political Communication, 24(3), 259-281. doi:

10.1080/10584600701471591

Hansen, A. (2011). Communication, media and environment: Towards reconnecting research

on the production, content and social implications of environmental communication.

International Communication Gazette, 73(1-2), 7-25. doi:

10.1177/1748048510386739

Hayns-Worthington, S. (2018, 2018, January 5). The attenborough effect: Searches for plastic

recycling rocket after Blue Planet II, Resource Media Limited. Retrieved from

https://resource.co/article/attenborough-effect-searches-plastic-recycling-rocket-after-

blue-planet-ii-12334

Heidbreder, L. M., Bablok, I., Drews, S., & Menzel, C. (2019). Tackling the plastic problem:

A review on perceptions, behaviors, and interventions. Science of the Total

Environment, 668, 1077-1093. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.02.437

Holbert, R. L., Kwak, N., & Shah, D. V. (2003). Environmental concern, patterns of

television viewing, and pro-environmental behaviors: Integrating models of media

consumption and effects. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 47(2), 177-

196. doi: 10.1207/s15506878jobem4702_2

Huang, H. (2016). Media use, environmental beliefs, self-efficacy, and pro-environmental

behavior. Journal of Business Research, 69(6), 2206-2212. doi:

10.1016/j.jbusres.2015.12.031

Kallgren, C. A., Reno, R. R., & Cialdini, R. B. (2000). A focus theory of normative conduct:

When norms do and do not affect behavior. Personality and Social Psychology

Bulletin, 26(8), 1002-1012. doi: 10.1177/01461672002610009

MEDIA AND SOCIAL NORMS 27

Keep Australia Beautiful. (2017). National Litter Index: 2016/17. http://kab.org.au/wp-

content/uploads/2018/02/1802_KAB_nli_report_v2_2016-17.pdf.

Knapton, S. (2018). The queen declares war on plastic after David Attenborough

documentary, The Telegraph. Retrieved from

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/02/11/queen-declares-war-plastic-david-

attenborough-documentary/

Knobloch-Westerwick, S. (2015). Choice and preference in media use: Advances in selective

exposure theory and research. New York: Routledge.

LaMarre, H. L., & Landreville, K. D. (2009). When is fiction as good as fact? Comparing the

influence of documentary and historical reenactment films on engagement, affect,

issue interest, and learning. Mass Communication & Society, 12(4), 537-555. doi:

10.1080/15205430903237915

Lapinski, M. K., Maloney, E. K., Braz, M., & Shulman, H. C. (2013). Testing the effects of

social norms and behavioral privacy on hand washing: A field experiment. Human

Communication Research, 39(1), 21-46. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2958.2012.01441.x

Lapinski, M. K., & Rimal, R. N. (2005). An explication of social norms. Communication

Theory, 15(2), 127-147. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2885.2005.tb00329.x

Lee, K. (2011). The role of media exposure, social exposure and biospheric value orientation

in the environmental attitude-intention-behavior model in adolescents. Journal of

Environmental Psychology, 31(4), 301-308. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvp.2011.08.004

Löhr, A., Savelli, H., Beunen, R., Kalz, M., Ragas, A., & Van Belleghem, F. (2017).

Solutions for global marine litter pollution. Current Opinion in Environmental

Sustainability, 28, 90-99. doi: 10.1016/j.cosust.2017.08.009

MEDIA AND SOCIAL NORMS 28

Mabry, A., & Mackert, M. (2014). Advancing use of norms for social marketing: Extending

the theory of normative social behavior. International Review on Public and

Nonprofit Marketing, 11(2), 129-143. doi: 10.1007/s12208-013-0109-5

Macnamara, J. R. (2003). Mass media effects: A review of 50 years of media effects research.

CARMA International

Marsh, H. W., Hau, K.-T., Balla, J. R., & Grayson, D. (1998). Is more ever too much? The

number of indicators per factor in confirmatory factor analysis. Multivariate

Behavioral Research, 33(2), 181-220. doi: 10.1207/s15327906mbr3302_1

McLeod, D. M., Kosicki, G. M., & McLeod, J. M. (2009). Political communication effects.

In J. Bryant & M. B. Oliver (Eds.), Media effects: Advances in theory and research (3

ed., pp. 228-251). New York, United States: Routledge.

Mead, E. L., Rimal, R. N., Ferrence, R., & Cohen, J. E. (2014). Understanding the sources of

normative influence on behavior: The example of tobacco. Social Science and

Medicine, 115, 139-143. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2014.05.030

Paluck, E. L. (2009). Reducing intergroup prejudice and conflict using the media: a field

experiment in Rwanda. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96(3), 574-

587. doi: 10.1037/a0011989

Perloff, R. M. (2009). Mass media, social perception, and the third-person effect. In J. Bryant

& M. B. Oliver (Eds.), Media effects: Advances in theory and research (3 ed., pp.

252-268). New York, United States: Routledge.

Real, K., & Rimal, R. N. (2007). Friends talk to friends about drinking: Exploring the role of

peer communication in the theory of normative social behavior. Health

Communication, 22(2), 169-180. doi: 10.1080/10410230701454254

MEDIA AND SOCIAL NORMS 29

Rettie, R., Burchell, K., & Barnham, C. (2014). Social normalisation: Using marketing to

make green normal. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 13(1), 9-17. doi:

10.1002/cb.1439

Rimal, R. N. (2008). Modeling the relationship between descriptive norms and behaviors: A

test and extension of the theory of normative social behavior (TNSB). Health

Communication, 23(2), 103-116. doi: 10.1080/10410230801967791

Rimal, R. N., & Lapinski, M. K. (2015). A re-explication of social norms, ten years later.

Communication Theory, 25(4), 393-409. doi: 10.1111/comt.12080

Rimal, R. N., & Real, K. (2005). How behaviors are influenced by perceived norms a test of

the theory of normative social behavior. Communication Research, 32(3), 389-414.

doi: 10.1177/0093650205275385

Ritch, E., Brennan, C., & MacLeod, C. (2009). Plastic bag politics: modifying consumer

behaviour for sustainable development. International Journal of Consumer Studies,

33(2), 168-174. doi: 10.1111/j.1470-6431.2009.00749.x

Schäfer, M. S., & Schlichting, I. (2014). Media representations of climate change: A meta-

analysis of the research field. Environmental Communication, 8(2), 142-160. doi:

10.1080/17524032.2014.914050

Shanahan, J., McComas, K., & Deline, M. B. (2015). Representations of the environment on

television, and their effects. The Routledge handbook of environment and

communication, 262-318

Shehata, A., & Strömbäck, J. (2018). Learning political news from social media: Network

media logic and current affairs news learning in a high-choice media environment.

Communication Research, 1-23. doi: 10.1177/0093650217749354

Shepherd, H. R. (2017). The structure of perception: How networks shape ideas of norms.

Sociological Forum, 32(1), 72-93. doi: 10.1111/socf.12317

MEDIA AND SOCIAL NORMS 30

Shrum, L. J., O'Guinn, T. C., Semenik, R. J., & Faber, R. J. (1991). Processes and effects in

the construction of normative consumer beliefs: The role of television. Advances in

Consumer Research, 18, 755-763

Slater, M. D. (2007). Reinforcing spirals: The mutual influence of media selectivity and

media effects and their impact on individual behavior and social identity.

Communication Theory, 17(3), 281-303. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2885.2007.00296.x

Spartz, J. T., Su, L. Y.-F., Griffin, R., Brossard, D., & Dunwoody, S. (2015). Youtube, social

norms and perceived salience of climate change in the American mind. Environmental

Communication, 11(1), 1-16. doi: 10.1080/17524032.2015.1047887

State Government of Victoria. (2018a). Reducing the impacts of plastic on the Victorian

Environment - Consultation Report. Victorian Department of Environment, Land,

Water and Planninghttps://www.environment.vic.gov.au/sustainability/plastic-

pollution.

State Government of Victoria. (2018b). Reducing the impacts of plastics on the Victorian

environment - Discussion paper. Melbourne,

Australiahttps://www.environment.vic.gov.au/sustainability/plastic-pollution.

Stern, P. C., Dietz, T., Abel, T., Guagnano, G. A., & Kalof, L. (1999). A value-belief-norm

theory of support for social movements: The case of environmentalism. Human

ecology review, 81-97

Tankard, M. E., & Paluck, E. L. (2016). Norm perception as a vehicle for social change.

Social Issues and Policy Review, 10(1), 181-211. doi: 10.1111/sipr.12022

Vince, J., & Stoett, P. (2018). From problem to crisis to interdisciplinary solutions: Plastic

marine debris. Marine Policy, 96, 200-203. doi: 10.1016/j.marpol.2018.05.006

MEDIA AND SOCIAL NORMS 31

Vonbun, R., Königslöw, K. K., & Schoenbach, K. (2016). Intermedia agenda-setting in a

multimedia news environment. Journalism, 17(8), 1054-1073. doi:

10.1177/1464884915595475

Vorderer, P., & Hartmann, T. (2009). Entertainment and enjoyment as media effects. In J.

Bryant & M. B. Oliver (Eds.), Media effects: Advances in theory and research (3 ed.,

pp. 532-550). New York, United States: Routledge.

Wagner, T. P. (2017). Reducing single-use plastic shopping bags in the USA. Waste

Management, 70, 3-12. doi: 10.1016/j.wasman.2017.09.003

Walter, N., Murphy, S. T., Frank, L. B., & Ball-Rokeach, S. J. (2019). The power of

brokerage: Case study of normative behavior, latinas and cervical cancer.

Communication Research, 46(5), 639-662. doi: 10.1177/0093650217718655

Watts, J. (2019). Six-decade plankton study charts rise of ocean plastic waste, The Guardian.

Retrieved from https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/apr/16/six-decade-

plankton-study-charts-rise-of-ocean-plastic-waste

Witzling, L., Shaw, B., & Trechter, D. (2019). Which communication channels shape

normative perceptions about buying local food? An application of social exposure.

Agriculture and Human Values, 1-12. doi: 10.1007/s10460-019-09926-1

Wright, A. J., Verissimo, D., Pilfold, K., Parsons, E. C. M., Ventre, K., Cousins, J., . . .

McKinley, E. (2015). Competitive outreach in the 21st century: Why we need

conservation marketing. Ocean & Coastal Management, 115, 41-48. doi:

10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2015.06.029

Xanthos, D., & Walker, T. R. (2017). International policies to reduce plastic marine pollution

from single-use plastics (plastic bags and microbeads): A review. Marine Pollution

Bulletin, 118(1), 17-26. doi: 10.1016/j.marpolbul.2017.02.048

MEDIA AND SOCIAL NORMS

Tables

Table 1. Descriptive statistics and construct reliability for dependent variables

Mean SD α
Descriptive norms: Bags 55.72 27.63 .785
Descriptive norms: Straws 45.98 26.80
Descriptive norms: Cups 35.23 25.24
Descriptive norms: Containers 32.60 26.45
Injunctive norms: Bags 4.04 1.89 .878
Injunctive norms: Straws 3.99 1.76
Injunctive norms: Cups 3.76 1.64
Injunctive norms: Containers 3.74 1.64
Self-benefits: Bags 5.56 1.55 .928
Self-benefits: Straws 5.43 1.67
Self-benefits: Cups 5.30 1.63
Self-benefits: Containers 5.29 1.67
Environmental benefits: Bags 5.96 1.44 .940
Environmental benefits: Straws 5.93 1.42
Environmental benefits: Cups 5.85 1.44
Environmental benefits: Containers 5.85 1.43
MEDIA AND SOCIAL NORMS

Table 2. Correlation matrix and descriptive statistics for independent variables and latent constructs
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
1 Descriptive norms 1
2 Injunctive norms .161** 1
3 Self-benefits .151** .061 1
4 Environmental benefits .141** .102** .741** 1
5 Social media use -.123** -.119** .117** .106** 1
6 Plastic social media exposure -.133** -.159** .246** .156** .524** 1
7 News use .033 .092* .029 .046 -.032 .016 1
8 Plastic news exposure -.052 -.029 .180** .127** .059 .529** .251** 1
9 Environmental documentary use .011 -.087* .272** .198** .068 .310** .229** .395** 1
10 War on Waste familiarity -.022 .050 .190** .137** -.055 .177** .127** .327** .296** 1
11 Blue Planet II familiarity .055 .005 .139** .115** -.019 .159** .174** .297** .352** .299** 1
12 A Plastic Ocean familiarity -.024 -.117** .167** .080* .044 .256** .080* .313** .360** .387** .395** 1
13 Drowning in Plastic familiarity -.009 -.055 .170** .094* .044 .195** .128** .317** .354** .381** .384** .633** 1
M 42.38 3.88 5.39 5.90 4.56 2.63 4.94 3.01 3.11 2.00 2.18 1.67 1.62
SD 20.70 1.48 1.48 1.32 1.87 1.30 1.36 1.10 1.45 1.01 0.94 0.91 0.87
** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
* Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
MEDIA AND SOCIAL NORMS

Table 3. Estimates of the final structural model (standardized & unstandardized)

Relationship β B p-value
Social media exposure → Descriptive norms -0.162 -0.141 0.008
Social media exposure → Injunctive norms -0.229 -0.214 <0.001
Social media exposure → Self-benefits 0.156 0.143 <0.001
Social media exposure → Environmental benefits 0.094 0.086 0.050
News exposure → Descriptive norms 0.017 0.030 0.828
News exposure → Injunctive norms 0.198 0.370 0.018
News exposure → Self-benefits -0.010 -0.019 0.893
News exposure → Environmental benefits 0.053 0.098 0.474
Documentary exposure → Descriptive norms 0.166 0.277 0.007
Documentary exposure → Injunctive norms -0.029 -0.052 0.621
Documentary exposure → Self-benefits 0.343 0.603 <0.001
Documentary exposure → Environmental benefits 0.222 0.392 <0.001
MEDIA AND SOCIAL NORMS 35

Figures

Figure 1. Proposed structural model

 MEDIA AND SOCIAL NORMS 36

Figure 2. Final modified model

View publication stats