Mere presence effect on pro-environmental behavior: exploring the role of social influence

Figures & data

Figure 1. Conceptual framework of the current study.

Figure 2. Scenarios for waste sorting scene.

Table 1. Results of post-hoc tests on one-way ANOVA analysis.

Observer Type		MD (I-J)	S.E	p	95% CI
(I)	(J)				Lower Bound	Upper Bound
Being alone	Acquaintance	−.580	.162	.002	−1.010	−.150
	Stranger	−.399	.146	.038	−.785	−.013
	CCTV	−.050	.162	1.000	−.480	.380
Acquaintance	Being alone	.580	.162	.002	.150	1.010
	Stranger	.181	.146	1.000	−2.053	.567
	CCTV	.530	.162	.007	.0997	.960
Stranger	Being alone	.399	.146	.038	.0132	.785
	Acquaintance	−.181	.146	1.000	−.567	.205
	CCTV	.349	.146	.043	.037	.735
CCTV	Being alone	.050	.162	1.000	−.380	.480
	Acquaintance	−.530	.162	.007	−.960	−.099
	Stranger	−.349	.146	.043	−.735	−.037

Figure 3. The difference in waste sorting intention between high and low pro-environmental attitudes.

Table 2. Post-hoc test investigating the differences in waste sorting intention within a group with low pro-environmental attitude.

Observer Type		MD(I-J)	SE	p
(I)	(J)
Acquaintance	Being alone	.84	.28	.001
	Stranger	.13	.24	.245
	CCTV	.57	.25	.000
Stranger	Being alone	.71	.21	.003
	CCTV	.44	.24	.009
CCTV	Being alone	.27	.25	.939

Table 3. Bootstrapping test on the mediating effect of impression management.

	Mediating effect	Boot		Boot 95% CI
Independent variable	β	Mean	SE	LL	UL
Acquaintance	.398	.398	.153	.102	.691
Stranger	.338	.337	.141	.059	.609
CCTV	.131	.134	.137	−.144	.405