The Impact of Environmental Public Policy Tools on Behavior Decision Process

The impact of environmental public policy tools on behavior decision process

Author: Mr. ALAUX Christophe: Professor, Doctor in sciences of management, IMPGT, University Paul Cezanne (Aix-Marseille III), CERGAM. Email: [email protected]

Abstract Most of public policies aim to change behaviors. Indeed, their performance manly depends on their capacity to make effective change in habits of people. In this view, marketing has often been used as a “tool box” that was available to influence behaviors of public policy targets as it was done with companies’ targets. However, marketing could also be very helpful for public performance if it was more focused on the comprehension of consumer behavior. Thus, some researches were developed in order to improve the development and evaluation of the impact of public policy instruments on consumer decision- making process, notably for pro environmental behaviors.

Key words: public marketing, behavior decision process, pro environmental behaviors, public policy instruments.

1 Recent reforms in public administration shown that public organization and public policies they manage should give the proofs of their usefulness and their performance to carry on existing. Indeed, most of them have to face with a legitimacy that focuses on the effectiveness of their « outputs » instead of their inputs (Scharpf, 1999). The introduction of principles and tools from business organizations would be the consequence of this feeling of vulnerability and this quest for performance (Verrier et al., 1997). Marketing and its tools were first concerned by this transfer in not for profit organizations with their extension suggested by Philip Kotler in 1969 (Kotler et Levy, 1969). Nevertheless, the marketing approach can’t be thought in a unilateral way as a transfer from private to public sector. Although both logics of impact on behaviors (marketing and public policies) are quite similar, the generic concept of marketing couldn’t be directly transferred in the public sector. A lot of debates were concerned by the question of appropriateness of marketing approach and its tools in public sector (Graham, 1994; Walsh, 1994; Butler et Collins, 1995; Kaplan et Haenlein, 2009). According to our vision, marketing could more helpful for public performance if it focuses on consumer behavior. Some authors have emphasized the importance of developing research on consumer decision-making process to improve the development and evaluation of the impact of public policy instruments (Wilkie et Gardner, 1974). For example, informational approaches on nutritional characteristics of food products frequently present problems of interpretation by the consumer (Jacoby et al., 1977). It is necessary to deepen the understanding of this information to improve the effectiveness of public policy. However, research combining the impact of public policies on consumption activities have mainly focused on the communication deterrence, coercion, legal, product certification and other issues involving consumer protection. So there is very little systematic empirical or theoretical research on this topic. From this point of view, instead of dealing with appropriateness of marketing in a specific public sector, it would be more useful to take advantage from researches in marketing to use them in order to increase the impact and effectiveness of public policies by improving the quality of public policies tools to be used. It would lead to deepen the rational logic of impact of public policy tools towards a more comprehensive understanding of their impacts on a complex consumer decision process. We’ll first make a presentation of the rationale logic of impact for public policy tools. Then, we’ll discuss how the knowledge of psycho sociological determinants of behaviors can be helpful to understand the impact of categories of instruments of environmental public policy tools. The last section will present a variety of conceptual frameworks that helps to 2 understand the impact of public policy tools on behavior decision process in order to improve the effectiveness of environmental public policies.

Section 1. The rationale logic of impact for public policy tools

The models of public policy impact focus on the assumptions of rationality of the consumer on which they are based. In the perception of consumer behavior, the rational choice theory is in fact focused on cognitive components of decision making that will guide the evaluations of consumers in their decision making. In the causal model of public policies, attitudes and behaviors are both consequences of the instruments used but also the causes of the social ends aimed by public policies. They are located at an intermediate level between the instruments ("outputs") and the final effects ("outcomes"); hence the designation of "intermediate outcomes" in between. The logic of impact for public policies is also a hypothesis about patterns of behavioral response of targeted audiences. In this regard, "the rational choice model is a guide to most public policy" (Jackson, 2005); p.6). Then, they formulate hypotheses that focus on primarily cognitive processes and rational decision making (A.P.S.C., 2007).

1.1 - Categories of public policy instruments and behavioral assumptions

In the causal approach of impact, public policy instruments have been studied as independent variables that produce different effects depending on the mix of tools and instruments used in the context of public policy. For citizens, these instruments are often the most visible manifestation of public interventions. They never are reduced to a residual component of policy, but rather as one of their main components (Varone, 2001). When these instruments are intended to guide environmental significant behavior, they can be categorized in a more specific manner than the proposed generic classifications such as Hood’s ones (Hood, 1983). By adapting a generic approach to categorization focusing on the effects of behavioral instruments, a report from the DEFRA distinguished four categories of environmental instruments (Collins et al., 2003). The legislation is a first category including standards and bans. The second category of economic instruments aims at increasing the price of having a 3 negative environmental impact and lowering the products with positive environmental impact. Their objective is to "change polluting behaviors with the price mechanism, using uniform financial incentives at the margin" (Bureau, 2005); p.89). The third category includes instruments for delivery of information to enable individuals to make well informed choices (eco-labels). The fourth category includes marketing strategies of influence which are designed to develop emotional and behavioral attitudes leading to the adoption of the good conduct (persuasive campaigns, awareness campaigns). This classification, however, can be deepened by including additional instruments or by specifying the instruments infrastructure and tools that aim to facilitate the adoption of these behaviors by building infrastructure and delivery of services to the population (sewage treatment plant , waste collection) (Larrue, 2000). This categorization is thus based on assumptions about the types of behaviors that seek to influence public policies (Ingram et Schneider, 1990). The five categories are authority tools, incentive tools, capacity tools, symbolic or hortatory tool and learning tools. These tools are well adapted to the assumptions about the behavior of target groups. Their choices also depend on the social representation of these groups, as well as the power available to them (Schneider et Ingram, 1993). The contribution of this categorization is to create a separate category for symbolic tools. These latter are distinguished from the "realistic tools” which include public expenditures, expression of authority and military force (Hood, 2007).To analyze the Swiss climate policy, Perret proposed to identify these symbolic instruments according to their effects on behaviors. Thus, he distinguished virtuous, emotional and exemplary communication strategies (Perret, 2006). This distinction is particularly relevant to environmental issues as the effectiveness of information campaigns aimed at improving the knowledge of good behavior is much greater than that of the country disseminating environmental information too general (Vedung, 1999). So we can identify eight ideal types of instruments, namely the traditional instruments of generic approaches (legislation, economic instruments, instruments infrastructure), the precise communicative and influence instruments (instruments virtuous communicative, emotional, informational, exemplary). This classification covers a wide range of instruments applied to environmental public policies. Depending on the behaviors that public policies seek to influence, some tools would be more or less adapted. According to their motivations, people would be more ready to change their behaviors with specific individual or mixes of instruments. This marketing perspective of

4 public policy suggests focusing on the study of behavior before implementing the instruments of public action (Kollmuss et Agyeman, 2002). With the exception of Ingram and Schneider (1990), traditional approaches did not include real generic assumptions about behaviors subject public policy even if they seem to be essential to identify the impact of instruments on the behavior of target groups. Some models were proposed to understand these impacts that focus on the rationality of behaviors.

1.2 - Models of public policy impact on consumers

Traditionally, marketing researches aim at understanding the impact of marketing strategies on consumer’s behavior and decision process. From this perspective, public policies are seen as external constraints or opportunities. However, although profit orientation of a company differs from political authorities objectives, their actions contribute jointly to impact the consumer's decision process (Prakash, 2002; Hastings, 2003). A simplified model based on which market research suggests that public policy creates a set of rules which impact the behaviors of companies. These latter integrate these rules into their production and their promotion policy, which in turn impact the consumer (Burger et Venkatesh, 1982). Thus, there is a feedback loop between consumers, companies and governments that corresponds to the four stages of the initial model for the impact of public policies on consumers (Figure 1). For example, regarding the use of seat belts, the government is trying to force consumers to use these belts. The public policy measures are thus passed on to consumers, especially through the mass media (1). Consumer reactions in terms of claims and types of communication are transmitted to the Government (2). It may modify its original intentions before implementing a set of rules that will target companies (3). They will then adapt their strategies. For example, they may consider making automatic seat belts in vehicles, which will ensure the final adoption of desired behavior (4). Figure 1: intial paradigm public policy-consumer (Source: Burger & Venkatesh 1982)

5 2

Public policies Companies Consumers 3 4

This initial paradigm suits to regulatory and fiscal approaches that aim to ensure the conformation of companies and consumer (Scholz, 1998; Frey et Jegen, 2001a; Braithwaite et al., 2007). Very parsimonious, this model could be deepened by studying the impact of public policies on consumer decision making process. A more complex model than the initial model is based on circular flows driven by public policy. Through these instruments, government seeks to have an impact on the cognitive structure of consumers. These instruments affect the attitudes and beliefs of consumers and, thereby, their purchasing behavior (Figure 2).

Figure 2: Emergent paradigm public policy-consumer

Logic of Behavior of Public impact Attitude of consumers 1 of 2 3 policies consumers public policies 4 4

Segments

Indicators of 5 demand

The segmentation of this model shows that different groups of consumers adopt different behaviors according to the segment they belong to. Then, the consumer’s response can be integrated as an indicator which will then be evaluated and integrated with the following policy. This type of survey is also frequently used to design of public policies (Hastak et al.,

6 2001). Thus the model can be seen as a stimulus-response model where governments send stimuli to consumer segments over a period of time. Such studies, however, can’t be achieved prior to the implementation of all public policies designed to influence consumer behavior. Decisions regarding the choice of alternative instruments are based more often on assumptions and intuitions on consumer behavior. The assumptions on which they are based are the model of rational choice of the consumer who is also the basis of the instruments used by public policies (Jackson, 2005; A.P.S.C., 2007).

However, for pro environmental behaviors, rational determinants are not sufficient to explain the complexity of these behaviors. Thus, the study of environmental policy tools by environmental psychologists focused on environmental significant behaviors with a deeper understanding of their impacts. Their purpose is to deepen the understanding of the impact of different instruments on consumer behavior that has a significant environmental impact. It integrates the rational behavior but also extends to other approaches, including normative and affective determinants.

Section 2. The effects of environmental policy tools on environmental significant behavior

Other classifications have suggested classifying these instruments as functions of behavioral objectives they seek in order to reduce environmental impacts of behaviors. These parsimonious approaches developed in social psychology have proposed typologies of instruments adapted to significant environmental behavior. They focus on the impact of instrument categories based on criteria related to psychosocial determinants of these behaviors. They enable and expand the instrumental approaches which were based almost exclusively on behavioral assumptions under the model of rational choice.

2.1 - Parsimonious instruments classifications for pro- environmental behaviors

A primary distinction has been made between incentives / disincentives ("pull" / "push") (Geller, 2002). The incentive to engage in behaviors associated with low CO2 emissions ("pull") is opposed to the penalization of behaviors associated with high emissions 7 of CO2 ("push"). To influence the behavior of choosing a mode of transport, the instruments “push” will aim to increase fuel prices, to develop urban tolls, to communicate on the consequences of the bad behavior of transport, while the instruments “pull” propose alternatives to the behavior with high carbon impact with public transport improvements or grants for “good” behavior "clean". This distinction "push" / "pull" focuses on the effects of incentives or disincentives without making a distinction between the resources of governmental tools. There can also be instruments that address efficiency or "curtailment" behaviors (Gardner et Stern, 2002). Thus, compared to the behavior of buying a car with low carbon emissions, we will distinguish efficiency measures designed to amend the purchasing behavior (tax or subsidy on purchase of a vehicle according to its polluting) and measures designed to amend parsimonious use of the vehicle in a more environmentally friendly (congestion charges, fuel taxes, ...). So while all these are examples of economic incentives and disincentives, they will be classified in two categories of instruments depending on the type of behavior they seek to influence. These behavioral approaches help to define the objectives of the instruments and the impact they have on psychological determinants of behavior.

2.2 - The motivational instruments of environmental public policies

One of the first typologies of methods of intervention in environmental matters has been proposed by Geller (Geller et al., 1990). There are three types of approaches to effective change in behavior: a process of communication / education, antecedents’ activators and an approach focusing on the consequences of adopting the behavior. Within these three categories, twenty-four sub-categories correspond to specific strategies of interventions to influence behavior change. This distinction between antecedent/consequence instruments is very similar to the distinction between informational /structural tools (Messick et Brewer, 1983) or psychological/structural tools (Vlek, 1996). All these classifications aim to distinguish a first category of instruments that seek to influence the attitudes and intrinsic motivation (informational, psychological, background). The second category of instruments focuses on extrinsic motivations which are external to the final behavior (structural, consequence).Regulatory and economic instruments are generally in the second category. However, a communication campaign designed to inform citizens of the establishment of a subsidy for the purchase of energy efficient appliances can also be seen as 8 an instrument of this second category. Indeed, this instrument does not intend to alter the intrinsic motivation but rather plays the role of an external element which would change the plan to adopt the behavior. Finally, most of classifications of motivation based instruments can be grouped into two categories whether they intend to act on intrinsic or extrinsic motivations (Frey, 1999). This distinction in the first category includes instruments identified in the categories of backgrounds, informational and predisposition. In the second category, it includes instruments categories of consequences, and structural capacity. This distinction has been particularly relevant to understand the support of consumers to environmental policy to the purchase of low carbon emissions vehicles (Coad et al., 2009). Hornik used these categories of instruments that were designed to encourage or facilitate the adoption of recycling behavior (Hornik et al., 1995). He proposed four categories of instruments, distinguishing the location and types of effects caused by the instruments of public action (Table 1). Table 1: Four classes of variables used in recycling studies (Source: (Hornik et al., 1995)

More accurate classifications have attempted to distinguish the instruments according to their specific effects on psychosocial determinants of behavior. Green and Kreuter have identified three categories of factors that affect differently the behavior in a "PRECEDE-PROCEED " model (Green et Kreuter, 1999). Predisposing factors are the internal history of behavior. While capacity factors are the antecedents of external behavior.

9 Last category of reinforcing factors focuses on the consequences of the action with positive or negative feedback, as well as support post-action. Based on these three categories, the effects of instruments (judicial, economic, communicative and physical) have been evaluated for their impact on psycho sociological determinants of behaviors (Table 2). More precisely, this study assessed the degree of impact of different kind of instruments on these three major categories of factors that are determinants for behavior (Egmond et al., 2006).

10 Table 2: Instruments table : instruments and determinants of behaviors (Source : (Egmond et al., 2005)

The categorization proposed by Egmond helps to understand the effects produced by the instruments on the determinants of behavior. Indeed, it provides a theoretical basis for selecting the instruments according to the objectives sought by public policies to impact behaviors.

11 The conceptual model of the impact of instruments of public action on pro-environmental behavior should incorporate this distinction. Thus, it permits to analyze the impact of attitude toward these two categories of instruments on the main determinants of behavior.

Section 3. Models of impact: the instruments of public policies on psychosocial determinants of environmental significant behavior

Researchers showed that the psychological instruments act on the psychosocial determinants of attitude, while the structural instruments directly affect behavior. Thus, political and administrative authorities must have at their disposal these conceptual frameworks in order to compare the effects of different types of instruments. These approaches, focused on the effects of instruments can be connected to the logic of performance of public policies which is characterized by a reflection on their goals, their resources and their effects. Indeed, “meso" performance of public policy mostly depends on the effects generated by the instruments on behaviors and their determinants (Bouckaert et Halligan, 2008). Thus, these effects are found directly related to the conduct engaged in by citizens, whether in the public sphere (behaviors citizens waste segregation, recycling) or in the private sphere (consumer behavior) (Stern, 2000). This dependence of the effectiveness of public policy with behaviors it logically led to the development of social marketing approaches in the public sector which combine the logic of instrumental impact while taking into account the determinants of behavior (Kotler et Levy, 1969; Andreasen, 1993). These social marketing approaches should be deepened with a focus on the specificity of public policy instruments and their impacts on individual decision process (De Groot, 2008).

12 3.1 - Conceptual frameworks for the impact of contextual public policies on psycho sociological determinants

Three main approaches combine the impact of instruments on the decision process of individuals. They are particularly interested in their impact on intrinsic motivation. They are also interested in models of decision making that can be tested to understand how the impact can occur. These approaches proposed to focus on the process of motivations that depends on the degree of autonomy or control related to intrinsic or extrinsic motivations found in the theory of self-determination (Ryan et Deci, 2000). The extrinsic motivation can be defined as "external motivations to the person" while intrinsic motivations are the "internal motivations of the person" ((Frey et Jegen, 2001b). p.591). Specifically, “when a person is intrinsically motivated to perform an activity, then it receives no apparent reward except the activity itself” (Deci, 1971). p.105). This distinction has clarified the location of effects of instruments (internal and external), and also the type of effect considered: incentive or facilitator (Hornik and al., 1995). These approaches combine internal motivational factors (intrinsic) and motivational factors external (extrinsic). Thus, they seem relevant in the context of improving the understanding of the impact of policy instruments that seek to influence these two types of motivations (Moller et al., 2006; Coad et al., 2009). The interaction between the personal motivational variables and situational background variables must be considered as levels of individual motivation which are impacted by weak or strong contextual variables facilitating or inhibiting pro-environmental behavior (Corraliza et Berenguer, 2000).

3.1.1 - Model of intrinsic/extrinsic motivations Recently, an integrated approach to the impact of the instruments of public action on the intrinsic and extrinsic motivation has been proposed (Étienne, 2010). It relies on the distinction between these two types of motivations that may be impacted differently by the instruments of public action (Figure 3).

13 Figure 3: The model of impact of public policies on motivations of behaviors (Adapted from Etienne, 2010, p.511)

Crowding-in Effect

Intrinsic Crowding-out Motivation Effect

Instruments Behavior of public policies Price Effect

Extrinsic Motivation

In traditional economic logic, extrinsic rewards related to the “price effect” are supposed to control the behavior. Thus, if intrinsic motivations are not sufficient to promote the adoption of behavior, they must be complemented by financial incentives and / or legal instruments from public policies (Coad et al., 2009). These rewards should increase the likelihood that the behavior is adopted. However, this effect lasts until the reward was associated with the behavior in question and declined when they disappeared (Deci et al., 1999). It helps to explain the short-term effectiveness of economic instruments which do not really promote long term changes in behavior. However, other psychological studies have also shown that these extrinsic motivations may have a negative effect on intrinsic motivation. Indeed, they might modify the level of motivation and the locus of control for individuals. Thus, an individual intrinsically motivated to perform an action could see his intrinsic motivation decrease due to a phase in which an external motivation has stimulated the realization of this action (Festinger, 1967; De Charms et Decharms, 1968). The experimental methods used to study the relationship between these two types of motivations have sometimes equivocal results (Deci, 1971). They suggest new perspectives for the assumed linear causal relationship between financial extrinsic

14 motivations, frequently used as instruments of public policy and the sustainable adoption of certain behaviors covered by the policy.

3.1.2 - The combined effect of contextual factors and psychosocial determinants: the ABC model

Guagnano and Stern were the first to emphasize the need to study the interaction between contextual factors and psychosocial factors in understanding behavior. They have proposed an ABC model that integrates these different dimensions (Guagnano et al., 1995; Stern, 2000). In this model, behavior is the consequence of interactions between internal (attitudes, norms, susceptibility ...) and external factors (social, financial incentives, legal or institutional barriers, etc.). The causal relationship between attitudes and behavior can be influenced by the strength of these contextual factors. These two factors draw a two-dimensional space in which the adoption of a pro-environmental behavior can be explained (Figure 4). In this space, negative attitudes in a supportive environment can induce the desired behavior (upper quadrant Southeast). Conversely, positive attitudes in a context too may inhibit negative behavior (lower part of the dial Northwest). The policy implications are many because it implies that the effectiveness of psychological instruments to influence the attitudes and behavior depends on the strength of these external factors (Stern, 1999). In this view, structural instruments are contextual factors with degrees of effectiveness will also depend on internal attitudes of each individuals. Thus, their impact will therefore be perceived differently depending on pre-existing attitudes.

Figure 4: ABC model (Guagnano et al., 1995; Stern, 2000) (adapted from (Boulanger et Lussis, 2005)

15 AttitudesPositive Attitudespositives

ConditionsNegative Positive externesexternal external négativesconditions conditions

AttitudesNegative négativesAttitudes

The contribution of the ABC model in understanding the impact of the instruments of public action is essential. Indeed, it provides a framework to explain disconnections identified in the effectiveness of public policies. The impacts of instruments will depend on factors that are not necessarily controlled by the causal logic of public action: different attitudes, different perceptions of psychological and structural instruments. Therefore, their impact on the relationship between these attitudes and behaviors may vary around effects that are more or less direct or indirect mediators or moderators (Thogersen et Olander, 2004; Steg et Vlek, 2009).

3.1.3 - The moderating effect of contextual factors on behavior: MOA model ("Motivation-Opportunity-ability model: MOA) was proposed by Olander and Thogersen. It focused on the moderating effect of external factors that can facilitate the adoption of behaviors (Ölander & Thogersen, 1995). This model is a combination of the theory of planned behavior and the theory of interpersonal behavior that underlie the motivation to behavior. The overall motivation is moderated by variables internal capacity and external opportunities in a model of motivation-opportunity-ability (Figure 5). These are external opportunities including the impact of moderator instruments of public action. Empirical evidence from the model helped to measure the effect of free temporary free travel card on the

16 behavior of public transportation use (Thogersen, 2009). In this experimental research, the moderating effect of the economic instrument was shown on the variable of intention to act. Figure 5: Motivation-Opportunity-Ability Model (source: Ollander et Thogersen, 1995, adapted from Egmond et Bruel, 2007)

MOA model has also been adapted to consumer behavior based on societal factors and needs ("Needs") and not on the motivations. This NOA model ("needs-opportunities- abilities: NOA) has made it possible to study pro-environmental behavior of households from five categories of needs identified: housing, personal hygiene, food and food preparation, leisure and transport (Gatersleben & Vlek, 1998). This approach is particularly relevant because it takes into account the fact that most consumer behavior that have an environmental impact are also behaviors that affect the quality of life of individuals. Following, this moderating effect of public policies’ instruments on consumer decision process, Triandis’ model of interpersonal behaviors also includes facilitating conditions as moderating variables between the intention to act and behavior (Triandis, 1977) (Figure 6). The impact of these instruments is very similar to that proposed by the MOA model (Egmond et Bruel, 2007). This model is also very relevant for explaining pro- environmental behaviors because it includes not only rational, but also social, affective motivations, as well as habits which are the main determinants of pro environmental behaviors (Stern, 2000; Steg & Vlek, 2009). 17 Figure 6: Model of inter-personal behavior (source: Triandis 1977), adapted from Egmond et Bruel, 2007]

These conceptual frameworks for the impact of public policy on decision process mainly focus on the internal determinants of behaviors. Few studies intend to suggest a conceptual framework that includes the specific effects of public policy tools on this decision process.

3.2 - Model of impact: attitude towards public policies instruments on individual decision process

Environmental public policy tools aim to impact consumer behavior. Nevertheless, the causal relationship system between the implementation of a public policy and behavior is full of disconnections. Thus, it should be deepen with the combined analysis of public policies and consumer decision process. Indeed, this latter also depends on others psychosocial determinants towards behavior and other contextual forces. The impact of public policy tools need to be distinguished among them. A study on the French environmental public policy aimed at acquiring low-carbon emission cars focuses on understanding the impact of public policy tools on consumer buying decision process (Alaux, 2011). Indeed, the attitude towards public policy tools affects consumer decision process. It results that the impact is not so direct but it moderates the relationship between the main determinants of behavior (Figure 7). These moderation effects depend on the psychological or structural nature of the public policy tools

18 which impacts specific relationships of the consumer decision process. In the environmental public policy that was studied, some instruments were related to psychological dimension (communication campaign, eco labeling information) and some were related to structural dimension (subsidy/tax according to the level of CO2 emissions, subsidy for substituting an old car with a new low carbon emission car). The impact of the instruments on the behavior and psychosocial determinants of such behavior aims to understand how the attitude towards instruments can impact the process of adopting a target behavior by public policy. By focusing on these contextual factors (the instruments used by public policy), the results show the moderating impact of environmental public policy tools on the psychosocial factors of behavior: beliefs, attitude, personal norms, habits and intention to act, as well as the mediating effect of attitude in the relationship between environmental personal norms and the intention to buy a low carbon emission cars.

Figure 7: Model of attitude towards public policy tools and consumer decision process (Source: Alaux, 2011)

Attitude Attitude towards Attitude towards governmental towards subsidy ecological communication subsidy/tax (substitution of campaign (ecological an old car) bonus/malus)

Environmental personal norms - - -

Intention to Buying buy behavior

Beliefs associated to Attitude the towards buying characteristics behavior of the produst Buying habits

19 Conclusion

According to Steg and Vlek, the study of the impact of the instruments of public action on behavior offers four alternatives (Steg and Vlek, 2009). The first suggest analyzing the direct impact of the instruments of public action on the motivations leading to the adoption of behavior for the target behavior. A second alternative proposes to consider that the psychosocial factors have a mediating role in the impact that the instruments have on behavior (Etienne Model, NOA model). A third alternative considers that the contextual factors of the instruments of public action have a moderating effect on the relationship between intention to adopt the behavior and actual behavior (Triandis model, MOA model). The final alternative considers the moderating effect of contextual factors which are perceived as an independent predictor that interacts with factors of attitudes to determine the likelihood of adopting a target behavior (ABC model, Alaux Model,). This approach helps to consider the broader impacts of public policy tools on the overall relationship of the decision process. These four alternatives hold as a framework for analysis of internal and external motivational factors such as the instruments of public action on behaviors. The accuracy of these frameworks depend s on the nature of behavior, as well as the cultural context of public policy. They should be adapted to focus on the comprehension of different public policies instruments on individual decision process leading to the adoption of behavior that are targeted by public policies. Thus, it could improve the effectiveness of public policies performance with the use of consumer behavior and marketing knowledge in public sector.

20 References

A.P.S.C., 2007. Changing behaviour: a public policy perspective. Australian Public Service commission. Alaux C. 2011, The impact of environmental public policies tools on consumer decision process: the buying of low carbon emission cars, Phd/Doctorate in sciences of management, University of Aix-Marseille III, IMPGT. Andreasen, A.R., 1993. A social marketing research agenda for consumer behavior researchers. Advances in consumer research 20, 1. Bouckaert, G., Halligan, J., 2008. Managing performance: international comparisons. Routledge. Boulanger, P.-M., Lussis, B., 2005. LES BARRIERES INTERNES A L’EFFICACITE ENERGETIQUE :L’APPORT DE LA PSYCHOLOGIE SOCIALE. Braithwaite, V., Murphy, K., Reinhart, M., 2007. Taxation threat, motivational postures, and responsive regulation. Law & Policy 29, 137–158. Bureau, D., 2005. Economie des instruments de protection de l’environnement. Revue Française d’Économie 19, 83–110. Burger, P.C., Venkatesh, A., 1982. FCC policy on CB radio: Impact on consumer decision making. Telecommunications Policy 6, 62-66. Butler, P., Collins, N., 1995. Marketing public sector services: concepts and characteristics. Journal of Marketing Management 11, 83–96. De Charms, R., Decharms, R., 1968. Personal causation. Academic Press New York. Coad, A., De Haan, P., Woersdorfer, J.S., 2009. Consumer support for environmental policies: an application to purchases of green cars. Ecological Economics 68, 2078– 2086. Collins, J., Thomas, G., Willis, R., Wilsdon, J., 2003. Carrots, sticks and sermons: influencing public behaviour for environmental goals. Demos/Green Alliance Report for DEFRA (London: Demos, 2003). Corraliza, J.A., Berenguer, J., 2000. Environmental values, beliefs, and actions: A situational approach. Environment and Behavior 32, 832. Deci, E.L., 1971. Effects of externally mediated rewards on intrinsic motivation. Journal of personality and Social Psychology 18, 105–115. Deci, E.L., Koestner, R., Ryan, R.M., 1999. A meta-analytic review of experiments examining the effects of extrinsic rewards on intrinsic motivation. Psychological bulletin 125, 627–668. Egmond, C., Bruel, R., 2007. Nothing is as practical as a good theory. Egmond, C., Jonkers, R., Kok, G., 2005. A strategy to encourage housing associations to invest in energy conservation. Energy policy 33, 2374–2384. Egmond, C., Jonkers, R., Kok, G., 2006. One size fits all? Policy instruments should fit the segments of target groups. Energy Policy 34, 3464–3474. Étienne, J., 2010. La conformation des gouvernes. Revue française de science politique 60, 493–517. Festinger, L., 1967. The effect of compensation on cognitive processes, dans: McKinsey Foundation Conference on Managerial Compensation, Tarrytown, New York. Frey, B.S., 1999. Morality and rationality in environmental policy. Journal of Consumer Policy 22, 395–417. Frey, B.S., Jegen, R., 2001a. Motivational interactions: Effects on behaviour. Annales d’Economie et de Statistique 131–153.

21 Frey, B.S., Jegen, R., 2001b. Motivation crowding theory. Journal of Economic Surveys 15, 589–611. Gardner, G.T., Stern, P.C., 2002. Environmental Problems and Human Behavior, 2e ed. Pearson Custom Publishing. Gatersleben, B., Vlek, C., 1998. Household consumption, quality of life, and environmental impacts: a psychological perspective and empirical study, dans: Noorman, K.J., Uiterkamp, T.S. (Éd.), Green Households? Domestic Consumers, Environment, and Sustainability. p. 141-183. Geller, E.S., Berry, T.D., Ludwig, T.D., Evans, R.E., Gilmore, M.R., Clarke, S.W., 1990. A conceptual framework for developing and evaluating behavior change interventions for injury control. Health Education Research 5, 125. Geller, E.S., 2002. The challenge of increasing pro environmental behavior, dans: Handbook of environmental psychology. R. B. Bechtel, & A. Churchman, p. 541–553. Graham, P., 1994. Marketing in the public sector: Inappropriate or merely difficult? Journal of Marketing Management 10, 361–375. Green, L.W., Kreuter, M.W., 1999. Health promotion planning: an educational and ecological approach. Mayfield Pub. Co. De Groot, J.I.M., 2008. Mean or green? Value orientations, morality and prosocial behaviour. Guagnano, G.A., Stern, P.C., Dietz, T., 1995. Influences on attitude-behavior relationships: A natural experiment with curbside recycling. Environment and behavior 27, 699. Hastak, M., Mazis, M.B., Morris, L.A., 2001. The role of consumer surveys in public policy decision making. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing 20, 170–185. Hastings, G., 2003. Competition in social marketing. Social Marketing Quarterly 9, 6–10. Hood, C., 1983. The tools of government. Macmillan. Hornik, J., Cherian, J., Madansky, M., Narayana, C., 1995. Determinants of recycling behavior: A synthesis of research results. The Journal of Socio-Economics 24, 105– 127. Ingram, H., Schneider, A., 1990. Behavioral Assumptions of Policy Tools. Journal of Politics 52, 510–29. Jackson, T., 2005. Motivating Sustainable Consumption: a review of evidence on consumer behaviour and behavioural change. Centre for Environmental Strategy: University of Surrey. Jacoby, J., Chestnut, R.W., Silberman, W., 1977. Consumer Use and Comprehension of Nutrition Information. The Journal of Consumer Research 4, 119-128. Kaplan, A.M., Haenlein, M., 2009. The increasing importance of public marketing: Explanations, applications and limits of marketing within public administration. European Management Journal 27, 197–212. Kollmuss, A., Agyeman, J., 2002. Mind the gap: why do people act environmentally and what are the barriers to pro-environmental behavior? Environmental Education Research 8, 239–260. Kotler, P., Levy, S.J., 1969. Broadening the Concept of Marketing. The Journal of Marketing 33, 10-15. Larrue, C., 2000. Analyser les politiques publiques d’environnement. Harmattan. Messick, D.M., Brewer, M.B., 1983. Solving social dilemmas. Review of personality and social psychology 4, 11–44. Moller, A.C., Ryan, R.M., Deci, E.L., 2006. Self-Determination Theory and Public Policy: Improving the Quality of Consumer Decisions Without Using Coercion. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing 25, 104-116. Ölander, F., Thogersen, J., 1995. Understanding of consumer behaviour as a prerequisite for environmental protection. Journal of Consumer Policy 18, 345–385.

22 Perret, S., 2006. L’acceptabilité des instruments économiques dans le domaine de la politique climatique en Suisse Résultats préliminaires. Prakash, A., 2002. Green marketing, public policy and managerial strategies. Bus. Strat. Env. 11, 285-297. Ryan, R.M., Deci, E.L., 2000. Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivations: Classic Definitions and New Directions* 1. Contemporary educational psychology 25, 54–67. Scharpf, F.W., 1999. Governing in Europe: effective and democratic? Oxford University Press. Schneider, A.L., Ingram, H., 1993. Social construction of target populations: Implications for politics and policy. American Political Science Review 87, 334–347. Scholz, J.T., 1998. Trust, taxes and compliance. Trust and governance 135–166. Steg, L., Vlek, C., 2009. Encouraging pro-environmental behaviour: An integrative review and research agenda. Journal of Environmental Psychology 29, 309–317. Stern, P.C., 1999. Information, incentives, and proenvironmental consumer behavior. Journal of Consumer Policy 22, 461–478. Stern, P.C., 2000. New Environmental Theories: Toward a Coherent Theory of Environmentally Significant Behavior. Journal of Social Issues 56, 407-424. Thogersen, J., 2009. Promoting public transport as a subscription service: Effects of a free month travel card. Transport Policy 16, 335–343. Thogersen, J., Olander, C.F., 2004. The ABC of recycling. Imprint 2004, 06–15. Triandis, H.C., 1977. Interpersonal behavior. Brooks/Cole Pub. Co. Varone, F., 2001. Les instruments de la politique énergétique: analyse comparée du Canada et des États-Unis. Canadian Journal of Political Science/Revue canadienne de science politique 34, 3–28. Vedung, E., 1999. Constructing effective Government information campaigns for energy conservation and sustainability: Lessons from Sweden. International Planning Studies 4, 237–251. Verrier, P.-É., Santo, V.-M., sais-je?, Q., 1997. Le Management public. Presses Universitaires de France - PUF. Vlek, C.A.J., 1996. Collective risk generation and risk management: the unexploited potential of the social dilemma paradigm., dans: Frontiers in Social Dilemma Research. Liebrand, W.B.G., Messick, D.M. (Eds.), p. 11–38. Walsh, K., 1994. Marketing and public sector management. European Journal of Marketing 28, 63–71. Wilkie, W.L., Gardner, D.M., 1974. The role of marketing research in public policy decision making. The Journal of Marketing 38–47.