R EPETITIVE MESSAGE AFFECTED TO ATTITUDE , SUBJECTIVE NORM , PERCEIVED

4.3.1 Repetitive communicating of a message had a direct effect on attitude toward recycling so it had an indirect effect on behavioral intention toward recycling

The respondent’s attitude toward recycling were 3.86 (agree) in round one, and 3.99 (agree) in round three. There was no change of their attitude toward recycling from the first rounds to the third round. So, repetitive communicating of a message was not result in higher attitude toward recycling.

There was no change of the respondents’ attitude toward recycling under the effect of repetitive message one time and three times. It meant the repetitive message had no effect on attitude toward recycling and so it had no effect on recycling intention though recycling attitude.

4.3.2 Repetitive communicating of a message had a direct effect on subjective norm toward recycling so it had an indirect effect on behavioral intention toward recycling

The respondent’s subjective norm toward recycling were 3.26 (fair) in round one, and 3.74 (agree) in round three. The respondents changed their subjective norm toward recycling from “fair” in the first round into “agree” in the third round. Thus, repetitive communicating

32

of a message resulted in higher subjective norm toward recycling.

There was change of the respondents’ subjective norm toward recycling under the effect of repeated message one time and three times. In other words, repetitive message effect resulted in higher subjective norm toward recycling from a comparison of the results in round one and round three. Therefore, it had an indirect effect on behavioral intention toward recycling through subjective norm toward recycling.

4.3.3 Repetitive communicating of a message had a direct effect on perceived behavioral control toward recycling so it had an indirect effect on behavioral intention toward recycling

The respondent’s perceived behavioral control toward recycling for each round were 3.35 (fair) in round one, and 3.78 (agree) in round three. There was a change of the respondent’s perceived behavioral control toward recycling from “fair” in the first round into agree in the third rounds. So, repetitive communicating of a message resulted in higher perceived behavioral control toward recycling.

The repetitive message had a direct effect on perceived behavioral control toward recycling. It resulted in higher perceived behavioral control toward recycling in round three compare to round one. So, there was significant difference between repeated message one time and three times. Besides, the repetitive message had an indirect effect on behavioral intention toward recycling through perceived behavioral control toward recycling.

4.3.4 Repetitive communicating of a message had a direct effect on behavioral intention toward recycling

The responses for behavioral intention toward recycling of the participant were

“agree” in both round one and round three. So, repetitive communicating of a message was not result in higher behavioral intention toward recycling but it had a direct effect on behavioral intention toward recycling. There was significant different between repeated message one time and three times. The participants’ behavioral intention toward recycling was directly affected by repetitive message effect but it was not directly result in higher behavioral intention toward recycling

Compare the results of attitude toward recycling, subjective norm toward recycling, perceived behavioral control toward recycling, and behavior intention toward recycling of round one and round three as following Table 19. In the t-test table, attitude toward recycling’

p = .488 > .05; thus, do not reject H0; there was no significant difference between round one and round three. Subjective norm toward recycling’ p = .012 < .05, perceived behavioral

33

control toward recycling’ p = .009 < .05, and behavior intention toward recycling’ p = .012

< .05; thus, reject H0, there were significant difference between round one and round three or one time and three times.

Table 19: t-test of difference of variables between round one and round three repeated message Subjective Norm toward recycling (Q6-10)

Time 3 48 3.69 .752 Time 1 48 3.35 .729 .009 Perceived Behavioral Control toward recycling

(Q11-14) Time 3 48 3.78 .819

Time 1 48 3.67 .851 .012 Behavior Intention toward recycling (Q15-17)

Time 3 48 4.10 .831 Note*: p<0.05

In sum, repetitive communicating of a message had a direct effect on subjective norm (RE-SN), perceived behavioral control (RE-PBC) and behavioral intention toward recycling (RE-BI) but had not a direct effect on attitude toward recycling (RE-ATT).

Table 20: Summary of the structural model repetitive message affect to attitude, subjective norm, and perceived behavioral control

Path Hypothesis p* Results

RE-ATT H4 .488 Not supported

RE-SN H5 .012 Supported

RE-PBC H6 .009 Supported

RE-BI H7 .012 Supported

Note *: p<0.05

There was no significant change on the respondents’ attitude toward recycling.

However, there were significant change on subjective norm, perceived behavioral control, and behavioral intention toward recycling after the message was repeated three times. Besides, repetitive message had not an indirect effect on behavioral intention through the path repetitive message-attitude toward recycling-behavioral intention toward recycling (RE-ATT-BI). Repetitive message had a direct effect on behavioral intention through the path repetitive message-subjective norm-behavioral intention toward recycling (RE-SN-BI); and repetitive message had a direct effect on behavioral intention through the path repetitive message-perceived behavioral control-behavioral intention toward recycling (RE-PBC-BI).

34

Nevertheless, there was no change in higher attitude and behavior intention for audiences. In fact, from the analytical results, the initially attitude toward recycling and the initially behavioral intention toward recycling were unchanged after three rounds. They were “agree”

in round one, and round three. They were not increase to “strongly agree” in the third round.

In short, repetitive communicating of a message had a direct effect on attitude but it was not result in higher attitude toward recycling. Likely, it had a direct effect on behavioral intention toward recycling but it was not result in higher behavioral intention toward recycling. On the other hand, repetitive communicating of a message had a direct effect on subjective norm toward recycling; it also resulted in higher subjective norm toward recycling. So, it had an indirect effect on behavioral intention toward recycling but it was not result in higher behavioral intention toward recycling. Likewise, repetitive communicating of a message had a direct effect on perceived behavioral control toward recycling, resulted in higher perceived behavioral control toward recycling and it had an indirect effect on behavioral intention toward recycling but it was not result in higher behavioral intention toward recycling.

Table 21: Summary of the repetitive message indirectly affected behavior intention

Indirect path Results

RE-ATT-BI Not supported

RE-SN-BI Supported RE-PBC-BI Supported

35