Plastic Bags Don’t Suit You: A campaign to reduce plastic bag use
Plastic bags, invented in the 1930s, were first introduced to super markets in 1977. In the following decades, they have spread all over the world. Currently, almost 1 trillion plastic bags are consumed worldwide every year (Warner, 2010). This waste can be considered as a symbol of consumerism. Meanwhile, it’s also the evidence of our ignoring the environment. In the past half century, efforts have been made to reduce or even eliminate the use of plastic bags. Until now, the global use of plastic bags has been on the rise, according to The Culvert Chronicles (2011). That’s why this national campaign needs to be launched. It’s time to declare a war against the plastic bags. And with the assistance of multiple cognitive theories, it’s not hard to win this war.
Harm of massive plastic bag use
Plastic bags are usually made from oil. In the US alone, an estimate that about 12 million barrels of oil were needed to meet the US citizens’ needs of 100 billion plastic bags in the year 2001 (Jenkins, 2011). And if we think about the global situation, the oil consumption resulted from modern society’s addiction to single-use plastic bags can be a major contributor to global warming (Khoo, H.H., & Tan, R.B.H., 2010). Moreover, oil is not renewable, and our attempts of finding new alternative energy haven’t been proved effective so far.
Both manufacturing and recycling plastic bags generates toxic gases, like compounds of nitrogen and oxygen or compounds of sulphur and oxygen (Obrine, 2010). Let alone those greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide. And the additives used in plastic bag manufacturing may leach into the food or other content (Butler, 2007). To make things worse, most plastic bags are chemically attractive to the toxins in the environment, like PCBs and pesticide metabolites (Mieszkowski, 2007), which will result in polluting the content in the plastic bags.
Another drawback of plastic bags is biodegradability; it takes almost ten thousand years for a plastic bag to be break down roughly (Obrine, 2010). And most kinds of plastic will actually never break down. Under ultraviolet light, they may break down to small pieces, however they can still exist as tiny toxic substances. And if plastic is disposed of into oceans, lakes or landfills, which frequently happens due to their light weight, the lack of air and sunlight, along with the low temperature may decrease the break down speed even further (Weisman, 2007). For these reasons, plastic bags are lethal to marine life worldwide, over 100,000 marine mammals and sea turtles, and an additional 1,000,000 seabirds are choked by plastic rubbish each year (Warner, 2010). We can also see plastic litter on the beach of every continent. A recent trawl in the North Pacific Gyre found out that for every pound zooplankton found, 46 pounds of plastic litters were found (Bridget, 2010). For the well being of both human beings and the nature, the plastic bag issue deserves our attention.
Previous attempts to eliminate plastic bags
Harmful as plastic bags can be, in the US, there isn’t even a national official organization monitoring plastic bag use. Among all the states, California is the only one that monitors plastic bags and their recycling, according to Mark Murray (2012), executive director of the Sacramento, Calif.-based Californians Against Waste. However the EPA estimates that over 380 billion plastic bags are consumed in the US each year (EPA official site, 2000). Less than 1% of these are recycled (CAC, 2009).
So far, a number of campaigns, intentional or unintentional, have been launched to reduce the use of plastic bags. They can be assorted into three main categories: Finger-pointing approach, fashion-oriented appeal, and policy-driven enforcement.
As for the finger-pointing approach, the “BYOB” campaign was rather typical. The name of the campaign looks like an order: “Bring Your Own Bag!” In the past 5 years, the “Bring Your Own Bag” slogan has been adopted by quite a number of organizations around the world, from the Bay Area in San Francisco to Westchester County in Britain. The most frequent channels used by these campaigns are brochures and websites. They emphasized the harm of single-use plastic bags and hoped to build up people’s environment-friendly habits, or persuade governments and concerned authorities to make the policy change on plastic bags ban.
Unfortunately, none of the relevant organizations can show convincing effect evaluation of this campaign, not even the designers of BYOB. And if we examine the plastic bag usage trend following the campaign, no significant decrease in plastic bag use or increase in plastic bag recycle can be found related to the campaigns (Warner, 2010). The short form of the slogan “BYOB” was also adopted by commercial organizations and identified by the public as “Build Your Own Burrito”, “Bring Your Own Beamer”, etc, thus making the original BYOB less effective.
And when they sometimes hand out extended information about the harm of plastic products, they fail to follow the “self-efficacy theory” (Bandura, 1977), which means these campaign fail to build up their audiences’ belief that they can actually do something about the plastic bags issue. Neither the consequences of massive adoption of single-use plastic bags (perceived severity), nor the direct impact of plastic bags use to their daily lives (perceived susceptibility) is provided. Therefore, the information in these campaigns is not sufficient to change the behavior of the crowd. Most people don’t see why they should give up the convenience in the supermarkets or grocery stores, or they are not willing to give it up just for some random fish in the ocean far away.
A second category of the campaign is the “fashion-oriented appeal”, which began in the year 2007. An article called “Green is the New Black” published in the French fashion magazine “Elle” started a trend, where being green became somehow defined as “fashionable”. One milestone of green fashion was the shopping bags with the famous logo: “I’m not a plastic bag”, designed by Anya Hindmarch. They first appeared in the British high-end supermarket Sainsbury’s. These bags were sold for 5 pounds each. Only 20 thousand bags were made and they literately sold out in one hour. This is a text-book marketing case illustrating the strategy of “scarcity principle” (Cialdini, 2009).
The green trend swept multiple countries around the world. In the UK, between 2006 and 2009, plastic carrier bag use decreased 40% (Harvey, 2011). However, like other fashion trends, the “green movement” didn’t last long. The year 2010 and 2011 witnessed a dramatic increase in plastic bag use: about 6.8 billion plastic bags were distributed in 2010 alone, up about 5% on 2009, according to the UK government’s Waste and Resource Action Programme (WRAP). Currently, very few of the once popular “I’m not a plastic bag” totes can be seen on the street. Instead, they have become fashionable collectables, and were labeled over 500 pounds on eBay. Ironically, if any collector purchased these items, the bag would be sent to the buyer in multiple layers of plastic packaging. The fashion appeal wasn’t strictly a campaign; since there was no targeted audience, no pre-set goals, and no data collecting. Fashion designers actually don’t care about our planet, though they appear to. The commercial value of “being green” they was the goal they were actually pursuing. This is why they can not be counted on to be pioneers in the eliminating plastic bags campaign.
Policy-driven enforcement has been so far the most effective way to reduce plastic bags sales and usage. The first ban of plastic bags happened in Bangladesh, after a major flood due to their main water way being choked by plastic bags. And the most massive official ban on free plastic bags took place in China, a few months before the 2008 Olympic Games (Warner, 2010). The same thing happened in the UK, when the British were bidding for the Olympics. This explains the 40% drop of plastic bag use in the UK between 2006 and 2009. Statiscally, we do see a drastic decrease of plastic bag sale or usage. Yet, as stated in the Asian Week (2008), the policy and the statics survey don’t cover the mobile merchandise on the street. And relevant policies weren’t put into effect in all the places all the time. The ban and policy enforcement contributed nothing to people’s attitude change towards this issue, as they would start to use plastic bags again if the policy were to changes again. And currently, unlike laws, policies are quite flexible and changeable in most countries.
Campaign: Plastic Bags Don’t Suit You
Slogan of the campaign
As has been stated in the “Theory of Reasoned Action” (Fishbein and Ajzen, 1975), people’s behavior can be affected both by their attitude and social norms. Previous campaigns were mostly designed to directly and instantly change people’s behavior. While in this campaign, not only the individuals’ attitude is taken into consideration, but a change in social norms is also the objective. Although this type of campaign may take more time and more money than the previous ones, it will be much more effective in the long term. The slogan of the campaign is designed to break the stereotype (Seiter, 1986). that shopping bags equal plastic bags, a perception which has formed in the previous three decades due to the spread of consumerism. To change this stereotype, the “Plastic Bags Don’t Suit You” campaign establishes the value that personal cloth or paper shopping bags are way cooler than indifferent single-use plastic bag, and “you” deserve more than goofy plastic bags. Thus, the campaign aims to create cognitive dissonance (Festinger, 1962) in the minds of those current single-use plastic bag users. They are confronted by the alternative between being cool or using plastic bags. Unlike the finger-pointing slogans like “Bring Your Own Bag”, this campaign is trying to think from the target audiences’ position in order to build long-term habit of using bags that are environment-friendly.
Three Phases of the Campaign
Other than the cognitive dissonance (Festinger, 1962), the classic KAP model has also been utilized to establish the frame and timeline of this campaign. KAP is short for Knowledge, Attitude and Practice. It refers to the fact that in order to change people’s certain behaviors or practices, they first need to be immersed in the relevant knowledge, and then their attitude needs to be changed. After all these are done, the effort of changing their behavior can come into effect. Based on the KAP model, the campaign will accordingly be divided into three phases: the knowledge spreading phase, the attitude reversing phase, and the behavior changing phase.
The first phase of the campaign is the massive distribution of free environmentally friendly shopping bags. There are two key elements in this phase: One is to make sure the slogan “Plastic Bags Don’t Suit You” is clearly visible on every free bag. The bag can be simple, but the slogan must be bold, big, and obvious. And considering the huge impact of “I’m not a plastic bag” project, even though the fashion-oriented approach didn’t work out well, the advantage of designer bags should not be neglected. The “Plastic Bags Don’t Suit You” plan will also employ fashion designers, to make sure these bags are eye catchy enough in the streets.
The other element is to spread the slogan “Plastic Bags don’t Suit You” as widely as we can. In this case, the bags have to be free, and they should be handed out in enormous number of spots nationwide. The “scarcity principle” (Cialdini, 2009) doesn’t apply here. Unlike the “I’m not a plastic bag” project, the campaign is focused on the long-term reduction of plastic bags, instead of the short-term “green trend”. The bags are designed to appear in the streets rather than on eBay. Massive distribution is the only guarantee of wide spread.
The theory to support this is the “Mere Exposure” (Zajonc, 1968), which explains that the more frequently people are exposed to a certain object, person or event, the more likely people will like it, unless they have already formed a negative impression about it. In the first phase of this campaign, people will see “Plastic Don’t Suit You” frequently. If necessary, volunteers may be needed to carry the bags and wander in the streets or in the markets. And according to the classic KAP model, the crowd firstly needs to have the knowledge before their behavior can be changed. The free shopping bags with the slogan all over the streets can directly convey the message to the targeted crowd.
The second phase of this campaign involves mass media. In this phase, our goal is to change the attitude towards plastic bags. In order to achieve the goal, several spokespersons will be selected. The spokespersons are required to constantly show up in mass media, carrying the environment friendly shopping bags. The supporting theory is the social learning theory (Bandura, 1971), which means an individual determines a behavior by observing and copying others. By watching the spokespersons, people who have already been immersed in the knowledge may experience the attitude reverse. Moreover, Feilitzen and Linne (2005) pointed out that people are more likely to imitate those who they wish to be, especially the characters in media. This is also known as “wishful identification”. The spokespersons may thus lead the trend of carrying cloth shopping bags.
The most vital criterion of spokesperson selection is how attractive they are. This may sound shallow but it’s the key element of successfully achieving the attitude change. According to the “Halo Effect” (Crane, 1965), people tend to attribute positive traits to those with charming physical appearance or other attractive features. In other words, if people like someone, they tend to like every aspect of this guy. For example, Julia Roberts was identified as caring about the environment because she was spotted in a Toyota Prius. Meanwhile, it was ignored that she actually kept a full size SUV in her garage. The charming spokesperson strategy has been applied many times in commercial advertising, and has been proved effective. The Kor One Vessels, which are literately water containers, experienced a 20% sale boost after the media found that David Beckham was carrying one at his family picnic (korwater official site, 2011). The cloth bags in the hands of charming spokespersons can contribute to establishing people’s awareness that holding such bags is cool.
It’s also important to consider the diversity of the chosen spokespersons. Chory-assad and Cicchirillo (2005) came up with the concept of similarity identification, referring to the fact that people can easily relate to those who share the same background with them. For instance, with regard to the African American audiences, Morgan Freeman carrying a cloth bag on the screen is more influential than George Clooney doing the same thing. This theory can also apply to different gender, age, etc. So in order to cover the mass crowd from various backgrounds, the diversity of the spokespersons is highly valued. Morgan Freeman and George Clooney may be both recruited in the campaign, along with other charming figures in the US entertainment industry. The recruiting will thus become the most expensive components of the whole campaign, even more than the distribution of free bags. Yet, the attitude change of mass crowd is worthy of the price.
In the third phase of the campaign, we are seeking a deeper level of cooperation with the mass media. The first two phases are the paving work, while the third one is considered to be the most critical and final procedure. Whether the behavior change of the mass audiences can be achieved relies on whether the third phase is successful.
Instead of the simple exposure of the slogan or celebrities, story and narrative will be the major communication tools in the third phase. The message of the campaign will be planted into TV series or movies with a clear purpose: changing audiences’ behavior regarding to plastic bags in a more effective way. The practice of intentional blending education content into entertainment program, known as Edutainment has changed crowds’ behavior worldwide in the past few decades, from the condom use in India to the disease prevention in Africa. The key element in Entertainment Education is narrative (Sabido, 1967), which is why we take narrative as the core content of the whole campaign.
As for the specific narrative, plots involving love, or hooking up are supposed to be the most influential. The desired plots include supermarket encounters or hooking up at cashier, etc. The idea is that both party of encounter or hooking up should appear with the “Plastic Bags Don’t Suit You” bags. Such story lines can be fitted in the model of “Elaboration Likelihood” (Richard Petty and John Cacioppo, 1986). The hooking up can be the central routes while the bags can be the peripheral routes.
The most efficient way of behavior change is to evoking the animalistic response of the audience. Or as in MacLean’s (1973) Triune Brain Theory, among three brain complexes: Reptilian, Viscera, and Neocortex, the Reptilian part, which is about physical urges like sex, is the most basic and dominating. Also, considering the theory of “Sexual selection” (Darwin. 1871), human beings will adopt whatever can increase the possibilities of success in the competing for mating. If bringing environment –friendly bags can be perceived as a mating strategy by the mass audience, they will be motivated in a deeper level to make the behavior change.
Same as the other entertainment-education programme, in this phase there will be pre-surveys and evaluations, and control group may be set if necessary. The scripts and the characters in the narrative may be modified according to the results of the evaluation and audiences’ feedback. To this point, the main campaign is finished.
Follow ups of the campaign After the main body of the campaign, several follow ups will still need to be carried out, including relevant policy change, establishing of infrastructure. When it comes to policy change, the possible resistance can come from major plastic bag manufacture. So far, they have been trying to oppose or slow the plastic bag ban policies for decades (Harvey, 2011). And current policies regarding of plastic ban is not perfect. For instance, the Bangladeshi plastic bags ban policy was accused of being too harsh in many ways. People were sentenced from 6 months to 10 years, and fined up to 2000 dollars for using or producing plastic bags (Warner, 2010). Such cases have been quoted by domestic plastic producers to attack the relevant policies. They are trying everything they can to keep the growth of plastic bag use.
In the US, drastic change in relevant policies may cause major plastic bag manufactures’ stronger resistance. In such circumstance, abandoning free plastic bags first and then gradually increasing the price of them may be more effective. This is actually the adopting of the “Foot-in-the-Door” (Green. 1965) strategy, which refers to that before making big requests to the plastic bag manufacture, first start with small and mild changes so that they won’t respond so furiously.
And apart from the policy change, another vital factor to make sure people adopt the long-term habit of using cloth bags is the infrastructure. The free bags distributed in the first phase of the campaign can be considered as some sort of infrastructure. But that’s far from enough. People need to know where to recycle their existing plastic bags and where to get environmentally friendly bags. The follow up campaign may focus on the trading of plastic bags for cloth bags. After the first 3 phases of campaign, if things go smoothly, there will be a number of people who have given up the plastic bags. They will thus from an “In-groups” (Tajfel & Turner, 2004), and everyone else in the “Out-groups”. In the theory invented by Tajfel and Turner (2004), people will form groups based on their similarity. In this context, using the environment-friendly bags and care for the nature is exactly the similarity they can share. In the follow ups, our target will shift from creating the in-groups of cloth bag users to enlarging these in-groups and reducing numbers in the out-groups. Stop distributing free cloth bags and require people to bring plastic bags to trade them can be quite effective.
Summary
Too frequent use of plastic bags is a great threat to our environment, and this issue involves almost every individual globally. The harm of plastic bags has been introduced above, including the consumption of nonrenewable resource, their hazardous features, and their threats to marine animals.
Previous campaigns have mainly consisted of finger-pointing education, policy enforcement and fashion impact, none of which are sufficient to persuade such a great number of people to completely abandon the habit of using convenient single-use bag. To achieve such a large and massive behavioral change, a deeper level of awareness shaping ought to be carried out, and this is the goal of the campaign.
The main body of the campaign is divided into three phases, according to the KAP model, the campaign is designed to step-by-step distribute knowledge, reverse people’s attitude and finally make the behavior change. Throughout the campaign, multiple psychological and cognitive theories are applied in this project. For instance, screen idols from different background were chosen to be the spokespersons, according to Bandura’s (1977) social learning theory. Afterwards, the infrastructure and relevant policy change will also be taken into consideration. Our ultimate target is to help build up long-term habit of people’s using shopping bags that are environment-friendly.

Appendix:

Self-Efficacy: Page 4. Definition: Self-Efficacy is defined as the belief that an individual is capable of performing in order to achieve a certain goal. (Ormord, 2006) Use: The previous campaigns fail to build up their audiences’ belief that they can actually do something about the plastic bags issue.
Perceived severity: Page 5. Definition: An individual's perception of “the seriousness of the consequences of certain problem” (Rosenstock. 1988). Use: The consequences of massive adoption of single-use plastic bags or the perceived severity are neglected by the previous campaigns.
Perceived susceptibility: Page 5 Definition: An individual’s perception of chances of being caught in certain problem (Rosenstock. 1988). Use: The direct impact of plastic bags use to their daily lives, or the perceived susceptibility, is ignored by the previous campaigns.
Scarcity principle: Page 5 & 8 Definition: Opportunities seem more valuable to us when they are less available (Cialdini. 2009). Use: There are only 20,000 “I’m not a plastic bag” designer shoping bags were produced and they sold out in one hour.
Theory of Reasoned Action: Page 7 Definition: People’s behavior can be affected both by their attitude and social norms. And their attitudes toward a particular behavior are influenced by a combination of two related factors: their beliefs about the outcomes of the behavior and their evaluation of the possible outcome s (Fishbein and Ajzen, 1975). Use: The campaign is designed to change both the social norms and people’s attitude regarding of the plastic bags issue.
Stereotype: Page 7 Definition: A stereotype means a popular belief on specific types of individuals, events or objects. (Seiter, 1986). Use: That shopping bags equal plastic bags, is a perception which has formed in the previous three decades due to the spread of consumerism. This is a typical stereotype and needs to be changed.
Cognitive dissonance: Page 7 Definition: Cognitive dissonance is a sort of discomfort due to individual’s holding conflicting ideas (Festinger, 1962).
Use: If the audiences believe that carrying a plastic shopping bag is not cool, they are confronted by the alternative between being cool or using plastic bags.
KAP model: Page 7 & 8 & 14 Definition: KAP is short for Knowledge, Attitude and Practice. It refers to the fact that in order to change people’s certain behaviors or practices, they first need to be immersed in the relevant knowledge, and then their attitude needs to be changed. Use: Based on the KAP model, the campaign will accordingly be divided into three phases: the knowledge spreading phase, the attitude reversing phase, and the behavior changing phase.
Mere Exposure: Page 8 Definition: The more frequently people are exposed to a certain object, person or event; the more likely people will like it, unless they have already formed a negative impression about it (Zajonc, 1968). Use: In the first phase of this campaign, people will see “Plastic Don’t Suit You” frequently so that they are more likely to like the slogan.
Social learning theory: Page 9 & 14 Definition: An individual determines a behavior by observing and copying others (Bandura. 1971). Use: By watching the spokespersons, people who have already been immersed in the knowledge may experience the attitude reverse and learning from the spokespersons.
Wishful identification: Page 9 Definition: People are more likely to imitate those who they wish to be (Feilitzen, Linne. 2005). Use: The audiences may imitate at least one of the successful and charming spokespersons of “Plastic Bags Don’t Suit You” because they want to be as successful and charming as them.
Halo Effect: Page 9 Definition: People tend to like all aspects of those with charming physical appearance or other attractive features (Crane, 1965). Use: The charming spokesperson can influence people’s attitude toward carrying a cloth shopping bag and think such behavior is positive.
Similarity identification: Page 10 Definition: People can easily relate to those who share the same background with them (Chory-assad, Cicchirillo. 2005). Use: Regard to the African American audiences, Morgan Freeman carrying a cloth bag on the screen is more influential than George Clooney doing the same thing.
Elaboration Likelihood Model: Page 11 Definition: The elaboration likelihood model identifies two routes of persuasion: the "central route," in which a subject considers the issue logically, and the other is "peripheral route," in which a subject uses pre-existing ideas to be persuaded (Richard Petty and John Cacioppo, 1986). Use: The hooking up can be the central routes while the bags can be the peripheral routes in the narratives.
Triune Brain Theory: Page 11 Definition: Among three brain complexes: Reptilian, Viscera, and Neocortex, the Reptilian part, which is about physical urges like sex, is the most basic and dominating (MacLean. 1973). Use: The most efficient way of behavior change is to evoking the animalistic response of the audiences. Because the reptilian complex is the most fundamental, people are easily influenced in this level.
Sexual selection: Page 11 Definition: Human beings will adopt whatever can increase the likelihood of success in the competing for mating (Darwin. 1871). Use: the show on TV about supermarkets hooking up with cloth shopping bag implies that carrying a cloth bag makes people more likely to get the chance to intercourse.
Foot-in-the-Door: Page 12 Definition: It means setting the targeted individuals up by having them agree to a modest request, before trying to get them to agree to a large request. In this order, they are more likely to comply with the large request (Green. 1965). Use: Abandoning free plastic bags first and then gradually increasing the price of them may be more effective and cause less resistance from the major plastic bag manufactures.
In-groups & Out-groups: Page 13 Definition: Based on similarity, people will form different groups and identify those in the same group as in-groups, others as out-groups (Tajfel & Turner, 2004). Use: There will be a number of people who have given up the plastic bags. They will thus from an “In-groups”, and everyone else in the “Out-groups”.

References
Alan Weisman. (2007). The World Without Us. New York. St. Martin’s Thomas Dunne 140-61
China to ban free plastic bags in supermarkets. (2008) Asianweek, pp. 18-18.
County campaign targets plastic bag use. (2011). The Culvert Chronicles, pp. 16-16
Bandura, A. (1977b). Social Learning Theory. New York: Prentice Hall.
Buss, D., (1994). The Evolution of Desire: Strategies of Human Mating. New York: Basic Books
Cherrie, Helen. (2006). Consumer identity and moral obligations in non-plastic bag consumption: A dialectical perspective. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 30, 515-523.
Cialdini, R.B. (2004). Influence: Science and Practice. New York: Harper Collins.
Clean Air Council. (2009). Why Plastic Bag Fees Work. Retrived from: http://www.cleanair.org/Waste/wasteFacts.html
Darwin, C., (1871). The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex, London: John Murray
Festinger, L. (1962) A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Fiona Harvey. (2011). Plastic bag use on the rise after years of decline, environment correspondent. guardian.co.uk, Thursday 28 July 2011 07.17 EDT
Fiske, S. and Taylor, S. (1984). Social Cognition. Menlo Park: Addison-Wesley.
Green, F. (1965). The “foot-in-the-door” technique. American Salesman, 10, 14-16.
Hoffner, C. and Buchanan, M. (2005). Young Adults' Wishful Identification With Television Characters: The Role of Perceived Similarity and Character Attributes. Media Psychology. 7(4) 325-351.
Horton, D. and Wohl, R.R. (2006) Mass Communication and Para-Social Interaction: Observations on Intimacy at a Distance. Participations. 3(1)
Katharine Mieszkowski. (2007). Plastic bags are killing us, SALON, Aug. 10, 2007.
Khoo, H. H., & Tan, R. B. H. (2010). Environmental impacts of conventional plastic and bio-based carrier bags. part 2: End-of-life options. International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 15(4), 338-345.
Mike Verespej. (2012). Latest statistics show big increase in US film and bag recycling
Nina Bellucci Butler. (2007) What's in Store for Plastic Bags?, Resource Recycling.
OBrine, T., & Thompson, R. C. (2010). Degradation of plastic carrier bags in the marine environment. Marine Pollution Bulletin
Seiter, E. (1986). Stereotypes and the media: A re-evaluation. Journal of Communication, 36(2) 14-26.
Warner, B. M. (2010). Sacking the culture of convenience: Regulating plastic shopping bags to prevent further environmental harm. The University of Memphis Law Review, 40(3), 645-680
Zajonc, R.B., (1980). Feeling and thinking: Preferences need no inferences. American Psychologist, 35, 151-175.
Zajonc, R.B., (1968). Attitudinal effects of mere exposure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology Monographs, 9, 1-27