Table 4.
Linear regression of respondents cleaning commitment on social dilemma factors
| Variables | Unstandardized coefficients | Standardized coefficients | Sig. | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| B | Std. error | Beta | |||
| (Constant) | .726 | .259 | .01 | ||
| Social motives | Cleaning toilet more than other users | .166 | .016 | .338 | .00 |
| Social identity | Shared toilet users’ relations | .086 | .020 | .219 | .00 |
| Behaviour of others | Cleaning households | .003 | .001 | .072 | .02 |
| Individual’s cooperation in cleaning | .018 | .039 | .013 | .65 | |
| Respondents cleaning less than other users | -.083 | .018 | -.162 | .00 | |
| Communication | Talking frequency with other users | .081 | .031 | .080 | .01 |
| Easy to talk to other users | .154 | .028 | .212 | .00 | |
| Unintended non-cooperation | Individuals not held responsible | .049 | .043 | .032 | .26 |
| Perceived efficacy | Shared toilet users’ cleaning cooperation | .036 | .033 | .048 | .28 |
| Cleanliness confidence if other users are cooperative in cleaning | .136 | .046 | .092 | .01 | |
| Group dynamics | Cleaning team | .084 | .033 | .118 | .01 |
N = 422, R Square = .70.