The Impact of Green Advertising Information Quality Perception on Consumers’ Response: An Empirical Analysis
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Literature Review
2.1. The Quality of Green Advertising Information
2.2. Consumer Green Response
2.3. Consumer Green Trust
3. Theoretical Background and Hypotheses Development
3.1. The Spread Persuasion Theory
3.2. Concept Definition
3.3. Information Quality Perception on Green Response
3.4. Information Quality Perception on Green Trust
3.5. Green Trust on Green Response
3.6. The Mediating Role of Green Trust
4. Study 1
4.1. Data Sources and Data Collection
4.2. Variable Measurement and Model Building
4.3. Results and Discussion
5. Study 2
5.1. Experimental Material Design
5.2. Sample Source and Data Collection
5.3. Variable Measurement and Reliability and Validity Testing
5.4. Results and Discussion
6. Conclusions and Implications
6.1. General Conclusions
6.2. Theoretical Implications
6.3. Managerial Implications
6.4. Limitation and Future Scope
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Teguh, A.S.; Ignatia, M.H. The effect of green advertising and green product on green purchase intention with green trust as mediation variable on consumers of water packaging “ades” in surabaya. J. Mantik 2022, 6, 1291–1300. [Google Scholar]
- Koenig-Lewis, N.; Palmer, A.; Dermody, J.; Urbye, A. Consumers’ evaluations of ecological packaging—Rational and emotional approaches. J. Environ. Psychol. 2014, 37, 94–105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Green, T.; Peloza, J. Finding the right shade of green: The effect of advertising appeal type on environmentally friendly consumption. J. Advert. 2014, 43, 128–141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Septianto, F.; Kemper, J.; Paramita, W. The role of imagery in promoting organic food. J. Bus. Res. 2019, 101, 104–115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sarkar, J.G.; Sarkar, A.; Yadav, R. Brand it green: Young consumers’ brand attitudes and purchase intentions toward green brand advertising appeals. Young Consum. 2019, 20, 190–207. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Usrey, B.; Palihawadana, D.; Saridakis, C.; Theotokis, A. How Downplaying Product Greenness Affects Performance Evaluations: Examining the Effects of Implicit and Explicit Green Signals in Advertising. J. Advert. 2020, 49, 125–140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jaeger, A.-K.; Weber, A. Can you believe it? The effects of benefit type versus construal level on advertisement credibility and purchase intention for organic food. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 257, 120543. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shin, S.; Ki, E.-J.; Griffin, W.G. The effectiveness of fear appeals in ‘green’advertising: An analysis of creative, consumer, and source variables. J. Mark. Commun. 2017, 23, 473–492. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hafner, R.; Elmes, D.; Read, D. Exploring the role of messenger effects and feedback frames in promoting uptake of energy-efficient technologies. Curr. Psychol. 2019, 38, 1601–1612. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Gómez-Carmona, D.; Muñoz-Leiva, F.; Liébana-Cabanillas, F.; Nieto-Ruiz, A.; Martínez-Fiestas, M.; Campoy, C. The effect of consumer concern for the environment, self-regulatory focus and message framing on green advertising effectiveness: An eye tracking study. Environ. Commun. 2021, 15, 813–841. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kilbourne, W.E. Green advertising: Salvation or oxymoron? J. Advert. 1995, 24, 7–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, R.Y.; Storey, V.C.; Firth, C.P. A framework for analysis of data quality research. IEEE Trans. Knowl. Data Eng. 1995, 7, 623–640. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- D’souza, C.; Taghian, M. Green advertising effects on attitude and choice of advertising themes. Asia Pac. J. Mark. Logist. 2005, 17, 51–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Zhu, L.; Li, H.; He, W.; Hong, C. What influences online reviews’ perceived information quality? Perspectives on information richness, emotional polarity and product type. Electron. Libr. 2020, 38, 269–273. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jiang, G.; Liu, F.; Liu, W.; Liu, S.; Chen, Y.; Xu, D. Effects of information quality on information adoption on social media review platforms: Moderating role of perceived risk. Data Sci. Manag. 2021, 1, 13–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Barone, M.J.; Norman, A.T.; Miyazaki, A.D. Consumer response to retailer use of cause-related marketing: Is more fit better? J. Retail. 2007, 83, 437–445. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Grappi, S.; Romani, S.; Bagozzi, R.P. Consumer response to corporate irresponsible behavior: Moral emotions and virtues. J. Bus. Res. 2013, 66, 1814–1821. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Hogan, J.E.; Lemon, K.N.; Libai, B. Quantifying the ripple: Word-of-mouth and advertising effectiveness. J. Advert. Res. 2004, 44, 271–280. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Becerra, E.P.; Badrinarayanan, V. The influence of brand trust and brand identification on brand evangelism. J. Prod. Brand Manag. 2013, 22, 371–383. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mansoor, M.; Paul, J. Mass prestige, brand happiness and brand evangelism among consumers. J. Bus. Res. 2022, 144, 484–496. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schnebelen, S.; Bruhn, M. An appraisal framework of the determinants and consequences of brand happiness. Psychol. Mark. 2018, 35, 101–119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Brown, S.P.; Stayman, D.M. Antecedents and consequences of attitude toward the ad: A meta-analysis. J. Consum. Res. 1992, 19, 34–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dai, J.; Sheng, G. Advertising strategies and sustainable development: The effects of green advertising appeals and subjective busyness on green purchase intention. Bus. Strategy Environ. 2022; in print. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gong, S.; Sheng, G.; Peverelli, P.; Dai, J. Green branding effects on consumer response: Examining a brand stereotype-based mechanism. J. Prod. Brand Manag. 2020, 30, 1033–1046. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lee, J.; Cho, M. The (in) congruency effects of message framing and image valence on consumers’ responses to green advertising: Focus on issue involvement as a moderator. J. Mark. Commun. 2021, 28, 617–636. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lerro, M.; Raimondo, M.; Stanco, M.; Nazzaro, C.; Marotta, G. Cause related marketing among millennial consumers: The role of trust and loyalty in the food industry. Sustainability 2019, 11, 535. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Zhao, X.; Lynch, J.G., Jr.; Chen, Q. Reconsidering Baron and Kenny: Myths and truths about mediation analysis. J. Consum. Res. 2010, 37, 197–206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chen, K.Y.; Elder, R.J.; Hung, S. The investment opportunity set and earnings management: Evidence from the role of controlling shareholders. Corp. Gov. Int. Rev. 2010, 18, 193–211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Agustin, C.; Singh, J. Curvilinear effects of consumer loyalty determinants in relational exchanges. J. Mark. Res. 2005, 42, 96–108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Coulter, K.S.; Coulter, R.A. Determinants of trust in a service provider: The moderating role of length of relationship. J. Serv. Mark. 2002, 16, 35–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Suh, B.; Han, I. The impact of customer trust and perception of security control on the acceptance of electronic commerce. Int. J. Electron. Commer. 2003, 7, 135–161. [Google Scholar]
- McKnight, D.H.; Choudhury, V.; Kacmar, C. Developing and validating trust measures for e-commerce: An integrative typology. Inf. Syst. Res. 2002, 13, 334–359. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chen, Y.-S.; Lin, C.-Y.; Weng, C.-S. The influence of environmental friendliness on green trust: The mediation effects of green satisfaction and green perceived quality. Sustainability 2015, 7, 10135–10152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Burgoon, J.K.; Burgoon, M.; Miller, G.R.; Sunnafrank, M. Learning theory approaches to persuasion. Hum. Commun. Res. 1981, 7, 161–179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chen, Y.-H.; Hsu, I.-C.; Lin, C.-C. Website attributes that increase consumer purchase intention: A conjoint analysis. J. Bus. Res. 2010, 63, 1007–1014. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kao, T.-F.; Du, Y.-Z. A study on the influence of green advertising design and environmental emotion on advertising effect. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 242, 118294. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lin, J.; Lobo, A.; Leckie, C. The role of benefits and transparency in shaping consumers’ green perceived value, self-brand connection and brand loyalty. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2017, 35, 133–141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shoenberger, H.; Kim, E.; Sun, Y. Advertising during COVID-19: Exploring perceived brand message authenticity and potential psychological reactance. J. Advert. 2021, 50, 253–261. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pittman, M.; Oeldorf-Hirsch, A.; Brannan, A. Green advertising on social media: Brand authenticity mediates the effect of different appeals on purchase intent and digital engagement. J. Curr. Issues Res. Advert. 2022, 43, 106–121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhu, H.; Kim, M.; Choi, Y.K. Social media advertising endorsement: The role of endorser type, message appeal and brand familiarity. Int. J. Advert. 2022, 41, 948–969. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hussain, A.; Ting, D.H.; Mazhar, M. Driving consumer value co-creation and purchase intention by social media advertising value. Front. Psychol. 2022, 13, 800206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pranee, C. Marketing ethical implication & social responsibility. Int. J. Organ. Innov. 2010, 2, 6. [Google Scholar]
- Davis, J.J. Strategies for environmental advertising. J. Consum. Mark. 1993, 10, 19–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ganz, B.; Grimes, A. How claim specificity can improve claim credibility in Green Advertising: Measures that can boost outcomes from environmental product claims. J. Advert. Res. 2018, 58, 476–486. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Elliott, R.; Yannopoulou, N. The nature of trust in brands: A psychosocial model. Eur. J. Mark. 2007, 41, 988–998. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Ahmad, F.S.; Rosli, N.T.; Quoquab, F. Environmental quality awareness, green trust, green self-efficacy and environmental attitude in influencing green purchase behaviour. Int. J. Ethics Syst. 2022, 38, 68–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vieira, V.A. Stimuli–organism-response framework: A meta-analytic review in the store environment. J. Bus. Res. 2013, 66, 1420–1426. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tarabieh, S. The impact of greenwash practices over green purchase intention: The mediating effects of green confusion, Green perceived risk, and green trust. Manag. Sci. Lett. 2021, 11, 451–464. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sandi, A.; Sabarno, H.; Aulia, N.T.; Amareta, N.; Munawar, F. Toward Green Purchase Intention in Eco-Friendly Product: The Role of Green Advertising Effectiveness, Green Perceived Value and Green Trust. Rev. Int. Geogr. Educ. Online 2021, 11, 2464–2479. [Google Scholar]
- Darley, W.K.; Smith, R.E. Advertising claim objectivity: Antecedents and effects. J. Mark. 1993, 57, 100–113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shaari, H.; Ahmad, I.S. The effect of brand trust and brand community commitment on online brand evangelism behaviour. Malays. Manag. J. 2016, 20, 77–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Khwaja, M.G.; Mahmood, S.; Zaman, U. Examining the effects of eWOM, trust inclination, and information adoption on purchase intentions in an accelerated digital marketing context. Information 2020, 11, 478. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lurie, N.H. Decision making in information-rich environments: The role of information structure. J. Consum. Res. 2004, 30, 473–486. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Zhang, K.Z.; Zhao, S.J.; Cheung, C.M.; Lee, M.K. Examining the influence of online reviews on consumers’ decision-making: A heuristic–systematic model. Decis. Support Syst. 2014, 67, 78–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Negash, S.; Ryan, T.; Igbaria, M. Quality and effectiveness in web-based customer support systems. Inf. Manag. 2003, 40, 757–768. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Ganesan, S. Determinants of long-term orientation in buyer-seller relationships. J. Mark. 1994, 58, 1–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gefen, D.; Straub, D. Managing user trust in B2C e-services. e-Service 2003, 2, 7–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lee, J.; Park, D.-H.; Han, I. The effect of negative online consumer reviews on product attitude: An information processing view. Electron. Commer. Res. Appl. 2008, 7, 341–352. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chang, C.T. To donate or not to donate? Product characteristics and framing effects of cause-related marketing on consumer purchase behavior. Psychol. Mark. 2008, 25, 1089–1110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Harrison-Walker, L.J. The measurement of word-of-mouth communication and an investigation of service quality and customer commitment as potential antecedents. J. Serv. Res. 2001, 4, 60–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Petty, R.E.; Cacioppo, J.T.; Schumann, D. Central and peripheral routes to advertising effectiveness: The moderating role of involvement. J. Consum. Res. 1983, 10, 135–146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Tucker, E.M.; Rifon, N.J.; Lee, E.M.; Reece, B.B. Consumer receptivity to green ads: A test of green claim types and the role of individual consumer characteristics for green ad response. J. Advert. 2012, 41, 9–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Puto, C.P.; Wells, W.D. Informational and transformational advertising: The differential effects of time. ACR N. Am. Adv. 1984, 10, 638–643. [Google Scholar]
- Kim, D.Y.; Kim, H.-Y. Trust me, trust me not: A nuanced view of influencer marketing on social media. J. Bus. Res. 2021, 134, 223–232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Xu, Y.; Du, J.; Shahzad, F.; Li, X. Untying the influence of green brand authenticity on electronic word-of-mouth intention: A moderation–mediation model. Front. Psychol. 2021, 12, 3812. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Variables | Green Purchase Intention | Green Sharing Intention | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
DZSL | DZSL | ZFSL | ZFSL | |
FSSL | 0.0029 *** | 0.0027 *** | 0.0031 *** | 0.0030 *** |
(8.0463) | (8.0707) | (7.6541) | (7.7676) | |
GZSL | −0.0005 *** | −0.0005 *** | −0.0004 *** | −0.0005 *** |
(−3.7617) | (−4.3725) | (−3.7335) | (−4.0881) | |
FBSL | −0.0000 ** | −0.0000 ** | −0.0000 * | −0.0000 * |
(−2.3975) | (−2.4247) | (−1.8274) | (−1.7527) | |
CJWB | 0.3798 *** | 0.4322 *** | 0.1431 | 0.1677 |
(3.0507) | (3.7276) | (1.1333) | (1.3534) | |
WBLY | −0.2964 *** | −0.2712 *** | 0.0527 | 0.0633 |
(−2.7638) | (−2.7095) | (0.4877) | (0.5913) | |
YYX | 0.2057 *** | 0.1363 ** | ||
(3.9603) | (2.5251) | |||
XYX | 0.2835 *** | 0.1182 ** | ||
(5.3170) | (2.4201) | |||
ZSX | 0.0223 | 0.0567 | ||
(0.4369) | (1.1640) | |||
Constant | −0.1316 | −0.0655 | −0.3171 ** | −0.3089 ** |
(−1.0055) | (−0.5695) | (−2.4930) | (−2.5119) | |
R-squared | 0.4104 | 0.4848 | 0.3946 | 0.4046 |
Scale Items | Load Factor |
---|---|
Information usefulness (α = 0.718, CR = 0.741, AVE = 0.418) | |
1. I think I can get a more effective message from this green ad than from a traditional ads | 0.700 |
2. I think the green ad provides me with more valuable information than the traditional ads | 0.645 |
3. I think the green ad provided me with more useful information than the traditional ads | 0.695 |
Information attractiveness (α = 0.927, CR = 0.927, AVE = 0.717) | |
1. I think the green ad is more visually appealing compared to traditional ads | 0.800 |
2. I think the format of the green ad is relatively new compared to traditional ads | 0.823 |
3. I think the content of the green ad is more vivid and interesting compared with the traditional ads | 0.872 |
4. I have a relatively strong interest in knowing about that green ad compared to traditional ads | 0.832 |
5. I think the green ad is more attractive compared to traditional ads | 0.912 |
Information truthfulness (α = 0.804, CR = 0.805, AVE = 0.508) | |
1. I believe the information described in the green ad is not off-base compared to traditional ads | 0.645 |
2. I believe the information described in the green ad is true and objective compared to traditional ads | 0.740 |
3. I think the information described in this green ad is factual compared to traditional ads | 0.720 |
4. I believe the information described in this green ad is accurate and reliable compared to traditional ads | 0.743 |
Green capacity trust (α = 0.778, CR = 0.779, AVE = 0.540) | |
1. I think the green brand offers better green products compared to other brands | 0.754 |
2. I think the green brand is stronger in providing green products compared to other brands | 0.746 |
3. I think the green brand will be able to provide green products that are better for the environment than other brands | 0.703 |
Green values trust (α = 0.737, CR = 0.748, AVE = 0.428) | |
1. I think the green brand is more concerned about the interests of the earth’s environment than other brands | 0.624 |
2. I believe that this green brand values the interests of the Earth’s environment more than its own short-term interests compared to other brands | 0.699 |
3. I believe that the green brand will not damage the planet’s environment for its own benefit compared to other brands | 0.685 |
4. I think this green brand will try to help solve problems in the global environment compared to other brands | 0.676 |
Green purchase intention (α = 0.834, CR = 0.816, AVE = 0.526) | |
1. I will consider buying this green brand when needed | 0.757 |
2. When buying similar products, I will give priority to this green brand | 0.770 |
3. I am more likely to buy that green brand product among similar products | 0.820 |
4. My willingness to buy this green brand product is higher compared to similar products | 0.852 |
Green sharing intention (α = 0.841, CR = 0.849, AVE = 0.653) | |
1. I will talk to others on online platforms about this green brand related information | 0.744 |
2. I will say positive things about this green brand on online platforms | 0.612 |
3. I will forward this green branding message on the online platform | 0.830 |
4. I will share the product information of this green brand on the online platform | 0.832 |
Hypothesis | Direct Path | Estimate | S.E. | C.R. | P | Conclusions |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
H1a | YYX → GMYY | 0.234 | 0.050 | 4.736 | *** | establish |
H1b | YYX → FXYY | 0.122 | 0.063 | 2.559 | * | establish |
H2a | XYX → GMYY | 0.190 | 0.023 | 3.688 | *** | establish |
H2b | XYX → FXYY | 0.145 | 0.027 | 2.794 | ** | establish |
H3a | ZSX → GMYY | 0.031 | 0.060 | 0.403 | 0.687 | untenable |
H3b | ZSX → FSYY | 0.046 | 0.084 | 0.573 | 0.567 | untenable |
H4a | YYX → NLXR | 0.117 | 0.071 | 2.264 | * | establish |
H4b | YYX → JZGXR | 0.165 | 0.070 | 2.988 | ** | establish |
H5a | XYX → NLXR | 0.414 | 0.022 | 10.255 | *** | establish |
H5b | XYX → JZGXR | 0.299 | 0.020 | 7.387 | *** | establish |
H6a | ZSX → NLXR | 0.500 | 0.061 | 9.006 | *** | establish |
H6b | ZSX → JZGXR | 0.566 | 0.060 | 9.546 | *** | establish |
H7a | NLXR → GMYY | 0.435 | 0.061 | 5.040 | *** | establish |
H7b | NLXR → FXYY | 0.321 | 0.080 | 3.816 | *** | establish |
H8a | JZGXR → GMYY | 0.145 | 0.115 | 1.684 | 0.092 | untenable |
H8b | JZGXR → FXYY | 0.339 | 0.094 | 3.726 | *** | establish |
Hypothesis | Intermediary Path | Estimate | S.E. | Bootstrap 95% CI | Master Agent Percentage of Effect | Conclusions | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Lower | Upper | ||||||
H9a | YYX → NLXR → GMYY | 0.030 | 0.041 | −0.007 | 0.158 | 3.77% | untenable |
H9b | XYX → NLXR → GMYY | 0.120 | 0.064 | 0.079 | 0.329 | 15.08% | establish |
H9c | ZSX → NLXR → GMYY | 0.063 | 0.078 | 0.108 | 0.417 | 7.91% | establish |
H10a | YYX → JZGXR → GMYY | 0.027 | 0.024 | −0.007 | 0.089 | 3.39% | untenable |
H10b | XYX → JZGXR → GMYY | 0.047 | 0.036 | −0.021 | 0.124 | 5.90% | untenable |
H10c | ZSX → JZGXR → GMYY | 0.088 | 0.069 | 0.046 | 0.227 | 11.06% | establish |
H11a | YYX → NLXR → FXYY | 0.038 | 0.028 | −0.004 | 0.111 | 4.77% | untenable |
H11b | XYX → NLXR → FXYY | 0.061 | 0.048 | 0.049 | 0.244 | 7.66% | establish |
H11c | ZSX → NLXR → FXYY | 0.073 | 0.063 | 0.058 | 0.305 | 9.17% | establish |
H12a | YXY → JZGXR → FXYY | 0.056 | 0.032 | 0.009 | 0.142 | 7.04% | establish |
H12b | XYX → JZGXR → FXYY | 0.101 | 0.038 | 0.039 | 0.187 | 12.69% | establish |
H12c | ZSX → JZGXR → FXYY | 0.092 | 0.075 | 0.066 | 0.357 | 11.56% | establish |
Aggregate mediating effect | 0.796 | 100% |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Wang, J.; Li, A. The Impact of Green Advertising Information Quality Perception on Consumers’ Response: An Empirical Analysis. Sustainability 2022, 14, 13248. https://doi.org/10.3390/su142013248
Wang J, Li A. The Impact of Green Advertising Information Quality Perception on Consumers’ Response: An Empirical Analysis. Sustainability. 2022; 14(20):13248. https://doi.org/10.3390/su142013248
Chicago/Turabian StyleWang, Jianming, and Ayong Li. 2022. "The Impact of Green Advertising Information Quality Perception on Consumers’ Response: An Empirical Analysis" Sustainability 14, no. 20: 13248. https://doi.org/10.3390/su142013248
APA StyleWang, J., & Li, A. (2022). The Impact of Green Advertising Information Quality Perception on Consumers’ Response: An Empirical Analysis. Sustainability, 14(20), 13248. https://doi.org/10.3390/su142013248