Next Article in Journal
Design and Verification of Process Discovery Based on NLP Approach and Visualization for Manufacturing Industry
Next Article in Special Issue
When Corporate Social Advocacy Meets Controversial Celebrity: The Role of Consumer–Brand Congruence and Consumer-Celebrity Congruence
Previous Article in Journal
Detection and Removal of Priority Substances and Emerging Pollutants from Stormwater: Case Study of the Kołobrzeska Collector, Gdańsk, Poland
Previous Article in Special Issue
Contextualizing Motivating Language to Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR): How Leader Motivating Language Affects Employees’ CSR Engagement and Employee–Organization Relationships
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 14
Issue 3
10.3390/su14031106
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Tracking the Path of the Green Consumer: Surveying the Decision-Making Process from Self-Transcendent Values to Supportive CSR Intentions

by
Nicholas Eng
*,
Christen Buckley
and
Rachel X. Peng
Donald P. Bellisario College of Communications, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, State College, PA 16802, USA
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2022, 14(3), 1106; https://doi.org/10.3390/su14031106
Submission received: 8 December 2021 / Revised: 6 January 2022 / Accepted: 13 January 2022 / Published: 19 January 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Corporate Social Responsibility, Corporate Social Advocacy, and Societal Change)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
This paper examines the relationship between individual traits and values of consumers and their decision-making process pertaining to purchasing green products from companies with a strong commitment to corporate social responsibility (CSR). Guided by the theory of planned behavior (TPB), the main goal of this online survey (N = 463) is to understand the relationship between self-transcendent values, environmentalism, attitudes, norms, perceived behavioral control, intentions, and purchase frequency to better understand how consumers make green purchasing decisions. A structural equation model shows support for our predictions that self-transcendent values significantly and positively predict environmentalism, which in turn predicted the TPB variables. Interestingly, only attitudes towards purchasing green products were significantly predictive of purchasing products from companies with strong commitments to CSR, which subsequently predicted actual purchase frequency. We hope that our research will benefit scholars and practitioners by contributing to the work in CSR and environmental communication.

1. Introduction

“Who Gives a Crap” is both a tagline and the name of an Australian-based, B Corp™ toilet paper company that is certified for the highest standards of social and environmental impact [1]. Similarly, Danish company Lego is consistently highly ranked in terms of their corporate social responsibility (CSR), fostering learning through play initiatives while also pledging to make all core LEGO products from sustainable materials by 2030 [2]. According to the Governance and Accountability Institute, as reported by Wharton, 86% of the S&P 500 Index companies published sustainability or corporate responsibility reports in 2018 [3]. As these examples demonstrate, CSR initiatives are becoming an integral aspect of practices and branding of organizations. If done strategically, an organization’s internalization of environmental, ethical, or social issues strengthens the relationship-building potential between itself and the consumer [4].
CSR is defined as “the social responsibility of business (that) encompasses the economic, legal, and ethical expectations that society has of organizations at a given point in time” [5] (p. 500) [6]. Despite the ubiquity of CSR initiatives in the twenty-first century, studies of CSR initiatives and consumer purchase decisions provide evidence of the complexities of such relationships [7]. For example, Bhattacharya and Sen [8] established the important role of consumer support for issues and causes that CSR practices aim to target. Additionally, Sen et al. [9] identified variables, such as brand visibility and product involvement, that modify this relationship; numerous other variables such as consumer loyalty [10] or awareness [11] have been identified as being particularly critical influences of the effectiveness of CSR initiatives.
While CSR is a broad concept that spans multiple domains (e.g., human rights and other social issues), this study focuses on the antecedents of green purchasing from companies with a strong commitment to environmental CSR. In other words, how do individuals, who possess certain traits and values, become consumers of green products? Past research in public relations or consumer behavior has mostly focused on public reactions to CSR communication [12,13] or the effectiveness of certain CSR strategies or partnerships [14]. In this study, the individual traits that guide consumers as they make the decision to purchase environmentally friendly products from companies with strong CSR commitments will be explored. Past research has shown that variables such as moral values, subjective norms and attitudes influence consumer supportive intentions of CSR initiatives [15]. However, before deciding to support the companies with a strong commitment to CSR through purchase intentions [15] or positive word of mouth (WOM) [16], these consumers are still individuals that have individual traits or values that may inform their journey to supportive actions. In examining the relationship between the traits of individuals and their decision-making process pertaining to green products, scholars and practitioners will be able to better situate the journey of the consumer within their understanding of CSR. This in turn emphasizes the value of accounting for individual differences among green consumers to more effectively segment and communicate with them.

2. Literature Review

2.1. Self-Transcendent Values and Environmentalism

According to De Moura et al. [17], while consumer behavior remains centered on satisfying individual needs, environmental preservation has also become a primary concern for consumers. This increasing awareness and interest in sustainable consumption is reflected in growing stakeholder pressure on companies to engage in sustainable or environmentally conscious practices [18,19,20]. This concern has traditionally been addressed by companies through CSR. Consumer reactions to CSR initiatives are influenced by their perceptions of company-centric variables such as company-issue fit [21], legitimacy, or trust [22], to name a few. Additionally, scholars have found that personal characteristics of consumers, such as values, lifestyles, and personality characteristics are particularly influential in their reactions to CSR initiatives [23]. For example, Kang et al. [24] explored hotel guests’ willingness to pay more to enable the company to implement green practices and established that higher environmental concern leads to a greater willingness to pay. However, scholars like Park and Lee [25] question why self-proclaimed environmentalists who claim to value CSR in their purchasing decisions may not engage with green products as one would expect. We argue that to answer that question, we need to look at the overall process by which individuals become green consumers, starting with the values they hold.
Moral values in CSR are traditionally explored as a trait of the organization, which become signals to their consumers with varying degrees of success [11,26]. However, we are interested in the influence of the values held by individuals, defined as “a desirable trans-situational goal varying in importance, which serves as a guiding principle in the life of a person or other social entity” [27] (p. 21). According to Schwartz [28], there are ten motivationally different types of values, the two that we are particularly interested in are universalism and benevolence. Universalism refers to an “understanding, appreciation, tolerance, and protection for the welfare of all people and for nature” while benevolence is the “preservation and enhancement of the welfare of people with whom one is in frequent personal contact” [27] (p. 22). Both universalism and benevolence are part of what can be understood to be self-transcendent values [29], or social-oriented values [30]. For the purposes of our study, we operationalize self-transcendent values in terms of moral identity and empathy, both of which tap on universalism and benevolence. Moral identity refers to the cognitive schema one holds about how important being moral is to one’s identity [31,32]. In other words, moral identity is how important is it to the self to “do the right thing”. Empathy on the other hand refers to the ability to adopt the emotional state of others [33,34].
Schultz [35] has argued that self-transcendent values reflect a greater degree of inclusion—a valuing of goals and objects tied to unity with nature and broad-mindedness. Additionally, self-transcendent emotions share the common characteristics of shifting attention outside of the self and promoting prosocial motivations and behaviors [36]. As such, we would expect that there is a positive relationship between self-transcendent values and environmentalism. Environmentalism, broadly speaking, can be understood as how much one feels connected to their natural surroundings and how concerned one feels about the state of the environment [37,38]. Environmental concern and connectedness to nature are complementary in that together they shape one’s views of what needs to be done about the climate crisis. Past research has supported the link between self-transcendent values and environmentalism. For instance, Tam [39] found empathy to be related to connectedness to nature, and Moreton et al. [40] similarly found that moral elevation increased feelings of connectedness to nature. Additionally, multinational studies have examined the relationship between values, environmental concerns and worldview in 14 countries [41,42] and their findings strongly supported the notion that self-transcendent values underlie environmental concerns and one’s environmental worldview. Similar results were reported by Schwartz et al. [43], where self-transcendent values correlated positively with environmental worries. In sum, it appears that self-transcendent values are significant and positive predictors of environmental concern [29,30,44], influence the effect of CSR initiatives [45], and are strongly correlated to people’s attitudes towards conservation behavior [46]. Therefore, we predict that:
Hypothesis 1.
Greater self-transcendent values, such as empathy and moral identity, will be positively associated with feeling more connected to nature and expressing greater environmental concern.

2.2. Theory of Planned Behavior

Researchers have established that for green products to be adopted by consumers, practitioners need to focus on consumer preferences and decision-making processes [47]. To address this call to increase attention on the consumer decision-making process, we will apply the theory of planned behavior (TPB), which looks at the role of norms, attitudes, and perceived behavioral controls in decision making, in a CSR context. Scholars have broadly identified a connection between the TPB variables and consumer intention to buy green products [48].
Since its inception, scholars have refined the theory of reasoned action (TRA) and TPB frameworks by adding and/or altering relevant variables to enhance the explanatory power of these models [49,50]. Fishbein and Ajzen [51] developed the TRA to explain the behavioral intentions of individuals. However, this addresses purely volitional control and fails to address certain non-volitional factors (e.g., owning of requisite opportunities and resources) [52]. Thusly, non-volitional factors were incorporated into the TPB, extending the boundaries of the TRA [52,53]. The TPB posits that the intentions and behaviors of individuals are shaped by a combination of the individual’s attitudes, descriptive and subjective norms, and perceived behavioral control (PBC) towards the behavior [53]. Attitudes refer to how positively (or negatively) one views the behavior; descriptive norms are perceptions of whether others are engaging the behavior; subjective norms are an individual’s perceptions of whether others around them approve the behavior; and perceived behavioral control is an evaluation of self-efficacy––that is, how much one thinks they are actually able to perform the behavior [52,54]. Since this study is set in the context of CSR, we operationalize attitudes as a combination of both green product utility (i.e., how effective is the use of environmentally friendly products in combating climate change) and green consumer attitudes (i.e., how much can one’s purchasing decisions influence the environment). Additionally, to operationalize intentions in this context, we use word-of-mouth (WOM) and purchase intentions since these variables are often used to reflect the overall success of communication strategies and as outcomes of the consumer decision- making process [14,15,55]. WOM intention refers to whether individuals intend to speak positively about a company to others, while purchase intention refers to whether the individual intends to make a purchase from the company. A number of scholars have examined environmental issues using the TPB as a guiding theoretical framework [56,57,58,59,60]. For example, Kalafatis et al. [56] used the TPB to identify probable influences on consumer intentions to buy environmentally friendly products because the theory encourages the analysis of attitudes, cultural and personal elements, as well as conscious behavioral control.
In extending the TPB, scholars included environmental concern and found that customers who have high environmental concerns are likely to develop a positive attitude and interest towards green products and this might influence their choice and purchase intentions [48,61,62]. Additionally, Paul et al. [49] confirmed the extension of the TPB as a research model that can explain the relationship between positive attitude and perceived behavioral control on the increased likelihood of consumers to purchase green products. A mediation analysis by Chen and Tung [63] showed that the TPB variables serve as mediators in environmental concern-intention relationships, which is to say that consumer environmental concerns exert a positive influence on their attitude towards green hotels and in turn influences their intention to visit green hotels. Following this vein of research, we aim to test the TPB framework in the CSR context by examining the predictive ability of environment beliefs on three assumed predictors of purchase intention. We predict that consumer environmental beliefs (i.e., how connected one feels to nature and how concerned one is about the environment) will be significant predictors of their attitudes, norms, and perceived behavioral control towards green products.
Hypothesis 2.
Greater connectedness to nature and environmental concern will be positively associated with (a) higher perceived green product utility and pro-environmental consumer attitudes, (b) more salient descriptive and subjective norms, and (c) greater perceived behavioral control.
Consumers engage in conservation behavior because they are intrinsically concerned about the environment and society [64,65]. Extant research shows the direct effect of environmental attitudes on green purchase intentions, in addition to the indirect effect through the mediation of TPB predictor variables [63]. An individual’s level of concern regarding environmental issues is therefore a useful predictor of environmentally conscious behavior [66]. Various other studies emphasize that customers who have higher levels of concern about the environment will be more driven to purchase environmentally friendly products [49,67,68], even with an intention to pay a premium price [69,70], than those who have lower environmental concerns. Due to these previously established connections outside of the TPB decision-making process, it is also worth exploring if having a stronger concern for the environment directly correlates with being more likely to purchase products as a result of the environmental claims made by those products. In other words, depending on existing levels of environmental concern, it is expected that customers would differ in their purchase intentions for green products. Thus, we propose a competing hypothesis predicting that:
Hypothesis 3.
Greater connectedness to nature and environmental concern will be positively associated with (a) greater intentions to purchase green products and (b) greater word-of-mouth (WOM) intentions about green products, from companies with a strong commitment to CSR.
Factors that influence how a consumer makes purchasing decisions concerning green products have been examined from numerous angles both within and beyond the CSR literature. Supportive intentions and behaviors are critical measures of the efficacy of CSR campaigns and green product promotion and adoption [71]. Scholars that have focused on sustainability research have established connections between “green variables” and supportive intentions from the consumer realm. For example, López-Mosquera et al. [72] found that some socio-demographic factors, as well as environmental sensitivity and attitudinal variables, significantly influenced environmental purchase frequency. Similarly, Han et al. [50] identified a connection between attitudes toward green behaviors and positive WOM intentions when accounting for one’s overall perception of a green organization and its attributes.
Studies have also observed significant relationships between variables in the TPB and these key supportive intentions both within and outside of a CSR context. Attitudes, norms, and perceived behavioral control have been found to be positively related to both consumer negative and positive WOM communication intentions [73,74] and perceived behavioral control has been found to be a moderator of attitude-purchase intention [75]. In a similar line of research, Shin and Hancer [76] found support that attitudes, norms, and perceived behavioral control, are all significant predictors of purchase intentions. Purchase intentions have, in turn, been found to inform purchase behaviors like purchase frequency [72,77]. Based on these findings connecting environmental-related variables and the TPB variables to supportive outcomes, we propose the following hypothesis:
Hypothesis 4.
The TPB variables (i.e., attitudes, norms, and PBC) will be positively associated with (a) intentions to purchase green products, (b) WOM intentions about green products, from companies with a strong commitment to CSR, which in turn predicts (c) purchasing frequency.
In Figure 1, we present our conceptual model of the relationship between self-transcendent values, environmentalism, and the TPB variables.

3. Method

3.1. Design and Procedures

We recruited respondents via CloudResearch, a recruitment system run by Amazon Mechanical Turk (Mturk). The minimum sample size required for this study was 223, computed based on a preliminary calculation (Alpha = 0.05, df = 47, desired power = 0.80, null root mean square error of approximation [RMSEA] = 0.05, alternative RMSEA = 0.08) using an online R software developed by Preacher and Coffman [78]. The survey was launched on 1 December 2020, and data collection concluded on the first day. We recruited a total of 500 respondents. Respondents were told that they were participating in a study about environmentalism. After completing the study, respondents received an agreed-upon compensation via the recruitment system. All procedures were approved by the first author’s institutional review board before the study was launched.

3.2. Sample

A total of 518 respondents started the survey. We removed respondents who failed the attention check (n = 12), and who straight-lined (n = 31), resulting in a final sample size of 463.
Respondents ranged in age from 20 to 83 years old (M = 42.27, SD = 12.65), with a gender split of 230 male, 229 female, and four identifying as something else or chose not to answer. Most respondents identified as “Caucasian or White,” (n = 362, 78.2%) with a little over half (n = 232) of respondents reporting a yearly income between $25,000 and $74,999. Of our sample, 48.2% had a college degree, 45.4% reported being Democrat, and more than half reported being at least “slightly liberal”. Full sample demographics are reported in Table 1.

3.3. Measures

All the variables in the study were measured on a 7-point Likert scale with anchors of “strongly disagree” to “strongly agree”, except for purchase frequency which used the anchors of “never” to “always”. The variables were the following:
Moral Identity was assessed with five items adapted from Xie et al. [79], and averaged; example items included “It would make me feel good to be a person who has these characteristics” to characteristics of being “caring, compassionate, fair, friendly, generous, hardworking, helpful, honest, and kind” (M = 6.08, SD = 0.99, α = 0.93).
Empathy was assessed with seven items adapted from Xie et al. [79], and averaged; example items included “I often have tender, concerned feelings for people less fortunate than me” and “I would describe myself as a pretty soft-hearted person” (M = 5.41, SD = 1.15, α = 0.94).
Connectedness to Nature was assessed with five items adapted from Mayer and Frantz [37], and averaged; example items included “I think of the natural world as a community to which I belong” and “Like a tree can be part of a forest, I feel embedded within the broader natural world” (M = 5.33, SD = 1.23, α = 0.92).
Environmental Concern was assessed with four items adapted from [38], and averaged; example items included “I am concerned about the environment” and “I am worried about the future of our planet” (M = 5.68, SD = 1.31, α = 0.95).
Perceived Green Product Utility was assessed with three items from Chang [80], and averaged; an example item included “Green products can help slow the deterioration of the environment” (M = 5.66, SD = 1.21, α = 0.92).
Green Consumer Attitudes was assessed with five items adapted from Cook et al. [81] and Currás-Pérez et al. [82] and averaged; example items included “I think the way I behave as a consumer affects the environment” and “Each consumer can have a positive influence on society by buying products from socially responsible companies” (M = 5.05, SD = 1.36, α = 0.93).
Descriptive Norms were assessed with three items adapted from Ajzen [54], and averaged; an example item was “Most people who are important to me buy green products” (M = 4.46, SD = 1.45, α = 0.93).
Subjective Norms were assessed with three items adapted from Armitage and Conner [83], and averaged; an example item was “People who are important to me think that I should buy green products” (M = 4.57, SD = 1.37, α = 0.88).
Perceived Behavioral Control (PBC) was assessed with one item from Armitage and Conner [83] “It is entirely my decision to buy green products” (M = 5.96, SD = 1.11).
Purchase Intentions were assessed with three items adapted from Dodds et al. [84], and averaged; an example item included “I will buy green products from companies that have a strong commitment to corporate social responsibility as a first option” (M = 4.97, SD = 1.39, α = 0.91).
World-of-Mouth (WOM) Intentions were assessed with four items adapted from Ding et al. [85], and averaged’; an example sample item was “I would encourage friends to buy green products sold by companies that have a strong commitment to corporate social responsibility” (M = 5.06, SD = 1.46, α = 0.94).
Purchase Frequency of Green Products was assessed with one item adapted from López-Mosquera et al. [72], “I tend to purchase green products from companies that have a strong commitment to corporate social responsibility” (M = 4.33, SD = 1.43).

4. Results

4.1. Measurement Model Assessment

Prior to testing our structural model, we tested our measurement model using IBM’s Amos 28. Self-transcendent values, environmentalism, norms, attitudes, and intentions formed second-order constructs with their corresponding first-order factors. A confirmatory factory analysis (CFA) testing the measurement model indicated satisfactory model fit (χ2 = 157.16, df = 35, p < 0.001, CMIN = 4.49, RMSEA = 0.09, 90% CI = 0.07–0.10, CFI = 0.97, p < 0.001, SRMR = 0.03) with all standardized factor loadings significant at p < 0.001. See Table 2 for the results of the CFA.

4.2. Structural Model Assessment

The overall model fit for the entire maximum likelihood covariance-based structural equation model was satisfactory after controlling for income, education, political affiliation, and political ideology (χ2 = 253.45, df = 68, p < 0.001, CMIN = 3.73, RMSEA = 0.08, 90% CI = 0.07–0.09, CFI = 0.96, p < 0.001, SRMR = 0.03). All significance tests were based on 2000 bias-corrected bootstrapped samples with a confidence interval of 0.95. The significance of the individual paths is shown in Figure 2.

4.3. Hypotheses Testing

H1 predicted that greater self-transcendent values will be positively associated with environmentalism. Self-transcendent values were found to have a significant and positive relationship with environmentalism (β = 0.71, SE = 0.06, p < 0.001). Hence, we found support for our first hypothesis.
H2 predicted that greater environmentalism will be positively associated with the TPB variables, while H3 predicted that environmentalism will be positively associated with purchase intentions. The direct influence of environmentalism on attitudes (β = 0.89, SE = 0.06, p < 0.001), norms (β = 0.58, SE = 0.07, p < 0.001), and perceived behavioral control (β = 0.41, SE = 0.06, p < 0.001) were positive and significant, supporting H2. For H3, the results show that environmentalism did not have statistically significant effects on purchase intentions (β = −0.08, SE = 0.18, p = 0.56). Therefore, H3 was not supported.
In examining the relationships between the TPB variables and intentions (H4), the data indicated that attitudes have a significant and positive relationship with purchase intentions (β = 0.94, SE = 0.25, p < 0.001), while norms (β = 0.11, SE = 0.07, p = 0.12) and PBC (β = −0.02, SE = 0.03, p = 0.39) did not. Purchase intentions were, in turn, found to be significantly related to actual purchasing frequency (β = 0.84, SE = 0.03, p < 0.001). Hence H4 was partially supported.

5. Discussion

The main goal of this study was to illuminate consumers’ decision-making process to supportive intentions in a CSR context. Theoretically grounded in the TPB, our survey tested whether self-transcendent values, environmentalism, and the TPB variables (attitudes, norms, and PBC) are indeed antecedents of consumers’ positive word-of-mouth and purchase intentions for companies with a strong commitment to CSR, as well as actual purchase frequency. Results suggest that self-transcendent values do predict environmentalism, which then predicted the TPB variables, and attitudes subsequently predicted supportive CSR intentions and behaviors.
Consistent with past research [44], we found that self-transcendent values significantly and positively predicted environmentalism. Respondents in our survey who reported having a greater sense of moral identity and empathy tended to feel more connected to nature and express concern for the environment. Our results suggest that such social-oriented values [30] extend from the care and concern consumers have for other sentient beings to the natural environment around them. This is supported by past research that shows that individuals perceive there to be an interdependent, symbiotic human-nature relationship [86]. This first path, from self-transcendent values to environmentalism, provides evidence that individual traits can influence the journey of individuals in becoming green consumers.
Continuing with our investigation of the antecedents of CSR supportive intentions and behaviors, we found support for the extension of the TPB to include environmentalism. In support of our predictions, we found that greater connectedness to nature and environmental concern significantly and positively predicted respondent attitudes, norms, and perceived behavioral control towards green products. Perhaps unsurprisingly, environmentalism strongly predicted attitudes that the use and purchase of green products are beneficial to the environment (β = 0.89). Due to the strong correlation between environmentalism and attitudes, one might wonder if they are one and the same. We measured environmentalism with two scales: connectedness to nature (i.e., how connected individuals feel to the natural world) and environmental concern (i.e., how concerned individuals are about the state of the environment). Both scales tap on general attitudes about nature and the environment. We also measured attitudes with two scales: perceived green product utility (i.e., how helpful is the use of green products in protecting the environment) and pro-environmental consumer attitudes (i.e., the influence of one’s purchasing decisions on protecting the environment). Therefore, despite the strong correlation, environmentalism and attitudes are conceptually different. What our data suggests is that the more individuals feel connected to, and are concerned about, the environment, the more likely they are to hold positive attitudes towards the effectiveness of their purchasing decisions in helping to combat the climate crisis. It is plausible that people who self-reported being high on the environmentalism scale would tend to already be more environmentally conscious, and hence already actively making green purchasing decisions. As such, their attitudes towards the effectiveness of the purchase and use of such products should also be relatively high.
Relatedly, we found that pro-environmental attitudes of consumers were significant and positive predictors of CSR-supportive intentions. Interestingly, contrary to the predictions of the TPB that norms and PBC should predict intentions, we did not find this to be true. Taken together, the weak and non-significant associations we find between norms and PBC on intentions further reinforce the cultivation of positive attitudes towards the use and purchase of green products. It may be that an individual’s attitudes towards green products are independent of whether or not others around them share similar attitudes or if they perceive ownership over their decision to purchase green products. This echoes our finding that self-transcendent values can predict environmentalism since it is conceivable that being moral and empathetic are stable traits that do not depend on norms or PBC in motivating individuals to support companies with strong commitments to environmental sustainability. At the end of our survey, we included an optional open-ended question where respondents were presented with the following request: “It would also be great if you can tell us what barriers, if any, you face from buying green products from companies with a strong commitment to CSR”. A substantial portion of the survey-takers (over 400) responded to this question. Out of the responses, the price of green products, availability, and time needed to seek out these products arose as major barriers for respondents. As such, an alternative explanation may be that while PBC could be a predictor of supportive intentions, at present, consumers still find it difficult to connect their goal (of being environmentally friendly) with how they feel about their own PBC. Regardless, the significant association between intentions and actual purchase frequency of green products shows that self-transcendent values, environmentalism, and attitudes can not only predict consumer intentions, but can go one step further to predict actual behaviors. This, at the very least, illuminates one part of the very complex decision-making process to support CSR initiatives.
Contrary to our hypothesis, we did not find evidence that environmentalism would circumvent the TPB process and influence intentions to support companies with strong CSR commitments. We posited this hypothesis due to past research that indicates that there may be a direct path from environmental concerns to purchase intentions [49,67,68,69,70]. However, we embarked on this research to identify both antecedents and mediating variables that can better predict supportive intentions in the context of CSR. This non-significant direct effect suggests that environmentalism itself does not appear to predict supportive intentions, but instead is mediated by at least some of the TPB variables. In other words, consumers who care about protecting the environment generally go through a decision-making process that accounts for their attitudes towards usage and purchase of green products to ultimately become green consumers. Based on our data, merely being concerned about the environment, or feeling connected to nature alone, does not move individuals to engage in supportive purchase and WOM intentions. Finally, in line with the predictions of the TPB, we found a very strong relationship between CSR supportive intentions and actual purchasing frequency. Past meta-analyses have found that intentions and behaviors are positively correlated (r = 0.47) [87]. In our data, the relationship between intentions and behaviors are far stronger (β = 0.84), which may suggest that in the context of purchasing products from companies with a strong commitment to CSR, individuals who possess high levels of supportive intentions are more likely to follow through with actual purchasing behaviors.

6. Theoretical and Practical Implications

This study has several important theoretical and practical implications. First, we found support for self-transcendent values as predictors of environmentalism. By identifying antecedent values associated with environmentalism, we contribute to the work around climate change communication and CSR. Scholars may consider including these values to improve the predictive power of their models that include message acceptance and behavioral change as dependent variables. Second, we also extend the range of the TPB by including both self-transcendent values and environmentalism as independent variables. This follows a call from Kals and Müller [88] to include additional variables because the parsimony of the TPB has limitations with regard to its application in the field of environmental studies. Third, in testing the TPB in the context of CSR-supportive intentions and behaviors, we also elucidate the boundaries of the theory since we did not find support for the possibility of two components of the TPB, namely norms and PBC, to be predictive of supportive intentions. We are not suggesting that norms and PBC are not important variables to consider in the context of supportive CSR intentions, but that the effects of these two variables may have been masked by the strong association we found between attitudes and intentions. Future research should replicate the findings from our study, and perhaps identify specific norms and PBC that could significantly predict CSR-supportive intentions.
Practically, for organizations who are engaging in CSR, it is not only important to communicate their actions to the public, but it may also be worthwhile to create messages that appeal to the empathy and morality of individuals. Our findings echo the ideas put forth by Kumar and Ghodeswar [89] as well as Widyastuti et al. [90], who suggest employing communication strategies based on emotional appeals and experiences. This follows a growing body of research that suggests that consuming self-transcendent media messages can increase one’s perceptions of connectedness to others, and motivations to be a better person [91,92]. Exposure to such messages has also been associated with pro-social behavioral outcomes like donations of time, money, and other forms of assistance [93,94,95]. Finding ways to embed self-transcendent messages in an organization’s CSR communication efforts may serve to increase supportive behaviors. For example, Shen [96] identified a variety of message features that have been found to evoke state empathy; such as the use of background music that is consonant with, or highlights, the emotional experience of the featured characters in the message, or when characters in the message look into the camera and make eye contact with the message receiver. These are message features that can easily be employed by organizations when designing their CSR messages. Additionally, for companies, organizations, governments, and nonprofits who want to promote environmental behaviors, it is also important to look at their target audience’s value systems. This would allow for more effective audience segmentation, which could increase the effectiveness of its campaigns. After all, characteristics of consumers, such as values, lifestyles, or personality characteristics have been found to be particularly influential in their reactions to CSR initiatives [23], which may extend more broadly to pro-environmental initiatives as well. Apart from aiding in audience segmentation, it may also be beneficial to frame climate change as an issue that appeals to one’s morality or empathy. Perhaps, to encourage more supportive pro-environmental intentions, talking about how climate change negatively impacts the less fortunate may be a way to transcend bipartisan views of the issue. Finally, we would also implore companies, organizations, governments, nonprofits, and even educators to find ways to cultivate concern in individuals for the environment and connectedness to nature. Whether it is through experiential learning, or media messages, instilling these attitudes may help increase supportive intentions.

7. Limitations and Future Research

The potential limitations of the study should be acknowledged in light of the findings. First, since our study was a cross-sectional survey, we are unable to make any causal claims of the relationships between our variables. The order of the variables in our model was constructed based on theoretical considerations, future research should consider employing a longitudinal experiment to establish whether self-transcendent values precede environmentalism, or vice versa. We did, however, compare the model fit with environmentalism as the antecedent for self-transcendent values and the data fit this model worse than what we had proposed. Therefore, it does not appear to be that feeling concerned about or connected to nature influences one to believe that they are moral and empathetic. Second, we used single-item measures for PBC and purchase frequency of green products, which is prone to more measurement error than a multi-item measure. Future research should consider the inclusion of multiple items to measure PBC and purchase of green products across different product categories. Third, we conceived this study to understand green purchasing decisions from companies with a strong commitment to environmental CSR. While studying CSR companies so broadly increases their predictive validity, there are many other aspects of an organization that may influence consumer intentions to purchase products from them (e.g., corporate reputation). Future research should consider conducting experiments with companies that have varying reputations.

8. Conclusions

Through an online survey, we examined how certain values influence the TPB variables, and actual purchasing frequencies. We found that self-transcendent values were a significant predictor of environmentalism, which predicted more positive attitudes towards the effectiveness of their green purchasing decisions in helping with climate action. Attitudes, in turn, strongly predicted CSR supportive intentions, and subsequently actual purchase frequency. We did not find support that norms and perceived behavior control significantly predicted supportive intentions. The findings suggest that individuals do go through a decision-making process that is guided by their pre-existing value systems when deciding to make green purchases, which has implications for academics and practitioners.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, N.E., C.B. and R.X.P.; methodology, N.E., C.B. and R.X.P.; formal analysis, N.E., C.B. and R.X.P.; data curation, N.E., C.B. and R.X.P.; writing—original draft preparation, N.E., C.B. and R.X.P.; writing—review and editing, N.E., C.B. and R.X.P.; project administration, N.E., C.B. and R.X.P.; funding acquisition, N.E. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by the Donald P. Bellisario College of Communications Graduate Research Fund at the Pennsylvania State University and the APC was funded by the Arthur W. Page Center for Integrity in Public Communication at the Pennsylvania State University.

Institutional Review Board Statement

All respondents gave their informed consent for inclusion before they participated in the study. The study was approved by the Pennsylvania State University’s Institutional Review Board (STUDY00016606).

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

The data will be made available upon request.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Who Gives a Crap—USA. Available online: https://whogivesacrap.org/ (accessed on 12 December 2020).
  2. Official LEGO® Shop US. Available online: https://www.lego.com/ (accessed on 2 March 2021).
  3. Is Your Company Socially Responsible? [Web Log Post]. (11 September 2019). Available online: https://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article/company-socially-responsible/ (accessed on 5 December 2020).
  4. Kim, M.; Yin, X.; Lee, G. The effect of CSR on corporate image, customer citizenship behaviors, and customers’ long-term relationship orientation. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2020, 88, 102520. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Carroll, A.B. A three-dimensional conceptual model of corporate performance. Acad. Manag. Rev. 1979, 4, 497–505. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Schwartz, M.S.; Carroll, A.B. Corporate social responsibility: A three-domain approach. Bus. Ethic Q. 2003, 13, 503–530. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Pfau, M.; Haigh, M.M.; Sims, J.; Wigley, S. The influence of corporate social responsibility campaigns on public opinion. Corp. Reput. Rev. 2008, 11, 145–154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Bhattacharya, C.B.; Sen, S. Doing Better at Doing Good: When, why, and how consumers respond to corporate social initiatives. Calif. Manag. Rev. 2004, 47, 9–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Sen, S.; Bhattacharya, C.B.; Korschun, D. The role of corporate social responsibility in strengthening multiple stakeholder relationships: A field experiment. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 2006, 34, 158–166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Fatma, M.; Khan, I.; Rahman, Z. CSR and consumer behavioral responses: The role of customer-company identification. Asia Pac. J. Mark. Logist. 2018, 30, 460–477. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Pomering, A.; Dolnicar, S. Assessing the prerequisite of successful CSR implementation: Are consumers aware of CSR initiatives? J. Bus. Ethics 2009, 85, 285–301. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Kim, S. Transferring Effects of CSR Strategy on Consumer Responses: The Synergistic Model of Corporate Communication Strategy. J. Public Relat. Res. 2011, 23, 218–241. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Kim, S. The process model of corporate social responsibility (CSR) communication: CSR communication and its relationship with consumers’ csr knowledge, trust, and corporate reputation perception. J. Bus. Ethic 2019, 154, 1143–1159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Rim, H.; Yang, S.-U.; Lee, J. Strategic partnerships with nonprofits in corporate social responsibility (CSR): The mediating role of perceived altruism and organizational identification. J. Bus. Res. 2016, 69, 3213–3219. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Diddi, S.; Niehm, L.S. Exploring the role of values and norms towards consumers’ intentions to patronize retail apparel brands engaged in corporate social responsibility (CSR). Fash. Text. 2017, 4, 179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  16. Hong, S.Y.; Rim, H. The influence of customer use of corporate websites: Corporate social responsibility, trust, and word-of-mouth communication. Public Relat. Rev. 2010, 36, 389–391. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. De Moura, A.P.; Cunha, L.M.; Castro-Cunha, M.; Lima, R.C. A comparative evaluation of women’s perceptions and importance of sustainability in fish consumption: An exploratory study among light consumers with different education levels. Manag. Environ. Qual. Int. J. 2012, 23, 451–461. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Huang, C.-L.; Kung, F.-H. Drivers of environmental disclosure and stakeholder expectation: Evidence from Taiwan. J. Bus. Ethic 2010, 96, 435–451. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Kolk, A. The social responsibility of international business: From ethics and the environment to CSR and sustainable development. J. World. Bus. 2016, 51, 23–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Lee, K.H.; Shin, D. Consumers’ responses to CSR activities: The linkage between increased awareness and purchase intention. Public Relat. Rev. 2010, 36, 193–195. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  21. Austin, L.; Gaither, B.M. Redefining fit: Examining CSR company-issue fit in stigmatized industries. J. Brand Manag. 2018, 26, 9–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Mazutis, D.D.; Slawinski, N. Reconnecting business and society: Perceptions of authenticity in corporate social responsibility. J. Bus. Ethic 2014, 131, 137–150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Bigné-Alcañize, E.; Currás-Pérez, R.; Sánchez-García, I. Brand credibility in cause-related marketing: The moderating role of consumer values. J. Prod. Brand Manag. 2009, 18, 437–447. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Kang, K.H.; Stein, L.; Heo, C.Y.; Lee, S. Consumers’ willingness to pay for green initiatives of the hotel industry. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2012, 31, 564–572. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Park, J.S.; Lee, J. Segmenting green consumers in the United States: Implications for green marketing. J. Promot. Manag. 2014, 20, 571–589. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Zhang, S.; Sun, W.; Ji, H.; Jia, J. The antecedents and outcomes of transformational leadership: Leader’s self-transcendent value, follower’s environmental commitment and behavior. Leadersh. Organ. Dev. J. 2021, 42, 1037–1052. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Schwartz, S.H. Universals in the content and structure of values: Theoretical advances and empirical tests in 20 countries. Adv. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 1992, 25, 1–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Schwartz, S.H. Are There universal aspects in the structure and contents of human values? J. Soc. Issues 1994, 50, 19–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Rice, G. Pro-environmental behavior in Egypt: Is there a role for Islamic environmental ethics? J. Bus. Ethics. 2006, 65, 373–390. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Pinto, D.C.; Nique, W.M.; Añaña, E.D.S.; Herter, M.M. Green consumer values: How do personal values influence environmentally responsible water consumption? Int. J. Consum. Stud. 2011, 35, 122–131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Aquino, K.; Freeman, D.; Reed, A., II; Lim, V.K.G.; Felps, W. Testing a social-cognitive model of moral behavior: The interactive influence of situations and moral identity centrality. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 2009, 97, 123–141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  32. Aquino, K.; Reed, A. The self-importance of moral identity. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 2002, 83, 1423–1440. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Batson, C.D.; Polycarpou, M.P.; Harmon-Jones, E.; Imhoff, H.J.; Mitchener, E.C.; Bednar, L.L.; Klein, T.R.; Highberger, L. Empathy and attitudes: Can feeling for a member of a stigmatized group improve feelings toward the group? J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 1997, 72, 105–118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Klimecki, O.; Singer, T. Empathic distress fatigue rather than compassion fatigue? Integrating findings from empathy re-search in psychology and social neuroscience. In Pathological Altruism; Oakley, B., Knafo, A., Madhavan, G., Wilson, D.S., Eds.; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2012; pp. 368–383. [Google Scholar]
  35. Schultz, P.W. Empathizing With Nature: The effects of perspective taking on concern for environmental issues. J. Soc. Issues 2000, 56, 391–406. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Zelenski, J.M.; Desrochers, J.E. Can positive and self-transcendent emotions promote pro-environmental behavior? Curr. Opin. Psychol. 2021, 42, 31–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Mayer, F.S.; Frantz, C.M. The connectedness to nature scale: A measure of individuals’ feeling in community with nature. J. Environ. Psychol. 2004, 24, 503–515. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  38. Schuhwerk, M.E.; Lefkoff-Hagius, R. Green or non-green? Does type of appeal matter when advertising a green product? J. Advert. 1995, 24, 45–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Tam, K.-P. Dispositional empathy with nature. J. Environ. Psychol. 2013, 35, 92–104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Moreton, S.G.; Arena, A.; Hornsey, M.J.; Crimston, C.R.; Tiliopoulos, N. Elevating nature: Moral elevation increases feelings of connectedness to nature. J. Environ. Psychol. 2019, 65, 101332. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Schultz, P.W. The structure of environmental concern: Concern for self, other people, and the biosphere. J. Environ. Psychol. 2001, 21, 327–339. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  42. Schultz, P.W.; Zelezny, L. Values as predictors of environmental attitudes: Evidence for consistency across 14 countries. J. Environ. Psychol. 1999, 19, 255–265. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  43. Schwartz, S.H.; Sagiv, L.; Boehnke, K. Worries and values. J. Person. 2000, 68, 309–346. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  44. Lee, Y.-K.; Kim, S.; Kim, M.-S.; Choi, J.-G. Antecedents and interrelationships of three types of pro-environmental behavior. J. Bus. Res. 2014, 67, 2097–2105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Romani, S.; Grappi, S.; Bagozzi, R.P. Explaining consumer reactions to corporate social responsibility: The role of gratitude and altruistic values. J. Bus. Ethic 2013, 114, 193–206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Kaiser, F.G. A moral extension of the theory of planned behavior: Norms and anticipated feelings of regret in conservationism. Pers. Individ. Differ. 2006, 41, 71–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Cherrier, H.; Black, I.R.; Lee, M.S.W. Intentional non-consumption for sustainability: Consumer resistance and/or anti-consumption? Eur. J. Mark. 2011, 45, 1757–1767. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  48. Yadav, R.; Pathak, G.S. Young consumers’ intention towards buying green products in a developing nation: Extending the theory of planned behavior. J. Clean. Prod. 2016, 135, 732–739. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Paul, J.; Modi, A.; Patel, J. Predicting green product consumption using theory of planned behavior and reasoned action. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2016, 29, 123–134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Han, H.; Hsu, L.-T.J.; Lee, J.-S. Empirical investigation of the roles of attitudes toward green behaviors, overall image, gender, and age in hotel customers’ eco-friendly decision-making process. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2009, 28, 519–528. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Fishbein, M.; Ajzen, I. Belief, Attitude, Intention and Behavior: An Introduction to Theory and Research, Addison-Wesley, Reading, Mass. 1975. Available online: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/233897090_Belief_attitude_intention_and_behaviour_An_introduction_to_theory_and_research (accessed on 2 March 2021).
  52. Madden, T.J.; Ellen, P.S.; Ajzen, I. A comparison of the theory of planned behavior and the theory of reasoned action. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 1992, 18, 3–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Ajzen, I. From intentions to actions: A theory of planned behavior. In Action Control; Kuhl, J., Beckmann, J., Eds.; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 1985; pp. 11–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Ajzen, I. The theory of planned behavior. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 1991, 50, 179–211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Ajzen, I. The theory of planned behaviour: Reactions and reflections. Psych. Health 2011, 26, 1113–1127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  56. Wu, J.; Huang, L.; Zhao, J.L.; Hua, Z. The deeper, the better? Effect of online brand community activity on customer purchase frequency. Inf. Manag. 2015, 52, 813–823. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Kalafatis, S.P.; Pollard, M.; East, R.; Tsogas, M.H. Green marketing and Ajzen’s theory of planned behaviour: A cross-market examination. J. Consum. Mark. 1999, 16, 441–460. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Brewer, G.D.; Stern, P.C. Decision Making for the Environment: Social and Behavioral Science Research Priorities; National Academies Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2005. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Oreg, S.; Katz-Gerro, T. Predicting proenvironmental behavior cross-nationally: Values, the theory of planned behavior, and value-belief-norm theory. Environ. Behav. 2006, 38, 462–483. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Koger, S.M.; Winter, D.D. The Psychology of Environmental Problems: Psychology of Sustainability, 3rd ed.; Psychology Press: Hove, UK, 2010. [Google Scholar]
  61. Hartmann, P.; Apaolaza-Ibáñez, V. Consumer attitude and purchase intention toward green energy brands: The roles of psychological benefits and environmental concern. J. Bus. Res. 2012, 65, 1254–1263. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Newton, J.D.; Tsarenko, Y.; Ferraro, C.; Sands, S. Environmental concern and environmental purchase intentions: The mediating role of learning strategy. J. Bus. Res. 2015, 68, 1974–1981. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Chen, M.-F.; Tung, P.-J. Developing an extended theory of planned behavior model to predict consumers’ intention to visit green hotels. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2014, 36, 221–230. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Bamberg, S. How does environmental concern influence specific environmentally related behaviors? A new answer to an old question. J. Environ. Psychol. 2003, 23, 21–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Fransson, N.; Gärling, T. Environmental concern: Conceptual definitions, measurement methods, and research findings. J. Environ. Psychol. 1999, 19, 369–382. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Kim, Y.; Choi, S.M. Antecedents of Green Purchase Behavior: An Examination of Collectivism, Environmental Concern, and PCE. ACR North American Advances. 2005. Available online: https://www.acrwebsite.org/volumes/v32/acr_vol32_166.pdf (accessed on 5 March 2021).
  67. Mostafa, M.M. Gender differences in Egyptian consumers? Green purchase behaviour: The effects of environmental knowledge, concern and attitude. Int. J. Consum. Stud. 2007, 31, 220–229. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Pagiaslis, A.; Krontalis, A.K. Green consumption behavior antecedents: Environmental concern, knowledge, and beliefs. Psychol. Mark. 2014, 31, 335–348. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Bang, H.K.; Ellinger, A.E.; Hadjimarcou, J.; Traichal, P.A. Consumer concern, knowledge, belief, and attitude toward re-newable energy: An application of the reasoned action theory. Psychol. Market. 2000, 17, 449–468. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Nishitani, K.; Itoh, M. Product innovation in response to environmental standards and competitive advantage: A hedonic analysis of refrigerators in the Japanese retail market. J. Clean. Prod. 2016, 113, 873–883. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Chu, S.-C.; Chen, H.-T. Impact of consumers’ corporate social responsibility-related activities in social media on brand attitude, electronic word-of-mouth intention, and purchase intention: A study of Chinese consumer behavior. J. Consum. Behav. 2019, 18, 453–462. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. López-Mosquera, N.; Lera-López, F.; Sánchez, M. Key factors to explain recycling, car use and environmentally responsible purchase behaviors: A comparative perspective. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2015, 99, 29–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Cheng, S.; Lam, T.; Hsu, C. Negative word-of-mouth communication intention: An application of the theory of planned behavior. J. Hosp. Tour. Res. 2006, 30, 95–116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Fu, J.-R.; Ju, P.-H.; Hsu, C.-W. Understanding why consumers engage in electronic word-of-mouth communication: Perspectives from theory of planned behavior and justice theory. Electron. Commer. Res. Appl. 2015, 14, 616–630. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Kim, H.Y.; Chung, J.-E. Consumer purchase intention for organic personal care products. J. Consum. Mark. 2011, 28, 40–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Shin, Y.H.; Hancer, M. The role of attitude, subjective norm, perceived behavioral control, and moral norm in the intention to purchase local food products. J. Foodserv. Bus. Res. 2016, 19, 338–351. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Pearson, D.; Henryks, J.; Sultan, P.; Anisimova, T. Organic food: Exploring purchase frequency to explain consumer behavior. J. Org. Syst. 2013, 8, 50–63. Available online: http://www.organic-systems.org/journal/82/8206.pdf (accessed on 2 December 2020).
  78. Preacher, K.J.; Coffman, D.L. Computing Power and Minimum Sample Size for RMSEA [Computer Software]. 2006. Available online: http://quantpsy.org/ (accessed on 14 November 2020).
  79. Xie, C.; Bagozzi, R.P.; Grønhaug, K. The role of moral emotions and individual differences in consumer responses to corporate green and non-green actions. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 2015, 43, 333–356. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Chang, C. Feeling ambivalent about going green. J. Advert. 2011, 40, 19–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Cook, A.J.; Kerr, G.N.; Moore, K. Attitudes and intentions towards purchasing GM food. J. Econ. Psychol. 2002, 23, 557–572. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Currás-Pérez, R.; Dolz-Dolz, C.; Miquel-Romero, M.J.; Sánchez-García, I. How social, environmental, and economic CSR affects consumer-perceived value: Does perceived consumer effectiveness make a difference? Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manag. 2018, 25, 733–747. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Armitage, C.J.; Conner, M. Predictive validity of the theory of planned behavior: The role of questionnaire format and social desirability. J. Commun. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 1999, 9, 261–272. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Dodds, W.B.; Monroe, K.B.; Grewal, D. Effects of price, brand, and store information on buyers’ product evaluations. J. Mark. Res. 1991, 28, 307–319. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Ding, X.D.; Hu, P.J.-H.; Sheng, O.R.L. e-SELFQUAL: A scale for measuring online self-service quality. J. Bus. Res. 2011, 64, 508–515. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Davis, J.L.; Green, J.D.; Reed, A. Interdependence with the environment: Commitment, interconnectedness, and environmental behavior. J. Environ. Psychol. 2008, 29, 173–180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Armitage, C.J.; Conner, M. Efficacy of the theory of planned behaviour: A meta-analytic review. Br. J. Soc. Psychol. 2001, 40, 471–499. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  88. Kals, E.; Müller, M.M. Emotions and Environment. In The Oxford Handbook of Environmental and Conservation Psychology; Clayton, S.D., Ed.; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2012; pp. 128–147. [Google Scholar]
  89. Kumar, P.; Ghodeswar, B.M. Factors affecting consumers’ green product purchase decisions. Mark. Intell. Plan. 2015, 33, 330–347. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Widyastuti, S.; Said, M.; Siswono, S.; Firmansyah, D.A. Customer trust through green corporate image, green marketing strategy, and social responsibility: A case study. Eur. Res. Stud. J. 2019, 22, 83–99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  91. Oliver, M.B.; Kim, K.; Hoewe, J.; Chung, M.-Y.; Ash, E.; Woolley, J.K.; Shade, D.D. Media-induced elevation as a means of enhancing feelings of intergroup connectedness. J. Soc. Issues 2015, 71, 106–122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Oliver, M.B.; Raney, A.A.; Slater, M.D.; Appel, M.; Hartmann, T.; Bartsch, A.; Schneider, F.; Janicke-Bowles, S.; Krämer, N.; Mares, M.-L.; et al. Self-transcendent media experiences: Taking meaningful media to a higher level. J. Commun. 2018, 68, 380–389. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Schnall, S.; Roper, J. Elevation puts moral values into action. Soc. Psychol. Personal. Sci. 2011, 3, 373–378. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  94. Sparks, A.M.; Fessler, D.M.T.; Holbrook, C. Elevation, an emotion for prosocial contagion, is experienced more strongly by those with greater expectations of the cooperativeness of others. PLoS ONE 2019, 14, e0226071. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  95. Van de Vyver, J.; Abrams, D. Testing the prosocial effectiveness of the prototypical moral emotions: Elevation increases benevolent behaviors and outrage increases justice behaviors. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 2015, 58, 23–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  96. Shen, L. Features of empathy–arousing strategic messages. Health Commun. 2018, 34, 1329–1339. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Sustainability 14 01106 g001 550
Figure 1. Conceptual Model with Hypotheses.
Figure 1. Conceptual Model with Hypotheses.
Sustainability 14 01106 g001
Sustainability 14 01106 g002 550
Figure 2. Full Model testing Proposed Hypotheses. Nonsignificant paths are represented by a dashed line. * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001. For visual clarity, income, education, political affiliation, and political ideology were included as control variables, but not shown in this figure.
Figure 2. Full Model testing Proposed Hypotheses. Nonsignificant paths are represented by a dashed line. * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001. For visual clarity, income, education, political affiliation, and political ideology were included as control variables, but not shown in this figure.
Sustainability 14 01106 g002
Table
Table 1. Sample characteristics (N = 463).
Table 1. Sample characteristics (N = 463).
DemographicM (SD) or n (%)
AgeM = 42.27 (SD = 12.65)
Race
  Caucasian or White362 (78.2%)
  Black or African American56 (12.1%)
  Asian or Pacific Islander36 (7.8%)
  Middle Eastern1 (0.2%)
  Native American5 (1.1%)
  Hispanic/Latino27 (5.8%)
  Other1 (0.2%)
  Choose not to answer3 (0.6%)
Gender
  Male230 (49.7%)
  Female229 (49.5%)
  Something else2 (0.4%)
  Choose not to answer2 (0.4%)
Income
  Under $999917 (3.7%)
  $10,000–$24,99953 (11.4%)
  $25,000–$49,999114 (24.6%)
  $50,000–$74,999118 (25.5%)
  $75,000–$99,99977 (16.6%)
  $100,000 or more76 (16.4%)
  Choose not to answer8 (1.7%)
Education
  11th grade1 (0.2%)
  12th grade (no diploma)3 (0.6%)
  High school graduate40 (8.6%)
  Some college96 (20.7%)
  College degree223 (48.2%)
  Graduate degree (e.g., PhD, MD)98 (21.2%)
  Choose not to answer2 (0.4%)
Political Party Affiliation
  Democrat210 (45.4%)
  Republican119 (25.7%)
  Independent114 (24.6%)
  Another party9 (1.9%)
  No preference11 (2.4%)
Political Ideology
  Extremely liberal55 (11.9%)
  Liberal116 (25.1%)
  Slightly liberal56 (12.1%)
  Moderate, middle of the road85 (18.4%)
  Slightly conservative40 (8.6%)
  Conservative72 (15.6%)
  Extremely conservative37 (8.0%)
  Choose not to answer2 (0.4%)
Note. Respondents were allowed to choose more than one race.
Table
Table 2. CFA Results.
Table 2. CFA Results.
VariablesFactor Loading (Standardized β)
Self-Transcendent Values
  Moral Identity0.79 ***
  Empathy0.79 ***
Environmentalism
  Connectedness to Nature0.78 ***
  Environmental Concern0.86 ***
Attitudes
  Perceived Green Product Utility0.76 ***
  Green Consumer Attitudes0.93 ***
Norms
  Descriptive Norms0.90 ***
  Subjective Norms0.92 ***
Intentions
  Word-of-Mouth Intentions0.91 ***
  Purchase Intentions0.93 ***
Note: Since perceived behavioral control and purchase frequency were measured as single item variables, their factor loadings are not reported here; * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Eng, N.; Buckley, C.; Peng, R.X. Tracking the Path of the Green Consumer: Surveying the Decision-Making Process from Self-Transcendent Values to Supportive CSR Intentions. Sustainability 2022, 14, 1106. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14031106

AMA Style

Eng N, Buckley C, Peng RX. Tracking the Path of the Green Consumer: Surveying the Decision-Making Process from Self-Transcendent Values to Supportive CSR Intentions. Sustainability. 2022; 14(3):1106. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14031106

Chicago/Turabian Style

Eng, Nicholas, Christen Buckley, and Rachel X. Peng. 2022. "Tracking the Path of the Green Consumer: Surveying the Decision-Making Process from Self-Transcendent Values to Supportive CSR Intentions" Sustainability 14, no. 3: 1106. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14031106

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop