Next Article in Journal
Total Cost of Ownership Analysis of Fuel Cell Electric Bus with Different Hydrogen Supply Alternatives
Previous Article in Journal
Customer–Resource Relationships in the Continuous Business Model Innovation of Technology Companies: Google Cases
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 16
Issue 1
10.3390/su16010258
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

Millennial Heterosexual Couples’ Sustainable Consumption Choices: An Exploratory Study into Decision-Making

by
Gargi Bhaduri
1,*,
Jihyun Kim-Vick
1 and
Madeline Blanken
2
1
School of Fashion Design and Merchandising, College of the Arts, Kent State University, Kent, OH 44240, USA
2
iDesign, Solon, OH 44139, USA
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2024, 16(1), 258; https://doi.org/10.3390/su16010258
Submission received: 26 November 2023 / Revised: 21 December 2023 / Accepted: 24 December 2023 / Published: 27 December 2023
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
This research sought to explore the influences and motives that lead to decision-making of, and behavioral changes toward, sustainable consumption in heterosexual married couples. Understanding how different factors affect couples’ consumption decision-making dynamics can help provide successful methods to promote behavior towards sustainable consumption. For this study, semi-structured interviews were employed to explore couples’ sustainable consumption behaviors. A total of six heterosexual couples (12 individual participants) provided in-depth narratives regarding their sustainable consumption and behavioral patterns. Four major themes that emerged include: (1) the meaning of sustainable consumption for the couples and their lack of confidence in their knowledge, (2) shopping decisions regarding sustainable consumption, (3) life events that influenced the couples’ views and behaviors towards sustainable consumption, and (4) the motivations behind sustainable consumption. In spite of the small sample size, the findings of the study can be used by businesses to develop more effective marketing strategies. The study results can help businesses understand heterosexual married couples’ sustainable consumption decision-making processes and persuade them to make decisions about the company’s sustainable product offerings.

1. Introduction

Sustainability has become important to everyday consumers, due to the encouragement of the government and non-government organizations [1]. A core idea of sustainability is to be mindful of the planet by limiting one’s own environmental impact. Therefore, it involves cumulative efforts by the people who are involved in production, corporate governance, and business ethics to lead industry practices into a more sustainable future [2]. The attainment of the goals and objectives of sustainability will require a strong commitment from any participant who understands what needs to be undertaken. According to Mary A. Fedig [3], sustainability leadership lies in the hands of anyone who is willing to deal with sustainability challenges, regardless of the position that they hold. Sustainability leadership has therefore been described as the efforts of anyone who is willing to show up for sustainability and be able to provide an example to others on how to create sustainability in different settings. Some existing literature indicates that sustainable practices are influenced by social interaction and seen as a contributor to a sustainable lifestyle at the household level [4].
A sustainable lifestyle is a responsible way of living in this day and age. It establishes a responsibility for all members of society to change their values and behaviors to conserve natural resources. As of 2007, the world has been exceeding the sustainable level by almost three times, meaning that the billions of individuals on this planet are consuming nearly 50% more resources than the Earth is producing [2]. Hume [5] believes that the unmonitored consumption practice is going to lead to environmental, social, and economic degeneration.
In recent years, sustainable consumption has been studied amongst many disciplines, but is still considered to be a young research field [6]. As the world continues to deplete natural resources as well as add pollution, it is becoming increasingly important for consumers to understand the importance of sustainable consumption [2] and how they, as individuals, can partake in the same. When considering the individual’s behavioral changes toward sustainable consumption practices, research indicates that life stages and events such as pregnancy [7,8,9] and relocation [10,11] can have a positive influence towards sustainable consumption.
In spite of the importance of individual consumption practices impacting sustainable development, most academic research has focused on how individual consumers with changing family structures partake in sustainable consumption in the field of marketing. Some other studies have focused on household consumption patterns, specifically related to energy consumption [12]. Particularly, there is a lack of literature about how couples, often the basic units of families, view sustainable consumption and make decisions in relation to sustainable consumption [13]. A recent study has investigated how the dynamic influence of one partner over another influenced their ethical purchasing behavior among French couples [14]. However, this study did not focus on couples’ life stages and their motivations for sustainable consumption behavior and/or changes in the same. In response to the void in the literature, the purpose of this study was to explore how married Generation Y (born 1981–1996, also known as millennial) couples make decision(s) about their sustainable consumption choices. In this light, millennials were deemed ideal for this study since they are well into their adulthood, have high buying power, and have young families of their own and/or are in a romantic partnership. Using the findings of this study, we aim to establish an initial step in identifying the motivations of heterosexual millennial couples during sustainable consumption. Understanding how different influences and motives affect couples’ consumption patterns can provide a key input into implementing more successful methods to promote pro-behaviors towards sustainable consumption.

2. Literature Review

2.1. Sustainable Consumption

One of the seventeen United Nations Sustainable Development Goals is to ensure sustainable consumption and production patterns [2] to sustain the livelihoods of current and future generations. According to the UN, if the global population reaches 9.8 billion by 2050, which it is projected to, the equivalent of almost three planets will be required to provide the natural resources needed to sustain current lifestyles. While business, government, and non-government organizations can help in making and establishing policies and practices that help reduce our impact on the Earth, every individual can also adopt more sustainable lifestyles to lessen their impact. This can involve consuming less, choosing products with lower environmental impacts, making informed purchases, and reducing the carbon footprint of day-to-day activities [2].
Sustainable consumption is the process of purchasing products and/or services while limiting the overall social and environmental impact [15]. To achieve sustainable consumption, one must have an “understanding of the impact from our consumption activities, which can be categorized as the food we eat, the homes we live in, how we travel and the stuff we buy” [16]. Like other consumption choices, sustainable consumption is accomplished through a decision-making process [17] and takes into consideration social responsibilities and the needs and wants of the consumer.
Previous literature shows that the terms “green” and “ethical” have been interchangeably used to describe sustainable consumption. Green and ethical consumption is considered as purchasing products and services produced in a way that minimizes negative social and/or environmental impact, while avoiding products and services deemed to have a negative impact on society or the environment [18,19]. Although green and ethical consumption can both be defined as a consumption choice that considers environmental and social impacts, this paper will use the term “sustainable consumption” throughout to describe this type of consumer behavior.
According to Vermeir and Verbeke [17] sustainable consumption is constantly being decided based on convenience, habit, value for money, personal health concerns, hedonism, and social norms, and are very hard to change. Studies have found that when trying to change consumption habits, particularly those related to sustainable consumption, individuals have to actively reflect upon existing cultural norms (p. 170, [17]). The higher the awareness of and understanding about the negative impact of their consumption choices, the higher the likelihood that an action will be taken to reduce such impact [18,20]. A positive attitude [21] and knowledge [22] are found to be key stimulators towards sustainable consumption [23,24] and positive environmental behavior, while a negative attitude toward sustainable consumption comes from price, appearance, convenience, and conversation [17] and restrains individuals from consuming sustainably.
Verplanken and Wood [25] found that it is hard to change everyday consumption habits that are unsustainable, but other studies have found that when big events happen, like pregnancy [7,8,9], life events [7], and relocation [11,26], individuals are more likely to be open to the idea of sustainable consumption. Research has also found that the relationship between knowledge, attitude, and behavior is weak [26], making it hard for someone to change their consumption habits. A study found that 40% of consumers are willing to learn about buying sustainable products, but only 4% actually do so [7]. In order to change these behaviors, consumers must be addressed depending on the stage of life that they are in, on matters including social norms, perceived personal responsibility, goal feasibility, behavioral skills, and implementation problems [10,27]. More awareness regarding environmental issues may increase the willingness of consumers to buy sustainable products [28]. Since environmental concerns are part of individuals’ everyday lives [29], and it is imperative that we take actions now to reduce our footprint for the current and future generations, understanding consumers’ decision-making steps regarding sustainable consumption is important [29].

2.2. Pro-Environmental Behavior

Pro-environmental behavior (PEB) in individuals is a widely talked about topic amongst many different disciplines [30] and is highly associated with sustainable consumption [31]. Over the years, there have been many debates to find a common understanding of how PEBs work. The literature suggests that norm-activation theory can help explain these types of behaviors [32]. The Norm Activation Model Theory (NAM) [33,34] is a model that explains altruistic and environmentally friendly behavior and is based on personal norms. The NAM states that personal norms are actively experienced as feelings of moral obligation, not as intentions (p. 227, [33]) and are determined by two factors, namely the awareness that performing (or not performing) the particular behavior has certain consequences, and the feeling of responsibility for performing the specific behavior [10]. Activation, obligation, defense, and response [32] are the steps that individuals take when making moral decisions, and since each person perceives a different level of importance of certain values, the activation of personal norms creates different intensities of moral obligation in different people in the same situation, resulting in different behaviors [29]. De Groot and Steg [30] found that individuals must be aware of the consequences of their actions before feeling guilt or responsibility for them.
Throughout the literature, the NAMT has been applied to study pro-environmental behavior, looking at household behaviors [35] and environmental protection. These studies have found that individuals with awareness of the consequences of their actions/choices are more likely to be involved in pro-environmental behavior [32]. However, various other studies [36,37,38] have found that pro-environmental attitudes do not always result in pro-environmental behavior. On the other hand, research indicates that the way that a consumer makes consumption decisions can be based on their shopping orientations [39].

2.3. Shopping Orientation

Stone [39] describes shopping orientation as a way in which shopping styles influence one’s shopping-related decisions. Each individual shopper has a different orientation, consumer characteristics, and market behaviors that include the needs and preferences for receiving and processing information related to a consumption choice [40]. The literature suggests four types of shoppers: economic, personalizing, ethical, and apathetic [39,41]. Economic shoppers feel the responsibility to fulfill the purchasing duties for their households and shop at places that offer products at a cheaper price compared to others [42]. The personalizing shopper likes to feel known and wants to create a relationship with the store. This shopper does not factor in the cost or quality of the product, but more the experience [39]. The ethical shopper is your typical advocate for “shop local”. They want to prevent the large department stores from driving neighborhood businesses out of business [43]. Lastly, the apathetic shopper does not choose between different kinds of stores; rather, they shop for necessity and convenience. Each consumer can create a shopping orientation based on their identity and attitude towards a product or brand [44]. These shopping orientations have a tendency to overlap with shopping behavior and motivations [45].
Tauber [46] describes shopping motivations as a series of behaviors of retrieving a particular product or service of the shopping experience. The author argues that consumers shop for products that they find useful, as well as for the satisfaction obtained during those shopping trips. Later researchers [47] added the factors of pleasure, feeling, esthetics, emotion, and enjoyment to Tauber’s [46] ideas of shopping orientation. Existing literature has found that the above-mentioned shopping orientations have a major impact on consumer motives to satisfy their functional and non-functional needs [48], also known as hedonic and utilitarian orientations [49]. Babin et al. [50] define utilitarian as the rational side of shopping resulting from some type of conscious pursuit of an intended consequence. On the other hand, hedonic, explained by [47] comes from the personal side. Researchers have found that during a single shopping trip, consumers can have both hedonic and utilitarian shopping motives [50,51].
Arnold and Reynolds [52] found that there are six different areas of hedonic shopping: adventure shopping, social shopping, gratification shopping, idea shopping, role shopping, and value shopping. The adventure shopper is someone who shops for adventure and excitement [46,53,54]. Social shopping is exactly what it sounds like; it is when a consumer likes to shop with family and friends, while socializing. Many researchers have also identified “social” as a hedonic motivation [39,52,54]. Gratification shopping is more of a de-stressor; it is done when you want to feel better about the mood that you are in [55]. Idea shopping is when a consumer is trying to keep up with the trends and innovations [46]. Role shopping is when a consumer seeks to fulfill a perceived role, meaning that they are shopping because it is their duty or job [50,53]. The final area of hedonic shopping is value shopping; this is self-explanatory and occurs when the consumer is looking for a deal [50,56].
Utilitarian shopping, on the other hand, does not evoke such extreme feelings as hedonic shopping [57]. Consumers focus more on rational shopping, buying what they need rather than what they want [58]. Previous literature has found that the functionality of the product [59] and price [57] are the main motives of utilitarian shopping. While aspects of utilitarian shopping may appear to be similar to those of hedonic shopping, the end goals are different [52], meaning that the utilitarian shopper is looking to accomplish a task, while hedonic shoppers are looking for some type of emotion.
Although both hedonic and utilitarian shopping can occur in one trip, a study [60], found that when shopping for particular products, such as organic food, consumers have more of a utilitarian mindset because they have a positive attitude towards the product. As seen in Kim and Lee [61] (2011), many other researchers have found this to be true, that shopping orientation changes when consumers are shopping for different products [45,62,63].
When applied to sustainable product consumption, consumers are faced with a complex decision-making process [18] and often face several barriers. First, sustainable products are not often accessible, owing to the higher prices and/or lower availability of the products. Second, when it comes to participating in sustainable behaviors such as reusing, recycling, and reducing consumption/waste, there is limited knowledge of the right way to participate, as well as the cost associated with time. Therefore, consumers need to have specific goals in mind, in order for them to act (or not) in a certain way.

2.4. Goal Framing Theory

Goal framing theory has emerged from different sources but is most strongly influenced by research in relation to cognitive social psychology about the influences of goals on cognitive processes [64]. For the purpose of this study, the goal framing theory [64] was used. This theory suggests that one’s perception of an action can be changed as they are given different information. The theory is meant to show how an individual has multiple goals and sub-goals happening at once, but one of those goals will dominate over the others [64]. There are three predominant goals within the theory. The hedonic goal is one of the three main goals which are a part of the goal framing theory. This goal improves the way that one feels in a situation while making the least amount of effort [64]. Suppose that one has a bag of old, frumpy clothes and wants to dispose of them by giving the clothes away to charity. Despite the fact that this is not the proper way to dispose of the garments, the little time and effort put into this task make one feel good about oneself. A gain goal makes one feel sensitive to changes when it is affecting their personal resources (money) [64]. An example would be, say, where one is going shopping, and there is a sustainable, 100% organic cotton t-shirt on the rack but it is more expensive than the non-sustainable t-shirt. The person with a gain goal chooses the non-sustainable t-shirt merely because it is less expensive. The third goal in the goal framing theory is the normative goal. This goal pushes one to act based on appropriateness [64]. A normative-goal person takes the time to walk across the street to throw their plastic water bottle into the recycling bin, instead of the trash bin next to them, because it is simply the right thing to do.

2.5. Research Gap and Question

Based on the above review of the literature, it can be expected that consumers’ shopping orientations and their goals may be important in understanding people’s consumption behavior, particularly when it comes to sustainable consumption. In this light, there is significant research on how to impact consumers’ attitudes and intentions towards sustainable consumption. For example, in a study by the Harvard Business Review [65], more than 65% of millennial consumers reported positive attitudes toward eco-friendly products and services but only 26% followed through with their wallets. According to them, narrowing this “intention-action gap” is extremely important for consumers, businesses as well as the environment. The global consumer goods brand, Unilever, estimates that almost 70% of its greenhouse gas footprint depends on which products customers choose and whether they use and dispose of them in a sustainable manner at the end of their life. Yet little research exists on understanding sustainable behavior and the factors that impact such behavior (and/or behavioral changes) in couples, particularly millennials. To fill this gap, this study explores the motivations and intentions of millennial couples’ sustainable consumption behavior using a qualitative study. Particularly, married heterosexual millennial couples were the focus of this study, as the literature indicates that major life events such as relocation, marriage, and having a child may act as major influencers for adopting a more sustainable lifestyle.

3. Method

3.1. Research Design

To answer the research question of “How do couples make decisions about their sustainable consumption choices?”, a qualitative approach using semi-structured interviews was deemed appropriate for the study. This approach involved exploring and understanding the meanings that individuals or groups ascribe to a social and/or human problem [66] and allowed the researchers to gain more insight and a truer meaning of the participants’ consumption experiences. When conducting the semi-structured interviews, not one interview was the same [67]. The interviewer had a set of questions with possible probing questions. Each interview was expected to take no more than one hour; however, the actual length of the interview was based on the participant’s willingness to answer the questions.

3.2. Participant Recruitment and Data Collection Procedure

Six millennial heterosexual married couples (12 individuals) with children were recruited for the purpose of the study using snowball sampling [68]. All the participants were millennials born between the years 1981 and 1996. Millennials make up a fourth of the population [69], have been raised during a time when technology drives their behavior, and have unique purchasing routines [70], and so were the best suited for this study due to the previous research finding that millennials aged 27–30 are more inclined to purchase sustainable products [71] than their previous generations. Previous research has also found that this generation makes up a major portion of socially responsible consumers [72] and its members have high purchasing power as they have reached adulthood and are in the workforce. In addition, about 44% of millennials were married by 2019 with 30% living with a spouse and child [73]. The researcher decided to select participants that have one or more children due to the previous research finding that females with children are more willing to include health and sustainable practices in their purchases [74]. Participants were selected within a 100 mile radius of a mid-western university suburban town.
After the approval of the Institutional Review Board, participants were contacted via email with a copy of the consent form and information regarding the study. Those who showed interest in sustainable consumption and wanted to participate in the study were invited for an in-person interview at a place of their choosing. The semi-structured interviews were audio-recorded to aid transcription. All the participants were asked the same questions, but the probing questions varied depending on each participant’s responses. These questions allowed the individual to share their emotions and explain their true motivations.
To ensure that the interview questions were understandable and relatable for the participants, a pilot interview was conducted prior to the start of the study. This allowed the researcher to gather feedback about the questions and change any topics/questions before the actual interviews took place. The data from the pilot study were not used in the final data analysis.

3.3. Data Analysis

All the interviews were transcribed. The transcribed data and questionnaire were interpreted thematically and holistically to fully understand what motivates and influences sustainable consumption [75]. The thematic codes began at the finest detail and were modified and adjusted as the interviews progressed and new themes emerged from one interview to the next, creating broader observations. To ensure intercoder reliability, the first author and one of the co-researchers analyzed themes and created relationships among those themes for 20% of the data. Once a satisfactory consensus amongst both researchers was reached, the first author continued with the remainder of the data analyses.

4. Findings

4.1. Respondents’ Characteristics

Six married couples (12 participants, 50% men and 50% women), between the ages of 23 and 35, were selected using the snowball sampling technique. All the participants were employed full-time. All the couples were residents of three adjacent counties in the midwestern United States. One-half (three out of six) of the couples had one child, 33% (two out of six) of the couples had one child and were expecting one more, and 17% (one out of six) of the couples had two children at the time of the interviews. To protect the identity of the participants, pseudonyms are used for the study. Table 1 shows the respondent characteristics in detail.

4.2. Respondents’ Characteristics

A number of smaller themes emerged from the initial round of data interpretation. Those themes were then grouped into four major theme categories: (a) Meaning of sustainable consumption to consumers and lack of confidence in their knowledge, (b) shopping decisions regarding sustainable consumption, (c) life events that influenced one’s views towards sustainable consumption, and (d) the motivations behind sustainable consumption. Together, these themes explained the process of sustainable consumption for millennial couples, their motivations, and behavioral changes.

4.2.1. Meaning of Sustainable Consumption to Consumers and Lack of Confidence in Their Knowledge

All the couples expressed that either both or at least one partner practiced and were interested in some form of sustainable consumption. When asked what sustainable consumption meant to them, the participants focused on issues such as recycling/reuse, health, and concern for the environment and that for present and future generations. The majority of the participants indicated that understanding “what we recycle vs. what we throw away” (Mrs. Smith), and “the way you use or can reuse products” (Mr. Matthews) are major parts of sustainable consumption. The participants articulated that sustainable consumption was “creating an environmentally friendly” (Mr. Collins) place where “consumables” can “replenish easily on their own” (Mr. Smith), to “better our environment now and for the future” (Mrs. Franks). Other than recycling, the participants explained that according to them, sustainable consumption included understanding and “being knowledgeable” about “what we put in our own bodies” (Mrs. Adams). Table 2 below displays the responses from the questionnaire, which asked both the husband and the wife to write down individually what sustainable consumption means to them.
However, as the participants elaborated on their understanding of sustainable consumption, they seemed to lack confidence in their knowledge about sustainability. While all the participants associated sustainability with concern for the environment, some were confused and unsure of what sustainable consumption actually was, stating things like “I don’t really understand sustainable consumption. I don’t think I firmly understand it” (Mr. Green), and “now I feel I know nothing about it [sustainable consumption]” (Mr. Smith). Particularly, the male participants questioned their sustainable consumption habits saying, “I mean, we don’t really consume sustainable” (Mr. Matthews). The female participants, on the other hand, seemed to be more confident in their responses, trying to assure their spouses by saying, “wow honey, that’s a good one” (Mrs. Smith) and “that sounds right” (Mrs. Matthews) to reach a consensus on what sustainable consumption means to them as a couple.
Although there seemed to be a lack of knowledge on the topic of sustainable consumption at first, the participants’ written and verbal communication throughout the interviews showed that the participants knew more about sustainability and/or sustainable consumption than they articulated. The participants also seemed to gain confidence and become more curious about sustainable consumption as they continued to participate in the interview session. To build up their knowledge, as the interview progressed, the participants expressed that they needed to “go home and research” (Mr. Green), “read”, and “learn” (Mrs. Smith) more about sustainable consumption, and acknowledged that “it’s something important” and “people should know more about” (Mr. Smith).
Support for the current findings can be found in the literature. According to the Norm Activation Model Theory (NAMT) [33] which explains individuals’ personal norms towards pro-environmental behavior [76], individuals go through multiple steps of understanding that their actions or lack thereof, may have repercussions, which then lead to feeling the need to change their behavior towards that specific action [33]. The findings of the study, therefore, draw on the first step in the Norm Activation Theory to argue that before one can reach the behavioral intention of consuming sustainably, one must understand the consequences of their actions [34]. Furthermore, the participants of the current study began realizing the importance of sustainable consumption as the interview progressed and expressed their willingness to learn more about the topic. This finding is parallel with that of [77], which found that most of the respondents’ general knowledge on environmental issues was high, but when asked about specific issues, like sustainable consumption, they were unsure.

4.2.2. Shopping Decisions Regarding Sustainable Consumption

Once the participants were finished articulating what sustainable consumption meant to them, the interviewer asked the couples where they shop most often and about how they make decisions on which products to buy. All six participating couples mentioned that they shop or have shopped at one or more of the major well-known health food stores in the U.S. For the participants, shopping at major premium-priced health food stores was often considered trendy while shopping at lower-priced or price-conscious grocery stores was associated with “a bad connotation”.
“I think people think this is [purchasing sustainable food from premium priced health food store in the U.S.] a fad. It’s funny how it comes up often that people ask where we grocery shop. I am like “oh, we shop at XXX [a well-known health food store in the U.S.]” and I think people think we are putting ourselves at a different level…I think people think that healthy food, and how it’s portrayed in the media, is just a fad.”
(Mrs. Adams).
In addition to the prestige associated with shopping at premium-priced health food stores, the couples believed that sustainable food always came with a price premium. They expressed that anything that is “sustainable” (Mrs. Matthews) or “better for the environment” (Mrs. Green) is “priced higher” (Mrs. Matthews) and “more expensive” (Mrs. Green). For all the couples, the price of sustainable food products seems to be an important factor in their consumption choices. Some of the couples expressed that they had to plan their budget extensively to be able to shop at premium-priced health food stores. According to Mrs. Adams, although shopping at such premium stores put them at a different status amongst their peers, they felt like they “break [broke] the bank at this major health food store and we have [had] to plan. It’s not like we have disposable income to shop there”. For some of the participants, paying “20x more” (Mr. Adams) for products, such as “organic milk” (Mrs. Green) and “all natural wipes” (Mr. Green) is worth it because they have done “research” (Mr. Franks) and it is better for their bodies and their families.
“I think for him [the child], it’s more of a discussion between us. Like if he gets a rash, there were these wipes that were all natural and cleared up the problem right away. They were more expensive than the other brands but we discussed it and decided it was worth the money”
(Mr. Green).
However, for other participants, obtaining sustainable food but from lower-priced grocery stores was the practical choice for their budget and family needs. Three of the six couples chose to shop at XXX at a [lower-priced private label-oriented grocery store chain] “more often” (Mrs. Matthews) because the “price” (Mrs. Franks) is right and they “have a lot of organic products” that are okay “for him [child]” (Mrs. Collins), in spite of such grocery stores having “a bad connotation”. When asked “how do you, as a couple, make the overall decision regarding sustainable consumption?” the females were normally the ones making the decisions. The female participants seemed to be picking up the “groceries” (Mrs. Franks) and doing the shopping, while receiving feedback (Mrs. Matthew) from their spouse. However, when the male participants did talk during this point of the interview, they discussed “price” (Mr. Franks) as being the main decider of where and what they are buying.
The current study supports the findings of [78], which suggest that consumers who are more aware of environmental issues are less influenced by the price of sustainable products. They [78] also suggest that where people shop is strongly correlated to what people are buying. During the interviews, it was observed that the participants who did their research on sustainable products were more willing and likely to shop at the major health food stores and pay the higher price.
According to the shopping orientation framework [39], shopping orientation is the way in which shopping styles influence consumers’ shopping-related decisions. Within their shopping orientation, individuals can take on a hedonic or utilitarian orientation [47], which means that consumers shop based on some type of conscious pursuit or personal desire. Some of the participants of the study expressed how they shop at premium-priced health food stores because they value the experience, they gain by going there (hedonic gains), while others prefer lower-priced private label-oriented grocery store chains (utilitarian gains), because the price fits better into their budgets. The findings of the study, therefore, draw on both hedonic and utilitarian shopping orientations to argue that one’s shopping orientation changes when consumers are shopping for different products [61]. Furthermore, the participants of the current study expressed that when buying sustainable products, it came down to the price and reason for the product.

4.2.3. Life Events That Influence One’s Views towards Sustainable Consumption

The participants were asked a series of questions that allowed the interviewer to understand the influences and motivations of consuming sustainably. When asked, “Since when did you start sustainable consumption?”, “what motivates you to continue with sustainable consumption in general?”, and “What/who influenced this sustainable consumption”, the couples focused on three major life events, namely relocation, entering into a new relationship, and having a child. One participant found that they “used to be more into it [sustainable consumption]” and “it was a lot easier” (Mrs. Matthews) when they were living in a large city. For some, sustainable consumption started and continued with the ease of acquiring these products. Couples were more willing to buy sustainable products when major health food stores were “in our [their] backyard” (Mrs. Green) and “eliminates the need for choice” (Mr. Adams). Some of the couples (three), explained that they were willing to shop at these more “expensive” (Mr. Adams) health food stores because they know that they are getting organic and top-of-the-line foods, without having to carry out extensive “research about” (Mr. Adams) the product beforehand.
“I used to be more into [sustainable consumption]. When I lived in a [major city], it was a lot easier because it was more accessible. There were farmer’s markets everywhere. I know there is some around our area now, but there was a major health food store a block away”
(Mrs. Matthews).
For others, sustainable consumption started when they were at a pivotal point in their personal lives, such as when the participants “started dating” (Mr. Smith) or “got engaged” (Mrs. Adams). The participants were willing to accept new ways and begin “buying more organic” to “get ready for the wedding” (Mrs. Franks) and/or to conform and change their ways, “leading” to more “healthy food” and a “sustainable track” (Mrs. Adams) to match their partners. The participants also expressed a sense of social pressure or “guilt” (Mrs. Adams) from their spouse, stating things like “I am probably guiltier of not following that track [sustainability] as well as him” (Mrs. Adams) and “I get into trouble [jokingly] if I don’t throw a can in the right place” (Mr. Smith).
Finally, almost all of the couples (five out of six) mentioned that they began paying more attention to sustainable consumption when they found out they were having a baby. Couples found it essential to “research” (Mrs. Green) and become more “cautious” (Mrs. Collins) about sustainable and organic options when they “were pregnant” (Mrs. Collins) and “having a baby” (Mrs. Franks). The participants at first were concerned about “what’s going into my body” because “he [baby] was in my [their] body” (Mrs. Green) but were then also worried about the safety of their child, once they were born. Some couples started buying “dye free” and “scent free” (Mrs. Adams) products, as well as being cautious of “cleaning” and “laundry” (Mrs. Collins) supplies, that could “harm him [child]” (Mrs. Collins). A few (two) of the participants made reference to “cloth diapers” and how they were “half tempted” to use them because diapers are “awful for the environment” (Mrs. Adams). They admitted that they had “good intentions” of using them, but were “selfish” (Mrs. Collins) because of the “mess” (Mrs. Adams).
“I don’t think I have ever used one [cloth diaper] before. They smell and there is so much other stuff to do. It’s more selfish than anything. I don’t want to be washing diapers all the time. I think they’re kind of gross. That is one thing I do think about, how many diapers we go through. I think they say it takes 10 years for a diaper to be disposed. I do have a lot of family that does cloth diapers. Before I had him, I got cloth diapers. I had good intentions but could not do it. It would save us money but I think we think more about saving money rather than the environment”
(Mrs. Collins).
“But there is also cloth diapers and sometime I am half tempted to use them. Could I be one of those moms who could do that, while saving a ton of money? Diapers are absolutely awful for the environment. I know there are certain brands you can buy, like the honest company. I mean I have used that company and they have cute patterns, but the pricing is outrageous for the amount you get. We have talked about me staying home eventually, so maybe I could use the cloth diapers, but I can’t send a baby to daycare with cloth diapers. It would be a mess”
(Mrs. Adams).
The couples also discussed their concern for the “future” (Mrs. Franks) of their children and the Earth, stating things like “what type of life and world will they [children] be living in?” (Mrs. Adams) and “how this Earth is going to be around once we are gone, you want it to be okay for your kids” (Mrs. Collins).
“Also, our children will be growing up. What type of life and world will they be living in? Again, does our actions make a difference for their future? I think education is a big part of it, not only for ourselves, but for our daughter and her siblings”
(Mrs. Adams).
The statements shared by the participants during the study suggested that the couples not only thought that sustainability was good for society, the environment, and future generations, but it was a safer option for themselves and their unborn child.
“What’s going into my body, it’s my body and I don’t care, but since he was in my body [child], I started actually think about what I was putting in my body. I think you do so much research when you find out you’re pregnant. I was looking up what products and foods were good for me and the baby”
(Mrs. Green).
The current study supports the findings in the literature which suggest that it is crucial to understand different events surrounding one’s life to help individuals open up and impact their views towards sustainable consumption [76]. During the interviews, it was observed that when the participants were relocated to metropolitan areas, their willingness to obtain sustainable products increased, due to the ease of access to those products. This supports the literature [10,11] that relocation is a key driver in sustainable consumption. The data interpretation indicated that entering into a new relationship [79] and/or having a child, had a positive influence towards sustainable consumption behavior. The participants expressed that they had a sense of guilt or pressure to conform to their partner’s wishes concerning sustainability, when entering into a new relationship which was also found in the literature [10]. This interpretation supports the second step of the NAMT, which indicates a feeling of responsibility to act upon a certain behavior [33] and also aligns with the goal framing theory.
Many researchers have found that when women find out that they are pregnant, they are more open to learning about healthier and sustainable options during their pregnancy and postpartum [26]. The transition to having a child is associated with making healthier food choices [9,26]. A novel finding of this study was that parents were not only concerned about the present but also about their child/children’s future. Furthermore, our participants articulated that they were concerned that the potential footprint of today’s generation will affect their children in the future.

4.2.4. Motivations behind Sustainable Consumption

When the participants were asked, “What motivates you to continue with sustainable consumption in general?” and “In your opinion, are there any benefits related to sustainable consumption?” it was found that the participants were motivated to continue being sustainable because of the benefits that would come from it. There were two common factors that came up as motivations as well as benefits to consuming sustainably: health-related benefits and pro-environmental activities.
All the participants emphasized the health-related benefits that come from adopting sustainable consumption behaviors. The participants expressed that opting for a healthy lifestyle meant “acknowledging healthy, good-for-you methods” (Mrs. Adams), “wanting to eat healthier things” (Mrs. Collins), and “being knowledgeable about what you are putting into your body” (Mrs. Green) that come from sustainable consumption.
Throughout the interviews, the participants continually mentioned shopping for organic food as the most critical aspect of their sustainable consumption behavior. Out of the various times health comments were mentioned, many of them were in regard to being healthy by consuming organic foods. The participants expressed “[buying and] eating organic is a valid thing” and “it keeps you healthy” (Mrs. Adams), while others consumed organic food for “personal well-being” (Mr. Green). One participant expressed how she would “buy organic” because she had “learned and done research, that buying organic…is good for you to do” (Mrs. Green). The participants seemed to believe that in order to be healthy, one must buy and consume organic food.
During the interviews, the participants began to express how easy it was to shop for organic and sustainable options, when a health food store or local farm was in close proximity to their homes. In addition, they justified that having health food stores and farms close to home, also meant healthy and quality products by reducing the food miles. The participants expressed that when trying to “eat healthy and sustainable, XXX [a major health food store]…helps with that” (Mrs. Adams) as it was “in our backyard” (Mrs. Green) and they knew “what health food stores are and what it stands for”, which “is healthy” (Mr. Adams).
Two re-occurring subthemes of healthy-lifestyle initiatives emerged from the data: trust and convenience. The participants trusted these health food stores because “XXX [a major health food store in the U.S.] are taking out a lot of the chemicals out of their processed foods” making the participants “more comfortable using their products” (Mrs. Collins). One participant expressed how health food stores are almost a gatekeeper for individuals looking to consume sustainably, because they allow these individuals access to healthier and sustainable options.
“It eliminates the need for choice. If I go grab something off the shelf, I know it’s good. XXX [a major health food store in the U.S.] does it for me… I don’t have time to look at the labels or research about it”
(Mr. Adams).
Another reason why the participants rely on these health food stores is for their convenience. They provide stores that are “a block away” (Mrs. Matthews) from their homes, but also allow them to not have to “worry about labels” (Mr. Adams).
The literature indicates that individuals have become more concerned about the food they consume [80]. Our findings are in line with previous research [81], which found that consumers believe that food labeled “organic” is better for you, which was supported by the present study. This current research found that buying and consuming organic food was an integral part of the participants’ living a healthier lifestyle.
The data interpretation also found that shopping at major health food stores gave the participants a sense of trust, supporting previous research [80], which suggests that the labeling of “organic” on food creates brand trust with the consumer. During the interviews it was observed that taking the “thought” process out of shopping made the participants more willing to consume sustainably. According to [81], it was found that having organic brands and labels allowed consumers to shop more easily for sustainable products. The participants of this study appeared to accept sustainable options more when the resources were readily available. Thus, the data found that when the participants lived in close proximity to a health food store, they were more willing to shop there, supporting Memery et al.’s [82] study, which suggests that shoppers will shop more at a store if they offer the most value and convenience for the consumer.
Finally, pro-environmental activities through reducing, reusing, and recycling, were found to be the other incentive gained by choosing to consume sustainably, which motivated the participants to keep consuming sustainably. The three R principles (Reduce, Reuse, and Recycle) were mentioned 31 times in our data. When asked what the benefits related to sustainable consumption are, the participants expressed that the pro-environmental benefits associated with removing trash from the landfills by either reducing, reusing, or recycling their waste motivated them to continue being sustainable. One such participant reflected on her employer and how she, as a part of the company, took pride in and felt good about helping the environment.
“They [our company an established cosmetic chain in the U.S.] also have a zero-landfill policy when they make the products. Nothing goes into the landfill. They call it the “pink doing green” initiative. They also do recycle compacts and have them paid to be ground down. Personally, we try to recycle as much as possible. We aren’t 100% but the attempt is there”
(Mrs. Collins).
The participants seemed to gain a sense of hedonic value from their pro-environmental activities and how “it’s good for the earth” (Mrs. Smith). This “feel good” (Mr. Adams) mentality was expressed as participants described their relationship with the environment. The couples talked about how they re-used “wedding décor” (Mrs. Franks) for their home, and “plastic bags” (Mrs. Matthews) from the grocery store, and how they try to shop at “secondhand clothing stores” (Mrs. Franks) so that they can reduce the amount of waste going into the landfills. When talking, the participants appeared excited and eager to recycle because they were contributing to helping the Earth at a minimal level.
This indicates that behavior related to pro-environmental activities gave the participants emotional reward, supporting the previous findings of the goal framing theory [64]. Our findings revealed that the emotions expressed, in regard to pro-environmental activities, align with the “hedonic goal”, which improves the way one feels in a situation [64]. Having this hedonic goal as a focal goal, our participants were motivated to take part in reducing, reusing, and recycling behavior as a part of their sustainable consumption behavior. These findings support existing research [83], which found that individuals are more willing to engage in pro-environmental behavior when they gain some level of satisfaction from the behavior and feel proud.
Furthermore, as the interviews progressed, the participants of this study began to realize that they were not only participating in pro-environmental activities because it felt good to do so, but also it was better for the environment. Therefore, the participants’ focal goal switched from “hedonic” to “normative”, within the goal framing theory [65], meaning the participants were motivated to continue these pro-environmental activities as part of sustainable consumption because it was the appropriate thing to do, rather than gaining satisfaction. This switch in goals also aligns with the second part of the NAMT, which suggests that individuals feel a moral obligation to display a certain behavior [33].

5. Conclusions and Implications

As issues about sustainability arise, the need for individuals to lead a more sustainable lifestyle increases [84]. This study aimed to explore and identify the motivations and influences which lead to behavioral changes towards sustainable consumption in married couples. Our findings unveiled openness to sustainable consumption, gain goals (price, convenience, social status), life events as situational factors, and hedonic motives as important influencers of couples’ sustainable consumption.
The first theme revealed that while our Gen Y couples who participated in our study exhibited willingness to learn and practice some form of sustainable consumption prior to the start of the interview, they lacked confidence in their knowledge about sustainability and sustainable consumption. However, as the interviews progressed, the participants’ written and verbal communication indicated that the couples knew more about sustainability and/or sustainable consumption than they articulated. The participants’ sustainable consumption habits seemed to be ingrained in them, so when asked to articulate them, they could not, because they did not realize that they were being sustainable. In addition, they were all willing to learn more as they agreed that it is important to consume sustainably.
The second theme revealed that price was the determining factor as to where the participants shopped for their organic and/or sustainable products. All the participating couples mentioned shopping at one or more of the major well-known health food stores in the U.S. For some, shopping at major premium-priced health food stores may cost more, but they were willing to pay the premium prices because they perceived higher quality or were aware of the value of the products. In addition, a hedonic shopping experience in the retail environment as well as perceived social status influenced their choice of shopping at a premium-priced health food store, rather than at alternatives. However, the other participants were not as willing to pay the premium, but rather spend their money at lower-priced, private-label-oriented grocery stores.
While price was a determining factor as to where the participants shopped, life events such as starting a new relationship, relocation, and having a child appeared to be major influences for behavioral change towards sustainable consumption. All individuals moderately to substantially changed their consumption patterns when they experienced one or more of the major life events as they relocated to cities with easy access to stores offering sustainable consumption, conformed to their partner’s lifestyle, and/or had concerns about the health of their child/children. Another novel finding was that some parents were not only conscious about how sustainable consumption was beneficial for their child’s present health but also reducing the footprint of today’s generation for the future. Finally, the study found that attaining a heathy lifestyle was an important motivator for the participating couples as a motivation to continue consuming sustainably.
The study findings have some important implications and contributions. First, the study investigated what motivates and influences millennial couples to participate in sustainable consumption behavior, thereby filling a gap in the literature. The gain goal and hedonic goal frames were evident in our findings, which urges the grocery retail industry to clearly communicate its marketing messages to meet this goal frame among the couples with dual income and at least one child in their family. They found that price and convenience as gain goals are their focal motivation when they make decisions regarding sustainable consumption. In addition, a hedonic shopping experience and social status perception as hedonic goal frames serve as additional important factors; therefore, retailers may desire to create advertisements and signage to assist consumers’ value perception in the retail environment.
Our findings also revealed that consumers have a strong belief in the connection between health and organic food consumption. Within the grocery retail industry, they could use our findings to adjust their marketing strategies to the target customers. While premium-priced health food stores are known for their sustainable and/or organic selection, it is important for them to stress the health factor of their organic product choices. By promoting their premium organic products, individuals may continue to trust a brand as a health-promoting organization and thus may be more willing to pay a higher price. Retailers need to remind their customers that while shopping at a premium-priced food store, they would also emotionally benefit from a more pleasant shopping experience and achieve social status as sustainable consumers.
In the case of budget-friendly private-label-oriented grocery store chains, this present study could provide benefits for them by further understanding their consumers’ needs for sustainable and/or organic products by heavily advertising their sustainable and organic product choices. Researchers have [85] found that sustainable marketing has a positive impact on the linkage between consumers’ attitudes and behavioral intentions. Therefore, such retailers should implement larger and visible signage and in their promotional materials that they carry organic/sustainable products throughout the store, to educate their current and potential customers to learn about their sustainable and organic product offerings on a budget. With the convenience of location, millennial couples would shop from the budget-friendly grocery store chains, because they meet their gain goals as focal goals.
Moreover, our findings have implications for academia and education. Educators from multiple disciplines could benefit from this information by adding curriculum on sustainable consumption to aid as a tool, to help future students understand the complex thought decision-making process that individuals and couples go through when choosing to consume sustainably. The study supports the principles of the GFT [64], NAMT [33], and shopping orientation [39], which all concern individuals’ thought process when undertaking specific activities. This research could also inspire other scholars to explore sustainable practices during one’s lifespan within their specified field to expand the knowledge and execution of sustainable consumption.

6. Limitations and Future Research

The present study is not without its limitations, which provide scope for future research. First, the sample size of this exploratory study was small. However, when conducting qualitative research, the goal is not to generalize [86], but to gather a deeper understanding of the motivations and influences of sustainable consumption behavior. Thus, future research with a larger sample size with other family makeups could be conducted to broaden our understanding of this topic. Second, in this study, interviews were conducted at a time convenient for the participant (usually in the evening), which at times, led to short answers and long pauses, due to possible fatigue from a full day of work and childcare. Future research could conduct interviews in the mornings or during a lunch break to minimize the drawbacks. Third, in addition to the interviews, it would also be beneficial to observe participants as they perform their daily shopping or meal preparations to seek a deeper understanding of their sustainable consumption habits. Further, this study only focused on millennial married couples in the midwestern United States. To enhance the findings, future research could choose a sample of married participants from various geographic locations or expand the study to generation Z consumers, given that the literature has found generational differences in knowledge and behavior related to sustainability [84,87]. Additionally, future research could be conducted to examine sustainable practices within specific areas of consumption, such as apparel, home goods, personal hygiene and beauty products, and the like, thereby adding knowledge and understanding of sustainable consumption as a whole. Finally, as with most sustainable consumption research involving self-reported survey measures, participant responses in this study may have been influenced by societal norms, leading to social desirability bias. Hence, alternative methods of data collection such as through observations and experiments might be useful for future research.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, M.B. and J.K.-V.; Methodology, G.B.; Analysis, M.B.; Investigation, J.K.-V., G.B. and M.B.; Writing—Original Draft Preparation, M.B.; Writing—Review & Substantial Revision, G.B. and J.K.-V.; Project Administration, J.K.-V. and G.B. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The human study protocol was approved by the Institutional Review Board of Kent State University (protocol code: 15-676; date of approval: 15 December 2015).

Informed Consent Statement

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

Data Availability Statement

Data are contained within the article.

Conflicts of Interest

Author Madeline Blanken is employed by iDesign. Other authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. McKinsey & Company. Available online: https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/consumer-packagedin-goods/our-insights/consumers-care-about-sustainability-and-back-it-up-with-their-wallets (accessed on 21 November 2023).
  2. United Nation Sustainable Development Goals. Available online: https://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/sustainable-consumption-production/ (accessed on 21 November 2023).
  3. Ferdig, M.A. Sustainability Leadership: Co-creating a Sustainable Future. J. Chang. Manag. 2007, 7, 25–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Mont, O.; Neuvonen, A.; Lähteenoja, S. Sustainable lifestyles 2050: Stakeholder visions, emerging practices and future research. J. Clean. Prod. 2014, 63, 24–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Hume, M. Compassion without action: Examining the young consumers consumption and attitude to sustainable consumption. J. World Bus. 2009, 45, 385–394. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Reisch, L.A.; Thøgersen, J. Research on sustainable consumption: Introduction and overview. In Handbook of Research on Sustainable Consumption; Edward Elgar Publishing: Northampton, MA, USA, 2009; pp. 1–16. [Google Scholar]
  7. Schäfer, M.; Herde, A.; Kropp, C. Life events as turning points for sustainable nutrition. Syst. Innov. Sustain. 2017, 3, 210–226. [Google Scholar]
  8. Noble, G.; Stead, M.; Jones, S.M.; Dermott, L.; Mc Vie, D. The paradoxical food buying behaviour of parents: Insights from the UK and Australia. Br. Food J. 2007, 109, 387–398. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Olson, C.M. Tracking food choices across the transition to motherhood. J. Nutr. Educ. Behav. 2005, 37, 129–136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  10. Bamberg, S. Is a residential relocation a good opportunity to change people’s travel behavior? Results from a theory-driven intervention study. Environ. Behav. 2007, 38, 820–840. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Thøgersen, J. Seize the opportunity: The importance of timing for breaking commuters’ car driving habits. In Making a Difference: Putting Consumer Citizenship into Action; Høgskolen i Hedmark: Elverum, Norway, 2009; Volume 87. [Google Scholar]
  12. Gatersleben, B. Sustainable household consumption and quality of life: The acceptability of sustainable consumption patterns and consumer policy strategies. Int. J. Environ. Pollut. 2001, 15, 200–216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. White, K.; Habib, R.; Hardisty, D.J. How to shift consumer behaviors to be more sustainable: A literature review and guiding framework. J. Mark. 2019, 82, 22–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Rabeson, L.; Paraschiv, C.; Bertrandias, L.; Chenavaz, R. Couple Ethical Purchase Behavior and Joint Decision Making: Understanding the Interaction Process and the Dynamics of Influence. Sustainability 2022, 14, 8105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Hertwich, E.; Katzmayr, M. Examples of Sustainable Consumption: Review, Classification and Analysis; Program for Industriell økologi: Trondheim, Norway, 2003. [Google Scholar]
  16. Scott, K.; Larsen, R.K.; Osbeck, M.; King, C. A literature review on sustainable lifestyles and recommendations for further research. In An SEI Project Report for the Swedish Environment Ministry as a Contribution to the Task Force on Sustainable Lifestyles; Stockholm Environment Institute: Stockholm, Sweden, 2009. [Google Scholar]
  17. Vermeir, I.; Verbeke, W. Sustainable Food Consumption: Exploring the Consumer “Attitude—Behavioral Intention” Gap. J. Agric. Environ. Ethics 2006, 19, 169–194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Young, W.; Hwang, K.; McDonald, S.; Oates, C.J. Sustainable consumption: Green consumer behavior when purchasing products. Sustain. Dev. 2010, 18, 20–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Dimitrovia, P. Sustainable Consumption Literature Review on Sustainable Consumption Practices and the Attitude Behavior Gap. Bachelor’s Thesis, Aarhus School of Business, Aarhus, Denmark, 2010; pp. 1–62. [Google Scholar]
  20. Paluchová, J.; Prokeinová, R. Creation of Responsible Behavior and Impact on Sustainable Customer Buying Behavior in Retail Sector. Visegr. J. Bioecon. Sustain. Dev. 2014, 3, 39–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Ernst, A.M.; Spada, H. Modeling Actors in a Resource Dilemma: A Computerized Social Learning Environment; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 1993; pp. 105–120. [Google Scholar]
  22. Arbuthnot, K.D. Education for sustainable development beyond attitude change. Int. J. Sustain. High. Educ. 2009, 10, 152–163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Chan, R.Y.K. Determinants of Chinese Consumers’ Green Purchase Behavior. Psychol. Mark. 2001, 18, 389–413. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. De Pelsmacker, P.; Driesen, L.; Rayp, G. Are fair trade labels good business? Ethics and coffee buying intentions. J. Consum. Aff. 2003, 39, 1–20. [Google Scholar]
  25. Verplanken, B.; Wood, W. Interventions to break and create consumer habits. J. Public Policy Mark. 2006, 25, 90–103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Schäfer, M.; Jaeger-Erben, M.; Bamberg, S. Life events as windows of opportunity for changing towards sustainable consumption patterns? J. Consum. Policy 2012, 35, 65–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Makower, J. Green Marketing and the ‘4/40 Gap’. Worldchanging.com. 2006. Available online: http://www.worldchanging.com/archives/003994.html (accessed on 21 November 2023).
  28. Aman, A.L. The influence of environmental knowledge and concern on green purchase intention. Br. J. Arts Soc. Sci. 2011, 7, 145–167. [Google Scholar]
  29. Onwezen, M.C.; Antonides, G.; Bartels, J. The Norm Activation Model: An exploration of the functions of anticipated pride and guilt in pro-environmental behaviour. J. Econ. Psychol. 2013, 39, 141–153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Brewer, G.D.; Stern, P.C. Decision Making for the Environment: Social and Behavioral Science Research Priorities; National Academies Press: Washington, DC, USA, 2005. [Google Scholar]
  31. Jackson, T. Motivating sustainable consumption. Sustain. Dev. Res. Netw. 2005, 29, 30–40. [Google Scholar]
  32. Turaga, R.M.R.; Howarth, R.B.; Borsuk, M.E. Pro-environmental behavior. Annu. N. Y. Acad. Sci. 2010, 1185, 211–224. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Schwartz, S.H. Normative influence on altruism. Adv. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 1977, 10, 221–279. [Google Scholar]
  34. De Groot, J.I.; Steg, L. Morality and prosocial behavior: The role of awareness, responsibility, and norms in the norm activation model. J. Soc. Psychol. 2009, 149, 425–449. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Solstrand, M.V.; Gressnes, T. Marine angling tourist behavior, non-compliance, and implications for natural resource management. Tour. Manag. 2014, 45, 59–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Bamberg, S. How does environmental concerns influence specific environmentally friendly behavior? A new answer to an old question. J. Environ. Psychol. 2003, 23, 21–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Lee, M.; Jackson, V.P. Consumer awareness and evaluation of retailers’ social responsibility: An exploratory approach into ethical purchase behavior from a U.S. perspective. J. Glob. Acad. Mark. 2010, 20, 49–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Nordlund, A.M.; Garvill, J. Value structures behind pro-environmental behavior. Environ. Behav. 2002, 34, 740–756. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Stone, G.P. City shoppers and urban identification: Observations on the social psychology of city life. Am. J. Sociol. 1954, 60, 36–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Moschis, G.P. Social comparison and informal group influence. J. Mark. Res. 1976, 13, 237–244. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Shim, S.; Kotsiopulos, A. Patronage behavior of apparel shopping: Part I. Shopping orientations, store attributes, information sources, and personal characteristics. Cloth. Text. Res. J. 1992, 10, 48–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Osman, M.Z.; Muayyad, J. The antecedents of loyalty patronage behavior. J. Pengur. 1996, 15, 63–90. [Google Scholar]
  43. Hassan, Y.; Muhammad, N.M.N.; Bakar, H.A. Influence of shopping orientation and store image on patronage of furniture store. Int. J. Mark. Stud. 2010, 2, 175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Dash, P.K.; Sarangi, M. Sociocultural dimensions of consumer behavior on retailing shopping: A special focus on textile consumption in Orissa. ICFAI J. Consum. Behav. 2008, 3, 7–23. [Google Scholar]
  45. Vijayasarathy, L.R. Psychographic profiling of the online shopper. J. Electron. Commer. Organ. 2003, 1, 48–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Tauber, E.M. Why do people shop? J. Mark. 1972, 36, 46–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Hirschman, E.C.; Holbrook, M.B. Hedonic consumption: Emerging concepts, methods and propositions. J. Mark. 1982, 46, 92–101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Ogden-Barne, S. Men and Shopping Part 2: Knowledge Is Power; The Retail Acumen Series; Deakin University: Burwood, Australia, 2011. [Google Scholar]
  49. Park, H.; Sullivan, P. Market segmentation with respect to university students’ clothing benefits sought. Int. J. Retail. Distrib. Manag. 2009, 37, 182–201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Babin, B.J.; Darden, W.R.; Griffin, M. Work and/or fun: Measuring hedonic and utilitarian shopping value. J. Consum. Res. 1994, 20, 644–656. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Morschett, S.; Schramm-Klein, H. Shopping orientations as determinants of attitude towards food retailers and exception of store attribute. Eur. Adv. Consum. Res. 2006, 7, 160–167. [Google Scholar]
  52. Arnold, M.; Reynolds, K. Hedonic shopping motivations. J. Retail. 2003, 79, 77–95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Westbrook, R.A.; Black, W.C. A motivation-based shopper typology. J. Retail. 1985, 61, 78–103. [Google Scholar]
  54. To, P.L.; Sung, E.P. Internet Shopping: A Study Based on Hedonic Value and Flow Theory. World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology. Int. J. Econ. Manag. Eng. 2015, 9, 2115–2118. [Google Scholar]
  55. Lee, M.Y.; Kim, Y.K.; Lee, H.J. Adventure versus gratification: Emotional shopping in online auctions. Eur. J. Mark. 2013, 47, 49–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Diallo, M.; Coutelle-Brillet, P.; Rivière, A.; Zielke, S. How Do Price Perceptions of Different Brand Types Affect Shopping Value and Store Loyalty? Psychol. Mark. 2015, 32, 1133–1147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Maehle, N.; Iversen, N.; Hem, L.; Otnes, C. Exploring consumer preferences for hedonic and utilitarian food attributes. Br. Food J. 2015, 117, 3039–3063. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Michon, R.; Chebat, J.; Yu, H.; Lemarié, L. Fashion orientation, shopping mall environment, and patronage intentions. J. Fash. Mark. Manag. 2015, 19, 3–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Jin, B.; Kim, J. A typology of Korean discount shoppers: Shopping motives, store attributes, and outcomes. Int. J. Serv. Ind. Manag. 2002, 14, 396–419. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Lee, H.; Yun, Z. Consumers’ perceptions of organic food attributes and cognitive and affective attitudes as determinants of their purchase intentions toward organic food. Food Qual. Prefer. 2014, 39, 259–267. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Kim, J.; Lee, H. The Impact of Shopping Orientations on U.S. Consumer’s Retail Channel Choice Behavior toward Luxury Goods Purchases*. J. Glob. Fash. Mark. 2011, 2, 188–199. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Bloch, P.H.; Richins, M.L. A theoretical model for the study of product importance perceptions. J. Mark. 1983, 47, 69–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Girard, T.; Korgaonkar, P.; Silverblatt, R. Relationship of type of product, shopping orientations, and demographics with preference for shopping on the Internet. J. Bus. Psychol. 2003, 18, 101–120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Lindenberg, S.; Steg, L. Normative, gain and hedonic goal frames guiding environmental behavior. J. Soc. Issues 2007, 63, 117–137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Harvard Business Review. 2019. Available online: https://hbr.org/2019/07/the-elusive-green-consumer (accessed on 21 November 2023).
  66. Creswell, J. Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Method Approaches; Sage Publications: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2014. [Google Scholar]
  67. Conroy, M. A Qualitative Study of the Psychological Impact of Unemployment on Individuals. Master’s Thesis, Technological University Dublin, Dublin, Ireland, 2010. [Google Scholar]
  68. Berg, S. Snowball Sampling—I. In Encyclopedia of Statistical Sciences; John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2014. [Google Scholar]
  69. Pew Research Center. 2020. Available online: https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2020/04/28/millennials-overtake-baby-boomers-as-americas-largest-generation/ (accessed on 21 November 2023).
  70. Nguyen, T.D.; Ngamsiriudom, W.; Pelton, L.E. Local or Global: The effects of generation Y’s ethnic struggles and cultural values. In Ideas in Marketing: Finding the New and Polishing the Old; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2015; pp. 603–606. [Google Scholar]
  71. Pomarici, E.; Vecchio, R. Millennial generation attitudes to sustainable wine: An exploratory study on Italian consumers. J. Clean. Prod. 2014, 66, 537–545. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Han, T.I.; Stoel, L. The effect of social norms and product knowledge on purchase of organic cotton and fair-trade apparel. J. Glob. Fash. Mark. 2016, 7, 89–102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Pew Research Center. 2020. Available online: https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2020/05/27/as-millennials-near-40-theyre-approaching-family-life-differently-than-previous-generations/#:~:text=In%202019%2C%2032%25%20of%20Millennial,of%20Silent%20men%20in%201968 (accessed on 21 December 2023).
  74. Dettmann, R.; Dimitri, C. Who’s buying organic vegetables? Demographic characteristics of US consumers. J. Food Prod. Mark. 2009, 16, 79–91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Ha-Brookshire, J.E.; Hodges, N.N. Socially responsible consumer behavior? Exploring used clothing donation behavior. Cloth. Text. Res. J. 2009, 27, 179–196. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Harland, P.; Staats, H.; Wilke, H.A. Situational and personality factors as direct or personal norm mediated predictors of pro-environmental behavior: Questions derived from norm-activation theory. Basic Appl. Soc. Psychol. 2007, 29, 323–334. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Haron, S.A.; Paim, L.; Yahaya, N. Towards sustainable consumption: An examination of environmental knowledge among Malaysians. Int. J. Consum. Stud. 2005, 29, 426–436. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Tanner, C.; Wölfing Kast, S. Promoting sustainable consumption: Determinants of green purchases by Swiss consumers. Psychol. Mark. 2003, 20, 883–902. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Kadic-Maglajlic, S.; Arslanagic-Kalajdzic, M.; Micevski, M.; Dlacic, J.; Zabkar, V. Being engaged is a good thing: Understanding sustainable consumption behavior among young adults. J. Bus. Res. 2009, 104, 644–654. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Ellison, B.; Bernard, J.C.; Paukett, M.; Toensmeyer, U.C. The influence of retail outlet and FSMA information on consumer perceptions of and willingness to pay for organic grape tomatoes. J. Econ. Psychol. 2016, 55, 109–119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Lehner, M. Retail store influence on sustainable consumption behaviour. Int. J. Qual. Serv. Sci. 2015, 7, 404–423. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Memery, J.; Megicks, P.; Angell, R.; Williams, J. Understanding ethical grocery shoppers. J. Bus. Res. 2012, 65, 1283–1289. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Bissing-Olson, M.J.; Fielding, K.S.; Iyer, A. Experiences of pride, not guilt, predict pro-environmental behavior when pro-environmental descriptive norms are more positive. J. Environ. Psychol. 2016, 45, 145–153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Lo, A.Y. Small is green? Urban form and sustainable consumption in selected OECD metropolitan areas. Land Use Policy 2016, 54, 212–220. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. 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]
  86. Polit, D.F.; Beck, C.T. Generalization in quantitative and qualitative research: Myths and strategies. Int J. Nurs. Stud. 2010, 47, 1451–1458. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Ham, C.-D.; Chung, U.C.; Kim, W.J.; Lee, S.Y.; Oh, S.-H. Greener than others? Exploring generational differences in green purchase intent. Int. J. Mark. Res. 2021, 64, 376–396. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Table 1. Respondents’ characteristics in detail.
Table 1. Respondents’ characteristics in detail.
CoupleParticipant
(Pseudonyms)		Birth Year GenderNumber of
Children in the Household		Occupation
1Mr. Smith1983Male1;
1 expecting		Small Business Owner
Mrs. Smith1981FemaleHuman Resources-incentive specialist
2Mr. Adams1982Male1;
1 expecting		Self-employed
Mrs. Adams1986FemaleAdvertising/Sales
3Mr. Collins1988Male1Farmer
Mrs. Collins1992FemaleConsultant/Sales
4Mr. Green1984Male1Account Manager/Sales & Services
Mrs. Green1986FemaleMarketing
5Mr. Matthews1982Male2Sales
Mrs. Matthews1986FemaleTeacher
6Mr. Franks1983Male1Recruiting
Mrs. Franks1989FemaleDigital Marketing
Table 2. Participants’ responses to “What Sustainable Consumption Means to You?”
Table 2. Participants’ responses to “What Sustainable Consumption Means to You?”
CouplesHusbandsWives
Mr. & Mrs. SmithTo consume at a rate where consumables replenish easily or on their own.What types of products we consumer as a family and what we recycle vs. what we throw away.
Mr. & Mrs. AdamsIt means trying to leave the earth better off than it was, while also taking care of yourself through the process. It can be achieved by what we do to the environment and also what we put in our own bodies.As we learn more about foods and products that we consume in our everyday lifestyles, sustainable consumption is acknowledging healthy, organic, good-for-you methods when it comes to our lifestyles. This leads into choosing the ‘right’ foods, using specific products in the household, being conscious of recycling, etc.
Mr. & Mrs. CollinsHelping make the environment a better place.Sustainable consumption is an important topic on helping create a more environmentally friendly consumption of food, waste, products and of goods.
Mr. & Mrs. GreenBuyer behavior and buying habits of consumersSustainable consumption is being knowledgeable about what you are putting into your body.
Mr. & Mrs. MatthewsThe way you use or can reuse products.Sustainable consumption are products that can be recycled or reused for other purposes.
Mr. & Mrs. FranksBeneficial to our future or children if we reuse items over and over againRe-using and reducing waste to better our environment now and for the future.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Bhaduri, G.; Kim-Vick, J.; Blanken, M. Millennial Heterosexual Couples’ Sustainable Consumption Choices: An Exploratory Study into Decision-Making. Sustainability 2024, 16, 258. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16010258

AMA Style

Bhaduri G, Kim-Vick J, Blanken M. Millennial Heterosexual Couples’ Sustainable Consumption Choices: An Exploratory Study into Decision-Making. Sustainability. 2024; 16(1):258. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16010258

Chicago/Turabian Style

Bhaduri, Gargi, Jihyun Kim-Vick, and Madeline Blanken. 2024. "Millennial Heterosexual Couples’ Sustainable Consumption Choices: An Exploratory Study into Decision-Making" Sustainability 16, no. 1: 258. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16010258

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