Exploring the Impact of Sustainability Trade-Offs: The Role of Product and Sustainability Types in Consumer Purchases Mediated by Moral Regulation
Abstract
:1. Introduction
- RQ1. How does the consumer’s attitude towards sustainability influence their tendency to purchase sustainable products?
- RQ2. In the realm of sustainable product purchasing, do the contextual factors besides the morality of consumer impact STOs (sustainability trade-offs)? Specifically, do the types of sustainability and the attributes of the product hold substantial importance within the STO framework?
- RQ3. What are the underlying psychological mechanisms in STOs and how do they impact the consumer’s decision to purchase sustainable products?
2. Literature Review and Hypothesis
2.1. Consumer’s Attitudes towards Sustainability and the Attitude–Behavior Gap in Sustainability
2.1.1. Sustainability-Type Sustainability Trade-Offs (STOs): Environmental vs. Social
2.1.2. Attribute-Type Sustainability Trade-Offs (STOs): Utilitarian vs. Hedonic
2.1.3. The Interaction Effect of Sustainability- and Attribute-Type STOs
2.2. Sustainability Trade-Offs and Moral Regulation
3. Materials and Methods
3.1. Pre-Test
3.2. Participants and Procedure
4. Results
4.1. Measurement Reliability and Validity
4.2. The Results of Hypothesis Testing
- The relationship between attitudes and sustainability (ATS) and purchase intention (PI).
- The moderation effect of sustainability-type STOs on the impact of ATS on PI.
- The moderation effect of attribute-type STOs on the impact of ATS on PI.
- The interaction of sustainability- and attribute-type STOs in relation to the impact of ATS on PI.
- Ad hoc analysis: The Effect of Sustainability- and Attribute-Type STOs on PI.
- The mediation effect of moral regulation on the impact of ATS on PI.
5. Discussion
6. Conclusions
7. Implications and Limitations
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Crane, A. Facing the backlash: Green marketing and strategic reorientation in the 1990s. J. Strateg. Mark. 2000, 8, 277–296. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Melnyk, V.; Carrillat, F.A.; Melnyk, V. The influence of social norms on consumer behavior: A meta-analysis. J. Mark. 2022, 86, 98–120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stern, P.C.; Dietz, T.; Abel, T.; Guagnano, G.A.; Kalof, L. A value-belief-norm theory of support for social movements: The case of environmentalism. Hum. Ecol. Rev. 1999, 6, 81–97. [Google Scholar]
- Haider, M.; Shannon, R.; Moschis, G.P. Sustainable Consumption Research and the Role of Marketing: A Review of the Literature (1976–2021). Sustainability 2022, 14, 3999. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Crowe, R.; Simon, W. Who Are the Ethical Consumers? Cooperative Bank: Manchester, UK, 2000. [Google Scholar]
- Ünal, E.; Sinha, V.K. Sustainability trade-offs in the circular economy: A maturity-based framework. Bus. Strategy Environ. 2023, 32, 4662–4682. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Echegaray, F.; Hansstein, F.V. Assessing the intention-behavior gap in electronic waste recycling: The case of Brazil. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 142, 180–190. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Park, H.J.; Lin, L.M. Exploring attitude–behavior gap in sustainable consumption: Comparison of recycled and upcycled fashion products. J. Bus. Res. 2020, 117, 623–628. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Biswas, A. A consumption value-gap analysis for sustainable consumption. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. Int. 2017, 24, 7714–7725. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- 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]
- Lawson, S.J.; Gleim, M. Spanning the gap: An examination of the factors leading to the green gap. J. Consum. Mark. 2014, 31, 503–514. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- ElHaffar, G.; Durif, F.; Dubé, L. Towards closing the attitude-intention-behavior gap in green consumption: A narrative review of the literature and an overview of future research directions. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 275, 122556. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yamoah, F.A.; Acquaye, A. Unravelling the attitude-behaviour gap paradox for sustainable food consumption: Insight from the UK apple market. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 217, 172–184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ispahi, F.G.A. Understanding the Attitude-Behavior Gap in the Context of Green Consumption Behavior. In Frameworks for Sustainable Development Goals to Manage Economic, Social, and Environmental Shocks and Disasters; IGI Global: Hershey, PA, USA, 2022; pp. 222–238. [Google Scholar]
- Meyer, K.B.; Simons, J. Good attitudes are not good enough: An ethnographical approach to investigate attitude-behavior inconsistencies in sustainable choice. Foods 2021, 10, 1317. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Schäufele, I.; Janssen, M. How and why does the attitude-behavior gap differ between product categories of sustainable food? Analysis of organic food purchases based on household panel data. Front. Psychol. 2021, 12, 595636. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Ajzen, I. The theory of planned behavior. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 1991, 50, 179–211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stern, P.C. New environmental theories: Toward a coherent theory of environmentally significant behavior. J. Soc. Issues 2000, 56, 407–424. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Roberts, J.A. Profiling levels of socially responsible consumer behavior: A cluster analytic approach and its implications for marketing. J. Mark. Theory Pract. 1995, 3, 97–117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yan, J.; She, Q. Developing a trichotomy model to measure socially responsible behaviour in China. Int. J. Mark. Res. 2011, 53, 253–274. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Abeysekera, I.; Manalang, L.; David, R.; Grace Guiao, B. Accounting for Environmental Awareness on Green Purchase Intention and Behaviour: Evidence from the Philippines. Sustainability 2022, 14, 2565. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mishal, A.; Dubey, R.; Gupta, O.K.; Luo, Z. Dynamics of environmental consciousness and green purchase behaviour: An empirical study. Int. J. Clim. Chang. Strateg. Manag. 2017, 9, 682–706. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Guiao, B.G.M.; Lacap, J.P.G. Effects of Environmental Sustainability Awareness and Altruism on Green Purchase Intention and Brand Evangelism. Asian J. Bus. Res. 2022, 12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Steg, L.; Vlek, C. Encouraging pro-environmental behaviour: An integrative review and research agenda. J. Environ. Psychol. 2009, 29, 309–317. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Frank, P.; Brock, C. Bridging the intention–behavior gap among organic grocery customers: The crucial role of point-of-sale information. Psychol. Mark. 2018, 35, 586–602. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jung, H.J.; Choi, Y.J.; Oh, K.W. Influencing Factors of Chinese Consumers’ Purchase Intention to Sustainable Apparel Products: Exploring Consumer “Attitude–Behavioral Intention” Gap. Sustainability 2020, 12, 1770. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rauf, M.A.; Weber, O. Sustainability Management—A Conceptual Trade-Off. In Sustainable Development in Africa: Fostering Sustainability in One of the World’s Most Promising Continents; Springer: Berlin, Germany, 2021; pp. 541–558. [Google Scholar]
- Ge, Y.; Li, X.; Li, F.; Chen, F.; Sun, B.; Li, W. Benefit-cost trade-offs-based empathic choices. Personal. Individ. Differ. 2023, 200, 111875. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Trzebiński, W.; Marciniak, B.; Karwowska, J. Communicating concrete and abstract product attributes: The role of evaluation mode and inter-attribute trade-offs. Cogent Bus. Manag. 2024, 11, 2306685. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Testa, F.; Gusmerotti, N.; Corsini, F.; Bartoletti, E. The role of consumer trade-offs in limiting the transition towards circular economy: The case of brand and plastic concern. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2022, 181, 106262. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Olson, E.L. It’s not easy being green: The effects of attribute tradeoffs on green product preference and choice. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 2013, 41, 171–184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Scherer, L.; Behrens, P.; de Koning, A.; Heijungs, R.; Sprecher, B.; Tukker, A. Trade-offs between social and environmental Sustainable Development Goals. Environ. Sci. Policy 2018, 90, 65–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- 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]
- Ha, T.M. The impact of product characteristics of limited-edition shoes on perceived value, brand trust and purchase intention. Cogent Bus. Manag. 2021, 8, 1953680. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Haugom, E.; Malasevska, I. The relative importance of ski resort-and weather-related characteristics when going alpine skiing. Cogent Soc. Sci. 2019, 5, 1681246. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hu, R.; Luo, J.M.; Li, Y.; Wang, L.; Ma, J.; Henriques, D. Qualitative study of green resort attributes—A case of the crosswaters resort in China. Cogent Soc. Sci. 2020, 6, 1742525. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Myers, C.A. Managing brand equity: A look at the impact of attributes. J. Prod. Brand Manag. 2003, 12, 39–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Luchs, M.G.; Brower, J.; Chitturi, R. Product Choice and the Importance of Aesthetic Design Given the Emotion-laden Trade-off between Sustainability and Functional Performance. J. Prod. Innov. Manag. 2012, 29, 903–916. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Luchs, M.G.; Kumar, M. “Yes, but this Other One Looks Better/Works Better”: How do Consumers Respond to Trade-offs Between Sustainability and Other Valued Attributes? J. Bus. Ethics 2015, 140, 567–584. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Skard, S.; Jørgensen, S.; Pedersen, L.J.T. When is sustainability a liability, and when is it an asset? Quality inferences for core and peripheral attributes. J. Bus. Ethics 2021, 173, 109–132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Catlin, J.R.; Luchs, M.G.; Phipps, M. Consumer Perceptions of the Social Vs. Environmental Dimensions of Sustainability. J. Consum. Policy 2017, 40, 245–277. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bettman, J.R.; Luce, M.F.; Payne, J.W. Preference construction and preference stability: Putting the pillow to rest. J. Consum. Psychol. 2008, 18, 170–174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nash, N.; Whitmarsh, L.; Capstick, S.; Hargreaves, T.; Poortinga, W.; Thomas, G.; Sautkina, E.; Xenias, D. Climate-relevant behavioral spillover and the potential contribution of social practice theory. Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. Clim. Chang. 2017, 8, e481. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Maniates, M.F. Individualization: Plant a tree, buy a bike, save the world? Glob. Environ. Politics 2001, 1, 31–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Thøgersen, J.; Noblet, C. Does green consumerism increase the acceptance of wind power? Energy Policy 2012, 51, 854–862. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, M.; Zhang, X.; Hu, Y. The green spillover effect of the inward foreign direct investment: Market versus innovation. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 328, 129501. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Geiger, S.J.; Brick, C.; Nalborczyk, L.; Bosshard, A.; Jostmann, N.B. More green than gray? Toward a sustainable overview of environmental spillover effects: A Bayesian meta-analysis. J. Environ. Psychol. 2021, 78, 101694. [Google Scholar]
- Sela, A.; Berger, J.; Liu, W. Variety, vice, and virtue: How assortment size influences option choice. J. Consum. Res. 2009, 35, 941–951. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shafir, E. Choosing versus rejecting: Why some options are both better and worse than others. Mem. Cogn. 1993, 21, 546–556. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Kaur, J.; Gupta, S.; Singh, L.B. Role of justification of unethical behaviour in sustainable fashion consumption among Indian consumers: A parallel mediation approach. J. Consum. Mark. 2023, 40, 842–853. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Čapienė, A.; Rūtelionė, A.; Krukowski, K. Engaging in sustainable consumption: Exploring the influence of environmental attitudes, values, personal norms, and perceived responsibility. Sustainability 2022, 14, 10290. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bevilacqua, E. Emotional foundations of the market: Sympathy and self-interest. Front. Sociol. 2022, 7, 1054291. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nyborg, K.; Howarth, R.B.; Brekke, K.A. Green consumers and public policy: On socially contingent moral motivation. Resour. Energy Econ. 2006, 28, 351–366. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rees, J.H.; Klug, S.; Bamberg, S. Guilty conscience: Motivating pro-environmental behavior by inducing negative moral emotions. Clim. Chang. 2015, 130, 439–452. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Thøgersen, J.; Crompton, T. Simple and painless? The limitations of spillover in environmental campaigning. J. Consum. Policy 2009, 32, 141–163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nielsen, K.S.; Hofmann, W. Motivating sustainability through morality: A daily diary study on the link between moral self-control and clothing consumption. J. Environ. Psychol. 2021, 73, 101551. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Moraes, C.; Carrigan, M.; Szmigin, I. The coherence of inconsistencies: Attitude–behaviour gaps and new consumption communities. J. Mark. Manag. 2012, 28, 103–128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Coffin, J.; Egan–Wyer, C. The ethical consumption cap and mean market morality. Mark. Theory 2022, 22, 105–123. [Google Scholar]
- Joosten, A.; van Dijke, M.; Van Hiel, A.; De Cremer, D. Feel Good, Do-Good!? On Consistency and Compensation in Moral Self-Regulation. J. Bus. Ethics 2014, 123, 71–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tappin, B.M.; McKay, R.T. The illusion of moral superiority. Soc. Psychol. Personal. Sci. 2017, 8, 623–631. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Tepe, B.; Karakulak, A. Linking Judging Moral to Acting Moral: A Relational Motivations Approach to Judging and Practicing Covid-19 Behaviors. Psychol. Rep. 2023, 126, 835–855. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Rubin, K.H.; Schneider, F.W. The relationship between moral judgment, egocentrism, and altruistic behavior. Child Dev. 1973, 44, 661–665. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vringer, K.; Van Der Heijden, E.; Van Soest, D.; Vollebergh, H.; Dietz, F. Sustainable consumption dilemmas. Sustainability 2017, 9, 942. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ulph, A.; Panzone, L.A.; Hilton, D. A dynamic self-regulation model of sustainable consumer behaviour. SSRN 2017. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, Z.; Peng, S. Licensing Effect in Sustainable Charitable Behaviors. Sustainability 2022, 14, 16431. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Meijers, M.; Verlegh, P.; Noordewier, M.; Smit, E. Consuming green, living green? The moderating effect of identity relevance on the licensing effect. Eur. Adv. Consum. Res. 2013, 10, 292–293. [Google Scholar]
- Kassirer, S.; Langdon, J.A. Advances in Behavioral Ethics: Moral Consistency, Licensing, Cleansing, and Transgressions. Acad. Manag. Proc. 2022, 2022, 11348. [Google Scholar]
- Bahník, Š.; Vranka, M. No evidence of moral licensing in a laboratory bribe-taking task. Sci. Rep. 2022, 12, 13860. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Merritt, A.C.; Effron, D.A.; Monin, B. Moral self-licensing: When being good frees us to be bad. Soc. Personal. Psychol. Compass 2010, 4, 344–357. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gholamzadehmir, M.; Sparks, P.; Farsides, T. Moral licensing, moral cleansing and pro-environmental behaviour: The moderating role of pro-environmental attitudes. J. Environ. Psychol. 2019, 65, 101334. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Critcher, C. Double measures: The moral regulation of alcohol consumption, past and present. In The New Politics of Leisure and Pleasure; Springer: Berlin, Germany, 2011; pp. 32–44. [Google Scholar]
- Burger, A.M.; Schuler, J.; Eberling, E. Guilty pleasures: Moral licensing in climate-related behavior. Glob. Environ. Chang. 2022, 72, 102415. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sachdeva, S.; Iliev, R.; Medin, D.L. Sinning saints and saintly sinners: The paradox of moral self-regulation. Psychol. Sci. 2009, 20, 523–528. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- World Commission on Environment and Development, Special Working Session. World commission on environment and development. Our Common Future 1987, 17, 1–91. [Google Scholar]
- Gupta, A.; Dash, S.; Mishra, A. All that glitters is not green: Creating trustworthy ecofriendly services at green hotels. Tour. Manag. 2019, 70, 155–169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Thøgersen, J.; De Barcellos, M.D.; Perin, M.G.; Zhou, Y. Consumer buying motives and attitudes towards organic food in two emerging markets: China and Brazil. Int. Mark. Rev. 2015, 32, 389–413. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vermeir, I.; Verbeke, W. Sustainable food consumption among young adults in Belgium: Theory of planned behaviour and the role of confidence and values. Ecol. Econ. 2008, 64, 542–553. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kivetz, R.; Simonson, I. Self-control for the righteous: Toward a theory of precommitment to indulgence. J. Consum. Res. 2002, 29, 199–217. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gupta, S.; Ogden, D.T. To buy or not to buy? A social dilemma perspective on green buying. J. Consum. Mark. 2009, 26, 376–391. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- McCarty, J.A.; Shrum, L. The influence of individualism, collectivism, and locus of control on environmental beliefs and behavior. J. Public Policy Mark. 2001, 20, 93–104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Uddin, S.F.; Khan, M.N. Exploring green purchasing behaviour of young urban consumers: Empirical evidences from India. South Asian J. Glob. Bus. Res. 2016, 5, 85–103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zabkar, V.; Hosta, M. Willingness to act and environmentally conscious consumer behaviour: Can prosocial status perceptions help overcome the gap? Int. J. Consum. Stud. 2013, 37, 257–264. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Reimers, N.; Gurevych, I. Reporting score distributions makes a difference: Performance study of lstm-networks for sequence tagging. arXiv 2017, arXiv:1707.09861. [Google Scholar]
- Groening, C.; Sarkis, J.; Zhu, Q. Green marketing consumer-level theory review: A compendium of applied theories and further research directions. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 172, 1848–1866. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chen, Y.-S.; Chang, C.-H.; Lin, Y.-H. Green Transformational Leadership and Green Performance: The Mediation Effects of Green Mindfulness and Green Self-Efficacy. Sustainability 2014, 6, 6604–6621. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Peattie, K. Towards sustainability: The third age of green marketing. Mark. Rev. 2001, 2, 129–146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- De Silva, M.J.; McKenzie, K.; Harpham, T.; Huttly, S.R. Social capital and mental illness: A systematic review. J. Epidemiol. Community Health 2005, 59, 619–627. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shirazi, M.R.; Keivani, R. Social sustainability discourse: A critical revisit. In Urban Social Sustainability; Routledge: London, UK, 2019; pp. 1–26. [Google Scholar]
- Boström, M. A missing pillar? Challenges in theorizing and practicing social sustainability: Introduction to the special issue. Sustain. Sci. Pract. Policy 2012, 8, 3–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Baffoe, G.; Mutisya, E. Social sustainability: A review of indicators and empirical application. Environ. Manag. Sustain. Dev. 2015, 4, 242–262. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hanson, S.; Jiang, L.; Ye, J.; Murthy, N. Society or the environment? Understanding how consumers evaluate brand messages about corporate social responsibility activities. J. Brand Manag. 2019, 26, 21–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gerlagh, R.; Van der Zwaan, B. Long-term substitutability between environmental and man-made goods. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 2002, 44, 329–345. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Luchs, M.G.; Naylor, R.W.; Irwin, J.R.; Raghunathan, R. The sustainability liability: Potential negative effects of ethicality on product preference. J. Mark. 2010, 74, 18–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Newman, G.E.; Gorlin, M.; Dhar, R. When going green backfires: How firm intentions shape the evaluation of socially beneficial product enhancements. J. Consum. Res. 2014, 41, 823–839. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lin, Y.-C.; Chang, C.-c.A. Double standard: The role of environmental consciousness in green product usage. J. Mark. 2012, 76, 125–134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chitturi, R.; Raghunathan, R.; Mahajan, V. Form versus function: How the intensities of specific emotions evoked in functional versus hedonic trade-offs mediate product preferences. J. Mark. Res. 2007, 44, 702–714. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Higgins, E.T.; Friedman, R.S.; Harlow, R.E.; Idson, L.C.; Ayduk, O.N.; Taylor, A. Achievement orientations from subjective histories of success: Promotion pride versus prevention pride. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 2001, 31, 3–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Simonson, I.; Drolet, A. Anchoring effects on consumers’ willingness-to-pay and willingness-to-accept. J. Consum. Res. 2004, 31, 681–690. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zrałek, J. Sustainable Consumption in a trap: Attitude-behavior gap and its rationalization. Ann. Univ. Mariae Curie-Skłodowska Sect. H Oeconomia 2017, 51, 281–289. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Brañas-Garza, P.; Bucheli, M.; Espinosa, M.P.; García-Muñoz, T. Moral cleansing and moral licenses: Experimental evidence. Econ. Philos. 2013, 29, 199–212. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mazar, N.; Zhong, C.-B. Do green products make us better people? Psychol. Sci. 2010, 21, 494–498. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Khan, U.; Dhar, R. Licensing effect in consumer choice. J. Mark. Res. 2006, 43, 259–266. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hunter, P. The basis of morality: Psychologists, anthropologists and biologists are uncovering the bigger picture behind the development of empathy and altruism. EMBO Rep. 2010, 11, 166–169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jeffries, V. Virtue and the altruistic personality. Sociol. Perspect. 1998, 41, 151–166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- De Groot, J.I.; Steg, L. Relationships between value orientations, self-determined motivational types and pro-environmental behavioural intentions. J. Environ. Psychol. 2010, 30, 368–378. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Myers, K.K.; Sadaghiani, K. Millennials in the workplace: A communication perspective on millennials’ organizational relationships and performance. J. Bus. Psychol. 2010, 25, 225–238. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mullen, E.; Monin, B. Consistency versus licensing effects of past moral behavior. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 2016, 67, 363–385. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Reed, A., II; Aquino, K.F. Moral identity and the expanding circle of moral regard toward out-groups. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 2003, 84, 1270. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hair, J.; Black, W.; Babin, B.; Anderson, R. Multivariate Data Analysis, 7th ed.; Pearson Education Limited: Harlow, UK, 2009. [Google Scholar]
- Fischer, D.; Brettel, M.; Mauer, R. The three dimensions of sustainability: A delicate balancing act for entrepreneurs made more complex by stakeholder expectations. J. Bus. Ethics 2020, 163, 87–106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- De Bauw, M.; Franssens, S.; Vranken, L. Trading off environmental attributes in food consumption choices. Food Policy 2022, 112, 102338. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Prados-Peña, M.B.; Gálvez-Sánchez, F.J.; García-López, A. Moving toward sustainable development: Social, economic and environmental value as antecedents of purchase intention in the sustainable crafts sector. Sustain. Dev. 2023, 31, 3024–3037. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hayes, A.F. Partial, conditional, and moderated moderated mediation: Quantification, inference, and interpretation. Commun. Monogr. 2018, 85, 4–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Domain | Details | Freq. | Percentage |
---|---|---|---|
Gender | Male | 238 | 52 |
Female | 219 | 48 | |
Total | 457 | 100 | |
Age | 19–29 | 162 | 35.5 |
30–39 | 93 | 20.4 | |
40–49 | 128 | 28 | |
Over 50 | 105 | 16.1 | |
Total | 457 | 100 | |
Profession | Student | 145 | 31.6 |
Housewife | 28 | 6.1 | |
Fulltime Employment | 179 | 39 | |
Other | 105 | 22.9 | |
Total | 457 | 100 |
Variables | Items | Loadings | Cronbach’s Alpha |
---|---|---|---|
Attitude to Sustainability | Issues of social sustainability are important to me | 0.892 | 0.842 |
Environmental sustainability issues are important to me | 0.834 | ||
It is important to me that companies hold high ethical standards | 0.774 | ||
Moral Regulation | The action was consistent with my moral principles | 0.875 | 0.798 |
After the choice, I feel I have exerted adequate effort to fulfill my moral objective | 0.891 | ||
Morality | I try to handle most things honestly | 0.710 | 0.710 |
I always act in a way that maximizes benefits to others and minimizes harm | 0.805 | ||
Not hurting others is one of the principles of my life | 0.770 | ||
KMO = 0.783, Bartlette’s x² = 1354.638 (p < 0.001) |
DV | IV | b | S.E. | β | t | p | VIF |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Purchase Intention | (constant) | 0.063 | 0.110 | 0.572 | 0.567 | ||
ATSE | 0.076 | 0.029 | 0.032 | 0.648 | 0.648 | 2.242 | |
ATSS | 0.032 | 0.025 | 0.076 | 0.258 | 0.258 | 2.135 | |
ATSt | 0.032 | 0.025 | 0.104 | 0.095 | 0.095 | 1.806 | |
F = 5.424 (p < 0.001). R2 = 0.035 adjR2 = 0.028, D-W = 1.943 |
PI | Interaction | β | S.E. | p | CI | |
ATS* | STOE | −0.18 | 0.17 | >0.05 | [−0.50, 0.13] | |
STOS | 0.18 | 0.16 | >0.05 | [−0.13, 0.50] |
PI | Interaction | β | S.E. | p | CI | |
ATS* | STOUhigh | −0.19 | 0.19 | >0.05 | [−0.43, 0.24] | |
STOUlow | −0.05 | 0.18 | >0.05 | [−0.35, 0.29] | ||
STOHhigh | 0.05 | 0.19 | >0.05 | [−0.29, 0.34] | ||
STOHlow | −0.19 | 0.19 | >0.05 | [−0.29, 0.34] |
PI | Interaction | β | S.E. | p | CI |
ATS*STOEs | −0.03 | 0.06 | >0.05 | [−0.14, 0.07] | |
ATS*STOUhigh | −0.41 | 0.40 | >0.05 | [−1.19, 0.37] | |
ATS*STOEs*STOUhigh | −1.58 | 0.76 | <0.05 | [−3.08, −0.08] | |
ATS*STOEs*STOHhigh | 0.18 | 0.14 | >0.05 | [−0.07, 0.45] |
Path | β | S.E. | t | p | CI |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
ATS to MR | 0.36 | 0.04 | 8.39 | <0.01 | [0.2783, 0.4485] |
MR to PI | 0.47 | 0.10 | 4.61 | <0.01 | [0.2674, 0.6637] |
ATS to PI | 0.20 | 0.09 | 2.02 | <0.05 | [0.0058, 0.3925] |
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. |
© 2024 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Suh, M.; Yoo, J.E. Exploring the Impact of Sustainability Trade-Offs: The Role of Product and Sustainability Types in Consumer Purchases Mediated by Moral Regulation. Behav. Sci. 2024, 14, 702. https://doi.org/10.3390/bs14080702
Suh M, Yoo JE. Exploring the Impact of Sustainability Trade-Offs: The Role of Product and Sustainability Types in Consumer Purchases Mediated by Moral Regulation. Behavioral Sciences. 2024; 14(8):702. https://doi.org/10.3390/bs14080702
Chicago/Turabian StyleSuh, Munshik, and Je Eun Yoo. 2024. "Exploring the Impact of Sustainability Trade-Offs: The Role of Product and Sustainability Types in Consumer Purchases Mediated by Moral Regulation" Behavioral Sciences 14, no. 8: 702. https://doi.org/10.3390/bs14080702