The Phantom of the ‘Responsible Consumer’: Unmasking the Intention–Action Gap with an Indirect Questioning Technique
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Theoretical Background and Predictions
2.1. Indirect Questioning Technique and Socially Desirable Responding
2.2. Response Mode in Indirect Questioning: Prediction or Projection?
3. Study 1
3.1. Procedure and Participants
3.2. Measurements of Focal Constructs
3.3. Findings
3.3.1. Effects of Questioning Type on Consumers’ Stated Social Responsibility and Functional Benefit Evaluations
3.3.2. Results on Prediction vs. Projection as Response Mode to Indirect Questioning
4. Study 2
4.1. Participants and Procedure
4.2. Measurements
4.3. Findings
5. Discussion
6. Implications
6.1. Academic Implications
6.2. Managerial Implications
7. Limitations
8. Conclusions and Further Research
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
Appendix A. Stimulus Material Study 1
|
Appendix B. Constructs and Items Study 1
Problem Awareness * [51] |
|
Perceived Self-Accountability for CO2 Impact * [51] |
|
Feelings of Moral Obligation * [52] |
|
Purchase Intention * [53] |
|
Word-of-Mouth Intention * [54] |
|
Subjective Norm * [55] |
|
Social-ecological Product Value *** |
|
All items were measured with 7-point Scales, * anchored from 1 (totally disagree) to 7 (totally agree), ** Self-generated Items, *** 1 = left extreme / 7 = right extreme. All scales were translated into German using a backward forward translation approach. |
Appendix C. Stimulus Materials Study 2
|
Appendix D. Constructs and Items Study 2
Construct | Item |
Consumers’ Stated Social Responsibility | |
Problem Awareness | Buying products that are produced under poor working conditions prevents possible improvements in the social situation of the workers. |
Self-Ascribed Accountability | If I decide to buy this product, I am personally responsible for the social injustices associated with its production. |
Feelings of Moral Obligation | I would have a guilty conscience if I bought this product. |
Purchase Intention | I would buy the product offered. |
Word-of-Mouth Intention | I would recommend friends or acquaintances to buy the product offered. |
Benchmark Constructs | |
Functional Benefit (A) | The running shoe offered is comfortable. |
Functional Benefit (B) | The running shoe offered is durable. |
Functional Evaluation (A) | How important is it to you in principle that a running shoe is comfortable? |
Functional Evaluation (B) | How important is it to you in principle that a running shoe is durable? |
1 7-point scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree), 2 7-point scale from 1 (very unlikely) to 7 (very likely), 3 7-point scale from 1 (very unimportant) to 7 (very important). |
Appendix E. Pairwise Comparisons Study 2
Condition | n | Mean | SD | p-Value of Pairwise Comparison | ||
Indirect | IRRT | |||||
Problem Awareness | Direct | 84 | 5.58 | 1.42 | 0.217 | 0.208 |
Indirect | 80 | 5.50 | 1.43 | 0.211 | ||
IRRT | 94 | 5.67 | 1.32 | |||
Self-Ascribed Accountability | Direct | 84 | 5.30 | 1.17 | 0.011 | 0.035 |
Indirect | 80 | 4.60 | 1.60 | 1.000 | ||
IRRT | 90 | 4.71 | 1.72 | |||
Feelings of Moral Obligation | Direct | 84 | 5.43 | 1.60 | 0.012 | 0.043 |
Indirect | 80 | 4.64 | 1.70 | 1.000 | ||
IRRT | 75 | 4.75 | 1.92 | |||
Purchase Intention | Direct | 84 | 2.50 | 1.36 | < 0.001 | 0.003 |
Indirect | 80 | 3.88 | 1.64 | 0.090 | ||
IRRT | 98 | 3.33 | 1.92 | |||
Word-of-Mouth Intention | Direct | 84 | 1.86 | 1.12 | < 0.001 | 0.005 |
Indirect | 80 | 2.88 | 1.55 | 0.441 | ||
IRRT | 96 | 2.55 | 1.65 | |||
Functional Benefit (A) | Direct | 84 | 4.77 | 1.14 | 0.406 | 1.000 |
Indirect | 80 | 5.06 | 1.25 | 0.139 | ||
IRRT | 92 | 4.68 | 1.30 | |||
Functional Benefit (B) | Direct | 84 | 3.73 | 1.22 | 1.000 | 0.349 |
Indirect | 80 | 3.75 | 1.30 | 0.287 | ||
IRRT | 84 | 3.40 | 1.44 | |||
Functional Evaluation (A) | Direct | 84 | 6.33 | 0.83 | 0.902 | 1.000 |
Indirect | 80 | 6.18 | 1.22 | 0.363 | ||
IRRT | 85 | 6.41 | 0.85 | |||
Functional Evaluation (B) | Direct | 84 | 5.76 | 1.08 | 0.240 | 0.198 |
Indirect | 80 | 5.41 | 1.09 | 1.000 | ||
IRRT | 87 | 5.40 | 1.57 | |||
* with Bonferroni-correction. |
References
- Hassan, L.M.; Shiu, E.; Shaw, D. Who Says There is an Intention–Behaviour Gap? Assessing the Empirical Evidence of an Intention-Behaviour Gap in Ethical Consumption. J. Bus. Ethics 2016, 136, 219–236. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Antonetti, P.; Maklan, S. How Categorisation Shapes the Attitude–Behaviour Gap in Responsible Consumption. Int. J. Mark. Res. 2015, 57, 51–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Luchs, M.G.; Miller, R.A. Consumer Responsibility for Sustainable Consumption. In Handbook of Research on Sustainable Consumption; Reisch, L., Thøgersen, J., Eds.; Edward Elgar Publishing: Cheltenham, UK, 2015; pp. 254–267. [Google Scholar]
- 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, 83, 22–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Young, W.; Hwang, K.; McDonald, S.; Oates, C.J. Sustainable Consumption: Green Consumer Behaviour When Purchasing Products. Sustain. Dev. 2010, 18, 20–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Caruana, R.; Carrington, M.J.; Chatzidakis, A. “Beyond the Attitude-Behaviour Gap: Novel Perspectives in Consumer Ethics”: Introduction to the Thematic Symposium. J. Bus. Ethics 2016, 136, 215–218. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kossmann, E.; Gomez-Suarez, M. Words-Deeds Gap for the Purchase of Fairtrade Products: A Systematic Literature Review. Front. Psychol. 2019, 10, 2705. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cone Communications. Cone Communications CSR Study 2017; Cone Communications: New York, NY, USA, 2017. [Google Scholar]
- Boccia, F.; Sarnacchiaro, P. The Impact of Corporate Social Responsibility on Consumer Preference: A Structural Equation Analysis. Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manag. 2018, 25, 151–163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Prothero, A.; Dobscha, S.; Freund, J.; Kilbourne, W.E.; Luchs, M.G.; Ozanne, L.K.; Thøgersen, J. Sustainable Consumption: Opportunities for Consumer Research and Public Policy. J. Public Policy Mark. 2011, 30, 31–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ehrich, K.R.; Irwin, J.R. Willful Ignorance in the Request for Product Attribute Information. J. Mark. Res. 2005, 42, 266–277. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Paharia, N.; Vohs, K.D.; Deshpandé, R. Sweatshop Labor is Wrong Unless the Shoes Are Cute: Cognition Can Both Help and Hurt Moral Motivated Reasoning. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 2013, 121, 81–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kilian, S.; Mann, A. When the Damage is Done: Effects of Moral Disengagement on Sustainable Consumption. J. Organ. Psychol. 2020, 20, 120–132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Auger, P.; Devinney, T.M. Do What Consumers Say Matter? The Misalignment of Preferences with Unconstrained Ethical Intentions. J. Bus. Ethics 2007, 76, 361–383. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Steenkamp, J.B.E.M.; de Jong, M.G.; Baumgartner, H. Socially Desirable Response Tendencies in Survey Research. J. Mark. Res. 2010, 47, 199–214. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Fisher, R.J. Social Desirability Bias and the Validity of Indirect Questioning. J. Consum. Res. 1993, 20, 303–315. [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] [Green Version]
- Holmes, D.S. Dimensions of Projection. Psychol. Bull. 1968, 69, 248–268. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nancarrow, C.; Brace, I.; Wright, L.T. “Tell me Lies, Tell me Sweet Little Lies”: Dealing with Socially Desirable Responses in Market Research. Mark. Rev. 2001, 2, 55–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Connelly, B.S.; Chang, L. A Meta-Analytic Multitrait Multirater Separation of Substance and Style in Social Desirability Scales. J. Personal. 2016, 84, 319–334. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ludeke, S.G.; Weisberg, Y.J.; Deyoung, C.G. Idiographically Desirable Responding: Individual Differences in Perceived Trait Desirability Predict Overclaiming. Eur. J. Personal. 2013, 27, 580–592. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lee, Z.; Sargeant, A. Dealing with Social Desirability Bias: An Application to Charitable Giving. Eur. J. Mark. 2011, 45, 703–719. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Paulhus, D.L. Two-Component Models of Socially Desirable Responding. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 1984, 46, 598–609. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Paulhus, D.L. Socially Desirable Responding: The Evolution of a Construct. In The Role of Constructs in Psychological and Educational Measurement; Brown, H.I., Jackson, D.N., Wiley, D.E., Eds.; Routledge: Abingdon, UK, 2002; pp. 61–84. [Google Scholar]
- Edwards, A.L. The Relationship Between the Judged Desirability of a Trait and the Probability That the Trait Will Be Endorsed. J. Appl. Psychol. 1953, 37, 90–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gove, W.R.; Geerken, M.R. Response Bias in Surveys of Mental Health: An Empirical Investigation. Am. J. Sociol. 1977, 82, 1289–1317. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Randall, D.M.; Fernandes, M.F. The Social Desirability Response Bias in Ethics Research. J. Bus. Ethics 1991, 10, 805–817. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Brown, C.M.; McLean, J.L. Anthropomorphizing Dogs: Projecting One’s Own Personality and Consequences for Supporting Animal Rights. Anthrozoös 2015, 28, 73–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sherwood, G.G. Self-Serving Biases in Person Perception: A Reexamination of Projection as a Mechanism of Defense. Psychol. Bull. 1981, 90, 445–459. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Freud, S. Certain Neurotic Mechanisms in Jealousy, Paranoia, and Homosexuality. In Collected Papers; Strachey, J., Ed.; The International Psycho-Analytical Library; Hogarth Press: London, UK, 1971; Volume 2. [Google Scholar]
- Freud, S. Totem and Taboo: Resemblances Between the Psychic Lives of Savages and Neurotics; Georg Routledge & Sons: London, UK, 1919. [Google Scholar]
- Freud, S. Obsessions and Phobias. In The Standard Edition of the Complete Works of Sigmund Freud; Strachey, J., Ed.; Hogarth Press: London, UK, 1895. [Google Scholar]
- Freud, S. The Interpretation of Dreams. Standard Edition of the Works of Sigmund Freud, 5th ed.; Hogarth Press: London, UK, 1953; Volume 4. [Google Scholar]
- Cramer, P. Externalizing/Projection; Internalizing/Identification: An Examination. Psychoanal. Psychol. 2020, 37, 207. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Meissner, W.W. A Note on Projective Identification. J. Am. Psychoanal. Assoc. 1980, 28, 43–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sandler, J.; Perlow, M. Internalization and Externalization. In Projection, Identification, Projective Identification; Sandler, J., Ed.; Routledge: New York, NY, USA, 2018; pp. 1–11. [Google Scholar]
- Boddy, C. Projective Techniques in Market Research: Valueless Subjectivity or Insightful Reality? A Look at the Evidence for the Usefulness, Reliability and Validity of Projective Techniques in Market Research. Int. J. Mark. Res. 2005, 47, 239–254. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Judacewski, P.; Los, P.R.; Lima, L.S.; Alberti, A.; Zielinski, A.A.F.; Nogueira, A. Perceptions of Brazilian Consumers Regarding White Mould Surface–Ripened Cheese Using Free Word Association. Int. J. Dairy Technol. 2019, 72, 585–590. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pinto, L.d.P.F.; Silva, H.L.A.; Kuriya, S.P.; Maçaira, P.M.; Cyrino Oliveira, F.L.; Cruz, A.G.; Esmerino, E.A.; Freitas, M.Q. Understanding Perceptions and Beliefs About Different Types of Fermented Milks Through the Application of Projective Techniques: A Case Study Using Haire’s Shopping List and Free Word Association. J. Sens. Stud. 2018, 33, e12326. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Eldesouky, A.; Pulido, A.F.; Mesias, F.J. The Role of Packaging and Presentation Format in Consumers’ Preferences for Food: An Application of Projective Techniques. J. Sens. Stud. 2015, 30, 360–369. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Da Silva, V.M.; Minim, V.P.R.; Ferreira, M.A.M.; de Paula Souza, P.H.; Da Silva Moraes, L.E.; Minim, L.A. Study of the Perception of Consumers in Relation to Different Ice Cream Concepts. Food Qual. Prefer. 2014, 36, 161–168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Catterall, M.; Ibbotson, P. Using Projective Techniques in Education Research. Br. Educ. Res. J. 2000, 26, 245–256. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Donoghue, S. Projective Techniques in Consumer Research. J. Consum. Sci. 2000, 28, 47–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fisher, R.J.; Tellis, G.J. Removing Social Desirability Bias With Indirect Questioning: Is the Cure Worse Than the Disease? In NA—Advances in Consumer Research Volume 25; Alba, J.W., Hutchinson, J.W., Eds.; Association for Consumer Research: Provo, UT, USA, 1998; pp. 563–567. [Google Scholar]
- Vallerand, R.J.; Deshaies, P.; Cuerrier, J.P.; Pelletier, L.G.; Mongeau, C. Ajzen and Fishbein’s Theory of Reasoned Action as Applied to Moral Behavior: A Confirmatory Analysis. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 1992, 62, 98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schwartz, S.H. Normative Influences on Altruism. In Advances in Experimental Social Psychology; Berkowitz, L., Ed.; Advances in Experimental Social Psychology; Academic Press: New York, NY, USA, 1977; pp. 221–279. [Google Scholar]
- Ajzen, I.; Fishbein, M. Understanding Attitudes and Predicting Social Behavior; Prentice Hall: Englewood Cliffs, NJ, USA, 1980. [Google Scholar]
- Haws, K.L.; Winterich, K.P.; Naylor, R.W. Seeing the World Through GREEN-Tinted Glasses: Green Consumption Values and Responses to Environmentally Friendly Products. J. Consum. Psychol. 2014, 24, 336–354. [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]
- Eisinga, R.; Te Grotenhuis, M.; Pelzer, B. The Reliability of a Two-Item Scale: Pearson, Cronbach, or Spearman-Brown? Int. J. Public Health 2013, 58, 637–642. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Harland, P.; Staats, H.; Wilke, H.A.M. 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]
- Vining, J.; Ebreo, A. Predicting Recycling Behavior From Global and Specific Environmental Attitudes and Changes in Recycling Opportunities. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 1992, 22, 1580–1607. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Perugini, M.; Bagozzi, R.P. The Role of Desires and Anticipated Emotions in Goal–Directed Behaviours: Broadening and Deepening the Theory of Planned Behaviour. Br. J. Soc. Psychol. 2001, 40, 79–98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lindenmeier, J.; Schleer, C.; Pricl, D. Consumer Outrage: Emotional Reactions to Unethical Corporate Behavior. J. Bus. Res. 2012, 65, 1364–1373. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Taylor, S.; Todd, P. Decomposition and Crossover Effects in the Theory of Planned Behavior: A Study of Consumer Adoption Intentions. Int. J. Res. Mark. 1995, 12, 137–155. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cohen, J. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences, 2nd ed.; Lawrence Erlbaum Associates: Mahwah, NJ, USA, 1988. [Google Scholar]
- de Jong, M.G.; Pieters, R.; Fox, J.P. Reducing Social Desirability Bias through Item Randomized Response: An Application to Measure Underreported Desires. J. Mark. Res. 2010, 47, 14–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- VanderWeele, T.J.; Mathur, M.B. Some Desirable Properties of the Bonferroni Correction: Is the Bonferroni Correction Really so Bad? Am. J. Epidemiol. 2019, 188, 617–618. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Neeley, S.M.; Cronley, M.L. When Research Participants Don’t Tell It Like It Is: Pinpointing the Effects of Social Desirability Bias Using Self vs. In direct-Questioning. In NA—Advances in Consumer Research Volume 31; Kahn, B.E., Luce, M.F., Eds.; Association for Consumer Research: Valdosta, GA, USA, 2004; pp. 432–433. [Google Scholar]
- Kim, S.H.; Kim, S. National Culture and Social Desirability Bias in Measuring Public Service Motivation. Adm. Soc. 2016, 48, 444–476. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Mean | SD | F | p | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Consumers’ Stated Social Responsibility * | |||||
Problem Awareness | |||||
direct | 5.60 | 0.97 | 84.90 | <0.001 | 1.03 |
indirect | 4.38 | 1.31 | |||
Self-Ascribed Accountability | |||||
direct | 5.51 | 1.03 | 85.84 | <0.001 | 1.06 |
indirect | 4.09 | 1.61 | |||
Feelings of Moral Obligation | |||||
direct | 4.96 | 1.39 | 47.34 | <0.001 | 0.78 |
indirect | 3.91 | 1.29 | |||
Purchase Intention | |||||
direct | 3.13 | 1.51 | 132.70 | <0.001 | −1.32 |
indirect | 5.01 | 1.32 | |||
WoM-Intention | |||||
direct | 1.71 | 1.03 | 114.04 | <0.001 | −1.22 |
indirect | 3.16 | 1.33 | |||
Benchmark Constructs | |||||
Functional Benefit Beliefs | |||||
direct | 4.49 | 1.31 | 2.23 | 0.14 | −0.17 |
indirect | 4.71 | 1.30 | |||
Functional Benefit Evaluations | |||||
direct | 6.11 | 0.60 | 2.42 | 0.12 | 0.18 |
indirect | 5.96 | 1.00 | |||
Funct. Benefit Beliefs × Evaluations | |||||
direct | 27.42 | 8.51 | 1.25 | 0.26 | −0.13 |
indirect | 28.62 | 10.12 |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2021 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
Kilian, S.; Mann, A. The Phantom of the ‘Responsible Consumer’: Unmasking the Intention–Action Gap with an Indirect Questioning Technique. Sustainability 2021, 13, 13394. https://doi.org/10.3390/su132313394
Kilian S, Mann A. The Phantom of the ‘Responsible Consumer’: Unmasking the Intention–Action Gap with an Indirect Questioning Technique. Sustainability. 2021; 13(23):13394. https://doi.org/10.3390/su132313394
Chicago/Turabian StyleKilian, Sven, and Andreas Mann. 2021. "The Phantom of the ‘Responsible Consumer’: Unmasking the Intention–Action Gap with an Indirect Questioning Technique" Sustainability 13, no. 23: 13394. https://doi.org/10.3390/su132313394
APA StyleKilian, S., & Mann, A. (2021). The Phantom of the ‘Responsible Consumer’: Unmasking the Intention–Action Gap with an Indirect Questioning Technique. Sustainability, 13(23), 13394. https://doi.org/10.3390/su132313394