Engaging in Sustainable Consumption: Exploring the Influence of Environmental Attitudes, Values, Personal Norms, and Perceived Responsibility
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Literature Review
2.1. Environmental Attitudes and Engagement
2.2. Environmental Values and Engagement
2.3. Personal Norms and Engagement
2.4. Perceived Responsibility and Engagement
2.5. Mediating Effect of Pro-Environmental and Prosocial Engagement
2.6. Engagement and Sustainable Consumption Behavior
3. Methodology
3.1. Sample
3.2. Data Collection
3.3. Measures
4. Results
4.1. Exploratory Factor Analysis
4.2. Correlation Analysis
4.3. Mediation Analysis
5. Discussion
6. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
Appendix A
Measures Adapted from: | Construct | Items | Scale |
---|---|---|---|
Dunlap et al. [47] | Environmental attitude | We are approaching the limit of the number of people the Earth can support Humans have the right to modify the natural environment to suit their needs When humans interfere with nature, it often produces disastrous consequences Humans are severely abusing the environment The balance of nature is strong enough to cope with the impacts of modern industrial nations The so-called “ecological crisis” facing humankind has been greatly exaggerated The Earth is like a spaceship with very limited room and resources Humans were meant to rule over the rest of nature The balance of nature is very delicate and easily upset Humans will eventually learn enough about how nature works to be able to control it If things continue on their presen tcourse, we will soon experience a major ecological catastrophe | Strongly disagree (1)–strongly agree (7) |
Measures Adapted from: | Construct | Items | Scale |
---|---|---|---|
Howell [87], Van Riper and Kyle [88] | Biospheric values | Protecting the environment (preserving nature) Respecting the earth (harmony with other species) Preventing pollution (protecting natural resources) Unity with nature (fitting into nature) | Strongly disagree (1)–strongly agree (7) |
Altruistic values | Social justice (correcting injustice, care for the weak) Equality (equal opportunity for all) A world at peace (free of war and conflict) | ||
Egoistic values | Influential (having an impact on people and events) Wealth (material possessions, money) Authority (the right to lead or command) Social power (control over others, dominance) Ambitious (hard-working, aspiring) |
Measures Adapted from: | Construct | Items | Scale |
---|---|---|---|
Vining and Ebreo [45] | Personal norms | I feel a strong personal obligation to recycle a large portion of my household recyclables I am willing to go blocks out of my way to recycle household materials on a regular basis For me, recycling is just a matter of money; I would not recycle material if I did not get paid back I would recycle household materials whether or not I received payment I would feel guilty if I did not recycle a large portion of my household recyclables | Strongly disagree (1)–strongly agree (7) |
Measures Adapted from: | Construct | Items | Scale |
---|---|---|---|
Paço and Rodrigues [46] | Perceived responsibility | I should be responsible for protecting our environment Environmental protection starts with me I think I have responsibility in protecting the environment in my country I have taken responsibility for environmental protection since I was young I am willing to take up responsibility to protect the environment in my country | Strongly disagree (1)–strongly agree (7) |
Measures Adapted from: | Construct | Items | Scale |
---|---|---|---|
Kadic-Maglajlic et al. [66] | Pro-environmental and prosocial engagement | I like to learn more about [environmentally/socially]-friendly behavior I keep up with things related to [environmentally/socially]-friendly behavior Anything related to [environmentally/socially]-friendly behavior grabs my attention I am heavily into [environmentally/socially]-friendly behavior I am passionate about [environmentally/socially]-friendly behavior My days would not be the same without [environmentally/socially]-friendly behavior I enjoy [environmentally/socially]-friendly actions more when I am with others [Environmentally/Socially]-friendly actions are more fun when other people around me do it too | Strongly disagree (1)–strongly agree (7) |
Measures Adapted from: | Construct | Items | Scale |
---|---|---|---|
Quoquab, Mohammad and Sukari [7] | Sustainable consumption behavior | I always try hard to reduce misuse of goods and services (e.g., I switch off the light and fan when I am not in the room I recycle daily newspaper (e.g., use as pet’s litter box, etc.) I avoid being extravagant in my purchases I reuse paper to write on the other side While dining in restaurant, I order food(s) of only the amount that I can eat in order to avoid wasting food I choose to buy product(s) with a biodegradable container or packaging when I am not in the room) I do not like to waste food or beverages I use eco-friendly products and services I purchase and use products which are environmentally friendly I often pay extra money to purchase environmentally friendly products (e.g., organic food) I am concerned about the shortage of natural resources I prefer to use a paper bag since it is biodegradable I always remember that my excess consumption can create hindrance for the future generation to meet their basic needs I care for the need fulfilment of the next generation I often think about future generations’ quality of life I try to control my desire for excessive purchase for the sake of future generations I am concerned about future generations I try to minimise the excess consumption for the sake of preserving environmental resources for future generations | Strongly disagree (1)–strongly agree (7) |
References
- UNEP. Sustainable Consumption and Production and the SDGs. 2015. Available online: https://wedocs.unep.org/bitstream/handle/20.500.11822/8966/-Sustainable_consumption_and_production_indicators_for_the_future_SDGs_UNEP_discussion_paper,_March_2015-2015Sustainable-consumption-and-production-.pdf?sequence=3&%3BisAllowed= (accessed on 16 May 2022).
- IPCC. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 2019. Available online: https://www.ipcc.ch/2019/ (accessed on 16 May 2022).
- Carrington, M.J.; Neville, B.A.; Whitwell, G.J. Why ethical consumers don’t walk their talk: Towards a framework for understanding the gap between the ethical purchase intentions and actual buying behaviour of ethically minded consumers. J. Bus. Ethics 2010, 97, 139–158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chen, S.C.; Chung, K.C.; Tsai, M.Y. How to achieve sustainable development of mobile payment through customer satisfaction—the SOR model. Sustainability 2019, 11, 6314. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Balderjahn, I.; Buerke, A.; Kirchgeorg, M.; Peyer, M.; Seegebarth, B.; Wiedmann, K.P. Consciousness for sustainable consumption: Scale development and new insights in the economic dimension of consumers’ sustainability. AMS Rev. 2013, 3, 181–192. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Peyer, M.; Balderjahn, I.; Seegebarth, B.; Klemm, A. The role of sustainability in profiling voluntary simplifiers. J. Bus. Res. 2017, 70, 37–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Quoquab, F.; Mohammad, J.; Sukari, N.N. A multiple-item scale for measuring “sustainable consumption behaviour” construct: Development and psychometric evaluation. Asia Pac. J. Mark. Logist. 2019, 31, 791–816. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lawrence, M.; Friel, S. (Eds.) Healthy and Sustainable Food Systems; Routledge: New York, NY, USA, 2019. [Google Scholar]
- Orîndaru, A.; Popescu, M.F.; Căescu, Ș.C.; Botezatu, F.; Florescu, M.S.; Runceanu-Albu, C.C. Leveraging COVID-19 outbreak for shaping a more sustainable consumer behavior. Sustainability 2021, 13, 5762. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vivek, S.D.; Beatty, S.E.; Dalela, V.; Morgan, R.M. A generalized multidimensional scale for measuring customer engagement. J. Mark. Theory Pract. 2014, 22, 401–420. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Banytė, J.; Šalčiuvienė, L.; Dovalienė, A.; Piligrimienė, Ž.; Sroka, W. Sustainable consumption behavior at home and in the workplace: Avenues for innovative solutions. Sustainability 2020, 12, 6564. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Piligrimienė, Ž.; Žukauskaitė, A.; Korzilius, H.; Banytė, J.; Dovalienė, A. Internal and external determinants of consumer engagement in sustainable consumption. Sustainability 2020, 12, 1349. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- 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. 2019, 104, 644–654. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Huber, M.Z.; Hilty, L.M. Gamification and sustainable consumption: Overcoming the limitations of persuasive technologies. In ICT Innovations for Sustainability; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2015; pp. 367–385. [Google Scholar]
- Mattila, A.S.; Wu, L.; Choi, C. Powerful or powerless customers: The influence of gratitude on engagement with CSR. J. Serv. Mark. 2016, 30, 519–528. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mckenzie-Mohr, D. New ways to promote proenvironmental behavior: Promoting sustainable behavior: An introduction to community-based social marketing. J. Soc. Issues 2000, 56, 543–554. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Barrios-O’Neill, D.; Schuitema, G. Online engagement for sustainable energy projects: A systematic review and framework for integration. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2016, 54, 1611–1621. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Čapienė, A.; Rūtelionė, A.; Tvaronavičienė, M. Pro-environmental and pro-social engagement in sustainable consumption: Exploratory study. Sustainability 2021, 13, 1601. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Salciuviene, L.; Buenaventura, V.E.C.; Lee, K. Employee proactiveness to engage in sustainable consumption leading to societal benefits. Eng. Econ. 2019, 30, 112–120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gadeikienė, A.; Dovalienė, A.; Grase, A.; Banytė, J. Sustainable consumption behaviour spill-over from workplace to private life: Conceptual framework. Pol. J. Manag. Stud. 2019, 19, 142–154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Griskevicius, V.; Tybur, J.M.; Van den Bergh, B. Going green to be seen: Status, reputation, and conspicuous conservation. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 2010, 98, 392. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sarrami-Foroushani, P.; Travaglia, J.; Eikli, M.; Braithwaite, J. Consumer and Community Engagement: A Review of the Literature; University of New South Wales, Centre for Clinical Governance Research, Australian Institute of Health Innovation: Sydney, Australia, 2012. [Google Scholar]
- Milfont, T.L. Cultural differences in environmental engagement. In The Oxford Handbook of Environmental and Conservation Psychology; Clayton, S.D., Ed.; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2012. [Google Scholar]
- Loy, L.S.; Reese, G. Hype and hope? Mind-body practice predicts pro-environmental engagement through global identity. J. Environ. Psychol. 2019, 66, 101340. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fiore, A.M.; Kim, J. An integrative framework capturing experiential and utilitarian shopping experience. Int. J. Retail Distrib. Manag. 2007, 35, 421–442. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Koklić, M.K. Effect of Specialty Store Environment on Consumer’s Emotional States: The Moderating Role of Price Consciousness. Mark./Tržište 2019, 31, 7–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Janmaimool, P.; Denpaiboon, C. Evaluating determinants of rural Villagers’ engagement in conservation and waste management behaviors based on integrated conceptual framework of Pro-environmental behavior. Life Sci. Soc. Policy 2016, 12, 12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Onel, N. Pro-environmental purchasing behavior of consumers: The role of norms. Soc. Mark. Q. 2017, 23, 103–121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Luchs, M.G.; Phipps, M.; Hill, T. Exploring consumer responsibility for sustainable consumption. J. Mark. Manag. 2015, 31, 1449–1471. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- 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]
- Corral-Verdugo, V.; Armendariz, L.I. The “new environmental paradigm” in a Mexican community. J. Environ. Educ. 2000, 31, 25–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Heath, Y.; Gifford, R. Free-market ideology and environmental degradation: The case of belief in global climate change. Environ. Behav. 2006, 38, 48–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Warner, H.W.; Åberg, L. Drivers’ decision to speed: A study inspired by the theory of planned behavior. Transp. Res. F Traffic Psychol. Behav. 2006, 9, 427–433. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Carmi, N.; Arnon, S.; Orion, N. Transforming environmental knowledge into behavior: The mediating role of environmental emotions. J. Environ. Educ. 2015, 46, 183–201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Biswas, A.; Roy, M. Green products: An exploratory study on the consumer behaviour in emerging economies of the East. J. Clean. Prod. 2015, 87, 463–468. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kaiser, F.G.; Hübner, G.; Bogner, F.X. Contrasting the theory of planned behavior with the value-belief-norm model in explaining conservation behavior 1. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 2005, 35, 2150–2170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fukukawa, K.; Shafer, W.E.; Lee, G.M. Values and attitudes toward social and environmental accountability: A study of MBA students. J. Bus. Ethics 2007, 71, 381–394. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bronfman, N.C.; Cisternas, P.C.; López-Vázquez, E.; De la Maza, C.; Oyanedel, J.C. Understanding attitudes and pro-environmental behaviors in a Chilean community. Sustainability 2015, 7, 14133–14152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Testa, F.; Cosic, A.; Iraldo, F. Determining factors of curtailment and purchasing energy related behaviours. J. Clean. Prod. 2016, 112, 3810–3819. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Steg, L.; Dreijerink, L.; Abrahamse, W. Factors influencing the acceptability of energy policies: A test of VBN theory. J. Environ. Psychol. 2005, 25, 415–425. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schwartz, S.H. Normative influences on altruism. In Advances in Experimental Social Psychology; Academic Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 1977; Volume 10, pp. 221–279. [Google Scholar]
- Peattie, K. Green consumption: Behavior and norms. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 2010, 35, 195–228. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bamberg, S.; Schmidt, P. Incentives, morality, or habit? Predicting students’ car use for university routes with the models of Ajzen, Schwartz, and Triandis. Environ. Behav. 2003, 35, 264–285. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vining, J.; Ebreo, A. Predicting recycling behavior from global and specific environmental attitudes and changes in recycling opportunities 1. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 1992, 22, 1580–1607. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Paço, A.; Gouveia Rodrigues, R. Environmental activism and consumers’ perceived responsibility. Int. J. Consum. Stud. 2016, 40, 466–474. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dunlap, R.E.; Van Liere, K.D.; Mertig, A.G.; Jones, R.E. New trends in measuring environmental attitudes: Measuring endorsement of the new ecological paradigm: A revised NEP scale. J. Soc. Issues 2000, 56, 425–442. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ugulu, I.; Sahin, M.; Baslar, S. High school students’ environmental attitude: Scale development and validation. Int. J. Educ. Sci. 2013, 5, 415–424. [Google Scholar]
- Fang, W.T.; Ng, E.; Wang, C.M.; Hsu, M.L. Normative beliefs, attitudes, and social norms: People reduce waste as an index of social relationships when spending leisure time. Sustainability 2017, 9, 1696. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dunlap, R.E.; Van Liere, K.D. The “new environmental paradigm”. J. Environ. Educ. 2008, 40, 19–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sánchez, M.; López-Mosquera, N.; Lera-López, F. Improving pro-environmental behaviours in Spain. The role of attitudes and socio-demographic and political factors. J. Environ. Policy Plan. 2016, 18, 47–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kaiser, F.G.; Byrka, K.; Hartig, T. Reviving Campbell’s paradigm for attitude research. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Rev. 2010, 14, 351–367. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kollmuss, A.; Agyeman, J. Mind the gap: Why do people act environmentally and what are the barriers to pro-environmental behavior? Environ. Educ. Res. 2002, 8, 239–260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Heyl, M.; Moyano Díaz, E.; Cifuentes, L. Environmental attitudes and behaviors of college students: A case study conducted at a Chilean university. Rev. Latinoam. Psicol. 2013, 45, 487–500. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dermody, J.; Hanmer-Lloyd, S.; Koenig-Lewis, N.; Zhao, A.L. Advancing sustainable consumption in the UK and China: The mediating effect of pro-environmental self-identity. J. Mark. Manag. 2015, 31, 1472–1502. [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]
- Wu, C.S.; Zhou, X.X.; Song, M. Sustainable consumer behavior in China: An empirical analysis from the Midwest regions. J. Clean. Prod. 2016, 134, 147–165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kim, H.Y.; Chung, J.E. Consumer purchase intention for organic personal care products. J. Consum. Mark. 2011, 28, 40–47. [Google Scholar]
- Wang, P.; Liu, Q.; Qi, Y. Factors influencing sustainable consumption behaviors: A survey of the rural residents in China. J. Clean. Prod. 2014, 63, 152–165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Watkins, L.; Aitken, R.; Mather, D. Conscientious consumers: A relationship between moral foundations, political orientation and sustainable consumption. J. Clean. Prod. 2016, 134, 137–146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Howell, R.A. It’s not (just)“the environment, stupid!” Values, motivations, and routes to engagement of people adopting lower-carbon lifestyles. Glob. Environ. Change 2013, 23, 281–290. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Van Riper, C.J.; Kyle, G.T. Understanding the internal processes of behavioral engagement in a national park: A latent variable path analysis of the value-belief-norm theory. J. Environ. Psychol. 2014, 38, 288–297. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nordlund, A.M.; Garvill, J. Value structures behind proenvironmental behavior. Environ. Behav. 2002, 34, 740–756. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bouman, T.; Steg, L.; Zawadzki, S.J. The value of what others value: When perceived biospheric group values influence individuals’ pro-environmental engagement. J. Environ. Psychol. 2020, 71, 101470. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gagné, M. The role of autonomy support and autonomy orientation in prosocial behavior engagement. Motiv. Emot. 2003, 27, 199–223. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Engel, J.F.; Blackwell, R.D.; Miniard, P.W. Consumer Behavior; Dryden Press: New York, NY, USA, 1995. [Google Scholar]
- Schwartz, S.H. Are there universal aspects in the structure and contents of human values? J. Soc. Issues 1994, 50, 19–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vitell, S.J.; Singhapakdi, A.; Thomas, J. Consumer ethics: An application and empirical testing of the Hunt-Vitell theory of ethics. J. Consum. Mark. 2001, 18, 153–178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jager, W. Modelling Consumer Behaviour; Universal Press: Groningen, The Netherlands, 2000. [Google Scholar]
- Brown, K.W.; Kasser, T. Are psychological and ecological well-being compatible? The role of values, mindfulness, and lifestyle. Soc. Indic. Res. 2005, 74, 349–368. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tanner, C.; Wölfing Kast, S. Promoting sustainable consumption: Determinants of green purchases by Swiss consumers. Psychol. Mark. 2003, 20, 883–902. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Doran, R.; Larsen, S. The relative importance of social and personal norms in explaining intentions to choose eco-friendly travel options. Int. J. Tour. Res. 2016, 18, 159–166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Olbrich, R.; Quaas, M.F.; Baumgärtner, S. Characterizing Commercial Cattle Farms in Namibia: Risk, Management and Sustainability (2 December 2014). University of Luneburg Working Paper No. 248. Available online: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2141051 (accessed on 16 May 2022).
- Sanchez, M.J.; Lafuente, R. Defining and Measuring Environmental Consciousness. Rev. Int. Sociol. 2010, 68, 731–755. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ture, R.S.; Ganesh, M.P. Understanding pro-environmental behaviours at workplace: Proposal of a model. Asia-Pac. J. Manag. Res. Innov. 2014, 10, 137–145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ajibade, I.; Boateng, G.O. Predicting why people engage in pro-sustainable behaviors in Portland Oregon: The role of environmental self-identity, personal norm, and socio-demographics. J. Environ. Manag. 2021, 289, 112538. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Zeiske, N.; Venhoeven, L.; Steg, L.; van der Werff, E. The normative route to a sustainable future: Examining children’s environmental values, identity and personal norms to conserve energy. Environ. Behav. 2021, 53, 1118–1139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liobikienė, G.; Juknys, R. The role of values, environmental risk perception, awareness of consequences, and willingness to assume responsibility for environmentally-friendly behaviour: The Lithuanian case. J. Clean. Prod. 2016, 112, 3413–3422. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gatautis, R.; Vitkauskaitė, E. Consumer Brand Engagement: Role of Gamification. In Proceedings of the ICEB 2015 Proceedings, Hong Kong, China, 6–10 December 2015; Volume 56. [Google Scholar]
- Hollebeek, L.D.; Glynn, M.S.; Brodie, R.J. Consumer brand engagement in social media: Conceptualization, scale development and validation. J. Interact. Mark. 2014, 28, 149–165. [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]
- Hirsh, J.B.; DeYoung, C.G.; Peterson, J.B. Metatraits of the Big Five differentially predict engagement and restraint of behavior. J. Personal. 2009, 77, 1085–1102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Algesheimer, R.; Dholakia, U.M.; Herrmann, A. The social influence of brand community: Evidence from European car clubs. J. Mark. 2005, 69, 19–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- De Groot, J.I.; Steg, L. Mean or green: Which values can promote stable pro-environmental behavior? Conserv. Lett. 2009, 2, 61–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schmitt, M.T.; Aknin, L.B.; Axsen, J.; Shwom, R.L. Unpacking the relationships between pro-environmental behavior, life satisfaction, and perceived ecological threat. Ecol. Econ. 2018, 143, 130–140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Watson, R. Quantitative research. Nurs. Stand. 2015, 29, 44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cohen, M.R. (Ed.) Medication Errors: Causes, Prevention, and Risk Management; Jones & Bartlett Learning: Toronto, ON, Canada, 2000. [Google Scholar]
- Su, L.; Huang, S.; Pearce, J. Toward a model of destination resident–environment relationship: The case of Gulangyu, China. J. Travel Tour. Mark. 2019, 36, 469–483. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- He, X.; Hu, D.; Swanson, S.R.; Su, L.; Chen, X. Destination perceptions, relationship quality, and tourist environmentally responsible behavior. Tour. Manag. Perspect. 2018, 28, 93–104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Song, Z.; Soopramanien, D. Types of place attachment and pro-environmental behaviors of urban residents in Beijing. Cities 2019, 84, 112–120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, S.; Wang, J.; Li, J.; Yang, F. Do motivations contribute to local residents’ engagement in pro-environmental behaviors? Resident-destination relationship and pro-environmental climate perspective. J. Sustain. Tour. 2020, 28, 834–852. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bouman, T.; Steg, L. Motivating society-wide pro-environmental change. One Earth 2019, 1, 27–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mostafa, M.M. Shades of green: A psychographic segmentation of the green consumer in Kuwait using self-organizing maps. Expert Syst. Appl. 2009, 36, 11030–11038. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ojala, M. Hope and climate change: The importance of hope for environmental engagement among young people. Environ. Educ. Res. 2012, 18, 625–642. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Costa Pinto, D.; Herter, M.M.; Rossi, P.; Borges, A. Going green for self or for others? Gender and identity salience effects on sustainable consumption. Int. J. Consum. Stud. 2014, 38, 540–549. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Figueroa-García, E.C.; García-Machado, J.J.; Perez-Bustamante Yabar, D.C. Modeling the social factors that determine sustainable consumption behavior in the community of Madrid. Sustainability 2018, 10, 2811. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Population | Population Distribution, % | Research Respondent Distribution, % | Number of Fully Completed Questionnaires | |
---|---|---|---|---|
Men | 868,288 | 47% | 47.7% | 431 |
Women | 903,729 | 53% | 52.3% | 473 |
16–29 | 389,843 | 18.6% | 25.3% | 229 |
30–39 | 372,123 | 15.9% | 22.6% | 204 |
40–49 | 354,406 | 15.6% | 20% | 181 |
50–59 | 301,242 | 17.6% | 13.1% | 118 |
60 and over | 354,403 | 32.4% | 19% | 172 |
Total | 904 |
Factor | No of Items | KMO | Range of Factor Loading | Variance Explained by Each Factor, % | Cronbach Alpha |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Environmental attitude | 11 | 0.819 | 0.852–0.737 | 19.21 | 0.730 |
Biospheric values | 4 | 0.823 | 0.676–0.864 | 12.01 | 0.890 |
Altruistic values | 3 | 0.793 | 0.651–0.839 | 6.79 | 0.821 |
Egoistic values | 5 | 0.693 | 0.671–0.827 | 24.91 | 0.794 |
Personal norms | 5 | 0.817 | 0.600–0.851 | 25.71 | 0.809 |
Perceived responsibility | 5 | 0.829 | 0.721–0.854 | 26.33 | 0.842 |
Pro-environmental and prosocial engagement | 8 | 0.866 | 0.600–0.856 | 63.63 | 0.893 |
Sustainable consumption behaviour | 18 | 0.813 | 0.608–0.747 | 27.93 | 0.863 |
Variables | 1. | 2. | 3. | 4. | 5. | 6. | 7. |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1. Environmental attitude | 1 | ||||||
2. Biospheric values | 0.362 ** | 1 | |||||
3. Altruistic values | 0.283 ** | 0.498 ** | 1 | ||||
4. Egoistic values | 0.04 | 0.132 ** | 0.116 ** | 1 | |||
5. Personal norms | 0.297 ** | 0.554 ** | 0.422 ** | −0.044 | 1 | ||
6. Perceived responsibility | 0.297 ** | 0.539 ** | 0.327 ** | 0.093 ** | 0.536 ** | ||
7. Pro-environmental and prosocial engagement | 0.325 ** | 0.530 ** | 0.297 ** | 0.131 ** | 0.521 ** | 0.586 ** | 1 |
8. Sustainable consumption behavior | 0.314 ** | 0.487 ** | 0.346 ** | 0.136 ** | 0.482 ** | 0.510 ** | 0.694 ** |
Scale | Age Group | Gender (Female) | Education | Subjective Financial Situation | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Kruskal–Wallis Test (p) | Spearman’s Rank Correlation Coefficient | Mann–Whitney U Test (p) | Spearman’s Rank Correlation Coefficient | Kruskal–Wallis Test (p) | Spearman’s Rank Correlation Coefficient | Kruskal–Wallis Test (p) | Spearman’s Rank Correlation Coefficient | |
Environmental attitude | 0.000 | −0.194 * | 0.000 | 0.161 * | 0.669 | −0.043 | 0.376 | −0.006 |
Biospheric values | 0.001 | 0.002 | 0.000 | 0.196 * | 0.084 | 0.093 * | 0.591 | 0.015 |
Altruistic values | 0.024 | −0.088 * | 0.000 | 0.195 * | 0.068 | 0.081 * | 0.783 | 0.014 |
Egoistic values | 0.025 | 0.061 | 0.004 | −0.095 * | 0.001 | −0.110 * | 0.476 | 0.007 |
Personal norms | 0.002 | −0.051 | 0.000 | 0.310 * | 0.000 | 0.173 * | 0.006 | 0.048 |
Perceived responsibility | 0.010 | −0.032 | 0.000 | 0.210 * | 0.033 | 0.100 * | 0.002 | 0.072 * |
Pro-environmental and prosocial engagement | 0.001 | 0.125 * | 0.000 | 0.188 * | 0.066 | 0.082 * | 0.006 | 0.043 |
Sustainable consumption behaviour | 0.000 | 0.190 * | 0.000 | 0.188 * | 0.007 | 0.054 | 0.002 | −0.001 |
Regressor | M (a) Pro-Environmental and Prosocial Engagement | Y (c′, b) Sustainable Consumption Behavior | Y (c) Sustainable Consumption Behavior | Y (a × b) Sustainable Consumption Behavior | ||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Path | Coeff. | SE | p | Path | Coeff. | SE | p | Path | Coeff. | SE | p | Path | Coeff. | SE | PI95% | |
X:EA | a | 0.46 | 0.05 | 0.00 | c′ | 0.14 | 0.04 | 0.00 | c | 0.383 | 0.042 | 0.00 | a × b | 0.24 * | 0.028 | [0.187; 0.295] |
M:PPE | - | - | - | b | 0.52 | 0.02 | 0.00 | - | - | - | - | - | - | |||
Intercept | iM | 2.53 | 0.27 | 0.00 | iY | 2.05 | 0.19 | 0.00 | iY | 3.366 | 0.222 | 0.00 | - | - | - | |
Model summary | R2 = 0.11; F(1.902) = 83.762, p = 0.000 | R2 = 0.51; F(2.901) = 348.016, p = 0.000 | R2 = 0.12; F(1.902) = 83.696, p = 0.000 | - |
Regressor | M (a) Pro-Environmental and Prosocial Engagement | Y (c′, b) Sustainable Consumption Behavior | Y (c) Sustainable Consumption Behavior | Y (a × b) Sustainable Consumption Behavior | ||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Path | Coeff. | SE | p | Path | Coeff. | SE | p | Path | Coeff. | SE | p | Path | Coeff. | SE | PI95% | |
X:BV | a | 0.62 | 0.04 | 0.00 | c′ | 0.24 | 0.03 | 0.00 | c | 0.515 | 0.027 | 0.00 | a × b | 0.27 * | 0.022 | [0.232; 0.319] |
M:PPE | - | - | - | b | 0.44 | 0.02 | 0.00 | - | - | - | - | - | - | |||
Intercept | iM | 1.16 | 0.22 | 0.00 | iY | 1.71 | 0.16 | 0.00 | iY | 2.225 | 0.166 | 0.00 | - | - | - | |
Model summary | R2 = 0.29; F(1.902) = 297.676, p = 0.000 | R2 = 0.54; F(2.901) = 431.040, p = 0.000 | R2 = 0.32; F(1.902) = 365.619, p = 0.000 | - |
Regressor | M (a) Pro-Environmental and Prosocial Engagement | Y (c′, b) Sustainable Consumption Behavior | Y (c) Sustainable Consumption Behavior | Y (a × b) Sustainable Consumption Behavior | ||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Path | Coeff. | SE | p | Path | Coeff. | SE | p | Path | Coeff. | SE | p | Path | Coeff. | SE | PI95% | |
X:AV | a | 0.35 | 0.04 | 0.00 | c′ | 0.21 | 0.03 | 0.00 | c | 0.385 | 0.037 | 0.00 | a × b | 0.18 * | 0.021 | [0.135; 0.220] |
M:PPE | - | - | - | b | 0.50 | 0.02 | 0.00 | - | - | - | - | - | - | |||
Intercept | iM | 2.72 | 0.27 | 0.00 | iY | 1.59 | 0.17 | 0.00 | iY | 2.953 | 0.233 | 0.00 | - | - | - | |
Model summary | R2 = 0.10; F(1.901) = 67.277, p = 0.000 | R2 = 0.54; F(2.900) = 429.772, p = 0.000 | R2 = 0.18; F(1.901) = 109.376, p = 0.000 | - |
Regressor | M (a) Pro-Environmental and Prosocial Engagement | Y (c′, b) Sustainable Consumption Behavior | Y (c) Sustainable Consumption Behavior | Y (a × b) Sustainable Consumption Behavior | ||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Path | Coeff. | SE | p | Path | Coeff. | SE | p | Path | Coeff. | SE | p | Path | Coeff. | SE | PI95% | |
X:EV | a | 0.12 | 0.04 | 0.00 | c′ | 0.04 | 0.02 | 0.05 | c | 0.109 | 0.033 | 0.00 | a × b | 0.07 * | 0.022 | [0.024; 0.109] |
M:PPE | - | - | - | b | 0.55 | 0.02 | 0.00 | - | - | - | - | - | - | |||
Intercept | iM | 4.35 | 0.19 | 0.00 | iY | 2.42 | 0.15 | 0.00 | iY | 4.819 | 0.167 | 0.00 | - | - | - | |
Model summary | R2 = 0.01; F(1.901) = 9.214, p = 0.003 | R2 = 0.50; F(2.900) = 335.369, p = 0.000 | R2 = 0.02; F(1.901) = 11.168, p = 0.001 | - |
Regressor | M (a) Pro-Environmental and Prosocial Engagement | Y (c′, b) Sustainable Consumption Behaviour | Y (c) Sustainable Consumption Behaviour | Y (a×b) Sustainable Consumption Behaviour | ||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Path | Coeff. | SE | p | Path | Coeff. | SE | p | Path | Coeff. | SE | p | Path | Coeff. | SE | PI95% | |
X:PN | a | 0.55 | 0.03 | 0.00 | c′ | 0.19 | 0.03 | 0.00 | c | 0.439 | 0.025 | 0.00 | a × b | 0.25 * | 0.018 | [0.212; 0.284] |
M:PPE | - | - | - | b | 0.45 | 0.02 | 0.00 | - | - | - | - | - | - | |||
Intercept | iM | 1.79 | 0.16 | 0.00 | iY | 2.07 | 0.13 | 0.00 | iY | 2.864 | 0.146 | 0.00 | - | - | - | |
Model summary | R2 = 0.32; F(1.902) = 394.969, p = 0.000 | R2 = 0.54; F(2.901) = 407.664, p = 0.000 | R2 = 0.32; F(1.902) = 312.946, p = 0.000 | - |
Regressor | M (a) Pro-Environmental and Prosocial Engagement | Y (c′, b) Sustainable Consumption Behavior | Y (c) Sustainable Consumption Behavior | Y (a × b) Sustainable Consumption Behavior | ||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Path | Coeff. | SE | p | Path | Coeff. | SE | p | Path | Coeff. | SE | p | Path | Coeff. | SE | PI95% | |
X:PR | a | 0.58 | 0.03 | 0.00 | c′ | 0.14 | 0.03 | 0.00 | c | 0.412 | 0.026 | 0.00 | a × b | 0.27 * | 0.019 | [0.236; 0.312] |
M:PPE | - | - | - | b | 0.47 | 0.03 | 0.00 | - | - | - | - | - | - | |||
Intercept | iM | 1.93 | 0.15 | 0.00 | iY | 2.32 | 0.13 | 0.00 | iY | 3.224 | 0.138 | 0.00 | - | - | - | |
Model summary | R2 = 0.36; F(1.902) = 409.396, p = 0.000 | R2 = 0.51; F(2.901) = 365.878, p = 0.000 | R2 = 0.29; F(1.902) = 260.995, p = 0.000 | - |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
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. https://doi.org/10.3390/su141610290
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(16):10290. https://doi.org/10.3390/su141610290
Chicago/Turabian StyleČapienė, Aistė, Aušra Rūtelionė, and Krzysztof Krukowski. 2022. "Engaging in Sustainable Consumption: Exploring the Influence of Environmental Attitudes, Values, Personal Norms, and Perceived Responsibility" Sustainability 14, no. 16: 10290. https://doi.org/10.3390/su141610290