Next Article in Journal
Integrating OCBE Literature and Norm Activation Theory: A Moderated Mediation on Proenvironmental Behavior of Employees
Previous Article in Journal
Modelling Climate Using Leaves of Nothofagus cunninghamii—Overcoming Confounding Factors
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 15
Issue 9
10.3390/su15097596
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

Effects of Individualism, Collectivism, Materialism, and Willingness to Pay for Environmental Protection on Environmental Consciousness and Pro-Environmental Consumption Behavior in Korea

by
So Yeon Cho
and
Joowon Jung
*
Department of Home Economic Education, Dongguk University, 30 Pildong-ro 1-gil, Jung-gu, Seoul 04620, Republic of Korea
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2023, 15(9), 7596; https://doi.org/10.3390/su15097596
Submission received: 3 April 2023 / Revised: 26 April 2023 / Accepted: 29 April 2023 / Published: 5 May 2023
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Environmental consciousness is linked to pro-environmental consumption behavior; however, the consequences of variations in the level of environmental consciousness have not been fully investigated. Therefore, we evaluated differences in individualism, collectivism, materialism, willingness to pay (WTP) for environmental protection, and pro-environmental consumption between groups with varying levels of environmental consciousness. After evaluating the factors that differentiate these groups, we identified the determinants of pro-environmental consumption for each group. For the study, an online survey was conducted, including 472 adults aged 20–69 years. Groups with low and high levels of environmental consciousness differed significantly with respect to all factors except individualism. The group with a high environmental consciousness exhibited higher collectivism, WTP for environmental protection, and pro-environmental consumption behavior, and lower materialism than the group with a low environmental consciousness. For the group with low environmental consciousness, collectivism was the main factor affecting pro-environmental consumption behavior (i.e., purchase, use, and disposal). In the group with high environmental consciousness, WTP for environmental protection and collectivism were the main determinants of pro-environmental consumption behavior. These results provide a basis for a systematic approach to improve pro-environmental consumption behavior based on environmental consciousness.

1. Introduction

The ongoing COVID-19 pandemic has prompted changes in consumption behavior; overall, these changes have increased the general public’s awareness of the ongoing environmental crisis. The World Economic Forum’s ‘2021 The Global Risks Report’ revealed that environmental issues are the primary global risk to human health worldwide [1]. In addition, contactless consumption as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic dramatically increased the use of plastic and disposable products, as there was an increase in online shopping and food delivery orders [2]. According to statistics on municipal and recycled waste after the COVID-19 pandemic reported by Statistics Korea, the total amounts of recycled waste were 5349, 5355, and 5521 tons in January, February, and March of 2020, respectively. This represented an average increase of 18.1% from corresponding estimates for the same months in the previous year. The amounts of plastics used also increased by 9.1% compared to those in the same months of the previous year (809, 839, and 868 tons in January, February, and March 2020, respectively) [3]. Accordingly, improvements in both environmental consciousness and pro-environmental consumption behavior of consumers are urgently needed.
Environmentally conscious consumers recognize environmental problems in everyday life, take responsibility for the maintenance and improvement of ecological integrity, and consider how these improvements culminate in broad-scale social welfare as well as benefit themselves as individuals [4]. Environmental consciousness refers to the extent of one’s recognition of environmental issues and the motivation to solve them [5]. Environmental consciousness refers to both the behaviors and their corresponding underlying psychological drivers related to environmental commitment [6,7,8].
Pro-environmental consumption behavior refers to consumption patterns that take ecological and economic factors, energy and resources in utilization processes, and recycling and waste reduction in disposal processes into account [9]. Pro-environmental consumption behavior involves activities that maintain or improve ecological integrity [10]. Studies on the association between environmental consciousness and pro-environmental consumption have shown that environmental consciousness positively affects pro-environmental consumption [11,12,13,14,15]. Individuals who are more environmentally conscious and aware are more likely to adopt pro-environmental consumption practices than those with a lower level of environmental consciousness [16]. These previous studies indicated that pro-environmental consumption behavior may vary depending on the level of environmental consciousness.
Various factors affect pro-environmental consumption behavior, including individualism, collectivism, materialism, and willingness to pay (WTP) for environmental protection. Individualism is mainly associated with independence, self-orientation, and self-confidence, whereas collectivism is primarily characterized by interdependence, other-orientation, and harmony [17]. Individualists prioritize personal motives, goals, and desires [18,19]. In contrast, collectivists emphasize group harmony and empathy [20,21,22]. It has been reported that collectivism significantly impacts both green purchase intentions and behaviors [23,24,25,26]. Collectivists tend to engage in green purchase behavior more than individualists, as they typically display more significant levels of cooperativeness, willingness to assist others, and an inclination toward group goals. Furthermore, individualists place less emphasis on recycling behavior [25], whereas collectivists exhibit more eco-friendly actions [20,24,25], as they believe that their actions help mitigate environmental issues [27].
Another factor associated with pro-environmental consumption behavior, namely materialism, is defined as the importance placed on material goods [28]. Materialism can promote excessive or unnecessary consumption [29]; overall materialism-driven consumption may adversely affect the environment [26]. This is because materialism tends to be negatively correlated with green purchase intention [26] and has a negative impact on environmental purchase behavior [30]. In other words, environmental purchase behavior increases as materialism decreases. Furthermore, Strizhakova and Coulter (2013) also showed that highly materialistic consumers tend to have a low environmental awareness, as they need to focus on activities linked to environmental protection [31].
WTP for environmental protection and pro-environmental consumption behavior are candidate factors related to pro-environmental consumption behavior. Expensive costs present a hindrance to the adoption of green consumption [32,33,34]. In general, eco-friendly products are viewed as more expensive than their conventional counterparts [35,36]. Nevertheless, previous studies have shown that price is not a significant factor when purchasing green goods or food [37,38]. According to a report from the Organic Consumers Association, consumers who prioritize eco-friendliness are willing to pay extra for environmentally responsible goods, even during economic downturns [39]. Kang et al. (2012) reported that highly environmentally conscious consumers prefer eco-friendly hotels and pay a premium for this choice [40]. Therefore, price is not a significant constraint on green purchasing. Environmentally conscious consumers are less price-sensitive [38,41] and are willing to compromise between environmental benefits and increased expenses [42]. Consumers with a high environmental consciousness do not heavily consider the limitations of eco-friendly products in terms of cost and quality or they endure them owing to their emphasis on environmental impact [43]. Based on this, WTP for environmental protection can be seen as a predictive factor for pro-environmental consumption behavior. These previous studies indicate that individualism, collectivism, materialism, and WTP for environmental protection are important factors that affect pro-environmental consumption behavior.
This study aims to provide information on sustainable consumption by identifying the determinants of pro-environmental consumption behavior according to the level of environmental consciousness. The main aims of this study are twofold: (a) to analyze the differences in individualism, collectivism, materialism, WTP for environmental protection, and pro-environmental consumption behavior between groups with high and low environmental consciousness; (b) to identify the main factors affecting pro-environmental consumption behavior of these groups. These results provide a basis for a systematic approach to promoting pro-environmental consumption behavior according to the level of environmental consciousness. Furthermore, these results can guide environmental education and information.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Sample Collection

A survey research company with many panels in Korea (EMBRAIN) conducted a web-based survey to target adult consumers between the ages of 20 and 69. Participants were selected using convenience sampling. Before distributing the official survey, a pilot test was conducted with 50 respondents, and the results were deemed significant. Following the pilot test, an official survey was administered, resulting in 480 responses collected from 5 to 16 April 2022. Of these responses, 8 were excluded due to missing data, resulting in a total of 472 participants for the study. The demographic characteristics of the sample are presented in Table 1.

2.2. Measurements

The aim of this study was to determine the dynamics of pro-environmental consumption behavior based on levels of environmental consciousness. This study was conducted through the lens of the principal determinants that impact these factors. To accomplish this objective, the sample groups were categorized based on their levels of environmental consciousness. These groups were then compared in terms of individualism, collectivism, materialism, WTP for environmental protection, and pro-environmental consumption behavior. In addition, the independent variables (i.e., individualism, collectivism, materialism, and WTP for environmental protection) were analyzed to determine their impact on the dependent variables, which included pro-environmental consumption behavior (i.e., purchase, use, and disposal) (Figure 1). The main variables used in this study are as follows.

2.2.1. Environmental Consciousness

Environmental consciousness was assessed based on the scale described by Kang (2006) and Choi (2009) with modifications. This scale consists of 10 items (e.g., “I am usually very interested in the environment” and “Environmental pollution is a serious problem at the global level”), each of which is rated on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree; 5 = strongly agree) [44,45]. Cronbach’s alpha was 0.86; this was congruent with the estimate of 0.85, as seen in the study by Choi (2009) [45].

2.2.2. Individualism and Collectivism

Individualism and collectivism were assessed based on the scale described by Yoon and Kim (2000) and Yim (2013), with modifications. Items were related to individualism (e.g., “I prioritize my interests over those of the group.” and “I would rather rely on myself than on others.”) and collectivism (e.g., “For the betterment of my group, I am willing to forgo my self-interest.” and “I believe that my relationships with others hold greater significance than my achievements.”) [46,47]. A 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (Strongly disagree) to 5 (Strongly agree) was used to rate each of the 10 items. These items were then analyzed using a principal component analysis applying varimax rotation. Individualism and collectivism, which accounted for 14.6% and 79.9% of the variance, respectively, consisted of 5 items each. Additionally, Cronbach’s alpha coefficients for individualism and collectivism were 0.68 and 0.77, respectively. In the prior study by Yim (2012), Cronbach’s alpha estimates were 0.75–0.82 [47].

2.2.3. Materialism

The evaluation of materialism was conducted using the Korean version of the material value scale. The original version of the scale was adapted by You and Seoul (2018) and has been standardized and validated for quantifying materialism in the Korean population [48]. The material value scale consists of 15 items (e.g., “If I had more money and expensive things, I would be happier” and “My wealth tells me how well I am living my life”). A 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree) was used to rate each of the 15 items. The Cronbach’s alpha for this scale was 0.84 in this study, whereas it was 0.76 in a study by You and Seoul (2018) [48].

2.2.4. WTP for Environmental Protection

WTP for environmental protection was assessed based on a scale described by Shin et al. (2017) and Kim et al. (2009) [49,50], with modifications. The scale consisted of 2 items (e.g., “I would pay more to protect the environment”) and was rated on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Cronbach’s alpha in the present study was 0.83. In contrast, this value was 0.95 in a study by Kim et. al. (2009) [50].

2.2.5. Pro-Environmental Consumption Behavior

Pro-environmental consumption behavior was assessed based on the green consumption scale developed by the Korea Consumer Agency (2010) [51], with modifications and additions. The pro-environmental consumption behavior scale consisted of purchase (e.g., “I buy products with high energy efficiency ratings or products of refill”), use (e.g., “I use the right amount of detergent when doing laundry or cleaning”), and disposal behavior (e.g., “I exchange useful items using second-hand markets”) sub-domains based on the stage of pro-environmental consumption behavior. Seventeen items were included in the scale used to assess pro-environmental consumption behavior, with each item rated on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (Strongly disagree) to 5 (Strongly agree). These items were analyzed using a principal component analysis, applying varimax rotation.
The pro-environmental purchase behavior, pro-environmental use behavior, and pro-environmental disposal behavior, which accounted for 39.1%, 37.46%, and 27.97% of the variance, respectively, consisted of six, six, and five items. The Cronbach’s alpha coefficients for pro-environmental purchase, use, and disposal behavior were 0.77, 0.76, and 0.74, respectively. However, in a prior study by Soyer and Dittrich (2021), Cronbach’s alpha was in the range of 0.65–0.86 [52].

2.3. Data Analysis

The statistical analyses were performed using Stata 13.0 (Stata Corp., College Station, TX, USA). The descriptive statistics (e.g., mean, standard deviation, frequency, etc.) of the samples were determined. The K-medians clustering method was then used to divide respondents into groups with respect to their level of environmental consciousness. Then, t-tests were employed to compare individualism, collectivism, materialism, WTP for environmental protection, and pro-environmental consumption behavior among the different groups. A multiple regression analysis was utilized to examine the contributions of individualism, collectivism, materialism, and WTP for environmental protection to pro-environmental consumption behavior according to the level of environmental consciousness.

3. Results

3.1. Characteristics of Clusters

Using K-medians clustering, individuals were classified into different levels of environmental consciousness, and Table 2 summarizes the characteristics of each cluster. The two clusters are significantly different on the basis of environmental consciousness (i.e., low and high) (t = 31.36, p < 0.000). Cluster 1 consists of 212 respondents (44.92%), and its environmental consciousness was 3.89, which was lower than the average of 4.34; accordingly, this cluster corresponded to a low level of environmental consciousness. Cluster 2 consists of 260 individuals (55.08%), and its environmental consciousness was 4.70, which is higher than the average (4.34); accordingly, the cluster corresponded to a high level of environmental consciousness.

3.2. Differences between Individualism, Collectivism, Materialism, WTP for Environmental Protection, and Environmental Consciousness between Groups with Low and High Environmental Consciousness

A comparison of various characteristics between the two groups is shown in Table 3. The low and high environmental consciousness groups displayed significant differences in collectivism, materialism, WTP for environmental protection, environmental consciousness, and pro-environmental consumption behavior. However, the two groups were not significantly different in terms of individualism (t = 0.44, p > 0.05). Notably, the group with high environmental consciousness exhibited higher levels of collectivism (t = −4.31, p < 0.000), WTP for environmental protection (t = −10.82, p < 0.000), and pro-environmental consumption behavior (purchase: t = −8.49, p < 0.000; use: t = −9.03, p < 0.000; disposal: t = −5.61, p < 0.000) compared to the low group. However, materialism was lower in the high group than in the low group (t = 3.65, p < 0.000).

3.3. Factors Affecting Pro-Environmental Consumption Behavior in the Low Environmental Consciousness Group

To determine the factors influencing pro-environmental consumption behavior, multiple regression analyses were run using individualism, collectivism, materialism, and WTP for environmental protection as independent variables for the group with low environmental consciousness. Multicollinearity was assessed based on variance inflation factors (VIFs). Demographic characteristics (i.e., gender, age, education level, and income) were analyzed as control variables to clearly confirm the effects of individualism, collectivism, materialism, and WTP for environmental protection on pro-environmental consumption behavior. The VIF values ranged from 1.08–2.26, below the threshold (10) recommended by Hair et al. (2006) [53]. These results are presented in Table 4.
The significant predictors of pro-environmental purchase behavior in the group with low environmental consciousness were income, individualism, and collectivism, explaining 15.4% of the total variance. The results showed that income significantly and negatively impacted pro-environmental purchase behavior (β = 0.14, p < 0.05) in the low environmental consciousness group. Conversely, individualism (β = 0.17, p < 0.05) and collectivism (β = 0.25, p < 0.001) significantly and positively affected pro-environmental purchase behavior.
The significant predictors of pro-environmental use behavior in the low environmental consciousness group were age, education, and collectivism, accounting for 25.8% of the total variance. Age (β = 0.21, p < 0.01), a group with higher university graduates than a group of high school graduates or under (β = 0.19, p < 0.05), and collectivism (β = 0.32, p < 0.001) significantly and positively impacted the pro-environmental purchase behavior of this group.
Collectivism was a significant predictor of pro-environmental disposal behavior in the low environmental consciousness group, explaining 15.2% of the variance. Collectivism (β = 0.38, p < 0.001) significantly influenced pro-environmental disposal behavior in this group.
Based on these results, collectivism significantly affected pro-environmental consumption behavior (i.e., purchase, use, and disposal) in the group with a low environmental consciousness. In contrast, individualism only influenced pro-environmental purchase behavior (Figure 2).

3.4. Factors Affecting Pro-Environmental Consumption Behavior in the Group with High Environmental Consciousness

To investigate the factors affecting pro-environmental consumption behavior, we performed multiple regression analyses with individualism, collectivism, materialism, and WTP for environmental protection as independent variables for the high environmental consciousness. Demographic characteristics (i.e., gender, age, education level, and income) were analyzed as control variables to clearly highlight the effects of individualism, collectivism, materialism, and WTP for environmental protection on pro-environmental consumption behavior. Multicollinearity was assessed based on VIFs, which ranged from 1.06–2.64 and were clearly below the threshold (10) suggested by Hair et al. (2006) [53]. The results are presented in Table 5. Sociodemographic factors were combined with the other determinants to control for the effects of gender, age, education, and income.
The significant predictors of pro-environmental purchase behavior in the group with high environmental consciousness were collectivism, materialism, and WTP for environmental protection, explaining 9.3% of the total variance. In the high environmental consciousness group, pro-environmental purchase behavior was significantly influenced by collectivism (β = 0.13, p < 0.05) and WTP for environmental protection (β = 0.25, p < 0.001), showing a positive correlation. On the other hand, materialism (β = −0.12, p < 0.05) had a significant and negative influence on pro-environmental purchase behavior in this group. These results are consistent with previous studies showing that females generally engage in more pro-environmental behaviors than males [54,55,56]. This suggests that females’ pro-social tendencies are linked to pro-environmental behavior when they receive positive feedback within the context of their consumption-linked patterns.
In the group with high environmental consciousness, the significant predictors of pro-environmental use behavior were gender, collectivism, materialism, and WTP for environmental protection, collectively explaining 11.2% of the variance. Males (β = −0.13, p < 0.05) and materialism (β = −0.12, p < 0.05) had a significant negative influence on pro-environmental use behavior. Collectivism (β = 0.16, p < 0.01) and WTP for environmental protection (β = 0.24, p < 0.001) had significant positive effects on pro-environmental use behavior in this group.
The significant predictors of pro-environmental disposal behavior in the high environmental consciousness group were collectivism and WTP for environmental protection, explaining 7.3% of the total variance. Collectivism (β = 0.22, p < 0.001) and WTP for environmental protection had a significant and positive impact (β = 0.18, p < 0.01) on pro-environmental disposal behavior in the group.
The findings for the group with high environmental consciousness indicated that collectivism and WTP for environmental protection significantly affected pro-environmental consumption behavior (i.e., purchase, use, and disposal), whereas materialism influenced pro-environmental purchase and use behavior. However, materialism did not influence pro-environmental disposal behavior in this group (Figure 3).

4. Discussion

In terms of sustainably resolving ongoing environmental issues, consumers’ environmental consciousness and pro-environmental consumption behavior are some of the most important factors. This study aimed to provide helpful information for promoting sustainable consumption by identifying the determinants of pro-environmental consumption behavior for groups with high and low levels of environmental consciousness. In this study, groups with high and low levels of environmental consciousness were compared in terms of individualism, collectivism, materialism, WTP for environmental protection, and pro-environmental consumption behavior. In addition, the main factors affecting the pro-environmental consumption behavior of each group were identified.

4.1. Theoretical Implications

The main theoretical contributions of this study are as follows: Collectivism, materialism, WTP for environmental protection, and pro-environmental consumption behavior differed significantly between groups with varying levels of environmental consciousness; the groups did not significantly differ in terms of only one factor (i.e., individualism). Specifically, the group with the higher level of environmental consciousness exhibited higher collectivism, WTP for environmental protection, and pro-environmental consumption behavior and lower materialism than the group with the lower level of environmental consciousness. These results are congruent with those of a previous study of individualism, collectivism, and environmental focusing on Turkish consumers. This study showed that individualism had no influence on concern of consumers for the environment, whereas collectivism was shown to be positively linked to environmental concern [54]. This link can be attributed to the fact that people consider individualism to be personal and self-interested, regardless of their level of environmental consciousness.
The results are also similar to those of a study that showed consumers with high environmental consciousness are willing to accept and pay for environmental protection expenditures because they consider the environment to be highly important [42,43,57]. Furthermore, these results are similar to those of previous studies demonstrating that pro-environmental consumption behavior is correlated to the level of environmental consciousness [12,13,14,15,16,58].
In the group with a low level of environmental consciousness, collectivism and individualism were identified as the main determinants of purchase behavior. For use and disposal behavior, collectivism was a significant factor. In contrast, in the group with a high level of environmental consciousness, collectivism, materialism, and WTP for environmental protection were the main determinants of purchase and use behavior. Collectivism and WTP for environmental protection were identified as essential factors for disposal behavior. The results of the two groups were congruent with those of previous studies, which showed that collectivism positively influences green purchase intention and pro-environmental decision-making [24,26,27]. Overall, collectivism, which prioritizes collective and altruistic interests, increases pro-environmental consumption behavior [24,26,27,59].
The results are also similar with those of previous studies, which showed that WTP for environmental protection is the strongest predictor of green purchasing [39,60,61,62]. Furthermore, the results are consistent with prior studies in that the WTP for environmental protection is the most influential factor in predicting green purchasing [39,60,61,62]. We also confirmed that materialism is negatively linked to pro-environment purchase behavior; thus, pro-environment purchasing behavior increases as the level of materialism decreases [26,31,63]. Consumers who value material possessions tend to be self-centered and are less likely to obtain satisfaction through pro-environmental purchase behavior [26,64]. Therefore, consumers that are less materialistic will likely increase pro-environmental purchase behavior.
In addition, individualism affected pro-environmental purchase behavior in the group with a lower level of environmental consciousness. This can be attributed to motivations that prioritize personal benefits from green products [18,19]. When consumers with a low environmental consciousness perform pro-environmental purchases, they consider individual benefits and group goals. Therefore, it is necessary to encourage collectivism so that group-level factors can be considered together with personal well-being.

4.2. Practical Implications

The practical implications of this study for encouraging consumers’ pro-environmental consumption behavior are as follows:
This study showed that collectivism has the most significant influence on behaviors in the group with the lower level of environmental consciousness, and that WTP for environmental protection has the most significant impact on the group with a high level of environmental consciousness. Therefore, it is necessary to improve pro-environmental consumption behavior in each group by encouraging collectivism, which emphasizes group goals, cooperation, harmony, and conformity, for consumers with a low level of environmental consciousness [17,22,27], and by encouraging more active and practical WTP for environmental protection for consumers with a high level of environmental consciousness [43,60]. Considering factors specific to each level of environmental consciousness can facilitate solutions that will result in an overall improvement of pro-environmental consumption behavior.
In particular, collectivism greatly impacted the group with the lower level of environmental consciousness; however, it was also an important factor for the group with a high level of environmental consciousness. Therefore, it is necessary to continuously emphasize the importance of collectivism and provide active education and campaigns to improve pro-environmental consumption behavior.
For consumers with a high level of environmental consciousness, the necessity of economic costs to resolve environmental issues and the importance of WTP for environmental protection must be discussed. Funds are required for continuous environmental management, and continuous pro-environmental consumption behavior cannot be guaranteed without the burdens of personal costs. This is because pro-environmental consumption behavior, which is closely linked to daily consumption, cannot be easily achieved without broad-scale behavioral changes across all spheres of society. Additionally, the adoption of pro-environmental behavior cannot be achieved only by informing individuals of the seriousness of environmental problems or pollution [65]. Therefore, environmental education on the necessity and value of WTP for environmental protection must be provided to further emphasize the importance of pro-environmental consumption behavior.

5. Conclusions and Limitations

5.1. Conclusions

This study identified the importance of intervention strategies in line with the level of environmental consciousness of consumers to encourage sustainable consumption behavior in times of environmental crisis. Therefore, encouraging pro-environmental consumption behavior based on a consideration of the critical determinants that shape the environmental consciousness level of consumers is necessary.
The importance of collectivism should be taught to groups with a low level of environmental consciousness. This is because people that are rooted in collectivism appear to be more likely to engage in green purchase behaviors, as they are interdependent and cooperative, willing to help others, and tend to emphasize on collective goals over individual ones [27]. Pro-environmental consumption behavior can be promoted by focusing on the characteristics of collectivism and sustainability in education and targeting groups with low levels of environmental consciousness.
On the contrary, consumers with a high level of environmental consciousness should be more actively approached and educated about the meaning and effect of WTP for environmental protection, as it is a strategy associated with financial costs. Reinforcing specific value orientations for oneself, others, communities, and the environment is necessary through WTP for environmental protection and reciprocal effects [64]. In addition, the actual effectiveness of collectivism must be continuously reported. Through compelling education and information provision, pro-environmental consumption behavior can be sustainably reinforced.
This study provides valuable insights into the direction and strategy of environmental education in eco-friendly consumption behaviors among consumers. When consumers are provided with appropriate environmental education and strategic messages, the adoption of pro-environmental consumption behavior at a large scale will be increasingly possible.

5.2. Limitations and Future Research Directions

This study had various limitations that must be addressed in future research. First, because the study was limited to Korea and conducted using scales previously developed for Korea, the results are difficult to generalize. Therefore, in future studies, it will be necessary to investigate pro-environmental consumption behavior using newly developed scales and research targets. Second, only groups with low or high levels of environmental consciousness were considered; therefore, to attain clarity about consumer dynamics, including more fine-scale subdivisions in future studies will be necessary.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, S.Y.C. and J.J.; methodology, S.Y.C. and J.J.; analysis, S.Y.C.; writing—original draft, S.Y.C. and J.J.; writing—review and editing, S.Y.C. and J.J.; supervision, J.J. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

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

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. World Economic Forum. The Global Risks Report 2021 16th Edition. World Economic Forum. 2001. Available online: https://www.weforum.org/reports/the-global-risks-report-2021 (accessed on 23 June 2022).
  2. Seo, Y.L. Domestic. Waste Increased Due to COVID-19. Small Action. In My Hand Seoul News. Available online: https://mediahub.seoul.go.kr/archives/2000966 (accessed on 23 June 2022).
  3. Statistics Korea. Korean Social Trends. 2020. Available online: http://kostat.go.kr/sri/srikor/srikor_pbl/7/2/index.board?bmode=read&bSeq=&aSeq=386936&pageNo=1&rowNum=10&navCount=10&currPg=&searchInfo=&sTarget=title&sTxt= (accessed on 23 June 2022).
  4. Kye, S.J. Study on children’s consciousness and behavior for the environmental conservation. Hum. Ecol. Res. 1997, 35, 1–17. [Google Scholar]
  5. Alibei, M.A.; Johnson, C. Environmental concern: A cross-cultural analysis. J. Int. Cross-Cult. Stud. 2009, 3, 1–10. [Google Scholar]
  6. Samdahl, D.M.; Robertson, R. Social determinants of environmental concern: Specification and test of the model. Environ. Behav. 1989, 21, 3–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Zimmer, M.R.; Stafford, T.F.; Stafford, M.R. Green issues: Dimensions of environmental concern. J. Bus. Res. 1994, 31, 63–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Abd’Razack, N.T.; Medayese, S.O.; Shaibu, S.I.; Adeleye, B.M. Habits and benefits of recycling solid waste among households in Kaduna, North West Nigeria. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2017, 28, 297–306. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Sohn, S.H.; Kim, K.J.; Rha, J.Y.; Choi, S.A. Green consumption competency: A conceptual model of its framework and components. Consum. Policy Educ. Rev. 2010, 6, 95–119. [Google Scholar]
  10. Schultz, P.W.; Gouveia, V.V.; Cameron, L.D.; Tankha, G.; Schmuck, P.; Fraěk, M. Values and their relationship to environmental concern and conservation behavior. J. Cross-Cult. Psychol. 2005, 36, 457–475. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Bansal, P.; Roth, K. Why companies go green: A model of ecological responsiveness. Acad. Manag. J. 2000, 43, 717–736. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Han, H.; Hsu, L.T.J.; Lee, J.S.; Sheu, C. Application of the theory of planned behavior to green hotel choice: Testing the effect of environmental friendly activities. Tour. Manag. 2010, 31, 325–334. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Huang, H.C.; Lin, T.H.; Lai, M.C.; Lin, T.L. Environmental consciousness and green customer behavior: An examination of motivation crowding effect. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2014, 40, 139–149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Lin, S.T.; Niu, H.J. Green consumption: Environmental knowledge, environmental consciousness, social norms, and purchasing behavior. Bus. Strategy Environ. 2018, 27, 1679–1688. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Jung, J.; Cho, S.Y. The effects of high school students’ environmental concerns and subjective norms on purchase intentions of eco-friendly products: Mediating effect of attitude toward eco-friendly products and service. J. Korean Soc. Environ. Educ. 2019, 32, 475–487. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Birgelen, M.; Semeijn, J.; Keicher, M. Packaging and pro-environmental consumption behavior—Investigating purchase and disposal decisions for beverages. Environ. Behav. 2009, 41, 125–146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Triandis, H.C.; Gelfand, M.J. Converging measurement of horizontal and vertical individualism and collectivism. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 1998, 74, 118–128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Steenkamp, J.E.M.; Geyskens, I. How country characteristics affect the perceived value of websites. J. Mark. 2006, 70, 136–150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Roos, D.; Hahn, R. Understanding collaborative consumption: An extension of the theory of planned behavior with value-based personal norms. J. Bus. Ethics 2019, 158, 679–697. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Triandis, H.C. Individualism and Collectivism; Westview Press: New York, NY, USA, 1995; ISBN 978-081-331-850-9. [Google Scholar]
  21. Hooft, E.V.; Jong, M. Predicting job seeking for temporary employment using the theory of planned behavior: The moderating role of individualism and collectivism. J. Occup. Organ. Psychol. 2009, 82, 295–316. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Iran, S.; Geiger, S.M.; Schrader, U. Collaborative fashion consumption–a cross cultural study between Tehran and Berlin. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 212, 313–323. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. McCarty, J.A.; Shrum, L.J. 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]
  24. Chan, R.Y.K. Determinants of Chinese consumers’ green purchase behavior. Psychol. Mark. 2001, 18, 389–413. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Li, L.Y. Effect of collectivist orientation and ecological attitude on actual environmental commitment: The moderating role of consumer demographics and product involvement. J. Int. Consum. Mark. 1997, 9, 31–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Sharma, K.; Aswal, C. Green purchase intentions, collectivism and materialism: An empirical investigation. Delhi Univ. J. Humanit. Soc. Sci. 2017, 4, 33–50. [Google Scholar]
  27. Kim, Y.; Choi, S.M. Antecedents of green purchase behavior: An examination of collectivism, environmental concern, and Pce. Adv. Consum. Res. 2005, 32, 592–599. [Google Scholar]
  28. Belk, R.W. Materialism: Trait aspects of living in the material world. J. Consum. Res. 1985, 12, 265–280. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Good, J. Shop ‘til we drop? Television, materialism and attitudes about the natural environment. Mass Commun. Soc. 2007, 10, 365–383. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Tilikidou, I.; Delistavrou, A. Influence of the Materialistic Values on Consumers’ Pro-environmental Post-purchase Behavior. In Marketing Theory and Applications, Proceedings of the 2004 American Marketing Association Winter Educators’ Conference 15; American Marketing Association: Chicago, IL, USA, 2004; pp. 42–49. [Google Scholar]
  31. Strizhakova, Y.; Coulter, R.A. The ‘green’ side of materialism in emerging BRIC and developed markets: The moderating role of global cultural identity. Int. J. Res. Mark. 2013, 30, 69–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Gleim, M.R.; Smith, J.S.; Andrews, D.; Cronin, J.J., Jr. Against the green: A multi-method examination of the barriers to green consumption. J. Retail. 2013, 89, 44–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Paul, J.; Rana, J. Consumer behavior and purchase intention for organic food. J. Consum. Mark. 2012, 29, 412–422. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Vega-Zamora, M.; Torres-Ruiz, F.J.; Murgado-Armenteros, E.M.; Parras-Rosa, M. Organic as a heuristic cue: What Spanish consumers mean by organic foods. Psychol. Mark. 2014, 31, 349–359. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Nasir, V.A.; Karakaya, F. Consumer segments in organic foods market. J. Consum. Mark. 2014, 31, 263–277. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Essoussi, L.H.; Zahaf, M. Decision making process of community organic food consumers: An exploratory study. J. Consum. Mark. 2008, 25, 95–104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Grankvist, G.; Biel, A. The importance of belief and purchase criteria in the choice of eco-labeled food products. J. Environ. Psychol. 2001, 21, 405–410. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Tanner, C.; Kast, S.W. Promoting sustainable consumption: Determinants of green purchases by Swiss consumers. Psychol. Mark. 2003, 20, 883–902. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Organic Consumers Association. Despite the Economic Dip, Organic Food Sales Soar. Despite Economic Dip, Organic Food Sales Soar. Available online: https://www.organicconsumers.org (accessed on 23 June 2022).
  40. Kang, K.H.; Stein, L.; Heo, C.Y.; Lee, S. Consumers’ willingness to pay for green initiatives of the hotel industry. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2012, 31, 564–572. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Olson, E.L. It’s not easy being green: The effects of attribute tradeoffs on green product preference and choice. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 2012, 41, 171–184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Laroche, M.; Bergeron, J.; Barbaro-Forleo, G. Targeting consumers who are willing to pay more for environmentally friendly products. J. Consum. Mark. 2001, 18, 503–520. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. McCarty, J.A.; Shrum, L.J. The recycling of solid wastes: Personal values, value orientations, and attitudes about recycling as antecedents of recycling behavior. J. Bus. Res. 1994, 30, 53–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Kang, H.B. Influence on the Product Image and Product Purchasing-Intention of Environmental Consciousness of Consumers. Master’s Thesis, Dong-A University, Busan, Republic of Korea, 2006. [Google Scholar]
  45. Choi, K.H. Study on Lifestyle Characteristics, Environmental Consciousness and Consumption Behavior of Green Consumers. Master’s Thesis, Ewha womans University, Seoul, Republic of Korea, 2010. [Google Scholar]
  46. Yoon, W.A.; Kim, K.O. Scale development in the propensity of collectivism—Individualism among Korean consumers. J. Consum. Stud. 2000, 11, 1–14. [Google Scholar]
  47. Yim, M.J. The Effects of Face Circumstances upon Consumption Behavior Intention: Focusing on the Moderating Effect of Materialism and Individualism. Ph.D. Thesis, Dong-A University, Busan, Republic of Korea, 2012. [Google Scholar]
  48. You, J.H.; Seoul, K.O.A. Validation study of the Korean version of material values scale. Korean J. Cult. Soc. Issues 2018, 24, 385–410. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Shin, Y.H.; Moon, H.; Jung, S.E.; Severt, K. The effect of environmental values and attitudes on consumer willingness to pay more for organic menus: A value-attitude-behavior approach. J. Hosp. Tour. Manag. 2017, 33, 113–121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Kim, B.C.; Kim, C.S.; Lee, C.H. The level of corporate social responsibility’s effects on public favorability and willingness to pay the premium price. Korean J. Advert. 2009, 20, 37–55. [Google Scholar]
  51. Hwang, E.A.; Lee, K.A. A Study on Green Consumption Capacity Assessment; Korea Consumer Agency: Seoul, Republic of Korea, 2010. [Google Scholar]
  52. Soyer, M.; Dittrich, K. Sustainable consumer behavior in purchasing, using and disposing of clothes. Sustainability 2021, 13, 8333. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Hair, J.F., Jr.; Black, W.C.; Babin, B.J.; Anderson, R.E. Multivariate Data Analysis; Prentice-Hall: Bergen County, NJ, USA, 2010; ISBN 978-0138132637. [Google Scholar]
  54. Arısal, I.; Atalar, T. The exploring relationships between environmental concern, collectivism and ecological purchase intention. Soc. Behav. Sci. 2016, 235, 514–521. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Lee, E.; Park, N.K.; Han, J.H. Gender difference in environmental attitude and behaviors in adoption of energy-efficient lighting at home. J. Sustain. Dev. 2013, 6, 36–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Hunter, L.M.; Hatch, A.; Johnson, A. Cross-national gender variation in environmental behaviors. Soc. Sci. Q. 2004, 85, 677–694. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Thormann, T.F.; Wicker, P. Willingness-to-pay for environmental measures in non-profit sport clubs. Sustainability 2021, 13, 2841. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Rusyani, E.; Lavuri, R.; Gunardi, A. Purchasing eco-sustainable products: Interrelationship between environmental knowledge, environmental concern, green attitude, and perceived behavior. Sustainability 2001, 13, 4601. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Booysen, F.; Guvuriro, S.; Campher, C. Horizontal and vertical individualism and collectivism and preferences for altruism: A social discounting study. Personal. Individ. Differ. 2021, 178, 110856. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Moser, A.K. Thinking green, buying green? Drivers of pro-environmental purchasing behavior. J. Consum. Mark. 2015, 32, 167–175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. H’Mida, S. Factors contributing in the formation of consumers’ environmental consciousness and shaping green purchasing decisions. In Proceedings of the 2009 International Conference on Computers & Industrial Engineering, Troyes, France, 6–9 July 2009; pp. 957–962. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Lee, I.H.; Hahn, J.H. Green consumers’ self-construal and commitment with the impact of environmental education. J. Vocat. Educ. Res. 2009, 28, 133–156. [Google Scholar]
  63. Tilikidou, I. The effects of knowledge and attitudes upon Greeks’ pro-environmental purchasing behavior. Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manag. 2007, 14, 121–134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Jing, W.; Yongquan, H. Effect of materialism on pro-environmental behavior among youth in China: The role of nature connectedness. Front. Psychol. 2022, 13, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Stern, P.C. Information, incentives, and pro-environmental consumer behavior. J. Consum. Policy 1999, 22, 461–478. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Sustainability 15 07596 g001 550
Figure 1. Research model.
Figure 1. Research model.
Sustainability 15 07596 g001
Sustainability 15 07596 g002 550
Figure 2. Factors affecting pro-environmental consumption behavior in the group with low environmental consciousness. Note: * p < 0.05, *** p < 0.001.
Figure 2. Factors affecting pro-environmental consumption behavior in the group with low environmental consciousness. Note: * p < 0.05, *** p < 0.001.
Sustainability 15 07596 g002
Sustainability 15 07596 g003 550
Figure 3. Factors affecting pro-environmental consumption behavior in the high environmental consciousness group. Note: * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001.
Figure 3. Factors affecting pro-environmental consumption behavior in the high environmental consciousness group. Note: * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001.
Sustainability 15 07596 g003
Table
Table 1. Demographic characteristics.
Table 1. Demographic characteristics.
VariableCharacteristicsS.D./%Mean/n
GenderFemale50.00236
Male50.00236
Education≤High school graduate21.19100
University graduate68.21322
>University graduate10.5950
Income
(Units: Monthly; €1 = ₩1450)		Under €140011.23153
€1400 to less than €210019.9294
€2100 to less than €280018.6488
€2800 to less than €350013.9866
€3500 to less than €420013.1462
€4200 to less than €49009.3244
€4900 to less than €56004.6622
€5600 to less than €63004.4521
€6300 to less than €70002.1210
Over €70002.5412
Age (years) 13.3144.33
Table
Table 2. Clusters.
Table 2. Clusters.
TotalCluster 1Cluster 2t-Statistic
N (%)472 (100.00)212 (44.92)260 (55.08)
M (S.D)M (S.D)M (S.D)
Environmental consciousness4.34 (0.49)3.89 (0.35)4.70 (0.20)−31.36 ***
Note: *** p < 0.001.
Table
Table 3. Differences in individualism, collectivism, materialism, WTP (willingness-to-pay) for environmental protection, and environmental consciousness between low and high environmental consciousness groups.
Table 3. Differences in individualism, collectivism, materialism, WTP (willingness-to-pay) for environmental protection, and environmental consciousness between low and high environmental consciousness groups.
Low Environmental Consciousness
(n = 212)		High Environmental Consciousness
(n = 260)		t-Statistic
MS.D.MS.D.
Individualism3.340.493.320.630.44
Collectivism3.570.483.790.59−4.31 ***
Materialism2.920.492.740.533.65 ***
WTP for environmental protection3.270.754.030.77−10.82 ***
Pro-environmental
consumption behavior		Purchase3.520.543.960.57−8.49 ***
Use3.500.523.960.57−9.03 ***
disposal3.620.553.930.62−5.61 ***
Note: *** p < 0.001.
Table
Table 4. Factors affecting pro-environmental consumption behavior in low environmental consciousness group.
Table 4. Factors affecting pro-environmental consumption behavior in low environmental consciousness group.
Pro-Environmental Consumption Behavior
PurchaseUseDisposal
BβSEBβSEBβSE
(constant)0.98 0.461.55 0.411.38 0.47
Control
variable		Gender (ref. Female)
Male−0.04−0.040.07−0.12−0.120.060.020.020.07
Age0.010.140.000.01 **0.210.000.000.030.00
Education level
(ref ≤High school graduate)
University graduate0.120.100.110.120.100.100.050.040.12
>University graduate0.210.150.140.26 *0.190.120.120.080.14
Income−0.03 *−0.140.02−0.01−0.060.010.030.130.02
Independent
variable		Individualism0.19 *0.170.070.090.080.070.050.040.07
Collectivism0.28 ***0.250.080.35 ***0.320.070.44 ***0.380.08
Materialism−0.13−0.120.08−0.07−0.070.070.070.060.08
WTP for
environmental protection		0.030.050.050.080.110.040.020.030.05
F(9, 202)5.26 ***9.14 ***5.18 ***
R20.1900.2900.188
Adj.R20.1540.2580.152
Note: * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001.
Table
Table 5. Factors affecting pro-environmental consumption behavior in the group with high environmental consciousness.
Table 5. Factors affecting pro-environmental consumption behavior in the group with high environmental consciousness.
Pro-Environmental Consumption Behavior
PurchaseUseDisposal
BβSEBβSEBβSE
(constant)2.90 0.432.82 0.422.89 0.47
Control
variable		Gender (ref. Female)
Male−0.06−0.050.07−0.15 *−0.130.070.010.010.08
Age0.000.020.000.000.050.00−0.01−0.120.00
Education level
(ref ≤High school graduate)
University graduate0.110.090.110.110.090.11−0.05−0.040.12
>University graduate0.190.140.130.160.120.130.010.010.14
Income−0.01−0.050.020.00−0.010.020.000.020.02
Independent
variable		Individualism0.030.030.060.020.030.06−0.03−0.030.06
Collectivism0.13 *0.130.060.15 **0.160.060.23 ***0.220.07
Materialism−0.13 *−0.120.07−0.13 *−0.120.06−0.03−0.020.07
WTP for
environmental protection		0.19 ***0.250.050.18 ***0.240.040.14 **0.180.05
F(9, 205)3.96 ***4.61 ***3.26 **
R20.1250.1420.105
Adj.R20.0930.1120.073
Note: * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001.
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

Cho, S.Y.; Jung, J. Effects of Individualism, Collectivism, Materialism, and Willingness to Pay for Environmental Protection on Environmental Consciousness and Pro-Environmental Consumption Behavior in Korea. Sustainability 2023, 15, 7596. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15097596

AMA Style

Cho SY, Jung J. Effects of Individualism, Collectivism, Materialism, and Willingness to Pay for Environmental Protection on Environmental Consciousness and Pro-Environmental Consumption Behavior in Korea. Sustainability. 2023; 15(9):7596. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15097596

Chicago/Turabian Style

Cho, So Yeon, and Joowon Jung. 2023. "Effects of Individualism, Collectivism, Materialism, and Willingness to Pay for Environmental Protection on Environmental Consciousness and Pro-Environmental Consumption Behavior in Korea" Sustainability 15, no. 9: 7596. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15097596

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