Next Article in Journal
Robustness Evaluation and Optimization of China’s Multilayer Coupled Integrated Transportation System from a Complex Network Perspective
Previous Article in Journal
Developing a Resource-Constrained Age-Friendly City Framework: A Mixed-Methods Study of Urban Aging in Bangkok, Thailand
Previous Article in Special Issue
Cultural Openness and Consumption Behavior in the MENA Region: A Dynamic Panel Analysis Using the GMM
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 17
Issue 16
10.3390/su17167396
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
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

The Effects of Responsible Consumerism on Impulsive Buying Behavior: The Mediating Role of Brand Literacy

by
Betül Buladi Çubukcu
Vocational Social Science School, Atatürk University, Yakutiye, Erzurum 25200, Türkiye
Sustainability 2025, 17(16), 7396; https://doi.org/10.3390/su17167396
Submission received: 1 July 2025 / Revised: 7 August 2025 / Accepted: 8 August 2025 / Published: 15 August 2025
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Consumer Behavior and Sustainable Consumption: Opportunities and Challenges)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

This study aims to analyze the effects of responsible consumption behavior on impulsive buying, and the mediating role of brand literacy in this relationship. Data collected from 524 Turkish participants using an online survey were analyzed using structural equation modeling (SEM). Responsible consumerism exhibited a negative direct effect on impulsive buying and a positive effect on brand literacy. Brand literacy, in turn, was negatively associated with impulsive buying and partially mediated the responsible consumerism–impulsive buying link. Over-consumption and impulsive buying have received considerable scholarly attention. Yet, only a small number of studies have tested whether value-driven orientations, such as responsible consumerism, can curb these impulses. Even fewer still probe the mediating cognitive role of consumer knowledge (e.g., brand literacy). Furthermore, most existing evidence comes from Western high-income settings. This study addresses that gap by empirically testing the responsible consumerism, brand literacy, and impulsive buying pathway in Türkiye, an emerging and rapidly digitalizing economy. Considering its cross-sectional nature and cultural limitations, this study recommends conducting future longitudinal studies and research in various cultural contexts.

1. Introduction

The gradual transition of societies into a “consumer society” involves not only financial, but also social, cultural, and psychological dimensions. While, in the past, people engaged in consumption to satisfy their staple needs, modern society considers consumption a way to display social differences, identities, and statuses. The underlying reason for this tendency is the consumer society’s call for individuals to generate new needs and desires constantly; as a result, they are frequently drawn into a dissatisfying consumption cycle [1].
One of the reflections of this situation is the emergence of the concept of “overconsumption.” Overconsumption is described as a phenomenon that triggers severe issues, including environmental pollution, depletion of natural resources, global poverty, and consumer dissatisfaction, which is often observed particularly in rich and developed societies [2]. Studies in the literature define overconsumption in the context of hedonic goods, such as food products, alcohol, tobacco, and other substantial product groups [3,4], emphasizing the environmental and social costs of this phenomenon, including the depletion of natural resources, environmental pollution, and poverty on a global scale [2,5]. The food consumption of humans has explicitly surpassed the planet’s biological capacity from an environmental perspective [6]. In particular, excessive food consumption leads to a decline in biodiversity, the depletion of freshwater resources, and a rise in greenhouse gas emissions [7], and construction activities, high energy use in buildings, and heavy vehicle traffic have observably adverse effects on the environment [8]. Additionally, the propensity of wealthy nations to overconsume, which leads to the overuse of resources, further deepens global inequality and poverty [2]. As a result, such an overconsumption-oriented lifestyle adversely affects personal welfare, paving the way for social and psychological issues, including stress, health problems, loss of time, loss of community, regret, and a decline in life satisfaction [2,9,10,11].
As stated, various social and psychological factors play a role in overconsumption. Among these, the most significant factor is that individuals consider happiness and self-satisfaction equal to acquiring more goods and services [12]. Such a valuing orientation leads individuals to set off on a quest for more goods and services acquisition. Despite the belief that overconsumption brings more happiness to people [13], studies indicate that this relationship is not as strong as anticipated [14]. Yet, consumers often compare themselves with others to elevate their social standing; as a result, it potentially leads them to make unnecessary spending [15]. Marketing strategies, especially aggressive advertising, personalized messages via social media and digital platforms, online shopping, and apps that offer easy access to credit, such as “buy now, pay later” practices, also seem to increase overconsumption by triggering impulsive buying [11,16].
One significant category of behavior that arises in this context is “impulsive buying.” Impulsive buying is a form of abrupt and impulsive buying performed without a pre-planned intention to purchase a specific product category or fulfill a specific purchasing task. Such behavior occurs spontaneously, without much consideration, when the urge to buy is felt momentarily [17]. Impulsive buying has a complex and multidimensional structure. While impulsive buying leads to overconsumption, excessive resource waste in society, and environmental and financial problems, it may also result in negative emotions, such as regret and guilt [18,19], financial difficulties, and serious family issues among individuals [20].
Studies discuss numerous reasons for impulsive buying, primarily categorizing them into psychological, cultural, and environmental factors. Indeed, the literature lists the factors affecting impulsive buying as serendipity (getting unexpected opportunities), trust and flow experience [21], poor self-control [22], high economic welfare, availability of capital and time, family influence [23], credit card use [23,24,25], marketing strategies, sales promotions [26], time pressure [27], narcissism [28], personality traits such as extraversion and neuroticism, negative emotional states, and collectivist cultural norms [29].
Despite the rich body of work on over-consumption and impulsive buying, only a small number of studies have investigated how value-driven orientations (such as responsible consumerism) can curb impulsive tendencies, and even fewer have explored the cognitive mechanisms through which this occurs. Existing research typically models responsible consumption and impulsive buying as independent phenomena or examines them in isolation, overlooking the mediating role of consumer knowledge structures (particularly brand literacy) in this relationship [21,22,23,30,31]. Moreover, most empirical evidence stems from Western high-income contexts, whereas research from emerging economies, where rapid digitalization and changing consumption patterns coexist, remains scarce [27,28,29].
The present study aims to close this gap by testing whether responsible consumerism reduces impulsive buying and whether brand literacy acts as an underlying mechanism. Clarifying this mechanism is important for two reasons: First, it advances theory by integrating pro-social value orientations with knowledge-based explanations of impulsivity. Second, it aspires to provide valuable insights for brand managers and policymakers to develop strategies focused on lowering impulsive buying and raising responsible consumption.

2. Hypothesis Development

2.1. Effects of Responsible Consumption Behavior

Responsible consumption refers to the optimal utilization of the world’s limited resources on a global scale [32], minimizing environmental impact by reducing resource usage, degradation, and pollution throughout a product’s lifecycle, and making informed and conscious consumption decisions for a sustainable future [33].
Similarly to responsible consumption, but with slightly different determinants, the literature review identified several other concepts. Ethical consumption refers to consumers who consider the non-traditional and social components of products and business processes in their purchase decisions, such as environmental protection, labor practices, and animal rights, reflecting their moral stances and willingness to reward or punish companies based on ethical conduct [34]. Often used interchangeably, socially responsible consumption is a broader concept where individuals base their acquisition, usage, and disposal of products on a desire to minimize or eliminate harmful effects and maximize beneficial impacts on society, including practices like purchasing based on corporate social responsibility performance, recycling, and avoiding products due to their environmental impact [35,36].
A specific subset of these concerns, green consumption, specifically focuses on environmentally friendly purchases, defining a green consumer as someone who takes their impact on the physical environment (air, water, and land) into account in order to minimize negative environmental effects; and, despite widespread concern, green products represent only a small fraction of global demand [37]. Meanwhile, socially conscious consumption involves an awareness of societal issues and the belief that individual consumption decisions can influence these issues, motivating consumers to modify their practices to lessen their individual impact on problems like climate change, recognizing that “little choices” can create positive reverberations [38]. Lastly, mindful consumption is a customer-centric approach to sustainability, characterized by a mindset of caring for self, community, and nature, which translates into temperance in acquisitive, repetitive, and aspirational consumption, signifying a conscious choice about what and how much one consumes, guided by personal values rather than external circumstances [39].
While it is helpful to review the concept of responsible consumption, it is critical to analyze its direct favorable or adverse effects on individual consumers, besides discussing the positive or negative impacts of consumption behaviors on society [40]. Responsible consumption behavior in this context is conceptualized as an inclusive and comprehensive structure that seeks to minimize destructive effects and maximize individual consumption outcomes (physical, socio-psychological, and financial) and beneficial societal impacts [41].
Recent studies increasingly examine how responsible consumption affects purchasing behavior. Accordingly, they listed factors affecting responsible consumption behavior as self-sufficiency, self-control, courage, conscientiousness [30], perceived sufficiency, emotional commitment, and materialism [42]. Responsible consumption behavior highlights the economic rationality dimension in consumers’ purchasing process wherein product content, warranty, price, brand image, and environmental information are further questioned and evaluated [31,43].
However, the effect of responsible consumption behavior on impulsive buying has not been the subject of much research. Since responsible consumption enables consumers to make a more mindful, ethical, and inquisitive purchasing process by considering certain aspects, it may make individuals more resilient to immediate emotional stimuli and fortify their internal control mechanisms. As a result, this study proposed the following hypothesis:
H1. 
Responsible consumerism has a direct negative effect on impulsive buying behavior.

2.2. Effects of Brand Literacy

Brand literacy refers to consumers’ level of knowledge about brands and their ability to accurately evaluate brand communications and brand culture [44]. This concept is closely related to consumers’ ability to recognize, remember, and interpret brands as a consequence of the processing in their memory of various stimuli to which they are exposed regarding brand names, logos, and products. Brand literacy includes a multifaceted framework that deepens the emotional bonds established between consumers and the brand, the humanoid features attributed to the brand, and the interaction that brands develop between consumers and their stories [45,46].
Brand literacy strengthens consumers’ purchasing intentions by improving their cognitive capacities and ability to evaluate perceptual stimuli. It also contributes to making more responsible and rational decisions by enabling consumers to comprehend brand features, competitive advantages, and price elements [47]. At this stage, individuals who engage in responsible consumption behavior may also tend to become more brand-literate, since they desire more information about the production methods, corporate social responsibility initiatives, and environmental or societal contributions of companies. As a result, brand-literate consumers potentially evaluate marketing campaigns with a more critical approach and may develop resilience to misleading practices so that they can control their needless or impulsive buying inclinations in this way. In light of this perspective, this study proposed the following hypotheses:
H2. 
Responsible consumerism has a direct positive effect on brand literacy.
H3. 
Brand literacy has a direct negative effect on impulsive buying behavior.
H4. 
Brand literacy mediates the relationship between responsible consumerism and impulsive buying behavior.

3. Materials and Methods

3.1. Data Collection

Before initiating the study, the Ataturk University Social and Human Sciences Ethics Committee provided ethical approval to conduct the research. In line with the study’s objectives, data were collected in Türkiye via an online survey administered to participants aged 18 years and older. The survey was administered online, and the link was disseminated to potential participants through email invitations and posts on social networking platforms (e.g., Facebook, LinkedIn). Informed consent was obtained from the participants.
The survey consisted of four sections. The first section included questions about participants’ demographic profiles. The second, third, and fourth sections measured brand literacy, responsible consumption behavior, and impulsive buying behavior, respectively. Both the Brand Literacy Scale [48] and the Impulsive Buying Scale [49] were scored on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 5 (Strongly Agree). The Brand Literacy Scale includes 19 items, while the Impulsive Buying Scale consists of 25 items across five subdimensions. In contrast, the Responsible Consumption Behavior Scale [50] comprises 19 items rated on a 4-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (Never) to 4 (Always), with three subdimensions.
This study collected the data between 18 October 2024 and 20 February 2025 by inviting 550 individuals. Although 550 individuals initially participated, the final analyses were conducted on 524 respondents after excluding cases with substantial missing data, failed attention-check items, or implausible response patterns.

3.2. Research Method

Considering the complex assumptions between the estimated and estimator variables and the relationships between the estimator variables, this study used the structural equation modeling (SEM) method to analyze these assumptions.
As an extension of path analysis, which allows us to identify the relationships between the observed and latent variables, structural equation modeling refers to a series of processes where complex hypotheses with path relationship networks are evaluated based on multivariate data. This method also helps to determine the interaction between the processes, their relative significances, and how the effects of changes in the systems spread [51].
This study applied structural equation modeling with a maximum likelihood estimation method using the SPSS 25.0 and AMOS 25.0 package programs. The model had complex relationships among multiple variables; thus, a two-stage procedure was used for the structural equation modeling. The first stage estimated the overall measurement reliability and validity. The second stage tested the hypotheses.

3.3. Data Analysis

In the data analysis phase, various statistical techniques were employed to examine the research questions. Initially, frequency and percentage analyses were conducted to describe the demographic profiles of the participants. To explore the relationships between the key variables, Pearson correlation analysis was performed. The internal consistency and reliability of the measurement instruments were assessed using Cronbach’s alpha coefficients. Additionally, composite reliability (CR) values and average variance extracted (AVE) scores were calculated to evaluate the convergent validity of the constructs within the measurement model. For hypothesis testing, a structural equation modeling (SEM) approach was utilized. The bootstrap method was applied with 2000 resamples to test both direct and indirect effects, and corresponding t-values and path coefficients were computed to assess the statistical significance of the proposed relationships.

3.4. Research Model and Hypotheses

The primary objective of this research was to analyze the mediating role in the effect of the responsible consumerism level on impulsive buying. In line with the research purpose, the responsible consumerism and impulsive purchasing variables were included in the model as independent and dependent variables, respectively, whereas brand literacy was regarded as the mediating variable. Accordingly, Figure 1 displays the research model.
Research hypotheses are as follows:
H1. 
Responsible consumerism has a direct negative effect on impulsive buying behavior.
H2. 
Responsible consumerism has a direct positive effect on brand literacy.
H3. 
Brand literacy has a direct negative effect on impulsive buying behavior.
H4. 
Brand literacy mediates the relationship between responsible consumerism and impulsive buying behavior.

4. Results

4.1. Findings About Demographic Profiles

As provided in Table 1, this section summarizes the findings related to the demographic profiles of the 524 participants.
Of the 524 study participants, 48.09% were female (n: 252) and 51.91% were male (n: 272). Considering the educational status of the participants, 19.27% were primary and secondary school graduates (n: 80 and 101), 16.98% were high school graduates (n: 89), 19.27% had an associate degree (n: 101), 29.20% had a bachelor’s degree (n: 153), and 15.27% had a master’s degree or higher (n: 252). Regarding the income status of the participants, 25% had an income level of 10,000 TL or lower (n: 131), 30.73% had 10,001–40,000 TL (n: 161), 20.99% had 40,001–70,000 TL (n: 110), and 23.28% had 70,001 TL or higher (n: 122). Regarding the ages of the participants, 26.72% were between 18 and 28 (n: 140), 28.44% were between 29 and 39 (n: 149), 30.15% were between 40 and 50 (n: 158), and 14.69% were 51 or older (n: 77). Overall, the demographic profiles of the sample reflect a balanced gender distribution, a wide range of educational backgrounds, varying income levels, and diverse age groups. This heterogeneity enhances the representativeness of the sample and allows for a more comprehensive examination of how factors such as gender, education, income, and age may influence responsible consumption behavior, brand literacy, and impulsive buying tendencies.

4.2. Evaluation of the Measurement Model

For the estimation of the measurement model, composite reliability (CR), Cronbach’s alpha, and average variance extracted (AVE) values were analyzed. CR and Cronbach’s alpha values were also used to verify internal consistency. The test results shows that all latent variables had CR and AVE values higher than 0.70, indicating higher internal consistency [52].
The AVE was calculated to verify convergent validity. As shown in Table 2, all AVE values were higher than the threshold of 0.50, which indicated satisfactory validity [53]. The AVE values are also used to measure discriminant validity and test structural differences from others. According to the criteria of Fornell and Larcker (1981), the correlation of each structure with its indicators should be higher than its correlation with other structures [53]. The bold and italic values demonstrate AVE values in Table 3. The square root AVE value was greater than the values explaining the correlations between variables; thus, these values indicate discriminant validity (Table 3). Additionally, when the AVE value of a latent variable, 0.460 and 0.483 in the measurement model, is lower than the threshold value of 0.50 and the composite reliability (CR) value of the latent variable is 0.60 or above, the relevant latent variable is considered to meet the convergent validity condition [54]. Fornell and Larcker (1981) also indicated that if the reliability value is higher than 0.6 and AVE values are less than 0.5 in terms of internal consistency, the convergent validity of the structure is deemed admissible [53].
Table 3 displays the AVE values in bold and italic. Accordingly, analyses revealed that the square root AVE value was higher than the values demonstrating the correlation between the variables, which indicates strong discriminant validity. Considering the interpretation of the Pearson product–moment correlation coefficient, the following indicates the relationship levels in varying r values: r = 0.00 no relationship; r = 0.01–0.29 poor relationship; r = 0.30–0.70 moderate relationship; r = 0.71–0.99 high relationship; and r = 1.00 perfect (strong) relationship [55]. As a result, the correlation analysis revealed a positive and moderately strong relationship between brand literacy and responsible consumerism (r = 0.482, p < 0.01), indicating that individuals with higher levels of brand literacy tend to engage more in responsible consumer behaviors. Furthermore, a moderately strong negative relationship was found between brand literacy and impulsive buying (r = −0.614, p < 0.01), suggesting that individuals with greater brand knowledge and awareness are less likely to engage in impulsive purchases. Similarly, the negative relationship between responsible consumerism and impulsive buying (r = −0.447, p < 0.01) implies that consumers who adopt more responsible consumption habits are less inclined toward impulsive buying tendencies.

4.3. Hypothesis Testing of Direct Effects

This study used AMOS 27.0 software to calculate t-values and path coefficients by running the bootstrap method 2000 times to test the research hypotheses and produce more reliable results. Table 4 and Figure 2 present the structural model test findings.
The structural model resulted in the following goodness of fit values: X2 = 418.711, df = 321, X2/df = 1.304, CFI = 0.986, NFI = 0.943, GFI = 0.945, IFI = 0.986, and RMSEA = 0.024. All of these fit indices are within the limits of goodness of fit [56].
Detailed analyses of Figure 2 and Table 5 reveal that responsible consumerism has a negative and statistically significant direct effect on impulsive buying behavior (β = −0.20, p < 0.001). Accordingly, this finding supports the first hypothesis (H1), indicating that a one-unit increase in responsible consumerism corresponds to a 0.20 unit decrease in impulsive buying tendencies. This suggests that individuals who adopt more responsible consumption habits are less prone to making spontaneous and unplanned purchases.
Responsible consumerism has a positive and statistically significant direct effect on brand literacy (β = 0.60, p < 0.001). This result supports the second hypothesis (H2), indicating that a 1 unit increase in responsible consumerism corresponds to a 0.60 unit increase in brand literacy. In practical terms, this suggests that individuals who are more engaged in responsible consumer behavior tend to possess higher levels of brand knowledge, awareness, and critical evaluation skills.
Brand literacy has a negative and statistically significant direct effect on impulsive buying behavior (β = −0.57, p < 0.001). This result supports the third hypothesis (H3), indicating that a 1 unit increase in the participants’ brand literacy levels will generate a 0.57 unit decrease in their impulsive buying behavior.

4.4. Hypothesis Testing of Indirect Effects

This study tested indirect effects to prove the H4 hypothesis. Accordingly, confidence intervals were generated and tested by running the bootstrap procedure with 2000 samples. Table 6 displays the mediating effected results.
An analysis of the mediating effect in Table 6 reveals that responsible consumerism (β = −0.343, LB-UB [−0.393, −0.303], p < 0.05) leads to a decline in impulsive buying behavior through brand literacy. The fact that the p-value was less than 0.05 and the confidence intervals exclude zero (0) expressly support the fourth hypothesis (H4). This suggests that higher levels of responsible consumerism enhance brand literacy, which in turn suppresses impulsive purchasing tendencies.

5. Discussion

This study introduces an integrated model to analyze the effect of responsible consumerism level on impulsive buying behavior, and tests the mediating role of brand literacy. This study utilized structural equation modeling using the data collected from 524 participants, indicating that the model displayed a high level of fit. Accordingly, the findings reveal the following: (i) responsible consumerism significantly and negatively affects impulsive buying behavior, (ii) responsible consumerism significantly and positively affects brand literacy, (iii) brand literacy significantly and negatively affects impulsive buying behavior, and (iv) brand literacy moderately mediates the relationship between responsible consumerism and impulsive buying. These findings suggest that raising consumers’ awareness of ethical, responsible, and sustainable values enhances their critical evaluation skills towards marketing stimuli and, therefore, minimizes their propensity for impulsive purchases.
Dhandra (2019) found a positive relationship between awareness, green purchasing intention, and frugality, but a negative relationship with materialism [57]. This finding suggests that awareness helps individuals to develop a sense of care for themselves, nature, and society, which is positively reflected in their consumption behavior. Additionally, the negative relationship with materialism indicates that individuals with high awareness are less prone to unsustainable consumption patterns. This finding by Dhandra (2019) resonates with the current study’s results, where higher levels of responsible consumerism significantly reduce impulsive buying behavior while enhancing brand literacy [57]. These outcomes suggest that consumer awareness plays a key role in promoting critical evaluation skills and discouraging spontaneous purchasing, reinforcing Dhandra’s conclusions within our research context. In a study on impulsive food product buying, Leksono and He (2025) emphasized that loyalty discounts stimulate long-term responsible consumption and thus reduce impulsive buying [58]. Furthermore, Lira and Costa (2022) reported that responsible consumption intention positively affected slow fashion consumption [59].
The present study reveals that responsible consumerism positively and significantly affects brand literacy. In the literature, no study indicates a direct effect from responsible consumerism on brand literacy; nevertheless, Bittar (2018) reported that the level of environmental awareness among consumers had no direct influence on their intention to buy remanufactured products [60]. Accordingly, this suggests that, primarily, in this specific context, environmental concerns may be less effective than brand choice. However, the same study emphasized that brand equity is a significant factor in consumers’ intention to buy remanufactured products. Even if a responsible consumer considers buying remanufactured products due to their environmental impacts, a reliable brand may increase purchasing likelihood by lowering the perceived risk of these remanufactured products. Accordingly, this data suggests that a responsible consumer may consider environmental benefits in addition to evaluating brand knowledge (literacy).
Kumar et al. (2023) reported that consumers’ perceived brand ethicality positively influenced participation in online brand communities, revealing that consumers are paying more and more attention to the ethical behavior of brands and that their ethical perceptions shape their interactions with the brand [61]. As part of their brand literacy, responsible consumers may put additional effort into considering and evaluating the ethical values of brands. Ethical practices displayed by brands through various channels, including sponsorships, social responsibility activities, and advertising communications, potentially increase the brand knowledge of responsible consumers. This aligns with our findings, which demonstrate that responsible consumerism significantly enhances brand literacy, suggesting that consumers with higher responsibility awareness are indeed more attentive to brand ethics and integrate such evaluations into their purchasing decisions.
Lawlor et al. (2016), studying children’s advertising literacy, emphasized the significance of consumers’ (in this case, children’s) ability to comprehend the commercial purposes of brands and the persuasion tactics [62]. Responsible consumerism requires consumers to critically evaluate the claims of brands and the motivations and potential misleading aspects behind these claims. In this context, advertising literacy is an essential component of responsible consumerism and enables consumers to interpret brand messages more thoughtfully. Consistent with Lawlor et al.’s (2016) emphasis on advertising literacy, our results show that consumers who score higher on responsible consumerism also demonstrate greater ability to decode persuasive claims, which in turn aligns with their tendency to make more deliberate, less impulsive purchases [62].
As a result, although studies in the literature do not specifically address the impact of responsible consumerism on brand literacy, it can be inferred that various dimensions of responsible consumerism (environmental concerns, ethical values, and advertising criticism) potentially influence brand perception and the ability to comprehend and assess brand communication (brand literacy). Responsible consumers may be more inclined to learn about brands, question their values, and critically analyze brand communications, which may indirectly elevate brand literacy. However, as Bittar (2018) noted, in some cases, elements like brand credibility or economic considerations may limit the direct effect of responsible consumerism on particular behaviors [60].
Another valuable outcome of this study is that brand literacy significantly and negatively affects impulsive buying behavior, and brand literacy moderately mediates the relationship between responsible consumerism and impulsive buying. Nyrhinen et al. (2024) reported that consumers’ persuasion knowledge—the capacity to recognize and comprehend the marketer’s motives, strategies, and tactics—affected their perspectives and responses toward targeted advertisements [63]. Since brand literacy also involves considering brands’ communication methods and marketing efforts, consumers with high brand literacy may more critically evaluate the potential effects of targeted advertisements and social media interactions on impulsive buying. As a result, they may minimize their impulsive buying behavior. Studying how product recommendations on social media influence the desire for impulsive buying, Chen et al. (2019) reported that affective trust towards the recommender directly and positively influenced impulsive buying behavior [64]. Brand literacy may help consumers evaluate the credibility of recommendations made by the brand’s official accounts or associates. Additional information about a brand may enable consumers to interpret their references more intentionally, which may affect their impulsive buying decisions. The subject-related studies in the literature failed to analyze the direct effect of brand literacy on impulsive buying. However, it is possible to establish an indirect relationship through concepts, including brand identification, persuasion knowledge, and trust in recommenders. Such related studies indirectly support the conclusions of the present study.

5.1. Implications

This research advances the ethics of consumption literature by uniting responsible consumerism, brand literacy, and impulsive buying within a single structural model. Demonstrating that brand literacy mediates the relationship between responsible consumerism and impulsive buying extends cognitive explanations of ethical purchasing by revealing how informational competencies temper affect-driven decisions. By situating responsible consumption within a broader sustainability and well-being paradigm, this study creates a conceptual link between environmental psychology and consumer behavior.
From a practical perspective, the findings highlight the importance of promoting consumer education programs that enhance brand literacy as a tool for curbing impulsive buying. Marketers and retailers are encouraged to adopt socially responsible marketing strategies that align with sustainable consumption values. Policymakers and educators can also benefit from this research by designing campaigns and curricula that cultivate critical thinking about consumption patterns, ultimately contributing to individuals’ financial well-being and overall life satisfaction.

5.2. Future Directions

Future investigations should employ longitudinal or experimental designs to clarify causal pathways and strengthen temporal inferences. Comparative studies across cultures could determine whether the relationships documented here hold under differing societal norms and market conditions. Researchers might also enrich the model by incorporating variables such as digital payment adoption, social media influence, self-control, or materialism, thereby testing the boundaries of brand literacy’s protective effect. Intervention based work, particularly studies that introduce brand literacy training, could provide valuable evidence of how educational programs translate into measurable reductions in impulsive buying.

5.3. Limitations

This study has certain limitations that should be acknowledged. First, the cross-sectional design limits the ability to establish causal relationships among responsible consumerism, brand literacy, and impulsive buying behavior. Second, data were collected using an online self-report questionnaire, which may be susceptible to social desirability bias and limits the control over sampling diversity. Third, the sample was composed solely of Turkish participants, which restricts the generalizability of the findings across different cultural and socioeconomic contexts.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

This study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and was approved by the Atatürk University Social and Human Sciences Ethics Committee Presidency (protocol code: E.88656144-000-2400365133; date: 5 November 2024).

Informed Consent Statement

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

Data Availability Statement

The datasets used and/or analyzed in the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Conflicts of Interest

The author declares no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Baudrillard, J. The Consumer Society: Myths and Structures; SAGE Publications Ltd.: London, UK, 1998; ISBN 978-1-4739-8238-3. [Google Scholar]
  2. Alexander, S.; Ussher, S. The Voluntary Simplicity Movement: A Multi-National Survey Analysis in Theoretical Context. J. Consum. Cult. 2012, 12, 66–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Barson, J.R.; Morganstern, I.; Leibowitz, S.F. Similarities in Hypothalamic and Mesocorticolimbic Circuits Regulating the Overconsumption of Food and Alcohol. Physiol. Behav. 2011, 104, 128–137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Quick, B.L.; Bates, B.R. The Use of Gain- or Loss-Frame Messages and Efficacy Appeals to Dissuade Excessive Alcohol Consumption Among College Students: A Test of Psychological Reactance Theory. J. Health Commun. 2010, 15, 603–628. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Durning, A.T. How Much Is Enough? The Consumer Society and the Future of the Earth, 1st ed.; The Worldwatch Environmental Alert Series; Norton: New York, NY, USA, 1992; ISBN 978-0-393-03383-0. [Google Scholar]
  6. Wackernagel, M.; Schulz, N.B.; Deumling, D.; Linares, A.C.; Jenkins, M.; Kapos, V.; Monfreda, C.; Loh, J.; Myers, N.; Norgaard, R.; et al. Tracking the Ecological Overshoot of the Human Economy. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2002, 99, 9266–9271. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Joshua, J. The Environmental Effects of Overconsumption. In The Economics of Addictive Behaviours Volume IV; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2017; pp. 67–73. ISBN 978-3-319-62535-5. [Google Scholar]
  8. Tukker, A.; Jansen, B. Environmental Impacts of Products: A Detailed Review of Studies. J. Ind. Ecol. 2006, 10, 159–182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Håkansson, A. What Is Overconsumption?—A Step towards a Common Understanding. Int. J. Consum. Stud. 2014, 38, 692–700. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Hensher, M.; Canny, B.; Zimitat, C.; Campbell, J.; Palmer, A. Health Care, Overconsumption and Uneconomic Growth: A Conceptual Framework. Soc. Sci. Med. 2020, 266, 113420. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  11. Jain, M.; Bara, A.B. Over-Consumerism and Its Impact on Sustainable Business. Int. J. Sci. Res. Eng. Manag. 2024, 8, 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Brown, G.D.A.; Gathergood, J. Consumption Changes, Not Income Changes, Predict Changes in Subjective Well-Being. Soc. Psychol. Personal. Sci. 2020, 11, 64–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Brown, P.M.; Cameron, L.D. What Can Be Done to Reduce Overconsumption? Ecol. Econ. 2000, 32, 27–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Moldes, O. Beyond Experiential Spending: Consumers Report Higher Well-being from Purchases That Satisfy Intrinsic Goals. Br. J. Soc. Psychol. 2023, 62, 883–897. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Garriga, C. Overconsumption, Reference Groups, and Equilibrium Efficiency. Econ. Lett. 2006, 91, 420–424. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Kasser, T.; Kanner, A.D. (Eds.) Psychology and Consumer Culture: The Struggle for a Good Life in a Materialistic World; American Psychological Association: Washington, DC, USA, 2004; ISBN 978-1-59147-046-5. [Google Scholar]
  17. Beatty, S.E.; Elizabeth Ferrell, M. Impulse Buying: Modeling Its Precursors. J. Retail. 1998, 74, 169–191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Kang, M.; Johnson, K. Identifying Characteristics of Consumers Who Frequently Return Apparel. J. Fash. Mark. Manag. Int. J. 2009, 13, 37–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Miao, L.; Mattila, A.S. Impulse Buying in Restaurant Food Consumption. J. Foodserv. Bus. Res. 2013, 16, 448–467. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Obukhovich, S.; Sipilä, J.; Tarkiainen, A. Post-purchase Effects of Impulse Buying: A Review and Research Agenda. J. Consum. Behav. 2024, 23, 1512–1527. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Bao, Z.; Yang, J. Why Online Consumers Have the Urge to Buy Impulsively: Roles of Serendipity, Trust and Flow Experience. Manag. Decis. 2022, 60, 3350–3365. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Vohs, K.D.; Faber, R.J. Spent Resources: Self-Regulatory Resource Availability Affects Impulse Buying. J. Consum. Res. 2007, 33, 537–547. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Badgaiyan, A.J.; Verma, A. Does Urge to Buy Impulsively Differ from Impulsive Buying Behaviour? Assessing the Impact of Situational Factors. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2015, 22, 145–157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Gawior, B.; Polasik, M.; del Olmo, J.L. Credit Card Use, Hedonic Motivations, and Impulse Buying Behavior in Fast Fashion Physical Stores during COVID-19: The Sustainability Paradox. Sustainability 2022, 14, 4133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Roberts, J.A.; Jones, E. Money Attitudes, Credit Card Use, and Compulsive Buying among American College Students. J. Consum. Aff. 2001, 35, 213–240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Liao, S.; Shen, Y.; Chu, C. The Effects of Sales Promotion Strategy, Product Appeal and Consumer Traits on Reminder Impulse Buying Behaviour. Int. J. Consum. Stud. 2009, 33, 274–284. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Liu, X.S.; Shi, Y.; Xue, N.I.; Shen, H. The Impact of Time Pressure on Impulsive Buying: The Moderating Role of Consumption Type. Tour. Manag. 2022, 91, 104505. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Cai, H.; Shi, Y.; Fang, X.; Luo, Y.L.L. Narcissism Predicts Impulsive Buying: Phenotypic and Genetic Evidence. Front. Psychol. 2015, 6, 881. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Wang, Y.; Pan, J.; Xu, Y.; Luo, J.; Wu, Y. The Determinants of Impulsive Buying Behavior in Electronic Commerce. Sustainability 2022, 14, 7500. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Song, S.Y.; Kim, Y.-K. Theory of Virtue Ethics: Do Consumers’ Good Traits Predict Their Socially Responsible Consumption? J. Bus. Ethics 2018, 152, 1159–1175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Sharma, K.; Aswal, C.; Paul, J. Factors Affecting Green Purchase Behavior: A Systematic Literature Review. Bus. Strategy Environ. 2023, 32, 2078–2092. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Fisk, G. Criteria for a Theory of Responsible Consumption. J. Mark. 1973, 37, 24–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Nangia, P.; Bansal, S.; Thaichon, P. Doing More with Less: An Integrative Literature Review on Responsible Consumption Behaviour. J. Consum. Behav. 2024, 23, 141–155. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Auger, P.; Devinney, T.M.; Louviere, J.J.; Burke, P.F. Do Social Product Features Have Value to Consumers? Int. J. Res. Mark. 2008, 25, 183–191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Webb, D.J.; Mohr, L.A.; Harris, K.E. A Re-Examination of Socially Responsible Consumption and Its Measurement. J. Bus. Res. 2008, 61, 91–98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Prendergast, G.P.; Tsang, A.S.L. Explaining Socially Responsible Consumption. J. Consum. Mark. 2019, 36, 146–154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Gleim, M.R.; Smith, J.S.; Andrews, D.; Cronin, J.J. Against the Green: A Multi-Method Examination of the Barriers to Green Consumption. J. Retail. 2013, 89, 44–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. DeVincenzo, M.H.; Scammon, D. Principle-Based Consumption Communities: Exploring the Meanings Derived from Socially Conscious Consumption Practices. J. Public Policy Mark. 2015, 34, 143–155. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Sheth, J.N.; Sethia, N.K.; Srinivas, S. Mindful Consumption: A Customer-Centric Approach to Sustainability. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 2011, 39, 21–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Brinkmann, J.; Peattie, K. Consumer Ethics Research: Reframing the Debate about Consumption for Good. EJBO-Electron. J. Bus. Ethics Organ. Stud. 2008, 13, 22–31. [Google Scholar]
  41. Buerke, A.; Straatmann, T.; Lin-Hi, N.; Müller, K. Consumer Awareness and Sustainability-Focused Value Orientation as Motivating Factors of Responsible Consumer Behavior. Rev. Manag. Sci. 2017, 11, 959–991. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Ríos-Rodríguez, M.L.; Salgado-Cacho, J.M.; Moreno-Jiménez, P. What Impacts Socially Responsible Consumption? Sustainability 2021, 13, 4258. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Szczepańska, M. Responsible Consumption In The Purchasing Decisions Of Young Consumers. Humanit. Soc. Sci. Q. 2024, 31, 175–185. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Bengtsson, A.; Fırat, A.F. Brand Literacy: Consumers’ Sense-Making of Brand Management. Adv. Consum. Res. 2006, 33, 375. [Google Scholar]
  45. Herskovitz, S.; Crystal, M. The Essential Brand Persona: Storytelling and Branding. J. Bus. Strategy 2010, 31, 21–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Rajagopal, A. Research Continuum on Consumer Education and Brand Knowledge: A Critical Analysis. J. Transnatl. Manag. 2017, 22, 235–259. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Rajagopal, N.A.; Rajagopal, A. Brand Literacy and Knowledge Transfer Process: Analysis of Purchase Intentions among Consumers in Mexico. Int. J. Bus. Innov. Res. 2018, 16, 302. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Yapicioğlu Ayaz, Y.; Karpat Aktuğlu, I. Marka Okuryazarlığı Konusuna Yönelik Ölçek Geliştirme Süreci Üzerine Bir Çalışma. Gümüşhane Üniversitesi İletişim Fakültesi Elektron. Derg. 2022, 10, 519–549. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Günel, Y. İmpulsif (Anlık) Satın Almaya Yönelik Ölçek Geliştirme Çalışması. MANAS Sos. Araştırmalar Derg. 2024, 13, 594–612. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Sağlam, H.İ. Bilinçli Tüketicilik Düzeyi Ölçeği Çalıması. Uluslar. İnsan Bilim. Derg. 2010, 1, 1190–1200. [Google Scholar]
  51. Grace, J.B. Structural Equation Modeling for Observational Studies. J. Wildl. Manag. 2008, 72, 14–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Nunnally, J.C.; Bernstein, B.H. Psychological Theory; McGraw Hill: New York, NY, USA, 1994. [Google Scholar]
  53. Fornell, C.; Larcker, D.F. Evaluating Structural Equation Models with Unobservable Variables and Measurement Error. J. Mark. Res. 1981, 18, 39–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Huang, C.-C.; Wang, Y.-M.; Wu, T.-W.; Wang, P.-A. An Empirical Analysis of the Antecedents and Performance Consequences of Using the Moodle Platform. Int. J. Inf. Educ. Technol. 2013, 3, 217–221. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Köklü, N.; Büyüköztürk, Ş.; Bökeoğlu, Ö.Ç. Sosyal Bilimler İçin İstatistik; Pagem Yayıncılık: Ankara, Turkey, 2006. [Google Scholar]
  56. Schermelleh-Engel, K.; Moosbrugger, H.; Müller, H. Evaluating the Fit of Structural Equation Models: Tests of Significance and Descriptive Goodness-of-Fit Measures. Methods Psychol. Res. 2003, 8, 23–74. [Google Scholar]
  57. Dhandra, T.K. Achieving Triple Dividend through Mindfulness: More Sustainable Consumption, Less Unsustainable Consumption and More Life Satisfaction. Ecol. Econ. 2019, 161, 83–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Leksono, A.B.; He, Y. Reducing Food Waste in Indonesia: Examining the Moderating Roles of Impulsive Buying and Value-Seeking in Discount Strategies. Sustainability 2025, 17, 747. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Lira, J.S.D.; Costa, M.F.D. Theory of Planned Behavior, Ethics and Intention of Conscious Consumption in Slow Fashion Consumption. J. Fash. Mark. Manag. Int. J. 2022, 26, 905–925. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Bittar, A.D.V. Selling Remanufactured Products: Does Consumer Environmental Consciousness Matter? J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 181, 527–536. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Kumar, V.; Kaushal, V. Shashi Role of Customer Perceived Brand Ethicality in Inducing Engagement in Online Brand Communities. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2023, 71, 103184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Lawlor, M.-A.; Dunne, Á.; Rowley, J. Young Consumers’ Brand Communications Literacy in a Social Networking Site Context. Eur. J. Mark. 2016, 50, 2018–2040. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Nyrhinen, J.; Sirola, A.; Koskelainen, T.; Munnukka, J.; Wilska, T.-A. Online Antecedents for Young Consumers’ Impulse Buying Behavior. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2024, 153, 108129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Chen, Y.; Lu, Y.; Wang, B.; Pan, Z. How Do Product Recommendations Affect Impulse Buying? An Empirical Study on WeChat Social Commerce. Inf. Manag. 2019, 56, 236–248. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Sustainability 17 07396 g001
Figure 1. Research model.
Figure 1. Research model.
Sustainability 17 07396 g001
Sustainability 17 07396 g002
Figure 2. Research model test results.
Figure 2. Research model test results.
Sustainability 17 07396 g002
Table 1. Demographic profiles of the participants.
Table 1. Demographic profiles of the participants.
Demographic ProfilesGroupn%
GenderWoman25248.09
Man27251.91
Educational StatusPrimary and Secondary School10119.27
High School8916.98
Associate Degree10119.27
Bachelor’s Degree15329.20
Master’s Degree+8015.27
Income Status10,000 TL (−)13125.00
10,001–40,000 TL16130.73
40,001–70,000 TL11020.99
70,001 TL+12223.28
Age Groups18–2814026.72
29–3914928.44
40–5015830.15
51+7714.69
Total524100.00
Table 2. Measurement model results.
Table 2. Measurement model results.
Latent VariableObserved VariablesIndicator LoadingsCronbach’s AlphaCRAVE
Brand LiteracyMKY1 a0.9380.9390.9400.460
MKY20.649
MKY30.633
MKY40.680
MKY50.673
MKY60.639
MKY70.633
MKY80.654
MKY90.658
MKY100.641
MKY110.652
MKY120.677
MKY130.665
MKY140.651
MKY150.612
MKY160.643
MKY170.667
MKY180.649
MKY190.669
Responsible Consumerism LevelTSB b0.9700.9170.7160.483
KB c0.539
BFB d0.468
Impulsive Buying LevelKK e0.9120.9540.8860.611
RH f0.824
AT g0.771
PD h0.670
OD ı0.707
a Brand literacy, b consumer responsibility awareness, c quality awareness, d budget price awareness, e irresistibility, f mood, g desire satisfaction, h impulsive behavior, ı favorable emotion.
Table 3. Discriminant validity results.
Table 3. Discriminant validity results.
VariablesMOY aBT bSTN-ALM c
MOY0.460
BT0.482 **0.483
STN-ALM−0.614 **−0.447 **0.611
Square root AVE0.6780.6950.782
a Brand Literacy, b Responsible Consumerism Level, c Impulsive Buying Level. Note: ** p < 0.01.
Table 4. Goodness of fit values of model results.
Table 4. Goodness of fit values of model results.
Fit IndicesGood FitAdmissible FitValueInterpretation
X2 418.711
df 321
X2/df0 < X2 < 22 < X2 < 51.304Good Fit
CFI a0.95 < CFI < 10.90 < CFI < 0.950.986Good Fit
NFI b0.95 < NFI < 10.90 < NFI < 0.950.943Admissible
GFI c0.95 < GFI < 10.90 < GFI < 0.950.945Admissible
IFI d0.95 < IFI < 10.90 < IFI < 0.950.986Good Fit
RMSEA e0 < RMSEA < 0.050.05 < RMSEA < 10.024Good Fit
a Comparative fit index, b normed fit index, c goodness of fit index, d incremental fit index, e root mean square error of approximation.
Table 5. Path analysis results with maximum likelihood estimates.
Table 5. Path analysis results with maximum likelihood estimates.
HypothesisPathEstimateS.E.C.R.pSupported?
H1BT⇒STN_ALM−0.200.048−4.325***Yes
H2BT⇒MOY0.600.06310.275***Yes
H3MOY⇒STN_ALM−0.570.052−10.6***Yes
Note: *** p < 0.001.
Table 6. Mediating effect results.
Table 6. Mediating effect results.
Bootstrap 95% CI
HypothesisPathIndirect Effect CoefficientpLower BoundUpper BoundSupported?
H4BT==>MOY==>STN_ALM−0.3430.011 *−0.393−0.303Yes
Note: * p < 0.05.
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

Buladi Çubukcu, B. The Effects of Responsible Consumerism on Impulsive Buying Behavior: The Mediating Role of Brand Literacy. Sustainability 2025, 17, 7396. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17167396

AMA Style

Buladi Çubukcu B. The Effects of Responsible Consumerism on Impulsive Buying Behavior: The Mediating Role of Brand Literacy. Sustainability. 2025; 17(16):7396. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17167396

Chicago/Turabian Style

Buladi Çubukcu, Betül. 2025. "The Effects of Responsible Consumerism on Impulsive Buying Behavior: The Mediating Role of Brand Literacy" Sustainability 17, no. 16: 7396. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17167396

APA Style

Buladi Çubukcu, B. (2025). The Effects of Responsible Consumerism on Impulsive Buying Behavior: The Mediating Role of Brand Literacy. Sustainability, 17(16), 7396. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17167396

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