Next Article in Journal
Identifying Suitable Locations for Water Harvesting Structures in Dryland Watersheds to Mitigate Flooding and Erosion Using High-Resolution Topographic Data and Multi-Criteria Analysis
Previous Article in Journal
Sustainable Bio-Epoxy Fabric-Reinforced Composites for Structural Insulated Panels
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 18
Issue 11
10.3390/su18115494
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

From Guilt to Pride: Exploring Emotional Drivers of Consumer Preferences for Sustainable Plant Containers

by
Michael Batame
1,*,
Alexa J. Lamm
1,
Kevan W. Lamm
1,
James Owen, Jr.
2,
James Altland
2 and
Sarah A. White
3
1
Department of Agricultural Leadership, Education, and Communication, University of Georgia, Athens, GA 30602, USA
2
Application Technology Research Unit, United States Department of Agriculture Agricultural Research Service, Wooster, OH 44691, USA
3
Department of Plant and Environmental Sciences, Clemson University, Clemson, SC 29634, USA
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2026, 18(11), 5494; https://doi.org/10.3390/su18115494
Submission received: 7 May 2026 / Revised: 21 May 2026 / Accepted: 23 May 2026 / Published: 1 June 2026
Versions Notes

Abstract

Concern about the sustainability of traditional single-use plastic pots is growing as the adverse environmental effects of plastic use become increasingly apparent worldwide. Research shows economic and eco-friendly alternatives to replace plastics across multiple industries are needed. Consumers have a choice when selecting products made with plastic versus alternatives. Research indicates consumers’ choices are often influenced by core values, but the extent to which these values shape the purchase of horticultural products is limited and warrants further study. The purpose of this research was to determine how consumers’ environmental self-identity, self-awareness, and demographic characteristics predicted their emotional reactions, particularly guilt and pride, when purchasing plants grown in plastic pots compared to alternative pots. Data were collected from 1235 United States residents aged 18 and older using an online survey via non-probability opt-in sampling. Environmental self-identity significantly predicted emotional reactions. A stronger environmental self-identity predicted higher levels of guilt when purchasing plants grown in plastic pots and increased pride when purchasing plants grown in plastic-alternative pots. A paired-sample t-test indicated significantly more positive emotional reactions when purchasing plants grown in plastic-alternative pots than those grown in plastic pots. Furthermore, age, sex, income, self-awareness, and political ideology were associated with differences in emotional reactions to pot-type purchases. The findings imply emotion and value-based factors influence sustainable purchasing decisions. Given this, companies should tailor their marketing and communication strategies to align with consumers’ environmental self-identity, thereby encouraging the adoption of sustainable alternatives and supporting a shift away from plastic use in the horticulture industry.

1. Introduction

Plastics have become a part of everyday life, with over 8.2 trillion kg of plastic produced since the invention of synthetic polymers in 1869 [1,2]. It is estimated that 79% of plastic products ended up in landfills, while 9% were recycled [1,2]. The United States (U.S.) has contributed significantly to global plastic generation. In 2018, 13.2 billion kg of plastic was generated in the U.S, including plastic materials and packaging category, including bottles, bags, jugs, sacks, and lids [2]. Schrader [3] found the horticulture industry in the U.S. used over 754 million kg of petroleum-based single-use plastics annually. Plastic pots have predominantly been used in U.S. nursery and greenhouse production for more than 50 years because they are affordable, durable, easy to process and ship, and available in various sizes and shapes that support retail distribution [4,5,6]. The widespread single-use of plastic pots in greenhouse and nursery production in the U.S. is exacerbated by municipalities lacking recycling options [7] and the plastic pots being contaminated with plant debris and chemicals, making them difficult to use more than once [2].
Consequently, there is growing interest in shifting away from single-use plastic packaging material toward more sustainable alternatives, given the adverse environmental impacts of plastics [8,9,10], particularly plastic pots within the horticulture sector [11]. International research has further shown that increasing public concern about plastic pollution is shaping consumer attitudes, behavioral intentions, and support for sustainable alternatives [4]. As sustainability gains global focus, it motivates consumers to reduce their plastic use [12]. Consumers have begun to take personal responsibility for protecting the environment and its benefits, including reducing greenhouse gas emissions, enhancing water quality, and preserving resources [13]. Previous studies have indicated that consumers’ choices to purchase sustainably are frequently driven by psychological, social, and identity-related factors that influence environmentally conscious decisions [14]. Consumer demand for plants grown in pots made from alternative, non-plastic containers is increasingly recognized as a potential driver for the greenhouse and nursery industries to develop and adopt alternative materials [2,15]. Research shows businesses often adjust their product to strive to align with consumers’ environmental expectations and preferences [15]. For example, large American companies such as Walmart and Home Depot have already adopted this strategy, recognizing that perceived sustainability efforts increase profitability while appealing to customers [16].
A growing number of consumers consciously avoid plastic or choose products with more eco-friendly packaging, and many buyers of ornamental plants are willing to pay more for recyclable or non-plastic pots [16,17,18]. In a study investigating consumers’ perceptions and willingness to pay regarding retail floral providers’ sustainable and environmentally friendly practices, respondents reported that using locally grown flowers and composting floral waste were the two sustainable behaviors most likely to increase consumer willingness to purchase [15]. Most were willing to pay at least 10% more for locally produced flowers (61.7%), with providers that prioritize composting their waste coming in second [15].
A study by Nambuthiri et al. [6] examined the viability of using plastic-alternative pots in greenhouse and nursery crop production. They found compostable pots provided environmental benefits, but their durability and performance were lower than those of conventional plastic pots. They determined that improving the cost effectiveness and functional excellence of these alternatives while raising consumer awareness and acceptance of sustainable pot solutions was crucial to their adoption. From a market perspective, the greenhouse and nursery industry could reduce plastic use to boost consumer interest in purchasing plants [6]. Although interest in biobased packaging materials has increased, consumers who value sustainable products often avoid purchasing them because they believe they are of poorer quality [19]. This suggests that markets for plastic-alternative products are influenced by consumers’ attitudes, preferences, and values [16], underscoring that consumers’ purchasing behaviors are rooted in their personal values. Research on green purchasing behavior similarly shows that environmental concern, attitudes, personal values, and perceived consumer effectiveness are crucial factors influencing consumers’ willingness to select sustainable products [20].
From an environmental values’ perspective, individuals’ environmental values trigger their environmental self-identity, which then converts their core value orientations into behaviors that support the environment [21,22]. A strong environmental self-identity is more likely to emerge among individuals who uphold biospheric values, placing a high priority on environmental protection [22,23,24]. When environmental self-identity is activated, individuals are more likely to engage in behaviors consistent with how they view themselves [21]. Activating environmental self-identity can trigger emotional reactions, thereby reinforcing behavioral decisions [14,22]. Individuals may experience pride when engaging in eco-friendly behaviors and guilt when engaging in behaviors perceived as environmentally harmful [14,25]. These emotional reactions can encourage or discourage certain future sustainable purchasing behaviors [25,26,27]. In retail nursery settings, for example, emotions might influence whether consumers persist in using traditional plastic pots or opt for more environmentally friendly alternatives, as the adoption of sustainable products and pro-environmental decisions is significantly shaped by emotions such as pride and guilt [25,26].
However, applications of the environmental values’ perspective linking environmental self-identity to feelings of guilt and pride in plant-pot purchase decisions remain understudied, limiting the development of effective sustainability communication strategies to reduce plastic use in nursery and greenhouse settings. Therefore, understanding how environmental self-identity, psychological factors, and demographic characteristics influence these decisions could help inform the development of targeted sustainability communication messages aimed at reducing plastic use. While previous studies have shown links between environmental self-identity and pro-environmental behaviors, little attention has been paid to how these relationships influence emotional reactions (guilt and pride) to plastic versus plastic-alternative pots in horticultural purchasing contexts. This study broadens the environmental values’ perspective by applying it to greenhouse and nursery production environments, considering emotional, psychological, and demographic factors that influence sustainable purchasing decisions.

2. Purpose and Research Objectives

The purpose of this study was to apply the environmental values’ perspective to understand how consumers’ emotional reactions (pride and guilt) to purchasing plants in plastic pots versus plastic-alternative pots were influenced by their environmental self-identity, self-awareness, and demographic characteristics. This study was guided by the following research objectives (RO) and tested using the following hypotheses (H):
  • RO1. Describe respondents’ demographic characteristics, environmental self-identity, self-awareness, emotional reaction to purchasing a plant in a plastic pot, emotional reaction to purchasing a plant in a plastic-alternative pot, and the difference in emotional reaction to purchasing a plant in a plastic pot versus a plant grown in a plastic-alternative pot.
H1. 
Emotional reaction to purchasing a plant grown in a plastic pot versus a plant grown in a plastic-alternative pot will differ.
  • RO2. Determine if environmental self-identity, self-awareness, and demographic characteristics are associated with emotional reactions to purchasing a plant grown in a plastic pot and purchasing a plant grown in a plastic-alternative pot.
H2. 
Environmental self-identity, self-awareness, and demographic characteristics will be associated with emotional reactions to purchasing a plant grown in a plastic pot and emotional reactions to purchasing a plant grown in a plastic-alternative pot.
  • RO3. Determine if environmental self-identity, self-awareness, and demographic characteristics are associated with the difference in emotional reaction to purchasing a plant grown in a plastic pot versus a plant grown in a plastic-alternative pot.
H3. 
Environmental self-identity, self-awareness, and demographic characteristics will be associated with the difference in emotional reaction to purchasing a plant in a plastic pot versus a plant grown in a plastic-alternative pot.

3. Materials and Methods

3.1. Study Design and Instrument Development

Quantitative research methods were employed to address the research objectives of this study. This research builds on previous studies, which have explored consumers’ reactions to purchasing plastic alternatives [2,6,16,19,28] by specifically addressing growing environmental concerns about plastic use in horticultural production. Following standard survey design principles [29], this study used a structured online questionnaire incorporating previously utilized multi-item scales to evaluate consumers’ feelings about purchasing plants in different pot types to ensure measurement accuracy and reliability.

3.2. Survey Validity

Prior to data collection, a panel of experts in science communication, survey design, horticulture, sustainability, and environmental science reviewed the survey instrument to verify that it accurately reflected the face validity of the concepts being assessed [30]. The instrument was revised based on reviewers’ suggestions to ensure the survey questions were robust and free of ambiguity. This study received approval from the University of Georgia Institutional Review Board (#00011841) and was pilot-tested with 50 individuals from the target population to ensure item clarity and functionality.

3.3. Data Collection and Population

The target population was U.S. residents aged 18 and above. Data were collected using a non-probability opt-in sampling method [31] with sampling quotas set a priori to match the U.S. Census for gender, age, location, and race/ethnicity [32]. Survey data were collected in July 2025 using Qualtrics (Salt Lake City, UT, USA), an online survey platform, yielding 1235 responses.

3.4. Measurement and Scale Reliability

Items were designed to measure how consumers’ environmental values influenced their emotional reactions to purchasing plants grown in plastic pots versus those grown in pots made from plastic alternatives. Items were developed or adapted from prior research in environmental psychology and sustainability behavior to ensure both theoretical consistency and construct validity [22,33,34]. The items are described below.
First, to measure environmental self-identity, respondents were asked to indicate their level of agreement or disagreement with three items on a five-point Likert scale (1 = Strongly Disagree, 2 = Disagree, 3 = Neither Agree nor Disagree, 4 = Agree, 5 = Strongly Agree). The three items were developed by van der Werff et al. [22], which were: “Acting environmentally friendly is an important part of who I am;” “I am the type of person who acts environmentally friendly;” and “I see myself as an environmentally friendly person.” A composite score for environmental self-identity was calculated by averaging the responses to the three items. Internal consistency was assessed using Cronbach’s alpha and was found acceptable (α = 0.92) [35].
Next, respondents were asked to identify what best reflected their feelings about purchasing plants in plastic pots on a five-point semantic differential scale (ranged from 1 to 5). They were presented with five pairs of opposing adjectives, which were adapted from the work of Onwezen et al. [33]: “guilt/innocence;” “remorseful/pleased;” “sorry/justified;” “bad/good;” and “shame/pride”. A composite score was calculated by averaging responses to the five sets of opposing adjectives. Internal consistency was assessed and found acceptable (α = 0.92) [35]. Lower scores indicated a more negative emotional reaction (guilt), whereas higher scores indicated a more positive emotional reaction (pride). Although the semantic differential items represented conceptually distinct emotions, they were combined into a single evaluative emotional continuum ranging from negative emotional reactions to positive emotional reactions to measure overall emotional appeal toward purchasing plants in a plastic pot.
Additionally, respondents were asked to identify what best reflected their feelings about purchasing plants in plastic-alternative pots on a five-point semantic differential scale (ranged from 1 to 5). They were presented with five pairs of opposing adjectives, which were adapted from the work of Onwezen et al. [33]: “guilt/innocence;” “remorseful/pleased;” “sorry/justified;” “bad/good;” and “shame/pride”. A composite score was calculated by averaging responses to the five sets of opposing adjectives. Internal consistency of this construct was assessed and found acceptable (α = 0.92) [35]. Lower scores indicated a more negative emotional reaction (guilt), whereas higher scores indicated a more positive emotional reaction (pride). Emotional reactions were again represented on a single evaluative emotional continuum to reflect overall emotional appeal toward purchasing plants in a plastic-alternative pot.
Self-awareness was evaluated by asking respondents to indicate their level of agreement or disagreement with eight items on a five-point Likert scale (1 = Strongly Disagree, 2 = Disagree, 3 = Neither Agree nor Disagree, 4 = Agree, 5 = Strongly Agree). The eight items were adapted from Ashley and Reiter-Palmon [34], which included: “I am aware of my own values and beliefs;” “I reflect on the things I like to do;” “I understand how my characteristics and experiences have led to me becoming the person I am today;” “I understand how my personal characteristics lead to my behavior in different situations;” “I use diverse perspectives to arrive at new conclusions about myself;” “My friends are likely to say that I know myself well;” “I know what qualities I bring to a relationship;” and “When working on a project, I can tell in advance what part would be the easiest for me;”. A composite score for self-awareness was calculated by averaging responses to the eight items. Internal consistency was assessed and found acceptable (α = 0.86) [35].

3.5. Data Analysis

Descriptive statistics were used to describe respondents’ demographic characteristics, environmental self-identity, self-awareness, and emotional reactions to purchasing plants in plastic pots and emotional reactions to purchasing plants in plastic-alternative pots. The change in emotional reaction was calculated by taking the difference in emotional reactions to purchasing a plant in a plastic pot and purchasing a plant in a plastic-alternative pot. A paired-sample t-test was performed to test H1. Linear regression was used to test H2 and H3. These analytical methods matched this study’s aim of exploring associations and predicting relationships among the variables. Data analysis was conducted using SPSS 29 (Chicago, IL, USA).

4. Results

4.1. Survey Response

A full demographic profile of the respondents is presented in Table 1.

4.2. Consumers’ Feelings About Purchasing Plants in Different Pot Types, Environmental Self-Identity, and Self-Awareness

When averaged, respondents agreed with the environmental self-identity construct items (M = 3.67, SD = 0.99), suggesting most considered themselves environmentally friendly (Table 2). Respondents reported feeling emotionally neutral when purchasing plants in plastic pots (M = 2.83, SD = 1.08). However, respondents felt pride when purchasing plants grown in plastic-alternative pots (M = 3.95, SD = 0.99). Self-awareness (M = 4.13, SD = 0.56) indicated that, on average, respondents reported being aware of themselves.
A paired-sample t-test was performed to determine if significant differences in emotional reaction existed between pot types. The results indicated a significant difference did exist, confirming H1. Respondents reported more positive emotional reactions to purchasing a plant grown in a plastic-alternative pot than when purchasing a plant grown in a plastic pot (ΔM = 1.12, SD = 1.54), t(1234) = 25.65, p < 0.001. The 95% confidence interval for the mean difference ranged from 1.04 to 1.21. The effect size was large (d = 0.73), indicating a substantial shift in emotional reaction.

4.3. Influence of Environmental Self-Identity, Self-Awareness, and Demographic Characteristics on Emotional Reaction to Purchasing a Plant in a Plastic Versus Plastic-Alternative Pot

Two linear regression models were used to test H2 (see Table 3, Model 1 and Model 2). Model 1 examined the predictive capacity of the variables related to respondents’ emotional reactions to purchasing a plant in a plastic pot. The model was significant overall and explained 15% of the variation. Emotional reaction significantly decreased (became more negative) when the respondent identified as male versus female, age increased, and environmental self-identity increased. Respondents reporting a very conservative political ideology had a significantly more positive emotional reaction when compared to those expressing a moderate political ideology. Self-awareness and household income level did not significantly predict emotional reaction.
Model 2 examined the predictive capacity of the variables related to respondents’ emotional reactions to purchasing a plant in a plastic-alternative pot. The model was significant overall and explained 9% of the variation. Emotional reaction increased significantly (became more positive) when the respondent identified as male versus female, age increased, environmental self-identity increased, and self-awareness increased. Respondents reporting a household income of $24,000 or less had a significantly more negative emotional reaction when compared to those reporting a household income of $150,000 or more. Political ideology did not significantly predict emotional reaction. Therefore, H2 was partially supported.
A third linear regression model was used to test H3 by examining the predictive capacity of variables related to respondents’ differences in emotional reactions to purchasing a plant in a plastic pot versus a plastic-alternative pot (see Table 3, Model 3). The model was significant overall and explained 17% of the variation. All the variables in the model had a significant effect on the difference in emotional reaction, confirming H3.
Emotional reaction increased significantly (became more positive) when the respondent identified as male versus female, age increased, environmental self-identity increased, self-awareness increased, and political ideology was reported as either liberal or very liberal when compared to those reporting a moderate political ideology. Respondents reporting a very conservative political ideology had a significantly more negative emotional reaction when compared to those expressing a moderate political ideology. In addition, respondents reporting a household income of $24,000 or less had a significantly more negative emotional reaction when compared to those reporting a household income of $150,000 or more.

5. Discussion

This study demonstrated environmental self-identity was a significant predictor of consumers’ emotional reactions to the use of horticultural plastic, confirming previous research examining the impact of environmental value on pro-environmental behaviors [21,22,23,24]. In this study, we hypothesized respondents with a higher environmental self-identity would experience a more negative emotional reaction when purchasing plants in plastic pots. Our results supported this hypothesis, demonstrating that consumers with a stronger environmental self-identity experienced more negative emotional reactions towards single-use plastic pots, aligning with previous research on environmental concern and efforts to reduce plastic use [1,8,9,10,11,12,13,21,36].
The findings also indicated environmental self-identity was a positive predictor of a more positive emotional reaction when respondents purchased a plant grown in a plastic-alternative pot. This finding confirms previous research demonstrating consumers’ willingness to support what they perceive as environmentally sustainable products [15,16,17], implying that companies adopting sustainable practices can improve moral acceptance and customer satisfaction [16]. While Nambuthiri et al. [6] and Hall et al. [19] noted that consumers have concerns about the durability and quality of plastic-alternative pots despite their environmental advantages in greenhouse and nursery crop production, this study revealed respondents with a higher level of environmental self-identity gained significant emotional benefits from purchasing plants in plastic-alternative pots despite potential concerns. Consistent with prior research [25,26], emotional reactions may motivate consumers to make sustainable purchasing choices.
Relationships among environmental self-identity, self-awareness, and demographic characteristics were present in the model examining differences in emotional reactions when shifting from purchasing a plant in a plastic pot to a plastic alternative. This lends credence to the environmental value perspective theory, which holds that environmental self-identity, combined with other personal values, promotes general behavior changes consistent with consumers’ values and influences specific actions [21,22,23,24]. Understanding consumers’ emotional reactions when making purchasing decisions is increasingly important as sustainability concerns in horticulture increase [11,28]. Since greenhouses and nurseries in the U.S. predominantly rely on single-use plastics [3], they could increase profits by promoting sustainable plastic-alternative pots that elicit positive emotional reactions among eco-conscious consumers.
Research shows that demographic and psychological factors significantly influence consumers’ pro-environmental actions and their emotional reactions. The political ideology results from this study corroborate previous research, indicating individuals with a more liberal political ideology generally show greater concern and more active engagement with environmental issues than those expressing a more conservative political ideology in the U.S. [37,38]. The differences in political ideology may reflect environmental values, attitudes, concerns, and motives [39], including willingness to transition from traditional plastic pots to sustainable alternatives.
Gender differences were also observed, with males being more likely than females to have a positive emotional reaction to purchasing plants grown in plastic alternatives. One study found males were generally more knowledgeable of environmental issues than their female counterparts [40], which could partly account for this finding. The gender differences found in this study were small and might be influenced by specific perceptions related to horticultural purchasing choices, such as familiarity with alternative containers or how the product functions, rather than reflecting general environmental attitudes. However, previous research [40,41,42,43] suggests women often exhibit more pro-environmental attitudes (e.g., greener shopping habits) and greater concern about environmental challenges, mainly due to risk perception and product-related uncertainties [44].
Previous research has found socioeconomic factors, particularly income, significantly influence engagement in pro-environmental actions [45], supporting this study’s findings. However, household income had a significant effect only at the high and low ends of the spectrum; so, it may not have as much influence in this case. Additionally, our finding that older respondents had a more negative emotional reaction to purchasing a plant in a plastic pot and a more positive emotional reaction to purchasing a plant grown in a plastic-alternative pot supports research showing that older individuals tend to be more environmentally engaged and exhibit higher levels of generativity and moral responsibility [46], which could influence their support for eco-friendly purchasing choices.
Finally, the significance of self-awareness when purchasing a plant in a plastic-alternative pot suggests self-aware consumers might be more motivated and gain positive emotional reinforcement from engaging in environmentally friendly behaviors, but may be driven more by other motivators, such as environmental self-identity, than by overall self-awareness. Although the regression models accounted for a modest amount of variance, this is typical in studies examining complex emotional and consumer behaviors affected by social, psychological, and contextual factors [47,48]. Nonetheless, the large paired-sample effect size indicates the emotional difference between plastic and plastic-alternative pots was practically meaningful. Overall, the findings align with research indicating that emotional reactions play a role in encouraging pro-environmental behavior, emphasizing their significance as key motivators for sustainable decision-making [25,26,27].

Limitations and Future Studies

Several limitations should be considered when interpreting the results. First, using a non-probability opt-in sampling method restricts how broadly the findings can be generalized. Even though quotas aimed to reflect U.S. Census demographics were used, the sample might not represent all U.S. consumers, and self-selection bias could have influenced responses. People with stronger environmental interests or sustainability concerns might have been more inclined to take part in the survey, potentially leading to higher observed pro-environmental attitudes and emotional reactions. Furthermore, online opt-in sampling could underrepresent individuals with limited internet access or less involvement in sustainability topics. Future studies should consider using probability sampling methods or conducting similar studies across diverse populations and locations to improve the generalizability of the findings.
Second, reliance on self-reported data introduces potential social desirability bias, which may lead respondents to overstate pro-environmental attitudes or emotional reactions, especially given the growing social focus on sustainability. Future studies should incorporate experimental designs to confirm these results in real-world retail environments, thereby improving external validity and offering a more detailed understanding of consumer behavior during actual purchases.
Additionally, emotional reactions were assessed using a single evaluative emotional continuum that combined emotions such as guilt and pride. While this approach had high internal consistency, combining guilt and pride into a single evaluative continuum may mask important differences between distinct emotional mechanisms influencing sustainable purchasing behavior. Future studies should model discrete emotional constructs separately to gain a more nuanced understanding of consumers’ emotional reactions to plastic and plastic-alternative pots. Furthermore, including behavioral outcomes, such as willingness to pay and actual purchase behavior, would strengthen the relationship between emotional reactions and sustainable consumption in horticulture. Also, this study broadly categorized plastic-alternative pots, despite variations in material composition, durability, biodegradability, sustainability, and consumer perceptions across different container types. Consumers might respond differently to compostable, fiber-based, biodegradable, or recycled options, influencing their emotions and purchasing decisions. Future studies should explore perceptions of specific materials to gain a nuanced understanding of how features of different sustainable pots influence consumer purchasing behavior.
While this study identified significant associations between environmental self-identity, self-awareness, demographic characteristics, and emotional reactions, the cross-sectional design limits causal inference. Future studies should use longitudinal and more advanced analytical methods, such as structural equation modeling, to further examine how environmental self-identity evolves and how it causally affects emotional reactions and changes in sustainable purchasing behavior.

6. Conclusions

This study examined how consumers’ environmental self-identity, self-awareness, and demographic characteristics influenced emotional reactions to purchasing plants grown in plastic pots compared to plastic-alternative pots. The results demonstrated individuals with higher environmental self-identity expressed stronger emotional reactions to both options. Demographic factors (including age, political ideology, sex, and income) and psychological factors (self-awareness) were also significant predictors of consumers’ emotional reactions. Given this, emotional reactions can reinforce decision-making by encouraging eco-friendly actions and deterring environmentally damaging behaviors. While the observed effect sizes were relatively small, the findings emphasized emotional reactions may serve as a mechanism by which values can be used to influence consumer choices.
An opportunity exists for greenhouse and nursery plant producers and retailers to adjust their marketing and communication strategies by positioning plastic-alternative pots as both positively reinforcing and environmentally sustainable, effectively highlighting their sustainability. Connecting plastic-alternative pots to consumers’ environmental self-identity could encourage acceptance of more eco-friendly horticultural products. To further support ongoing efforts to reduce the greenhouse and nursery industries’ dependence on single-use plastic, eco-labeling, point-of-sale messaging, and educational campaigns that connect pot choices to broader sustainability objectives may be promising approaches for encouraging consumer interest in plastic-alternative pots and should be explored in future research. Targeted messaging should account for demographic differences, such as political ideology and income levels, by framing sustainability in ways that connect with diverse audiences and tackling affordability challenges where necessary. Moreover, enhancing the perceived quality and effectiveness of alternative pots is essential to address consumer concerns. The findings elucidate the importance of promoting sustainable greenhouse and nursery production methods and helping consumers shift toward more eco-friendly products to reduce plastic waste and protect the environment.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, A.J.L., K.W.L., J.O.J. and J.A.; methodology, M.B., A.J.L. and K.W.L.; software, M.B. and A.J.L.; validation, M.B., A.J.L. and K.W.L.; formal analysis, M.B., A.J.L. and K.W.L.; investigation, A.J.L. and K.W.L.; resources, A.J.L. and J.A.; data curation, A.J.L.; writing—original draft preparation, M.B.; writing—review and editing, A.J.L., K.W.L., J.O.J., J.A. and S.A.W.; visualization, M.B., A.J.L. and K.W.L.; supervision, A.J.L.; project administration, A.J.L.; funding acquisition, A.J.L. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

The authors acknowledge that this research was funded by the United States Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service (Cooperative agreement 58-5082-3-021).

Institutional Review Board Statement

This study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and approved by the Institutional Review Board of the University of Georgia (protocol code #00011841 and date of approval was 2 April 2025).

Informed Consent Statement

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

Data Availability Statement

The datasets presented in this article are not readily available because the data are part of an ongoing study. Requests to access the datasets should be directed to the corresponding author.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Geyer, R.; Jambeck, J.R.; Law, K.L. Production, use, and fate of all plastics ever made. Sci. Adv. 2017, 3, e1700782. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Stamm, E.R.; Hill, M.C.; Bartley, P.C., III; Adhikari, S.; Peresin, M.S. Cultivating Sustainability: Biodegradable Containers in Horticultural Production. HortScience 2025, 60, 1699–1711. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Schrader, J.A. Report on the Annual Consumption of Plastics for Specialty-Crop Containers in the United States. 2013. Available online: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/346609773_Report_on_the_Annual_Consumption_of_Plastics_for_Specialty-Crop_Containers_in_the_United_States?channel=doi&linkId=5fc94936a6fdcc697bdb75e2&showFulltext=true (accessed on 6 May 2026).
  4. Heidbreder, L.M.; Bablok, I.; Drews, S.; Menzel, C. Tackling the plastic problem: A review on perceptions, behaviors, and interventions. Sci. Total Environ. 2019, 668, 1077–1093. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Kratsch, H.A.; Schrader, J.A.; McCabe, K.G.; Srinivasan, G.; Grewell, D.; Graves, W.R. Performance and biodegradation in soil of novel horticulture containers made from bioplastics and biocomposites. HortTechnology 2015, 25, 119–131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Nambuthiri, S.; Fulcher, A.; Koeser, A.K.; Geneve, R.; Niu, G. Moving toward sustainability with alternative containers for greenhouse and nursery crop production: A review and research update. HortTechnology 2015, 25, 8–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Lamm, A.J.; Owen, J.S., Jr.; Altland, J.; White, S.A. A survey analysis comparing perceptions of plastic use in nurseries and greenhouses in the United States. Land 2025, 14, 1383. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Kneel, S.; Stephens, C.G.; Rolston, A.; Linnane, S. Examining awareness, attitudes and behaviours of stakeholders in Irish Fishing towards plastic. Resour. Environ. Sustain. 2023, 14, 100131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Kramm, J.; Steinhoff, S.; Werschmöller, S.; Völker, B.; Völker, C. Explaining risk perception of microplastics: Results from a representative survey in Germany. Glob. Environ. Change 2022, 73, 102485. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Lehel, J.; Murphy, S. Microplastics in the food chain: Food safety and environmental aspects. Rev. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 2021, 259, 1–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  11. Bulgari, R.; Petrini, A.; Cocetta, G.; Nicoletto, C.; Ertani, A.; Sambo, P.; Ferrante, A.; Nicola, S. The impact of COVID-19 on horticulture: Critical issues and opportunities derived from an unexpected occurrence. Horticulturae 2021, 7, 124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. AlMulaifi, R.S. Consumer awareness of the environmental and health risks of micro plastics pollution. Delta J. Sci. 2025, 50, 54–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Isaak, M.; Lentz, W. Consumer preferences for sustainability in food and non-food horticulture production. Sustainability 2020, 12, 7004. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. White, K.; Habib, R.; Hardisty, D.J. How to SHIFT consumer behaviors to be more sustainable: A literature review and guiding framework. J. Mark. 2019, 83, 22–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Etheredge, C.L.; Waliczek, T.M.; DelPrince, J. United States consumers’ perceptions and willingness to pay for sustainable environmental practices in a retail floral provider’s business model. HortTechnology 2024, 34, 20–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Behe, B.K.; Campbell, B.L.; Hall, C.R.; Khachatryan, H.; Dennis, J.H.; Yue, C. Consumer preferences for local and sustainable plant production characteristics. HortScience 2013, 48, 200–208. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Ali, S.M.; Ahmed, S.; Ahmed, H.N.; Sharmin, A.; Rahman, R. Reducing plastic pollutants through catalyzing consumer roles: A novel application of fuzzy total interpretive structural modeling. J. Clean. Prod. 2022, 335, 130327. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Yue, C.; Hall, C.R.; Behe, B.K.; Campbell, B.L.; Dennis, J.H.; Lopez, R.G. Are consumers willing to pay more for biodegradable containers than for plastic ones? Evidence from hypothetical conjoint analysis and nonhypothetical experimental auctions. J. Agric. Appl. Econ. 2010, 42, 757–772. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Hall, C.R.; Campbell, B.L.; Behe, B.K.; Yue, C.; Lopez, R.G.; Dennis, J.H. The appeal of biodegradable packaging to floral consumers. HortScience 2010, 45, 583–591. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Joshi, Y.; Rahman, Z. Factors affecting green purchase behaviour and future research directions. Int. Strateg. Manag. Rev. 2015, 3, 128–143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Van der Werff, E.; Steg, L.; Keizer, K. It is a moral issue: The relationship between environmental self-identity, obligation-based intrinsic motivation and pro-environmental behaviour. Glob. Environ. Change 2013, 23, 1258–1265. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Van der Werff, E.; Steg, L.; Keizer, K. The value of environmental self-identity: The relationship between biospheric values, environmental self-identity and environmental preferences, intentions and behaviour. J. Environ. Psychol. 2013, 34, 55–63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Van der Werff, E.; Steg, L.; Keizer, K. Follow the signal: When past pro-environmental actions signal who you are. J. Environ. Psychol. 2014, 40, 273–282. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Van der Werff, E.; Steg, L.; Keizer, K. I am what I am, by looking past the present: The influence of biospheric values and past behavior on environmental self-identity. Environ. Behav. 2014, 46, 626–657. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Schneider, C.R.; Zaval, L.; Weber, E.U.; Markowitz, E.M. The influence of anticipated pride and guilt on pro-environmental decision making. PLoS ONE 2017, 12, e0188781. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Baumeister, R.F.; Vohs, K.D.; Nathan DeWall, C.; Zhang, L. How emotion shapes behavior: Feedback, anticipation, and reflection, rather than direct causation. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Rev. 2007, 11, 167–203. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Shipley, N.J.; Van Riper, C.J. Pride and guilt predict pro-environmental behavior: A meta-analysis of correlational and experimental evidence. J. Environ. Psychol. 2022, 79, 101753. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Dennis, J.H.; Lopez, R.G.; Behe, B.K.; Hall, C.R.; Yue, C.; Campbell, B.L. Sustainable production practices adopted by greenhouse and nursery plant growers. HortScience 2010, 45, 1232–1237. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Hair, J.F.; Anderson, R.E.; Babin, B.J.; Black, W.C. Multivariate Data Analysis: A Global Perspective, 7th ed.; Pearson: Upper Saddle River, NJ, USA, 2010. [Google Scholar]
  30. Dillman, D.A.; Smyth, J.D.; Christian, L.M. Internet, Phone, Mail, and Mixed-Mode Surveys: The Tailored Design Method; John Wiley and Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2014; Volume 17. [Google Scholar]
  31. Baker, R.; Brick, J.M.; Bates, N.A.; Battaglia, M.; Couper, M.P.; Dever, J.A.; Gile, K.J.; Tourangeau, R. Summary report of the AAPOR task force on non-probability sampling. J. Surv. Stat. Methodol. 2013, 1, 90–143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Lamm, A.J.; Lamm, K.W. Using non-probability sampling methods in agricultural and extension education research. J. Int. Agric. Ext. Educ. 2019, 26, 52–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Onwezen, M.C.; Antonides, G.; Bartels, J. The Norm Activation Model: An exploration of the functions of anticipated pride and guilt in pro-environmental behaviour. J. Econ. Psychol. 2013, 39, 141–153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Ashley, G.C.; Reiter-Palmon, R. Self-awareness and the evolution of leaders: The need for a better measure of self-awareness. J. Behav. Appl. Manag. 2012, 14, 2–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Cortina, J.M. What is coefficient alpha? An examination of theory and applications. J. Appl. Psychol. 1993, 78, 98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Donley, N.; Cox, C.; Bennett, K.; Temkin, A.M.; Andrews, D.Q.; Naidenko, O.V. Forever pesticides: A growing source of PFAS contamination in the environment. Environ. Health Perspect. 2024, 132, 075003. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  37. McCright, A.M.; Dunlap, R.E. Anti-reflexivity. Theory Cult. Soc. 2010, 27, 100–133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Nawrotzki, R.J. The politics of environmental concern: A cross-national analysis. Organ. Environ. 2012, 25, 286–307. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Billet, M.I.; Baimel, A.; Milfont, T.L.; Norenzayan, A. Political common ground on preserving nature: Environmental motives across the political spectrum. Environ. Behav. 2024, 56, 542–576. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Diamantopoulos, A.; Schlegelmilch, B.B.; Sinkovics, R.R.; Bohlen, G.M. Can socio-demographics still play a role in profiling green consumers? A review of the evidence and an empirical investigation. J. Bus. Res. 2003, 56, 465–480. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Desrochers, J.E.; Zelenski, J.M. Why are males not doing these environmental behaviors? Exploring males’ psychological barriers to environmental action. Curr. Psychol. 2023, 42, 25042–25060. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Xiao, C.; McCright, A.M. Gender differences in environmental concern: Revisiting the institutional trust hypothesis in the USA. Environ. Behav. 2015, 47, 17–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Xiao, C.; McCright, A.M. Explaining gender differences in concern about environmental problems in the United States. Soc. Nat. Resour. 2012, 25, 1067–1084. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Flynn, J.; Slovic, P.; Mertz, C.K. Gender, race, and perception of environmental health risks. Risk Anal. 1994, 14, 1101–1108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  45. Piao, X.; Managi, S. Determinants of pro-environmental behaviour: Effects of socioeconomic, subjective, and psychological well-being factors from 37 countries. Humanit. Soc. Sci. Commun. 2024, 11, 1293. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Lin, Z.; Fung, H.H.-L. Age differences in pro-environmental behaviors: Is it about me or the next generation? Innov. Aging 2024, 8, 1372. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Field, A. Discovering Statistics Using IBM SPSS Statistics; Sage Publications Limited: London, UK, 2024. [Google Scholar]
  48. Cohen, J.; Cohen, P.; West, S.G.; Aiken, L.S. Applied Multiple Regression/Correlation Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences, 3rd ed.; Routledge: New York, NY, USA, 2013. [Google Scholar]
Table 1. Demographic characteristics of respondents (N = 1235) in a survey used to determine how consumers’ environmental self-identity predicted their emotional reactions when purchasing plants grown in plastic pots compared to alternative pots.
Table 1. Demographic characteristics of respondents (N = 1235) in a survey used to determine how consumers’ environmental self-identity predicted their emotional reactions when purchasing plants grown in plastic pots compared to alternative pots.
Variablesn%
Age
               18–19151.2
               20–2925520.6
               30–3918815.2
               40–4912910.4
               50–591159.3
               60–6920316.4
               70 and above33026.7
Sex
               Male67654.7
               Female55945.3
Ethnicity
               Hispanic/Latino/Chicano16513.4
Race
               American Indian or Alaska Native241.9
               Asian or Pacific Islander342.8
               Black or African American21217.2
               White95477.2
               Other352.8
Income
               $24,999 or less24319.7
               $25,000 to $49,99932226.1
               $50,000 to $74,99927722.4
               $75,000 to $149,99929023.5
               $150,000 to $249,999877.0
               $250,000 or more161.3
Education Level
               Less than 12th grade (did not graduate high school)272.2
               High school diploma (including GED)32326.2
               Some college, no degree25921.0
               2-year college degree (associates, technical, etc.)15312.4
               4-year college degree (bachelor’s, etc.)29824.1
               Graduate or professional degree (master’s, Ph.D., M.B.A., etc.)17514.2
Marital Status
               Single41233.4
               Married45436.8
               Living with a partner, not married887.1
               Divorced16113.0
               Separated131.1
               Widowed1078.7
Political Ideology
               Very Liberal14812.0
               Liberal21617.5
               Moderate47238.2
               Conservative25020.2
               Very Conservative14912.1
Political Affiliation
               Republican44035.6
               Democrat44536.0
               Independent27722.4
               Non-affiliated735.9
Table 2. Descriptive statistics of consumers’ environmental self-identity, self-awareness, and emotional reactions to purchasing plants in plastic pots versus plants in plastic-alternative pots (N = 1235).
Table 2. Descriptive statistics of consumers’ environmental self-identity, self-awareness, and emotional reactions to purchasing plants in plastic pots versus plants in plastic-alternative pots (N = 1235).
MeanStandard Deviation
Environmental self-identity 13.670.99
Emotional reaction to purchasing a plant in a plastic pot 22.831.08
Emotional reaction to purchasing a plant in a plastic-alternative pot 23.950.99
Self-awareness 14.130.56
1 Scale: 1 = Strongly Disagree; 2 = Disagree; 3 = Neither Agree nor Disagree; 4 = Agree; 5 = Strongly Agree. 2 Semantic differential scale with 1 = Guilt and 5 = Pride.
Table 3. Environmental self-identity, self-awareness, and demographic characteristics influence on emotional reactions to purchasing a plant in a plastic pot, a plastic-alternative pot, and the difference in emotional reactions between purchasing a plant in a plastic pot and a plastic-alternative pot.
Table 3. Environmental self-identity, self-awareness, and demographic characteristics influence on emotional reactions to purchasing a plant in a plastic pot, a plastic-alternative pot, and the difference in emotional reactions between purchasing a plant in a plastic pot and a plastic-alternative pot.
Model 1: Emotional Reaction to Purchasing a Plant in a Plastic PotModel 2: Emotional Reaction to Purchasing a Plant in a Plastic-Alternative PotModel 3: Difference in Emotional Reaction to Purchasing a Plant in a Plastic Versus a Plastic-Alternative Pot
BβBβBβ
Constant4.32 *** 1.97 *** −2.35 ***
Sex 1−0.38 ***−0.17 ***0.21 ***0.10 ***0.58 ***0.19 ***
Age−0.01 ***−0.11 ***0.01 ***0.13 ***0.01 ***0.15 ***
Environmental self-identity−0.26 ***−0.24 ***0.07 *0.07 *0.33 ***0.21 ***
Self-awareness0.070.030.29 ***0.17 ***0.23 **0.08 **
Political ideology 2
               Very liberal−0.19 *−0.06 *0.120.040.31 *0.07 *
               Liberal−0.15−0.050.100.040.25 *0.06 *
               Conservative0.110.040.030.01−0.08−0.02
               Very conservative0.53 ***0.16 ***0.070.02−0.46 ***−0.10 ***
Household income 3
               $24,999 or less0.120.05−0.34 **−0.14 **−0.46 **−0.12 **
               $25,000 to $49,999−0.10−0.04−0.12−0.06−0.02−0.01
               $50,000 to $74,999−0.07−0.03−0.16−0.07−0.09−0.02
               $75,000 to $149,999−0.03−0.01−0.07−0.03−0.03−0.01
R20.150.090.17
Note: Reference category: 1 Female, 2 Moderate, 3 $150,000 or more; B = unstandardized; β = standardized. * 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

Batame, M.; Lamm, A.J.; Lamm, K.W.; Owen, J., Jr.; Altland, J.; White, S.A. From Guilt to Pride: Exploring Emotional Drivers of Consumer Preferences for Sustainable Plant Containers. Sustainability 2026, 18, 5494. https://doi.org/10.3390/su18115494

AMA Style

Batame M, Lamm AJ, Lamm KW, Owen J Jr., Altland J, White SA. From Guilt to Pride: Exploring Emotional Drivers of Consumer Preferences for Sustainable Plant Containers. Sustainability. 2026; 18(11):5494. https://doi.org/10.3390/su18115494

Chicago/Turabian Style

Batame, Michael, Alexa J. Lamm, Kevan W. Lamm, James Owen, Jr., James Altland, and Sarah A. White. 2026. "From Guilt to Pride: Exploring Emotional Drivers of Consumer Preferences for Sustainable Plant Containers" Sustainability 18, no. 11: 5494. https://doi.org/10.3390/su18115494

APA Style

Batame, M., Lamm, A. J., Lamm, K. W., Owen, J., Jr., Altland, J., & White, S. A. (2026). From Guilt to Pride: Exploring Emotional Drivers of Consumer Preferences for Sustainable Plant Containers. Sustainability, 18(11), 5494. https://doi.org/10.3390/su18115494

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