Next Article in Journal
Healing Space: The Synaesthetic Quality of Church Architecture
Next Article in Special Issue
Interpersonal Forgiveness and Meaning in Life in Older Adults: The Mediating and Moderating Roles of the Religious Meaning System
Previous Article in Journal
Anticlerical Motifs in the Illustrations of Martin Luther’s Hauspostille
Previous Article in Special Issue
Exploratory Analysis of the Relationship between Happiness and Religious Participation within China
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Religions
Volume 11
Issue 12
10.3390/rel11120634
religions-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Spirituality as a Predictor of Psychological Well-Being: An Explanatory Mechanism of Religiosity and Sustainable Consumption

by
Sana Iqbal
* and
Muhammad Ishfaq Khan
Department of Management Sciences, Faculty of Management & Social Sciences, Capital University of Science & Technology, Islamabad 46000, Pakistan
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Religions 2020, 11(12), 634; https://doi.org/10.3390/rel11120634
Submission received: 18 October 2020 / Revised: 7 November 2020 / Accepted: 12 November 2020 / Published: 26 November 2020
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Religion and Mental Health: Antecedents and Consequences (Volume I))
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
This paper aims to investigate the impact of spirituality on the psychological well-being of the consumers involved in reusing as sustainable consumption behavior (SCB). In addition to this, the study also investigates the mediating effect of reusing as SCB between spirituality and psychological well-being. The moderating effect of religiosity has also been taken into account while studying the relationship between spirituality and reusing. A survey was conducted to collect the data from clothing industry consumers using a structured questionnaire and employing a convenience sampling approach. PLS-SEM was used to analyze the useable data of 286 respondents. Results validate that spirituality has a positive and significant effect on psychological well-being. Further, reusing (SCB) was found to be a significant mediator, also the moderating effect of religiosity on the relationship between spirituality and reusing was significant and high. This study contributes to the existing literature by concentrating on predictors that undermine psychological well-being. To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this is one of the early studies to contribute to the literature by investigating the impact of spirituality on consumer psychological well-being specifically reusing (SCB) as a mediator between the two constructs. Further, it also investigated the moderating impact of religiosity on the relationship between spirituality and reusing. Research findings have implications for researchers, policymakers, marketers, ecologists, social activists, and practitioners. For research students, such contribution will bring a new avenue to consider further research. Managers will find help to control such factors which induce reusing and increase psychological well-being.

1. Introduction

Sustainable consumption behavior (SCB) has gained its popularity in the field of business, policy-making, and in academic research (Romani et al. 2016; Garvey and Bolton 2017; Wang et al. 2017a). SCB is a very broad area and diverse definitions have emerged over the past few decades. Generally, it is used to explain the activities that lead to enhance life quality, fulfill unmet needs, waste reduction, and refining resource efficiency (Bridges and Wilhelm 2008). The scarcity of studies identifying and explaining the relationships involved in SCB has compelled the researchers to focus on this area.
Individual usage behavior in life cycle of the products specific to sustainable consumption was conceptualized by Geng et al. (2017). Before this conceptualization of SCB, as a multifaceted construct, it was narrowly defined as a unidimensional concept. The conceptualization of SCB (Geng et al. 2017) involved green purchasing, reusing, and recycling. This conceptualization focused on individuals’ adoptions of green products, product usage apprehensions, and, most importantly, post usage product handling (Dong et al. 2020).
The current study has focused on the post usage product handling element of SCB, i.e., reusing clothes. Reusing is an act of using a product again. In research, reusing is referred to as a process that prepares a product for reuse as they are, or converts them into other goods (Hawley 2006). Reuse is linked with resource-saving behavior (Wang et al. 2017b). Reusing decreases the new production, hence, reduces the negative environmental impact (Sandin and Peters 2018).
The tradeoffs for sustainable consumption are between “availability of the resources for the future generations and current use of those resources” (Brundtland 1987, p. 1). Consumption has a great role to play in determining global sustainability (Nguyen et al. 2019). This sustainability-related facet of consumption has made it the most important social standard to be addressed in research. The process of acquiring, possessing, consuming, and disposing of goods, while preserving the social, economic, and environmental concerns, relates to SCB. SCB has been addressed specifically to usage, disposing, and the processes and events in between these two elements of consumption (Gutierrez-Nieto et al. 2017; Park et al. 2017; Popek and Halagarda 2017; Vasquez 2017; Weber et al. 2017).
The study focused on the reusing of clothes. Clothing consumption is considered to be one of the most important consumption areas where the concept of sustainability is highly relevant (Böhme et al. 2018). Survey research conducted by Ellen Macarthur Foundation (2017), revealed that almost 73% of the clothing industry production end up in landfills and only 15% are recycled into clothes or downcycled (cleaning cloths or insulation material). An important and worrying fact is that less than 20% of clothing is recycled or reused (Jacobs and Corbett 2019). Besides, increased demand for clothing raises the issue of disposal. The consumption of clothes is expected to increase by 63% by 2030 (Kerr and Landry 2017). The data indicate the importance of studying the sustainable consumption of clothing. The fashion industry is characterized by quick changes (Yang et al. 2017). This rapid change in the industry leads to clothing discarding before they complete their lifetime, resulting in short product cycles in the fashion industry (Soyer and Dittrich 2020). Sustainable consumption is considered to be vital in dealing with the wastes generated as a result of fast fashion (Beton et al. 2014; Laitala et al. 2018).
Encouraging consumers to reuse (SCB) will lead to prolonged clothing usage. This will reduce the need for repurchasing and thus will reduce the raw material consumption (Schmidt et al. 2016). Extending the use of clothes includes reusing, which can take different forms like mending, repurposing, secondhand, swapping, and renting, etc. (Patwary 2020). Reuse is recognized as the superior sustainable action in global waste management strategy (European Commission 2010; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 2019). Responsible consumption (i.e., purchasing, caring, and disposal) is thought to be vital in dealing with the fast fashion waste problem (Beton et al. 2014; The European Clothing Action Plan 2019; Chrobot et al. 2018; Quantis and Climate Work Foundation 2018).
Intended at extending the knowledge, this paper has also focused on spirituality as a driver of SCB-reusing. The unique idea of this paper is that a high sense of belonging in terms of SCB-reusing produces a positive effect state, and this positive effect leads to satisfaction and happiness that results in subjective well-being (Baumeister and Leary 1995; Rippé et al. 2018). To address this gap, this paper has studied psychological well-being as an outcome of SCB-reusing.

2. Theoretical Foundations and Hypothesis Development

2.1. Spirituality, SCB-Reusing, and Psychological Well-Being

2.1.1. Spirituality and SCB-Reusing

Spirituality, as a personal characteristic, is a growing concern for marketers in terms of understanding its relationship with SCB and its outcome directed toward consumer well-being. Consumer beliefs and behavior, across the world, are greatly affected by spirituality (Kale 2006). Spirituality affects individual behavior, specifically that of the consumers. Spirituality exercises a notable influence over the sustainable attitudes and behaviors of institutions, societies, and particularly that of consumers (Muñoz-García and Villena-Martínez 2020; Wahid and Mustamil 2017; Oman and Morello-Frosch 2018; Eckhardt et al. 2010; Hira 2012; Papaoikonomou 2013; Pepper et al. 2009). Increased interest of marketing researchers in this area is evident through many studies (e.g., (Arvidsson 2014; Bamossy et al. 2011; Belk et al. 1989; Bonsu and Belk 2010; Gould 2006; Izberk-Bilgin 2012; Mathras et al. 2016; McAlexander et al. 2014; Mick 2017; Mittelstaedt 2002; Muñiz and Schau 2005; Redden 2016; Rinallo et al. 2013a, 2013b, 2016; Sandikci and Ger 2009; Schouten and McAlexander 1995; Veer and Shankar 2011). The community of marketing scholars’ needs to urgently comprehend and research the role of spirituality in current consumption. The next standard in consumer behavior may likely be about considering a spiritual approach in understanding consumer behavior (Mehta et al. 2020). Vitell (2009) linked the ethicality of consumers with their spirituality. Through his research findings, it was established that spirituality will instill strong moral values in the consumers and they will indulge in ethical practices, sustainability is based on consumer ethics and moral values (Vitell et al. 2005).
Hypothesis 1 (H1).
Spirituality has a significant positive impact on reusing.

2.1.2. SCB-Reusing and Psychological Well-Being

Well-being, referred to as mental health, has three forms: Social, emotional, and psychological (Petrillo et al. 2015). Well-being is addressed in two categories of hedonic and eudaimonic. Perspective towards well-being is not limited to self-pleasure, rather it extends to the benefit of the society. Eudiamonic perspective explains the psychological well-being by associating it with individual goals directed towards society, resource deployment, increased self-sufficiency and efficacy, and social relationships (Petrillo et al. 2015). Hedonic perspective measures well-being objectively, whereas eudiamonic measures it subjectively (McMahan and Estes 2011).
Consumer decisions are responsible for their state of psychological well-being (Griffin 2017). Large scale survey data suggest that those who engage in reusing are more likely to report greater subjective well-being (Ginkel 2020) If individuals want to maximize their happiness (and psychological well-being more broadly), it will be useful to know the types of behaviors that tend to increase it. An investigation into the relationship between SCB and psychological well-being may reveal that this behavior directed towards sustainability convenes benefits to those who engage in it (Kasser and Sheldon 2002).
Sustainable consumption’s positive influence on consumers’ subjective well-being is broadly supported by research on prosocial behavior and subjective well-being, as well as intrinsic motivation. First, research shows that strong social relations are pivotal for people’s subjective well-being (Diener and Seligman 2002) and that prosocial activities influence subjective well-being (Dunn et al. 2011). For example, research demonstrates that prosocial spending, such as spending money on others or donating money to charity, makes people happier (Dunn et al. 2008). As such, participation in pro-social activities should enhance a consumer’s subjective well-being.
Hypothesis 2 (H2).
SCB-Reusing will have a significant positive impact on psychological well-being.

2.1.3. Mediating Role of SCB-Reusing

Personal factors determine individual behaviors. Spirituality is an individual’s attitude towards the world. Spirituality is aimed at peace, purpose, and meaning of life while establishing a connection with others (Reachout Australia 2020). Sustainable consumption is directed towards conserving the resources, benefits of other individuals, society, and the environment. Spirituality and sustainability are interlinked. Spirituality develops a close sense of self-awareness in individuals and they become mindful of their behavior towards nature and its resources. Spirituality directs human behavior towards minimalizing and conserving the resources. This sense of connectedness and altruism directed towards social, economic, and environmental benefit encompasses a sense of contentment in individuals. It is vastly accepted through past literature that well-being is the foremost benefit that people derive from engaging in sustainable behaviors (Seyfang and Smith 2007; Seyfang 2009).
In light of the above discussion, we can establish the rationale that sustainable consumption mediates the relationship between spirituality and psychological well-being. Therefore, we hypothesize our third hypothesis as:
Hypothesis 3 (H3).
Sustainable consumption will mediate the relationship between spirituality and psychological well-being.

2.1.4. Moderating Role of Religiosity

Religion, in terms of moral values, beliefs, judgments, attitudes, and actions, significantly affects the lives of individuals. Individual behavior is also governed by religion (Goldberg 2006). Spirituality and religiosity are certainly correlated. Spirituality is referred to as ‘‘quest for common truth’’, while religiosity tends to be associated with more accepted beliefs. Religion varies with culture, whereas spirituality has a standard collective understanding across the world. Religiosity is strongly associated with spirituality and encourages morality (Emmons 1999). It is suggested in the literature (Orellano et al. 2020) that the moderating role of religion is needed to understand the more accurate and comprehensive relationship between the constructs. In this study, religiosity is taken as a moderator to understand its effect on the relationship between spirituality and sustainable consumption behavior.
Hypothesis 4 (H4).
Religiosity moderates the relationship between spirituality and sustainable consumption behavior.
*Graphical representation of all the relationships is given in Figure 1.

3. Methodology

The research is quantitative in nature. Linkages between the constructs have been proposed and then tested statistically using SMART PLAS 3. Four hundred questionnaires were distributed and 286 were usable for data analysis. Sample size adequacy is supported by Comfrey and Lee (1992) where a sample size of 300 is considered to be fair. Our sample size is close to this desired sample size. Data collection was done using a cross-sectional approach. To gather data using a cross-sectional approach, researchers selected the survey research method. Survey was conducted using a questionnaire that was designed specifically for this research by adapting previously developed tools for the specific constructs. Questionnaire gathered information divided into two sections. First section gathered information regarding the demographical characteristics of the sample and the second section contained the scale of the constructs.

3.1. Participants

The present study consisted of a purposive sample of 286 (42%) men and (58%) women. Respondents were recruited from few cities of Punjab and the capital city of Pakistan, Islamabad. Participants’ ages ranged from 21 to 51 years, income ranged from Pakistani Rupees (PKR) 30,000 to more than (PKR) 70,000. Demographic characteristics are given in Table 1.

3.2. Measures

All the constructs were measured using a six-point Likert scale (1 = Strongly Disagree, 6 = Strongly Agree).
Spirituality was measured using a five-item scale developed by Iwata (2006). Reusing as Sustainable Consumption Behavior was measured using a three-item scale developed by Lee et al. (2015). Fourteen-item scale developed by Tennant et al. (2007) was used to measure Psychological well-being. Religiosity as a moderator was studied using a 10-item inventory scale developed by Worthington et al. (2003).

3.3. Method of Analysis

PLS-SEM was used to analyze the data. PLS-SEM was used because of the following reasons:
  • Exploratory Study: This study is exploratory as it has proposed and tested new linkages among the constructs. PLS-SEM is the most suitable for the exploratory research framework (Hair et al. 2018; Muhammad et al. 2017).
  • Robustness: A particularly prominent research stream in PLS-SEM has provided complementary methods for assessing the results’ robustness (Hair et al. 2018; Latan 2018)
  • Sample Size and Data Normality: PLS are commonly extended to both large and small samples without concern for the normality of data. Previous studies have proven that PLS does not impose sample size restrictions on the underlying data (Marcoulides and Saunders 2006).

4. Results

As suggested by (Anderson and Gerbing 1992), a two-stage analytical procedure was adopted. The first stage involved testing the measurement model (which are internal consistency reliability, convergent and discriminant validity [DV]), and the second stage involved examining the structural model (which is hypotheses testing). Data analysis was done by first estimating the measurement model followed by the structural (Hair et al. 2018).

4.1. Measurement Model

Reliability and validity are considered in the measurement model (Hair et al. 2018). SmartPLS has been used to evaluate the measurement model of the study, items loading, rho_A, AVE, and discriminant validity were measured. The results show that all factor loadings are greater than 0.60, which satisfies the condition of reliability, as reported in Table 2. For the evaluation of the measurement model, assessment of reliability and validity are important measures (Henseler et al. 2009).
Convergent validity was established by evaluating rho_a, factor loadings and average variance extracted (AVE) (Muhammad and Gul-E-Rana 2020; Hair et al. 2018). The minimum threshold value for AVE is 0.50. The value was greater than the minimum threshold. The assessment of construct reliability is done by using Dijkstra–Henseler’s rho indicators (Dijkstra and Henseler 2015). The minimum 0.70 reliability value is achieved of all composite indicators as benchmark suggested by Henseler (2017). The latent variables also meet the standard requirement of convergent validity. The values of VIF are below the threshold (<5), which confirms the absence of multicollinearity.
The Fornell–Larcker criterion is a common approach to assess the discriminant validity, as shown in Table 3 diagonal elements (bold). The values of all indicators, which are shown in Heterotrait–Monotrait (HTMT) are below the criteria <0.85 (Figure 2). Therefore, we can say that results are showing discriminant validity among all variables of the study. HTMT value <0.90 is acceptable (Henseler et al. 2015).
The diagonal value (in bold) is the square root of AVE, while other values are the correlations between the respective latent construct. The discriminant validity is achieved when a diagonal value (in bold) is higher than the values in its row and column. Referring to the above table, it can be concluded that discriminant validity for all constructs is achieved.
Table 3 results indicate that the discriminant validity of the measurement model was satisfactory. The discriminant validity of the model was established based on results. The measurement model was satisfactory as the results were as per the standardized values. The discriminant model was tested and found acceptable based on values, then the structural model was evaluated.
All loadings are significant at 0.001 level (2-tailed); rho_A, Dijkstra–Henseler’s rho indictors; VIF, Variance Inflation Factor.

4.2. Structural Model

In order to estimate the research model of the present work, we employ a bootstrapping procedure through 500 randomly drawn subsamples with replacement at a 0.05% level of significance. The execution of bootstrapping provides a confidence interval and standard errors to assess the statistical significance of the variables of interest (Henseler et al. 2009; Hair et al. 2016). Table 4 presents the estimated values of path coefficients. Factors loadings and path results are given in Figure 3.
The results in Table 4 show that spirituality has significant and positive (p = 0.000, β = 0.337) impact on psychological well-being. It has also significant and positive (p = 0.010, β = 0.200) impact on reusing (SCB). The results also show that reusing (SCB) has positive and significant (β = 0.168, p = 0.012) impact on psychological well-being and religiosity also has positive and significant (β = 0.314, p = 0.000) impact on reusing (SCB).
Table 5 shows that the indirect relation between spirituality and psychological well-being through mediation of reusing (SCB) has also been found significant and positive (p = 0.000, β = 0.434). It implies that our finding supports mediation of reusing (SCB) between spirituality and psychological well-being.
Table 6 shows that the interaction term (spirituality × religiosity) has a significant moderating effect (p = 0.282) on reusing (SCB). When the interaction term does impact significantly then the moderation is existing. It implies that the results show support of the moderating variable between spirituality and reusing (SCB).
Table 7 presents a model fit summary. SRMR is an index of the average of standardized residuals between the observed and the hypothesized covariance matrices (Chen 2007). The SRMR is a measure of the estimated model fit. The model achieves good fit with SRMR = <0.08 (Hu and Bentler 1999). Table 7 shows that this study model’s SRMR was 0.046 (saturated model) and 0.063 (estimated model), which revealed that this study model had a good fit, whereas the chi-square was equal to 1980.511 and NFI equal to 0.929 was also measured.

5. Discussion

This research article manifests the results of an exploratory study about the relationships between spirituality, reusing as a sustainable consumer behavior (SCB) (in the clothing fashion industry), moderating effect of religiosity, and subjective well-being as an outcome of SCB-reusing. The diversity of spirituality, religiosity, reusing and well-being characteristics of the sample studied, and the fundamentally theoretical approach of previous studies to the understanding of the pro-sustainable character of spirituality and religiosity, make this study worthwhile.
Developing sustainable consumption behavior in consumers is highly desirable by the marketers and the policymakers. To incorporate certain behavioral patterns, it is important to understand the factors leading those behaviors (Peattie 2010). Factors can be both personal and environmental. This study has taken into account spirituality as a personal level factor leading consumers towards sustainable consumption behavior. This study has explained that spirituality and religiosity together have a positive significant impact on sustainable consumption behavior.
Spirituality, which is directed towards one’s inner self, would lead to the development of strong consciousness toward the society and the environment (Tloczynski et al. 1997). Spirituality has an impact on how we consider our actions will influence the society and environment (Coates 2004). Spirituality leads people to find the meaning of life (Fry 2000). This guides individuals to connect with the ethical and moral values toward life, society, and economy (Vitell et al. 2016). As spiritualty grows, a person is more inclined toward simplicity, less accumulation of goods, and low materialism (Shaw and Moraes 2009; Rudd 2006). Engaging in sustainable consumption involving reusing will address the spiritual beliefs of the individual (Phipps et al. 2013). This study has empirically tested the relationship between spirituality and reusing and has found a significant positive relationship between the two constructs. This means that an increase in spirituality among the consumers will lead them toward reusing (SCB) and they will engage in practices that will conserve the natural, economic, and social resources. This result is in line with the study conducted by (Subrahmanyan and Gould 2012).
Reusing will lead to elongated use of a product, thus increasing the life cycle of the product. The larger life cycles will have a twofold effect, one in terms of consumer resources, that they will spend less on buying new things and spending the saved resources on other activities (Castellani et al. 2015). Secondly, the companies would have to engage less in raw material procurement and fewer production cycles. This would conserve the natural resources and would also help companies to conserve the resources (energy) involved in production cycles (Cooper 2005).
This research aims to answer whether sustainable consumption can provide benefits to individuals, as it does to environments and societies. Psychological well-being has been considered as one of the main, ultimate goals of life (Haidt 2006). As such, an achievement of psychological well-being is an outcome of participation in sustainable consumption (Helne and Hirvilammi 2015). The psychological well-being of an individual is considered to be linked with their belief systems and their behaviors. The results of this study have shown that spirituality has a strong positive relationship with the psychological well-being of individuals (Ivtzan et al. 2013). This important relationship has also been studied through the mediation effect of sustainable consumption behavior in this study. Results have shown that sustainable consumption behavior mediated the relationship between spirituality and psychological well-being (Sharma and Jha 2017).
The above discussion supports the view that the individuals involved in resource conservation, sustainability, social and economics benefits of the society will have a positive impact on their personal well-being. The actions that are directed toward the benefit of the society and economy have an impact on the better self of the individuals. Human actions are naturally directed toward well-being and happiness (Schmitt et al. 2018). Therefore, when personal characteristics would lead individuals toward the sustainability of the environment, they will have a positive impact on their well-being and they would derive happiness and satisfaction from their lives. However, living a happy life with psychological well-being has become a challenge for the individuals as they have to limit their behaviors within the conservation limits. Spirituality, in this case, would significantly support the intrinsic motivation of the individuals to direct their behaviors toward the benefit of the society (Nash and Stewart 2002). Spirituality leading to sustainable consumption behavior is not only rewarding outwardly but also it is an internally rewarding behavior leading toward the psychological well-being of the consumers.
This research has taken religiosity as a moderator between spirituality and sustainable consumption behavior. Though religiosity and spirituality are often considered to be overlapping concepts, originally, they both relate to different domains of consumer beliefs and values, respectively. Spirituality is directed inwards and is universal, whereas religiosity varies from culture to culture, so it is contextual. In a country like Pakistan, where religiosity derives the major decisions and behaviors of individual (Bukhari et al. 2019) consumers and society on the whole (Bakar et al. 2013), its interaction with the element of spirituality to understand the SCB has revealed a significant impact on the reusing behavior of consumers.

6. Implications

These relations have addressed gaps in the literature and aided the mounting need for understanding sustainable consumer behavior and its outcome in terms of psychological well-being. Understanding these relations will build on the prior literature in sustainability and consumer well-being to contribute more broadly to identifying ways to enhance consumer well-being rooted in sustainability.
This study will contribute insight toward marketing practices to the increasing market of sustainable products and services. Consumer segmentation is a basic tool for developing products and strategies. Developing consumer segments or identifying segments based on spirituality would help marketers to develop strategies that would relate to their inner self and moral identities in terms of SCB. Developing strategies around sustainability and investing in sustainability has marked a reason for success for the companies. It is evident from the studies that companies who invest and support the issues related to sustainability have higher goodwill among their consumers. Therefore, when companies invest in sustainability, they will be able to attract consumers who have higher spirituality as well as religiosity. Companies can direct their promotional campaigns to communicate the product and service-related reusing benefits for achieving psychological well-being.
Companies can have a two-fold application of their market strategies while rooting their marketing-based decisions in sustainability, they can promote both the company social responsibility in terms of conserving the natural resources and also being consumer-focused by promoting psychological well-being as an outcome of engaging in SCB.
Thinking and evaluating sensibly, it can be easily rationalized that businesses have no incentive to elongate the life cycle of their products. The elongated product life cycles diminish the revenue that the companies would get from selling new goods. However, more and more companies are developing ideas in order to decrease consumer waste. Another reason for companies to strategize around stretched life cycles is the rising price of raw materials and metals, and partly due to both consumers and companies becoming more aware of the need to protect our environment. Post-purchase decisions are usually governed by the consumers but putting the whole responsibility on consumers to think and come up with the ways to reuse their products will burden their repurchasing. Therefore, companies should develop programs and strategies focusing on ways for reusing their products.
This study has its limitations. First, the sample size is small. Increasing the sample size would improve the generalizability of the results. Data have been collected using the cross-sectional method. If the time lag method would be implied in future studies, it would help in reducing the element and chances of common method bias. This study has taken into account spirituality as the only presdictor of reusing. However, in future studies, other variables, like income, gender, and personality, can alos be taken into account to have an indepth understanding of the concept. This study can also be conducted in another culture. Results of both the studies can be compared to comprehend the cultural differences specific to reusing. Cultural dimensions can also be taken as a moderator in future studies between the predictor and reusing.

Author Contributions

S.I. is the principal and corresponding author of this paper. S.I. and M.I.K. conceived the proposed idea. S.I. collected the data and perfomed the data analysis using the analysis tools. Paper is written by S.I. under the support and guidance of M.I.K. M.I.K. supervised the findings of this work. Both the authors discussed the results and contributed to the final manuscript. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Anderson, James. C., and David. W. Gerbing. 1992. Assumptions and comparative strengths of the two-step approach: Comment on Fornell and Yi. Sociological Methods and Research 20: 321–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Arvidsson, A. 2014. Christianity and consumer culture. Sociologica 8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Bakar, A., R. Lee, and N. H. Hashim. 2013. Parsing religiosity, guilt and materialism on consumer ethics. Journal of Islamic Marketing 4: 232–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Bamossy, G. J., S. Borghini, R. W. Belk, S. J. Gould, R. V. Kozinets, P. Maclaran, L. Scott, H. J. Schau, L. Stevens, and D. Turley. 2011. Marketplace shaping of spiritual experiences: Current theory and prospects. ACR European Advances 9: 553–54. [Google Scholar]
  5. Baumeister, R. F., and M. R. Leary. 1995. The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin 117: 497. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Belk, R. W., M. Wallendorf, and Sherry J. F. Jr. 1989. The sacred and the profane in consumer behavior: Theodicy on the odyssey. Journal of Consumer Research 16: 1–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Beton, A., D. Dias, L. Farrant, T. Gibon, Y. Le Guern, M. Desaxce, A. Perwueltz, I. Boufateh, O. Wolf, J. Kougoulis, and et al. 2014. Environmental Improvement Potential of Textiles (IMPRO Textiles). Luxembourg: European Commission. [Google Scholar]
  8. Böhme, T., L. S. Stanszus, S. M. Geiger, D. Fischer, and U. Schrader. 2018. Mindfulness Training at School: A Way to Engage Adolescents with Sustainable Consumption? Sustainability 10: 3557. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  9. Bonsu, S. K., and R. W. Belk. 2010. Marketing a new African God: Pentecostalism and material salvation in Ghana. International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing 15: 305–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Bridges, C. M., and W. B. Wilhelm. 2008. Going beyond green: The “why and how” of integrating sustainability into the marketing curriculum. Journal of marketing education 30: 33–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Brundtland, G. H. 1987. Our common future—Call for action. Environmental Conservation 14: 291–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Bukhari, S. F. H., F. M. Woodside, R. Hassan, A. L. Shaikh, S. Hussain, and W. Mazhar. 2019. Is religiosity an important consideration in Muslim consumer behavior. Journal of Islamic Marketing 10: 1288–307. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Castellani, V., S. Sala, and N. Mirabella. 2015. Beyond the throwaway society: A life cycle-based assessment of the environmental benefit of reuse. Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management 11: 373–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Chen, F. F. 2007. Sensitivity of goodness of fit indexes to lack of measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal 14: 464–504. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Chrobot, P., M. Faist, L. Gustavus, A. Martin, A. Stamm, M. Zollinger, and R. Zah. 2018. Measuring Fashion: Environmental Impact of the Global Apparel and Footwear Industries Study. Full Report and Methodological Considerations. Available online: https://quantis-intl.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/measuringfashion_globalimpactstudy_full-report_quantis_cwf_2018a.pdf (accessed on 1 June 2020).
  16. Coates, J. 2004. From ecology to spirituality and social justice. Currents: New Scholarship in the Human Services 3: 11. [Google Scholar]
  17. Comfrey, A. L., and H. B. Lee. 1992. A First Course in Factor Analysis. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. [Google Scholar]
  18. Cooper, T. 2005. Slower consumption reflections on product life spans and the “throwaway society”. Journal of Industrial Ecology 9: 51–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Diener, E., and M. E. Seligman. 2002. Very happy people. Psychological Science 13: 81–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  20. Dijkstra, T. K., and J. Henseler. 2015. Consistent partial least squares path modeling. MIS Quarterly 39: 297–316. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Dong, X., S. Liu, H. Li, Z. Yang, S. Liang, and N. Deng. 2020. Love of nature as a mediator between connectedness to nature and sustainable consumption behavior. Journal of Cleaner Production 242: 118451. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Dunn, E. W., L. B. Aknin, and M. I. Norton. 2008. Spending money on others promotes happiness. Science 319: 1687–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Dunn, E. W., D. T. Gilbert, and T. D. Wilson. 2011. If money doesn’t make you happy, then you probably aren’t spending it right. Journal of Consumer Psychology 21: 115–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Eckhardt, G. M., R. Belk, and T. M. Devinney. 2010. Why don’t consumers consume ethically? Journal of Consumer Behaviour 9: 426–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Ellen MacArthur Foundation. 2017. A New Textiles Economy: Redesigning Fashion’s Future. Ellen MacArthur Foundation: Cowes, Available online: https://www.ellenmacarthurfoundation.org/assets/downloads/publications/A-New-Textiles-Economy_Full-Report.pdf (accessed on 20 September 2020).
  26. Emmons, R. A. 1999. Religion in the psychology of personality: An introduction. Journal of Personality 67: 874–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. European Commission. 2010. Being Wise with Waste: The EU’s Approach to Waste Management. Luxembourg. Available online: https://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/pdf/WASTE%20BROCHURE.pdf (accessed on 20 September 2020).
  28. European Environmental Agency. 2019. Textiles in Europe’s Circular Economy. Available online: https://www.eea.europa.eu/themes/waste/resource-efficiency/textiles-in-europe-s-circulareconomy/download.pdf (accessed on 20 September 2020).
  29. Fry, P. S. 2000. Religious involvement, spirituality and personal meaning for life: Existential predictors of psychological wellbeing in community-residing and institutional care elders. Aging and Mental Health 4: 375–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Garvey, A. M., and L. E. Bolton. 2017. Eco-product choice cuts both ways: How proenvironmental licensing versus reinforcement is contingent on environmental consciousness. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing 36: 284–98. [Google Scholar]
  31. Geng, J., R. Long, H. Chen, and W. Li. 2017. Exploring the motivation-behavior gap in urban residents’ green travel behavior: A theoretical and empirical study. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 125: 282–92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Ginkel, S. E. 2020. Happy Planet, Happy People? The Impact of Pro-Environmental Behaviour on Psychological Well-Being. Doctoral dissertation, Carleton University, Ottawa, ON, Canada. [Google Scholar]
  33. Goldberg, J. R. 2006. Spirituality, religion and secular values: What role in psychotherapy. Family Therapy News 25: 16–17. [Google Scholar]
  34. Gould, S. J. 2006. Cooptation through conflation: Spiritual materialism is not the same as spirituality. Consumption, Markets and Culture 9: 63–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Griffin, A. 2017. Adolescent neurological development and implications for health and well-being. Healthcare 5: 62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  36. Gutierrez-Nieto, B., C. Serrano-Cinca, and M. de la Cuesta. 2017. A multivariate study of over-indebtedness’ causes and consequences. International Journal of Consumer Studies 41: 188–98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Haidt, J. 2006. The Happiness Hypothesis: Finding Modern Truth in Ancient Wisdom. New York: Basic Books. [Google Scholar]
  38. Hair, Joseph F., Marko Sarstedt, Christian M. Ringle, and Siegfried P. Gudergan. 2018. Ringle Advanced Issues in Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling. Thousand Oaks, CA, USA: SAGE Publications. [Google Scholar]
  39. Hair, Joseph F., Jeffrey J. Risher, Marko Sarstedt, and Christian M. Ringle. 2018. When to use and how to report the results of PLS-SEM. European Business Review 31: 2–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Hawley, J. 2006. Digging for diamonds: A conceptual framework for understanding reclaimed textile. Clothing and Textiles Research Journal 24: 262–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Helne, T., and T. Hirvilammi. 2015. Wellbeing and sustainability: A relational approach. Sustainable Development 23: 167–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Henseler, J. 2017. Bridging design and behavioral research with variance-based structural equation modeling. Journal of Advertising 46: 178–92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Henseler, J., C. M. Ringle, and R. R. Sinkovics. 2009. The use of partial least squares path modeling in international marketing. In New Challenges to International Marketing. Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing Limited. [Google Scholar]
  44. Henseler, J., C. M. Ringle, and M. Sarstedt. 2015. A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in variance-based structural equation modeling. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 43: 115–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  45. Hira, T. K. 2012. Promoting sustainable financial behavior: Implications for education and research. International Journal of Consumer Studies 36: 502–7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Hu, L. T., and P. M. Bentler. 1999. Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal 6: 1–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Ivtzan, Itai, Christine P. L. Chan, Hannah E. Gardner, and Kiran Prashar. 2013. Linking religion and spirituality with psychological well-being: Examining self-actualization, meaning in life, and personal growth initiative. Journal of Religion and Health 52: 915–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Iwata, O. 2006. An evaluation of consumerism and lifestyle as correlates of a voluntary simplicity lifestyle. Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal 34: 557–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Izberk-Bilgin, E. 2012. Infidel brands: Unveiling alternative meanings of global brands at the nexus of globalization, consumer culture, and Islamism. Journal of Consumer Research 39: 663–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Jacobs, F., and R. Corbett. 2019. The European Parliament. Abingdon: Routledge. [Google Scholar]
  51. Kale, S. 2006. Consumer spirituality and marketing. In ACR Asia-Pacific Advances. For Consumer Research. Sydney: University of Sydney, vol. 7, pp. 108–10. [Google Scholar]
  52. Kasser, T., and K. M. Sheldon. 2002. What makes for a merry Christmas? Journal of Happiness Studies 3: 313–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Kerr, J., and J. Landry. 2017. Pulse of the Fashion Industry. Copenhagen: Global Fashion Agenda and The Boston Consulting Group. Available online: https://globalfashionagenda.com/wpcontent/uploads/2017/05/Pulse-of-the-Fashion-Industry_2017.pdf (accessed on 15 September 2020).
  54. Laitala, K., I. G. Klepp, and B. Henry. 2018. Does use matter? Comparison of environmental impacts of clothing based on fiber type. Sustainability 10: 2524. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  55. Latan, H. 2018. PLS path modeling in hospitality and tourism research: The golden age and days of future past. In Applying Partial Least Squares in Tourism and Hospitality Research. Bingley: Emerald Publishing Limited, pp. 53–83. [Google Scholar]
  56. Lee, M., E. Ko, S. Lee, and K. Kim. 2015. Understanding luxury disposition. Psychology and Marketing 32: 467–80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Marcoulides, G. A., and C. Saunders. 2006. Editor’s comments: PLS: A silver bullet? MIS Quarterly 30: iii–ix. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Mathras, D., A. B. Cohen, N. Mandel, and D. G. Mick. 2016. The effects of religion on consumer behavior: A conceptual framework and research agenda. Journal of Consumer Psychology 26: 298–311. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. McAlexander, J. H., B. L. Dufault, D. M. Martin, and J. W. Schouten. 2014. The marketization of religion: Field, capital, and consumer identity. Journal of Consumer Research 41: 858–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  60. McMahan, E. A., and D. Estes. 2011. Hedonic versus eudaimonic conceptions of well-being: Evidence of differential associations with self-reported well-being. Social Indicators Research 103: 93–108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Mehta, S., T. Saxena, and N. Purohit. 2020. The New Consumer Behaviour Paradigm amid COVID-19: Permanent or Transient? Journal of Health Management 22: 291–301. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Mick, D. G. 2017. Buddhist psychology: Selected insights, benefits, and research agenda for consumer psychology. Journal of Consumer Psychology 27: 117–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Mittelstaedt, J. D. 2002. A framework for understanding the relationships between religions and markets. Journal of Macromarketing 22: 6–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Muhammad, L., and Gul-E-Rana. 2020. Mediating role of customer forgiveness between perceived justice and satisfaction. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 52: 101886. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Muhammad, Lakhi, Batiah Mahadi, and Nazimah Hussin. 2017. Influence of social Capital on customer’s relationship satisfaction in the pakistani banking industry. Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics 29: 1036–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Muñiz, A. M., and H. J. Schau. 2005. Religiosity in the abandoned Apple Newton brand community. Journal of Consumer Research 31: 737–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Muñoz-García, A., and M. D. Villena-Martínez. 2020. Sustainable Behavior among Spanish University Students in Terms of Dimensions of Religion and Spirituality. Sustainability 12: 470. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  68. Nash, M., and B. Stewart. 2002. Spirituality and Social Care: Contributing to Personal and Community Well-Being. London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers. [Google Scholar]
  69. Nguyen, T. D., C. A. Dadzie, H. R. Chaudhuri, and T. Tanner. 2019. Self-control and sustainability consumption: Findings from a cross cultural study. Journal of International Consumer Marketing 31: 380–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Oman, D., and R. Morello-Frosch. 2018. Environmental Health Sciences, Religion, and Spirituality. In Why Religion and Spirituality Matter for Public Health. Cham: Springer, pp. 139–52. [Google Scholar]
  71. Orellano, A., C. Valor, and E. Chuvieco. 2020. The Influence of Religion on Sustainable Consumption: A Systematic Review and Future Research Agenda. Sustainability 12: 7901. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Papaoikonomou, E. 2013. Sustainable lifestyles in an urban context: Towards a holistic understanding of ethical consumer behaviours. Empirical evidence from Catalonia, Spain. International Journal of Consumer Studies 37: 181–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Park, M. J., H. Cho, K. K. P. Johnson, and J. Yurchisin. 2017. Use of behavioral reasoning theory to examine the role of social responsibility in attitudes toward apparel donation. International Journal of Consumer Studies 41: 333–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Patwary, S. 2020. An Investigation of the Substitution rate and Environmental Impact Associated with Secondhand Clothing Consumption in the United States. Doctoral dissertation, Kansas Atate University, Manhattan, KS, USA. [Google Scholar]
  75. Peattie, K. 2010. Green consumption: Behavior and norms. Annual Review of Environment and Resources 35: 195–228. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Pepper, M., T. Jackson, and D. Uzzell. 2009. An examination of the values that motivate socially conscious and frugal consumer behaviours. International Journal of Consumer Studies 33: 126–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Petrillo, J., S. J. Cano, L. D. McLeod, and C. D. Coon. 2015. Using classical test theory, item response theory, and Rasch measurement theory to evaluate patient-reported outcome measures: A comparison of worked examples. Value in Health 18: 25–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  78. Phipps, M., L. K. Ozanne, M. G. Luchs, S. Subrahmanyan, S. Kapitan, J. R. Catlin, R. Gau, R. W. Naylor, R. L. Rose, B. Simpson, and et al. 2013. Understanding the inherent complexity of sustainable consumption: A social cognitive framework. Journal of Business Research 66: 1227–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Popek, S., and M. Halagarda. 2017. Genetically modified foods: Consumer awareness, opinions, and attitudes in selected EU countries. International Journal of Consumer Studies 41: 325–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Quantis and Climate Work Foundation. 2018. Measuring Fashion Insight from the Environmental Impact of the Global Apparel and Footwear Industries Study 2018. Available online: https://quantis-intl.com/report/measuring-fashion-report (accessed on 12 September 2020).
  81. Reachout Australia. 2020. What Is Spirituality 2020? Available online: https://au.reachout.com/articles/what-is-spirituality (accessed on 10 September 2020).
  82. Redden, G. 2016. Revisiting the spiritual supermarket: Does the commodification of spirituality necessarily devalue it? Culture and Religion 17: 231–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Rinallo, D., L. M. Scott, and P. Maclaran. 2013a. Consumption and Spirituality. New York: Routledge. [Google Scholar]
  84. Rinallo, D., S. Borghini, G. Bamossy, and R. V. Kozinets. 2013b. When sacred objects go B®a(n)d: Fashion rosaries and the contemporary linkage of religion and commerciality. In Spirituality and Consumption. Edited by D. Rinallo, L. Scott and P. Maclaran. New York: Routledge, pp. 29–40. [Google Scholar]
  85. Rinallo, D., P. Maclaran, and L. Stevens. 2016. A mixed blessing: Market-mediated religious authority in Neopaganism. Journal of Macromarketing 36: 425–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  86. Rippé, C. B., B. Smith, and A. J. Dubinsky. 2018. Lonely consumers and their friend the retail salesperson. Journal of Business Research 92: 131–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Romani, S., S. Grappi, and R. P. Bagozzi. 2016. Corporate socially responsible initiatives and their effects on consumption of green products. Journal of Business Ethics 135: 253–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Rudd, P. M. 2006. Contributions from Spirituality: Simplicity—Complexity—Simplicity. In The Oxford Handbook of Religion and Science. Oxford: Oxford University Press on Demand. [Google Scholar]
  89. Sandikci, Ö, and G. Ger. 2009. Veiling in style: How does a stigmatized practice become fashionable? Journal of Consumer Research 37: 15–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Sandin, G., and G. M. Peters. 2018. Environmental impact of textile reuse and recycling—A review. Journal of Cleaner Production 184: 353–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Schmitt, M. T., L. B. Aknin, J. Axsen, and R. L. Shwom. 2018. Unpacking the relationships between pro-environmental behavior, life satisfaction, and perceived ecological threat. Ecological Economics 143: 130–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Schmidt, A., D. Watson, C. Askham, and P. Brunn Poulsen. 2016. Gaining benefits from discarded textiles: LCA of different treatment pathways (Report no. TemaNord 2016:537). Nordic Council of Ministers. Available online: https://norden.divaportal.org/smash/get/diva2:957517/FULLTEXT02.pdf (accessed on 20 September 2020).
  93. Schouten, J. W., and J. H. McAlexander. 1995. Subcultures of consumption: An ethnography of the new bikers. Journal of Consumer Research 22: 43–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Seyfang, G. 2009. The New Economics of Sustainable Consumption. Minería Transnacional, Narrativas del Desarrollo y Resistencias Sociales. Buenos Aires: Biblos. [Google Scholar]
  95. Seyfang, G., and A. Smith. 2007. Grassroots innovations for sustainable development: Towards a new research and policy agenda. Environmental Politics 16: 584–603. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Sharma, R., and M. Jha. 2017. Values influencing sustainable consumption behaviour: Exploring the contextual relationship. Journal of Business Research 76: 77–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Shaw, D., and C. Moraes. 2009. Voluntary simplicity: An exploration of market interactions. International Journal of Consumer Studies 33: 215–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  98. Soyer, M. P., and K. Dittrich. 2020. Sustainable Consumer Behaviour in Purchasing, Using, and Disposing of Clothes. Available online: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/341709923_Sustainable_consumer_behaviour_in_purchasing_using_and_disposing_of_clothes (accessed on 13 September 2020).
  99. Subrahmanyan, S., and S. Gould. 2012. Achieving sustainable consumption through spiritual practices. PURUSHARTHA—A Journal of Management, Ethics and Spirituality 5: 79–91. [Google Scholar]
  100. Tennant, R., L. Hiller, R. Fishwick, S. Platt, S. Joseph, S. Weich, J. Parkinson, J. Secker, and S. Stewart-Brown. 2007. The Warwick-Edinburgh mental well-being scale (WEMWBS): Development and UK validation. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes 5: 63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  101. Tloczynski, J., C. Knoll, and A. Fitch. 1997. The relationship among spirituality, religious ideology, and personality. Journal of Psychology and Theology 25: 208–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  102. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2019. Textiles: Material-Specific Data. Available online: https://www.epa.gov/facts-and-figures-about-materials-waste-and-recycling/textilesmaterial-specific-data (accessed on 20 September 2020).
  103. Vasquez, W. F. 2017. Understanding bottled water consumption in a high-Poverty context: Empirical evidence from a small town in Guatemala. International Journal of Consumer Studies 41: 199–206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  104. Veer, E., and A. Shankar. 2011. Forgive me father for I did not give full justification for my sins: How religious consumers justify the acquisition of material wealth. Journal of Marketing Management 27: 547–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  105. Vitell, S. J. 2009. The role of religiosity in business and consumer ethics: A review of the literature. Journal of Business Ethics 90: 155–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  106. Vitell, S. J., J. G. Paolillo, and J. J. Singh. 2005. Religiosity and consumer ethics. Journal of Business Ethics 57: 175–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  107. Vitell, S. J., R. A. King, K. Howie, J. F. Toti, L. Albert, E. R. Hidalgo, and O. Yacout. 2016. Spirituality, moral identity, and consumer ethics: A multi-cultural study. Journal of Business Ethics 139: 147–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  108. Wahid, N. K. A., and N. M. Mustamil. 2017. Ways to maximize the triple bottom line of the telecommunication industry in Malaysia. Journal of Organizational Change Management 30: 263–80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  109. Wang, H., M. Park, H. Liang, S. Wu, I. J. Lopez, W. Ji, G. Li, and S. A. Snyder. 2017a. Reducing ultrafiltration membrane fouling during potable water reuse using pre-ozonation. Water Research 125: 42–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  110. Wang, W., A. Krishna, and B. McFerran. 2017b. Turning off the lights: Consumers’ environmental efforts depend on visible efforts of firms. Journal of Marketing Research 54: 478–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  111. Weber, S., J. Lynes, and S. B. Young. 2017. Fashion interest as a driver for consumer textile waste management: Reuse, recycle or disposal. International Journal of Consumer Studies 41: 207–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  112. Worthington, E. L., Jr., N. G. Wade, T. L. Hight, J. S. Ripley, M. E. McCullough, J. W. Berry, M. M. Schmitt, J. T. Berry, K. H. Bursley, L. O’Connor, and et al. 2003. The Religious Commitment Inventory—10: Development, refinement, and validation of a brief scale for research and counseling. Journal of Counseling Psychology 50: 84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  113. Yang, S., Y. Song, and S. Tong. 2017. Sustainable retailing in the fashion industry: A systematic literature review. Sustainability 9: 1266. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
Religions 11 00634 g001 550
Figure 1. Graphical Representation of Theoretical Framework.
Figure 1. Graphical Representation of Theoretical Framework.
Religions 11 00634 g001
Religions 11 00634 g002 550
Figure 2. Heterotrait–Monotrait (HTMT).
Figure 2. Heterotrait–Monotrait (HTMT).
Religions 11 00634 g002
Religions 11 00634 g003 550
Figure 3. SmarPLS output.
Figure 3. SmarPLS output.
Religions 11 00634 g003
Table
Table 1. Demographic Characteristics.
Table 1. Demographic Characteristics.
Demographic CharacteristicsFrequency(%)Cumulative (%)
Gender
Female1665858
Male12042100
Age
21–306723.423.4
31–4017059.489.2
41–50186.382.9
51 and Above3110.8100
Qualification
Intermediate4616.116.1
Graduation8429.445.5
Masters/MPhil14249.795.1
PhD144.9100.0
Monthly Income *
30,00082.82.8
31,000–50,000269.111.9
51,000–70,00017761.973.8
70,000 and Above7526.2100
* Monthly income in Pakistani Rupees (PKR).
Table
Table 2. Reliability.
Table 2. Reliability.
MeasuresVIFFLRho_AAVE
Spirituality1.494 0.8310.597
VS1 0.813
VS2 0.742
VS3 0.810
VS4 0.748
VS5 0.746
SCB Reusing1.616 0.8990.832
D1 0.921
D2 0.919
D3 0.896
Psychological well-being1.792 0.9430.566
PW1 0.778
PW2 0.804
PW3 0.747
PW4 0.742
PW5 0.691
PW6 0.768
PW7 0.809
PW8 0.816
PW9 0.706
PW10 0.792
PW11 0.780
PW12 0.700
PW13 0.734
PW14 0.842
Religiosity1.427 0.9260.631
R1 0.853
R2 0.853
R3 0.844
R4 0.776
R5 0.742
R6 0.776
R7 0.824
R8 0.788
R9 0.734
R10 0.739
Table
Table 3. Discriminant validity.
Table 3. Discriminant validity.
Variable1234
Psychological Well-Being0.752
Religiosity0.4740.794
Spirituality0.3950.4640.772
Reusing (SCB)0.2850.4070.3460.912
Table
Table 4. Path coefficients for direct relationships.
Table 4. Path coefficients for direct relationships.
HypothesisRelationshipsBSEt2.5%97.5%Decision
H1Spirituality -> Psychological Well-Being0.3370.0744.555 *0.1910.480Accepted
H2SCB Reusing -> Psychological Well-Being0.1680.0672.507 *0.0370.296Accepted
H3Spirituality -> SCB Reusing0.2000.0772.597 *0.0520.345Accepted
H4Religiosity -> SCB Reusing0.3140.0654.827 *0.1950.447Accepted
* Significant value.
Table
Table 5. Path coefficients for indirect relationships.
Table 5. Path coefficients for indirect relationships.
HypothesisRelationship BSEt2.5%97.5%Decision
H5Spirituality -> SCB Reusing -> Psychological Well-Being0.4340.0417.3560.0050.078Accepted
Table
Table 6. Path coefficients for direct relationships.
Table 6. Path coefficients for direct relationships.
HypothesisRelationshipBSEt2.5%97.5%Decision
H6Moderating Effect 1 -> SCB Reusing0.2820.0565.036 *0.0050.078Accepted
* Significant value.
Table
Table 7. Model fit summary.
Table 7. Model fit summary.
Saturated ModelEstimated Model
SRMR0.0460.063
d_ULS3.0286.789
d_G1.2891.309
Chi-square1980.5112013.106
NFI0.9290.924
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Iqbal, S.; Khan, M.I. Spirituality as a Predictor of Psychological Well-Being: An Explanatory Mechanism of Religiosity and Sustainable Consumption. Religions 2020, 11, 634. https://doi.org/10.3390/rel11120634

AMA Style

Iqbal S, Khan MI. Spirituality as a Predictor of Psychological Well-Being: An Explanatory Mechanism of Religiosity and Sustainable Consumption. Religions. 2020; 11(12):634. https://doi.org/10.3390/rel11120634

Chicago/Turabian Style

Iqbal, Sana, and Muhammad Ishfaq Khan. 2020. "Spirituality as a Predictor of Psychological Well-Being: An Explanatory Mechanism of Religiosity and Sustainable Consumption" Religions 11, no. 12: 634. https://doi.org/10.3390/rel11120634

APA Style

Iqbal, S., & Khan, M. I. (2020). Spirituality as a Predictor of Psychological Well-Being: An Explanatory Mechanism of Religiosity and Sustainable Consumption. Religions, 11(12), 634. https://doi.org/10.3390/rel11120634

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