We model environmentally conscious consumption behavior (ECCB) with three psychometric values constructs: Schwartz’s Self-Transcendence Values, Kahle’s List of Values, and Richins and Dawson’s Materialism. Comparison of competing models and non-nested specification tests lead to a statistically significant model of ECCB which reasonably fits our author-designed and collected survey data. In addition, benevolence and universalism (elements of Schwartz’s construct), and acquisition centrality (an element of Materialism) exhibit statistical significance and conform to expectations.
With the advent of reference dependent preferences [
Environmentally-linked purchase behavior offers an attractive test case for linking values and behaviors. Environmental psychologists have found that people who “hold collective, society-directed values are more likely to engage in environmentally and socially responsible behaviors” ( [
One measure of environmentally-linked behavior is Ecologically Conscious Consumption Behavior (ECCB), which occurs when consumers “purchase products and services which they perceive to have a positive impact on the environment” ( [
Section 2 below develops the constructs we explore and our research hypotheses. Section 3 describes our sample and survey, while Section 4 describes the resulting data. Section 5 reports the statistical analysis. Section 6 concludes.
Roberts [
Schwartz [
Schultz and Zelezny [
Consequently, we hypothesize:
H1: Individuals with high levels of universalism engage in more ECCB, and
H2: Individuals with high levels of benevolence engage in less ECCB.
Kahle [
As Schwartz [
H3: Individuals with high levels of maturity engage in more ECCB.
The literature suggests that security is related to anthropocentric attitudes [
H4: Individuals with high levels of security engage in less ECCB.
Schwartz and Bilsky ( [
H5: Individuals with high levels of self-direction engage in more ECCB.
Kamakura and Novak’s [
H6: Individuals with high levels of achievement engage in less ECCB, and
H7: Individuals with high levels of enjoyment engage in less ECCB.
Materialism consists of success, acquisition centrality, and pursuit of happiness [
Richins and Dawson [
H8: Individuals with high levels of materialism on the success dimension engage in less ECCB,
H9: Individuals with high levels of materialism on the acquisition centrality dimension engage in less ECCB, and
H10: Individuals with high levels of materialism on the pursuit of happiness dimension engage in less ECCB.
A random sample was drawn from the telephone directory of a large metropolitan area in the Southeastern United States. Potential respondents were pre-called and asked to participate in a study of “Consumer Purchase Behavior.” The addresses of those agreeing to participate were verified and a survey and self-addressed, stamped envelope mailed to them. We mailed 290 surveys; 149 were returned, yielding a 51.38 percent response rate. We deleted surveys with missing variables, leaving 141 observations.
While Roberts [
Social desirability was measured by 10 items from the Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale [
The three values constructs were included in the survey. Schwartz’s [
Of the 141 observations in the final dataset, 53 percent of respondents are female; 53 percent have less than a college degree; 25 percent have a college degree; and 21 percent attended graduate school. Age ranges from 19 to 89 years with a mean of 44. Twenty-five respondents (17.7 percent) are between 19 and 29; 32 (22.7 percent) fall between 30 and 39; 35 subjects (24.8 percent) are between 40 and 49; 28 (19.9 percent) are in their 50s; and 21 subjects (14.9 percent) are 60 or older. The median household income range is $50,000 to $74,999.
To determine which items from Robert’s instrument (described in Section 3.2.1) capture ECCB rather than other societally-oriented behaviors, we used SPSS to perform a principle components factor analysis using oblimin rotation on the 20 items jointly measuring both ECCB and non-environmental, societally-oriented behavior. The scree plot suggested two factors. We dropped one item which loaded on both factors at the 0.40 level and one which did not load at the 0.35 level on either factor. After deleting these two items, we repeated the factor analysis, resulting in two clean factors capturing 65.57 percent of the variance.
Item | Loading |
---|---|
I have switched products for ecological reasons. | 0.902 |
I try only to buy products/packaging that can be recycled. | 0.868 |
I normally make a conscious effort to limit my use of products that are made of or use scarce resources. | 0.863 |
Whenever possible, I buy products packaged in reusable containers. | 0.791 |
When I have a choice between two equal products, I always purchase the one that is less harmful to other people and the environment. | 0.781 |
I will not buy products that have excessive packaging. | 0.764 |
I do not buy products in aerosol containers. | 0.750 |
I have purchased products because they cause less pollution. | 0.722 |
I have convinced members of my family or friends not to buy some products that are harmful to the environment. | 0.697 |
I make every effort to buy paper products made from recycled paper. | 0.670 |
If I understand the potential damage to the environment that some products can cause, I do not purchase these products. | 0.551 |
Cronbach’s α | 0.93 |
Percent of Variance Extracted | 51.0 |
jointly measure a single, latent construct. Alphas of 0.7 or greater are considered acceptable ( [
The measures of Schwartz’s Self-Transcendence Values (universalism: α = 0.90 and benevolence: α = 0.88) and Richins and Dawson’s Materialism (success: α = 0.77, acquisition centrality: α = 0.76, and happiness: α = 0.81) also meet accepted standards for Cronbach's alpha. The only measure containing three items in the LOV motivational domain is enjoyment, and its alpha is also acceptable (0.78). Three LOV motivational domains contain two correlated items: self-direction (Spearman correlation coefficient (r) = 0.49, p = 0.00), achievement (r = 0.55, p = 0.00), and maturity (r = 0.51, p = 0.00). For statistical analysis, values variables contain scale means. We also include gender (a dummy variable with gender = 1 indicating female; gender = 0 indicating male) and age in years in subsequent analysis.
To determine which, if any, of the three values constructs is linked to ECCB, we first estimated a base model by regressing ECCB on a constant, social desirability, gender, and age. These estimates are reported in columns two and three of
Incorporating universalism and benevolence increases explanatory power, as
MODEL | ||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Base | Base + Self-Transcendence | Base + LOV | Base + Materialism | Base + Composite | ||||||
(1) | (2) | (3) | (4) | (5) | (6) | (7) | (8) | (9) | (10) | (11) |
VARIABLE | Est. Coef. (S.E.) | t-value (p-value) | Est. Coef. (S.E.) | t-value (p-value) | Est. Coef. (S.E.) | t-value (p-value) | Est. Coef. (S.E.) | t-value (p-value) | Est. Coef. (S.E.) | t-value (p-value) |
Constant | 2.91 (0.450) | 6.461 (0.000) | 2.891 (0.637) | 4.542 (0.000) | 2.771 (0.683) | 4.055 (0.000) | 3.870 (0.710) | 5.452 (0.000) | 4.374 (0.828) | 5.280 (0.000) |
Social Desirability | 0.038 (0.053) | 0.713 (0.477) | 0.025 (0.053) | 0.469 (0.640) | 0.027 (0.056) | 0.480 (0.632) | 0.042 (0.054) | 0.778 (0.438) | 0.031 (0.052) | 0.600 (0.549) |
Gender | 0.684 (0.224) | 3.049 (0.003) | 0.690 (0.216) | 3.200 (0.002) | 0.547 (0.258) | 2.117 (0.036) | 0.732 (0.230) | 3.176 (0.002) | 0.725 (0.211) | 3.432 (0.001) |
Age | −0.001 (0.008) | −0.177 (0.860) | −0.008 (0.008) | −1.053 (0.294) | −0.004 (0.009) | −0.421 (0.674) | −0.005 (0.008) | −0.676 (0.500) | −0.013 (0.008) | −1.646 (0.102) |
Universalism | - | - | 0.504 (0.123) | 4.104 (0.000) | - | - | - | - | 0.526 (0.120) | 4.374 (0.000) |
Benevolence | - | - | −0.385 (0.146) | −2.646 (0.009) | - | - | - | - | −0.454 (0.145) | −3.142 (0.002) |
Self-direction | - | - | - | - | 0.078 (0.166) | 0.473 (0.637) | - | - | - | - |
Achievement | - | - | - | - | 0.006 (0.150) | 0.038 (0.970) | - | - | - | - |
Enjoyment | - | - | - | - | −0.136 (0.179) | −0.759 (0.449) | - | - | - | - |
Maturity | - | - | - | - | 0.169 (0.139) | 1.210 (0.229) | - | - | - | - |
Security | - | - | - | - | −0.050 (0.108) | −0.467 (0.641) | - | - | - | - |
Success | - | - | - | - | - | - | 0.047 (0.135) | 0.352 (0.726) | - | - |
Acquisition Centrality | - | - | - | - | - | - | −0.310 (0.145) | −2.137 (0.034) | −0.307 (0.113) | −2.710 (0.008) |
Happiness | - | - | - | - | - | - | 0.034 (0.102) | 0.336 (0.738) | - | - |
R2 | 0.068 | 0.172 | 0.082 | 0.104 | 0.215 | |||||
Adj. R2 | 0.048 | 0.141 | 0.027 | 0.064 | 0.180 | |||||
F (p-value) | 3.34 (0.021) | 5.59 (0.000) | 1.48 (0.171) | 2.59 (0.021) | 6.10 (0.000) | |||||
∆F (p-value) | - | 8.42 (0.000) | 0.400 (0.848) | 1.78 (0.154) | 8.328 (0.000) | |||||
AIC | 0.583 | 0.494 | 0.639 | 0.587 | 0.455 |
aDependent Variable is ECCB. bNumber of Observations is 141. cRegressions were performed with NLOGIT 4.0.
1Here we adjust the two-tailed p-values reported in
In addition to the intercept, three independent variables are significant at the 0.01 level: universalism (β = 0.504, t = 4.104, p = 0.000), supporting H1; gender (β = 0.690, t = 3.200, p = 0.002); and benevolence (β = −0.385, t = −2.646, p = 0.009), supporting H2. Note that universalism and gender positively influence ECCB, while benevolence negatively affects it (consistent with an ingroup versus outgroup interpretation).
The LOV values are grouped into five motivational domains: maturity, security, self-direction, achievement, and enjoyment. Based on the associated incremental F-test, we fail to reject the null that the estimated coefficients of the added variables―maturity, security, self-direction, achievement, and enjoyment―jointly equal zero (∆F = 0.40, p = 0.848). In addition, the overall model fails to achieve significance (F = 1.48, p = 0.171) or improve fit (adjusted R2 = 0.027 and AIC = 0.639). Of the explanatory variables, only gender is significant (β = 0.547, t = 2.117, p = 0.036); consequently, we fail to find support for H3 through H7.
Lastly, we add the three dimensions of Materialism―success, acquisition centrality, and happiness―to the base model. We fail to reject the null that the coefficients of the added variables jointly equal zero (∆F = 1.78, p = 0.154). Note, however, the model as a whole is significant (F = 2.59; p = 0.021), largely due to the individual coefficient of acquisition centrality exerting a negative effect on ECCB (β = −0.310, t = −2.137, p = 0.034), supporting H9, while gender positively affects it (β = 0.732, t = 3.176, p = 0.002). We fail to find support for H8 or H10.
A non-nested specification test, such as Davidson and MacKinnon’s J-test, represents an alternative strategy to select among competing sets of independent variables [
For the first trial, we re-estimated the Self-Transcendence model including predicted values based on LOV and Materialism. At the 0.05 level, Materialism should be included in the model (t = 2.845, p = 0.005), but LOV should not (t = 1.238, p = 0.218). For the second trial, we re-estimated the LOV model including fitted values for Self-Transcendence and Materialism. The results suggest adding both Self-Transcendence (t-value = 4.181, p = 0.000) and Materialism (t = 2.728, p = 0.007) to the model. For the last trial, we re-estimated the Materialism model including fitted values for Self-Transcendence and LOV and obtained a similar result: a suggested final model specification incorporating Self-Transcendence (t = 4.021. p = 0.000), but not LOV (t = 0.919, p = 0.360). Should only a single construct be required, J-tests eliminate LOV at levels of significance less than or equal to 0.360. Levels of significance less than or equal to 0.005 are required to exclude Materialism in favor of Self-Transcendence.
At the more typical 0.05 level of significance, the J-tests suggest including elements of Self-Transcendence and Materialism as explanatory variables. As shown in columns four and five of
1Here we adjust the two-tailed p-values reported in
As the composite model indicates, adding universalism, benevolence, and acquisition centrality to the base model improves fit and yields a significant model, demonstrating the potential of a values-based approach to modeling consumer behavior. The composite model is the best fit of the five models presented in
Webb, D.J., Murphy, J.H. and Brown, C.O. (2017) A Comparison of Three Psychometric Values Measures for Modeling Ecologically Conscious Consumption Behavior. Theoretical Economics Letters, 7, 2008-2018. https://doi.org/10.4236/tel.2017.77136