Green Prestige: Self-Benefit and Environmental-Benefit Appeals in Green Advertising and the Moderating Role of Public Self-Awareness
University of Amsterdam
Graduate School of Communication Masters Program Communication Science - Master Thesis Tobias R.Tiggelaar 5688698 Supervised by Dr. K. Bevelander 26 06 2014
This study draws from the theories of social dilemmas, impression management and competitive altruism to provide a paradigm for understanding green consumer behaviour. The main goal was to test whether exposure to self-benefit or
environmental-benefit appeals in green advertisements influences purchase intentions. In addition, the moderating role of public self-awareness was assessed as it relates to the effectiveness of different appeal types. The study took place at a large Dutch university where 121 students were asked to view advertisements for a new environmentally friendly jeans brand. The study involved a 3 (self benefit,
environmental benefit, control group) x 2 (low public self-awareness, high public self -awareness) between subjects design. The findings suggest that appeal type does not have a significant effect on purchase intentions for green products (F(2, 121) = 1.95, p = .147, Np2 = .276). Furthermore, no interaction was found of appeal type and public self-awareness (F(2, 121) = 1.21, p = .302, Np2 = .276). Thus, the manipulation of public self-awareness did not affect participants’ purchase intention in response to the different advertisements. A number of limitations to this study and directions for future research are discussed.
Theoretical Framework ... 6 Self-Benefits Vs. Environmental-Benefits ... 6 Public Self-Awareness ... 8 Competitive Altruism. ... 9 Impression Management. ... 8 Product Symbolism. ... 11 Hypotheses ... 12 Methods... 13
Design and Participants ... 13
Setting and Procedure ... 13
Materials and Measures ... 14
Advertisements ... 14
Public Self- Awareness ... 17
Questionnaire ... 18 Strategy of Analysis ... 20 Results ... 21 Randomization Checks ... 21 Manipulation Checks ... 21 Correlations ... 22 Main Analyses ... 24 Discussion ... 25 Literature ... 29
Green Prestige: Self-Benefit and Environmental-Benefit Appeals in Green Advertising and the Moderating Role of Public Self-Awareness
In the past few decades, consumers have become increasingly observant to
environmental issues such as global climate warming, waste management problems and issues of resource depletion (Crane, 2001; Mazar & Zong, 2010; Vermeir & Verbeke, 2006). This growing concern and feeling of responsibility has led to a rapid growth in the global market for environmentally friendly or “green” products. These are marketing appeals that refer to products tending to preserve environmental quality (as by being recyclable, biodegradable or non-polluting) (“Green”, 2014). Between 2009 and 2010 the number of such products, that were available for consumer
purchase in the North American market increased by 73% (Terrachoice, 2010). Many studies have shown that consumers generally have favorable attitudes to companies that engage in environmentally responsible behavior and their products (Ellen, Web & Mohr, 2006; Grimmer & Wooley, 2012; Sen & Battacharaya, 2004). Thus, apart from inherent benefits to the environment and society, it seems sensible from a business point of view for companies to tap into this growing market by acting in more environmentally responsible ways (Carlson, Grove & Kangun, 1993; Menon & Menon, 1997).
In practice however, the green market is not as large as it could be. For instance, in the United Kingdom, most of the ethical labeling initiatives with respect to products like organic food still have market shares of less than 1% (MacGillivray, 2000). There appears to be a gap between environmental attitudes and behavior (Bray, Johns & Killborn 2010; Cho, 2012; Picket-Baker & Ozaki, 2008). Thus, consumers may be very concerned about the environment but these attitudes do not necessarily
translate into more environmentally friendly consumer behavior. Potential
explanations are that price, quality, convenience, and brand familiarity are still the most important decision criteria for most consumers (Carrigan & Attalla, 2001; Weatherell, Tregear & Allinson, 2003), while environmental factors are only effectively taken into account by a minority of consumers. Although it can be assumed that most people want to have a clean and healthy environment, there are reasons to act in environmentally unfriendly ways. Green products are often more expensive and more difficult to acquire than their non-green counterparts (White, MacDonnel & Elhard, 2012). The challenge for marketers, therefore, is that green products involve a consumer trade-off between individual level costs (higher prices, less accessibility) and environmental level benefits. This is probably why it is so difficult to translate green consumer attitudes into green purchase behavior. To bridge this gap, marketing professionals are in need of further knowledge about the decision-making process in green consumer behavior. While existing research has provided the field of marketing with critical insights about psychological
characteristics and sociodemographics of green consumers (Laroche, Bergeron & Barbaro-Forleo 2001; Roberts 1996; Shrum, McCarty & Lowrey 1995; Webster 1975), few studies to date have examined the effectiveness of green advertising appeals (Kareklas, Carlson & Muehling, 2012; Menon et al., 1997; Vermeir et al., 2006).
One important decision when promoting an environmentally friendly product is the type of message appeal to use. For example, should the message highlight the product’s environmental benefits or should advertisements focus on product attributes that are more beneficial to the consumer (e.g, quality, durability). Furthermore, the effectiveness of environmental appeals might be influenced by consumers’ individual
characteristics such as environmental concern (Grimmer et al., 2012) or
environmental skepticism (Royne et al, 2012; Tucker et al. 2012; White et al. 2012). In addition, public self-awareness may play a role in people’s decision to purchase green products. Public self-awareness is defined as an individual’s tendency to identify the self and evaluate his or her own actions through another’s standpoint (White & Peloza, 2009). A study examining the role of public self-awareness in generating charitable support showed influence on the effect of self-benefit versus other-benefit advertising appeals. The rate of donations to charity was higher with other-benefit appeals in situations where individuals feel that their actions were likely to be seen and evaluated by others than in a situation where their actions would go unnoticed (White et al., 2009). Thus, advertisements that focus on benefits of others may be more effective under high public self-awareness.
To the author’s knowledge, the role of public self-awareness on self- and environmental-benefit appeals and consumer purchase decisions, has thus far not been tested for green advertising. This study aims to fill this gap in previous research by investigating the effectiveness of different green advertising appeals in generating purchase intentions under conditions of high and low public self-awareness. By empirically testing public self-awareness as a boundary condition of green advertising effectiveness, this study contributes to a more profound understanding of green consumer behavior. To do this, this study utilizes advertisements for an
environmentally friendly jeans brand. In a practical application, this knowledge can be a useful tool for marketing professionals in creating successful green advertising campaigns.
Theoretical Framework Self-Benefits Vs. Environmental-Benefits
As illustrated in ‘The tragedy of the commons’ (Hardin, 1968), rational human beings who seek to maximize their own gains, will be inclined to make environmentally unfriendly decisions as long as the costs of doing so do not outweigh the benefits, even if this eventually ruins their own habitat1. When forced to choose between collective interests and their own, individuals experience a conflict. This is called a social dilemma (Milfont & Gouveia, 2006). It represents a conflict between the collective interest of society and the individual interests of its members.
Although it is not always clear in consumer behaviour, whether pursuing one’s own interests is at odds with collective interests ( Göckeritz et al., 2009), green products are often more expensive and more difficult to acquire than their non-green
counterparts, due to increased costs of environmentally friendly production. Thus, green consumer behavior can be understood as a social dilemma as it entails a conflict between collective (environmental) interests and the individual (financial) interests if the consumer.
The challenge in marketing green products lies in overcoming this dilemma by appealing to consumers in clever ways. There has been some debate over which kind of advertising appeals are more effective. Advertisements that make a claim about the environment are expected to persuade consumers by appealing to their environmental consciousness. Environmentally conscious consumers experience personal
satisfaction by contributing to the “common good” of the environment (Polonsky,
1 The tragedy of the commons is a theory of economics that describes the depletion of a certain resource as a result of individuals acting independently in accordance with their own self-interest rather than the whole group’s long-term interest. The title comes from 19th century English agriculture, where shepherds sometimes grazed their sheep in common areas. Each shepherd could receive benefits by adding more sheep to their flock but if all shepherds would make this rational economic decision, the common would become overgrazed, to the detriment of all (Hardin, 1968).
2011: Ritov & Kahneman, 1997). A feeling economists have come to refer to as “the warm glow of giving” (Andreoni, 1990).
In contrast, Hartmann, Ibáñez and Sainz (2005) argue that to most consumers, personal benefits are more important and advertisers should try to increase
perceptions of personal benefits of purchasing a green product. Holmes, Miller and Lerner (2002) found that willingness to help a charitable organization is greater when the act is presented as an economic transaction than when it is presented as an act of charity. They suggest that “the offer of an exchange permits people to still feel good about doing their part without committing themselves to a hard-to-live-up-to
psychological contract” (Holmes et al., 2002, p. 145). People have a strong need to maintain and enhance their self-concepts by behaving consistently with their previous actions, beliefs and self-ascribed traits (Cialdini & Trost, 1998). Contributing to a charity results in an internal conflict because in order to remain consistent, one would have to commit to contributing to other charities in the future. Similarly, consumers who purchase a green product take on the burden of potentially having to perform other forms of environmentally friendly behaviour. Thus, people often want to use an egoistic “cover” to avoid this psychological burden. In green advertising, such a cover can be provided by using appeals that focus on self-benefits of a product, rather than environmental benefits. In the current study, the effectiveness of advertisements that promote environmental-benefits will be compared to advertisements that promote self-benefits to environmentally friendly jeans.
Public Self-Awareness
Impression management.
In some cases, emphasizing a product’s environmental-benefits may be more effective because purchasing a green product can be regarded as form of “impression
management”. This term refers to “ the process by which individuals attempt to control the impressions others form of them” (Leary & et al., 1990, p. 34). In our lives we spend much of our time with other people. Therefore, our understanding of how others see us often influences our behaviour in social situations. Because the
impressions we make on others have implications for how they perceive, evaluate and treat us, we sometimes behave in ways that will create certain impressions in others eyes. Impression management behaviour thus, is performed in an effort to provide a “desired” self-image to others (Goffmann, 1959). Although the word “effort” here suggests a purposeful intention to influence others, impression management is not always a conscious process. Indeed many patterns of impression management are unconscious and habitual (Hogan, 1982).
In impression management theory, public self-awareness is considered a prerequisite (Goffman, 1959; Leary et al., 1990). It is a function of both the
probability that one's behavior will be observed by others and the number of others who might see or learn about it. The higher ones level of public self-awareness, the more likely one is to be concerned with how his behaviour appears to others, and the more motivated one will be to impression-manage (Arkin, Appelman, & Berger, 1980; Baumgardner & Levy, 1987; Bradley, 1978; House, 1980; Reis & Gruzen, 1976). In a public setting, people employ various self-presentational behaviours as impression management tactics in order to convey socially desirable images to others. For example, a recent study revealed that the presence and attention of others
increases the likelihood of making costly charity activities that imply a high level of physical and emotional expenditure (Bereczkei, Birkas & Kerekes, 2007). More people were willing to give costly support to needy people when their charity offer could be observed by their group members than to people whose offers were made in secret. This may be because the social reward associated with the presence of others outweighs the cost incurred by the charity service.
It follows from the theory of impression management that apart from the inherent environmental motivation, green consumer behaviour can be a way to provide a desired self-image to others. This can only be the case however, when this behaviour is performed under conditions of high public self-awareness.
Competitive altruism.
An evolutionary explanation of impression management comes from the theory of competitive altruism (Van Vugt, Roberts, & Hardy, 2005; Hardy & Van Vught, 2006). This theory regards engagement with the interests of others as a way of signaling status. Altruistic behavior can function in a social context to build or maintain a reputation.
To illustrate with an example from evolutionary biology: Arabian Babblers, a species of social birds compete with each other to take on the role of watching over the group (Zahavi, 1990). Every flock of these birds requires one individual to sit in a treetop, watch for predators and signal alarm to the others in case of a threat. Even though this is clearly a perilous task, the male Arabian Babblers compete for this position. This can be explained from an evolutionary point of view because the ability of the male birds to take on this task, signals fitness to the females. An individual that is able to take on this heroic role is clearly very healthy and energetic and will
establish hierarchy by demonstrating their capacity to bear the costs of these threats. Another potential advantage, because fighting may be even more costly to the signaler and at least some of the audience (Hawkes & Bliege Bird, 2002). An important aspect of these types of signals is that they are honest. According to evolutionary theory, honest signals can be stable if they are so costly to produce, that lower quality individuals would not benefit by imitating the signal (Sosis, 2000). Thus, the quality of the signaler should be honestly linked to the costliness of the signal. The honesty of the information provided in a display gives a benefit to observers because they can use the information to adjust their own behavior toward the show-off to benefit themselves. Signalers benefit from the following treatment. Bluffs about the signalers quality would not inform the audience, therefore only signals that are too costly to fake are reliable (Hawkes et al. 2002). So, in the theory of competitive altruism, prosocial behaviour is considered as a selfish behaviour. Generosity is a means by which individuals gain social recognition and preferential treatment in their group and thereby gain reproductive benefits in the long run (Van Vugt et al., 2005; Hardy et al., 2006; Hawkes et al., 2002; Smith & Bliege Bird, 2005; Sosis, 2000).
In a similar fashion, purchasing a green product that is more expensive than its non-green counterparts is a way to show to others that the owner is willing to make this sacrifice for the benefit of the environment. Consumers may undertake costly actions to signal their behavior as environmentally friendly. For example, an article published in the New York Times (Maynard, 2009) stated that the majority of owners of the environmentally friendly Toyota Prius, declared to have chosen this car
primarily to show to others that they care about the environment. The unique design of the Prius is an advantage in this regard because it can easily be distinguished in a social environment from other non-green cars. A recent study has found empirical
evidence for this ‘Prius effect’ (Sexton & Sexton, 2011 p.1). Using data on car purchases and matching it with local election results, Sexton et al. (2011) found the relatively expensive Prius to be significantly more prevalent in green communities compared to other hybrid cars that are just as environmentally friendly but less conspicuous. They concluded that “consumers are willing to pay up to several thousand dollars to signal their environmental bona fides through their car choices”.
Product symbolism.
While many types of products may signal status and identity, some are more easily able to communicate things about their users (Escalas & Bettmann, 2005). For example, when students were asked to select cues that would help them to make inferences about other students, most chose either clothing or academic courses (Burroughs, Drews &Hallman 1991). Research on product attitudes contrasts instrumental products (washing machine, paper towels) to more symbolic products (perfume, jeans) (Shavitt & Nelson, 1990). This distinction is commonly reflected in marketing literature (Vaughn, 1986). Products tend to serve a symbolic function to the extent that they express identity and values or that the product is widely seen as symbolizing membership to a particular group. Furthermore, the consumption of such a product is likely to be performed in public and the product is generally displayed or visible to others (Shavitt et al., 1986).
This study will examine jeans as a product-type that can be expected to signal status and identity amongst the target group (students). Jeans is considered a symbolic product type, that is commonly used in a social context (Vaughn, 1986; Shavitt & Nelson, 1990). Thus, the purchasing of these items is expected to be subject to social influence.
Hypotheses
The current study will examine whether purchase intentions differ for consumers when they are presented with green marketing communications, in the form of advertisements, which promote either a purely environmental benefit to a green product, versus a personal benefit to a green product. Public self-awareness is examined as a moderator to determine whether the effect of the different types of advertisement on purchase intentions changes under conditions of increased public self-awareness. Under these conditions, choosing a green product as a means of signaling social status is more likely to occur because others are more likely to witness this self sacrificing behavior. Under conditions of low public self-awareness however, individuals will be more inclined to act in their own private interests, which makes them more susceptible to appeals that focus on self-benefits.
Hence, the hypotheses are as follows:
H1: Participants will show a higher level of purchase intention when
presented with an advertisement that promotes a self-benefit to a green product rather than when presented with an advertisement that promotes an environmental benefit to a green product.
H2: Participants with high public self-awareness will show a higher level of purchase intention when presented with an advertisement that promotes an
environmental benefit to an environmental product rather than when presented with an advertisement that promotes a personal benefit to a green product.
Methods Design and Participants
The study employed a 3 (self benefit, environmental benefit, control group) x 2 (low public self awareness, high public self awareness) between subjects design. The between subjects design means that different participants were exposed to different advertisements. Three different advertisements were therefore used. Participants were randomly assigned to the six conditions (self-benefit + low public self-awareness, self-benefit + high public self-awareness, other-benefit + low public-self-awareness, other-benefit + high public self-awareness).
A total of 125 academic students from the University of Amsterdam took part in the experiments. Before beginning the analyses, data from participants who
reported being familiar with the brand prior to the study was excluded from the set (n = 4). This resulted in a total number of 121 valid responses (70.4 % female, 95 % western nationality). The mean age was 22.9 (SD = 3.45) years.
Setting and Procedure
The main study was conducted from May 7, 2014 through May 22, 2014 at the University of Amsterdam. Teachers were asked permission via email to carry out the experiments in workgroups, before the start of the seminars. Other participants were recruited individually at the student restaurant on campus by the experimenter. Participation was voluntary and participants did not receive any incentive. A written informed consent was obtained from all participants. The participants took part either in groups or individually.
In the low awareness conditions, participants took part individually. The experiments in the high awareness conditions took place in groups of six to twenty
people, seated in a classroom. Participants were told that the study aimed to examine consumer reactions to a new brand of jeans. They were given instructions by the experimenter and were handed questionnaire forms to complete. Participants then viewed either the self-benefit, the environmental-benefit or the control version of the advertisement. After which they were asked to fill in a questionnaire. Finally, a short debriefing took place to ensure that the participants were fully informed about the experiment.
Materials and Measures Advertisements.
Participants were exposed to one of the three advertisements about the jeans brand ‘Mud’. In the two experimental conditions the advertisements contained a different text that was focused either on environmental benefits (“produced completely from recycle materials”) or egoistic benefits (“try it free for 10 days”). The control group was exposed to a version of the advertisement without text. All three advertisements contained the phrase “100% organic cotton”. This was included to standardize the basic environmental appeal, across the conditions. The advertisements were shown in the same size and the appeals were designed to match those commonly used by marketers for this product type (figure 1). The jeans product type was chosen because it is a familiar and widely used product type among students. Existing knowledge, involvement and attitudes toward this product type can therefore be expected to be relatively equal among respondents.
Experimental group 1: self-benefit
Experimental group 2: environmental benefit
Control group
The brand ‘Mud’ that was used in this study was relatively new and not very well known. Existing brand knowledge and brand attitudes were therefore expected to be relatively equal among respondents. The product offers a range of both
self-benefits and environmental self-benefits that could potentially be employed as marketing appeals.
Before conducting the experiment, a pilot study was done on April 10, 2014. The purpose of this pilot study was to test whether the appeals used were perceived in the desired manner and to probe estimates of the price of the advertised products. Additionally, it was performed to establish the perceived social norm regarding environmentally friendly clothing. The design of this pilot study was also based on White et al. (2009). Participants (N = 40) were students of the University of
Amsterdam. They were approached either via a Facebook page (n = 16) or at the university campus (n = 24) and asked to fill in a questionnaire. Participants that were familiar with the brand prior to the study (n = 2) were excluded from the analysis resulting in total of 38 valid responses.
Participants were randomly assigned to three conditions (self benefit,
environmental benefit, control group). In each condition, they were asked to evaluate a different advertisement on a scale from 1 (strongly agree) to 7 (strongly disagree) (“The message communicated though this advertisement can be associated with looking after ones own interests”, “The message communicated through this advertisement is focused on consumer’s self interests”, ” “The message
communicated though this advertisement can be associated with concern for the environment”, “The message communicated though this advertisement is focused on the environment”). These two pairs of items proved to be reliable scales. The items were averaged to form single measures of environmental appeal (M = 5.06, SD =
1.46, st = .82) and egoistic appeal (M = 4.53, SD = 1.27, st = .69). T-tests showed that participants evaluated the self-benefit appeal as being significantly more focused on self-benefits than both the environmental-benefit appeal (t(24) = 3.12, p = <.01, Ms = 5.54 and 4.25, SDs = 0.66 and 1.29) and the control group (t(24) = 4.22, p < .01, M = 3.92, SD = 1.17).
To establish the perceived norm of the reference group, the question “Most of my fellow students approve of environmentally friendly clothing products” was rated on a scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). Participants scored on average 4.65 on this item (SD = 1.49) indicating a positive perceived social norm regarding environmentally friendly products in the population.
Finally, participants were asked to estimate the price of the advertised product from four ranges: below € 30 (1), € 30 – 60 (2), € 60 – 90 (3) and above € 90 (4) (Mdn = 3). A Mann Whitney test showed that participants in the environmental-benefit conditions did not differ significantly in price estimation from participants in self-benefit conditions (z = -0.310, p = 0.821).
Public self- awareness.
Public self-awareness was manipulated at the beginning of the experiment. In the high awareness group, the experimenter told participants that their answers would be discussed with the others in the group at the end of the session. Furthermore, on the first page of the questionnaire they were reminded that they would be asked to discuss the answers with the “experimenter and everybody present in the room today”. In the private condition, the experimenter told participants that their answers would be private and the first page of the questionnaire stated that their contributions would be
“anonymous and confidential”. This method has been proven to be a successful manipulation of public self-awareness in previous research (White et al., 2009).
Questionnaire.
Self-benefits and environmental benefits.
To indicate participants’ perception of the appeals, they were asked to evaluate the advertisements on a scale from 1 (strongly agree) to 7 (strongly disagree) (“The message communicated though this advertisement can be associated with looking after ones own interests”, “The message communicated though this advertisement is focused on the environment”).
Purchase intention.
Purchase intention was measured using three items on a seven-point semantic differential scale adapted from Smith, MacKenzie, Yang, Buchholz and Darley (2007). After the fragment “Imagine you are out shopping for a new pair of jeans. What is the likelihood that you will purchase the advertised brand?” respondents could choose between the answer categories unlikely (1) / likely (7), improbable (1) / probable (7), and impossible (1) / possible (7). The items were averaged to form a single measure of purchase intention (α = .91). A higher score on this scale indicates a higher purchase intention.
Control variables. Product involvement.
Product involvement was measured with a two-item seven-point semantic differential scale (Dijkstra, Buijtels & Van Raaij, 2005). The items included very unimportant (1)
/ very important (7) and very uninteresting (1) / very interesting (7) (st = .89).
Prior interpersonal communication.
To control for participants' prior interpersonal communication about the subject, they were asked to rate the following statement on a seven-point scale from never (1) to very often (7): “How often do you talk about the subject of environmentally friendly clothing with your classmates?”
Green involvement.
The study employed two forms of green involvement. Environmental
concern consisted of four items based on Schuhwerk and Letkoff-Hagius (1995). Participants were asked to rate the following items on seven-point scales from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (7) (“I am concerned about the environment,” “The condition of the environment affects the quality of my life,” “I am willing to make sacrifices to protect the environment” and “My actions have impact on the environment) (α = .77). Participants rated their general attitudes toward green
products on seven-point scales from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (7) using Miniard et al.’s (1991) three product attitude items (“I like green products,” “I feel positive toward green products,” and “Green products are favorable”) (α = .87).
Public self-consciousness.
Public self-consciousness was measured with seven items adopted from Fenigstein et al. (1975). Participants were asked to rate items on seven-point scales from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (7) (“I am self conscious about the way I look,” “I am concerned about my way of doing things,” “ I am concerned about the way I present myself,” “I usually worry about making a good impression,” “One of the last things I do before leaving the house, is look in the mirror,” “I am concerned about what other people think of me” and “I’m usually aware of my appearance”) (α = .82).
Other variables.
Participants were asked to mark their familiarity with the brand prior to the study. At the end of the questionnaire, participants completed basic demographic measures (age, gender and nationality).
Strategy of Analysis
One-factor analyses of variance and Pearson’s x2 tests were performed to test for differences between the experimental groups for the variables age, sex, product involvement, prior interpersonal communication, environmental concern, green product attitudes and public self-consciousness. Furthermore, manipulation checks were performed to make sure that the appeals used were perceived in the desired manner. This was done by means of analyses of variance between ratings of self-benefit and environmental-self-benefit. To establish which variables had to be controlled for, Pearson’s correlations were performed for the variables of age, sex, product involvement, prior interpersonal communication, environmental concern, green product attitudes, public self-consciousness and purchase intention. Finally, an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) and post hoc Bonferroni tests were carried out on
purchase intention, with appeal type (self-benefit vs. environmental benefit vs. control) and public self-awareness (public vs. private) as independent variables.
Results
Randomization Checks
Table 1 presents the means (SDs), minimum and maximum values for the variables age, sex, product involvement, prior interpersonal communication, environmental concern, green product attitudes and public self-consciousness across the different conditions. There were no significant differences (all p-values > .05) between the advertisement conditions except for the variables age (F(5, 121) = 4.46, p = .001) and sex (x2(5,121) = 14.09, p = .015). Therefore, these variables were controlled for in the main analyses.
Manipulation Checks
One factor analyses of variance (ANOVA) were performed to test whether the self-benefit green advertisement was rated as being more focused on consumer’s self interests and the environmental-benefit green advertisement was rated as being more focused on the environment. For ratings of self-benefit, there was no significant difference between the self-benefit (M = 4.14, SD = 1.25), the environmental-benefit (M = 3.55, SD = 1.37) and the control (M = 3.98, SD = 1.37) groups (F(2,121) = 2.15, p = .121). In addition, for ratings of environmental-benefit, there was no significant difference between the environmental-benefit (M = 4.34, SD = 1.63), the self-benefit (M = 3.65, SD = 1.73) and the control (M = 3.78, SD = 1.86) groups (F(2,121) = 1.87,
p = .159). This means that, contrary to the findings of the pilot study the manipulation of advertising appeal types was not successful in the main study.
Table 1 Randomization checks Variables Private condition Public condition P valuea Self- benefit condition (n = 19) Environmental- benefit condition (n = 20) Control group (n = 18) Self -benefit condition (n = 18) Environmental- benefit condition (n = 24) Control group (n = 22) Age 21.42 (2.63) (19-28) 22 (3.34) (18-30) 22.22 (5.62) (18-28) 24 (2.33) (22-31) 23.58 (2.21) (21-31) 24.50 (2.59) (21-31) .001 Sexb 4/15 5/15 9/9 3/15 4/20 12/10 .015 Product involvement 3.50 (1.71) (1-6) 4.90 (1.58) (1-7) 4.17 (1.83) (1-7) 3.5 (1.58) (1-6) 4.31 (1.55) (2-7) 4.38 (1.46) (1-7) .059 Prior interpersonal communication 2.58 (1.74) (1-6) 2.60 (1.88) (1-7) 2.61 (2.03) (1-7) 2.11 (1.41) (1-6) 2.46 (1.79) (1-6) 2.45 (1.50) (1-5) .955 Environmental concern 5.20 (0.85) (4-7) 5.30 (0.99) (3-7) 5.07 (1.45) (2-7) 4.54 (0.94) (3-7) 4.56 (0.96) (3-6) 4.93 (1.31) (1-7) .137 Green product attitudes 5.35 (1.25) (3-7) 5.53 (1.17) (3-7) 5.43 (1.54) (2-7) 4.78 (1.29) (2-7) 4.93 (1.35) (3-7) 5.21 (1.41) (1-7) .454 Public self-consciousness 4.97 (0.98) (3-6) 4.51 (0.98) (2-6) 4.98 (1.08) (2-6) 4.69 (1.21) (3-7) 4.08 (1.02) (2-6) 4.68 (1.19) (2-6) .075
Note.All values are in means (SD), (minimum – maximum).
a Reflects the differences in total means between public self-awareness conditions by single factor ANOVA or Pearson’s x2 test. b 1 = male, 2 = female (n/n)
Correlations
To determine which variables had to be controlled for in the main analysis, Pearson’s correlations were performed for the variables of age, sex, product involvement, prior interpersonal communication, environmental concern, green product attitudes, public self-consciousness and purchase intention. Table 2 displays the correlation
coefficients, means and SD’s of the variables age, sex, product involvement, prior interpersonal communication, environmental concern, green product attitudes and public self consciousness.
There was a strong correlation between purchase intentions and product involvement: The more involved one is with jeans in general, the higher the purchase intention for the advertised jeans (r = .43, p < .001). Another significant, strong effect was found for prior interpersonal communication: the more one talks with other students about environmentally products, the higher their intention to purchase the advertised product (r = .39, p < .001). In addition, weak but significant positive relationships were found between environmental concern and purchase intention (r = .24, p = .010) and green product attitudes and purchase intention (r = .19, p = .034). Therefore, these variables were statistically controlled for in the main analysis.
Table 2.
Summary of intercorrelations, means and SD’s between age, sex, nationality, education, product involvement, prior
interpersonal communication, environmental concern, green product attitudes, public self-consciousness and purchase intention
Variables 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 M SD 1.Age 23.00 2.80 2. Sexa -.37** 1.70 0.46 3. Product involvement -.22* .07 4.14 1.65 4. Prior interpersonal communication .07 .18* .26** 2.53 1.74 5. Environmental concern .01 -.02 .13 .21* 4.93 1.11 6. Green product attitudes -.03 .03 .22* .24* .69** 5.21 1.33 7. Public self-consciousness -.19* .13 .09 .05 .02 .12 4.63 1.09 8. Purchase intention -.04 .10 .43** .39** .24** .19* -.03 3.80 1.51 Note. n = 121, * P < .05, ** P < .01 a 1 = male, 2 = female (n/n)
Main Analysis
The main goal of this study was to test whether exposure to a self-benefit,
environmental-benefit or a neutral green advertisement, influences purchase intention and whether this effect is influenced by conditions of public self-awareness. Table 3 is a summary of the ANCOVA performed to test the interaction of appeal type and public self-awareness. This analysis showed that there was no significant interaction effect of appeal type and public self-awareness on purchase intention (F(2, 121) = 1.21, p = .302, Np2 = .276).
Table 3.
Summary table for ANCOVA performed for interaction between appeal type and public self-awareness
Variables SS Df MS F p
Age 0.51 1 0.51 0.31 .580
Sex 1.09 1 1.09 0.66 .417
Product involvement 19.28 1 19.28 11.64 .001** Prior interpersonal communication 14.83 1 14.83 9.95 .003** Environmental concern 2.95 1 2.95 1.78 .185 Green product attitudes 0.68 1 0.68 0.41 .524 Appeal type 9.21 2 4.61 2.78 .066 Public self-awareness 2.75 1 2.75 1.66 .200 Appeal type x public self-awareness 4.01 2 2.01 1.21 0.302
Error 182.24 110 1.66
Total 1018.78 122
Note. * P < .05, ** P < .01
Therefore, another ANCOVA was performed to test for main for main effects without the interaction term. This analysis revealed that there was no significant main effect of appeal type on purchase intention (F(2, 121) = 1.95, p = .147, Np2 = .276, Mself = 4.24, SD = 1.47; Menvironment = 3.26, SD = 1.49; Mcontrol = 3.78, SD = 1.46).
Furthermore, no significant main effect was found of public self-awareness on purchase intention (F(2, 121) = 2.11, p = .149, Mprivate = 3.57, SD = 1.46; Mpublic =
4.05, SD = 1.46). The analysis showed significant effects for the covariates product involvement (F(1,121) = 13.65, p < .001) and prior interpersonal communication (F(1,121) = 8.17, p = .005). No significant effects were found for the covariates age, sex, environmental concern and green product attitudes (p > .05). This means that both independent variables from this study (appeal type and public self awareness) did not have significant main effects on the dependent variable (purchase intention).
Discussion
The results of this study suggest that appeal type (self-benefit vs. environmental-benefit) does not have a significant effect on purchase intentions for green products. Furthermore, there is no support for the moderating effect of public self-awareness. The manipulation of public self-awareness did not affect participants’ purchase intention in response to the different advertisements. Therefore, both the primary and secondary hypothesis are not supported by the findings from this study.
The findings could suggest that existing perceptions of the effectiveness of appeal types in green advertising may be overcomplicated. While some research argues for the effectiveness of environmental-benefits, other research argues for the effectiveness of self-benefits. However in the current study, no difference was found between the two conditions. This may indicate that the effectiveness of the appeals do not depend on whether they are focused on self-benefits or environmental-benefits. The absence of a main effect of appeal type in this study is in contradiction with Holmes et al. (2002) who found that promoting a personal benefit to a charity, increased individuals willingness to donate. Previous research offers a number of alternative explanations for the effectiveness of appeal types in green advertisements. For instance, Kong & Zhang (2013) have demonstrated that for low involvement
products an advertisement with a green appeal, compared to a similar one without a green appeal elicits a more favorable attitude toward the brand and product.
Furthermore, the effectiveness of environmental appeals might be influenced by consumers’ regulatory focus as demonstrated by Kareklas et al. (2012). They argue that individuals’ orientations towards either the pursuit of positive outcomes, or the avoidance of negative outcomes influences their susceptibility to different types of green advertising appeals.
In the main experiment of this study, the manipulation of advertising appeals was not successful. The self-benefit green advertisement was not rated as being more focused on consumers’ self interests and the environmental-benefit green
advertisement was not rated as being more focused on the environment. Therefore, caution is needed in interpreting the results. To ascertain the effectiveness of self-benefit and environmental-self-benefit appeals in green advertising, more research is needed.
Another explanation for the results, lies in the perceived costliness of the product that was chosen for this study. Competitive altruism theory predicts that signals can provide benefits when costs are honestly linked to signaler quality (Hawkes et al. 2002). This begs the question: is purchasing the environmentally friendly version of the product advertised in this experiment, clearly and honestly more costly than it’s alternative? In the pilot study of this thesis, the price of the environmental-benefit product was estimated as being not-significantly higher than it’s self-benefit counterpart. In other words, showing off ones intention to purchase a green product may not have been an effective way to signal status in this study. Correspondingly, the definition of a social dilemma requires self-interests to be clearly at odds with public interests. Which would only be the case if the more
environmentally friendly product would be perceived as more expensive and/or difficult to acquire.
This study is the first to test the interaction of appeal type and public self-awareness for green purchase behaviour. Research on this effect has thus far been limited to charitable behaviour (Bereczkei et al., 2007; White et al., 2009) where other-benefit appeals were found to be more effective in increasing donations to charity for people who could be observed by their group members than to people whose donations were made in secret.
Apart from the limitations of the manipulation of appeal types that were already discussed, there are several other limitations to this study. This study employed a proxy for green purchase behaviour (purchase intention) instead of measuring actual behaviour. The use of purchase intention to forecast actual
purchasing, relies on the assumption that intentions are good indicators of purchase behaviour (Armstrong, Morwitz & Kumar, 2000). However, more and more research suggests that self-reported intentions are not reliable indicators of subsequent
purchase behaviour because of systematic biases and changes in intentions over time (Sun & Morwitz, 2010). The sample size in this study was small and limited to
students of the University of Amsterdam. The behaviours of students at this university may not be able to be generalized over all students or the general population. For example, students may have lower purchase intentions for the relatively expensive jeans in this study because of their low income. Furthermore, the measures in this study were self-reported which is a potential subjective limitation. The presence of other students and/or the researcher may have caused participants to give unintended socially desirable answers, apart from the intended experimental manipulation of public self-awareness. The groups in which this manipulation was performed were
student workgroups of six to twenty people. Although this corresponds with the group sizes in previous research (White et al., 2009) future studies may examine the
manipulation of public self-awareness effect in larger group sizes. Furthermore, the participants were acquainted because they had been following classes together. This is contrary to the experiment from White et al. (2009) where randomly selected students were randomly assigned to groups. This may have influenced the effectiveness of the manipulation of public self-awareness. The controlled experimental design of this study is different from the ‘natural’ situation in which individuals normally view advertisements, possibly resulting in behaviour that doesn’t reflect real life. This real life situation can be simulated in future experiments by presenting the advertisements in more natural ways. For example in a magazine or on a website where they are surrounded with other advertisements and content. Finally, this study employs a variation on a single advertisement for a single product. To get a more specific insight into the effect of appeal types and public self-awareness, it is necessary to examine different product types and different types of advertisements.
Despite these limitations, this study offers a number of new insights. The theoretical relevance of this study is a lack of knowledge about the effects of
advertising appeals in green consumer behaviour (Kareklas et al., 2012; Menon et al., 1997: Vermeir et al., 2006). The author of this study borrows from the theories of social dilemmas, impression management and competitive altruism to provide a paradigm for understanding this behaviour. Based on the results, a number of recommendations can be made for the directions of future research in this field. Firstly, when comparing self-benefit and environmental-benefit appeals, the
distinction between the two should be unequivocal. This can be achieved by a more thorough and extensive development of the advertising stimuli. Secondly, green
products can only be considered as a way to signal status if they are clearly perceived as being expensive and/or difficult to acquire. Therefore, future research aiming to test impression management in green consumer behaviour, should consider green products that are evidently more costly than their non-green counterparts.
Literature
Andreoni, J. (1990). Impure altruism and donations to public goods: a theory of
warm-glow giving. The economic journal, 464-477. doi: 10.2307/2234133
Armstrong, J. S., Morwitz, V. G., & Kumar, V. (2000). Sales forecasts for existing consumer products and services: Do purchase intentions contribute to accuracy?. International Journal of Forecasting, 16(3), 383-397. doi:10.1016/S0169-2070(00)00058-3
Bereczkei, T., Birkas, B., & Kerekes, Z. (2007). Public charity offer as a proximate factor of evolved reputation-building strategy: an experimental analysis of a real-life situation. Evolution and Human Behavior, 28(4), 277-284.
Burroughs, W. J., Drews, D. R., & Hallman, W. K. (1991). Predicting personality from personal possessions: A self-presentational analysis. Journal of Social
Behavior & Personality.
Bray, J., Johns, N., & Kilburn, D. (2011). An exploratory study into the factors impeding ethical consumption. Journal of Business Ethics, 98(4), 597-608. doi: 10.1007/s10551-010-0640-9
Carlson, L., Grove, S. J., & Kangun, N. (1993). A content analysis of environmental advertising claims: a matrix method approach. Journal of Advertising, 22(3),
Carrigan, M., & Attalla, A. (2001). The myth of the ethical consumer–do ethics matter in purchase behaviour?. Journal of consumer marketing, 18(7), 560-578. doi: 10.1108/07363760110410263
Chang, C. (2011). Feeling ambivalent about going green. Journal of Advertising,
40(4), 19-32. doi:10.2753/JOA0091-3367400402
Cho, Y.Y. (2012). Consumers’ Value orientations and green advertising effectiveness: the moderating role of public self-awareness (Doctoral Dissertation) Retrieved from http://hdl.handle.net/1794/12952
Cialdini, R. B., & Trost, M. R. (1998). Social influence: Social norms, conformity and compliance.
Crane, A. (2001). Unpacking the ethical product. Journal of Business Ethics,30(4), 361-373. doi: 10.1023/A:1010793013027
Dijkstra, M., H.E.J.J.M. Buijtels, and W.F. Van Raaij. 2005. Separate and joint effects of medium type in consumer responses: A comparison of television, print, and the internet. Journal of Business Research 58: 377 – 86
Ellen, P. S., Webb, D. J., & Mohr, L. A. (2006). Building corporate associations: consumer attributions for corporate socially responsible programs. Journal of
the Academy of Marketing Science, 34(2), 147-157.
doi:10.1177/0092070305284976
Escalas, J. E., & Bettman, J. R. (2005). Self‐construal, reference groups, and brand meaning. Journal of Consumer Research, 32(3), 378-389. doi:10.1086/497549 Fenigstein, A., Scheier, M. F., & Buss, A. H. (1975). Public and private
self-consciousness: Assessment and theory. Journal of consulting and clinical psychology, 43(4), 522. doi: 10.1037/h0076760
Green [Def. 3]. (2014) In Merriam-Webster Online. Retrieved June 15, 2014, from http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/green
Grimmer, M., & Woolley, M. (2012). Green marketing messages and consumers' purchase intentions: Promoting personal versus environmental benefits. Journal of Marketing Communications, (ahead-of-print), 1-20. doi: 10.1080/13527266.2012.684065
Hardin, G. (1968). The tragedy of the commons. science, 162(3859), 1243-1248. Hardy, C. L., & Van Vugt, M. (2006). Nice guys finish first: The competitive altruism
hypothesis. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32(10), 1402-1413. doi: 10.1177/0146167206291006
Hartmann, P., Ibanez, V. A., & Sainz, F. J. F. (2005). Green branding effects on attitude: functional versus emotional positioning strategies. Marketing Intelligence & Planning, 23(1), 9-29. doi: 10.1108/02634500510577447
Hawkes, K., & Bliege Bird, R. (2002). Showing off, handicap signaling, and the evolution of men's work. Evolutionary Anthropology: Issues, News, and
Reviews, 11(2), 58-67. doi: 10.1002/evan.20005
Hogan, R. (1982). A socioanalytic theory of personality. In Nebraska symposium on motivation. University of Nebraska Press.
Kong, Y., & Zhang, A. (2013). Consumer response to green advertising: The influence of product involvement. Asian Journal of Communication, 23(4), 428-447. doi: 10.1080/01292986.2013.774433
Holmes, J. G., Miller, D. T., & Lerner, M. J. (2002). Committing altruism under the cloak of self-interest: The exchange fiction. Journal of Experimental Social
Kareklas, I., Carlson, J. R., & Muehling, D. D. (2012). The Role of Regulatory Focus and Self-View in “Green” Advertising Message Framing. Journal of
Advertising, 41(4), 25-39. doi: 10.1080/00913367.2012.10672455
Kim, Y., & Choi, S. M. (2005). Antecedents of Green Purchase Behavior: An
Examination of Collectivism, Environmental Concern, and PCE. Advances in
Consumer Research, 32(1). retrieved from:
http://www.acrwebsite.org/volumes/v32/acr_vol32_166.pdf
Kotchen, M. J. (2006). Green markets and private provision of public goods.Journal of Political Economy, 114(4), 816-834. doi: 10.1086/506337
MacGillivray, A. (2000). The Fair Share: the growing market share of green and ethical products. London: New Economics Foundation.
Maynard, M. (2007, July 4). Say ‘hybrid’ and many people will hear ‘Prius.’ The New York Times. Retrieved from
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/04/business/04hybrid.html?_r=1&adxnnl=1 &a dxnnlx=1347026424-lc2cYAcS2u2fX8uWwvSxSw.
Mazar, N., & Zhong, C. B. (2010). Do green products make us better people?.Psychological science, 21(4), 494-498. doi:
10.1177/0956797610363538
Menon, A., & Menon, A. (1997). Enviropreneurial Marketing Strategy: The Emergence of Corporate Environmentalism as Market Strategy. Journal of Marketing, 61(1).
Milfont, T. L., & Gouveia, V. V. (2006). Time perspective and values: An exploratory study of their relations to environmental attitudes. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 26(1), 72-82. doi:10.1016/j.jenvp.2006.03.001
Miniard, P. W., Bhatla, S., Lord, K. R., & Dickson, P. R. (1991). Picture-based persuasion processes and the moderating role of involvement. Journal of Consumer Research. doi: 10.1086/209244
Polonsky, M. J. (2011). Transformative green marketing: Impediments and opportunities. Journal of Business Research, 64(12), 1311-1319. doi:
10.1016/j.jbusres.2011.01.016
Pickett-Baker, J., & Ozaki, R. (2008). Pro-environmental products: marketing influence on consumer purchase decision. Journal of consumer
marketing,25(5), 281-293. doi: 10.1108/07363760810890516
Ritov, I. and Kahnemann, D. (1997), “How people value the environment: attitudes versus economic values”, in Bazermann, M.H., Messick, D.M, Tenbrunsel, A.E. and Wade-Benzoni, K.A. (Eds), Environment, Ethics, and Behavior, The New Lexington Press, San Francisco, CA, pp. 33-51.
Royne, M. B., Martinez, J., Oakley, J., & Fox, A. K. (2012). The Effectiveness of Benefit Type and Price Endings in Green Advertising. Journal of
Advertising,41(4), 85-102. doi: 10.1080/00913367.2012.10672459
Sexton, S. E. (2011). Conspicuous conservation: the Prius effect and willingness to pay for environmental bona fides. Retrieved
from:http://works.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1011&context=sex ton
Sen, S., & Bhattacharya, C. B. (2001). Does doing good always lead to doing better? Consumer reactions to corporate social responsibility. Journal of marketing Research, 38(2), 225-243. doi:10.1509/jmkr.38.2.225.18838
Shavitt, S., & Nelson, M. R. (1999). The social identity function in person perception: Communicated meanings of product preferences. Why we evaluate: Function of attitudes, 27-57.
Schuhwerk, M. E., & Lefkoff-Hagius, R. (1995). Green or non-green? Does type of appeal matter when advertising a green product?. Journal of
Advertising,24(2), 45-54. doi:10.1080/00913367.1995.10673475 Smith, E. A., & Bliege Bird, R. (2005). Costly signaling and cooperative
behavior. Moral sentiments and material interests: the foundations of cooperation in economic life, 115-148.
Smith, R. E., MacKenzie, S. B., Yang, X., Buchholz, L. M., & Darley, W. K. (2007). Modeling the determinants and effects of creativity in advertising. Marketing Science, 26(6), 819-833.
Sun, B., & Morwitz, V. G. (2010). Stated intentions and purchase behavior: A unified model. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 27(4), 356-366. doi:
10.1016/j.ijresmar.2010.06.001
Terrachoice (2010) “The sins of greenwashing” available at
http://sinsofgreenwashing.org/index35c6.pdf (accessed April 7, 2014)
Tucker, E. M., Rifon, N. J., Lee, E. M., & Reece, B. B. (2012). Consumer Receptivity to Green Ads: A Test of Green Claim Types and the Role of Individual
Consumer Characteristics for Green Ad Response. Journal of
Advertising, 41(4), 9-23. doi: 10.1080/00913367.2012.10672454
Van Vugt, M., Roberts, G., & Hardy, C. (2005). Competitive altruism: Development of reputation-based cooperation in groups.
Vermeir, I., & Verbeke, W. (2006). Sustainable food consumption: Exploring the consumer “attitude–behavioral intention” gap. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 19(2), 169-194. doi: 10.1007/s10806-005-5485-3
Weatherell, C., Tregear, A., & Allinson, J. (2003). In search of the concerned
consumer: UK public perceptions of food, farming and buying local. Journal
of Rural Studies, 19(2), 233-244. doi:10.1016/S0743-0167(02)00083-9
White, K., MacDonnell, R., & Ellard, J. H. (2012). Belief in a just world: consumer intentions and behaviors toward ethical products. Journal of Marketing, 76(1), 103-118. doi:10.1509/jm.09.0581
White, K., Peloza, J. (2009). Self-benefit versus other-benefit marketing appeals: their effectiveness in generating charitable support. Journal of Marketing, 73(4), 109-124. doi: 10.1509/jmkg.73.4.109
Zahavi, A. (1990). Arabian babblers: the quest for social status in a cooperative breeder. Cooperative Breeding in Birds: long-term studies of ecology and
