The effect of greenwashing and environmental self-identity on brand attitude Renee van Brakel
Master Thesis University of Amsterdam
Supervisor: Hans Feenstra Word count: 6854
Abstract
Many organizations mislead consumers with greenwashing techniques by allowing them to believe the organization is “green”. This is in response to the greener consumer. Consumers find it important that organizations show they are, in some way, sustainable. Whenever an
organization positions itself as green, the overall brand attitude consumers have is positively influenced. Often consumers are not able to determine whether an organization is greenwashing its products or services or not. However, when consumers have high levels of environmental self-identity they are more critical and will recognize greenwashing faster. This results in adapting a negative attitude towards the brand. The principal research question of this study is: What are the effects of greenwashing in advertising on brand attitude, and is this effect
moderated by the level of environmental self-identity? To answer this question an online
experimental study among 279 respondents (N = 279) was conducted. The research design consisted of two groups: Control and Intervention. Each respondent’s level of
environmental self-identity was measured on a ratio-scale and later divided into two groups: High and Low. Even though no significant effect was found with a two-factor analysis of variance (ANOVA), results showed that respondents who were exposed to the manipulated stimuli (intervention group) and who had high levels of environmental self-identity proved to have the lowest brand attitude of all groups. A number of implications are mentioned concerning the stimulus materials and the moderator environmental self-identity, which may explain the insignificant results.
Introduction
Worldwide, people are increasingly becoming aware of sustainability, why it is needed and the changes it entails. This has led to an increase in developments within the field of sustainability. For example, the alternatives to generate energy more sustainably through solar and wind energy are increasing. The food industry is making great strides in the development of plant-based food and materials are increasingly being recycled. Due to the changes taking place, organizations now often feel coerced to participate. It appears that organizations no longer have a choice as to whether they want to be sustainable or not. If you do not become sustainable and take care of the environment, it is possible that consumers will develop a negative brand attitude towards your organization. Therefore, existing companies now try to implement sustainability into their mission and vision statements, and many new companies have emerged in response to the sustainability trend. Consumers find it important that organizations show they are, in some way, sustainable (Hartmann & Apaolaza-Ibáñez, 2009; Searles, 2010). Whenever an
organization positions itself as green, the overall consumers brand attitude is positively influenced (Nyilasy, Gangadharbatla, & Paladino, 2014; Olsen, Slotegraaf, & Chandukala, 2014). However, this green positioning does seem to have a downside: greenwashing.
Greenwashing occurs when organization mislead consumers into letting them believe they are environmentally friendly when in fact all they do is disguise themselves with a ‘green jacket’ over their existing (unsustainable) product or service. Organizations try to increase consumers' trust through greenwashing (Delmas & Burbano, 2011). Many organizations mislead consumers with greenwashing techniques by allowing them to believe the organization is
response to the greener consumer. As consumers become greener, they expect this greener behavior from organizations as well (White, Hardisty, & Habib, 2019).
Greenwashing results from the increased awareness concerning sustainability among the majority of the population (De Jong, Harkink & Barth, 2018). Consumers are confronted daily with sustainability. Sustainability, however, is a broad concept. Berke and Conroy (2000, p. 23) define it as:
A dynamic process in which communities anticipate and accommodate the needs of current and future generations in ways that reproduce and balance local social, economic and ecological systems, and link local actions to global concerns. Examples are a clean environment, biodiversity in nature, a highly educated and healthy population, well-functioning social networks and social trust.
Greenwashing is one of the side effects that comes with sustainability. Consumers can be
ignorant and often do not recognize greenwashing (Braga Junior, Martínez, Correa, Moura-Leite, & Da Silva, 2019). Most consumers will easily believe organizations who claim to be
environmentally friendly when they use green advertising. As a results, consumer are then more likely to develop a positive attitude towards the brand (Nyilasy et al., 2014; Olsen et al., 2014). This, however, is not the case for everyone.
When a consumer sees him or herself as an environmentally friendly person, they will act more environmentally friendly because they feel morally obliged. This is also known as
environmental self-identity (Van der Werff, Steg, & Keizer, 2013). They are more critical and will recognize marketing techniques such as greenwashing faster because they process the information through the central route of the Elaboration Likelihood Model (ELM), a model which describes changes in attitude (Cacioppo & Petty, 1984). As a result, they are more likely
to adapt a negative attitude towards the brand (Schmuck, Matthes, & Naderer, 2018). It is interesting to take a closer look at what kinds of different effects greenwashing can have on people, and if this effect can be explained by someone’s environmental concern and knowledge. This leads to the principal research question of this study: What are the effects of greenwashing in advertising on brand attitude, and is this effect moderated by the level of environmental self-identity?
Insight into the effects of greenwashing on brand attitude could be useful to consumers as well as organizations. It becomes increasingly important for organizations to respond to greener consumers and their changing behavior. Therefore, organizations need to gain more insight in how to deal with these changes in the best possible way, and the consequences that accompany, for example, greenwashing. Based on these observations, organizations should possibly consider the importance of environmental concern and not decide to choose the easiest way to gain consumers' trust and earn more money (Chen & Chang, 2013). Furthermore, it would also be advantageous for consumers to gain insight into the ‘marketing tricks’ organizations use, in order to be more critical towards organizations. The consumer should be aware of the fact that
organizations can also abuse the green consumer through greenwashing. This study will contribute to this by gaining insight into the consumers’ perspective on sustainability and their brand attitude.
Studies on greenwashing, and the effect it has on brand attitude, are increasingly common in the academic world. Several studies agree that greenwashing can have positive effects on brand attitude (Atkinson & Kim, 2015; Chen & Chang, 2013; Nyilasy et al, 2014; Olsen et al., 2014). However, some studies emphasize that when consumers recognize greenwashing, it can also have negative effects (Chen & Chang, 2013; Dahl, 2010; Delmas & Burbano, 2011). The study
by Schmuck et al. (2018) points out that when consumers have high levels of environmental involvement, they are more likely to recognize greenwashing. However, more research is required to determine the level of a consumer's environmental self-identity and why one consumer responds in a positive way to greenwashing, while the other does not.
Theoretical framework
Due to the increasing environmental concern among consumers, the market for green products and services has grown tremendously (Atkinson & Kim, 2015; White, Hardisty, & Habib, 2019). A study done by NYU Stern’s Center for Sustainable Business showed that products with a sustainability claim on the packaging, increased in sales with 29 percent by 2018
compared to 2013 in the USA (Whelan & Kronthal-Sacco, 2019). Green products and
environmentally friendly claims have become important attributes that meet the consumers' desires and needs (Schmuck, Matthes, Naderer, & Beaufort, 2018). Green products, however, also require green advertising to appear more credible and continuous (Atkinson & Kim, 2015; Schmuck et al., 2018). Advertising has always played an important role in how organizations communicate with consumers. It is used by an organization to promote its product or service in such a way that it positively influences the attitude towards the brand and the purchase decision of the consumer (Muehling, 1987).
Green advertising
In green advertising the focus shifts from the product or service, to the organization being perceived as environmentally conscious. According to Schmuck et al. (2018, p. 415) green advertising refers to “all advertisements that promote environmental sustainability or convey ecological or nature-friendly messages that target the needs of environmentally concerned
customers, regulators, and other stakeholders”. Generally there are three main strategies in green advertising: functional fact-based appeals, image-based emotional appeals or, used most
frequently, a combination of both.
The environmental attributes of the product or services are pointed out through using the functional appeal strategy. This can have a positive effect on the attitude towards the brand (Matthes, Wonneberger, & Schmuck, 2014). The emotional appeal often focusses on images that represent natural scenery. This could raise an effective response due to the triggered feelings customers have with nature. Studies indicate that green advertising with emotional appeal, has significant positive effects on the brand attitude (Hartmann et al, 2009; Matthes et al, 2014; Searles, 2010). A combination of both these strategies can result in the highest effects on brand attitude (Hartmann et al, 2009; Matthes et al, 2014; Searles, 2010; Wonneberger & Schmuck, 2014).
Green advertising is appealing to consumers because of their own increasing
environmental concern (Atkinson & Kim, 2015). Organizations could gain a large market share by concentrating on the green market. However, many organizations would have to make major adjustments in their current behavior. This is frequently associated with high costs and
difficulties. Therefore, organizations often choose an easier way to exploit the new sustainable consumption scenario through greenwashing where they abuse green advertising and mislead the consumer with confusing truths or false promises (Chen & Chang, 2013).
Greenwashing
The term “greenwashing” was first coined in the 1980s. It then referred to the attempt to gain market share through offensive or exaggerated claims concerning sustainability (Dahl, 2010). Over the years, the literature on greenwashing has grown and the term has been revised
many times. The definitions however differ from each other. According to Delmas and Burbando (2011, p. 65) it can be defined as: “the intersection of two firm behaviors: poor environmental performance and positive communication about environmental performance”. Atkinson and Kim (2015) stated that greenwashing is green advertising that is misleading and therefore perceived as unreliable and not credible. The revised definition from Seele and Gatti (2017) is as follows: “Greenwashing is a co-creation of an external accusation towards an organization with regard to presenting a misleading green message” (p. 19), and will be used in this research paper.
Greenwashing is a marketing technique that has developed over the years as a response of organizations to the increasing awareness concerning sustainability among consumers
(Marciniak, 2009). Often organizations use greenwashing to manage the public perception of their brand. The information is communicated in such a way that it maximizes the perception of legitimacy (Braga Junior et al, 2019). Organizations can use green advertising with the wrong intentions because they try to take advantage of the rising awareness of environmental concern among consumers, without making changes in their own behavior. Greenwashing could have a positive effect on consumers' purchase decisions and thus also on brand attitude (Chen & Chang, 2013; Nyilasy et al, 2014). This may be a result of consumers often not recognizing
greenwashing. The blurred line between false and hidden information makes it difficult for consumers to distinguish a brand that meets the requirements of environmental sustainability from one that does not because of false and hidden information (Braga Junior et al, 2019). Brand attitude
Consumers find it important that organizations show sustainable behavior and position themselves in a green way (Hartmann & Apaolaza-Ibáñez, 2009; Schmuck et al, 2018; Searles, 2010). Green positioning has a positive influence on a consumer’s attitude towards a brand
(Nyilasy et al, 2014; Olsen et al., 2014). Brand attitude refers to how consumers perceive a brand. It can be defined as: “a relatively enduring, unidimensional summary evaluation of the brand that presumably energizes behavior” (Spears & Singh, 2004, p. 55). Someone’s brand attitude could be explained by the Elaboration Likelihood Model (ELM) from Petty and Cacioppo (1984). This is a dual process theory that describes the change of attitude. Petty and Cacioppo (1984) stated that there are two different “routes” of processing information: central and peripheral. The central route requires motivation and the ability to think more carefully about the issue related topic. Someone’s cognitive response is important when information is being processed through the central route. The peripheral route on the other hand, processes information much quicker and requires less effort. When someone process information through the peripheral route he or she relies more on rules of thumb and examines the information less thoroughly (Cacioppo & Petty, 1984).
The peripheral route is often used when it comes to processing greenwashed information because consumers find it difficult to distinguish greenwashed information from not
greenwashed information (Braga Junior et al, 2019). Since consumers expect organizations to behave more green due to the increasing environmental concern, they are more likely to have a positive attitude towards a brand that is, in their perception, green but in fact makes use of greenwashing. This leads to the first hypotheses in this research:
Negative effect of greenwashing
Greenwashing can have a positive effect on the brand attitude. Possibly because
consumers often are not able to determine whether an organization uses greenwashing or not and because they use the peripheral route to process the information (Braga Junior et al, 2019; Cacioppo & Petty, 1984). However, Chen and Chang (2013) found that greenwashing can also negatively influence the brand attitude when consumers recognize the use of greenwashing in the organization's advertising. Possibly because the consumers then process the information through the central route of the ELM. The central route is used when the consumer has a high motivation to process the information more thoroughly (Cacioppo & Petty, 1984). They rely on their
cognitive response and because they are more critical towards the information they are more likely to recognize the greenwashing techniques (Schmuck et al., 2018). Greenwashing can have a profound negative effect on a consumer’s confidence in an organization. Trust in organizations can be damaged in such a way that this also has negative consequences for genuinely
environmentally friendly organizations. Consumers are increasingly reluctant to reward their environmentally friendly performance because they feel betrayed by organizations that use greenwashing (Delams & Burbanao, 2011).
Environmental involvement: concern and knowledge
Every consumer is different. To understand why consumers may have different responses to greenwashing advertisements, it needs to be taken into account that persuasive messages can affect consumers in different ways. Every consumer has different levels of involvement to persuasive messages (Parguel, Benoit-Moreau, & Russell, 2015). One consumer feels more involved in issues concerning the environment than another. The degree of someone’s
(Cacioppo & Petty, 1984). Consumers who have a high environmental involvement are more likely to recognize misleading advertisements, such as greenwashing, because they have a higher motivation to process the information through the central route of the ELM. When someone has a high environmental involvement they have a higher environmental concern and more
environmental knowledge (Cacioppo & Petty, 1984; Schmuck et al., 2018).
Environmental concern is characterized by consumers who are highly concerned about the environment. They also have a surprising awareness of environmental problems and perceive the necessity of taking care of the environment (Hartmann & Apaolaza-Ibáñez, 2009; Matthes et al., 2014). Consumers’ environmental knowledge is another important attribute that could explain the level of involvement concerning the environment. This refers to the consumers' objective knowledge concerning environmental issues (Parguel et al., 2015; Schmuck et al., 2018). In an earlier study by Andrews, Burton and Netemeyer (2000), knowledge in general, proved to be an important moderator in advertising effects. This may be the case for
environmental knowledge as well.
Thus, when someone has a high level of environmental involvement, they have a higher concern and more knowledge about environmental issues. A person’s level of environmental involvement could be related to their level of environmental self-identity, because if you
perceive yourself as an environmentally friendly person, you would also feel involved (Schmuck et al., 2018; Van der Werff et al., 2013).
Environmental self-identity
Environmental self-identity can be defined as: “The extent to which you see yourself as the type of person who acts environmentally-friendly. Someone with a strong environmental self-identity will more strongly see himself or herself as the type of person who will act
environmentally-friendly and consequently be more likely to act pro-environmental” (Van der Werff, Steg, & Keizer, 2013, p. 56). Environmental self-identity is related to an obligation-based intrinsic motivation, which means that people who have a strong environmental self-identity are more likely to act environmentally-friendly by having pro-environmental behavior, because they feel morally obliged to do so (Van der Werff et al., 2013).
Environmental self-identity has its roots in environmental identity which is defined as: “a sense of connection to some part of the non-human natural environment that affects the way we perceive and act towards the world; a belief that the environment is important to us and an important part of who we are” (Van der Werff, Steg, & Keizer, 2013, p. 56). Environmental self-identity is similar, but goes one step further than environmental self-identity. Someone with high levels of environmental self-identity not only sees him or herself as part of nature, but will also act upon it. They behave pro-environmental and acknowledge and link environmental problems to individual actions (Schultz & Tabanico, 2007). Pro-environmental behavior, however, is a wide concept. Whitmarsh and O'Neill (2010) distinguish the following four behavioral domains: domestic energy/water use, waste behavior, transport and environmentally friendly shopping. Thus, someone who behaves pro-environmentally tries to use less energy and/or water, prevents wasteful behavior, travels by public transport as often as possible and attempts to shop
environmentally friendly.
Therefore, if someone with a strong environmental self-identity perceives himself or herself more strongly as the type of person who will act environmentally-friendly, they possibly have a higher environmental involvement, knowledge and concern (Schmuck et al., 2018; Van der Werff et al., 2013; Whitmarsh & O'Neill, 2010). Chen and Chang (2013) stated that
it. It is possible that this negative effect is related to the fact that someone feels more
environmentally involved and therefore has a high level of environmental self-identity as well. This leads to the second hypothesis of this research:
H2: The effect greenwashing in advertising on attitude towards the brand is moderated by one's level of environmental self-identity. Greenwashing results in a positive attitude towards the brand for people with low levels of environmental self-identity and a negative attitude towards the brand for people with high levels of environmental self-identity
The higher the level of environmental self-identity, the more negative the effect of greenwashing will be on the brand attitude and vice versa. People with a high level of environmental self-identity feel more involved and have more environmental knowledge. Therefore, it is likely they become aware of the techniques of greenwashing and thus have a negative attitude towards the brand. The conceptual model in figure 1 illustrates the variables and hypotheses.
Method
In answer to the principal question of this research, an online experimental study among 279 (N = 279) respondents was conducted. The questionnaire was created with the online tool Qualtrics (see Appendix C for the full questionnaire). An attempt has been made to demonstrate a causal relationship between the independent variables 'greenwashing' and 'environmental self-identity' on the dependent variable 'brand attitude'. With an online experiment it was possible to recruit many respondents in a short period of time.
An advantage of using an online questionnaire experiment is that it is fast and easy to use (Scheepers, Tobi, & Boeije, 2016). In addition, an online experiment is user-friendly, and the absence of the researcher and the anonymity of the respondent ensures that answers are fair. This increases the internal validity of the research. Another advantage for the internal validity of this study is that randomization was used, where respondents were randomly assigned to one of the two conditions (stimuli). This improves internal validity because randomization ensures that there are no other factors that can affect the outcome. The reliability of the online experiment is high, because the measurements in the
questionnaire were always performed in the same way. However, no insights were obtained into the environmental factors in which the respondents found themselves when completing the online questionnaire. This may jeopardize the internal validity of this study, as it is not clear whether the respondents were derived from environmental factors or not (Scheepers, Tobi, & Boeije, 2016).
Design
The research design consisted of two groups between subjects, with an equal
respondents (N=140) and the intervention group contained 139 respondents (N=139). The ‘greenwashing’ factor is a between-subjects variable with two levels; Present or Absent (nominal). The respondents were randomly assigned to one of the two conditions. The factor ‘level of environmental self-identity’ was measured with a ratio-scale. However, later two levels were created; High and Low (ordinal). Based on the respondents score they
were assigned to one of the levels. Pilot test
A pilot study (N = 7) was conducted to prevent respondents from having earlier (negative) associations with the brand and/or the product shown in the advertisements, as this may influence the results. Three females (25, 26 and 31 years old) and four males (22, 26, 28 and 35 years old) were individually digitally interviewed. A short in-depth interview was the method chosen to identify the views and insights of the respondents.
The respondents were first shown two different logos of non-existing brands; ‘explora.’ and ‘Roo’ (see Appendix B for both logos). Both brands did not generate associations with existing brands among the respondents. Respondents associated the brand ‘Roo’ with a (sun) glasses brand because of the animation of the temples in the logo. The brand ‘explora.’ however, evoked feelings of a travel agency among most of the respondents. Travel could be experienced as environmentally unfriendly, especially travel by plane. To avoid confusion and associations with a travel brand, ‘Roo’ was chosen for the survey and not ‘explora’.
Secondly, the pilot-study tested what kind of product the respondent considered to be the most neutral. The respondents were introduced to three products (sunglasses, a phone-case and a purse) and were asked what their initial feelings and thoughts were on these items. It was
change or environmentally friendliness when seeing the product. The sunglasses were
experienced as the most neutral, followed by the purse. The phone-case was considered to be the most un-environmentally friendly because it is often made from plastic. A purse, however, is a broad concept. Therefore, a pair of sunglasses was chosen. Respondents in the experiment would be shown an advertisement for ‘Roo’ sunglasses.
Pretest
Before the online experiment was distributed, a pretest was conducted among ten respondents (N = 10). As a result of the pretest, insight was gained on how the target audience interpreted both the questions and answer categories, and whether the answer categories were comprehensive. The respondents did not experience any ambiguities. There were very few comments. After the pre-test, it could be concluded that it would take a respondent an average of four minutes to complete the online questionnaire. This average was given as an indication in the introduction to the online questionnaire.
Procedure
This experiment was conducted online. Participants had to click on a link to the Qualtrics survey where they first read an introduction letter and declared their consent to the participation in the experiment. They were then asked to indicate their age to determine whether they met the requirements. If a respondent was eighteen years or older, the
questionnaire would continue.
The respondent was then introduced to the brand ‘Roo’ and was shown one of the stimuli for this study (see Appendix C for both stimuli). The survey with the measurement of the main concepts of this research followed. A manipulation check and demographics were set at the end of the survey to avoid any potential influence on responses. After
completing the survey, the participants were thanked, and the experiment was finished. Sample
Two hundred and eighty-seven people agreed to participate in the study. Of the 287 participants, nine had to be removed from the final dataset due to missing values. Analyses were, thus, conducted over a final sample of 279 participants (N = 279) in total. Of these, 70.6 percent was female (N = 197) and 28.7 percent was male (N = 80). One respondent did not clarify his or her gender (N = 1) and one respondent was gender neutral (N = 1). Most respondents belonged to the age group 18-24 (N = 79) and to the age group 25-34 (N = 72). Furthermore, 19.9 percent belonged to the 45-55 age group (N = 55) and 15.4 percent belonged to the 55-64 age group (N = 43).
The highest average education of all respondents was a Bachelor's degree / undergraduate degree (N = 155). Also, 90 respondents (N = 90) completed a Master’s degree / graduate degree. 40.9 percent of the respondents worked full-time (N = 114), and 28.7 percent worked part-time (N = 80). 69 respondents were still studying, 6 were
unemployed and 10 were retired.
92.8 percent of the participants had the Dutch nationality (N = 259). The other 19 respondents had the following nationalities: American (N = 4), British (N = 2), Canadian, (N = 1), Ecuadorian (N = 1), German (N = 3), Irish (N = 2), Italian (N = 1), Lebanese (N = 1), Polish (N = 1), Spanish (N = 1) and Swiss (N = 2)
sample frame. The only set requirement for respondents to participate in the online experiment was that they had to be eighteen years of age or older. The respondents were recruited using a convenience sample, which is based on convenience and availability. The respondents were approached via social media channels, and through this approach, many
respondents were able to be recruited in a short time. Respondents were also asked to share the message within their network so that different age groups could complete the online questionnaire.
Measures
Greenwashing. The independent variable in this study is greenwashing. Two types of advertisements (stimuli) have been designed for this experiment. Respondents were exposed to one of the two advertisements through a randomization in the online software Qualtrics. Before the advertisement was shown, the respondents were introduced to the brand ‘Roo’ as follows: ‘Roo’ is a new sunglasses brand that creates trendy frames and designs in neutral colors. They work with good quality products for good protection of your eyes. They strive to guarantee a long service life of the glasses.
The control group (N = 140) was shown the regular advertisement and the intervention group (N = 139) was shown an advertisement with greenwashing. In this way it was excluded that an observed effect was not due to spontaneous changes. Both groups were shown the new (non-existent) ‘Roo’ sunglasses brand advertisement for thirty seconds. This way ensured that all respondents were exposed to the advertisement for the same amount of time. Both the
advertisements (stimuli) are generally the same and show two new types of sunglasses. The advertisement containing greenwashing was manipulated in such a way that subtle scenes of nature appeared in the ad. This is based on studies that state that nature scenery enhances the sense of being environmentally friendly because the emotional appeal is triggered here
(Hartmann et al, 2009; Matthes et al, 2014; Schmuck et al, 2018, & Searles, 2010). The subtle clues of natural scenery can be found in the background of the advertisement (trees), in the
slogan (‘experience nature through different eyes’) and in the names of the sunglasses (‘leaves’ and ‘sunrise’). See Appendix C for the stimuli.
Brand attitude. The dependent variable brand attitude was measured by asking respondents to describe their overall feelings about the brand they had just seen in the advertisement. Seven criteria (unappealing/appealing, bad/good, unpleasant/pleasant,
unfavorable/favorable, unlikable/likable, unsatisfactory/satisfactory and disagreeable/agreeable) were measured on a seven-point scale. This scale is based on a study by Spears and Singh (2004)
A factor analysis was performed to check if these statements all measured the same construct and to see if these questions could all be combined into one new variable. Only one component had an eigenvalue above 1 (EV= 4.88) and there was a clear point of inflexion after this component in the scree plot. Together, these factors explain 81.33% of the variance in the original variables (items). The reliability of the scale is good, α = 0.95. Therefore, it appears the scale measures brand attitude. The six items were computed into one newly constructed variable, labelled ‘brand_attitude’. On the scale that runs from 1 to 7, the respondents scored an average high (M = 4.50, SD = 1.27).
Environmental self-identity. The moderator in this study is environmental self-identity and is based on the study by van der Werff et al., (2013). The following three items were used to measure environmental self-identity: Acting environmentally-friendly is an important part of who I am; I am the type of person who acts environmentally-friendly; I see myself as an environmentally-friendly person. Respondents rated each item on a seven-point scale, ranging from totally disagree to totally agree.
To check if these statements all measured the same construct and to see if these questions could all be combined into one new variable, a factor analysis was performed. Only one
component had an eigenvalue above 1 (EV= 2.50) and there was a clear point of inflexion after this component in the scree plot. Together, these factors explain 83.30% of the variance in the original variables (items). The reliability of the scale is good, α = 0.90. Therefore, it appears the scale measures environmental identity. The three items measuring the environmental self-identity have been transformed into one newly constructed variable, labelled
‘environmental_self_identity’. On the scale that runs from 1 to 7, the respondents scored low to average (M = 2.72, SD = 0.98). See Appendix B for a histogram of the average scores on level of environmental self-identity. Since most respondents ‘scored’ around the same, it was decided to create, based on the average scores and the mean, two groups: low (N=155) and high (N=124). With the groups the analysis were conducted.
Manipulation checks
A manipulation check was executed at the end of the online questionnaire to assess whether the respondents perceived the manipulations the same as had been intended. The respondents were asked to rate the following statements on a scale ranging from 1 not at all to 5 very much so: The advertisements of the brand ‘Roo’ was very green; The product shown in the advertisement was neutral; I was not familiar with the brand ‘Roo’. Three independent samples t-test were performed.
First, it was checked if respondents thought the advertisement was green or not. An independent t-test showed that manipulation for greenwashing was successful because of the level of significances t(277) = -3.73, p = <0.001, 95% CI [-0.95, -0.50]. Respondents from the control group found the advertisement less green (M = 1.99, SD = 0.99) than the respondents from the intervention group (M = 2.45, SD = 1.04).
Secondly, an independent t-test was conducted to check if the respondents were familiar with the brand ‘Roo’. The independent t-test was significant which means that the respondents were not familiar with the brand ‘Roo’ t(277) = 3.35, p = 0.001, 95% CI [-0.95, -0.50]. Even though there was a little difference between the control group (M = 2.83, SD = 1.13) and the intervention group (M = 2.39, SD = 1.07), the overall score was significant thus de respondents were not familiar with ‘Roo’.
The third and final independent t-test was not significant. This mean that respondents did not experience sunglasses as a neutral product t(277) = 0.07, p = 0.947, 95% CI [-0.95, -0.50]. Respondents from the control group (M = 2.80, SD = 0.09) and respondents from the
intervention group scored nearly the same on how neutral they thought the product was (M = 2.79, SD = 0.09). However, because the independent t-test is not significant it cannot be assumed that the respondents experienced sunglasses as a neutral product.
Results Randomization checks
Two chi-squared tests were conducted to check whether the randomization was
successful. A chi-square test of independence showed that there was no significant association between the control group and the intervention group for age, χ2 (7, N = 279) = 4.8, p = 0.683. Thus, it can be assumed that both groups are equally distributed for age and the randomization was successful. A chi-square test of independence also showed that there was no significant association between the control group and the intervention group for gender, χ2 (3, N = 279) = 3.86, p = 0.277. Thus, it can be assumed that both groups are equally distributed for gender and the randomization was successful.
Hypotheses testing
To test both of the hypotheses a two-factor analysis of variance (ANOVA) with groups of equal size was carried out to assess the influence of exposure to greenwashing on brand attitude, in conjunction with the effect of environmental self-identity. Table 1 shows that the overall brand attitude from the respondents of the control group was a little higher (M = 4.53, SD = 1.36) than the overall brand attitude from the respondents from the intervention group (M = 4.47, SD = 1.18). However, Table 2 shows that there was no significant main effect of greenwashing on the attitude towards the brand, F (1,275) = 0.25, p = 0.620, η2 = 0.00. This means that no difference was found in exposure to a greenwashed advertisement or on the brand attitude they have. This means that H1: Greenwashing in advertising positively influences brand attitude, cannot be assumed.
The second hypothesis of this research was: The effect greenwashing in advertising on attitude towards the brand is moderated by one's level of environmental self-identity. Exposure to greenwashing resulted in a positive attitude towards the brand for people with low levels of environmental self-identity and a negative attitude towards the brand for people with high levels of environmental self-identity. Table 1 shows that the overall brand attitude from the respondents who had a low level of environmental self-identity (M = 4.60, SD = 1.39) was a little higher than the overall brand attitude from the respondents who had a high level of environmental self-identity (M = 4.38, SD = 1.11). However, no significant main effect of one's level of
environmental self-identity on attitude towards the brand was found, F (1,275) = 2.22, p = 0.137, η2 = 0.01. Which means that no difference was found in one's level of environmental self-identity
Table 1
Descriptive Statistics of the variable Brand attitude Level of
Environmental
self-identity Conditions Mean
Std. Deviation N Low Control 4.5476 1.52366 77 Intervention 4.6603 1.24532 78 Total 4.6043 1.38719 155 High Control 4.5079 1.14474 63 Intervention 4.2432 1.06483 61 Total 4.3777 1.10964 124 Total Control 4.5298 1.36170 140 Intervention 4.4772 1.18383 139 Total 4.5036 1.27416 279 Table 2 Results of ANOVA Source
Type III Sum
of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
Partial Eta Squared Corrected Model 6.202a 3 2.067 1.277 .282 .014 Intercept 5553.692 1 5553.692 3431.071 .000 .926 Environmental self-ID 3.593 1 3.593 2.220 .137 .008 Conditions .399 1 .399 .246 .620 .001 Environmental self-ID * Conditions 2.453 1 2.453 1.515 .219 .005 Error 445.128 275 1.619 Total 6110.083 279 Corrected Total 451.330 278
Note: R Squared = .014 (Adjusted R Squared = .003)
Table 1 shows results that could support H2 such as that the respondents with high levels of environmental self-identity, who were exposed to the greenwashed advertisement (N = 61) had the most negative brand attitude (M = 4.24, SD = 1.06). Furthermore, the respondents with low levels of environmental self-identity who were exposed to the greenwashed advertisement (N = 78) had the most positive brand attitude (M = 4.66, SD = 1.52). Also, the respondents from
the control group with high levels of environmental self-identity (N = 63) still had a more negative brand attitude (M = 4.51, SD = 1.14) than the respondents from the control group with low levels of environmental self-identity (N = 77) (M = 4.55, SD = 1.52). The interaction effect however, shows no significant effect, F (1,275) = 1.51, p = 0.219, η2 = 0.01. This means that
someone’s level of environmental self-identity does not influence someone’s brand attitude when being exposed to a greenwashed advertisement. Therefore, H2 cannot be assumed.
Discussion
The initial research question central in this paper was: What are the effects of
greenwashing in advertising on brand attitude, and is this effect moderated by someone’s level of environmental self-identity? With H1 it was expected that greenwashing in advertising positively influences brand attitude. However, no significant effects were found within the conducted analyses. This is contradictory to previous findings which showed that green positioning as an organization can have a positive influence on a consumer’s attitude towards a brand (Nyilasy et al, 2014; Olsen et al., 2014). Furthermore, with H2 it was expected that someone with a high level of environmental self-identity would have a more negative brand attitude and vice versa. This could be explained by the fact that people with a high level of environmental self-identity would feel more involved and have more environmental knowledge. Therefore, they would be aware of the techniques of greenwashing which would thus negatively influence their brand attitude (Schmuck et al., 2018; Van der Werff et al., 2013; Whitmarsh & O'Neill, 2010).
However, again no significant results were found in the conducted analysis. There are a number of implications which may explain these insignificant results.
The stimulus materials
First of all, there are suggestions for the stimulus materials. A manipulation check on how neutral the respondents experienced the advertised product, sunglasses, proved to be insignificant. Respondents from both groups were shown an advertisement for sunglasses from the non-existent sunglass brand ‘Roo’. At the end of the questionnaire respondents were asked to rate three statements. Respondents may have misunderstood the statement: ‘The product shown in the advertisement was neutral’ because there was no exact explanation on what is meant by ‘neutral’. The statement could be adapted to the following: ‘The product shown in the
advertisement made me have no associations with sustainability, climate change or environmental friendliness’. This text gives a clearer explanation of neutral.
A second possibility could be that the sunglasses product is indeed not neutral enough. Before the questionnaire was set live, a pilot study was conducted. This showed that of the three products the respondents were introduced to; sunglasses, phone-case, and purse, sunglasses were considered the most neutral. However, it may be that the selection of the three products was not the right fit. More neutral products could be chosen in future research. As a researcher, to determine what a respondent’s perspective is on a neutral product, a longer in-depth interview could take place. It would also be possible to work with products that are not environmentally friendly. In this case, a test could be carried out to see if greenwashing techniques would make an un-environmentally friendly product appear less un-environmentally friendly.
Finally, the manipulated stimuli may not have been manipulated enough. The
advertisement presented to the intervention group contained subtle clues of natural scenery to trigger the emotional appeal (Hartmann et al, 2009; Matthes et al, 2014; Schmuck et al, 2018, & Searles, 2010). However, it is possible that the clues in the advertisement may have been too
subtle for respondents to measure the desired effect. When ignoring the level of significance of the conducted analyses, some interesting results were found that are in line with the hypotheses. Respondents from the intervention group with low levels of environmental self-identity for example, had a higher brand attitude than the respondents from the control group. Furthermore, respondents who were exposed to the manipulated stimuli and who had high levels of
environmental self-identity turned out to have the lowest brand attitude of all groups. This could indicate that had the manipulated stimuli contained more obvious nature scenery clues, the desired effect may have been achieved. In future research the manipulated stimuli could be more obvious, for example, a more striking background or the use of more expressive photos of a natural environment. In the advertisement used in this research, the background images faded compared to those in the foreground.
Environmental self-identity
There are two more implications concerning environmental self-identity which may have contributed to the insignificant results. Firstly, the respondent’s level of environmental self-identity has been measured through three items. Respondents were asked to rate themselves on a seven-point scale, ranging from totally disagree to totally agree. Before the main analyses were conducted, two groups were created based on the respondent’s average score, representing a low and high level of environmental self-identity. By doing so, the scale changed from ratio to ordinal. This was chosen in order to be able to conduct analyzes with equal groups, otherwise no analyses were possible. However, statistical power was possibly lost due to the change of scale. For future research the use of a ratio scale is recommended. To avoid having not equal groups, more respondents from different social classes can be recruited. It is likely that respondents from
a lower social class also have a lower environmental self-identity than respondents from a higher social class.
A final point of discussion that could be taken into account for future research is to switch the independent variable; greenwashing VS not greenwashing, with the moderator;
environmental self-identity. As discussed above, the results of this study are not significant, yet it seems that when the variables are viewed individually, there are indeed some interesting results. This may be due to the current composition of the variables. Swapping the moderator with the independent variable could yield interesting results and possibly reflect the results more clearly. It may then be possible, for example, to examine whether environmental self-identity influences brand attitude as opposed to greenwashing. In addition, further investigation may indicate whether this effect in fact exists, and if so, if it varies for people with different levels of environmental self-identity. Furthermore, future research could explore whether the effect of environmental self-identity on brand attitude changes when the respondent is exposed to a greenwashed advertisement. Based on the literature, it could be assumed that someone with a high level of environmental self-identity creates a negative attitude when exposed to a
greenwashed advertisement, because they are more critical towards the information they process and thus will then recognize greenwashing (Schmuck et al., 2018; Van der Werff et al., 2013; Whitmarsh & O'Neill, 2010). Also, when swapping these two variables the moderator would become a categorical variable with two groups; greenwashed advertisement or regular
advertisement. The independent variable in this case would have a ratio scale. Working with two groups for the moderator could simplify conducting the analyses. This could lead to clearer results if there is a different effect on brand attitude for the different levels of environmental self-identity.
References
Andrews, J., Burton, S., & Netemeyer, R. (2000). Are some comparative nutrition claims misleading? The role of nutrition knowledge, ad claim type and disclosure
conditions. Journal of Advertising, 29(3), 29–42. https://doi.org/10.1080/00913367.2000.10673615
Atkinson, L., & Kim, Y. (2015). “I drink it anyway and I know I shouldn’t”: understanding green consumers’ positive evaluations of norm-violating non-green products and misleading green advertising. Environmental Communication, 9(1), 37–57.
https://doi.org/10.1080/17524032.2014.932817
Berke, P., & Conroy, M. (2000). Are we planning for sustainable development?: An evaluation of 30 comprehensive plans. Journal of the American Planning Association, 66(1), 21–33. https://doi.org/10.1080/01944360008976081
Braga Junior, S., Martínez, M., Correa, C., Moura-Leite, R., & Da Silva, D. (2019).
Greenwashing effect, attitudes, and beliefs in green consumption. RAUSP Management Journal, 54(2), 226–241. https://doi.org/10.1108/RAUSP-08-2018-0070
Cacioppo, J., & Petty, R. (1984). The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. Advances in Consumer Research, 11. http://search.proquest.com/docview/1293569678/
Chen, Y., & Chang, C. (2013). Greenwash and green trust: the mediation effects of green consumer confusion and green perceived risk. Journal of Business Ethics, 114(3), 489– 500. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-012-1360-0
Dahl, R. (2010). Greenwashing: do you know what you’re buying? Environmental Health Perspectives, 118(6), A246–A252. https://doi.org/10.1289/ehp.118-a246
Delmas, M., & Burbano, V. (2011). The drivers of greenwashing. California Management Review, 54(1), 64–87. https://doi.org/10.1525/cmr.2011.54.1.64
De Jong, M., Harkink, K., & Barth, S. (2018). Making green stuff? Effects of corporate
greenwashing on consumers. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 32(1), 77–112. https://doi.org/10.1177/1050651917729863
Gatersleben, B., Murtagh, N., & Abrahamse, W. (2014). Values, identity and pro-environmental behaviour. Contemporary Social Science: Climate Change: Social Science
Hartmann, P., & Apaolaza-Ibáñez, V. (2009). Green advertising revisited: conditioning virtual nature experiences. International Journal of Advertising, 28(4), 715–739.
https://doi.org/10.2501/S0265048709200837
Marciniak, A. (2009). Greenwashing as an example of ecological marketing misleading practices. 12(1-2), 49–59. https://doi.org/10.2478/v10103-009-0003-x
Matthes, J., Wonneberger, A., & Schmuck, D. (2014). Consumers’ green involvement and the persuasive effects of emotional versus functional ads. Journal of Business
Research, 67(9), 1885–1893. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2013.11.054
Muehling, D. (1987). Comparative advertising: the influence of attitude-toward-the-ad on brand evaluation. Journal of Advertising, 16(4), 43–49.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00913367.1987.10673094
Nyilasy, G., Gangadharbatla, H., & Paladino, A. (2014). Perceived greenwashing: the interactive Effects of Green Advertising and Corporate Environmental Performance on consumer reactions. Journal of Business Ethics, 125(4), 693–707. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-013-1944-3
Olsen, M., Slotegraaf, R., & Chandukala, S. (2014). Green claims and message frames: how green new products change brand attitude. Journal Of Marketing, 78(5), 119–137. https://doi.org/10.1509/jm.13.0387
Parguel, B., Benoit-Moreau, F., & Russell, C. (2015). Can evoking nature in advertising mislead consumers? The power of “executional greenwashing.” International Journal of
Advertising: Persuasion in Advertising, 34(1), 107–134. https://doi.org/10.1080/02650487.2014.996116
Scheepers, P., Tobi, H., & Boeije, H.R. (2016). Onderzoeksmethoden (9th ed.). Amsterdam: Boom uitgevers
Schmuck, D., Matthes, J., & Naderer, B. (2018). Misleading consumers with green advertising? An affect-reason-involvement account of greenwashing effects in environmental
advertising. Journal Of Advertising, 47(2), 127–145. https://doi.org/10.1080/00913367.2018.1452652
Searles, K. (2010). Feeling good and doing good for the environment: The use of emotional appeals in pro-environmental public service announcements. Applied Environmental
Education & Communication, 9(3), 173–184. https://doi.org/10.1080/1533015X.2010.510025
Seele, P., & Gatti, L. (2017). Greenwashing Revisited: In search of a typology and accusation‐ based definition incorporating legitimacy strategies. Business Strategy and the
Environment, 26(2), 239–252. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.1912
Schmuck, D., Matthes, J., Naderer, B., & Beaufort, M. (2018). The effects of environmental brand attributes and nature imagery in green advertising. Environmental
Communication, 12(3), 414–429. https://doi.org/10.1080/17524032.2017.1308401 Schultz, P., & Tabanico, J. (2007). Self, identity, and the natural environment: exploring implicit
connections with nature 1. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 37(6), 1219–1247. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2007.00210.x
Spears, N., & Singh, S. (2004). Measuring attitude toward the brand and purchase intentions. Journal of Current Issues & Research in Advertising, 26(2), 53–66. https://doi.org/10.1080/10641734.2004.10505164
Van der Werff, E., Steg, L., & Keizer, K. (2013). The value of environmental self-identity: The relationship between biospheric values, environmental self-identity and environmental preferences, intentions and behaviour. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 34, 55–63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2012.12.006
Whelan, T & Kronthal-Sacco, R. (2019). Research: actually, consumers do buy sustainable products. Harvard Business Review. Retrieved on June 17th 2020 on
https://hbr.org/2019/06/research-actually-consumers-do-buy-sustainable-products White, K., Hardisty, D., & Habib, R. (2019). The elusive green consumer: People say they want
sustainable products, but they don’t tend to buy them. Here’s how to change that. Harvard Business Review, 2019 (July/August). pp. 124–133
Whitmarsh, L., & O'Neill, S. (2010). Green identity, green living? The role of pro environmental self-identity in determining consistency across diverse pro environmental behavior. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 30(3), 305-314.
Appendix Appendix A
APPLICATION FORM FOR ETHICAL REVIEW FOR STUDENT RESEARCH IN THE FRAMEWORK OF EDUCATION
Students request ethical permission from the instructor of the teaching module.
In case of doubt, the instructor will seek advice from the course coordinator. If the coordinator is also uncertain, advice may be requested through the route for research on juveniles.
For juvenile (< 18 years) respondents or test subjects, the instructor must always submit the application for ethical approval to:
- for Master’s modules, to the representative of the Ethics Committee of the appropriate programme group
- for Bachelor’s modules, to Bas van den Putte
The application consists of the following: 1. The form provided below
2. The factsheet and the informed consent form
(if multiple methods are used, all forms should be included) 3. If applicable: Debriefing method
4. If applicable: Participant recruitment text
A sample factsheet and informed consent form are provided in Appendix C.
This checklist mentions “participants”. This refers to the respondents or test subjects participating in your research.
Checklist for ethical permission for research conducted by students in the framework of education
1) Title of the research project:
‘Environmental consciousness sees through greenwashing’
2) Component of the programme (Bachelor’s or Master’s/Name of module): Master Communication Sience - Persuasive Communication
3) Student(s) who will conduct the research: Renee van Brakel
4) Teacher(s) who will supervise the research: Hans Feenstra
5) Brief description of the research (max. 200 words)
This study examines the effect of exposure to greenwashing on the brand attitude of the (non-existing) brand ‘Roo’. In addition, it will be investigated whether someone’s level of
environmental self-identity has a moderating effect on the brand attitude. It is expected that the higher the level of environmental self-identity, the more negative the effect of
greenwashing on brand attitude and vice versa. People with a high level of environmental self-identity feel more engaged and have more knowledge of the environment, which is why they are likely to understand the techniques of greenwashing and thus create a negative attitude towards the brand.
6) Research method (max. 100 words):
The research method of this study will be an online experimental study. The research design consists of two groups (the control group and the intervention group) who both will contain 75 respondents (N = 75). A 2 x 2 factorial design will be used for the experiment. The factor greenwashing is a between-subjects variable with two levels, namely: Present or Absent (nominal). The factor level of environmental self-identity has two levels, namely: Strong or Weak (ordinal).
7) Where will the research be conducted (e.g. online, location, through organisation): Online
8) Duration of the research (from the start of recruitment until the close of data collection): Approximately three weeks
The only requirement placed on respondents to participate in this study was that they must be 18 years of age or older. The respondents will be collected through a convenience sampling method. Most of them will recruited at the University of Amsterdam. There will be aimed for an equal distribution between men and women
10) Are all participants adult (18 years or older), mentally competent individuals? O no
O yes
If no, explain how active or passive permission will be obtained from the parents.
11) Number of participants to be recruited: 150
12) How will the anonymity and privacy of the participants be guaranteed? Explain.
Participation in the study is entirely voluntary and without obligation. The anonymity of the participants will be fully guaranteed because filling in the questionnaire is completely anonymous. It is not necessary for the respondents to enter private data.
13) Will participants receive compensation for participating in the research? O no
O yes If yes, explain.
14) Will any misleading occur? O no
O yes
If yes, explain how and why. Also explain how and when participants will be debriefed. The stimuli material shown to respondents is from the non-existing brand ‘Roo’. See
Appendix C for the stimuli. The respondents could possibly consider this to be misleading. It is therefore important to debrief the respondent after the survey. When the questionnaire is completed a thank you text will appear. This will contain the following information: You have come to the end of this online questionnaire. Thank you for your participation!
Furthermore, I would like to point out that the advertisement you have seen of the brand ‘Roo’ is not an existing advertisement and the ‘Roo’ brand does not exist either.
If you have any questions or if are interested in the end result, please let me know. I can be reached on the information below:
reneevanbrakel1@gmail.com +31628262579
Sincerely,
Renee van Brakel
15) Is there a possibility that some participants/test subjects might consider the research unpleasant or troublesome for any reason, or that they may be exposed to information, materials or questions to which they would prefer not to be exposed?
O no O yes If yes, explain.
Signature of student(s) conducting the research: Signature of teacher(s) supervising the research:
Date: 29-04-2020 Date:
Appendix B
Figure A. Logo of the fictional brand ‘explora.’
Figure B. Logo of the fictional brand ‘Roo’
Appendix C
Complete questionnaire (including invitation, factsheet and informed consent) Invitation and factsheet
Dear respondent,
Thank you for participating in a research study conducted under the auspices of the Graduate School of Communication, a part of the University of Amsterdam. Currently, I am in the final phase of my Communication Science studies at the University of Amsterdam. For my master thesis, I do research on brand attitude.
In this online questionnaire, you will be shown an advertisement of a brand. The brand will be introduced later. You will be asked questions about your attitude towards the brand. In addition, several questions will be asked about your behaviour.
The only requirement that you have to meet is that you are aged eighteen years or above. Completing the questionnaire takes approximately 5 minutes. You can pause at any time and continue with the questionnaire at a later time. I would also like to point out that there are no right or wrong answers. It is especially important that you complete the questionnaire after your first thoughts. Your data will be treated confidentially and the results will be processed
completely anonymously.
As this research is being carried out under the responsibility of the ASCoR, University of Amsterdam, we can guarantee that:
1) Your anonymity will be safeguarded, and that your personal information will not be passed on to third parties under any conditions, unless you first give your express permission for this. 2) You can refuse to participate in the research or cut short your participation without having to give a reason for doing so. You also have up to 24 hours after participating to withdraw your permission to allow your answers or data to be used in the research.
3) Participating in the research will not entail your being subjected to any appreciable risk or discomfort, the researchers will not deliberately mislead you, and you will not be exposed to any explicitly offensive material.
4) No later than five months after the conclusion of the research, we will be able to provide you with a research report that explains the general results of the research.
If you have any questions or comments about the survey, you can contact me at
reneevanbrakel1@gmail.com or +31628262579. Any complaints or comments will be treated in the strictest confidence. When the research is completed, the questionnaire will be taken offline. I hope that I have provided you with sufficient information. I would like to take this opportunity to thank you in advance for your assistance with this research, which I greatly appreciate.
Sincerely,
Renee van Brakel Informed consent
I hereby declare that I have been informed in a clear manner about the nature and method of the research, as described on the previous page for this study.
I agree, fully and voluntarily, to participate in this research study. With this, I retain the right to withdraw my consent, without having to give a reason for doing so. I am aware that I may halt my participation in the experiment at any time.
If my research results are used in scientific publications or are made public in another way, this will be done such a way that my anonymity is completely safeguarded. My personal data will not be passed on to third parties without my express permission.
If I wish to receive more information about the research, either now or in future, I can contact reneevanbrakel1@gmail.com. Should I have any complaints about this research, I can contact the designated member of the Ethics Committee representing the ASCoR, at the following address: ASCoR secretariat, Ethics Committee, University of Amsterdam, Postbus 15793, 1001 NG Amsterdam; 020‐ 525 3680; ascor‐secr‐fmg@uva.nl.
I understand the text presented above, and I agree to participate in the research study. Yes – No
If no the respondent cannot participate in the study. The following message will be shown: ‘Unfortunately, you cannot participate in this study. To participate in this survey, it is important that you agree to the terms and conditions.
If you have any questions or if are interested in the end result, please let me know. I can be reached on the information below:
reneevanbrakel1@gmail.com +31628262579
Sincerely,
1. I am 18 years or older Yes – No
‘If no the respondent cannot participate in the study. The following message will be shown:
Unfortunately, you cannot participate in this study. To participate in this study it is important that you are 18 years or older.
If you have any questions or if are interested in the end result, please let me know. I can be reached on the information below:
reneevanbrakel1@gmail.com +31628262579
Sincerely,
Renee van Brakel’
2. You will be shown an advertisement of ‘Roo’. ‘Roo’ is a new sunglasses brand that creates trendy frames and designs in neutral colors. They work with good quality
products for good protection of your eyes. They strive to guarantee a long service life of the glasses.
If you click on next you will see the advertisement. Please note that you will see the advertisement for a maximum of thirty seconds. If you want to continue to the questions earlier, you can click next.
3. Please describe (on a scale ranging from 1 to 7) your overall feelings about the brand described in the ad you just read.
Unappealing/Appealing Bad/Good Unpleasant/Pleasant Unfavorable/Favorable Unlikable/Likable Unsatisfactory/Satisfactory Disagreeable/Agreeable
The following questions are about your environmental self-identity. Please indicate to what extent you agree or disagree with the statements on a seven-point scale, ranging from (1) totally disagree to totally agree (7).
4. Acting environmentally-friendly is an important part of who I am 5. I am the type of person who acts environmentally-friendly
Please rate the importance of each value on a scale from 1 opposed to my values to 7 extremely important.
7. Respecting the earth (harmony with other species) 8. Unity with nature (fitting into nature)
9. Protecting the environment (preserving nature) 10. Preventing pollution (protecting natural resources)
Please rate the following statements on a scale from (1) Not at all to (5 Very much so 11. I thought the advertisement was green
12. The brand ‘Roo’ evoked associations with existing brands 13. I think sunglasses are a neutral product
14. What is your gender?
Male - Female - Gender neutral - Rather not say
15. What is your age? 18 – 24 25 – 34 35 – 44 45 – 54 55 – 64 65 – 74 75 – 84 85 or above
16. What is your highest academic degree (or what are you currently studying)? Less than high school
High school
Bachelor degree/undergraduate degree Master’s degree / graduate degree Doctoral degree (PhD)
17. I daily life I am: Studying
Working part-time Working full time Unemployed Retired
18. What is your nationality? Dutch
Other, namely:
You have come to the end of this online questionnaire. Thank you for your participation!
Furthermore, I would like to point out that the advertisement you have seen of the brand ‘Roo’ is not an existing advertisement and the ‘Roo’ brand does not exist either.
If you have any questions or if are interested in the end result, please let me know. I can be reached on the information below:
reneevanbrakel1@gmail.com +31628262579
Sincerely,
