The Effect of Sustainable Consumer Behavior on the Relationship Between
Sustainable Chain Status and Status-seeking Behavior
Linda Hacke, 11749717
Faculty of Economics and Business, University of Amsterdam BSc Thesis in Business Administration
Topic: Sustainable Consumer Behavior Supervisor: Lita Napitupulu
Statement of Originality
This document is written by Linda Hacke who declares to take full responsibility for the contents of this document.
I declare that the text and the work presented in this document are original and that no sources other than those mentioned in the text and its references have been used in creating it.
The Faculty of Economics and Business is responsible solely for the supervision of completion of the work, not for the contents.
Undersigned,
Table of Contents
Abstract...4
1. Introduction ...5
2. Theoretical Framework ...6
2.1 Sustainable Chain Status – Higher-status vs. Lower-status Chain... 6
2.2 Status-seeking Behavior and Costly Signaling Theory ... 7
2.3 The Effect of Sustainable Chain Status on Status-seeking Behavior ... 9
2.4 Sustainable Consumer Behavior ... 10
2.5 The Interaction Effect Between Sustainable Chain Status and Sustainable Consumer Behavior on Status-seeking Behavior ... 11
3. Methods ... 13
3.1 Design, Sample, and Procedure ... 13
3.2 Measures... 14
3.3 Analytical Plan ... 15
4. Results... 15
5. Discussion ... 17
5.1 Limitations and Implications for Future Research ... 19
5.2 Practical Implications ... 20
5.3 Conclusion ... 21
Bibliography ... 22
Abstract
Although extant research already examined the influence of the perceived status of a
sustainable chain on status-seeking behavior, it still remains unclear whether consumers that shop at higher-status sustainable chains do so because they might want to signal their
affiliation with the high-status store, regardless of its sustainable nature. To explain when shoppers at sustainable chains engage in status-seeking behavior and how this is affected by their engagement in sustainable consumer behavior, this study draws on costly signaling theory and ecological value theory. It is proposed that the status of a sustainable chain affects shoppers’ status-seeking behavior and that shoppers’ sustainable consumer behavior
influences the extent to which one engages in status-seeking behavior. More specifically, this study hypothesizes that there is an interaction effect between sustainable chain status and sustainable consumer behavior, such that the relationship between sustainable chain status and status-seeking behavior becomes weaker when consumers show high (compared to low) levels of sustainable consumer behavior. The hypotheses are tested by means of a survey with a sample of 306 respondents who have shopped at either a relatively higher- or lower-status sustainable chain. The hypotheses did not find support in this study, implying that a person engaging less in sustainable consumer behavior does not necessarily become more involved in status-seeking behavior when shopping at a higher-status sustainable chain than a person engaging more in sustainable consumer behavior and vice versa.
1. Introduction
Observing and understanding consumer behavior has become increasingly important in today’s globalized world. In particular, the demand for sustainable products has surged especially in most recent years: in the US, 50% of CPG (consumer packaged goods) growth from 2013 to 2018 emerged from sustainability-marketed products (Whelan & Kronthal-Sacco, 2019). In the Netherlands, consumers increasingly opt for sustainable products, too. In 2016, Dutch consumers spent €3.8 billion on sustainable foods, therefore making up a 10% share of total food expenditure (Wageningen University & Research, Agrimatie, 2017).
While these figures suggest a shift in consumer consciousness towards more
sustainable purchases, Griskevicius, Tybur, & Van den Bergh (2010) found that people like to publicly display their purchase of sustainable products for status motives. Status suggests a reward hierarchy in which higher status individuals have better access to desirable items (Griskevicius et al., 2010). People can acquire status by, for example, showing altruistic behavior. More specifically, altruistic behavior means sacrificing one’s own resources for the benefit of the others (Hardy & van Vugt, 2006). Through their sustainable purchases,
consumers want to be perceived as altruistic, signaling that they are willing and able to incur costs for the benefit of others. This is why status motives increase desire for green products when shopping in public (but not in private) and when green products cost more (but not less) than non-green products (Griskevicius et al., 2010).
Van der Wal, van Horen, & Grinstein (2016) conducted a follow-up study to Griskevicius et al. (2010) in which they concluded that people shopping at a higher-status sustainable grocery store are more likely to publicly display their sustainable behavior by using the store’s branded shopping bags as opposed to people shopping at a lower-status sustainable grocery store. By replicating the findings of Griskevicius et al. (2010) in a field study, they inferred that status motives drive people to signal their sustainable behavior and hence, engage in status-seeking behavior. However, there is a limitation to this study: it is possible that consumers using a branded store bag of a high-status sustainable grocery store do so because they want to signal their affiliation with the high-status store, regardless of their sustainable purchases. In order to further explore this alternative explanation, it is important to gain more insight in terms of consumers’ motivation to shop at a sustainable grocery store. In particular, if consumers motivated by status reasons do not engage in sustainable consumer behavior (e.g. not purchasing organic products, products labeled as environmentally safe, products that use recyclable materials, etc.), more powerful exploration will be provided in
light of the “green to be seen paradox” after Van der Wal et al. (2016): shoppers at a higher-status sustainable grocery store may not care about engaging in sustainable consumer behavior, but rather look for ways to enhance their social status by showing off where they shop.
This research paper intends to explore the link between consumers’ shopping at (higher and lower status) sustainable stores and the degree of engagement in status-seeking behavior. In particular, further exploring individuals’ sustainable consumer behavior can help uncover their true motivation to shop at higher-status sustainable chains. Therefore, it bears the question to what extent consumers shopping at a sustainable higher-status chain
(compared to at a relatively lower-status chain) engage in status-seeking behavior when their engagement in sustainable consumer behavior is low (compared to high).
This research helps broaden scholars’ understanding of consumers’ motivation to shop at sustainable higher-status chains and therefore, in particular, further explores the limitation of the study of Van der Wal et al. (2016). Furthermore, if findings should show that
consumers are particularly motivated by status reasons and less so by the sustainable act itself, this research could provide powerful additional support for findings of Griskevicius et al. (2010) and Van der Wal et al. (2016).
In terms of practical implications, this research helps sustainable chains understand their customers better and helps nuance why they choose to shop there. For example, if it turns out that shoppers at a higher-status sustainable chain do not care about the sustainability aspect itself but rather the overall high status the chain is perceived as, managers might want to focus on maintaining a high-status image rather than try to appeal to the sustainability aspect of their chain. More broadly spoken, this could allow higher-status sustainable stores to appeal to customers to pay a higher premium as well as enhance understanding of consumer neurosciences.
2. Theoretical Framework
2.1 Sustainable Chain Status – Higher-status vs. Lower-status Chain
Prestigious brands are considered to be unique and communicate a high status, allowing them the ability to differentiate themselves from competitors and hence gain a competitive edge in the marketplace (Konuk, 2019). Brand prestige refers to “the status or esteem associated with the brand” (Stokburger-Sauer, Ratneshwar, & Sen, 2012). Similarly, in this present study sustainable chain status is defined as the status associated with the name of a sustainable
store. Prestigious brands offer tangible and intangible conveniences for customers, for example a social status signal (Hwang & Hyun, 2012).
Shoppers who are motivated to shop at particular stores and to buy particular products for their prestige value may allocate greater importance on store atmosphere. Store
atmosphere entails all tangible and intangible aspects that compose a store’s environment, e.g. layout, customer service, décor and displays, lighting, and music (Deeter-Schmelz, Moore, &
Goebel, 2000). Such numerous store atmospheric components create a “mood” that can
function as a cue for inferring prestige (Dawson, 1988).
Furthermore, for consumers that buy products as a status symbol, a higher price may communicate a more attractive product since it is seen as a prestige value indicator of a product (Lichtenstein, Ridgway, & Netemeyer, 1993). Besides, consumers believe to find high quality products in stores with higher prestige. Another factor regarding consumers’ prestige preferences may be brand names. People seem to associate brand symbols to self-concepts; more popular brands tend to be aligned with one’s self-concept, and thus,
strengthen the same (Dolich,1969). In addition, people endorsing a particular brand express a desire to be associated with the type of people they believe are consumers of that brand (Grubb & Hupp, 1968).
Within the specific research context of this present study, Van der Wal et al. (2016) found that two selected sustainable grocery stores in the Netherlands differ in their projected status. Even though both sustainable chains generally sell similar products at similar prices and were rated as equally good for the environment, they differ in the way products are displayed (ostentatious vs. modest), the store’s design (trendy vs. moderate), and its atmosphere (formal vs. informal) which have an influence on whether people assign a higher or lower status to the respective chains. Specifically, chain A was viewed by research participants as attracting more status-oriented shoppers than chain B. In addition, participants believed that customers shopping at chain A buy at the sustainable grocery store to display their status more than customers shopping at chain B.
2.2 Status-seeking Behavior and Costly Signaling Theory
Humans possess an innate desire to acquire social status as it is perceived to carry many benefits with it (Van der Wal et al., 2016), such as privileged access to resources and influence (Lange, Redford & Crusius, 2019). Even though status can be gained through dominance, i.e. by exerting force, this research context focuses primarily on status acquired
through prestige, meaning status is acquired by openly bestowed deference (Henrich & Gil-White, 2001).
There are different ways through which individuals seek higher status. One possibility is
through demonstrating altruistic behavior (Griskevicius et al., 2010) which is defined as
sacrificing one’s own resources for the benefit of the others (Hardy & van Vugt, 2006). This effect can be explained through costly signaling theory which suggests that
“animals (including humans) may send honest signals about desirable characteristics and access to resources through costly biological displays, altruism, or other behaviors that would be hard to fake” (McAndrew, 2018).
Thus, altruistic activities can help signal people’s willingness and ability to incur costs. Not only does one signal that one is prosocial as opposed to proself, but altruistic behavior also communicates one’s abundance of resources (e.g. time, energy, money) and that one can afford to sacrifice the same without a negative impact on fitness (Zahavi & Zahavi, 1997).
In accordance with costly signaling theory, Griskevicius et al. (2010) found that status motives make people publicly display sustainable behavior. By purchasing sustainable
products, consumers can incur costs like paying a higher price, foregoing a different product with better quality, or inconveniencing themselves otherwise. However, these sacrifices benefit the collective interest (e.g. offsetting one’s carbon footprint, supporting fair labor conditions, etc.) and are therefore seen as an altruistic act through which consumers want to signal their high social status. The same explains why status motives increase desire for green products when shopping in public (but not in private) and when green products cost more (but not less) than non-green products (Griskevicius et al., 2010).
Furthermore, studies have shown that altruistic behavior acts as a costly signal of general intelligence: Millet and Dewitte (2007) found that the cost incurred by behaving altruistically is lower for people of higher intelligence compared to people of lower
intelligence because the former anticipates to regain the sacrificed resources. In addition, the authors conclude that altruism may be a costly indicator of general fundamental fitness which encompasses not only intelligence but also leadership status and health.
In alignment with costly signaling theory, people desire to exude financial wealth because it signals that one possesses abundant resources to afford luxury products (de Botton, 2008). Wealth is perceived as desirable since it indicates the abilities and skills to acquire
resources. Therefore, acquiring products with luxury labels may indicate one’s high status through the possession of abundant resources (Nelissen & Meijers, 2011; Berger, 2017). Specifically, luxury consumption has been established as a profitable social strategy since conspicuous displays of luxury (“the preference for more expensive over cheaper yet functionally equivalent goods”) are known to be a costly signaling trait that causes status-dependent favorable treatment in social interaction (Nelissen & Meijers, 2011).
All in all, humans have an innate desire to acquire a higher social status (Van der Wal et al., 2016). A higher social status can be achieved through costly signaling (McAndrew,
2018), whereby individuals often try to exude altruistic behavior in order to signal their ability
and willingness to incur costs (Zahavi & Zahavi, 1997). Specifically, the ability to incur costs may also signal higher intelligence since one anticipates to regain the sacrificed resources (Millet and Dewitte, 2007). Furthermore, incurring costs and therefore displaying financial wealth further emphasizes one’s abundant possession of resources (de Botton, 2008).
2.3 The Effect of Sustainable Chain Status on Status-seeking Behavior
Due to the selected sustainable chains being perceived differently in terms of their status (chain A = higher status and chain B = lower status) and humans having this innate desire to acquire a high social status since the same is associated with a higher hierarchy ranking and possession of an abundance of resources (Van der Wal et al., 2016; Kenrick, Griskevicius, Neuberg, & Schaller, 2010), the same inspires the assumption that individuals shopping at a sustainable higher-status chain engage more in status-seeking behavior compared to
individuals shopping at a lower-status chain.
Specifically, people engage in altruistic activities by publicly displaying sustainable behavior in order to communicate their ability to incur costs for the greater good and thus signal their higher social status (Griskevicius et al, 2010; Zahavi & Zahavi, 1997). Therefore, individuals might shop at sustainable grocery stores, and specifically at those perceived as high-status, in order to signal altruistic behavior, and hence, a higher social status. This explains the observation of Griskevicius et al. (2010) who found that status motives increase desire for sustainable products when shopping in public (but not in private) and when sustainable products cost more (but not less) than non-sustainable products.
Furthermore, it is likely that people shopping at a sustainable higher status chain (compared to at a lower status chain) may engage more in status-seeking behavior due to wanting to signal intelligence through purchasing green products (i.e. altruism; Millet & Dewitte, 2007) which may communicate a higher status.
Besides, people like to enhance their status through signaling financial wealth since it communicates one’s possession of an abundance of resources, especially when using luxury labels (de Botton, 2008; Nelissen & Meijers, 2011; Berger, 2017). Sustainable products tend to be more expensive than their conventional counterparts, making them harder to afford for the average consumer (Ivanova, 2019). It can therefore be considered a luxury or privilege to be able to purchase them. Moreover, “eco-friendly” or “sustainable” branding is increasingly used as a marketing strategy to distinguish products as premium or elite in order to appeal to wealthier shoppers.
In addition, Van der Wal et al. (2016) found that people shopping at a higher-status sustainable grocery store are more likely to publicly display their sustainable behavior by using the store’s branded shopping bags as opposed to people shopping at a lower-status sustainable grocery store. By replicating the findings of Griskevicius et al. (2010) in a field study, they inferred that status motives drive people to signal their sustainable behavior and hence, engage in status-seeking behavior.
All in all, the combination of past research suggests the following hypothesis to be tested: H1: There is a positive relationship between sustainable chain status and status-seeking behavior.
2.4 Sustainable Consumer Behavior
Sustainable consumption can be described as
“the use of services and related products which respond to basic needs and bring a better quality of life while minimizing the use of natural resources and toxic materials as well as emissions of waste and pollutants over the life cycle of the service or product so as not to jeopardize the needs of future generations” (Norwegian Ministry of the Environment, 1994).
A green or sustainable product is a product which uses recycling resources
(renewable/toxic free/biodegradable) in its design, attributes, production or strategy in order to improve its environmental impact or reduce toxic environmental damage during its life cycle (Durif, Boivien & Julien, 2010). Examples of green products are products that are organic, labeled as environmentally-safe, against animal-testing, as well as products that contain no or fewer chemical ingredients or that use recycled or recyclable packaging (Lee, 2009). Sustainable consumers, as socially conscious consumers, consider the public
implications of private consumption and seek to utilize their purchasing power in order to realize social change (Moisander, 2007).
In terms of identifying the sustainable consumer, past research suggests that there seems to be a strong correlation between sustainable consumer behavior and the demographic characteristics of income, education, and gender. (Roper Organisation, 1990). Past research proposes that women, individuals with higher income, and people with higher educational levels may be more likely to engage in sustainable consumer behavior (D’Souza, Taghian, Lamb, & Peretiatko, 2007; Fransson & Gärling, 1999; Meijers & van Dam, 2012).
Specifically, men seem to be more knowledgeable about sustainable issues compared to women, however, women tend to actually carry out more sustainable behavior
(Diamantopoulos et al., 2003). Furthermore, age seems to be an important contributor in
terms of the prediction of purchase intention and purchase frequency of organic products
(Panzone, Hilton, Sale, & Cohen, 2016): Younger people are more likely to purchase
sustainable food products than older people – specifically, those between the ages of 20 and 29 are most likely to purchase sustainable food products (Meijers & van Dam, 2012).
2.5 The Interaction Effect Between Sustainable Chain Status and Sustainable Consumer Behavior on Status-seeking Behavior
Van der Wal et al. (2016) suggest that consumers engage more in status-seeking behavior when shopping at a higher-status sustainable grocery store compared to shopping at a lower-status sustainable grocery store due to the higher amount of public display of the store’s branded shopping bags. As speculated earlier in this paper regarding consumers’ motivation to shop at a sustainable grocery store, it is possible that people shopping at a sustainable higher-status chain want to explicitly communicate their sustainable behavior to the public in order to enhance their status through signaling altruism (Griskevicius et al, 2010; Zahavi & Zahavi, 1997), intelligence (Millet & Dewitte, 2007), or financial wealth (de Botton, 2008; Nelissen & Meijers, 2011; Berger, 2017). However, what about individuals that explicitly consume sustainable goods for the environment’s sake? Would they have superior motives (i.e. engage in status-seeking behavior) when shopping at a sustainable grocery store?
An influential theory with regards to sustainable consumer behavior is the Ecological Value Theory which is grounded in altruism and pro-social behavior (Schwartz, 1977). The theory notes that environmental behavior is a result of peoples’ certain pro-social and moral values. Individuals who have a self-centered value system that is aligned with their own interests (egoistic orientation) are less likely to follow environmental behavior than
individuals who carry values that concentrate on things external to the person (pro-social orientation).
The influence of values on pro-environmental behavior has been substantially explored by past research. For example, research found that individual value priorities have shown to influence sustainable consumption patterns (Thogerson & Olander, 2002). Besides, individuals who carry out pro-environmental behavior are more likely to hold altruistic values (Stern et al., 1995) and score higher on Schwartz’ pro-social value dimension. In alignment, consumers who are environmentally conscious are expected to be more likely to purchase products and services which they perceive to have a positive (or less negative) environmental impact (Roberts, 1996).
The abovementioned theories let assume that individuals that engage in sustainable consumer behavior do so because they are more inclined towards values with a pro-social rather than an egoistic orientation. However, people that engage in status-seeking behavior through publicly displaying their sustainable purchases (especially those displaying their shopping at a high-status store) seem to have more of an egoistic orientation since their motives are self-centered. They might want to be perceived as pro-social and altruistic by others but perhaps only because these qualities signal a higher social status.
This could explain why in the study of Van der Wal et al. (2016) shoppers of the high-status sustainable grocery store purchased ten times more labeled shopping bags, a non-sustainable, wasteful act in itself. They therefore concluded that even though people are driven by status motives to shop at a sustainable grocery store, this behavior has a downside: Consumers shopping at a sustainable high-status chain may do so for their own benefit and may not be concerned about the environment since they do not seem to take into account the harmful environmental consequences of purchasing new plastic shopping bags.
All in all, there is reason to speculate whether the relationship between the projected status of a sustainable chain and the degree of engagement in status-seeking behavior could be affected through the extent individuals engage in sustainable consumer behavior, i.e. how often they purchase products that are organic, labeled as environmentally-safe, against animal-testing etc. Thus, the following hypothesis will be tested:
H2: There is an interaction effect between sustainable chain status and sustainable consumer behavior, such that the relationship between sustainable chain status and status-seeking behavior becomes weaker when consumers show high (compared to low) levels of sustainable consumer behavior.
Figure 1. Conceptual model
3. Methods
3.1 Design, Sample, and Procedure
For this study a cross-sectional design was utilized. All data was collected through an online survey. A total of 332 responses were collected, due to outliers the final sample was made up of 306 respondents. Of those, 50.7% have shopped at chain A and 49.3% have shopped at chain B (see Appendix A). Convenience sampling was used for this study: participants were sampled through personal contacts of the researcher, as well as through survey link postings in various Facebook groups. This study is part of a course requirement regarding the
researcher’s bachelor thesis at the University of Amsterdam. The data was collected over a period of one month over May to June 2020.
26 survey responses had to be removed due to extreme values, and only respondents who completed the full questionnaire were included in the analysis, leading to a final sample of 306 respondents. 85.6 % of the respondents were female (see Appendix B). The
respondents ranged in age between 19 and 61 years (M = 31.71, SD = 10.04; see Appendix C). The respondents have completed different levels of education, of which Bachelor’s
Degree (37.3%), Master’s Degree (35.3%), and High School (19.9%) were most common (see Appendix D). In addition, the participants differed in their annual household incomes, of which €25,000 - €50,000 (20.7%) and €50,000 - €100,000 (18.0%) were most frequently noted (see Appendix E).
Furthermore, of the 155 respondents who have shopped at chain A, a majority of 90.3% rated it as a high-end supermarket and 9.7% as a regular supermarket (see Appendix
Sustainable chain
status Status-seeking behavior
Sustainable consumer behavior
F). Of the 151 respondents who have shopped at chain B, 72.8% rated it as a high-end supermarket and 27.2% as a regular supermarket (see Appendix G). Henceforth, chain B is referred to as a lower-end supermarket within the framework of this study since Chain A demonstrates a relatively higher perceived status. When asked regarding perceived status-seeking behavior of chain A shoppers, the majority of chain A shoppers themselves (28.4%) disagreed with the statement that shoppers at chain A shop there to display their status. Nonetheless, of chain A shoppers, 20.6% somewhat agreed with the statement (see Appendix H). Respectively, when asked regarding perceived status-seeking behavior of chain B
shoppers, the majority of chain B shoppers themselves (37.7%) disagreed with the statement that shoppers at chain B shop there to display their status (see Appendix I).
3.2 Measures
Of the three main variables, “sustainable chain status” (IV) was rated nominally, whereas “status-seeking behavior” and “sustainable consumer behavior” were recorded on a 7-point Likert scale (1= completely disagree to 7 = completely agree).
Sustainable chain status. The variable “sustainable chain status” distinguishes between shoppers at a higher-status sustainable chain vs. shoppers at a lower-status
sustainable chain in the Netherlands, leaning on the work of Van der Wal et al. (2016). The example item is “Have you ever shopped at Marqt [Ekoplaza]”, with Marqt being the relatively higher-status sustainable chain A and Ekoplaza being the relatively lower-status sustainable chain B.
Status-seeking behavior. “Status-seeking behavior” was measured using the status consumption scale items by Eastman, Goldsmith & Flynn (1999) and adjusting them to the research context. Example items are “I would buy a product at Marqt [Ekoplaza] just because the store has status” and “Shopping at a store is more valuable to me if the store has some snob appeal”. Furthermore, few prestige attainment items were borrowed from Lange,
Redford & Crusius (2019) and accordingly adjusted to the research context, such as “I like to be admired by others” and “It is important to me that others (family, friends, colleagues) know that I shop at Marqt [Ekoplaza]. The scale showed sufficient reliability as the Cronbach’s alpha = 0.682 (see Appendix L).
Sustainable consumer behavior. “Sustainable consumer behavior” was measured with the 7-item scale of Lee (2009) regarding “green purchase behavior”. Example items are “I often buy organic products” and “I often buy products that are labeled as environmentally
safe”. The scale showed sufficient reliability as the Cronbach’s alpha = 0.794 (see Appendix N).
Control variables. In order to rule out other possible effects on the hypothesis, some control variables were taken into account for this research. These control variables are known for affecting the main variables in this study. For example, income, education and gender appear to have a strong correlation with sustainable consumer behavior (Roper Organisation, 1990). Specifically, women, individuals with higher income, and people with higher
educational levels may be more likely to engage in sustainable consumer behavior (D’Souza, Taghian, Lamb, & Peretiatko, 2007; Fransson & Gärling, 1999; Meijers & van Dam, 2012). Furthermore, age appears to be predictive of purchase intention and purchase frequency of organic products (Panzone, Hilton, Sale, & Cohen, 2016): younger people are more likely to purchase sustainable food products than older people – specifically, those between the ages of 20 and 29 are most likely to purchase sustainable food products (Meijers & van Dam, 2012).
3.3 Analytical Plan
To test Hypothesis 1, the relationship between “sustainable chain status” (SCS) and “status-seeking behavior” (SSB), linear regression will be utilized with SSB as the dependent variable and SCS as the independent variable. For Hypothesis 2, the interaction effect between SCS and sustainable consumer behavior (SCB) on status-seeking behavior, the PROCESS model of Hayes (2018) will be utilized with SCS as the independent variable, sustainable consumer behavior as the moderating variable, and status-seeking behavior as the dependent variable.
4. Results
The given table 1 entails the means, standard deviations and correlations between all control and main variables. Regarding the main variables, there is a significant weak correlation of -0.14 between sustainable consumer behavior and status-seeking behavior. However, it is surprising that there does not seem to be a correlation between sustainable chain status and sustainable consumer behavior or status-seeking behavior. In terms of correlations between control variables and main variables, gender shows a significant moderate correlation of 0.306 with sustainable consumer behavior. Age has a significant moderate correlation of 0.225 with sustainable consumer behavior, as well as a significant weak correlation of -0.194 with status-seeking behavior. Furthermore, there is a significant weak correlation of -1.45 between education and status-seeking behavior, and a significant moderate correlation of -0.225 between income and status-seeking behavior, respectively.
TABLE 1. Means, Standard Deviations, and Correlations Variables M SD 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 1. Gender .86 .351 - 2. Age 31.71 10.04 .042 - 3. Education 3.32 1.03 .063 .341** - 4. Income 2.48 1.50 -.025 .216** .195** -
5. Sustainable Chain Status .51 .501 -.088 -.033 .012 .022 -
6. Sustainable Consumer Behavior 5.32 .857 .306** .225** .124* .123* -.054 - 7. Status-seeking Behavior 2.31 .755 -.075 -.194** -.145* -.225** .010 -.139*
N=36
*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed). **. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
Since gender is a nominal variable, it is coded 0=male and 1=female.
Since sustainable chain status is a nominal variable, it is coded 0=I have shopped at Ekoplaza and 1=I have shopped at Marqt.
In order to test Hypothesis 1, whether there is a positive relationship between sustainable chain status and status-seeking behavior, linear regression was conducted. But first, the assumptions for performing such an analysis had to be met.
All distributions are more or less bell-shaped. Even if in few histograms the distribution seems lightly skewed, all p-plots indicate that the diagonal normality line is followed (see Appendices T-Z). Therefore, normality can be assumed. Furthermore, after coding a bivariate categorical variable (in this case, the independent variable SCS), the relationship is by definition linear. Hence, in this case it is not necessary to check for satisfying the linearity assumption. Another assumption for performing a regression is that there are no outliers. As mentioned earlier in the methods section, 26 outliers have been detected and deleted, so the assumption holds. Lastly, since for all predictive variables tolerance >0.2 and VIF < VIF (see Appendix AA), there are no collinearity problems. All in all, the assumptions for performing a linear regression are met.
To test Hypothesis 1 (defined above), linear regression was used with two different models. Model 1 contained only the control variables gender, age, education and income. To see whether the main variable sustainable chain status adds exploratory power and hence improves Model 1, Model 2 encompassed both control variables and the main variable. Looking at the model summary (see Appendix AB), one can conclude that Model 2 does not add exploratory power to the first model (R square at 0.081 does not change; adjusted R square decreases from 0.069 in Model 1 to 0.066 in Model 2, so the variance in status-seeking behavior explained by the model decreased or at the least remained unchanged) and is overall insignificant (p-value = 0.782 > 0.05; see Appendix AD). Therefore, no support was found for Hypothesis 1.
In order to test Hypothesis 2, the interaction effect between sustainable chain status and sustainable consumer behavior in status-seeking behavior, the PROCESS macro of Hayes (2018) Model 1 was used. Here, sustainable chain status was the independent variable,
sustainable consumer behavior the moderating variable, and status-seeking behavior the dependent variable. There was no support found for the hypothesis since results did not indicate a significant interaction effect (b = -0.1135, se = 0.0981, t = -1.1576, p = 0.2480) as can be seen in Table 2.
TABLE 2. Linear Model of Predictors of Status-seeking Behavior
b SE B t p
Constant 3.0562
[2.2632, 3.8493]
.4030 7.5842 .0000
Sustainable Chain Status .5797 [-.4625, 1.6218]
.5296 1.0946 .2746
Sustainable Consumer Behavior -.0013 [-.1448, .1423]
.0729 -.0175 .9861
Sustainable Chain Status x Sustainable Consumer Behavior -.1135 [-.3066, .0795]
.0981 -1.1576 .2480
5. Discussion
This study investigated the interacting role of sustainable chain status and sustainable consumer behavior in predicting status-seeking behavior. In more detail, it was examined whether the relationship between sustainable chain status and status-seeking behavior is dependent on the degree of sustainable consumer behavior.
The first hypothesis, which states that there is a positive relationship between sustainable chain status and status-seeking behavior, did not find support. In addition, the second hypothesis, that there is an interaction effect between sustainable chain status and sustainable consumer behavior, such that the relationship between sustainable chain status and status-seeking behavior becomes weaker when consumers show high (compared to low) levels of sustainable consumer behavior, could not be validated.
Overall, the results were unexpected. No relationship between sustainable chain status and status-seeking behavior could be found, meaning that shopping at a higher-status
sustainable chain does not necessarily lead to a higher degree of status-seeking behavior. Surprisingly, the findings in this study are not in line with Van der Wal et al. (2016) who found a positive relationship between sustainable chain status and status-seeking behavior.
Specifically, Van der Wal et al. (2016) inferred that shoppers at a higher-status sustainable chain are more likely to publicly display their sustainable behavior through the use of the store’s branded shopping bags compared to shoppers at a lower-status chain. Specifically, due to the selected chains being perceived differently regarding their status (higher-status vs. lower-status chain) and humans having an innate desire to gain a high social status since the same is associated with a higher hierarchy ranking and possession of an abundance of resources (Van der Wal et al., 2016; Kenrick et al. 2010), it was expected that shoppers at a sustainable higher-status chain would show higher levels of status-seeking behavior. However, this was not the case within the framework of this study. In addition, other studies suggest that individuals display sustainable behavior in public, and hence, engage in altruistic activities, as a signal of their ability to incur costs for the greater good, and thus, communicate their high social status (Griskevicius et al, 2010; Zahavi & Zahavi, 1997). Therefore, it seemed obvious that individuals would shop at sustainable grocery stores, and specifically at those perceived as high-status, to signal their altruistic traits, and hence, a high social status. Nonetheless, this study did not find any support for this assumption.
Furthermore, there seems to be no effect of sustainable chain status and the degree of sustainable consumer behavior on status-seeking behavior, indicating that a person engaging less in sustainable consumer behavior does not necessarily become more involved in status-seeking behavior when shopping at a higher-status sustainable chain than a person engaging more in sustainable consumer behavior and vice versa. This was an unexpected result since Van der Wal et al. (2016) infer that consumers engage more in status-seeking behavior when shopping at a higher-status sustainable chain (compared to shopping at a lower-status
sustainable chain) and the Ecological Value Theory (Schwartz, 1977) suggests that individuals who have a self-centered value system that is aligned with their own interests (egoistic orientation) are less likely to follow environmental behavior than individuals who carry values that concentrate on things external to the person (pro-social orientation). Besides, environmentally conscious consumers are more likely to buy products and services which they perceive to have a positive (or less negative) environmental impact (Roberts, 1996).
The aforementioned studies inspire the assumption that individuals partaking in sustainable consumer behavior may have a pro-social orientation. Respectively, individuals engaging in status-seeking behavior by shopping at a higher-status chain may have an egoistic orientation. This assumption finds support in Van der Wal et al. (2016) who suggest that consumers shopping at a sustainable high-status chain may do so for their own benefit and may not be concerned about the environment. However, this study did not find any support
for the abovementioned assumptions and is therefore not in line with the previously mentioned literatures.
Alternative explanations for finding different results than expected could be that sustainable consumer behavior alone might not be effective enough of a moderator with regards to the effect of sustainable chain status on status-seeking behavior. Perhaps there are other factors influencing this relationship. It could be a possibility that the effect of
sustainable chain status and sustainable consumer behavior on status-seeking behavior only exists in specific industries (i.e., not in the grocery store segment). Besides, the data was collected with regards to Dutch sustainable grocery stores. This may be of concern because data might vary from country to country.
5.1 Limitations and Implications for Future Research
Certain limitations in this study could have an effect on its outcome. Within the framework of this study, 332 responses were collected. However, due to outliers the sample size decreased to 306. Even though this sample size is sufficient, future research should increase the sample size to ensure more reliable results.
Since convenience sampling was used, the sampling method could be biased. The data was collected by a university student who reached out to the contacts most convenient to her to gather the data. Furthermore, the survey was distributed through Facebook groups under which some included groups for vegans and vegetarians who might lead a more sustainable lifestyle and shop at both chains for the environment’s sake as opposed to for egoistic
purposes. Besides, all respondents are from or have lived in the Netherlands. Future research could make use of random sampling and investigate sustainable consumer behavior as well as status-seeking behavior from different countries and cultures. In particular, the scope of sustainable chains could be broadened to different industries (i.e. fashion industry, furniture, etc.) and should be country-specific.
Furthermore, the use of surveys could lead to a biased result. It is hard to judge one’s own behavior and attitudes and participants were not able to further explain their answers which might have led to more detailed results. Nevertheless, using a survey allowed the researcher to gather data in a structured and orderly manner, making it easier to compare and analyze. It also allowed for a quite large sample and is able to map complex situations due to the exploration of many variables at once. Nonetheless, future research could provide a solution by investigating how outsiders perceive people shopping at higher or lower status sustainable chains in addition to shoppers’ self-evaluation.
In addition, future research could use an experimental design in order to mitigate biased opinions. Specifically, this study could suffer from desirability bias. Especially when it comes to respondents evaluating the extent of their own status-seeking behavior, some might have been dishonest about the same in order to reinforce characteristics and behaviors in themselves that are socially desirable and withhold those that are not. Therefore, respondents might want to be perceived as altruistic when shopping at sustainable chains and thus they might believe that doing the same for the ulterior motive of enhancing one’s social status is not socially desirable. This possible bias could be mitigated by letting future studies set up an experimental design which entails situations where the socially desirable response is harder to guess
Lastly, people might have different motives that inspire status-seeking behavior. As already mentioned, altruism is often used to achieve a higher status since it makes the individual seem prosocial as opposed to proself. However, another possible motive that signals a higher status is financial wealth (de Botton, 2008). People desire wealth because it signals that one possesses abundant resources to afford luxury products. In addition, wealth is perceived as desirable since it indicates the abilities and skills to acquire resources. Therefore, acquiring products with luxury labels may indicate one’s high status through the possession of abundant resources (Nelissen & Meijers, 2011; Berger, 2017). Specifically, luxury
consumption has been established as a profitable social strategy since conspicuous displays of luxury (“the preference for more expensive over cheaper yet functionally equivalent goods”) are known to be a costly signaling trait that causes status-dependent favorable treatment in social interaction (Nelissen & Meijers, 2011). Therefore, with regards to this study, future research should nuance its investigation with regards to the different types of motives of status-seeking behavior.
5.2 Practical Implications
Considering that this study did not find support for the relationship between sustainable chain status and status-seeking behavior as well as for the effect of sustainable consumer behavior on the same, there are still practical implications that can be drawn from this study. Perhaps, it means that the status of a sustainable store does not matter in terms of whether and to what degree shoppers engage in status-seeking behavior. This means that higher-status sustainable chains do not need to focus as much on their perceived status but rather on different aspects like e.g. their engagement in sustainability or good customer support and assistance.
5.3 Conclusion
Previous research on the influence of sustainable chain status on status-seeking behavior focused on costly signaling of sustainable behavior only. However, it is left unclear whether consumers that shop at higher-status sustainable chains do so because they might want to signal their affiliation with the high-status store, regardless of its sustainable nature. Thus, the present study examined the effect of sustainable chain status and sustainable consumer
behavior on status-seeking behavior. All in all, this research did not find that sustainable chain status affects status-seeking behavior, meaning that shopping at a higher-status sustainable chain does not necessarily lead to a higher degree of status-seeking behavior. Furthermore, the degree of sustainable consumer behavior does not influence the effect sustainable chain status has on status-seeking behavior, indicating that a person engaging less in sustainable consumer behavior does not necessarily become more involved in status-seeking behavior when shopping at a higher-status sustainable chain than a person engaging more in
sustainable consumer behavior and vice versa. This contrasts existing studies which combined imply that such a relationship exists. For future research, some limitations of this study should be overcome by investigating different industries, using experimental design, and researching different additional motives that could affect status-seeking behavior.
Bibliography
Achieved Status. (2013). In K. Bell (Ed.), Open education sociology dictionary. Retrieved
from https://sociologydictionary.org/achieved-status/
Agrimatie - informatie over de agrosector. (2017, October 3). Retrieved April 28, 2020, from https://www.agrimatie.nl/NieuwsDetail.aspx?subpubID=2232&itemid=7360
Berger, J. (2017). Are luxury brand labels and “green” labels costly signals of social status? An extended replication. PloS one, 12(2).
Dawson, S. (1988). An exploration of the store prestige hierarchy: Reification. Journal of
retailing, 64(2), 133.
De Botton, A. (2008). Status anxiety. Vintage.
Deeter-Schmelz, D. R., Moore, J. N., & Goebel, D. J. (2000). Prestige clothing shopping by consumers: a confirmatory assessment and refinement of the PRECON scale with managerial implications. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 8(4), 43-58. Diamantopoulos, A., Schlegelmilch, B. B., Sinkovics, R. R., & Bohlen, G. M. (2003). Can
socio-demographics still play a role in profiling green consumers? A review of the evidence and an empirical investigation. Journal of Business research, 56(6), 465-480. Dolich, I. J. (1969). Congruence relationships between self images and product
brands. Journal of marketing research, 6(1), 80-84.
D’Souza, C., Taghian, M., Lamb, P., & Peretiatko, R. (2007). Green decisions: demographics and consumer understanding of environmental labels. International Journal of
Consumer Studies, 31(4), 371-376.
Durif, F., Boivin, C., & Julien, C. (2010). In search of a green product definition. Innovative
Marketing, 6(1), 25-33.
Fransson, N., & Gärling, T. (1999). Environmental concern: Conceptual definitions, measurement methods, and research findings. Journal of environmental
psychology, 19(4), 369-382.
Foladare, I. S. (1969). A clarification of “ascribed status” and “achieved status”. The
Sociological Quarterly, 10(1), 53-61.
Griskevicius, Tybur, & Van den Bergh, B. (2010). Going green to be seen: status, reputation, and conspicuous conservation. Journal of personality and social psychology, 98(3), 392.
Grubb, E. L., & Hupp, G. (1968). Perception of self, generalized stereotypes, and brand selection. Journal of Marketing research, 5(1), 58-63.
Hardy, C., & van Vugt, M. (2006). Nice guys finish first: The competitive altruism hypothesis. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32, 1402–1413.
Henrich, J., & Gil-White, F. J. (2001). The evolution of prestige: Freely conferred deference as a mechanism for enhancing the benefits of cultural transmission. Evolution and
human behavior, 22(3), 165-196.
Hwang, J., & Hyun, S. S. (2012). The antecedents and consequences of brand prestige in luxury restaurants. Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism Research, 17(6), 656-683.
Ivanova, I. (2019, March 12). Buying "green" is too pricey for the average consumer.
Retrieved May 5, 2020, from
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/buying-green-is-too-pricey-for-the-average-consumer/
Kenrick, D. T., Griskevicius, V., Neuberg, S. L., & Schaller, M. (2010). Renovating the pyramid of needs: Contemporary extensions built upon ancient
foundations. Perspectives on psychological science, 5(3), 292-314.
Konuk, F. A. (2019). The impact of retailer innovativeness and food healthiness on store prestige, store trust and store loyalty. Food Research International, 116, 724-730. Lange, J., Redford, L., & Crusius, J. (2019). A status-seeking account of psychological
entitlement. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 45(7), 1113-1128.
Lee, K. (2009). Gender differences in Hong Kong adolescent consumers' green purchasing behavior. Journal of consumer marketing.
Lichtenstein, D. R., Ridgway, N. M., & Netemeyer, R. G. (1993). Price perceptions and consumer shopping behavior: a field study. Journal of marketing research, 30(2), 234-245.
Linton, R. (1936). The study of man: an introduction.
McAndrew, F. T. (2018). Costly signaling theory. Encyclopedia of Evolutionary
Psychological Science, 1-8.
Meijers, M. H., & Van Dam, Y. (2012). Sustainable food purchases in the Netherlands: the influence of consumer characteristics. Journal on Chain and Network Science, 12(2), 181-198.
Millet, K., & Dewitte, S. (2007). Altruistic behavior as a costly signal of general intelligence. Journal of research in Personality, 41(2), 316-326.
Moisander, J. (2007). Motivational complexity of green consumerism. International journal
Neeley, T. B. (2013). Language matters: Status loss and achieved status distinctions in global organizations. Organization Science, 24(2), 476-497.
Nelissen, R. M., & Meijers, M. H. (2011). Social benefits of luxury brands as costly signals of wealth and status. Evolution and Human Behavior, 32(5), 343-355.
Norwegian Ministry of the Environment, 1994. Oslo Roundtable on Sustainable Production and Consumption.
Panzone, L., Hilton, D., Sale, L., & Cohen, D. (2016). Socio-demographics, implicit attitudes, explicit attitudes, and sustainable consumption in supermarket shopping. Journal of
Economic Psychology, 55, 77-95.
Roberts, J. A., 1996. Green consumers in the 1990s: Profile and implications for advertising. Journal of Business Research, 36(3), 217–231
Schwartz, S. H. (1977). Normative influences on altruism. Advances in experimental social
psychology, 10(1), 221-279.
Stern, P., Dietz, T., Guagnano, G., 1995. The new ecological paradigm in social- psychological context. Environment and Behavior 27, 723–743
Stokburger-Sauer, N., Ratneshwar, S., & Sen, S. (2012). Drivers of consumer–brand identification. International journal of research in marketing, 29(4), 406-418.
Thogerson, J., Olander, F. (2002), Human values and the emergence of a sustainable consumption pattern: a panel study, Journal of Economic Psychology 23, 605–630
van der Wal, A. J., van Horen, F., & Grinstein, A. (2016). The paradox of ‘green to be seen’: Green high-status shoppers excessively use (branded) shopping bags. International
Journal of Research in Marketing, 33(1), 216-219.
Whelan, T., & Kronthal-Sacco, R. (2019). Research: Actually, Consumers Do Buy Sustainable Products. Harvard Business Review.
Zahavi, A., & Zahavi, A. (1999). The handicap principle: A missing piece of Darwin's puzzle. Oxford University Press.
Appendices
Appendix A: Shopped at Marqt (chain A) or Ekoplaza (chain B).
Appendix B. Gender.
Appendix C. Age.
Appendix E. Income.
Appendix F. Perceived status of Marqt (chain A).
Appendix H. Perceived status-seeking behavior Marqt (chain A) shoppers.
Appendix I. Perceived status-seeking behavior Ekoplaza (chain B) shoppers.
Appendix J. Recoding Gender.
Appendix L. Cronbach’s alpha for status-seeking behavior.
Appendix M. Cronbach’s alpha for status-seeking behavior if item deleted.
Appendix O. Cronbach’s alpha for sustainable consumer behavior if item deleted.
Appendix P. Creation of new variable SCB.
Appendix R. Correlations between all model and control variables.
Appendix S. Descriptive Statistics.
Appendix T. Histogram SCS.
Appendix V. Histogram SCB.
Appendix X. Histogram of SSB.
Appendix Z. Scatterplot of sustainable chain status and status-seeking behavior.
Appendix AA. Test for collinearity.
Appendix AC. ANOVA table.