Going green. Green marketing messages in fashion advertising
An analysis of benefit statements in green fashion advertising on brand attitude and purchases intention and the role of social influence and environmental involvement.
Fleur Kroodsma – 11988630
Master’s Thesis – June 28, 2019 Supervisor: Dr. Ester de Waal Word count: 7550
Graduate School of Communication Faculty of Social and Behavioural Science
Abstract
This study examines the effect of green marketing messages (personal vs environmental benefit statement) on brand attitude and purchase intention. An online experiment with one experimental factor consisting of three conditions and two quasi-experimental factors (3 x 2 x 2) was conducted (N = 136). The manipulated green fashion advertisements contained either a personal or an environmental benefit statement compared to a control condition with no textual statement. Results show a moderate main effect for benefit statement compared to no textual statement. Contrary to the expectation a preference for a personal benefit statement was not found. Overall, participants scored high for
environmental involvement. Relatively high scoring individuals had a preference for an advertisement with an environmental benefit statement. No effects were found regarding low environmentally influenced individuals. Due to the homogeneity of the sample results for social influence were insignificant and differences in brand attitude were very small. The general brand attitude and purchase intention of this sample was very positive, brand attitude did had a significant effect on purchase intention. A more diverse sample could lead to more variance in preferences for one of the benefit statements and visible effects of social
influence, strengthening a preference for a personal benefit statement. Advertisements
contained an organic white shirt. However, results can be useful for other sustainable clothing as well. Several limitations of this study and suggestions for future research are given.
Key words: green marketing messages, benefit statements, green fashion advertising, environmental involvement, social influence.
Introduction
Over the past decades there has been a heightened interest in climate change.
Concerns about polluting emissions, global warming and environmental footprints are topics of daily political interest (Horne, 2009; D’Angelico & Vocalelli, 2017). The request to act in a socially responsible way is increasingly coming from governments, stakeholder groups and consumers (Bockman, Razzouk & Sirotnik, 2009; Chan, 1999; D’Souza & Taghian 2005). One of the industries that has a large impact on the environmental footprint is the fashion industry. The fashion industry is known for its exploitation of resources and people. Therefore, this industry entails one of the sectors where radical change is needed the most (Grappi, Romani & Barbarossa, 2017). These facts are reflected in the modern-day trend of sustainability and ecological awareness. In society the realization has grown that purchase behaviour has an impact on environmental issues and consumers consider ecological issues before purchase (Chan, 1999; Laroche, Bergeron & Barbaro-Forleo, 2001; D’Angelico & Vocalelli, 2017). This global trend resulted in more sustainable products and an integration of environmental issues into marketing messages (Nidumolu, Prahalad & Rangaswami, 2009). To encourage purchase behaviour positioning strategies directed at creating a positive brand attitude and consequently purchase intention are useful (Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975; Ajzen, 1991). An often used positioning strategy is to distinguish between functional (e.g. responsible production process) and emotional approaches (e.g. evoke positive feeling by contributing to the common good) (Hartmann, Apaolaza-Ibáñez & Sainz, 2005). Both
functional and emotional positioning strategies have a positive interaction with the formation of brand attitude especially when combined (Hartmann et al., 2005; Hartmann & Apaolaza-Ibáñez, 2009, 2012; Matthes & Wonneberger, 2014; Suki, 2016). Brand positioning
marketers could also choose use environmental claims in green marketing messages. Consumers seem to have a more positive attitude towards a product related environmental claim (e.g. made from organic grown cotton) compared to a cause related environmental claim (e.g. donating money to a good cause) when comparing various environmental claims promoting sustainable fashion (Phau & Ong, 2007). However, since clothing is such a personal product (Kim & Damhorst, 1999; Meyer, 2001), one could argue that people have a preference for environmental claims addressing personal benefits linked to sustainable apparel. This possible preference for a personal benefit over a more generic environmental benefit has been translated to green marketing messages in advertising by Grimmer and Woolley (2014). This research focused on the effect of explicitly mentioning either environmental or personal benefits to the advertised green product on brand attitude. Both
benefit statements have a positive effect on brand attitude (Fuchs & Diamantopoulos, 2010; Keller & Lehmann, 2006). In the case of green advertising, previous research indicates that a personal benefit statement in addition to a sustainable attribute is more attractive for
consumers compared to a generic environmental benefit next to a sustainable attribute (Carlson, Grove & Kangun, 1993; Ferreira, Avila & de Faria, 2010; Hartmann & Apaolaza-Ibáñez, 2006; Pickett-Baker & Ozaki, 2008). Green marketing messages with a personal or an environmental benefit message differ from the emotional and functional positioning strategies of Hartmann et al. (2005) because benefit messages provide a specific explicit benefit for the individual or the environment. The emotional and functional approach are - especially the emotional approach - implicit messages and are easier to misinterpret. Moreover, the
emotional and functional approach have the most positive effect when combined (Hartmann et al., 2005; Hartmann & Apaolaza-Ibáñez, 2009, 2012; Matthes & Wonneberger, 2014; Suki, 2016). Contrary, personal and environmental benefit statements individually have a positive effect on brand attitude (Fuchs & Diamantopoulos, 2010; Keller & Lehmann, 2006). Therefore, the current study focuses on the differentiation between a personal and an
environmental benefit statement in fashion advertising, in order to discern the most impactful variable.
In addition to various green marketing messages, there are other factors influencing brand attitude. An important factor to take into consideration is environmental involvement (Chang, Zhang & Xie, 2015; Dagher, Itani & Kasser, 2015; Grimmer & Woolley, 2014; Yan, Hyllegard & Blaesi, 2012). A great interest in environmental issues could heighten people’s attention to - and preference for - environmental claims in advertising (Grimmer & Woolley, 2014). Research on green branding including the moderating role of environmental
involvement show inconsistent results. Some studies indicate a clear preference for an environmental claim over a personal claim for those with high environmental involvement (Grimmer & Woolley, 2014; Bamberg, 2003; Kim, Forney & Arnold, 1997; Mittal & Lee, 1989) and another study found high environmentally involved individuals had a preference for a combined natural approach (e.g. combination personal benefit statement and emotional approach) (Schmuck, Matthes, Naderer & Beaufort, 2018). Since previous findings were contradicting, the inclusion of environmental involvement in this study contributes to a deeper understanding of how consumers’ attitudes, when presented with green marketing messages with a benefit statement, are affected by their level of environmental involvement. Another factor which is interesting to take into account is social influence. Social influence is a factor which is very important in influencing behaviour intentions, such as
brand attitude (Ajzen, 1991), especially for green decisions (Lee, 2008; Ciasullo, Torre & Triosi, 2017) and in fashion (Yan et al., 2012). Social influence is used as an exploratory factor in this research considering it’s moderating role on brand attitude when presented one of the benefit statements has never been examined. However, it is to be expected that
involvedness with sustainable fashion of a person’s social environment influences brand attitude when presented one of the benefits statements, for example since people want to be accepted by their social environment (Ciasullo et al., 2017; Joshi & Rahman, 2016).
Concluding, this research focuses on the effect on brand attitude when presented a personal benefit statement compared to an environmental benefit statement next to a green product attribute (such as organic dyeing) in green fashion advertising. People tend to have a preference for a fashion advertisement with a personal benefit statement compared to an environmental benefit statement (Carlson et al., 1993; Ferreira et al., 2010; Hartmann & Apaolaza-Ibáñez, 2006; Pickett-Baker & Ozaki, 2008). However, when the moderating role of involvement is included findings are contradicting. The exploratory factor social influence, known to have a great influence on brand attitude and green purchase intention (Lee, 2008; Ciasullo et al., 2017), is included to research the influence of the social environment in this context. With this specific design this study is the first in the field that takes social influence and environmental involvement into account while studying the effects of benefits statements in green fashion advertising, and therefore fills a relevant research gap. Purchase intention is included as an extra outcome variable in the design, to add practical relevance. The results provide an understanding of which green marketing messages is the most effective to reach consumers with a new eco-friendly fashion brand. The various green marketing messages have been tested in industries such as the car, gas and energy industry. It is important to extend the benefit statement theory to other industries (e.g. fashion) to be able to generalize the effects on brand attitude. Effective green marketing strategies for the fashion industry are needed to reduce the exploitation of resources and people.
The following research question is formulated:
RQ: What is the effect of a green marketing message (personal – or environmental benefit
statement) in green fashion advertising on consumers’ brand attitude and therefore purchase intention? And how is this relationship affected by social influence and environmental involvement?
Theoretical framework Green marketing messages
consumers’ attitudes and purchase behaviour. However, more research is needed to explain what kind of messages have the most positive effect (Grimmer & Woolley, 2014; D’Souza & Taghian, 2005). Several studies show that consumers have a preference for a green marketing message over a non-green message in various situations and for diverse products (Banjaree, Gulas & Iyer, 1992; Schuhwerk & Lefkoff-Hagius, 1995; Purohit, 2012; Davis, 1993; D’Angelico & Vocalelli, 2017). Research regarding fashion advertising, show that that consumers have a more positive attitude when presented an environmental message compared to an advertisement without an environmental message (Kim et al., 1997). Research that compares various positioning strategies in general advertising found that benefit statements, either direct (e.g. environmental) or indirect (e.g. personal) to the advertised product, generate more positive effects than feature-based positioning strategies (Fuchs & Diamantopoulos, 2010; Keller & Lehmann, 2006). The relation to brand attitude is explained by mentioning that benefit positioning strategies are adapted to consumers’ needs. This is effective because people form their attitudes based on these needs (MacInnis & Jaworski, 1989). Based on consumer’s preference for an environmental claim in green fashion advertising and the positive effects of benefit statements (either environmental or personal) in general advertising the following hypothesis is proposed:
H1: Individuals have a more positive brand attitude when presented a green fashion advertisement with a benefit statement than when presented a green fashion advertisement without a benefit statement.
An environmental benefit claim is expected to have a positive effect on brand attitude when people are interested in the detailed impact and benefits of a sustainable product
(Davis, 1993; Peattie, 1995). Products such as hybrid cars or solar panels for which the environmental benefit statement delivers advantages in comparison with competing sustainable products (Hartmann & Apaolaza-Ibáñez , 2009; Meffert & Kirchgeorg, 1993, D’Angelico & Vocalelli, 2017).
Nevertheless, there is more evidence supporting the positive effects of personal benefit statements in green advertising, e.g. compared to other strategies and in a content analysis (Carlson et al, 1993; Nottage, 2008; Phau & Ong, 2007; Ferreira et al., 2010; Hartmann & Apaolaza-Ibáñez, 2006; Pickett-Baker & Ozaki, 2008). A model supporting these findings is the Fritzsche model, a value-behaviour consistency model, which explains that stressing one’s personal values is associated with performing sustainable behaviour (Fritzsche & Oz, 2007). Therefore, emphasizing these personal values or a personal benefit related to these personal values leads to a positive brand attitude since individuals want to
behave consistent with their personal values. A similar process is explained by the fact that people want to avoid cognitive dissonance and consequently behave consistent with their existing attitudes about the environment (Belch & Belch, 2017). Consumers have a positive attitude to a personal benefit statement which reflects their personal values to avoid cognitive dissonance.
In the fashion industry branding and advertisements are commonly focused on emotion and personal values (Thompson, Rindfleisch & Arsel, 2006) to develop positive brand attitudes and create consumer engagement (So, Parsons & Yap, 2013). Personal benefit statements in green fashion advertising could trigger an emotional reaction of satisfaction (Belz & Dyllik, 1996). Accordingly, fashion marketing is automatically triggering personal needs since clothing is used to satisfy these multiple personal needs such as self-expression, status and on the primary basis protection (Kim & Damhorst, 1999; Meyer, 2001). Moreover, individuals who are reminded of the intrinsic rewards of sustainable behaviour are most prone to perform sustainable behaviour (Carlson et al., 1993). This can be triggered by mentioning personal benefits attached to the green fashion product. Therefore, it could be expected that presenting a personal benefit statement is a better fit for a green fashion advertisement than an environmental benefit statement. The following hypothesis is formulated:
H2: Individuals have a more positive brand attitude when presented a green fashion advertisement with a personal benefit statement than when presented a green fashion advertisement with an environmental benefit statement.
Social influence
Social influence is the extent to which one perceives the opinions of others, about the norm, as important. These perceptions influence individuals’ thoughts, attitudes and
eventually behaviour (Risseleda, Verhoef & Bijmolt, 2014; Prentice, 2008). When the social environment perceives sustainability issues as important, this could lead to a strengthening of one’s beliefs about the eco-fashion advertisement, either the brand attitude or purchase intention (Ciasullo et al, 2017, Uddin & Khan, 2018; Lee, 2008; Chan & Lau, 2001). The positive effect of social influence can be explained with the Theory of Reasoned Action (TRA) and the Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB) of Ajzen and Fishbein (1980) used in various studies researching the effect of social influence on green brand attitude and green purchase intention (Uddin & Khan, 2018; Ciasullo et al. 2017; Lee, 2008). Following these theories, behaviour is determined by the factors individual attitude and social norms. Social
influence is therefore able to influence the attitude and behaviour of individuals through (perceived) social pressure (social norms) from one’s social environment (Ajzen & Fishbein, 1980). The interesting and complex concept of the effect of social influence on brand attitude when presented a green fashion advertisements with one of the benefit statements has never been researched. Since high socially influenced individuals want to comply to the norm it is expected that they want to comply to the norm of a social environment that perceives sustainability and green fashion as important. This implies, high socially influenced
individuals have a more positive brand attitude when presented with either benefit statements compared to low socially influenced individuals. People tend to adjust to the behaviour of which they believe is the norm in their social environment because of their goal to maintain social relationships (Prentice, 2008; Lee, 2008; Joshi & Rahman, 2016). The maintenance of social relationships, the acceptance by peers and a confirmation of a feeling of belonging are all factors triggered more by personal benefit statements compared to environmental benefit statements and are all factors important for high socially influenced individuals (Joshi & Rahman, 2016; Uddin & Kahn, 2018). Personal benefit statements trigger a personal contribution to the shared good cause, for example a personal benefit statement as ‘Shows you care for our planet.’ For this reason, high socially influenced individuals are expected to be more influenced by statements confirming the group interest and the personal confirmation (e.g. personal benefit statement) to the environmental product attribute than by the generic environmental benefits. The following hypothesis is formulated:
H3. High socially influenced individuals have a more positive brand attitude when presented
a green fashion advertisement with a personal benefit statement compared to low socially influenced individuals.
Environmental involvement
Various studies show that environmental involvement has a crucial influence on the effect of green branding strategies (Schmuck et al., 2018; Chang et al., 2015; Grimmer & Woolley, 2014; Yan et al., 2012). The purchase behaviour of high environmentally involved consumers is highly influenced by their environmental concerns. Contrary are the low environmentally involved consumers, whose purchase behaviour is influenced by their environmental
concerns at a minimum (Schuhwerk & Lefkoff-Hagius, 1995). Grimmer and Woolley (2014) included the moderating role of environmental involvement within green marketing
messages, here benefit statements. People have a preference for one of the benefit statements based on their environmental involvement. High environmentally involved people have a
more positive attitude when presented an advertisement solely stressing environmental benefits to the sustainable product. Contrarily, low environmentally involved people have a more positive attitude when presented an advertisement stressing personal benefits to the sustainable product (Grimmer & Woolley, 2014). Schmuck et al. (2018) found that high involved individuals have a preference for a combined natural advertisement (e.g.
combination personal benefit statement and emotional approach). Accordingly, this study used a combination of approaches and did not focus on the effect of solely a benefit
statement. The fact that highly environmental involved consumers have a more positive brand attitude when presented an advertisement with environmental benefits is confirmed by other studies (Bamberg, 2003; Kim et al., 1997; Mittal & Lee, 1989). Moreover, Grimmer and Bingham (2013) stated that environmentally involved individuals prefer environmental benefits over personal benefits and that this preference arises from their cognitive sensitivity to environmental claims, which are very salient to them. Rahbar and Wahid (2011) confirm these findings by stating that presenting environmental benefits to high environmentally involved consumers lead to purchase behaviour since the benefits fulfil their emotional needs. These findings can be explained using the Elaboration Likelihood Model (ELM) of Petty and Cacioppio (1986). The ELM describes that persuasion can occur following two routes, the peripheral (emotional, simple deduction) or the central route (cognitive). Involvement has a significant role in this model. The ELM explains that high involved people take the central route and rely on cognitive processing and rational considerations. Regarding this research design, it could be argued that they probably have a preference for the environmental benefit statement, since high involved individuals want to evaluate the presented environmental information (Grimmer & Bingham, 2013; Grimmer & Woolley, 2014). Contrarily, low involved people take the peripheral route and rely on peripheral cues since they are not motivated to actively process the message. A peripheral cue is, for instance the price, brand name or an emotional reaction to the communicated message (the personal benefit) (Grimmer & Woolley, 2014). Therefore, low environmentally involved people are more persuaded by peripheral cues and have a preference for the personal benefit statements. The following hypotheses are proposed:
H4a. High environmentally involved individuals have a more positive brand attitude when presented a green fashion advertisement with an environmental benefit statement compared to low environmentally involved individuals.
H4b. Low environmentally involved individuals have a more positive brand attitude when presented a green fashion advertisement with a personal benefit statement compared to high
environmentally involved individuals.
Purchase intention
The theory of planned behaviour (TPB) explains how a positive brand attitude leads to purchase intention and eventually purchasing behaviour. People first have the intention to purchase before they actually purchase a product (Ajzen, 1991). So, to eventually change behaviour it is important to first measure attitude and purchase intention as outcome variables (Ajzen, 1991). This relationship is confirmed in multiple studies concerning green fashion advertisements (Grimmer & Woolley, 2014; Yan et al., 2012; Huang, Yang & Wang, 2014). A study about the effects of a campaign advertising a green jeans brand found that a positive attitude towards a green fashion brand leads to purchase intention of the advertised product (Yan et al., 2012). Huang et al. (2014) proposed a comprehensive model of the relationship between green brand positioning, green brand knowledge and attitude towards the green brand and green purchase intention. They found that green brand positioning and green brand knowledge have an influence on green brand attitude. Green brand attitude has significant effect on green purchase intention. The following hypothesis is formulated:
H5. A more positive brand attitude leads to a higher purchase intention of the advertised sustainable fashion product.
The concepts and relationships of this research are integrated in this conceptual model.
Figure 1. Conceptual model
Method Participants
growing interest in environmental issues and sustainable fashion (Yan et al., 2012; Joshi & Rahman, 2016). The participants of this online experiment were recruited via Social Media and WhatsApp. This strategy of snowball sampling is an easy and cheap way to get access to the target group, students and young professionals, and recruit participants (Belch & Belch, 2017). Snowball sampling was chosen because of limited time and financial resources. 136 people agreed to participate in this study. To meet the millennial requirement, only people between 18 and 30 could participate. The mean age was 24 years old, M = 24.42, SD = 2.71, 77.9 % of the participants were female and 21.3 % male. The most common level of
education was a Master’s degree 47.7% followed by 23.7% Bachelor’s degree and 13.7 % High School.
Design
The design of this study was an online experimental design with one experimental factor consisting of three conditions and two quasi-experimental factors (3 x 2 x 2) with experimental groups distributed over the experimental conditions. The experimental
conditions were personal benefit statement (n= 51) vs environmental benefit statement (n = 42) vs control group (n = 43). The quasi-experimental factors were the moderators;
environmental involvement (high/low) and social influence (high/low) and were measured during the survey.
Procedure
The Qualtrics link guided participants to the online survey. The survey started with a welcome and introduction message, hereafter the participants were guided to the informed consent, see Appendix A. The informed consent provided the participants with information about their privacy, rights and contact information of the Communications department of the University. Participants had to agree with the terms before they could continue with the survey. First, the participants had to answer some demographic questions where after they were randomly assigned to one of the three experimental conditions. During the
manipulation, participants were kindly asked to take a close look at the presented
advertisement. After exposure to the manipulation material participants were requested to indicate their brand attitude and purchase intention for the advertised product and brand. The manipulation check let the participants define which advertisement they saw. Some
statements measuring the moderators social influence and environmental involvement followed. The last statements measured the control variables – attitude towards green products and attitude towards the advertisement – and followed right after. The experiment closed with a thank you message and a box to fill in their email address if participants wanted
to win a Rituals Cosmetics voucher of €20. Stimulus materials
The green fashion advertisement consisted of an advertisement of an organic cotton brand especially created for this study. No logo was included and all text was in black to overcome any influence of pre-existing attitudes towards these factors. For the same reason, the advertised product is a white cotton shirt, suitable for men and women. These choices improved the validity. All conditions were kept equal except for the benefit statement, with no statement in the control condition. Both benefit statement conditions included the general environmental product attribute: Organic Cotton. The statement Organic Cotton is inferior to an environmental or personal benefit statement. This sentence only informs consumers about the fact that it is a sustainable product and aims to truly test the effects of either the personal or the environmental benefit to the product on brand attitude (Grimmer & Woolley, 2014). The results of the pre-test revealed that the environmental benefits statement ‘uses less water’ and the personal benefit statement ‘helps you to make a difference’ were rated most
convincing and important (Appendix B). Therefore, these were selected to use in the stimulus material. To avoid misunderstandings or interpretations these statements were again
discussed with a small focus group of three people. The statements were translated to the personal benefit statement ‘Organic Cotton. With this shirt YOU help making a difference.’ The final environmental benefit statement was ‘Organic Cotton. This shirt is produced with a minimum of water’. The stimulus material is presented in Appendix C.
Measures
See appendix D for the complete scales and original Cronbach’s alpha’s. Brand attitude
The dependent variable brand attitude was measured on a seven-point semantic differential scale from measuring five concepts: unattractive-attractive, not likable – likeable, negative – positive, boring – interesting, not recommendable – recommendable. This scale was derived from the research of Schmuck et al. (2018). An explanatory factor analysis explained 71.13 % of the variance, EV = 3.57, Cronbach’s = .91, M = 5.29, SD = 1.06. Purchase intention
The dependent variable purchase intention was measured using one item, ‘Would you be interested in buying the advertised organic t-shirt?’ On a seven-point Likert scale: very unlikely – very likely. Following Schmuck et al. (2018), M = 4.76, SD = 1.46.
Social influence.
environment, the descriptive norms, concerning sustainable fashion. To measure the concept social influence a combined scale was created based on items from two studies. The items were answered on a seven-point Likert scale: strongly disagree-strongly agree. Three items were inspired by the study of Lee (2008) and measured if people discuss sustainability issues with their direct social environment. The statements were adjusted to sustainable fashion. One of the statements was, ‘From people important to me I learn about environmental related subjects such as, sustainable fashion.’ The other four items were from the study of Yan et al. (2012) and focused on knowledge of - and importance devoted to environmental friendly production materials. One of the statements was, ‘Most people who are important to me are concerned about the use of environmentally friendly practices in the production of apparel.’ An explanatory factor analysis found one factor loading for the constructed scale. The factor explained 71.16% of the variance, EV = 4.98. The reliability of the combined scale is
Cronbach’s = .93, M = 3.93, SD = 1.36. Environmental involvement
Environmental involvement was measured with a combined scale of ten items. Four items about general environmental involvement and six specified to sustainable fashion involvement. All items were measured on a seven-point Likert scale: strongly disagree – strongly agree. The first four items derived from Schuhwerk and Lefkoff-Hagius (1995) measured general environmental concern such as, ‘I am concerned about the environment.’ Three items that were adapted to measure sustainable fashion, were from Minton, Spielman, Kahle and Kim (2018). For example, ‘Buying more clothes than I need hurts the
environment.’ Completed with two statements from Yan et al. (2012) such as ‘I am interested in eco/environmentally friendly fashion’. The last statement of this scale was derived from an open ended interview design and asked if people consider sustainability and ethics when purchasing clothes (McNeill & Moore, 2015). The total scale of ten items is presented in Appendix D. To check if the items indeed measure different concepts, three factor analysis were conducted and three scales were created. The first explanatory factor analysis on general environmental involvement explained 70.50% of the variance, EV = 2.82, Cronbach’s = .85, M = 5.41, SD = 1.03. The second explanatory factor analysis, on sustainable fashion involvement, explained 66.76% of the variance, EV = 4.01, Cronbach’s = .91, M = 4.86, SD = 1.18. The last explanatory factor analysis on all items in the environmental involvement scale explained 61.02% of the variance, EV= 6.10, Cronbach’s = .93, M = 5.09, SD = 1.05. Hypotheses testing was conducted using all three scales to discover possible variances.
Manipulation check
To be certain that the manipulation worked as intended participants had to answer the following question, ‘I have been presented with’. Including the answer options, ‘An
advertisement presenting the environmental friendly production process of the organic t-shirt (using less water)’, ‘An advertisement presenting how YOU can help to make a difference’, or, ‘no textual statement.’ This question is formulated as precisely as possible since people could misinterpret the statements easily, given some participants in the pre-test indicated that they perceived some benefit statements as non-divergent.
Control variables
Attitude towards advertisement
To measure this control variable a scale from previous research was used (Matthes et al., 2014). Participants indicated their attitude towards the advertisement by answering a seven-point semantic differential scale. This advertisement is: bad – good; unpleasant – pleasant; unfavourable – favourable; unconvincing – convincing; incredible – credible. An explanatory factor analysis explained 74.94 % of the variance, EV = 3.75, Cronbach’s = .91, M = 4.89, SD = 1.09.
Attitude towards green products
The second control variable which was included is attitude towards green products. This scale was inferred from Matthes et al. (2014). A four item scale on a seven-point Likert scale: strongly disagree - strongly agree. An explanatory factor analysis explained 79.89 % of the variance, EV= 3.21, Cronbach’s = .91, M = 5.58, SD = 1,07.
Results Randomization check
To check if the randomization of the experimental conditions worked as intended two Chi-Square Tests were conducted. The three conditions were checked with the variables gender and education and showed 2 (2) = 4.38, p = .112, Phi= .18 for gender and 2 (8) =
3.45, p = .903 for education. The non-significant results show that there are no significant differences based on gender and education across the conditions. Three one-way ANOVA’s with a Bonferroni post-hoc test were conducted to see if the randomization of age across the advertising conditions succeeded. The results of age, F (2, 125) = .73, p = .485 and attitude towards green products F (18,117) = 1.41, p = .145 and attitude towards the advertisement F (24, 111) = 1.36, p = .144 are all not significant. This shows that there are no differences
between conditions based on age, attitude towards green products and attitude towards the advertisement. These results show that the randomization succeeded for gender, education, age, attitude towards the advertisement and attitude towards green products.
Manipulation check
Since this study tests the effect of a personal or an environmental benefit statement it is very important that the participants understand and remember the displayed benefit
statement. Therefore, the manipulation check was executed first before any other analysis. A Chi-Squared Test was conducted to see if people answered the manipulation check in
correspondence with their experimental condition. 25 participant answered the manipulation check not corresponding with their condition. This suggest that they did not pay enough attention while filling in the survey. However, they could still be influenced by the presented statement and for this reason they remained in the sample. The manipulation check was answered correctly by 91.3% in the personal condition, by 92.9% in the environmental condition and by 85.7% in the control condition. The Chi-Squared Test was conducted again and the results show 2 (4) = 146.41 , p < .001. The significant result shows that people understand the question correctly, the conditions and participants’ answers were significantly associated. The manipulation worked as intended.
Hypothesis testing
Green marketing messages
A one-way ANOVA with brand attitude as dependent variable and condition as the factor was conducted to test hypothesis one and two. H1: Individuals have a more positive brand attitude when presented a green fashion advertisement with a benefit statement than when presented a green fashion advertisement without a benefit statement. And H2:
Individuals have a more positive brand attitude when presented a green fashion advertisement with a personal benefit statement than when presented a green fashion advertisement with an environmental benefit statement.
Levene’s f-test of equal variances was significant F (2, 133) = 3.48, p = .034. Which indicates that assumption of homogeneity of variance was violated. Accordingly the Welch test of equality was used which is a more robust test for the equality of means. The Welch test of equality of means was conducted (2, 82.18) = 5.06, p = .008 meaning the assumption of equal variances is violated. A significant moderate main effect was found for the effect of the various conditions on brand attitude F (135, 2) = 13.07, p = .003. The effect size 2 = .09. When looking at the post hoc Bonferonni test it becomes clear the significant effect is
only valid when comparing a benefit statement with the control condition. For the personal benefit condition compared to the control condition p = .013. For the environmental benefit condition compared to the control p = .006. However, comparing a personal benefit statement to an environmental benefit statement was insignificant p = 1. The results are opposite from the expected direction. Brand attitude after being presented an advertisement with an
environmental benefit statement is higher (M= 5.45, SD= 1.08) than brand attitude after being presented an advertisement with a personal benefit statement (M = 5.37, SD = .84) and
compared to the control condition (M = 4.74, SD = 1.19). The results direct to the
confirmation of H1 since there is a significant main effect. H2 is rejected because there is no significant difference between brand attitude after being presented the personal benefit statement or the environmental benefit statement.
Social influence
The descriptive statistics of the variable social influence show M = 3.93 and SD = 1.36. To test the hypothesis, the sample was separated in two groups; high and low socially influenced participants. The sample was divided with a median split Mdn = 4.14. This led to n = 65 low socially involved participants and n = 71 high involved participants. A two-way ANOVA was conducted to test H3. High socially influenced individuals have a more positive
brand attitude when presented a green fashion advertisement with a personal benefit statement compared to low socially influenced individuals.
The results show a significant Levene’s test F (5, 130) = 3.08, p = .012. Meaning that the assumption of equal variances in the population has been violated. The two-way ANOVA shows a significant moderate main effect of the various conditions on brand attitude F (2, 130) = 4.51, p = .004, 2 = .08. Social influence also has a significant moderate main effect on brand attitude F (1, 130) = 9.65, p = .002, 2 = .07. However, the interaction effect show a weak insignificant effect F (2, 130) = .16, p = .852, 2 = .01. This means that H3 can be rejected.
Table 1
Descriptive statistics green marketing messages and social influence on brand attitude Condition Social
influence
M SD n Mdiff
p
High 5.56 .71 27 p = .360 Environmental Low High 5.15 5.69 1.18 0.95 19 23 .54 p = .017 Control Low High 4.42 5.08 1.32 .96 22 21 .66 p < .001 Environmental involvement
The moderator variable environmental involvement in this sample had a M = 5.09 and SD = 1.05. Once again, the participants were divided upon high environmentally involved participants and low environmentally involved participants. The sample was divided based on the Median split, with Mdn = 5.2. This split resulted in n = 67 high environmentally involved participants and n = 69 low environmentally involved participants.
A two-way ANOVA was conducted to test hypotheses, H4a. High environmentally involved individuals have a more positive brand attitude when presented a green fashion advertisement with an environmental benefit statement compared to low environmentally involved individuals. And H4b. Low environmentally involved individuals have a more positive brand attitude when presented a green fashion advertisement with a personal benefit statement compared to high environmentally involved individuals.
The results show an insignificant Levene’s test F (5, 130) = 1.50, p = .193. Meaning that the assumption of equal variances in the population can be confirmed. The two-way ANOVA shows a significant moderate main effect of the various conditions on brand attitude F (2, 130) = 7.41, p = .001 2 = .09. Environmental involvement has a significant strong main effect on brand attitude F (1, 130) = 22.39, p < .001, 2 = .13. And the interaction is also showing a moderate significant effect F (2, 130) = 3,49, p = .033, 2 = .05. The Bonferonni post-hoc test shows that there is a significant difference in brand attitude between the
environmental benefit condition and the control condition, p = .002 and between the personal benefit condition and the control condition, p = .006. Meaning that the personal and
environmental benefit conditions cannot be compared with each other. When comparing the high and low environmental involved participants in each condition, after a file split results indicate significant differences between high and low environmental involved participants for the environmental benefit statement - and the control condition. Confirming H4a, high
presented a green fashion advertisement with an environmental benefit statement compared to low environmental involved individuals (M = 5.02), Mdiff = .82 , p = .012. H4b is rejected since group differences (high/low) for the personal benefit condition are non-significant.
Table 2
Descriptive statistics green marketing messages and environmental involvement on brand attitude Condition Environmental involvement M SD n Mdiff p Personal Low High 5.26 5.51 .82 .88 28 23 .25 p = .320 Environmental Low High 5.02 5.84 1.09 .94 20 22 .82 p = .012 Control Low High 4.08 5.37 1.18 .83 21 22 1.29 p < .001
For the results concerning the smaller environmental involvement scale and the eco-fashion involvement scale see appendix E. However, variances with the total scale are insignificant and too small to be interesting for further reporting.
Purchase intention
A linear regression was conducted to test H5. A more positive brand attitude leads to a higher purchase intention of the advertised sustainable fashion product. The linear
regression had purchase intention as dependent, brand attitude as independent and controlled for social influence, environmental involvement, gender, education level, age, attitude towards green products and attitude towards the advertisement. Results show a significant regression model which also holds true in the population F (6, 129) = 13.64, p < .001. This regression model can be used to predict purchase intention from brand attitude with the mentioned covariates in the population and explains 40% of the variation in purchase intention (R2 = .40). The association between brand attitude and purchase intention is significant and moderately strong, b* = .31, t = 4.24, p <.001, 95% CI [.23, .63]. B = .43,
which reflect that with each item on the brand attitude scale from 1-7, purchase intention increases with .43, meaning that a higher brand attitude leads to a higher purchase intention. H5 is supported. Other significant predictors are age, b* = -.23, t = -2.60, p =.010, 95% CI [-.21, - .29]. B = - .12 and environmental involvement, b* = .34, t = 3.43, p = .001, 95% CI [.20, .75]. B = .47.
Conclusion and discussion
The presented study examined individuals’ brand attitude when presented a green fashion advertisement containing either a personal benefit statement, an environmental benefit statement or no textual statement. The design controlled for environmental
involvement and social influence as possible moderators. Results lent support - significant moderate effect - for a more positive brand attitude when presented a green fashion
advertisement with a benefit statement compared to without a benefit statement (H1). This finding could be explained by several studies stating that people have a preference for an environmental claim over no claim (Purohit, 2012; D’Angelico & Vocalelli, 2017). More specifically in fashion advertising as well (Kim et al. 1997) and by the preference for a benefit statement over other positioning strategies (Fuchs & Diamantopoulos, 2010; Keller & Lehmann, 2006). Contrary to expectation of H2 (Carlson et al.,1993; Ferreira et al., 2010; Hartmann & Apaolaza-Ibáñez, 2006; Pickett-Baker & Ozaki, 2008), participants did not have a more positive brand attitude when presented a green fashion advertisement with a personal benefit statement compared to an environmental benefit statement. Although the mean brand attitude from the environmental benefit group was higher than for the personal benefit group, the results were non-significant and therefore not useful to interpret.
A more positive brand attitude when presented a green fashion advertisement with an environmental benefit statement is a moderate significant effect for high environmentally involved individuals, confirming H4a (Grimmer & Bingham, 2013; Grimmer & Woolley, 2014; Rahbar & Wahid, 2011). No significant effect on brand attitude for low
environmentally involved individuals was found, rejecting H4b and expectations from Grimmer and Woolley (2014). The non-significant effect could be due to the homogeneity of this sample. The median split was rather high (Mdn = 5.2), meaning the low environmentally group still reported to be quite involved with the environment in absolute terms. This reflects the sustainability trend among millennials (D’Angelico & Vocalelli, 2017;Yan et al, 2012).
The homogeneity of the sample – concerning environmental involvement, education level, brand attitude and attitude towards green product - might also explain the insignificant
findings regarding H3. The mean for social influence is at the middle of the scale (M = 3.93), which could indicate that people do not want to admit that they are being socially influenced. The results imply that there is a significant positive relationship between social influence and brand attitude. However, the moderation effect is not significant, social influence does not influence individuals’ brand attitude when they are presented with one of the benefit statements in green fashion advertising. In a more diverse group concerning reported social influence, it could indeed affect brand attitude. Considering the fact that age and education level are both factors predicting social influence; lowly educated and younger people are expected to be higher socially influenced than highly educated and older people (Joshi & Rahman, 2016; Lee, 2008: Uddin & Kahn, 2018). Moreover, lowly educated people are less involved with environmental issues, have less environmental knowledge and have a lower purchase intention of responsible products (Zhao, Gao, Wu, Wang & Zhu, 2014).
Lastly, in order to research the desirability of the product, the variable purchase intention was included and H5 was confirmed. A good fit of the TPB (Ajzen, 1991) also holds true for green fashion advertising and brand attitude (Yan et al., 2012; Huang et al., 2014).
Limitations and future research
Some limitations can be noticed regarding this research design. First, the
aforementioned homogeneity, e.g. by being high educated, high environmentally involved and having a positive brand attitude, of the sample. When a diverse sample - varying in education level and age - other effects for environmental involvement, social influence and benefit statement preference are expected to be found (e.g. D’Angelico & Vocalelli, 2017; Zhao et al., 2014). Since participants of this sample were on average high environmentally involved no effects for low environmentally involved individuals were visible. The expected preference for a personal benefit statement by high socially influenced individuals was also not confirmed. Both non-significant results indicate no increase in brand attitude when presented a personal benefit statement in green fashion advertising compared to an environmental benefit statement.
A preference for a personal benefit statement could be clarified in two ways. First, in accordance with the theoretical framework, it supports the feeling of belonging to and being accepted by the social environment. Secondly, the personal benefit statement triggers a personal satisfaction in confirming both individuals’ morality and ego. These latter factors are known to influence intention to perform ethical and responsible behaviour (Kim &
Johnson, 2013). In future research statements measuring ego satisfaction and reasons to engage in moral or ethical behaviour should be included to control for this explanation. Ultimately, one could argue that a future three-way-interaction of environmental involvement and social influence could explain if someone is either intrinsically or extrinsically motivated to have a positive brand attitude towards a green fashion
advertisement with one of both benefit statements. Progressing on this theoretical framework, one could argue that someone highly involved with the environment but low in social
influence has a more positive brand attitude when presented an environmental benefit
statement - compared to a personal benefit statement - and is more intrinsically motivated to form this positive attitude. Contrarily, someone low environmentally involved but high in social influence has a more positive brand attitude when presented a personal benefit statement - compared to an environmental benefit statement - and would be more extrinsically motivated to form this positive attitude.
The current research design gives some first insights into this complex psychological system. Future research should broaden this design with a heterogenic sample and a
psychological theoretical background with regard to internal and external motivations of people concerning sustainable attitudes and intentions to gain a more established
understanding.
To complete this suggestion for future research another limitation, containing the manipulation material, could be improved and added. Since 25 participants did answer the manipulation check incorrectly, it could be that effects would slightly differ when other better understandable benefit statements were used. It is very important that the benefit statements are understood correctly to evoke and measure the desired effects. The control condition did not include any textual statement. This may have caused a more negative attitude and evoke feelings of scepticism, since real advertisement normally contain a textual statement or at least a brand name or logo. In future research an elaborate pre-test is recommended to test easy to understand and valid benefit statements and the effects of using a known versus an unknown brand. Moreover, scepticism about environmental product attributes or green statements, green washing, could be a possible factor of influence in this context. Previous research found that consumers can be sceptical towards green products and green marketing messages (Laroche et al. 2001; Crane, 2000). Follow-up studies could include scepticism as a moderator or control variable to have more exploratory factors.
Concluding, by including the mentioned suggestions in future research a deeper understanding of the effects of benefits statements in green fashion advertising will be
established. The current research adds to the existing literature on green advertising by extending the theory of benefit statements to green fashion advertising. The present study demonstrates that millennials have a more positive brand attitude (and eventually purchase intention) when presented a green fashion advertisements with a benefit statement compared to one without a benefit statement. This sample of high environmentally involved millennials have a more positive attitude when presented a green fashion advertisement with an
environmental benefit statement. Marketers are recommended to use an environmental benefit statement when a high environmental involved millennial target group needs to be reached, due to the positive effect of brand attitude on purchase intention. Although a
preference for a personal benefit statement was not found in this sample, it is reasonable that this preference will be found in a more heterogenic sample. In a more heterogenic group social influence and low environmental involvement are expected to have a positive effect on brand attitude when presented a personal benefit statement. One of the aims of this study was to optimize green marketing messages in fashion advertisements and therefore heighten purchase intentions. However, the most sustainable behaviour to perform is to lower clothing consumption.
References
Ajzen I. & Fishbein, M. (1980) Understanding Attitudes and Predicting Social Behavior. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behaviour. Organizational Behaviour and Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 179-211.
Bamberg S. (2003). How does environmental concern influence specific environmentally related behaviors? A new answer to an old question. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 23(1), 21–32.
Banerjee, S., Gulas, C. S., & Iyer, E. (1995). Shades of green: A multidimensional analysis of environmental advertising. Journal of Advertising, 24(2), 21-31.
Belch, G. E., & Belch, M. A. (2017). Advertising and Promotion: An Integrated Marketing Communications Perspective, eleventh edition. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Belz, F. and Dyllik, T. (1996). “O ̈ kologische positionierungsstrategien”, in Tomczak, T.R. and Roosdorp, A. (Eds), Positionierung – Kernentscheidung des Marketing, Thexis Verlag, St Gallen, 170-9.
Bockman, S., Razzouk, N.Y. & Sirotnik, B. (2009). Going green – from left to centre stage: An empirical perspective. Journal of the American Academy of Business, 14(2), 8–17.
Carlson, L., Grove, S.J. & Kangun, N. (1993) A content analysis of environmental
advertising claims: A matrix method approach. Journal of Advertising, 22(3), 27– 39. Chan, R. Y. K., & Lau, L. (2001). Explaining green purchasing behavior: A cross-cultural
study on American and Chinese consumers. Journal of International Marketing, 14(2/3), 9–40.
Chan, R.Y.K. (1999). Environmental attitudes and behavior of consumers in China: Survey findings and implications. Journal of International Consumer Marketing, 11(4), 25– 8.
Chang, H., Zhang, L. & Xie, G.-X. (2015). Message framing in green advertising: The effect of construal level and consumer environmental concern. Int. J. Advert., 34, 158-176. Ciasullo, M.V., Maione, G., Torre, C. & Triosi. O. (2017). What about Sustainability? An
Emperical Analysis of Consumers’ Purchasing Behavior in Fashion Context. Sustainability, 9, 1617.
Crane, A. (2000). Facing the backlash, green market and strategic reorientation in the 1990s, Journal of Strategic Marketing, 8(3), 277-96.
Dagher, G. K., Itani, O., & Kassar, A. N. (2015). The impact of environment concern and attitude on green purchasing behavior: Gender as the moderator. Contemporary Management Research, 11(2), 179-206.
D’Angelico, R. M., & Vocalelli, D. (2017). “Green Marketing”: An analysis of definitions, strategy steps, and tools through a systematic review of the literature. Journal of Cleaner Production, 165, 1263–1279.
Davis, J. (1993). Strategies for environmental advertising. The Journal of Consumer Marketing, 10(2), 19-37.
D’Souza, C. & Taghian, M. (2005). Green advertising effects on attitude and choice of advertising themes. Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics, 17(3), 51–66. Ferreira, D.A., Avila, M.G. & M.D. de Faria, M.D. (2010). Corporate social responsibility
and consumers’ perception of price. Social Responsibility Journal, 6(2), 208–21. Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention and behavior: An introduction to
theory and research. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Fritzsche, D. & Oz, E. (2007). Personal values’ influence on the ethical dimension of decision making. Journal of Business Ethics, 74(4), 335-343.
Fuchs, C., & Diamantopoulos, A. (2010). Evaluating the effectiveness of brand-positioning strategies from a consumer perspective. European Journal of Marketing, 44(11/12), 1763-1786.
Grappi, S., Romani, S., & Barbarossa, C. (2017). Fashion without pollution: How consumers evaluate brands after an NGO campaign aimed at reducing toxic chemicals in the fashion industry. Journal of Cleaner Production, 149, 1164-1173.
Grimmer, M. & Woolley, M. (2014). Green marketing messages and consumers' purchase intentions: Promoting personal versus environmental benefits. Journal of Marketing Communications, 20(4), 231-250.
Grimmer, M., & Bingham, T. (2013). Company environmental performance and consumer purchase intentions. Journal of business research, 66(10), 1945-1953.
Hartmann, P., Apaolaza-Ibáñez, V., & Sainz, F. J. (2005). Green branding effects on
attitude: functional versus emotional positioning strategies. Marketing Intelligence & Planning, 23(1), 9-29.
Hartmann, P., & Apaolaza-Ibáñez, V. (2006). Green value added. Marketing Intelligence & Planning, 24(7), 673-680.
virtual nature experiences. International Journal of Advertising, 28(4), 715-739. Horne, R. E. (2009). Limits to labels: The role of eco‐labels in the assessment of product
sustainability and routes to sustainable consumption. International Journal of consumer studies, 33(2), 175-182.
Huang, Y. C., Yang, M., & Wang, Y.-C. (2014). Effects of green brand on green purchase intention. Marketing Intelligence & Planning, 32(3), 250–268.
Joshi, Y. & Rahman, R. (2016). Predictors of young consumer’s green purchase behaviour. Management of Environmental Quality: An International Journal, 27(4), 452-472. Keller, K. L., & Lehmann, D. R. (2006). Brands and branding: Research findings and future
priorities. Marketing science, 25(6), 740-759.
Kim, Y. K., Forney, J., & Arnold, E. (1997). Environmental messages in fashion advertisements: Impact on consumer responses. Clothing and Textiles Research Journal, 15(3), 147-154.
Kim, H.S. & Damhorst, M.L. (1999). Environmental attitude and commitment in relation to ad message credibility. Journal of Fashion Marketing & Management, 3(1), 1-30. Kim, J.& Johnson, K.P. (2013) The impact of moral emotions on cause-related marketing
campaigns: a cross-cultural examination. Journal of Business Ethics, 112(1), 79-90 Kim, S. B., & Kim, D. Y. (2014). The effects of message framing and source credibility on
green messages in hotels. Cornell Hospitality Quarterly, 55(1), 64-75.
Laroche, M., Bergeron, J. & Barbaro-Forleo, G. (2001). Targeting consumers who are willing to pay more for environmentally friendly products. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 18(6), 503-21.
Lee, K. (2008). Opportunities for green marketing: young consumers. Marketing Intelligence& Planning, 26(6), 573-586.
Lee, K. (2010). The green purchase behavior of Hong Kong young consumers: The role of peer influence, local environmental involvement, and concrete environmental knowledge. Journal of international consumer marketing, 23(1), 21-44.
MacInnis, D.J. & Jaworski, B.J. (1989). Information processing from advertisements: Toward an integrative framework. Journal of Marketing, 53(10), 1-23.
Matthes, J., & Wonneberger, A. (2014). The sceptical green consumer revisited: Testing the relationship between green consumerism and scepticism toward advertising. Journal of Advertising, 43(2), 115–127.
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.
McNeill, L., & Moore, R. (2015). Sustainable fashion consumption and the fast fashion conundrum: Fashionable consumers and attitudes to sustainability in clothing choice. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 39(3), 212–222.
Meffert, H. and Kirchgeorg, M. (1993). Marktorientiertes Umweltmanagement. Stuttgart: Schaeffer-Poeschel.
Meyer, A. (2001) What’s in it for the customers? Successfully marketing green clothes. Business Strategy and the Environment, 10(5), 317-30.
Minton, E. A., Spielmann, N., Kahle, L. R., & Kim, C. H. (2018). The subjective norms of sustainable consumption: A cross-cultural exploration. Journal of Business
Research, 82, 400-408.
Mittal, B., & Lee, M. (1989). A causal model of consumer involvement. Journal of Economic Psychology, 10(3), 363–389.
Nidumolu, R., Prahalad, C.K., Rangaswami, M.R. (2009). Why sustainability is now the key driver of innovation. Harvard Business Review, 87, 56- 64.
Nottage, A. (2008). The green agenda gets personal. Marketing, 7, 33–5.
Peattie, K. (1995) Environmental Marketing Management. London: Pitman Publishing. Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986). The Elaboration Likelihood Model of Persuasion.
Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 19, 123-205.
Phau, I. & Ong, D. (2007). An investigation of the effects of environmental claims in promotional messages for clothing brands. Marketing Intelligence & Planning, 25(7),772–88.
Pickett-Baker, J. & Ozaki, R. (2008). Pro-environmental products: Marketing influence on consumer purchase decision. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 25(5), 81–93. Prentice, D. (2008). Mobilizing and weakening peer influence as mechanisms for changing
behavior. Implications for alcohol intervention programs. In M. J. Prinstein & K. A. Dodge [Eds.], Understanding peer influence in children and adolescents (161–180). Purohit, H. C. (2012). Product positioning and consumer attitude towards eco-friendly
labelling and advertisement: An analytical study. Journal of Management Research, 12(3), 153.
Rahbar, E., & Wahid, N. A. (2011). Investigation of green marketing tools’ effect on consumers ’purchase behavior. Business strategy series, 12(2), 73-83.
Risselada, H., Verhoef, P.C., Bijmolt, T.H. (2014). Dynamic effects of social influence and direct marketing on the adoption of high-technology products. Journal of Marketing,
78, 52–68.
Rothman, A. J., & Salovey, P. (1997). Shaping perceptions to motivate healthy behavior: The role of message framing. Psychological bulletin, 121(1), 3.
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.
Schuhwerk, M. E., & Lefkoff-Hagius, R. (1995). Green or non-green? Does type of appeal matter when advertising a green product? Journal of advertising, 24(2), 45-54. So, T.J., Parsons, A.G. & Yap, S. (2013). Corporate branding, emotional attachment and
brand loyalty: The case of luxury branding. Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management: An International Journal, 17(4), 403-423).
Suki, N. M. (2016). Green product purchase intention: Impact of green brands, attitude and knowledge. British Food Journal, 118(12), 2893-2910.
Thompson, C. J., Rindfleisch, A., & Arsel, Z. (2006). Emotional branding and the strategic value of the doppelgänger brand image. Journal of marketing, 70(1), 50-64.
Uddin, S. F., & Khan, M. N. (2018). Young consumer's green purchasing behavior: Opportunities for green marketing. Journal of Global Marketing, 31(4), 270-281. Yan, R., Hyllegard, K.H. & Blaesi, L.F. (2012) Marketing eco-fashion: The influence of
brand name and message explicitness, Journal of Marketing Communications, 18(2), 151-168.
Zhao, H. H., Gao, Q., Wu, Y. P., Wang, Y., & Zhu, X. D. (2014).What affects green consumer behavior in China? A case study from Qingdao. Journal of Cleaner Production, 63.
Appendix A.
Introduction
Welcome and thank you for your time participating in this online experiment!
This study is to be conducted as part of my master thesis at the Graduate School of
Communication, part of the University of Amsterdam. The study is about evaluating fashion advertisements. Several questions will be asked concerning your opinion about the presented advertisement. Followed with some personal questions concerning various topics.
Answering the following questions will take about 5 minutes.
Thank you, Fleur Kroodsma
fleur.kroodsma@student.uva.nl
Informed Consent
You are invited to participate in a research carried out under the responsibility of the ASCoR, University of Amsterdam. This guarantees that:
1) Your anonymity will be safeguarded, and 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 researcher 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, I will be able to provide you with a research report that explains the general results of the research.
For more information about the research and the invitation to participate, you are welcome to contact: Fleur Kroodsma, fleur.kroodsma@student.uva.nl
If you have any complaints or comments about the course of the research and the procedures it involves as a consequence of your participation in this research, you can contact the designated member of the Ethics Committee representing 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.
Any complaints or comments will be treated in the strictest confidence.
I hope that I have provided you with sufficient information. By clicking ‘yes’ below, you verify that:
- You have read the explanation of this study and the informed consent - You are over 18 years old
- You agree to participate in this study
yes/no
B. Pre-test
To pre-test which benefit statements are useable in this specific context five environmental and five personal benefit statements were created with the help of a focus group of three people. It was discussed which environmental benefits and personal benefits came to mind when thinking about sustainable fashion. Thereafter, a group of ten participants rated on a 5 point Likert scale which items were most convincing/important (1= most
convincing/important, 5 = least convincing/important). All items were positive framed (Rothman & Salovey, 1997) to be certain that framing would not have an effect on attitude towards the benefit statements. Moreover, positive framed green messages led to more positive attitudes towards the advertisement compared to negative framed messages (Kim & Kim, 2014). The question was, concerning a personal/environmental benefit of sustainable fashion which of these benefits do you find most convincing/important? The question was about a sweater since the real experiment is about a t-shirt. The results of the pre-test revealed that the environmental benefits statement ‘uses less water’ (M = 1.3, SD = .55) and the
personal benefit statement ‘helps you to make a difference’ (M = 1.5, SD = .45) was rated most convincing and important. Therefore, these were selected to use in the stimulus
material.
C.
Environmental benefit statement
Control condition
D.
Brand attitude
Seven-point semantic scale: unattractive-attractive not likable – likeable
negative – positive boring – interesting
not recommendable – recommendable
Schmuck et al. (2018), Cronbach’s = .94. Social Influence
Seven-point Likert scale (strongly disagree – strongly agree).
- From people important to me I learn about environment related subjects such as, sustainable
fashion.
- With the people important to me I discuss about environment-related subjects such as, sustainable
fashion.
- People tell me about the things that are related to green living and sustainable fashion.
Lee (2008). Cronbach’s
= .83.
- Most people who are important to me are concerned about the use of environmentally friendly practices in
the production of apparel.
- Most people who are important to me are purchasing apparel products/brands made from organic materials. - Most people who are important to me are purchasing apparel products/brands made from recycled materials.
- Most people who are important to me are purchasing apparel products/brands made from natural dyes or
soy-based inks. Yan, Hyllegard and Blaesi (2012) Environmental Involvement
Seven-point Likert scale (strongly disagree – strongly agree).
- I am concerned about the environment
- The condition of the environment affects the quality of my life
- I am willing to make sacrifices to protect the environment
- My actions impact the environment
Schuhwerk and Lefkoff-Hagius (1995),
Cronbach’s = .77
- Sustainable fashion is important to me - I seek to reduce the overall number of clothing/apparel purchases I make to help the
environment
- Buying more clothing than I need hurts the environment. Minton, Spielmann, Kahle and Kim (2018) Cronbach’s = .67 - I am interested in eco/environmentally friendly
fashion
- I am willing to pay more for eco/environmentally friendly fashion Yan, Hyllegard and Blaesi (2012) Cronbach’s = .69 - When I am buying clothes I consider sustainability
and ethics
McNeill & Moore. (2015)
Purchase Intention
Seven-point Likert scale (very unlikely – very likely). - Would you be interested in buying the advertised
organic t-shirt?
Schmuck et al. (2018)
Manipulation check
I have been presented with:
- An advertisement presenting the environmental friendly production process of the organic t-shirt (using
less water).
- An advertisement presenting how YOU can help to make a difference.
- None of above Attitude
towards the advertisement
Seven-point semantic differential scale This advertisement is:
bad – good unpleasant – pleasant unfavourable – favourable unconvincing – convincing incredible – credible Matthes, Wonneberger and Schmuck (2014) Cronbach's α = .92
