A Consumer Perception Analysis towards Fast Fashion Advertisement
Luisa Friese
Master’s Thesis
Graduate School of Communication Master’s Program Communication Science
Persuasive Communication
Student Number: 12321958 Supervisor: Dr. Christin Scholz
Abstract
Over the past years environmental issues have gained more prominence within the media, as well as people have become more attentive towards environmental issues. As a response to increasing concerns, products advertised as sustainable gained popularity amongst consumers. However, the rapid increase in popularity of sustainable products led various companies to advertise their products as sustainable, without being able to meet their own criteria, which then is referred to as greenwashing. Companies deceive their costumers, by lying about their products real environmental impact, leaving the impression that their products do not harm the environment as much as they actually do. The degree to which consumers believe those claims is amongst other aspects dependent on their concern for the environment. The present study investigates the effectiveness of sustainable vs. price-focused advertisement from H&M on consumers brand attitude as well as purchase intentions and whether the perception of greenwashing within the ad further explains this relationship. Moreover, the study examines whether this effect is different for consumers with higher or lower levels of concern. A new contribution was made in regards to the context in which such ads were processed. Considering the active debate about climate change within the news as well as on social media, people are now constantly exposed to environmental images, before they might process (greenwashed) advertisement. However, it is yet unexplored how this affects consumers within their perception towards these advertisements. Thus, this study aimed for an approximation of these real-life effects by exposing participants to preceding primes in form of either sustainable or financial images. Results show that participants in the sustainable ad condition perceived more greenwashing and thus had a more negative attitude towards the brand than participants in the price-focused condition. Additionally, the higher the level of peoples’ concerns about the environment, the higher their greenwashing
perceptions. This study therefore poses important insights into consumers advertisement perception.
Keywords: Greenwashing, Fast fashion, Perceived greenwashing, Context priming, Environmental concern
Introduction
Today, the debate about climate change determines the media agenda to a large extent as concerns about the environment have become more ubiquitous within the past years (Parguel, Benoît-Moreau, & Russell, 2015). People want action to be taken against climate change, however, there are many factors influencing the change in climate on earth. One of the biggest contributors to the current crisis is the fast fashion industry, whose excessive and fast production of clothing leads to a deterioration of the climate crises (Bick, Halsey, & Ekenga, 2018).
As people have become more attentive towards their ecological footprint and try to counteract the proceeding climate change, products labeled as ‘sustainable’ or ‘eco-friendly’ gained popularity (Schmuck, Matthes, & Naderer, 2018). This has also been observed by the fashion brand H&M, who introduced a more sustainable line to the market, called
‘conscious’. Nevertheless, it is questionable to what degree those sustainability claims meet the necessary requirements, and to what degree this is recognized within their advertisement by consumers (Brain, 2019). However, H&M is still able to hold a big market share and is considered the second most popular clothing label to buy from (Brain, 2019; Pawlik, 2019).
In the past, research has been done on the influence of advertisement on changing attitudes and people’s intention to purchase. Albeit, the rise of environmental matters within the social as well as personal agenda of consumers, gives reason to reevaluate those effects (Schuhwerk & Lefkoff-Hagius, 1995; Schmuck, et. al., 2018; Parguel et. al., 2015).
attempts. Previous work has shown that consumers who are highly concerned about the environment are less sensitive towards green ads, compared to price-focused ones
(Schuhwerk & Lefkoff-Hagius, 1995). However, it is unclear how this effect transfers to a real brand such as H&M, which costumers are familiar with. Additionally, from other fields for instance, we know that the context in which an ad is processed influences the
interpretation of the ad (Yi, 1990) and thus contributes to the evaluation of the brand as well as determines the purchase intention of the advertised product (Schmitt, 1994). Within the current climate debate, people are now more exposed to environmental topics in forms of news or images. Thus, it is yet unexplored to what degree these impulses can also support consumers in identifying greenwashing claims within ads or how they influence the
perception of the ad itself. The current study explores the effect of green versus price-focused advertising of the fast fashion brand H&M, under consideration of perceived greenwashing and the individual concern of the environment. Further, the context in which the
advertisement is presented will be investigated leading up to the following research question: RQ1: To what extent does sustainable advertisement from H&M compared to price-focused advertisement influence consumers’ brand attitude as well as purchase intention, and to what degree does perceived greenwashing explain this relationship? Are these effects dependent on the individual’s concern for the environment and the context of the ad?
Theoretical Background
With an increase in consumers’ concern of social and environmental issues, the
demand for more sustainable products has been recognized by many firms also within the fast fashion sector. Companies try to adapt to those changes by making their products more environmentally friendly and what is more, using these changes to advertise their products to
appeal to their customers (Parguel et. al., 2015 ; Bick et. al., 2018). This form of marketing is known as green marketing. Green marketing can be defined as “any ad that meets one or more of the following criteria: (1) explicitly or implicitly [addressing] the relationship between a product/service and the biophysical environment, (2) [promoting] a green lifestyle with or without highlighting a product/service, and (3) [presenting] a corporate image of
environmental responsibility” (Banerjee, Gulas, & Iyer, 1995, p. 22). The goal of this strategy is to be perceived as environmentally friendly by customers which is ultimately supposed to lead to higher purchase intentions as well as a more positive brand attitude (Nyilasy,
Gangadharbatla, & Paladino, 2012). According to previous research, customers are more easily persuaded to buy a product when it is advertised as green as opposed to non-green (Schuhwerk & Lefkoff-Hagius, 1995; Nyilasy et. al., 2012; Schmuck et. al., 2018). Schmuck and colleagues (2018), explain those findings by referring to positive affective responses, more so evoked by green advertisement, which ultimately lead to a more favorable brand attitude. However, studies by Schuhwerk and Lefkoff-Hagius (1995) as well as Schmuck and colleagues (2018), made use of made up brands in their experiments, which raises the
question of whether these findings are possibly replicable for a real and especially well-known brand such as H&M. The incorporation of an existing brand offers the opportunity of higher external validity, because results are better translatable to the real world. The product used in the study by Schuhwerk and Lefkoff-Hagius’ (1995) for instance, was a laundry detergent from a made-up brand, once advertised emphasizing the environmental profits, once emphasizing price-focused aspects. Even though participants in the aforementioned study might not have been biased through pre-existing attitudes towards the brand, the present study is expected to have a higher ecological validity, due to the use of a real brand. Additionally, the year in which the study by Schuhwerk and Lefkoff-Hagius’ (1995) was conducted needs to be taken into account, in which environmental attitudes in the population were markedly
different than now, so that it is uncertain whether these findings still hold true. Thus, the first hypothesis for this study is as follows:
H1: Exposure to sustainable advertising from H&M, compared to price-focused advertising from H&M leads to higher purchase intentions and a more positive brand attitude.
Fast Fashion and Greenwashing
However, not all companies participating in green advertising promote sustainable products. As the wish for more sustainable clothes rises, brands from the fast fashion branch such as H&M try to adapt to those changes by incorporating ‘conscious fashion lines’. Their products are advertised as more sustainable, due to parts of recycled cotton within their clothing items („H&M group | Sustainability“, 2018). The term fast fashion “is used to describe the readily available, inexpensively made fashion of today” (Bick et al., 2018, p. 1). Fashion companies that are covered by the term fast fashion include H&M, Zara and Primark, among others. Their goal is to take the latest expensive high fashion designs and make them affordable for everyone as quickly as possible (Bick et al., 2018). According to recent research, people now buy 60 percent more fashion items than 15 years ago (Amed et. al., 2019). Moreover, on average, new items are being worn four times or less before they are tossed away, resulting in 15,1 tonnes of fabric being thrown away annually (Confino, 2016). In the US, 85 percent of all textile waste ends up in landfills, in the ocean or incinerators (Schlossberg, 2019). This can be considered a serious threat to the environment, because these items contain on average 60 percent of synthetic microfibres, which are not degradable
(Schlossberg, 2019). Furthermore, in order to keep the production chain as cheap as possible, the manufacturing is being outsourced to several third world countries, which include long paths of transportation for the products and thus tonnes of CO2 emissions (Vidal, 2008).
Accordingly, in order to maintain their low prices, it seems impossible for big
corporations such as the H&M Group to adapt to a realistic sustainable production chain. This paradox was also highlighted by the Norwegian consumer authority who called out H&M for greenwashing and misleading consumers, which brought extensive criticism to the brand (Brain, 2019).
Greenwashing can be defined as “intentionally misleading or deceiving consumers with false claims about a firm’s environmental practices and impact” (Nyilasy et. al., 2012, p. 693). Especially H&M’s advertisement claims that their products are produced in a
sustainable manner lack substantive information and are presented in a vague and
incomprehensible way. This lets the production chains potentially sound better to customers than they actually are (Schmuck et.al., 2018). Due to the complexity of the topic of
sustainability, and the implementation of marketing done by retailers such as H&M, it is confusing for customers to first understand what is and what is not sustainable and second to be able to detect forms of greenwashing (Chen & Chang, 2013). According to a study by Schmuck and others (2018) perceived greenwashing “refers to consumers’ ability to unmask greenwashing intentions in ads” (p. 129). As shown by previous research, when forms of greenwashing are detected, consumers attitudes towards that brand become more negative and their intention to purchase products from that brand decreases (Chen & Chang, 2013).
Schmuck and colleagues (2018) re-confirm these results in a study, in which they investigate the effect of false and vague greenwashing claims in advertisements on attitude towards the ad and brand, mediated by perceived greenwashing. In their study they conduct two
experiments with the use of different stimuli and different target groups. In the first
experiment American students were exposed to a stimulus showing a fictious water brand, which was manipulated so that in total five print advertisement were created. The
image of nature. For the second experiment Schmuck and colleagues (2018) expose German students to a real coffee and a detergent brand, not being sold in Germany. Thus, they expect that participants would be unaware of the brands. For both studies, results indicate that false claims lead to high perceptions of greenwashing and thus more negative attitudes towards the brand and the ad.
Once again, the study showed fake, or at least unknown brands to the participants. This present study will investigate how participants evaluate greenwashed advertisement indicated by a brand they are familiar with and have known before. Furthermore, only greenwashing has been tested using advertisements, promoting the green aspect of a product, rather than comparing green ads with price-focused ones. Thus, the question arises whether and when customers recognize greenwashing practices by companies such as H&M and how the (lack of) awareness impacts their purchase behaviors and attitudes. Therefore, the
hypothesis is as follows:
H2: Environmental advertisement from H&M has a more negative effect on purchase intention as well as brand attitude compared to the price-focused advertisement, when perceived greenwashing mediates the effect.
Concern about the Environment
The degree to which consumers are persuaded by green advertisement and are able to detect greenwashing claims within advertisements is strongly related to their individual concern about the environment (Schmuck et.al., 2018; Schuhwerk & Lefkoff-Hagius, 1995). Environmental concern (EC) can be defined “as consumers who are highly concerned about the environment, have exceptional awareness of environmental problems, and perceive the necessity of protecting the environment” (Schmuck et al., 2018, p. 131).
impact of consumers’ concern for the environment, of green versus price-focused
advertisement on consumers purchase intentions and attitude towards the ad. Results showed that the green appeal led to higher purchase intention than the price-focused appeal, especially for those less concerned about the environment. This can be explained by the fact that
consumers who are less concerned, are more likely to be influenced by attention getting cues, which means that the environmental cues in the advertising become salient evaluative criteria and are thus more persuasive (Schuhwerk & Lefkoff-Hagius, 1995). This explanatory
approach used by Schuhwerk and Lefkoff-Hagius (1995), follows in part the Elaboration Likelihood Model developed by Petty and Cacioppo (1986). This dual process theory suggests two major routes of processing. The central route requires greater cognition of a presented stimulus and is active when people are interested in the presented stimulus, whereas through the peripheral route people do not examine the information as thoroughly.
Accordingly, people who are less concerned about the topic are more likely to be guided by peripheral cues and thus less likely to counterargue with the green appeal of the sustainable advertisement. The study by Schuhwerk and Lefkoff-Hagius (1995) has interesting
implications, given the recent increase in awareness for climate related issues. More people may now qualify as generally concerned about the environment, without the topic being on top of their personal agenda all the time.
Schmuck and colleagues (2018) based their model in parts on the results found by Schuhwerk and Lefkoff-Hagius (1995), and expanded the model by including perceived greenwashing as mediator. Furthermore, they added, next to environmental concern, environmental knowledge. Their findings showed that especially consumers with a high knowledge on the matter are more likely to detect greenwashing within ads, due to the fact that those consumers pay more attention to ads emphasizing sustainable aspects of the product. On the contrary, lowly concerned consumers and those with less knowledge are
distracted by attention getting cues of the green appeals. Furthermore, highly concerned consumers are more likely to punish brands practicing greenwashing, thus resulting in a decrease of purchase intention as well as a more negative brand attitude (Johar, 1995; Schmuck et al., 2018). It can be expected that even though this present study uses a real and popular brand, highly concerned participants, are still more likely to detect the discrepancy between the cheap prices of a fast fashion brand and the green claim. In line with previous findings, those less concerned are expected to be more easily satisfiable by hinting at the sustainability of the product alone, due to their peripheral processing of the ad. Therefore, the third hypothesis is bipartite and as follows:
H3a: Sustainable advertising compared to price-focused advertising from H&M leads to higher purchase intentions and a more positive brand attitude, but this effect is stronger for people who are less concerned about the environment compared to highly concerned people.
H3b: The relationship between ad-type and perceived greenwashing will be moderated by the concern about the environment so that people more highly concerned, are more likely to detect greenwashing claims from H&M’s advertisements.
Context Priming
So far, responses to greenwashed compared to price-focused ads have mostly been studied using experimentally manipulated single exposures. However, in real life, exposure occurs within diverse contexts and through different channels, which can impact the ways in which advertisements are perceived. Schmitt (1994) was one of the first to research the influence of visual context primes in connection to advertisements. Context primes “also
known as environmental cueing, has been defined in communications as manipulation or activation of knowledge using marketing cues that precede or surround a target
advertisement” (Minton, Cornwell, & Kahle, 2017, p. 314). More specifically, primes activate related information, which is then more accessible to retrieve and which is consecutively determining the interpretation of the presented stimulus (Schmitt, 1994; Yi, 1990). As shown within the recently presented study by Schmuck and colleagues (2018), an environmental image surrounding a sustainable advertisement enhances the effect of sustainable
advertisement on brand attitude, so that the brand is perceived as even more positive. Additionally, the images of nature in combination with the ad further reduced possible greenwashing perceptions and therefore leads to a more favorable attitude towards the ad and thus the brand.
However, Schmuck and colleagues (2018) only used one nature evoking image within which the ad was embedded, whereas the study at hand will focus on a preceding visual prime, containing several images either emphasizing sustainability (e.g. downside of fast fashion) opposed to emphasizing financial aspects (e.g. saving money).
The context in which a stimulus is processed is especially relevant when the content of the stimulus is ambiguous, this means when it has several attributes. Schmitt (1994) gave the example of a large advertised car, which can be evaluated as comfortable or as polluting. In his study, Schmitt (1994) exposed participants either to a negatively or positively connoted image before presenting a computer advertisement. Results showed that participants exposed to the negative image beforehand also indicated a more negative attitude towards the later presented stimulus, than participants exposed to a positive image. Transferred to the present study, an H&M advertisement, emphasizing the sustainability of a fast fashion product can be positively evaluated by consumers, leaving the impression that H&M is helping the
consumers. According to previous studies by Aji and Sutikno (2015) skepticism towards a product or brand further increases the perception of greenwashing, so that people are more likely to then perceive greenwashing from the ad.
Due to the continuous high media coverage on climate change, consumers are exposed to real-life primes such as images emphasizing sustainability, possibly right before being exposed to a greenwashed advertisement. The question occurs, how this effects consumers perception of the ad in regard to their greenwashing perceptions. Thus, this study will approximate this schema, by inserting either sustainably emphasized or financially
emphasized images within an Instagram feed, to test whether the context evokes a change in perception, so that people perceive more or less greenwashing within the ad. For example, consumers who are exposed to sustainable images, such as the negative impacts of fast fashion production and waste production, before presented with a H&M conscious line advertisement, could possibly be reinforced or triggered within their skepticism towards a sustainable fast fashion product. On the contrary, an advertisement emphasizing the price-focused aspect within the same context will less likely evoke this skepticism. A change in context to financially focused images for a sustainable advertisement could also reinforce skepticism due to the discrepancy between the price and the sustainability claim. Research has shown that sustainable products are often connected to an expensive price (Campbell,
Khachatryan, Behe, Dennis, & Hall, 2015). The exposure to a normal ad within the same context, however is less likely to increase perceptions of greenwashing. Thus, the last hypothesis is as follows:
H4: The relationship between ad-type and perceived greenwashing will be moderated by the type of prime so that the difference between price-focused and sustainable advertising will be smaller when exposure occurs after seeing a financial compared to a sustainable prime.
In sum, the present study will reinvestigate the advantage of sustainable advertisement over price-focused advertisement, as found in previous studies, which has been especially distinctive for people less concerned about the environment. Further, the effect of perceived greenwashing as mediator of this relationship will be investigated, whereas previous research implies an additional influence of consumers concern on the perception of greenwashing practices. However, a novel feature of the present study, is the manipulation of the context in which people perceive H&M’s advertisements.
In times in which environmental issues have moved to the front of the agenda, peoples’ concern has become more explicit, which makes a new examination of previously found results necessary. People nowadays might be generally more concerned about the environment, compared to participants of previous studies. Additionally, Schuhwerk and Lefkoff-Hagius (1995), as well as Schmuck and colleagues (2018), only used a product, which was advertised as sustainable in both conditions, whereas the study at hand comprises a sustainable as well as only price-focused condition, which allows for additional inferences. Furthermore, the exposure of H&M’s greenwashing practices gives further cause to expand on underlying mechanisms to be able to better understand consumer choices. Taking into account the ubiquity of the topic of climate change within diverse channels, people are exposed to, gives further reason to investigate possible effects. This exploratory research is one of the first attempting to model the social debate about climate change within a smaller scale experiment. Moreover, it investigates how a preceding context priming influences perceptions of greenwashing within advertisements. The aim is to assess to what degree the moderating effects of the context influences greenwashing perceptions within advertisements and whether the positive effects of a green ad being perceived as positive can be outbalanced.
Figure 1
Conceptual model
Method
The study was conducted as a cross-sectional online experiment, created and conducted on the online platform Qualtrics (https://www.qualtrics.com). Participants were recruited through the use of an online survey link, distributed through social media sites (Facebook, Instagram), via direct messaging as well as the research platform ‘SurveyCircle’ (https://www.surveycircle.com), over a period of two weeks, from the 7th until the 21st of December 2019. Thus, the sampling method for the study was a non-probability convenience sample. The study was only available in English.
Pilot Test
A pilot test was conducted before launching the study, to test whether the
questionnaire was understandable and the experimental conditions were perceived as they were intended to. For this purpose, similar to the actual sample of the study a convenience sample of three people was asked to complete the online experiment in the presence of the
researcher, so that occurring questions could be answered and clarified immediately. Participants gave their feedback and the study was launched.
Procedure
To begin, participants received information about the study, followed by an informed consent which had to be accepted in order to proceed. Afterwards, participants reported demographics and previous Instagram use before being randomly assigned to one of the experimental conditions (2 ads: sustainable vs. price-focused) x (2 primes: sustainable vs. financial) explained in more detail below. Next, participants answered questions concerning their brand attitude as well as purchase intentions concerning H&M. Participants were then asked whether they remembered seeing an H&M ad within the Instagram feed. Regardless of their answer, they were shown the ad once again. Only afterwards they were questioned concerning their perceived greenwashing of H&M. Ideally, the mediator would precede the outcome variables, however, this way the outcome measures were not influenced by
greenwashing questions. Furthermore, due to the cross-sectional character of query for the dependent and mediator variable, claims of causal effects cannot be made either way. Then, participants were questioned about their previous purchase experience with H&M and lastly, the manipulation check questions were asked concerning the ad as well as the prime, in order to avoid biased results, of the dependent and mediator variables. At the end, all participants were thanked for their participation and received a debriefing message.
Respondents
In total 294 participants completed the study. However, after excluding all participants, who did not finish the survey, a number of N = 174 participants were left for further analyses. The majority (73%) of all remaining participants were female, the rest (27%) indicated to be male and no participant indicated not to be of either gender. Eligible participants were 18 years or older and ranged from 19 to 74 years, which resulted in a mean age of M = 30.96 (SD =
12.55). The majority were Germans (66.1%), 7.5 percent were from the UK, 11 participants (6.3 %) were Americans and another 3.4 percent were Italians. The rest (16.7%) were citizens spread over 12 additional countries. An overview of the demographics can be found in
Appendix A.
Measurements
Experimental Conditions
Participants were randomly exposed to one of four experimental condition, resulting from a 2 (sustainable vs. price-focused advertisement) x 2 (sustainable vs. financial prime) full-factorial design. In each condition, participants were exposed to a short video, showing a computer screen while someone scrolled through a manipulated Instagram feed. Participants were not allowed to move on to the next survey page until the full video had been played. A link to the experimental conditions can be found in Appendix B.
Advertising
The independent variable of this study was an H&M ad which was manipulated to either present standard, price-focused aspects of the product or emphasize the sustainable nature of the product. In order to tightly control all other aspects of the conditions, only the H&M logo was adjusted, showing the standard red company logo in the price condition and the green logo of the H&M conscious line in the sustainable condition. For the sustainable condition the sustainability of the product was further emphasized by adding a disclaimer, also used by H&M. The ads were created for the purpose of this study, however tightly oriented along the lines of H&M’s actual advertisements in order to further increase the ecological validity of the study. Within each experimental condition, participants were exposed to stimuli showing models that matched their self-reported gender in order to increase ad relevance and ecological validity.
Figure 2
Advertisement stimulus
Moderator variables Prime
To prime participants with an either sustainable or price-focused mindset, the
advertisements for the main manipulation were embedded within real Instagram feeds which consisted of 10 posts. In each feed, five posts were exchanged to include posts emphasizing
specific topics, whereas the remaining five images were kept neutral. Pictures used within the feed in the sustainable condition underlined environmental aspects of the fashion industry or climate change. For the financial condition the images emphasized financial aspects, such as the importance of saving money. The use of an Instagram feed first allowed to model the real-life debate in a realistic manner and thus controlling for the ecological validity of the
stimulus.
Concern about the Environment
The moderator variable ‘concern about the environment’ was measured on a 7-point Likert scale with four items (e.g. “I am concerned about the environment”), ranging from 1=completely disagree to 7=completely agree. The scale was adapted from Schuhwerk and Lefkoff-Hagius (1995).
Mediator
Perceived Greenwashing
Perceived greenwashing was assessed using a 7-point Likert scale ranging from 1=completely disagree to 7=completely agree, adapted from Chen and Chang (2013) and Schmuck and others (2018). Participants were asked to indicate to what degree they agreed or disagreed with four statements (e.g. “The H&M ad misleads consumers, regarding the
product’s environmental features”). Contrary to the original five-item scale, this study adapted only four items, because the fifth item was not relevant for this study context.
Dependent variables Purchase Intentions
Consumers intention to purchase items from H&M was measured on a 7-point Likert scale with three items anchored by unlikely/likely, impossible/possible, and
Brand Attitude
Brand attitude was assessed, following Schmuck and others (2018), being measured on a 7-point Likert scale with five items, anchored by bad/good, unattractive/attractive, negative/positive, not likable/likable, not recommendable/recommendable.
Manipulation checks
First, in order to check, whether the manipulation worked and participants perceived the two ads as different from another, they were asked to indicate on 7-point scale to what degree the ad was concerned about the sustainability or the price of the product (e.g. “Thinking about the H&M advertisement within the feed. To what degree was the ad
concerned about the sustainability of the product?”; “Thinking about the H&M advertisement within the feed. To what degree was the ad concerned about the price of the product?”).
After participants were questioned about their brand attitude as well as purchase intention, they were asked, whether they remembered seeing an ad within the Instagram feed (e.g. “Yes/ No/ I don’t remember”). As stated before, regardless of the answer, they were shown the ad once more, thus this question rather served as attention check concerning the experimental conditions. This question was put after the dependent variables, in order to avoid biased results for these questions.
To test the extent to which the prime was consciously perceived and remembered by participants, they were asked to indicate what type of person the feed they saw belonged to. Participants were given six different answer options, (e.g. “Concerned about saving money, Interested in travelling, Business magazine reader, Concerned about waste production, Concerned about ones impact on the environment, Interested in Greenpeace”), while three were connected to either prime condition. The goal was to control, whether people perceived the two primes as different from another and thus assign different characteristics to the
fictitious person the feed belongs to. Additionally, participants were asked on a 7-point scale, to what degree they believed the Instagram feed they saw was real or made up.
Control Variables
For the purpose of the analysis the questionnaire also included variables which were not directly related to the conceptual model, however were included to control for additional explanation of possible results. Participants were questioned about their user behaviour
regarding the app Instagram. First, they were asked (e.g. “Yes/No”) whether they used the app at all. Next, two questions were aimed at the intensity to which the app was used actively (e.g. “How often do you share content on Instagram (story or post)?”) as well as passively (e.g. “How often do you check Instagram (passively looking)?”). The scales were created, following an example by Fardouly and colleagues (2015) and were measured on a 6-point scale. Due to the fact that an Instagram feed was used to embed the prime, to strengthen external validity, there might have been a difference in participants attention towards the images. These could have possibly been evoked through familiarity or unfamiliarity of an Instagram layout, which could ultimately influence the effect of the prime itself.
Additionally, participants were questioned about their previous purchase experience with H&M, asking them to indicate the frequency of purchasing from that brand in the past (e.g. “Please indicate below your previous purchase experience with H&M.”) on a 5-point scale. This was done, to control for participants who might never buy from H&M in the first place, or for those who buy a lot there.
A list of all adapted scales as well as the full questionnaire can be viewed in Appendix C and D.
Scale Reliability
The scales from the main variables for this study were adapted from previous research. The validity of all existing measures has been confirmed in previous work and all scales used
are known to be single-factor scales. Thus, no additional factor analyses were performed. However, the reliability of the scale in the current sample was assessed using Cronbach’s alpha. A scale was considered as reliable, when it at least reached the threshold of a
Cronbach’s alpha of 0.70, which was met by every scale. Further, in line with the procedure of previous studies, the items of each scale were averaged, resulting in one scale for each variable. All results can be seen in table 1.
Table 1
Overview of Reliability Analyses
Variable Type Mean SD Cronbach’s
Alpha
Environmental Concern IV 5.76 1.16 0.82
Purchase Intention DV 4.08 0.96 0.95
Brand Attitude DV 4.00 1.79 0.93
Perceived Greenwashing Mediator 4.33 1.57 0.84
Note. N = 174. IV = Independent Variable. DV = Dependent Variable
Randomization Check
In order to test whether randomization to experimental conditions was successful, a randomization check was conducted for the variables age, gender, country of residence as well as for the control variables. The experimental condition was treated as a factor with four levels for this analysis. The performed analysis was dependent on the level of measurement of the variable, so that a Chi-square analysis was performed for categorical variables and an ANOVA for continuous variables. Due to the large range, age was grouped into three
different categories and was evenly distributed over all conditions, X2(6, N = 174) = 8.55, p = .201. Furthermore, the gender of the participants was also randomly distributed over
conditions, X2(3, N = 174) = 0.87, p = .832. The countries of citizenship were combined so that the four most prominent groups became categories on their own, whereas the remaining
12 countries formed a fifth category. The analysis revealed that randomization can be assumed, X2(15, N = 174) = 13.24, p = .583. For the control variable, measuring whether participants generally used Instagram, the analysis revealed, that there was no correlation between the usage of Instagram and the conditions, X2(3, N = 174) = 3.44, p = .329, and thus randomization can be assumed. The passive usage of Instagram was evenly distributed across participants, F(3, 170) = 1.84, p = .141, η2 = .03, as well as the active usage, F(3, 170) = 2.16, p = .094, η2 = .04. Lastly, randomization concerning participants previous purchase behaviour regarding H&M can also be assumed, F(3, 170) = 0.80, p = .495, η2 = .01. To conclude, results for all tested variables showed no systematic differences across the experimental conditions, which means they do not have to be included in further analyses. Manipulation check
Manipulation checks were conducted to test, whether the two ad conditions as well as the prime conditions were perceived as different from another. Once again, the analysis was dependent on the level of measurement of the variable, so that a Chi-square analysis was performed for categorical variables and an ANOVA for continuous variables. Ad condition as well as prime condition were each treated as a factor with two conditions. First, manipulation was tested for the perception of the ad as sustainable or price-focused. Results showed that there was a significant difference between the two groups concerning participants’ perception of the sustainability of the ad, with a small effect, F(1, 172) = 50.31, p < .001, η2 = .02. Participants in the sustainable ad condition perceived the ad as more concerned with the environmental aspect of product (M = 3.83, SE = 1.74), compared to the ones in the price-focused condition (M = 2.08, SE = 1.50). Similar results were found for the perception
concerning the financial aspect of the ad, F(1, 172) = 23.23, p < .001, η2 = .12. Participants in the price-focused condition also perceived the product more price focused (M = 5.80, SE =
1.50), than those in the sustainable condition (M = 4.61, SE = 1.73). Thus, participants correctly perceived the two conditions as different from each other.
Next, it was tested whether participants in both prime conditions, perceived the Instagram feed to be real. Results revealed, that there was no significant difference between the two groups, with a small effect, F(1, 172) = 0.36, p = .548, η2 = .00. Participants in the sustainable prime group (M = 4.31, SD = 1.91) as well as the financial group (M = 4.14; SD = 1.89) equally perceived the feed to be real, which strengthens the internal validity of the study. Additionally, it can be acknowledged that both conditions perceived the feed as more real than fake with a mean above four on a 7-point Likert scale, which in turn supports the external validity.
To test whether participants were able to recall the type of prime they were exposed to the characteristics established for each prime were combined into two separate variables: financial and environmental. However, only one item established for the financial prime (e.g. “Concerned about saving money”), turned out to be a valid indicator for the financial prime. This item was the least specific in regard to the presented prime, so that in order to keep up comparability, only the least specific item from the sustainable characteristics was used (“ Concerned about ones impact on the environment”). Both analyses, for the financial
characteristic X2(1, N = 174) = 72.08, p < .001 as well as the sustainable characteristic, X2(1, N = 174) = 77.65, p < .001, revealed a positive association. Thus, participants correctly assigned the characteristics to the suitable feed.
After the exposure of the stimulus, participants were asked whether they recalled seeing an H&M ad within the Instagram feed. Most of them (86.8%) indicated to have seen the ad, whereas eight percent did not remember seeing an ad. Only nine participants (5.2%) indicated they have not seen an ad. However, participants were exposed to the ads once again before being questioned further, thus people who did not remember seeing an ad, were not
excluded. Nevertheless, it was tested whether results were similar with and without these participants and no changes were measured, thus participants were kept.
Plan of Analysis
In order to test the hypotheses within the present study, three types of analyses were conducted, via PROCESS SPSS macro (Model 1,4,7; 1000 Bootstraps; Hayes, 2018). Model number 1 was used for a moderation analysis to test the interaction effect of concern for the environment on the relationship between advertising on the dependent variables purchase intention and brand attitude. The mediation analysis as well as the direct effect was analysed with model number 4 and included perceived greenwashing as mediator. Model number 7 was used for the moderated mediation analyses. For the purpose of all analyses, the stimulus price-focused advertising was coded as 1 and sustainable advertising coded as 0.
Results
H1 and H2: First, the mediation analysis was conducted, with brand attitude as the dependent variable and perceived greenwashing as mediator. The direct effect of advertising on brand attitude did not reveal a significant result, (b = -0.10, SE = 0.21, p = .629, 95% CI [-0.53, 0.32]). However, the indirect effect of advertising on brand attitude, mediated by perceived greenwashing revealed a significant result, (b = 0.23, SE = 0.11, 95% CI [0.04, 0.46]). The A-path analysis (b = -1.30, SE = .22, p < .001, 95% CI [-1.730, -0.87]) as well as the B-path analysis (b = -0.18, SE = 0.07, p = .011, 95% CI [-0.31, -0.04]), were significant. Accordingly, participants who were exposed to the sustainable ad perceived more
greenwashing, compared to those in the price-focused ad group, which then led to a more negative brand attitude as a result.
Further, there was no significant direct effect of advertising on participants intentions to purchase, (b = -0.13, SE = 0.30, p = .671, 95% CI [-0.71, 0.46]). The indirect effect of ad on purchase intention, mediated by perceived greenwashing also did not reveal a significant
result, (b = 0.24, SE = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.05, 0.57]). Even though it was already confirmed that the A-path analysis was significant, the B-path analysis was not significant (b = -0.18, SE = 0.09, p = .053, 95% CI [-0.37, 0.00]). Therefore, H1 has to be rejected. H2 can only partially be confirmed.
Figure 3
Mediation analysis for the effect of the Advertisement on Brand Attitude, mediated by Perceived Greenwashing
Note: *** p < .001, ** p = .011
H3a: Furthermore, it was analyzed whether concern of the environment moderates the relationship between the stimuli and the mediator perceived greenwashing, and whether this influences purchase intentions as well as brand attitude. Results for the dependent variable brand attitude revealed that there was no significant moderated mediation effect (b = 0.05, SE = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.02, 0.16]). The mediation effect remained significant for all levels of the moderator variable, though these effects did not differ significantly. The A-path analysis, however, showed a significant positive effect of concern for the environment on perceived greenwashing, (b = 0.43, SE = 0.11, p < .001, 95% CI [0.22, 0.65]). Thus, the more concerned participants are with the environment the more they perceive greenwashing. The moderated mediation effect on the dependent variable purchase intention also did not reveal a significant effect, (b = 0.05, SE = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.04, 0.18]). Therefore, H3a has to be rejected.
H3b: The moderation analysis with concern for the environment as moderator did not show a significant interaction effect on the relationship between ad on brand attitude, (b = -0.09, SE = 0.19, p = .651, 95% CI [-0.46, 0.29]). Furthermore, no significant interaction effect was found for the dependent variable purchase intention, (b = 0.08, SE = 0.26, p = .774, 95% CI [-0.44, 0.59]). Therefore, H3b has to be rejected.
H4: Lastly, a moderated mediation analysis with prime as moderator variable was conducted. The environmental prime was coded as 1 and the financial prime as 0. The analysis for the dependent variable brand attitude revealed no significant moderated mediation effect, (b = 0.09, SE = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.07, 0.27]). Results for the moderated mediation on purchase intention further did not reveal significant results, (b = 0.09, SE = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.08, 0.36]). Once again, the mediation effect remains significant for the sustainable as well as financial prime, though these effects did not differ significantly, therefore, H4 has to be rejected.
Discussion
This online experiment tested to what degree sustainable as well as price-focused advertisements from H&M influence consumers’ brand attitude and purchase intentions. Additionally, the study examined whether perceived greenwashing further explains this relationship and if this effect is different for consumers with higher or lower levels of
concern. Further, it was examined to what degree concern for the environment influences the relationship, between advertisement and brand attitude, as well as purchase intention.
Contributions were made in regard to the context in which those advertisements were shown. Participants were either primed with preceding images in form of an Instagram feed, showing sustainable or financially focused images. Results showed that participants in the sustainable advertisement condition perceived more greenwashing from the ad and in turn had a more negative brand attitude, compared to those in the price-focus group. Furthermore, the findings
revealed that people with higher concern for the environment perceived more greenwashing than people with less concern. However, there was no difference between participants with higher or lower levels of concern regarding their evaluation of the brand and their purchase intentions after seeing the sustainable or price-focused advertisement. Furthermore,
participants concern did not influence their greenwashing perceptions from the ad. Additionally, the context in which the ad was processed did not determine greenwashing perception within the advertisements.
Theoretical Implications
Findings, that sustainable advertisements were more persuasive compared to price-focused advertisements, in evoking a more positive brand attitude as well as higher purchase intentions, stand in contrast to found results within the present study (Schuhwerk & Lefkoff-Hagius, 1995; Nyilasy et.al., 2012). This could be grounded upon the fact that studies
reporting those findings used experimental research in which the advertising brand was made up, so that people did not have pre-existing attitudes or knowledge of the brand, which influences consumers’ evaluation of the ad (Sheinin & Biehal, 1999). Participants’ pre-existing attitudes towards H&M could have prevented a single exposure to an advertisement to be effective in evoking a different brand attitude or purchase intention.
Nevertheless, participants did perceive greenwashing within H&M’s sustainable advertisement, which in turn led to a more negative brand attitude. Schmuck and colleagues (2018) found that especially false claims enhanced greenwashing perceptions. However, H&M was especially accused of vague greenwashing claims by the Norwegian consumer authority. Accordingly, people must perceive a strong conflict between the brand as well as their claim to be sustainable. Contrary to previous studies by Schmuck and colleagues (2018) as well as Johar (1995), describing that highly concerned people are more likely to detect
greenwashing within ads, results indicated, that highly concerned people perceive more greenwashing regardless of the ad they are exposed to. This further emphasizes the inference that regardless of the advertisement participants have had prior opinion about the brand not being as environmentally friendly as it pretends.
Furthermore, the study by Schuhwerk and Lefkoff-Hagius (1995) suggested that less concerned people are more susceptible towards green ads, which ultimately resulted in a more positive brand attitude. However, within the present study these findings were not supported. These results might be due to a general high concern about the environment, found within the sample of the study. Possibly, the difference found by previous studies, has been balanced out by a general higher concern for the environment. Hence, there might be no lowly concerned people within the present study, who are purely persuaded by attention getting cues in sustainable ads. Furthermore, in line with the ELM, clothing, as a high involvement product (Radder & Huang, 2008), might be processed generally more centrally. In contrast to this, Schuhwerk and Lefkoff-Hagius (1995) and Schmuck and colleagues (2018) both used low involvement products, such as a detergent and water within their studies, which are thus processed more periphally.
A novel feature of the study included the context, in which the ad was presented. The ads were embedded in an Instagram feed filled with images, either containing sustainable primes or financial ones. Results found by Schmitt (1994) and Yi (1990), stating that the context in which an ad is perceived influences the perception of the subsequent advertisement, were not supported by the present study. However, the aim, to outbalance the advantage of the
sustainable ad over the price-focused ad, by bringing the topic of sustainability on top of mind, and thus increase perceptions of greenwashing, did not appear to be necessary. Within
this study no advantage was found for the sustainable ad in comparison to the price-focused ad for the brand H&M. It can be expected that participants had pre-existing opinions towards H&M, regardless of the prime they were exposed to.
Practical Implications
The study at hand offers important implications for the practical field, especially considering the use of a real brand. Evidently, people have become more attentive towards greenwashed claims from fast fashion companies, which in turn influenced their attitude towards the brand. Thus, there need to be stronger regulations concerning greenwashing practices of brands. Moreover, brands need to be more forward with their actual impact on the environment. The European commission (2019) has addressed this issue, however there are no clear guidelines concerning this topic so far. As seen within this study, the exposure to greenwashing does effect consumers in their opinion towards the brand and is thus a first indicator to help to proceed against greenwashing procedures.
Furthermore, considering the brand H&M, it is recommendable, for brands
participating in greenwashing, to convert to a real sustainable production chain and especially to not lie to their customers about their practices. According to research by Chen and Chang (2013), greenwashing is directly related to green trust, which means that by participating in greenwashing practices, brands risk to lose their costumers’ trust, when greenwashing claims are detected. Moreover, this could firstly lead to customers wanting to punish the brand and secondly, ultimately affects brand reputation and sales (Chen & Chang, 2013).
Previous research indicated, that less concerned consumers are more susceptible towards sustainable advertisement, whereas highly concerned consumers are more likely to detect greenwashing claims within advertisements (Schuhwerk & Lefkoff-Hagius,1995; Schmuck et. al., 2018). The study at hand made an attempt to model the ongoing social debate about climate change within a smaller framework, under consideration of previous findings.
Even though the context primes integrated within the present study did not yield the expected outcomes, a change within the set-up of the study, for example by using a non-existent brand, might give further insight into the effectiveness of a specific context on consumer
advertisement perceptions.
Limitations and Future Research
As all scientific research, the present study entails several limitations. First of all, even though the use of a real brand such as H&M increases the ecological validity of the study, it further includes the disadvantage of participants having pre-exiting attitudes as well as knowledge about the brand. This can ultimately influence the results of study and thus, the generalizability (Sheinin & Biehal, 1999). Therefore, future studies should on the one hand consider evaluating this research by including more variables, controlling for pre-existing knowledge as well as attitudes. On the other hand, it is advisable to conduct a similar study using a made-up brand, in order to test, whether results found within this study are due to pre-existing attitudes towards H&M.
Secondly, participants were further exposed to a video leaving the impression of someone scrolling through an Instagram feed. However, considering the fact that they were not able to control the pace of the video themselves, the experience may not have felt very realistic. What is more, participants might have missed certain aspects of the prime, due to a possible lack of attention during the video, which in turn could have influenced the results of the study. Participants were asked whether they remembered seeing an H&M ad after they were exposed to the stimulus and 14 people did not remember, nine participants indicated to not have seen an ad.
Thirdly, the sample of the study needs to be regarded with precaution in regard to the generalizability of the study. Considering the convenience character of the sample, it is advised to replicate the study with a more representative sample.
Conclusion
Climate change is one of the most pressing issues of today’s world. However, brands conceal their impact on both social and environmental issues, by implementing greenwashing practices within their advertisements. Their actions cause a serious threat towards a more climate neutral future. However, as shown within this study, participants indicated to be highly concerned about the environment and even recognized greenwashing practices implemented by H&M. Thus, the study at hand made new contributions to the field of fast fashion advertisement perceptions. Additionally, regardless of the advertisement, highly concerned participants perceived more greenwashing. This finding underlines the assumptions, that people had pre-existing opinions towards H&M.
Even though fast fashion companies still hold a big market share, the findings
demonstrate that people gained more awareness of companies’ attempts to deceive costumers by vague claims regarding their sustainability efforts. This development gives reason for hope that in the future, these attempts will not only be perceived, but also punished, by customers through changing their purchase behaviour, and by the legislation through stricter regulations.
References
Amed, I., Balchandani, A., Beltrami, M., Berg, A., Hedrich, S., & Rölkens, F. (2019, November). The State of Fashion 2019: A year of awakening. McKinsey&Company. https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/retail/our-insights/the-state-of-fashion-2019-a-year-of-awakening
Aji, H. M., & Sutikno, B. (2015). The extended consequence of greenwashing: Perceived consumer skepticism. International Journal of Business and Information, 10(4).
Banerjee, S., Gulas, C., & Iyer, E. (1995). Shades of Green: A Multidimensional Analysis of Environmental Advertising. Journal of Advertising, 24(2), 21–31.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00913367.1995.10673473
Bick, R., Halsey, E., & Ekenga, C. C. (2018). The global environmental injustice of fast fashion. Environmental Health, 17(1), 92. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12940-018-0433-7 Brain, E. (8 August, 2019). H&M Norway Called out for "Greenwashing" Conscious
Collection Marketing - Following an investigation by the Norwegian Consumer Authority. https://hypebeast.com/2019/8/h-m-conscious-collection-greenwashing-sustainability-norwegian-consumer-authority
Campbell, B., Khachatryan, H., Behe, B., Dennis, J., & Hall, C. (2015). Consumer perceptions of eco-friendly and sustainable terms. Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, 44(1), 21-34. https://doi.org/10.1017/s1068280500004603 Chen, Y. S., & Chang, C. H. (2013). Greenwash and green trust: The mediation effects of
green consumer confusion and green perceived risk. Journal of Business Ethics, 114(3), 489-500. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-012-1360-0
Confino, J. (2016, September 7). We Buy A Staggering Amount Of Clothing, And Most Of It Ends Up In Landfills. Huffington Post https://www.huffpost.com/entry/transforming-the-fashion-industry_n_57ceee96e4b0a48094a58d39
European Commission (2019, March 15). Statement by Vice-President Dombrovskis on the Progress Report on the Capital Markets Union.
https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/SPEECH_19_1716
Fardouly, J., Diedrichs, P. C., Vartanian, L. R., & Halliwell, E. (2015). Social comparisons on social media: The impact of Facebook on young women's body image concerns and mood. Body image, 13, 38-45. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bodyim.2014.12.002
Field, A. P. (2018). Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS statistics (5th edition.). SAGE Publications. Print.
H&M Group (2018). Sustainability reporting.
https://sustainability.hm.com/en/sustainability.html
Johar, G. (1995). Consumer Involvement and Deception from Implied Advertising Claims. Journal of Marketing Research, 32(3), 267–279. https://doi.org/10.2307/3151980 Minton, E. A., Cornwell, T. B., & Kahle, L. R. (2017). A theoretical review of consumer
priming: Prospective theory, retrospective theory, and the affective–behavioral– cognitive model. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 16(4), 309-321.
https://doi.org/10.1002/cb.1624
Nyilasy, G., Gangadharbatla, H., & Paladino, A. (2012). Greenwashing: A consumer perspective. Economics & Sociology, 5(2), 116. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-013-1944-3
Parguel, B., Benoît-Moreau, F., & Russell, C. A. (2015). Can evoking nature in advertising mislead consumers? The power of ‘executional greenwashing'. International Journal of Advertising, 34(1), 107-134. https://doi.org/10.1080/02650487.2014.996116 Pawlik, V. (2019). Beliebteste Bekleidungsgeschäfte und Textilkaufhäuser (Einkauf in den
letzten 6 Monaten) in Deutschland von 2016 bis 2019. Statista
https://de.statista.com/statistik/daten/studie/171497/umfrage/in-den-letzten-6-monaten-besuchte-bekleidungsgeschaefte/
Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986). The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. In Communication and persuasion (pp. 1-24). Springer, New York, NY.
Radder, L., & Huang, W. (2008). High-involvement and low-involvement products: A
comparison of brand awareness among students at a South African university. Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management. https://doi.org/10.1108/13612020810874908 Schlossberg, T. (2019, September 3). How Fast Fashion Is Destroying the Planet. New York
Times https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/03/books/review/how-fast-fashion-is-destroying-the-planet.html
Schmitt, B. (1994). Contextual priming of visual information in advertisements. Psychology and Marketing, 11(1), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.4220110103
Schmuck, D., Matthes, J., & Naderer, B. (2018). Misleading consumers with green
advertising? Journal of Advertising: Official Publication of the American Academy of Advertising, 47(2), 127–145. https://doi.org/10.1080/00913367.2018.1452652
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. https://doi.org/10.1080/00913367.1995.10673475
Sheinin, D., & Biehal, G. (1999). Corporate Advertising Pass-through onto the Brand: Some Experimental Evidence. Marketing Letters, 10(1), 63–74.
https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008087108223
Vidal, J. (2008, February 13). True scale of CO2 emissions from shipping revealed. The Guardian
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2008/feb/13/climatechange.pollution Yi, Y. (1990). The Effects of Contextual Priming in Print Advertisements. Journal of
Appendix Appendix A
Participants demographics Table A1
Nationality of the participants
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
American 11 6,3 6,3 Australian 1 0,6 0,6 Austrian 3 1,7 1,7 British 13 7,5 7,5 Canadian 5 2,9 2,9 Czech 3 1,7 1,7 Dutch 5 2,9 2,9 Eritrean 2 1,1 1,1 Estonian 1 0,6 0,6 Finnish 1 0,6 0,6 German 115 66,1 66,1 Irish 2 1,1 1,1 Italian 6 3,4 3,4 Lebanese 1 0,6 0,6 Malaysian 1 0,6 0,6 Swiss 4 2,3 2,3 N 174 100 100 Table A2 Age of participants
Age Frequency Percent Valid Percent
19 2 1,1 1,1 20 6 3,4 3,4 21 5 2,9 2,9 22 9 5,2 5,2 23 13 7,5 7,5 24 19 10,9 10,9 25 20 11,5 11,5 26 26 14,9 14,9 27 9 5,2 5,2 28 6 3,4 3,4
29 11 6,3 6,3 30 2 1,1 1,1 31 3 1,7 1,7 32 2 1,1 1,1 33 5 2,9 2,9 34 2 1,1 1,1 35 1 0,6 0,6 36 3 1,7 1,7 39 1 0,6 0,6 40 1 0,6 0,6 43 2 1,1 1,1 45 3 1,7 1,7 47 1 0,6 0,6 48 2 1,1 1,1 49 1 0,6 0,6 50 2 1,1 1,1 54 1 0,6 0,6 55 1 0,6 0,6 56 1 0,6 0,6 57 1 0,6 0,6 58 1 0,6 0,6 59 1 0,6 0,6 63 1 0,6 0,6 64 2 1,1 1,1 65 1 0,6 0,6 66 1 0,6 0,6 67 1 0,6 0,6 68 2 1,1 1,1 69 1 0,6 0,6 73 1 0,6 0,6 74 1 0,6 0,6 N 174 100 100 Appendix B Experimental Conditions
A link to the experimental conditions is provided below
Appendix C Table C1 Adapted scales
Variable Items Scale Adapted from
Environmental Concern
1. I am concerned about the environment.
2. The condition of the environment affects the quality of my Life. 3. I am willing to make sacrifices to protect the environment.
4. My actions impact the environment.
7-point Likert scale (1 completely disagree – 7 completely agree)
Schuhwerk &
Lefkoff-Hagius, (1995)
Purchase Intention Please indicate below how you would rate your intentions to purchase items from H&M.
Anchored by unlikely/likely, impossible/possible,
improbable/probable
Yi, (1990)
Brand Attitude In the following I would like to ask you a few questions concerning the brand H&M. To what degree do you believe the following evaluative items apply to H&M? H&M is:
Anchored by bad/good, unattractive/attractive; negative/positive, not likable/likable, not recommendable/recommendable Schmuck et. al., (2018) Perceived
Greenwashing 1. The H&M ad misleads consumers regarding the products environmental features.
2. The H&M ad has a vague sustainable claim. 3. The H&M ad
exaggerates the products sustainable function. 4. The H&M ad covers up important information, which makes the
sustainable claim sound better than it is.
7-point Likert scale (1 completely disagree – 7 completely agree) Chen & Chang, (2013); Schmuck et. al., (2018) Instagram use Frequency
How often do you check Instagram (passively looking)?
Multiple choice § Not at all
§ Every few weeks
Fardouly et. al., (2015)
§ Once a week § Every few days § Once a day
§ Multiple times a day How often do you share
content on Instagram (story or post)?
Multiple choice § Not at all
§ Every few weeks § Once a week § Every few days § Once a day
§ Multiple times a day
Fardouly et. al., (2015)
Appendix D
Exposure Stimulus A link to the experimental conditions is provided below
