Green Advertising and Cultural Orientation Master thesis
Graduate School of Communication Master’s programme Communication Science
Name: Anna-Theresa Schneider Student number: 11185198 Supervisor: Hanneke Hendriks Date: 27th of January 2017 Word count: 5.966
2 Abstract
Many companies have been implementing green advertising strategies to serve consumers’ increasing environmental concern. Not many studies have yet tried to figure out whether green branding is a successful advertising strategy and if cultural orientation influences the effect of green advertising on consumer’s attitudes. The aim of this study was to investigate whether there is an influence of green advertising on product evaluation, brand evaluation and purchase intention. Furthermore, the aim was to find out whether the cultural orientation of an individual has an influence on this relationship. In total, 285 participants took part in an experimental online-survey. No expected results were found. Green advertising was not more effective than non-green advertising and cultural orientation did not influence the relationship between green advertising and consumer responses. These findings may be explained by the fact that this study used an individualism-collectivism scale to characterize respondents as either individualistic or collectivistic, which might not be a good instrument for comparing groups. Future research should compare countries than individuals within countries when it comes to cultural orientation.
3 Introduction
During the past years, many big companies started showing more interest in
environmental issues and either introduced new, ‘green’ products or changed their advertising strategy to be seen as more environmental friendly. Nearly 10% of all advertising in the US utilized green claims (TerraChoice’s, 2009) and have been proven to positively influence consumers purchase intentions (Auja, 2015). McDonald’s is one good example for one of the most popular companies that recently changed their brand image from non-green to green. The fast food chain claims to be more environmental friendly and healthy than it was before the change. To make this visible, McDonald’s uses advertising and corporate visual images. Big changes in packaging, production process and product modification as McDonald’s has introduced them, are common strategies of companies that are implementing a green
marketing strategy (Chan & Lau, 2001).
With a green advertising strategy, brands often try to differentiate themselves from other, similar brands that have similar or the same benefits for either the environment, the consumer or both (Rahbar & Wahid, 2011). Apart from McDonald’s, there are many other brands who successfully implemented a green brand strategy, as it has internationally become a huge trend among all product categories (Terra Choice’s, 2009). But why do so many companies change their brand strategy to green? Do they actually have concerns about the environment? Or is it the case that consumers are asking for it?
Not only companies have changed, so have consumers. The number of consumers that is environmentally concerned is rapidly increasing (Arisal & Atalar, 2016). Several studies focusing on the purchase behavior of green consumers found that individual characteristics such as environmental concern, but also price and product category are influencing purchase intentions and overall attitudes towards green advertising. Green advertising is often
4 when it comes to green food, advertising often focuses on individual benefits such as better health for the consumer (Dean & Pacheco , 2014). According to Arora and Gangopadhyay (1995), people are willing to pay more for products that serve higher private benefits. It might therefore be important to think well about how to advertise a product and which benefits to stress when it comes to green advertising messages.
In general advertising, different messages are used to persuade diverse audiences. There are different factors that play a role in the persuading process. One of them is an
individual’s cultural orientation. Countries differ in how individualistic they are, which means how much they focus on themselves, make self-related choices or see themselves more as part of a group and relate their choices on the group rather than themselves (Cacioppo & Petty, 1984; Hofstede, 1990). When trying to reach individuals with a certain message, it might therefore be important to make the message culturally relevant for these individuals.
According to a study by Uskul and Oyserman (2010), messages that fit an individual’s cultural frame, are more persuasive than messages that do not. Making a statement more relevant for the receiver by highlighting important factors of a message, can increase the receptiveness for that message (Hawkins, Kreuter, Resnicow, Fishbein, & Dijkstra 2008).
Research in the field of health communication has already found positive results of culturally tailored messages (Del Giudice, Caracciolo, Cicia, Grunert, Krystallis, & Zhou, 2012; Van Horn, 2012; Zhang & Wang, 2012; Kendler & Greenspan, 2006). Since green advertising strategies often focus either on individual or environmental benefits and because these benefits are not equally effective for individuals from different cultural backgrounds, cultural tailoring should apply to the field of green advertising, too. Culturally tailored messages could be even stronger when used in green advertising, as environmental benefits are usually supposed to benefit not only one individual but the environment, which in turn benefits a big population. Environmental benefits are expected to be more important to
5 collectivists than to individualists. Assumingly, the effect of culturally tailored messages could be even stronger for green than non-green messages.
Studies about branding and cultural orientation mainly characterized the participants as individualistic or collectivistic based on their country of origin, but did not specifically look at the tendency of individualism or collectivism independently of the individual’s country of origin. Neither did they look at tendencies of individualism within countries but only between countries (Han & Shavitt, 1994; Diel, Terlutter, & Weinberg, 2003;
Kemmelmeier, Burnstein, Krumov, Genkova, & Kanagawa, 2003). Countries are easily considered as homogenous but according to Wagner (1995) it is most likely that individuals within one societal group differ in their level of individualism as well.
If this is the case, it would be of high interest for advertisers worldwide. The green brand industry depends on effective advertising strategies and messages that reach a diverse public worldwide. Findings of this study can help advertisers to create strong green
advertising messages that perfectly fit their target group, which in turn, are expected to result in a more positive consumer attitude and behavior. This study tries to fill in the gap of
knowledge that currently exists in the literature and aims to answer the following research question: What is the effect of green advertising on brand evaluation and what is the role of the consumer’s cultural orientation here in?
Theoretical background Green advertising and green consumerism
Green advertising can be defined as “[…] the advertising of products that are presumed to be environmentally preferable to others” (Ahuja, 2015, p.39). According to Ahuja (2015), green advertising simply describes the promotion of factors that are related to the environment. Several terms, such as ‘recycled’, ‘green’ or ‘eco-friendly’ are successfully
6 used in green advertising to convey a green brand image (Smith , 2010). Green advertising often focuses on the environmental value of a product or service. For some products,
however, individual benefits such as an improved health or financial advantages for the user are more common. The benefits that are presented with the products vary from industry to industry, good examples are the energy industry or the food industry (Dean & Pacheo, 2014).
With green advertising strategies, marketers are responding to consumer’s
environmental concern and the willingness to base their purchase decisions on higher personal or environmental benefits. This phenomenon has been described as ‘green consumerism’ (Mazar & Zhong, 2010). This term describes not only the consumption of products that are claimed to be pro-environmental, but also the production and promotion of it, such as producing, promoting or using a hybrid car. Other examples are fair trade coffee or energy-saving household machines (Akenij, 2014). Environmental concern has been found to be related to socioeconomic characteristics such as age and educational level (Buttel, 1979; Jones & Dunlap, 1992). Furthermore, it is related to environmental knowledge and perceived seriousness of threats to the global environment as people tend to adapt their purchase
behavior due to actual ecological problems (Abdul-Muhmin, 2007; Laroche, Bergeron, & Barbaro-Forleo, 2001). Rahbar and Wahid (2011) found in one of their studies that purchasing environmentally friendly products is a result of considering the benefit that is produced by green brands.
Green products or products that serve a consumer’s environmental concern are usually presented by the advertiser as serving private or public benefits, or both. In the food industry, a consumer’s health may benefit from certain foods such as vegetables which are less polluted with pesticides or meat coming from a farm that meets higher standards of foster animal welfare. However, farmers and food companies who use fewer chemicals for their products or feed and keep animals in a natural way, may also benefit the public by protecting the
7 environment from harmful chemical substances and contribute to animal protection by
reducing livestock farming (Chander & Muthukrishnan, 2015).
As found by Auja (2015), green branding has been proven to positively influence consumers purchase intentions. Besides that, consumers perceive companies as more favorable when they are environmentally conscious than when they are not (Laroche,
Bergeron, & Barbaro-Forleo, 2001; Smith, 2012). Fraj, Martinez and Matute (2011) state that green marketing helps improving a company’s image and reputation. When buying gasoline, for example, consumers are found to make their purchase decisions based on brand benefits, rather than price or location. This in turn shows, that consumers may be more sensible to the quality of a product they buy than the price they have to spend for it (Smith, Murphy Smith, & Dunbar, 2014). Furthermore, people are willing to pay more for products that serve higher private benefits (Arora & Gangopadhyay, 1995).
Summarizing these findings, it can be expected that green branding is a successful advertising strategy for marketers to evoke a positive consumer attitude and behavior. Green advertising is expected to be more successful in positively influencing consumer attitude and behavior than non-green advertising. The first hypothesis has been formulated as follows:
H1: Green advertising will lead to a more positive brand evaluation (BE), product evaluation (PE) and purchase intention (PI) than non-green advertising.
Cultural orientation
As we have seen in the paragraph above, there are different characteristics that are linked to environmental concern and therefore to the susceptibility to green advertising. Next to socioeconomic characteristics such as age and educational level as described by Buttel (1979) and Jones & Dunlap (1992), there are additional factors that might influence the susceptibility of green advertising. One of these factors is culture, which has been found to influence behaviors such as decision making, eating behavior, dietary intake and consumer
8 behavior (Del Giudice et al., 2012). Hofstede's model of cultural dimensions (Cacioppo & Petty, 1984; Hofstede, 1990) has been developed to explain cultural influences on attitude and behavior. Hofstede (1990) states that countries differ on the dimension of Individualism, which is seen as an important influencing factor when exposed to persuasive messages.
As described by Hofstede (1990), individualistic cultures are more self-oriented; they see themselves more as an individual than collectivistic cultures who describe themselves more related to others, as a part of a whole. Individualists compete with others about status, act more self-related and are expected to make sure they remain an individual independent of a group. If group interests are in conflict with personal desires, individualists are likely to ignore group interests (Wagner, 1995).
Collectivistic individuals on the other hand are expected to think in terms of the group and are more likely to forego individual motivations for the group (Triandis, 1993). Studies of Triandis and McCarty and Shrum (1994) suggest that collectivists are in general more
environmental friendly, whereas individualists tend to be more environmental unfriendly (Triandis, 1993; McCarty & Shrum, 1994). According to Triandis (1993), the level of individualism or collectivism actively influences consumer behavior. Examples for individualistic characterized countries are the Netherlands, Germany, the US, Canada and Australia whereas Hong Kong, Taiwan and Japan are seen as more collectivistic cultures.
Cultural orientation and environmental concern
The differences in cultural orientation have been found as important factor for differences in attitudes and behaviors among countries (Aaker, & Maheswaran 2007). However, differences in cultural orientation have also been found among individuals belonging to one societal group (Wagner, 1995). Because individuals from collectivistic countries see themselves more as part of a group, they might be more concerned about the
9 well-being of their group. Studies about cultural orientation support the idea that individuals from collectivistic countries have a higher level of environmental concern than individuals from individualistic countries. According to McCarty and Shrum (2001), collectivism is related to beliefs about the importance of recycling. Individualism, in contrast, is related to beliefs about the inconvenience of recycling. A study by Arisal and Atalar (2016) found that collectivism was positively related to environmental concern and ecological purchase intention. Collectivistic individuals were more concerned about environmental issues which had an influence on their intention to purchase ecological products.
It can therefore be expected that individuals from collectivistic cultures are more concerned about environmental issues than individuals from individualistic cultures. Collectivists might therefore be more susceptible to green advertising than individualistic individuals. Based on the former two paragraphs, the following second hypothesis ha s been formulated:
H2: Green advertising versus non-green advertising will lead to a more positive brand evaluation (BA), product evaluation (PE) and purchase intention (PI) for collectivistic
individuals (CI) than for individualistic individuals (II).
Cultural tailored messages in advertising
As mentioned above, individuals with different cultural backgrounds differ in how susceptible they are to green advertising. It might therefore be reasonable that they also differ in how they perceive messages that point out different benefits. In green advertising it is common to place a product or service as either individually beneficial or environmentally beneficial. A hybrid car, for example, can be presented as beneficial for a consumer’s status quo by showing one’s environmental concern but also as beneficial for the environment by being less polluting. Using different appeals can make it easier for marketers to adapt the
10 message to their target groups. Studies in which different appeals were used show the
effectiveness when dealing with different cultural backgrounds. A study by Han and Shavitt (1994) proved that Korean and Chinese viewers, who are more collectivistic than
individualistic, were more influenced by advertising that focused on social norms and roles than on individual factors. Also Diel at al. (2003) found that an individualistic appeal was more effective in the communication with individualistic individuals than with collectivistic individuals.
Tailoring messages based on culture is thus found to be successful. Especially in health care, research has widely supported the theory that culturally tailored messages can positively change attitude and behavior. Huang and Shen (2016) state that cancer messages that are tailored based on the audience’s culture are more successful than generally tailored messages. In another study by McMillian, Smith-Hendriks and Gore (2010), culturally tailored messages successfully promoted a healthy lifestyle among Alabamians. According to the literature, we can therefore conclude that messages that are tailored based on culture are more successful than non-tailored messages or messages that are not culturally tailored. Summarizing the findings, it is likely that individualistic individuals are more susceptible to messages that are tailored based on individualistic values. The opposite can be expected for collectivistic individuals; they might be more susceptible to messages that are tailored based on collectivistic values. Based on the above mentioned literature and conclusions, the following two hypotheses have been formulated:
H3a: Green advertising messages that focus on environmental benefits versus individual benefits will lead to a more positive brand evaluation (BE), product evaluation (PE) and purchase intention (PI) for collectivistic individuals (CI) than for individualistic individuals (II).
11 H3b: Green advertising messages that focus on individual benefits versus
environmental benefits will lead to a more positive brand evaluation (BE), product evaluation (PE) and purchase intention (PI) for individualistic individuals (II) than for collectivistic individuals (CI).
Figure 1: Theoretical model
Method Participants and Design
In total, 258 respondents, whereof 111 males (43%) and 147 females (57%) volunteered to take part in this study. The age ranged from 18 to 57 years (M=25.73,
SD=5.125). Of all participants, 57.4 % were Germans, 11.2% Dutch, 9.7% Greeks, the rest
(21.7%) from other countries. Of all 258 respondents, 44.2% had at bachelor degree, 30.6 % a high school diploma or equivalent, 18.6% a master’s degree, 1.6 % had a doctoral degree and 4.3% other. Only 0.8% had no schooling completed. All participants were randomly allocated to one of the 3 experimental groups. Participants under the age of 18 and participants who did not complete the whole questionnaire, were excluded from the study. Informed consent was obtained from all participants. The research question has been tested by means of a 3x2 factorial between subjects design. The manipulated independent variable was branding (with
12 the levels green: individual benefit, green: environmental benefit and non-green) and cultural orientation (with the levels individualistic and collectivistic).
Procedure
The experiment has been conducted on the internet. The questionnaire was spread online via the social media platform facebook, by means of a snowball sample. The online survey was first sent to selected people from different cultural backgrounds, which were taken from the researcher’s network. These people were then asked to forward the questionnaire to their friends and relatives. In order to make sure that people from different cultural
backgrounds are approached, they were asked to forward the questionnaire to people with a similar cultural background as the person who is forwarding the questionnaire.
Respondents assigned to condition 1 (N=88) were exposed to a poster-ad that stresses individual benefits of buying or using the presented Philips product whereas respondents in condition 2 (N= 86) were exposed to a poster-ad that stresses environmental benefits of buying or using the presented product. Condition 3 (N= 84) served as a control condition, participants aligned to this group were exposed to a non-green poster-ad. After the exposure, the respondent’s brand evaluation (BE), product evaluation (PE) and purchase intention (PI) have been measured. The scales and procedures were identical for all 3 groups. In the end of the experiment, the respondents where thanked for their participation, got a debriefing about the experiment and were informed that the poster-ad was not a real advertising of Philips.
Materials & measures
Respondents were exposed to three different poster-ads that showed a picture of a light bulb and a motivating slogan next to the picture that encourages saving electricity by using the presented product. The green poster-ad, stressing individual benefits, showed a light bulb with a bank note in it and the slogan: ‘Be green: save Energy, save Your Money’. The second green poster-ad, stressing environmental benefits, showed a light bulb with a growing plant in
13 it and the slogan: ‘Be green: save Energy, save Our Nature’. The non-green poster-ad showed a picture of a simple light bulb without any slogan. To make sure that the poster-ad would be perceived as an advertisement, the brand name ‘Philips’ was visible on all three poster-ads (see Appendix).
The moderating variable cultural orientation (individualistic, collectivistic) was measured with an Individualism-Collectivism scale that measures individualistic tendencies (Individual-Collectivism scale, Triadis, & Gelfland, 1998). The scale consists of 16 items, Some of these items are “I'd rather depend on myself than others”, “My personal identity, independent of others, is very important to me”, “The well-being of my coworkers is
important to me”, and “It is my duty to take care of my family, even when 1 have to sacrifice what I want” (M= 55.969, SD= 5.775, α= 0.646). Responses were given on a 5-point Likert scale (1= strongly disagree, 5= strongly agree). The scores for these items were averaged and represented a total score of individualism, with a higher score indicating a higher level of individualism. Based on a mean split, two groups (low level of individualism and high level of individualism) were created.
The dependent variables are brand evaluation (BE), product evaluation (PE) and purchase intention (PI). Consumers’ brand evaluation (BE) was calculated based on the mean score of the following four statements: “I perceive the brand Philips as…” (a) “good/bad”, (b) “unfavorable/favorable”, (c) “unpleasant/pleasant”, (d) “likable/unlikable” (M= 4.9128, SD= 1.216, α= 0.949). These adjectives were rated by the participants within a 7-point semantic differential scale. The average score of all items represented the respondents’ brand
evaluation, with a higher score indicating a more positive brand evaluation. The items were adopted from a scale that measures product attitude (MacKenzie, & Lutz, 1989) and were then adapted to brand and product evaluation. Product evaluation (PE) was calculated based on the mean score of four statements similar to the ones measuring brand evaluation: “I
14 perceive the product of Philips as…” (a) “good/bad”, (b) “unfavorable/favorable”, (c)
“unpleasant/pleasant”, (d) “likable/unlikable” (M= 4.657, SD= 1.312, α= 0.939). These adjectives were again rated by the participants within a 7-point semantic differential scale. The average score of all items represented the respondents’ product evaluation, with a higher score indicating a more positive product evaluation. Purchase
intention (PI) was measured by the items: “Within the next two weeks I intend to buy the
product”, “Within the next two weeks I plan to buy the product”, “Within the next two weeks I predict to buy the product” (M= 1.867, SD= 0.828, α= 0.928). Responses were given based on 5-point Likert scale (1= strongly disagree, 5= strongly agree). The scores for these items were averaged, a higher score indicating a higher purchase intention.
To make sure that the green ads and non-green ad are actually perceived as supposed by the researcher, there was a control question in the end of the survey where participants were asked “What was the benefit of using the product you have seen in the advertisement of Philips?” (a) “saving money”, (b) “saving the environment”, (c) “None of the above
mentioned”. The test indicated that 80 out of 86 (93.02%) respondents in the environmental benefit condition correctly identified the condition, whereas 6 (6.98%) of the respondents identified it incorrectly. In the individual benefit condition, 48 out of 88 (54.55%) respondents correctly identified the condition, whereas 40 (45.46%) failed to identify it correctly. This result indicates that the manipulation did not work well in the individual condition. Of all 84 respondents in the control group, 61 (72.62%) identified the condition correctly, whereas 23 (27.38%) of the respondents did not successfully identify the condition.
A Kruskall Wallis H test proved the significance of these results, X2 (2) = 66.461, p = 0.000, with a mean rank score of 115.94 for the condition environmental benefit, 95.72 for the condition individual benefit and 178.78 for the non-green control condition.
15 Results
Hypothesis 1 stated that green advertising would lead to a more positive brand evaluation, product evaluation (PE) and purchase intention (PI) than non-green advertising. To test this hypothesis, three one-way ANOVA’s were conducted to compare the effect of advertising (two levels; green (individual benefit, environmental benefit) and non-green) on product evaluation, brand evaluation and purchase intention. To compare green advertising and non-green advertising, a new variable was created which combined the two groups (individual benefits and environmental benefits) which are both representing green advertising. This variable was then compared to the group that represents non-green advertising. The results did not show any significant main effect of green versus non-green advertising on product evaluation (F(1, 256) =3.519, p=0.062), brand evaluation (F(1, 256) =0.030, p=0.864) or buying intention (F(1, 256) = 1.861, p=0.174). Green advertising did not lead to a more positive brand evaluation, product evaluation or purchase intention than non-green advertising. Hypothesis 1 could therefore not be supported.
Hypothesis 2 stated that green advertising would lead to a more positive brand evaluation (BE), product evaluation (PE) and purchase intention (PI) than non-green
advertising for collectivistic individuals (CI) than for individualistic individuals (II). To test this hypothesis, three one-way between-subject ANOVA’s were conducted, with advertising (green: Individual benefit, green: environmental benefit and non-green) and cultural
orientation (individualistic and collectivistic) as independent variables and product evaluation, brand evaluation and purchase intention each as dependent variables. As for the first
hypothesis, the newly created variable was used to compare green versus non-green
advertising. The statistical results did not show any significant interaction effect of cultural orientation on the relationship between green advertising and brand evaluation (F(1, 254) = 0.001; p = 0.977), product evaluation (F(1, 254) = 2.707, p= 0.209) and purchase intention
16 (F(1,254) = 0.099, p=0.704). Culture did not play a role in the effectiveness of green
advertising on consumer attitude and behavior. Hypothesis 2 had therefore been rejected. Hypothesis 3a stated that green messages that focus on environmental benefits would lead to a more positive brand evaluation (BE), product evaluation (PE) and purchase intention (PI) than green messages that focus on individual benefits for collectivistic individuals (CI) than for individualistic individuals (II). Hypothesis 3b stated that green messages that focus on individual benefits would lead to a more positive brand evaluation (BE), product
evaluation (PE) and purchase intention (PI) than green messages that focus on environmental benefits for individualistic individuals (II) than for collectivistic Individuals (CI). To test these hypotheses, three one-way between-subjects ANOVA’s were conducted, with advertising (green: individual benefit, green: environmental benefit and non-green) and cultural orientation (individualistic and collectivistic) as independent variables and product evaluation, brand evaluation and purchase intention each as dependent variables. Different to hypotheses 1 and 2, the two different levels of green advertising have been looked at
separately; they have therefore not been taken together as one variable in this analysis. The statistical results did not show any significant differences between groups for product evaluation (F(1, 254) = 1,588; p=0.209), brand evaluation (F(1, 254) = 0.001; p = 0.977), or purchase intention (F(1, 254) = 0.144; p = 0.704). Collectivistic individuals, in comparison to individualistic individuals, did not score higher on the three dependent variables when they were exposed to a poster-ad that focused on environmental benefits. Neither did individualistic individuals, in comparison to collectivistic individuals, score higher on product evaluation, brand evaluation and purchase intention, when they were exposed to a poster-ad that focused on individual benefits. The hypothesis could therefore not be supported. The way green messages were framed (individual benefit versus environmental
17 benefit) did not work better for one than the other cultural group (individualistic versus
collectivistic) when exposed to green advertising.
Discussion Findings & Implications
This study is the first to investigate the effectiveness of green advertising versus non-green advertising and the importance of cultural orientation herein. New to other studies is that instead of comparing countries, individualism-scores of individuals were used to indicate cultural orientation. The aim goal of this study was to find out whether green advertising is more effective in creating positive consumer attitudes and behavior than non-green
advertising and if cultural orientation plays a role herein. Three important conclusions can be drawn based on this study;
First, green advertising does not have a more positive effect on product evaluation, brand evaluation or purchase intention than non-green advertising. In the U.S., many advertisers use green messages to promote their products (TerraChoice’s, 2009) and have been found to successfully influence consumers’ purchase intentions (Auja, 2015). Besides that, consumers have more favorable attitudes about companies who are environmentally active (Laroche, Bergeron, & Barbaro-Forleo, 2001; Smith, 2012). The expectation of hypothesis 1, that green advertising would be more effective in positively influencing
consumer attitudes and behavior than non-green advertising, was based on these findings. The current findings suggest that green advertising might be successful but not necessarily more successful in positively influencing consumer behavior than non-green advertising.
Second, cultural orientation does not have an influence on the effectiveness of green advertising on consumer attitudes and behavior. It was expected that cultural orientation would influence the relationship between green advertising and consumer attitudes and
18 behavior, which could not be supported by this study. Furthermore, this was not in line with research on green branding that found that individuals from collectivistic countries are more concerned about environmental-related behaviors, such as recycling, than individuals from individualistic countries (McCarty and Shrum, 2001). Furthermore, collectivism was found to be positively related to environmental concern and ecological purchase intention, with
collectivists being more likely to purchase ecological products (Arisal & Atalar, 2016). The expectation of hypothesis 2, that green advertising would be more effective for collectivistic individuals than individualistic individuals was based on these findings. Unfortunately, this study was unable to support the results of past findings.
Third, green advertising messages that stress individual benefits do not work better for individualistic individuals than for collectivistic individuals. The opposite is valid for
collectivistic individuals; green advertising messages who stress environmental benefits did not work better for collectivistic individuals than for individualistic individuals. Past studies found that people from collectivistic countries are more susceptible to advertising messages that are related to social factors rather than individual factors (Han & Shavitt, 1994). A study by Diel at al. (2003) showed that the opposite was true for individualistic cultures; in the communication with individuals from individualistic cultures, individualistic appeals were most successful. Collectivistic individuals are more concerned about the environment and see themselves more as part of a group (Hofstede, 1990), which led to the expectation that
collectivistic individuals are more attracted to green advertising messages that focus on environmental than individual benefits. For individualistic individuals, the opposite was expected.
These expectations of H3a and H3b that collectivistic individuals would be more susceptible to green advertising messages that stress environmental benefits, and that individualistic individuals would be more susceptible to green advertising messages that
19 stress individual benefits, were based on the findings mentioned above. However, these past findings could not be supported by the current study, green advertising messages who stress environmental benefits and those who stress individual benefits did not differ in how
influential they were with respect to cultural orientation.
An explanation for this discrepancy could be that former studies compared cultural differences between strongly individualistic and collectivistic countries, whereas this study did not compare individuals based on their country of origin but based on an Individualism-Collectivism scale-score. Because it was difficult to gather respondents from different countries through the snowball-method, most respondents that took part in the study came from Germany, the Netherlands and Greece, which made it impossible to compare and draw conclusions about respondents based on their country of origin. Based on a study by Green, Deschamps, Deschamps & Páez (2005), the level of individualism and collectivism not only differs between countries but also between individuals within countries.
The fact that there were no significant differences found raises the question whether the differences between individuals originating from one country are strong enough to be used for research. It might -against expectations- be more reasonable to compare people based on their country of origin instead of comparing their level of individualism based on an
Individualism-Collectivism scale as done in this study. In order to get clear results, follow-up studies should rather pre-select individuals from different countries and then randomly put them into one of the three groups. The Individualism-Collectivism scale (Triadis, & Gelfland, 1998) could still be used to double-check if individuals from individualistic countries indeed score higher on individualism than individuals from collectivistic countries.
Another reason for missing compliance between studies conducted in the past and this study could be the used material. The manipulation check of the advertising messages in this study (green: individual benefits, green: environmental benefits and non-green) indicates that
20 the manipulation in the individual benefit condition was weak, as only 54.55% of the
respondents in this group were able to correctly identify the condition. It is presumable that this is another explanation for not finding expected results in this study.
Limitations & future research suggestions
The first limitation of this research was the product that was used in this study. Respondents of this study were on average 25 years old. However, light bulbs might not be a product of interest for this group, as about 48% of Europeans who are between 18-29 years old are still living with their parents and they possibly still buy this product for them (Sedghi & Arnett, 2014). Besides that, participants were asked whether they want, plan or predict to buy the product within the next two weeks – a light bulb might be a product that is most probably bought less often than every second week, which might make people think less and be less concerned about this product. A study by Stafford, Stafford and Chowdhury (2012) showed that young, college-educated individuals prefer health-related green products,
whereas working adults prefer health, waste and energy issues. Assumingly, light bulbs might not have been the best product for this age group.
The second limitation was the representation of green and non-green advertising. In this study there was made a difference between green advertisements and a
control-advertisement which represented non-green advertising. It is questionable if the control-ad can be seen as representative for non-green ads, as the poster-ad in this study was not only non-green, but did not have any slogan and therefore might have been less appealing for consumers than the green poster-ads. Follow-up studies could try different ways to create a non-green advertisement that is, with respect to design and attractiveness, more related to the green brand poster-ads.
21 The third limitation was the brand that was used in this study. The brand name of Philips, which is an existing brand, was visible on the poster to make sure that respondents perceive the poster-ad as an advertisement. As pre-existing attitudes towards a brand can have an influence on brand extension (Shahrokh, Sedghiani, & Ghasemi, 2012), the evaluation of the non-existing Philips-product could have influenced respondents’ scores on brand
evaluation, simply because respondents already had an attitude towards the brand. However, research about the use of existing versus non-existing brands in experimental studies has not yet been investigated. Future research could make use of non-existing brands to see if pre-existing attitudes towards a brand influence how a brand or a brand’s product is evaluated.
Conclusion
Though this research was unable to get expected results, it brings up the question whether green advertising is indeed more successful than non-green advertising. Besides that it is questionable whether the term “cultural orientation” is transferable to individuals within countries or if individuals just do not differ as much as expected and if cultural orientation should more be seen as a cross-country phenomenon. Unfortunately, this study was unable to draw any conclusions about the effectiveness of different message types with respect to culture in green advertising. Future research should compare individuals based on their country of origin instead of their individualism-collectivism score, as differences in the level of individualism within countries seem to be weaker than expected beforehand. Another improvement for follow-up studies would be to use a representative sample, as well as products from different product categories that fit better to the interests of the questioned age-group. Besides that, the visuals of the products should be embedded in real-life situations to make them look more realistic.
22 The results of this study indicate that it does not necessarily matter whether advertisers use green- or non-green advertising in promoting their products or brands. It still seems reasonable to put a focus on the quality of a product, as people tend to base their purchase decisions on quality rather than location or price (Smith, Murphy Smith, & Dunbar, 2014). However, it is not yet clear whether this holds true for all product categories and if some products are more relevant to a certain age group than to another. According to the findings of the current study, culturally tailored messages in green advertising seem not to be successful to reach different cultural groups. However, tailoring messages based on culture might be still effective when a product or brand is advertised in different countries as the cultural
differences between individuals might be stronger between countries. More research is needed to fill up this knowledge-gap and to create a more sophisticated theoretical knowledge on the topic of green advertising and the influence of cultural orientation.
23 Literature
Abdul-Muhmin, A. G. (2007). Explaining consumers’ willingness to be environmentally friendly. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 31(3), 237–247.
doi:10.1111/j.1470-6431.2006.00528.x
Ahuja, K. (2015). A study of green advertising and its impact on consumer purchase intention. International Journal of Applied Research, 1(7), 39-43.
Arisal, I., & Atalar, T. (2016). The exploring relationship between Environmental Concern, Collectivism and Ecological Purchase Intention. Procedia – Social and Behavioral
Sciences, 235, 514-521.
Arora, S., & Gangopadhyay, S. (1995). Toward a theoretical model of voluntary
overcompliance. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 28(3), 289-309. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0167-2681(95)00037-2
Buttel, F.H. (1979). Age and Environmental Concern. “A multivariate Analysis”. Youth and
Society, 10(3), 237-257. Retrieved on 28th of December from
http://proxy.uba.uva.nl:2048/docview/1295950340?accountid=14615
Chan, R.K.K, & Lau, L.B.Y. (2001). Explaining green purchasing behavior: A cross-cultural study on American and Chinese consumers. Journal of International
Consumer Marketing, 14(2,3), 9.
Chander, P., & Muthukrishnan, S. (2015). Green consumerism and pollution. Journal of
Economic Behavior and Organization, 114, 27-35.
Del Giudice, T., Caracciolo, F., Cicia, G., Grunert, K., Krystallis, A., & Zhou, Y. (2012). New trends in chinese diet: Cultural influences on consumer behavior.
Proceedings in Food System Dynamics, 280-291.
Diel, S., Terlutter, R., & Weinberg, P. (2003). Advertising effectiveness in different cultures: Results of an experiment analyzing the effects of individualistic and
24 collectivistic advertising on Germans and Chinese. European Advances in
Consumer Research, 6, 128-136.
doi:10.1080/00913367.2012.10672463
Fraj, E., Martinez, E., & Matute, J. (2011). Green marketing strategy and the firm’s performance: The moderating role of environmental culture. Journal of Strategic
Marketing, 19, 339–355.
Green, E.G., Deschamps, J.C., & Páez, D. (2005). Variation of Individualism and
Collectivism within and between 20 Countries. A Typological Analysis. Journal
of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 36(3), 321-339, doi:
10.1177/0022022104273654
Han, S., & Shavitt, S. (1994). Persuasion and culture: Advertising appeals in individualistic and collectivistic societies. Journal of Experimental Social
Psychology, 30, 326–350.
Hawkins, R.P., Kreuter, M., Resnicow, K., Fishbein, M., & Dikstra, A. (2008). Understanding tailoring in communicating about health. Health Education
Research, 23(3), 454-466.
Jones, R.E., & Dunlap, R.E. (1992). The Social Bases of Environmental Concern: Have they changed over time? Rural Sociology, 57(1), 28-47. doi:
10.1111/j.1549-0831.1992.tb00455.x
Kemmelmeier, M., Burnstein, E., Krumov, K., Genkova, P., Kanagawa, C, Hirshberg, M.S. …, Noels, K.A.. (2003). Individualism, Collectivism and Authoritatianism in Seven Societies. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 34(3), 304-322. doi: https://doi-org.proxy.uba.uva.nl:2443/10.1177/0022022103034003005
25 Kendler, K.S., & Greenspan, R.J. (2006). The nature of genetic influences on behavior:
Lessons From “Simpler” Organisms. American Journal of Psychiatry, 163, 1683-1694.
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 - 520. Retrieved on 6th of January 2017 from
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/EUM0000000006155
MacKenzie, S. B., & Lutz, R. J. (1989). An empirical examination of the structural antecedents of attitude toward the ad in an advertising pretesting context. The
Journal of Marketing, 48-65.
Mazar, N., Zhong, C.-B. (2010). Do green Products Make Us Better People?
Psychological Science, 21(4), 494-498.
McCarty, J.A., Shrum, L.J. (1994). The recycling of solid wastes: personal values, value orientations, and attitudes about recycling as antecedents of recycling behavior.
Journal of Business Research, 30(1), 53-62.
McCarty, J.A., & Shrum, L.J. (2001) The Influence of Individualism, Collectivism, and Locus of Control on Environmental Beliefs and Behavior. Journal of Public
Policy & Marketing, 20(1), 93-104. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1509/jppm.20.1.93.17291
Rahbar, E., & Wahid, N. A. (2011). Investigation of green marketing tools' effect on consumer´s purchasing behavior. Business Strategy Series, 12(2), 73-83. Sedghi, A., & Arnett, G. (2014). European’s young adults living with parents – a
country by country breakdown. Retrieved on 4th January 2017 from
https://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2014/mar/24/young-adults-still-living- with-parents-europe-country-breakdown
26 Shahrokh, Z., D., Sedghiani, J., S., Ghasemi, V. (2012). Analyzing the influence of customer
attitude toward brand extension on attitude toward parent brand. Interdisciplinary
Journal of Contemporary Research in Business, 3(9).
Shrum, L., J., McCarty, J.A., & Lowrey, T.M. (1995). Buyer characteristics of the green consumer and their implications for advertising strategy. Journal of Advertising, 24(2), 71-82.
Smith, K. (2010). An examination of marketing techniques that influence millennials’ perceptions of whether a product is environmental friendly. Journal of Strategic
Marketing, 18(437-450.
Smith, K. T. (2012). Longitudinal study of digital marketing strategies targeting Millennials.
Journal of Consumer Marketing, 29, 86–92.
Smith, K.T., Murphy Smith, L., & Dunbar, S. (2014). Using
corporate advertising to improve public perception of energy companies, Journal of
Strategic Marketing, 22(4), 347-356, doi: 10.1080/0965254X.2013.876080
Stafford, M.R., Stafford, T.F., & Chowdhurry, J. (2012). Predispositions toward Green Issues: The Potential Efficacy of Advertising Appeals. Journal of Current Issues & Research
in Advertising, 18(1), 67-79.
TerraChoice’s. 2009. The seven sins of greenwashing: Environmental claims in consumer
markets. Retrieved on 20th of November 2017 from http://sinsofgreenwashing.org/indexd49f.pdf
Triandis, H.C. (1993). Collectivism and individualism as cultural syndromes. Cross-cultural
Research, 27(3), 155-180.
Triandis, H.C., & Gelfand, M.J. (1998). Converging measurement of horizontal and vertical individual and collectivism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74,118-128.
27 Uskul, A., & Oyserman, D. (2010). When message-frame fits salient cultural-frame,
messages feel more persuasive. Psychology & Health, 25(3), 321-337. doi: 10.1080/08870440902759156
Van Horn, L. (2012). Socioeconomic, ethnic, cultural, and other influences on eating behavior: Complex considerations. Journal of the Academy of Nutrition and
Dietetics, 112(5), 598. doi:10.1016/j.jand.2012.04.003
Wagner, J.A. (1995). Studies of Individualism-Collectivism: Effects on Cooperation in Groups. The Academy of Managemet Journal, 38(1), 152-172.
Zhang, Y., & Gelb, B.D. (1996). Matching advertising appeals to culture: The influence of products’ use conditions. Journal of Advertising, 25, 29–46.
Zhang, Q., & Wang, Y. (2012). Socioeconomic and racial/ethic disparity in America’s adherence to federal dietary recommendations. Journal of the Academy of
28 Appendix
1) Scale
Individualism and collectivism scale (Triadis, & Gelfland, 1998)
Horizontal and Vertical Individualism and Collectivism
(5-point Likert-Scale, ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree) Horizontal individualism
1. I'd rather depend on myself than others.
2. I rely on myself most of the time; I rarely rely on others. 3. I often do "my own thing."
4. My personal identity, independent of others, is very important to me. Vertical individualism
1. It is important that I do my job better than others. 2. Winning is everything.
3. Competition is the law of nature.
4. When another person does better than I do, I get tense and aroused. Horizontal collectivism
1. If a coworker gets a prize, I would feel proud. 2. The well-being of my coworkers is important to me. 3. To me, pleasure is spending time with others. 4. I feel good when I cooperate with others. Vertical collectivism
1. Parents and children must stay together as much as possible.
2. It is my duty to take care of my family, even when 1 have to sacrifice what I want.
3. Family members should stick together, no matter what sacrifices are required. 4. It is important to me that I respect the decisions made by my groups.
2) Materials
29 2) Poster-ad environmental benefits: Light bulb with plant, slogan and brand name
