Effects of Status Seeking Behavior on the relationship between High Agreeableness and Making Sustainable Purchasing Decisions
Oona Lindqvist 11860243 22.6.2020 Business Administration University of Amsterdam Lita Napitupulu
1 Statement of Originality
‘I hereby declare that this submission is my work and to the best of my knowledge it contains no materials previously published or written by another person, or substantial proportions of material, which have been accepted for the award of any other degree or diploma at UvA or any other educational institution, except where due acknowledgment is made in the dissertation. Any contribution made to the research by others, with whom I have worked at UvA or elsewhere, is explicitly acknowledged in the dissertation. I also declare that the intellectual content of this dissertation is the product of my work, except to the extent that assistance from others in the project's design or style, presentation, and linguistic expression is acknowledged.’
2 Table of Contents
Abstract ... 3
1. Introduction ... 4
2. Theoretical Framework ... 5
2.1. Sustainable Purchasing Decisions (DV) ... 5
2.2. Big Five’s Agreeableness Personality Trait (IV) ... 7
2.3. Status-seeking behavior (MV) ... 8
2.3.1. Reputation and Status ... 8
2.3.2. Costly signaling and Self-sacrifice ... 8
2.3.3. Altruistic Acts ... 9
3. Methods ... 10
3.1. Design, Sample, and Procedure ... 10
3.2. Measurements ... 11
3.3. Analytical Plan ... 12
4. Results ... 13
5. Discussion ... 15
5.1. Alternative Explanations ... 16
5.2. Practical and Managerial Implications... 17
5.3. Limitations and Future Research ... 18
5.4. Conclusion ... 18
References ... 20
3 Abstract
In recent years sustainability concerns have been of general interest for that there is an abundance of information available on how to lead a sustainable lifestyle, yet consumers fail to act sustainably. The literature describes several demographic factors, for instance, age and education, that can influence sustainable behavior. In this dissertation, it was evaluated whether the Big Five’s personality trait Agreeableness and engaging in status-seeking behavior have an effect in consumer’s purchasing behavior. Specifically, if the relationship of agreeableness and making sustainable purchasing decisions is strengthened when consumer is seeking to gain status through altruistic acts and costly signaling. An online survey was conducted using voluntary response sampling. The final sample consisted of 203 respondents for which an analysis was conducted. The results indicated that people scoring high on agreeableness are more likely to engage in sustainable consumer behavior. Whereas, respondents seemed to be indifferent in their status-seeking behavior, indicating status-seeking has no effect on the relationship between agreeableness and making sustainable purchasing decisions. Further research is needed to replicate the findings on the effects of agreeableness. In addition, alternative explanations for the part status-seeking contributes to making sustainable purchasing choices and what type of personality types are more likely to engage in status-seeking behavior via costly signaling are needed.
4 1. Introduction
“The ultimate test of man’s conscience may be his willingness to sacrifice something today for future generations whose words of thanks will not be heard.”
-Gaylord Nelson, 1962.
Sustainable consumer behavior is defined as the selection, purchasing, use, and disposal of products and services without harming future generations (Trudel, 2018). Even though most people are knowledgeable about sustainability issues, they still fail to act in a sustainable manner: a study led by the European Commission in 2017 found that although consumers were generally willing to consume more sustainably, they do not actually do so. 90% of the subjects of the study had no experience in renting, leasing, or buying second-hand products. This and various other studies indicate that there is a need to understand better the reasons and motives that lead to sustainable consumer behavior.
Often when individual differences in behavior are evaluated, personality characteristics are examined. Previous research on costly signaling suggests that pro-environmental behavior is the result of some personality traits but it is yet unclear what these traits are (Griskevicius, Tybur & Van den Bergh, 2010). Moreover, one suggestion of a personality indicator for sustainable behavior is the Big Five’s Agreeableness personality trait (Griskevicius et al., 2010). Agreeableness is defined as the propensity to be sympathetic, altruistic, helpful, and affectionate (McCrae & John, 1992), indicating agreeable people are likely to act altruistically. According to costly signaling theory, an altruistic act is a communicative signal that indicates a person’s pro-sociality and ability to incur costs (Bird & Smith, 2005). As people high on agreeableness are more likely to act altruistically, there is a higher chance that these people more often also engage in pro-social behavior, for instance, sustainable purchasing behavior.
In addition, costly signaling and self-sacrifice are usually linked to status enhancement (Miller, 2000; Zahavi, 1975). Especially people oriented towards a prestige strategy may be more prone to use self-sacrifice to attain status (Bird & Smith, 2005; Boone, 1998; Plourde, 2008). Prestige itself is attained by displaying high levels of competence on tasks that others value, and by giving more than taking (Anderson & Kilduff, 2009).As stated before, this type of self-sacrifice can be classified as an altruistic act that people scoring high on agreeableness are more likely to display. If it is assumed that most people are willing to consume more sustainably, it can be stated that sustainable consumer behavior can be seen as desired type of behavior among society. Thus, engaging in sustainable purchasing behavior and public altruistic acts can be considered to be costly signals to acquire status via prestige. Taking into account these factors, the research question is: to what extent
5 does scoring high on the Big Five’s personality trait Agreeableness influence consumers to make sustainable purchasing decisions, when an individual is engaging in status-seeking behavior?
By answering this research question, it can be better understood what measures need to be taken to incentivize people to adopt sustainable consumer behavior. This is fundamental for increasing green consumption will lead to an increase in the usage of sustainable resources and reduce waste, hence, preserving the planet and making it a better place for future generations to live in. In addition, this study will indicate if the trait Agreeableness of the Big Five has a positive effect on making sustainable purchasing decisions. There is little research on personality affecting buying green products, which is why this type of research is fundamental. Additionally, it will be examined if status-seeking behavior positively moderates the relationship between agreeableness and making sustainable purchasing decisions. Moreover, businesses can implement the results of this study in their practices and organizational culture. Green marketing campaigns can be designed to appeal to people with certain traits and employees can be motivated to act in a more sustainable manner.
In the next section, the literature regarding the research variables will be discussed in more detail. Following that will be the methods section introducing the design and measurements applied to conduct this research. After that, the results will be presented and interpreted. Finally, I will end this paper with a discussion of the findings and their implications and limitations.
2. Theoretical framework
2.1. Sustainable Purchasing Decisions (DV)
As sustainable consumer behavior is defined by Trudel (2018) as meeting the needs of the present without harming future generations’ ability to meet their needs, sustainable purchasing decisions can then be defined as consuming products that are less likely to become at the expense of people, animals and the planet (Meijers & van Dam, 2012). Sustainable products are products that are beneficial to the environment, recyclable, and sensitive to ecological concerns (Mostafa, 2007). Examples of products of these kinds are organic products, goods that are labeled as environmentally-friendly or that are against animal testing, products that contain little or no chemical ingredients at all, and products that use recyclable/recycled packaging (Lee, 2009).
The question is then what leads people to make sustainable purchasing decisions? Firstly, the previous findings on demographic factors will be discussed: age, gender, income, and education. It has been suggested that age affects the sustainable choices a person makes: research most often finds
6 that younger people are more concerned about sustainability issues than older people (Diamantopoulos, Schlegelmilch, Sinkovics, & Bohlen, 2003; Howell & Laska, 1992; Straughan & Roberts, 1999). One explanation is that values and norms differ per generation (Bogt & Hibbel, 2000). Older people are more integrated in the existing social systems and values and sustainability concerns provide a threat to these systems, since solving sustainability issues would mean having to change their existing habits. In addition, it has been argued that when people have more of a long-term focus, they are more likely to make sustainable purchasing choices (Milfront & Gouveia, 2006). Older people have less time left so they might engage more in short-term oriented behavior, making them less likely to act sustainably. Alternatively, being long- or short-term orientated can be explained by personality characteristics as well, so it might be independent of age (Freitas & Higgins, 2002). In addition, there is consistent evidence that males have more knowledge on sustainability issues, whereas females are more likely to act in a sustainable manner (Diamantopoulos et al., 2003). In regards to income, there is evidence for and against income’s effect on sustainable behavior (Maignan & Ferrell, 2004). Commonly, it is assumed that since sustainable products often cost more, the people purchasing them need to have a higher income (De Pelsmacker, Driesen & Rayp, 2005). Additionally, a number of studies have found positive correlations between education, sustainability concerns, and sustainable behavior, suggesting the higher the education level, the more likely people are to buy green products (e.g., Canavari, Bazzani, Spadoni, & Regazzi, 2002; Jansson, Marell, & Nordlund, 2011). This can be explained by the fact that educated people have satisfied their basic material needs and therefore have more resources, like time, to spend on other needs.
Furthermore, there is research indicating that status could play a role in making sustainable purchasing choices. Research done by Griskevicius et al. (2010) showed that status motives can increase the desirability of sustainable products. The effect was highly visible when green products cost more relative to non-green products. This can be explained by costly signaling theory: buying inexpensive green products can undermine a person’s ability to signal wealth and self-sacrifice (Griskevicius et al., 2010). For the effects of the demographic factors discussed above, a substantial amount of research indicating common lines has been found. Unlike for personality traits’ effect on sustainable consumption choices for which little research has been done. Therefore, in the next section, I will explain how the personality trait agreeableness might be an underlying factor in making sustainable purchasing decisions.
7 2.2. Big Five’s Agreeableness personality trait (IV)
Today many psychological researchers concur that five strong traits successfully match personality aspects recognized as the Big Five: agreeableness, openness, extraversion, consciousness, and neuroticism (Goldberg, 1993). Therefore, I have chosen to evaluate the effects of personality on sustainable purchasing decisions through this highly accepted framework. Particularly, I am focusing on agreeableness that is defined as the propensity to be sympathetic, altruistic, helpful, and affectionate (McCrae & John, 1992). Moreover, agreeable people are more likely to have pro-social (Gerber, Huber, Doherty & Dowling, 2011) and pro-environmental behaviors (Gholami, Sulaiman, Ramayah, & Molla, 2013; Markowitz, Goldberg, Ashton, & Lee, 2012; Milfont & Sibley, 2012; Wuertz, 2014). This is based on the notion that the affectionate and altruistic nature of agreeable people makes them more inclined to pay more attention to other people’s requests and preferences. Out of the Big Five, agreeableness holds the propensity for altruistic and pro-social behavior, which is why it has been chosen as the personality trait for this research model, as sustainable purchasing decisions are seen as prosocial acts.
Previous research by Awais, Samin, Gulzar, Hwang & Zubair (2020) has found that agreeableness has a significant effect on e-mavenism, which is defined as having excellent knowledge regarding market information. This effect is based on the assumption that agreeable people are more willing to establish positive relationships with others and they are likely to be a listener to marketplace information. Furthermore, e-mavenism has a positive effect on frugality for frugal consumers want to save money and accomplish sustainability goals by having excellent knowledge of the marketplace. Frugality is defined as careful spending from the customers that leads towards sustainable consumption behavior (Lastovicka, Bettencourt, Hughner & Kuntze, 1999). This indicates that there is an indirect link between agreeableness and sustainable consumer behavior. In addition, statistics show that countries with higher population levels of people scoring high on agreeableness and openness to experience have significantly better performance on the sustainability index than countries with lower scores on these personality dimensions (Hirsh, 2014). According to Milfront and Sibley (2012) across both persons and nations, agreeableness, openness to experience, and conscientiousness are the traits most strongly associated with environmental engagement, which explains why nations scoring high on the sustainability index also score high on these personality traits. Furthermore, a study by Fabio and Kenny (2018) found that a relationship between agreeableness, openness, and connectedness to nature is mediated by empathy, in particular by perspective-taking and empathic concern. This indicates that agreeable people, that are more prone to
8 be empathetic, also feel more connected with nature. Due to feeling more connected to nature, these people are more willing to preserve it, as if nature was part of their identity or personality.
According to Griskevicius et al. (2010), a costly signaling perspective suggests that pro-environmental behavior motivated by altruism indicates some underlying qualities, though it is currently unclear what these qualities are. One possibility is that pro-environmental behavior might relate to the personality dimensions of the Big Five (Miller, 2009). For instance, purchasing sustainable products can be a signal of high agreeableness, and perhaps even high conscientiousness and high openness to experience. To keep this research concise and clear, only the effects of agreeableness on making sustainable purchasing decisions will be analyzed. Therefore, I contend that:
Hypothesis 1 (H1). People scoring high on agreeableness are more likely to make sustainable purchasing decisions.
2.3. Status-seeking behavior (MV)
There are two different strategies to acquire status: via dominance, that is acquiring status by aggressive behavior, or via prestige, that is gaining status by social influence and respect (Henrich & Gil-White, 2001; Johnson, Burk, & Kirkpatrick, 2007). In this paper, I will focus on the status-seeking behavior via prestige for it entails behavior that is beneficial for the surrounding environment and people.
2.3.1. Reputation and Status
As a social species, group inclusion and reputation play a crucial role for us, humans. Having a reputation as a cooperative and respectful group member can be extremely beneficial for an individual: they can be seen as more trustworthy (Barclay, 2004), and they are more desirable as friends, allies, and romantic partners (Cottrell, Neuberg, & Li, 2007; Griskevicius, Tybur, Sundie, Cialdini, & Kenrick, 2007; Iredale, Van Vugt, & Dunbar, 2008; Miller, 2007; Stiff & Van Vugt, 2008). Thus, status entails a hierarchy of rewards, where higher status individuals have greater access to desirable resources (Griskevicius et al., 2010). From an evolutionary perspective, it is only natural people then engage in status-seeking behavior, in order to acquire resources for survival.
2.3.2. Costly signaling & Self-sacrifice
Costly signaling theory argues that humans may signal about desirable personal characteristics and access to resources through costly biological displays, altruism, or other behaviors that would be hard
9 to fake (McAndrew, 2019). Self-sacrifice is part of reciprocal altruism that occurs when a person acts in the benefit of others at a cost to oneself because s/he expects to receive a similar benefit in return at some future date (Trivers, 1971). Those oriented toward a prestige strategy are more prone to use self-sacrifice to attain status (Bird & Smith, 2005; Boone, 1998; Plourde, 2008). This is based on the notion that self-sacrifice for the benefit of a group has been shown to increase the self-sacrificer’s status in that group (Gurven, Allen-Arave, Hill, & Hurtado, 2000; Hardy & Van Vugt, 2006; Milinski, Semmann, & Krambeck, 2002). These acts of public self-sacrifice demonstrate both one’s willingness and one’s ability to incur the costs of self-sacrifice for public wellbeing (Griskevicius et al., 2010). This suggests that people engage in costly prosocial behaviors such as pro-environmental acts when they are motivated to attain status. Purchasing green products would be an example of this type of behavior for it enables an individual to signal that he is both willing and able to buy a product that benefits others at a cost to himself (Griskevicius et al., 2010). This is based on the notion that green products are usually more expensive than normal products so there is a substantial cost for the signaler. Moreover, engaging in acts of self-sacrifice is dependent on the publicity of the pro-social choices (Heffetz & Frank, 2008). Various studies have shown that donations for charities and other similar institutions are higher when the donation is done publicly, hence, it is not anonymous (Kataria & Regner, 2014). Therefore, to increase prosocial behavior the factor of publicity of the actions has to be taken into account. Furthermore, it can be concluded that activating a motive for status-seeking might lead people to engage more in public pro-environmental acts.
2.3.3. Altruistic acts
According to costly signaling perspective, an altruistic act is a communicative signal that communicates pro-sociality, and an individual’s ability to incur costs (Bird & Smith, 2005). That is, altruism can signal that one has sufficient time, energy, money, or other valuable resources to be able to give away such resources without a negative impact on fitness. The notion of competitive altruism that prosocial individuals are desired for positions of power suggests that prosocial behavior may be a viable strategy for attaining status (Roberts, 1998; Van Vugt, Roberts, & Hardy, 2007). Environmental conservation, which is an example of prosocial behavior, has proven to be of help for a person in creating a prosocial reputation (Milinski et al., 2002; Wedekind & Braithwaite, 2002). Sustainable purchasing decisions can as well be seen as prosocial behavior, and so it would be feasible that an individual is aiming to increase her/his status by green consumption. Furthermore, costly signaling theory and research on competitive altruism suggest a link between altruistic acts and status (Hardy & Van Vugt, 2006). People that score high on agreeableness are more likely to act
10 altruistically, thus, they would also be prone to seek status by altruistic behavior, in this case, by making sustainable purchasing decisions (see Figure 1). Therefore, I contend that:
Hypothesis 2 (H2). The effect of a high level of agreeableness on making sustainable purchasing decisions becomes stronger when consumers are engaging in status-seeking behavior.
Figure 1. Research model displaying H1and H2 predicted effects on the variables Agreeableness, Status-seeking behavior, and Sustainable purchasing decisions.
3. Methods
3.1. Design, Sample, and Procedure
For this quantitative research, a descriptive design was implemented. More specifically, a cross-sectional study was used. Data was collected through an online survey that allowed reaching various respondents on a broad scale. The survey was shared among different social media groups. Thus, voluntary response sampling was used for respondents voluntarily chose themselves to fill out the survey. One of the groups consisted of team members of an Amsterdam based foundation focused on reducing food waste. Other groups consisted of people interested in sustainability matters, and people following or interested in a plant-based lifestyle in the Amsterdam area. Other participants were students from around the world or people from personal networks located internationally. The influence of selection bias is limited for those people in the sustainability groups were free to decide to fill out the survey. Also, selection bias should be overcome by the size of the sample. Altogether, the survey was completed by 220 people. After deleting responses with missing values, the total sample size amounted to 203 (response rate 92%).
Age, gender, and education were factors that were asked to get a full demographic picture. Of the 203-person sample 72.9% were females and 27.1% males, indicating a majority of female respondents (see Appendix A). The scales of females and males were modified: female was recoded
11 into 1 and male into 0. In addition, the participants had an age range of 15-70 (see Appendix B). Of the respondents, 62.6% were in the age range 20-25 (see Appendix C). Of the sample 28.1% had only completed high school, 41.4% had completed a bachelor’s degree, and 27.6% master’s degree or higher. Also, 3% indicated they had completed some other sort of education not given in the answer options (see Appendix D).
3.2. Measurements
A Likert scale ranging from 1 to 5, in which 1=completely disagree and 5=completely agree, was used to evaluate the dependent variable, Sustainable purchasing decisions, and the independent variable, Agreeableness. For the moderation variable, Status-seeking behavior, a seven-point Likert scale was used to gain more depth in the answers.
Sustainable purchasing decisions (DV). Sustainable consumer behavior was measured using items from two scales. Five items were taken from the scale of Lee (2009). They were:
1 “I often buy organic products”;
2 “I often buy products that are labeled as environmentally-safe”; 3 “I often buy products that are against animal-testing”;
4 “When I consider buying a product, I will look for a certified environmentally-safe or organic label”;
5 “I try to buy products that use recycled/recyclable packaging”.
The remaining four items were taken from the scale of Straughan & Roberts (1999). They were: 6 “I avoid buying products that have excessive packaging”;
7 “When there is a choice, I choose the product that causes the least pollution”; 8 “I have switched product/brand for ecological reasons”;
9 “I have convinced members of my family or friends not to buy some products that are harmful to the environment”.
The reliability of this 9-item scale was 0.850 (see Appendix E).
Agreeableness (IV). To measure Agreeableness, questions from two different frameworks were used. Four items were taken from the scale of Donnellan, Oswald, Baird, & Lucas (2006). They were:
1 “I find it easy to sympathize with others’ feelings”; 2 “I am interested in other people’s problems”; 3 “I feel others’ emotions”;
12 The remaining three items were taken from the scale of Flynn & Swilley (2007). They were:
5 “I see myself as someone who likes to cooperate with others”;
6 “I see myself as someone who is considerate and kind to almost everyone”; 7 “I see myself as someone who is sometimes rude to others (R)”.
Items 4 and 7 were reverse-coded. The reliability of this scale was 0.725 (see Appendix F).
Status-seeking behavior (MV). For status-seeking behavior, 8-item scale was used. Two items were developed from the framework of Lange, Redford & Crusius (2018). They were:
1 “I aspire to be a role model for others”; 2 “I like to be admired by others”.
Three items were altered from the Status consumption scale of Eastman, Goldsmith & Flynn (1999) by adding the sustainability factor to make the items more specific. They were:
3 “I would buy a sustainable product just because it has status”; 4 “I would pay more for a sustainable product if it had status”; 5 “The status of a sustainable product is irrelevant to me (R)”.
The remaining three items were based on the costly signaling, self-sacrifice and competitive altruism theories discussed by Griskevicius, Tybur & Van den Bergh (2010). They were:
6 “A sustainable product has more value to me if it is highly valued by others”;
7 “I discuss the sustainable purchasing choices I make with others (family, peers, colleagues)”; 8 “I would choose a pricier sustainable product over a cheaper unsustainable product”.
Item 5 was reverse-coded. The reliability of this scale was 0.721 (see Appendix G).
3.3. Analytical plan
To test Hypothesis 1, the relationship between agreeableness and making sustainable purchasing decisions, a linear regression will be utilized with sustainable purchasing decisions as the dependent variable and agreeableness as the independent variable. For Hypothesis 2, the interaction effect between agreeableness and status-seeking behavior on sustainable consumer behavior, the PROCESS macro of Hayes (2018) Model 1 will be utilized with agreeableness as the independent variable, status-seeking behavior as the moderating variable, and sustainable purchasing decisions as the dependent variable. Age, education, and gender will act as control variables for testing both of the hypotheses.
13 4. Results
The results are organized into three sections. Firstly, all the relevant descriptives and correlations of the main and control variables are discussed. Secondly, the assumptions for regression analysis and the results of the linear regression of the relationship between agreeableness and making sustainable purchasing decisions are evaluated. Lastly, the results of the interaction effect between agreeableness and status-seeking behavior on making sustainable purchasing decisions will be introduced.
TABLE 1. Means, Standard Deviations and Correlations.
M SD 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 1. Age 26.66 8.480 2. Genderᵃ .73 .446 -.110 3. Educationᵇ 3.05 .822 .348** .108 4. Agreeableness 3.9296 .51789 -.003 .202** .117 (.725) 5. Sustainable purchasing 3.6289 .67819 .154* .312** .171* .220** (.850) 6. Status-seeking behavior 3.8510 .87895 -.100 .135 .005 .057 .245** (.721)
** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). * Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
ᵃ Calculated as the fraction of males (0) and females (1), N=203. ᵇ 1 = primary school, 2 = secondary/high school, 3 = bachelor’s degree, 4 = master’s degree or higher, 5 = other, N=203.
Reliabilities are displayed on the diagonal.
Table 1 contains the means, standard deviations, correlations, and reliabilities (based on Appendix H & I). Agreeableness and Sustainable purchasing decisions variables have sufficient means since the average evaluation rate is close to 4 of the maximum of 5. However, the variable status-seeking behavior has a mean close to 4 out of a maximum of 7. This indicates that the respondents were indifferent in their seeking behavior. It can be seen from Table 1 that status-seeking behavior has a strong correlation with making sustainable purchasing decisions (.245**). Though, this correlation should be treated with caution since status-seeking behavior has an insufficient mean. In addition, the correlation between status-seeking behavior and agreeableness is insignificant (.057). Furthermore, agreeableness and making sustainable purchasing decisions have a strong correlation (.220**). Considering H1 this correlation is desirable. Moreover, gender and making sustainable purchasing decisions have a strong correlation (.312**). As well, gender has a strong correlation with agreeableness (.202**). This could indicate that females are more likely to be agreeable and engage in sustainable purchasing behavior. Furthermore, making sustainable purchasing decisions correlates both with age (.154*) and education (.171*). Younger age (x̄ =26.66) and being highly educated (x̄ =3.05) could thereby act as means of acting in a sustainable manner.
14 To test Hypothesis 1, People scoring high on agreeableness are more likely to make sustainable purchasing decisions, I used linear regression with age, gender and education acting as controls in model 1 and Agreeableness (IV) in model 2. As such, I first checked whether my data met the assumptions of linear regression. I checked for linearity by examining the residuals of my main variables via a scatterplot. Results showed that there is a positive linear association between Agreeableness and Sustainable purchasing decisions (see Appendix J). In addition, the normality of residuals was checked via a normal P-P plot. Results indicated that the residuals are approximately normally distributed (see Appendix K). Next, the homoscedasticity of residuals was examined via a scatterplot. The results showed that the residuals are equally variable (see Appendix L). Furthermore, outliers were checked via formulating z-scores for variables. Three z-scores were found in the range <-2.81 and >2.81. After further evaluating the effect of the outliers on the significance of the regression results, I came to the conclusion that deleting them would not make a major difference in the results. Thus, no outliers were removed. Lastly, the multicollinearity of the data was tested. VIF was 1.000, meaning there is no multicollinearity (see Appendix M). After fulfilling these conditions, it was possible to run a linear regression. The regression results showed that the control variables and agreeableness account for 16.1% of the variance in making sustainable purchasing decisions. Furthermore, the variance explained by the independent variable alone, agreeableness, accounts to 2.3%, p=.022 (see Appendix N). A significant regression equation was found (F(4,198)=9.523, p<.000) (see Appendix O). The prediction for sustainable purchasing is equal to 1.999+.202, indicating that sustainable purchasing increases .202 for the level of agreeableness (se=.087, t=2.305, p<.05) (see Appendix P). These results support Hypothesis 1. Thus, it can be concluded that people scoring high on agreeableness are more likely to make sustainable purchasing decisions.
TABLE 2. A linear model of predictors of sustainable purchasing behavior.
Sustainable purchasing (DV) Model 1
(Constant) B -.9792 SE 1.3868 t -.7061 p .4810 LLCI -3.7142 ULCI 1.7558 Agreeableness .8045* .3543 2.2705 .0243 .1057 1.5032 Status-seeking .7869* .3509 2.2424 .0261 .0948 1.4789 Int_l -.1593 .0896 -1.7782 .0769 -.3360 .0174 R2 .2207
15 To test Hypothesis 2, The effect of a high level of agreeableness on making sustainable purchasing decisions becomes stronger when consumers are engaging in status-seeking behavior, the PROCESS v3.5 macro of Hayes (2018) Model 1 was run. From Table 2 (based on Appendix Q) it can be seen that the results do not support this hypothesis as they show there is no significant interaction effect (b=-.1593, se=.0896, t=-1.7782, p=.0769, 95% CI=-.3360, .0174).
5. Discussion
This paper began with the research question: to what extent does scoring high on the Big Five’s personality trait Agreeableness influence consumers to make sustainable purchasing decisions, when an individual is engaging in status-seeking behavior? The research question was based on previous research on costly signaling and competitive altruism that suggests there is a link between altruistic acts and status-seeking (Hardy & Van Vugt, 2006). People that score high on agreeableness are more likely to act altruistically, thus, they would also be prone to seek status by altruistic behavior, for instance pro-environmental behavior (McCrae & John, 1992). The theoretical framework succeeded to align the results for Hypothesis 1 but for Hypothesis 2 no support was found.
Moreover, the findings indicate that people who score high on agreeableness are more likely to make sustainable purchasing decisions. Thus, Hypothesis 1 was supported. Previous research has found that agreeable people are more likely to engage in pro-environmental behavior (e.g., Milfont & Sibley, 2012). In addition, it has been found that countries with higher population levels of people scoring high on agreeableness have significantly better performance on the sustainability index than countries with lower scores on this personality dimension (Hirsh, 2014). Hereby, this research paper strengthens the previous findings and indicates that agreeable personality can act as a motive for making sustainable purchasing decisions. This is a fundamental finding since previous research on behavioral motives and sustainable consumer profiles has mainly focused on demographic factors. Younger age has been linked to being more concerned about sustainability matters (eg. Diamantopoulos et al., 2003), for which this research found support as well: there was a positive relationship between age and making sustainable purchasing decisions. Moreover, the majority of respondents were in the age group of 20-25 (62.6%), making these years the matter of interest. In addition, more highly educated people were found to engage more in sustainable consumer behavior, the average level of education being the bachelor level. This finding adds support to the work of Canavari, Bazzani, Spadoni, & Regazzi 2002, that previously have found correlations between
16 education and sustainable behavior. Furthermore, this research indicated that females are more likely to be agreeable and engage in sustainable purchasing behavior since these factors had strong correlations. This is in line with the consistent findings that females are more likely to engage in sustainable behaviors than males (Diamantopoulos et al., 2003).
Based on costly signaling theory, self-sacrifice and competitive altruism can be feasible strategies for gaining status (Griskevicius et al., 2010). Purchasing green products is an example of self-sacrifice for it enables an individual to signal that he is both willing and able to buy a product that benefits others at a cost to himself (Griskevicius et al., 2010). Unlike for these findings, there was no support found for Hypothesis 2: The effect of a high level of agreeableness on making sustainable purchasing decisions becomes stronger when consumers are engaging in status-seeking behavior. There was no correlation between agreeableness and status-seeking behavior, and the status-seeking variable was rated indifferently by respondents. The indifference respondents had in status-seeking behavior contributed to the results negatively since it was not possible to find support for the hypothesis. Nonetheless, status-seeking behavior and making sustainable purchasing decisions had a strong correlation. However, for the status-seeking variable not being a reliable indicator of status-seeking behavior, the correlation cannot be related to previous research.
5.1. Alternative Explanations
Constituting the status-seeking behavior variable underlined the previous studies that have found that donations for charities and other similar institutions are higher when the donations are not anonymous (Kataria & Regner, 2014), which is why some of the items included a public perspective in them. As an explanation for why H2 did not find support and the mean of the status-seeking variable was insufficient, is the notion of cognitive dissonance. According to Konow (2005), people may downplay their involvement in status-seeking behavior because doing something entirely for status gain may be regarded as a negative character trait. Thus, they want to preserve a pure self-image for not enclosing they are making their decisions for status matters. For instance, the measurement items “I would buy a sustainable product just because it has status” and “I would pay more for a sustainable product if it had status” would be examples of direct status-seeking behavior. Perhaps, including more discrete items on the scale would have reduced the effect of cognitive dissonance.
Alternatively, another reason why the model failed could be that agreeable people are not prone to engage in status-seeking behavior. Thus, the relationship between agreeableness and making sustainable purchasing choices could not be strengthened by engaging in status-seeking behavior. Altruism is one of the common factors that define agreeableness and status-seeking by the means of
17 self-sacrifice (Hardy & Van Vugt, 2006). However, altruism can be understood differently by people. In line with the previous paragraph, some respondents might have not been aware of their motives for acting altruistically. They might not think altruism in the perspective of self-sacrifice for status gain but rather from the perspective of sacrificing their time and resources by the means of purchasing sustainable products for the good of the environment, not themselves. This type of thinking is more aligned with behaving altruistically in favor of kinship (Hamilton, 1964). Favoring relatives is a successful strategy in order to passing down one’s genes, hence, it would be beneficial for an individual to mainly motivate their altruistic behavior by the virtue of future generations. This would indicate that acting altruistically to gain status would be of less importance than acting altruistically to preserve the planet so one’s kin can survive.
5.2. Practical and Managerial Implications
The results can be implemented in practice since it can be better profiled which types of consumers are more likely to engage in sustainable behavior. The previous studies and this research have found that the typical sustainable consumers are young (approximately in their 20s), highly educated, and most likely females. In addition, personality-wise they are agreeable. Therefore, companies and individual stores providing sustainable products should focus their marketing and incentivization systems around these factors. The findings can be implemented to the governmental level as well since research has been done in the EU to understand better how many people engage in sustainable consumer behavior in reality. It is fundamental that sustainability concerns are dealt with in all levels of society to find sustainable solutions to preserve the planet for future generations.
On a more individual level, the results can be implemented in self-evaluation and HR practices. Individual consumers can evaluate their behavior by means of the Big Five framework and status motives. By understanding these factors better, they can turn their knowledge on sustainable matters to actions. In addition, in HR manager practices, a company can alter its HR policy to hire individuals more prone to act in a sustainable manner. Specifically, this is important for positions dealing with sustainability matters and in creating an overall sustainable work environment and practices. At times, companies use the Big Five framework in the hiring process to better understand what type of person their future employee is. In this case, it then would be essential to pay attention to the agreeableness level of the applicants.
18 5.3. Limitations and Future Research
The first point of critique is the use of voluntary response sampling. Voluntary response sampling is non-random and can bias the results. To reduce bias in the future, random sampling should be implemented. Besides, using random sampling a bigger sample should be collected since now it only amounted to 203 respondents. In this way, the sample could entail more variation. The current sample consisted of females mainly, which is why it would be important to reach more males as well. Furthermore, for future research qualitative study could be implemented. Conducting interviews would allow for more precise profiling of sustainable behavior since answers could be elaborated more. In this way, the study could also be concentrated on a specific region or city. This study reached people internationally, which can alter the answers since different regions have different product offerings. If the sample was from the same area, all respondents would approximately have the same consuming opportunities.
In addition, a different scale for status-seeking behavior should be used in future research. The currently used scale led to an insufficient mean, indicating respondents were indifferent in their status-seeking behavior. More discrete items should be used that do not directly indicate that a respondent is purposefully seeking to increase their status. Additionally, for future research, the survey could include items that ask for consumers’ preference for a product A vs. B, where A is a sustainable high-status product and B is a less expensive non-status product. By giving respondents concrete examples the response quality could be better. Especially, since for this survey, it was precisely not clear if the respondents understood what a “sustainable status product” is, even though a general definition was given.
The model should be altered for future research as well. Status-seeking behavior should be transformed into an independent variable, in addition to agreeableness being the independent variable. The relationships could then be researched with moderating or mediating variables, such as income, education, or age. A model like this would strengthen the previous finding on status motives for sustainable consumption if the results were significant. In addition, it should be further researched what type of personalities, preferably using the Big Five framework, are more inclined to engage in status-seeking behavior by the means of costly signaling. Referring to the results of this study, agreeableness most likely is not one of those personality characteristics.
5.4. Conclusion
To conclude, the results of this research indicate that people displaying the personality trait agreeableness are likely to make sustainable purchasing decisions. There has been little research on
19 the personality factors’ effect on sustainability, making this finding valuable addition to the previous findings. However, the main model did not find support, indicating status-seeking behavior was an irrelevant factor for agreeable people nor they did not want to enclose their status-seeking behavior. Previous research on status-seeking behavior leading to sustainable purchasing decisions has been conducted indicating prospective opportunities to research the matter further. By altering the model and variables used in this study further, research on the status matters should be conducted. To answer the research question: scoring high on the Big Five’s personality trait Agreeableness influences consumers to make sustainable purchasing decisions when an individual is indifferent in attaining status.
20 References
Anderson, C., & Kilduff, G.J. (2009). The pursuit of status in social groups. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 18, 295–289.
Awais, M., Samin, T., Gulzar, M., Hwang, J., & Zubair, M. (2020). Unfolding the Association between the Big Five, Frugality, E-Mavenism, and Sustainable Consumption Behavior. Sustainability, 12(2), 490.
Barclay, P. (2004). Trustworthiness and competitive altruism can also solve the “tragedy of the commons.” Evolution and Human Behavior, 25, 209–220.
Bird, R., & Smith, E.A. (2005). Signaling theory, strategic interaction, and symbolic capital. Current Anthropology, 46, 221–248.
Bogt, T.F.M., & Hibbel, B. (2000). Wilde jaren: Een eeuw jeugdcultuur [Wild years: A century of youth culture]. Utrecht: Lemma.
Boone, J.L. (1998). The evolution of magnanimity: When is it better to give than to receive? Human Nature, 9, 1–21.
Canavari, M., Bazzani, G.M., Spadoni, R., & Regazzi, D. (2002). Food safety and organic fruit demand in Italy: A survey. British Food Journal, 104(3/4/5), 220 - 232.
Cottrell, C. A., Neuberg, S. L., & Li, N. P. (2007). What do people desire in others? A sociofunctional perspective on the importance of different valued characteristics. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92, 208–231.
De Pelsmacker, P., Driesen, L., & Rayp, G. (2005). Do consumers care about ethics? Willingness to pay for fair-trade coffee. The journal of consumer affairs: official publication of the Council on Consumer Information, 39(2), 363-385.
Diamantopoulos, A., Schlegelmilch, B.B., Sinkovics, R.R., & Bohlen, G.M. (2003). Can socio-demographics still play a role in profiling green consumers? A review of the evidence and an empirical investigation. Journal of Bussiness Research, 56(6), 465-480.
Donnellan, M.B., Oswald, F.L., Baird, B.M., & Lucas, R.E. (2006). The mini-IPIP scales: tiny-yet-effective measures of the Big Five factors of personality. Psychological Assessment, 18(2), 192.
Eastman, J., Goldsmith, R., & Flynn, L. (1999). Status Consumption in Consumer Behavior: Scale Development and Validation. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 7(3), 41-52. European Commission. Ec.europa.eu. Retrieved 15th of March 2020, from
https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/ec_circular_economy_executive_summary_0.pdf. Fabio, A., & Kenny, M. (2018). Connectedness to nature, personality traits, and empathy from a
21 Flynn, L.R., & Swilley, E. (2007). Resisting Change: Scale validation with a New, Short Measure
of the Big Five. Proceedings of the Association of Marketing Theory and Practice, 16. Freitas, A.L., & Higgins, E.T. (2002). Enjoying goal-directed action: the role of regulatory fit.
Psychological Science, 13(1), 1-6.
Gaylord Nelson Quotes. Goodreads.com. Retrieved 15th of March 2020, from https://www.goodreads.com/author/quotes/145890.Gaylord_Nelson.
Gerber, A.S., Huber, G.A., Doherty, D., Dowling, C.M. (2011). The Big Five Personality Traits in the Political Arena. Annual Review of Political Science, 14, 265–287.
Gholami, R., Sulaiman, A.B., Ramayah, T., & Molla A. (2013). Senior managers’ perception on green information systems (IS) adoption and environmental performance: results from a field survey. Information Management Group, 50(7), 431-438.
Goldberg, L.R. (1993). The structure of phenotypic personality traits. American Psychologist. 48(1), 26–34.
Griskevicius, V., Tybur, J.M., Sundie, J.M., Cialdini, R.B., Miller, G.F., & Kenrick, D.T. (2007). Blatant benevolence and conspicuous consumption: When romantic motives elicit strategic costly signals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93, 85–102.
Griskevicius, V., Tybur, J.M., & Van den Bergh, B. (2010). Going green to be seen: status, reputation, and conspicuous conservation. Journal of personality and social psychology, 98(3), 392. Gurven, M., Allen-Arave, W., Hill, K., & Hurtado, M. (2000). It’s a wonderful life: Signaling
generosity among the Ache of Paraguay. Evolution and Human Behavior, 21, 263–282. Hamilton, W.D. (1964). The genetical evolution of social behaviour. Journal of Theoretical Biology,
7, 1-16.
Hardy, C. L., & Van Vugt, M. (2006). Nice guys finish first: The competitive altruism hypothesis. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32, 1402–1413.
Heffetz, O., & Frank, R.H. (2008). Preferences for status: Evidence and economic implications. In J. Benhabib, A. Bisin, and M. Jackson (Eds.), Handbook of social economics. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Henrich, J., & Gil-White, F.J. (2001). The evolution of prestige: Freely conferred deference as a mechanism for enhancing the benefits of cultural transmission. Evolution and Human Behavior, 22, 165–196.
Hirsh, J.B. (2014). Environmental sustainability and national personality. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 38, 233-240.
Howell, S.E., & Laska, S.B. (1992). The changing face of the environmental coalition. Environment and Behavior, 24(1), 134-144.
22 Iredale, W., Van Vugt, M., & Dunbar, R.I.M. (2008). Showing off in humans: Male generosity as a
mating signal. Evolutionary Psychology, 6, 386–392.
Jansson, J., Marell, A., & Nordlund, A. (2011). Exploring consumer adoption of a high involvement eco-innovation using value-belief-norm theory. Journal of Consumer Behavior, 10, 51-60. Johnson, R., Burk, L., & Kirkpatrick, L. (2007). Dominance and prestige as differential predictors of
aggression and testosterone levels in men. Evolution and Human Behavior, 28, 345–351. Kataria, M., & Regner, T. (2014). Honestly, why are you donating money to charity? An experimental
study about self-awareness in status-seeking behavior. Theory and Decision, 79(3), 493-515. Konow, J. (2005). Blind spots: The effects of information and stakes on fairness bias and dispersion.
Social Justice Research, 18(4), 349–390.
Lange, J., Redford, L., & Crusius, J. (2018). A status-seeking account of psychological entitlement. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 45(7), 1113-1128.
Lastovicka, J.L., Bettencourt, L.A., Hughner, R.S., & Kuntze, R.J. (1999). Lifestyle of the tight and frugal: Theory and measurement. Journal of Consumer Research, 26, 85–98
Lee, K. (2009). Gender differences in Hong Kong adolescent consumer’s green purchasing behavior. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 26(2), 87-96.
Maignan, I., & Ferrell, O.C. (2004). Corporate social responsibility and marketing: An integrative framework. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 32(1), 3-19.
Markowitz, E.M., Goldberg, L.R., Ashton, M.C, Lee, K. (2012). Profiling the “pro-environmental individual”: a personality perspective. Journal of Personality, 80(1), 81-111.
McAndrew, F. (2019). Costly Signaling Theory. 10.1007/978-3-319-16999-6_3483-1.
McCrae, R.R., & John, O.P. (1992). An introduction to the five-factor model and its applications. Journal of Personality, 60(2), 175–215.
Meijers, M.H.C., & van Dam, Y.K. (2012). Sustainable food purchases in the Netherlands: the influence of consumer characteristics. Journal on Chain and Network Science, 12(2), 181-198.
Milfont, T.L., & Gouveia, V.V. (2006). Time perspective and values: An exploratory study of their relations to environmental attitudes. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 26(1), 72-82. Milfont, T., & Sibley, C. (2012). The big five personality traits and environmental engagement:
Associations at the individual and societal level. Journal of Environmental Psychology. 32, 187–195.
Milinski, M., Semmann, D., & Krambeck, H. (2002). Donors to charity gain in both indirect reciprocity and political reputation. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, Series B, 269, 881–883.
23 Miller, G.F. (2000). The mating mind: How sexual choice shaped the evolution of human nature. New
York, NY: Doubleday.
Miller, G.F. (2007). Sexual selection for moral virtues. Quarterly Review of Biology, 82, 97–125. Miller, G.F. (2009). Spent: Sex, evolution, and consumer behavior. New York, NY: Viking.
Mostafa, M.M. (2007). Gender differences in Egyptian consumers’ green purchase behavior: the effects of environmental knowledge, concern and attitude. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 31(3), 220-229.
Plourde, A.M. (2008). The origins of prestige goods as honest signals of skill and knowledge. Human Nature, 19, 374–388.
Roberts, G. (1998). Competitive altruism: From reciprocity to the handicap principle. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, Series B, 265, 427–431.
Stiff, C.E., & Van Vugt, M. (2008). The power of reputations: The role of third-party information in the admission of new group members. Group Dynamics, 12, 155–166.
Straughan, R.D., & Roberts, J.A. (1999). Environmental segmentation alternatives: a look at green consumer behavior in the new millennium. Journal of consumer marketing,16(6), 558-575. Trivers, Robert. (1971). The Evolution of Reciprocal Altruism. Quarterly Review of Biology, 46,
35-57.
Trudel, R. (2018). Sustainable consumer behavior. Consumer Psychology Review, 2(1), 85-96. Van Vugt, M., Roberts, G., & Hardy, C. (2007). Competitive altruism: Development of
reputation-based cooperation in groups. Handbook of evolutionary psychology, 531–540.
Wedekind, C., & Braithwaite, V. (2002). The long-term benefits of human generosity in indirect reciprocity. Current Biology, 12, 1012–1015.
Wuertz, T.R. (2014). Personality Traits Associated with Environmental Concern. Walden University.
Zahavi, A. (1975). Mate selection: Selection for a handicap. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 53, 205–214.
24 Appendix Appendix A. Appendix B. Appendix C. Appendix D.
25 Appendix E.
Appendix F.
Appendix G.
26 Appendix I.
27 Appendix K.
28 Appendix M.
Appendix N.
29 Appendix P.
