The battle against unsustainable consumption
The moderating role of perceived behavioural control on
sharing values with moral innovators
2
The battle against unsustainable consumption
The moderating role of perceived behavioural control on
sharing values with moral innovators
Author
Joëlle Kreuze (s2741423)
joellekreuze@gmail.com
Bremstraat 33
9741 EA Groningen
+31611824340
Master Thesis
Completion date
14 January 2019
University of Groningen
MSc Marketing Management
Department of Marketing
Faculty of Economics and Business
First supervisor:
Second supervisor:
3
ABSTRACT
Moral innovators, individuals that can guide others in using sustainable innovations, are an important weapon in the battle against unsustainable consumption. However, previous research shows that when those innovators did something moral the observing consumers refused to do, they make consumers feel morally inferior. As a defence, involved consumers derogate the innovator by evaluating them negatively and rebel against their behaviour. The aim of the present paper is to investigate whether sharing values with an innovator leads to more derogation because of increased self-threat and if perceived behavioral control can reduce this effect. A survey-based experiment indicated no significant effects of perceived behavioural control nor of self-threat on derogation. Contrary to what was expected, sharing values with the innovator made the innovator more liked instead of derogated. Moreover, this study provided evidence that liking the innovator resulted in more imitation of the sustainable behaviour of the innovator and disliking resulted in rebellion against it. In sum, this research provides indications under which circumstances innovators can be effective change agents of sustainable consumption.
4
TABLE OF CONTENT
ABSTRACT ... 3
INTRODUCTION ... 5
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK ... 8
Moral do-gooder derogation because of self-threat ... 8
Shared values between moral innovator and observing consumer ... 9
Perceived behavioural control ... 10
Rebellion or imitation ... 12 Conceptual model ... 13 METHODOLOGY ... 13 Context ... 14 Procedure ... 14 Measurements ... 15 Vegan values ... 15 Self-threat ... 15 Do-gooder derogation ... 16 Rebellion or imitation ... 16 Manipulation checks... 17 RESULTS ... 18 Preliminary analysis... 19 Descriptive statistics... 19
Vegan values measurement ... 20
Manipulation check ... 20
Main analysis ... 21
Self-threat ... 21
Do-gooder derogation ... 22
Conclusion moderated mediation ... 22
Rebellion vs imitation ... 23
Exploratory analysis ... 23
Self-threat ... 24
Do-gooder derogation ... 24
Conclusion moderated mediation exploratory analysis ... 24
DISCUSSION ... 26
Implications ... 27
Limitations and future research ... 28
Conclusion ... 30
REFERENCES... 31
APPENDICES ... 35
Appendix A: Master thesis survey ... 35
5
INTRODUCTION
As consumers we make decisions about consumption every day, but our consumption decisions are often not sustainable. The way we consume contributes significantly to pollution, global warming and excessive waste production (Hoekstra and Wiedmann, 2014). In addition, the impact of our consumption patterns on the earth will be irreversible (Lim, 2017). The idea of more sustainable consumption patterns is more and more the focus of researchers and attitudes towards sustainability have changed for the better (Lim, 2017; Prothero, Dobscha, Freund, Kilbourne, Luchs, Ozanne, and Thøgersen, 2011). Moreover, policy makers, like the European Union, state that sustainable consumption is one of their key objectives (European Union, 2016). Despite all this, consumers continue to make unsustainable consumption decisions (Prothero, et al., 2011).
Because unsustainable consumption is a major problem, previous sustainability research aimed to find ways to motivate consumers to go green. One way to motivate consumers is to confront them with the sustainable behaviour of others (Schnall and Roper, 2012). Suitable others can be moral innovators, who are “individuals who take a principled stand against the status quo, who refuse to comply, stay silent, or simply go along when this would require that they compromise their values” as defined by Monin, Sawyer and Marquez (2008). Their behaviour sets an example and can potentially increase sustainable behaviour in society, since they are social proof that
sustainable products or a sustainable lifestyle are possible to maintain (Cialdini, 1987).
Additionally, moral innovators show that it is socially acceptable to behave sustainably, which can unconsciously cause consumers to conform to this perceived social norm (Goldstein, Cialdini, Griskevicius, 2008). Their behaviour also simply increases the visibility of new sustainable products or actions which makes them more noticeable to other consumers (Ozaki, 2011).
Therefore, moral innovators can set an example, elicit inspiration and guide consumers in the right direction (Hu, Rucker and Galinsky, 2016).
Although it seems we should applaud moral innovators, recently a contradictory line of research predicted that those innovators can also elicit irritation instead of inspiration from involved consumers (Bolderdijk, Brouwer & Cornelissen, 2018). Previous research indicates that
6 The derogative and rebellious behaviour of consumers towards moral innovators can lead to consumers choosing less sustainable consumption options in the future (Zane et al., 2016), which poses a threat to the improvement of consumption patterns in society. The aim of this paper is therefore, to investigate a potential solution to this problem and to indicate under which circumstances moral innovators elicit imitation from involved consumers instead of rebellion against their sustainable behaviour.
Innovators who hold the same sustainable values as the consumer might be more inspiring to involved consumers. Previous research indicated that sharing values with someone, makes the behaviour more relevant to the observing consumers and therefore more inspiring (Goethals & Darley, 1977; Festinger, 1954). However, comparisons with innovators who hold the same values might not lead consumers to be inspired at all times. In fact, this paper argues that the moral behaviour of innovators who hold the same values may even elicit defensiveness and rebellion in observers who also highly value morality. This might be the case because moral innovators elicit an unfavourable social comparison (Monin, et al., 2008), especially among those who agree with the underlying principle, but fail to live up to it.
What could be a solution for this defensive behaviour against innovators who hold the same values? This paper proposes that perceived behavioural control can potentially reduce do-gooder derogation. Perceived behavioural control is defined as “the extent to which one believes that subsequent outcomes are controllable or alterable” (Testa & Major, 1990). Previous research indicates that individuals who feel in control of a situation show less negative affect towards others than individuals without control (Abramson, Seligman & Teasdale, 1978). Feelings of control could make consumers focused on what they can do, instead of what they failed to do, which might make an innovator less threatening and even inspiring. It is therefore, interesting to investigate whether perceived behavioural control could also reduce derogative behaviour.
Based on the reasons mentioned above, the current research will test whether sharing values with a moral innovator can increase feelings of self-threat, which potentially leads to higher levels of do-gooder derogation. Moreover, because previous research indicates the potential of perceived behavioural control to reduce negative feelings towards someone, it is also investigated whether increasing one’s perceived behavioural control can reduce do-gooder derogation. The following research questions are formulated: To what extent does sharing values with a moral innovator
7 The present paper aims to contribute to the literature in the following ways. Firstly, previous research has identified the factors that render do-gooders as ineffective change agents. This paper focuses on how do-gooders can become forces that effectively stimulate change. More
specifically this paper proposes that do-gooders who hold the same values as consumers can be threatening, but when consumers feel more in control, they can use those innovators as inspiration and even imitate their behaviour. This is necessary because innovators guide other consumers to the so desperately needed sustainable consumption choices. Secondly, by researching these effects it provides more insights in the effect of perceived behavioural control in the context of moral do-gooder derogation. Previous studies provide some evidence of the positive effects of perceived behavioural control in evaluating others (e.g. Testa et al., 1990). This paper continuous on this line of research and examines which role perceived behavioural control can have on do-gooder derogation.
The present study also has practical implications. This study sheds light on two of the conditions of derogative behaviour, namely shared values and perceived behavioural control and this can be used in practice. Organizations and institutions can use this knowledge to make moral innovators more inspiring. Specifically, it is expected that moral innovators with the same values can elicit inspiration but only when consumers feel in control. Therefore, marketers and policy makers should use moral innovators for the right target group and in situations where consumers feel in control. In that way they could get consumers to consume more sustainable and ethical products, which can decrease unsustainable consumption.
This paper will continue with explaining the important concepts of moral do-gooder derogation, shared values between moral innovator and consumer, perceived behavioural control and
8
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
Moral do-gooder derogation because of self-threat
Individuals tend to use the behaviour of others as standards, as is described in the social
comparison theory (Festinger, 1954). Moreover, individuals use the behaviour of others to judge their own behaviour and to check whether their self-evaluations are correct. Individuals tend to compare themselves in particular to others they perceive as better, e.g. moral innovators, to assess their own moral behaviour (Gerber, Wheeler & Suls, 2018). This is also referred to as upward social comparison.
In the moral domain, upward social comparison can be threatening to the self-concept of
individuals. The self-concept is “a person’s perception of himself” (Shavelson, Hubner & Stanton, 1976), which depends heavily on the person’s morality (Pronin, 2008). Because people find morality so important, they often engage in upward social comparison to see how the moral behaviour of others reflects on them (Ellemers, 2017). However, when looking at more moral others, -moral innovators-, they are confronted with their own moral failures and this is painful (Monin et al., 2008). When confronted with a moral innovator in upward social comparison, individuals focus on their own moral shortcomings (Cramwinckel et al., 2013). This is especially the case when those innovators did something the consumer refused to do – when observers are self-involved. Moral innovators may make them feel relatively inferior (Monin et al., 2008) and this results in a threatened self-concept, because morality is so central to the self (Pronin, 2008).
In addition, observing consumers not only use social comparison for evaluation matters, they also want to know what others think of them and of their behaviour. The (imagined) opinion of others is extremely important to individuals. The moral behaviour of an innovator implicitly signals what behaviour is appropriate (O’Connor & Monin, 2016). Therefore, individuals who do not behave morally fear that moral innovators look down on them for not behaving appropriately (Monin, et al., 2008). This anticipated judgment of moral innovators results in feelings of self-threat because consumers think their morality is questioned (O’Connor et al., 2016).
9 innovators compensates for feelings of self-threat and serves to justify the decision not to behave morally, when they could (Monin, et al., 2008).
The experimental study of Bolderdijk et al. (2018) replicates the findings that consumers derogate moral innovators but shows that this is only the case if the moral innovator uses moral claims to support their behaviour and not selfish ones. The present study endorses before mentioned previous research on moral do-gooder derogation, because it also emphasizes the relationship between self-threat and derogative behaviour of involved observers towards innovators with moral claims. Next to that, it investigates if sharing moral values with the innovator influences derogative behaviour towards the innovator.
Shared values between moral innovator and observing consumer
In general, individuals tend to see others who hold the same values as more positive and as people with whom they are more likely to interact (Ståhl, Vermunt & Ellemers, 2008). Additionally, individuals who hold the same values are seen as more trustworthy because their behaviour feels more predictable (Ellemers, 2017; Wainryb, Shaw, Laupa & Smith, 2001). When others have different moral values, they seem less trustworthy and, their predictability decreases. Others with different moral values are also less liked because they question an individual’s believe that their values are superior (Wright, Cullum & Schwab, 2008). Thus, when a moral innovator holds the same values they can be a great and trustworthy example for others on how to behave sustainably (Hu et al., 2016).
However, it becomes a different case when consumers are self-involved, in situations where moral innovators did something the consumer refused to do. The superior behaviour of moral innovators in such situations only reminds consumers of their own shortcomings, especially when they actually agree that the innovators’ behaviour is the right thing to do (Monin, et al., 2008), or, in other words, when the do-gooder and the observer value the same things. The comparison with the behaviour of the moral innovator in that case is more informative and relevant because they share values (Goethals et al., 1977). Therefore, having the same values as a moral innovator is likely to increase self-threat, because moral innovators make consumers feel their behaviour is inferior (Monin et al., 2008), especially because innovators signal that consumers should have acted upon those values as well.
10 1977). The behaviour of those innovators is less relevant to consumers because it is based on values they do not hold (Goethals et al., 1977; Festinger, 1954). These moral innovators are more seen as abstract examples, which do not challenge consumers’ self-views (Ellemers, 2017). Consumers do not feel they should have acted morally as well, because they do not agree with those values. Based on that line of reasoning, consumers might feel less threatened from a comparison with a moral innovator that holds different values because their behaviour is less relevant to them and they do not agree with the values on which the behaviour was based.
Different research points in the direction of increased feelings of self-threat when individuals refused to do something the moral innovator did (Zane et al., 2016; Cramwinckel et al., 2013; Monin et al., 2008). This effect is likely to be increased when the moral innovator holds the same values as the innovator, because those innovators make it especially salient that consumers failed to live up to the values they hold. Innovators that hold the same values are therefore, expected to be more negatively evaluated (derogated) by observing consumers. Based on the theory and reasoning mentioned above the following hypotheses can be formulated:
H1: Moral innovators with the same values are more threatening to the self-concept of observing consumers than moral innovators with different values.
H2: These increased feelings of self-threat will lead observing consumers to react more negatively on moral innovators with the same values than on innovators with different values.
Perceived behavioural control
Previous studies indicate that moral innovators can elicit admiration or derogative behaviour from observing consumers (Bolderdijk et al., 2018). Thus, these moral innovators can either inspire consumers to go green or decrease willingness to behave sustainably. Especially moral innovators that hold the same values as consumers can decrease future sustainable behaviour, because those innovators make it painfully salient what consumers shortcomings are, by acted upon values consumers also hold, but refused to act on (Monin, et al., 2008). This results in increased feelings of self-threat, which leads to derogation of the innovator and consequently to less sustainable behaviour in the future (Zane et al., 2016). Following this reasoning, consumers would be less likely to derogate the innovator when they would feel less threatened. One concept that could potentially neutralize feelings of self-threat is perceived behavioural control.
11 control has established that the concept of two separable components, namely beliefs about self-efficacy and about controllability (Ajzen, 2002). Self-self-efficacy is referred to as “the feeling that one can perform a behaviour or has the ability to perform the behaviour” (Ajzen, 2002; Bandura, 1991). Controllability refers to “beliefs about the extent to which performing the behaviour is up to the actor” (Ajzen, 2002).
The effects of perceived behavioural control have been studied in the context of social
comparison. Testa and colleagues (1990) found that if individuals feel they have control to alter a situation, upward social comparison could motivate them to change their behaviour for the better. Upward social comparison also results in debilitating when perceived behavioural control is low (Testa et al., 1990) and it is, therefore, mostly used when individuals think they can improve themselves (Cihangir, Scheepers, Baretto and Ellemers, 2013). Consequently, when confronted with people who do better, individuals tend to show more negative feelings towards them, but only if they feel they have little control over the situation (Testa et al., 1990).
Zane et al.’s (2016) research shows that a similar concept to perceived behavioural control might have an influence on moral do-gooder derogation as well. They tested if consumers would also derogate an ethical other when they had a chance to alter their choices after confrontation with a moral innovator, a so called ‘second chance’ to behave morally. Their results show that
consumers who had control to alter their behaviour, did not derogate the moral innovator. The reasoning behind this is that consumers had an opportunity to decrease self-threat, by behaving ethically in the second chance and therefore did not have to compensate for their bad behaviour by derogating the ethical other (Zane et al., 2016). This feeling of having the opportunity to alter behavioural choices is quite similar to perceived behavioural control. However, in the study of Zane et al. (2016), participants could actually alter their choices, which is different from perceived behavioural control in which people only believe they have control.
12 situation (Testa et al., 1990). Thus, negative feelings towards ethical others could be decreased because individuals feel in control and there is no need to compensate for feeling self-threatened. Based on this line of reasoning, the following hypothesis is formulated:
H3: When confronted with a moral innovator who shares the same values, perceived behavioural control reduces derogative behaviour towards the moral innovator because it reduces feelings of self-threat
Rebellion or imitation
This paper not only focusses on the effects of shared values and perceived behavioural control on do-gooder derogation but also investigates what the results are of this derogative behaviour. In other words, when do moral innovators elicit rebellion or imitation? The study by Zane et al. (2016) indicates that individuals who derogate moral innovators are less likely to behave ethically in the future. Participants in their study showed reduced anger towards ethical issues, when they had derogated moral innovators first. In addition, the study of Bolderdijk and colleagues (2018) shows that participants did not like the sustainable concept as much when they derogated the moral innovator before.
A line of research that could explain this effect is self-perception theory (Kopel & Arkowitz, 1975; Bem, 1972). When individuals derogate moral innovators, they infer from these negative feelings towards this person and their behaviour that they must care less deeply about the
sustainable issues. Even though individuals normally value sustainability, the confrontation with a more sustainable person can elicit these negative feelings. Consequentially, individuals are more likely to behave unsustainably because they feel that they might not care so much about the environment after all.
This paper will follow the reasoning of previous studies (Bolderdijk et al., 2018; Zane et al., 2016; Kopel et al., 1975) that derogative behaviour can lead to less sustainable consumption. A
13
FIGURE 1 Conceptual Model
towards moral innovators when they believe they have little control over the situation (Testa et al., 1990). When perceived control is increased this will make innovators with the same values less threatening and eliminate the need to derogate the innovator. Consequently, moral innovators with the same values are seen as more inspiring, leading to imitation of the sustainable behaviour instead. This leads to the following hypotheses:
H4a: When moral do-gooder derogation is high, because of threats to the self-concept, this will lead to rebellion against the moral innovators behaviour
H4b: When moral do-gooder derogation is low, because perceived behavioural control is induced which lowers self-threat, this will lead to imitation of the moral innovators behaviour
Conceptual model
14
METHODOLOGY
An experimental study was conducted to test the hypotheses. The study used a 2 (moral innovator: shared values vs. no shared values) x 2 (perceived behavioural control: induced vs. not induced) between subject’s design. Participants’ values, their level of perceived self-threat, do-gooder derogation (evaluation of the innovator), and rebellion against or imitation of moral innovators behaviour were measured. With the use of Qualtrics an online survey was created, which can be found in appendix A. This survey was distributed via Facebook, using a snowball procedure. Facebook is used to make sure all participants would be experienced Facebook users, who are used to Facebook posts because this is used in the study. The data was collected between 20 and 25 November 2018. Informed consent was obtained from participants and they were all randomly assigned to a condition.
Context
The study was held in the context of veganism. Most consumers already know that the consumption of animal products is bad for the environment, but they still continue with the consumption of less sustainable options. Therefore, all participants are involved with the topic of veganism and actual vegans were excluded from the study. In addition, research indicates that individuals who eat vegan are often discriminated (Delmestri, 2018; Cole & Morgan, 2011). Moreover, reactions towards vegans are even more negative than reactions towards vegetarians (Povey, Wellens & Conner, 2001). Besides, research of Minson & Monin (2012) indicates that individuals who are vegan, are also often subjected to derogative behaviour by others.
Procedure
First, approximately half of the participants were randomly assigned to answer questions about their vegan values before the survey began. The other half of the participants answered those questions at the end of the survey. This was done to find out if the sequence of the survey would influence participants’ reactions towards the other questions or to the vegan values questions. It was established that the sequence of the survey did not influence participants’ reactions.
Secondly, participants answered demographical questions (age, gender and nationality) and one question about their diet preference to make sure they would eat animal products normally.
15
FIGURE 2
Moral innovator Amy's Facebook post
people’s self-efficacy and feelings of control. The control condition consisted of ten tips on how to eat healthy which included the title: ’Eating healthy might be easier than you think’. The tips can be found in appendix B.
Next, participants saw a Facebook post by a fictitious moral innovator. Her name was Amy and she posted her personal view on veganism. In her post she explained that she deeply cared for the environment and highly valued sustainability. In her post she invites the readers of the message on Facebook to also adopt a vegan lifestyle and in that way contribute to a greener world (see figure 2).
Subsequently, participants answered questions that measured (1) participant’s evaluations of Amy (to measure do-gooder derogation), (2) their level of self-threat, (3) the likelihood of participants to sign up for a vegan week. The latter was used to find out if Amy elicited imitation (signing up for the vegan week) or rebellion (not wanting to sign up for the vegan week).
Measurements Vegan values
16
Self-threat
Participants’ level of self-threat was measured with the self-regard scale from Cramwinckel et al. (2013). On a Likert scale with fourteen items ranging from 1 (totally not applicable) – 7 (totally applicable) self-threat was measured. Seven questions were reverse-coded and asked if
participants felt happy with themselves, satisfied with themselves, good, happy, comfortable, confident and determined. The other seven questions asked if they were disappointed with themselves, angry with themselves, dissatisfied with themselves, self-critical and guilty. A reliability analysis showed enough internal consistency among the items to be combined into one scale (α = .92, M = 2.71, SD = .89).
Do-gooder derogation
Do-gooder derogation was measured by asking participants how they would evaluate Amy. This was done with a bipolar scale used by Monin et al. (2008). The scale consists of fourteen items in which participants were asked if the innovator was: dishonest–honest, unfair–fair, unpleasant– pleasant, dependent–independent, stingy–generous, immature–mature, low esteem–high self-esteem, stupid-intelligent, weak-strong, insecure-confident, passive-active, cruel-kind, awful-nice, and cold-warm. A reliability analysis showed enough internal consistency among the items to be combined into one scale (α = .94, M = 2.95, SD = .98).
Rebellion or imitation
17
FIGURE 3 Sign up for the vegan week
Manipulation checks
One manipulation check was included to check whether participants felt perceived behavioural control. Two questions from the theory of planned behaviour questionnaire (Ajzen, 2013) were used to measure this, asking if participants felt confident that they know how to reduce their animal product consumption (1 agree – 7 disagree) and whether they felt the decision to reduce their animal product consumption was up to them (1 disagree – 7 agree). This scale showed not enough internal consistency (α = .62). The second question was not normally distributed which can indicate that participants did not fully understand the question. Therefore, only the first question was used to check whether the conditions had any difference in effect on feelings of behavioural control.
18
RESULTS
The experiment was conducted among 262 participants. In total, 46 participants were excluded, of which 6 did not consent, 33 failed the manipulation check of what the Facebook post was about and 5 were vegan. Vegan participants were excluded because they are not involved because they do not reject the environmental behaviour at first, they already eat vegan. No one failed the final check in which participants guessed the real purpose of the study. In 2 other cases missing values were detected. Participants in those cases did no see the last question on whether they would know the purpose of the study and were therefore excluded from the analysis. In total 216 participants were included for the analysis.
The age ranged from 15-69, with an average age of 26,5. Of the participants 66% were female, 33,5% male and 0,5% indicated other. Participants differed in nationality but most of them were Dutch (86%), followed by American (2%) and British (1%), the remaining 11% coming from different countries all over the world. The level of education differed from university (51,9%), university of applied science (23,6%), intermediate vocational education (6%), pre-university education (9,7%), higher secondary education (6,9%) and lower general secondary education (1,9%).
Before the analyses were performed, the data was checked for the required assumptions. First, the data was checked for outliers. With the use of a boxplot outliers were detected, but they were in the possible range and justifiable. Additional, the analyses performed with or without outliers indicated approximately the same results, and therefore, the outliers were included for the final analyses. Subsequently, the data was checked for normal distributions with a Shapiro-Wilk test (1965) and indicated no normal distributions for the important variables do-gooder derogation, self-threat, future vegan behaviour and values. Therefore, the Q-Q plots and histograms were inspected and indicated that do-gooder derogation and self-threat were approximately normally distributed, but future vegan behaviour and values were not completely normally distributed. According to Fox (2015, p.318) a linear regression is still valid if the independent variables are not normally distributed. Lastly, multicollinearity was checked, and it was established that there was no multicollinearity (all VIF scores < 2).
19
Preliminary analysis Descriptive statistics
First, a correlation analysis was performed. Table 1 shows the mean, standard deviation, range and correlation of the most important variables. The variables do-gooder derogation and some of the questions of self-threat were reversely coded because this results in higher scores indicating higher feelings of self-threat and higher levels of do-gooder derogation (disliking of the moral innovator). Variables M SD Range 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 Values 4.93 1.41 1-7 2 PBC 0.49 0.50 0/1 -.04 3 Do-gooder derogation 2.95 0.98 1-7 -.35** -.06 4 Self-threat 2.71 0.89 1-7 .23** -.13 -.01 5 Future vegan behaviour 2.23 1.30 1-7 .46** -.02 -.29** .18* 6 PBC manipulation check 5.16 1.30 1-7 .42** .12 -.24** .01 .27** 7 Age 26.5 1 11.33 0-100 -.02 -.05 .03 -.17** .01 -.00 8 Gender 1.67 0.48 1/2/3 .24** .06 -.18** .14* .18* .13* -.20** 9 Level of education 5.98 1.37 1-7 .12 .08 .01 -.15* -.16 .05 .01 .05
Note: N = 216, * = p <.05, ** = p <.01, PBC condition (0 = control, 1 = vegan), gender (1 = male, 2 = female, 3 = other), level of education (1 = primary school, 2 = lower general secondary education, 3 = higher general secondary education, 4 = pre-university education 5 = intermediate vocational education, 6 = university of applied science, 7 = university)
Participants indicated rather high levels of vegan values (M = 4.93, SD = 1.41), low levels of do-gooder derogation (M = 2.95, SD = .98), low levels of self-threat (M = 2.71, SD = .89) and low levels of future vegan behaviour (M = 2.23, SD = 1.30). Furthermore, vegan values are negatively correlated with do-gooder derogation (r = -.35, p = .00), indicating that the more participant’s valued veganism the less they derogated the do-gooder. As expected vegan values was correlated with self-threat (r =.23, p = .00), indicating that higher levels of vegan values might result in more
20 self-threat. Vegan values were also correlated with future vegan behaviour (r = .46, p = .00), indicating that higher levels of vegan values might lead to more future vegan behaviour. Unexpectedly, perceived behavioural control did not correlate with vegan values (r = -.04, p= .54), do-gooder derogation (r = -.06, p = .41) or self-threat (r = -.13, p = .06). Age correlated with self-threat (r = -.17, p =.01), indicating that older participants might feel less self-threat. Gender highly correlated with vegan values (r = .25, p = .00), and do-gooder derogation (r = -.20, p = .01), indicating that women might have more vegan values and men might be more likely to derogate the innovator. Therefore, age and gender could explain why some effects may occur and are thus taken into consideration as control variables in further analyses.
Vegan values measurement
As mentioned in the methodology the vegan value measurement was conducted at the beginning or at the end of the survey to rule out potential priming effects of the value measurement itself or of the perceived behavioural control condition. The combined value scale at the beginning of the survey (M= 5.03; SD=1,49) did not indicate a major difference with the combined value scale provided at the end of the survey (M=4.90; SD=1.34). Moreover, to check whether the manipulation of perceived behavioural control could have had an influence on the values measured at the end of the study a one-way ANOVA was performed between perceived
behavioural control and values measured at the end. This one-way ANOVA was not significant (Mcontrol = 4.68 vs. Mpbc = 5.08, F(1,110) = 2.52, p = .12). As intended, perceived behavioural
control did not influence the value measurement of participants. The measurement of vegan values did not indicate major difference between the placements of the questions and perceived behavioural control did not influence the values measured at the end of the survey. The vegan value measurement can thus be combined into one scale, that did not take into account the moment at which these values were measured.
Manipulation check
21
FIGURE 4
Scores on the manipulation check
This indicates that participants in the perceived behavioural control condition did feel more control over their ability to eat vegan, but the difference with the control condition was small (see figure 4). Since the difference is so small and the effect is only marginally significant it can be concluded that the manipulation was not as effective as intended.
Main analysis
In order to confirm or reject the first three hypotheses a moderated mediation between vegan values, perceived behavioural control, self-threat and moral do-gooder derogation was performed with model 7 (bias-corrected, 5000 bootstrap samples) of the PROCESS macro of Hayes (2013).
Self-threat
First, it is analysed whether consumers who hold the same values as the innovator feel more threatened by the moral innovator and to what extent perceived behavioural control can reduce feelings of self-threat, as was predicted. Because age correlated with vegan values and both age and gender correlated with self-threat, these are taken into account as covariates. Gender did not show a significant effect (β = .11, t(210)= .81, p =.42), but age did have a significant effect on self-threat (β = -.01, t(210)= -2.45, p =.02), implying that older participants felt less self-threat. The direct effect of vegan values on self-threat was not significant (β = .09, t(210) = 1.57, p =.12), participants who hold the same values as the innovator do not feel more self-threat than
participants with different values. In addition, perceived behavioural control did have a marginal significant direct effect on self-threat (Mcontrol = 2.82 vs. Mpbc = 2.59, β = -.23, t(210) = -1.97, p
=.05), implying that participants in the perceived behavioural control condition felt less self-threat. More relevant however, is the interaction effect between vegan values and perceived behavioural control on self-threat. This interaction effect was not significant (β = .07, t(210)= .83,
p =.41). It can thus not be established that perceived behavioural control reduces the feeling of
22 In conclusion, the results of the analyses indicate that consumers who hold the same values as the moral innovator do not feel more self-threat. On top of that, perceived behavioural control also does not reduce these feelings and has no influence on the relationship between vegan values and feelings of self-threat. Therefore, hypothesis 1 cannot be confirmed.
Do-gooder derogation
Secondly, it is analysed whether consumers who hold the same values as the moral innovator also evaluate the innovator more negatively and to what extent perceived behavioural control
influences this relationship. A regression of vegan values, do-gooder derogation and the interaction of vegan values and perceived behavioural control was performed. Because gender correlated with do-gooder derogation it was taken into account as a control variable but indicated no significant effect on do-gooder derogation (β = -.19, t(211) = -1.42, p = .16). Unexpectedly, vegan values indicated a direct significant negative effect on do-gooder derogation (β = -.24,
t(211) = -2.94, p =.00). This means that participants who had higher levels of vegan values did
evaluate the moral do-gooder more positively. Contrary to what was expected, holding the same values as the moral innovator made participants like the innovator more instead of less. Moreover, results show no direct effect of perceived behavioural control on do-gooder derogation (β = -.13,
t(211) = -1.03 p =.30). More relevant again, is the interaction effect between perceived
behavioural control and vegan values. This effect was also not significant (β = -.08, t(211) = -.86,
p = .39), which indicates that perceived behavioural control does not influence the relationship
between holding the same values and do-gooder derogation.
In sum, the results of the analysis indicate that consumers who hold the same values as the moral innovator do not derogate the innovator more than consumers who hold different values.
Surprisingly, they even liked the innovator better. Furthermore, the analyses above indicate that perceived behavioural control did not decrease self-threat, contrary to what was predicted, and perceived behavioural control also did not lead to less derogative behaviour. Therefore, hypotheses 2 and 3 cannot be confirmed.
Conclusion moderated mediation
23
FIGURE 5
Moderated mediation coefficients
Although it indicates that more self-threat results in more do-gooder derogation, this effect is not significant. The results are illustrated in figure 5.
Rebellion vs imitation
Lastly, to analyse if do-gooder derogation leads to rebellion against or imitation of the moral innovator’s behaviour, a regression analysis was performed between do-gooder derogation and future vegan behaviour. Gender was taken as a control variable. This regression was significant R2
= .10 F(1,213) =12.03 p =.00. Gender had no significant influence on the relationship between do-gooder derogation and future vegan behaviour (β = .34, t(213) = 1.91, p = .06), indicating that there was no difference between men and women in future vegan behaviour. Although only a small part of the variance is explained (R2 = .102), it is the case that the more participants
derogated the innovator the less they imitated her behaviour, by not being willing to sign up for the vegan week (β = -.36, t(213) = -4.10, p =.00). Therefore, hypothesis 4 can be confirmed. Consumers who derogate the moral innovator more are less willing to imitate their behaviour (H4a). Moreover, consumers who do not derogate the innovator as much are willing to imitate the moral innovator’s behaviour (H4b). The results of this regression are also added in figure 5.
Exploratory analysis
Given the results of the manipulation check of perceived behavioural control, it can be established that the perceived behavioural control manipulation was not as successful as intended. After all, participants in the perceived behavioural control condition did only show a marginal significant difference with participants in the control condition with respect to the question whether they felt in control or not (Mcontrol = 5.01 vs. Mpbc = 5.32, F(1,214) = 3.13, p = .08). Therefore, the
24 of participants feelings of control instead the actual manipulation of perceived behavioural
control. Again model 7 (bias-corrected, 5000 bootstrap samples) of the PROCESS macro of Hayes (2013), was used to analyse the first three hypotheses once more.
Self-threat
Similar to the above-mentioned tests, vegan values, self-threat and the interaction of vegan values and the measured perceived behavioural control were tested in model 7 of the PROCESS macro of Hayes. Again, age and gender are taken as covariates because age correlated with vegan values and both age and gender correlated with self-threat. Gender still did not show a significant effect (β = .11, t(210) = .84, p =.40), and age did have a significant effect on self-threat (β = -.01, t(210) = -2.35, p = .02), implying that older participants felt less self-threat. Surprisingly, the direct effect of vegan values on self-threat was significant in this analysis (β = .16, t(210) = 3.44, p = .00), implying that participants that hold vegan values were more self-threatened. In addition, an insignificant pattern as was found for perceived behavioural control (β = -.07, t(210) = -1.37, p = .17). The more relevant interaction effect between vegan values and perceived behavioural control on self-threat, was also still insignificant (β = -.00, t(210) = -.09, p = .93). Consumers who hold the same values as innovators can feel more self-threat, but perceived behavioural control does not show a significant effect in reducing these feelings of self-threat. To conclude, there is some indication that hypothesis 1 can be confirmed, however the main analysis supports the opposite.
Do-gooder derogation
Again a regression analysis was performed between vegan values, do-gooder derogation and the interaction of vegan values and measured perceived behavioural control. Gender was again taken into account as control variable because it correlated with do-gooder derogation but indicated no significant effect on do-gooder derogation (β = -.20, t(211) = -1.51, p = .13). Similar to the above-mentioned results, vegan values indicated a direct significant negative effect on do-gooder derogation (β = -.19, t(211) = -3.90, p =.00). This analysis also indicates that sharing values with an innovator makes them more liked by observing consumers. Moreover, results show a marginal significant effect of measured perceived behavioural control on do-gooder derogation (β = -.10,
t(211) = -1.83 p =.07). This implies that the more participants felt in control the less they
25
Conclusion moderated mediation exploratory analysis
26
DISCUSSION
Unsustainable consumption is a major problem, but moral innovators can be used to inspire other consumers to also adopt a greener lifestyle. Previous research however, mentions that individuals who take a stand against the status quo are often the target of derogating behaviour of others, because they threaten consumers’ self-concept (Monin et al., 2008; Cramwinckel et al., 2013). This study proposed that a confrontation with moral innovators who hold the same values as the consumer could be inspiring, but only when consumers feel in control, otherwise innovators would be perceived as more threatening. Furthermore, consumers who dislike the moral innovator were expected to also rebel against the innovator’s sustainable behaviour instead of imitating it. It was indeed found to be the case that participants that disliked the innovator were also more rebellious. However, no full support was found for the notion that consumers who hold the same values as the moral innovator feel more self-threatened and therefore derogated the innovator. Only the exploratory analysis indicates that shared values increase self-threat, but no evidence was found for self-threat to increase do-gooder derogation. Moreover, the results indicate no proof that perceived behavioural control could decrease derogative behaviour or feelings of self-threat. The proposed effects may not have occurred in this study, but underlying reasons will be
presented.
First, holding the same environmental values as the do-gooder did not made involved participants derogate this moral innovator more by evaluating her negatively. Her behaviour should have elicited feelings of threat because she acted upon values they also hold but refused to act upon, resulting in more negative reactions towards her. However, contradicting to what was expected in this study, participants who highly valued veganism liked the innovator more. This finding is in line with other research, because in general, it is the case that individuals like people who hold the same values more (Ståhl et al., 2008). When others hold the same values, this is an indication that they know what is important and deserves priority (Ellemers, 2017; Wainryb, et al., 2001). This study thus provides evidence that consumers like others who hold the same values, even when they might remind them of their moral shortcomings. This result even indicates that sharing values with someone is a powerful mechanism to create liking above other feelings and that it might hold more potential to make moral innovators inspiring than was expected.
27 of self-threat (M = 2.71, SD = .89). Although it is not uncommon to have low levels of perceived self-threat, this has also been the case in other research (e.g. Bolderdijk et al., 2017). It could be that the confrontation with the moral innovator was not perceived as threatening, because the manipulation of the innovator was not as successful as intended. It could have been the case that she came across as nice with her smiling profile picture and her pro environmental Facebook post, which could have elicited feelings of sympathy and liking instead of threat.
Additionally, perceived behavioural control did not have a significant effect on reducing self-threat and thus nor on do-gooder derogation. One explanation could be that the manipulation of perceived behavioural control did not evoke the desired effect. In addition, exploratory research which used the measurement of control instead of the manipulation did not show the proposed results either. In general, participants even indicated high feelings of control (M = 5.16, SD = 1.30) in the manipulation check, which can indicate that participants already feel in control about their ability to eat vegan. The manipulation of perceived behavioural control, which made eating vegan look easy, would not have made participants’ self-efficacy much higher, because
participants already feel they have control over their ability. The research of Doyle (2016), provides indications for this reasoning by stating that although there is still a lot of negativity and judgment towards vegans, consumers are more and more confronted with veganism in their daily life, which may contribute to consumers knowledge and feelings of ability on the topic.
28
Implications
In order to grow to a more sustainable society, it is important for practitioners to understand how they can fight the battle against unsustainable consumption and persuade consumers to make more sustainable choices. Previous studies have showed that moral innovators can provide an example on how to behave sustainable, but they are often not imitated, because their superior sustainable behaviour poses a threat to consumers’ self-concept (Zane et al., 2016; Cramwinckel et al., 2013; Monin et al., 2008). This study however, indicates different circumstances in which moral innovators can be effective in persuading consumers to go green.
First of all, this study provides evidence for the notion that moral innovators are more liked by consumers who hold the same values. Marketing practitioners can make use of this, by using moral innovators especially for the consumer segment that highly values the same aspects as the innovator. Moral innovators can be used in marketing campaigns to improve consumers’
consumption patterns or to boost advertising effectiveness, but organizations and public agents should consider that this might only work for the group that already highly values sustainability. Secondly, moral innovators that have elicited inspiration could have long term effects because consumers who like the innovator more are also more inclined to behave environmental friendly in the future, which is indicated in the higher scores on the likelihood to sign up for the vegan week. Moreover, although future research should elaborate on this, the effects of innovators who are liked, hold even more potential because consumers who behave environmental friendly in one domain are also more inclined to behave green in a related domain (Zane et al., 2016; Truelove, Carrico, Weber, Raimi & Vandenbergh, 2014). Therefore, marketing practitioners and policy makers can make use of moral innovators who hold the same values for their marketing activities and to decrease unsustainable consumption patterns throughout society.
Limitations and future research
29 Furthermore, as already mentioned above the manipulation of perceived behavioural control is another limitation. It could be the case that the manipulation of perceived behavioural control was not successful enough to create a different effect as the control condition. Although, measured feelings of control were used in exploratory analysis, the effect of perceived behavioural control is not completely clear, meaning that future research should take perceived behavioural control into account when doing research about the perceived self-threat felt from do-gooders. Based on this paper, future studies should make the manipulation of perceived behavioural control more distinct from the control condition.
In addition to that, this research introduced the moral innovator via a Facebook post. Although all participants were Facebook users it could still be the case that the innovator looked less
threatening through the Facebook post. Facebook users nowadays are used to and aware of the fact that people only show their good side or unnuanced opinion on Facebook (Qiu, Lin, Leung & Tov, 2012), implying that participants might not have taken Amy and her post too serious. Future research should pay more attention to the confrontation with the moral innovator, which can be done by using more realistic settings. Consequently, future research could consider the use of field experiments for this purpose. Moreover, it would be interesting to see what the effects are when consumers are confronted with an actual innovator.
The exploratory analysis of the study also gave a direction for future research. Contrary to the main analysis it showed that participants might feel threatened by an innovator that also highly values veganism. It is therefore, not entirely clear if sharing values with an innovator could besides liking also increase self-threat and future research should investigate this relationship more in depth. This could for example be done by using different settings in which consumers feel involved or by using different, perhaps more threatening innovators.
30 Conclusion
In summary, this study aimed to find whether moral innovators who hold the same values as observing consumers are more negatively judged and whether perceived behavioural control could decrease this effect. It was expected that moral innovators who hold the same values would pose a threat to the self-concept of consumers. They would make it painfully salient that
consumers fall short on their moral behaviour even though they highly value the environment. Perceived behavioural control was expected to decrease self-threat and consequently also do-gooder derogation. The results however did not show an effect of perceived behavioural control. Consumers indicated low levels of self-threat and consumers who hold the same values even liked her. Participants who actually liked her more were also willing to imitate her sustainable
31
REFERENCES
Abramson, L. Y., Seligman, M. E. P., & Teasdale, J. D. (1978). Learned helplessness in humans: Critique and reformulation. Journal of Abnormal Psychology. 87. 49-74
Ajzen, I. (2002). Perceived behavioural control, self‐efficacy, locus of control, and the theory of planned behaviour 1. Journal of applied social psychology, 32(4), 665-683.
Ajzen, I. (2013). Theory of planned behaviour questionnaire. Measurement instrument database
for the social science.
Bandura, A. (1991). Social cognitive theory of self-regulation. Organizational Behaviour and
Human Decision Processes, 50, 248-287
Bem, D. J. (1972). Self-perception theory, New York: Academic Press.
Bolderdijk, J. W., Brouwer, C., & Cornelissen, G. (2018). When Do Morally Motivated Innovators Elicit Inspiration Instead of Irritation? Frontiers in psychology, 8, 2362. Bolin, J. H. (2014). Hayes, Andrew F.(2013). Introduction to Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional Process Analysis: A Regression‐Based Approach. New York, NY: The Guilford Press. Journal of Educational Measurement, 51(3), 335-337.
Cialdini, R. B. (1987). Influence (Vol. 3). Port Harcourt: A. Michel.
Cole, M., & Morgan, K. (2011). Vegaphobia: derogatory discourses of veganism and the reproduction of speciesism in UK national newspapers. The British Journal of Sociology, 62(1). Cramwinckel, F. M., van Dijk, E., Scheepers, D., & van den Bos, K. (2013). The threat of moral refusers for one's self-concept and the protective function of physical cleansing. Journal of
Experimental Social Psychology, 49(6), 1049-1058.
Dagher, G., Itani, O., & Kassar, A. N. (2015). The impact of environment concern and attitude on green purchasing behaviour: gender as the moderator. Contemporary Management
Research, 11(2).
Delmestri, G. (2018). Vegaphobia. Emancipation and institutional change for an overlooked diversity dimension. In Academy of Management Proceedings, 2018(1) 17488.
Doyle, J. (2016). Celebrity vegans and the lifestyling of ethical consumption. Environmental
32 Ellemers, N. (2017). Morality and the regulation of social behaviour: Groups as moral anchors. Routledge.
Festinger, L. (1954). A theory of social comparison processes. Human relations, 7(2), 117-140. Fox, J. (2015). Applied regression analysis and generalized linear models. Sage Publications. Gerber, J. P., Wheeler, L., & Suls, J. (2018). A Social Comparison Theory Meta-Analysis 60+ Years On. Psychological Bulletin, 144(2), 177–197.
Goethals, G. R., & Darley, J. M. (1977). Social comparison theory: An intentional approach. In 1. M. Suls & R. L. Miller (Eds.), Social comparison processes: Theoretical and empirical
perspectives (pp. 259-278). Washington, DC: Hemisphere
Goldstein, N. J., Cialdini, R. B., & Griskevicius, V. (2008). A room with a viewpoint: Using social norms to motivate environmental conservation in hotels. Journal of consumer
Research, 35(3), 472-482.
Green growth and circular economy - Environment - European Commission. (2016). Retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/environment/eussd/escp_en.htm
Hoekstra, A. Y., & Wiedmann, T. O. (2014). Humanity’s unsustainable environmental footprint. Science, 344(6188), 1114-1117.
Hu, M., Rucker, D. D., & Galinsky, A. D. (2016). From the immoral to the incorruptible: How prescriptive expectations turn the powerful into paragons of virtue. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 42(6), 826-837.
Kopel, S., & Arkowitz, H. (1975). The role of attribution and self-perception in behaviour change: Implications for behaviour therapy. Genetic Psychology Monographs, 92(2), 175–212.
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. Lim, W. M. (2017). Inside the sustainable consumption theoretical toolbox: Critical concepts for sustainability, consumption, and marketing. Journal of Business Research, 78, 69-80.
Minson, J. A., & Monin, B. 2012. Do-gooder derogation: disparaging morally motivated
minorities to defuse anticipated reproach. Social Psychology and Personality Science, 3(2), 200-207.
Monin, B. (2007). Holier than me? Threatening social comparison in the moral domain. Revue
33 Monin, B., Sawyer, P. J., & Marquez, M. J. (2008). The rejection of moral rebels: resenting those who do the right thing. Journal of personality and social psychology, 95(1), 76.
O’Connor, K., & Monin, B. (2016). When principled deviance becomes moral threat: Testing alternative mechanisms for the rejection of moral rebels. Group Processes & Intergroup
Relations, 19(5), 676-693.
Ozaki, R. (2011). Adopting sustainable innovation: what makes consumers sign up to green electricity?. Business strategy and the environment, 20(1), 1-17.
Povey, R., Wellens, B., & Conner, M. (2001). Attitudes towards following meat, vegetarian and vegan diets: an examination of the role of ambivalence. Appetite, 37(1), 15-26
Pronin, E. (2008). How we see ourselves and how we see others. Science, 320(5880), 1177-1180. Prothero, A., Dobscha, S., Freund, J., Kilbourne, W. E., Luchs, M. G., Ozanne, L. K., & Th, gersen, J. (2011). Sustainable Consumption: Opportunities for Consumer Research and Public Policy. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 30(1), 31–38.
Qiu, L., Lin, H., Leung, A. K., & Tov, W. (2012). Putting their best foot forward: Emotional disclosure on Facebook. Cyberpsychology, Behaviour, and Social Networking, 15(10), 569-572. Schnall, S., & Roper, J. (2012). Elevation puts moral values into action. Social Psychological and
Personality Science, 3, 373–378.
Shapiro, S. S., & Wilk, M. B. (1965). An analysis of variance test for normality (complete samples). Biometrika, 52(3/4), 591-611.
Shavelson, R. J., Hubner, J. J., & Stanton, G. C. (1976). Self-concept: Validation of construct interpretations. Review of educational research, 46(3), 407-441.
Sheldon, K. M., & Kasser, T. (2008). Psychological threat and extrinsic goal striving. Motivation
and Emotion, 32(1), 37-45.
Ståhl, T., Vermunt, R., & Ellemers, N. (2008). For love or money? How activation of relational versus instrumental concerns affects reactions to decision-making procedures. Journal of
Experimental Social Psychology, 44(1), 80-94.
34 Testa, M., & Major, B. (1990). The Impact of Social Comparisons After Failure: The Moderating Effects of Perceived Control. Basic & Applied Social Psychology, 11(2), 205–218.
Truelove, H. B., Carrico, A. R., Weber, E. U., Raimi, K. T., & Vandenbergh, M. P. (2014). Positive and negative spillover of pro-environmental behavior: An integrative review and theoretical framework. Global Environmental Change, 29, 127-138.
Wainryb, C., Shaw, L. A., Laupa, M., & Smith, K. R. (2001). Children's, adolescents', and young adults' thinking about different types of disagreements. Developmental psychology, 37(3), 373. Wright, J., Cullum, J., & Schwab, N. (2008). The cognitive and affective dimensions of moral conviction: Implications for attitudinal and behavioral measures of interpersonal
tolerance. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34(11), 1461-1476.
Zane, D. M., Irwin, J. R., & Reczek, R. W. (2016). Do less ethical consumers denigrate more ethical consumers? The effect of willful ignorance on judgments of others. Journal of Consumer
Psychology, 26(3), 337-349.
Zhong, C.-B., Liljenquist, K., & Cain, D. M. (2009). Moral self-regulation: Licensing and compensation. In D. De Cremer (Ed.), Psychological perspectives on ethical behaviour and
35
APPENDICES
Appendix A: Master thesis survey
Welcome to this research study!
For my Master thesis, I am interested in understanding consumer behavior. You will be presented with some information and asked to answer a few questions. The study should take around 5-10 minutes.
Your participation in this research is voluntary and will be kept completely confidential. You have the right to withdraw at any point. If you have any questions please e-mail j.j.s.kreuze@student.rug.nl.
Please read everything carefully and try to answer as truthfully as possible. There are no wrong answers.
o
I consent, begin the studyo
I do not consent, I do not wish to participateBefore we start the survey we would like to know to what extent you generally think...*
Strongly disagree (1) Disagree (2) Somewhat disagree (3) Neither agree nor disagree (4) Somewhat
agree (5) Agree (6) agree (7) Strongly
... that society should strive for reducing animal product consumption
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
... that reducing our animal product consumption is important to you (2)o
o
o
o
o
o
o
* Only displayed at the beginning or at the end of the survey How old are you?
36
What is your gender?
o
Maleo
Femaleo
OtherWhat is your country of origin?
________________________________________________________________
What is your highest level of education?
o
Primary schoolo
Lower general secondary education (Dutch: vmbo)o
Higher general secondary education (Dutch: havo)o
Pre-university education (Dutch: vwo)o
Intermediate vocational education (Dutch: mbo)o
University of applied science (Dutch: hbo)o
UniversityDo you have any special dietary preferences?
37
Next, you come across the following text which provides you with 10 tips. Please read them carefully*
* Only the vegan or the health tips were displayed
38
How would you describe Amy? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Stupid
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
Intelligent Weako
o
o
o
o
o
o
Strong Insecureo
o
o
o
o
o
o
Confident Passiveo
o
o
o
o
o
o
Active Cruelo
o
o
o
o
o
o
Kind Awfulo
o
o
o
o
o
o
Nice Coldo
o
o
o
o
o
o
Warm Dishonesto
o
o
o
o
o
o
Honest Unfairo
o
o
o
o
o
o
Fair Unpleasanto
o
o
o
o
o
o
Pleasant Dependento
o
o
o
o
o
o
Independent Stingyo
o
o
o
o
o
o
Generous Immatureo
o
o
o
o
o
o
Mature Low39
Please indicate to what extent you agree with the following statements
40
The vegan week is an initiative to reduce our animal products consumption. We would also like to know if you would sign up for it. You can read how to sign up below:
Extremely
unlikely Moderately unlikely Slightly unlikely
Neither likely nor
unlikely
Slightly
likely Moderately likely Extremely likely
41
Please remember the 10 tips you saw at the beginning of the study and indicate to what extent you agree with the following statements. When thinking about the 10 tips ...
Strongly
disagree Disagree Somewhat disagree
Neither agree nor
disagree
Somewhat
agree Agree Strongly agree
... I feel confident that I know how to reduce my animal product consumption
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
... I feel the decision to reduce my animal product consumption is up to meo
o
o
o
o
o
o
Do you remember what the Facebook post of Amy was about?
o
Her opinion about green energyo
Her personal view on reducing our animal product consumptiono
Her personal view on how a vegan diet tastes42
Please indicate to what extent you generally think...*
Strongly disagree Disagree Somewhat disagree Neither agree nor disagree Somewhat agree Agree Strongly agree ... that society should strive for reducing animal product consumption
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
... that reducing our animal product consumption is important to youo
o
o
o
o
o
o
* Only displayed at the beginning or at the end of the survey
What do you think the purpose of this study was?
________________________________________________________________
Thank you for participating in my research.
Please note that forwarding this survey is much appreciated.
If you have any questions or want to know the purpose of this study please contact me at j.j.s.kreuze@student.rug.nl
43
Appendix B: Moderator manipulation
