The Path to the Green Side
The effect of resource scarcity on green consumption
and the moderating roles of price and shopping setting
by
The Path to the Green Side
The effect of resource scarcity on green consumption
and the moderating roles of price and shopping setting
Master Thesis MSc Marketing Management Faculty of Economics and Business
ABSTRACT
Green consumption is more important than ever, but when you do not have a lot of money or time on your hands, consuming sustainably is not always easy. This thesis addresses this issue by examining the relation between resource scarcity and green consumption. Previous scholars have shown that resource scarcity leads to green consumption when green products are relatively inexpensive, but others found that green consumption increases when green products are in fact more expensive, as long as the shopping takes place in public. This thesis posits that resource scarcity leads to green consumption unless the price is relatively expensive and that this effect of price reverses in a public shopping setting. Using data collected via an online survey, no significant effect of resource scarcity on green consumption, nor interactions between scarcity, price and shopping setting were found. However, price and shopping setting were found to have direct effects on green consumption. Although the initial hypotheses do not hold, the findings offer interesting theoretical and practical insights.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION 6
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK 8
Green consumption 8
Resource scarcity 9
Resource scarcity and consumption 10
Resource scarcity and green consumption 11
Cost to self / price 13
Shopping setting 14
Conceptual model 15
METHODOLOGY 17
Participants and design 17
Procedure 17
Materials 19
Pre-tests 19
Independent variable resource scarcity 20
Manipulation check 20
Dependent variable green consumption 20
Moderator price 22
Moderator shopping setting 22
Control variable green habits 22
Analysis plan 23
RESULTS 24
Preparation of data 24
Descriptive statistics 25
Analysis of main effect 26
Analyses of moderators 27
Price as moderator 27
Price and shopping setting as moderators 28
Analyses of control variable 29
Green habits as covariate 29
Green habits as moderator 30
Green habits as independent variable 31
Additional analyses 33
Summary of results 34
DISCUSSION 36
Practical implications 37
CONCLUSION 42
REFERENCES 43
INTRODUCTION
Consuming sustainably is now more important than ever, as climate change and global warming are more urgent every day (IPCC 2014). Living and consuming sustainably entails many types of behaviour: what you buy, what you eat, which energy company you pick, how much energy you use, whether or not you reuse hotel towels, what clothes you wear, how you travel and even more. However, when you do not have a lot of money or time on your hands, consuming sustainably is not always easy. This thesis investigates exactly this, i.e., the relation between resource scarcity and green consumption.
Research into the relation between resource scarcity and sustainable consumption is quite novel. This relation is of interest because of two reasons. Firstly, sustainable products often remind one of resource scarcity, for example, a limited and declining amount of nature. Therefore, sustainable consumption and resource scarcity are related by their very nature. Secondly, people who experience financial scarcity might want to consume greenly, but often, going green is (perceived to be) more expensive (e.g., Chang 2011) or acquires some investment. Examining the relation between resource scarcity and sustainable consumption could provide useful insights on how to make sustainable consumption more attractive for people in a situation of scarcity.
investigated: what happens when shopping for green products takes place in a crowded versus an empty supermarket?
The reason for researching these questions is to give insight in green purchasing patterns of people who have little financial resources and to investigate the discrepancy in the findings of Goldsmith et al. (2020) and Griskevicius et al. (2010). The findings of this thesis will be both theoretically and practically relevant, as they aim to close the aforementioned gap in existing literature and provide insights into how to make green consumption more attractive, for consumers in general and for consumers in a situation of scarcity.
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK Green consumption
Ranging from cars to bags to laundry detergent to cotton swabs: green alternatives are becoming more and more available across different product groups. Where green products used to be for tree-hugging hippies, nowadays they are often trendier than conventional products, for example Oatly oat drink or Tony’s Chocolonely chocolate. This shift of image also shows in numbers. The market share of sustainable products among all FMCG sales in the United States grew from 14.3 per cent in 2013 to 16.6 per cent in 2018, the sales of sustainable products in the US grew from 107.3 billion dollars in 2014 to 128.5 billion in 2018, and sales are expected to grow to 150.1 billion in 2021 (Shahbandeh 2020). This rapid increase and the fact that consumers make decisions about buying a green product or its conventional counterpart on almost a daily basis (Thøgersen et al. 2012), for example while doing groceries, makes green product consumption an important and interesting research topic.
What a sustainable or green product exactly is can be defined in different ways. Shamdasani et al. (1993) have defined it as a product that does not pollute the earth, deplore natural resources and that can be recycled or conserved. Other scholars have defined it as a product that is “manufactured with attention to minimizing the exploitation of natural resources, the use of toxic materials, or the emission of waste and pollutants” (Amatulli et. al 2019, p. 1111). According to Pickett-Baker and Ozaki (2008), a product is regarded as environmentally sustainable if it has a low environmental impact. This thesis defines a green product as a product that is produced in a manner that pollutes the earth as little as possible, and that itself pollutes the earth as little as possible.
However, other research has shown there is often a gap between people’s environmental values and their actual behaviour: the value-action gap (Blake 1999; Kollmuss and Agyeman 2002). Blake (1999) explains that “environmental actions that people take are tokenistic and may be unrelated to the particular concerns that they express about the environment” (p. 262-263). Opposed to the research discussed in the previous paragraph, this shows that environmental values are not necessarily a driver of green consumption.
Hence, although some research shows that environmental values can be an important driver of green behaviour, there is other research suggesting that environmental values are not the only cause. This implies that there is room for other factors to play a role. For example, Noppers et al. (2014) analysed whether symbolic, instrumental or environmental attributes drive the adoption of sustainable products such as electric cars. They found that people claim that environmental and instrumental motives are the most important when making a sustainable purchase decision, but that symbolic motives were the strongest predictors of whether someone would actually purchase a sustainable product. Furthermore, Ohtomo and Hirose (2007) demonstrated that whether people behave pro-environmentally does not only depend on intentional decision making but also on reactive processes, i.e., what most people around them do.
Ergo, different factors are influencing green consumption, among which environmental values, symbolic motives and social influence. This thesis builds on these studies by measuring green consumption in a specific situation: when resources are scarce. This is of interest as it could provide valuable insights on how to make green consumption more attractive for consumers in a situation of scarcity.
Resource scarcity
observing a discrepancy between one’s current level of resources and a higher, more desirable reference point” (p. 105).
Although these definitions differ from each other, they all depict an unfavourable discrepancy in resources. A resource is defined as any quantifiable entity that offers utility and has the potential to be depleted or consumed (Abrams 1992). Therefore, scarcity can exist across different entities (Cannon et al. 2019), for example food (Briers et al. 2006; Petersen et al. 2014; Zhu and Ratner 2015), time (Fernbach et al. 2015; Shah et al. 2012), products (Inman et al. 1997; Worchel et al. 1975; Zhu and Ratner 2015) and money (Fernbach et al. 2015; Nelson and Morrison 2005; Sharma and Alter 2012; Sharma et al. 2014).
Based on this array of definitions, this thesis defines resource scarcity as a subjective sense of having a lack of resources. Before considering how resource scarcity and green consumption interact, the effect of resource scarcity on overall consumption will be contemplated.
Resource scarcity and consumption. It has been demonstrated that individuals who experience
resource scarcity stretch their resources and spend them more efficiently (Shah et al. 2012), spend a larger proportion on necessities (Cole et al. 2008) and are more likely to choose store brands, which are less expensive than name brands (Ailawadi et al. 2001).
To explain these contradictory answers to the question whether resource scarcity leads to more or less consumption, Cannon et al. (2019) introduced an overarching theory: the self-regulatory model of resource scarcity. They present that consumers can respond to resource scarcity through two pathways: the scarcity-reduction route, which is aimed at reducing the discrepancy in resources, and the control-restoration route, which is aimed at re-establishing control by attaining security in other domains. Perceived mutability, “the perceived ability for the situation to be changed through the investment of effort” (Cannon et al. 2019, p. 109), is a key determinant of which route will be pursued. The authors argue that high mutability, i.e., the belief that the discrepancy in resources can be reduced by investing a reasonable amount of effort, leads to scarcity-reduction. At the same time, low mutability, i.e., the belief that the discrepancy cannot be reduced through effort, leads to control-restoration. Examples of scarcity-reduction are prioritizing scarce resources over other less relevant factors (Fernbach et al. 2015;Shah et al. 2015) or trying to gain money after losing money in a slot machine game (Sharma et al. 2014), while consuming highly caloric foods (Briers and Laporte 2013; Laran and Salerno 2013; Levontin et al. 2015) or status goods (Griskevicius et al 2013; Walasek and Brown 2015) are examples of the control-restoration route.
These findings show that resource scarcity can influence consumer behaviour in different ways: it can lead to decreased consumption as well as increased (conspicuous) consumption. This elicits the research question that lies at the heart of this thesis: what the influence of resource scarcity on green consumption is.
Resource scarcity and green consumption. The relation between resource scarcity and
Contrastingly, Goldsmith et al. (2020) demonstrate that consumers exposed to resource scarcity are more likely to consume greenly. The authors argue the following. Resource scarcity triggers generalized feelings of constraint (Mehta and Zhu 2016; Goldsmith et al. 2020), which lead to more abstract processing (Marguc et al. 2011; 2012). Abstract levels of construal are “relatively abstract, coherent, and superordinate mental representations, compared with low-level construals” (Trope and Liberman 2003, p. 441). Goldsmith et al. (2016) established that consumers with an abstract level of construal have a significantly higher interest in sustainable products compared to consumers with a concrete level of construal. Their research reveals that this is due to the higher-level values like saving the environment that sustainable products and their prosocial benefits carry, which gain more attention under an abstract level of construal. Building on these findings, Goldsmith et al. (2020) find that those who are reminded of resource scarcity activate generalized feelings of constraint which prompt the adoption of an abstract level of construal. This abstract construal level matches sustainable products and therefore, consumers exposed to resource scarcity are more likely to adopt sustainable products.
Thus, resource scarcity can be connected to different cognitive orientations (i.e., a competitive orientation and an abstract level of construal) with seemingly opposing consequences for sustainable consumption (i.e., less or more). These opposing results can be explained by the cost to self. Research on the competitive orientation promoted by resource scarcity tested the relation in a context where behaving prosocially inflicted high costs on oneself. For example, the experiment conducted by Roux et al. (2015) included an economic game where money had to be allocated to oneself or others, and therefore, participants either acted prosocially and lost money or acted selfishly and earned money. Contrarily, the finding by Goldsmith et al. (2020) that resource scarcity leads to sustainable consumption was found only when the green product was inexpensive or when the price was only one dollar higher than the price of a conventional counterpart. Therefore, it can be concluded that the link between resource scarcity and an abstract level of construal overrides the link between resource scarcity and a competitive orientation in situations where price is not a factor to be considered, e.g., when green and non-green products are priced similarly.
This abstract level of construal matches sustainable products and therefore, people in a situation of scarcity are more likely to adopt sustainable products.
Hypothesis 1. In a situation of scarcity, people more often choose the green option than in a situation without scarcity.
Cost to self / price
The preceding discussion indicates that cost to self or price is an important factor when examining the relationship between resource scarcity and green consumption. Besides the findings discussed in the last paragraphs, other research seems to imply that price is indeed an important factor.
For example, green alternatives are often perceived as more expensive (Chang 2011; Essoussi and Linton 2010; Ha-Brookshire and Norum 2011) and price is a main barrier to buying green products (Bonini and Oppenheim 2008; Mainieri et al. 1997). Furthermore, Goldsmith et al. (2020) found that when cost to self (i.e., the price of a product) is high, resource scarcity does no longer lead to sustainable consumption. Following Roux et al. (2015), they argue that high costs lead to a threat to one’s personal financial resources which generates self-benefiting motives, and thus, the predicted effect on sustainable consumption attenuates or even reverses, as a competitive orientation dominates the match of construal level.
Chekima et al. (2016) contrastingly find that people are up to 20 to 30 per cent more willing to pay for green products. However, a large proportion of their sample had a mid-level income and thus, the identified low sensitivity toward a premium price only applies to people with a mid- or high-level income. People in a situation of financial scarcity are more price sensitive (Shah et al. 2015) and not able to purchase green products if these are expensive.
These findings lead to the following. When a green product is relatively expensive compared to its conventional counterpart, the positive effect of resource scarcity on green product consumption (partly) disappears, because people experiencing financial deprivation do not have the resources to buy green products.
Shopping setting
Earlier research thus shows that for people with few resources, green products become less attractive if these products are expensive. However, another line of research shows a specific situation in which this is not the case, namely when the purchase of the green product is visible to others. Status motives play a role in this situation.
As previously described, people with low income are more likely to consume conspicuously (Banerjee and Duflo 2007; Rucker and Galinsky 2008; Sivanathan and Pettit 2010) as a way to preserve the self-system from threats caused by financial deprivation. However, not only designer bags and luxurious cars can signal status. Research by Griskevicius et al. (2010) shows that when a status motive is manipulated, the desire for green products increases. The authors build on costly signalling and competitive altruism to explain this finding. Research on the latter shows that people across time and space are known to compete for status by being the most altruistic (Barclay and Willer 2007; Hawkes 1993; Roberts 1998; Van Vugt et al. 2007), even though this is costly. This costly self-sacrifice can be explained by costly signalling theory. According to this concept, an altruistic act does not only communicate a person’s prosociality but also her/his ability to incur costs (Bird and Smith 2005).
This train of thought leads up to the last hypothesis. As described in Hypotheses 1 and 2, resource scarcity influences green consumption positively, but this positive effect (partly) disappears when the product is relatively expensive (vs. equally priced). When shopping in a public (vs. private) setting, this effect of price is reversed: when in public, people in a situation of scarcity are more likely to buy expensive green products because it allows them to show off and thereby acquire status.
Hypothesis 3. The effect of price on the relation between resource scarcity and green consumption reverses in a public (vs. private) shopping setting.
Conceptual model
The current research examines the conceptual model illustrated in Figure 1. It is hypothesised that in a situation of scarcity, people more often choose the green option than in a situation without scarcity. This positive effect of resource scarcity on green consumption changes when price comes into play: it (partly) disappears when the green product is relatively expensive (vs. equally priced). This effect of price on the relation between resource scarcity and green consumption reverses in certain shopping settings: when in public (vs. private), people in a situation of scarcity are more likely to buy expensive green products.
Concluding, this thesis tests the moderated moderation model illustrated in Figure 1, with resource scarcity as independent variable, green consumption as dependent variable and price and shopping setting as moderators. The current research does not test for possible mediators.
FIGURE 1 Conceptual model
resource scarcity green consumption
setting (public vs. private)
METHODOLOGY
To examine how resource scarcity affects green consumption and how price and shopping setting influence this relation, an online survey is conducted. This chapter explains the design, procedure and materials of the study.
Participants and design
The research had a 2 (resource scarcity vs. control) x 2 (price: equal vs. green more expensive) x 2 (shopping setting: private vs. public) between-subjects research design. Participants were assigned to different conditions randomly to achieve independence. The research was conducted via a Qualtrics online survey, which was spread via social media, WhatsApp and small notes in the university library to collect respondents.
In total, 535 respondents started the online survey, of which 273 respondents finished. 31 responses were excluded from the sample because either the respondent failed the attention check, i.e., they chose their actual favourite colour instead of answering in the way that was specified in the instructions, or because the response was included in the dataset while none of the questions were answered. After excluding responses following these rules, the sample existed of 242 participants.
In SPSS, descriptive statistics about age and gender were analysed. 68.6 per cent of the sample identifies as a woman while 31.4 per cent identifies as a man. The mean age is 23 (SD = 5.79), with a minimum of 18 and a maximum of 65. The histograms in Appendix A provide insight into the distribution of the variables age and gender.
Procedure
a no button. If participants answered no, they directly went to the end of the survey. If they answered yes, they went to the next page.
The second page of the survey instructed participants that they would be asked some questions about recent activities (control condition) or about having few resources (scarcity condition). Participants were assigned to these conditions randomly. In the control condition, participants were asked to briefly describe four things they did in the last month, after which they were asked to write a few sentences elaborating on two of those activities. In the scarcity condition, participants were asked to describe four times during the last month when they felt they did not have enough of something or when they felt resources were scarce. They were asked to elaborate on two of the mentioned situations (adapted from Goldsmith et al. 2020; Roux et al. 2015). Appendix B includes examples of answers of respondents in both conditions.
The next part of the survey told participants that they would be asked to imagine a scenario and that they should really try to visualise it. On the next page, one of two scenarios, to which participants were again assigned randomly, was shown. In the public condition, participants were told to imagine that they were out shopping in a crowded supermarket, while in the private condition, participants were told to imagine that they were out shopping in an empty supermarket. For full scenarios, see Appendix C (adapted from Griskevicius et al. 2010). Following a page break, participants were asked to imagine that laundry detergent was on their grocery list. While browsing the aisle, they noticed the following two products: Aprilia Laundry Detergent and Aprilia ECO Laundry Detergent. The description of the first product focused on its effectiveness and cleaning power, while the description of the second described not only its effectiveness but also that the product is sustainable, biodegradable and free of chemicals (see Appendix D for product images and descriptions). Half of the participants in each shopping setting condition was assigned to the price condition in which the products were priced equally at €8.99, while the other half was assigned to the condition in which the regular laundry detergent was priced at €8.99 and the green laundry detergent at €10.99.
purchasing the green product. Lastly, they were asked which of the two products they would buy.
On the next page, an attention check was conducted. Participants had to indicate what their favourite colour is. In the question instructions, it was mentioned that they had to answer a certain answer, instead of their actual favourite colour. This question was included to check participants’ attention and whether they read the instructions carefully.
The last part of the survey consisted of a manipulation check, demographic questions, questions about green habits and questions about the survey. Firstly, to check whether participants in the scarcity condition experienced feelings of constraint, participants were asked to indicate to which extent they felt restricted, constrained and hindered (adapted from Goldsmith et al. 2020; Roux et al. 2015). After that, all participants were asked for their age and gender. Furthermore, participants were asked three questions about their green consumption habits. Lastly, participants were asked if they had an idea about the aim of the survey, if they had any suggestions for improvements, whether they wanted to receive the results and whether they wanted to have a chance at winning the €20 coupon.
On the last page of the survey, participants were thanked for their time and participation. Also, they were informed that the winner of the coupon would receive an email.
Materials
Pre-tests. Before the survey was shared, a short pre-test with regards to the shopping setting
manipulation was conducted, in order to ensure construct validity and to help determine if there were flaws, limitations or other weaknesses within the scenarios. Twelve people (58.3 per cent women, 41.7 per cent men) were asked to read either the public or private scenario and asked what they felt and if they thought it was convincing. Overall, people thought it was convincing. Reading the public scenario, a few people mentioned that they felt as if they were being watched, while others mentioned that they can relate to being in a very busy supermarket. Based on the comments of the participants (see Appendix E), small revisions were made to improve the scenarios before implementing the survey.
2014; Roux et al. 2015; Tully et al. 2015). Furthermore, Goldsmith et al. (2020) conducted multiple pilot studies to validate whether certain manipulations of resource scarcity activate feelings of constraint. They found that episodic recall, the scarcity manipulation used in this research, was successful at activating these feelings. Lastly, a manipulation check was included in the online survey, which is discussed in more detail later. For these reasons, a pre-test was deemed unnecessary.
Independent variable resource scarcity. Asking participants to recall certain episodes or
experiences, in this case, times in which they felt they did not have enough of something, is a task known as episodic recall. This way of manipulating resource scarcity was chosen because of various reasons. Firstly, the task requires participants to think about themselves and personal resource discrepancies instead of reminding participants about general resource scarcity. This makes it more suitable for this study as individual level scarcity relates to feelings of self-threat, which possibly play a role in the proposed conceptual model. Secondly, asking participants to engage in episodic recall requires higher involvement than other manipulations of scarcity. Thirdly, various other scholars (e.g., Goldsmith et al. 2020; Roux et al. 2015) used a similar task as a manipulation of scarcity successfully. Therefore, episodic recall was deemed the best scarcity manipulation for this study.
Manipulation check. Participants in the scarcity condition were asked to indicate to which
extent they felt restricted, constrained and hindered, all on a scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). This manipulation check was implemented at the end of the survey to ensure that it would not influence the effect of the manipulation on the dependent variable, i.e., to ensure that participants are still in a mindset of scarcity when answering the questions measuring green consumption. Furthermore, if the manipulation check would have been conducted right after the manipulation, participants might have been suspicious or might have known what the survey was about. Conducting the manipulation check at the end of the survey prevents these demand characteristics and increases construct validity. The results of the manipulation check are discussed in the results section of this thesis.
Dependent variable green consumption. As explained earlier, this thesis defines a green
products, for instance cars or fridges. Both are often used in green consumption research (e.g., Griskevicius et al. 2010), yet FMCGs are chosen because people make decisions about FMCGs every day and thus they are easier to imagine to purchase. Students, who are expected to be a large part of the sample, may have never bought a car before, so it might be difficult to imagine they are buying one. Furthermore, when purchasing a more expensive item, there are many other factors to be considered besides price and level of sustainability. It would be difficult to control for all of these factors. Lastly, the shopping setting is more easily manipulated in a situation where an FMCG is purchased: it is easier to imagine a crowded/empty supermarket than a car dealership and there is no interference of sales personnel when purchasing FMCGs. These reasons led to the decision to focus on FMCGs.
As other scholars researching green consumption used cleaning products such as laundry detergent (e.g., Goldsmith et al. 2020; Pickett-Baker and Ozaki 2008) or all-purpose cleaner (e.g., Bodur et al. 2013; Griskevicius et al. 2010), it was decided to use laundry detergent for the measurement of green consumption. Moreover, there are many sustainable laundry detergent brands in real life (Albert Heijn n.d.; Jumbo Supermarkten n.d.). To eliminate any brand associations existing in the mind of participants, an unknown brand was used. This was tested by asking six people if they had ever seen or heard of the brand. Of these six people (66.7 per cent women, 33.3 per cent men), nobody had ever seen or heard of it before.
To measure green consumption, three questions were asked (adapted from Goldsmith et al. 2020; Griskevicius et al. 2010). Firstly, participants were asked how attractive they found the green option on a seven-point scale with 1 being “extremely unattractive” to 7 “extremely attractive”. After that, participants needed to report their likelihood of purchasing the green product on a seven-point scale with 1 being “extremely unlikely” and 7 “extremely likely”. Lastly, participants were asked which of the two products they would buy.
The first two questions were highly correlated (r = 0.45, p = 0.00) with a Cronbach’s alpha higher than 0.6 (𝛼 = 0.65). Thus, they were combined to form an aggregate measure named green consumption (M = 4.78, SD = 1.39). The third question is referred to as product choice. 172 participants (71.1 per cent) chose the green product while 70 participants (28.9 per cent) chose the non-green option.
Moderator price. In the control condition, the green and non-green laundry detergent were
priced equally at €8.99 for 1.5 litres. This price was chosen by analysing the prices of different laundry detergent brands available at two of the largest supermarket chains in The Netherlands (Albert Heijn n.d.; Jumbo Supermarkten n.d.). In the price condition, the green product was around 20 per cent more expensive than its counterpart (€10.99). This price premium was chosen because it has been applied by multiple other scholars (e.g., Griskevicius et al. 2010) and because it corresponds to real-life prices of sustainable laundry detergents (Albert Heijn n.d.; Jumbo Supermarkten n.d.). The product stimuli including the prices can be found in Appendix D.
Moderator shopping setting. The scenarios used to manipulate either a private or public
condition were written keeping the following in mind. Firstly, they needed to convince participants and participants needed to be able to visualize them easily. Therefore, the scenarios were written anecdotally with plentiful details. Secondly, to counterpose any feelings related to the corona pandemic, e.g., disliking being in a crowded supermarket because of health risks, it was stated that participants needed to imagine they were in a supermarket before the corona crisis. The full scenarios can be found in Appendix C.
Control variable green habits. As green habits can influence the results of the survey and create
Analysis plan
RESULTS
In this chapter, the statistical analysis and its outcomes are described. Firstly, the preparation of data and descriptive statistics of the dependent variables are discussed. Following, the three hypotheses are tested and analyses regarding the control variable are performed. The results will determine whether additional analyses that go beyond the hypotheses will be conducted.
Preparation of data
Before conducting any statistical analysis, several steps needed to be taken. Firstly, the manipulation check was considered. Due to circumstances, the check was only carried out by participants in scarcity condition. Therefore, it was not possible to do a t-test to compare participants in the scarcity condition to participants in the control condition. Henceforth, the absolute numbers and means were considered. In the manipulation check, participants were asked to what extent they felt restricted (M = 3.82, SD = 1.69), constrained (M = 3.71, SD = 1.71) and hindered (M = 3.74, SD = 1.76). As these questions were asked on a seven-point scale, the mean scores lie around the middle of the scale. Additionally, participants of a study conducted by Goldsmith et al. (2020) had a mean score of 3.52 on the same scale for a very similar episodic recall task. Furthermore, the t-test conducted by Goldsmith and colleagues (2020) had a significant result, which indicates that episodic recall is a task that successfully manipulates resource scarcity. Therefore, the measured emotions seem to exist, which suggests the manipulation may have had the desired effect.
Descriptive statistics
Before the data was analysed in order to test whether the hypotheses hold, descriptive statistics of the dependent variables green consumption and product choice were calculated. For readability, the descriptive statistics are split up per condition in Tables 1 up to and including 4, while the table in Appendix G combines all conditions. The histograms in Appendix H provide insight into the distribution of the dependent variables in different conditions.
The descriptive statistics seem to be suggesting the following. Green consumption and product choice seem to be similar for participants in the scarcity condition and participants in the control condition. Furthermore, price seems to have quite an effect on green consumption and product choice: when a green product is more expensive than its non-green counterpart, green consumption and green product choice is lower. Shopping setting does not reverse the effect of price but it seems to weaken it: when the green product is more expensive, green consumption and green product choice is lower in private than in public. To see if these effects are statistically significant and how the different variables interact, in-depth statistical analysis will be conducted.
TABLE 1
Green consumption in different conditions of scarcity
TABLE 2
Product choice in different conditions of scarcity
a Choice 1 is the non-green product, choice 2 is the green product
M SD N
control 4.75 1.44 132
scarcity 4.81 1.33 110
Total 4.78 1.39 242
Frequency choice 1 a Frequency choice 2 a
N % N %
control 42 31.8 90 68.2
scarcity 28 25.5 82 74.5
TABLE 3
Green consumption in different conditions of price and shopping setting
TABLE 4
Product choice in different conditions of price and shopping setting
a Choice 1 is the non-green product, choice 2 is the green product
Analysis of main effect
The first hypothesis states that in a situation of scarcity, people more often choose the green option than in a situation without scarcity. The independent variable is resource scarcity and the dependent variables are green consumption and product choice.
In order to analyse whether or not green consumption differs in a situation of scarcity versus the control condition, a one-way ANOVA of resource scarcity on green consumption was performed. The ANOVA was not significant (F(1, 240) = 0.11, p = 0.74), and thus, resource scarcity does not significantly influence green consumption (control: M = 4.75, SD = 1.44; scarcity: M = 4.81, SD = 1.33). In order to analyse whether or not product choice differs in a situation of scarcity versus the control condition, a binary logistic regression analysis in which resource scarcity regressed on product choice was performed (R2
Nagelkerke = 0.01). The binary
logistic regression was not significant (b = 0.31, exp(b) = 1.37, Wald 𝜒! = 1.18, p = 0.28), and thus, resource scarcity does not significantly influence product choice (control frequency
M SD N
private equal price 5.64 1.17 53
green expensive 3.78 0.99 66
public equal price 5.30 1.22 66
green expensive 4.54 1.37 57
Total 4.78 1.39 242
Frequency choice 1 a Frequency choice 2 a
N % N %
private equal price 5 7.5 49 92.5
green expensive 32 48.5 34 51.5
public equal price 6 9.1 60 90.0
green expensive 28 49.1 29 50.9
As the effect of resource scarcity on both green consumption and product choice is insignificant, Hypothesis 1 does not hold.
Analyses of moderators
Price as moderator. The second hypothesis to be tested is whether the positive effect of
resource scarcity on green consumption (partly) disappears when green products are relatively expensive compared to non-green products. In this two-way interaction model, the independent variable is resource scarcity, the dependent variables are green consumption and product choice and the moderator is price (equal vs. green more expensive).
In order to analyse whether the relation between resource scarcity and green consumption is dependent on price, a regression analysis in which resource scarcity regressed on green consumption with price as a moderator was performed (F(3, 238) = 23.85, p = 0.00, R2 = 0.23). The effect of resource scarcity was not significant (b = -0.02, t(238) = -0.31, p = 0.76), thus, resource scarcity does not significantly influence green consumption. The conditional effect of price, i.e., the effect of price on green consumption and product choice when resource scarcity is zero (Hayes 2017), was significant (b = -0.66, t(238) = -8.30, p = 0.00). Thus, in a situation without scarcity, green consumption is on average 0.66 lower when the green product is more expensive compared to when the green and non-green product are priced equally. There was no significant interaction between resource scarcity and price (b = 0.06, t(238) = 0.81, p = 0.42), thus, the relation between resource scarcity and green consumption is not moderated by price. The complete regression output can be found in Appendix I.
As the interaction effect between resource scarcity and price was insignificant both for green consumption and product choice, Hypothesis 2 does not hold.
Price and shopping setting as moderators. The third and last hypothesis to be analysed is
whether the effect of price on the relation between resource scarcity and green consumption reverses in a public (vs. private) shopping setting. In this three-way interaction model, the independent variable is resource scarcity, the dependent variables are green consumption and product choice and the moderators are price (equal vs. green more expensive) and shopping setting (public vs. private).
In order to analyse whether the relation between resource scarcity, green consumption and price is dependent on shopping setting, a regression analysis in which resource scarcity regressed on green consumption with moderators price and shopping setting was performed (F(7, 234) = 13.54, p = 0.00, R2 = 0.29). The effect of scarcity was not significant (b = -0.03, t(234) = -0.39, p = 0.69), thus, resource scarcity does not significantly influence green consumption. The conditional effect of price was significant (b = -0.65, t(234) = -8.43, p = 0.00). Thus, in a situation without scarcity in an empty supermarket, green consumption is on average 0.65 lower when the green product is more expensive compared to when the green and non-green product are priced equally. The conditional effect of shopping setting was not significant (b = 0.11, t(234) = 1.41, p = 0.16). The three-way interaction between resource scarcity, price and shopping setting was not significant (b = -0.09, t(234) = -1.21, p = 0.23). Thus, the moderation of price on resource scarcity and green consumption is not moderated by shopping setting. The complete regression output can be found in Appendix J.
was not significant (b = -1.15, Z = -0.75, p = 0.45). Thus, the moderation of price on resource scarcity and product choice is not moderated by shopping setting. The complete regression output can be found in Appendix J.
As the interaction effect between resource scarcity, price and shopping setting was insignificant both for green consumption and product choice, Hypothesis 3 does not hold.
Analyses of control variable
The next step is to investigate the control variable green habits. As green habits could have influenced respondents’ answers to questions measuring the dependent variables green consumption and product choice, and thus created possible noise, they need to be controlled for. The influence of green habits is examined using different methods.
Green habits as covariate. As a first step, green habits were analysed as a covariate in the
two-way and three-two-way interaction model, to examine whether these would change in significance when controlling for green habits.
To see whether and how green habits influence the two-way interaction model as a covariate, a regression analysis with resource scarcity as independent variable, green consumption as dependent variable, price as a moderator and green habits as a covariate was performed (F(4, 237) = 23.67, p = 0.00, R2 = 0.29). Green habits were found to be a significant covariate (b = 0.26, t(237) = 4.24, p = 0.00), which implies that when green habits increase with one unit, green consumption increases with 0.26. However, the interaction between resource scarcity and price on green consumption did not change in significance (b = 0.06, t(237) = 0.77, p = 0.44). To check the effect on product choice, a logistic regression with resource scarcity as independent variable, product choice as dependent variable, price as a moderator and green habits as a covariate was performed (p = 0.00, R2Nagelkerke = 0.46). Green habits were found to be a significant covariate (b = 0.92, exp(b) = 2.51, Z = 5.67, p = 0.00), which implies that when green habits increase with one unit, the odds that the green option is chosen increase by 151 per cent. However, the interaction between resource scarcity and price on product choice did not change in significance (b = 0.24, Z = 1.16, p = 0.25).
dependent variable, price and shopping setting as moderators and green habits as a covariate was performed (F(8, 233) = 15.41, p = 0.00, R2 = 0.35). Green habits were found to be a significant covariate (b = 0.27, t(233) = 4.54, p = 0.00), which implies that when green habits increase with one unit, green consumption increases with 0.27. However, the interaction between resource scarcity, price and shopping setting on green consumption did not change in significance (b = -0.09, t(233) = -1.23, p = 0.22). To check the effect on product choice, a logistic regression with resource scarcity as independent variable, product choice as dependent variable, price and shopping setting as moderators and green habits as a covariate was performed (p = 0.00, R2Nagelkerke = 0.47). Green habits were found to be a significant covariate (b = 0.94, exp(b) = 2.56, Z = 5.68, p = 0.00), which implies that when green habits increase with one unit, the odds that the green option is chosen increase with 156 per cent. However, the interaction between resource scarcity, price and shopping setting on product choice did not change in significance (b = -0.21, Z = -0.95, p = 0.34).
In both the two- and three-way interaction model, green habits are a significant covariate. However, the interaction models did not change in significance.
Green habits as moderator. To continue in a more explorative manner, green habits were
analysed as a moderator. In this model, the independent variable is resource scarcity, the dependent variables are green consumption and product choice and the moderator is green habits.
To check the effect on product choice, a logistic regression with resource scarcity as independent variable, product choice as dependent variable and green habits as a moderator was performed (p = 0.00, R2Nagelkerke = 0.24). The effect of scarcity was not significant (b = 0.64, Z = 0.98, p = 0.33), and thus, resource scarcity does not significantly influence green consumption. The conditional effect of green habits was significant (b = 0.81, exp(b) = 2.25, Z = 5.70, p = 0.00). Thus, in a situation without scarcity, an increase of 1 in green habits leads to an increase of 125 per cent in the odds that the green product is chosen. The interaction between resource scarcity and green habits on product choice was not significant (b = -0.12, Z = -0.85, p = 0.39), and thus, green habits is not a significant moderator on the effect between resource scarcity and product choice. The complete regression output can be found in Appendix K As the interaction effect between resource scarcity and green habits was insignificant for both green consumption and product choice, green habits do not moderate the relation between resource scarcity and green consumption and product choice. However, green habits influence green consumption and product choice significantly: an increase in green habits leads to an increase of green consumption and to an increase in the odds that the green product is chosen.
Green habits as independent variable. As resource scarcity does not have a significant effect
on green consumption and product choice but green habits does, two models with green habits as independent variable are tested to investigate its influence in more detail.
Firstly, a two-way interaction model with green habits as independent variable, green consumption and product choice as dependent variables and resource scarcity as a moderator is examined. A regression analysis with green habits as independent variable, green consumption as dependent variable and scarcity as a moderator was performed (F(3, 238) = 7.53, p = 0.00, R2 = 0.09). The effect of green habits was significant (b = 0.31, t(238) = 4.43, p = 0.00). Therefore, green habits influence green consumption: an increase of 1 in green habits leads to an increase of 0.31 in green consumption. The conditional effect of scarcity was not significant (b = 0.36, t(238) = 1.04, p = 0.30). The interaction between green habits and resource scarcity on green consumption was not significant (b = -0.08, t(238) = -1.08, p = 0.28), and thus, the relation between green habits and green consumption is not moderated by resource scarcity. The full regression output can be found in Appendix L. To check the effect on product choice, a logistic regression with green habits as independent variable, product choice as dependent variable and resource scarcity as a moderator was performed (p = 0.00, R2
effect of green habits was significant (b = 0.81, exp(b) = 2.25, Z = 5.70, p = 0.00). Therefore, green habits influence green consumption: an increase of 1 in green habits leads to an increase of 125 per cent in the odds that the green product is chosen. The conditional effect of scarcity was not significant (b = 0.64, Z = 0.98, p = 0.33). The interaction between green habits and resource scarcity on product choice was not significant (b = -0.12, Z = -0.85, p = 0.39) and thus, the relation between green habits and green consumption is not moderated by resource scarcity. The full regression output can be found in Appendix L.
Secondly, a three-way interaction model with green habits as independent variable, green consumption and product choice as dependent variables and price and shopping setting as moderators is examined. A regression analysis with green habits as independent variable, green consumption as dependent variable and price and shopping setting as moderators was performed (F(7, 234) = 18.96, p = 0.00, R2 = 0.36). The effect of green habits was significant (b = 0.28, t(234) = 4.83, p = 0.00), and thus, green habits influence green consumption. An increase of 1 in green habits leads to an increase of 0.28 in green consumption. The three-way interaction between green habits, price and shopping setting was not significant (b = 0.06, t(234) = 1.06, p = 0.29). Thus, no moderated moderation of price and shopping setting on the relation between green habits and green consumption exists. The complete regression output can be found in Appendix M. To check the effect on product choice, a logistic regression with green habits as independent variable, product choice as dependent variable and price and shopping setting as moderators was performed (p = 0.00, R2Nagelkerke = 0.48). The effect of green habits was significant (b = 0.81, exp(b) = 2.25, Z = 4.71, p = 0.00), and thus, green habits influence green consumption. An increase of 1 in green habits leads to an increase of 125 per cent in the odds that the green product is chosen. The three-way interaction between green habits, price and shopping setting on product choice was not significant (b = 0.06, Z = 0.37, p = 0.71). Thus, no moderated moderation of price and shopping setting on the relation between green habits and product choice exists. The complete regression output can be found in Appendix M.
Additional analyses
After conducting several statistical analyses, it was concluded that the three hypotheses do not hold. However, significant conditional effects of price were found. Going beyond the hypotheses, these effects are explored in more detail by conducting additional analyses. Before conducting these analyses, a new variable was computed in which every participant was given a number from 1 to 4. This number indicates in which price and shopping setting condition the respondent was in. It is important to note that each group consists of both participants who were in a situation of scarcity as those who were not. After computing the variable, a univariate ANOVA with the new variable as a fixed factor and green consumption as dependent variable was conducted (as this analysis is only possible for continuous dependent variables, product choice was not considered). The main effect yielded by this ANOVA is not of interest, but the contrasts between conditions are. These contrasts demonstrate the following. Firstly, the negative effect of price on green consumption is confirmed. There was a significant difference between the private-equal and the private-expensive condition (contrast estimate = -1.86, p = 0.00) and the public-equal and the public-expensive condition (contrast estimate = -0.77, p = 0.00). In a private setting, green consumption is 1.86 lower when the green product is more expensive compared to when the green and non-green product are equally priced. In a public setting, green consumption is 0.77 lower when the green product is more expensive compared to when the green and non-green product are equally priced.
Secondly, the effect of shopping setting became clearer. There was a significant difference between the private-expensive condition and the public-expensive condition (contrast estimate = -0.76, p = 0.00). When the green product is more expensive than the non-green product, green consumption is 0.76 higher in public than in private. However, there was no significant difference between the private-equal condition and the public-equal condition (contrast estimate = -0.34, p = 0.12). When the green and non-green product are priced equally, green consumption is not significantly different in the public versus the private setting.
has a significant effect on green consumption when the green product is more expensive than the non-green product. In that case, green consumption is higher in public than in private. When the products are priced equally, green consumption does not differ significantly in the two shopping settings.
Summary of results
To summarize, no significant results regarding the hypotheses were found in the regression analyses and therefore, the three hypotheses do not hold. Resource scarcity does not significantly influence green consumption and product choice, nor do price and shopping setting act as moderators. The control variable green habits was found to be a significant covariate in the two- and three-way interaction model, but the significance of the interactions between resource scarcity, price and shopping setting on green consumption and product choice did not change. An overview of these results can be found in Table 5, a graphical representation of the three-way interaction model in Figures 2 and 3.
TABLE 5 Overview of results
a While controlling for green habits
FIGURE 2
Three-way interaction on green consumption while controlling for green habits
FIGURE 3
Three-way interaction on probability of choosing green product while controlling for green habits
Green consumption Product choice
b p-value b p-value
Main effect scarcity - 0.74 0.31 0.28
Two-way interaction price * scarcity 0.06 0.42 0.21 0.27
Two-way interaction price * scarcity a 0.06 0.44 0.24 0.25
DISCUSSION
Consuming sustainably is now more important than ever, but when you do not have much money or time on your hands, it is not always easy. This thesis addressed this issue by examining the relation between resource scarcity and green consumption. Previous research has contrasting findings: Goldsmith et al. (2020) found that resource scarcity leads to green consumption when green products are inexpensive, while Griskevicius et al. (2010) found that green consumption increases when green products are expensive. The goal of this research was to investigate this discrepancy. Drawing from research on construal level theory, competitive orientation, costly signalling, competitive altruism and conspicuous consumption, a novel perspective was introduced. Specifically, it was predicted that in a situation of scarcity, people more often choose the green option than in a situation without scarcity, provided that the price of the green option is similar to price of the non-green option. When the green product is relatively expensive, the positive effect of resource scarcity on green consumption (partly) disappears. However, the effect of price on the relation between resource scarcity and green consumption reverses in a public (vs. private) shopping setting.
Statistical analysis of data gathered via an online survey determined that there is no significant effect of resource scarcity on green consumption nor any significant interaction between resource scarcity, price and shopping setting. Green habits were found to be a significant covariate, but the significance of the two- and three-way interactions were not affected by this. Thus, the three hypotheses do not hold. However, price and shopping setting were found to have direct effects on green consumption. Firstly, green consumption is lower when the green product is more expensive compared to when the green and non-green product are priced equal, and secondly, when the green product is more expensive than the non-green product, green consumption is higher in public than in private.
aligns with the findings of Griskevicius et al. (2010), who found that the desire for green products increases when shopping in public and when green products are more expensive than non-green products.
Practical implications
This thesis started with the notion that sustainable consumption is more important than ever. The finding that green habits positively influence green consumption indicates that people who frequently purchase sustainable products are likely to keep purchasing sustainable products. This has multiple practical implications. Once a consumer has purchased a green product, the chance of them consuming greenly in the future increases. Furthermore, when striving to have as many people as possible to consume sustainably, it is important to persuade people who do not do so yet. To lead the world to the green side, it is important to sway people who are still on the dark side.
However, it is not always easy to consume sustainably, especially when you have little money or time on your hands. This prompts the question how to make green consumption more attractive for people in such situations. As this thesis yielded no significant results regarding the effect of resource scarcity on green consumption, while previous research does, it is difficult to answer this question. However, this thesis found that price is of great importance when it comes to green consumption: when green products are more expensive than non-green products, around 50 per cent of people choose greenly, opposed to 90 per cent when green and non-green products cost the same. Furthermore, research shows that people experiencing financial deprivation are more price sensitive (e.g., Shah et al 2015). This suggests that pricing green products at the same level as conventional counterparts should make green consumption more attractive, both for consumers in a situation of scarcity as for those who are not.
of crowding around someone who is considering to buy a green product. Additionally, a feeling of being watched or status motives could be induced, for example by adopting slogans that imply that it is ‘cool’ or status-enhancing to buy green products.
Limitations
One limitation of the current research is that the sample mostly consists of students, as a large part of respondents were gained by spreading notes in the university library and through the author’s personal network. As students represent only a part of the total population, the generalizability and external validity of the study is affected negatively. Furthermore, it could have influenced the results in several ways. On the one hand, a relatively young sample consisting of many students could have led to a relatively high score on green consumption overall, as a people with a higher education level and a younger age are more likely to have high environmental values (e.g., Franzen and Vogl 2013; Gilg et al. 2005; McMillan et al. 1997; Olli et al. 2001; Roberts 1993). As the conducted research controls for green habits, these factors should not have influenced the results. On the other hand, the large proportion of students in the sample could have led to lower scores on green consumption in the condition where the green product is more expensive than the non-green product, because students on average have little money to spend (ISO 2019) and people with a lower income are less likely to consume greenly (e.g., Franzen and Vogl 2013, Franzen and Meyer 2010; Gelissen 2007; Kemmelmeier et al. 2002).
Secondly, around 70 per cent of the sample consisted of women. This could have led to a relatively high score on overall green consumption, as women are found to have a higher concern for the environment than men (e.g., Davidson and Freudenburg 1996; Eagly 2013; Franzen and Vogl 2013; Olli et al. 2001; Roberts 1993; Zelezny et al. 2000). However, as explained in the previous paragraph, this potential influence of gender is counteracted by controlling for green habits.
attractiveness and purchase likelihood, a question in which participants had to make a purchase choice was included to simulate real purchase behaviour.
might have inferred that the green product is the preferred option. Also, participant reaction bias might have occurred. Many participants guessed correctly that the survey is about green consumption, as stated in their answers to the question whether they knew what the survey was about. Consequently, they might have answered more greenly than they actually are and their consumption actually is, to act in the way that they thought the experimenter wanted.
Future research directions
One logical extension of this thesis would be studying a conceptual model in which the underlying mediators construal level, competitive orientation and status motives are integrated. Although resource scarcity was not found to have an effect on green consumption in this study, other research has demonstrated that it has. A conceptual model with resource scarcity as independent variable, green consumption as dependent variable, price and shopping setting as moderators and construal level, competitive orientation and status motives as mediators would be interesting to research as this would give insights into all factors that potentially play a role. The findings of this research would demonstrate if and how these factors interact and its implications could lead to recommendations on how to make green consumption more attractive.
A next avenue for future research involves an examination of the model proposed in this research in a lab or field experiment. This would facilitate manipulating resource scarcity and shopping setting more realistically. An example of a set up for a lab experiment is the following. In a lab, a supermarket setting is created, where for every type of product, a green and a non-green option is available. Every respondent receives a list with groceries they need to collect and a limited or less limited amount of money or time to spend in this supermarket, to manipulate scarcity. In the supermarket, either very little or many actors walk around, to manipulate shopping setting. At the end of the experiment, green consumption is measured by assessing the ratio of green and non-green products in respondent’s basket. Conducting an experiment like this, i.e., more similar to real life and real consumption behaviour, would lead to higher external validity and better generalizability.
CONCLUSION
REFERENCES
Abrams, P. A. (1992). Keywords in evolutionary biology. In Keller, E. F., & Lloyd, E. A. (Eds.). (1994). Keywords in Evolutionary Biology. Harvard University Press.
Ailawadi, K. L., Neslin, S. A., & Gedenk, K. (2001). Pursuing the value-conscious consumer: store brands versus national brand promotions. Journal of Marketing, 65(1), 71-89.
Albert Heijn. (n.d.). https://www.ah.nl/
Amatulli, C., De Angelis, M., Peluso, A. M., Soscia, I., & Guido, G. (2019). The effect of negative message framing on green consumption: An investigation of the role of shame. Journal of Business Ethics, 157(4), 1111-1132.
Arshad, S. (2010). 11 best reusable makeup remover pads, mitts and cloths for 2020. Good Housekeeping.
Banerjee, A. V., & Duflo, E. (2007). The economic lives of the poor. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 21(1), 141-168.
Barclay, P., & Willer, R. (2007). Partner choice creates competitive altruism in humans. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 274(1610), 749-753.
Bird, R., & Smith, E. A. (2005). Signaling theory, strategic interaction, and symbolic capital. Current Anthropology, 46(2), 221–248.
Blake, J. (1999). Overcoming the ‘value‐action gap’ in environmental policy: Tensions between national policy and local experience. Local Environment, 4(3), 257-278.
Bodur, H. O., Duval, K. M., & Grohmann, B. (2015). Will you purchase environmentally friendly products? Using prediction requests to increase choice of sustainable products. Journal of Business Ethics, 129(1), 59-75.
bol.com. (n.d.). https://www.bol.com/
Bonini, S., & Oppenheim, J. (2008). Cultivating the green consumer. Stanford Social Innovation Review, 6(4), 56-61.
Briers, B., & Laporte, S. (2013). A wallet full of calories: The effect of financial dissatisfaction on the desire for food energy. Journal of Marketing Research, 50(6), 767-781.
Briers, B., Pandelaere, M., Dewitte, S., & Warlop, L. (2006). Hungry for money: The desire for caloric resources increases the desire for financial resources and vice versa. Psychological Science, 17(11), 939-943.
Cannon, C., Goldsmith, K., & Roux, C. (2019). A self‐regulatory model of resource scarcity. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 29(1), 104-127.
Chait, J. (2019). Why eco-friendly fashions and body care products are more expensive. Growing a Green Family.
Chang, C. (2011). Feeling ambivalent about going green. Journal of Advertising, 40(4), 19-32. Chekima, B., Wafa, S. A. W. S. K., Igau, O. A., Chekima, S., & Sondoh Jr, S. L. (2016). Examining green consumerism motivational drivers: does premium price and demographics matter to green purchasing? Journal of Cleaner Production, 112(4), 3436-3450.
Cherian, J., & Jacob, J. (2012). Green marketing: A study of consumers' attitude towards environment friendly products. Asían Social Science, 8(12), 117.
Davidson, D. J., & Freudenburg, W. R. (1996). Gender and environmental risk concerns: A review and analysis of available research. Environment and Behavior, 28(3), 302-339.
Eagly, A. H. (2013). Sex differences in social behavior: A social-role interpretation. Psychology Press.
Essoussi, L. H., & Linton, J. D. (2010). New or recycled products: how much are consumers willing to pay?. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 27(5), 458-468.
Fernbach, P. M., Kan, C., & Lynch Jr, J. G. (2015). Squeezed: Coping with constraint through efficiency and prioritization. Journal of Consumer Research, 41(5), 1204-1227.
Franzen, A., & Meyer, R. (2010). Environmental attitudes in cross-national perspective: A multilevel analysis of the ISSP 1993 and 2000. European Sociological Review, 26(2), 219-234. Franzen, A., & Vogl, D. (2013). Two decades of measuring environmental attitudes: A comparative analysis of 33 countries. Global Environmental Change, 23(5), 1001-1008. Gelissen, J. (2007). Explaining popular support for environmental protection: A multilevel analysis of 50 nations. Environment and Behavior, 39(3), 392-415.
Gilg, A., Barr, S., & Ford, N. (2005). Green consumption or sustainable lifestyles? Identifying the sustainable consumer. Futures, 37(6), 481-504.
Goldsmith, K., Newman, G. E., & Dhar, R. (2016). Mental representation changes the evaluation of green product benefits. Nature Climate Change, 6(9), 847-850.
Goldsmith, K., Roux, C., & Ma, J. (2018). When seeking the best brings out the worst in consumers: Understanding the relationship between a maximizing mindset and immoral behavior. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 28(2), 293-309.
Goldsmith, K., Roux, C., & Wilson, A. V. (2020). Can Thoughts of Having Less Ever Promote Prosocial Preferences? The Relationship between Scarcity, Construal Level, and Sustainable Product Adoption. Journal of the Association for Consumer Research, 5(1), 70–82.
Griskevicius, V., Ackerman, J. M., Cantú, S. M., Delton, A. W., Robertson, T. E., Simpson, J. A., Thompson, M. E., & Tybur, J. M. (2013). When the economy falters, do people spend or save? Responses to resource scarcity depend on childhood environments. Psychological Science, 24(2), 197-205.
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), 392-404.
Ha‐Brookshire, J. E., & Norum, P. S. (2011). Willingness to pay for socially responsible products: case of cotton apparel. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 28(5), 344-353.
Hamilton, R. W., Mittal, C., Shah, A., Thompson, D. V., & Griskevicius, V. (2019). How financial constraints influence consumer behavior: An integrative framework. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 29(2), 285-305.
Hamilton, R. W., Thompson, D. V., Bone, S., Chaplin, L. N., Griskevicius, V., Goldsmith, K., Hill, R., John, D. R., Mittal, C., O’Guinn, D., Piff, P., Roux, C., Shah, A., & Zhu, M. (2018). The effects of scarcity on consumer decision journeys. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 47(3), 532-550.
Hawkes, K. (1993). Why hunter–gatherers work: An ancient version of the problem of public goods. Current Anthropology, 34(4), 341–361.
Hayes, A. F. (2017). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis:
