The Effectiveness of Marketing Claims in Sustainable Advertising
Effects of Social Normative Marketing Claims on Consumer Purchase Intention via Intrinsic and Extrinsic Green Consumer Motivation, and under Moderation of Environmental Marketing Claims in
Advertisements for Sustainable FMCG-Products
Caroline Kastermans 10985581
Master’s Thesis
Graduate School of Communication Master’s Programme Communication Science
Supervisor: Ivana Bušljeta Banks 25-06-2021
Abstract
The unsustainable consumption of food, energy, and natural resources by humans has created worldwide pressing social, environmental, and economic issues. Therefore, the world is calling for the production and consumption of more sustainable products, which have a less negative impact on the environment. However, consumer adoption of sustainable products is still slow. Therefore, ways should be found to motivate consumers towards more sustainable consumption. This study investigated the effects of exposure to social normative claims in advertising for sustainable products on consumer’s purchase intention via both intrinsic and extrinsic green consumer motivation and explored whether environmental marketing claims moderated the effect of exposure to social normative claims on green consumer motivation.
The results of the study showed that intrinsic green consumer motivation plays a bigger role with regards to purchase intention than extrinsic green consumer motivation. In addition, the combination of social normative marketing claims and environmental marketing claims was found to have a positive effect on extrinsic green consumer motivation, in such a way that the combination of an injunctive social normative claim and an intrinsic environmental marketing claim had the most positive effect. The findings of the study provide some practical insights for practitioners and suggest that further research is needed to investigate how to effectively use social normative messages and environmental marketing claims to increase consumers’
purchase intention in the context of advertising for sustainable products.
Introduction
The unsustainable consumption of food, energy, and natural resources by humans has created worldwide pressing social, environmental, and economic issues, such as child labor, extreme poverty, global warming, deforestation, and depletion of natural resources (Pristl, Kilian & Mann, 2020; Rezvani, Jansson & Bengtsson, 2018). Therefore, the world is calling for the production and consumption of more sustainable products, which have a less negative impact on the environment (Rezvani et al., 2018). However, consumer adoption of sustainable products is still slow (Bodur, Duval & Grohmann, 2015; McDonald & Oates, 2006; Prothero et al., 2011). To speed this up, practitioners of sustainable development are concerned with finding ways to motivate consumers towards more sustainable consumption (Pristl, et al., 2020).
Although researchers have examined different factors that influence the consumption of sustainable products, insufficient focus has been given to the context of fast-moving consumer goods (FMCG), such as food, or toiletries (Nagaraju & Thejaswini, 2014). Fast- moving consumer goods are products that are purchased and consumed frequently to satisfy continuous consumer demand (Muranko, Tassell, Zeeuw van der Laan & Aurisicchio, 2021).
The FMCG-sector is a considerably large sector of the economy and one of the growing industries that concerns sustainability issues (Nagaraju & Thejaswini, 2014; Tandon & Sethi, 2017). One reason for the lack of sufficient focus for this category in sustainability-research might be that these products, given their fast-moving nature, are seen as not sustainable because consumers generally use them for a short period of time. However, the production and packaging of these products is not a quick process and can definitely benefit from more attention to sustainable practices (Muranko et al., 2021).
Take chocolate for example. The global cocoa production faces mounting social- economic and environmental challenges, such as exploitation, child labor, deforestation due to
cacao-production, and the creation of enormous amounts of organic waste (Kroeger, Koenig, Thomson & Streck, 2017; MilieuCentraal, 2021). With the rising global demand for chocolate (MilieuCentraal; 2021), the industry calls for ways to motivate consumers towards more sustainable consumption. This study, therefore, focuses specifically on sustainable chocolate as an FMCG-product.
To influence consumer behavior towards sustainable products, practitioners make use of Environmental Marketing. This can be defined as “the marketing of products that are presumed to be environmentally safe” (Nagaraju & Thejaswini, 2014). Several studies have proposed the use of social norms as an effective way to encourage various kinds of pro- environmental behavior (Pristl, et al., 2020), such as recycling household garbage (Minton &
Rose, 1997) or choosing ecologically friendly household appliances (Bertrandias & Elgaaied- Gambier, 2014). Social norms can be divided into two different types: injunctive norms, which involve perceptions of which behaviors are typically approved or disapproved, and descriptive norms, involving perceptions of which behaviors are typically performed (Cialdini, 2003). Both kinds of norms have been proven to motivate human action; people tend to do what is socially approved, as well as what is popular (Cialdini, 2003). The use of social norms for marketing principles is called the Social Normative Marketing approach and is frequently used in advertising to influence consumers’ buying behavior. The approach has been proven to be effective for several product categories, such as weight-loss products (Lim, Chock & Golan, 2020), jeans (Kim, Lee & Hur, 2012), and cars (Belgiawan, Schmöcker &
Abou-Zeid, 2017). In the current study, we strive to research if the use of marketing claims containing pro-environmental social normative messages will also have a positive effect on consumers’ buying behavior in the context of advertising for sustainable FMCG-products, specifically focusing on sustainable chocolate brands.
The effect of social normative marketing claims in advertising on consumer purchase intention may partly be explained by Green consumer motivation, be it intrinsic or extrinsic.
Green consumer motivation is defined as an internal state that drives people to identify and buy products or services that fulfill conscious and unconscious needs or desires, specifically with regards to the environment (Joshi & Rahman, 2015). Green intrinsic motivation refers to consumers’ tendency to engage in environmental behaviors out of their affection for the environment, while green extrinsic motivation refers to consumers' tendency to engage in environmental behaviors because of external benefits, such as rewards, appreciation, or approval of family, friends, or society (Ali, Ashfaq, Begum & Ali, 2020). Since previous research has highlighted that both kinds of social norms act through different motivations (Gimpel et al., 2021), this study aims to research whether green intrinsic and/or green extrinsic consumer motivation mediates the effect of social normative marketing claims on consumers’ intention to purchase sustainable FMCG-products.
A possible moderator that could influence the effects of social normative marketing claims on consumer purchase intention is the type of Environmental marketing claim made by the brand. Environmental marketing claims are widely used in advertising for sustainable brands to signal to the consumers that their product is sustainable and can be divided into four different types: 1) product-oriented, 2) process-oriented, 3) image-oriented and 4) based on environmental facts (Carson, Grove and Kangun, 1993). The first two deal with
environmentally friendly product attributes or production techniques, and can, therefore, be seen as intrinsic claims (Kim, Lee & Hur, 2012). Examples of such environmental marketing claims include the Nudie “100% organic cotton” (product-oriented claim) or Levi’s
“Water<Less®” (process-oriented claim) jeans. On the other hand, image-oriented claims focus on a brand’s environmental activities, such as donations to charities, to garner broad- based support from the public. And lastly, claims of environmental facts simply consist of a
statement regarding the environment (Carson et al., 1993). These last two types of claims do not relate to the physical or intrinsic attributes of a product but are only peripherally related to it, and can therefore be seen as extrinsic (Kim, Lee and Hur, 2012). Examples of extrinsic marketing claims are Starbucks’ “you zip, we donate” (image-oriented claim) and G-star’s
“our oceans are being filled with plastic more and more every year” (claims of environmental facts).
Previous research (Kim, Lee and Hur, 2012) has found the type of environmental marketing claim made by the brand to have a moderating effect on the influence of social normative messages on consumer purchase intentions. The current study aims to research whether the type of environmental marketing claims also moderates the relationship between social normative marketing claims and green consumer motivation.
To summarize, comparatively little research has been conducted to investigate how to effectively encourage consumption of sustainable FMCG-products. Therefore, this study aims to add theoretical insight into the effects of exposure to social normative marketing claims in advertising for such products by testing the mediating role of green consumer motivation (intrinsic and extrinsic). Moreover, this study aims to explore exposure to environmental marketing claims as a moderator on green consumer motivation and provide insights for practitioners about the effects of social normative marketing claims when the combination with environmental marketing claims varies. This study will provide implications for practitioners, such as marketers of sustainable FMCG brands- and products, to make more informed decisions when designing advertisements for their products. This will add important value, as the FMCG-sector is a large industry in the economy and within this industry,
chocolate brands are an important slice of the market to study. Because consumers play an essential role in diminishing the injustices and unsustainable practices in the industry (Food
Empowerment Project, 2021), it is important to gain insights in how to motivate them towards more sustainable consumption in this context.
Taken all the above into account, the study will be guided by the following research question:
RQ: How does the use of marketing claims based on social norms (descriptive vs.
injunctive vs. combined) in advertisements for sustainable products affect the consumer’s purchase intention, can this effect be explained by intrinsic and extrinsic green consumer motivation, and what, if any, is the effect of environmental marketing claims (intrinsic vs.
extrinsic) used in the advertisement in this context?
Theoretical Framework
The Focus Theory of Normative Conduct
The current research relies on the Focus Theory of Normative Conduct (Cialdini, Reno
& Kallgren, 1990) to identify whether social normative claims can enhance persuasion in the context of advertising for sustainable products. The rationale for the social-norms marketing approach is based on two consistent findings; 1) most individuals overestimate the prevalence of many undesirable behaviors among peers, and 2) individuals use their perceptions of peer norms as a standard against which to compare their own behaviors (Schultz, Nolan &
Cialdini, 2007). The Focus Theory of Normative Conduct, therefore, states that the use of social norms can mobilize decision making processes, especially when they are made salient in a specific situation (Cialdini et al., 1990). One way to increase the saliency of norms is by using persuasive normative messages (De Groot, Abrahamse & Jones, 2013).
Furthermore, the Focus Theory of Normative Conduct proposes that human behavior is motivated by two kinds of social norms: descriptive and injunctive norms. Descriptive norms refer to what is commonly done by others and are based on observations of how people
act in situations (Cialdini et al., 1990). An example is: “80% of the people in the Netherlands reuse their plastic bag on a regular basis”. Injunctive norms can be described as what others think a person should do, and help an individual determine what is accepted or rejected by others (Cialdini et al., 1990). An example is “80% of the people in the Netherlands believe (i.e., approve of) that reusing plastic bags is important”. Although both types of social norms provide information, they act through different motivations. Injunctive norms influence behavior by highlighting potential social rewards and punishments for desirable or
undesirable behavior. Such moral evaluation influences the behavior even when the imaginary others are not relatives or friends. Descriptive social norms motivate actions by providing information about others’ behavior. This can be used as a heuristic, giving the decision-maker a ‘decisional shortcut’ (Gimpel, et al., 2021).
Previous research has shown that various types of social norm interventions have been effective at inducing changes in different types of sustainable behavior (Goldstein et al., 2007;
Kim, et al., 2012; De Groot, et al., 2013). Although both have been proven to be effective, descriptive norms have demonstrated particularly consistent effects regarding pro-
environmental behaviors (Farrow, Grolleau & Ibanez, 2017) and especially in the context of sustainable consumption, the use of descriptive social norms has more often shown a positive effect on consumer behavior (Ahn, Kim & Kim, 2020; Salmivaara, Lombardini, & Lankoski, 2021). Therefore, it is expected that descriptive norms will also have a more positive effect in the context of advertising for sustainable FMCG-products. Based on this expectation the following hypothesis is posited:
H1: a) Exposure to an advertisement for a sustainable product containing a claim that is based on a descriptive norm will lead to a higher intention to purchase the brand featured in the ad than exposure to an advertisement for a sustainable product containing a claim that is based on an injunctive norm.
Additionally, previous research has shown that a combined application of both types of norms can produce the most positive behavior effects (Cialdini, 2003; Schultz, et al., 2007), because the power of two independent sources of normative motivation is united in this way (Cialdini, 2003). Based on these findings, the current study expects to find similar effects when advertising for sustainable FMCG-products. Therefore, the following hypothesis is posited:
H1: b) Exposure to an advertisement for a sustainable product containing a claim based on a combination of descriptive and injunctive social norms will have a more positive effect on consumer’s intention to purchase the brand featured in the ad than exposure to an advertisement containing a claim that is based on just a descriptive social norm or just an injunctive social norm.
Mediation via Green Consumer Motivation: Intrinsic and Extrinsic
The positive effect of social normative marketing claims may be explained by green consumer motivation: “an internal state that drives people to buy products or services that fulfill conscious and unconscious needs or desires, specifically regarding the environment”
(Joshi & Rahman, 2015). Consumers tend to engage in environmental behaviors due to
different motivations: either out of their affection for the environment (intrinsic motivation) or because of external benefits such behavior might provide for them, such as appreciation or approval of family or friends (extrinsic motivation) (Ali, et al., 2020). Previous research has shown that evidence as to what others commonly do and to what others commonly approve of represents separate bases for human motivation (Cialdini, Kallgren & Reno, 1991).
Descriptive norms play an important role in determining behavior because people obtain information and guidance regarding proper social conduct from others (Rivis & Sheeran, 2003). Consumers may enhance values and standards for their behavior by referring to a group’s behavior (Hsu & Lu, 2004). Therefore, we expect that exposure to descriptive norms
is likely to specifically increase consumers’ green intrinsic motivation. Injunctive norms determine behavioral intention because they act as social sanctions to perform a given
behavior (Fishbein & Capella, 2006). Therefore, we expect that exposure to injunctive norms is likely to specifically increase consumers’ extrinsic motivation. Given that eco-friendly behaviors seem to be stimulated by either extrinsically driven motivation (i.e. social pressure) or by intrinsically driven motivation (i.e. environmental values) (Kim, et al., 2012), it is expected that both of these types of consumer motivations mediate the effect of social normative marketing claims on purchase intention.
Additionally, based on previous findings (Ojo, Raman & Downe, 2019; Ali, et al., 2020; Jones, 2019; Zhang, Li, Cao & Huan, 2018), we argue that, while both types of motivation have a positive effect on sustainable consumption, green products are
comparatively more likely to be consumed if consumers are intrinsically motivated, than if their motivation is extrinsic. Based on all the above, the following hypotheses are posited:
H2: a) Exposure to an advertisement for a sustainable product containing a claim based on a descriptive norm will lead to a higher level of intrinsic consumer motivation than an ad based on an injunctive norm, with, consequently, b) higher levels of intrinsic consumer motivation leading to higher levels of purchase intention than lower levels of intrinsic
motivation.
H3: a) Exposure to an advertisement for a sustainable product containing a claim based on an injunctive norm will lead to a higher level of extrinsic consumer motivation than an ad based on a descriptive norm, with, consequently, b) higher levels of extrinsic consumer motivation leading to higher levels of purchase intention than lower levels of extrinsic
motivation.
H4: The positive effects of intrinsic consumer motivation on purchase intention will be stronger than the positive effects of extrinsic motivation on purchase intention.
When comparing intrinsic and extrinsic green consumer motivation in the context of sustainable consumption, the above is expected. However, both types of motivation eventually lead to the desirable sustainable behavior. As stated above, both types of social norms are expected to each trigger one type of green consumer motivation. Therefore, it is expected that a combination of both norms will trigger both types, and this is expected to explain the most positive effect of exposure to combined social normative claim. Therefore, the following hypotheses is posited:
H5: a) Exposure to an advertisement for a sustainable product containing a claim based on a combination of a descriptive and an injunctive social norm will lead to a higher level of intrinsic consumer motivation, and b) a higher level of extrinsic consumer motivation, which will, consequently, c) result in a higher purchase intention than higher levels of either only intrinsic motivation or only extrinsic motivation.
Moderation of Environmental Marketing Claims
Companies are increasingly incorporating environmental claims referring to the production processed, materials used, packaging, transportation, and/or other sustainable activities of the brand into the advertising of their products (Kim, et al., 2012). As described in the
introduction, environmental marketing claims can be divided into intrinsic and extrinsic (Kim, et al., 2012). Similarly, consumers also purchase sustainable products either out of an
extrinsic motivation or out of an intrinsic motivation (Bennett & Chakravarti, 2009).
Previous research has shown that the type of environmental marketing claim made by the brand can moderate the effect of social normative messages on purchase intention (Kim, et al., 2012). Specifically, it was found that injunctive norms had a more powerful effect on purchase intention when partnered with an extrinsic claim than by an intrinsic claim. Kim et al. (2012)also hypothesized that a descriptive norm would have a more powerful effect on
purchase intention when partnered with an intrinsic claim than with an extrinsic claim, but they found no significant result. The theoretical explanation for their expectations, however, have led us to reconsider this moderation effect. Since extrinsic marketing claims involving donations trigger the urge to conform to a social norm more effectively than intrinsic
marketing claims do, and intrinsic marketing claims involving the consumption of inherently environmental products activate personal environmental concern more effectively than extrinsic marketing claims do (Kim, et al., 2012), it is expected that exposure to
environmental marketing claims will moderate the effect of social normative marketing claims on intrinsic- and extrinsic green consumer motivation. Since both types of claims seem to be related to either type of green consumer motivation, it is expected that certain
combinations can result in higher intrinsic or extrinsic motivation. Therefore, the following hypotheses are posited:
H6: a) Exposure to an advertisement for a sustainable product containing a claim based on a descriptive social norm will lead to a higher level of intrinsic consumer motivation when accompanied by an intrinsic environmental marketing claim than when accompanied by an extrinsic environmental marketing claim, while b) the type of marketing claim will have no effect on the relationship between such advertisements based on a descriptive social norm and extrinsic consumer motivation.
H7: a) Exposure to an advertisement for a sustainable product containing a claim based on an injunctive social norm will lead to a higher level of extrinsic consumer motivation when accompanied by an extrinsic environmental marketing claim than when accompanied by an intrinsic environmental marketing claim, while b) the type of marketing claim will have no effect on the relationship between such advertisements based on an injunctive social norm and intrinsic consumer motivation.
Since, to the researchers’ knowledge, not enough literature is available to state a well- founded expectation for the direction of the effect of a combined social normative marketing claim used in combination with either of the two types of environmental marketing claims, a sub-research question is formulated:RQ2: Will exposure to an advertisement for a sustainable product containing a claim based on a combination of a descriptive and an injunctive social norm lead to higher levels of intrinsic and/or extrinsic consumer motivation when
accompanied by an intrinsic or an extrinsic environmental marketing claim?
Figure 1.
Conceptual Model
Method Design
To provide an answer to the main research question and test the hypotheses, an experimental research study has been designed. The current study made use of a 3 (social normative claim: descriptive vs. injunctive vs. combined) x 2 (environmental marketing claim:
explicit vs. implicit) between-subjects factorial design and tested a moderated parallel mediation model. Both the independent variables, Social normative claim and Environmental
marketing claim were manipulated, and were therefore true experimental factors. The mediating variables in the current study are Green intrinsic consumer motivation and Green extrinsic consumer motivation. Both mediating variables have two levels (i.e., higher vs. lower Green intrinsic consumer motivation, and higher vs. lower Green extrinsic consumer motivation). The dependent variable in the study is Purchase intention. Lastly, the variable Environmental concern (as a covariate) and the control variables Age, Gender, and Education level were also included in the study. The experimental design is displayed in Table 1.
Table 1.
Experimental design
Intrinsic environmental marketing
claim Extrinsic environmental
marketing claim
Descriptive social normative
claim Condition 1
N = 37 Condition 2
N = 39
Injunctive social normative
claim Condition 3
N = 41 Condition 4
N = 39
Combined social normative
claims Condition 5
N = 37 Condition 6
N = 36
Sample
For this study, all people of 18 years or older were eligible to participate. The only entry- requirement was that the participants had to understand the English language, since the questionnaire (including the stimulus material) was in English. Since the study had six conditions, the required number of participants (N) was aimed at 240 people. Previous research has shown that a minimum of 40 participants per condition is recommended for a between- subject factorial design to prove validity for a significant result (Geuens & De Pelsmacker, 2017). In total, 244 participants, recruited through convenience sampling, filled out the
questionnaire. Fifteen participants had to be excluded from analysis because they did not fully complete the questionnaire. Therefore, the final sample consisted of 229 participants. The majority of the sample was relatively young, as most participants were aged between 25 and 34 (32,8%, N = 75), followed by 18 to 24 years (27,1%, N = 62). The other 40,1% of the participants were aged 35 years or older (N = 92). Of all participants, 65,9% were female (N = 151) and 34,1% were male (N = 78). Lastly, the sample was predominantly highly educated:
81,2% (N = 186) completed a degree at a University of Applied Sciences (21,4%, N = 49) or a University (59,8%, N = 137).
Procedure
Participantswere recruited through Social Networking Sites (SNSs). When clicking on the link to get to the questionnaire, participant’s first got an introduction text and an informed consent form. Next, they got a question about their environmental concern and were (randomly) exposed to one of the conditions of the stimulus material. Afterwards, the participants were asked questions about their intention and motivation to purchase the advertised product, questions to check for the success of the manipulations, and a few demographics (age, gender, and education level). The questionnaire ended with a debriefing message. For the full questionnaire, see Appendix A.
Stimulus material
The stimulus material that was used in the current study was a Facebook
advertisement for chocolate of the fictitious brand ‘Earthly’ (Appendix B). The brand name, brand logo, and the Facebook advertisement were especially designed for this study. A
hypothetical brand was used, to avoid potentially confounding effects of previous exposure or experience with existing brands (Geuens & de Pelsmacker, 2017). The independent variables
‘Social normative claims’ and ‘Environmental marketing claims’ were manipulated in the
stimulus material. The image, brand name, and brand logo used in the advertisement were the same for all conditions, only the text in the advertisement was manipulated.
Social Normative Claims. In campaigns where a social normative claim is used, the objective is to shape behavior by telling people about what other people do or approve of.
This is usually done in the form of what most people do or approve of and is typically
represented as a percentage or a proportion (Burchell, Rettie & Patel, 2013). The fact that the form of a majority is used, is because the strength of social norms relies on the number of people who show- or approve of a specific behavior. Previous research shows a positive correlation between the strength of a social norm and the influence on behavior, in such a way that the higher the number of people is, the further the attention of people is focused on the desirable behavior and the more it motivates them to behave in this way (Gimpel, et al., 2021). In addition, research has shown that the numbers used in social normative campaigning do not necessarily have to be true, as long as they describe the majority (Poškus, 2016). For this reason, a majority norm (with percentages that were made up) was used in the stimulus material of the current study.
Environmental Marketing Claims. The text in the stimulus material that contained an intrinsic environmental marketing claim focused on the ingredients and the production process of the product, and the text that contained an extrinsic environmental marketing claim focused on a general environmental problem and on the pro-environmental actions of the brand. In total, six different versions of the stimulus material were created (see Appendix C for textual content of all conditions).
Measures
Purchase intention. Purchase intention is defined as “a personal action tendency relating to the consumption or usage of a brand” (Bagozzi, 1979; Ostrom, 1969). The variable
was measured with a scale that was adapted from Park, Maclnnis, Priester, Eisingerich, and Iacobucci (2010). The scale consisted of four items (see Appendix D) that the participants were asked to rate on a 7-point Likert-scale, ranging from ‘Strongly Disagree’ to ‘Strongly Agree’. A factor analysis was conducted to test whether these items together form one scale.
The factor analysis showed that the four items all loaded on one factor (Eigenvalue = 2.99, explained variance = 74.86%). The reliability analysis showed a α of .884, which indicates a good reliability. Due to the successful factor and reliability analysis the Purchase intention variable was computed using all four items (M = 4.85 , SD = 1.26), with lower values representing lower purchase intention and higher values representing higher purchase intention.
Intrinsic Green Consumer Motivation. The first mediating variable that was tested for was Green intrinsic consumer motivation, which is defined as “consumers’ tendency to engage in environmental behaviors out of their affection for the environment” (Ali, et al., 2020).
The variable was measured with four items based on scales used by Li, Bhutto, Xuhui, Maitlo, Zafar & Bhutto (2020) and Ali, et al. (2020). The items consisted of four statements (see Appendix D) that the participants were asked to rate on a 5-point Likert-scale, ranging from
‘Strongly Disagree’ to ‘Strongly Agree’. A factor analysis was conducted to test whether these items together form one scale. The factor analysis showed that the four items all loaded on one factor (Eigenvalue = 2.18, explained variance = 54.39%). The reliability analysis showed a α of .717, which indicates a reasonable reliability. Due to the successful factor- and reliability analysis the Intrinsic Green Consumer Motivation variable was computed using all four items (M = 3.95, SD = 0.65), with lower values representing lower intrinsic green consumer motivation and higher values representing higher intrinsic green consumer motivation.
Extrinsic Green Consumer Motivation. The second mediating variable that is tested for in the current study is Green extrinsic consumer motivation. Green extrinsic consumer
motivation is defined as “consumers’ tendency to engage in environmental behaviors because of external benefits, such as rewards, appreciation or approval by family, friends or society”
(Ali, et al., 2020). The variable was measured with two items based on scales used by Li, et al.
(2020) and Ali, et al. (2020). The items consisted of two statements (see Appendix D) that the participants were asked to rate on a 5-point Likert-scale, ranging from ‘Strongly Disagree’ to
‘Strongly Agree’. A factor analysis was conducted to test whether these items together form one scale. The factor analysis showed that the two items all loaded on one factor (Eigenvalue = 1.57, explained variance = 78.4%). The reliability analysis showed a α of .724, which indicates a reasonable reliability. Due to the successful factor- and reliability analysis the Extrinsic green consumer motivation variable was computed using all two items (M = 2.90, SD = 1.00), with lower values representing lower extrinsic green consumer motivation and higher values representing higher extrinsic green consumer motivation.
Environmental Concern. Participants’ environmental concern was measured in order to check for this variable as a covariate, since most research studies have found
correspondence between environmental concern and other related environmental attitudes and patterns of behavior (Phau & Ong, 2007). Environmental concern can be defined as ‘a strong positive attitude towards preserving the environment’ (Crosby, Gill and Taylor, 1986). The variable was measured with the Minton and Rose (1997) scale because of its proven
reliability. The scale consisted of three statements (see Appendix D) that the participants were asked to rate on a 5-point Likert-scale, ranging from ‘Strongly Disagree’ to ‘Strongly Agree’.
A factor analysis was conducted to test whether these items together form one scale. The factor analysis showed that the three items all loaded on one factor (Eigenvalue = 1.94, explained variance = 64.81%). The reliability analysis showed a α of .723, which indicates a reasonable reliability. Due to the successful factor- and reliability analysis the Environmental Concern variable was computed using all three items (M = 4.38, SD = 0.61), with lower
values representing lower environmental concern and higher values representing higher environmental concern.
Manipulation check. To check if the manipulation was successful, two questions were added to the end of the questionnaire. Both the questions consisted of four statements that the participants were asked to rate on a 5-point Likert-scale, that ranged from ‘Strongly Disagree’ to ‘Strongly Agree’. The first question was asked to check whether the
manipulation of the social normative claims was successful. The statements that the respondents were asked to rate (see Appendix D) were based on scales used by Kim, et al.
(2012) and Fielding, McDonald and Louis (2008). It was tried to recode the second set of items in such a way that all items scored in the same direction, to be able to form one scale to measure this variable. However, when doing so, a negative reliability was found (α = -.205).
Since the scale could not be computed into a single variable, it was decided to make separate scales for each condition of the variable. The two items of Descriptive social normative claims together again showed no reliable scale (α = .41), and therefore it was decided to use a single-item scale. When looking at the wording of the items, the second item seemed to match the condition of the study more closely. Therefore, it was decided to keep the second item as a single-item scale for Descriptive social normative claim, with higher values indicating that the participant perceived the claim that he or she was exposed to as descriptive. The scale of the two items of Injunctive social normative claims again did not indicate a good reliability (α .68). Therefore, it was decided to use a single-item scale. Since the second item more directly measured social approval, it was decided to keep that one as a single-item scale for Injunctive Social Normative claims, with higher values indicating that the participant perceived the claim that he or she was exposed to as injunctive.
The second question was asked to check whether the manipulation of the
environmental marketing claims was successful. The statements (see Appendix D) that the
respondents were asked to rate were based on the scale used by Carlson, et al. (1993). It was tried to recode two items and to form one scale to measure this variable. However, it was found not to be a reliable scale (α = .548). Therefore, it was decided to make separate scales for each condition of the variable. The factor analysis showed that 1 factor could be formed by the two items (Eigenvalue = 1.55, explained variance: 77.7%) and the reliability analysis showed a α of .72, which indicates a reasonably reliable scale. Therefore, the Intrinsic environmental marketing claims variable was computed using all two items (M = 2.98, SD = 1.31), with higher values indicating that the participant perceived the claim that he or she was exposed to as intrinsic. When testing the scale of the two items of Extrinsic environmental claim, it was found not to be reliable (α = .595) and therefore it was again decided to use a single-item scale. The first item seemed to match the extrinsic environmental marketing claim condition of the study more closely and was therefore decided to keep as a single-item scale for Extrinsic environmental marketing claims, with higher values indicating that the
participant perceived the claim that he or she was exposed to as extrinsic.
Control variables. At the end of the questionnaire, participants were asked a few demographics (Age, Gender, and Educational level, see Appendix A). These variables were included in this experiment to ensure results were not caused by possible differences between the groups.
Analysis strategy. First the randomization of the demographic variables was checked.
Before this was done, both age and educational level were recoded in three groups. Age was split up into younger (18-24 and 25-34), middle aged (35-44 and 45-54) and older (55-64 and 65 or older), and educational level was split up in lower education (primary school, high school and MBO), higher education (HBO) and university (WO). Second a manipulation check was conducted, to test whether the stimulus material was interpreted correctly. To test the direct
by using PROCESS macro model 4 (5,000 bootstraps; Hayes, 2018) and to test the moderation hypotheses, a two-way MANOVA was conducted. It was done so, because both the factors were categorical, so ANOVA was the more appropriate test than a regression (Fritz & Arthur, 2017).
Results
A randomization check was conducted to see whether participants were equally divided over the six conditions, based on the demographics age, gender, and education level.
Three separate Chi-square tests were conducted. No significant dependency relationship between the conditions and age was found, X²(10) = 17.05, p = .073, meaning that the
participants were equally divided over the conditions based on their age. However, significant dependency relationships between condition and gender (X²(5) = 13.26, p = .020), as well as condition and educational level (X²(10) = 19.64, p = .033) were found. Since the
randomization of gender and educational level was not achieved, both variables were included in the model as covariates. Additionally, both variables could be relevant in the context of sustainable consumption, since previous research has found that women are more likely to express concern about consumption’s broader impacts and to act upon those concerns than men (Luchs & Mooradian, 2012), and that higher educated people tend to be more concerned with social welfare and to behave in a more environmentally friendly manner than lower educated people (Meyer, 2015).
A manipulation check was conducted to check whether the manipulation of the independent variables was interpreted correctly by the participants. Two one-way ANOVA’s were conducted to check for the manipulation of social normative claims. Descriptive
normative scale (in the first test) and injunctive normative scale (in the second test) served as the dependent variables, and social normative condition was the factor. The manipulation
check showed a significant, large effect of the condition that the participants were in on their score on the descriptive social normative scale, F (2, 226) = 14.75, p <.001, η2 = .16 (see table 2). Additionally, the manipulation check showed a significant, small to medium effect of the condition that the participants were in on their score on the injunctive social normative scale, F (2, 226) = 5.51, p = .005, η2 = .05 (see Appendix E). Based on these results, we can say that the manipulation of social normative marketing claims was successful.
To check if the manipulation of the environmental marketing claims was successful, two independent-sample t-tests were conducted with Environmental marketing claim
condition as Grouping variable. In the first test, Intrinsic environmental marketing claim scale was the Test variable and in the second test, Extrinsic environmental marketing claim scale was the Test Variable. The first test, t (227) = -9.74, p < .001, 95% CI [-1.71, -1.13], as well as the second test, t (227) = 10.50, p < .001, 95% CI [1.46, 2.14], showed a significant difference between the two groups (see Table 3). This means that the manipulation of environmental marketing claims was successful.
Main analysis
In the PROCESS macro analysis, social normative claims functioned as the independent variable, intrinsic green consumer motivation and extrinsic green consumer motivation as mediators, gender, educational level and environmental concern as covariates, and purchase intention as the dependent variable. The results showed no significant direct effect of the type of social normative claims on purchase intention, b = -.14, t = -1.57, p = .112, 95% CI [-.32, .04], i.e. there was no significant difference (p = .112) in the levels of purchase intention between the participants in the injunctive (M = 5.00, SD = 1.19),
descriptive (M = 4.88, SD = 1.27), and combined social normative condition (M = 4.67, SD = 1.33). Therefore, both H1a and H1b were rejected.
Additionally, the results illustrated no significant effect of the type of social normative claims on intrinsic motivation, b = .18, t = .73, p = .711, 95% CI [-.07, .11] and extrinsic motivation, b = .11, t = 1,35, p = .178, 95% CI [-.05, .27], i.e. there was no significant difference in the levels of intrinsic motivation (p = .711), and extrinsic motivation (p = .178) between the participants in the injunctive (intrinsic: M = 4.00, SD = 0.59, extrinsic: M = 3.05, SD = 1.02 ), descriptive (intrinsic: M = 3.92, SD = 0.71, extrinsic: M = 2.72, SD = 0.93) and combined social normative condition (intrinsic: M = 3.94, SD = 0.66, extrinsic: M = 2.92, SD
= 1.04). Therefore, H2, H3, and H5 were rejected.
Interestingly, the results did illustrate a significant positive effect of intrinsic consumer motivation on purchase intention, b = 0.85, t = 5.82, p <.001, 95% CI [.56, 1.14]. This means that the higher participants scored on intrinsic consumer motivation, the higher they scored on purchase intention. No significant effect was found of extrinsic consumer motivation on purchase intention, b = .13, t = 1.50, p = .13, 95% CI [-.04, .30]. These results suggest that in the context of sustainable consumption, intrinsic motivation plays a bigger role regarding purchase intention than extrinsic motivation. Therefore, H4 can be accepted.
In the two-way MANOVA, intrinsic and extrinsic green consumer motivation functioned as the dependent variables and social normative claims and environmental marketing claims as the fixed factors. The results showed no significant interaction effect between social normative claims and environmental marketing claims on intrinsic green consumer motivation, F (2, 223) = 1.64, p = .196. Therefore, H6 was rejected. Interestingly, the results did illustrate a significant small to medium interaction effect between social normative claims and environmental marketing claims on extrinsic green consumer
motivation F (2, 223) = 5.36, p = .005, η2 = .05. However, as opposite to what was expected, the results showed that exposure to a claim based on an injunctive norm led to higher levels of extrinsic green consumer motivation when accompanied by an intrinsic (M = 3.42, SD = 0.94)
than an extrinsic (M = 2.65, SD = 0.95) environmental marketing claim. Therefore, H7 was rejected.
Lastly, the results showed that when accompanied by an extrinsic environmental marketing claim, exposure to a claim based on a combined social norm significantly (p = .005) lead to a slightly higher level of extrinsic green consumer motivation (M = 2.94, SD = 1.18) than when accompanied by an intrinsic environmental marketing claim (M = 2.89, SD = 0.89). Therefore, the answer to RQ2 is that exposure to an advertisement containing a claim based on a combined social norm will not lead to higher levels of intrinsic motivation, no matter the combination, and will lead to slightly higher levels of extrinsic motivation when accompanied by an extrinsic environmental marketing claim than an intrinsic environmental marketing claim.
Covariates
Gender. The results illustrated a significant effect of gender on purchase intention b = .36, t = 2.25, p =.026, 95% CI [.04, .68]. On average, women showed higher purchase
intention (M = 5.09, SD = 1.24) than men (M = 4.40, SD = 1.19). Additionally, the results showed a significant effect of gender on intrinsic green consumer motivation, b = .35, t = 4.17, p <.001, 95% [.18, .51]. On average, women showed a higher intrinsic green consumer motivation (M = 4.08, SD = 0.61) than men (M = 3.70, SD = 0.66). No significant effect of gender on extrinsic green consumer motivation, b = .12, t = .86, p = .391, 95% CI [-.16, .40]
was found. These results suggest that in the context of sustainable consumption, gender is a predictor of purchase intention, and this relationship might be explained by a higher level of intrinsic motivation.
Educational level. Results illustrated no significant effect of educational level on purchase intention, b = -.03, t = -.28, p = .777, 95% CI [-.21, .16], intrinsic, b = .08, t = 1.67, p
= .096, 95% CI [-.02, .18] and extrinsic green consumer motivation, b = 0.08, t = 0.95, p = .342, 95% CI [-.09, .25].
Environmental concern. Results illustrated a significant effect of environmental concern on intrinsic, b = .40, t = 6.22, p <.001, 95% CI [.27, .53] and extrinsic green consumer motivation, b = .29, t = 2.61, p = .010, 95% CI [.07, .51]. The higher the participants’ environmental concern was, the higher they scored on intrinsic and extrinsic green consumer motivation. However, no significant effect of environmental concern on purchase intention, b = .03, t = 0.22, p = .826, 95% CI [-.23, .29] was found.
Conclusion and discussion
This study investigated the effects of exposure to social normative claims in
advertising for sustainable products on consumer’s purchase intention via both intrinsic and extrinsic green consumer motivation and explored whether environmental marketing claims moderated the effect of exposure to social normative claims on green consumer motivation.
The results showed no significant direct effect of exposure to social normative claims on purchase intention, meaning that no difference in consumers’ intention to purchase the sustainable brand featured in the advertisement was found between participants that were exposed to claims based on descriptive social norms, injunctive social norms, or a
combination of both. This finding contrasts with previous studies that found that exposure to descriptive normative messages had a more positive effect on consumer behavior than injunctive social normative messages (Farrow, et al., 2017; Ahn, et al., 2020; Salmivaara, et al., 2021) and with previous studies that found that a combined application of both type of norms can produce the most positive behavior effects (Cialdini, 2003; Schultz, et al.,
2007). Therefore, the results of the current study can be seen as an implication. It is possible that in the context of sustainable advertising for FMCG-products, claims based on social norms work equally well, regardless of what type they are. Further research is needed to study this more extensively.
Second, the current study found no mediating effect of intrinsic and extrinsic green consumer motivation on purchase intention. However, the results did show an effect of intrinsic green consumer motivation on purchase intention, in such a way that the higher participants’ intrinsic motivation was, the higher their intention was to purchase the brand featured in the ad. As expected, we can conclude from this that in the context of sustainable consumption, one’s intrinsic motivation plays a bigger role than one’s extrinsic motivation regarding purchase intention. These results give practical implications for practitioners: when designing advertisements for sustainable products, it is more important to focus on triggering consumers’ intrinsic motivation to potentially buy the advertised products than to trigger consumers’ extrinsic motivation. However, further research is needed to find marketing techniques that trigger consumers’ intrinsic motivation.
Last, environmental marketing claims were not found to influence the relationship between social normative claims and intrinsic green consumer motivation, but were find to moderate the relationship between social normative claims and extrinsic green consumer motivation. Although it was expected that exposure to a claim based on an injunctive norm would lead to a higher level of extrinsic green consumer motivation when paired with an extrinsic environmental marketing claim, the results showed the opposite: exposure to an injunctive norm led to a higher level of extrinsic green consumer motivation when paired with an intrinsic environmental marketing claim. For a combined social normative claim, it was found that the pairing with an extrinsic environmental marketing claim led to a higher level of
extrinsic motivation. The reason for the effectiveness of such pairings needs to be investigated further and would therefore be an interesting topic for future research.
In addition, the current study provides some interesting findings regarding the
covariates included in the analysis: environmental concern, gender and education level. First, although no direct effect of environmental concern on purchase intention was found, the results of the current study did illustrate that the higher consumers’ level of environmental concern was, the higher their level of intrinsic and extrinsic green consumer motivation was.
As the results also illustrated that a higher level of intrinsic consumer motivation leads to a higher purchase intention, further research is needed to investigate why a higher level of environmental concern would lead to a higher level of intrinsic consumer motivation, but not to a higher purchase intention.
As for gender, the current study did not only find a direct effect on purchase intention, but also an effect on intrinsic green consumer motivation. Women showed a higher purchase intention and a higher level of intrinsic green consumer motivation than men. This effect was not found for extrinsic green consumer motivation. These results suggest that women are more likely to intend to purchase sustainable FMCG-products, and that this might be explained by a higher level of intrinsic motivation. However, this warrants a closer look. A recommendation for future research would therefore be to further study gender in the context of sustainable advertising and sustainable consumption. Lastly, it was found that educational level had no effect on purchase intention, nor on intrinsic and extrinsic consumer motivation.
The reason for this could be that the sample of the study was predominantly high-educated, and therefore the results prove only low validity. In future research on this topic, it would be recommended to generate a more representative sample based on educational level.
The current study had some limitations that should be mentioned. First, although it was striven to have at least 40 respondents per condition, to prove validity for a significant
result (based on recommendation of Geuens & De Pelsmacker, 2017), this failed. Since some respondents had to be removed due to not finishing the entire questionnaire, not all the
conditions eventually contained 40 respondents. Therefore, the results of the study prove only low validity, which makes them not generalizable. Future research, with a higher total number of respondents, is needed to provide results with high validity. Second, a major limitation of the current study is that no pre-test was done. With a pre-test, the stimulus material, for example, could have been tested before starting the data collection. Although the manipulation check showed that the manipulation of both social normative claims and environmental marketing claims was successful, it is possible that the material could have been improved even further if a pre-test was conducted. Also, the scales that are used for the measurements for the manipulation check in the current study could have been improved this way. Next to this, other aspects of the stimulus material could have been tested, such as the fit between the brand name and the product category, the brand familiarity (whether the brand name was truly perceived as fictitious), and the believability of the text in the advertisement, to ensure that confounds were avoided. Therefore, it is highly recommended to future research on this topic to conduct a pre-test to test several aspects of the stimulus material before
starting the actual data-collection.
To conclude, this study showed that, in the context of advertising for sustainable FMCG-products and specifically sustainable chocolate brands, intrinsic green consumer motivation plays a bigger role with regards to purchase intention than extrinsic green
consumer motivation. In addition, the combination of social normative marketing claims and environmental marketing claims was found to have a positive effect on extrinsic green consumer motivation, in such a way that the combination of an injunctive social normative claim and an intrinsic environmental marketing claim had the most positive effect. The findings of the study provide some practical insights for practitioners and suggest that further
research is needed to investigate how to effectively use social normative messages and environmental marketing claims to increase consumers’ purchase intention in the context of advertising for sustainable FMCG-products.
References
Ahn, I., Kim, S. H., & Kim, M. (2020). The relative importance of values, social norms, and enjoyment-based motivation in explaining pro-environmental product purchasing behavior in apparel domain. Sustainability, 12(17), 6797.
Ali, F., Ashfaq, M., Begum, S., & Ali, A. (2020). How “Green” thinking and altruism translate into purchasing intentions for electronics products: The intrinsic-extrinsic motivation mechanism. Sustainable Production and Consumption, 24, 281-291.
Bagozzi, R. P. (1981). Attitudes, intentions, and behavior: A test of some key hypotheses.
Journal of personality and social psychology, 41(4), 607.
Belgiawan, P. F., Schmöcker, J. D., Abou-Zeid, M., Walker, J., & Fujii, S. (2017). Modelling social norms: Case study of students’ car purchase intentions. Travel Behaviour and Society, 7, 12-25.
Bennett, A., & Chakravarti, A. (2009). The self and social signaling explanations for consumption of CSR-associated products. ACR North American Advances.
Berkowitz, A. D. (2002). Responding to the critics: Answers to common questions and concerns about the social norms approach. The report on social norms: Working Paper, 7, 228-233.
Bertrandias, L., & Elgaaied-Gambier, L. (2014). Others’ environmental concern as a social determinant of green buying. Journal of Consumer Marketing.
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.
Burchell, K., Rettie, R., & Patel, K. (2013). Marketing social norms: social marketing and the ‘social norm approach’. Journal of Consumer behaviour, 12(1), 1-9.
Carlson, L., Grove, S. J., & Kangun, N. (1993). A content analysis of environmental
advertising claims: A matrix method approach. Journal of advertising, 22(3), 27-39.
Cialdini, R. B. (2003). Crafting normative messages to protect the environment. Current directions in psychological science, 12(4), 105-109.
Cialdini, R. B., Kallgren, C. A., & Reno, R. R. (1991). A focus theory of normative conduct:
A theoretical refinement and reevaluation of the role of norms in human behavior. In Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 24, pp. 201-234). Academic Press.
Cialdini, R. B., Reno, R. R., & Kallgren, C. A. (1990). A focus theory of normative conduct:
Recycling the concept of norms to reduce littering in public places. Journal of personality and social psychology, 58(6), 1015.
Gill, J. D., Crosby, L. A., & Taylor, J. R. (1986). Ecological concern, attitudes, and social norms in voting behavior. Public Opinion Quarterly, 50(4), 537-554.
De Groot, J. I., Abrahamse, W., & Jones, K. (2013). Persuasive normative messages: The influence of injunctive and personal norms on using free plastic bags. Sustainability, 5(5), 1829-1844.
Farrow, K., Grolleau, G., & Ibanez, L. (2017). Social norms and pro-environmental behavior:
A review of the evidence. Ecological Economics, 140, 1-13.
Fishbein, M., & Cappella, J. N. (2006). The role of theory in developing effective health communications. Journal of communication, 56(suppl_1), S1-S17.
Fielding, K. S., McDonald, R., & Louis, W. R. (2008). Theory of planned behaviour, identity and intentions to engage in environmental activism. Journal of environmental
psychology, 28(4), 318-326.
Food Empowerment Project. (2020, 6 juni). Child Labor and Slavery in the Chocolate Industry. https://foodispower.org/human-labor-slavery/slavery-chocolate/
Fritz, M. S., & Arthur, A. M. (2017). Moderator variables. In Oxford research encyclopedia of psychology.
Geuens, M., & De Pelsmacker, P. (2017). Planning and conducting experimental advertising research and questionnaire design. Journal of Advertising, 46(1), 83-100.
Gimpel, H., Heger, S., Olenberger, C., & Utz, L. (2021). The Effectiveness of Social Norms in Fighting Fake News on Social Media. Journal of Management Information
Systems, 38(1), 196-221..
Goldstein, N. J., Griskevicius, V., & Cialdini, R. B. (2007). Invoking social norms: A social psychology perspective on improving hotels' linen-reuse programs. Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 48(2), 145-150.
Granfield, R. (2002). Can you believe it? Assessing the credibility of a social norms campaign. The Report on Social Norms, 2, 1-8.
Hayes, A. F. (2018). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis : a regression-based approach (Second edition.). New York, NY: The Guilford Press.
Hsu, C. L., & Lu, H. P. (2004). Why do people play on-line games? An extended TAM with social influences and flow experience. Information & management, 41(7), 853-868.
Jones, E. (2019). Rethinking greenwashing: corporate discourse, unethical practice, and the unmet potential of ethical consumerism. Sociological Perspectives, 62(5), 728-754.
Joshi, Y., & Rahman, Z. (2015). Factors affecting green purchase behaviour and future research directions. International Strategic management review, 3(1-2), 128-143.
Kim, H., Lee, E. J., & Hur, W. M. (2012). The normative social influence on eco-friendly consumer behavior: The moderating effect of environmental marketing claims.
Clothing and Textiles Research Journal, 30(1), 4-18.
Kroeger, A., Koenig, S., Thomson, A., & Streck, C. (2017). Forest-and Climate-Smart Cocoa in Côte d’Ivoire and Ghana: Aligning Stakeholders to Support Smallholders in
Deforestation-Free Cocoa. World Bank.
Li, W., Bhutto, T. A., Xuhui, W., Maitlo, Q., Zafar, A. U., & Bhutto, N. A. (2020). Unlocking employees’ green creativity: The effects of green transformational leadership, green intrinsic, and extrinsic motivation. Journal of Cleaner Production, 255, 120229.
Lim, J. S., Chock, T. M., & Golan, G. J. (2020). Consumer perceptions of online advertising of weight loss products: the role of social norms and perceived deception. Journal of Marketing Communications, 26(2), 145-165.
Luchs, M. G., & Mooradian, T. A. (2012). Sex, personality, and sustainable consumer behaviour: Elucidating the gender effect. Journal of Consumer Policy, 35(1), 127-144.
McDonald, S., & Oates, C. J. (2006). Sustainability: Consumer perceptions and marketing strategies. Business strategy and the environment, 15(3), 157-170.
Meyer, A. (2015). Does education increase pro-environmental behavior? Evidence from Europe. Ecological economics, 116, 108-121.
Milieu Centraal. (2021). Cacao, chocola en milieu.
https://www.milieucentraal.nl/eten-en-drinken/tropische-producten/cacao/
Minton, A. P., & Rose, R. L. (1997). The effects of environmental concern on
environmentally friendly consumer behavior: An exploratory study. Journal of Business research, 40(1), 37-48.
Muranko, Ż., Tassell, C., Zeeuw van der Laan, A., & Aurisicchio, M. (2021).
Characterisation and Environmental Value Proposition of Reuse Models for Fast-Moving Consumer Goods: Reusable Packaging and Products. Sustainability,
13(5), 2609.
Nagaraju, B., & Thejaswini, H. D. (2014). Consumers’ perception analysis-Market
Awareness Towards Eco-Friendly FMCG products-A case study of Mysore District.
IOSR Journal of Business and Management, 16(4), 64-71.
Niinimäki, K. (2010). Eco‐clothing, consumer identity and ideology. Sustainable development, 18(3), 150-162.
Ojo, A. O., Raman, M., & Downe, A. G. (2019). Toward green computing practices: A Malaysian study of green belief and attitude among Information Technology professionals. Journal of Cleaner Production, 224, 246-255.
Ostrom, T. M. (1969). The relationship between the affective, behavioral, and cognitive components of attitude. Journal of experimental social psychology, 5(1), 12-30.
Park, C. W., MacInnis, D. J., Priester, J., Eisingerich, A. B., & Iacobucci, D. (2010). Brand attachment and brand attitude strength: Conceptual and empirical differentiation of two critical brand equity drivers. Journal of marketing, 74(6), 1-17.
Phau, I., & Ong, D. (2007). An investigation of the effects of environmental claims in promotional messages for clothing brands. Marketing Intelligence & Planning.
Poškus, M. S. (2016). Using social norms to encourage sustainable behaviour: A meta-analysis. Psychology, 53(53), 44-58.
Pristl, A. C., Kilian, S., & Mann, A. (2020). When does a social norm catch the worm?
Disentangling social normative influences on sustainable consumption behaviour.
Journal of Consumer Behaviour.
Prothero, A., Dobscha, S., Freund, J., Kilbourne, W. E., Luchs, M. G., Ozanne, L. K., &
Thøgersen, J. (2011). Sustainable consumption: Opportunities for consumer research and public policy. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 30(1), 31-38.
Quattrone, G. A., & Tversky, A. (1984). Causal versus diagnostic contingencies: On
self-deception and on the voter's illusion. Journal of personality and social psychology, 46(2), 237.
Rezvani, Z., Jansson, J., & Bengtsson, M. (2018). Consumer motivations for sustainable consumption: The interaction of gain, normative and hedonic motivations on electric vehicle adoption. Business Strategy and the Environment, 27(8), 1272-1283.
Rivis, A., & Sheeran, P. (2003). Descriptive norms as an additional predictor in the theory of planned behaviour: A meta-analysis. Current Psychology, 22(3), 218-233.
Salmivaara, L., Lombardini, C., & Lankoski, L. (2021). Examining social norms among other motives for sustainable food choice: The promise of descriptive norms. Journal of Cleaner Production, 127508.
Schultz, P. W., Nolan, J. M., Cialdini, R. B., Goldstein, N. J., & Griskevicius, V. (2007). The constructive, destructive, and reconstructive power of social norms. Psychological science, 18(5), 429-434.
Tandon, M. S., & Sethi, V. (2017). An Analysis of the Determinants of Consumer Purchase Behavior Towards Green FMCG Products. IUP Journal of Marketing Management, 16(3).
Zhang, L., Li, D., Cao, C., & Huang, S. (2018). The influence of greenwashing perception on green purchasing intentions: The mediating role of green word-of-mouth and
moderating role of green concern. Journal of Cleaner Production, 187, 740-750.
Appendix A. Questionnaire Dear participant,
I would like to invite you to participate in a study under the responsibility of The Graduate School of Communication, part of the University of Amsterdam.
The aim of the study is to gain insight into the effectiveness of different types of marketing claims in advertising for sustainable FMCG-products. Only people from 18 years and older can participate in this study. The survey will take approximately 5 minutes.
As this research is being carried out under the responsibility of the ASCoR, University of Amsterdam, we can guarantee that:
1) Your anonymity will be safeguarded, and that your personal information will not be passed on to third parties under any conditions.
2) You can refuse to participate in the research or cut short your participation without having to give a reason for doing so.
3) Participating in the research will not entail you being subjected to any appreciable risk or discomfort, the researchers will not deliberately mislead you, and you will not be exposed to any explicitly offensive material.
For more information about the research, you are welcome to contact the project leader at any time (caroline.kastermans@student.uva.nl).
Should you have any complaints or comments about the course of the research and the
procedures it involves as a consequence of your participation in this research, you can contact the designated member of the Ethics Committee representing ASCoR, at the following
address: ASCoR Secretariat, Ethics Committee, University of Amsterdam, Postbus 15793, 1001 NG Amsterdam; 020‐525 3680; ascor‐secr‐fmg@uva.nl. Any complaints or comments will be treated in the strictest confidence.
I hope to have provided you with sufficient information. I would like to take this
opportunity to thank you in advance for your assistance with this research, which I greatly appreciate.
Kind regards, Caroline Kastermans
I hereby declare that I have been clearly informed about the nature and method of the research, as set out in the invitation. I fully agree to participate in this study. I realize that I can stop the investigation at any time. If the research results are used in scientific publications or made public in any other way, this will be done completely anonymously. If I would like more information, now or in the future, I can turn to the project leader at any time. For any complaints about this research, I can contact the member of the Ethics Committee on behalf of ASCoR.
Have you read the text above and do you agree to participate?
• Yes
• No
The following statements are about your concerns regarding the environment. Please tick the answer that marks your level of agreement with the statement.
1. I do not think that enough is done by humans at the moment to save scarce natural resources from being used up
2. Natural resources must be preserved even if that means that people must do without certain products
3. Consumers should be interested in the environmental consequences of the products they purchase
Random exposure to stimulus material (one of six conditions)
The following questions are about the product that was in the Facebook advertisement you just saw. Please tick the answer that is most applicable to you.
1. I would be willing to buy Earthly Chocolate for myself
2. I would be willing to recommend Earthly Chocolate to other people 3. I would be willing to buy Earthly Chocolate for family or friends
4. I would be willing to defend Earthly Chocolate if others speak poorly about it
If I were to purchase Earthly Chocolate, I would do so because...
1. I enjoy accepting new sustainable ideas and products
2. I enjoy solving environmental problems through green measures 3. I enjoy searching for sustainable products that are completely new 4. I feel excited when I have sustainable products
5. I feel motivated by the recognition I earn from other people when adopting sustainable products
6. It matters to me how other people are going to react when I purchase sustainable products
In the Facebook advertisement I saw claims that….
1. Most other Dutch consumers have an interest in sustainable chocolate 2. Most other Dutch consumers are purchasing sustainable chocolate
3. Most other Dutch consumers think that purchasing sustainable chocolate is desirable 4. Most other Dutch consumers would approve of me buying sustainable chocolate
The message in the advertisement focused on:
1. The sustainable ingredients that Earthly chocolate contains
