Anti-consumption - Do status motives promote sharing?
The relationship between status motives and sharing moderated by visibility of behavior
Polina Schlender 1
July 3, 2018
Table of Content
• Context
• Aim/ Research Question
• Hypothesis
• Method
• Procedure
• Sample
• Measure
• Results
• Discussion
2
Context
3
Consumer behavior The consumption habits of our society follow the well-known notion you are what you have
Consequences
Each decision to purchase a consumer good has implications on resources, waste, ethics and the community, which do not effect only the health and well-being of ourselves but also further generations (Van Vugt, 2009)
Possible solution Sharing of goods, as sharing reduces used materials, avoids waste and counters overproduction (Mont, 2004).
Context I Aim/ Research Question I Hypothesis I Method I Results I Discussion
Aim/ Research Question
To underline reasons, why people choose to take use of sharing options rather than ownership, the following research question is defined:
Do status motives promote sharing?
4 Context I Aim/ Research Question I Hypothesis I Method I Results I Discussion
Hypothesis
• H1: Activating status motives increases the preference to take use of sharing activities.
• H2: The relationship between status motives and usage of sharing activities is moderated by visibility of behavior.
5 Context I Aim/ Research I Question I Hypothesis I Method I Results I Discussion
Method - Procedure
6 Context I Aim/ Research I Question I Hypothesis I Method I Results I Discussion
Motive primes
• Status: Participants had to read a short story (similar content is used by successfully in previous research by Griskevicius et al., 2009, 2010)
• Control: Participants do not read a story
Visibility of behavior
• Private: Participants are told to imagine to be alone at home when answering the survey questions
• Public: Participants are told to imagine that the questions are asked by an interviewer
Method - Sample (1)
7 Context I Aim/ Research I Question I Hypothesis I Method I Results I Discussion
N = 372
Gender Male Female
130 (34.9%) 242 (65.1%)
Age Range Average
18 to 57 years approx. 23 years
Highest level
of education High school Technical Collage Bachelor’s
Degree Master’s Degree PhD Others 59 (15.9%) 57 (15.3%) 188 (50.5%) 52 (14%) 1 (0.3%) 15 (4%)
Occupation Student Employee Self-employed/
Freelancer Others
277 (74.5%) 82 (22%) 4 (1.1%) 9 (2.4%)
Method - Sample (2)
8 Context I Aim/ Research I Question I Hypothesis I Method I Results I Discussion
N = 372
Average yearly net income
Less than
€15,000 €15,000 - €24,999 €25,000 -€34,999 €35,000 - €50,000 More than
€50,000
260 (69.9%) 47 (12.6%) 28 (7.5%) 27 (7.3%) 10 (2.7%)
Number of people living in
household
One Two Three Four More than
Five
89 (23.9%) 130 (34.9%) 84 (22.6%) 38 (10.2%) 31 (8.3%)
Type of household
Single household
Flat sharing community
Shared household (with family or
partner)
87 (23.4%) 119 (32%) 166 (44.6%)
Method - Measure
9 Context I Aim/ Research I Question I Hypothesis I Method I Results I Discussion
Dependent variable:
Usage of sharing activities
• Participants are asked to imagine that they are in need of a drilling machine that they currently do not own
• They are confronted with a choice between rather purchasing the product or to take use of sharing activities in their neighborhood instead
• The preference is indicated on a 7-point Likert scale
• Results are of a single variable and used to measure the dependent variable
Results (1) - Hypothesis testing
10 Context I Aim/ Research I Question I Hypothesis I Method I Results I Discussion
• Activating status motives and the visibility of behavior have no significant effects on the preference to take use of sharing activities
• Implication: Activating status motives does not promote all forms of pro-environmental behavior
Results (2) – Testing for additional factors
11 Context I Aim/ Research I Question I Hypothesis I Method I Results I Discussion
Main reasons to purchase a product
• Convenience
• Uncertainty about sharing
Main reasons to take use of sharing activities
• Costs
• Frequency of usage
• Efficiency Demographics
• Gender, type of household and income have a significant main effect on the choice to take use of sharing activities
Also other factors influence the dependent variable
Discussion - Limitations
12 Context I Aim/ Research I Question I Hypothesis I Method I Results I Discussion
• No support for H1
The story which was supposed to elicit social status does not show significant effects in a pre-test study
Participants imply the possession of goods with luxury and therefore with with more status
Participants do not perceive the sacrifices of time, effort and energy as a form of signaling
The link between sharing and environmental responsibility is too abstract for participants
• No support for H2
Participants feel observed due to the type of examination
Discussion - Practical Implications
13 Context I Aim/ Research I Question I Hypothesis I Method I Results I Discussion
• To overcome inconveniences related to sharing:
Make sharing more attractive by focusing on target groups
• Groups with lower income levels: Emphasize economic benefits and offer sharing depots at universities or in city centers
Highlight environmental benefits: Consumers prefer environmental appeals over economic appeals (Bolderdijk et al., 2013).
• Highlight the social- and environmental benefits of sharing and give benefactors visible signs
Take use of reasons why consumers engage with sharing activities, e.g. costs and space and promote sharing by emphasizing efficiency in large cities
• Increase trust, by promoting high quality of shared products and publish online listings with consumer reviews and ratings
Thank you for your attention
14
References
• Bolderdijk, J. W., Steg, L., Geller, E. S., Lehman, P. K., & Postmes, T. (2013). Comparing the effectiveness of monetary versus moral motives in environmental campaigning.
Nature Climate Change, 3(4): 413-416.
• Griskevicius, V., Tybur, J. M., Gangestad, S. W., Perea, E. F., Shapiro, J. R., & Kenrick, D. T. (2009). Aggress to impress: Hostility as an evolved contextdependent strategy.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96: 980-994.
• 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.
• Mont, O. (2004). Institutionalization of sustainable consumption patterns based on shared use. Ecological Economics, 50(1-2): 135-153.
• Van Vugt, M. (2009). Averting the tragedy of the commons: Using social psychological science to protect the environment. Association for Psychological Science, 18(3), 169- 173.
15