Aim/ Research Question

(1)

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

(2)

Table of Content

• Context

• Aim/ Research Question

• Hypothesis

• Method

• Procedure

• Sample

• Measure

• Results

• Discussion

2

(3)

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

(4)

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

(5)

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

(6)

Method - Procedure

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

(7)

Method - Sample (1)

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%)

(8)

Method - Sample (2)

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%)

(9)

Method - Measure

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

(10)

Results (1) - Hypothesis testing

• 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

(11)

Results (2) – Testing for additional factors

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

(12)

Discussion - Limitations

• 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

(13)

Discussion - Practical Implications

• 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

(14)

Thank you for your attention

14

(15)

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