TO CONSUME OR NOT TO CONSUME

Master Thesis

TO CONSUME OR NOT TO CONSUME

The Effect of Ego Depletion on Environmentally Oriented Anti-Consumption

“We are living on this planet as if we had another

one to go to.

”

By

Katleen Leonie Hartig

Completion Date

University of Groningen

Faculty of Economics and Business

Master Thesis

In order to reach the degree Master of Science (M.Sc.)

– Study Program Marketing, Specialization Marketing Management –

TO CONSUME OR NOT TO CONSUME

First Examiner:

Dr. Mathilde van Dijk

Second Examiner:

Prof. Dr. Ir. Koert van Ittersum

Completion Date:

June 18

, 2018

Katleen Leonie Hartig

Almastraat 34, 9718 CX Groningen

S3499626

ABSTRACT

MANAGERIAL SUMMARY

This research focuses on the relationship between ego depletion and environmentally oriented anti-consumption (EOA). Thereby, the goal of this research was to find out whether environmental values, which are the basis of reasons against and thus necessary for engaging in EOA, are an inherent part of human nature or whether they depend on self-regulation resources and hence can be ego depleted. Further, it was of interest for this study to find out if the ecological identity of an individual has a moderating effect on the relationship between ego depletion and EOA. Within this research, 211 subjects participated in the experiment. The study group was divided in two arms (ego depletion vs. control). Study subjects were either part of the ego depletion or the no ego depletion condition. The ecological identity of each participant was measured with the help of the Ecological Identity Scale (EIS).

After analyzing the results of the study, six main findings were established. Firstly, a significant difference between simple and difficult EOA behavior was found. This difference can be explained by the degree of sacrifice individuals have to make in order to engage in the different EOA behaviors.

Secondly, this study provides evidence that there is a variation in the likelihood of engaging in certain environmental behaviors. It was found that, in general, individuals are most likely to engage in pro-environmental consumption, followed by simple EOA and individuals are least likely to engage in difficult EOA. These findings establish an order of environmental behaviors which is determined by the degree of sacrifice and the level of environmental values. Thirdly, a significant negative effect of ego depletion on simple EOA was found. Thus, individuals who are ego depleted are less likely to engage in simple EOA than those individuals who are not ego depleted. This is partially in line with the first hypothesis.

Fourthly, the opposite was established for difficult EOA. Although not significant, a small positive effect of ego depletion on difficult EOA was found. Thus, this study provides evidence that those individuals who engage in effortful and difficult EOA cannot be ego depleted but furthermore ego depletion even increases the likelihood of difficult EOA.

Lastly, there was no significant moderation effect of ecological identity on the relationship of ego depletion on EOA. Thus, the second hypothesis could not be confirmed.

Taking these findings together, the study provides four main managerial implications. Firstly, the negative effect of ego depletion on simple EOA implies recommendations about where and when to implement a simple EOA campaign. Thus, when companies, non-profit organizations (NGOs) or governmental institutions aim to foster simple EOA behavior, it is suggested that the respective brand or product communication reaches potential consumers when there is no threat of ego depletion. Hence, it is recommended to expose consumers to a simple EOA campaign for example early in the morning or in the beginning of a shopping trip as consumers have not taxed their cognitive resources yet by regulating the self or by making difficult decisions.

Secondly, regarding difficult EOA, ego depletion causes an increase in the automatic and intuitive nature of environmental values and thus enhances instead of diminishes the likelihood of engaging in difficult EOA. Therefore, when companies, NGOs or governmental institutions aim to support difficult EOA behavior, it is recommended to implement the brand or product communication in situations when individuals are most likely to be ego depleted. These situations occur in the afternoon or evening, or at the end of a shopping trip, after individuals had to make a variety of effortful choices and had to resist temptation throughout the day or the shopping experience

Thirdly, another strategy to support simple EOA is to decrease the perceived sacrifice and increase the stimulation of the environmental values. One approach could be the communication of costs or benefits for the environment when certain products are consumed or not consumed (e.g. Patagonia’s Black Friday campaign).

Lastly, companies, NGOs and governmental institutions can also make use of the self-expressive element of difficult EOA to support engaging in this behavior. Thereby, the core idea of the communication strategy should highlight expression of the self in combination with environmental concern. One option, for example, could be the integration of this element in the campaign’s caption or call to action. (e.g. REI’s #OptOutside campaign).

PREFACE

To consume or not to consume – this is the question. Terry Swearingen, Nurse and

Winner of the Goldman Environmental Prize in 1997, once said: “We are living on this planet

as if we had another one to go to.” In fact, if everyone worldwide would consume as much as

an average US consumer, we would need four earths to sustain them. But also, in European countries consumption patterns are not much more sustainable. If everyone in the world would consume, for example, as much as the average German consumer, we would also need 2.0 earths to sustain them. However, to counter this alarming trend, green consumption and pro-environmental behavior may no longer be sufficient. When facing the ecological issues of today, especially the Western world needs to change its consumption patterns. (McDonald, 2015)

Environmentally oriented anti-consumption (EOA) can help to reduce materialism and to shift the consumption behavior to a more sustainable way of consuming. Therefore, I was, and I still am, very thrilled to write my thesis about a topic which is at the ravages of time and may contribute to a more sustainable tomorrow. I wanted to learn more about the underlying psychological patterns of EOA, such as the reasons against, and its application in every day life. Thus, the combination with ego depletion was especially interesting to me in order to find out in what situations EOA is fostered or hampered.

This being said, I would like to thank several people who supported and encouraged me during the process of writing this thesis. I would like to express my deepest thank you to Mathilde van Dijk, my first supervisor, for her extensive feedback and for helping me to structure my thoughts. I would also like to thank Mehrad Moeini Jazani, who took the time to discuss the landscape of consumer behavior with me and who helped me to get on the right track with my topic. Another special thanks go to the laboratory team, in particular to Reinder Dallinga, who supported me during the creation and conduction of my study and made me enjoy the time in the laboratory. Lastly, I would like to thank my family and friends, who did not only patiently listen and discuss every detail of this thesis over and over again, but who unconditionally supported me during the entire master’s degree.

Groningen, June 18th_{, 2018}

TABLE OF CONTENT

ABSTRACT ... i

MANAGERIAL SUMMARY ...ii

PREFACE ... iv

1. INTRODUCTION ... 1

2. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK ... 3

2.1 Environmentally Oriented Anti-Consumption and the Reasons Against ... 3

2.2 The Interplay of Self-Regulation and Ego Depletion ... 5

2.3 Linking Ego Depletion and Environmentally Oriented Anti-Consumption ... 7

2.4 Ecological Identity and its Moderating Effect ... 9

3. METHODOLOGY ... 11 3.1 Sample ... 11 3.2 Experimental Design ... 12 3.3 Measures ... 13 4. RESULTS ... 15 4.1 Inspection of Data ... 15 4.2 Testing Hypothesis 1 ... 19 4.3 Testing Hypothesis 2 ... 21

4.4 Testing Pro-Environmental Consumption ... 24

1.

INTRODUCTION

Today’s environmental threats such as global warming, melting ice caps, and water scarcity have shaped our way of living, doing business, and making politics. Since the rise of the environmental movement in the late 1960s (Chatzidakis & Lee, 2013), there has been increasing attention for various pro-environmental behaviors, including recycling, using green energy and the growing demand for organic food products. The evolution of these behaviors and the respective mindsets of individuals are crucial for understanding how consumers act. Thereby, underlying cognitive phenomena, such as self-regulation and ego depletion, effortful choice-making and showing active initiative are especially interesting as they could constitute severe challenges for individuals to constrain the self and act upon environmental values. Hence, there is a still growing body of literature arising from early studies on socially conscious, green, or ecologically conscious consumers (e.g., Anderson & Cunningham, 1972; Roberts, 1996; Straughan & Roberts, 1999; Webster Jr, 1975). Nevertheless, green consumption and pro-environmental behavior may no longer be sufficient for a sustainable future. When facing the ecological issues of today, especially the Western world needs to change its consumption pattern (García-de-Frutos, Ortega-Egea, & Martínez-del-Río, 2018). Reducing materialism and shifting the consumption behavior to a more sustainable way of consuming is a necessary step for a greener future (Jackson, 2005).

As significant challenges remain to comprehend EOA processes (García-de-Frutos et al., 2018), it is important to investigate the strength of these reasons against. As they derive from environmental values, it is of interest whether these environmental values are an inherent part of human nature or whether individuals need to exert self-regulation to act upon these values and thus exploit their cognitive resources to build and stick to these reasons against.

There is a large research stream on self-regulation and ego depletion in various contexts and relations (e.g., Baumeister, Bratslavsky, Muraven, & Tice, 1998; Cornelissen, Dewitte, & Warlop, 2011; Dewall, Baumeister, Gailliot, & Maner, 2008; Shiv & Fedorikhin, 1999; Vohs & Faber, 2007). However, the existing literature and findings are heterogeneous. On the one hand, behaviors such as unhealthy decision-making (Shiv & Fedorikhin, 1999), impulse buying (Vohs & Faber, 2007), or decreased willingness to help (Dewall et al., 2008) suggest that the lack of cognitive resources has a strong impact on individuals’ actions and influences them to behave in contrast to their positive self-concept. On the other hand, however, theories such as the self-perception theory (Bem, 1972), balance theory (Heider, 1946), and cognitive dissonance theory (Festinger & Aronson, 1997), as well as empirical research about moral consistency (Blanken, van de Ven, & Zeelenberg, 2015), and automatic social value orientation (Dewall et al., 2008) have also proven that acting consistent and upon certain values is an automatic behavior in human nature which cannot be determined. Although, self-regulation and ego depletion were investigated to understand numerous psychological phenomena and consumer behaviors, as to the author’s knowledge, there has never been a study conducted that applies these concepts to the domain of EOA and environmental values.

Therefore, this research aims to investigate the effect of ego depletion on EOA. More specific, this study will examine whether ego depletion has an impact on environmental values as well as on the reasons against and therefore on the likelihood to engage in EOA. It is to assume, that individuals with a closer relationship to nature and environment have stronger

in two ways. Firstly, these entities, in general, know little about EOA and the crucial reasons

against (García-de-Frutos et al., 2018). Therefore, this study can help to understand consumers and their motivation in more depth. This, in turn, can lead to a strengthening of brands which already engage in anti-consumption activities and convince more companies, NGOs and governmental institutions to be actively involved in EOA. Secondly, these companies learn more about the relationship of EOA and ego depletion which is essential knowledge in purchase situations. These newly gained insights might have significant impact on the development of company and brand communication as well as on where and when EOA campaigns are most effective.

The effect of ego depletion and EOA will be examined by the means of experimental analysis. First, the concept of EOA and the respective field of research will be discussed. Furthermore, the idea of ego depletion and its connection to limited resources and self-regulation will be described. In a next step, it will be elaborated how these two concepts are related. In addition, the notion of ecological identity will be examined and how it potentially moderates the relationship between ego depletion and anti-consumption. Lastly, the theoretical framework will be tested empirically. In doing so, the respective literature on ego depletion and anti-consumption for environmental sustainability will be discussed.

2.

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

2.1 Environmentally Oriented Anti-Consumption and the Reasons Against

The concept of anti-consumption is generally displayed as opposing behavior to actual consumption (e.g., Chatzidakis & Lee, 2013; Cherrier, Black, & Lee, 2011; García-de-Frutos et al., 2018; Lee, Roux, Cherrier, & Cova, 2011). Thereby, it can be understood as a phenomenon that is “against the acquisition, use, and dispossession of certain goods’’ (Lee et al., 2011, p. 1681). The underlying motives to engage in such intentional non-consumption (Cherrier et al., 2011) are driven by an individual’s values and beliefs. These values and beliefs can be of ethical, social, symbolic or environmental nature (Chatzidakis & Lee, 2013; García-de-Frutos et al., 2018). In the specific case of EOA, the acts to express the “resistance to, distaste of, or even resentment of consumption” (Zavestoski, 2002, p. 121) have the goal of protecting the environment (García-de-Frutos et al., 2018). It is the rejection, reduction and reclaiming of consumption processes substantially motivated by environmental reasons and concerns (Lee et al., 2011).

concepts overlap, they have faced a lot of confusion in the past (Chatzidakis & Lee, 2013). Nevertheless, there are certain key factors which point out the differences between both notions. Firstly, whereas anti-consumption is connected to consumption concerns, consumer resistance is defined as adverse responses to an imbalance of power within the market which is perceived as conflicting by consumers (Lee et al., 2011). Thus, resistance is always related to power concerns in the marketplace (Foucault, 1982). It is not necessarily expressed by not consuming but it can also be conveyed by consumption of competing products (Chatzidakis & Lee, 2013). Hence, it is possible to express resistance through acts of anti-consumption, on the one hand, however, it can also be expressed through actual consumption behavior on the other hand (Chatzidakis & Lee, 2013). Secondly, while consumer resistance is demonstrated by individuals opposing products, practices and partnerships, anti-consumption emphasizes the

reasons against a certain behavior through rejection, restriction and reclaiming (Lee et al., 2011). Therefore, the creation and implementation of reasons against is a necessary condition for anti-consumption but not for consumer resistance.

In EOA, individuals use environmentally motivated reasons against as their underlying justifications against performing a specific behavior that harms the environment. Thereby, these reasons shape individuals’ global attitudes and motives (Chatzidakis & Lee, 2013; Westaby, 2005). Different than reasons for, reasons against are built on the strong motivation not to consume a certain product or brand (Chatzidakis & Lee, 2013; García-de-Frutos et al., 2018; Lee et al., 2011). Thereby, reasons for can be easily turned into logical reasons against a certain consumption behavior, however, reasons against are not implicitly the opposite of the reasons

for this particular consumption behavior (Chatzidakis & Lee, 2013). For example, the reasons

for buying Nestlé products, such as low prices and good quality, formulated as the opposite could display reasonable reasons against buying Nestlé products (i.e. low prices mean poor quality or the general perception of poor quality). However, the reasons against buying Nestlé products also result in additional deliberation of arguments concerned with, for example, environmental pollution or rainforest clearing. These reasons against formulated as the opposite are unlikely to constitute reasonable reasons for buying Nestlé products (i.e. it is unlikely that individuals buy products of Nestlé because the company is accused of clearing rainforest). Thus, reasons against can derive from a large variety of specific subjective factors which are integrated into an individual’s explanation set to define the anticipated rejecting behavior (Westaby, 2005).

thoughtfulness of the particular act of anti-consumption, the consciousness of the behavior also includes its voluntariness (Chatzidakis & Lee, 2013; García-de-Frutos et al., 2018). This means that environmentally instigated reasons against are the driving forces for EOA, whereas monetary, social or other benefits are not essential determinants (García-de-Frutos et al., 2018). The self-expressive function of the reasons against is related to individuals’ beliefs and values which directly influence the anticipated anti-consumption behavior (Westaby, 2005). The rejection, reduction and reclaiming of specific products, product categories or brands serves to dissociate from the undesired self and to express the own beliefs and values (Black & Cherrier, 2010; Cherrier et al., 2011).

Thereby, it is questionable whether these beliefs and values are an inherent part of human nature or whether they are based on limited self-regulation resources which can be ego depleted. On the one hand, there is evidence that some values (e.g. social values) are expressed automatically in behavior (Cornelissen et al., 2011). This is due to the fact that value-based decisions are normally the outcome of quick, automatic evaluations or intuitions which are influenced by social and cultural factors. These factors, in turn, become incorporate within the self during the process of personality development (Haidt, 2001). Thus, if individuals embody environmental values and beliefs, the expression of these values and beliefs in form of EOA might occur as natural consequence. On the other hand, engaging in EOA behavior is effortful and requires a certain extent of self-discipline (Black & Cherrier, 2010). However, individuals perform worse in exerting self-regulation when they already made use of any other executive function of the self in a prior task. This is because both tasks require the same limited resources. Therefore, the efficacy on the second task is negatively impacted by the performance of the first task as it already depleted the limited resources (Baumeister, Heatherton, Tice, & Marsh, 1996).

2.2 The Interplay of Self-Regulation and Ego Depletion

research looks at anti-consumption from an environmental point of view and suggests that not consumption itself, but the creation of reasons against demands high cognitive resources in order to control the self. Therefore, it is necessary to shed light on the domain of environmental values and to examine the effect of self-regulation and ego depletion on the concept of EOA.

Table 1: Summary of ego depletion studies with a focus on the effects of self-regulation and ego

depletion on consumer behavior, social value-based behavior and anti-consumption behavior

Author/s (year) Conclusions about self-regulation and cognitive depletion

Sample Baumeister et al.

(1998)

Resisting temptation leads to ego depletion and causes individuals to give up more easily when exposed to frustration. The same resources that are depleted by self-regulation are also exploited by effortful choice-making. Introductory psychology students (N = 67); undergraduate psychology students (N = 39) Shiv and Fedorikhin (1999)

Individuals tend to unhealthy decision-making when cognitive resources are constrained.

Undergraduates (N=160)

Vohs and Faber (2007)

Exerting self-regulation leads to willingness to pay higher prices for various products and increases the likelihood to engage in impulse buying.

Undergraduates at Case Western Reserve University (N = 35); undergraduates at University of Utah and University of British Columbia (N = 70)

DeWall et al. (2008)

Ego depleted results in decreasing willingness to help others.

Undergraduates (N = 19)

Fennis and Janssen (2010)

Cognitive depletion leads to effectiveness of sequential sales requests (e.g. Foot-In-The-Door and Door-In-The-Face technique).

Average citizen-consumers (N = 56)

Dholakia et al. (2018)

Reflecting on recently used personal belongings leads to less desire to consume, to a decrease in impulse buying and to express a lower willingness-to-pay for new products

US consumers (N = 165); participants from AMT (N = 199); participants from AMT (N = 408); participants from AMT (N = 299)

lower processes is not successful, or when lower processes override higher ones (Baumeister et al., 1996). Individuals enact in self-regulation in order to prevent urges and temptations to engage in long-term harmful behavior, even though the same behavior might promise benefits in the short-run (Baumeister & Vohs, 2007).

There are four crucial aspects, individuals have to possess to be able to exert self-regulation effectively, namely standards, monitoring, willpower and motivation (Baumeister et al., 1996; Baumeister & Vohs, 2007). Firstly, standards need to be set to control impulses and desires. These principles portray the ideal way of how things should be (Baumeister et al., 1996). Secondly, throughout a monitoring process, the self and the set standard are compared. If the self does not live up to the standard, self-regulation triggers actions to change the self and adjust it to how things should be (Baumeister & Vohs, 2007). Thirdly, to be successful in overwriting the lower processes, substantial amounts of cognitive resources are required (e.g., Baumeister et al., 1996; Baumeister et al., 1998). These resources are highly controlled by self-regulation strength or willpower. Lastly, individuals need motivation to reach the goal and meet the standards (Baumeister & Vohs, 2007). All of these aspects interact with each other and vary in terms of strength and dominance (Baumeister & Vohs, 2007). Thereby, each of them is a necessary criterion to make use of self-regulation and therefore they are significant elements of this ongoing research.

Despite the complex concept to exert self-control, regulating the self carries psychic costs and exploits certain limited cognitive resources, at least temporarily (Baumeister et al., 1998; Baumeister & Vohs, 2007). This condition is termed ego depletion. Ego depletion in general “refers to a state in which the self does not have all the resources it normally has” (Baumeister & Vohs, 2007, p.116). It occurs due to the exhaustion of these limited resources by the executive function of the self, including cognitive processes, such as self-regulation or effortful choice-making. At the same time, these executive functions of the self, also depend on the same limited resources they consume (Baumeister et al., 1998). Thus, an individual is likely to fail in exerting self-regulation in moments where he or she would normally succeed when the limited resources were depleted beforehand (Baumeister & Heatherton, 1996).

2.3 Linking Ego Depletion and Environmentally Oriented Anti-Consumption

(Cornelissen et al., 2011) or whether acting upon values requires a certain extent of self-regulation and thus can be affected by ego depletion (Dewall et al., 2008).

This controversial discussion in research is rooted in the theory of the homo economicus, which conceptualizes the human as solely focused on self-interest (e.g., Luce & Raiffa, 1957). This idea suggests that considering collective outcomes requires a certain extent of self-control (Cornelissen et al., 2011). It was demonstrated that self-reported likelihood of helping others was diminished when individuals had to exert self-regulation in a prior task (Dewall et al., 2008). This effect can be ascribed to the interplay of self-regulation and ego depletion. Regulating the self is a cognitive process that triggers individuals to overwrite short-term und self-centered impulses to adjust their behavior to more desirable long-short-term goals. Thus, helping might depend on the same limited resources individuals have to manage motivational conflicts. Further, it is suggested that ego depletion only affects executive functions of the self that require active control of the self but have no impact on automatic and effortless responses (Dewall et al., 2008; Schmeichel, Vohs, & Baumeister, 2003).

It is to assume that different values, such as social, ethical or environmental values, operate the same way, regardless of their motivation (e.g. Kenter et al., 2015; Stern, Dietz, Abel, Guagnano, & Kalof, 1999). Therefore, for the purpose of this study, it is to propose that the same findings about social values are also applicable to environmental values. Thus, both types of values depend on the same limited resources as self-regulation. At the same time, EOA is effortful and requires commitment (Black & Cherrier, 2010). This is also linked to the idea that regulating the self effectively is tightly connected to sacrificing something desirable (Baumeister & Vohs, 2007). For EOA, this sacrifice is especially extensive as EOA implies to refrain from consuming for a greater purpose and not necessarily for the self. There is a push and pull between the desire to consume a certain product and the self-regulative efforts to resist (Hoch & Loewenstein, 1991) which leads to a greater likelihood of motivational conflicts.

Thus, creating reasons against based on environmental values, demands a great extent of self-regulation and overwriting self-interests. This exertion of self-regulation and overwriting self-interest, in turn, typically causes ego depletion to occur (Baumeister & Vohs, 2007) and thus has a negative effect on the likelihood of engaging in EOA.

Hypothesis 1: Ego depletion has a negative effect on the likelihood of environmentally oriented

2.4 Ecological Identity and its Moderating Effect

A significant determinant of environmental values and therefore for creating strong

reasons against is the individual's ecological identity. The notion of ecological identity does not only involve the knowledge individuals have about the environment, but it also includes the connection and attitudes individuals link to the world around them and to others (Thomashow, 1995; Wilson, 1996). By that, the development of the ecological self is strongly influenced by several factors such as socioeconomic status of the family, cultural background, values, gender, and age (Cohen & Horm-Wingerd, 2016; Thomashow, 1995). An individual’s ecological identity is measured by the Ecological Identity Scale (EIS) (Walton & Jones, 2017). Thereby, the EIS consists of 18 items which are divided into three underlying dimensions, namely

sameness, differentiation and centrality. The element of sameness describes the personal- and role-based identification with the environment and nature on the one hand, and the perception of shared-group membership with environmentalists on the other hand. Likewise, the factor of

differentiation asks for personal- and role-based identification. However, it characterizes personal attributes, roles, and groups in connection with anti-ecological behavior in order to differentiate from individuals with a low ecological identity. Lastly, the dimension of centrality assumes that individuals with a high ecological identity are more committed to ecological concerns and that personal- and group-based identification with ecological aspects is more prominent and more salient to them. (Walton & Jones, 2017)

At the same time, environmental self-identity is the degree to which individuals consider themselves as acting pro-environmentally (van der Werff et al., 2013). Thereby, the identity exceeds the mere reflection of nature and environment to the self. It is the mediator between an individual’s environmental values and its pro-environmental intentions and behavior (van der Werff et al., 2013). Different from environmental self-identity, ecological identity is not only influenced by environmental values, but it is directly related to self-transcendent values and an ecological world view. It is to assume that looking at the world from an ecological perspective leads to accepting pro-ecological roles, and to associate the self with environmentalists, nature, and ecological systems (Walton & Jones, 2017). Self-transcendent values, in turn, represent “goals and beliefs about desired end states …. and guiding principles for achieving these end states” (Walton & Jones, 2017, p.11).

Applying these identities to EOA, ecological identity has the strongest impact on this behavior. This is due to two aspects. Firstly, the creation of reasons against is based on a set of personal and subjective factors. Hence, the consideration of being not only like but also unlike others is an essential factor to create individual and resistant reasons against. Secondly, compared to environmental values, the interplay of self-transcendent values and an ecological world view creates more specific and proximal identities. Thus, pro-environmental behaviors and in specific EOA motivated behaviors can be expressed more concretely and consistently (Walton & Jones, 2017).

Further, a high ecological identity also fosters the four essential criteria of self-regulation, namely standards, monitoring, willpower and motivation. Firstly, the interplay of self-transcendent values and an ecological world view helps developing the desired end-state of not consuming a certain product, product category or brand due to environmental concern and guiding principles for achieving this end state. This process is equal to setting standards as the first aspect of effective self-regulation.

Secondly, holding self-transcendent values might also proceed into a greater likelihood of positioning the self (Walton & Jones, 2017). This establishes the needed conditions for

monitoring. As the proximal identity indicates a precise position of the self within a biophysical system, it is possible to adjust the anticipated behavior subsequently until the standard is met.

acting pro-environmentally is not costly for them. This assumption builds up on the idea of the homo economicus (e.g., Luce & Raiffa, 1957) and the notion that considering social and ecological outcomes requires a certain extent of self-control (Cornelissen et al., 2011). However, since the ecological identity is part of the individual’s self, limited resources are less ego depleted because the individual acts in its self-interest.

Lastly, it is to assume that volition and strength of self-regulation is particularly high for individuals with a high ecological identity as they care about reaching the standard (Muraven & Slessareva, 2003). This motivation can be explained by the presumption of expectancy-value theory “that the beliefs people hold about expected outcomes and the value of those outcomes have a significant effect on motivational processes” (Westaby, 2005, p.102). Thus, it is to hypothesize that individuals with a high ecological identity can exert self-regulation more effectively when it comes to EOA. This is due to two reasons. On the one hand, individuals with a high ecological identity possess all four criteria of self-regulation (i.e.,

standards, monitoring, willpower and motivation). On the other hand, motivational conflicts regarding EOA occur less frequently due to the individuals’ environmental values. Hence, the effect of ego depletion on their actual EOA behavior is less intensive. Individuals with a low ecological identity, however, face motivational conflicts regarding EOA more often and hence, also the effect of ego depletion is more intensive on their actual anti-consumption behavior.

Hypothesis 2: A high ecological identity has a negative moderation effect on the relationship

between ego depletion and the likelihood of environmentally oriented anti-consumption.

3.

METHODOLOGY

3.1 Sample

abilities to read and understand English and 6% considered their language skills slightly above average. Participants came from the Netherlands (30%), Germany (14%), other European countries (26%) and outside of Europe (30%).

3.2 Experimental Design

The experiment was conducted in the Behavioral Research laboratory of the Faculty of Economic and Business of the University of Groningen in the Duisenberg Building Zernike Complex. The laboratory was preferred over an online survey to ensure that participants actively engage in the ego depletion manipulation and were not distracted from the experiment. It is to assume that those two factors have a significant impact on the quality of the collected data.

The experiment took place throughout a period of two weeks during normal working hours (9 am until 5 pm) to eliminate other possible reasons for ego depletion. To make sure that participants did not understand the underlying purpose of the experiment and thus, subconsciously or consciously influence the results, a cover story disguised the actual intentions of the research. Therefore, the relationship of ego depletion and the likelihood of EOA was tested independently from the EIS to seem as separated and unconnected experiments. Thereby, the EIS was always queried first, followed by the experiment testing the relationship between ego depletion and the likelihood of EOA. The measure of the EIS was implemented in form of a stand-alone questionnaire. As this survey did not examine underlying consumer behaviors per se, no further cover-up was needed. The study investigating the relationship between ego depletion and EOA suggested that the purpose of the research is to investigate the subjects’ ability of recall. Therefore, participants had to remember a number while answering questions and were instructed to hold this number in their memory until they were asked to recall it. This way, it was ensured that subjects put effort into remembering the number. Further, through the cover story and the separation from the EIS questionnaire, participants did not fully realize the core purpose of the study, namely to assess their EOA behavior. Thus, they could not intentionally influence the outcome and findings of the experiment.

second indication field was added. Hence, participants were asked twice to recall the number, each time after a set of six scenarios.

3.3 Measures

Independent variable. To test the independent variable, the study group was divided in two arms (ego depletion vs. control). Subjects were either part of the ego depletion or the no ego depletion condition. To manipulate the state of ego depletion, the participants were exposed to either high or low cognitive load. Therefore, they were instructed to remember an eight-digit number1 (high cognitive load) or a two-digit number2 (low cognitive load) (e.g., Gilbert, Giesler, & Morris, 1995; Gilbert & Osborne, 1989; Shiv & Fedorikhin, 1999; Trope & Alfieri, 1997). Participants of all conditions were first instructed to remember the indicated number and to hold it in their memory until they were asked to recall the number again. Meanwhile, they were exposed to different anti-consumption and pro-environmental consumption scenarios. To make sure that participants kept the number in mind throughout the entire experiment, they were asked to indicate the number twice. This way, participants were under high or low cognitive load while providing information about their EOA and their pro-environmental consumption behavior.

Dependent variable. In order to measure the dependent variable (likelihood of EOA) participants of both ego depletion conditions had to answer a total of 12 anti-consumption and pro-environmental consumption scenarios on a 7-point scale. Thereby, the anti-consumption scenarios provided in the experiment (see Table 2) reflected a push and pull between the desire to purchase and consume a certain product and the self-control to resist (Hoch & Loewenstein, 1991). Complementary to the six anti-consumption scenarios, six pro-environmental consumption scenarios were added (see Table 2). Thereby, these scenarios covered three different types of pro-environmental consumption behaviors, namely green purchase behavior, good citizenship behavior, and environmental activist behavior (Lee, Kim, Kim, & Choi, 2014). The scenarios were presented in an unspecific order of anti-consumption and pro-consumption questions to avoid biased answering.

1 _56893378

Table 2: Summary of the environmentally oriented anti-consumption and pro-environmental

consumption scenarios

Behavior Scenario

Environmentally Oriented Anti-Consumption

“If my favorite chocolate contains palm oil, I will stop buying it.” “I buy plastic straws for my party to serve my guests cocktails.” “I stop eating meat because of my carbon footprint.”

“If it is raining, I take my car to go to university or work although it is just a very short distance.”

“I buy a plastic bag at the grocery store to carry home the food products I just bought.”

“I will keep buying avocados, although its cultivation needs a lot of water.”

Pro-Environmental Consumption

“I buy organic fruits and vegetables instead of commonly produced fruits and vegetables.”

“I use green energy produced from renewable resources.”

“When I see someone leaving their garbage in a public area, I pick it up and put it in the trash bin.”

“I separate trash and recycle glass and paper.”

“If I have enough income, I could imagine donating up to 50 Euros per year to a pro-environmental organization such as Green Peace.” “If I have the choice, I would purchase products made by an eco-friendly business.”

Table 3: Summary of items and factors of the Ecological Identity Scale (Walton & Jones, 2017) Factor Item number Item Sameness (“I am someone who…”)

1 “… is aware of and cares about my impact on the environment” 2 “… is strongly connected to nature and the environment” 3 “… is a protector of wildlife and their habitats”

4 “… others view as being an environmentalist” 5 “… views myself as an environmentalist” 6 “… is trying to be a better environmentalist”

7 “... make significant changes in their lifestyle for environmental reasons” Differentiation (“I identify with people who…/ I identify with…”)

8 “… feel they have the right to consume as much as they want” 9 “… do not care about the environmental impact”

10 “… doubt global warming is happening”

11 “… believe global warming is mostly caused by humans” 12 “… big businesses and corporations”

Centrality (“I am likely

to …/ I am close to…”)

13 “… discuss wildlife, nature, or environmental issues with my classmates or coworkers

14 “… discuss wildlife, nature, or environmental issues with my friends 15 “… discuss wildlife, nature, or environmental issues with my family” 16 “… people who want to protect and preserve the environment” 17 “Protecting and preserving the environment plays a role in my life”

18 “These activities or actions play a large role in the ideal person I strive to be”

4.

RESULTS

4.1 Inspection of Data

Independent variable. Participants were randomly assigned to one of two conditions (no ego depletion: N=106, ego depletion: N=105). One participant of the “no ego depletion”-condition was not able to remember the two-digit number correctly, whereas 10 subjects of the “ego depletion”-condition did not memorize the eight-digit number.

Table 4: Summary of the means and standard deviations of environmentally oriented

anti-consumption and pro-environmental anti-consumption scenarios and scores (N = 211)

Behavior Item Scenario Mean Std Deviation Environmentally

oriented anti-consumption

1 “If my favorite chocolate contains palm oil, I will stop buying it.”

3.48 1.714

2 “I buy plastic straws for my party to serve my guests cocktails.” (reversed)

4.15 1.960

3 “I stop eating meat because of my carbon footprint.” 2.86 1.824 4 “If it is raining, I take my car to go to university or work

although it is just a very short distance.” (reversed)

4.05 1.959

5 “I buy a plastic bag at the grocery store to carry home the food products I just bought.” (reversed)

4.91 1.878

6 “I will keep buying avocados, although its cultivation needs a lot of water.” (reversed)

3.28 1.717

Average EOA score 3.79 0.996

Pro-Environmental Consumption

7 “I buy organic fruits and vegetables instead of commonly produced fruits and vegetables.”

3.44 1.690

8 “I use green energy produced from renewable resources.”

5.64 1.232

9 “When I see someone leaving their garbage in a public area, I pick it up and put it in the trash bin.”

4.38 1.564

10 “I separate trash and recycle glass and paper.” 4.98 1.783 11 “If I have enough income, I could imagine donating up

to 50 Euros per year to a pro-environmental organization such as Green Peace.”

4.46 1.857

12 “If I have the choice, I would purchase products made by an eco-friendly business.”

5.22 1.352

Average pro-environmental consumption Score 4.69 0.991

To examine whether the scenarios were correlated, a bivariate Pearson Correlation was conducted. Whereas, the anti-consumption scenarios showed only occasional positive correlations among each other, the pro-environmental consumption scenarios were almost all moderately to strongly positively correlated. Additionally, the correlations of the anti-consumption and the pro-environmental anti-consumption scenarios were tested. There were some positive linear relationships between the scenarios. Especially the scenario “I stop eating meat

because of my carbon footprint” was strongly positively related with nearly all other scenarios.

At the same time, the statement “I will keep buying avocados, although its cultivation needs a

To take a more detailed look at the relationship between the different scenarios of anti-consumption and pro-environmental anti-consumption, a principle component analysis (PCA) was carried out. To check for the likelihood of factoring and correlations, Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin measure of sampling adequacy (KMO = .713) and Bartlett’s test of sphericity (p < .001) were performed. The deriving eigenvalues suggested four underlying dimensions. The rotated loadings indicated that the first factor was built up by five of six pro-environmental consumption scenarios (items 7 to 9 and 11 to 12) (see Table 4). The second factor consisted of two EOA scenarios (items 1 and 3). The third factor included another three out of six EOA scenarios (items 2, 5 and 6). And lastly, the fourth factor combined one EOA scenario and one pro-environmental consumption scenario (items 4 and 10). The outcome of this fourth factor suggested that there might be a small overlap between anti-consumption scenarios and pro-environmental scenarios. In order to test whether these developed factors were also stable, a reliability analysis was conducted. Cronbach’s Alpha (ᾳ=.689) indicated that the underlying dimensions were relatively reliable.

Moderator. To confirm the EIS in its validity and reliability, a PCA and a reliability analysis were conducted. In a first step, to get a first impression of the data and its underlying dimensions, a bivariate Pearson Correlation was performed. Most items regarding the sameness and centrality factor (see Table 5) demonstrated a moderate to high positive correlation with each other. Items belonging to the differentiation factor, however, did not correlate with other items but showed high positive correlations within the factor. These results were the first indicator for the validity of the underlying dimensions of the EIS.

conceptualization of the scale, the conducted PCA demonstrated that the structure and composition of the centrality factor could not solely be explained statistically. Items 8 and 9 as well as 12 were forming a third factor which was the differentiation factor. In theory, this factor is also supported by items 10 and 11. However, in this analysis, these two items correlated strongly and thus built a fourth independent factor. This might be since both items touched upon the topic of global warming. (Walton & Jones, 2017)

Table 5: Summary of the reviewed means and standard deviations of the items of the Ecological

Identity Scale (N = 211)

Factor Item Item Mean Std.

Deviation Sameness

(“I am someone who…”)

1 “… is aware of and cares about my impact on the environment”

5.22 1.155

2 “… is strongly connected to nature and the environment” 4.57 1.366 3 “… is a protector of wildlife and their habitats” 3.99 1.483 4 “… others view as being an environmentalist” 3.16 1.486 5 “… views myself as an environmentalist” 3.35 1.571 6 “… is trying to be a better environmentalist” 4.63 1.482 7 “... make significant changes in their lifestyle for

environmental reasons” 3.91 1.542 Differentiati on (“I identify with people who…/ I identify with…”)

8 “… feel they have the right to consume as much as they want”

4.78 1.636

9 “… do not care about the environmental impact” 5.62 1.295 10 “… doubt global warming is happening” 6.16 1.320 11 “… believe global warming is mostly caused by humans” 5.47 1.357 12 “… big businesses and corporations” 4.37 1.433

Centrality (“I am likely

to …/ I am close to…”)

13 “… discuss wildlife, nature, or environmental issues with my classmates or coworkers

3.88 1.613

14 “… discuss wildlife, nature, or environmental issues with my friends

4.29 1.618

15 “… discuss wildlife, nature, or environmental issues with my family”

4.38 1.615

16 “… people who want to protect and preserve the environment”

4.05 1.495

17 “Protecting and preserving the environment plays a role in my life”

4.01 1.535

18 “These activities or actions play a large role in the ideal person I strive to be”

In a last step, the reliability of the EIS was reviewed. The Cronbach’s Alpha (ᾳ=.919) indicated that the EIS was highly reliable. For further analyses, the degree of ecological identity of each of the participants had to be demonstrated. Therefore, an ecological identity score was created. The responses of each subject for the items on the EIS were averaged. Additionally, the means and standard deviations for each item and the average score were computed and compared (see Table 5). Especially, the statements concerning the differentiation from others received a rather high score on the EIS. Also, the ecological identity score indicated that participants had, on average, a rather high ecological identity (M = 4.4, SD = .964) and thus care about the environment.

4.2 Testing Hypothesis 1

Principle component analysis. To assess the effect of ego depletion on the likelihood of EAO, several analyses were conducted (see Appendix A). Thereby, taking a look at the anti-consumption scenarios in terms of constructs was most interesting. In a first step, the direction of all scenarios was examined. According to the correlations, all six scenarios showed linear relationships in the same direction. Therefore, a PCA was conducted. The scenario “I will keep

buying avocados, although its cultivation needs a lot of water” did not correlate sufficiently

with the other items to be included in the factor creation. This might be due to the fact that participants had too little information about avocado cultivation to answer this scenario appropriately or do not eat avocados in general. Thus, the scenario was excluded from the set of items and a second PCA was performed (KMO = .542, Bartlett’s test: p < .001). Thereby, the eigenvalues suggested two underlying dimensions which accounted for approximately 60% of the variance. The loadings of the rotated items supported this suggestion. Hence, two factors were created (see Table 6).

Table 6: Summary of principle component analysis and labeling of the derived factors

Type of environmentally oriented anti-consumption

Scenario

Simple EOA “I buy plastic straws for my party to serve my guests cocktails.”

“If it is raining, I take my car to go to university or work although it is just a very short distance.”

“I buy a plastic bag at the grocery store to carry home the food products I just bought.”

The first factor summarizes three scenarios which implied rather effortless EOA behavior. These scenarios showed a lower trade-off between the desire to consume and the self-regulation to resist than the other two scenarios. Therefore, this factor can be labeled as “simple EOA”. The other two scenarios, creating the second factor, suggested rather effortful forms of EAO. The sacrifices suggested in these two scenarios were substantially larger than the sacrifices implied in the other three scenarios. Hence, this second factor can be labeled as “difficult EOA”. In a next step, the reliability of these factors was tested. Cronbach’s Alpha (ᾳ=.518) was fairly low. However, no item could be excluded from the scale to increase Cronbach’s Alpha. Thus, although, moderately low, reliability was confirmed.

ANOVA. To find out whether there is a significant difference between the different groups of ego depletion in terms of the likelihood of difficult EOA (M = 3.173, SD = 1.522) and simple EOA (M = 4.37, SD = 1.340), ANOVA analyses were conducted. In order to perform an ANOVA three assumption had to be tested, namely no significant outliers, homogeneity of variances and normal distribution. Under the presumption that ANOVA is considerably robust against non-normality, for both analyses the three assumptions of ANOVA were satisfied. Thereby, there was no significant effect of ego depletion on the likelihood of difficult EOA found (Mego depletion = 3.24, Mno ego depletion = 3.11, F (1,209) = .381, p = .538) (see

Table 7). However, when taking a look at the means, participants of the ego depletion condition were slightly more likely to engage in difficult EOA behavior compared to participants who were not ego depleted (see Figure 1). This finding suggests that ego depletion supports the likelihood of engaging in difficult EOA compared to no go depletion.

When examining simple EOA, a statistically significant negative effect of ego depletion on the likelihood of simple EOA could be demonstrated (Mego depletion = 4.18, Mno ego depletion =

4.57, F (1,209) = 4.581, p = .033) (see Table 7). As indicated by the means, subjects of the ego depletion condition were less likely to engage in simple EOA than subjects which were not ego depleted (see Figure 1). Thus, ego depletion hampers the likelihood of engaging in simple EOA. This finding partially confirms the first hypothesis.

Table 7: Summary of ANOVA results (N = 211)

Type of environmentally oriented anti-consumption

Means F-value p-value No ego depletion Ego depletion

Figure 1: Means of ANOVA demonstrating the different effects of ego depletion on the different types of environmentally oriented anti-consumption (N = 211)

4.3 Testing Hypothesis 2

Two-way ANOVA. To assess the moderation effect of ecological identity on the effect of ego depletion on the likelihood of EOA, a two-way ANOVA with interaction effect was performed. Because the data of the EIS was normally distributed, the sample could be separated into high and low ecological identity groups by the use of a median split on the measure. Participants with a score above the median were part of the former group, participants with a score below the median were part of the latter group. Thereby, a 2 (high ecological identity; low ecological identity) by 2 (ego depletion; no ego depletion) between-subject design was formed.

Under the presumption that ANOVA is considerably robust against non-normality, the three assumptions of ANOVA were tested and satisfied for both dependent variables (difficult EOA; simple EOA). For the likelihood of difficult EOA, no statistically significant interaction effect of ego depletion and ecological identity could be established (F (1,207) = .005, p = .943). However, a significant main effect of ecological identity on the likelihood of difficult EOA was demonstrated (Mlow ecological identity = 2.74, Mhigh ecological identity = 3.36, F (1,207) = 7.483, p = .007).

Also, for the likelihood of simple EOA, the interaction effect between the ecological identity and ego depletion was not significant (F (1,207) = 3.370, p = .125). Nevertheless, also a

significant main effect of ecological identity on the likelihood of simple EOA could be demonstrated (Mlow ecological identity = 3.94, Mhigh ecological identity = 4.55, F (1,207) = 10.061, p = .002).

A negative effect of ecological identity on the relationship between ego depletion and likelihood of EOA could not be confirmed because the effect sizes were too small to find any statistically significant moderation effect. When considering the means of each of the four conditions of simple EOA, however, a tendency towards supporting the hypothesis can be seen (see Figure 2). Participants of both ecological identity conditions are less likely to engage in simple EOA when they are ego depleted. Nevertheless, this effect was slightly smaller for participants with a high ecological identity compared to those with a low ecological identity. Thus, individuals with a high ecological identity were able to exert more self-regulation, even when they were ego depleted, compared to individuals with a low ecological identity.

Figure 2: Means per condition based on the median split of the Ecological Identity Scale for simple environmentally oriented anti-consumption (N = 211)

When examining the means of the four conditions of difficult EOA, a similar phenomenon appeared (see Figure 3). Participants of both ecological identity conditions were more likely to engage in difficult EOA when they were ego depleted. However, this effect was slightly larger for participants with a high ecological identity compared to those with a low ecological identity. Hence, individuals with a high ecological identity, were even more likely to engage in difficult EOA than individuals with a low ecological identity.

Figure 3: Means per condition based on the median split of the Ecological Identity Scale for difficult environmentally oriented anti-consumption (N = 211)

ANCOVA of Ecological Identity Scale. As the ecological identity of the participants was measured at a continuous level, an ANCOVA was performed to explore its moderating effect of the relationship between ego depletion and the likelihood of EOA. Considering the presumption that ANCOVA is also considerably robust against non-normality, the three assumptions of ANCOVA were confirmed for both dependent variables (difficult EOA; simple EOA). Under the consideration of EIS, the effect of ego depletion on the likelihood of difficult EOA was not statistically significant (F (1,208) = .370, p = .543). For simple EOA, the significant negative effect of ego depletion on the likelihood of simple EOA was marginally greater when adjusted for ecological identity. Nevertheless, the means did not change as the effect was too small (Mego depletion = 4.18, Mno ego depletion = 4.57, F (1,208) = 5.423, p = .021) (see

Table 8).

Table 8: Summary of ANCOVA results (N = 211)

Type of environmentally oriented anti-consumption

Covariate F-value p-value Effect Size Simple EOA EIS 5.423 .021 .025 * Difficult EOA EIS .370 .543 .002

** Significant and at the 0.01 level * Significant and at the 0.05 level

However, a statistically significant positive main effect of the EIS on the likelihood of difficult EOA could be confirmed (F (1,208) = 15.605, p < .001) (see Table 9). Further, also a statistically significant positive main effect of ecological identity on the likelihood of simple EOA, could be established (F (1,208) = 30.540, p < .001) (see Table 9). Nevertheless, taking these findings together, the second hypothesis could not be confirmed.

Table 9: Summary of main effects of the Ecological Identity Scale (N = 211)

Type of environmentally oriented anti-consumption

Main Effect F-value p-value Effect Size

Simple EOA EIS 30.540 .000 .128 ** Difficult EOA EIS 15.605 .000 .070 **

** Significant and at the 0.01 level * Significant and at the 0.05 level

ANCOVA of underlying dimensions of Ecological Identity Scale. To dive deeper into the effects of ecological identity, the effect of the three underlying dimensions of the EIS were tested for moderation effects. Thereby, no statistically significant effects of any dimension could be found (see Table 10). As the Partial Eta Squared values suggested, the effect sizes were too small to have an influence. Interestingly, the dimension of centrality had the largest effect on the likelihood of simple EOA, while it had the smallest effect on the likelihood of difficult EOA. And the dimension of differentiation had the largest effect on the likelihood of difficult EOA, whereas it had the smallest effect on the likelihood of simple EOA.

Table 10: Summary ANCOVA results of the underlying dimensions of the Ecological Identity

Scale (N = 211)

Type of environmentally oriented anti-consumption

Dimension F-value p-value Effect Size Simple EOA Sameness 4.968 .027 .023 *

Differentiation 4.435 .036 .021 * Centrality 5.838 .017 .027 * Difficult EOA Sameness .418 .518 .002

Differentiation .454 .501 .002 Centrality .277 .599 .001

** Significant and at the 0.01 level * Significant and at the 0.05 level

4.4 Testing Pro-Environmental Consumption

investigating the EOA behavior of participants. Therefore, it was more likely that subjects answered truly and not accordingly to what they thought could look best for them or what the researchers wanted to hear. On the other hand, the pro-environmental consumption scenarios provided additional information to the analysis and thereby added more depth to the investigation of the effect of ego-depletion on environmental behaviors.

In order to test if ego depletion also has an effect on pro-environmental consumption behavior, the same analyses applied to Hypothesis 1 were conducted (see Appendix B). To compare the results of anti-consumption and environmental behavior, the pro-environmental consumption scenarios were also treated like a construct. Therefore, a PCA and a reliability analysis were conducted. Due to low communalities and loadings, one of the items (“I separate trash and recycle glass and paper”) had to be taken out. The PCA (KMO = .713, Bartlett’s test: p < .001) suggested that all remaining pro-environmental consumption scenarios built one factor based on the eigenvalues. All items were loading this factor in the same direction, indicating one unified “pro-environmental consumption” construct. Also, the reliability analysis of this construct confirmed that the factor was relatively robust (ᾳ=.701).

To examine whether ego depletion has an effect on the likelihood of pro-environmental consumption behavior, an additional ANOVA was conducted. Again, assuming that this analysis is considerably robust against non-normality, all three assumptions for a univariate analysis were satisfied. The ANOVA showed that there was no statistical significant difference between groups of ego depletion on the likelihood of pro-environmental consumption behavior (Mego depletion = 4.73, Mno ego depletion = 4.64, F (1,209) = 1.162, p = .282). Additionally, a two-way

ANOVA with interaction effect and several ANCOVAs were performed to test for a moderation effect of ecological identity. The results were in line with the findings of the EOA behavior (see Appendix C).

4.5 Additional Testing

likelihood of simple and difficult EOA as well as for the likelihood of pro-environmental consumption in general (see Table 11). These scores ranged from -1.0652 to +.3884. In line with the previous findings, participants were most likely to engage in pro-environmental consumption compared to the average, whereas they were least likely to engage in difficult EOA compared to the average.

Table 11: Summary of mean-centered z-scores of the environmentally oriented anti-consumption and

pro-environmental consumption scenarios (N = 211)

Behavior Scenario Mean-centered

z-scores Environmentally

oriented anti-consumption

“If my favorite chocolate contains palm oil, I will stop buying it.” -.7547 “I buy plastic straws for my party to serve my guests cocktails.” -.0865 “I stop eating meat because of my carbon footprint.” -1.3756 “If it is raining, I take my car to go to university or work although it is

just a very short distance.”

-.1908

“I buy a plastic bag at the grocery store to carry home the food products I just bought.”

.6765

“I will keep buying avocados, although its cultivation needs a lot of water.” -.9538 Simple EOA .1331 Difficult EOA -1.0652 Pro-environmental consumption

“I buy organic fruits and vegetables instead of commonly produced fruits and vegetables.”

-.8021

“I use green energy produced from renewable resources.” 1.3969 “When I see someone leaving their garbage in a public area, I pick it up

and put it in the trash bin.”

.1457

“I separate trash and recycle glass and paper.” .7429 “If I have enough income, I could imagine donating up to 50 Euros per

year to a pro-environmental organization such as Green Peace.”

.2216

“If I have the choice, I would purchase products made by an eco-friendly business.”

.9799

Pro-environmental consumption .3884

5.

DISCUSSION

5.1 General Discussion

has demonstrated that there is a significant difference between pro-environmental consumption, simple EOA as well as difficult EOA; not only in terms of how likely individuals are to engage in the different types of environmental behavior, but also in terms of automaticity and requirement of cognitive resources and ego depletion. Thereby, this study demonstrates five main findings.

Firstly, a significant difference between simple and difficult EOA behavior was found. This difference can be explained by the degree of sacrifice individuals have to make. While engaging in simple EOA implies solely small lifestyle changes, individuals acting upon difficult EOA forego consuming essential products of their daily lives. Therefore, it is easier for most individuals to build reasons against certain consumptive actions of simple EOA than for consumptive actions of difficult EOA because it is not as effortful.

Secondly, this study provides evidence that there is a variation in the likelihood of engaging in certain environmental behaviors. It was found that, in general, individuals are most likely to engage in pro-environmental consumption, followed by simple EOA and individuals are least likely to engage in difficult EOA. These findings establish an order of environmental behaviors which is determined by two main aspects, namely the degree of sacrifice and the level of environmental values. On the one hand, the larger the sacrifice, the higher is the threat of a motivational conflict. Therefore, the less likely individuals act upon an environmental behavior that requires foregoing. While pro-environmental consumption mostly consists of consuming green alternatives to common consumption options (Lee et al., 2014) and hence does not require any great sacrifice, simple and difficult EOA each include a sacrifice component in their conceptualization (Baumeister & Vohs, 2007). On the other hand, the higher the sacrifice the greater is the required level of environmental values to avoid the motivational conflict. However, not all individuals have high environmental values and hence the fewer individuals engage in the respective behavior when high environmental values are demanded. In order to engage in EOA, the development of reasons against is required (García-de-Frutos et al., 2018). These reasons against are built on an individual’s environmental values and beliefs (Black & Cherrier, 2010; Cherrier et al., 2011). Therefore, engaging in EOA asks for more environmental values than engaging in pro-environmental consumption. Hence, taking these two aspects together, individuals are most likely to engage in pro-environmental consumption and least likely to act upon difficult EOA.

On the one hand, regulating the self is effortful and taxes cognitive resources. Thus, there is a push and pull between the desire of consumption and the self-control to resist which leads to a greater likelihood of motivational conflicts (Hoch & Loewenstein, 1991). These motivational conflicts, in turn, are hard to overcome with the lower level of environmental values simple EOA requires compared to difficult EOA. On the other hand, when individuals are ego-depleted, their willpower and motivation to overwrite lower processes with higher processes decreases and self-regulation failures occur (Baumeister et al., 1996). Hence, individuals who are ego depleted are less likely to engage in simple EOA.

Fourthly, the opposite was established for difficult EOA. Although not significant, a small positive effect of ego depletion on difficult EOA behavior was found. Thus, this study provides evidence that those individuals who are engaging in effortful and difficult anti-consumption behavior cannot be ego depleted when it comes to EOA. In fact, ego depletion even increases the likelihood of engaging in difficult EOA. Thereby, there are two arguments which support this finding. On the one hand, it is suggested that environmental values and beliefs are an inherent part of human nature (Cornelessin et al., 2011). Value-based decisions are usually the result of quick, automatic evaluations or intuitions, which are influenced by factors incorporated in an individual’s personality (Haidt, 2001). Thus, the environmentally motivated reasons against of individuals acting upon difficult EOA do not require any willpower or extra motivation to be executed because these individuals act upon their self-interest when engaging in difficult EOA. On the other hand, the positive effect of ego depletion on difficult EOA is based on the fact that individuals, who are not ego depleted and have time to consider their behavior, might override their initial tendency. They act less environmentally concerned when they have to refrain from consumption compared to those individuals who are ego depleted (Cornelessin et al., 2011). Hence, ego depletion does not only have no effect on difficult EOA, but it is implied that ego depletion even fosters the likelihood of engaging in difficult EOA.