Green consumption: If I could, I would?
The relationship between financial deprivation, green consumption, anticipated guilt, and price.
by
Jessica Paas
January 2021
Green consumption: If I could, I would?
The relationship between financial deprivation, green consumption, anticipated guilt, and price.
Master Thesis of:
Jessica Paas (S2993171)
j.l.paas@student.rug.nl MSc Marketing Management
Faculty of Economics and Business University of Groningen
January 2021
First supervisor:
Dr. M. Keizer
Second supervisor:
Dr. J. Berger
Abstract
Firms are increasingly concerned with offering green products. However, due to the COVID-19 global pandemic, economic hardship lies ahead of us, and it may become harder for consumers to engage in relatively expensive green consumption. The current paper addresses this concern by examining the effect of resource scarcity (financial deprivation) on green consumption. The paper further aims to explore the role of ‘anticipated guilt’ in this effect. Prior literature established
‘anticipated guilt’ to be an important driver of prosocial behavior. However, to feel anticipated guilt, consumers need to feel in control over their actions and take responsibility. As resource scarcity is found to decrease a consumer's sense of control, the current paper hypothesizes that resource scarcity leads to a lower feeling of anticipated guilt, which consequently leads to a lower amount of green consumption. The lack of control will be even less in situations where the price is high and financially deprived consumers ascribe their choice to ‘not being able’ to buy green.
Therefore, price serves as an important boundary condition. To analyze these hypotheses an online survey was conducted. Using a moderated mediation analysis, no significant relationship among the variables was found. Even though anticipated guilt did lead to green consumption, resource scarcity did not lead to a lower amount of guilt and price did not moderate this effect. Moreover, there was no direct relationship found between resource scarcity and green consumption. In sum, there is no evidence found for the mediated moderation model proposed in the paper. Despite that no support is found for the proposed model, the results do offer some interesting theoretical and practical insights.
Keywords: resource scarcity, financial deprivation, green consumption, anticipated guilt, price
Introduction
Prompted by the 2008 financial crisis, and perhaps accelerated by the consequences of the COVID- 19 global pandemic, the academic interest in scarcity has taken an upturn and positioned itself with social relevance (Goldsmith, Griskevicius & Hamilton, 2020). As millions of people still experience financial constraints every day (Hamilton, Mittal, Shah, Thompson & Griskevicius, 2019b), one can argue it is critical to understand the consequences of scarcity on consumer behavior.
The consumer behavior of interest in this paper is ‘green consumption’, which is another prominent trend within the marketplace. Whilst green consumption addresses many types of behaviors, this paper specifically looks at the buying intention of green products. These products are
“manufactured with attention to minimizing the exploitation of natural resources, the use of toxic materials, or the emission of waste and pollutants” (Amatulli, Angelis, Peluso, Soscia & Guido, 2017, p.1111).
In the past years, firms have become increasingly concerned with offering ‘green’ alternatives for their traditional counterparts (Haws, Winterich & Naylor, 2014). However, because of the COVID-19 global pandemic, economic hardship lies ahead of us, and it may become harder for consumers to engage in relatively expensive green consumption. Literature shows that green consumption is perceived as more expensive (Johnstone & Tan, 2015), and also is 20% more expensive in reality (Griskevicius, Tybur & Van den Bergh, 2010). Thus, it may become harder for some consumers to buy green. Therefore, it is especially in these times interesting to look at what consequences resource scarcity would have on green consumer behavior specifically.
A recent literature review on resource scarcity mentioned how the academic research up till now mostly focused on cognitive associations linked to scarcity and the subsequent consumer behavior (Goldsmith, Griskevicius & Hamilton, 2020). For example, resource scarcity activates a
‘competitive orientation’ and consequently drives selfish, as opposed to prosocial consumer
behavior, advancing a consumer's own welfare (Roux, Goldsmith & Bonezzi, 2015). As green
consumption is seen as a type of prosocial behavior (White, Habib & Dahl, 2019), this suggests
resource scarcity should result in a lower purchase intention for green products.
To expand the knowledge beyond just the cognitive associations to scarcity, inquiring about the emotional responses to scarcity is a fruitful opportunity (Goldsmith, Griskevicius & Hamilton, 2020). As scarcity is defined as “a discrepancy between one’s current level of resources and a higher, more desirable reference point” (Cannon, Goldsmith & Roux, 2019, p.105), it may not be surprising that resource scarcity is associated with negative affect. However, this does not tell us much about what specific emotions are evoked (Goldsmith, Griskevicius & Hamilton, 2020).
Interestingly, little research has examined the specific emotions evoked by resource scarcity.
Concerning the relationship between resource scarcity and prosocial behavior, this seems like a missed opportunity because according to White, Habib & Dahl (2019), emotions are perceived to be an important driver of prosocial behavior.
White, Habib & Dahl (2019) specifically name the feeling of guilt to be an important driver of prosocial behavior. Moreover, the anticipation of future guilt can even drive ethical consumer behavior as well (Steenhaut & Van Kenhove, 2006). This is why the current paper builds on that notion and contributes by exploring the role of ‘anticipated guilt’ in the relationship between resource scarcity and green consumption. This translates into the following question:
“Does resource scarcity influence green consumption and how does the emotion anticipated guilt play a role in this effect?”
Literature shows that the more people feel they are in control over their actions, the more responsible they feel for them, and thus feel guilty (Caouette, Wohl & Peetz, 2012). However, financially deprived consumers are argued to feel less control (Cannon, Goldsmith & Roux, 2019).
Therefore, this article proposes that financially deprived consumers feel less ‘anticipated guilt’. In turn, this would lead them to be less likely to engage in prosocial consumer behavior. Thus,
‘anticipated guilt’ should specifically act as a mediator in the relationship between resource
scarcity and green consumption.
However, for financially deprived consumers the feeling of control would be even lower in situations when the price is high. In this case, consumers could ascribe their choice to the fact that they are not ‘able’ to buy green. If so, taking away this disadvantage by making the green option the same price as the regular option would diminish the negative effect of resource scarcity on anticipated guilt. This is why the current paper poses price to be an important boundary condition.
Only when the price is high, resource scarcity leads to a lower amount of anticipated guilt, leading
to a lower amount of green consumption.
Theoretical Background
Resource scarcity and prosocial behavior
In the past decade, many researchers have examined the effects of financial constraints on consumer behavior. However, Hamilton et al. (2019b) have established that not all literature regarding resource scarcity refers to the same thing. Thus, despite the increasing academic interest in scarcity, consensus in a definition is not yet existing.
In an attempt to formulate an all-encompassing definition of resource scarcity, Cannon, Goldsmith
& Roux (2019) found that the presence of an unfavorable discrepancy in resource levels is a common theme across many definitions. Therefore, they define resource scarcity as “a discrepancy between one’s current level of resources and a higher, more desirable reference point” (Cannon, Goldsmith & Roux, 2019, p.105). From this point of view, scarcity can take many forms. Scarcity could be existing across products, food, time, or money (Cannon, Goldsmith & Roux, 2019).
However, Hamilton et al. (2019a) further differentiate between ‘product scarcity’ and ‘resource scarcity’. In this division, a contrast is made between a lack in ‘goods & services’ (e.g. food or products) and a lack in the resources to be able to purchase those goods and services (i.e. time or money).
The current paper focuses on the latter version, resource scarcity. We specifically focus on resource scarcity in the domain of money. Sharma & Alter (2012) explain this to be a subset of resource scarcity, referring to it as ‘financial deprivation’. Financially deprived consumers “feel financially
‘inferior’ or ‘worse off’ relative to a salient comparison standard because they perceive a deficit in their financial resources” (p.546). The ‘salient comparison standard’ mentioned within this definition refers to a consumer’s standard of living. Thus, the definition describes the feeling of having not enough money for the way you want to live your life. Because ‘money’ is the main focus of this research, this paper will refer to consumers experiencing resource scarcity as
‘financially deprived consumers’.
To fully understand the different responses to resource scarcity, Cannon et al. (2019) have
developed a framework. This framework categorizes two different psychological routes in which
consumers can engage when they experience resource scarcity, depending on the mutability of the situation. Within their paper, the mutability of the situation is explained to be the extent to which consumers perceive the situation to be changeable when enough effort is invested (i.e. time, money, cognitive or physical).
When consumers have the feeling, they cannot change their situation, even when enough effort is exerted (i.e. low mutability), resource scarcity poses a psychological threat to a consumer's personal control. Within this situation, the researchers explain consumers will engage in the control-restoration route. Within this route, consumers cannot directly resolve the lack of resources and therefore engage in behaviors that try to restore their sense of control (Cannon, Goldsmith & Roux, 2019). An example of such behavior is called ‘compensatory consumption’, in which consumers engage in consumer behavior aimed at reducing self-discrepancy (Mandel, Rucker, Levav & Galinsky, 2017). For instance, Walasek & Brown (2015) show that greater income inequality leads to a higher search for status goods (i.e. designer brands or expensive jewelry). Buying these status goods can help a consumer to regain a sense of control outside of the domain of the scarce resource. Thus, when scarcity depletes the sense of control a direct result of this can be purchasing status goods.
On the contrary, whenever consumers believe there is a way in which they can reduce their lack of resources (i.e. high mutability), consumers are likely to engage in the scarcity-reduction route.
Within the scarcity-reduction route consumers acknowledge the lack of a specific resource and
believe that when enough effort is exerted, they can lower this deficit. Therefore, consumers
engaging in this route will show behaviors that are directly aimed at resolving the lack of resources,
e.g., shifting their focus on attaining and retaining the resource that is lacking. Shah, Mullainathan,
and Shafir (2012) demonstrate that this shift in attentional focus causes financially deprived
consumers to be more occupied with thoughts related to money, compared to rich consumers. With
that, Roux, Goldsmith & Bonezzi (2015) explain resource scarcity also increases the value
associated with the scarce resource. In other words, in the eyes of a poor customer, money will be
more valuable. As a response financially deprived people prioritize the scarce resource (Fernbach,
Kan & Lynch Jr., 2015), and would do anything to acquire the lacking resource. For instance,
Sharma, Mazar, Alter & Ariely (2014) established that financially deprived people are more likely
to display immoral behavior if doing so would lead to acquiring money. Thus, resource scarcity
shifts focus on money, which causes people to be more occupied with acquiring and retaining money.
While it may seem logical to assume that financially deprived people would do anything to retain their resources, the theorizing above suggests responses to resource scarcity are not that straightforward. On the one hand, resource scarcity can shift focus to money, resulting in behaviors aimed at acquiring and retaining the money (Cannon, Goldsmith & Roux, 2019). While on the other hand, resource scarcity can elicit behaviors that are seen as rather irrational, such as seeking status products (Walasek & Brown, 2015). Thus, the effect of resource scarcity on general consumer behavior is a bit contradictory.
The same contradictory results hold for the effect of resource scarcity on prosocial consumer behavior (Roux, Goldsmith & Bonezzi, 2015). On the one hand, research suggests that resource scarcity increases prosocial behavior. This is supported by data showing how lower-income Americans give a higher proportion of their income to charity than higher-income Americans (Kraus et al., 2012). In particular, a survey revealed that households with an income under $25,000 donated 4,2% of this income to charity, while households earning more than $75,000 contributed only 2,7% of their income to charity. While the researchers state there might be alternative explanations, they do perceive the difference in social class to be one of the determinants. A study by Piff, Kraus, Côté, Cheng & Keltner (2010) illustrates this effect by conducting controlled laboratory experiments. One of their studies shows that participants with low socioeconomic status, compared to higher-class participants, were willing to give up to around 40% more of their 10-point gift they were going to receive in this study to an anonymous other (Piff et al., 2010). To conclude, research suggests that resource scarcity might have a positive effect on prosocial behavior.
However, other research suggests that resource scarcity decreases prosocial behavior. A study
serving as an example for this theory used a lost letter method to test for prosocial behavior. They
describe this to be a good indicator for altruistic tendencies as it elicits only a small amount of
benefit and only a small cost to the person finding the letter needing to return it. In this experiment,
300 letters were dropped in 20 different neighborhoods. The results show how people living in low
socioeconomic status neighborhoods are less likely to return the dropped letter and thus show
altruistic behavior, compared to wealthier neighborhoods (Holland, Silva & Mace, 2012). A recent study by Zwirner & Raihani (2020) added two different helping experiments to the lost letter method to gain a better understanding: (1) help returning a dropped item and (2) allowing one to cross a road. In their experiments, the researchers wanted to explore whether urbanicity, population density, or neighborhood wealth explained the probability of helping. Their data did not find any effect of urbanicity or population density on people’s altruistic tendencies, however, they did find this effect for neighborhood wealth. With that the higher the level of deprivation, the lower the likelihood of helping, showing the importance of socio-economic status. However, this is the total opposite of the studies described earlier, in which a low socio-economic status resulted in a higher amount of helping behavior.
To find out what causes these conflicting research outcomes, Roux, Goldsmith & Bonezzi (2015) tried to gain a deeper understanding of the psychological processes that are caused by resource scarcity. Their framework demonstrates that resource scarcity activates a so-called ‘competitive orientation’. This is a motivational strategy that causes consumers to guide behavior that is aimed at advancing their own welfare. They explain this competitive mindset caused by a cognitive link between competition and scarcity. To illustrate this effect, the researchers asked participants in a study whether they wanted to donate $1 of their participant payment to a good cause, or whether they wanted to keep this money for themselves. The results show that participants in the resource scarcity condition were more likely to keep the money for themselves, as opposed to donating it.
The underlying mediator explaining this effect was indeed the activation of a competitive orientation, resulting in ‘selfish’ behavior.
While most of the time a competitive orientation leads to selfish behavior, Roux, Goldsmith &
Bonezzi (2015) further reveal this is not always the case. Their study demonstrates that consumers
reminded of resource scarcity were more likely to give a gift when the personal benefits of this act
were made salient to the consumer (e.g., securing future favors of the gift recipient). Moreover,
these consumers were even willing to spend more money on that gift. Thus, this research shows
that when personal benefits are made salient to the customer, the same competitive orientation
elicited by resource scarcity could result in prosocial behavior as well.
Altogether, prior literature on the effect of resource scarcity on prosocial consumer behavior seemed to be rather contradicting. On the one hand, it showed to be positively related to prosocial behavior, while on the other hand, it showed to be negatively related to prosocial behavior. A possible explanation given for these contradicting behaviors is the ‘competitive mindset’ discussed by Roux, Goldsmith & Bonezzi (2015), which guides people into either prosocial or selfish consumer behavior. As the ‘competitive mindset’ plays a role in the relationship between resource scarcity and prosocial consumer behavior, the present paper further builds on this notion.
Green consumption
This paper looks at a specific type of prosocial behavior: green consumption. Within the literature, the term green consumption is used interchangeably with many other terms, such as
‘environmentally responsible consumption’, ‘environmentally friendly consumption’, or ‘pro- environmental consumption’ (Nguyen, H., Nguyen, C., Hoang, 2018). Furthermore, it has been viewed as a subset of ethical consumption. While ethical consumption focuses on benefiting society at large, green consumption only focuses on environmental issues (Johnstone & Tan, 2015). However, the basic notion is that it includes the goal of minimizing negative effects on the environment (Nguyen, H., Nguyen, C., Hoang, 2018).
In a broader sense, green consumption behavior could also implicate recycling behavior or protecting waterways (Johnstone & Tan, 2015). But to narrow it down and for the purpose of this research, we use the term green consumption for addressing the adoption of green products. These are products that are “manufactured with attention to minimizing the exploitation of natural resources, the use of toxic materials, or the emission of waste and pollutants” (Amatulli, Angelis, Peluso, Soscia & Guido, 2017, p.1111).
In recent years the term green consumption has become a hot topic and consumers increasingly
become aware of the importance of environmental concern (Nguyen, H., Nguyen, C., Hoang,
2018). Moreover, a survey running in the UK revealed how a quarter of the respondents were even
willing to pay a price premium for ethical, organic, and greener cleaning products (Johnstone &
Tan, 2015). Thus, it comes as no surprise that firms started introducing green alternatives and focused more and more on their ‘corporate social responsibility’ (Johnstone & Tan, 2015).
However, despite the increase in environmental consciousness and an increase in the availability of green alternatives, consumers are not adopting green goods and services accordingly (Gleim, Smith, Andrews & Cronin, 2013). Within the literature, this is often explained to be ‘the green gap’ (ElHaffar, Durif & Dubé, 2020). To demonstrate this gap with actual numbers Gleim et al., (2013) report that even though more people become aware of the issues related to the environment, the market share for green products is only four percent worldwide.
In their paper, Johnstone & Tan (2015) aim to understand the underlying reasons for this green gap. In other words, they aim to gain an understanding of why consumers claim to be concerned for the environment, but subsequently do not choose to buy green products on a regular basis. To find out they employed a qualitative research method, in which they conducted several focus groups. Their findings demonstrate that one of the reasons for the so-called green gap is the perception of consumers that ‘it is too hard to be green’ (p.316). Consumers think green consumption behavior is not something everyone can carry out. Moreover, green consumption is often associated with resources necessary, such as time, money, knowledge, and perceived sacrifice. Therefore, consumers doubt whether they will be able to commit to it and think that to be able to engage in green behavior, they must have the resources (i.e. time or money). Thus, Johnstone & Tan (2015) consider green consumption behavior as “haute couture” and “not ready- to-wear”, as green products are viewed as exclusive and only available for those who are both willing and able to incur the costs (p. 322). Concerning the current study, if financially deprived consumers view green consumption as something that you have to have the resources for, it makes it especially hard for them to engage in green consumption. They simply do not have the resources.
In a real life, green products are not only perceived as expensive but also are more expensive. In
fact, research shows green products have a price that is around 20 percent higher than their regular
counterpart (Griskevicius, Tybur & Van den Bergh, 2010). This creates a particular tradeoff choice
between benefiting the self or benefiting society at large.
However, remember that resource scarcity elicits a ‘competitive orientation'. In the previous section, we explained how this competitive orientation can drive people towards choices that are benefitting the self. Since green products are often 20 percent more expensive, this extra payment is a prosocial act, that only benefits society at large. If the consumer would choose a regular product, he would spare himself these higher costs, benefitting the self. Therefore, one can argue that there could be a negative relationship between resource scarcity and green consumption.
Drawing from this notion, the current paper hypothesizes that financially deprived consumers will express a lower purchase intention for (relatively expensive) green products, benefitting society at large. This expectation is translated into the following hypothesis:
H1. Financially deprived consumers are less likely to purchase green products than consumers who are not financially deprived.
The mediating effect of anticipated guilt
Guilt is a common form of emotional distress experienced by people (Baumeister, Stillwell &
Heatherton, 1994), which involves being tense, remorseful, and worried (Onwezen, Bartels &
Antonides, 2014). Prior literature has defined guilt as “an individual’s unpleasant emotional state associated with possible objections to his or her actions, inaction, circumstances or intentions.
Guilt is an aroused form of emotional distress that is distinct from fear and anger and based on the possibility that one may be in the wrong” (Baumeister, Stillwell & Heatherton, 1994, p. 245).
Within the field of research, evidence supports that negative emotional states can be a driver of prosocial behavior, as consumers wish to repair their negative affective state (Cialdini et al., 1987).
A recent literature review on the concept of ‘prosocial behavior’ specifically names guilt to be an
effective motivator (White, Habib & Dahl, 2020). For instance, Basil, Ridgway & Basil (2006)
showed how guilt increases the intention to give to charity. In their paper, the researchers explored
whether advertisements that induced the feeling of guilt with the use of a guilt appeal, caused
participants to be more likely to donate to charity, compared to advertisements that did not induce
that feeling of guilt. Participants were randomly assigned across various advertisements. They
The texts either induced the feeling of guilt or was just asking participants to donate. The results confirmed the hypothesis that guilt increases donation intention. Furthermore, they uncovered that responsibility is acting as a mediator in this relationship.
However, guilt is only shown to be effective when participants did not perceive manipulative intent (White, Habib & Dahl, 2020). This was found by Hibbert, Smith, Davies & Ireland (2007). They used a stimuli-driven survey to gather data, in which they presented guilt appeals to participants and then measured perceived manipulative intent, the level of guilt, and the consequent donation intention. Their data shows how a higher level of guilt increases donation intention. Moreover, the higher participants perceive they are being manipulated, the less guilt they feel.
Furthermore, guilt is only found to be effective when the level of guilt is not too high (White et al., 2020). This was tested by Coulter & Pinto (1995). In their study, the researchers developed three advertisements, varying in their levels of guilt (i.e. low, medium, and high guilt arousal). The participants were assigned to different conditions and were then asked about their emotional response, attitudes, and purchase intentions across various product categories (i.e. bread and dental floss). The results of the study reveal important information about the dynamics of guilt appeals.
It shows that low- or moderate-level guilt appeals are effective, but high-level guilt appeals result in anger, which consequently spills over to a lower purchase intention. This result was explained by the mediating effect of anger. When guilt appeals were too intensive, people felt it as an attack and became angry. This heightened level of anger results in a lessened level of purchase intention.
Moreover, Duhachek, Agrawal, and Han (2012) demonstrated that currently felt guilt leads consumers to be more problem-focused on coping with their problem. They theorize that guilt appears when past behavior has caused a violation in an individual's morality and they take responsibility for this act. Thus, when individuals feel guilty, they see themselves as the cause, which makes them eager to change the situation around and take reparative actions, (i.e.
apologizing or undoing). With that, individuals hope to alleviate the felt guilt. To demonstrate this
theory, Duhachek et al. (2012) did a study in which they designed an anti-drinking advertisement
and manipulated the emotion type and message frame. Ninety-two undergraduate students
participated and were randomly assigned across the conditions, after which they completed several
behavioral measures. Then, the participants completed questions about their coping strategies.
Their study found supporting evidence that guilt activates a problem-focused coping strategy.
However, the findings described above do not only hold for the current state of guilt. Steenhaut and Van Kenhove (2006) reveal that even the anticipation of future guilt could lead to ‘solving the problem’. They explain that when consumers are confronted with an ethically questionable situation (e.g. choosing an unethical product), consumers will take into account the feeling of guilt that might occur after their decision. Consequently, the more guilt someone thinks he/she will experience, the more he/she is likely not to engage in such behavior (Steenhaut & Kenhove, 2006).
For the purpose of this research, it is important to further differentiate guilt from ‘anticipated guilt’.
While guilt focuses on the current state, anticipated guilt signals that a specific act is not acceptable and thus needs to be interrupted or avoided (Steenhaut & van Kenhove, 2006). With respect to the current study, consumers might anticipate not engaging in green consumer behavior would elicit a feeling of guilt. If so, these consumers might want to avoid this act resulting in green purchase behavior.
An important driver of the feeling of guilt is shown to be the acceptance of responsibility. With
that, the more people feel they are in control over their actions, the more responsible they feel for
them, and thus feel guilty (Caouette, Wohl & Peetz, 2012). This is in line with the findings of
Tracy & Robins (2006), who explain that people who feel they are in control over their harm-
doing, tend to feel guilty as opposed to shame. In their study, Tracy & Robins (2006) assessed
whether college students attributed their academic performance to the effort, a controllable cause,
or to ability, an uncontrollable cause. Next, they measured the emotional reaction to their
performance. The data revealed that individuals attributing their grades to ‘effort’, tended to feel
guilty, while individuals attributing their grades to ‘ability’, tended to feel ashamed. However,
Tracy & Robins (2006) used correlational methods, which can only explain a correlation, not being
able to rule out other explanations making it questionable whether a causal relationship can be
established. Therefore, two other experimental studies were employed in which emotions and the
attributions (controllability) were manipulated. These findings again revealed the positive relation
between controllable attributions and guilt.
Remember that financially deprived consumers are experiencing a threat to their personal control (Cannon, Goldsmith & Roux, 2019). Financially deprived consumers may have the feeling that choosing an unethical product lays out of their control, as their lack of resources is responsible for their choice. This consequently leads to a justification for their unethical behavior, leading to a lower level of anticipated guilt. On the other hand, consumers that do not experience financial deprivation, do not experience this threat to their personal control. Therefore, they might feel in charge of their behavior, which in turn leads to a higher feeling of anticipated guilt. This makes them more likely to engage in green consumer behavior, than financially deprived consumers.
This theory leads to the formulation of the following hypothesis:
H2. Anticipated guilt mediates the negative effect of resource scarcity on green consumption, as such that resource scarcity leads to a lower amount of anticipated guilt consequently leading to a lower purchase intention for green products compared to consumers who are not financially deprived.
The moderating effect of price
Prosocial behavior is theorized to contain some sort of self-sacrifice for the benefit of other people or society as a whole (White, Habib & Dahl, 2019). For example, referring back to the lost letter method used to measure prosocial intentions (Holland, et al., 2012), the individuals were tested whether they were willing to give up a piece of their time in order to benefit someone else. Thus, deciding whether to act prosocial clearly depends on the willingness of the individual to incur those costs.
With respect to consumer behavior, consumers depend their purchase intent on an assessment of the benefits and the costs (Cheng, Tuan Chang & Kang Lee, 2020). However, with green consumer behavior, the assessment of costs and benefits is quite different. This is because, unlike with traditional products, the benefit of green consumer behavior is mostly never seen by consumers;
its effects are long-term and mostly serve society as a whole (Cheng, Tuan Chang & Kang Lee,
2020). Thus, green consumption often entails a choice-task between immediate benefits to the self
(lower price) and incurring higher costs to benefit society as a whole.
Notice how price seems to play a big role within this choice-task. Within the literature, the importance of price within green consumer behavior is expressed in many articles. For example, Goldsmith, Roux & Wilson (2020) show how resource scarcity leads to a competitive mindset.
however, this only seemed to be the case when the cost to the self was perceived to be high (i.e.
the price of the product was high). Thus, in their framework, the price was an important boundary condition for the competitive mindset. Only when the price is high, one’s welfare is threatened.
The higher price forces the consumers into having to make a trade-off decision between benefitting the self (by buying the cheaper regular product), versus benefitting the society at large (by incurring the higher cost of the sustainable product).
But how does price influence the current framework? As explained earlier within this study, responsibility taken for one's actions is an important determinant of guilt (Caouette, Wohl & Peetz, 2012). However, recall that the current framework hypothesizes that financially deprived people do not take responsibility for their actions, as they ascribe their choice to the fact that they are not
‘able’ to buy green. If so, taking away this disadvantage by making the green option the same price as the regular option would diminish the negative effect of resource scarcity on anticipated guilt.
What follows from this, is the prediction that price serves as an important boundary condition.
Only when the price is high, conflicting motives will arise and consumers need to make a trade- off decision between being good to the self, versus being good to society. Thus, within our framework resource scarcity should only lead to a lower level of anticipated guilt, when the cost to the self is high (i.e. price of the green product is high), so that their sense of responsibility is low. This is translated into the following hypotheses:
H3. Price moderates the effect of resource scarcity on anticipated guilt, as such that only in
situations where the price is high, resource scarcity leads to a lower amount of anticipated guilt
compared to consumers who are not financially deprived.
Taken together, this leads to the following conceptual model:
Figure 1: Conceptual Model Resource Scarcity
Anticipated Guilt
Green Consumption
Price
Methodology
Participants and Design
This study employed a 2 (resource scarcity, yes/no) x 2 (price high vs. same level) between-subject design, resulting in 4 different conditions. The participants were randomly assigned across these 4 conditions. To gather data, an online survey was created with Qualtrics, subsequently shared through Facebook, Linked In, and WhatsApp. From the N = 343 participants that initially started the survey, only n = 194 participants completed the entire survey. Therefore, this resulted in a total of N = 194 participants included in this study (see Table 1). This sample consists of 64 (33%) men and 130 (67%) women. With that, the participants had a minimum age of 18 and a maximum age of 59, with an average age of 25 (M = 24.75, SD = 6.41).
Table 1.
Descriptives of the sample
Participants
(N = 194)
M % SD
Age 24.75 6.41
Gender
Men 33
Women 67
Procedure
When participants entered the survey, they were first welcomed and thanked for their willingness
to participate. Furthermore, they were introduced to the study and informed that the research
regards consumer behavior and would question their purchase intentions. Also, the participants
were told the responses are confidential and will be kept anonymous. Moreover, they were asked
to answer truthfully and seriously and were assured there are no right or wrong answers; we were just looking for their opinion.
After the introduction, participants were confronted with a ‘cover story’. This cover story was telling them that before they would continue with the main survey, they would enter a survey of a fellow thesis group member (Saskia) first. It was told that Saskia needed many respondents, which was why we helped her to gather data. In reality, this fictitious survey was made up, because we wanted to include measures for ‘environmental beliefs’ and ‘injunctive normative beliefs’ to be able to control for possible covariance later on in an additional section of the study. However, including these questions as part of the real research would possibly cause suspicion about the content of this analysis, influencing the answers they would give afterward. To prevent this suspicion, the questions measuring ‘environmental beliefs’ and ‘injunctive normative beliefs’ were presented as a separate study. To make this more believable the survey was presented as an independent study. It looked very different from the ‘main survey’, by changing the type of font en spacing. Also, it had its own introduction in which Saskia thanked the participants for their participation and told them the study was about values in life and how people compared themselves to others respectively.
In the first part of the fictitious additional survey, participants had to fill in some descriptive statistics, including age and gender. After this, the participants were presented with questions regarding their ‘injunctive normative beliefs’ in the domain of green product consumption.
Participants had to rate three items questioning the extent to which they believed that the people who are most important to them, would like them to buy green products. Next, the environmental beliefs were measured. Here participants were confronted with descriptions of values from different types of people. Then, they had to rate the extent to which they believed the person described looked like them. When finished with these questions, the participants were thanked by Saskia for their participation.
After the fictitious additional survey, the participants were redirected to the main survey and they
were told they would now receive questions regarding purchase intention. The participants were
randomly assigned to either the scarcity or non-scarcity mindset manipulation. Participants
assigned to the scarcity condition were asked to write about four episodes when they felt like they
“didn’t have enough of something” or “resources were scarce”. They were next asked to pick two of the episodes they mentioned and describe each of them in detail, explaining what was lacking and what they consequently experienced. People in the control condition followed the same procedure, however, instead of asking about moments of scarcity, they were asked about past activities. To prevent confusion about the purpose of this manipulation, participants were told the writing task was like a memory task used to get loose of any ideas measured in the previous study.
After the scarcity manipulation, both an eco-friendly laundry detergent and a normal laundry detergent were presented. The participants either saw the eco-friendly laundry detergent with a high price or with a price similar to that of the non-green product. The participants were then asked to rate the purchase intention for the eco-friendly laundry detergent. This included two questions, asking about how attractive they found the eco-friendly laundry detergent and how likely they are to purchase the eco-friendly laundry detergent. Then, anticipated guilt was measured by asking how they would feel if they would not buy the green product. To be able to measure some extent of real purchase behavior later on in the study, the two products were presented again, and participants had to choose one of them.
Finally, to check whether the scarcity manipulation had the desired effect, a manipulation check was done. The participants were asked to indicate to what extent they agreed with items such as
‘My resources are scarce’ or Lastly, the participants were thanked for their participation and when
they wanted to take part in the giveaway, they were asked to fill in their email address. You can
find the survey in appendix A.
Materials
Independent variable: resource scarcity
The focus of this study is financially deprived consumers. However, scarcity is perceived to be relative, which means even customers of perceived middle- or high class can at times feel they are lacking resources (Hamilton et al., 2019b), resulting in the same scarcity mindset. Luckily, past literature has shown that resource scarcity can be manipulated (Cannon, Goldsmith & Roux, 2019), allowing us to study the consequences of financial deprivation across a wider range of consumers (Hamilton et al., 2019b). This offers opportunities within the current paper: rather than finding people who are financially deprived, we can manipulate this mindset and test our hypothesis.
Therefore, this study does not restrict to a cutoff point in financial earnings but rather uses a method to manipulate the mindset.
A commonly used manipulation method to induce a scarcity mindset is called the ‘Episodic recall task’. This method is proven to be successful in earlier studies (Roux, Goldsmith & Bonezzi, 2015) and will therefore be used within the current study. Within this method, the participants in the scarcity condition are asked to write about four episodes when they felt like they “didn’t have enough of something” or “resources were scarce”. They were next asked to pick two of the episodes they mentioned and describe each of them in detail, explaining what was lacking and what they consequently experienced. In the control condition, participants were first asked to think about and write down four things that they did during the past week. Then they had to describe in detail two of these events as well (Roux, Goldsmith & Bonezzi, 2015).
Dependent variable: green consumption
The dependent variable within this study is green consumption and was tested by measuring the purchase intention for a green product. This method was drawn and adapted from the research of Goldsmith et al. (2020). To measure green consumption, the participants were confronted with two laundry detergents; one described as a regular laundry detergent (figure 2) and one described as environmentally friendly (figure 3). The laundry detergent was a brand taken from ‘alibaba.com’
and adapted for the purpose of this study. As this brand is only sold through Alibaba and has its
origin in Turkey, we can assume most participants are not familiar with this brand. This unknown brand ensures us that most consumers do not hold any prior preferences that may influence our findings. Furthermore, altering the bottles enabled us to show a green alternative that is similar to the regular product, controlling for effects that can be ascribed to differences in packaging or advertising.
To measure purchase intention two questions were presented. First of all, the measure included the question: “How attractive do you find the green laundry detergent?” Participants had to respond on a 7-point scale ranging from ‘extremely unattractive’ to ‘extremely attractive’. The second question included was: “overall, how likely would you be to buy the green laundry detergent?”
Again, this question had to be replied to on a 7-point scale ranging from ‘extremely unlikely’ to
‘extremely likely’. The reliability analysis showed that the items together had an α = 0.8 and were therefore computed into an aggregate variable, named ‘green consumption’ (M = 4.98, SD = 1.33).
To further explore the effect of resource scarcity on green consumption, a measure of real choice
was included called ‘green choice’. This enabled us to go beyond the formulated hypothesis and
look at what the effect on actual product choice was. To measure the product choice, participants
were presented with both the eco-friendly laundry detergent and the ‘normal’ version of the
laundry detergent. The participants were asked which of the two they would actually buy.
Figure 2: regular laundry detergent Figure 3: eco-friendly laundry detergent (high price)
Mediator: anticipated guilt
To measure anticipated guilt, we used an existing scale adapted from Steenhout & Kenhove (2006). The participants were asked how they would feel if they would choose to buy the non- green variant of the laundry detergent. The traditional scale includes 10 measures. However, as we are only measuring guilt related to buying a laundry detergent, this seems a bit like overstepping.
Therefore, items that were closely related to others in the scale were deleted. This resulted in 6 measures, including items such as “I would feel tension”, or “I would think that I was in the wrong”. The participants had to respond to these on a 7-point Likert scale, ranging from ‘Not at all’ to ‘Very much’. The items showed a strong correlation, and the reliability of the scale was found to be good with an α = 0.87. Therefore, the items were combined in a new variable named
‘anticipated guilt’ (M = 3.10, SD = 1.17).
Moderator: price
The price of the green product was manipulated by presenting the price either to be the same as the non-green product or as 20% more expensive than the non-green product. This is in line with earlier research, in which price was manipulated within the green product category (Griskevicius, Tybur & Van den Bergh, 2010). Looking at the laundry detergent prices in the Netherlands; one can see they cost around 7,59 euros. Therefore, the price of the eco-friendly product in the high price condition was set at 9,19 euros. In the ‘equal price’ condition, the price was the same as the non-green product (€7,59).
Control variable: normative beliefs
As guilt is believed to be a moral emotion and linked to the welfare of other people or society at large, by definition guilt involves the concern for the violation of social standards (Steenhaut &
van Kenhove, 2006). This means that social standards could be influencing the level of anticipated guilt and consequently influencing consumer behavior, creating possible noise. Therefore, to control for such effects, this study includes a measure for injunctive normative beliefs about green consumption. In literature, these are explained to be norms describing what people typically approve of doing (e.g. not littering) (Elgaaied-Gambier, Monnot, Reniou, 2018).
The injunctive normative beliefs were measured by using a scale from Kim, Lee & Hur (2012).
This scale includes three items: “Most people who are important to me think that purchasing
environmentally friendly products is desirable”, “Most people who are important to me think that
I should buy environmentally friendly products” & “I would buy an environment-friendly product
for the recognition I get from others”. Participants had to rate these items on a scale ranging from
1 (completely disagree) to 7 (completely agree). The data reveals that the items were highly
correlated, and reliability was found to be good with a score of α = 0.69. Therefore, a new variable
was computed, named ‘injunctive normative beliefs’ (M = 4.02, SD = 1.05).
Control variable: environmental beliefs
Another possible factor that might influence the feeling of anticipated guilt is the environmental beliefs of an individual. To control for this type of noise, the survey included measures to capture the environmental values. In doing so, the Environmental Portrait Value Questionnaire (E-PVQ) was used. Normally the environmental values are measured according to an adapted version of the Schwartz Value Survey (SVS), however current research demonstrated that the new E-PVQ scale is easier to answer for participants (Bouman, Steg & Kiers, 2018). Moreover, it allows us to measure environmental values in an indirect manner. Especially the latter is important to the current study, as we want to avoid that almost everything within the survey would be about environmental issues. Therefore, using the E-PVQ is a good way to still be able to measure environmental beliefs, without raising suspicion about the goal of the research.
The E-PVQ specifically measures 4 values: biospheric, altruistic, egoistic, and hedonic (Bouman, Steg & Kiers, 2018). In doing so the participants are confronted with 17 items, all corresponding to one of the 4 values and displayed in random order. The items are presented as values of another fictitious person. For example: “It is important to him/her to be in unity of nature” or “It is important to him/her that every person has equal opportunities''. Then participants had to indicate on a 7-point scale to what extent they believed the person described was like them. The scale ranged from ‘not like me at all’ to ‘very much like me’. Notice how the items use ‘him/her’ in their description. In the real survey, the items were gender-matched. This means that women (and
‘other’) were confronted with the female version and men were confronted with the male version.
From the 17 items in the E-PVQ, four items represent the ‘biospheric value’, which is the value of
interest (environmental beliefs). These items were highly correlated with each other. The
reliability was found to be good with an α = 0.84. Therefore, the items were combined into a single
measure named ‘environmental beliefs’ (M = 4.92, SD = 0.96).
Manipulation check
To test whether recalling past experiences of scarcity activated a scarcity mindset, a manipulation check was performed using the method of Roux, Goldsmith & Bonezzi (2015). The participants were asked to indicate the extent to which they agreed with 4 statements regarding their scarcity, such as “My resources are scarce” or “I don’t have enough resources” on a 7-point scale ranging from scale ‘Strongly disagree’ to ‘Strongly agree’. Responses to these items were computed to form the indicator of ‘experienced scarcity’ (α = 0.7, M = 4.04, SD = 1.06).
This check was performed at the end of the survey, as we wanted to make sure that as little as possible interfered between the manipulation and the main measure of this study: green consumption.
Plan of analysis
The proposed model is a moderated mediation model. The mediator within the model is anticipated guilt and acts in the negative relationship between resource scarcity and green product adoption.
To test for such an effect a Conditional Process Analysis is used; the first-stage model specifically (Hayes, 2013). Within this model, the moderator (price) operates in the first stage of the mediation process and acts as a boundary condition for the negative effect of resource scarcity on anticipated guilt.
Moving beyond the hypotheses formulated in this study, it was checked whether price significantly influences green consumption in an additional part of the analysis. To test for this effect an independent samples t-test was used. Moreover, it was checked whether the same results would hold for actual product choice. In order to analyze this effect, a binary logistic regression was used, in which price regressed on product choice.
Finally, an additional analysis was conducted to provide a more precise understanding of the
proposed model. As ‘environmental beliefs’ and ‘injunctive normative beliefs’ about green
consumption could create possible noise, these measures were included as covariates. Like in the
first analysis, a Conditional Process Analysis is used to analyze this (Hayes, 2013).
Results
Preparing for analysis
Before moving on to observing patterns in the data, there was checked whether the data contained abnormalities. When screening the answers given in the writing task of the manipulation, it was found that 9 respondents did not fill in a fourth resource that was lacking (scarcity condition) and 1 respondent did not fill in a fourth activity (control condition). This could possibly distort the extent to which participants felt financially deprived during the study. Therefore, the next section presents an analysis of the manipulation check to assess whether the manipulation was still successful.
Except for the missing data in the manipulation check, no more abnormalities were found, and we could move on to preparing for analysis.
In preparation for analysis, assumptions for the conditional process analysis (regression) were tested. Testing for these assumptions revealed the data of ‘anticipated guilt’ and ‘green consumption’ are normally distributed (see appendix B). As for linearity, homoscedasticity, and independence assumptions, no violations were found. Thus, the analysis could further continue.
Manipulation check
To test whether the scarcity manipulation was still successful, an independent sample t-test was performed with the mindset (scarcity condition yes/no) and experienced scarcity. Despite the absence of the fourth activity or scarce resource for some of the participants, the independent sample t-test was still found to be significant, t (192) = 2.34, p = 0.02. Thus, the data reveals that participants in the scarcity condition had a higher level of experienced scarcity (M= 4.24; SD=
1.04) than those who were in the control condition (M= 3.88, SD= 1.06). As leaving out the 10
participants would create an unbalanced distribution across the conditions, the choice was made
to still include them in the analysis.
Observing patterns in the data
Prior to the testing for hypotheses, we have looked for an indication of patterns in the data. Looking at the means of green consumption (see table 2), one can see that the participants in the scarcity condition rated on average M = 4.99 (SD = 1.40) on green consumption, while participants in the control condition rated M = 4.98 (SD = 1.27). This indicates that for green consumption it does not matter whether people are experiencing resource scarcity or not. When looking at the actual choice participants made (see table 3), we find slightly similar patterns. The data shows that 69.8%
of the participants in the scarcity group chose the green option, while in the control group this choice was 64.8%. Thus, green consumption was slightly higher in the scarcity group.
Interestingly, this would contradict our hypothesis that resource scarcity would lead to less green consumption. However, as the difference is only small, we do not expect a significant effect here as well.
Furthermore, the participants in the scarcity group show an average anticipated guilt of M = 3.28 (SD = 1.23), while the control group shows an average anticipated guilt of M = 2.96 (SD = 1.10) (see table 2). This indicates that the participants in the scarcity group are feeling more anticipated guilt than the participants in the control group. Again, this would contradict the hypothesis that resource scarcity would lead to a lower amount of anticipated guilt.
Table 2.
Descriptives of green consumption and anticipated guilt among the two groups
Green consumption Anticipated guilt
M N SD M N SD
Scarcity group 4.99 86 1.40 3.28 86 1.23
Control group 4.98 108 1.27 2.96 108 1.10
Table 3.
Descriptives of product choice among the different conditions
Regular choice Green choice Total
Scarcity group Count 26 60 86
% 30.2% 69.8% 100%
Control group Count 38 70 108
% 35.2% 64.8% 100%
Next, when including the price conditions (see table 4), one can see that the average green consumption for the low-price conditions (control €: M = 5.52, SD = 0.97 & scarcity €: M = 5.43, SD = 1.32) is higher than the average green consumption in the high price conditions (control €€:
M = 4.51, SD = 1.33 & scarcity €€: M = 4.48, SD = 1.36). This indicates that participants confronted with a green product that has the same price as the regular product, are more likely to buy green products than those participants confronted with a green product that is higher in price.
The same pattern was discovered for anticipated guilt. The average level of anticipated guilt seems higher across the lower price conditions (control €: M = 3.30, SD = 1.05 & scarcity €: M = 3.59, SD = 1.25) than across the higher price conditions (control €€: M = 2.63, SD = 1.03 & scarcity €€:
M = 2.99, SD = 1.20). This indicates that participants across the low-price conditions experienced more anticipated guilt than participants across the high price conditions. This would be in line with the predictions that price moderates the effect between resource scarcity and anticipated guilt.
The patterns described above suggest several relationships among the variables. The patterns
indicate results that would contradict hypotheses 1 and 2. On the other hand, the data does suggest
price to be a moderator for anticipated guilt, supporting hypothesis 3. To see whether the patterns
described above are significant, and to test our hypotheses, statistical analyses are performed.
Table 4.
Descriptives of green consumption and anticipated guilt among the different conditions
Green consumption Anticipated guilt
M N SD M N SD
Scarcity € 5.43 41 1.32 3.59 41 1.25
Scarcity €€ 4.48 41 1.36 2.99 41 1.20
Control € 5.52 56 0.97 3.30 56 1.05
Control €€ 4.51 56 1.33 2.63 56 1.03
€ = same price level, €€ = high price level
The analysis of the main effect: the effect of resource scarcity on green consumption
The first hypothesis states that there is a negative relationship between resource scarcity and green consumption. It was theorized that financially deprived consumers are less likely to engage in green consumption behavior than consumers who are not financially deprived. To test this hypothesis, an independent sample t-test was performed with resource scarcity as the independent variable and green consumption as the dependent variable. The independent samples t-test was found not to be significant t (192) = 0.012, p = 0.144. This means that the average green consumption of the scarcity group (M = 4.99, SD = 1.40) does not differ from the average green consumption of the control group (M = 4.98, SD = 1.27).
To test for real consumer behavior a measure of actual product choice was included in the survey.
To analyze whether or not the scarcity- and the control group differ in product choice, a cross table
with Chi-square was performed with scarcity and product choice. This test was found to be not
significant, Chi-square (1) = 0.531, p = 0.466. Thus, people in the scarcity condition were not more
likely to choose the green product than the people in the control condition.
Based on the results above, we cannot reject the null hypothesis. There is no evidence found for the negative relationship between resource scarcity and green consumption or green product choice. As resource scarcity has the same insignificant effect on green consumption and product choice, the remainder of the statistical analyses focuses on green consumption as the dependent variable.
The mediating effect of anticipated guilt
Next, hypothesis 2 was tested. This hypothesis theorized that anticipated guilt mediates the effect of resource scarcity on green consumption. The idea was that resource scarcity would lead to a lower amount of anticipated guilt compared to the control group and would therefore consequently lead to a lower amount of green consumption. As mentioned within the preliminary analysis, the data seems to indicate this effect is the other way around: it seems like anticipated guilt is higher within the scarcity group. To analyze the actual mediating role of anticipated guilt on the link between resource scarcity and green consumption, a simple mediation analysis was performed using PROCESS, model 4 (Hayes, 2013).
First of all, the results reveal there is no significant effect (see table 5) of resource scarcity on purchase intention (R² =0.00, F (1, 192) = 0.0001, p = 0.99), confirming the t-test analysis performed before. Thus, again the results show that resource scarcity does not predict green consumption (B = 0.0023, t = 0.0118, p = 0.99).
When breaking the analysis down to steps, the relationship between resource scarcity and the mediator ‘anticipated guilt’ was found not to be significant as well (R² = 0.19, F (1, 192) = 3.74).
Thus, resource scarcity does not influence our proposed mediator ‘anticipated guilt’, B = 0.32, t =
1.93, p = 0.055. However, notice how close this relationship is to being significant. The data seems
to be suggesting that there could be a positive relationship between resource scarcity and
anticipated guilt. Furthermore, the analysis shows a significant relationship between anticipated
guilt and green consumption (R² = 0.08, F (2, 191) = 7.86 P = 0.00). The level of anticipated guilt
positively influences green consumption (B = 0.32, t (191) = 3.966, p = 0.00). Even after
accounting for the effect of anticipated guilt on green consumption, the direct effect of resource
scarcity on green consumption is still found to be not significant, B = -0.10, t = -0.54, p = 0.59.
Table 5.
Mediation analysis
Path B t p-value
1. Resource scarcity → green consumption
c 0.0023 t (192)
= 0.018 0.99
2. Resource scarcity → Anticipated guilt a 0.32 t (192)
= 1.93 0.055
3. Resource scarcity → green consumption c’ -0.10 t (191) =
-0.54 0.59
Anticipated guilt → green consumption b 0.32 t (191) =
3.97 0.0001
